# Donald Trump Wins U.S. Presidential Election 2016



## Crewz

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump will continue to have you puppets dancing on a string for him.. He's playing you guys so bad.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Crewz said:


> Trump will continue to have you puppets dancing on a string for him.. He's playing you guys so bad.


Based on?


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

It's hard to take this notion of attempting to remove the negative aura around Trump when he is attacking almost anyone that he disagrees with with personal insults.

Anyway, like I said, he seems the least crazy of the joke of the GOP candidates this time round. Many issues he bring up are valid, but don't you have a fear that his use of racist and xenophobic rhetoric to bring those issues up is dangerous? Even worse, his solutions seem improbable and could only infuriate the ignorant when things don't change if he somehow got elected. That is how his candidacy was born because the GOP promised things in the past that were improbable to get done, didn't get it done, and people went even more ridiculous resulting in Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.

It is very similar to Sander's rhetoric that could start a class war when the same thing happen if Sanders is elected and things remain the same.


----------



## Reptilian

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I truly hope he wins, i can't wait for the whole PC crap to end.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Of all the candidates he would be the one I would be most interested in seeing live or speaking to personally 

He has charisma and no problem pumping people up to either love him or hate him

He has also done a great job of getting people to advertise for him, he does not need to make candidate videos because supporters are doing it for free and unlike Sanders they are not nearly as spamboty


----------



## solarstorm

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I still question his seriousness in running. The last time he ran for president, he was one of the first to drop out and he used the publicity to close a bigger contract for a new season of "The Apprentice" and made other deals for clothing and other products. Most people looked at the run as little more than promotion of the Trump brand.

He runs again in the 2016 race and people are so fed up with the same old politics that anyone different would have appeal - that's why Bernie has traction as the non-traditional Democrat and Trump has traction as the non-traditional Republican. I was certain that many of his 'gaffes' were planned. The Mexican rapist comment. Banning Muslims. Saying that he could shoot a man and still have support from his followers. Every time, it felt like he was TRYING to end the campaign without outright quitting. Like he was purposefully being self-destructive. But given the climate of today's politics, nothing is 'bad enough' to turn the crowd. Instead, they eat it up.

It's a unique time. As a Bernie supporter, Trump gets _some_ credit from me for being one of the only two politicians running against TPP and NAFTA. His vague (and shrinking-as he goes through the primary) support of a fairer minimum wage and some kind of government healthcare make Trump a little less radical than his peers. Though he's the most extreme on issues like immigration.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Based on?


based on his bigoted views and fear mongering and its working with people like you.
He has not even said how he is going to even do anything and most of his views are fascist.

Trump shows the true racist come out. It's pretty pathetic how people rally around most of the bigoted things he has said. shows how racist a good number of americans still are.

If you want real change and someone who knows how to get it done you should be voting for Sanders not for Trump.

You also show who ignorant and clueless you are calling Sanders a Marxist. You really have no clue what you are talking about. If you are doing to compare Sanders to anyone its FDR.

Also Trump is not changing the political game, Sanders is. Trump is just a bunch of hot air.


----------



## Draykorinee

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trumps a cunt. It rhymes so its true.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

We get it, BM, everyone you disagree with politically is a racist. No need to keep playing that record over and over.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> We get it, BM, everyone you disagree with politically is a racist. No need to keep playing that record over and over.


Nice straw man there. Trump is a racist and most of his supporters are also racist That is a fact.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Nice straw man there. Trump is a racist and most of his supporters are also racist That is a fact.


Bro you were just calling Fitz a racist in another thread because of his views on the constitutionality of a law that he supports regardless. "Racist" is your go-to button for anyone who disagrees with you about politics. THAT is a fact.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Bro you were just calling Fitz a racist in another thread because of his views on the constitutionality of a law that he supports regardless. "Racist" is your go-to button for anyone who disagrees with you about politics. THAT is a fact.


If the shoe fits...... If you have a racist review then its racist. Nothing wrong with pointing that out. If you cant accept supporting someone or something that is racist, then maybe you shouldn't be supporting it.

just like with the whole confederate flag thing. That flag supports racism, that is a fact. If people are going to support something that is racist then it needs to be called out.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I'm still trying to figure out who exactly Trump is supposedly racist against.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> I'm still trying to figure out who exactly Trump is supposedly racist against.


the question should be who hasn't even been racist against.

He has said racist things about blacks, mexicans, muslims (yes its not a race , its more bigoted but same difference). etc etc.

Its laughable anyone would claim Trump has not ran a racist campaign. But coming from you I can see why you don't think the things he has said is racist from your past post history. You defended the confederate flag, so we have different views on what is racist and what is not.

Another example.

Trump posting this







knowing its not true in my mind is racist towards blacks but I am going to but you would claim its not racist.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

He's said he loves the Mexican people, their leaders are smarter than ours, and he wants to make it easier for them to enter the country legally. Doesn't sound racist to me.

What racist thing has he said about black people? I feel like that'd be a bigger story in an age where anytime a white guy defends himself against a black aggressor there's hysteria, but when a group of blacks attack a white veteran outside a McDonalds you don't hear a peep about it from the MSM or the other leftist outlets. 

You need to cite some specific examples.


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Well his numbers just went up again...



> Fox News is blasting Trump, the Pope made a statement that Trump is not a Christian. So fox is using that as a talking point.
> 
> After Pope claimed Trump wasn't a Christian
> 
> Trump immediately responded: “For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful,” he said.
> 
> Trump fired with another anti-pc "stinger":
> 
> Trump also said that “if and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS … I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and 'prayed' that Donald Trump would have been president because this would not have happened.”



Thing is I believe people want anti-political correct candidate that says clearly his views, even you may disagree with some of them, he's being straight up solid clear language. He's not hiding behind religion, political correctness, or using a team like Hillary has of 10 advisors that tell her what gestures, speech patterns, words to reach widest and zero offense.

Some will take offense with Trump's bluntness, but you know exactly his view, no shades of grey. 

Now that Pope reminds fundamental conservatives that Trump is not Christian, this could add more Democrat leaning moderates who are tired of liberal fundamentalist political correctness, but now knowing Trump isn't Orthodox he's easier to go with.


I really believe US should give him 1 term to prove himself.


Keep in mind, he can't do anything drastic except stop using political correctness wishy washy soft sissy language. 
Any executive decisions are monitored by Supreme Court, that's 1 of their jobs when not trying major cases. If Trump did anything unconstitutional they'd reverse it and reprimand. 

This shows why Trump can't just do what he wants and couldn't harm the Constitution.
This is an Example of Obama breaking the law, his appointees fired, and he was reprimanded and reminded of the limitations of his power by Supreme Court for overstepping his power:



> In 2012 President Barack Obama attempted to make four appointments during a pro forma session, calling the practice of blocking recess appointments into question. However, on June 26, 2014 the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the President had improperly used his presidential power to make these appointments stating that while the Senate was in recess punctuated by pro forma sessions the period of time between the sessions was not long enough to invoke such power.
> 
> The Constitution law:
> Recess Appointments Clause. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. Article II, Section 2, Clause 3.
> So a recess appointment is temporary, unless once Senate reconvenes and then they decide to confirm anyway. But this is where Obama probed he doesn't know the Constitution.
> 
> There is a rule called "Pro Forma", it allows the House and Senate to take a break without recessing. They technically stay " in business" but it requires written consent of the opposite body. So House wants a break without recess the Senate must approve it, and vice versa if Senate wants a short break the House must approy it. This keeps a balanced fair check so the house couldn't just protest and go on strike. Also it allows the blocking of certain Presidential powers legally under Constitution.
> 
> Pro Forma:
> In the Federal government of the United States, either house of the Congress (the House of Representatives or the Senate) can hold a pro forma session at which no formal business is expected to be conducted.This is usually to fulfill the obligation under the Constitution "that neither chamber can adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other." Pro forma sessions can also be used to prevent the President pocket-vetoing bills, or calling the Congress into special session.They have also been used to prevent presidents from making recess appointments.
> 
> 
> Supreme Court ruled unanimously:
> Here it is important to note that, all nine Justices agreed that these particular recess appointments made by Obama were invalid and illegal not adhering to Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution written by the founders.



So could Trump appoint at will? No each person must be confirmed by Congress, while there is Republican majority in both House and Senate first they see Trump more as an independent. Second the Senate, while having majority Republican, they are 4 short of being able to block all filibusters. So a Democrat can use the power of the filibuster to block the entire Senate from going to vote. 

Trump can't add any amendments to Constitution, neither can Congress, Congress can write one up, but it requires the actual States to ratify, and Constitution mandates 3/4ths ratification is required to allow an amendment to be forever added to Constitution. So with current 50 states it takes 38 States. By this it doesnt mean state senators or representative that ratify, it's only the majority vote of State's people then their Governor signing ratification.

And no amendment can be erased at all. That's why amendments exist, you can only change an existing amendment by adding a new amendment that uses loophole in redefining terms that nullify a previous amendment, but the previous amendment has to legally stay present, as no amendment can be erased. Also it's why liberals that hate the 2nd amendment , this is one of the special untouchable amendments, they can only use state laws and limited federal laws, they can't add any amendments for those. Reason is the first 10 amendments "bill of rights" are inalienable, and under Constitution cannot be abridged, modified, etc.



So Trump couldn't go "Rambo dictator" 
12th and 22nd amendments make sure we always kick a fucker out  


I believe in flip flopping rotating parties.

Think of it as driving...veer too far left we crash into ditch, veer too far right we crash into ditch. So with 1 term is only 4 years, with max 2 terms, if we notice things skewing too far liberal like liberal created political correctness, then we self correct. We rotate parties and steer us right to get back to center but if we keep going right we swap them out and rotate again. This forces politicians to realize we want middle road "a little liberal" and "a little conservative", but not all of either. A libertarian population.

Course that's my political theory of party rotation summarized, it's lot more detailed, but I've written enough.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> He's said he loves the Mexican people, their leaders are smarter than ours, and he wants to make it easier for them to enter the country legally. Doesn't sound racist to me.
> 
> What racist thing has he said about black people? I feel like that'd be a bigger story in an age where anytime a white guy defends himself against a black aggressor there's hysteria, but when a group of blacks attack a white veteran outside a McDonalds you don't hear a peep about it.
> 
> You need to cite some specific examples.


Just just posted an example of one of the things that showed he is racist against blacks. Posting something to his twitting that was not even true. Trump also called Mexicans rapists and criminals and said how Mexico sends us the worst of their country. Oh yeah that is not racist right lol.

Trump is not defending himself against black people or minority he feeds into the hate mongering. And the media race baits all the time, but that is not what we are talking about here.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Posting an incorrect meme is not a racist action. :lmao Jesus. The meme's statistic about blacks killing whites is off by a lot IIRC, but it is correct that blacks are overwhelmingly killed by other blacks, and that tweet was made at a time where the leftist media and BLM were trying to spout their usual bullshit narrative about how blacks are under attack from whites and the police, etc. Context is important. Trump has posted and said a lot of factually incorrect stuff. If he's not racist when he's wrong about stuff with no racial component, you can't call him racist for being wrong about things with racial components. 

Saying "Trump called Mexicans rapists and criminals" is such a disingenuous oversimplification. You know he was talking about a portion of ILLEGAL immigrants, not Mexicans as a whole. By definition yes anyone entering the country illegally is a criminal. As for rapists, I'm not sure about that. There have certainly been murders committed by illegal immigrants though, which I'd argue is worse.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Posting an incorrect meme is not a racist action. :lmao Jesus. The meme's statistic about blacks killing whites is off by a lot IIRC, but it is correct that blacks are overwhelmingly killed by other blacks, and that tweet was made at a time where the leftist media and BLM were trying to spout their usual bullshit narrative about how blacks are under attack from whites and the police, etc. Context is important. Trump has posted and said a lot of factually incorrect stuff. If he's not racist when he's wrong about stuff with no racial component, you can't call him racist for being wrong about things with racial components.
> 
> Saying "Trump called Mexicans rapists and criminals" is such a disingenuous oversimplification. You know he was talking about a portion of ILLEGAL immigrants, not Mexicans as a whole. By definition yes anyone entering the country illegally is a criminal. As for rapists, I'm not sure about that. There have certainly been murders committed by illegal immigrants though, which I'd argue is worse.


Of course it is when he knows its not true, which he did. There is also a reason why a lot of his sponsors dropped him for his racist remarks last year. the meme also game from a neo-nazi website. But of course you won't claim that is racist either. What is trump doing getting his info from neo-nazi's if he is not racist


Its not an disingenuous oversimplification for Trumps comments about MOST Mexicans who are coming from Mexico. He said MOST, he said sure SOME may be nice but MOST are criminals or rapists. 

Its a joke you would even try to defend it. Also he only said oh I love Mexico AFTER he got the huge backlash from his racist comments. Those comments are a huge reason why he lost a lot of sponsors and also why NBC dropped him for the apprentice.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Of course it is when he knows its not true, which he did. There is also a reason why a lot of his sponsors dropped him for his racist remarks last year. the meme also game from a neo-nazi website. But of course you won't claim that is racist either. What is trump doing getting his info from neo-nazi's if he is not racist


How do you know he knew it wasn't true? 

It was a widely-circulated meme on twitter. If you think he specifically went to a neo-nazi website to get it you are delusional. Again, not checking sources or fact-checking information does not make someone a racist. 



> Its not an disingenuous oversimplification for Trumps comments about MOST Mexicans who are coming from Mexico. He said MOST, he said sure SOME may be nice but MOST are criminals or rapists.


He never said most. That is a lie. And again, because you (and the rest of the media) like to conveniently drop the extremely important "illegal" identifier, he is talking only about a portion of *illegal* immigrants. 

Here's what he's said about Mexican immigration as a whole: 



> "I don’t see how there is any room for misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the statement I made on June 16th during my Presidential announcement speech," Trump wrote, adding, "What can be simpler or more accurately stated? The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."
> 
> Though some critics have characterized his comments as racist, but in his statement, Trump claimed he is not against the Mexican people.
> 
> "*Many fabulous people come in from Mexico and our country is better for it. But these people are here legally, and are severely hurt by those coming in illegally*," wrote Trump. "I am proud to say that I know many hard working Mexicans—many of them are working for and with me…and, just like our country, my organization is better for it."


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> How do you know he knew it wasn't true?
> 
> It was a widely-circulated meme on twitter. If you think he specifically went to a neo-nazi website to get it you are delusional. Again, not checking sources or fact-checking information does not make someone a racist.
> 
> He never said most. That is a lie. And again, because you (and the rest of the media) like to conveniently drop the extremely important "illegal" identifier, he is talking only about a portion of *illegal* immigrants.
> 
> Here's what he's said about Mexican immigration as a whole:


He is running for president, he should know where it came from and if its true or not. Just looking at it, you know its not true but Trump retweeted it anyways. Anyone with half a brain can look at it and know its not correct. And yes posting that to show how you think blacks are thugs like Trump loves to say, makes you racist especially when the stats are not true and are meant to be dishonest. 

Trump said maybe SOME are ok, which means that MOST are rapist and criminals. As for the illegal part, so what, everyones family were illegal aliens at one time unless they are native american. And the fact is the majority of illegals are not rapists or criminals, which is what Trump was claiming and is very racist.

if someone only calls SOME black people the N word, they are still racist.
They can't turn around and claim well i don't mean all blacks are N words, just some the ones that are gang members.

You are still a racist against blacks.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Anyway, moving on from the race-baiters...

Recently the Pope declared that Donald Trump was not a Christian because he "talks about building walls instead of bridges"...meanwhile, the Pope lives in a place that looks like this:










Needless to say, this politically motivated attack by the Pope is not going well for him on social media. Even Marco Rubio took issue with the Pope's comments.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Anyway, moving on from the race-baiters...
> 
> Recently the Pope declared that Donald Trump was not a Christian because he "talks about building walls instead of bridges"...meanwhile, the Pope lives in a place that looks like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Needless to say, this politically motivated attack by the Pope is not going well for him on social media. Even Marco Rubio took issue with the Pope's comments.


Trump is an idiot, there're more Mexicans leaving the country than coming into it.


----------



## Dead Seabed

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Because the media narrative is full of shit.
> 
> Because we need strong borders
> 
> Because we are 19 trillion dollars in debt.
> 
> Because our country makes terrible deals that benefit our enemies more than us.
> 
> Because we don't take care of our vets.
> 
> Because being "Conservative" has failed us.
> 
> Because politicians are bought and paid for.
> 
> Because our military is shrinking.
> 
> Because we as Americans cannot afford to be anymore PC.
> 
> Because we deserve BETTER than Hillary Clinton and a geriatric cultural Marxist!
> 
> I am voting for Donald J. Trump, the modern day Andrew Jackson!
> 
> He is defying all conventional wisdom right now. The media are quite literally afraid of him. Regardless of whether you love or hate the man, realize he is changing the political game forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is NOT an ironic thread. I believe there is discussion to be had on the real truth behind the Trump phenomenon. If you are concerned about policy, share here. If you think he's just a reality TV star, so be it. let us have an honest dialog and hopefully, the negative aura around him will fade as well as the overhype and we can weigh both sides.
> 
> I want to start by pointing out that Trump is also the only one calling out the demons in his own party. Democrats should resonate with this.
> 
> Latest polls show Trump leading in SC:
> 
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html
> 
> Is Trump REALLY a flip-flopper?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll add more interesting stuff as I find it


USA! USA! USA! :bryanlol


----------



## Truthbetold

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> It's hard to take this notion of attempting to remove the negative aura around Trump when he is attacking almost anyone that he disagrees with with personal insults.
> 
> Anyway, like I said, he seems the least crazy of the joke of the GOP candidates this time round. Many issues he bring up are valid, but don't you have a fear that his use of racist and xenophobic rhetoric to bring those issues up is dangerous? Even worse, his solutions seem improbable and could only infuriate the ignorant when things don't change if he somehow got elected. That is how his candidacy was born because the GOP promised things in the past that were improbable to get done, didn't get it done, and people went even more ridiculous resulting in Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.
> 
> It is very similar to Sander's rhetoric that could start a class war when the same thing happen if Sanders is elected and things remain the same.


What's dangerous is if Hillary or one of the other GOP candidates win and get us into a war with Russia.


----------



## Phantomdreamer

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The fact that Donald Trump has a chance to be a president of a country just shows how fucking pathetic the world has become. Just when you think the human race has come so far, they go and take 2 steps back. I find it truly disturbing that he might actually win.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I think alot of his "racist" polices were just to get attention at the start of the race

At this point he is running a mostly pure economic platform

as for his background, many presidents didn't have a political background and a business man getting into politics is nothing new

Actors, singers, and TV stars have also gotten into politics around the world so its ignorant to say a "lol USA has a reality TV star president"

there have been many candidates with bad backgrounds who are fine presidents and many who had tons of great references and were lame ducks


----------



## Dead Seabed

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> not checking sources or fact-checking information does not make someone a racist.


No, but it does make you a bonafide moron and by proxy most likely not the wisest choice to vote in any kind of office, lmao, lest you realize you're an even bigger one.



CamillePunk said:


> Anyway, moving on from the race-baiters...
> 
> Recently the Pope declared that Donald Trump was not a Christian because he "talks about building walls instead of bridges"...meanwhile, the Pope lives in a place that looks like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Popes usually live a in a papal apartment inside the Vatican and Pope Francis lives in a Vatican guesthouse. 

He also lived there prior to becoming a Pope. :bryanlol


----------



## truelove

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I'll take Trump over Sanders any day of the week. Sanders has marketed to young naive self entitled college group yet I think his policies would cause this country to go straight to hell. Tax heavy the rich and see how negative it will impact our economy.


----------



## Badbadrobot

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump - simple idiotic solutions for simple idiotic people


----------



## Badbadrobot

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



truelove said:


> I'll take Trump over Sanders any day of the week. Sanders has marketed to young naive self entitled college group yet I think his policies would cause this country to go straight to hell. Tax heavy the rich and see how negative it will impact our economy.



Yeah because trickle down works SO WELL


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The one thing I do really like about Trump is many of domestic polices lean toward freedom of choice and has history has shown that he is willing to support giving someone the option to do something that he does not morally agree with

As long as he has a constitutionalism perspective on domestic issues, i don't really foresee a problem most of his government expansions are about giving the people more options (a government sponsored health care where you choose your provider forcing them to compete in price and service rather than the government just picking one that can then charge what ever they want)


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



truelove said:


> I'll take Trump over Sanders any day of the week. Sanders has marketed to young naive self entitled college group yet I think his policies would cause this country to go straight to hell. Tax heavy the rich and see how negative it will impact our economy.


You do know when the US was doing its best economic wise the taxes for the rich were high , it wasn't until they started to cut taxes on the rich that the economy started to nose dive.


----------



## asdf0501

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



truelove said:


> I'll take Trump over Sanders any day of the week. Sanders has marketed to young naive self entitled college group yet I think his policies would cause this country to go straight to hell. *Tax heavy the rich and see how negative it will impact our economy.*


Yeah, ask Eisenhower what he thinks on that


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Lol at op feeling the need to write: this is NOT an ironic post! Says it all really.

America will be the laughing stock of the world if you elect that buffoon for pres.


----------



## Dead Seabed

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



truelove said:


> I'll take Trump over Sanders any day of the week. Sanders has marketed to young naive self entitled college group yet I think his policies would cause this country to go straight to hell. *Tax heavy the rich and see how negative it will impact our economy.*


Yes, it's not like it was exactly the opposite every time that happened in the history of US.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> based on his bigoted views and fear mongering and its working with people like you.
> He has not even said how he is going to even do anything and most of his views are fascist.
> 
> Trump shows the true racist come out. It's pretty pathetic how people rally around most of the bigoted things he has said. shows how racist a good number of americans still are.
> 
> If you want real change and someone who knows how to get it done you should be voting for Sanders not for Trump.
> 
> You also show who ignorant and clueless you are calling Sanders a Marxist. You really have no clue what you are talking about. If you are doing to compare Sanders to anyone its FDR.
> 
> Also Trump is not changing the political game, Sanders is. Trump is just a bunch of hot air.


Nice Adhom, BM. I never called him a Marxist. I said CULTURAL marxist.

No one was attacking anyone, in all fairness. Please try to calm yourself.



yeahbaby! said:


> Lol at op feeling the need to write: this is NOT an ironic post! Says it all really.
> 
> America will be the laughing stock of the world if you elect that buffoon for pres.


I said it because so few are interested in having an honest discussion which doesn't result in people calling others inferior because of their view. Which is exactly what some here have done.

I don't withhold people from arguing against Trump, but bring more to the table than that.

Almost forgot:



Badbadrobot said:


> Yeah because trickle down works SO WELL


It did until it was handicapped to where it couldn't anymore.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Keep it civil, people.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Moving onward.

I'm not Catholic, but I don't think any religious leader should alienate anyone. Pope should be trying to unify those for Trump and against, to find a commonality.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Nice Adhom, BM. I never called him a Marxist. I said CULTURAL marxist.
> 
> No one was attacking anyone, in all fairness. Please try to calm yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> I said it because so few are interested in having an honest discussion which doesn't result in people calling others inferior because of their view. Which is exactly what some here have done.
> 
> I don't withhold people from arguing against Trump, but bring more to the table than that.
> 
> Almost forgot:
> 
> It did until it was handicapped to where it couldn't anymore.


Ignorant just means uninformed and there is plenty of that in this thread. Its not an attack on a person. Sanders is a social democrat. 

Also trickle down economics never worked, the more tax breaks you give to the rich the worse the economy does. What handicapped our economy was giving the rich more and more tax cuts.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Ignorant just means uninformed and there is plenty of that in this thread. Its not an attack on a person. Sanders is a social democrat.
> 
> Also trickle down economics never worked, the more tax breaks you give to the rich the worse the economy does. What handicapped our economy was giving the rich more and more tax cuts.


I fully disagree. The Democrats did not pass all the legislation needed to sustain the model. We do rely too much on Tax cuts, but the full plan was never implemented.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> I fully disagree. The Democrats did not pass all the legislation needed to sustain the model. We do rely too much on Tax cuts, but the full plan was never implemented.


Yeah and that is the GOPs fault since they were blocking anything Obama tried to do. The republican congress was not letting Obama do anything. So blame the republicans. Hell just look at what they are doing right now saying they won't even have deliberations if Obama nominates anyone for the supreme court.

The GOP blocked over 500 bills from Obama. Yup but lets blame the democrats.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah and that is the GOPs fault since they were blocking anything Obama tried to do. The republican congress was not letting Obama do anything. So blame the republicans. Hell just look at what they are doing right now saying they won't even have deliberations if Obama nominates anyone for the supreme court.


Blocking? Everyone in the republican party is furious because Obama has achieved literally everything he has ever asked for in the omnibus bill.

Edit: How did we start talking about Obama? I was referring to Reagan


----------



## Martins

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Americans absolutely HATE IT when people from Europe and other places in the world look down on them as uneducated, dumb, ignorant, whatever it is, politically or otherwise.

Trump and Trump supporters are perfect examples of why they do that.

Hearing things from the most conservative political commentators in my country about Trump, I can guarantee you that I have heard no-one give him any kind of support. Around the world, the guy is an absolute joke. A joke that may actually cost quite a lot because so many american voters actually take him seriously.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Martins said:


> Americans absolutely HATE IT when people from Europe and other places in the world look down on them as uneducated, dumb, ignorant, whatever it is, politically or otherwise.
> 
> Trump and Trump supporters are perfect examples of why they do that.
> 
> Hearing things from the most conservative political commentators in my country about Trump, I can guarantee you that I have heard no-one give him any kind of support. Around the world, the guy is an absolute joke. A joke that may actually cost quite a lot because so many american voters actually take him seriously.


I would argue there are a large number of us that are sick of America trying to please the best interests of other nations with nothing in return to show for it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> I would argue there are a large number of us that are sick of America trying to please the best interests of other nations with nothing in return.


what are some examples of this


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> what are some examples of this


Any trade deal we currently have, to start.

Even Comrade Sanders agrees.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Any trade deal we currently have, to start.
> 
> Even Comrade Sanders agrees.


the trade deals help the corporations in the US not other countries.

What are some other examples? You must have a lot if you really think this way. So name them.

And keep calling Sanders a commie, it just shows you don't know what you are talking about. You are just making Martins point.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> the trade deals help the corporations in the US not other countries.
> 
> What are some other examples? You must have a lot if you really think this way. So name them.
> 
> And keep calling Sanders a commie, it just shows you don't know what you are talking about. You are just making Martins point.


Sanders is against the TPP, as am I, as is Trump.

Come ON man, this isn't even a partisan issue! We are the rest of the world's BDSM slave right now and that should be obvious from space.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Sanders is against the TPP, as am I, as is Trump.
> 
> Come ON man, this isn't even a partisan issue! We are the rest of the world's BDSM slave right now and that should be obvious from space.


Show other examples . And yes the TPP is bad but it benefits the US companies more not the foreign countries. TPP is wha allows US companies like Carrier (that Indiana AC company ) are able to move to Mexico to make even more money for the company.

But go on give some more examples.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Show other examples . And yes the TPP is bad but it benefits the US companies more not the foreign countries. TPP is wha allows US companies like Carrier (that Indiana AC company ) are able to move to Mexico to make even more money for the company.
> 
> But go on give some more examples.


Everything you cited about Carrier is terrible and shows the deal must be torn to shreds.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Everything you cited about Carrier is terrible and shows the deal must be torn to shreds.


I agree it needs to be ended but for different reasons than you. You claim it lets the rest of world shit on the US when I say it lets the US companies leave the US for other countries to screw over its citizens. ITs the US companies screwing over the US citizens not other countries.

And Trump really loves the TPP don't let him fool you. Look at his companies in China and Mexico for his clothing line.


----------



## true rebel

Trump is doing nothing but playing off of the fears of America for his own personal gain. 


He's saying what Americans wanted to hear for so long because deep down Americans are afraid of people coming in with better skills and a lot more willingness to work. 



The Good Ol Boy has rested lazily for far too long and they realize other people are pushing for that to end. 


Trump is basing his campaign on making sure that doesn't happen.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> I agree it needs to be ended but for different reasons than you. You claim it lets the rest of world shit on the US when I say it lets the US companies leave the US for other countries to screw over its citizens. ITs the US companies screwing over the US citizens not other countries.


It lets the rest of the world shit on us by forcing companies out of the US through currency manipulation and corporate inversion. Now as sure as we're typing here China will soon enter the deal and continue to drain us further.

Do you even realize how many millions of dollars there is overseas that rightfully should be ours?


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



true rebel said:


> Trump is doing nothing but playing off of the fears of America for his own personal gain.
> 
> 
> He's saying what Americans wanted to hear for so long because deep down Americans are afraid of people coming in with better skills and a lot more willingness to work.
> 
> 
> 
> The Good Ol Boy has rested lazily for far too long and they realize other people are pushing for that to end.
> 
> 
> Trump is basing his campaign on making sure that doesn't happen.


Isn't that looking out of the needs of your constituents (AKA what you are supposed to do)?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



true rebel said:


> Trump is doing nothing but playing off of the fears of America for his own personal gain.
> 
> 
> He's saying what Americans wanted to hear for so long because deep down Americans are afraid of people coming in with better skills and a lot more willingness to work.
> 
> 
> 
> The Good Ol Boy has rested lazily for far too long and they realize other people are pushing for that to end.
> 
> 
> Trump is basing his campaign on making sure that doesn't happen.


It's not a matter of the country being a lazy people. It's that the government provides too much of a reason to be lazy. I don't give a damn who works here as long as they are legal and assimilated.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> It lets the rest of the world shit on us by forcing companies out of the US through currency manipulation and corporate inversion. Now as sure as we're typing here China will soon enter the deal and continue to drain us further.
> 
> Do you even realize how many millions of dollars there is overseas that rightfully should be ours?


Carrie was not forced out of the US. They made 7 BiLLION dollars in profits and are up YOY the past couple of years. Nothing was forcing them to leave the USA. Where are you getting this from.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Carrie was not forced out of the US. They made 7 BiLLION dollars in profits and are up YOY the past couple of years. Nothing was forcing them to leave the USA. Where are you getting this from.


Open your eyes. Why do you think literally everything is going to Mexico? They devalue their currency the same why China and Japan are doing to the point where businesses cannot compete, Look at Caterpillar vs. Komatsu. No one can afford to order Caterpillar anymore and are going Komatsu, an inferior brand on all fronts, because of what these countries are doing to their currencies. It's not smart trade. We get NOTHING from it. Ford is doing the same thing.


----------



## true rebel

stevefox1200 said:


> true rebel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is doing nothing but playing off of the fears of America for his own personal gain.
> 
> 
> He's saying what Americans wanted to hear for so long because deep down Americans are afraid of people coming in with better skills and a lot more willingness to work.
> 
> 
> 
> The Good Ol Boy has rested lazily for far too long and they realize other people are pushing for that to end.
> 
> 
> Trump is basing his campaign on making sure that doesn't happen.
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that looking out of the needs of your constituents (AKA what you are supposed to do)?
Click to expand...

Not when they're dragging the country down. Americans are what is dragging down its own country. The Good Ol Boy is has become so scared of progress because they don't want to put in the work but don't want others to upsurp them either. Americans as a society are shit and they need to realize their flaws.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



true rebel said:


> Not when they're dragging the country down. Americans are what is dragging down its own country. The Good Ol Boy is has become so scared of progress because they don't want to put in the work but don't want others to upsurp them either. Americans as a society are shit and they need to realize their flaws.


Pretty sure America was doing great until our immigration policy shifted from western Europeans to third world future-democrats. :draper2


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

one thing I'll say is this:

Trump will give Democrats a fair shake, ala Reagan and O'neal.

All anyone else will do is try to skullfuck the other side.

Cruz would be hell for liberals and put us even more against each other.

Same for Sanders, can you say he has any conservative base?

Trump is the only one that sees merit in both ideals.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Don't get me wrong, Trump is better than Hilary or Bernie, but I feel like Rubio or Cruz gives the Republicans a better shot at winning the White House. Just don't give me a moderate not named Trump....


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



true rebel said:


> Trump is doing nothing but playing off of the fears of America for his own personal gain.
> 
> 
> He's saying what Americans wanted to hear for so long because deep down Americans are afraid of people coming in with better skills and a lot more willingness to work.
> 
> 
> 
> The Good Ol Boy has rested lazily for far too long and they realize other people are pushing for that to end.
> 
> 
> Trump is basing his campaign on making sure that doesn't happen.


You know what? I am completely fine with somebody getting into a college ahead of me because they are smarter than me. I am completely fine with somebody losing their job because somebody else is a harder worker than them. I am completely fine with somebody trying to make a life for themselves. *But do it legally. *


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Add to OP


----------



## samizayn

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Missed the boat on not making a The The Donald Thread IMO.

Favourite news story of year so far has come out: The Pope vs The Donald. Trump actually hit back and everything. This man is life.


----------



## Blackbeard

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Donald Trump is the Antichrist.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Blackbeard said:


> Donald Trump is the Antichrist.


lolno that was Obama










imo


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Interesting times we live in when an eccentric billionaire is being condemned by the Pope for being seemingly the only man genuinely interested in and positioned to stop Islam from achieving it's goal of overthrowing Western civilization.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Blackbeard said:


> Donald Trump is the Antichrist.


I thought he was Hitler?

Anyways, the Antichrist isn't here yet (well, it is but I can't say or I might be banned) but the false Pope may be.



CamillePunk said:


> Interesting times we live in when an eccentric billionaire is being condemned by the Pope for being seemingly the only man genuinely interested in and positioned to stop Islam from achieving it's goal of overthrowing Western civilization.


And this Pope has no problems with pro-abortion candidates, pro-gay marriage candidates, calling communists Christians, etc etc

What a crazy world we live in.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@ 4:55 (add to OP if you can)

Everyone who thinks he is somehow anti-woman (which is nuts) should watch this.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

THE POPE MAKES THE MISTAKE OF CRITICIZING THE DONALD!!!

During his trip to Mexico the Pope criticized Donald Trump saying,

"A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian," Francis told reporters when asked about Trump's campaign. "This is not in the gospel."

Trump replied to the Pope's criticism saying,

"I am proud to be a Christian and as President I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President. No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man's religion or faith.

*If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS's ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President because this would not have happened."*

Apparently, the Mexican authorities (who hate Trump) were working on him and the Roman Catholic Pontiff fucked up by criticizing The Donald. Virtually everyone, including most Catholics, were backing Trump and saying the Pope should stay out of U.S. political elections.

- Mike

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/1...ope-would-have-prayed-trump-was-president.htm


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

One of my favorite things is how he refuses to call any foreign leader the "Supreme Leader" like Obama does.


----------



## Cashmere

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> Add to OP


I had nothing else to do and just watched this whole way through. I don't really care for him, but he has energy when he talks. I can respect that. He had me locked in little past the 4 minute mark :lol.

Wish him the best of luck.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> THE POPE MAKES THE MISTAKE OF CRITICIZING THE DONALD!!!
> 
> Trump replied to the Pope's criticism saying,
> 
> "I am proud to be a Christian and as President I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President. *No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man's religion or faith.*
> 
> 
> http://www.latinpost.com/articles/1...ope-would-have-prayed-trump-was-president.htm


Sooooo, Trump's not in favour of free speech if he doesn't like what that speech is saying? What's he going to do?

I'm thought in the land of the free people were free to question anything?


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TRUMP said:


> No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man's religion or faith.


This is incredible bullshit. 

It's also fucking hilarious how TRUMP insinuates the head of the Catholic Church is attacking Christianity.:lmao


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

My post on 2nd page is why he's good.

Also it's a rule, certain truths you can't say around liberals, they have to call the person racist, a word that never existed until the liberals invented it and political correctness in 1902 as Richard Pratt used a human experiment guaranteed in 1 generation he could make Indians attack themselves. The youth grew up calling older generation racist and they left reservation. Well the treaty was if population on reservation dropped by x% they lost territory as it was unnecessary.


Ever since the overwhelming success rate it was originally demonized and banned by Republicans as brainwashing and erasing cultural identity demonizing it.


But it's back now.


And 1 source proves when a liberal calls anyone racist. Plus the word is made up in the first place it doesn't exist. It was invented to create a rift and a way to stick fingers in ears telling "la la la I can't hear you". The leaders of the political correctness movement. A " think tank" that runs the PC redefining words, and forcing the sheep to say what they want.


Go work for think tank, get paid to do nothing 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_tank


The think tank that runs political correctness is "The Institute for Public Policy Studies"


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Feraligatr said:


> I had nothing else to do and just watched this whole way through. I don't really care for him, but he has energy when he talks. I can respect that. He had me locked in little past the 4 minute mark :lol.
> 
> Wish him the best of luck.


I know right? He just has ENERGY. It's hard to explain. He sleeps only 4 hours a night and works non-stop. You can just hear the energy exploding from his voice, even when he's just talking. He's just one of those rare people.


----------



## blackholeson

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> This is incredible bullshit.
> 
> It's also fucking hilarious how TRUMP insinuates the head of the Catholic Church is attacking Christianity.:lmao


Unless Obama is he leader of the Catholic Church I suggest you go back and read what was quoted. Trump was talking about Obama. Trump mentions that the Pope has no right questioning his religious views, but generalized it.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



blackholeson said:


> Unless Obama is he leader of the Catholic Church I suggest you go back and read what was quoted. Trump was talking about Obama. Trump mentions that the Pope has no right questioning his religious views, but generalized it.


Yeah you're right. In that first part, he's definitely taking a stab at Obama.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Just found this:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...nts_more_for_a_cheeseburger_at_mcdonalds.html

"A couple cents more"?

I think it is EXTREMELY irrational of Mr. Sanders to essentially go "Fuck you, deal with it" in regards to increased costs of anything. His justification is based on the assumption I make more money, but how will I if you raise the minimum price? will I really get more for less??


What if I don't HAVE that extra few cents?? What if you end up raising it MORE? Why must McDonalds be considered a career path??

You never hear Trump talk about willingly raising costs.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Truthbetold said:


> What's dangerous is if Hillary or one of the other GOP candidates win and get us into a war with Russia.


And Trump wouldn't if Russian interests contradict with America's?

I'm more worried about Trump starting a hypothetical trade war with Mexico that will slow down the global economy than other candidates starting a hypothetical war with Russia.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> And Trump wouldn't if Russian interests contradict with America's?
> 
> I'm more worried about Trump starting a hypothetical trade war with Mexico that will slow down the global economy than other candidates starting a hypothetical war with Russia.


Mexico is eating our lunch financially and economically. What do you want--"YES, PAPI! F*CK US HARDER!"...?


----------



## asdf0501

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Just found this:
> 
> 
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...nts_more_for_a_cheeseburger_at_mcdonalds.html
> 
> "A couple cents more"?
> 
> I think it is EXTREMELY irrational of Mr. Sanders to essentially go "Fuck you, deal with it" in regards to increased costs of anything.* His justification is based on the assumption I make more money, but how will I if you raise the minimum price? will I really get more for less??*
> 
> 
> What if I don't HAVE that extra few cents?? What if you end up raising it MORE? Why must McDonalds be considered a career path??
> 
> You never hear Trump talk about willingly raising costs.



Because his assumption is right.

If i win 8$ dollars an hour and that is raised to 15$ the Inflation will have to be at least 95% to win less than what i currently win. people who don't benefit from this should be indifferent as normally contracts are in general negotiated and raised according to inflation, therefore is like a tax on contractors.

edit: 

I must add, if you compare the minimun wage currently with what was the liquid wage 40 years ago and take inflation on account, the minimun wage currently is like 3 or 4 dollars under what was at the time. Seeing as the level of wealth is almost double compared to that time, it's almost inmoral to see this kind of wages so i don't know if 15 is the right minimum or not, but the justifications for not raising it are stupid


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



asdf0501 said:


> Because his assumption is right.
> 
> If i win 8$ dollars an hour and that is raised to 15$ the Inflation will have to be at least 95% to win less than what i currently win. people who don't benefit from this should be indifferent as normally contrats are in general negotiated and raised according to inflation, therefore is like a tax on contractors.


"If" and "Should" is the entire point. For God's sake, we already TRIED THIS in '68!


----------



## asdf0501

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> "If" and "Should" is the entire point. For God's sake, we already TRIED THIS in '68!



Well "if" is right because that's what someone at McDonalds win for hour.

Also, what is the point on working if i can't get paid what is the minimun to live: Have to hope i develope an imaginary career that it would, most probably, never come because today the dependance on technology is so big that in some years there will be no labor force?

There should be a soil for inflation? absolutely, that it would be completely out of control because we raise minimun wages? that's an absolute scare tactic if you ask me, i'm sure Trump also would like to see a raise i'm not?


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I'm going to really try hard not to bring Dank memes into this because i'm trying to make this as honest and open a discussion as possible...but that does about sum it up for me.

That said, I believe Trump has stated he understands both sides, but maintains we cannot afford to either way because of the debt.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Just found this:
> 
> 
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...nts_more_for_a_cheeseburger_at_mcdonalds.html
> 
> "A couple cents more"?
> 
> I think it is EXTREMELY irrational of Mr. Sanders to essentially go "Fuck you, deal with it" in regards to increased costs of anything. His justification is based on the assumption I make more money, but how will I if you raise the minimum price? will I really get more for less??
> 
> 
> What if I don't HAVE that extra few cents?? What if you end up raising it MORE? Why must McDonalds be considered a career path??
> 
> You never hear Trump talk about willingly raising costs.


Its clear you don't even GET what he is saying.

If you are making $8 an hour and your pay goes up to $15 an hour and to off set that the cost of a cheese burger goes up a few cents, you really don't think the person getting almost double their pay will be able to afford it LOL.

The point is the increase in some products will be minimal to the minimum wage increase not to mention the people who are getting a huge increase will also be putting more money into the economy because the will have more disposable income which in turn will create more jobs.

Its really a simple concept to grasp not sure why you are having a difficult time with it.

So tell me would you rather make $8 an hour and pay 1.29 for a hamburger
OR
make $15 an hour and pay 1.50 for the same hamburger?

That is what Sanders is saying.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its clear you don't even GET what he is saying.
> 
> If you are making $8 an hour and your pay goes up to $15 an hour and to off set that the cost of a cheese burger goes up 25 cents, you really don't think the person getting almost double their pay will be able to afford it LOL.
> 
> The point is the increase in some products will be minimal to the minimum wage increase not to mention the people who are getting a huge increase will also be putting more money into the economy because the will have more disposable income which in turn will create more jobs.
> 
> Its really a simple concept to grasp not sure why you are having a difficult time with it.


Because it's not going to work. You watch. He'll raise the shit out of things when our debt remains.

Of course, this is just my stance.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Open your eyes. Why do you think literally everything is going to Mexico? They devalue their currency the same why China and Japan are doing to the point where businesses cannot compete, Look at Caterpillar vs. Komatsu. No one can afford to order Caterpillar anymore and are going Komatsu, an inferior brand on all fronts, because of what these countries are doing to their currencies. It's not smart trade. We get NOTHING from it. Ford is doing the same thing.


The american companies are greedy, Carrier was increasing their profit year over year the past three years , yet they still were greedy and laid off thousands of americans to go to Mexico just to make a little more while the CEO is making tens of millions of dollars for his salary. 

they didn't need to go to Mexico but the greedy Ceos wanted to make a few more bucks so they did by screwing over the american workers. 

If anyone needs to open their eyes its people like you. Do some research, you clearly have not judging by all your posts in this thread especially between this and the minimum wage thing.




Batko10 said:


> THE POPE MAKES THE MISTAKE OF CRITICIZING THE DONALD!!!
> 
> During his trip to Mexico the Pope criticized Donald Trump saying,
> 
> "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian," Francis told reporters when asked about Trump's campaign. "This is not in the gospel."
> 
> Trump replied to the Pope's criticism saying,
> 
> "I am proud to be a Christian and as President I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President. No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man's religion or faith.
> 
> *If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS's ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President because this would not have happened."*
> 
> Apparently, the Mexican authorities (who hate Trump) were working on him and the Roman Catholic Pontiff fucked up by criticizing The Donald. Virtually everyone, including most Catholics, were backing Trump and saying the Pope should stay out of U.S. political elections.
> 
> - Mike
> 
> http://www.latinpost.com/articles/1...ope-would-have-prayed-trump-was-president.htm



How is Christianity being attacked exactly? LOL And religion has no place in politics. Separation of church and state. 

christians always think they are being attacked they cry because they are not allowed to prevent gays from having equal rights or they are not allowed to force a woman to have a child or they are not allowed to force their religion onto other people.

Christianity is always the one who is attacking others . I just laugh they play the victim.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Because it's not going to work. You watch. He'll raise the shit out of things when our debt remains.
> 
> Of course, this is just my stance.


It won't work based on what? The fact is when people have more disposable income they spend that money and that stimulates the economy and that is what creates MORE jobs. That is what works.

You don't even have anything to back up it won't work. I totally destroyed your thing about oh things will go up a few cents. You didn't even answer my question.

I will ask again.

would you rather make $8 an hour and pay 1.29 for a hamburger
OR
make $15 an hour and pay 1.50 for the same hamburger?


----------



## Heath V

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Crewz said:


> Trump will continue to have you puppets dancing on a string for him.. He's playing you guys so bad.


Replace trump with Obama and I would fully agree with you, he does it right in front of people's faces and it's quite sickening.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

This is the Donald Trump thread not the Bernie Sanders thread. Talk about your geriatric socialist in your own thread.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> It won't work based on what? The fact is when people have more disposable income they spend that money and that stimulates the economy and that is what creates MORE jobs. That is what works.
> 
> You don't even have anything to back up it won't work. I totally destroyed your thing about oh things will go up a few cents. You didn't even answer my question.
> 
> I will ask again.
> 
> would you rather make $8 an hour and pay 1.29 for a hamburger
> OR
> make $15 an hour and pay 1.50 for the same hamburger?


That theory is assuming people will decide to spend the more disposable income instead of saving it.

Would you rather 5 people be employed at $8 an hour and pay 1.29 for a hamburger or 3 people be employed at $15 an hour and pay 1.50 for the same hamburger?

PS: I think you have me on blocked so someone else can ask him the same question.


----------



## Dead Seabed

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> This is the Donald Trump thread not the Bernie Sanders thread. Talk about your geriatric socialist in your own thread.


It's hilarious to us in the EU that Donalmao Trump even got a chance to run, and we elected Viktor Orban. I hope he wins, just for the lols.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Chainsaw said:


> It's hilarious to us in the EU that Donalmao Trump even got a chance to run, and we elected Viktor Orban. I hope he wins, just for the lols.


Nobody in the US gives a shit about the EU or it's opinions. You should worry more about Angela Merkel spreading Europe's legs to Islam after centuries of trying to keep them out and German media outlets deliberately hushing rape reports to protect Muslims from criticism than what's going on across the ocean from you.

The last person I'd want in charge of this country is some cuck who gives a shit what Europe thinks while it's in the middle of committing cultural suicide.


----------



## TNA is Here

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Anyway, moving on from the race-baiters...
> 
> Recently the Pope declared that Donald Trump was not a Christian because he "talks about building walls instead of bridges"...meanwhile, the Pope lives in a place that looks like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Needless to say, this politically motivated attack by the Pope is not going well for him on social media. Even Marco Rubio took issue with the Pope's comments.


Only TRUMP would buuuurrrrn the Pope. :brock4

Amazing.


----------



## TNA is Here

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> THE POPE MAKES THE MISTAKE OF CRITICIZING THE DONALD!!!
> 
> During his trip to Mexico the Pope criticized Donald Trump saying,
> 
> "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian," Francis told reporters when asked about Trump's campaign. "This is not in the gospel."
> 
> Trump replied to the Pope's criticism saying,
> 
> "I am proud to be a Christian and as President I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President. No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man's religion or faith.
> 
> *If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS's ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President because this would not have happened."*
> 
> Apparently, the Mexican authorities (who hate Trump) were working on him and the Roman Catholic Pontiff fucked up by criticizing The Donald. Virtually everyone, including most Catholics, were backing Trump and saying the Pope should stay out of U.S. political elections.
> 
> - Mike
> 
> http://www.latinpost.com/articles/1...ope-would-have-prayed-trump-was-president.htm


He's like "Fuck you Pope, I'm more Christian than you". :lmao

You cannot hurt Trump.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> It won't work based on what? The fact is when people have more disposable income they spend that money and that stimulates the economy and that is what creates MORE jobs. That is what works.
> 
> You don't even have anything to back up it won't work. I totally destroyed your thing about oh things will go up a few cents. You didn't even answer my question.
> 
> I will ask again.
> 
> would you rather make $8 an hour and pay 1.29 for a hamburger
> OR
> make $15 an hour and pay 1.50 for the same hamburger?


I'd rather people not have to take jobs like McDonalds and be concerned with it in the first place, by cutting ou the waste and fraud in the college system so that students aren't in debt up to their eyeballs when they come out, can put their degrees to actual USE, and get a real job. THIS is why we have the minimum wage debate anyway.

Bm, let me re-direct this here, Okay? We're at a standstill. I sense a lot of anger from you in your two posts. You claim to have destroyed me, but I never even said anything about WANTING to destroy YOU. There is no right or wrong to either argument. You are a liberal and im a republican. The facts I present will be called bullshit by you and the facts you present will be called bullshit by me. We aren't going to change each other's mind and I will argue with you six ways from sunday how CEO's leaving for mexico do not equal Evil from the CEO'S standpoint. Mexico being too smart at trade for our own leaders to do anything about it is, but this is my stance. You obviously are, with respect, a hardcore liberal leftest in every sense of the word, but I think the one thing we CAN agree on is that no matter who wins, this country needs to change. I personally believe free enterprise and Jobs WITHIN the usa and NOT overseas are the way to do that. And we won't STOP that by raising wages. We stop that by letting other nations know we are tired of being abused. We have to fight these people or we won't have a country left. Now, you can call me uneducated all you want, but I don't see Sanders as capable. I'm going to use my vote on the one I think can. I believe this is a fair way we an agree to disagree. We'll both find out together anyway.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> I'd rather people not have to take jobs like McDonalds and be concerned with it in the first place, by cutting ou the waste and fraud in the college system so that students aren't in debt up to their eyeballs when they come out, can put their degrees to actual USE, and get a real job. THIS is why we have the minimum wage debate anyway.
> 
> Bm, let me re-direct this here, Okay? We're at a standstill. I sense a lot of anger from you in your two posts. You claim to have destroyed me, but I never even said anything about WANTING to destroy YOU. There is no right or wrong to either argument. You are a liberal and im a republican. The facts I present will be called bullshit by you and the facts you present will be called bullshit by me. We aren't going to change each other's mind and I will argue with you six ways from sunday how CEO's leaving for mexico do not equal Evil from the CEO'S standpoint. Mexico being too smart at trade for our own leaders to do anything about it is, but this is my stance. You obviously are, with respect, a hardcore liberal leftest in every sense of the word, but I think the one thing we CAN agree on is that no matter who wins, this country needs to change. I personally believe free enterprise and Jobs WITHIN the usa and NOT overseas are the way to do that. And we won't STOP that by raising wages. We stop that by letting other nations know we are tired of being abused. We have to fight these people or we won't have a country left. Now, you can call me uneducated all you want, but I don't see Sanders as capable. I'm going to use my vote on the one I think can. I believe this is a fair way we an agree to disagree. We'll both find out together anyway.


WHAT? WE WANT "free" EDUCATION!!! You stupid Republican!! Socialism works! Government programs work! Just look at the history of it.... Oh wait..

Raising minimum wage... Go look at Seattle. It doesn't work because business owners want to have the best possible life for their family.... They will lay people off to make sure they don't lose money out of their pockets. That guy always treats people in a disrespectful way if you disagree with him man. Just ignore him. He needs to just respect everybody's opinion and stop acting like a rude 8 year old.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> WHAT? WE WANT "free" EDUCATION!!! You stupid Republican!! Socialism works! Government programs work! Just look at the history of it.... Oh wait..
> 
> Raising minimum wage... Go look at Seattle. It doesn't work because business owners want to have the best possible life for their family.... They will lay people off to make sure they don't lose money out of their pockets. That guy always treats people in a disrespectful way if you disagree with him man. Just ignore him. He needs to just respect everybody's opinion and stop acting like a rude 8 year old.


NEW! LEFT! SIXTY-EIGHT!>>


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> NEW! LEFT! SIXTY-EIGHT!>>


Listen I respect everybody's opinion but man... when have government programs honestly worked? You want to look at what raising the minimum wage does look at Seattle. People are going to get laid off, the economy is going to suck. 

Bernie Sanders wants a tax on all wall street transactions. This will directly hurt the middle class who plans to invest in stocks for a means of retirement.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@DesolationRow where you at? Have you any thoughts?


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Minimum wage laws always punish the poorest rungs of the economic strata. When the price for a certain commodity is artificially inflated through government intervention, the disincentive for the greatest number of consumers becomes clear: fewer individuals will purchase the commodity. Low-skilled labor is from the employer's perspective a cost of business, and the higher government makes it for that employer, the less apt said employer will be to pay for it. 

In the apartheid time of South Africa, Gert Beetge, Secretary of the Building Workers' Union, the country's extraordinarily racist guild which was a major special interest influencing government policy, said to the press, "There is no job reservation left in the building industry, and in the circumstances, I support the rate for the job (minimum wage) as the second-best way of protecting our white artisans." The South African Economic and Wage Commission of 1925 reported that while "definite exclusion of the Natives from the more remunerative fields of employment by law has not been urged upon us, the same result would follow a certain use of the powers of the Wage Board under the Wage Act of 1925, or of other wage-fixing legislation. The method would bet o fix a minimum rate for an occupation or craft so high that no Native would be likely to be employed." 

In the U.S., national minimum wage laws first came about largely due to the efforts of furious racists: the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act set minimum wages on federally funded and/or assisted construction projects. Representative John Cochran, Democrat of Missouri, said during the debates on the proposed legislation, that he had received "numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South." Representative William Upshaw, Georgian Democrat, bristled at what he referred to as "the superabundance or large aggregation of ***** labor," saying that the minimum wage act would "correct this horrific racial disgrace" of employed blacks. Democrat Miles Allgood of Alabama spoke for hours of what he called the "pernicious ***** laborer..." and, "That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country." 

Obviously real wages have not risen with the cost of living, and the primary reason for that is because of the overwhelming regulatory and monetary pollution and manipulation of government and central banking. The printing of fiat paper money, the inflating of the currency, the financial bubble-engendering. 

Unfortunately, minimum wage laws only act as downward sloping demand curves. They do not promote hiring; in fact, they only promote the opposite. One of the reasons so many of America's inner cities are in such pathetic condition is because the productivity level of the unskilled, young labor to be found in those urban areas is below the arbitrarily-set "limit" by government regulation. With governmentally funded housing serving as generally horrid living conditions with governmentally funded schools providing substandard education, many poor, young individuals in America's inner cities are at a stark disadvantage, and minimum wage laws put them at an even more devastating place. The same economic principle applies to the middle class and the upper class as well, however. If, say, in the not-so-distant future, the national minimum wage were set at $100 an hour, how many folks would find themselves out of work? Suddenly only an infinitesimal number of people could be employed. Allow it to be posited that the average individual reading these words represents the productivity of $75 an hour. Would such a change benefit you? Anyone hiring you at $100 an hour would be losing $25 in productivity. Before long they will finding their business drifting toward bankruptcy. No minimum wage law can buttress wages, or serve as a floor for wages. Minimum wage laws are draconian anti-employment measures, hurdles over which--at first--the poorest and most disadvantaged among us must leap to first find their employment. For now, the laws "only" affect the poor and unskilled, but the same economic principle applies, and it is important to consider it for the sake of empathy.

Of course, there is another way of looking at the situation. Since the entire American economy is rigged through fiat manipulation and monetary tinkering by the Federal Reserve and the U.S. government ceaselessly provides subsidization for corporatist interests, from the laziest, most foolish CEOs to the most immoral agents in high finance to arms manufacturers churning out new nuclear weapons, to summoning a phalanx of enduring protection on behalf of the greediest insurance companies while cloaking it as something called the "Affordable Care Act," all built on an empire of lies like any scheme of its type, arguing whether or not the pay for the poorest, mandated by that same leviathan government, is a bit like looking at elephants dancing on the head of a pin. $10, $15, $25, $50... What does it matter when the entire economy is something of a fatuous lie supported by paper currency and quick liquidity, with one president after another insisting that the people just go out and mindlessly spend more of their paper money? I would contend, though, that an enduring matter of ethics nevertheless remains, which makes all minimum wage laws odious, and particularly federal ones, which endeavor to flatten the perspicuously real gaps in wage and price, supply and demand, from places as disparate as California to West Virginia. Obviously the different outcomes thus far between unskilled labor and skilled labor tend to be influenced by the globalized market, which has an extremely high quantity of unskilled labor while the ever-growing grip of technology disproportionately maximizes the value of skilled labor over the unskilled.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> Minimum wage laws always punish the poorest rungs of the economic strata. When the price for a certain commodity is artificially inflated through government intervention, the disincentive for the greatest number of consumers becomes clear: fewer individuals will purchase the commodity. Low-skilled labor is from the employer's perspective a cost of business, and the higher government makes it for that employer, the less apt said employer will be to pay for it.
> 
> In the apartheid time of South Africa, Gert Beetge, Secretary of the Building Workers' Union, the country's extraordinarily racist guild which was a major special interest influencing government policy, said to the press, "There is no job reservation left in the building industry, and in the circumstances, I support the rate for the job (minimum wage) as the second-best way of protecting our white artisans." The South African Economic and Wage Commission of 1925 reported that while "definite exclusion of the Natives from the more remunerative fields of employment by law has not been urged upon us, the same result would follow a certain use of the powers of the Wage Board under the Wage Act of 1925, or of other wage-fixing legislation. The method would bet o fix a minimum rate for an occupation or craft so high that no Native would be likely to be employed."
> 
> In the U.S., national minimum wage laws first came about largely due to the efforts of furious racists: the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act set minimum wages on federally funded and/or assisted construction projects. Representative John Cochran, Democrat of Missouri, said during the debates on the proposed legislation, that he had received "numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South." Representative William Upshaw, Georgian Democrat, bristled at what he referred to as "the superabundance or large aggregation of ***** labor," saying that the minimum wage act would "correct this horrific racial disgrace" of employed blacks. Democrat Miles Allgood of Alabama spoke for hours of what he called the "pernicious ***** laborer..." and, "That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country."
> 
> Obviously real wages have not risen with the cost of living, and the primary reason for that is because of the overwhelming regulatory and monetary pollution and manipulation of government and central banking. The printing of fiat paper money, the inflating of the currency, the financial bubble-engendering.
> 
> Unfortunately, minimum wage laws only act as downward sloping demand curves. They do not promote hiring; in fact, they only promote the opposite. One of the reasons so many of America's inner cities are in such pathetic condition is because the productivity level of the unskilled, young labor to be found in those urban areas is below the arbitrarily-set "limit" by government regulation. With governmentally funded housing serving as generally horrid living conditions with governmentally funded schools providing substandard education, many poor, young individuals in America's inner cities are at a stark disadvantage, and minimum wage laws put them at an even more devastating place. The same economic principle applies to the middle class and the upper class as well, however. If, say, in the not-so-distant future, the national minimum wage were set at $100 an hour, how many folks would find themselves out of work? Suddenly only an infinitesimal number of people could be employed. Allow it to be posited that the average individual reading these words represents the productivity of $75 an hour. Would such a change benefit you? Anyone hiring you at $100 an hour would be losing $25 in productivity. Before long they will finding their business drifting toward bankruptcy. No minimum wage law can buttress wages, or serve as a floor for wages. Minimum wage laws are draconian anti-employment measures, hurdles over which--at first--the poorest and most disadvantaged among us must leap to first find their employment. For now, the laws "only" affect the poor and unskilled, but the same economic principle applies, and it is important to consider it for the sake of empathy.
> 
> Of course, there is another way of looking at the situation. Since the entire American economy is rigged through fiat manipulation and monetary tinkering by the Federal Reserve and the U.S. government ceaselessly provides subsidization for corporatist interests, from the laziest, most foolish CEOs to the most immoral agents in high finance to arms manufacturers churning out new nuclear weapons, to summoning a phalanx of enduring protection on behalf of the greediest insurance companies while cloaking it as something called the "Affordable Care Act," all built on an empire of lies like any scheme of its type, arguing whether or not the pay for the poorest, mandated by that same leviathan government, is a bit like looking at elephants dancing on the head of a pin. $10, $15, $25, $50... What does it matter when the entire economy is something of a fatuous lie supported by paper currency and quick liquidity, with one president after another insisting that the people just go out and mindlessly spend more of their paper money? I would contend, though, that an enduring matter of ethics nevertheless remains, which makes all minimum wage laws odious, and particularly federal ones, which endeavor to flatten the perspicuously real gaps in wage and price, supply and demand, from places as disparate as California to West Virginia. Obviously the different outcomes thus far between unskilled labor and skilled labor tend to be influenced by the globalized market, which has an extremely high quantity of unskilled labor while the ever-growing grip of technology disproportionately maximizes the value of skilled labor over the unskilled.


Now see, Bm, this is the guy best equipped to debate this with you.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Amazing that that only took him 3 minutes to write.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I am going to be honest with you guys 

When the race started I was very anti-Trump, he seemed like a gimmick candidate who does a bunch of crazy shit and leaves, there are tons of them right now 

But as he refused to leave the race (which most gimmick candidates do after being thrashed in the first primary) he stuck around and pushed his PR even harder

If is planning on dropping out I would be surprised at this point, I would be surprised because he is funding his own campaign rather than using free PAC money

Then I saw his followers who were not the ignorant ******** that most people seem to believe they were (most ******** are religious voters) but the working class

The people who other politicians and their followers deemed "uneducated", but what did does that mean?

It usually means without a degree or politically unsavy, the hardworking middle class who is too busy to spend all day reading political blogs, the very people that every other politician claims to represent 

Everyone else on both sides of this race seems to be target a special interest group (Christians,immigrants,college kids) to please and fuck anyone outside of that, they are "uneducated" and they are too stupid to know what they need

but they are not stupid, they live their life everyday and know exactly what they need

It makes sense that a businessman, who has to struggle and walk the line between success and failure, would know this because these are the very people who builds his empire, his costumers and employees 

He has to know what they want because he gets their demands on his desk everyday where as most of the other candidates have been in politics so long that have not need to think about these things for years, just how to get and stay elected 

Then I saw how most of quotes of Trump being racist or interrogate were taken out of context or quote mined, CNN wrote a front page story when he used the word "slong" 

Most of his "racism" is "the US should know the backgrounds of people they are letting in", his "hatred" of Mexicans was him talking about how the US has no idea what kind of people illegals are and how they could be "rapists and drug dealers" because know one is checking

His tax brackets are supers simple and the people at the bottom, who republicans "screw over", would not have to pay taxes at all but not get refunds

His "gutting" of the healthcare system is letting insurance companies compete and allowing people to choose they one they want rather than having an "official" one who gets all the government sponsored business and charges whatever they want 

Even on things like abortion and gun control he has made clear that HIS views don't matter and he would not try to change things to suit his own morals

Even after all the dirt everyone else is trying to dump on him he is still looking good and not falling into the traps that most other "non-standard" candidates fall into like being being elitist to people who don't support him 

Even his supporters are not spam botting him like the other candidates (most of them have better things to do) 

TLDR A lot of the complaints about Trump are PR manufactured and I am starting to like the guy, whether or not I vote for him is another story


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

In other news Cruz thinks he'd survive a lawsuit from Don...

The day before the voting, folks. What poll predictions yall got?

I'll take Trump with at least 30%...i'll say I think Hildawg sweeps NC and then Bern takes Nevada.


----------



## Dead Seabed

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Nobody in the US gives a shit about the EU or it's opinions. You should worry more about Angela Merkel spreading Europe's legs to Islam after centuries of trying to keep them out and German media outlets deliberately hushing rape reports to protect Muslims from criticism than what's going on across the ocean from you.
> 
> The last person I'd want in charge of this country is some cuck who gives a shit what Europe thinks while it's in the middle of committing cultural suicide.


Best of luck. Donald Trump 2016! :bryanlol


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> I am going to be honest with you guys
> 
> When the race started I was very anti-Trump, he seemed like a gimmick candidate who does a bunch of crazy shit and leaves, there are tons of them right now
> 
> But as he refused to leave the race (which most gimmick candidates do after being thrashed in the first primary) he stuck around and pushed his PR even harder
> 
> If is planning on dropping out I would be surprised at this point, I would be surprised because he is funding his own campaign rather than using free PAC money
> 
> Then I saw his followers who were not the ignorant ******** that most people seem to believe they were (most ******** are religious voters) but the working class
> 
> The people who other politicians and their followers deemed "uneducated", but what did does that mean?
> 
> It usually means without a degree or politically unsavy, the hardworking middle class who is too busy to spend all day reading political blogs, the very people that every other politician claims to represent
> 
> Everyone else on both sides of this race seems to be target a special interest group (Christians,immigrants,college kids) to please and fuck anyone outside of that, they are "uneducated" and they are too stupid to know what they need
> 
> but they are not stupid, they live their life everyday and know exactly what they need
> 
> It makes sense that a businessman, who has to struggle and walk the line between success and failure, would know this because these are the very people who builds his empire, his costumers and employees
> 
> He has to know what they want because he gets their demands on his desk everyday where as most of the other candidates have been in politics so long that have not need to think about these things for years, just how to get and stay elected
> 
> Then I saw how most of quotes of Trump being racist or interrogate were taken out of context or quote mined, CNN wrote a front page story when he used the word "slong"
> 
> Most of his "racism" is "the US should know the backgrounds of people they are letting in", his "hatred" of Mexicans was him talking about how the US has no idea what kind of people illegals are and how they could be "rapists and drug dealers" because know one is checking
> 
> His tax brackets are supers simple and the people at the bottom, who republicans "screw over", would not have to pay taxes at all but not get refunds
> 
> His "gutting" of the healthcare system is letting insurance companies compete and allowing people to choose they one they want rather than having an "official" one who gets all the government sponsored business and charges whatever they want
> 
> Even on things like abortion and gun control he has made clear that HIS views don't matter and he would not try to change things to suit his own morals
> 
> Even after all the dirt everyone else is trying to dump on him he is still looking good and not falling into the traps that most other "non-standard" candidates fall into like being being elitist to people who don't support him
> 
> Even his supporters are not spam botting him like the other candidates (most of them have better things to do)
> 
> TLDR A lot of the complaints about Trump are PR manufactured and I am starting to like the guy, whether or not I vote for him is another story


You an independent, breh?



Chainsaw said:


> Best of luck. Donald Trump 2016! :bryanlol


Say hi to the refugees for us, i guess.


----------



## Dead Seabed

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Say hi to the refugees for us.


Together we praise Allah every day, and so shall you.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I am leaning toward voting for him. I'm an anarcho-capitalist but this is a rare moment in history and I do get the sense that the left is so determined to import authoritarians who will vote for them that they're going to turn this place into a third world country. Not to mention all the lip-service they give to ridiculous SJWs and other infantile anti-reality groups like Black Lives Matter. The usual GOP clowns have had ample opportunity to push a conservative agenda and have been completely impotent. Trump really does seem like the only option for someone who wants to maintain some semblance of freedom in the US, even though he certainly is far from a libertarian. He's the only one truly willing to stand up to the PC agenda and not only take the heat in the media, but use it to make himself look good and leaves the media looking like the utter charlatans they are. He has all the right enemies. I'm very tempted to vote for him instead of nobody or the LP candidate.

Of course, I live in California, so my vote is effectively going to the reptilian shapeshifter or the commie regardless. I do think Trump could turn some blue states red though.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Amazing that that only took him 3 minutes to write.


:lol 

Sometimes I amaze even myself.  :side: :lol

Hope @Beatles123 is indeed satisfied with his conjuring abilities. osey2


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Chainsaw said:


> Best of luck. Donald Trump 2016! :bryanlol


Are you going to post that gif when your girlfriend gets gangraped and your government sides with the rapists?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> :lol
> 
> Sometimes I amaze even myself.  :side: :lol
> 
> Hope @Beatles123 is indeed satisfied with his conjuring abilities. osey2


MY POSTERCROMANCERY IS GROWING STRONGER!

I was wondering why it took you so long to find this thread.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Chainsaw said:


> Together we praise Allah every day, and so shall you.


Yyyyyyeahuh :no:


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> I am going to be honest with you guys
> 
> When the race started I was very anti-Trump, he seemed like a gimmick candidate who does a bunch of crazy shit and leaves, there are tons of them right now
> 
> But as he refused to leave the race (which most gimmick candidates do after being thrashed in the first primary) he stuck around and pushed his PR even harder
> 
> If is planning on dropping out I would be surprised at this point, I would be surprised because he is funding his own campaign rather than using free PAC money
> 
> Then I saw his followers who were not the ignorant ******** that most people seem to believe they were (most ******** are religious voters) but the working class
> 
> The people who other politicians and their followers deemed "uneducated", but what did does that mean?
> 
> It usually means without a degree or politically unsavy, the hardworking middle class who is too busy to spend all day reading political blogs, the very people that every other politician claims to represent
> 
> Everyone else on both sides of this race seems to be target a special interest group (Christians,immigrants,college kids) to please and fuck anyone outside of that, they are "uneducated" and they are too stupid to know what they need
> 
> but they are not stupid, they live their life everyday and know exactly what they need
> 
> It makes sense that a businessman, who has to struggle and walk the line between success and failure, would know this because these are the very people who builds his empire, his costumers and employees
> 
> He has to know what they want because he gets their demands on his desk everyday where as most of the other candidates have been in politics so long that have not need to think about these things for years, just how to get and stay elected
> 
> Then I saw how most of quotes of Trump being racist or interrogate were taken out of context or quote mined, CNN wrote a front page story when he used the word "slong"
> 
> Most of his "racism" is "the US should know the backgrounds of people they are letting in", his "hatred" of Mexicans was him talking about how the US has no idea what kind of people illegals are and how they could be "rapists and drug dealers" because know one is checking
> 
> His tax brackets are supers simple and the people at the bottom, who republicans "screw over", would not have to pay taxes at all but not get refunds
> 
> His "gutting" of the healthcare system is letting insurance companies compete and allowing people to choose they one they want rather than having an "official" one who gets all the government sponsored business and charges whatever they want
> 
> Even on things like abortion and gun control he has made clear that HIS views don't matter and he would not try to change things to suit his own morals
> 
> Even after all the dirt everyone else is trying to dump on him he is still looking good and not falling into the traps that most other "non-standard" candidates fall into like being being elitist to people who don't support him
> 
> Even his supporters are not spam botting him like the other candidates (most of them have better things to do)
> 
> TLDR A lot of the complaints about Trump are PR manufactured and I am starting to like the guy, whether or not I vote for him is another story


Well-stated.

One reason I don't plan to post incessantly in this thread is because I'm not one to grow attached to personalities. Of course, this is a political campaign, and whether any of us like it or not, if we do engage in supporting any candidate at all, we will be ineluctably drawn toward at least partially standing with such a personality. 

The way I view it is, Trump, for all of his braggadocio and purported vulgarity, at least seems to have enough sense to understand that more than anything else, his campaign represents something of a protest. I concur with @CamillePunk that he's the only Republican who could conceivably sneak into "Democratic states" or "swing states" and appeal to the "lost Reagan Democrats," or this generation's version of same. Republicans have seen their numbers dwindle in national presidential election cycles partly because they keep running governmentally-considered "free traders"; John McCain and Mitt Romney most recently, the latter of whom was personally connected to outsourcing while the former voted for myriad trade deals which benefited the connected, Washington, D.C.-friendly companies as well as foreign interests while giving haymaker after haymaker to the American working class. 

Ultimately, while it is important to retain a sense of skepticism and even cynicism with anyone who seeks power, much of what has been said about Trump is mischaracterization, perpetuated by a system and its auxiliary media forces which seek to protect said system. So long as Trump upsets them, he's doing something right.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> Well-stated.
> 
> One reason I don't plan to post incessantly in this thread is because I'm not one to grow attached to personalities. Of course, this is a political campaign, and whether any of us like it or not, if we do engage in supporting any candidate at all, we will be ineluctably drawn toward at least partially standing with such a personality.
> 
> The way I view it is, Trump, for all of his braggadocio and purported vulgarity, at least seems to have enough sense to understand that more than anything else, his campaign represents something of a protest. I concur with @CamillePunk that he's the only Republican who could conceivably sneak into "Democratic states" or "swing states" and appeal to the "lost Reagan Democrats," or this generation's version of same. Republicans have seen their numbers dwindle in national presidential election cycles partly because they keep running governmentally-considered "free traders"; John McCain and Mitt Romney most recently, the latter of whom was personally connected to outsourcing while the former voted for myriad trade deals which benefited the connected, Washington, D.C.-friendly companies as well as foreign interests while giving haymaker after haymaker to the American working class.
> 
> Ultimately, while it is important to retain a sense of skepticism and even cynicism with anyone who seeks power, much of what has been said about Trump is mischaracterization, perpetuated by a system and its auxiliary media forces which seek to protect said system. So long as Trump upsets them, he's doing something right.


Ya gotta admit, it's the most entertaining and REAL election in years.

Our country is about to take the biggest turn to the left or right its taken in decades.


----------



## Dead Seabed

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Are you going to post that gif when your girlfriend gets gangraped and your government sides with the rapists?


No one can be this stupid.



CamillePunk said:


> I'm an anarcho-capitalist


Oh.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...e-knock-cruz-off-white-house-ballot/80586608/

CRUZ GOING TO COURT TODAY!

REV UP THOSE MAPLE LEAVES!


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> How is Christianity being attacked exactly? LOL
> 
> christians always think they are being attacked they cry... because they are not allowed to to force their religion onto other people.
> 
> Christianity is always the one who is attacking others . I just laugh they play the victim.


*21 COPTIC CHRISTIANS ABOUT TO BE BEHEADED BY ISIS*









*ISIS EXECUTES CHRISTIANS FOR NOT PAYING "JIZYA," *i.e. extortion money demanded by the Koran of non-Muslims.









*AL SHABAB MASSACRES 140 CHRISTIAN STUDENTS IN KENYA*









*AL SHABAB MURDERS 36 CHRISTIANS IN KENYA*









*ISIS THUG TOPPLES CROSS ON CHRISTIAN CHURCH RAVAGED BY MUSLIMS*









*CHRISTIAN CHURCH DESTROYED BY ISIS*









*MUSLIM TOSSES CHRISTIAN CROSS INTO FIRE - ONE OF OVER 1,000 CHRISTIAN CHURCHES DELIBERATELY ATTACKED AND DESTROYED BY ISIS IN SYRIA AND IRAQ*









*MUSLIM POSES WITH PRIEST'S VESTMENTS AND CROSS AFTER ISIS DESTROYED AND LOOTED A SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH*









*SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH DESCRATED AND DESTROYED BY ISIS*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> I'd rather people not have to take jobs like McDonalds and be concerned with it in the first place, by cutting ou the waste and fraud in the college system so that students aren't in debt up to their eyeballs when they come out, can put their degrees to actual USE, and get a real job. THIS is why we have the minimum wage debate anyway.
> 
> Bm, let me re-direct this here, Okay? We're at a standstill. I sense a lot of anger from you in your two posts. You claim to have destroyed me, but I never even said anything about WANTING to destroy YOU. There is no right or wrong to either argument. You are a liberal and im a republican. The facts I present will be called bullshit by you and the facts you present will be called bullshit by me. We aren't going to change each other's mind and I will argue with you six ways from sunday how CEO's leaving for mexico do not equal Evil from the CEO'S standpoint. Mexico being too smart at trade for our own leaders to do anything about it is, but this is my stance. You obviously are, with respect, a hardcore liberal leftest in every sense of the word, but I think the one thing we CAN agree on is that no matter who wins, this country needs to change. I personally believe free enterprise and Jobs WITHIN the usa and NOT overseas are the way to do that. And we won't STOP that by raising wages. We stop that by letting other nations know we are tired of being abused. We have to fight these people or we won't have a country left. Now, you can call me uneducated all you want, but I don't see Sanders as capable. I'm going to use my vote on the one I think can. I believe this is a fair way we an agree to disagree. We'll both find out together anyway.





DesolationRow said:


> Minimum wage laws always punish the poorest rungs of the economic strata. When the price for a certain commodity is artificially inflated through government intervention, the disincentive for the greatest number of consumers becomes clear: fewer individuals will purchase the commodity. Low-skilled labor is from the employer's perspective a cost of business, and the higher government makes it for that employer, the less apt said employer will be to pay for it.
> 
> In the apartheid time of South Africa, Gert Beetge, Secretary of the Building Workers' Union, the country's extraordinarily racist guild which was a major special interest influencing government policy, said to the press, "There is no job reservation left in the building industry, and in the circumstances, I support the rate for the job (minimum wage) as the second-best way of protecting our white artisans." The South African Economic and Wage Commission of 1925 reported that while "definite exclusion of the Natives from the more remunerative fields of employment by law has not been urged upon us, the same result would follow a certain use of the powers of the Wage Board under the Wage Act of 1925, or of other wage-fixing legislation. The method would bet o fix a minimum rate for an occupation or craft so high that no Native would be likely to be employed."
> 
> In the U.S., national minimum wage laws first came about largely due to the efforts of furious racists: the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act set minimum wages on federally funded and/or assisted construction projects. Representative John Cochran, Democrat of Missouri, said during the debates on the proposed legislation, that he had received "numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South." Representative William Upshaw, Georgian Democrat, bristled at what he referred to as "the superabundance or large aggregation of ***** labor," saying that the minimum wage act would "correct this horrific racial disgrace" of employed blacks. Democrat Miles Allgood of Alabama spoke for hours of what he called the "pernicious ***** laborer..." and, "That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country."
> 
> Obviously real wages have not risen with the cost of living, and the primary reason for that is because of the overwhelming regulatory and monetary pollution and manipulation of government and central banking. The printing of fiat paper money, the inflating of the currency, the financial bubble-engendering.
> 
> Unfortunately, minimum wage laws only act as downward sloping demand curves. They do not promote hiring; in fact, they only promote the opposite. One of the reasons so many of America's inner cities are in such pathetic condition is because the productivity level of the unskilled, young labor to be found in those urban areas is below the arbitrarily-set "limit" by government regulation. With governmentally funded housing serving as generally horrid living conditions with governmentally funded schools providing substandard education, many poor, young individuals in America's inner cities are at a stark disadvantage, and minimum wage laws put them at an even more devastating place. The same economic principle applies to the middle class and the upper class as well, however. If, say, in the not-so-distant future, the national minimum wage were set at $100 an hour, how many folks would find themselves out of work? Suddenly only an infinitesimal number of people could be employed. Allow it to be posited that the average individual reading these words represents the productivity of $75 an hour. Would such a change benefit you? Anyone hiring you at $100 an hour would be losing $25 in productivity. Before long they will finding their business drifting toward bankruptcy. No minimum wage law can buttress wages, or serve as a floor for wages. Minimum wage laws are draconian anti-employment measures, hurdles over which--at first--the poorest and most disadvantaged among us must leap to first find their employment. For now, the laws "only" affect the poor and unskilled, but the same economic principle applies, and it is important to consider it for the sake of empathy.
> 
> Of course, there is another way of looking at the situation. Since the entire American economy is rigged through fiat manipulation and monetary tinkering by the Federal Reserve and the U.S. government ceaselessly provides subsidization for corporatist interests, from the laziest, most foolish CEOs to the most immoral agents in high finance to arms manufacturers churning out new nuclear weapons, to summoning a phalanx of enduring protection on behalf of the greediest insurance companies while cloaking it as something called the "Affordable Care Act," all built on an empire of lies like any scheme of its type, arguing whether or not the pay for the poorest, mandated by that same leviathan government, is a bit like looking at elephants dancing on the head of a pin. $10, $15, $25, $50... What does it matter when the entire economy is something of a fatuous lie supported by paper currency and quick liquidity, with one president after another insisting that the people just go out and mindlessly spend more of their paper money? I would contend, though, that an enduring matter of ethics nevertheless remains, which makes all minimum wage laws odious, and particularly federal ones, which endeavor to flatten the perspicuously real gaps in wage and price, supply and demand, from places as disparate as California to West Virginia. Obviously the different outcomes thus far between unskilled labor and skilled labor tend to be influenced by the globalized market, which has an extremely high quantity of unskilled labor while the ever-growing grip of technology disproportionately maximizes the value of skilled labor over the unskilled.




Not everyone has a college education and a lot of people working full time at Mc Donald's are mothers or fathers trying to support a family and they can't do that on $8 an hour , and this isn't just about Mc Donald's, there are tons jobs that ask for a college degree that are fun time and only pay $10-12 an hour, I am talking about office jobs and no one can live on that wage.

People just like to use Mc Donald's as an example since its a low paying job but there are millions of jobs that call for a degree and are professional entry level jobs that pay less than $15 an hour, so how are those people supposed to support a family or themselves ? Those are the jobs that need the minimum wage increase the most.

Companies are making billions of dollars and their CEO's are making millions of dollars per year, those companies can pay their lowest workers a living wage. People need to stop acting like they can't. The more money people have the more they will spend it thus the more companies will make money.

Companies need to reinvest their profits to hiring more people and giving them a living wage to stimulate the economy.


----------



## SpeedStick

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump should get at his house


----------



## QWERTYOP

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

This thread is fucking terrifying.


----------



## Dead Seabed

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



SpeedStick said:


> Trump should get at his house


Contrary to the opinion of the highly intelligent _american_ citizen Dan "Scavino", those were put there a couple of hundred years ago to keep the rogue brigands and the enemy armies out, not cheap manual labour from Mexico. Today they serve mostly as backdrop for facebook photos.

Scavino's ancestors probably tried to climb them at one point or another.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Chainsaw said:


> Contrary to the opinion of the highly intelligent _american_ citizen Dan "Scavino", those were put there a couple of hundred years ago to keep the rogue brigands and the enemy armies out, not cheap manual labour from Mexico. *Today they serve mostly as backdrop for facebook photos.
> *
> Scavino's ancestors probably tried to climb them at one point or another.


And, also serve to keep people out. 

- Mike


----------



## Dead Seabed

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> And, also serve to keep people out.
> 
> - Mike


Also, the floor is lava zil


----------



## Headliner

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Let's be smart and vote for Donald Trump so he can get us into World War III, IV, and V.:mj4


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

_Apparently, the Pope has learned his lesson regarding The Donald and will contemplate his errors in the solitude of his *walled* fortress. This article in the *THE WASHINGTON POST* tells it like it is!

- Mike_

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...rs-massive-humiliation-slinks-off-to-vatican/

*THE WASHINGTON POST*

Loser Pope takes on Donald Trump, suffers massive humiliation, slinks off to Vatican

By Greg Sargent, February 18 at 1:38 PM










Donald Trump has somehow managed to bait His Holiness into a public fight:

Hours after praying for Mexican migrants who died trying to reach the United States, Pope Francis singled out Donald Trump, telling reporters aboard the papal plane that anybody who wants to build border walls “is not Christian.”

“A person who thinks only about building walls — wherever they may be — and not building bridges, is not Christian,” Francis said Thursday, according to a translation from the Associated Press. “This is not in the Gospel.”

He added: “I’d just say that this man is not Christian if he said it this way.”

According to ABC News, the Pope’s criticism of Trump was prompted by a reporter who asked: “Can a good Catholic vote for this man?” ABC’s account notes that the Pope demurred on that aspect of the question, by saying:

“About whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he said things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.”

You’ll be shocked to hear that *this restraint did not cause Trump to temper his response in the slightest.* Trump’s statement is worth quoting in full:

"If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President because this would not have happened. ISIS would have been eradicated unlike what is happening now with our all talk, no action politicians.

*The Mexican government and its leadership has made many disparaging remarks about me to the Pope, because they want to continue to rip off the United States, both on trade and at the border, and they understand I am totally wise to them*. The Pope only heard one side of the story — he didn’t see the crime, the drug trafficking and the negative economic impact the current policies have on the United States. *He doesn’t see how Mexican leadership is outsmarting President Obama and our leadership in every aspect of negotiation.
*
For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful. I am proud to be a Christian and as President *I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President. *No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith. *They are using the Pope as a pawn *and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing so, especially when so many lives are involved and when illegal immigration is so rampant."

*Let’s pause for a moment of silence to marvel at the degree to which Trump managed to stay on his core message here. *Remember, the story that Trump has been telling for at least six months now has not changed. Our elites are failing you, because they are allowing you to be cheated by a whole cast of villains — illegals, multinational corporations, other countries (usually China, but more recently, Mexico, which Trump now says is “the new China”) — whether through stupidity, corruption, weakness, or some combination of the above.

*In his response to the Pope, Trump hit every one of these buttons*: Mexico wants to continue to “rip off” America; our stupid leaders continue to allow it to happen because they are getting “outsmarted”; Trump would not, because he is “wise” to the scam; and so, “they” (Trump’s word) have now enlisted the Pope “as a pawn” in keeping the scam going.


----------



## Dead Seabed

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS


Holy shit this is from an Onion article. Tell me this is from an Onion article :bryanlol


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Chainsaw said:


> Holy shit this is from an Onion article. Tell me this is from an Onion article :bryanlol


As far as I know, it's from *THE WASHINGTON POST*. 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...rs-massive-humiliation-slinks-off-to-vatican/

*TRUMP IN 2016 *

- Mike


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The Vatican should count themselves as lucky that no attack has occurred on them yet.

Well, besides the attack by Mehmet Ali Ağca.


----------



## Dead Seabed

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> As far as I know, it's from *THE WASHINGTON POST*.
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...rs-massive-humiliation-slinks-off-to-vatican/
> 
> *TRUMP IN 2016 *
> 
> - Mike


Well the pope better fill up those lava moats around his FORTRESS with some PATRIOTIC CROCODILES, because ISIS is coming to take away both his and MUH FREEDOMS/MERUKAH.

brb, gotta check on my MRE stash and Bitcoin stocks


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Chainsaw said:


> Well the pope better fill up those lava moats around his FORTRESS with some PATRIOTIC CROCODILES, because ISIS is coming to take away both his and MUH FREEDOMS/MERUKAH.
> 
> brb, gotta check on my MRE stash and Bitcoin stocks


I've never understood the appeal of snarky, unfunny comments and what people think they add to any conversation. I guess they think it makes them look smart.

I guess this is the result of the Jon Stewart/Leibowitz generation. Snarky quips count for analysis and intelligence these days.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> In other news Cruz thinks he'd survive a lawsuit from Don...
> 
> The day before the voting, folks. What poll predictions yall got?
> 
> I'll take Trump with at least 30%...i'll say I think Hildawg sweeps NC and then Bern takes Nevada.


I really hope deep down Rubio wins because I feel he gives us the best chance. Once all the candidates start dropping out I wonder where their supporters will go though. 

This is my first election, I will be going to college next year and I would still never vote for Bernie. Just take away "Guaranteed Student Loans" and the colleges will fight it out. 

Anyway I think Trump takes it, but I am very curious to see where the Bush and Kasich supporters go after they drop out. Something tells me not Donald Trump.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Crewz said:


> Trump will continue to have you puppets dancing on a string for him.. He's playing you guys so bad.


Like every other politician in history


----------



## Dead Seabed

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



> I guess this is the result of the Jon Stewart/Leibowitz generation. Snarky quips count for analysis and intelligence these days.


This message board account exists longer then you.


----------



## Rick_James

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump at this point is just a breath of fresh air from the rhetoric of morons on both the left (Clinton, Sanders) and right (Rubio, bush, Cruz). What's great about him is that he's so anti PC that the left wing's constant attacks on him are only making him stronger. He's put the media in a quandary, if they just don't report on him, other outlets still will and he will get publicity, but if they try to put out a story and paint him as the villain, most people see through the shit and end up only wanting him to win more lol.


----------



## Truthbetold

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> I really hope deep down Rubio wins because I feel he gives us the best chance. Once all the candidates start dropping out I wonder where their supporters will go though.
> 
> This is my first election, I will be going to college next year and I would still never vote for Bernie. Just take away "Guaranteed Student Loans" and the colleges will fight it out.
> 
> Anyway I think Trump takes it, but I am very curious to see where the Bush and Kasich supporters go after they drop out. Something tells me not Donald Trump.


Rubio lost me, and millions of other votes, when he backstabbed us and supported amnesty (which he still does).

He is open borders.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I'm of two minds about Trump.

On the one hand he's a dangerous nincompoop that I don't think should be anywhere near prominent political or military power for the sake of both himself and everyone else who happens to be unfortunate enough to live on the planet at the same time as he holds said power.
On the other hand if America is dumb or easily-baited enough to elect him I get to sit an ocean away and laugh as their glorious nation crumbles to shit around them, leaving them all just utterly baffled that the nation wasn't made "great again" like the shouty orange man's hats promised them it would be. Also get to see comedic political commentators have ample material for the next 4 to 8 years.


----------



## Cliffy

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

they've been crumbling for awhile

bush and Obama have been disasters


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> Well-stated.
> 
> One reason I don't plan to post incessantly in this thread is because I'm not one to grow attached to personalities. Of course, this is a political campaign, and whether any of us like it or not, if we do engage in supporting any candidate at all, we will be ineluctably drawn toward at least partially standing with such a personality.
> 
> The way I view it is, Trump, for all of his braggadocio and purported vulgarity, at least seems to have enough sense to understand that more than anything else, his campaign represents something of a protest. I concur with @CamillePunk that he's the only Republican who could conceivably sneak into "Democratic states" or "swing states" and appeal to the "lost Reagan Democrats," or this generation's version of same. Republicans have seen their numbers dwindle in national presidential election cycles partly because they keep running governmentally-considered "free traders"; John McCain and Mitt Romney most recently, the latter of whom was personally connected to outsourcing while the former voted for myriad trade deals which benefited the connected, Washington, D.C.-friendly companies as well as foreign interests while giving haymaker after haymaker to the American working class.
> 
> Ultimately, while it is important to retain a sense of skepticism and even cynicism with anyone who seeks power, much of what has been said about Trump is mischaracterization, perpetuated by a system and its auxiliary media forces which seek to protect said system. So long as Trump upsets them, he's doing something right.


Thanks 

I thought it was terribly said because I wrote it at 2:00 in the morning with no proofreading so I ended up the EPIC compound word knowone 

Still, I stand by my point

Trump is the one politician who is not pandering to a special interest group and saying "Vote for me and get cool shit if I win" (which is ironically closer to a business man than the actual businessman running) 

Trump is sending the message that "If I win I will give you the ability to succeeded without giving or taking anything away and when you do you won't owe me a damn thing" which is one of the foundations of the founding of the US 

People make fun of the US following a "200 year old piece of paper" but that piece of paper guarantees things that many more "enlightened nations" still don't have like absolute freedom of expression

That piece of paper still offers more and anyone who says that having less freedoms and protection makes things better must just agree with the guy in charge on everything 

If we cut down all the baggage that laws have created and go down to the foundation and perfect it everything should go smoothly because of how good that foundation is 

Everyone is promising to "change" the world but its not about changing the world its about keeping what works the same



birthday_massacre said:


> How is Christianity being attacked exactly? LOL And religion has no place in politics. Separation of church and state.
> 
> christians always think they are being attacked they cry because they are not allowed to prevent gays from having equal rights or they are not allowed to force a woman to have a child or they are not allowed to force their religion onto other people.
> 
> Christianity is always the one who is attacking others . I just laugh they play the victim.


In some parts of the world with a state sponsored religion or in communist nations state sponsored atheism, being openly christian is like being openly Jewish in Nazi Germany 

For years Burma lead a legit genocidal campaign to wipe all Christians because they were corrupted by "foreign values" and were "more loyal to their gods than the state"

In many places in Asia and Africa there is still extremely violent tension be between minority Christians and the rest of the nation

Don't think I am some Christ lover, they all look like cults to me, but in about half the world Christians are in extreme danger just for being christian 

Its what happens when a government "officially" starts to support a certain way of life, it becomes free reign on anyone who does not follow lock step

I think that humans are good deepdown but I am not naive, when you give people permission to violently express themselves on people they don't like who are not allowed to fight back by law they will take it

All of your posts are from a western nation that has protection and a clear system of protection from minorities, in some parts of the world its "follow the mainstream or we will fuck you up and brag about on the internet"


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> Let's be smart and vote for Donald Trump so he can get us into World War III, IV, and V.:mj4


How is the one guy from either party who has a cordial relationship with Putin and is fine with letting Russia take care of ISIS instead of trying to put no-fly zones in where Russian planes are currently flying more likely to get us into a world war, exactly? 

When asked "how we should get rid of Assad" last night at the GOP town hall, Trump said something absolutely remarkable. "I don't think it's very important". Imagine that, someone running for president (and actually has a chance) who doesn't think the US needs to decide who is and isn't running countries in the middle east. A far cry from the tide of hawks from both parties we've been inundated with for decades.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> How is the one guy from either party who has a cordial relationship with Putin and is fine with letting Russia take care of ISIS instead of trying to put no-fly zones in where Russian planes are currently flying more likely to get us into a world war, exactly?
> 
> When asked "how we should get rid of Assad" last night at the GOP town hall, Trump said something absolutely remarkable. "I don't think it's very important". Imagine that, someone running for president (and actually has a chance) who doesn't think the US needs to decide who is and isn't running countries in the middle east. A far cry from the tide of hawks from both parties we've been inundated with for decades.


Most business people understand the need for comprise and making deals

In business you cant just bowl people over unless you have Wal-mart style control and Trump didn't


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> Rubio lost me, and millions of other votes, when he backstabbed us and supported amnesty (which he still does).
> 
> He is open borders.


Not exactly open borders though, you are smarter than that. He wants to keep all the illegal immigrants in the country who have not committed crimes but not give them citizenship. He wants to redo how immigration is done since it has to do if you have family living here. 

Rubio is iffy on immigration but he would destroy Hilary or the socialist in a debate and I feel like he would attract many moderates. 

Would you support him as a VP?


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> Rubio is iffy on immigration but *he would destroy Hilary or the socialist in a debate* and I feel like he would attract many moderates.
> 
> Would you support him as a VP?


Only because debunking socialism is such an easy program to write for a machine. 

A robot as VP sounds like good fun, plus winning Florida is a necessity.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> In some parts of the world with a state sponsored religion or in communist nations state sponsored atheism, being openly christian is like being openly Jewish in Nazi Germany
> 
> For years Burma lead a legit genocidal campaign to wipe all Christians because they were corrupted by "foreign values" and were "more loyal to their gods than the state"
> 
> In many places in Asia and Africa there is still extremely violent tension be between minority Christians and the rest of the nation
> 
> Don't think I am some Christ lover, they all look like cults to me, but in about half the world Christians are in extreme danger just for being christian
> 
> Its what happens when a government "officially" starts to support a certain way of life, it becomes free reign on anyone who does not follow lock step
> 
> I think that humans are good deepdown but I am not naive, when you give people permission to violently express themselves on people they don't like who are not allowed to fight back by law they will take it
> 
> All of your posts are from a western nation that has protection and a clear system of protection from minorities, in some parts of the world its "follow the mainstream or we will fuck you up and brag about on the internet"


We are talking about the US here not the other parts of the world. Also like I said Christianity is always trying to push its so called values onto others, its no wonder in other parts of the world other groups try to wipe them out as you put it. 

How in the US is Christianity being attacked ? That is what I want answered. 

Humans are good deep down until religion corrupts them. Religion does nothing put teaches intolerance.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> We are talking about the US here not the other parts of the world. Also like I said Christianity is always trying to push its so called values onto others, its no wonder in other parts of the world other groups try to wipe them out as you put it.
> 
> How in the US is Christianity being attacked ? That is what I want answered.
> 
> Humans are good deep down until religion corrupts them. Religion does nothing put teaches intolerance.


:kobe Stop trying to move the goal posts. When Trump talks about Christianity being under attack he explicitly talks about ISIS cutting off Christians' heads in the middle east. You were proven completely foolish by suggesting Christianity isn't under attack and are now trying to reframe the discussion to the US where we actually have some semblance of civilization left, until the leftists import more people from the middle east.


----------



## Headliner

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> How is the one guy from either party who has a cordial relationship with Putin and is fine with letting Russia take care of ISIS instead of trying to put no-fly zones in where Russian planes are currently flying more likely to get us into a world war, exactly?
> 
> When asked "how we should get rid of Assad" last night at the GOP town hall, Trump said something absolutely remarkable. "I don't think it's very important". Imagine that, someone running for president (and actually has a chance) who doesn't think the US needs to decide who is and isn't running countries in the middle east. A far cry from the tide of hawks from both parties we've been inundated with for decades.


Because he's said a lot of foul discriminatory things about minority races. That stuff boils over into their native countries which ultimately effects the relationship between the United States and that particular country. If he became president, the United States would be a *much bigger* target to Muslim terrorist groups then we already are.

The problem with Trump is that he's going against the United States philosophy on the American Dream and legal inclusion. He's doing the complete opposite by exuding people and deliberately telling (direct and indirect) certain groups that a)You're not wanted here. b)If you do come here this is the type of person you will be labeled as. (Negative & Racial Profiling) 

You can't say things about groups like this and expect relationships to get better. That's not how it works.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> :kobe Stop trying to move the goal posts. When Trump talks about Christianity being under attack he explicitly talks about ISIS cutting off Christians' heads in the middle east. You were proven completely foolish by suggesting Christianity isn't under attack and are now trying to reframe the discussion to the US where we actually have some semblance of civilization left, until the leftists import more people from the middle east.


There are way more americans than cause violence in the US than those from the middle east. And a huge number of those people are christians. Also stop acting like there are not christian terrorist. 

Every religion has terrorist but people like you just like to act like its just Muslims.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> We are talking about the US here not the other parts of the world. Also like I said Christianity is always trying to push its so called values onto others, *its no wonder in other parts of the world other groups try to wipe them out as you put it. *
> 
> How in the US is Christianity being attacked ? That is what I want answered.
> 
> Humans are good deep down until religion corrupts them. Religion does nothing put teaches intolerance.


Credibility is lost... People do not deserve to die if they are annoying or disagree with you. Disgusting.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> :kobe Stop trying to move the goal posts. When Trump talks about Christianity being under attack he explicitly talks about ISIS cutting off Christians' heads in the middle east. *You were proven completely foolish by suggesting Christianity isn't under attack and are now trying to reframe the discussion *to the US where we actually have some semblance of civilization left, until the leftists import more people from the middle east.


You hit the nail on the head. Any time he is proven wrong he "reframes" his original statement to weasel out of his answer and changes the direction of the topic under discussion. It's absolutely a waste of time discussing anything with this guy.

Below is my post that he did not reply to.

- Mike


birthday_massacre said:


> How is Christianity being attacked exactly? LOL
> 
> christians always think they are being attacked they cry... because they are not allowed to to force their religion onto other people.
> 
> Christianity is always the one who is attacking others . I just laugh they play the victim.


*21 COPTIC CHRISTIANS ABOUT TO BE BEHEADED BY ISIS*









*ISIS EXECUTES CHRISTIANS FOR NOT PAYING "JIZYA," *i.e. extortion money demanded by the Koran of non-Muslims.









*AL SHABAB MASSACRES 140 CHRISTIAN STUDENTS IN KENYA*









*AL SHABAB MURDERS 36 CHRISTIANS IN KENYA*









*ISIS THUG TOPPLES CROSS ON CHRISTIAN CHURCH RAVAGED BY MUSLIMS*









*CHRISTIAN CHURCH DESTROYED BY ISIS*









*MUSLIM TOSSES CHRISTIAN CROSS INTO FIRE - ONE OF OVER 1,000 CHRISTIAN CHURCHES DELIBERATELY ATTACKED AND DESTROYED BY ISIS IN SYRIA AND IRAQ*









*MUSLIM POSES WITH PRIEST'S VESTMENTS AND CROSS AFTER ISIS DESTROYED AND LOOTED A SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH*









*SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH DESCRATED AND DESTROYED BY ISIS*


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> There are way more americans than cause violence in the US than those from the middle east. And a huge number of those people are christians. Also stop acting like there are not christian terrorist.
> 
> Every religion has terrorist but people like you just like to act like its just Muslims.


Every religion might have terrorists, but no other religion has such a unified front for terrorism. Nothing is even close to Islam. 



Hoping Trump wins SC tomorrow. As bad as Trump seems to some people, Cruz is way worse. Way worse.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> Because he's said a lot of foul discriminatory things about minority races. That stuff boils over into their native countries which ultimately effects the relationship between the United States and that particular country. If he became president, the United States would be a *much bigger* target to Muslim terrorist groups then we already are.
> 
> The problem with Trump is that he's going against the United States philosophy on the American Dream and legal inclusion. He's doing the complete opposite by exuding people and deliberately telling (direct and indirect) certain groups that a)You're not wanted here. b)If you do come here this is the type of person you will be labeled as. (Negative & Racial Profiling)
> 
> *You can't say things about groups like this and expect relationships to get better. That's not how it works.*


I think the bolded is where Democrats and Republicans disagree on how to handle extreme, radical groups IMO. 

On one side you have the Democrats who want to help the extreme group understand they are wrong and the Republicans believe there is no making them understand, you must take them out. 

Two interesting thought processes anyway.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> Because he's said a lot of foul discriminatory things about minority races. That stuff boils over into their native countries which ultimately effects the relationship between the United States and that particular country. If he became president, the United States would be a *much bigger* target to Muslim terrorist groups then we already are.
> 
> The problem with Trump is that he's going against the United States philosophy on the American Dream and legal inclusion. He's doing the complete opposite by exuding people and deliberately telling (direct and indirect) certain groups that a)You're not wanted here. b)If you do come here this is the type of person you will be labeled as. (Negative & Racial Profiling)
> 
> You can't say things about groups like this and expect relationships to get better. That's not how it works.


A lot of the "discriminatory" things have been spun hardcore

Trump's point was we need better screening for immigrants and more effort to stop illegal immigration to prevent unknown elements from crossing over(something that both democrats and republicans agree on)

Trumps actual immigration plan is greatly simplified from the current system and would be far EASIER for immigrants to get in

The catch would be if you hit one of the warning flags its over 

I'm not even really a Trump follower but the "HE'S A RACIST" was a media created image


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> Not exactly open borders though, you are smarter than that. He wants to keep all the illegal immigrants in the country who have not committed crimes but not give them citizenship. He wants to redo how immigration is done since it has to do if you have family living here.
> 
> Rubio is iffy on immigration but he would destroy Hilary or the socialist in a debate and I feel like he would attract many moderates.
> 
> Would you support him as a VP?


I don't mind him as VP because I think he would help Trump, but then again I don't want him anywhere near the presidency.

"He wants to keep all the illegal immigrants in the country who have not committed crimes"

So...none, since they all broke the law coming here :jericho2

And really it's his complete lying on the issue. He ran as a "Tea Party" candidate, latching on to that movement and going against the FL establishment, and vigorously said he was against amnesty...then he gets in power and joins the Gang of 8, not to mention he is ¡Jeb!'s protege and is as establishment as the come.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> Credibility is lost... People do not deserve to die if they are annoying or disagree with you. Disgusting.


Christians have done it to others and now its being done to them. Both are wrong but there is a reason why its happening. That is the point.



MrMister said:


> Every religion might have terrorists, but no other religion has such a unified front for terrorism. Nothing is even close to Islam.
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping Trump wins SC tomorrow. As bad as Trump seems to some people, Cruz is way worse. Way worse.


That is because when its Christian terrorism its not called that and its swept under the rug. Where as everyone freaks out when its Muslim terrorism.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> You hit the nail on the head. Any time he is proven wrong he "reframes" his original statement to weasel out of his answer and changes the direction of the topic under discussion. It's absolutely a waste of time discussing anything with this guy.
> 
> Below is my post that he did not reply to.
> 
> - Mike
> 
> 
> *21 COPTIC CHRISTIANS ABOUT TO BE BEHEADED BY ISIS*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ISIS EXECUTES CHRISTIANS FOR NOT PAYING "JIZYA," *i.e. extortion money demanded by the Koran of non-Muslims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *AL SHABAB MASSACRES 140 CHRISTIAN STUDENTS IN KENYA*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *AL SHABAB MURDERS 36 CHRISTIANS IN KENYA*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ISIS THUG TOPPLES CROSS ON CHRISTIAN CHURCH RAVAGED BY MUSLIMS*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *CHRISTIAN CHURCH DESTROYED BY ISIS*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *MUSLIM TOSSES CHRISTIAN CROSS INTO FIRE - ONE OF OVER 1,000 CHRISTIAN CHURCHES DELIBERATELY ATTACKED AND DESTROYED BY ISIS IN SYRIA AND IRAQ*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *MUSLIM POSES WITH PRIEST'S VESTMENTS AND CROSS AFTER ISIS DESTROYED AND LOOTED A SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *SYRIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH DESCRATED AND DESTROYED BY ISIS*




1. The Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church Shooting

Jim David Adkisson, a devout Christian and anti-abortion right-winger, walked into a Knoxville church on July 27th, 2008, and began firing a shotgun at children who were performing Annie Jr. He killed two and wounded seven, targeting “the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country.”

2. The Campaign of Terror Against Abortion Doctors

In 1993, Dr. Richard Gunn was shot dead by an anti-abortion protester. In 1994, Drs. John Britton and James Barrett were shot to death by Reverend Paul Jennings. In 1998, Dr. Barnett Sleipan was shot dead in his home by a Christian terrorist. In 2009, Dr. George Tiller was shot by Scott Roeder in a church. The ability for Christian right-wingers to justify cold-blooded murder in the name of their pro-life beliefs is a colossal hypocrisy worthy of a terrorist group like ISIS. According to the National Abortion Federation, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, 13 wounded, 100 butyric acid attacks, 373 physical invasions, 41 bombings, 655 anthrax threats, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers since 1977. Terrorist groups like the Taliban and ISIS are very fond of acid attacks and chemical weapons like anthrax; apparently Christian right-wing terrorists share that same preference.

3. The 1995 Oklahoma City Bombings

Timothy McVeigh, America’s most notorious domestic terrorist, was obsessed with the Seventh-Day Aventist splinter group known as the Branch Davidians, who resisted an ATF raid on their citadel at Mount Carmel in 1993. He travelled to Waco, Texas during the Waco Siege and heavily supported the religious extremists within it. Two years later, he detonated a fertilizer bomb at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing a hundred and sixty-eight people, including nineteen children, and wounded 648 others. This Christian specifically targeted innocent civilians and committed horrific acts of violence to make his political point heard – something Mr. Huckabee believes he should be incapable of, since he’s not a Muslim.

4. Everything The Ku Klux Klan Has Ever Done

Since its creation after the American Civil War, the Ku Klux Klan has been terrorizing Americans in the name of Protestantism and racial purity. Known for their terrifying costumes and hoods, they wrought have fear and violence against blacks, Jews, immigrants, gays, and Catholics for hundreds of years, responsible for countless massacres, lynchings, rapes, and bombings that have killed thousands. In the modern day, it still has a membership of 5,000 to 8,000 terrorists that operate in individual chapters. Just two weeks ago, Frazier Glenn Cross, the leader of the Carolina Knights of the KKK, was sentenced to death by lethal injection for murdering a fourteen year old girl and two seniors outside the Overland Park Jewish Community Center in Kansas City. The man gave the Hitler salute during his trial and declared that “Jews are destroying the white race.” None of his victims were Jewish.

5. The Massacre At Zion Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C.

On Wednesday, June 17th of this year, a man rose from a pew in the historically black Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC, and opened fire with a .45 caliber pistol, killing nine worshipers, including pastor and State Senator Clementa Pickiney. The shooter has been photographed wearing patches representing the racist apartheid regimes in Southwest Africa, had a Confederate license plate on his vehicle. All signs points to this being a hate crime- not only is it the oldest black church in the South, it was a symbol of resistance against slavery, and a survivor reported that the shooter yelled ‘I have to do it. You rape our women and you’re taking over our country. And you have to go.” Roof was a member of a local Lutheran church, yet somehow his baptism didn’t prevent him from gunning down innocent people in a house of worship, defiling a sacred place with hate and murder.

So the next time one of your conservative friends tries to “school” you on the “evils of Islam,” just name a couple items from this list. The rampant xenophobia that has taken hold of the Republican Party is an affront to everything this nation stands for. Terrorism spawns from the desperation of humankind, and for that, we are all guilty



Below are 10 of the worst examples of non-Islamic terrorism that have occurred in the United States in the last 30 years.

1. Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre, Aug. 5, 2012. The virulent, neocon-fueled Islamophobia that has plagued post-9/11 America has not only posed a threat to Muslims, it has had deadly consequences for people of other faiths, including Sikhs. Sikhs are not Muslims; the traditional Sikh attire, including their turbans, is different from traditional Sunni, Shiite or Sufi attire. But to a racist, a bearded Sikh looks like a Muslim. Only four days after 9/11, Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh immigrant from India who owned a gas station in Mesa, Arizona, was murdered by Frank Silva Roque, a racist who obviously mistook him for a Muslim.

But Sodhi’s murder was not the last example of anti-Sikh violence in post-9/11 America. On Aug. 5, 2012, white supremacist Wade Michael Page used a semiautomatic weapon to murder six people during an attack on a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Page’s connection to the white supremacist movement was well-documented: he had been a member of the neo-Nazi rock bands End Empathy and Definite Hate. Attorney General Eric Holder described the attack as “an act of terrorism, an act of hatred.” It was good to see the nation’s top cop acknowledge that terrorist acts can, in fact, involve white males murdering people of color.

2. The murder of Dr. George Tiller, May 31, 2009. Imagine that a physician had been the victim of an attempted assassination by an Islamic jihadist in 1993, and received numerous death threats from al-Qaeda after that, before being murdered by an al-Qaeda member. Neocons, Fox News and the Christian Right would have had a field day. A physician was the victim of a terrorist killing that day, but neither the terrorist nor the people who inflamed the terrorist were Muslims. Dr. George Tiller, who was shot and killed by anti-abortion terrorist Scott Roeder on May 31, 2009, was a victim of Christian Right terrorism, not al-Qaeda.

Tiller had a long history of being targeted for violence by Christian Right terrorists. In 1986, his clinic was firebombed. Then, in 1993, Tiller was shot five times by female Christian Right terrorist Shelly Shannon (now serving time in a federal prison) but survived that attack. Given that Tiller had been the victim of an attempted murder and received countless death threats after that, Fox News would have done well to avoid fanning the flames of unrest. Instead, Bill O’Reilly repeatedly referred to him as “Tiller the baby killer.” When Roeder murdered Tiller, O’Reilly condemned the attack but did so in a way that was lukewarm at best.

Keith Olbermann called O’Reilly out and denounced him as a “facilitator for domestic terrorism” and a “blindly irresponsible man.” And Crazy for Godauthor Frank Schaffer, who was formerly a figure on the Christian Right but has since become critical of that movement, asserted that the Christian Right’s extreme anti-abortion rhetoric “helped create the climate that made this murder likely to happen.” Neocon Ann Coulter, meanwhile, viewed Tiller’s murder as a source of comic relief, telling O’Reilly, “I don’t really like to think of it as a murder. It was terminating Tiller in the 203rd trimester.” The Republican/neocon double standard when it comes to terrorism is obvious. At Fox News and AM neocon talk radio, Islamic terrorism is a source of nonstop fear-mongering, while Christian Right terrorism gets a pass.

3. Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting, July 27, 2008. On July 27, 2008, Christian Right sympathizer Jim David Adkisson walked into the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee during a children’s play and began shooting people at random. Two were killed, while seven others were injured but survived. Adkisson said he was motivated by a hatred of liberals, Democrats and gays, and he considered neocon Bernard Goldberg’s book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America, his political manifesto. Adkisson (who pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree murder and is now serving life in prison without parole) was vehemently anti-abortion, but apparently committing an act of terrorism during a children’s play was good ol’ Republican family values. While Adkisson’s act of terrorism was reported on Fox News, it didn’t get the round-the-clock coverage an act of Islamic terrorism would have garnered.

4. The murder of Dr. John Britton, July 29, 1994. To hear the Christian Right tell it, there is no such thing as Christian terrorism. Tell that to the victims of the Army of God, a loose network of radical Christianists with a long history of terrorist attacks on abortion providers. One Christian Right terrorist with ties to the Army of God was Paul Jennings Hill, who was executed by lethal injection on Sept. 3, 2003 for the murders of abortion doctor John Britton and his bodyguard James Barrett. Hill shot both of them in cold blood and expressed no remorse whatsoever; he insisted he was doing’s God’s work and has been exalted as a martyr by the Army of God.

5. The Centennial Olympic Park bombing, July 27, 1996. Paul Jennings Hill is hardly the only Christian terrorist who has been praised by the Army of God; that organization has also praised Eric Rudolph, who is serving life without parole for a long list of terrorist attacks committed in the name of Christianity. Rudolph is best known for carrying out the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics—a blast that killed spectator Alice Hawthorne and wounded 111 others. Hawthorne wasn’t the only person Rudolph murdered: his bombing of an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama in 1998 caused the death of Robert Sanderson (a Birmingham police officer and part-time security guard) and caused nurse Emily Lyons to lose an eye.

Rudolph’s other acts of Christian terrorism include bombing the Otherwise Lounge (a lesbian bar in Atlanta) in 1997 and an abortion clinic in an Atlanta suburb in 1997. Rudolph was no lone wolf: he was part of a terrorist movement that encouraged his violence. And the Army of God continues to exalt Rudolph as a brave Christian who is doing God’s work.

6. The murder of Barnett Slepian byJames Charles Kopp, Oct. 23, 1998. Like Paul Jennings Hill, Eric Rudolph and Scott Roeder, James Charles Kopp is a radical Christian terrorist who has been exalted as a hero by the Army of God. On Oct. 23, 1998 Kopp fired a single shot into the Amherst, NY home of Barnett Slepian (a doctor who performed abortions), mortally wounding him. Slepian died an hour later. Kopp later claimed he only meant to wound Slepian, not kill him. But Judge Michael D’Amico of Erin County, NY said that the killing was clearly premeditated and sentenced Kopp to 25 years to life. Kopp is a suspect in other anti-abortion terrorist attacks, including the non-fatal shootings of three doctors in Canada, though it appears unlikely that Kopp will be extradited to Canada to face any charges.

7. Planned Parenthood bombing, Brookline, Massachusetts, 1994. Seldom has the term “Christian terrorist” been used in connection with John C. Salvi on AM talk radio or at Fox News, but it’s a term that easily applies to him. In 1994, the radical anti-abortionist and Army of God member attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic in Brookline, Massachusetts, shooting and killing receptionists Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols and wounding several others. Salvi was found dead in his prison cell in 1996, and his death was ruled a suicide. The Army of God has exalted Salvi as a Christian martyr and described Lowney and Nichols not as victims of domestic terrorism, but as infidels who got what they deserved. The Rev. Donald Spitz, a Christianist and Army of God supporter who is so extreme that even the radical anti-abortion group Operation Rescue disassociated itself from him, has praised Salvi as well.

8. Suicide attack on IRS building in Austin, Texas, Feb. 18, 2010. When Joseph Stack flew a plane into the Echelon office complex (where an IRS office was located), Fox News’ coverage of the incident was calm and matter-of-fact. Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa seemed to find the attack amusing and joked that it could have been avoided if the federal government had followed his advice and abolished the IRS. Nonetheless, there were two fatalities: Stack and IRS employee Vernon Hunter. Stack left behind a rambling suicide note outlining his reasons for the attack, which included a disdain for the IRS as well as total disgust with health insurance companies and bank bailouts. Some of the most insightful coverage of the incident came from Noam Chomsky, who said that while Stack had some legitimate grievances—millions of Americans shared his outrage over bank bailouts and the practices of health insurance companies—the way he expressed them was absolutely wrong.

9. The murder of Alan Berg, June 18, 1984. One of the most absurd claims some Republicans have made about white supremacists is that they are liberals and progressives. That claim is especially ludicrous in light of the terrorist killing of liberal Denver-based talk show host Alan Berg, a critic of white supremacists who was killed with an automatic weapon on June 18, 1984. The killing was linked to members of the Order, a white supremacist group that had marked Berg for death. Order members David Lane (a former Ku Klux Klan member who had also been active in the Aryan Nations) and Bruce Pierce were both convicted in federal court on charges of racketeering, conspiracy and violating Berg’s civil rights and given what amounted to life sentences.

Robert Matthews, who founded the Order, got that name from a fictional group in white supremacist William Luther Pierce’s anti-Semitic 1978 novel, The Turner Diaries—a book Timothy McVeigh was quite fond of. The novel’s fictional account of the destruction of a government building has been described as the inspiration for the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995.

10. Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing, April 19, 1995.Neocons and Republicans grow angry and uncomfortable whenever Timothy McVeigh is cited as an example of a non-Islamic terrorist. Pointing out that a non-Muslim white male carried out an attack as vicious and deadly as the Oklahoma City bombing doesn’t fit into their narrative that only Muslims and people of color are capable of carrying out terrorist attacks. Neocons will claim that bringing up McVeigh’s name during a discussion of terrorism is a “red herring” that distracts us from fighting radical Islamists, but that downplays the cruel, destructive nature of the attack.

Prior to the al-Qaeda attacks of 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing McVeigh orchestrated was the most deadly terrorist attack in U.S. history: 168 people were killed and more than 600 were injured. When McVeigh drove a truck filled with explosives into the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, his goal was to kill as many people as possible. Clearly, McVeigh was not motivated by radical Islam; rather, he was motivated by an extreme hatred for the U.S. government and saw the attack as revenge for the Ruby Ridge incident of 1992 and the Waco Siege in 1993. He had white supremacist leanings as well (when he was in the U.S. Army, McVeigh was reprimanded for wearing a “***********” T-shirt he had bought at a KKK demonstration). McVeigh was executed on June 11, 2001. He should have served life without parole instead, as a living reminder of the type of viciousness the extreme right is capable of.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> Because he's said a lot of foul discriminatory things about minority races.


Please give us some *direct, actual quotes *of the "foul, discriminatory things" that Trump has said about minority races. I mean actual quotes with a citation for each - *NOT* some op-ed's summary of what they think he said.



Headliner said:


> That stuff boils over into their native countries which ultimately effects the relationship between the United States and that particular country...You can't say things about groups like this and expect relationships to get better. That's not how it works


Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia, Bush's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama's bombing of Libya and engineering a bloody regime change in Ukraine are just a mere sampling of the actions of recent presidents that have "ultimately effected" U.S. relationships alot more than anything Trump has said or could say.

Trump is not someone who has a quick trigger finger or will lead us into war. It is a great deal more likely that he will lead us into peace, especially with Russia.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> I don't mind him as VP because I think he would help Trump, but then again I don't want him anywhere near the presidency.
> 
> "He wants to keep all the illegal immigrants in the country who have not committed crimes"
> 
> So...none, since they all broke the law coming here :jericho2
> 
> And really it's his complete lying on the issue. He ran as a "Tea Party" candidate, latching on to that movement and going against the FL establishment, and vigorously said he was against amnesty...then he gets in power and joins the Gang of 8, not to mention he is ¡Jeb!'s protege and is as establishment as the come.


See, I don't think Rubio is Establishment. Jeb Bush is, Mitt Romney is, John Kasich is. But Marco Rubio? He doesn't fit the criteria IMO. 

Anyway I understand your post, I guess we shall just wait and find out.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Christians have done it to others and now its being done to them. Both are wrong but there is a reason why its happening. That is the point.
> 
> 
> 
> That is because when its Christian terrorism its not called that and its swept under the rug. Where as everyone freaks out when its Muslim terrorism.


Seems to me you just have something against Christians IMO. Every group has somebody that goes over the line. 

Christian terrorism obviously blew up the Twin Towers. Christian Terrorism is the reason for ISIS. Oh wait, you think it's okay because they are annoying. Got it.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> 1. The Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church Shooting
> 2. The Campaign of Terror Against Abortion Doctors
> 3. The 1995 Oklahoma City Bombings
> 4. Everything The Ku Klux Klan Has Ever Done
> 5. The Massacre At Zion Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C.
> .


None of the above constitutes an argument against the fact that Christianity is under attack in the Middle East. Also, it is *NOT* a justification for the genocide of Christians. 

*You can't weasel out of what you said earlier with this latest long winded misdirection!* (Which I shortened considerably).

1. *Christians *were killed in the Knoxville shooting by a mentally deranged individual.

2. I don't know of any branch of Christianity or individual church parish that participated in anti-abortion killings or terrorism. Just constantly repeating "the Christian Right" doesn't make your case for a Christian conspiracy to kill abortion doctors. 

3. *Timoth McVeigh *was a *self-avowed agnostic* who did not believe in God period.

4. The atrocities of the Ku Klux Klan were committed in the name of racial superiority and race hatred - *NOT* in the name of Christianity. Burning the Cross in a ceremony is an abomination to a Christian.

5. The massacre at the Mt. Zion Emmanuel Church resulted in the death of *9 Christians* at the hands of a racist who, like the KKK, was acting in the name of racial superiority and race hatred - *NOT* in the name of Christianity.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Not everyone has a college education and a lot of people working full time at Mc Donald's are mothers or fathers trying to support a family and they can't do that on $8 an hour , and this isn't just about Mc Donald's, there are tons jobs that ask for a college degree that are fun time and only pay $10-12 an hour, I am talking about office jobs and no one can live on that wage.
> 
> People just like to use Mc Donald's as an example since its a low paying job but there are millions of jobs that call for a degree and are professional entry level jobs that pay less than $15 an hour, so how are those people supposed to support a family or themselves ? Those are the jobs that need the minimum wage increase the most.
> 
> Companies are making billions of dollars and their CEO's are making millions of dollars per year, those companies can pay their lowest workers a living wage. People need to stop acting like they can't. The more money people have the more they will spend it thus the more companies will make money.
> 
> Companies need to reinvest their profits to hiring more people and giving them a living wage to stimulate the economy.


After the first "modern-style" federal minimum wage law went into effect in 1938, at 25 cent, even the U.S. Department of Labor determined that approximately 40,000-50,000 low-skilled jobs had been lost as a direct consequence of the law. Comprehensive reviews of all minimum wage laws and their effects were undertaken by the Federal Minimum Wage Commission in 1981, finding that in every instance of a raise in the minimum wage, employment declined and unemployment increased. For every 10% increase in the minimum wage, the study found, employment declined 2%-3%. William Waschler and David Neumark wrote perhaps the most exhaustive study on the history of minimum wage laws in 2006, discovering through over 100 minimum wage studies in all of academia, concluding that over 85% of the best reviews and studies found the same thing, over and over: low-skilled employment declined sharply with the implementation of each minimum wage law. 

In 1948 teenage unemployment rates were approximately 10%. Workers over age 25 had a 3.4% unemployment rate at the time, a 6.6% differential. In the year 2012 teen unemployment was at a staggering 28%, and hovering around 45% for black teenagers. The gap is 19% higher than the general workforce unemployment rate today. Teens are the most directly hit by minimum wage laws but I do agree that an expansion of said laws will impact mothers and fathers, too.

Perhaps most illustrative: states which have the degree of wisdom to at least set a dramatically lower minimum wage for teenaged workers almost always have vastly lower unemployment rates for teenagers. Texas and Florida, for instance, have drastically lower minimum wages for teenagers, and those states boast considerably higher teen employment rates than states like California, which stubbornly refuse to lower minimum wage rates for teens, and today have embarrassingly high teenage unemployment rates.

Government wage fixing in the U.S. has had a grievous impact upon the poorest and the youngest seeking employment, and the expansion of same will only exacerbate the effect.

I completely agree that the cost of living is swallowing up whole many of this country's poorest people, but rather than install yet more wage-fixing, the better answer is to strike back against the inflationary practices of the U.S. government and Federal Reserve, and, to whatever degree possible, restore at least some value to the currency being exchanged between employer and employee, just for starters. Take care!



stevefox1200 said:


> Thanks
> 
> I thought it was terribly said because I wrote it at 2:00 in the morning with no proofreading so I ended up the EPIC compound word knowone
> 
> Still, I stand by my point
> 
> Trump is the one politician who is not pandering to a special interest group and saying "Vote for me and get cool shit if I win" (which is ironically closer to a business man than the actual businessman running)
> 
> Trump is sending the message that "If I win I will give you the ability to succeeded without giving or taking anything away and when you do you won't owe me a damn thing" which is one of the foundations of the founding of the US
> 
> People make fun of the US following a "200 year old piece of paper" but that piece of paper guarantees things that many more "enlightened nations" still don't have like absolute freedom of expression
> 
> That piece of paper still offers more and anyone who says that having less freedoms and protection makes things better must just agree with the guy in charge on everything
> 
> If we cut down all the baggage that laws have created and go down to the foundation and perfect it everything should go smoothly because of how good that foundation is
> 
> Everyone is promising to "change" the world but its not about changing the world its about keeping what works the same


Indeed, good points.

The degree to which free speech is unprotected in, say, France and Germany, has always been a troubling point from afar. Do not say that to bash those countries, either; far from it. I'm the last one to thump my chest about my home country but it's true that on some matters it remains the superior example. Let us hope it remains so. Take care!


----------



## Badbadrobot

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> None of the above constitutes an argument against the fact that Christianity is under attack in the Middle East. Also, it is *NOT* a justification for the genocide of Christians.
> 
> *You can't weasel out of what you said earlier with this latest long winded misdirection!* (Which I shortened considerably).
> 
> 1. *Christians *were killed in the Knoxville shooting by a mentally deranged individual.
> 
> 2. I don't know of any branch of Christianity or individual church parish that participated in anti-abortion killings or terrorism. Just constantly repeating "the Christian Right" doesn't make your case for a Christian conspiracy to kill abortion doctors.
> 
> 3. *Timoth McVeigh *was a *self-avowed agnostic* who did not believe in God period.
> 
> 4. The atrocities of the Ku Klux Klan were committed in the name of racial superiority and race hatred - *NOT* in the name of Christianity. Burning the Cross in a ceremony is an abomination to a Christian.
> 
> 5. The massacre at the Mt. Zion Emmanuel Church resulted in the death of *9 Christians* at the hands of a racist who, like the KKK, was acting in the name of racial superiority and race hatred - *NOT* in the name of Christianity.


Point is dumb ass .all religions get their fair share of nut jobs doing stuff in their name or against it.

Fuck religion and fuck ppl who think it will save them when they do evil things in its name, cowards.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Mass shootings are politically motivated yet NAH not terrorism because white Muricans are doing them. We can't admit we have a MASSIVE problem in this country. You can't begin to fix a problem that you won't admit to etc.

But as bad as this shit is in the United States, there is no united front for these maniacs. Under the guise of Islam, however, there is a very focused and united group of terrorists. 

The KKK is indeed a Christian terrorist group, but fortunately they haven't done shit for decades. It's a dying/dead thing. There was that one shooter recently in SC, but I think he was a lone wolf. It was total bullshit that shooter was not called a terrorist. IT WAS A HATE CRIME. lol gtfo that asshole was a terrorist.

Rage level rising.

But yeah Islam pretty much corners the market on organized terrorism.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> Seems to me you just have something against Christians IMO. Every group has somebody that goes over the line.
> 
> Christian terrorism obviously blew up the Twin Towers. Christian Terrorism is the reason for ISIS. Oh wait, you think it's okay because they are annoying. Got it.


I am against all religions since it's all non sense and its used to push peoples beliefs onto others and force them to follow their rules. 

I also never said it was ok to kill Christians nice straw man argument there. I said I can see why christians would be killed since they have done it in the past to other and they try to push their beliefs onto others trying to get people to follow christianity. I can see why there is a backlash against in.

I just think its funny people talk about oh kill all muslims blow them up but when that is happening to christians people are all up in arms. 

There is plenty of christian terrorism out there but keep ignoring that and just focus on Muslim terrorist. You just keep proving my point


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> None of the above constitutes an argument against the fact that Christianity is under attack in the Middle East. Also, it is *NOT* a justification for the genocide of Christians.
> 
> *You can't weasel out of what you said earlier with this latest long winded misdirection!* (Which I shortened considerably).
> 
> 1. *Christians *were killed in the Knoxville shooting by a mentally deranged individual.
> 
> 2. I don't know of any branch of Christianity or individual church parish that participated in anti-abortion killings or terrorism. Just constantly repeating "the Christian Right" doesn't make your case for a Christian conspiracy to kill abortion doctors.
> 
> 3. *Timoth McVeigh *was a *self-avowed agnostic* who did not believe in God period.
> 
> 4. The atrocities of the Ku Klux Klan were committed in the name of racial superiority and race hatred - *NOT* in the name of Christianity. Burning the Cross in a ceremony is an abomination to a Christian.
> 
> 5. The massacre at the Mt. Zion Emmanuel Church resulted in the death of *9 Christians* at the hands of a racist who, like the KKK, was acting in the name of racial superiority and race hatred - *NOT* in the name of Christianity.



KKK admits they are a Christian group all the time. Nice try. And just because Christian terrorist happen to kill some christians doesn't mean they are not christian terrorist. Hate crimes by christians are still terrorist acts. I love how when Christian comment terrorist acts its called a hate crime. Using that logic ISIS are not doing terrorist acts when killing people, they are just doing hate crimes.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> I am against all religions since it's all non sense and its used to push peoples beliefs onto others and force them to follow their rules.
> 
> I also never said it was ok to kill Christians nice straw man argument there. I said I can see why christians would be killed since they have done it in the past to other and they try to push their beliefs onto others trying to get people to follow christianity. I can see why there is a backlash against in.
> 
> I just think its funny people talk about oh kill all muslims blow them up but when that is happening to christians people are all up in arms.
> 
> There is plenty of christian terrorism out there but keep ignoring that and just focus on Muslim terrorist. You just keep proving my point





How am I proving your point? I clearly acknowledge that stuff like this goes on with every group. Oh well no point in arguing with you still lol.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

If Christians were the ones coming here and comitting shootings like the ones in San B. and blowing themselves up in the name of Jesus or Yahweh i'd want them banned from the US just as much as the refugees right now. 

The problem we currently face consists of radical islamists. That is a fact.


----------



## Headliner

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> A lot of the "discriminatory" things have been spun hardcore
> 
> Trump's point was we need better screening for immigrants and more effort to stop illegal immigration to prevent unknown elements from crossing over(something that both democrats and republicans agree on)
> 
> Trumps actual immigration plan is greatly simplified from the current system and would be far EASIER for immigrants to get in
> 
> The catch would be if you hit one of the warning flags its over
> 
> I'm not even really a Trump follower but the "HE'S A RACIST" was a media created image


It wasn't spun hardcore. And you can't just eliminate the bad things he said and try to focus on the other things he said like everything is ok. 


Batko10 said:


> Please give us some *direct, actual quotes *of the "foul, discriminatory things" that Trump has said about minority races. I mean actual quotes with a citation for each - *NOT* some op-ed's summary of what they think he said.


:mj4 I can't say I'm surprised with the people on here.



















So as a presidential candidate this dude labeled Mexicans as rapists & criminals, claim that someone only likes Mexican illegals because of their wife, then try to turn around and say you love Mexicans and some of them are good people. You can't have your cake and eat it too. That's discriminatory behavior. Especially when he talks about building a high priced wall and claiming the Mexicans will pay for it. That's anti-Mexican hostility and ignorance at it's finest. (Not to mention he was presenting false information in some cases but yeah)






Yes, let's exhibit discriminatory behavior against the Muslims to make matters worst than it already is and create bigger problems for yourself. All you're going to do is piss off the Muslims that are here and turn people against each other.

We can go back to the 80's and 90's. Trump has a history of saying wild discriminatory things. There's a much better way to say things without offending legions of people. 

The funniest thing about all of this is, the extreme Trump supporters are ten times worst than Trump and they represent everything that is wrong with this country.


----------



## Rick_James

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> KKK admits they are a Christian group all the time. Nice try. And just because Christian terrorist happen to kill some christians doesn't mean they are not christian terrorist. Hate crimes by christians are still terrorist acts. I love how when Christian comment terrorist acts its called a hate crime. Using that logic ISIS are not doing terrorist acts when killing people, they are just doing hate crimes.


I don't think the KKK are actually committing the acts that they do because of christianity or it's influence, rather they are doing so because of their prejudicial beliefs. With Islam, it's the opposite, they are doing it because of what their religion says to do. 

That being said, of course not every person that follow that religion will interpret the teachings that way - there are plenty of peaceful people that follow Islam. But on the flip side compared to other religions of the world it's far more dangerous. In the grand scope of things, roughly half of the nations that follow Islam are governed by Sharia law, it's either tied in with their actual legal system, or it actually holds authority over their legal system. 

That essentially means that a lot of the crimes against humanity committed in the name of Islam more often then not are sanctioned by those communities. They may not actually stone people to death, set people on fire, or chop their heads off, but they have no problem if someone else does it. 

That's part of the problem. Another problem is their complete lack of respect for females. A lot of the european nations that accepted migrants are now learning that rather quick from the rape crisis that has been occurring for months now. 

And obviously Donald Trump does not hate muslims, but he is advocating putting in a screening system to make sure we do not bring that type of chaos to our own country, something which I think makes sense. And is it politically correct? Not really, but that's kind of how Trump has won over so many.


----------



## Rick_James

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> It wasn't spun hardcore. And you can't just eliminate the bad things he said and try to focus on the other things he said like everything is ok.
> 
> :mj4 I can't say I'm surprised with the people on here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as a presidential candidate this dude labeled Mexicans as rapists & criminals, claim that someone only likes Mexican illegals because of their wife, then try to turn around and say you love Mexicans and some of them are good people. You can't have your cake and eat it too. That's discriminatory behavior. Especially when he talks about building a high priced wall and claiming the Mexicans will pay for it. That's anti-Mexican hostility and ignorance at it's finest. (Not to mention he was presenting false information in some cases but yeah)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, let's exhibit discriminatory behavior against the Muslims to make matters worst than it already is and create bigger problems for yourself. All you're going to do is piss off the Muslims that are here and turn people against each other.
> 
> We can go back to the 80's and 90's. Trump has a history of saying wild discriminatory things. There's a much better way to say things without offending legions of people.
> 
> The funniest thing about all of this is, the extreme Trump supporters are ten times worst than Trump and they represent everything that is wrong with this country.


Headliner you have fallen victim to the left wing media's portrayal of Trump. Trump does not want to permanently ban muslims *forever*, but rather suggests that it makes sense that we put a stop on them from entering the country while there are many of them that seek to murder Americans. When you couple that with the fact that ISIS has access to tools that can create fake passports, I don't think that's "racist".

For example, if someone said they were going to kill you and were 100% serious about it.... would you let that person stay in your home? lol. I hope not. 

Of course not every muslim wants to do this but it's sort of the President's job to make sure Americans stay safe. If they do want to come to our country, the opportunity will be there, but not while we are at war with ISIS. 

As for the Mexican comment, rape is actually a massive problem for border crossers, as well as drugs. The drug thing is a no brainer. He did say some may be good people, but on the flip side illegal immigration brings in A LOT of problems. Liberals will say "well at least it gives us cheap farmers" lol, yeah but at what price? Those cheap workers end up driving down the cost of labor for every business in the long run, aren't liberals for raising the minimum wage?

And Trump is fine with migrants, as long as they do it legally. As in, simply following the law, something our government is supposed to be doing anyway.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> :mj4 I can't say I'm surprised with the people on here.


Why is it a problem to be asked to provide evidence for your statements? I don't understand. 



>


This a quote of a tweet someone else made. What Trump himself actually said was that Jeb Bush had a soft spot for illegal immigrants because of his wife, which is paraphrasing what Jeb Bush said in his own book. Nothing discriminatory or racist there at all. 



> So as a presidential candidate this dude labeled Mexicans as rapists & criminals, claim that someone only likes Mexican illegals because of their wife, then try to turn around and say you love Mexicans and some of them are good people. You can't have your cake and eat it too. That's discriminatory behavior. Especially when he talks about building a high priced wall and claiming the Mexicans will pay for it. That's anti-Mexican hostility and ignorance at it's finest. (Not to mention he was presenting false information in some cases but yeah)


He didn't "label Mexicans as rapists & criminals". He was talking about a portion of illegal immigrants. If you have to drop significant identifiers in your claims about a person, you're probably just making shit up and it's better not to say anything at all.

He's said he wants to make it easier for people to come here legally and that he loves the Mexican people. This doesn't contradict his statements about a portion of ILLEGAL immigrants whatsoever.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

As far as banning all muslims, I don't even agree with that policy, but it's not racist. It is discriminatory of course but just because something discriminates doesn't mean it's wrong. That's kind of a leftist double-think tactic to make people just roll over on their principles. Everyone discriminates in some way every day, and previous presidents have banned immigration from countries we're at war with. That was discriminatory. Was it wrong? I don't think so. 

I do think it'd be prudent to ban immigrants from countries we're currently bombing though, including people who migrated from those countries to a European proxy and then tried to come here. We're bombing their country. It's reasonable to suspect they have some ill will towards us. We should stop doing that. In the meantime, close the borders to those countries while things cool over. Makes sense to me.


----------



## Headliner

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Rick_James said:


> Headliner you have fallen victim to the left wing media's portrayal of Trump. Trump does not want to permanently ban muslims *forever*, but rather suggests that it makes sense that we put a stop on them from entering the country while there are many of them that seek to murder Americans. When you couple that with the fact that ISIS has access to tools that can create fake passports, I don't think that's "racist".
> 
> For example, if someone said they were going to kill you and were 100% serious about it.... would you let that person stay in your home? lol. I hope not.
> 
> Of course not every muslim wants to do this but it's sort of the President's job to make sure Americans stay safe. If they do want to come to our country, the opportunity will be there, but not while we are at war with ISIS.
> 
> As for the Mexican comment, rape is actually a massive problem for border crossers, as well as drugs. The drug thing is a no brainer. He did say some may be good people, but on the flip side illegal immigration brings in A LOT of problems. Liberals will say "well at least it gives us cheap farmers" lol, yeah but at what price? Those cheap workers end up driving down the cost of labor for every business in the long run, aren't liberals for raising the minimum wage?
> 
> And Trump is fine with migrants, as long as they do it legally. As in, simply following the law, something our government is supposed to be doing anyway.


No, I haven't. I know everything he has said. You don't need to explain to me. 

Do you understand racial sensitivity? When you point a finger at a race while trying to say you like them at the same time (indirect damage control), that doesn't work. When you say negative things about a ethnic group like that, a lot of people in that group will take offense to that because of the pride they have for their group *especially* if they don't believe the claims to be true. Which is primarily why he's having such backlash from Mexicans. *You have to be very careful with the things you say. *

That would be like Obama saying, I like white people, but white parents need to do a better job so that your kids stop shooting up schools. They would hang his black ass for saying that. Now, that was an extreme example, but now you clearly see how saying things about another race so blatantly can offend people. 

You don't understand what Trump is doing. Because he's saying things like this that are only entry level discriminatory at best, he has opened the flood gates for the real racists in America to come out of their holes and show their true colors while claiming support for Trump. We've seen it numerous times over the campaign. This is not good for America in 2016.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

To be blunt, Trump had to gain a following aka momentum fast and almost out of nowhere. I say almost because he's been an established celebrity for decades now. Pretty much everyone knows who he is, and they all have their opinions of him.

He had to appeal to the masses of his party. Yes, some of those are racists. Not all of them are. All of them do feel betrayed by their government though. This is the main focus of TRUMP (the racial stuff just gets too much press). Also look at the early states in the primary/caucus system. Iowa and South Carolina. NH was always a slam dunk because they're Trump's backyard. So he appealed to much of the white GOP constituency because those are the people that will help him win those states. Iowa didn't work out as far an actual win but it was good for him. Trump's 2nd place showing is actually impressive considering how evangelical the GOP is there. But it goes to show Trump's plan is working. The race was pretty close and it got a record GOP voter turnout; Cruz also used some very underhanded tactics in Iowa, which is such a shock because he's such a great guy (fuck Cruz, Texans are such morons for electing this piece of shit). 

The jury is out on SC. We shall see tomorrow.


----------



## Rick_James

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> No, I haven't. I know everything he has said. You don't need to explain to me.
> 
> Do you understand racial sensitivity? When you point a finger at a race while trying to say you like them at the same time (indirect damage control), that doesn't work. When you say negative things about a ethnic group like that, a lot of people in that group will take offense to that because of the pride they have for their group *especially* if they don't believe the claims to be true. Which is primarily why he's having such backlash from Mexicans. *You have to be very careful with the things you say. *
> 
> That would be like Obama saying, I like white people, but white parents need to do a better job so that your kids stop shooting up schools. They would hang his black ass for saying that. Now, that was an extreme example, but now you clearly see how saying things about another race so blatantly can offend people.
> 
> You don't understand what Trump is doing. Because he's saying things like this that are only entry level discriminatory at best, he has opened the flood gates for the real racists in America to come out of their holes and show their true colors while claiming support for Trump. We've seen it numerous times over the campaign. This is not good for America in 2016.


Racial sensitivity is what is allowing some of these problems to exist. It essentially leads to this wacky scenario where politicians and government's can't acknowledge things that are happening because it may hurt people's feelings. It's easy to say "TRUMP THINKS ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS" but it's simply not true, Trump is only getting flack because he's not saying "There's good muslims and there's bad muslims" before he goes into a critique. He does this because most people understand what he is saying.... well most, except for people that are looking for ways to be offended lol.

And the difference between terroristic attacks or problems caused by drug cartels is pretty vast compared to school shootings. Plus you're ignoring the fact that Obama brings up gun violence A LOT as it is lol.

And of course there will be assholes that support a political candidate, but that should not, I feel at least, be used as a way to criticize said candidate. For example Vester Lee Flanagan was an Obama supporter, and you may hate ring wing media outlets, but I don't think any tried to link the two together or say "hey look at what Obama has convinced his followers to do".


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump has not pointed a finger at any race. fpalm Please stop making things up when they've been debunked time and time again.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

We have illegals.

They happen to be mexican (and other nationalities)

Trump pointing out that we have a problem with ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS that are rapists also in many cases, is not racist nor a faleshood. He is stating fact: Rapists and murderers are coming from mexico. That's as far as it goes.


----------



## Headliner

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Rick_James said:


> Racial sensitivity is what is allowing some of these problems to exist. It essentially leads to this wacky scenario where politicians and government's can't acknowledge things that are happening because it may hurt people's feelings. It's easy to say "TRUMP THINKS ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS" but it's simply not true, Trump is only getting flack because he's not saying "There's good muslims and there's bad muslims" before he goes into a critique. He does this because most people understand what he is saying.... well most, except for people that are looking for ways to be offended lol.
> 
> And the difference between terroristic attacks or problems caused by drug cartels is pretty vast compared to school shootings. Plus you're ignoring the fact that Obama brings up gun violence A LOT as it is lol.
> 
> And of course there will be assholes that support a political candidate, but that should not, I feel at least, be used as a way to criticize said candidate. For example Vester Lee Flanagan was an Obama supporter, and you may hate ring wing media outlets, but I don't think any tried to link the two together or say "hey look at what Obama has convinced his followers to do".


I'm not ignoring anything about Obama. This has nothing to do with him. I told you that it was an extreme example, but it would still result in the same backlash and reaction from the accused reaction. That was the point. 

You don't understand how people who belong to minority races are forced to deal with the label and stigma of their race assigned by another group. They are not given the same open opportunity for individual judgement as the majority.

Examples:

a)An African American has to worry about people thinking he or she isn't intelligent, or exhibits aggressive "thug" (another word for the n word btw) behavior when around other groups. This doesn't happen all the time, but there are plenty of times when that thought is in the back of an African-American's mind. 

b)A Mexican will have to worry about people thinking they are lazy, dirty, uneducated, possible drug gang members, alcoholic, other accusations that gets thrown their way. 

c)A Muslim will have to worry about people thinking they are evil, cold hearted people because of what other people in their race has done. 

This is purely psychological. So when someone says something offensive like that, as a member of the minority group you identify with, you take offense to that especially if you don't believe it to be true. It's not so much being politically correct as it is being morally correct because they don't have the same luxuries as the majority.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> I'm not ignoring anything about Obama. This has nothing to do with him. I told you that it was an extreme example, but it would still result in the same backlash and reaction from the accused reaction. That was the point.
> 
> You don't understand how people who belong to minority races are forced to deal with the label and stigma of their race assigned by another group. They are not given the same open opportunity for individual judgement as the majority.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> a)An African American has to worry about people thinking he or she isn't intelligent, or exhibits aggressive "thug" (another word for the n word btw) behavior when around other groups. This doesn't happen all the time, but there are plenty of times when that thought is in the back of an African-American's mind.
> 
> b)A Mexican will have to worry about people thinking they are lazy, dirty, uneducated, possible drug gang members, alcoholic, other accusations that gets thrown their way.
> 
> c)A Muslim will have to worry about people thinking they are evil, cold hearted people because of what other people in their race has done.
> 
> This is purely psychological. So when someone says something offensive like that, as a member of the minority group you identify with, you take offense to that especially if you don't believe it to be true. It's not so much being politically correct as it is being morally correct because they don't have the same luxuries as the majority.


Really, headliner? because a large number of legal hispanics are coming out saying that Trump is actually correct.

In fact, most of the backlash Trump is getting is coming from already left leaning groups.


----------



## SpeedStick

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> Let's be smart and vote for Donald Trump so he can get us into World War III, IV, and V.:mj4


Well people should stop voting Democrat and Republican anyways , When you vote, vote a write-in candidate


----------



## DOPA

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

A lot of interesting discussion in this thread about the minimum wage, inflation and Trump so I figured I'd weight in on this.

There is no doubt that the minimum wage has an inflationary effect on the prices of goods. However that is not the main reason why the minimum wage and it's rise is a bad idea with bad consequences.

The minimum wage in itself is a bad idea because it raises of the cost of production for businesses. What liberals seem to fail to understand is that the MW far from helping employees and companies ends up hurting small and medium size businesses the most, the very same middle class people that progressives are trying to help. Those businesses who can't afford to keep up with the imposition of the Minimum Wage at their current level of investment ultimately have to cut costs in order to at least break even over the financial year. These cuts could come from their supply or production or it can come in the form of cutting hours for staff or decreasing the size of their workforce. This leads to unemployment. 

The biggest recent example of this is Seattle and the $15 minimum wage hike. Early studies have shown so far the type of negative impacts the hike has made on low skilled workers and small businesses. Between January and June of last year the restaurant industry saw a loss of *1,300 jobs* in the Seattle area. *1,000* of those job losses came in the month of May which is a month after the minimum wage law was enforced. Those are largest drops of unemployment in the area since the *economic depression of 2009.* That is compared to the restaurant employment nationally increasing by *1.2%* (130,700 jobs) and the non-Seattle restuarant employment rate in Washington increasing by *3.2% and 3200 jobs.* Furthermore in the *previous three years* saw an average employment *gain of 4,000 employees in the restaurant industry.*

Of course we will have to see the long term implications of the minimum wage hike over the next few years but the evidence thus far is pretty damning to the supporters of the minimum wage and has so far shown that the minimum wage increase is an action with good intentions but bad results. @DesolationRow's findings are also very indicative of the true effects the minimum wage has on low skilled, young and inexperienced workers. The evidence thus far all points to the minimum wage having a negative impact overall in terms of economic growth and employment.

Of course big corporations are able to pay these increases in wage whilst at the same time benefit from the MW laws. The wage hike which increases supply costs for businesses means corporations can maintain a larger share of the market as smaller businesses struggle to break through due to the ever increasing costs of production. Meanwhile no business is going to enact on these laws and willingly incur losses. Big business will find a way to cut costs whether it be through cutting back on their expansion, closing shops, cutting costs on machinery and supply or in the worst case scenario cut their employees hours, reduce or not even give any overtime or let go some of their employees. Remember that low level workers will always be dispensable and if letting go of some of their employees will allow a business to cut costs to break even or to make a profit and expand then a corporation will always do what's best for business (to pardon the phrase). Thus the minimum wage effectively markets out some of the workforce in terms of their current market value not allowing them to stay employed and potentially move up the ladder to more well paid employment.

As far as Trump is concerned, I am not a supporter of his. I believe in some ways he is more authoritarian than a lot of the GOP and Democrats. His views on Imminent Domain are particularly worrying and his immigration policies are too extreme and that is coming from someone who believes in controlled immigration. The building of a wall has to be one of the stupidest policies I have ever heard.

However he does hold some views and said some things that have pleasantly surprised me. His foreign policy for example is actually the most sane out of the mainstream parties barring Rand Paul who is no longer in the race. He recognizes that America's intervention in the middle east was a mistake and he is not eager to impose a no fly zone and shoot down Russian planes to start WW3 like the majority of Republicans and Democrats. He also realizes that it was at the behest of Iraq and Assad that the Russians decided to intervene to begin with and so the US has no formal right to impose a no fly zone over an area Russian has been asked to intervene in. Plus he's the only candidate who can see the benefits of Russian intervention instead of the US always being the ones to fight other people's battles. He also is one of the only politicians to address the fact that the economy is once again in a bubble due to the Federal Reserves policies particularly in regards to the bonds market which has been driven by the central bank for years. Even Kyle Kulinski who is a progressive radio host for Secular Talk is savvy enough to recognize this even though he still defends Obama on a lot of his legacy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8x-3urT0zw

He even argued that restrictions on healthcare with customers not being able to cross state borders to access private insurance is not allowing competition to properly be enforced to bring prices down, which he is absolutely correct on. So I think a lot of Trump's detractors tend to ignore the good talking points in favour of the bad ones.

In some ways I think Trump is a better candidate than the likes of Rubio, Cruz and Clinton because of his views on foreign policy for example. If for one reason alone as to why Trump is a better candidate than the majority of those running for office is because he isn't afraid to say what he thinks and actually feels like he's putting forward policies that will actually move the country in the right direction...even if he is wrong or perhaps playing the voters to a certain degree. His attack on political correctness alone is something I find commendable.


----------



## Headliner

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Really, headliner? because a large number of legal hispanics are coming out saying that Trump is actually correct.
> 
> In fact, most of the backlash Trump is getting is coming from already left leaning groups.


Yeah because Mexicans haven't been lining up to Trump's rallies to protest and Latin celebrities haven't been speaking out against Trump. Whenever you say something ignorant against a race, there's always some in that race who agree with it. Nice try.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump supporters making retroactive correction on his intent when he was sprouting his rhetoric by saying he didn't say all Mexicans or a permanent ban on Muslims while celebrating his contempt for political correctness. :fpalm

That's like shouting loudly at one individual in a room and then saying sorry to other people in the room if they got startled because it wasn't your intent, knowing fully that others in the room will get affected by your conduct.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> We have illegals.
> 
> They happen to be mexican (and other nationalities)
> 
> Trump pointing out that we have a problem with ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS that are rapists also in many cases, is not racist nor a faleshood. He is stating fact: Rapists and murderers are coming from mexico. That's as far as it goes.


There are rapist and murders that are US citizens way more than the few that come from Mexico. But of course you don't hear Trump talking about them. '

As for Trump only talking about illegals here was his quote.










No where in that quote did he say ILLEGALS , he is also inferring that MOST of the people from Mexico are criminals and rapists, the he says SOME which means a little are good people.

those are Trumps own words.


----------



## Beatles123

birthday_massacre said:


> There are rapist and murders that are US citizens way more than the few that come from Mexico. But of course you don't hear Trump talking about them. '
> 
> As for Trump only talking about illegals here was his quote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No where in that quote did he say ILLEGALS , he is also inferring that MOST of the people from Mexico are criminals and rapists, the he says SOME which means a little are good people.
> 
> those are Trumps own words.


You clearly have been missing the part where mexico has been making a concerted effort to drive its criminals over here. THIS is the sect Trump speaks of. Never mind the drug trafficking or the illegal money wiring.



FriedTofu said:


> Trump supporters making retroactive correction on his intent when he was sprouting his rhetoric by saying he didn't say all Mexicans or a permanent ban on Muslims while celebrating his contempt for political correctness. :fpalm
> 
> That's like shouting loudly at one individual in a room and then saying sorry to other people in the room if they got startled because it wasn't your intent, knowing fully that others in the room will get affected by your conduct.


anyone with a brain can see he was painting no one with a broad stroke. Just because the media has a certain narrative going that only the smart ones dislike trump doesn't make it true. If people really want to pretend he was not being factual about illegal immigration, that's on them. I could care less what side of the issue they THINK is right.

As for Muslims, I told you before: if it were radicalized Christians blowing up, ii'd want them banned too. Radical islam is a threat and bannings like this have been done before. People have a right to believe what they want, not kill in the name of it.


----------



## Truthbetold

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> I'm not ignoring anything about Obama. This has nothing to do with him. I told you that it was an extreme example, but it would still result in the same backlash and reaction from the accused reaction. That was the point.
> 
> You don't understand how people who belong to minority races are forced to deal with the label and stigma of their race assigned by another group. They are not given the same open opportunity for individual judgement as the majority.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> a)An African American has to worry about people thinking he or she isn't intelligent, *or exhibits aggressive "thug" (another word for the n word btw) behavior* when around other groups. This doesn't happen all the time, but there are plenty of times when that thought is in the back of an African-American's mind.
> 
> b)A Mexican will have to worry about people thinking they are lazy, dirty, uneducated, possible drug gang members, alcoholic, other accusations that gets thrown their way.
> 
> c)A Muslim will have to worry about people thinking they are evil, cold hearted people because of what other people in their race has done.
> 
> This is purely psychological. So when someone says something offensive like that, as a member of the minority group you identify with, you take offense to that especially if you don't believe it to be true. It's not so much being politically correct as it is being morally correct because they don't have the same luxuries as the majority.


I agree with you 100% on this and think it needs to be explained why that is. White people in both Europe and America hide their millions of poor, impoverished and oppressed away in trailer parks and slums with no voice. Black people on the other hand let degenerate crack dealer rappers like Jay-Z & Rick Ross be the voice of African American culture for the entire world to see which stereotypes a whole race. 

The people who control the media







then exploit the culture and make money off it's ignorance.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

There are plenty of black leaders I respect.

Beyonce is not one of them and nor is ANYONE in the BLM.

Does that make me racist? To the left it does.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> anyone with a brain can see he was painting no one with a broad stroke. Just because the media has a certain narrative going that only the smart ones dislike trump doesn't make it true. If people really want to pretend he was not being factual about illegal immigration, that's on them. I could care less what side of the issue they THINK is right.


How can you claim he was being factual about illegal immigration, blame a media narrative when Trump said, and *YOU* post shit like



> *mexico has been making a concerted effort to drive its criminals over here.*


Trump has struggled to find evidence to justify this theory or identify his sources on this. The 'media narrative' even gave him an excuse by saying it happened 30 years ago with Cuba but there is no evidence that this BS is happening today or recent past from Mexico.



> As for Muslims, I told you before: if it were radicalized Christians blowing up, ii'd want them banned too. Radical islam is a threat and bannings like this have been done before. People have a right to believe what they want, not kill in the name of it.


Radical pro-lifers attempted arson and murders on clinics and doctors who provide abortion. And they have been doing this in America far longer than radical Islam. Why has there been no clamouring for bannings on Christianity from Trump?


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> There are rapist and murders that are US citizens way more than the few that come from Mexico. But of course you don't hear Trump talking about them. '
> 
> As for Trump only talking about illegals here was his quote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No where in that quote did he say ILLEGALS , he is also inferring that MOST of the people from Mexico are criminals and rapists, the he says SOME which means a little are good people.
> 
> those are Trumps own words.


Have you listened to the speech? Huff Post took out the quote where he did not say illegals, but it is a left leaning site. 

Republicans (most of anyway) understand that losing a job may be part of life, they understand that a family member passing away due to an extreme accident is part of life, they understand people wanting to come into the greatest country on Earth is part of life..gal citizen*.We just ask ONE thing. That one thing is they do all these things as a legal citizen of the U.S.*


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Getting a bit heated in this thread. It's inevitable with politics.

Let's tone it down.


----------



## Truthbetold

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> You clearly have been missing the part where mexico has been making a concerted effort to drive its criminals over here. THIS is the sect Trump speaks of. Never mind the drug trafficking or the illegal money wiring.


Why would Mexico want to pay to keep their criminals in prisons when they can send them to America which has the largest prison industrial complex in the world.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> How can you claim he was being factual about illegal immigration, blame a media narrative when Trump said, and *YOU* post shit like
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has struggled to find evidence to justify this theory or identify his sources on this. The 'media narrative' even gave him an excuse by saying it happened 30 years ago with Cuba but there is no evidence that this BS is happening today or recent past from Mexico.


Oh no?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...efits-admitting-theyre-country-illegally.html

https://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legisla...s/immigration/mexican-gov-illegal-booklet.htm

It's at least pretty effing clear they don't care how they get over here, legal or not.

They are indirectly enticing them at best.

Edit:

Mr. Mister is right. Understand, we all want the same thing. Anyone is free to disagree with Trump or support him, but we all need to remind ourselves this is just a dialog.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> There are plenty of black leaders I respect.
> 
> Beyonce is not one of them and nor is ANYONE in the BLM.
> 
> Does that make me racist? To the left it does.


As a Republican I respect Barrack Obama. I disagree with him on many things but I personally respect him. 

I also like Bernie Sanders as a person to be honest. I think he actually believes in what he says. 

Beyonce after the SB? Not that I really had respect before but absolutely none now. Kind of reminds me how a teacher tries to push his/her political agenda on students sometimes.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> As a Republican I respect Barrack Obama. I disagree with him on many things but I personally respect him.
> 
> I also like Bernie Sanders as a person to be honest. I think he actually believes in what he says.
> 
> Beyonce after the SB? Not that I really had respect before but absolutely none now. Kind of reminds me how a teacher tries to push his/her political agenda on students sometimes.


Sanders definately believes what he says. He's an old hippie. I use that not as a slur but as a statement of fact. He's bought into the far left his entire life.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> How can you claim he was being factual about illegal immigration, blame a media narrative when Trump said, and *YOU* post shit like
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has struggled to find evidence to justify this theory or identify his sources on this. The 'media narrative' even gave him an excuse by saying it happened 30 years ago with Cuba but there is no evidence that this BS is happening today or recent past from Mexico.
> 
> Radical pro-lifers attempted arson and murders on clinics and doctors who provide abortion. And they have been doing this in America far longer than radical Islam. Why has there been no clamouring for bannings on Christianity from Trump?




Mexico benefits sending people over because working illegals send money back to Mexico which boosts Mexican economy, not US. So the Mexican Government is happy to let them cross the border, the Mexican Government is corrupt from top to bottom. While Mexico may or may not be purposely sending over drug runners (Which are a very big part of Mexicans crossing back and forth for the cartels) the evidence shows they're not securing their own border. Their willingness to look the other way while letting people cross illegally into a sovereign nation is technically considered an invasion.

Mexico doesn't have to empty their prisons, they just don't stop anyone crossing nor when people are deported do they keep them there. If you have a dog and that dog keeps escaping your yard, shitting in people's yards, biting people, pissing everywhere then you are responsible for what it does. Now if people bring the dog back and still you do nothing and let it roam freely, you're complicit in what it does by willingly or unwilling not taking steps to see it doesn't get out.

People have known for years about the issue and the funny thing is that, America gets no trouble from Canada, hardly any Canadian criminals etc come down and they could freely, so why is it the issue with Mexico is so huge and many illegals cause so much trouble? Many people who apply for citizenship from Mexico get approved and come here, we see them all the time. The illegal problem is huge and you know what, the Left wants their votes which is silly and the Right wants them because it's cheap free labor for their business partners. Mexico gets all the benefits from open borders, the US does not, unless you count the politicians trying to garner votes and corrupt businessmen wanting slave labor.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Oh no?
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...efits-admitting-theyre-country-illegally.html
> 
> https://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legisla...s/immigration/mexican-gov-illegal-booklet.htm
> 
> It's at least pretty effing clear they don't care how they get over here, legal or not.
> 
> They are indirectly enticing them at best.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Mr. Mister is right. Understand, we all want the same thing. Anyone is free to disagree with Trump or support him, but we all need to remind ourselves this is just a dialog.


http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...says-mexico-hands-out-brochures-showing-migr/

They are doing it out of humanitarian concern for Mexicans that wants to enter America illegally for jobs. Not sending them or enticing them to do so.

No where did any of your sources say Mexico is actively sending their *criminals* who committed crimes in Mexico, to America.


----------



## Beatles123

FriedTofu said:


> Radical pro-lifers attempted arson and murders on clinics and doctors who provide abortion. And they have been doing this in America far longer than radical Islam. Why has there been no clamouring for bannings on Christianity from Trump?


(Forgot this) If there were a spike in it, and a group was releasing videos cutting of atheist's heads, you bet your sweet ass Trump would. Where you go wrong, I think, is that you assume this means a ban on CHRISTIANITY as if we are attacking islam.

No one has banned the practice of islam. We are shutting down the immigration to stop the radicals from getting in--TEMORARILY--until we can asses the situation.

So if we had Isrealies coming in, doing the same thing at the same rate for Christians, yes, the same procedure should be followed.

Abortion bombings are not happening at, in my opinion, a severe enough level to declare any shutdown of churches en Mass (no pun intended. LOL) but any church that practices that hate speech such as Westboro should be condemned.



FriedTofu said:


> http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...says-mexico-hands-out-brochures-showing-migr/
> 
> They are doing it out of humanitarian concern for Mexicans that wants to enter America illegally for jobs. Not sending them or enticing them to do so.
> 
> No where did any of your sources say Mexico is actively sending their *criminals* who committed crimes in Mexico, to America.


Not to split hairs and claim your specific statement wrong for this reason, but politifact is PARODY levels of biased. Ted Cruz was called a liar for saying boys can now shower with girls in texas because "Transgenders aren't girls." I HATE Ted Cruz, but their reasoning is half the time extremely twisted and based entirely on trivial discrepancies.


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

America's political climate is a great euphemism for the country itself. There's no viable middle ground and everyone is closer to an extremist than being rational.

The great US of A and its citizens are frightened their mighty country will fall to groups of refugees like the smaller, weaker countries like Germany.
The fear-mongering is amazing as it is stupid. You have the most power in the world and you're scared of refugees from every direction, and to the simple minds the only way to combat it is to just stop everyone who belongs to a race or creed that poses a "credible" (as reported by the media) threat to the country, is not allowed in.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be worried or cautious - but the majority of this worry and caution is misplaced as you should be worrying about the terrorism that has, can and will be committed by American citizens.

Your worry and caution is at least more warranted than Australia's, where 2015 had, I believe, two Islam related "terrorist" deaths. But it's still laughable.



One thing I don't get is how Trump is supposedly the answer to many of America's problems.

You don't like the idea that politicians can be or are being 'bought out', and Trump is the answer?
Who 'buys out' politicians? Billionaire businessmen like Trump. :lmao

You believe that billionaire businessman is going to help fix the economy?
Look at Australia's Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. His net worth is not 4 billion USD, but it is 200 million AUD, but his run as PM so far has been self-serving.



What exactly is Trump really going to do, to fix America?

America, economically, is a shithole, and was built off of slavery and paying people less than they deserved. That is why raising the minimum wage won't work. That is why there will always be disadvantaged people, even if fundamental and social racism etc was solved. The economy will never be saved under any rule of any of these politicians.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



KILL V. Oxi said:


> America's political climate is a great euphemism for the country itself. There's no viable middle ground and everyone is closer to an extremist than being rational.
> 
> The great US of A and its citizens are frightened their mighty country will fall to groups of refugees like the smaller, weaker countries like Germany.
> The fear-mongering is amazing as it is stupid. You have the most power in the world and you're scared of refugees from every direction, and to the simple minds the only way to combat it is to just stop everyone who belongs to a race or creed that poses a "credible" (as reported by the media) threat to the country, is not allowed in.
> 
> I'm not saying you shouldn't be worried or cautious - but the majority of this worry and caution is misplaced as you should be worrying about the terrorism that has, can and will be committed by American citizens.
> 
> Your worry and caution is at least more warranted than Australia's, where 2015 had, I believe, two Islam related "terrorist" deaths. But it's still laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I don't get is how Trump is supposedly the answer to many of America's problems.
> 
> You don't like the idea that politicians can be or are being 'bought out', and Trump is the answer?
> Who 'buys out' politicians? Billionaire businessmen like Trump. :lmao
> 
> You believe that billionaire businessman is going to help fix the economy?
> Look at Australia's Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. His net worth is not 4 billion USD, but it is 200 million AUD, but his run as PM so far has been self-serving.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is Trump really going to do, to fix America?
> 
> America, economically, is a shithole, and was built off of slavery and paying people less than they deserved. That is why raising the minimum wage won't work. That is why there will always be disadvantaged people, even if fundamental and social racism etc was solved. The economy will never be saved under any rule of any of these politicians.


We have a problem at the border. Trump is the ONLY one willing to try and stop it to the extent that it must be. I'd Trust Trump on most issues sooner than anyone else.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> Mexico benefits sending people over because working illegals send money back to Mexico which boosts Mexican economy, not US. So the Mexican Government is happy to let them cross the border, the Mexican Government is corrupt from top to bottom. While Mexico may or may not be purposely sending over drug runners (Which are a very big part of Mexicans crossing back and forth for the cartels) the evidence shows they're not securing their own border. Their willingness to look the other way while letting people cross illegally into a sovereign nation is technically considered an invasion.
> 
> Mexico doesn't have to empty their prisons, they just don't stop anyone crossing nor when people are deported do they keep them there. If you have a dog and that dog keeps escaping your yard, shitting in people's yards, biting people, pissing everywhere then you are responsible for what it does. Now if people bring the dog back and still you do nothing and let it roam freely, you're complicit in what it does by willingly or unwilling not taking steps to see it doesn't get out.
> 
> People have known for years about the issue and the funny thing is that, America gets no trouble from Canada, hardly any Canadian criminals etc come down and they could freely, so why is it the issue with Mexico is so huge and many illegals cause so much trouble? Many people who apply for citizenship from Mexico get approved and come here, we see them all the time. The illegal problem is huge and you know what, the Left wants their votes which is silly and the Right wants them because it's cheap free labor for their business partners. Mexico gets all the benefits from open borders, the US does not, unless you count the politicians trying to garner votes and corrupt businessmen wanting slave labor.


I don't doubt the Mexican government isn't too worried about this issue as it reduces the headache of finding work for the illegal immigrants. I appreciate the need to be tougher on immigration, I just find it absurd to believe Mexico is purposefully sending their criminals into America because they cannot handle them back home.

Most of the illegals are in the US to make money to feed their families, not to rape and kill. My guess is many are probably in America for jobs involving vice or contribute to deflate the wages for unskilled labour, similar to illegals foreign workers in other countries and Americans are justified in getting pissed off at that. What I feel is dangerous is Trump's labelling them as criminals to inflame racial tension for political points.

As for comparison with Canada, I guess the difference is they are a wealthier country and they face a similar issue of illegal immigrants attempting to find work there. Both borders face the same issue with smuggled/illegal goods though.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> (Forgot this) If there were a spike in it, and a group was releasing videos cutting of atheist's heads, you bet your sweet ass Trump would. Where you go wrong, I think, is that you assume this means a ban on CHRISTIANITY as if we are attacking islam.
> 
> No one has banned the practice of islam. We are shutting down the immigration to stop the radicals from getting in--TEMORARILY--until we can asses the situation.
> 
> So if we had Isrealies coming in, doing the same thing at the same rate for Christians, yes, the same procedure should be followed.


 Just because a small number of radials make it into this country, that doesn't mean you ban the whole group of that race / religion from entering. that is called Fascism. 




Beatles123 said:


> We have a problem at the border. Trump is the ONLY one willing to try and stop it to the extent that it must be. I'd Trust Trump on most issues sooner than anyone else.


Under Obama more Mexicans are leaving the US than entering it. Also Obama has deported more people than any other president in the history of the US. But yeah I guess only Trump is the one trying to fix it right .




Beatles123 said:


> You clearly have been missing the part where mexico has been making a concerted effort to drive its criminals over here. THIS is the sect Trump speaks of. Never mind the drug trafficking or the illegal money wiring.
> 
> anyone with a brain can see he was painting no one with a broad stroke. Just because the media has a certain narrative going that only the smart ones dislike trump doesn't make it true. If people really want to pretend he was not being factual about illegal immigration, that's on them. I could care less what side of the issue they THINK is right.
> 
> .


HE has no evidence of that. Please show me his evidence Mexico has been doing that. And no its not the sect the Trump is talking about. He is acting like everyone but SOME (the good ones) are mostly criminals and rapists. Its in his own words. He never said anything about those being mexican illegals in that speech. 




Smarkout said:


> Have you listened to the speech? Huff Post took out the quote where he did not say illegals, but it is a left leaning site.
> 
> Republicans (most of anyway) understand that losing a job may be part of life, they understand that a family member passing away due to an extreme accident is part of life, they understand people wanting to come into the greatest country on Earth is part of life..gal citizen*.We just ask ONE thing. That one thing is they do all these things as a legal citizen of the U.S.*



Yes I watched him make the speech. Show me the part of the speech where he is talking about mexican illegals. Where he is saying the words. Not after the fact. Quote it from that same speech.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Under Obama more Mexicans are leaving the US than entering it. Also Obama has deported more people than any other president in the history of the US. But yeah I guess only Trump is the one trying to fix it right .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HE has no evidence of that. Please show me his evidence Mexico has been doing that. And no its not the sect the Trump is talking about. He is acting like everyone but SOME (the good ones) are mostly criminals and rapists. Its in his own words. He never said anything about those being mexican illegals in that speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I watched him make the speech. Show me the part of the speech where he is talking about mexican illegals. Where he is saying the words. Not after the fact. Quote it from that same speech.


Do you believe the ones coming illegally are in the right?


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> We have *a* problem at the border.


Yea, you have *a* problem at the border. Immigration and Islam is among the least of your worries as an American.

One of your biggest problems is incompetent potential leaders and none of your top three candidates are going to do anything to make the country better for the majority of citizens.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Do you believe the ones coming illegally are in the right?


The ones coming in illegal are not right but I am not calling them mostly rapists and criminals like Trump is doing.

You really think only SOME of the people that come from Mexico are good and MOST are criminals or rapists ?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> The ones coming in illegal are not right but I am not calling them mostly rapists and criminals like Trump is doing.
> 
> You really think only SOME of the people that come from Mexico are good and MOST are criminals or rapists ?


I know that thats where they come from. the illegal group. Regardless, its still an illegal act and Trump has given the only real solution.


----------



## Kenny

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Just because a small number of radials make it into this country, that doesn't mean you ban the whole group of that race / religion from entering. that is called Fascism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under Obama more Mexicans are leaving the US than entering it. Also Obama has deported more people than any other president in the history of the US. But yeah I guess only Trump is the one trying to fix it right .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HE has no evidence of that. Please show me his evidence Mexico has been doing that. And no its not the sect the Trump is talking about. He is acting like everyone but SOME (the good ones) are mostly criminals and rapists. Its in his own words. He never said anything about those being mexican illegals in that speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I watched him make the speech. Show me the part of the speech where he is talking about mexican illegals. Where he is saying the words. Not after the fact. Quote it from that same speech.


I really do not want to watch the speech again just for you to end up not agreeing anyway lol. Maybe later if I want to but it was pretty self explanatory for me watching the debate that he was not talking about LEGAL people in the United States already. If he called LEGAL people of the U.S. that then I agree with you (for once) but he clearly wasn't. I'll actually watch the speech tomorrow when I get a chance because I am interested now.


----------



## Dead Seabed

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



KENNY said:


>


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

To attempt to steer the topic in a bi-partisan manner:

The primary is in full swing, and I believe we can all agree none of us want hilldawg to take this nomination by the end. Do you think her army of Super delegates can win for her?

I believe Trump would easily trounce her.


----------



## LaMelo

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump is going to win.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Fresh Prince of Boyle Heights said:


> Trump is going to win.


Could you be Wrestling Forum's "man on the ground" in South Carolina over the next 24 hours? 

Delivering all of the coolest scoops and hottest takes? 

'Kay, thanks, bye!


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> To attempt to steer the topic in a bi-partisan manner:
> 
> The primary is in full swing, and I believe we can all agree none of us want hilldawg to take this nomination by the end. Do you think her army of Super delegates can win for her?
> 
> I believe Trump would easily trounce her.


Don't be concerned with Hillary right now.

Be concerned with brokered convention for the GOP. There is a scenario where Trump wins primaries but doesn't garner enough delegates. Who knows what the fuck happens then. It's probably Rubio time because he's the easiest to manipulate.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> To attempt to steer the topic in a bi-partisan manner:
> 
> The primary is in full swing, and I believe we can all agree none of us want hilldawg to take this nomination by the end. Do you think her army of Super delegates can win for her?
> 
> I believe Trump would easily trounce her.


the head to head polls show Hillary beats Trump, and Sanders beats him by an even larger number. You really need to start dealing in facts.





Smarkout said:


> I really do not want to watch the speech again just for you to end up not agreeing anyway lol. Maybe later if I want to but it was pretty self explanatory for me watching the debate that he was not talking about LEGAL people in the United States already. If he called LEGAL people of the U.S. that then I agree with you (for once) but he clearly wasn't. I'll actually watch the speech tomorrow when I get a chance because I am interested now.


Even if he was only talking about illegals (which is not what he said) he was still staying MOST of them are rapists and criminals while SOME could be good people. That is still a lie and hate mongering. I love how republicans act like, well he meant illegals so that makes his comments ok lol


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

lol polls aren't set in stone

hillary once led bernie by a large margin

bernie cut that lead to a dead heat


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> lol polls aren't set in stone
> 
> hillary once led bernie by a large margin
> 
> bernie cut that lead to a dead heat



that is true but people know who Trump and Hilary are, where as no one really knew who Sanders was and the more people learn about him and what he is for the more people like him.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I just think it's a bit foolhardy to underestimate Trump at this point. He's proven he's a formidable candidate, love him or hate him. 

Polls change too. What they are now and what they will be in November is hard to forecast. Tons of potential bombshells and monkeywrenches to come. It's really like a fucked up reality show now. This is probably working as intended and Trump being involved is so meta.


Anyone see the recent anti-Rubio ad put out by Ted Cruz? It's freaking brilliant and I hate Ted Cruz.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> Don't be concerned with Hillary right now.
> 
> Be concerned with brokered convention for the GOP. There is a scenario where Trump wins primaries but doesn't garner enough delegates. Who knows what the fuck happens then. It's probably Rubio time because he's the easiest to manipulate.


Indeed.

The Republican Party is ruled by the mendacious and the wicked, just like the Democratic Party. 

Donald Trump taking the nomination is, from this entity's perspective, like stealing their lunch. 

You're dealing with politicians, and the well-termed "superdelegates," those connected delegates. Dan Abrams noted on television in 2008 that Democratic "superdelegates" were representing, individually, the voting power of approximately "10,000 voters" on the Democratic side. The Republican "superdelegates" have an even more rigid structure as the superdelegates cannot vote for whoever they want to vote for, as with the Democrats. 

Again, it's politics. If Trump is to be successful he will have, more or less, navigated his way through various forces of the mob. 

Because democracy is inherently corruptive, self-defeating; it disseminates all of the venues for special interests to dominate, and it is ultimately a collectivist system, with frequently nefarious consequences to its execution. It's a conduit through which social tensions swell, resulting in the loss of production.

As James Madison noted with _Federalist Paper No. 10_, when it comes to democracy,


> there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.


 Edmund Randolph declared at the Constitutional Convention of 1787,


> ...that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.


 John Adams:


> Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.


As this article about the primaries states,


> When it was all said and done and the final results were tallied, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders fought to a tie in New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary.
> 
> Wait, what?
> 
> Yes, Sanders won the election in the Granite State by a whopping 22 points, dealing what was trumpeted from coast to coast as a major blow to the Clinton campaign and its oft-mentioned "inevitability" ahead of Saturday's Nevada caucus. But when the delegates were doled out – and in presidential nomination races, they're the number that really matters – each camp walked out of New Hampshire with at least 15.
> 
> That's because Clinton, while losing the state's allocated delegates 15-9, has the support of six New Hampshire "superdelegates," party insiders who get to cast a vote at the nominating convention divorced from any election result.
> 
> Undemocratic? You bet. But it's par for the course when it comes to America's primaries, which from the presidential level right on down are a disaster...


 Link: http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-02-19/americas-primary-elections-are-broken The writer notes that it's "undemocratic" but democracies become manipulated shams, too, another hallmark of democracy. 

One of the chief reasons Switzerland stands as such a harmonious state in a sea of civilization which sees one country's economy or financial health imperiled in large part by the woes of democracy is that Switzerland's political structure is markedly decentralized in comparison to those aforementioned entities. With 26 cantons and the municipalities exist in peace with one another due to their considerable autonomy, gifting these vicinities with the power to compete with one another in realms of finance, taxation, healthcare, education, security and other matters. Individuals and business easily vote with their feet, so to speak, rather than gun for one another via the democratic process. Switzerland's devotion to federalism engenders harmonic interior relations, and minimizes the role of demagogic politicians. The madness of democracy is avoided. 

Such is not the case here, alas. 

At least we all get to watch the profane display on the morrow!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> I just think it's a bit foolhardy to underestimate Trump at this point. He's proven he's a formidable candidate, love him or hate him.
> 
> Polls change too. What they are now and what they will be in November is hard to forecast. Tons of potential bombshells and monkeywrenches to come. It's really like a fucked up reality show now. This is probably working as intended and Trump being involved is so meta.
> 
> 
> Anyone see the recent anti-Rubio ad put out by Ted Cruz? It's freaking brilliant and I hate Ted Cruz.


Hillary may not even beat Sanders which hopefully she won't. The worst possible thing that could happen would be Hillary gets the nomination then during the generational election debates she gets indicted for her emails. That is why Sanders has to win or it could be a potential disaster on the democrat side. Imagine if Trump won because of that.

Which ad is that? The amnesty ad?


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> Anyone see the recent anti-Rubio ad put out by Ted Cruz? It's freaking brilliant and I hate Ted Cruz.


Please share with the class! osey2


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

It's the ad where Rubio is using Obama's words. It shows Obama saying something. Then Rubio parrots him.

It ends with a shot of Rubio and the screens colors change to the Obama Hope thing :loll


here we go


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*






this ad?

Funny thing is how the republicans see this as a bad thing while democrats see it as a positive lol (giving amnesty )


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Yeah that's it. I edited it into my post but that's it.

It's clearly aimed at GOP voters. Dem opinions are irrelevant in regards to it. 

I'm ok with amnesty for the record. I'm not sure you can do anything else realistically. It's not one of our major problems as I see it.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

:lmao :lmao :lmao

That is actually a splendid negative ad. Have to give whoever made that credit. Great recommendation, *MrMr*! And thanks for bringing it here, *bm*!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> Indeed.
> 
> The Republican Party is ruled by the mendacious and the wicked, just like the Democratic Party.
> 
> Donald Trump taking the nomination is, from this entity's perspective, like stealing their lunch.
> 
> You're dealing with politicians, and the well-termed "superdelegates," those connected delegates. Dan Abrams noted on television in 2008 that Democratic "superdelegates" were representing, individually, the voting power of approximately "10,000 voters" on the Democratic side. The Republican "superdelegates" have an even more rigid structure as the superdelegates cannot vote for whoever they want to vote for, as with the Democrats.
> 
> Again, it's politics. If Trump is to be successful he will have, more or less, navigated his way through various forces of the mob.
> 
> Because democracy is inherently corruptive, self-defeating; it disseminates all of the venues for special interests to dominate, and it is ultimately a collectivist system, with frequently nefarious consequences to its execution. It's a conduit through which social tensions swell, resulting in the loss of production.
> 
> As James Madison noted with _Federalist Paper No. 10_, when it comes to democracy, Edmund Randolph declared at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, John Adams:
> 
> As this article about the primaries states, Link: http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-02-19/americas-primary-elections-are-broken The writer notes that it's "undemocratic" but democracies become manipulated shams, too, another hallmark of democracy.
> 
> One of the chief reasons Switzerland stands as such a harmonious state in a sea of civilization which sees one country's economy or financial health imperiled in large part by the woes of democracy is that Switzerland's political structure is markedly decentralized in comparison to those aforementioned entities. With 26 cantons and the municipalities exist in peace with one another due to their considerable autonomy, gifting these vicinities with the power to compete with one another in realms of finance, taxation, healthcare, education, security and other matters. Individuals and business easily vote with their feet, so to speak, rather than gun for one another via the democratic process. Switzerland's devotion to federalism engenders harmonic interior relations, and minimizes the role of demagogic politicians. The madness of democracy is avoided.
> 
> Such is not the case here, alas.
> 
> At least we all get to watch the profane display on the morrow!


Imagine if the establishment steals the nominations from both Trump AND Sanders (like if they both win the popular vote but the delegates side with Hillary and Rubio or Cruz)?
its much easier for the democrats to steal it from Sanders with the super delegates not sure how that works on the GOP side.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Imagine if the establishment steals the nominations from both Trump AND Sanders (like if they both win the popular vote but the delegates side with Hillary and Rubio or Cruz)?
> its much easier for the democrats to steal it from Sanders with the super delegates not sure how that works on the GOP side.


Steeling myself for this outcome. Both establishments will not go down easily. 

Trump winning South Carolina probably puts him firmly in the metaphorical driver's seat. 

If Sanders wins South Carolina over the once-heavily-favored Hillary Clinton she may not recover, electorally. 

Really it's not even establishments, plural. It's establishment. They're both the same. Though, yes, procedurally the superdelegates situation gives Hillary a much more convenient escape hatch toward nabbing the nomination, by hook or by crook. 

The GOP superdelegates situation is a little staid, which makes the situation for Trump more palatable than it is by contrast for Sanders. Still, a brokered Republican convention is a major possibility. The Democrats could potentially squirm their way out of such an outcome through superdelegate chicanery on behalf of Hillary. 

Of course, a valid question at this point is, will the FBI move on her? 

The best news for Sanders might be that Obama is not a fan of the Clintons at all, and has a fairly significant vindictive streak. There is considerable loathing and jealousy between Michelle and Barack Obama, and Hillary and Bill Clinton. Of course it's like any gang at that point. Can Obama trust Hillary being in major legal hot water? What does she know that can damage him? I don't think any of these characters will meekly fall on their sword out of loyalty for their boss like "Scooter" Libby on behalf of Dick Cheney.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Guys, thats a good ad and all, but we need to dispel with this notion that Barrack Obama knows what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing.

Also, Bm, i say Trump can beat Hilary because Sanders voters aren't so much against Trump as they are his mouth. Hildawg is the one thing all Sanders voters I talk to say they would vote for Trump to prevent.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> that is true but people know who Trump and Hilary are, where as no one really knew who Sanders was and the more people learn about him and what he is for the more people like him.


Democratic Primary Voters like him. Even if you take off the liberal glasses a "socialist" tag looks awful in a general election.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> I'm ok with amnesty for the record. *I'm not sure you can do anything else realistically.*


Yes you can. You actually don't need to do anything different other than enforce border security. Clinton deported 12M, Bush 10M. If you just close off the supply, our current system will deport ~11M in 8 years. We're told that there are 12M illegals here, so they could all be gone in 8 years. I actually think it's more like 30M that are here but eventually they would be gone, as long as the border is sealed.


----------



## DOPA

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Guys, thats a good ad and all, but we need to dispel with this notion that Barrack Obama knows what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing.


:lmao :lmao :lmao

What's even funnier is Chris Christie of all people destroyed him.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz getting :buried 

I'm ashamed. :mj2


----------



## Rick_James

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Guys, thats a good ad and all, but we need to dispel with this notion that Barrack Obama knows what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing.
> 
> Also, Bm, i say Trump can beat Hilary because Sanders voters aren't so much against Trump as they are his mouth. Hildawg is the one thing all Sanders voters I talk to say they would vote for Trump to prevent.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Marco Rubio and Ben Carson are my number ones and twos on the Republican side but even I will admit they have next to zero charisma

Marco relies on talking points and Carson tried to be calm and quite in an area where talking loud is more effective


----------



## Super Sexy Steele

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I can't stand Trump but you what at this point, I hope he wins the presidency. You're all talk Donald, now let's see you back it up.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Marco Rubio and Ben Carson are my number ones and twos on the Republican side but even I will admit they have next to zero charisma
> 
> Marco relies on talking points and Carson tried to be calm and quite in an area where talking loud is more effective


I genuinely believe Carson is a smart man, but he gets TOTALLY overshadowed in the debates. He needs to push back and assert himself.


----------



## asdf0501

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Come on Carson isn't particularly smart. And everytime he open his mouth he destroy himself further


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> I genuinely believe Carson is a smart man, but he gets TOTALLY overshadowed in the debates. He needs to push back and assert himself.


Carson said he does not speak up because he learned when people come to his hospital they respond far better when they are talked to causally rather than just being told things

Problem is politics are loud, very, very LOUD


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*










WOW.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Oh, man. I would smile all night long if that poll even began to be reflective of the primary results.

Just because it would be such an unqualified rejection of the establishment. :banderas


----------



## Slickback

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*











True OG


----------



## Nick Baker

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Beatles123 Damn beat me too it. Any mods here can take my thread down


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump winning SC!!!

http://www.decisiondeskhq.com/south-carolina-gop-primary/

(refresh constantly. Numbers are constantly updating)


----------



## TheAverageMuta

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Just leave this here.


----------



## HiddenFlaw

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Trump winning SC!!!
> 
> http://www.decisiondeskhq.com/south-carolina-gop-primary/
> 
> (refresh constantly. Numbers are constantly updating)


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The GOP deserves this...they have had the chance to put a stop to Obama and his policies and have rolled over time and time again. Then they wonder why the people have finally revolted. The Tea Party has revolted, the social cons have revolted, now the Wall Street crowd is telling the establishment that it's game over. 

As much as I enjoy this, I still can't vote for Trump. Obviously for his positions as a real liberal, his comments about John McCain not being a hero because he was a prisoner of war don't sit well with me still. As a former military member, I'm tired of watching our last two presidents shit all over our armed forces. Trump demeans what our troops have done and what some have suffered and then donates money as if to make it all better? Yes, McCain is a RINO who needs to be put out to pasture as a politician, but ripping on folks that were POWs is disgusting. 

I'm getting to the point if it is Trump vs. Hillary or Bernie on Election Day, I might sit home for the first time ever. I don't want to, as this is a very pivotal election for the history of the United States.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



BruiserKC said:


> The GOP deserves this...they have had the chance to put a stop to Obama and his policies and have rolled over time and time again. Then they wonder why the people have finally revolted. The Tea Party has revolted, the social cons have revolted, now the Wall Street crowd is telling the establishment that it's game over.
> 
> As much as I enjoy this, I still can't vote for Trump. Obviously for his positions as a real liberal, his comments about John McCain not being a hero because he was a prisoner of war don't sit well with me still. As a former military member, I'm tired of watching our last two presidents shit all over our armed forces. Trump demeans what our troops have done and what some have suffered and then donates money as if to make it all better? Yes, McCain is a RINO who needs to be put out to pasture as a politician, but ripping on folks that were POWs is disgusting.
> 
> I'm getting to the point if it is Trump vs. Hillary or Bernie on Election Day, I might sit home for the first time ever. I don't want to, as this is a very pivotal election for the history of the United States.


Bruiser that isn't right. Only Trump has spoke as strongly in favor of our vets, including wanting to fix the VA and rebuild the military.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I can think of no better service to veterans and future military personnel than calling out the Bush/Obama foreign policy as a disaster. Having a candidate who blows smoke up everyone's ass and pretends what the US has done militarily this century has somehow been a good thing would be disgraceful pandering at the expense of future lives, needlessly. 

McCain deserves to be ripped on. He's a warmongering nutjob and his type of rhetoric ACTUALLY gets people killed (as opposed to the supposed potential violence due to Trump's rhetoric which as of yet has not materialized). Not voting for Trump because of that is silly.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Also, Bernie blown the fuck out!


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

McCain is weird

He is very left leaning on everything expect military where is he is a MASSIVE super aggressive hawk

I think the VC broke him

From CNN's exist polls Trump won in all demo's except young religious college students and hardcore conservatives who prefer cruz


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Big victory in SC!


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I CONNOT wait to see the You Can't Stump The Trump on this


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Tell me Trumpsters, do you think he's a good candidate, or a _relatively_ good candidate?

:kobe10


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Jeb has given up. Where do the Kasich, Carson, and Jeb voters eventually go though?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



KILL V. Oxi said:


> Tell me Trumpsters, do you think he's a good candidate, or a _relatively_ good candidate?
> 
> :kobe10


don't be investigative.


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> don't be investigative.


Do you mean instigative? This is a forum for discussion, I'm asking a simple question, and it's a simple answer too.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



BruiserKC said:


> The GOP deserves this...they have had the chance to put a stop to Obama and his policies and have rolled over time and time again. Then they wonder why the people have finally revolted. The Tea Party has revolted, the social cons have revolted, now the Wall Street crowd is telling the establishment that it's game over.
> 
> As much as I enjoy this, I still can't vote for Trump. Obviously for his positions as a real liberal, his comments about John McCain not being a hero because he was a prisoner of war don't sit well with me still. As a former military member, I'm tired of watching our last two presidents shit all over our armed forces. Trump demeans what our troops have done and what some have suffered and then donates money as if to make it all better? Yes, McCain is a RINO who needs to be put out to pasture as a politician, but ripping on folks that were POWs is disgusting.
> 
> I'm getting to the point if it is Trump vs. Hillary or Bernie on Election Day, I might sit home for the first time ever. I don't want to, as this is a very pivotal election for the history of the United States.


I'm not sure about the status of John McCain as "war hero" but I do believe that he was a cocksure pilot who tried to show off on the U.S.S. Forrestal in 1967, and nearly sank the entire ship in the process. Highly informative article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/07/no_author/john-mccain-is-no-hero/

Donald Trump arguing that this one figure may or may not be a war hero is just a tiny matter to consider against everything else occurring. The U.S. is presently engaged in arming almost all sides but the Syrian government in Syria today, leaving devastation and chaos with all of the funding. And while I myself have at least moderately different views of immigration than Trump, I believe that he represents the most avid candidate on behalf of both border security and strongly regulating the entry of individuals who come from parts of the world that are, today, quite overwhelmingly hostile toward the U.S. 

More supportive of the candidacy as a counter to the ruling of the establishments of both terrible political parties and the crime families that in no small way dominate those parties, I myself am more likely to vote for Donald Trump just to signify a vote against the equally warmongering, job-outsourcing, greedy and connected financial institutions-saving parties. 

In any event, take care!


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



KILL V. Oxi said:


> Do you mean instigative? This is a forum for discussion, I'm asking a simple question, and it's a simple answer too.


Stupid auto-correct....

Short answer: Yes. I think you'll find that the number of people are more diverse, i might add, then people realize.

It wasn't your question. I just wanted to stress you don't need to poke fun. We're all just normal people here


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I really wonder what the rest of the free world would think of this country if Trump does become the president. I could see a lot of countries telling us to go to hell. Hell the UK already said he would not be welcomed there.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Hardcore Show said:


> I really wonder what the rest of the free world would think of this country if Trump does become the president. I could see a lot of countries telling us to go to hell. Hell the UK already said he would not be welcomed there.


I have no doubt that other corrupt regimes would strongly oppose Donald Trump were he to become president for fear of his enacting policies which directly contradict the agreed-upon acts and trade deals designed by particularly powerful interests. 

Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 and the U.S. has been engaged in no fewer than five wars--Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen--under his watch. Drone strikes are an everyday event. 

The U.S. needs to behave itself going forward and act more as the founding generation of the country envisioned, as a peaceful and friendly entity with the world, and especially with all who do not wish to directly harm the U.S., unlike the last fifteen years which have seen the U.S. launch wars against nations that did not seek to harm the U.S. (Iraq) and regimes which had been in actuality cooperating and being respectful toward U.S. wishes (Libya), but just because many interests would find Trump intolerable does not mean those interests would be in the right.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> I have no doubt that other corrupt regimes would strongly oppose Donald Trump were he to become president for fear of his enacting policies which directly contradict the agreed-upon acts and trade deals designed by particularly powerful interests.
> 
> Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 and the U.S. has been engaged in no fewer than five wars--Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen--under his watch. Drone strikes are an everyday event.
> 
> The U.S. needs to behave itself going forward and act more as the founding generation of the country envisioned, as a peaceful and friendly entity with the world, and especially with all who do not wish to directly harm the U.S., unlike the last fifteen years which have seen the U.S. launch wars against nations that did not seek to harm the U.S. (Iraq) and regimes which had been in actuality cooperating and being respectful toward U.S. wishes (Libya), but just because many interests would find Trump intolerable does not mean those interests would be in the right.


We live in an age where the President uses drones to blow up people, sends in strike teams in sovereign countries, gives weapons to terrorists and gets the peace prize. He also gets mentioned as a good President by his followers despite the fact he used the IRS to target people, his buddy Clinton leaked top secret information and has more scandals under his belt than Bush. It must be good to be US President!

@BruiserKC it's not just the GOP but a few years ago Blue states were going Red because the Democrats had full control of everything for 3 and half years and Obama and his cronies did fuckall but blame the Republicans, did the Republicans fuck stuff up for the Dems? Sure but long after the Dems had full control. A lot of Democrats noticed this and started voting the other way, well except the hardcore Dems who this it's racist to vote any other way, they're fine with corrupt politicians as long as it's the politicians on their side. 

LOL @ Fox News, with Trump pretty much stomping everyone else and Fox not liking Trump what they gonna do?


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@Miss Sally, it is truly remarkable that the FBI evidently refuses to move on Hillary Clinton. The scandalous horror of the Clintons is simply bottomless.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



KILL V. Oxi said:


> Do you mean instigative? This is a forum for discussion, I'm asking a simple question, and it's a simple answer too.


I think he's the best candidate since Reagan, at least.

That is to say the best in my lifetime.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Hardcore Show said:


> I really wonder what the rest of the free world would think of this country if Trump does become the president. I could see a lot of countries telling us to go to hell. Hell the UK already said he would not be welcomed there.


I would argue there are a large number of Americans that see the UK as being on a faster road to hell than us. We have our own shit to worry about.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Hardcore Show said:


> I really wonder what the rest of the free world would think of this country if Trump does become the president. I could see a lot of countries telling us to go to hell. Hell the UK already said he would not be welcomed there.


Sounds good to me. Americans should not give a shit about what other countries think of the way we govern ourselves. Especially countries like the UK where privatization is a dirty word among those socialist cucks making their grandparents who fought Nazis (that's National *Socialists*, by the way) roll over in their fucking graves.


----------



## TNA is Here

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The steamrolling is just starting. 

And the establishment are shitting in their pants right now.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump is an amazing candidate. Anyone actually paying attention to this race knows this. You can even hate the guy, but you're being dishonest if you say he's bad at this. He's amazing.

His best attribute is his sense of humor contrasting his no nonsense rhetoric. I'm using the rhetoric that doesn't have a negative connotation, but you can apply if you want. His moments of levity are brilliantly executed. Trump has spent decades honing this persona of his. He originally created TRUMP for celebrity, to create a brand. I don't think he made up this character to one day run for president. It just so happens that the TRUMP persona works perfectly. 

Will he be a good president? If he can somehow do something about the Iron Triangle then fuck yes he will be.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> Trump is an amazing candidate. Anyone actually paying attention to this race knows this. You can even hate the guy, but you're being dishonest if you say he's bad at this. He's amazing.
> 
> His best attribute is his sense of humor contrasting his no nonsense rhetoric. I'm using the rhetoric that doesn't have a negative connotation, but you can apply if you want. His moments of levity are brilliantly executed. Trump has spent decades honing this persona of his. He originally created TRUMP for celebrity, to create a brand. I don't think he made up this character to one day run for president. It just so happens that the TRUMP persona works perfectly.
> 
> Will he be a good president? If he can somehow do something about the Iron Triangle then fuck yes he will be.


Exceptionally well-stated, *MrMr*. :clap 

Bill Pullman is eating his heart out. 

If Trump can melt the Iron Triangle that would be glorious but I'm skeptical of him ever reaching the presidency. The "establishment" is not done yet. Things are just becoming interesting now. :side:


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Oooh! this gives me an opportunity to post this!

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/139541975641/the-trump-master-persuader-index-and-reading-list

Dilbert creator Scot Adams has provided a SCINTILLATING (Yet neutral) look into an oft-overlooked trait of Trump's that may be key to his winning over the masses: The Art Of Persuasion! 

I highly recommend reading it if you haven't!


----------



## TNA is Here

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> Trump is an amazing candidate. Anyone actually paying attention to this race knows this. You can even hate the guy, but you're being dishonest if you say he's bad at this. He's amazing.
> 
> His best attribute is his sense of humor contrasting his no nonsense rhetoric. I'm using the rhetoric that doesn't have a negative connotation, but you can apply if you want. His moments of levity are brilliantly executed. Trump has spent decades honing this persona of his. He originally created TRUMP for celebrity, to create a brand. I don't think he made up this character to one day run for president. It just so happens that the TRUMP persona works perfectly.
> 
> Will he be a good president? If he can somehow do something about the Iron Triangle then fuck yes he will be.


I never thought it would work, though. The guy is such a big mouth blowhard and anti-PC and in politics everybody walks on their toes in fear of not saying the wrong things. That has been the big thing that has hurt Romney. I remember he was doing great and he had to calm down his retorics cause the polls said "he wasn't popular with women". So he became a puppy and it hurt him. (There was the scandal where someone recorded him but again he didn't responded well to it, he didn't face it, he crawled like a rat when Trump would have find his own thing to throw at the other side)

Instead Trump has used it to his advantage and that is the very thing that has made him popular that he says what he thinks. The PC left tried to attack him with the "war on Women" garbage and he threw it in their faces. He also smartly realised that you never cowar, you never back down. Hillary wants to say that he hates women, he turn it around and talk about Bill Clinton using his authority for cheap sex with girls.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@AryaDark @Batko10 @Beatles123 @CamillePunk @The Dazzler @Miss Sally @samizayn @TNA is Here

This is an outstanding feather in The Donald's cap. No other major candidate has pledged to do this, at least none on the Republican side since RAND:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/700814164374085632
A must-read article: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...016-gop-republican-party-213642#ixzz40nc29nit

Excerpt via that twitter thing that I'm still learning about:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/700822173636812801


> The most basic problem for the Republican Party isn’t that Donald Trump is so strong, but that his competitors are so weak. One can find no better illustration of this, perhaps, than the sorry spectacle of Jeb Bush—who only a year ago was seen as heir apparent to the nomination—desperately trying to salvage his terminal candidacy by bringing in the one person who did more than anyone to destroy the modern GOP: his brother, George W. Bush. It was Bush, of course, whose reckless Iraq War and spending and financial policies led the party (and nation) to near-disaster, as Trump himself has been saying in South Carolina since last Saturday’s debate (once again defying the conventional party wisdom, this time when it comes to not criticizing the last Republican president). It was Bush’s rapid abandonment of a bromidic “compassionate conservatism” and foreign-policy restraint that exposed the GOP as a fatally divided party devoid of ideas.
> 
> Thus, in debunking the GOP’s hollow men and bringing the Bush-Cheney era to a close, Trump is essentially kicking in a rotten door. Today it would take the political equivalent of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory that just detected the waves predicted by Einstein to discern any fresh ideas in the black hole that constitutes the GOP. Into that void Trump has strode with all the hubris of one who recognizes weakness when he sees it—and is only too happy to call it out. His mockery of everything from GOP financiers—“nothing conservative about the Club for Growth coming into my office and demanding a $1M contribution, which naturally, they did not get”—to his palpable contempt for figures such as Bush indicates that his aim isn’t simply to win the nomination, but to redefine the party in his own image.


Marvelous article. Building off of what @CamillePunk and *MrMr* were saying above about why Trump's support has solidified rather than break apart even with the purportedly controversial statements and confrontations of the past nine or so days.


----------



## CALΔMITY

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Well hopefully he can live up to something he claims about 9/11. I remember him saying something about how he saw footage of muslims cheering as the twin towers fell when there is no actual footage in existence. :lol


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Here's something neato!

Wanna see how YOUR income fairs against the current, the Trump, AND the Sanders tax plan? Go here!

https://www.taxrate.xyz/

I'm interested. Let's find out who has it better!


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Cala♡;57318673 said:


> Well hopefully he can live up to something he claims about 9/11. I remember him saying something about how he saw footage of muslims cheering as the twin towers fell when there is no actual footage in existence. :lol


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Cala♡;57318673 said:


> Well hopefully he can live up to something he claims about 9/11. I remember him saying something about how he saw footage of muslims cheering as the twin towers fell when there is no actual footage in existence. :lol


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@AryaDark @Batko10 @DesolationRow @CamillePunk @The Dazzler @Miss Sally @samizayn @TNA is Here 


THE NEW ONE IS OUT!!!! :lol


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Here's something neato!
> 
> Wanna see how YOUR income fairs against the current, the Trump, AND the Sanders tax plan? Go here!
> 
> https://www.taxrate.xyz/
> 
> I'm interested. Let's find out who has it better!


The Bernie rate on there doesn't seem to be correct but I'm not sure. I'd like to see the other candidates also.

But, Trump puts way more money in my pocket!


----------



## TerraRising

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

When will Trump address in public which ethnic group causes the most crimes in the US? Because all he's ever done is play the patriot card to vilify Mexicans and Muslims, hence getting him over the crowd but when it comes to the BIGGER fish to fry Trump backs out and posts stats on Twitter. White guilt still consumes him.


----------



## Beatles123

markoutsmarkout said:


> The Bernie rate on there doesn't seem to be correct but I'm not sure. I'd like to see the other candidates also.
> 
> But, Trump puts way more money in my pocket!














TerraRising said:


> When will Trump address in public which ethnic group causes the most crimes in the US? Because all he's ever done is play the patriot card to vilify Mexicans and Muslims, hence getting him over the crowd but when it comes to the BIGGER fish to fry Trump backs out and posts stats on Twitter. White guilt still consumes him.


Terra, we've been discussing this. Which fish do you speak of, though, to start?


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Here's something neato!
> 
> Wanna see how YOUR income fairs against the current, the Trump, AND the Sanders tax plan? Go here!
> 
> https://www.taxrate.xyz/
> 
> I'm interested. Let's find out who has it better!


So I just got a job offer for when I'm out of school. Trump's tax plan leaves me with an extra $300 per month or $3,600 a year. That's a significant amount of money. I can rent a nicer apartment with that money or go on a nice vacation every year with that money.


----------



## Truthbetold

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TerraRising said:


> When will Trump address in public which ethnic group causes the most crimes in the US? Because all he's ever done is play the patriot card to vilify Mexicans and Muslims, hence getting him over the crowd but when it comes to the BIGGER fish to fry Trump backs out and posts stats on Twitter. White guilt still consumes him.


He would instantly lose the vote of 14% of Americas population when he has to face Hillary or Sanders if he did that. 

It would be an idiotic move for him that would guarantee a democrat win the presidency.


----------



## CALΔMITY

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


>





Batko10 said:


>


Kay.

So I guess for some reason or the other the news media just deleted the footage from their archives at some point? I'm not necessarily saying it wasn't possible that there were radical muslims who supported the bombing and would cheer it when it happened. However, when this issue first came up in the media all there really was was Trump's here say claiming he saw footage of thousands of Muslims cheering in some jersey spot. Not pockets of people here and there. If it wasn't a blatant lie to get peoples' fears back up, it seemed like a GROSS exaggeration to get the fear and paranoia back up. But whatever. He's definitely the most amusing candidate our country has had in a while.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Cala♡;57325937 said:


> Kay.
> 
> So I guess for some reason or the other the news media just deleted the footage from their archives at some point? I'm not necessarily saying it wasn't possible that there were radical muslims who supported the bombing and would cheer it when it happened. However, when this issue first came up in the media all there really was was Trump's here say claiming he saw footage of thousands of Muslims cheering in some jersey spot. Not pockets of people here and there. If it wasn't a blatant lie to get peoples' fears back up, it seemed like a GROSS exaggeration to get the fear and paranoia back up. But whatever. He's definitely the most amusing candidate our country has had in a while.


You think the media WANT footage of it getting out?? NOW of all times especially? Hell, the reporter of the article Trump referenced from 2001 is now walking back hard and trying to disavow what he said. PC culture won't let it see the light of day.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TerraRising said:


> When will Trump address in public which ethnic group causes the most crimes in the US? Because all he's ever done is play the patriot card to vilify Mexicans and Muslims, hence getting him over the crowd but when it comes to the BIGGER fish to fry Trump backs out and posts stats on Twitter. White guilt still consumes him.





Truthbetold said:


> He would instantly lose the vote of 14% of Americas population when he has to face Hillary or Sanders if he did that.
> 
> It would be an idiotic move for him that would guarantee a democrat win the presidency.


Actually, Trump has commented on the disproportionate commission of violent crimes and homicides by blacks in the U.S. He has no white guilt. In fact, that white guilt crap is rapidly dissolving into thin air as whites are getting more and more fed up with what is going on in this country.

This isn't going to affect him in the least, since most blacks are not going to vote for him regardless of what he says. Hildebeast has the black vote sewed up. Even if he chose Dr. Carson as a running mate he wouldn't get many black votes since blacks consider Carson an "uncle Tom," if I'm not mistaken.

The Donald is going to rake in more than enough white votes to counter any black support of the Democrat candidate.

- Mike


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FITZ said:


> So I just got a job offer for when I'm out of school. Trump's tax plan leaves me with an extra $300 per month or $3,600 a year. That's a significant amount of money. I can rent a nicer apartment with that money or go on a nice vacation every year with that money.


Nice. What of the Sanders plan?


----------



## CALΔMITY

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> You think the media WANT footage of it getting out?? NOW of all times especially? Hell, the reporter of the article Trump referenced from 2001 is now walking back hard and trying to disavow what he said. PC culture won't let it see the light of day.


It's possible that its deletion could have been recent, but no one knows when something happened to it, if it even existed. When the topic first came to light the democratic and republican media outlets had zero idea what he was talking about. Even long time veteran reporters. He might be telling the truth for all we know, but if it is it just seems skewed to heighten fear. Times were bad for innocent Muslims after 9/11. We don't need that same level of extreme xenophobia resurfacing.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Cala♡;57327001 said:


> It's possible that its deletion could have been recent, but no one knows when something happened to it, if it even existed. When the topic first came to light the democratic and republican media outlets had zero idea what he was talking about. Even long time veteran reporters. He might be telling the truth for all we know, but if it is it just seems skewed to heighten fear. Times were bad for innocent Muslims after 9/11. We don't need that same level of extreme xenophobia resurfacing.


It isn't. it's called identifying a problem. We have done bans like this MULTIPLE times before. Innocent ones get it and it passes with time. they SUPPORT it because they want the ones ruining their culture with violence brought forward.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> It isn't. it's called identifying a problem. We have done bans like this MULTIPLE times before. Innocent ones get it and it passes with time. they SUPPORT it because they want the ones ruining their culture with violence brought forward.


So you are pro fascism then. Good to know.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> So you are pro fascism then. Good to know.


I don't think you know what that word means.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> I don't think you know what that word means.


I don't think you do, banning a religion or group based on that is a fascism. its what Hitler did with the Jews but he went far beyond just trying to or tag jews, he also had them put to death.

Banning entry into the country to all Muslims is fascism.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> I don't think you do, banning a religion or group based on that is a fascism. its what Hitler did with the Jews but he went far beyond just trying to or tag jews, he also had them put to death.
> 
> Banning entry into the country to all Muslims is fascism.


I feel like you get your political knowledge from an 8th grade political science class.


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Nice. What of the Sanders plan?


Sanders plan and the current plan weren't all that different from me. I just know that based on the link posted I make $3,600 extra a year if I vote for Trump and he can get his tax plan passed.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FITZ said:


> Sanders plan and the current plan weren't all that different from me. I just know that based on the link posted I make $3,600 extra a year if I vote for Trump and he can get his tax plan passed.


With Bernie you would save more since you would get save $5000 in healthcare and even more if you need surgery or get sick under Sanders plan.

what GOVT really needs to do is do what Finland is doing (or wants to do) and get rid of welfare and unemployment but give everyone regardless of what they make $1000 a month. It would benefit everyone

The US wouldn't need to spend money on welfare anymore or unemployment and they wouldn't need to raise min. wage since everyone would be making 12,000 a year more.

So those people making $12 which is about $24,000 a year they would really be making $36,000 a year and that would offset the need for a min. wage increase.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FITZ said:


> Sanders plan and the current plan weren't all that different from me. I just know that based on the link posted I make $3,600 extra a year if I vote for Trump and he can get his tax plan passed.


:mark: Join me in voting for a Republican in a state that has no chance of flipping Red in a general election.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> With Bernie you would save more since you would get save $5000 in healthcare and even more if you need surgery or get sick under Sanders plan.
> 
> what GOVT really needs to do is do what Finland is doing (or wants to do) and get rid of welfare and unemployment but give everyone regardless of what they make $1000 a month. It would benefit everyone
> 
> The US wouldn't need to spend money on welfare anymore or unemployment and they wouldn't need to raise min. wage since everyone would be making 12,000 a year more.
> 
> So those people making $12 which is about $24,000 a year they would really be making $36,000 a year and that would offset the need for a min. wage increase.


Goodness gracious, go away, socialism does not work and we don't want it. There is no free lunch. You can't sprinkle pixie dust and create wealth. Just stop. It's child-like thinking.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*






:sodone


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> Goodness gracious, go away, socialism does not work and we don't want it. There is no free lunch. You can't sprinkle pixie dust and create wealth. Just stop. It's child-like thinking.


You keep proving over and over how you don't know what you are talking about.

Socialist programs do work.

That is how we pay our police and fire debts, public schools are socialism, its how roads get paved and highways get made , social security is socialist as well as medicare and medicade. Its also how the military is funded the post office runs, as well as trash collection.

There are way more as well that is just the tip of the iceberg. Its hilarious how uniformed people like you in this thread are.

You can tell when you make a comment like there is no free lunch. Socialism does not mean free stuff, its making our tax dollars work for US.
there is a reason we pay taxes.

That $1000 a month is basically just getting social security our whole lives instead of just the we retire.


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> With Bernie you would save more since you would get save $5000 in healthcare and even more if you need surgery or get sick under Sanders plan.
> 
> what GOVT really needs to do is do what Finland is doing (or wants to do) and get rid of welfare and unemployment but give everyone regardless of what they make $1000 a month. It would benefit everyone
> 
> The US wouldn't need to spend money on welfare anymore or unemployment and they wouldn't need to raise min. wage since everyone would be making 12,000 a year more.
> 
> So those people making $12 which is about $24,000 a year they would really be making $36,000 a year and that would offset the need for a min. wage increase.


I'm 25 years old. I'm not spending $5,000 a year on healthcare. I don't need health insurance at this point in my life. Unless it's a condition of my employment that I have to have health insurance I don't see myself buying it for at least a few years. And that's me not buying it with the current plan where I get fined for not owning it. 

I'm pretty sure my medical costs for all of 2015 and 2016 so far is $0, unless you count over the counter cold medicine. 

I get the risk in being uninsured. I also understand how medical insurance works. These companies make money. I'm 25 and healthy. There is almost no chance that my healthcare costs are more than what I spend in insurance. If there was any real chance of that happening insurance companies would be out of business. 

Even if Sanders removes the insurance companies (which I would actually prefer over the current law) I would still be paying taxes that fund the free healthcare. 

Whatever scheme you chose to look at healthy 25 year old is paying for the healthcare of other people in any scenario where there is "free" healthcare or I have to buy health insurance.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> I don't think you do, banning a religion or group based on that is a fascism. its what Hitler did with the Jews but he went far beyond just trying to or tag jews, he also had them put to death.
> 
> Banning entry into the country to all Muslims is fascism.


Rounding up of disliked groups is one of the things that every form of government has done at some point or another 

From Monarchists all the way to today's democracies

The communists, the so called arch enemies of fascism, did it constantly from the USSR's political prisons to North Vietnam's massacres of Catholics



birthday_massacre said:


> You keep proving over and over how you don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Socialist programs do work.
> 
> That is how we pay our police and fire debts, public schools are socialism, its how roads get paved and highways get made , social security is socialist as well as medicare and medicade. Its also how the military is funded the post office runs, as well as trash collection.
> 
> There are way more as well that is just the tip of the iceberg. Its hilarious how uniformed people like you in this thread are.
> 
> You can tell when you make a comment like there is no free lunch. Socialism does not mean free stuff, its making our tax dollars work for US.
> there is a reason we pay taxes.
> 
> That $1000 a month is basically just getting social security our whole lives instead of just the we retire.


The US has a population 318.9 million people 

That would be 318.9 BILLION dollars a month and over three TRILLION dollars a year which would go up every year 

The current tax plan only collects 3.18 trillion and the US Budget eats all that up plus some with 2/3 of being required spending 
THAT IS THE WORST ECONOMICS PLAN I HAVE EVER HEARD OF


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You keep proving over and over how you don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Socialist programs do work.
> 
> That is how we pay our police and fire debts, public schools are socialism, its how roads get paved and highways get made , social security is socialist as well as medicare and medicade. Its also how the military is funded the post office runs, as well as trash collection.
> 
> There are way more as well that is just the tip of the iceberg. Its hilarious how uniformed people like you in this thread are.
> 
> You can tell when you make a comment like there is no free lunch. Socialism does not mean free stuff, its making our tax dollars work for US.
> there is a reason we pay taxes.
> 
> That $1000 a month is basically just getting social security our whole lives instead of just the we retire.


You have no idea of what you are talking about. 

In a *CAPITALIST* economic system the government collects taxes from private individuals and their employers to fund police and fire departments, public schools, and other public services and projects.

In a *SOCIALIST* economic system the government is the employer and owns the means of production. No taxes are collected and the state sets the salaries, prices of goods and services. 

I lived in the Soviet Union and the later is how things were done in a *SOCIALIST *economy.

- Mike


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

LOL

Trump won all 50 delegates last night. 

LOL



Cruz said history was made in his speech in SC. He's right, and Trump made that history.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> You have no idea of what you are talking about.
> 
> In a *CAPITALIST* economic system the government collects taxes from private individuals and their employers to fund police and fire departments, public schools, and other public services and projects.
> 
> In a *SOCIALIST* economic system the government is the employer and owns the means of production. No taxes are collected and the state sets the salaries, prices of goods and services.
> 
> I lived in the Soviet Union and the later is how things were done in a *SOCIALIST *economy.
> 
> - Mike


You are the one who doesn't know what they are talking about. You are so misinformed its not even funny. We are talking about socialist programs in the US. There are tons of socialist programs in the US.
I already named them.


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> You have no idea of what you are talking about.
> 
> In a *CAPITALIST* economic system the government collects taxes from private individuals and their employers to fund police and fire departments, public schools, and other public services and projects.
> 
> In a *SOCIALIST* economic system the government is the employer and owns the means of production. No taxes are collected and the state sets the salaries, prices of goods and services.
> 
> I lived in the Soviet Union and the later is how things were done in a *SOCIALIST *economy.
> 
> - Mike


What you're describing is Communism


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Rounding up of disliked groups is one of the things that every form of government has done at some point or another
> 
> From Monarchists all the way to today's democracies
> 
> The communists, the so called arch enemies of fascism, did it constantly from the USSR's political prisons to North Vietnam's massacres of Catholics
> 
> 
> 
> The US has a population 318.9 million people
> 
> That would be 318.9 BILLION dollars a month and over three TRILLION dollars a year which would go up every year
> 
> The current tax plan only collects 3.18 trillion and the US Budget eats all that up plus some with 2/3 of being required spending
> THAT IS THE WORST ECONOMICS PLAN I HAVE EVER HEARD OF


Saying you want to ban all Muslims from the country is fascism. You can make all the excuses up you want it doesn't change that fact.

As for the economic plan, its a great idea in the long run, especial since it would do away with unemployment, welfare a few other programs and you wouldn't need to raise the min. wage. It would also stimulate the economy and cause job growth because people would have more disposable income and would be spending that money. Not to mention that is social security basically but you are getting it from a younger age and not just when you retire. You wouldn't also be collecting SS anymore that would go away as well. You could easily pay for it with cutting those programs as well as cutting the defense spending.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Saying you want to ban all Muslims from the country is fascism. You can make all the excuses up you want it doesn't change that fact.
> 
> As for the economic plan, its a great idea in the long run, especial since it would do away with unemployment, welfare a few other programs and you wouldn't need to raise the min. wage. It would also stimulate the economy and cause job growth because people would have more disposable income and would be spending that money. Not to mention that is social security basically but you are getting it from a younger age and not just when you retire. You wouldn't also be collecting SS anymore that would go away as well. You could easily pay for it with cutting those programs as well as cutting the defense spending.


Three trillion before 

1. public worker salaries
2. public works
3. education 
4. medical
5. military 
6. scientific development
7. that free college that he promised
8. federal organizations like the FDA and FEMA
9. Union support
10. Foreign Aid 
11. Tax returns
12. Food and drink for federal offices 
13. Debt payment
14. SS for people who ALREADY PAID in and are legally OWED SS

Not to mention the split between state and federal taxes and sales taxes 

Does this extra 1000 count to my income tax, what about people who do not file taxes, what they get? 

Its a terriabad idea


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Liberal media helping Trump win the nomination. As a "chess move" gambit so that if Trump wins the Republican nomination, he'd be easier to beat in November for Hillary than Sanders or the others they have leaked on. 


Bernie Sanders Arrest Video:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/02/20/bernie-sanders-1963-arrest-video-pkg.wgn


There's some books you can read on how not just US media but World media turned to shit propaganda opinion and slander news in the 50's to current. 

But the 50's started it with an official Government infiltration during Operation Mockingbird:

Wikipedia will give ya the basic idea, but it goes much much more in depth, wikipedia leaves out a ton of shit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Pronoss said:


> Liberal media helping Trump win the nomination. As a "chess move" gambit so that if Trump wins the Republican nomination, he'd be easier to beat in November for Hillary than Sanders or the others they have leaked on.
> 
> 
> Bernie Sanders Arrest Video:
> http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/02/20/bernie-sanders-1963-arrest-video-pkg.wgn
> 
> 
> There's some books you can read on how not just US media but World media turned to shit propaganda opinion and slander news in the 50's to current.
> 
> But the 50's started it with an official Government infiltration during Operation Mockingbird:
> 
> Wikipedia will give ya the basic idea, but it goes much much more in depth, wikipedia leaves out a ton of shit:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird


That is why the democrats are idiots.

Bernie fairs way better against Trump and the other GOP candidates than Hillary.

Sanders is the only one in the election cycle that has a net positive favorable rating.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FITZ said:


> What you're describing is Communism


totalitarianism imo



I said I thought Hillary might be done. Was wrong of course. Looks Bernie is the one who is cooked here. RIP Bernie Sanders


Also Trump said that banning Muslims from entering the nation could be a thing. He's not saying ban Muslims that are US citizens. Pretty sure that's incredibly illegal/unconstitutional. I think not allowing Muslims to immigrate here legally is draconian, but I also don't take Trump at face value on this issue.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> totalitarianism imo
> 
> 
> 
> I said I thought Hillary might be done. Was wrong of course. Looks Bernie is the one who is cooked here. RIP Bernie Sanders


We will know after super Tuesday if Sanders or Hillary is done. That will decide who the winner is.

I will say this if Hillary does beat Sanders by her shady bullshit by her and the DNC. I would love to see Trump as much as i despise him destroy her in the generation just to show them how badly they fucked up and need to get their shit together.

The stuff the DNC has done to stack the deck against Sanders is an embarrassment.

its just too bad Bernie won't fight Hillary and the DNC at their own game.


----------



## Rick_James

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Pronoss said:


> Liberal media helping Trump win the nomination. As a "chess move" gambit so that if Trump wins the Republican nomination, he'd be easier to beat in November for Hillary than Sanders or the others they have leaked on.
> 
> 
> Bernie Sanders Arrest Video:
> http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/02/20/bernie-sanders-1963-arrest-video-pkg.wgn
> 
> 
> There's some books you can read on how not just US media but World media turned to shit propaganda opinion and slander news in the 50's to current.
> 
> But the 50's started it with an official Government infiltration during Operation Mockingbird:
> 
> Wikipedia will give ya the basic idea, but it goes much much more in depth, wikipedia leaves out a ton of shit:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird


I think the thing with black people and Bernie Sanders is that he hasn't done much since the 60's for them. His state has the 2nd lowest black population for example, but the real pressing issue is that many of the black leaders in his state felt that he has done nothing for them:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ders-we-were-invisible-to-bernie-sanders.html

Couple that with Sanders trying to impress black kids by hanging out with rappers and Al Sharpton, a well regarded piece of shit, by pretty much all racial standards, and I think it's coming off pretty obvious that he's only playing up to them now for votes.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Rick_James said:


> I think the thing with black people and Bernie Sanders is that he hasn't done much since the 60's for them. His state has the 2nd lowest black population for example, but the real pressing issue is that many of the black leaders in his state felt that he has done nothing for them:
> 
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ders-we-were-invisible-to-bernie-sanders.html
> 
> Couple that with Sanders trying to impress black kids by hanging out with rappers and Al Sharpton, a well regarded piece of shit, by pretty much all racial standards, and I think it's coming off pretty obvious that he's only playing up to them now for votes.


What has Hillary done for black voters besides keeping them in jail so the jails can make money off of them. Hillary doesn't give a shit about american americans. She just tells them what they want to hear to get their vote. Anyone in the middle or lower class that votes for Hillary over Sanders gets what they deserve. She isn't for them she is for her rich friends in wall street. Hillary has done everything she can to get blacks put in jail and keep them there even for non violent crimes. And they are voting for her LOL


----------



## Rick_James

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> What has Hillary done for black voters besides keeping them in jail so the jails can make money off of them. Hillary doesn't give a shit about american americans. She just tells them what they want to hear to get their vote. Anyone in the middle or lower class that votes for Hillary over Sanders gets what they deserve. She isn't for them she is for her rich friends in wall street. Hillary has done everything she can to get blacks put in jail and keep them there even for non violent crimes. And they are voting for her LOL


Pretty much every politician on some level, Sanders included, tells people what they want to hear to get votes. Not saying Hillary is much better when it comes to dealing with black people though, to be honest the democrat party has been in charge for decades, in some cases like 50 years even, with places like Baltimore and Detroit, and those cities are in shambles.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trust me, folks, I want things to be different with politics. That's why I think many people outside the US don't understand what's going on with the candidacies of folks like Trump, Cruz, and Sanders. We are angry with the way politics are going in this country right now. The status quo ain't working, and politicians that promise us the sun and the moon basically screw us over. I dropped from the Republican ranks after the '08 bailout, although other things that Dubya and the GOP did pissed me off before (treatment of our military, the Patriot Act, etc). We are willing to look outside the Washington establishment for people that will do this for us. Besides, the idea of politics originally set forth by our Founding Fathers was to give normal people a chance to run things. 

I have become more and more disgusted with what is going on with our country as we head down a path I don't want to be on. In addition to our military being treated like shit, we have a growing national debt we can't live with much longer. Millions of illegal immigrants are here with no plans on how to resolve the matter. A government that becomes more and more intrusive in our everyday lives. And, to boot, we have leaders who use the Constitution like toilet paper. 

I don't necessarily ask for a President to cater to every single whim we have, but to actually go back to using the Constitution as the law of the land. I want someone who will take the plight of the working class seriously and not use it for a punchline. I want someone who will bring the government back to handling the day-to-day tasks it was meant to handle and leave the rest up to us. 

I just don't see Donald Trump as that person. He claims to be conservative, but many of his stances scream out liberal. Given the choice between what we have now and him, people would be more likely to just vote with what we have now. He tells us what we want to hear, but is louder and more obnoxious about it. Will he really change things and shake up how shit is done, or is it more of the same old shit we've come to expect. 





Rick_James said:


> I think the thing with black people and Bernie Sanders is that he hasn't done much since the 60's for them. His state has the 2nd lowest black population for example, but the real pressing issue is that many of the black leaders in his state felt that he has done nothing for them:
> 
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ders-we-were-invisible-to-bernie-sanders.html
> 
> Couple that with Sanders trying to impress black kids by hanging out with rappers and Al Sharpton, a well regarded piece of shit, by pretty much all racial standards, and I think it's coming off pretty obvious that he's only playing up to them now for votes.





birthday_massacre said:


> What has Hillary done for black voters besides keeping them in jail so the jails can make money off of them. Hillary doesn't give a shit about american americans. She just tells them what they want to hear to get their vote. Anyone in the middle or lower class that votes for Hillary over Sanders gets what they deserve. She isn't for them she is for her rich friends in wall street. Hillary has done everything she can to get blacks put in jail and keep them there even for non violent crimes. And they are voting for her LOL


There's a reason why the Black Lives Matter movement is doing demonstrations at the rallies for Clinton and Sanders and you don't see them at any GOP rallies. They believe that the progress Obama has made is not enough, they want it to go even further. And, BTW, the BLM website still says nothing about police reform whatsoever.


----------



## Reaper

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Putting it really simply, am I the only one that thinks that we as a nation have failed ourselves in that our primary two candidates for presidency are a) a crass bigot with NPD and b) A lying federal criminal ? 

It doesn't really get any simple than that I'm sorry to say. You can get into the complexities of their policies and opinions and debate things beyond what lies at their core. But ultimately that's what I see this election as. A fight between the worst of both sides this country's bipartisanship has to offer.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Hilliary confuses me 

I can under stand corruption like Watergate or arming a violent group to harass your enemies

Its not right but I get it

Half the Hilliary issues was her using government sources to openly make money with zero attempt at keeping it quit

Bill giving presidential pardons to people who committed perjury to not testify against her and to criminals represented by his brother in law

The clinton-legal fund where people and corporations can "donate" to pay the legal bills the Clintons racked up with their constant inquires by the JOD

Come the fuck on

I almost think they leaked the sex scandal on purpose to make it look like Bill is being ganged up on unfairly and to make their critics look petty


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FITZ said:


> What you're describing is Communism


*No, I am describing SOCIALISM *which is the theoretical stepping stone from capitalism to communism.

Under communism there is *NO *state and society runs on the principle of "*from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."*

*Communism has never existed*. The Soviet Union was a socialist state where the government owned the means of production and was the sole employer in the country. It set prices, salaries, and controlled social services and projects. Since it was the employer it did not collect taxes, but allocated salaries based on computations that took into account all outflow and inflow of capital.

Under Soviet socialism the Marxist axiom was tweaked to "*from each according to his ability, to each according to his work.*" That is quite a difference from the original quote from Karl Marx describing communism.

- Mike


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are the one who doesn't know what they are talking about. You are so misinformed its not even funny. We are talking about socialist programs in the US. There are tons of socialist programs in the US.
> I already named them.


My God! Why do I bother? You have no idea what a socialist society and economy is and I won't waste anymore of my breath arguing with you. Stay ignorant!

- Mike


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

It's at the point that the Democratic Party should be held to account for this:

http://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=democratic+primaries+delegates&eob=m.09c7w0/D/2/short/m.09c7w0/

Their entire super-delegate rigging of the primary season is a disgrace to the very democracy that they purport to champion, but it's hardly surprising since democracy invites and engenders such degeneracies.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> My God! Why do I bother? You have no idea what a socialist society and economy is and I won't waste anymore of my breath arguing with you. Stay ignorant!
> 
> - Mike


You are the ignorant one loll
but what ever makes you sleep at night.

Just google socialist programs in the US, and all thoes programs I mentioned will come up.

Hell just look here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States

or look here

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/3/29/1078852/-75-Ways-Socialism-Has-Improved-America


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are the ignorant one loll
> but what ever makes you sleep at night.


This is why nobody likes you and it's not because you are a socialist but rather you're a dick when somebody disagrees with you.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> This is why nobody likes you and it's not because you are a socialist but rather you're a dick when somebody disagrees with you.


I love how you totally ignored what was said that had me respond with that.

Let me recap.





Batko10 said:


> My God! Why do I bother? You have no idea what a socialist society and economy is and I won't waste anymore of my breath arguing with you. Stay ignorant!
> 
> - Mike




OH yeah but i don't hear you saying that to him LOL

He is wrong. all those programs I mentioned are socialist programs. It has nothing to do with disagreeing. It has to do with him being wrong and claiming I don't know what I am talking about. When in fact he is the one that doesn't know what he is talking about.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Perhaps my favorite moment of the election cycle thus far: http://www.politico.com/video/2016/02/trump-on-lindsey-graham-one-of-the-dumbest-human-beings-043592


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FITZ said:


> I'm 25 years old. I'm not spending $5,000 a year on healthcare. I don't need health insurance at this point in my life. Unless it's a condition of my employment that I have to have health insurance I don't see myself buying it for at least a few years. And that's me not buying it with the current plan where I get fined for not owning it.
> 
> I'm pretty sure my medical costs for all of 2015 and 2016 so far is $0, unless you count over the counter cold medicine.
> 
> I get the risk in being uninsured. I also understand how medical insurance works. These companies make money. I'm 25 and healthy. There is almost no chance that my healthcare costs are more than what I spend in insurance. If there was any real chance of that happening insurance companies would be out of business.
> 
> Even if Sanders removes the insurance companies (which I would actually prefer over the current law) I would still be paying taxes that fund the free healthcare.
> 
> Whatever scheme you chose to look at healthy 25 year old is paying for the healthcare of other people in any scenario where there is "free" healthcare or I have to buy health insurance.


How about the military? Over here in Aus I don't believe we need half the defence budget we currently have. So therefore I'm paying for other people who are irrationally scared and believe that we need a massive defence budget.

Should I get that portion of my tax dollars back?

What about the roads I don't use?

The fire dept I have NEVER used personally?

The massive mining company subsidies that my country loves to dish out that are of no benefit to me?

The programs for the homeless? The mentally ill? I don't care about them why should I pay?


Once you start down this path where do you stop?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> How about the military? Over here in Aus I don't believe we need half the defence budget we currently have. So therefore I'm paying for other people who are irrationally scared and believe that we need a massive defence budget.
> 
> Should I get that portion of my tax dollars back?
> 
> What about the roads I don't use?
> 
> The fire dept I have NEVER used personally?
> 
> The massive mining company subsidies that my country loves to dish out that are of no benefit to me?
> 
> The programs for the homeless? The mentally ill? I don't care about them why should I pay?
> 
> 
> Once you start down this path where do you stop?


Republicans only care about themselves and no one else that is the problem with the GOP. Which is funny since most of them are christian and that is what the bible tells people to do. 

The US military spends more than the next 8 combined. The US could cut spending by 50% for the military and still be #1 by a wide margin and just think of what they money could be used for.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Can we deport the socialist jobbers to their own thread so they can stop derailing this thread?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> Can we deport the socialist jobbers to their own thread so they can stop derailing this thread?


Hey come on mate, it's the land of the free and the home of the brave!


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Republicans only care about themselves and no one else that is the problem with the GOP. Which is funny since most of them are christian and that is what the bible tells people to do.
> 
> The US military spends more than the next 8 combined. The US could cut spending by 50% for the military and still be #1 by a wide margin and just think of what they money could be used for.


Yes Republicans only care about themselves. 

That money could be used for "free" education I suppose right?


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> I love how you totally ignored what was said that had me respond with that.
> 
> Let me recap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH yeah but i don't hear you saying that to him LOL
> 
> He is wrong. all those programs I mentioned are socialist programs. It has nothing to do with disagreeing. It has to do with him being wrong and claiming I don't know what I am talking about. When in fact he is the one that doesn't know what he is talking about.


You have acted like a complete asshole to every person disagreeing with you in this thread. It's okay to have a different thought process but you can't seem to get that around your thick skull. You are a complete and utter idiot LOL. DEMOCRATS SUCK LOLL. 

Am I doing it right? Is this how you go around in everyday life? You just insult people all the time that disagree with everyone? I feel bad for you honestly bro, I can only imagine how depressed you are in real life man. I truly am sorry for you. 


It's okay to disagree!


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

All of you, calm down. We'll find out who wins.

FYI, BM, this is what we used to dissect each plan.

https://www.taxrate.xyz/


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@birthday_massacre you do need to tone down your LOL baiting that you do. 

I like dissenting opinion in threads so I prefer you and othesr like to be part of the discussion. Just don't get personal and don't bait.

thanks


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

will do


----------



## Reaper

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

BM: Socialism is not the same as Welfare Stateism. A country that has tax funded social welfare programs is not at all a socialist country. 

Bernie is either an idiot or leading others on when he accepts that label of socialist when what he's really standing for is the creation of a Welfare State. Maybe that's where his campaign derailed itself. Perhaps he should've spent time telling Americans that what he really wants is a hybrid system that embraces part capitalism and part social welfare state like Canada and other European nations. None of which is impossible within a capitalist society. It may be incompatible with laissez faire capitalism of the libertarians, but not with capitalism as a whole. 

Socialism however is anti-capitalist. Using socialism when talking about social welfare programs however is a misuse of what it really means.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Reaper said:


> BM: Socialism is not the same as Welfare Stateism. A country that has tax funded social welfare programs is not at all a socialist country.
> 
> Bernie is either an idiot or leading others on when he accepts that label of socialist when what he's really standing for is the creation of a Welfare State. Maybe that's where his campaign derailed itself. Perhaps he should've spent time telling Americans that what he really wants is a hybrid system that embraces part capitalism and part social welfare state like Canada and other European nations. None of which is impossible within a capitalist society. It may be incompatible with laissez faire capitalism of the libertarians, but not with capitalism as a whole.
> 
> Socialism however is anti-capitalist. Using socialism when talking about social welfare programs however is a misuse of what it really means.


Democratic socialism is different from just socialism.

Those programs I mentioned are socialist programs. The USA has been part socialist and part capitalist for a long time. 

And Bernie has been doing that but the media is against Bernie so they aways give misleading information about him. All you have to do is look at how the questions are framed to him in debates and town halls.


----------



## Reaper

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Democratic socialism is different from just socialism.
> 
> Those programs I mentioned are socialist programs. The USA has been part socialist and part capitalist for a long time.
> 
> And Bernie has been doing that but the media is against Bernie so they aways give misleading information about him. All you have to do is look at how the questions are framed to him in debates and town halls.


They're not socialist. They're part of Welfare Stateism. 



> One area where this gets bandied about is in the cyclical critique that a particular policy is “socialist.” But most policies that get handed this critique aren’t “socialist” at all. Socialism is, strictly speaking, the nationalization of the production of goods and services. But here in the United States, the term “socialism” tends to get conflated with _any_ government intervention in the economy, or any welfare state program. But they’re not the same thing. The way that GM was bailed out is, arguably, socialist, since the United States government is now the majority stakeholder in GM. The recently passed Health Care Reform Bill, on the other hand, is _not_ socialist. Private insurance will remain private. Private hospitals will remain private. Private practices will remain private. It is instead properly thought of as welfare statism–part of a creation of a social safety net that attempts to mitigate risks that are outside of people’s control.
> 
> 
> One area where this gets bandied about is in the cyclical critique that a particular policy is “socialist.” But most policies that get handed this critique aren’t “socialist” at all. Socialism is, strictly speaking, the nationalization of the production of goods and services. But here in the United States, the term “socialism” tends to get conflated with _any_ government intervention in the economy, or any welfare state program. But they’re not the same thing. The way that GM was bailed out is, arguably, socialist, since the United States government is now the majority stakeholder in GM. The recently passed Health Care Reform Bill, on the other hand, is _not_ socialist. Private insurance will remain private. Private hospitals will remain private. Private practices will remain private. It is instead properly thought of as welfare statism–part of a creation of a social safety net that attempts to mitigate risks that are outside of people’s control.


You might wanna check out the rest of this article. 

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/socialism_vs_welfare_statism_vs_free-markets_vs_corporatism/


----------



## Reaper

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

No idea why sometimes I can't edit posts that have quotes in them :frustrate

This should be the second para in my quotes:



> By conflating, as we often do, socialism and the welfare state, we ignore models by which free enterprise is compatible with a strong safety net. For example, Denmark, New Zealand, and Canada all have strong welfare states which include universal health care, yet all three are also in the top ten of the Heritage Foundation’s economic freedom rankings. It’s much easier to start a business in Denmark than it is the United States, for example–and people do at high rates! This despite Denmark’s higher levels of taxation. Now, would a Danish or New Zealand policy model necessarily be appropriate for the United States? Maybe, maybe not. But they provide an example worth considering where we can liberate markets while still providing a decent safety net. A rational analysis would be more appropriate than deriding every every attempt by the government to do something as being a “descent into tyranny.” Last time I checked, Canada and Denmark were not totalitarian hell-holes.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Reaper said:


> They're not socialist. They're part of Welfare Stateism.
> 
> 
> 
> You might wanna check out the rest of this article.
> 
> http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/socialism_vs_welfare_statism_vs_free-markets_vs_corporatism/


They are socialist already proved it. Not doing to repeat myself. All you have to do is google US socialist programs and those all come up.

You have to go out of your way to ignore that.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The USPS is Welfare Stateism? ok


----------



## Reaper

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> They are socialist already proved it. Not doing to repeat myself. All you have to do is google US socialist programs and those all come up.
> 
> You have to go out of your way to ignore that.


So you're just gonna close your ears and go na na na na like a creationist on this issue? 

What you've proven is SOCIAL programs. Not SOCIALIST programs. 

There's the difference we're trying to get you to learn but you're refusing to do so.


----------



## Reaper

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> The USPS is Welfare Stateism? ok


It would be socialist if it didn't have competing services like UPS and FEDEX imo.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Reaper said:


> So you're just gonna close your ears and go na na na na like a creationist on this issue?
> 
> What you've proven is SOCIAL programs. Not SOCIALIST programs.
> 
> There's the difference we're trying to get you to learn but you're refusing to do so.


Social programs and socialist programs are the same thing. They are used interchangeably as far as the US goes. You are just talking semantics.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> How about the military? Over here in Aus I don't believe we need half the defence budget we currently have. So therefore I'm paying for other people who are irrationally scared and believe that we need a massive defence budget.
> 
> Should I get that portion of my tax dollars back?
> 
> What about the roads I don't use?
> 
> The fire dept I have NEVER used personally?
> 
> The massive mining company subsidies that my country loves to dish out that are of no benefit to me?
> 
> The programs for the homeless? The mentally ill? I don't care about them why should I pay?
> 
> 
> Once you start down this path where do you stop?


Great questions. Clearly you should not have to be forced to pay for any service you don't want. 



birthday_massacre said:


> Republicans only care about themselves and no one else that is the problem with the GOP. Which is funny since most of them are christian and that is what the bible tells people to do.


Yeah this is just wrong. Republican states give more to charity than Democrat states, and would likely give even more were they not forced to pay for the welfare state which traps the poor into a dependent class rather than actually helping them. Having the government take money from other people to pay for your causes (when in fact much of that money is going to fund the large bureaucracies with a disincentive to help the people they're supposed to help) is not charity. 



> The US military spends more than the next 8 combined. The US could cut spending by 50% for the military and still be #1 by a wide margin and just think of what they money could be used for.


How about giving the money back to the people it was stolen from through taxation and let them decide how to use their own money? (Republicans would of course more likely give their extra cash to charities than Democrats would)


----------



## Reaper

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Social programs and socialist programs are the same thing. They are used interchangeably as far as the US goes. You are just talking semantics.


No I'm not talking semantics at all. The distinction between a social welfare state and a socialist state is like the difference between Canada and North Korea. 

North Korea isn't some corrupt version of socialism. It is exactly what decades of socialism do to an economy and its people.

If only Bernie and his supporters spent more time learning the difference maybe his campaign might actually have been in a better position right now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Reaper said:


> No I'm not talking semantics at all. The distinction between a social welfare state and a socialist state is like the difference between Canada and North Korea.
> 
> North Korea isn't some corrupt version of socialism. It is exactly what decades of socialism do to an economy and its people.


We are talking about democratic socialism.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I must mention, this country has already tried an offshoot of Bernie's philosophy and failed.






Before you say "Not communism, Socialism", The New left called themselves Socialist democrats. Sound like anyone?

Edit:

Here's Buckley debating your standard socialist, since Bernie supporters say "Socialism" itself also works.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> I must mention, this country has already tried an offshoot of Bernie's philosophy and failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you say "Not communism, Socialism", The New left called themselves Socialist democrats. Sound like anyone?


Finland ,Denmark, Norway and Sweden say hello.

Trickledown economics has been a colossal failure in the US but of course you ignore that.


----------



## Reaper

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> We are talking about democratic socialism.


You mean the system that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union under its policies?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

See the edit in my post above.

The black gentleman, upon watching, sounds eerily similar to a BLM drone: Racebait, Racebait, Racebait.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Reaper said:


> You mean the system that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union under its policies?



And the same system that lets Finland ,Denmark, Norway and Sweden be some of the best countries in the world for highest quality of life?


----------



## Reaper

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> And the same system that lets Finland ,Denmark, Norway and Sweden be some of the best countries in the world for highest quality of life?


No that's text-book capitalism-friendly Welfare Stateism fpalm

You don't even know what socialism or democratic socialism vs welfare stateism really is. You're just throwing out words for systems that you don't even understand



> Modern welfare states include the Nordic countries, such as Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland[3] which employ a system known as the Nordic model. Esping-Andersen classified the most developed welfare state systems into three categories; Social Democratic, Conservative, and Liberal.[4]


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Reaper said:


> No that's text-book capitalism-friendly Welfare Stateism fpalm
> 
> You don't even know what socialism or democratic socialism vs welfare stateism really is. You're just throwing out words for systems that you don't even understand


You are the one that does not know what you are talking about. I am done with you. Those countries are all socialist countries. 


http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/

I am done with you. You obvious don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Just pointing out how amusing it is that Bernie talks about the joy in Sweden with its lax gun laws while it's the rape capital of the world and running rapent with break-ins in the home. 

These smaller countries live comfortably in socialism because they know no other way of life.

POLAND however.......


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are the one that does not know what you are talking about. I am done with you. Those countries are all socialist countries.
> 
> 
> http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/
> 
> I am done with you. You obvious don't know what you are talking about.


What? No, you can't do that. You can't just go "No, fuck you. I'm right."

At least agree to disagree.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Just pointing out how amusing it is that Bernie talks about the joy in Sweden with its lax gun laws while it's the rape capital of the world and running rapent with break-ins in the home.
> 
> These smaller countries live comfortably in socialism because they know no other way of life.
> 
> POLAND however.......


Yeah and the US is the mass shooting capital of the world and has more people in jail than any other country in the world but of course you ignore that


----------



## Reaper

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are the one that does not know what you are talking about. I am done with you. Those countries are all socialist countries.
> 
> 
> http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/
> 
> I am done with you. You obvious don't know what you are talking about.


Quoting a blog that is wrong doesn't make you right. If the source itself is wrong that source is completely useless because the person talking about socialist countries in that list is ignorant. He's lumping in welfare states into socialist states because like you he doesn't know the fucking difference fpalm



Beatles123 said:


> What? No, you can't do that. You can't just go "No, fuck you. I'm right."
> 
> At least agree to disagree.


He's citing from a source that is wrong in its analysis as well. It's not a matter of opinion. Some of the countries in that list are social welfare states. 

This is like arguing with a creationist about evolution at this point.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah and the US is the mass shooting capital of the world and has more people in jail than any other country in the world but of course you ignore that


at least OUR criminals ARE in jail. Sweden is just a mess.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Reaper said:


> Quoting a blog that is wrong doesn't make you right. If the source itself is wrong that source is completely useless because the person talking about socialist countries in that list is ignorant. He's lumping in welfare states into socialist states because like you he doesn't know the fucking difference fpalm
> 
> 
> 
> He's citing from a source that is wrong in its analysis as well. It's not a matter of opinion. Some of the countries in that list are social welfare states.
> 
> This is like arguing with a creationist about evolution at this point.


Yup all the evidence and everyone is wrong that shows you how those counties are socialist but you are right that they are not. Ok . Im done.


----------



## Reaper

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yup all the evidence and everyone is wrong that shows you how those counties are socialist but you are right that they are not. Ok . Im done.


Did you even read the blog? There's no evidence in that blog to prove those countries are socialist. Only evidence for how they are social welfare hybrid states. In fact, that blog is self-damning because of the lack of evidence for socialism. They even threw New Zealand in there and even SAID that New Zealand is not a Socialist country. The real fact is that that person is just as confused about welfare stateism vs socialism as you are. 

You haven't bothered to read up on the difference either yet, have you?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yup all the evidence and everyone is wrong that shows you how those counties are socialist but you are right that they are not. Ok . Im done.


Bm, No one's attacking you. Show Reaper the facts that confirm they are socialist countries and not welfare states. That is your objective.


----------



## asdf0501

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Yeah this is just wrong. Republican states give more to charity than Democrat states, and would likely give even more were they not forced to pay for the welfare state which traps the poor into a dependent class rather than actually helping them. *Having the government take money from other people to pay for your causes (when in fact much of that money is going to fund the large bureaucracies with a disincentive to help the people they're supposed to help) is not charity. *


This discourse is excellent, but you have real proves of it?. 

States and capitalism are mutally dependent of each other so i don't see your point at all, the born of both is simultanous and historically you can trace a mutual necessity relation between them. In fact, if you follow the bureaucracy concept in general, their growth and independeance is genereated by the acumulation of taxes yeah, but also by the influence of money in politics because originally politics was seen as a vocation and as years passed politics was seen as a profesion which drived ecnomy interest in it. This is covered by traditional sociological theory, is present in the texts of Tocqueville when talking about "american exceptionalism", the larger economy operates as a separated sphere, the more you see this kind of phenomenas







Reaper said:


> No I'm not talking semantics at all. The distinction between a social welfare state and a socialist state is like the difference between Canada and North Korea.
> 
> North Korea isn't some corrupt version of socialism. It is exactly what decades of socialism do to an economy and its people.


At the end is semantics. 

All of you are talking about the contamination of the socialism term when welfare states are just a mix of capitalism and socialism with a fundation on social welfare. Like the scandinavian ones, which by the way have the highest standards of living in the world by every meassure

Sanders has explained this, time and time again so i don't see the point of discussing it. You can debate if those kind of politic works because these are lesser countries or because examples like Norway (a country with 0% of crime at some point) have rich resources like oil, or some other shit that you can¿t do on America, that would be a real discussion instead of just semantics



Beatles123 said:


> I must mention, this country has already tried an offshoot of Bernie's philosophy and failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you say "Not communism, Socialism", The New left called themselves Socialist democrats. Sound like anyone?
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Here's Buckley debating your standard socialist, since Bernie supporters say "Socialism" itself also works.


Not the same, as explained above, the "new left" was influenced by a large chunk of movements, with a particular big influence of the Frankfurt school which was more of a intellectual and particularly a cultural movement. Sanders ideas are more driven by the politics made in Scandinavia.

Also, the new left never had the real opportunity to be politcally at the front of the country so don't get your point anyways.


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> How about the military? Over here in Aus I don't believe we need half the defence budget we currently have. So therefore I'm paying for other people who are irrationally scared and believe that we need a massive defence budget.
> 
> Should I get that portion of my tax dollars back?
> 
> What about the roads I don't use?
> 
> The fire dept I have NEVER used personally?
> 
> The massive mining company subsidies that my country loves to dish out that are of no benefit to me?
> 
> The programs for the homeless? The mentally ill? I don't care about them why should I pay?
> 
> 
> Once you start down this path where do you stop?


We both live in countries with a representative form of government. If you don't want to pay for the fire department and can get someone elected that shares your view on that then go for it. 

I'm not saying I want each and every individual to decide what their personal income tax is going to be (sorry @CamillePunk  ). I have my views for how I want the government to operate and I'm going to vote for the candidate that supports that idea.

I want most of the things you mentioned in that post (not so much the mining subsidiaries I guess?) so I'm not going to vote for someone that wants to get rid of all that stuff.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



asdf0501 said:


> This discourse is excellent, but you have real proves of it?.
> 
> States and capitalism are mutally dependent of each other so i don't see your point at all. In fact, if you follow the bureaucracy concept in general, their growth and independeance is genereated by the acumulation of taxes yeah, but also by the influence of money in politics because originally politics was seen as a vocation as years passed politics was seen as a profesion. This is covered by traditional sociological theory, in fact is present in the texts of Toqueville when talking about "american exceptionalism", the larger economy operates as a separated sphere, the more you see this kind of phenomenas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end is semantics.
> 
> All of you are talking about the contamination of the socialism term when welfare states are just a mix of capitalism and socialism with a fundation on social welfare. Like the scandinavian ones, which by the way have the highers standards of living in the world by every meassure
> 
> Sanders has explained this, time and time again so i don't see the point of discussing it. You can deabte if those kind of politic works because these are lesser countries or because examples like Norway (a country with 0% of crime at some point) have rich resources like oil, or some other shit, but that's a real discussion
> 
> 
> 
> Not the same, as explained above, the "new left" was influenced by a large chunk of movements, with a particular big influence of the Frankfurt school which was more of a intellectual and particularly a cultural movement. Sanders ideas are more driven by the politics made in Scandinavia.
> 
> Also, the new left never had the real opportunity to be politcally at the front of the country so don't get your point anyways.


Well the frankfurt school is a whole other can o' worms. I'm not even sure you can call them "Intellectuals" but I digress.

Also, I said the new left as an offshoot. An INCARNATION of socialism.


The point is that Bernie's ideology gets repackaged and re-presented to the US every decade or so. It has never and will never work in america.


----------



## asdf0501

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Why Frankfurt school is not an Intellectual movement if i can ask? Have you read Adorno for example?

The same can be asked for America, i'm not advocating for socialism here but it's difficult to know if something works when you never tried....You can be ideologically opposed to it, yeah, but saying that doesn't work is an entire different discussion


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I don't think many people understand why the US government system leans conservative

Most nations "constitutions" are laid out in a way that says "government HAS to do so and so" anything else can be decided at a later date

The US constitution are laid out in way that says "government can ONLY do so and so" completely restricting the power of the government

When the US was founded it was trying to be everything a monarchy wasn't where most nations created their laws as a progressive evolution of a monarchy or had a populist revolt


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



asdf0501 said:


> Why Frankfurt school is not an Intellectual movement if i can ask? Have you read Adorno for example?
> 
> The same can be asked for America, i'm not advocating for socialism here but it's difficult to know if something works when you never tried....You can be ideologically opposed to it, yeah, but saying that doesn't work is an entire different discussion


I'm going to give you a very simple answer and I preface this by saying I am not well versed on them as others.

The school, to me, was founded by people who when socialism was defeated said "Well, shit, how we gonna pedal our doctrine now?" and so they rounded up those with like minds and proceeded to target other civilizations that hadn't discovered the failures.

I know, it sounds flimsy, but I can't really explain it better than that. Like the first order after the fall of the empire in star wars.


----------



## asdf0501

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> I don't think many people understand why the US government system leans conservative
> 
> Most nations "constitutions" are laid out in a way that says "government HAS to do so and so" anything else can be decided at a later date
> 
> The US constitution are laid out in way that says "government can ONLY do so and so" completely restricting the power of the government
> 
> When the US was founded it was trying to be everything a monarchy wasn't where most nations created their laws as a progressive evolution of a monarchy or had a populist revolt


I understand this and i think american constitution is particularly exceptional because it diverge from the original definition of State, A.K.A Hobbes definition (monopoly of violence) but at the same time, is not so particularly exceptional because in reality is just a derivation of the original bill of right of the glorious revolution of England.

My opinion? any document who isn't revisited, analyzed and questioned (just because intentions change with the pass of time, among a ton of other things), is in danger of transform itself on a religious cult.



Beatles123 said:


> I'm going to give you a very simple answer and I preface this by saying I am not well versed on them as others.
> 
> The school, to me, was founded by people who when socialism was defeated said "Well, shit, how we gonna pedal our doctrine now?" and so they rounded up those with like minds and proceeded to target other civilizations that hadn't discovered the failures.
> 
> I know, it sounds flimsy, but I can't really explain it better than that. Like the first order after the fall of the empire in star wars.


I think you're confused.

Frankfurt school is influenced by marxism but doesn't advocate for a marxism model at all in fact Frankfurt was also influenced by some modernist thinkers like Kant or Hegel and is particularly critic not only of Stalinism and liberalism but also of the state influence in capitalism, if anything Frakfurt thinkers were pessimist who came to the conclussion that the dream of freedom is an utopia in modern societies. The closest thing you're going to find to a Marxist model, is luckacs theory in that he organized Lenin's ideas and created the concept of reification but he wasn't part of Frankfurt at all. 

Some thinkers of the school were conservatives like Fromm or the notable example of Habermas.

I think that the image of Frankfurt in America was stupidly contaminated by this idiotic idea of "cultural marxism" who was born out of a conspiracy theory sadly, if you read the texts of Horkheimer and Adorno, they advocate against mass culture and in favor of elitism.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Reaper said:


> Quoting a blog that is wrong doesn't make you right. If the source itself is wrong that source is completely useless because the person talking about socialist countries in that list is ignorant. He's lumping in welfare states into socialist states because like you he doesn't know the fucking difference fpalm
> 
> He's citing from a source that is wrong in its analysis as well. It's not a matter of opinion. Some of the countries in that list are social welfare states.
> 
> This is like arguing with a creationist about evolution at this point.


It's hopeless. BM doesn't have a clue and you can explain it to him until you are blue in the face, but it won't help. 

I lived in the Soviet Union for 6 1/2 years. That was a socialist state for the reasons I explained in an earlier post. BTW, I also lived briefly in Finland for about 5 months. The difference between the socialist USSR and social welfare state Finland was pretty obvious. 

- Mike


----------



## Reaper

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> It's hopeless. BM doesn't have a clue and you can explain it to him until you are blue in the face, but it won't help.
> 
> I lived in the Soviet Union for 6 1/2 years. That was a socialist state for the reasons I explained in an earlier post. BTW, I also lived briefly in Finland for about 5 months. The difference between the socialist USSR and welfare state Finland was pretty obvious.
> 
> - Mike


Interesting. I'm also not speaking from a lack of experience either. 

I grew up in dictatorship/socialist Pakistan that was trying to transition to democratic/capitalist (and it was tough as fuck struggle) and then Canada which is a social welfare state and I know the difference as well - and now I'm in America which is neither and I can tell the difference between the three from an experience stand point ..

People here use the word socialist interchangeably with social welfare just because of the social in there and call it semantics. I guess to them the difference between butt and butter is probably also semantics.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



asdf0501 said:


> I understand this and i think american constitution is particularly exceptional because it diverge from the original definition of State, A.K.A Hobbes definition (monopoly of violence) but at the same time, is not so particularly exceptional because in reality is just a derivation of the original bill of right of the glorious revolution of England.
> 
> My opinion? any document who isn't revisited, analyzed and questioned (just because intentions change with the pass of time, among a ton of other things), is in danger of transform itself on a religious cult.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're confused.
> 
> Frankfurt school is influenced by marxism but doesn't advocate for a marxism model at all in fact Frankfurt was also influenced by some modernist thinkers like Kant or Hegel and is particularly critic not only of Stalinism and liberalism but also of the state influence in capitalism, if anything Frakfurt thinkers were pessimist who came to the conclussion that the dream of freedom is an utopia in modern societies. The closest thing you're going to find to a Marxist model, is luckacs theory in that he organized Lenin's ideas and created the concept of reification but he wasn't part of Frankfurt at all.
> 
> Some thinkers of the school were conservatives like Fromm or the notable example of Habermas.
> 
> I think that Frankfurt was stupidly contaminated by this idiotic idea of "cultural marxism" who was born out of a conspiracy theory sadly, if you read the texts of Horkheimer and Adorno, they advocate against mass culture and in favor of elitism.


If you don't want cultural Marxism, Sanders is not your friend.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FITZ said:


> We both live in countries with a representative form of government. If you don't want to pay for the fire department and can get someone elected that shares your view on that then go for it.
> 
> I'm not saying I want each and every individual to decide what their personal income tax is going to be (sorry @CamillePunk  ). I have my views for how I want the government to operate and I'm going to vote for the candidate that supports that idea.
> 
> I want most of the things you mentioned in that post (not so much the mining subsidiaries I guess?) so I'm not going to vote for someone that wants to get rid of all that stuff.


You're into supporting the homeless and mentally ill but not healthcare? Not having a go at you, just feel like those things tend to go together.

But in any case, you're not going to find a candidate that has everything you want, they're just going to accentuate the things that are populist and hide the things that aren't.

I'm just relieved we have medicare over here and it's never been in question of being scrapped (the conservatives would love to but it's political poison amongst the community).


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> You're into supporting the homeless and mentally ill but not healthcare? Not having a go at you, just feel like those things tend to go together.
> 
> But in any case, you're not going to find a candidate that has everything you want, they're just going to accentuate the things that are populist and hide the things that aren't.
> 
> I'm just relieved we have medicare over here and it's never been in question of being scrapped (the conservatives would love to but it's political poison amongst the community).


We in the US cannot realistically achieve single-payer. We are in debt up to our eyeballs.


----------



## asdf0501

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Reaper said:


> People here use the word socialist interchangeably with social welfare just because of the social in there and call it semantics. I guess to them the difference between butt and butter is probably also semantics.


It's semantics because the modern idea of welfare states was born and adopted as a way to deal with the effect of WW II and massively adovcated for the idea to give equal chance to certain goods as rights, which is based on socialism. After that you can be liberal like asian welfare regions or democratic like Scandinavia, the idea is still based on big government supplies

By the way, the New deal in America is also accepted as a moderate welfare state

It's like discussing liberalism a term that in economy nomenclature is conservative and in social science is progressive.



Beatles123 said:


> If you don't want cultural Marxism, Sanders is not your friend.


Cultural Marxism doesn't exist


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> We in the US cannot realistically achieve single-payer. We are in debt up to our eyeballs.


User pays is a popular ideal for conservatives to parrot, but IMO it would be a disaster IRL.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



asdf0501 said:


> It's semantics because the modern idea of welfare states was born and adopted as a way to deal with the effect of WW II and massively adovcated for the idea to give equal chance to certain goods as rights, which is based on socialism. After that you can be liberal like asian welfare regions or democratic like Scandinavia, the idea is still based on big government supplies
> 
> By the way, the New deal in America is also accepted as a moderate welfare state
> 
> It's like discussing liberalism a term that in economy nomenclature is conservative and in social science is progressive.
> 
> 
> 
> Cultural Marxism doesn't exist


How would you define Cultural Marxism?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> User pays is a popular ideal for conservatives to parrot, but IMO it would be a disaster IRL.


It's not about parroting, free healthcare cannot work as we are now.


----------



## asdf0501

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> How would you define Cultural Marxism?


I can't define something that doesn't exist.

In reality, cultural marxism is a term that only exist in America, is used sometimes as an informal term in academia, but only that.

Cultural Marxism was used at the end of the Reagan years as a way to describe the destruction of "traditional" values in america, but was never defined in particular. It was somewhat tied with the idea of promoting minorities: Gays, blacks, natives, etc, basically it was another form of saying political correctness.

The people who created this, related it to Frankfurt probably because the cirthic theory was the base for the cultural studies in America but i suppose they don't have a clue of what they talk when they relate eachother


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



asdf0501 said:


> I can't define something that doesn't exist.
> 
> In reality, cultural marxism is a term that only exist in America, is used sometimes as an informal term in academia, but only that.
> 
> Cultural Marxism was used at the end of the Reagan years as a way to describe the destruction of "traditional" values in america, but was never defined in particular. It was somewhat tied with the idea of promoting minorities: Gays, blacks, natives, etc, basically it was another form of saying political correctness.
> 
> The people who created this, related it to Frankfurt probably because the cirthic theory was the base for the cultural studies in America but i suppose they don't have a clue of what they talk when they relate eachother


I would argue the Social justice movement is about as Culturally Marxist as you can get if we needed an actual base to look upon.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

What's the point of this welfare state vs socialism argument again? I totally lost track of why it even started or what point is trying to be made.


pls take your commie red stuff to another thread

joking 



Donald Trump our real estate marketing genius is heading for a showdown in VEGAS, aka Nevada.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Yes, perhaps we should get back to Trump.
@DesolationRow

So a Protester thought he could mess with Trump today and turn off the arena lights...

Then this happened:






How can one man take a negative and turn it in his favor so well? :nerd:


----------



## Banez

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Dont know if this has been posted yet, but:






I'l never see Game of Thrones same again :lol


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Banez said:


> Dont know if this has been posted yet, but:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'l never see Game of Thrones same again :lol


TRUMP IS STANNIS

the underdog, but the guy you want next to you!


----------



## GothicBohemian

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are the one that does not know what you are talking about. I am done with you. Those countries are all socialist countries.
> 
> 
> http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/
> 
> I am done with you. You obvious don't know what you are talking about.





Beatles123 said:


> at least OUR criminals ARE in jail. Sweden is just a mess.


Both of you are spouting whatever you want and calling it fact. BM has a history of this - and a history of crying _You're all wrong so I win. Not listening no more_. Beatles123, I don't know who you are so I haven't a clue if this post is representative of your typical style or not. 

I live in what's essentially a social welfare country - yes, I have sampled the alternative to the south and still prefer what I'm thankful to have - and I support social welfare based policies. This is not the thread for me. Carry on with whatever you're doing, folks.


----------



## Reaper

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



GothicBohemian said:


> Both of you are spouting whatever you want and calling it fact. BM has a history of this - and a history of crying _You're all wrong so I win. Not listening no more_. Beatles123, I don't know who you are so I haven't a clue if this post is representative of your typical style or not.
> 
> I live in what's essentially a social welfare country - yes, I have sampled the alternative to the south and still prefer what I'm thankful to have - and I support social welfare based policies. This is not the thread for me. Carry on with whatever you're doing, folks.


They won't get it Gothic. They haven't lived in either a socialist country or a social welfare country. All their knowledge comes from text books or way worse blogs and news sites (half of which have their own personal agendas or incompetent people talking about things they don't know). 

I'm beginning to realize that people can't really understand the difference between a social welfare state and a socialist state through reading about it. They have to live the difference ... I'm actually surprised how hard it is to get this difference across in this thread.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> TRUMP IS STANNIS


thoughts on this one CP?:lol


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> What's the point of this welfare state vs socialism argument again? I totally lost track of why it even started or what point is trying to be made.
> 
> 
> pls take your commie red stuff to another thread
> 
> joking
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump our real estate marketing genius is heading for a showdown in VEGAS, aka Nevada.


As he does frequently with his circular reasoning, lack of experience, and nasty attitude toward other posters, Birthday Massacre managed to temporarily derail this thread with his distorted views of socialism.

Not for nothing (as we would say back in Brooklyn), but you are the Moderator and have the power to put this obnoxious character in his place. There are alot of diverse opinions, but I don't see any of us getting nasty here despite how heated politics can get.

- Mike


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



GothicBohemian said:


> Both of you are spouting whatever you want and calling it fact. BM has a history of this - and a history of crying _You're all wrong so I win. Not listening no more_. Beatles123, I don't know who you are so I haven't a clue if this post is representative of your typical style or not.
> 
> I live in what's essentially a social welfare country - yes, I have sampled the alternative to the south and still prefer what I'm thankful to have - and I support social welfare based policies. This is not the thread for me. Carry on with whatever you're doing, folks.


You may not know me but i've always liked your posts  I admit im not a good at articulating my points.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Reaper said:


> They won't get it Gothic. They haven't lived in either a socialist country or a social welfare country. All their knowledge comes from text books or way worse blogs and news sites (half of which have their own personal agendas or incompetent people talking about things they don't know).
> 
> I'm beginning to realize that people can't really understand the difference between a social welfare state and a socialist state through reading about it. They have to live the difference ... I'm actually surprised how hard it is to get this difference across in this thread.


As a US citizen, I honestly am thankful every day that I was not born in a more restrictive and/or oppressive country (and we're getting bad ourselves.) I can't even imagine what you or @GothicBohemian have been through and I find your viewpoints interesting and refreshing.

Edit: of course if you don't dee it as a bad thing, thats fine as well. Here in the US a lot of us think Bernie is the answer. I do not. *Shrug*


----------



## Reaper

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> As a US citizen, I honestly am thankful every day that I was not born in a more restrictive and/or oppressive country. I can't even imagine what you or @GothicBohemian have been through and I find your viewpoints interesting and refreshing.


More betrayal of inexperience. Don't think I'm being rude or anything but a Social Welfare country is the peachiest country to be in if you're below a certain income level. 

Yes, it's not the greatest country for the richest people because of the graduated tax and the burden you bear of the poorest, but you truly get a first world experience if you're not extremely wealthy. Then again, if you're raised in a social welfare state, you're generally more empathic and altruistic anyways because you know everyone is watching out for everyone else and they're all in the same boat. Not like anyone's mommy is gonna die because she can't afford her chemotherapy :shrug

That said, before anyone gets the wrong impression, it's also not impossible for Canadians or anyone else in social welfare states to get impossibly rich either.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Reaper said:


> More betrayal of inexperience. Don't think I'm being rude or anything but a Social Welfare country is the peachiest country to be in if you're below a certain income level.
> 
> Yes, it's not the greatest country for the richest people because of the graduated tax and the burden you bear of the poorest, but you truly get a first world experience if you're not extremely wealthy. Then again, if you're raised in a social welfare state, you're generally more empathic and altruistic anyways because you know everyone is watching out for everyone else and they're all in the same boat. Not like anyone's mommy is gonna die because she can't afford her chemotherapy :shrug
> 
> That said, before anyone gets the wrong impression, it's also not impossible for Canadians or anyone else in social welfare states to get impossibly rich either.


As I said in my edit, that view is fine. I don't think the USA Should exactly follow Canada's CURRENT model though. We're imperfect, but I dunno...I get a bad taste in my mouth about Trudeau's direction. D:


----------



## asdf0501

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> I would argue the Social justice movement is about as Culturally Marxist as you can get if we needed an actual base to look upon.


Nop. If anything, the "social justice" movement (whatever that it's) gets more influence from postmodernism and things like the cultural studies. Are both of this things heavily influenced by marxism? yeah but they're also pretty different.

Also movements like "social justice" or political correctness, if you want, are heavily influenced by the growing levels of secularism in society. As sciences have advanced we can see less and less arguments agains minorities: There is homosexuality in almost any species, there are no races with higher levels of intelligence than others, etc. So, in the end is a great mix of factors


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



asdf0501 said:


> there are no races with higher levels of intelligence than others, etc.


This just isn't true.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



asdf0501 said:


> Nop. If anything, the "social justice" movement (whatever that it's) gets more influence from postmodernism and things like the cultural studies. Are both of this things heavily influenced by marxism? yeah but they're also pretty different.
> 
> Also movements like "social justice" or political correctness, if you want, are heavily influenced by the growing levels of secularism in society. As sciences have advanced we can see less and less arguments agains minorities: There is homosexuality in almost any species, there are no races with higher levels of intelligence than others, etc. So, in the end is a great mix of factors


I wish to go back to a time where I could watch Speedy Gonzales without THINKING of race. That shouldn't be so much to ask.

That's one reason why Trump is refreshing. He is how the rest of the world ought to be about being PC....relaxed, and content in knowing we are in fact all the same. When we look at PC culture, and the militant attitude of ANY group of people, THAT is the oppression *I* deal with on an every day basis. I should not be told I should be ashamed to be an american...but it is their right to say it. I don't want to censor opinions that are not my own. I just hate being called "Problematic" for not agreeing.


----------



## asdf0501

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> This just isn't true.


Really?, can you provide evolutionary evidence against it on the size of craneal space or anything? 

When you account for other things like enviromental factors, is easy to see a difference in intellectual ability, which isn't necessarily the same than intelligence levels. But if anything that says more about discrimination and how structures act on races more than anything else, saying that some races have higher levels of productive intelligence doesn't mean than they are more inteligent inherently.

It's also true that the concept of intelligence has been evolving in last times and now we have different types of intelligence so you should also account for this...


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump should win Nevada easily.

A big question for me is, will Rubio back Trump in Texas to try and knock Cruz out and make it a two man race? Or does Rubio want to go into the convention still in a three way race?

We all know it's Trump vs Rubio at this point - the only question is when and how Cruz will drop.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

New MAS. poll out: Trump in the lead with a staggering 50%!


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> New MAS. poll out: Trump in the lead with a staggering 50%!


b-b-but I thought he had a 33% ceiling, that's what the media told me!


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

That's a really high number. 

Part of me has been thinking that once more and more candidates drop out Rubio or Cruz will end up with their share and eventually overtake Trump. I thought Jeb dropping out was the biggest way he could hurt Trump since his supporters, while small, would bolster other candidates.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FITZ said:


> That's a really high number.
> 
> Part of me has been thinking that once more and more candidates drop out Rubio or Cruz will end up with their share and eventually overtake Trump. I thought Jeb dropping out was the biggest way he could hurt Trump since his supporters, while small, would bolster other candidates.


But, you have to ask yourself...would you be trying to speculate on combined percentages if it were anyone else? In any normal election, a candidate with a lead this size would have this thing wrapped up.

I believe there's a part of us all that's still trying to rationalize why this is happening. Hell, that's what this thread's really about. One thing we know for sure: The media are just as baffled as we are. The difference being, those of us supporting Trump are being so in a relieved sort of way instead of in a panic.


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Ive explained why Trump gets my vote 100%

But in my previous post I mentioned how others give political correct answers which serve to make everyone happy but never answers the question. They beat around the bush so you get media trying to interpret it.
Other candidates have teams of advisors to mold each word so it portrays the perfect amount of sincerity without looking evasive. And even the gestures all pre mapped out.

But Trump?
His answers are straight to point, blunt, and no need for interpretation. Some answers you'll like, some you'll hate, but you know 100% his stand, he's not trying to answer so it pleases everyone therefore not saying anything. And he's not going to filter himself through political correctness. The people are so fed up with PC that's why he's popular. There's things he's said that i most definitely disagree with, but I respect his blunt honesty, I don't have to interpret, or other "what did he mean?" 

Trump blunt on ISIS, who are getting richer and richer because the US refuses to sanction any country that buys oil from Isis! Our own "allies" like Pakistan, India buy oil from Isis, but why doesn't Obama sanction any of our allies doing business with them making them richer?

*Nice Very Blunt and straight to point 45 sec clip how Trump would "sanction" Isis selling of oil that Obama refuses to go into even after Putin called Obama out on Isis selling oil to U.S. allies!*
https://youtu.be/aWejiXvd-P8






Obama administration gives double talk circular argument excuses, other Candidates pontificate it's a delicate subject and they beat around the bush. Trump? Well he sums it up nicely blunt, to the point. Now this doesn't mean I approve everything and Congress wouldn't either without 


Again I don't agree with everything but a president can't just do what he wants, Congress and Supreme Court are the checks and balances that limit the powers.


But the whole Anti-Political Correct movement we definitely need  


To modify a corny comic book line:

"Any of the other Presidential candidates may be the President we deserve, but Trump is the one we need right now."

At least 1 term. :grin2:





*Here's video Putin, short but very good and was first time it was admitted US willing Isis to sell oil to allies without sanction. *

An American reporter asks him question about tensions between US & Russia as well as his opinion on Isis and Putin gives concise summary why rest of world is baffled at Obama and the US people have a responsibility. And asks why US allows Isis to sell stolen oil to US allies?

Subtitled and short, but this is definitely a must see, while I'm not endorsing Putin politics, this is how I want our leaders to speak! Blunt , straight to the point, no "heating around the bush" or "I'll make note and get back to you" bullshit. A straight answer to a simple question not filtered by advisors, script writers, etc.

https://youtu.be/OQuceU3x2Ww


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump is an ALPHA-MALE! Alphas RESPECT other Alphas. Trump's not gonna start WWIII with Putin. He will form the Bromance that prevents it! :Banderas


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> But, you have to ask yourself...would you be trying to speculate on combined percentages if it were anyone else? In any normal election, a candidate with a lead this size would have this thing wrapped up.
> 
> I believe there's a part of us all that's still trying to rationalize why this is happening. Hell, that's what this thread's really about. One thing we know for sure: The media are just as baffled as we are. The difference being, those of us supporting Trump are being so in a relieved sort of way instead of in a panic.


If I cared I probably would be. 

I'm happy that Trump's campaign is doing so well. He might not be my ideal candidate or anything like that but I like what he means for the future of politics in the United States. He isn't full of shit. Almost everyone else aside from Bernie Sanders (which while I don't agree with his views I do certainly respect that he is honest about his views) seems like they are full of shit. 

Even if Trump doesn't get the nomination or win the presidential election I think he is at least proof that people can get a lot of support by just speaking candidly.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Pronoss said:


> Ive explained why Trump gets my vote 100%
> 
> But in my previous post I mentioned how others give political correct answers which serve to make everyone happy but never answers the question. They beat around the bush so you get media trying to interpret it.
> Other candidates have teams of advisors to mold each word so it portrays the perfect amount of sincerity without looking evasive. And even the gestures all pre mapped out.
> 
> But Trump?
> His answers are straight to point, blunt, and no need for interpretation. Some answers you'll like, some you'll hate, but you know 100% his stand, he's not trying to answer so it pleases everyone therefore not saying anything. And he's not going to filter himself through political correctness. The people are so fed up with PC that's why he's popular. There's things he's said that i most definitely disagree with, but I respect his blunt honesty, I don't have to interpret, or other "what did he mean?"
> 
> Trump blunt on ISIS, who are getting richer and richer because the US refuses to sanction any country that buys oil from Isis! Our own "allies" like Pakistan, India buy oil from Isis, but why doesn't Obama sanction any of our allies doing business with them making them richer?
> 
> *Nice Very Blunt and straight to point 45 sec clip how Trump would "sanction" Isis selling of oil that Obama refuses to go into even after Putin called Obama out on Isis selling oil to U.S. allies!*
> https://youtu.be/aWejiXvd-P8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama administration gives double talk circular argument excuses, other Candidates pontificate it's a delicate subject and they beat around the bush. Trump? Well he sums it up nicely blunt, to the point. Now this doesn't mean I approve everything and Congress wouldn't either without
> 
> 
> Again I don't agree with everything but a president can't just do what he wants, Congress and Supreme Court are the checks and balances that limit the powers.
> 
> 
> But the whole Anti-Political Correct movement we definitely need
> 
> 
> To modify a corny comic book line:
> 
> "Any of the other Presidential candidates may be the President we deserve, but Trump is the one we need right now."
> 
> At least 1 term. :grin2:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Here's video Putin, short but very good and was first time it was admitted US willing Isis to sell oil to allies without sanction. *
> 
> An American reporter asks him question about tensions between US & Russia as well as his opinion on Isis and Putin gives concise summary why rest of world is baffled at Obama and the US people have a responsibility. And asks why US allows Isis to sell stolen oil to US allies?
> 
> Subtitled and short, but this is definitely a must see, while I'm not endorsing Putin politics, this is how I want our leaders to speak! Blunt , straight to the point, no "heating around the bush" or "I'll make note and get back to you" bullshit. A straight answer to a simple question not filtered by advisors, script writers, etc.
> 
> https://youtu.be/OQuceU3x2Ww


You're also happy with him wasting time with ridiculous comments like he could shoot someone in public and not lose votes, and implying a female journalist is giving him a hard time because she's on her period? I could go on and on as well. He's no statesmen and has no diplomacy.

For what it's worth, if you elect this man, America will be double the laughing stock of the world they were with GWB at the helm.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> For what it's worth, if you elect this man, America will be double the laughing stock of the world they were with GWB at the helm.


We don't care, and we never should have.


@CamillePunk @DesolationRow










OH-HO!

OHOHOHO! 










This is about to get interesting, Paul fans!


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump should add Ron Paul as his running mate 

Shut down the Federal Reserve corporation, which is illegal anyhow that a private company has that power over the country.


just a reminder The Federal Reserve is not a government agency, it's a private corporation with stock.
It's as "Federal" as "Federal Express" is. 

It was created over treason that occurred in my state on a disguised hunting trip.

All the big banks failed, so the illegal monopoly and takeover by all these bank owners united under 1 corporation "Federal Reserve" and with senators in pocket and a president they took over the economy. 

The Constitution only gives authority to Congress to mint money:

Article 1: Section 8:


> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
> 
> To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
> 
> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
> 
> To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures




The most powerful corporation in the world, invented during a secret meeting cloaked as a "duck hunt" on Jekyll Island, Georgia.

Some stories:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...ting-that-launched-the-federal-reserve-echoes

http://www.jekyllislandhistory.com/federalreserve.shtml



Great Book (pirate a copy): http://www.amazon.com/The-Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal/dp/0912986212


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



GothicBohemian said:


> Both of you are spouting whatever you want and calling it fact. BM has a history of this - and a history of crying _You're all wrong so I win. Not listening no more_. Beatles123, I don't know who you are so I haven't a clue if this post is representative of your typical style or not.
> 
> I live in what's essentially a social welfare country - yes, I have sampled the alternative to the south and still prefer what I'm thankful to have - and I support social welfare based policies. This is not the thread for me. Carry on with whatever you're doing, folks.


Because it is fact and not opinion just like the whole confederate flag thing. Its a fact its a racist symbol and the facts back that up. As for the not listening part, there is no point in going in circles Just like you wouldn't when you try to tell someone the earth is round and show them the evidence then they try to claim its flat. There is a point you just walk away. 


If you don't think those programs I mentioned are socialist programs you are wrong. All you have to go is google US socialist programs and they all come up. 

Its like people don't think there is a such thing as google where its easy to find these things out.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Pronoss said:


> Trump should add Ron Paul as his running mate
> 
> Shut down the Federal Reserve corporation, which is illegal anyhow that a private company has that power over the country.
> 
> 
> just a reminder The Federal Reserve is not a government agency, it's a private corporation with stock.
> It's as "Federal" as "Federal Express" is.
> 
> It was created over treason that occurred in my state on a disguised hunting trip.
> 
> All the big banks failed, so the illegal monopoly and takeover by all these bank owners united under 1 corporation "Federal Reserve" and with senators in pocket and a president they took over the economy.
> 
> The Constitution only gives authority to Congress to mint money:
> 
> Article 1: Section 8:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most powerful corporation in the world, invented during a secret meeting cloaked as a "duck hunt" on Jekyll Island, Georgia.
> 
> Some stories:
> http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...ting-that-launched-the-federal-reserve-echoes
> 
> http://www.jekyllislandhistory.com/federalreserve.shtmlWould Ron betray his own son?...
> 
> 
> Great Book (pirate a copy): http://www.amazon.com/The-Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal/dp/0912986212


but would ron betray his only son??


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> You're also happy with him wasting time with ridiculous comments like he could shoot someone in public and not lose votes, and implying a female journalist is giving him a hard time because she's on her period? I could go on and on as well. He's no statesmen and has no diplomacy.
> 
> For what it's worth, if you elect this man, America will be double the laughing stock of the world they were with GWB at the helm.


Oh? And the US isn't as laughable with a President who blows up people everyday but won the noble peace prize? Are the people on that committee a bunch of idiots or just hypocrites? A President who uses the IRS for personal gain and leaves allies out to dry and for some allies lets get away with everything? Why is it people like you always seem to forget about Obama?

@Pronoss Turkey has been buying oil and helping Isis it seems and they're trying to get into the EU and holding Europe hostage with their refugees. Hahaha this world is too funny!


----------



## antonio baldwin

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

It's hard to believe, but not much can stop him from getting the nomination.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

http://www.cnn.com/video/api/embed....e-sanders-denmark-election-2016-ar-origwx.cnn

LOL! Even Denmark admits Sanders has them at least a little wrong!


----------



## antonio baldwin

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Who or what can stop Trump?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@BruiserKC Thought this might interest you:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...merican-hero-chris-crane-marco-rubios-screed/


----------



## Rick_James

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> http://www.cnn.com/video/api/embed....e-sanders-denmark-election-2016-ar-origwx.cnn
> 
> LOL! Even Denmark admits Sanders has them at least a little wrong!


Part of me wishes Sanders would shut the fuck up and just move to Denmark already. Maybe he will next year?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Looks like Cruz has fired yet ANOTHER lying staffer!!

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ls-for-comm-director-rick-tyler-to-step-down/


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> Oh? And the US isn't as laughable with a President who blows up people everyday but won the noble peace prize? Are the people on that committee a bunch of idiots or just hypocrites? A President who uses the IRS for personal gain and leaves allies out to dry and for some allies lets get away with everything? *Why is it people like you always seem to forget about Obama?
> *
> @Pronoss Turkey has been buying oil and helping Isis it seems and they're trying to get into the EU and holding Europe hostage with their refugees. Hahaha this world is too funny!


Oh Sally. People like me? You dont know me at all.

I'm not sure if you realised but this is 'The Donald Trump Thread', not the 'Thanks for everything that's gone wrong in my life Obama' thread. 

Obama comes off as an intelligent speaker and says generally moderate things, where as Donald is as obnoxious as can be and has a laundry list of outlandish statements to his credit. That's why the rest of the world generally sees Trump as a buffoon.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Looks like Cruz has fired yet ANOTHER lying staffer!!
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ls-for-comm-director-rick-tyler-to-step-down/


I love how conservative Cruz is but this stuff is going to kill his campaign. Too bad Kasich is a total moderate, establishment guy because a Rubio-Kasich card would win the election IMO.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> I love how conservative Cruz is but this stuff is going to kill his campaign. Too bad Kasich is a total moderate, establishment guy because a Rubio-Kasich card would win the election IMO.


Plus, remember this: Much like Trump masterfully labled Bush low energy, He's also begun to brand Cruz a "Liar".

And here we see more lying.

It's gonna Jebificate Ted!


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Plus, remember this: Much like Trump masterfully labled Bush low energy, He's also begun to brand Cruz a "Liar".
> 
> And here we see more lying.
> 
> It's gonna Jebificate Ted!


If Trump finds a way to get the Kasich, Bush, and Carson voters over to him rather than Rubio than he is an absolute genius.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> You're also happy with him wasting time with ridiculous comments like he could shoot someone in public and not lose votes, and implying a female journalist is giving him a hard time because she's on her period? I could go on and on as well. He's no statesmen and has no diplomacy.
> 
> For what it's worth, if you elect this man, America will be double the laughing stock of the world they were with GWB at the helm.


The Donald Trump you see on TV is character, most public figures play one on TV because that is what people around 

Most politicians are not nearly as flamboyant or passive when working because "work-mode" is very uninteresting 

People want to see an angry Trump the way want to see a calm collected Obama over the burned out, tired worker that he is on the job 

I am not really a major Trump supporter but the guy you see on TV and the guy in the board room are completely different, business is all about compromise and working together for a goal


----------



## CamillePunk

^ On the contrary, I find Trump to be the most genuine and honest (whether or not his facts are correct is another matter) person in the race.


asdf0501 said:


> Really?, can you provide evolutionary evidence against it on the size of craneal space or anything?
> 
> When you account for other things like enviromental factors, is easy to see a difference in intellectual ability, which isn't necessarily the same than intelligence levels. But if anything that says more about discrimination and how structures act on races more than anything else, saying that some races have higher levels of productive intelligence doesn't mean than they are more inteligent inherently.
> 
> It's also true that the concept of intelligence has been evolving in last times and now we have different types of intelligence so you should also account for this...


IQ remains pretty much constant throughout a person's life. Caucasian-Americans average out at 100, east Asian-Americans at about 106, and our demigod overlords the Ashkenazi Jews average out at about 115. Black Americans are at about 85 and Hispanic Americans are at about 89, on average. Men on average have a wider spectrum of IQ compared to women, so there are more extremely intelligent men and more extremely unintelligent men than there are of women of either extreme. 

Of course IQ doesn't amount to wisdom, but there is a significant correlation between IQ and life outcomes. 

Anyway, this thread is about Donald Trump, not racial differences.






Apologies if posted already. Post-SC victory with Donald Trump. They talk about the SC primary, Trump's history with the establishment, a possible attempt by the GOP to block his nomination at the convention, Cruz, etc.


----------



## Rick_James

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump seems pretty modest in that video but honestly, after winning South Carolina, a very religious state, despite his ongoing feud with the Pope, it seems pretty clear the guy is unstoppable.


----------



## yeahbaby!

stevefox1200 said:


> The Donald Trump you see on TV is character, most public figures play one on TV because that is what people around
> 
> Most politicians are not nearly as flamboyant or passive when working because "work-mode" is very uninteresting
> 
> People want to see an angry Trump the way want to see a calm collected Obama over the burned out, tired worker that he is on the job
> 
> I am not really a major Trump supporter but the guy you see on TV and the guy in the board room are completely different, business is all about compromise and working together for a goal


Thanks for the lesson, your point is?



CamillePunk said:


> I find Trump to be the most genuine and honest (whether or not his facts are correct is another matter) person in the race.


Lol I LOVE this. Thank you so much.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Man, ya'll need to learn how to multiquote or edit your posts. :mj


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> Man, ya'll need to learn how to multiquote or edit your posts. :mj


People reply faster than I can post a lot of the time, even WITH edits.


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Pronoss said:


> *Our own "allies" like* Pakistan, *India buy oil from Isis*


citation?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

This is it. This is the definitive Trump town hall. Clarifies his healthcare stance as well as other stuff. If you are not yet sold, watch this

From yesterday night:


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@AryaDark @BruiserKC @CamillePunk @Goku @Joff @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @RetepAdam. @samizayn @scrilla @THE SHIV



Beatles123 said:


> We don't care, and we never should have.
> 
> 
> @CamillePunk @DesolationRow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OH-HO!
> 
> OHOHOHO!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is about to get interesting, Paul fans!


Interesting indeed, *Beatles123*.

As @Pronoss was discussing, the creation of the Federal Reserve system is as fascinating, and even chilling, as one could ever hope to find in a page-turning story about the "masters of the universe," as it were. 

Just about all Americans are misinformed through the poor education system we have today about the causes of the 1929 crash and subsequent "Great Depression." Usually in school _laissez-faire_ capitalism is brought up on charges of being responsible: greedy speculative Wall Street and banking interests drove the wild party of the 1920s economic boom into a ditch. The lack of government oversight and regulation made all of that possible.

The funny thing is, it's not altogether false. Like many enduring, widely-held beliefs, there are kernels of truth to be found, but they are among such a rubble of oversimplification and wrongheaded economic consideration so as to be almost worthless. 

For instance, there was much greed among a number of major banking interests, yet that greed was propelled not by whims of excess but rather the rotten monetary policy brought to the fore by the United States of America's Federal Reserve. 

Which is why the argument that free-market capitalism is to blame for the crash such a troubling one. In reality, those whose role it purportedly was to oversee the party were the very parties responsible for the entire escapade getting out of hand. 

The truth is that statists, in a way, undersell their case: rather than _laissez-faire_ capitalism being the economic reality of 1920s America, the government was active, mostly protectionist and highly involved in land grants and certain subsidies. The Marxist socialists who argued that the state had propped up certain moneyed interests were not wrong, even if the vast majority of their proposals were imprudent for an economic recovery. 

The first thing to recall is that the Republican Part was never a _laissez-faire_ party. From its rise all the way through the largely Republican dominion over the White House in the latter half of the nineteen century all the way through to this very day, the Republican Party has indeed been corporatist in nature. In the last fifty or so years it finally became a "free trade" party whereas before the 1960s it had been explicitly protectionist, at least comparably so against its Democratic Party counterpart. Of course "free trade" needs to be in quotes; it's not contradictory for an individual who supports genuine free markets to strongly critique and find wanting the free trade agreements the U.S. has entered into over the past several decades. Rather than actual, true free trade, what the U.S. has been involved in have been exercises in corporatist favoritism while directly damaging the country's own once-proud furnace of industry. Globalization would have taken a toll by itself in any event but the U.S. variation of same has been especially odious, neither truly an example of free trade nor in the least bit considerate toward its own increasingly struggling working class. In any event...

The Republican Party was once the "big government party"--which, more than anything else, speaks to how radically the Democratic Party has shifted in the last approximately 100 years--seeking a lasting partnership between big business and government as Democrats argued passionately against the reflexively Republican instituting of tariffs as the exercising of the "mother of trusts," and wanted the U.S. monetary supply to remain linked to gold until William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson began to sharply deviate with general Democratic orthodoxy. 

What the Republicans of the '20s had truly created was a statist capitalism of a sort, not the postmodern variation of same that would come to be under Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt, exactly, but an increasingly active federal government working in concert with connected business interests, all the same. The protective tariff, for instance, was never higher than in the 1920s, pork-barrel spending, railroad industry subsidies and gargantuan land grants were becoming commonplace. 

As considerable as these elements of statism were, the most deleterious would be found only in the realm of banking and monetary policy. 

While all of the major and powerful European nations had adopted central banks throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it took the United States until 1913 to have its very own Federal Reserve, in spite of several flirtations with a central bank far earlier in its history. European powers were, consequently, able to inflate currency and spark heated cycles of credit in a way that eluded the powerful within the United States until this point in time. With the defiant Andrew Jackson effectively vetoing a national bank in the 1830s, the U.S. had experienced perhaps the single most freely competitive banking system in the history of the world, all the way until the Civil War, which allowed the Republicans to secure much of their economic and financial agenda including land grants and subsidies to certain corporate interests and most frequently the railroads as well as a high tariff. 

In any event, the Federal Reserve System, born in 1913, represented the virtual centralization and nationalization of the American banking system. Not surprisingly the big banks were supportive of the measure, as they along with their Wall Street colleagues had long pined for a central banking system for generations. Before long, the predictable consequences came to fruition: a cartelization of major banking, under federal auspices, complete with the central government looming as protector extraordinaire for banks, with the means and motive to bail out all banks which hit the rocky reefs of financial peril, as well as fully armed with the power to inflate the money supply as well as credit so as to ensure maximum profit and comfort for the connected banks. 

In one of history's little chin stroke-provoking cases of timing--compelling many to wonder just how well-known it was among the Western powers that a major war was indeed looming--the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, a year before the outset of the Great War, provided the U.S. with precisely the tool which it needed to finance its involvement in that conflagration. The U.S. entering the war could only have been made possibly by the colossal government deficits run up, and with the Federal Reserve providing the escape valve of sorts through which the government could "pay" for its own immodest expenditures. 

Perhaps the single most critical individual to study from this time period to learn of the U.S. monetary policies of the 1910s and 1920s is the enigmatic protagonist Benjamin Strong, who was the nearly dictatorial commander of the Federal Reserve System from 1914 until his death in 1928. Strong, a powerful New York banker who was initially named governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, was an economic interventionist of the first order. He almost reflexively utilized his clout and position in order to spur on drastic inflationary "booms" of money and bank credit. It was considered practical from a purely greedy perspective: prices rose considerably and the real-estate and stock markets saw some of the most artificially robust "booms" in American history. In the summer of 1927 Strong told France's chief central banker that he would stop at nothing to provide "a little coup de whiskey to the stock market," preparing, as he did, to once again inflate money and credit. 

Removing certain blinders, it becomes evident that Strong's efforts were recklessly mad. The same self-fulfilling prophecies of inflationary practices for all countries were deployed. Put another way, short-term glee was given a higher value than the long-term harmful effect. Strong's subsidization of export firms and domestic industry was wedded to the 1920s Republicans ensuring that the protective tariff that their party-founders had argued for remained. The problem was that foreigners were largely closed off from enjoying the American markets, and therefore, with their goods in no small measure blocked from entering the American markets, the attempts to sell U.S. exports to them would quite likely be unsuccessful. The solution? Stimulating U.S. loans to foreigners, enabling them to purchase U.S. products. 

Strong's inflationary policy resulted in repeated spurts of cheap credit, cheap credit which sparked on foreign lending, and consequently subsidized U.S. investment banks which made foreign loans. U.S. farm products were among the most lavished with artificial stimulation via cheap credit. U.S. agriculture had been too greatly stimulated by the outstanding demands of the European nations warring with one another during the Great War, and as a result, was one of the most overextended and sectors of the U.S. economy for most of the 1920s. As Republican administrations sought to distribute land grants and agricultural subsidies, American farmers were furious with how far they had fallen after the end of the Great War, and wanted to have their part of the economy artificially stimulated to where they had been at the height of the war. 

Executives of the Moline Plow Company, General Hugh S. Johnson and George N. Peek, these figures among myriad others who constituted what came to be referred to as the "farm bloc," agitated for the U.S. government to intervene. Herbert Hoover's very first act was to create the Federal Farm Board, which would "fix" prices by raising them. 

Just as Woodrow Wilson's administration was honeycombed with Anglophiles who were rather easily manipulated by British interests in joining the war effort against the Central Powers (including Wilson himself), Strong was deeply Anglophilic, and sought to use his role as administrator of the American monetary supply to assist the betterment of the British. So long as the British held to unsound monetary policies, so too, Strong rationalized to colleagues and assistants, did the U.S. have to. 

With the gold standard being the reality for all major powers before the outbreak of hostilities in the summer of 1914, with every manner of currency tied to and redeemable in fixed weights of gold, whether it be the franc, mark, pound or dollar, these regimes had to live much more closely within their immediate means. Even when spending money to finance certain programs or military expenditures, inflation was consistently avoided throughout the nineteenth century. In that brutal conflagration, however, the non-U.S. major powers saw their gold standards as cumbersome barriers to enacting what they believed they needed through governmental intervention. Inflationary policies were the order of the day, and they crippled each nation dramatically. The countries most directly consumed by the war went off of the gold standard, relying on mere paper currencies. 

The British had been the financial center of the globe for a little over a century before that war. The British pound and the U.S. dollar had been fixed throughout most of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth in relation to gold, ensuring that the British pound would remain right where it was in value, at $4.86. The pound had been far more damaged by the war than the U.S. dollar, as the U.S. had only been in the war, directly, for nineteen months. Losing considerable value, the pound had declined to approximately $3.45-$3.55 on the exchange market. The British government was determined to return to the pound, and not to the post-World War I-reality of perhaps $3.50 but to the prewar station of $4.86.

English bankers were insistent, and so, Great Britain went back to gold at $4.86 in one of the twentieth century's most obstinate exercises in monetary policy. Most directly impacted right away were British exports, artificially costly, while imports from the U.S. were considerably cheaper. The quickly-relayed, deeply-felt depression that wracked the British export industries sent Great Britain into an economic tailspin, as the nation had leaned so heavily on exports of textiles and coal, while being considerably more dependent on imports in the realm of food than the average major nation. 

Since the increasingly powerful unions of Britain demanded no deflation, and with the unemployment-insurance system having been established after the war, wages were stuck and could not go down, so the entire domestic economy ground to a veritable halt as well. For the British banking interests the only way out of the quagmire was--yes, if you have been paying attention, you already guessed it--massive inflation. This would allow the British government to avoid the messy confrontation with the unions that had inordinate political power and gift them with a route by which they could outflank the problematic insistence of the union wage rates. Since the British had already declared that they wanted the pound to be once again fixed to gold at the prewar par of $4.86, they could have simply deflated their way out and gone through the brief but admittedly painful economic experience in order to allow the entire economy to "reset" as it were. Unfortunately, British banking interests were intent on inflation, cheap credit and all of the pernicious ills of excessive speculation as partly directed, if not largely so, by government handling. The only way for it to work in the realm of foreign-exchange would be for other nations to follow the example. If, for instance, the one country which had not left the gold standard throughout the entire conflict and aftermath of same, the U.S., would simply go along with the inflationary practices, to keep the "playing field level," as it were. 

Let it not be said that the British did not take advantage of their domination of the 1920s League of Nation. Using their nearly complete rule over the Financial Committee, the British government bribed, bullied, cajoled and threatened one nation after another. These other countries were told that they had to, for the sake of keeping the world order together, return to gold at an overvalued rate, sacrificing their own exports, while twisting so many arms so as to be incalculable so that they would all adopt the new version of the "gold exchange standard," so that the reserves for each nation would not be in actual gold but in London's sterling balances. 

These measures ensured that the British government could continue their profligate spending and inflationary practices. Pounds were suddenly redeemed not in gold but were merely utilized around the world as reserves, reserves that would serve as the table on which to stack their own respective inflationary practice. 

The U.S. was in the single strongest position to defy the British call to prop up their irresponsible inflationary policies, but while the British could threaten, say, Italy or Germany (particularly so considering its postwar state), all it needed in the case of the Americans was a continuation of what has been termed by historians as "The Great Rapprochement," which began following the last time the U.S. and Great Britain collided internationally, with the 1895 Venezuelan Crisis, and arguably culminated in the U.S. siding with the British over the Germans in the two conflagrations that engulfed Europe in the first half of the twentieth century. Strong was celebrated in Great Britain as one of the friendliest Americans the British had ever encountered. To know how sparkling this editorializing was, one must consider the ensemble television drama-sized cast of Anglophiles who made up the Wilson administration in the 1910s as well as Anglophiles in the U.S. Congress. Strongly recommend historian Thomas Fleming's book, _The Illusion of Victory_, concerning how important a role these myriad Anglophiles played in steering the U.S. toward war with the Central Powers. In any event, Strong was a major friend of the British indeed, and was a personal friend to British financial chieftain Montagu Norman, who served as the puppet master of the Bank of England for a long time. Strong's relationship with Norman has called into question all sorts of downright scandalous considerations by many historians, but the point is that Strong sought what Norman sought, and Strong's role in the American financial world was largely determined by his existence in the orbit of the Morgan banking empire. Well before he was the head of the Federal Reserve Strong had been emperor of the Bankers Trust Company, the Morgan bank's most prestigious, and powerful, institution that sought to protect all Morgan banking interests. Dwight Morrow and Henry P. Davison were agitators on Strong's behalf among the financial players near the seats of power in Washington, D.C.--and both were partners of J.P. Morgan & Co. 

Nothing was so delicious for Morgan banking as the fruits that had grown from the tree of the Federal Reserve System, which was a necessity to finance the American involvement in World War I. Of course the Morgans were one of the most perspicuous and vociferous interests arguing on behalf of U.S. entry into the war, and the Morgans were also the fiscal proprietor on behalf of the Bank of England, underwriting concession for all sales of both British and French bonds in the American market. The war enabled the Morgans to turn right around and sell arms to the British and French. (It should be noted that the aforementioned pyramidal scheme of inflation amongst countries that the British sought in the 1920s finally came to a crash thanks to French resistance to sheepishly following.) World War I was a major winning moment for J.P. Morgan as they had been outmaneuvered, financially, by their rivals, caught short by the profound boom in all industrial stocks about a decade before the outbreak of the war, with Kuhn, Loeb & Co. overtaking much of their position. Kuhn, Loeb, was vehemently pro-German-Austrian, while the Morgans were practically agent provocateurs on behalf of Britain and to a significantly lesser extent France. No financial entity was so relieved to see the American entry into the war on behalf of the British and French than J.P. Morgan. Strong's great British friend Norman had deeper American ties than Strong had British ties, having worked in New York City for Brown Brothers, an extraordinarily powerful investment banking firm, an experience from which considerable New York banking tendrils forever existed for Norman. Strong's efforts to help the British were not merely the work of an Anglophile; he was zealous about protecting J.P. Morgan, and with the efforts to match British inflation, Strong believed that his Federal Reserve System policies were aiding the Morgans considerably. 

When Strong died in 1928, the newly-anointed Federal Reserve chiefs were not so deliberate in the realm of inflation, and they were less amenable toward achieving whatever the British banking interests wanted from them, as well as the powerful Morgans. Inflationary policy was finally given a major pause, and, so, deflation followed, and with it, a depression. 

Of course, what has been called _laissez-faire_ was not, and the Herbert Hoover administration, which U.S. public schools wrongly teach was indifferent and did nothing about the depression--if only that were the case!--was highly activist and interventionist, and had already been with Hoover's taking of the office, months before the crash even took place. Unlike all U.S. depressions which had taken place, and been resolved in a short few months or a year or at most two, this depression continued unabated for well over twelve years, as U.S. government intervention in the markets and wage and price fixing and market cartelization all damaged the U.S. economy more, brought to permanent power the very financial and Wall Street interests and big businesses many who had supported FDR claimed to despise, and created a cartelized, sort of proto-fascistic U.S. economy ever since, all with a Federal Reserve System that continues to seek primarily inflationary policies to remedy ills while claiming to exist to ward off inflation, and institute fractional reserve banking, which is profoundly harmful as well as a form of governmental-banking-industry embezzlement, as it were... but that is for another post at another time.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> @BruiserKC Thought this might interest you:
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...merican-hero-chris-crane-marco-rubios-screed/


Interesting read. I had hoped that Rubio had abandoned everything regarding the Gang of 8, he would have been better off saying I made a mistake. 



yeahbaby! said:


> You're also happy with him wasting time with ridiculous comments like he could shoot someone in public and not lose votes, and implying a female journalist is giving him a hard time because she's on her period? I could go on and on as well. He's no statesmen and has no diplomacy.
> 
> For what it's worth, if you elect this man, America will be double the laughing stock of the world they were with GWB at the helm.


We, the American people, don't care at this point. I'm not a Trump fan, but Obama has made this country an even bigger joke. At least Bush attempted to act in the best interests of this country, Obama has gone the complete opposite way. He has gone out of his way to be so passive that our allies don't trust us and our enemies mock us. We need to put America first, and do what is in our best interests. There is a great amount of anger in this country from voters, this is the way we are showing it rather than storm the White House with flaming pitchforks.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



BruiserKC said:


> Interesting read. I had hoped that Rubio had abandoned everything regarding the Gang of 8, he would have been better off saying I made a mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> We, the American people, don't care at this point. I'm not a Trump fan, but Obama has made this country an even bigger joke. At least Bush attempted to act in the best interests of this country, Obama has gone the complete opposite way. He has gone out of his way to be so passive that our allies don't trust us and our enemies mock us. We need to put America first, and do what is in our best interests. There is a great amount of anger in this country from voters, this is the way we are showing it rather than storm the White House with flaming pitchforks.


I really wish you'd reconsider Trump, Bruiser. McCain aside, he really has been the most pro-military candidate.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Oh Sally. People like me? You dont know me at all.
> 
> I'm not sure if you realised but this is 'The Donald Trump Thread', not the 'Thanks for everything that's gone wrong in my life Obama' thread.
> 
> Obama comes off as an intelligent speaker and says generally moderate things, where as Donald is as obnoxious as can be and has a laundry list of outlandish statements to his credit. That's why the rest of the world generally sees Trump as a buffoon.


Hi! You're right I don't know you and that was rather rude of me! I meant to say "Why do people forget Obama?" He has just as bad of a track record as Bush and that whole "Thanks Obama" is just a deflection used to mask his many flaws. He does come off as an intelligent speaker so you're right about that. 

The US for the past two Presidents has been a laughing stock, while the common people laughed at Bush, world leaders laugh at Obama because he's just made everything that much worse -but you're right is not an Obama thread just want people to acknowledge Bush's step brother too! Now if we can only get certain people to stop babbling about Sanders. ¬.¬

I see trump as maybe getting laughed at but the more the media bashes him, the better he ends up looking. Trump is larger than life, you don't use vague mudslinging nor over the top stuff against him because the people in this thread that have, have looked foolish! Right now the Media has Trump looking like Han Solo, Deadpool or Lobo in terms of being an asshole but people like him because he seems to be an honest one. That will just work in his favor!

Again I apologize for what i said to you, wasn't how I wanted to come across and LOL @ your Sanders comment about the early bird special!


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



antonio baldwin said:


> It's hard to believe, but not much can stop him from getting the nomination.


The RNC will give it their best effort. He still has a fight on his hands. But, things are looking good.


----------



## antonio baldwin

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> The RNC will give it their best effort. He still has a fight on his hands. But, things are looking good.


What's at risk is losing the House and/or Senate. That could happen if Trump is nominated.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



antonio baldwin said:


> What's at risk is losing the House and/or Senate. That could happen if Trump is nominated.


How? I don't see a chance of that happening.


----------



## antonio baldwin

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> How? I don't see a chance of that happening.


If you search some articles, you'll find that fear is real among Republicans. Obama has created huge losses to Republicans, including governerships. I just see Trump getting destroyed in a general election by the Democrat Party.


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Goku said:


> citation?


2nd half of his answer

https://youtu.be/OQuceU3x2Ww






Turkey: 
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/19/-sp-islamic-state-oil-empire-iraq-isis



India:
http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/indias-exposure-to-isis-in-iraq/

Indian oil manager was part of Isis:
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/repor...rt-of-isis-widespread-foreign-network-2155064


Pakistan:
http://www.ibtimes.co.in/who-all-are-buying-oil-islamic-state-possibly-everyone-609161

European Union:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/09/05/eu-buys-isis-oil-ambassador/


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



antonio baldwin said:


> If you search some articles, you'll find that fear is real among Republicans. Obama has created huge losses to Republicans, including governerships. I just see Trump getting destroyed in a general election by the Democrat Party.


Trump will obliterate Hillary. Just look at the primary turnout rates.


----------



## antonio baldwin

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> Trump will obliterate Hillary. Just look at the primary turnout rates.


Anything's possible. He's barely been attacked by other candidates and certainly hasn't been vetted by the media. His day of reckoning has yet to come. When it does, Trump will find himself in big trouble.


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Pronoss said:


> 2nd half of his answer
> 
> https://youtu.be/OQuceU3x2Ww
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turkey:
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/19/-sp-islamic-state-oil-empire-iraq-isis
> 
> 
> 
> India:
> http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/indias-exposure-to-isis-in-iraq/
> 
> Indian oil manager was part of Isis:
> http://www.dnaindia.com/india/repor...rt-of-isis-widespread-foreign-network-2155064
> 
> 
> Pakistan:
> http://www.ibtimes.co.in/who-all-are-buying-oil-islamic-state-possibly-everyone-609161
> 
> European Union:
> http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/09/05/eu-buys-isis-oil-ambassador/


I was only curious about India as it is one of the countries where fuel prices have not taken any dip despite the trend in crude prices.

Putin does not mention any countries, India included. The diplomat article is on the strain that the existence of ISIS puts on India's oil imports, says nothing about India buying oil from ISIS (see also, the article is from June 2014). The Indian oil article is re- a manager in said company and again mentions nothing about India buying oil from ISIS.

None of that is valid as evidence or even related, in truth. The accusation seemed strange from my vantage, having looked into it, it appears completely fabricated. To what end, I'm unsure.

But perhaps you will recant.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



antonio baldwin said:


> Anything's possible. *He's barely been attacked by other candidates and certainly hasn't been vetted by the media.* His day of reckoning has yet to come. When it does, Trump will find himself in big trouble.


Are we living in separate dimensions?


----------



## antonio baldwin

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> Are we living in separate dimensions?


I don't think so. I understand a lot of people are excited about Trump. That said, not much thought from those folks is going into what would would happen in a general election. I think any of us could beat Sanders, but so such thing would really happen.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



antonio baldwin said:


> Anything's possible. *He's barely been attacked by other candidates* and certainly hasn't been vetted by the media. His day of reckoning has yet to come. When it does, Trump will find himself in big trouble.


:lol What?

Just watched the Trump town hall with Sean Hannity from last night. Thought he did a great job, and was pleased that he was able to identify the real problem with college costs. Obviously he needs to read up a lot on the Bureau of Land Management issue and (unrelated to the town hall) the Apple security issue regarding the San Bernardino phones. Apple should NOT under any circumstances give the FBI what they want.


----------



## antonio baldwin

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> :lol What?
> 
> Just watched the Trump town hall with Sean Hannity from last night. Thought he did a great job, and was pleased that he was able to identify the real problem with college costs. Obviously he needs to read up a lot on the Bureau of Land Management issue and (unrelated to the town hall) the Apple security issue regarding the San Bernardino phones. Apple should NOT under any circumstances give the FBI what they want.


Last night was soft ball city.:surprise:


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Sean Hannity isn't a candidate, and you'd be crazy to suggest Fox News has been "soft" on Trump in any way. Just watch that first Fox debate, where so many of the questions were basically "Hey candidate X, attack Trump about this" and Fox's own statement about Trump prior to his decision to refuse to attend the debate last month. 

Trump has suffered a litany of attacks from every candidate from both parties. Cruz can't stop attacking Trump. Hillary has lodged all manner of unfounded pejoratives at the man.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

If he gets in I hope he starts holding public political boardrooms and firing people.

"Rubio, aren't you just a disaster? You screwed everything up, you're fired!"


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Goku said:


> I was only curious about India as it is one of the countries where fuel prices have not taken any dip despite the trend in crude prices.
> 
> Putin does not mention any countries, India included. The diplomat article is on the strain that the existence of ISIS puts on India's oil imports, says nothing about India buying oil from ISIS (see also, the article is from June 2014). The Indian oil article is re- a manager in said company and again mentions nothing about India buying oil from ISIS.
> 
> None of that is valid as evidence or even related, in truth. The accusation seemed strange from my vantage, having looked into it, it appears completely fabricated. To what end, I'm unsure.
> 
> But perhaps you will recant.


My detailed posts tend to get kinda large when it's a difficult to explain issue, or if it's a statement, opinion, stance that I want to attempt to clarify in detail so it makes my point clear. But I was summarizing and not going into full details about each Ally buying oil from Isis. 

The point is we have more than one Ally buying oil from Isis, that's the real issue I had, I don't care if the Ally is Japan, Australia, England, and even non allies shouldn't be giving them money either.

With that said.

I wont recant on India, but I will clarify and adjust my statement so it separates India from Turkey, Pakistan and EU member states.

The sentences ending with (x), refer to list of sources at bottom of post.


*
Reason for Putin video:*

I showed the Putin video as he was the one who made it clear that U.S. allies were buying oil from Isis, when our media wouldn't even discuss it, and how the Obama administration refuses to sanction any of them.

*
My "adjusted" statement:*

We know some EU members(4)(5), Pakistan, Jordan, Kurdistan region, and Turkey buy oil from Isis. 
While Iran, India and "maybe others" have bought oil that came from Isis. India buys its oil from Iran (2)(3). Iran has oil smuggled in via Kurdistan(6). After an arrest of Indian Oil Corporation (9) official regarding dealings with Isis (7), Occam's razor would say India is getting oil from Isis, just by using a "middleman" Iran after it had been "laundered" through Kurdistan (6).


My original statement wasn't a fabrication, I just didn't feel the need to write a pamphlet connecting dots with a bibliography of sources I used to write this summary.


Iraq has been offering India three oil blocks -- Kifil, West Kifil and Merjan -- in the Middle Furat region since 2000, and Reliance Industries was eyeing the Nasiriya Integrated Project to increase their supply. (1)

Reliance Industries (8) is the 2nd largest corporation in India that imports oil. They are 2nd only to the India Oil Corporation (9) , both trade on the stock market, and are not ran by the government, but they are the 2 biggest importers of oil for India, there are other smaller corporations, but a lot just buy from either Reliance Industries or Indian Oil Corporation. 


*India's Major Oil Suppliers *(1)











Then Isis took the oil fields in Iraq India began buying from Iran, Iran was getting extra oil brought in through Kurdistan (6), likely as extra profits to bypass sanctions. The sanctions had been so tough on Iran they used Kurdistan region to smuggle everything. (10)


India was sanctioned for buying oil from Iran. India ignored the sanctions, EU banned dealings with Iran and India banks believing blocking the Euro from being used as money would stop. India then switched to gold (11).
*
Why hasn't India gas prices dropped? *They aren't using the currency the rest of the world does for Oil. India swapped to bypass sanctions and legalities and bank/asset freezes by purchasing their oil with Gold (11)


_And I could continue on, but this should be sufficient as to why I said India buys oil from Isis._


*Sources:*


[1] 
*2014 article: *
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/standpoint-iraq-a-crisis-of-oil-or-of-confidence-for-india-1996976

[2]
*2012, India ignoring Sanctions buying oil from Iran*
https://youtu.be/sQ5am2KEYsQ





[3]
*2012 U.S. threatening India over buying oil from Iran*
https://youtu.be/6QRsyQtVy40






[4]
*European Union admits it's member states are buying oil from Isis:*
https://youtu.be/54OLF2rDSpo






[5]
*Summary on European countries buying oil from Isis:*
https://youtu.be/S2h-fIG9TnM





[6] 
*2014 article on smuggles Isis oil into countries using 'middlemen' countries:*
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/18/business/al-khatteeb-isis-oil-iraq/


[7]
*2015 Largest Oil importer, Indian Oil Corporation Official was arrested for dealings with Isis:*
http://www.asianage.com/india/indian-oil-corporation-official-arrested-isis-links-021

[8]
*Reliance Industries:*
http://www.ril.com

[9]
*Indian Oil Corporation:*
https://www.iocl.com

[10]
*2013 How Iran is beating sanctions*
https://youtu.be/z3-LC3KUmrg





[11]
*India now using Gold to buy oil from Iran*
https://youtu.be/CxiXSKczaoQ


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> :lol What?
> 
> Just watched the Trump town hall with Sean Hannity from last night. Thought he did a great job, and was pleased that he was able to identify the real problem with college costs. Obviously he needs to read up a lot on the Bureau of Land Management issue and (unrelated to the town hall) the Apple security issue regarding the San Bernardino phones. Apple should NOT under any circumstances give the FBI what they want.


I missed it the Trump thing. What did he say about college costs?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Pronoss said:


> My detailed posts tend to get kinda large when it's a difficult to explain issue, or if it's a statement, opinion, stance that I want to attempt to clarify in detail so it makes my point clear. But I was summarizing and not going into full details about each Ally buying oil from Isis.
> 
> The point is we have more than one Ally buying oil from Isis, that's the real issue I had, I don't care if the Ally is Japan, Australia, England, and even non allies shouldn't be giving them money either.
> 
> With that said.
> 
> I wont recant on India, but I will clarify and adjust my statement so it separates India from Turkey, Pakistan and EU member states.
> 
> The sentences ending with (x), refer to list of sources at bottom of post.
> 
> 
> *
> Reason for Putin video:*
> 
> I showed the Putin video as he was the one who made it clear that U.S. allies were buying oil from Isis, when our media wouldn't even discuss it, and how the Obama administration refuses to sanction any of them.
> 
> *
> My "adjusted" statement:*
> 
> We know some EU members(4)(5), Pakistan, Jordan, Kurdistan region, and Turkey buy oil from Isis.
> While Iran, India and "maybe others" have bought oil that came from Isis. India buys its oil from Iran (2)(3). Iran has oil smuggled in via Kurdistan(6). After an arrest of Indian Oil Corporation (9) official regarding dealings with Isis (7), Occam's razor would say India is getting oil from Isis, just by using a "middleman" Iran after it had been "laundered" through Kurdistan (6).
> 
> 
> My original statement wasn't a fabrication, I just didn't feel the need to write a pamphlet connecting dots with a bibliography of sources I used to write this summary.
> 
> 
> Iraq has been offering India three oil blocks -- Kifil, West Kifil and Merjan -- in the Middle Furat region since 2000, and Reliance Industries was eyeing the Nasiriya Integrated Project to increase their supply. (1)
> 
> Reliance Industries (8) is the 2nd largest corporation in India that imports oil. They are 2nd only to the India Oil Corporation (9) , both trade on the stock market, and are not ran by the government, but they are the 2 biggest importers of oil for India, there are other smaller corporations, but a lot just buy from either Reliance Industries or Indian Oil Corporation.
> 
> 
> *India's Major Oil Suppliers *(1)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then Isis took the oil fields in Iraq India began buying from Iran, Iran was getting extra oil brought in through Kurdistan (6), likely as extra profits to bypass sanctions. The sanctions had been so tough on Iran they used Kurdistan region to smuggle everything. (10)
> 
> 
> India was sanctioned for buying oil from Iran. India ignored the sanctions, EU banned dealings with Iran and India banks believing blocking the Euro from being used as money would stop. India then switched to gold (11).
> *
> Why hasn't India gas prices dropped? *They aren't using the currency the rest of the world does for Oil. India swapped to bypass sanctions and legalities and bank/asset freezes by purchasing their oil with Gold (11)
> 
> 
> _And I could continue on, but this should be sufficient as to why I said India buys oil from Isis._
> 
> 
> *Sources:*
> 
> 
> [1]
> *2014 article: *
> http://www.dnaindia.com/india/standpoint-iraq-a-crisis-of-oil-or-of-confidence-for-india-1996976
> 
> [2]
> *2012, India ignoring Sanctions buying oil from Iran*
> https://youtu.be/sQ5am2KEYsQ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [3]
> *2012 U.S. threatening India over buying oil from Iran*
> https://youtu.be/6QRsyQtVy40
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [4]
> *European Union admits it's member states are buying oil from Isis:*
> https://youtu.be/54OLF2rDSpo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [5]
> *Summary on European countries buying oil from Isis:*
> https://youtu.be/S2h-fIG9TnM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [6]
> *2014 article on smuggles Isis oil into countries using 'middlemen' countries:*
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/18/business/al-khatteeb-isis-oil-iraq/
> 
> 
> [7]
> *2015 Largest Oil importer, Indian Oil Corporation Official was arrested for dealings with Isis:*
> http://www.asianage.com/india/indian-oil-corporation-official-arrested-isis-links-021
> 
> [8]
> *Reliance Industries:*
> http://www.ril.com
> 
> [9]
> *Indian Oil Corporation:*
> https://www.iocl.com
> 
> [10]
> *2013 How Iran is beating sanctions*
> https://youtu.be/z3-LC3KUmrg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [11]
> *India now using Gold to buy oil from Iran*
> https://youtu.be/CxiXSKczaoQ


It's so sad our insane dependence on oil, it seems no one is above buying or forceably taking it from whoever's sitting on it. I cannot believe countries actually buy oil from Isis. But then again, America is more than happy to invade coutries for it which results in a lot of senseless death.

Yet, we could be harnessing this massive sun we have into solar!

What is the Trumpmeister's stance on energy? Is he open to solar etc, or is he in the pocket of the oil barrons like everyone else?


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> I missed it the Trump thing. What did he say about college costs?


Basically colleges have dramatically increased their fees due to overly generous federal loans and financial aid, making the students "conduits" of funds from the government to colleges, resulting in ridiculous debt for many students. 

It's explained really well in this fortunately concise article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/o...eason-college-tuition-costs-so-much.html?_r=0


----------



## JokersLastLaugh

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> IQ remains pretty much constant throughout a person's life. Caucasian-Americans average out at 100, east Asian-Americans at about 106, and our demigod overlords the Ashkenazi Jews average out at about 115. Black Americans are at about 85 and Hispanic Americans are at about 89, on average. Men on average have a wider spectrum of IQ compared to women, so there are more extremely intelligent men and more extremely unintelligent men than there are of women of either extreme.
> 
> Of course IQ doesn't amount to wisdom, but there is a significant correlation between IQ and life outcomes.


Could you please post a source with regards to the IQ? I'm not wanting to argue, but I find that information needs a legitimate source.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



JokersLastLaugh said:


> Could you please post a source with regards to the IQ? I'm not wanting to argue, but I find that information needs a legitimate source.


_The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life_ by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray.

I don't think racial differences should inform how we treat individuals or construct policy (I'm an anarchist and don't even support the idea), I was just correcting a false statement.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@AryaDark @Batko10 @CamillePunk @Miss Sally @samizayn






:lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## JokersLastLaugh

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> _The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life_ by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray.
> 
> I don't think racial differences should inform how we treat individuals or construct policy (I'm an anarchist and don't even support the idea), I was just correcting a false statement.


Thank you.

I wasn't disagreeing or attacking, I just simply want to have a leg to stand on if I ever have to use that data for any reason in my life.


----------



## GothicBohemian

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Just saw the IQ post. I've never been a fan of IQ measurement or any form of standardized testing. Do we have any proof that it actually 1) correlates significantly with success isolated from other, potentially more important, factors and 2) is there concrete evidence of it amounting to anything more than a measure of one's exposure to certain vocabulary, math skills and the like? While I feel it's possible to get a general view of individual talents from such measures I see enough inherent flaws in available testing methods that I'm uncomfortable drawing much from IQ beyond rough estimates. 

For example, local Francophone students score poorly as a group on standardized language testing. Does that indicate French locals have poor comprehension abilities or is it important to note that the tests are written in language that doesn't match the local dialect? Is the popularity of English, as opposed to French, for everyday reading among these students taken into account? 

How did this thread even briefly veer off into IQ? I haven't read anything but a handful of posts a day ago and now the most recent page. I expected Trump love or raging political rants, not this.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

This thread veers off course at times. That's just kinda how discussion goes. It's fine, we'll always bring it back to the man of the hour.

But yeah the IQ thing happened because there are a few liberal minded folks ITT.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



GothicBohemian said:


> Just saw the IQ post. I've never been a fan of IQ measurement or any form of standardized testing. *Do we have any proof that it actually 1) correlates significantly with success isolated from other, potentially more important, factors* and 2)* is there concrete evidence of it amounting to anything more than a measure of one's exposure to certain vocabulary, math skills and the like?* While I feel it's possible to get a general view of individual talents from such measures I see enough inherent flaws in available testing methods that I'm uncomfortable drawing much from IQ beyond rough estimates.


Yes.



> For example, local Francophone students score poorly as a group on standardized language testing. Does that indicate French locals have poor comprehension abilities or is it important to note that the tests are written in language that doesn't match the local dialect? Is the popularity of English, as opposed to French, for everyday reading among these students taken into account?


Standardized language testing has nothing to do with IQ testing. Your example isn't relevant.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> I really wish you'd reconsider Trump, Bruiser. McCain aside, he really has been the most pro-military candidate.


It's not just the military, though. Many of his viewpoints are completely opposite of what I believe. I know the GOP wants to find someone they think can win, but the problem is the last couple of times they sent out people that weren't conservative. McCain certainly isn't, and Romney sure as hell wasn't either. Trump is the most liberal of all the GOP runners, and what I could very easily see happen is that the GOP finally supports him, only for him to fall short in the general election. Then, you would have an even bigger revolt than you have now from conservatives that would abandon the GOP in droves. 

Trust me, Hillary or Bernie as president scares the shit out of me, but I'm no longer willing to just vote for someone who says they are conservative just because they have an "R" next to their name on the Sunday talk shows.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Bruiser the GOP isn't conservative anymore. It hasn't been for a long time. They just pander to social conservatives to get votes. 


To be fair McCain or Romney might have won if they had faced Hillary. She's not very good at this. Any support she gets is because she's a woman. 

I know Thanks Obama etc, but he was an excellent candidate.


----------



## Joff

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Fascinating article here: http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...xpected-to-rise-in-2016/#sthash.15y8ejQy.dpuf



> The flow of illegal immigrant children into the United States is expected to rise to record-breaking numbers in 2016 as deportations decrease, according to leading members of the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.
> 
> At least 20,455 unaccompanied minors have been caught during fiscal year 2016 along the U.S.-Mexico border as of last month, according to committee chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), who warned that if this trend continues, the number of illegal minors could eclipse a massive 2014 surge that strained the resources of the Department of Homeland Security and prompted investigations into the Obama administration’s handling of the issue.
> 
> While illegal border crossings surge, the number of children actually being deported from the United States is declining, senators said during a Tuesday hearing with senior Obama administration officials.
> 
> ...
> 
> “It is no wonder children are being mistreated or simply falling off of the grid once turned over to sponsors,” Grassley said. “Your agency wants to wipe its hands clean after a child is placed with a sponsor.”
> 
> As border crossings rise to unprecedented levels, the Obama administration has deported just 4,680 of more than 127,000 minors who were apprehended on the border during the past two-and-a-half years. Obama administration officials confirmed that third-party contractors perform most background checks and interviews with these minors, often with little government oversight. “We’re having an increase … this year, twice as many unaccompanied minors are entering the country as last year because there’s no effective response to this,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) said. “The president’s answer is to assume basically that every child is a victim of an asylum type danger and entitled to enter the U.S.”


That above figure accounts for roughly 4% of all migrant minors. 

The Donald should be able to frame this as a "humanitarian" issue going forward. Interesting.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> Bruiser the GOP isn't conservative anymore. It hasn't been for a long time. They just pander to social conservatives to get votes.
> 
> 
> To be fair McCain or Romney might have won if they had faced Hillary. She's not very good at this. *Any support she gets is because she's a woman.*
> 
> I know Thanks Obama etc, but he was an excellent candidate.


Whoa are you trolling? That's pretty inflammatory.

I'm no fan but she seems pretty knowledgable and a good orator among other things. I'd be more inclined to believe wouldn't vote for her because she's a woman.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Whoa are you trolling? That's pretty inflammatory.
> 
> I'm no fan but she seems pretty knowledgable and a good orator among other things. I'd be more inclined to believe wouldn't vote for her because she's a woman.


*MrMr*'s right. Well, not exclusively so in the sense that Hillary's only receiving votes because she's a woman. The reason she holds such a commanding lead over Bernie Sanders among minorities is chiefly due to her association with her husband. Blacks in particular seem to adore Bill Clinon, overwhelmingly so, in every poll on the subject. She benefits from her marriage to Bill. Sanders's Keynesianism-on-steroids economic concerns are not especially palatable among minority groups.

If Hillary is considered a "good orator" then the standards for public speaking have fallen to such horrific lows so as to almost be meaningless. She still comes off as shrill and irritating to a huge segment of the U.S., and I don't think it's because she's a woman. 

She also happens to be as big of a liar as her husband on a plethora of issues--actually even more so than Bill--with none of his supposed charm. 

As this video demonstrates, when you have to keep saying that you try as hard as you can be to honest, to not lie, you have a credibility problem. From her distortions for which she was caught red-handed in her efforts to push "Hillarycare" in 1993-'94 to "Bosnian sniper fire" to the innumerable White Water-related scandals all the way through her run as the most avid supporter of military intervention in Libya, and support for what could accurately be described as "death squads," in that country, as found with her "email scandal," Hillary Clinton and the truth have seldom been discovered with one another.

This, for instance, is both eerie and hilarious:


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> *MrMr*'s right. Well, not exclusively so in the sense that Hillary's only receiving votes because she's a woman. The reason she holds such a commanding lead over Bernie Sanders among minorities is chiefly due to her association with her husband. Blacks in particular seem to adore Bill Clinon, overwhelmingly so, in every poll on the subject. She benefits from her marriage to Bill. Sanders's Keynesianism-on-steroids economic concerns are not especially palatable among minority groups.
> 
> If Hillary is considered a "good orator" then the standards for public speaking have fallen to such horrific lows so as to almost be meaningless. She still comes off as shrill and irritating to a huge segment of the U.S., and I don't think it's because she's a woman.
> 
> She also happens to be as big of a liar as her husband on a plethora of issues--actually even more so than Bill--with none of his supposed charm.
> 
> As this video demonstrates, when you have to keep saying that you try as hard as you can be to honest, to not lie, you have a credibility problem. From her distortions for which she was caught red-handed in her efforts to push "Hillarycare" in 1993-'94 to "Bosnian sniper fire" to the innumerable White Water-related scandals all the way through her run as the most avid supporter of military intervention in Libya, and support for what could accurately be described as "death squads," in that country, as found with her "email scandal," Hillary Clinton and the truth have seldom been discovered with one another.
> 
> This, for instance, is both eerie and hilarious:


Yeah that's a weird uncomfortable video, classic politician-talk and it sure doesn't make her look very good. But I hope you're not suggesting Trump or anyone remotely close to the race hasn't done their fair share of lying as well.

And I when I said good orator, I mean she can get atleast get a point across, unlike some other high level politicians from the past and present, namely the bottom of the barrell, GWB.

So I wonder why is Trump apparently so popular? It's basically just because of his TV show, and he says outlandish things right? I mean amongst the majority casuals who don't know or really care about policy in general but are hooked on 'Let's make America great again', that has to be it.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@AryaDark @Batko10 @BruiserKC @CamillePunk @Goku @Miss Sally @samizayn

Extremely interesting:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/701964601924186112


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Yeah that's a weird uncomfortable video, classic politician-talk and it sure doesn't make her look very good. But I hope you're not suggesting Trump or anyone remotely close to the race hasn't done their fair share of lying as well.
> 
> And I when I said good orator, I mean she can get atleast get a point across, unlike some other high level politicians from the past and present, namely the bottom of the barrell, GWB.
> 
> So I wonder why is Trump apparently so popular? It's basically just because of his TV show, and he says outlandish things right? I mean amongst the majority casuals who don't know or really care about policy in general but are hooked on 'Let's make America great again', that has to be it.


Democracy breeds demagoguery so sure, but the first point relates to the last of your post. The reason Trump's succeeding is because he's coming out and admitting that he was once a profligate bribe-payer in the midst of the political class. Several neoconservative journals have declared Trump something of a traitor to his class, and people like that. They like his simple but effective rhetoric, and his overall point that the political class needs to be held to account for its widespread misconduct, taking shots at both parties' rotten establishments in the process.

In any event, that tweet I just posted above goes through some of this, too.

The richest part of it all is that the political machinery that creates political celebrities is being directly opposed and contradicted by a "celebrity" who had, in some ways, been within, but is now standing without. Take care!


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I think people are underestimating the support Trump will get from working-class democrats who, despite the pressuring of their unions, might not actually be all that keen on the idea of leaving the floodgates open on the southern border and importing a bunch of refugees. We shall see. I'd love to see some traditionally blue states flip red and dispel this idea that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's-errrr, sorry, wrong function call...I'd like to see Trump do some unifying at a level that the mainstream media can't realistically ignore. I think it could happen. 

Normally I'd be concerned with a candidate who appeals to conservatives and liberals, but the fact he's not a part of the establishment and has a mostly conservative history alleviates those worries.


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Pronoss said:


> My detailed posts tend to get kinda large when it's a difficult to explain issue, or if it's a statement, opinion, stance that I want to attempt to clarify in detail so it makes my point clear. But I was summarizing and not going into full details about each Ally buying oil from Isis.
> 
> The point is we have more than one Ally buying oil from Isis, that's the real issue I had, I don't care if the Ally is Japan, Australia, England, and even non allies shouldn't be giving them money either.
> 
> With that said.
> 
> I wont recant on India, but I will clarify and adjust my statement so it separates India from Turkey, Pakistan and EU member states.
> 
> The sentences ending with (x), refer to list of sources at bottom of post.
> 
> 
> *
> Reason for Putin video:*
> 
> I showed the Putin video as he was the one who made it clear that U.S. allies were buying oil from Isis, when our media wouldn't even discuss it, and how the Obama administration refuses to sanction any of them.
> 
> *
> My "adjusted" statement:*
> 
> We know some EU members(4)(5), Pakistan, Jordan, Kurdistan region, and Turkey buy oil from Isis.
> While Iran, India and "maybe others" have bought oil that came from Isis. India buys its oil from Iran (2)(3). Iran has oil smuggled in via Kurdistan(6). After an arrest of Indian Oil Corporation (9) official regarding dealings with Isis (7), Occam's razor would say India is getting oil from Isis, just by using a "middleman" Iran after it had been "laundered" through Kurdistan (6).
> 
> 
> My original statement wasn't a fabrication, I just didn't feel the need to write a pamphlet connecting dots with a bibliography of sources I used to write this summary.
> 
> 
> Iraq has been offering India three oil blocks -- Kifil, West Kifil and Merjan -- in the Middle Furat region since 2000, and Reliance Industries was eyeing the Nasiriya Integrated Project to increase their supply. (1)
> 
> Reliance Industries (8) is the 2nd largest corporation in India that imports oil. They are 2nd only to the India Oil Corporation (9) , both trade on the stock market, and are not ran by the government, but they are the 2 biggest importers of oil for India, there are other smaller corporations, but a lot just buy from either Reliance Industries or Indian Oil Corporation.
> 
> 
> *India's Major Oil Suppliers *(1)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then Isis took the oil fields in Iraq India began buying from Iran, Iran was getting extra oil brought in through Kurdistan (6), likely as extra profits to bypass sanctions. The sanctions had been so tough on Iran they used Kurdistan region to smuggle everything. (10)
> 
> 
> India was sanctioned for buying oil from Iran. India ignored the sanctions, EU banned dealings with Iran and India banks believing blocking the Euro from being used as money would stop. India then switched to gold (11).
> *
> Why hasn't India gas prices dropped? *They aren't using the currency the rest of the world does for Oil. India swapped to bypass sanctions and legalities and bank/asset freezes by purchasing their oil with Gold (11)
> 
> 
> _And I could continue on, but this should be sufficient as to why I said India buys oil from Isis._
> 
> 
> *Sources:*
> 
> 
> [1]
> *2014 article: *
> http://www.dnaindia.com/india/standpoint-iraq-a-crisis-of-oil-or-of-confidence-for-india-1996976
> 
> [2]
> *2012, India ignoring Sanctions buying oil from Iran*
> https://youtu.be/sQ5am2KEYsQ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [3]
> *2012 U.S. threatening India over buying oil from Iran*
> https://youtu.be/6QRsyQtVy40
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [4]
> *European Union admits it's member states are buying oil from Isis:*
> https://youtu.be/54OLF2rDSpo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [5]
> *Summary on European countries buying oil from Isis:*
> https://youtu.be/S2h-fIG9TnM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [6]
> *2014 article on smuggles Isis oil into countries using 'middlemen' countries:*
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/18/business/al-khatteeb-isis-oil-iraq/
> 
> 
> [7]
> *2015 Largest Oil importer, Indian Oil Corporation Official was arrested for dealings with Isis:*
> http://www.asianage.com/india/indian-oil-corporation-official-arrested-isis-links-021
> 
> [8]
> *Reliance Industries:*
> http://www.ril.com
> 
> [9]
> *Indian Oil Corporation:*
> https://www.iocl.com
> 
> [10]
> *2013 How Iran is beating sanctions*
> https://youtu.be/z3-LC3KUmrg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [11]
> *India now using Gold to buy oil from Iran*
> https://youtu.be/CxiXSKczaoQ


Sorry, that doesn't pass either. The sanctions on Iran were deemed superficial by the Indian government and that is the reason they continued to buy from them. The Indian Oil story is re- a 'marketing manager' who was supposedly trying to recruit people for ISIS, not anyone with any sway or power over how the company does it dealings. A marketing manager does not have the ability to smuggle oil in through illegal channels.

Buying oil in gold seems good from a non-American standpoint as the petro-dollar is an artificial power metric that that need not be respected.

If your original point is that other countries aren't bending over backwards to keep the US on its mighty throne, I agree. But none of what you presented derives the conclusion you desire.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> I think people are underestimating the support Trump will get from working-class democrats who, despite the pressuring of their unions, might not actually be all that keen on the idea of leaving the floodgates open on the southern border and importing a bunch of refugees. We shall see. I'd love to see some traditionally blue states flip red and dispel this idea that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's-errrr, sorry, wrong function call...I'd like to see Trump do some unifying at a level that the mainstream media can't realistically ignore. I think it could happen.
> 
> Normally I'd be concerned with a candidate who appeals to conservatives and liberals, but the fact he's not a part of the establishment and has a mostly conservative history alleviates those worries.


Completely agree. The anti-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama era free trade, anti-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama immigration and anti-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama military adventurism emanating from Trump is going to be far more appealing among this generation's of "Reagan Democrats" than any other major candidate.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Whoa are you trolling? That's pretty inflammatory.
> 
> I'm no fan but she seems pretty knowledgable and a good orator among other things. I'd be more inclined to believe wouldn't vote for her because she's a woman.


Semi-trolling sensationalism, yeah. Oversimplifying a bit. You got me. I wasn't completely serious, but there are people that will vote for her because she's a woman.

Remember those Albright comments? The crap about the special place in hell? She was trolling too, but there was a bit of seriousness there. Vote for Hillary because she's a woman was the message. The funny thing is it kinda blew up in their face.


----------



## asdf0501

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

A Bit off topic but



GothicBohemian said:


> Just saw the IQ post. I've never been a fan of IQ measurement or any form of standardized testing. Do we have any proof that it actually 1) correlates significantly with success isolated from other, potentially more important, factors and 2) is there concrete evidence of it amounting to anything more than a measure of one's exposure to certain vocabulary, math skills and the like? While I feel it's possible to get a general view of individual talents from such measures I see enough inherent flaws in available testing methods that I'm uncomfortable drawing much from IQ beyond rough estimates.
> 
> For example, local Francophone students score poorly as a group on standardized language testing. Does that indicate French locals have poor comprehension abilities or is it important to note that the tests are written in language that doesn't match the local dialect? Is the popularity of English, as opposed to French, for everyday reading among these students taken into account?


This.

There are currently some data that rejects standarized messures in issues like this, for example Finland's education police is totally in reject of it, and even then it's the country with better results on every standarized messure.

Also, IQ, allegedly, only messure logical thinking...

Now you can continue with Trump


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> Bruiser the GOP isn't conservative anymore. It hasn't been for a long time. They just pander to social conservatives to get votes.
> 
> 
> To be fair McCain or Romney might have won if they had faced Hillary. She's not very good at this. Any support she gets is because she's a woman.
> 
> I know Thanks Obama etc, but he was an excellent candidate.


Which is no longer working as prominent conservatives are abandoning the GOP party in droves. I dropped my voting affiliation with the Republican party after Dubya signed off on the bailout in 2008. Many prominent social conservatives are flocking to Ted Cruz, who is also anti-establishment as far as he has ruffled feathers of his own party. To be honest, if the GOP picked up a stance of fiscal conservatism and social libertarianism, they'd have it made in the shade. Would make so much sense considering the outrageous national debt now and the government becoming more intrusive.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Where is @Beatles123?

The Donald has triumphed in Nevada! :mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin:mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin :mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin :mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin:mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin :mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin :mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin :mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin :mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin :mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin :mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Did Rubio and Cruz still act like they won in their speeches?


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Republican Latinos in Nevada entrance polls:

Trump: 44%

Rubio: 29% 

Cruz: 16%

Kasich: 5%

Carson: 4%

LOL


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Okay, one last post here from me for a while. I'm posting this because I've encountered some folks, including a couple of prominent ones, like this in banking and finance myself. Not one of them has taken Trump seriously as a major candidate. What they will not admit is that under that veneer of insouciance is the fear of what Trump potentially represents to their precious establishment and this becomes exponentially truer the further up the banking and financial world you go.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/%2F701901197402365952

@AryaDark @CamillePunk


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> Where is @Beatles123?
> 
> The Donald has triumphed in Nevada! :mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin:mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin :mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin :mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin:mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin :mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin :mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin :mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin :mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin :mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin :mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin












HERE I AM, @DesolationRow !

YEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Ted Cruz said tonight he got "One Step closer"

HOW???? HE CAME IN THIRD!!


*THIRD!*


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@AryaDark @Batko10 @Beatles123 @Miss Sally @samizayn

All right, apologies, everyone. I messed up the embedding of the tweet with my last post, and I tried to edit to no avail earlier. Fortunately @CamillePunk pointed out the problem, but sadly for some reason the website's not allowing me to edit the post, so let us try that again, from the top, haha...

Just consider this my Marco Rubot moment:

Okay, one last post here from me for a while. I'm posting this because I've encountered some folks, including a couple of prominent ones, like this in banking and finance myself. Not one of them has taken Trump seriously as a major candidate. What they will not admit is that under that veneer of insouciance is the fear of what Trump potentially represents to their precious establishment and this becomes exponentially truer the further up the banking and financial world you go.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/701901197402365952

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/701899242831532033


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Ted Cruz said tonight he got "One Step closer"
> 
> HOW???? HE CAME IN THIRD!!
> 
> 
> *THIRD!*


:lmao

TRUSTED


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Goku said:


> Sorry, that doesn't pass either. The sanctions on Iran were deemed superficial by the Indian government and that is the reason they continued to buy from them. The Indian Oil story is re- a 'marketing manager' who was supposedly trying to recruit people for ISIS, not anyone with any sway or power over how the company does it dealings. A marketing manager does not have the ability to smuggle oil in through illegal channels.
> 
> Buying oil in gold seems good from a non-American standpoint as the petro-dollar is an artificial power metric that that need not be respected.
> 
> If your original point is that other countries aren't bending over backwards to keep the US on its mighty throne, I agree. But none of what you presented derives the conclusion you desire.


Then we agree to disagree, because Iran is buying extra oil from Isis laundering it through Kurdistan.

India is buying oil from Iran.

Therefore India is getting Isis oil like a "Real World Tor Proxy". Iran under sanctions needs extra cash flow. Iran has been buying oil from Kurdistan. It is a proven fact Kurdistan gets their oil from Isis. So even though publicly Iran condemns Isis, they are covertly buying their oil, but since Iran buys it from Kurdistan they have plausible deniability. Iran slaps a profit markup and sells oil to India. India cannot use the Euro or US dollar so they are using gold. So as oil finally arrives in India it has traveled from Oil plants that India was buying DIRECT from in 2000+ in Iraq, but now Isis has taken the oil companies. So Kurdistan isn't an ally, they buy from Isis cheap, they markup and sell to Iran , Iran turns around selling it to India.


I believe I have proven a definite link. The employee arrested was the only one caught trying to get direct dealings with Isis rather than the double markup.

Kurdistan openly buys from isis, they mark up for profit, selling to Iran, Iran marks up to profit selling o India. India is paying a 2x markup plus paying in gold, so their gas prices aren't going to drop.

Off topic, but Interesting look "become a fly on the wall" as Indians and Kurds chat:


> *Off topic* but here are Indians and Kurds talking to each other on Reddit, there's some America bashing but mainly how Kurds and India are friends, just as Kurds & Turkey and Turkey & India.
> *Just laid back chitchat: * https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/2yw853/india_and_the_kurdish_policy/




Kurdistan has sold oil directly to India & Austria:



> ERBIL, Kurdistan Region – Kurdish oil, whose sale was impeded by Baghdad and Washington, has been sold to buyers in Austria and India, an official Kurdish source told Rudaw.


Article: http://rudaw.net/english/business/14062014




Syria, enemy of Isis since the civil war rebels allied with Isis, buys oil from its enemy. Isis also sells oil to Kurdistan which acts as a "middleman" reselling thus "laundering" it like money. 

2014 information:


> ISIS makes its fortune by selling oil from seized territory to its enemies, including the Syrian government it has vowed to topple and to Kurds in Iraq, a U.S. official said Thursday.
> 
> Estimates of how much ISIS makes selling oil have varied widely, but it is believed to be at least $1 million a day.


2014 article: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/s...-among-those-buying-isis-oil-official-n232381


We know for a fact India buys oil from Iran and Kurdistan.

We know for fact that Kurdistan and Iran buy oil from Isis.


So no India isn't buying it directly from isis, and have plausible deniability. But Isis oil is going to India.



Kurdistan and Iran buying Isis oil:

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Who-Is-Buying-The-Islamic-States-Illegal-Oil.html




India is making a market for it.


It's like a celebrity wants cocaine, but he can't be seen anywhere near a dealer or that side of town, between paparazzi and loose lips from witnesses seeing a celeb in bad side of town or at dealers house, instead the celeb uses a 3rd party. When dealer is busted he can't narc on celeb as he never knew that was where it went. And celeb can't ID dealer as they'd never met or done business . they may even publicly be enemies hell they maybe even be publicly racist, but that's what makes the 3rd party deals easy. Until your 3rd party becomes a narc and fucks you both.

Turkey just got narced on in this scenario  



But I've stated my sources, connections between Isis oil sold to Iran and Kurdistan. Then India buying oil from Kurdistan and Iran.

To me it's obvious... But I'll use the caveat then...

In my personal opinion, the evidence, the leaks, the purchases prove that Isis oil winds up in India "laundered" through Kurds and Iran.

I must have hit a nerve though, are you Indian?


I don't know if others can see the link as plain as day as I see it. But if not well go ahead and ignore me if you don't agree, I can respect that, then. It's obvious to me, but I'm not going to guarantee 100% as I'm not CIA, NSA, OPEC, ISIS, or a member of India's trade ministry so I'm just going by public reports.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> :lmao
> 
> TRUSTED


I'm not even making this up. His full quote was "Tonight, we have gone one step closer to morning again in america."

HOW IN THE FUCK?


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Well he got a few delegates I guess, and he's expected to win Texas. I don't see how Cruz could accomplish anything except perhaps costing Trump enough delegates that he doesn't reach the 50% mark and the GOP can broker a Rubio nomination, sending our country into a civil war.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



BruiserKC said:


> It's not just the military, though. Many of his viewpoints are completely opposite of what I believe. I know the GOP wants to find someone they think can win, but the problem is the last couple of times they sent out people that weren't conservative. McCain certainly isn't, and Romney sure as hell wasn't either. Trump is the most liberal of all the GOP runners, and what I could very easily see happen is that the GOP finally supports him, only for him to fall short in the general election. Then, you would have an even bigger revolt than you have now from conservatives that would abandon the GOP in droves.
> 
> Trust me, Hillary or Bernie as president scares the shit out of me, but I'm no longer willing to just vote for someone who says they are conservative just because they have an "R" next to their name on the Sunday talk shows.


But, Bruiser, Trump's record is conservative, not liberal. The only one you can say he wasnt conservative on is Abortion and he was SELF-ADMITTEDLY uninformed then.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Well he got a few delegates I guess, and he's expected to win Texas. I don't see how Cruz could accomplish anything except perhaps costing Trump enough delegates that he doesn't reach the 50% mark and the GOP can broker a Rubio nomination, sending our country into a civil war.


oh GOD no. If that happens, they WILL rig it.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Apparently while Glenn Beck (who supports Ted Cruz I believe, and has been vocally anti-Trump) was giving a speech at a Nevada caucus site, The Donald himself showed up, his presence starting a frenzy, leaving Glenn Beck looking like this:










Here's a poor quality video of the incident, as lived by MSNBC reporter J.J. Abrams:


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

:lol JJ Abrams is the same guy that talked to the Tarp Man in Oregon like a week before he was killed by Feds.

Trump loves him some Rachel Maddow.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

So when you guys elect this idiot, whats the plan when you piss off every other country on the planet? Just gunna go it on your own or what?


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Apparently while Glenn Beck (who supports Ted Cruz I believe, and has been vocally anti-Trump) was giving a speech at a Nevada caucus site, The Donald himself showed up, his presence starting a frenzy, leaving Glenn Beck looking like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a poor quality video of the incident, as lived by MSNBC reporter J.J. Abrams:


Ol Glenns getting fat(ter)


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



nucklehead88 said:


> So when you guys elect this idiot, whats the plan when you piss off every other country on the planet? Just gunna go it on your own or what?


Now now, if those other countries aren't going to be our friend because of who our president is then obviously they were never our friends at all. 

Also, Donald Trump is a genius and I will die protecting his vision.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> But, Bruiser, Trump's record is conservative, not liberal. The only one you can say he wasnt conservative on is Abortion and he was SELF-ADMITTEDLY uninformed then.


Social issues I can take or leave, I'm more libertarian. For example, I would say I'm pro-life but won't take away the right of someone's choice. The government needs to stay out of our bedroom for the most part. 

However, many of his business propositions are downright liberal. A tariff on imported Chinese goods? BTW, that would have a huge impact on the wallets of many of the blue-collar folks that are supporting him. Jacking up taxes across the board, that's a liberal idea. Huge supporter of eminent domain is the Trump, hell he was for it when it benefitted him. Not to mention I can't trust a man who filed bankruptcy multiple times to be able to balance the federal budget. 

The GOP establishment is now starting to show their true colors as some are starting to say they could live with Trump as a candidate. Notice the vicious attacks on Ted Cruz, who has been the one man who has stood up to them from the inside. Meanwhile, Trump is in danger of alienating the conservative base he is really going to need if he wants to win. The truth is given a choice between Trump and what we have now, many are willing to vote for the Democratic nominee because there isn't much difference. I will be more than happy to sit home and let Trump really mess things up if that's what it takes to get people to finally wake up and realize our country will be even more fucked up.


----------



## polar bear

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I don't really know why Ben Carson is still in the race heck even John Kasich doesn't even have much of a chance though I wouldn't write Kasich off just yet


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I think Donald Trump has the nomination in the bag barring any scandal leaking out in the next few months. But then again, he has developed an almost Obama 2008-like cult status that his supporters would just dismiss any dirt uncovered. 

The whole thing is hilarious with the right wing media panicking about Trump's campaign that they resort to their default mode of obstructionist by suggesting a far-fetch pipe dream of a dramatic late entry by Mitt Romney to reduce the chances of Trump winning.

I still believe Trump's original aim is to out-FOX FOX and develop his own right-wing media empire, but somehow the American public has allowed allowed him to be a few steps from getting into the White House. This is just insane.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> I think Donald Trump has the nomination in the bag barring any scandal leaking out in the next few months. But then again, he has developed an almost Obama 2008-like cult status that his supporters would just dismiss any dirt uncovered.
> 
> The whole thing is hilarious with the right wing media panicking about Trump's campaign that they resort to their default mode of obstructionist by suggesting a far-fetch pipe dream of a dramatic late entry by Mitt Romney to reduce the chances of Trump winning.
> 
> I still believe Trump's original aim is to out-FOX FOX and develop his own right-wing media empire, but somehow the American public has allowed allowed him to be a few steps from getting into the White House. This is just insane.



I said before Trump bashing and snubbing Fox has done him more good than bad. Right now Fox is in a panic over what to do and CNN and the rest of the cronies have nobody to pander for except Bernie and Hilary, Hilary who is hated and Bernie who is a weakling. Also the left news sources outlandish attacks on Trump are making him even bigger. It's so surreal.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



BruiserKC said:


> Social issues I can take or leave, I'm more libertarian. For example, I would say I'm pro-life but won't take away the right of someone's choice. The government needs to stay out of our bedroom for the most part.
> 
> However, many of his business propositions are downright liberal. A tariff on imported Chinese goods? BTW, that would have a huge impact on the wallets of many of the blue-collar folks that are supporting him. Jacking up taxes across the board, that's a liberal idea. Huge supporter of eminent domain is the Trump, hell he was for it when it benefitted him. Not to mention I can't trust a man who filed bankruptcy multiple times to be able to balance the federal budget.
> 
> The GOP establishment is now starting to show their true colors as some are starting to say they could live with Trump as a candidate. Notice the vicious attacks on Ted Cruz, who has been the one man who has stood up to them from the inside. Meanwhile, Trump is in danger of alienating the conservative base he is really going to need if he wants to win. The truth is given a choice between Trump and what we have now, many are willing to vote for the Democratic nominee because there isn't much difference. I will be more than happy to sit home and let Trump really mess things up if that's what it takes to get people to finally wake up and realize our country will be even more fucked up.


The bankruptcies Trump had, 4, to be exact out of hundreds, were standard practice. 2 of them were made upon acquiring the companies to get them OUT of debt, which worked. Aside from that, Trump retains his share of all the companies.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



nucklehead88 said:


> So when you guys elect this idiot, whats the plan when you piss off every other country on the planet? Just gunna go it on your own or what?


He won't piss off every country. Russia would be happy to see him as president so the Cold War can truly be ended with the people on 1/6th of the earth's surface.

I, for one, would rather have Mexico with its gangster society and army of illegal aliens pissed off if it means friendly, mutually profitable, and respectful relations with Russia. Fuck Mexico and the rest of the "pissed off" Trump haters out there.

- Mike


----------



## TNA is Here

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Damn the Ultimate Man is Destroying Everything in his Path. 

Never seen anything quite like it. 

I'm Canadian but I love it. :grin2:


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Well he got a few delegates I guess, and he's expected to win Texas. I don't see how Cruz could accomplish anything except perhaps costing Trump enough delegates that he doesn't reach the 50% mark and the GOP can broker a Rubio nomination, sending our country into a civil war.


Everything Trump has been saying would make me think that if he had the most delegates and didn't get the nomination he would run on his own.

Part of me wants to see Bernie and Trump both run as Independents just so we might actually take some steps away from being in our current 2 party system.


----------



## Londrick

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



nucklehead88 said:


> So when you guys elect this idiot, whats the plan when you piss off every other country on the planet? Just gunna go it on your own or what?


Like they don't already hate us. :ti


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



nucklehead88 said:


> So when you guys elect this idiot, whats the plan when you piss off every other country on the planet? Just gunna go it on your own or what?


Why do foreigners think we actually care about your opinions? You are nothing to us except a nice oil well. The world is a shit hole. Your country just elected the most pathetic leader in the Western world. Europe is overrun by Muslims. 

The US is the greatest country in the world, you think we care what the rest of the bumbling world thinks about us? YOU come along with US, not the other way around. WE run the world and the rest of you just get in line like the second-tier nations you are. It's not an insult, it's a fact. I would love it if Trump cuts Western Europe loose and sides with Russia, just to watch the chaos of those inept caliphates.

You enlightened non-Americans already laughed at us during GWB anyways, remember? 

If the rest of the world hates us, we're doing something right.


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> The US is the greatest country in the world


then how can you make it great again?

:hmm


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Goku said:


> then how can you make it great again?
> 
> :hmm


Because the rest of the world sets a very low standard.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> Why do foreigners think we actually care about your opinions? You are nothing to us except a nice oil well. The world is a shit hole. Your country just elected the most pathetic leader in the Western world. Europe is overrun by Muslims.
> 
> The US is the greatest country in the world, you think we care what the rest of the bumbling world thinks about us? YOU come along with US, not the other way around. WE run the world and the rest of you just get in line like the second-tier nations you are. It's not an insult, it's a fact. I would love it if Trump cuts Western Europe loose and sides with Russia, just to watch the chaos of those inept caliphates.
> 
> You enlightened non-Americans already laughed at us during GWB anyways, remember?
> 
> If the rest of the world hates us, we're doing something right.


:ti yea ok champ. You guys run the world alright. You guys and your piss poor education system and 15% poverty rates. Oh and all those mass shootings and terrorist threats. Yea you guys are a staple of what the world should aspire to be. 

Yes we did laugh at you for GWB. We still are actually. It was funny watching a retarded guy try to run a country and end up driving it into a recession. You got two political parties who throw shit at each other instead of actually doing anything constructive with their time. You have politicians that are bought and paid for by lobbyists and rich white people. Your top prospective next leaders are a guy who looks like he might die tomorrow, Crazy Clinton, or a guy WHO HAS LITERALLY ZERO POLITICAL EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER. Have fun thinking you're the best country in the world. I have absolutely no idea what makes you think you are.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



nucklehead88 said:


> :ti yea ok champ. You guys run the world alright. You guys and your piss poor education system and 15% poverty rates. Oh and all those mass shootings and terrorist threats. Yea you guys are a staple of what the world should aspire to be.
> 
> Yes we did laugh at you for GWB. We still are actually. It was funny watching a retarded guy try to run a country and end up driving it into a recession. You got two political parties who throw shit at each other instead of actually doing anything constructive with their time. You have politicians that are bought and paid for by lobbyists and rich white people. Your top prospective next leaders are a guy who looks like he might die tomorrow, Crazy Clinton, or a guy WHO HAS LITERALLY ZERO POLITICAL EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER. Have fun thinking you're the best country in the world. I have absolutely no idea what makes you think you are.


none of what you said is relevant to us tbh fam. :nerd:


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> none of what you said is relevant to us tbh fam. :nerd:


Ah the ol head in the sand, plug the ears and pretend you're the best approach huh? Nice.


----------



## Beatles123

nucklehead88 said:


> Ah the ol head in the sand, plug the ears and pretend you're the best approach huh? Nice.


no, it's the "We don't concern ourselves with the opinions of people not involved with this decision in any way and therefore have nothing to contribute" approach.

GUYS!

GUYS!!!


*IT'S HERE!!!!*

THANK YOU SEABS!!

:trump


----------



## tark1n

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Goku said:


> then how can you make it great again?
> 
> :hmm


Can someone explain to me when America "was great" for women, minorities, and LGBT? :hmm


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> no, it's the "We don't concern ourselves with the opinions of people not involved with this decision in any way and therefore have nothing to contribute" approach.


Good for you. See I'm more of the "I see my next door neighbor doing this:







in his pool, I'm going to tell him it's a bad fucking idea." approach.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



tark1n said:


> Can someone explain to me when America "was great" for women, minorities, and LGBT? :hmm


Sure, just wait till November! :trump


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



tark1n said:


> Can someone explain to me when America "was great" for women, minorities, and LGBT? :hmm


When they are not being beaten to death in the streets which is still common in about 2/3s of the world


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



nucklehead88 said:


> Good for you. See I'm more of the "I see my next door neighbor doing this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in his pool, I'm going to tell him it's a bad fucking idea." approach.


Man, im not gonna argue. We don't have to make this about your home vs mine.


----------



## tark1n

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> When they are not being beaten to death in the streets which is still common in about 2/3s of the world


So "great" is simply being better than 2/3s of the planet. Got it. :eva2


----------



## Punkhead

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Fuck it, if it comes down to Hillary vs Trump I'll be rooting for Trump. Lesser of two evils. Trump may be a shitty president, but if people actually vote for Hillary, then Trump is the president they deserve. Anything but Hillary.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



tark1n said:


> So "great" is simply being better than 2/3s of the planet. Got it. :eva2


We have been getting skullfucked for too long. I'll take being even a little better at this point.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Man, im not gonna argue. We don't have to make this about your home vs mine.


Brother I have no problems with the US. As a matter of fact I love it. Canadians care a lot about Americans, and not just because of how much our trade partnership matters. Which is a lot. You guys are kind of our next door neighbors and all. We just want the best for ya.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



tark1n said:


> So "great" is simply being better than 2/3s of the planet. Got it. :eva2


Well... yes

being better off than most people is really good

I would say any nation where there is no armed tribal conflict and foreigners are not massacred in race riots is doing pretty well

People have no clue how good they have it, they think inflated milk prices and 2% of the population being racist is HORRIBLE when there is still massive starvation and govermnets that threaten their neighbors for territory claimed in the BC eras 

Gain some worldliness before claim how "bad off" you are


----------



## tark1n

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Well... yes
> 
> being better off than most people is really good
> 
> I would say any nation where there is no armed tribal conflict and foreigners are not massacred in race riots is doing pretty well
> 
> People have no clue how good they have it, they think inflated milk prices and 2% of the population being racist is HORRIBLE when there is still massive starvation and govermnets that threaten their neighbors for territory claimed in the BC eras
> 
> Gain some worldliness before claim how "bad off" you are


I've been to the slums of Bangalore, India. I know how bad it is out there in some countries. I never said I am "bad off." Personally, I'm doing damn well (despite my upbringing). Saying "make America great again" is scary though. I have no interest in going backwards with progress that *has* been made.


----------



## Allur

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> The US is the greatest country in the world


Please quit ruining a good and interesting thread by trolling.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



nucklehead88 said:


> Brother I have no problems with the US. As a matter of fact I love it. Canadians care a lot about Americans, and not just because of how much our trade partnership matters. Which is a lot. You guys are kind of our next door neighbors and all. We just want the best for ya.


As do we you. Trudeau is a *DOLPHIN NOISE* D:


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



tark1n said:


> I've been to the slums of Bangalore, India. I know how bad it is out there in some countries. I never said I am "bad off." Personally, I'm doing damn well (despite my upbringing). Saying "make America great again" is scary though. I have no interest in going backwards with progress that *has* been made.


When you say it like that I feel like an asshole

I understand what you are saying 

Going back tends to just mean prestige in modern politics, I don't know anyone who REALLY wants to go back


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



tark1n said:


> I've been to the slums of Bangalore, India. I know how bad it is out there in some countries. I never said I am "bad off." Personally, I'm doing damn well (despite my upbringing). Saying "make America great again" is scary though. I have no interest in going backwards with progress that *has* been made.


Enforcing legal immigration is not stopping progress.


----------



## tark1n

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> When you say it like that I feel like an asshole
> 
> I understand what you are saying
> 
> Going back tends to just mean prestige in modern politics, I don't know anyone who REALLY wants to go back


Fair enough. I hope that's what his intent is, but that slogan is arguably not the best choice of words.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@Beatles123 I heard some of the shit Cruz said.

At least he is bringing lulz.

It's too bad Texas is full of some Cruz loving weirdos. Trump could have this wrapped up if he could win Texas.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> @Beatles123 I heard some of the shit Cruz said.
> 
> At least he is bringing lulz.
> 
> It's too bad Texas is full of some Cruz loving weirdos. Trump could have this wrapped up if he could win Texas.


I was originally a Fiorina supporter and unfortunately had to move my support to a different candidate. That candidate was Ted Cruz, but by the day I grow liking Rubio more and more. 

BTW Donald Trump defies logic by his numbers INCREASING yesterday when Jeb dropped out.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> I was originally a Fiorina supporter and unfortunately had to move my support to a different candidate. That candidate was Ted Cruz, but by the day I grow liking Rubio more and more.
> 
> BTW Donald Trump defies logic by his numbers INCREASING yesterday when Jeb dropped out.


What is the appeal of Cruz to you? Genuinely curious.

My dad likes Ted Cruz. I just don't get it.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> What is the appeal of Cruz to you? Genuinely curious.
> 
> My dad likes Ted Cruz. I just don't get it.


Well why are so many people Trump supporters? Part of the reason both guys are so popular is because they have this "anti establishment" tag on them. Ted Cruz is not there to kiss up to the higher up Republicans, they all hate him. Ted Cruz would also DESTROY Hilary or Bernie in a debate. 

Trump just worries me that his illegal immigration ideas won't pass and Dems would kill him for it after the first 4 years are up.


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I love polling: 

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/270566-trump-1-point-behind-cruz-in-texas-poll



> Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is within 1 point of Ted Cruz in Cruz's home state, according to a poll released Wednesday.
> 
> Cruz has 29 percent support in Texas, followed closely by Trump, at 28 percent, and Marco Rubio, at 25 percent, according to an Emerson College poll released Wednesday. John Kasich takes 9 percent support, with Ben Carson at 4 percent.
> 
> The poll comes on the heels of Trump's dominant performance in the Nevada caucuses Tuesday, his third straight win in the GOP race.
> 
> Texas is one of the dozen states voting on Super Tuesday next week, and the billionaire businessman has made clear that he intends to beat Cruz in his home state.
> 
> "I think it's very likely that Mr. Trump can win here in Texas," Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson told CNN on Wednesday morning.
> 
> Among the three, Rubio is viewed most positively, with 64 percent viewing him favorably and 29 percent viewing him unfavorably.
> 
> Cruz is viewed favorably by 56 percent, with a higher unfavorable rating of 41 percent. Meanwhile, Trump is viewed unfavorably by 50 percent and viewed favorably by only 45 percent.
> 
> Cruz held a bigger lead of 9 points over Trump — 38 percent to 29 percent — in a separate University of Texas-Texas Tribune poll released Tuesday and conducted before the Emerson poll.
> 
> Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) endorsed Cruz on Wednesday.
> 
> The Emerson survey of 446 likely primary voters was conducted Feb. 21–23 via landlines with a margin of error of 4.6 percentage points.


http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2016/02/poll-finds-cruz-will-likely-beat-trump-but-not-sweep-texas.html/



> Ted Cruz is leading Donald Trump by about 14 percentage points in Texas, according to a poll released Wednesday.
> 
> The poll’s findings show one of the biggest leads Cruz has had over Trump in Texas since their presidential campaigns started.
> 
> If the results hold true, it would mean Cruz would finish with the most delegates in the state, but he won’t win all of them. Though this is one of Cruz’s most substantial leads yet, the findings are similar to other primary polling data for the Lone Star State.
> 
> According to the the Houston Public Media/UH Center for Public Policy Survey — which completed 415 telephone interviews over 10 days in February — Cruz is leading with 35 percent in Texas. Trump has 20 percent and Marco Rubio 8 percent.
> 
> Nineteen percent of voters polled are still undecided — which may raise the stakes for this Thursday’s debate in Houston ahead of Super Tuesday next week.
> 
> The margin of error for the poll is about 4.8 percentage points.
> 
> Cruz started the primary season on the right foot by finishing first in Iowa, but he hasn’t performed as well in other states. He finished behind Rubio in both South Carolina and Nevada. He’s expected to win Texas, but by how much is still to be determined. Because delegates in Texas are allocated in a complicated manner proportionally, finishing first isn’t always enough to walk away with a lot of Texas’ delegates.
> 
> The poll was conducted before Jeb Bush dropped out, so 5 percent of voters polled said they supported the former Florida governor. Bush was still leading John Kasich, who got just 4 percent of voters’ support in the poll.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



nucklehead88 said:


> :ti yea ok champ. You guys run the world alright. You guys and your piss poor education system and 15% poverty rates. Oh and all those mass shootings and terrorist threats. Yea you guys are a staple of what the world should aspire to be.
> 
> Yes we did laugh at you for GWB. We still are actually. It was funny watching a retarded guy try to run a country and end up driving it into a recession. You got two political parties who throw shit at each other instead of actually doing anything constructive with their time. You have politicians that are bought and paid for by lobbyists and rich white people. Your top prospective next leaders are a guy who looks like he might die tomorrow, Crazy Clinton, or a guy WHO HAS LITERALLY ZERO POLITICAL EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER. Have fun thinking you're the best country in the world. I have absolutely no idea what makes you think you are.


There you go again, thinking we care about your opinion :trump


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



tark1n said:


> Can someone explain to me when America "was great" for women, minorities, and LGBT? :hmm


Excuse me, you forgot to add non-heteronormative non-cisgengered genderkins to your description.

Further, I've been told by smart people on Reddit that gender and race do not exist and are merely social constructs, so check your progressive privilege and think before you start saying bigoted things.

Typical we would find this time of hetero-normative regressive premodern thinking in a Donald Tramp thread.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

ELECTIONS ARE A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT! :trump


----------



## Jersey

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



PaigeLover said:


>


Uninformed losers, low energy!


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> @Beatles123 I heard some of the shit Cruz said.
> 
> At least he is bringing lulz.
> 
> It's too bad Texas is full of some Cruz loving weirdos. Trump could have this wrapped up if he could win Texas.


Texas is like Republican California 

Trends and political movements that would receive zero traction anywhere else in the country can do very well

Half of it is the locals like being the "that crazy red/blue state"


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump/VKM ticket possible? The 'Alliance of the Billionaires'?


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Texas is like Republican California
> 
> Trends and political movements that would receive zero traction anywhere else in the country can do very well
> 
> Half of it is the locals like being the "that crazy red/blue state"


pretty much yeah


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Romney going after a political candidate on the basis of taxes. :banderas GOP gettin' desperate.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



PaigeLover said:


>


So flaming liberal Cornette, who shits on Republicans, who is militantly atheist (Which means not just Athiest, but a dick about it) Who shat on Lucha Underground, Who shat on Kevin owens, also shits on Trump.

I'm SHOCKED! :trump


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Cornette thinks Obama is one of the best presidents we've ever had. He is not to be taken seriously on political matters.


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Cornette thinks Obama is one of the best presidents we've ever had. *He is not to be taken seriously on political matters.*


who is though?


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

All The Donald has to do is declare that he'll have the government close down a certain Dairy Queen @AryaDark knows all about and he'll get Jim Cornette's vote, too.

And yes the Romney tax attack coupled to all of the murmurings of a brokered convention resulting in Paul Ryan being the nominee illustrate how desperate the GOP establishment is becoming. 

A few excellent tweets, two of which are from my friend Justin Raimondo, who runs antiwar.com and who I've seen speak here in the Bay Area several times. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/702695781774458880

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/702721080574652416

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/702549057651101697


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

DISPEL THIS FICTION, DAMN IT! :vince


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

A political science professor at Stony Brook university who has developed a model for predicting presidential election winners based on primary results predicts Trump's chances of winning to be at 97%. 

https://www.sbstatesman.com/2016/02...r-forecasts-trump-as-general-election-winner/



> Norpoth created a statistical model of presidential elections that uses a candidate’s performance in their party’s primary and patterns in the electoral cycle as predictors of the presidential vote in the general election.
> 
> Donald Trump has a 97 percent chance of defeating Hillary Clinton and a 99 percent chance of defeating Bernie Sanders in the general election, according to Norpoth’s formula.
> 
> “The bottom line is that the primary model, using also the cyclical movement, makes it almost certain that Donald Trump will be the next president,” Norpoth said, “if he’s a nominee of the [Republican] party.”
> 
> Norpoth’s primary model works for every presidential election since 1912, with the notable exception of the 1960 election. These results give the model an accuracy of 96.1 percent.


----------



## Donald Trump

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I've put the chances at 99% for the past few months. I'd say it's a lock, but there's always the possibility of something absurd happening (an unexpected death, for example). But, yes, far the absurdity, Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States, and it will be glorious. There's nothing I enjoy more than watching liberal bullies get beaten at their own game, and no one does it better than the Trump.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

If and when Trump does win, someone needs to create a mega-compilation of every time the media treated his campaign as a joke, said he had no chance, or suggested that something he did/said would hurt him in some way.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I was one of those people when this thing started out. But a few months in, it was obvious to me that he was running one of the most brilliant campaigns of modern times.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> I was one of those people when this thing started out. But a few months in, it was obvious to me that he was running one of the most brilliant campaigns of modern times.


I don't care that people were wrong, it's just that they get paid a lot of money to tell us what's what in politics and they clearly either A) have no idea what they're talking about and/or B) have made a concentrated effort to discredit Trump at every opportunity, for whatever reason. 

Either way, it's hard to imagine how anyone continues to take them seriously after a Trump victory. The Huffington Post only recently started covering Trump as a serious campaign, after maintaining that it was "entertainment" up until this month. Talk about living in denial.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Quite fascinating series of posts, @CamillePunk, yes indeed. 

From everyone I know in the financial world, practically no one is taking Trump seriously. Some forces within the media are now recognizing the truth, which is that Trump's campaign is gaining momentum like a snowball descending a cliff. 

I also find it almost unnerving that @Donald Trump is here addressing himself in the third person. :sodone

This may be the most telling statistic concerning this entire presidential election cycle:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/702533073473314817
Consequently, one can see why the Stony Brook university professor's projection model is calling the general election for Trump based on the data we have at this point. Small sample size or not it's fairly telling.

It is why the ex-candidate who received 0%, including in his home state, is now coming out and saying crazy things:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/702963225810366469
It is why _National Review_ has gone berserk in the last couple of days: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/702887291107213312
That _National Review_ attack, like the attack on all paleoconservatives, libertarians and just plain old actual conservatives who opposed the Iraq War, written on the eve of the war in March 2003 by "Axis of Evil" Dubya speechwriter David Frum, illustrates what they have always been. Ideologically their antecedents may have "moved away" from being Trotskyites but in their application of "American democracy" as worldwide crusade like Trotsky envisioned socialism being, emanating from the Soviet Union, and in their relentless smear campaigns and underhanded efforts to derail anyone who opposes their program of war, they have, as a group, remained what they always were, nearly a full century ago.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Ok question

VPs

Hilliary or Rubio would choose a veteran party loyalist 

Cruz or Sanders would choose someone who has supported them in the past

Who would Trump choose? An established politician to give him some credibility? A young gun looking to leave a mark? A fringe? Collected or flamboyant?

The logical choice in my mind would be Carson as he was never really a "threat" and is super negotiable

a soft-speaker to back up up the fire, a good cop to the bad cop if you will


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

:done Donald Trump being a loser as a person and as a candidate. How disconnected from reality does someone need to be to be institutionalized?

No GOP establishment VP pick for Trump please. Fuck the GOP. They betrayed their base. They shouldn't have an in-road back to relevancy in the form of a VP.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Watching Fox Business and Lou Dobbs just compared Trump to Reagan and recited the Jonathan Swift quote, - "For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery.", obviously taking a shot at the idea of the GOP establishment stealing the nomination away from the people's choice. :done


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@CamillePunk @stevefox1200 

The name I most commonly see among the Trump "VP hopefuls" is Joe Scarborough. I'm not a fan of Scarborough but it would be a solid choice, bridging a few gaps with some alienated but largely "mainstream" conservatives, many of whom found the George W. Bush years repellent. It would also potentially give Trump a significant boost in Florida.

Good use of Jonathan Swift by Lou Dobbs. :lol


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> @CamillePunk @stevefox1200
> 
> The name I most commonly see among the Trump "VP hopefuls" is Joe Scarborough. I'm not a fan of Scarborough but it would be a solid choice, bridging a few gaps with some alienated but largely "mainstream" conservatives, many of whom found the George W. Bush years repellent. It would also potentially give Trump a significant boost in Florida.
> 
> Good use of Jonathan Swift by Lou Dobbs. :lol


I just googled Joe and the first link was about how much Rolling Stone despises the man and how he should be banished from planet earth 

They used to be music a magazine


----------



## .MCH

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

If Bernie loses the nomination to Hillary (which is looking likely) I'll strongly consider voting for Trump. I HATE the Clinton's. They are corrupt and fake as fuck.

I just need Trump to quit pretending he's a conservative though I imagine his more liberal side will come out during the general election.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> I just googled Joe and the first link was about how much Rolling Stone despises the man and how he should be banished from planet earth
> 
> They used to be music a magazine


:lol

I guess they despise Joe Scarborough's guitar playing. 












.MCH said:


> If Bernie loses the nomination to Hillary (which is looking likely) I'll strongly consider voting for Trump. I HATE the Clinton's. They are corrupt and fake as fuck.
> 
> I just need Trump to quit pretending he's a conservative though I imagine his more liberal side will come out during the general election.


Yes, the Clintons are disgusting individuals. It looks like someone who should be on her way to federal prison is going to be the Democratic nominee. If the Republicans can't win this election they might as well just close shop.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Does anyone else fear they might try to have him JFK'd?


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Well it would have to be a headshot because Donald apparently wears a bulletproof vest and is packing heat.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

the debates at 9 est right?

Edit:

:lmao THEY'RE ALREADY DEPORTING THEMSELVES!

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016...mone-vows-leave-us-republican-gets-nominated/

WHO'S GONNA PAY FOR THE WALL?! :trump


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Does anyone else fear they might try to have him JFK'd?


This might be the single best argument for him picking Ron Paul as VP: self-preservation.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

^From the same website was this article, what do you guys think about this?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/25/donald-trumps-hypocrisies/


----------



## blackholeson

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> ^From the same website was this article, what do you guys think about this?
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/25/donald-trumps-hypocrisies/


Trump is running for President to fix this problem. He has publicly admitted that yes he was part of this establishment. He doesn't feel that folks like him should be able to go offshore. Admitting this problem is part of the reason I am in support of him. He wants to make the Government profitable, or at least not allow our middle man government to allow the tax payers to pay for inflated goods that the private sector distributes to our military. It's not just the military either. The Private Sector has the tax payer subsidizing practically everything. That's because they lobby to members of our House and Senate to make law. Trump knows that the Private Sector has to pay their share. At the same time he is smart enough to know that you can lower other taxes to allow them to operate here in the United States.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/703055295254114304

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/703055812558589952

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/703056015730696192

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/703056831661240320

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/703058624017399808
:sodone


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

That "google polish workers" thing...

National Review put out that article at 5pm today.

:lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/703055295254114304
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/703055812558589952
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/703056015730696192
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/703056831661240320
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/703058624017399808
> :sodone


Am I missing something? He's not exactly Oscar Wilde.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

He's the only GOP candidate who is not instinctually pro-war, @yeahbaby!. Considering the last fifteen years that's important, as is his insistence that the next president not merely follow every last directive issued by the Israelis.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

HOLY SHIT. HE JUST DROPPED A FUCKING NUKE ON CRUZ!!! Did you hear that?!


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> He's the only GOP candidate who is not instinctually pro-war, @yeahbaby!. Considering the last fifteen years that's important, as is his insistence that the next president not merely follow every last directive issued by the Israelis.


oh okay. just didn't really get that msg from the tweets


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> HOLY SHIT. HE JUST DROPPED A FUCKING NUKE ON CRUZ!!! Did you hear that?!


What did he say?


----------



## Blackbeard

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Rubio 2016 :thecause


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Blackbeard said:


> Rubio 2016 :thecause


Rubio won't even win his own state in the primary. :lmao Almost as bad as your support for Hayden Christensen.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump isn't for war and wants to repair relations with Russia. That's pretty big, not sure how people don't realize this. Trump's message seems to be about making money for the US and getting the US back on track. Could we see a modern day Industrial Revolution instead of jobs going overseas while US companies reap all the benefits? The US seems to be the only country where the businesses stay within the country but ship jobs everywhere else. US has allowed foreign companies to come in, play unfairly and stomp out smaller businesses. That needs to end.


----------



## Blackbeard

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Rubio won't even win his own state in the primary. :lmao Almost as bad as your support for Hayden Christensen.


Rubio came out swinging tonight. He even turned Trump's attempt to mock his repeating himself fiasco right on his head :banderas

I saw a cub mature into a lion tonight and look presidential.

Rubio 2016 :thecause


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

My favorite part of the debate was, in part, Rubio and Cruz insisting that Trump "have a plan" for healthcare. Statists to the core. And yet they, despite being politicians are lacking in all politesse, displaying apparent outrage over "letting people die on the street." They don't even recognize what is happening. Trump's point about the state lines has tremendous merit. His smiling and waving at the insurance company man in the crowd waving back was priceless. The biggest insurance companies in America effectively authored the "Affordable Care Act." It would appear that neither Rubio or Cruz even understand any of this. Rubio attempted to use Trump's repetition of "removing the barriers of state lines" to make him look like he was repeating himself only demonstrated how consistent Trump is on the matter.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> My favorite part of the debate was, in part, Rubio and Cruz insisting that Trump "have a plan" for healthcare. Statists to the core. And yet they, despite being politicians are lacking in all politesse, displaying apparent outrage over "letting people die on the street." They don't even recognize what is happening. Trump's point about the state lines has tremendous merit. His smiling and waving at the insurance company man in the crowd waving back was priceless. The biggest insurance companies in America effectively authored the "Affordable Care Act." It would appear that neither Rubio or Cruz even understand any of this. Rubio attempted to use Trump's repetition of "removing the barriers of state lines" to make him look like he was repeating himself only demonstrated how consistent Trump is on the matter.


Well said. The obsession with a "plan" is such political crap. No plans survive contact with Congress. And, why do we need a plan? Trump just said to get rid of state lines and have healthcare savings accounts and let the market do it's thing. That's it. That's the plan. Why is everyone obsessed with the GOVERNMENT doing everything?

Lubio thought he was making great points but really everyone realized that Trump was the normal guy there.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> Well said. The obsession with a "plan" is such political crap. No plans survive contact with Congress. And, why do we need a plan? Trump just said to get rid of state lines and have healthcare savings accounts and let the market do it's thing. That's it. That's the plan. Why is everyone obsessed with the GOVERNMENT doing everything?
> 
> Lubio thought he was making great points but really everyone realized that Trump was the normal guy there.


Yes indeed. 

Another fantastic tweet from Justin Raimondo concerning foreign policy:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/703078339171344384


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Latest figures show that 20% of Trump supporters think Lincoln made a mistake freeing the slaves. An extra 17% said they weren't sure. 37% of Trump Supporters either support slavery or are undecided on the issue.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/24/11105552/trump-supporters-slavery


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> Trump isn't for war and wants to repair relations with Russia. That's pretty big, not sure how people don't realize this. Trump's message seems to be about making money for the US and getting the US back on track. Could we see a modern day Industrial Revolution instead of jobs going overseas while US companies reap all the benefits? The US seems to be the only country where the businesses stay within the country but ship jobs everywhere else. *US has allowed foreign companies to come in, play unfairly and stomp out smaller businesses. That needs to end*.


Australia's been doing the same thing for years unfortunately Sally. Everything is for sale here to the highest bidder, and once you buy it's all yours.

Try doing the same thing in Japan for example and see how far you get.


----------



## Beatles123

Blackbeard said:


> Rubio came out swinging tonight. He even turned Trump's attempt to mock his repeating himself fiasco right on his head :banderas
> 
> I saw a cub mature into a lion tonight and look presidential.
> 
> Rubio 2016 :thecause


Blackbeard? That's not what happened, and if it was the lion had his balls cut off later :trump



markoutsmarkout said:


> What did he say?







BASED.

CRUZ GOT COCKBLOCKED! :lmao


----------



## yeahbaby!

DesolationRow said:


> Yes indeed.
> 
> Another fantastic tweet from Justin Raimondo concerning foreign policy:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/703078339171344384


Raimondo is ON FIRE right now!



Beatles123 said:


> BASED.
> 
> CRUZ GOT COCKBLOCKED! :lmao


How anyone can even get that close to Cruz without slapping him in the face is beyond me.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> How anyone can even get that close to Cruz without slapping him in the face is beyond me.


"YER A BASKET CASE!"

BAH GAWD ALL MIGHTY, TRUMP KILLED 'IM!!


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

So they ask Donald Trump what his healthcare plan is after the question was already asked and answered, they interrupt him, they talk over him, their donors in the crowd start yelling, so Donald repeats himself, and they think they accomplished something. So sad, so desperate. 

Trump wants to repeal Obamacare, get rid of the lines between the states which give health insurance companies regional monpolies and instead force them to compete - which will drive down prices and give people more options. The fact that this is considered not enough government action to be a "plan" from so-called conservatives, is very curious.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Blackbeard said:


> Rubio came out swinging tonight. He even turned Trump's attempt to mock his repeating himself fiasco right on his head :banderas
> 
> I saw a cub mature into a lion tonight and look presidential.
> 
> Rubio 2016 :thecause


I'm just worried it is too late for Rubio. Looks like we saw a handicap match involving Ted Cruz + Marco Rubio vs Donald Trump.. 

My only issue with Rubio and Cruz last night was when they said Trump doesn't have a plan for healthcare but he has a clear plan as stated multiple times last night.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

_Most analysts believe that last night's debate did not hurt Trump, and may have only served to solidify his support.

- Mike_


http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/02/how_did_trump_fare_in_the_pre-super_tuesday_gop_de.html
*REED GALEN*

Deputy campaign manager to U.S. Sen. John McCain's 2008 run

"Carson loses again. ... Rubio did the best but the whole thing was such a mess, *I'm not sure it moves the needle a great deal."
*
*BEN DWORKIN*

Director of the Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics, Rider University

"Overall, it was hard to see this as a serious debate. The yelling and screaming over one another had the candidates themselves laughing at the ridiculousness ... it was a very rough night for Trump. But I am not sure any of his supporters will care.

"Part of his appeal is the perception that he can't be bought and that he's an outsider. *Cruz and especially Rubio scored debate points, but Trump voters aren't interested in those points."
*
*DAVE CARNEY*

Political director to President George H.W. Bush and longtime adviser to former Texas Gov. Rick Perry

"Too bad more attention was not paid to Trump's positions and/or lack of positions in the earlier debates. *This debate won't pull off any true Trump supporters but it might stall his growth with new ones.*"

*PATRICK MURRAY*

Director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute

"Trump got hit from every direction, but we've come to learn that this only strengthens his supporters' belief that they've backed the right guy. *I doubt he loses any votes because of tonight."
*
*"Rubio may have won the debate, but it may not mean much. ... I don't see how this changed the dynamic much going into Super Tuesday*. If it doesn't, I think (Ohio Gov. John) Kasich – who stuck to his positive message tonight – has a better case for hanging on. He may do better in Ohio than U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio will in Florida."

*LARRY SABATO*

Director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia

The debate was "actually a brawl at times that didn't put the candidates in the best light. They were egged on by a noisy, out-of-control audience. This has unfortunately become the new standard.

"Rubio did better than he ever has before, and Cruz was aggressive too ... (but) *I'll be surprised if Trump is affected much. He often gave as good as he got, *and this was probably a reinforcement debate. That is, people who by and large have already picked a candidate tuned in to root for their guy. They found enough reason to continue their support."

*FRANK LUNTZ*

GOP pollster and CEO, LuntzGlobal

"Ohio Gov. John Kasich had his best debate so far. He even won the second half. But Rubio 'Christie'd' Trump with his 'five-second' crack, which was the second-best (testing) retort of the debate."

(Trump had observed that Rubio was put on the defensive by Gov. Chris Christie during the New Hampshire debate, saying, 'I watched him repeat himself five times four weeks ago.' At this Rubio quickly shot back, "I saw you repeat yourself five times five seconds ago.")
*
KRISTA JENKINS*

Director of the Fareleigh Dickinson PublicMind poll

"A common camera shot tonight was Trump flanked by Rubio and Cruz. Trump's blue tie sandwiched between his opponents' red ties is symbolic of what he represents — something different. A candidate who appeals less to someone's rationality and more to the thirst for attitude among Republicans."

"If and when Trump releases his tax returns — a hot button issue tonight — it's worth considering if what's in them will really matter, good or bad? Short of the revelation that Trump's tax burden was less than zero in recent years, *it's hard to imagine this umpteenth debate doing much to cause a wholesale reshuffling of the deck."*


----------



## samizayn

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump wants to repeal Obamacare, get rid of the lines between the states which give health insurance companies regional monpolies and instead force them to compete - which will drive down prices and give people more options. The fact that this is considered not enough government action to be a "plan" from so-called conservatives, is very curious.


Isn't that what Cruz wants, too?


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Pretty sure, yeah.

Chris Christie has endorsed Donald Trump. :done I don't even know what to make of this. I don't like Christie at all. I'm just shocked, frankly.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Pretty sure, yeah.
> 
> Chris Christie has endorsed Donald Trump. :done I don't even know what to make of this. I don't like Christie at all. I'm just shocked, frankly.


Hmm... Is it possible that Christie smells a Trump victory not only in the primaries, but in the national elections and jumped up to be first in line to suck up to the future President of the United States???

- Mike

P.S. That was excellent groveling by Christie. He has just assured himself a position in Trump's cabinet if he follows through with his support. BTW, grovelling or not, what Christie said was all true!


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> P.S. That was excellent groveling by Christie. He has just assured himself a position in Trump's cabinet if he follows through with his support. BTW, grovelling or not, what Christie said was all true!


That's gonna have to be one really big cabinet. :maisie


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> That's gonna have to be one really big cabinet. :maisie


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @Batko10 @Blackbeard 






"IT'S RUBIOOOOO!" :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I voted for Donald J. Trump today.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> I voted for Donald J. Trump today.


racist

you know I was just kidding about all this right ???


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> racist
> 
> you know I was just kidding about all this right ???


pls don't ruin the kayfabe


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> I voted for Donald J. Trump today.


You fool!!! He's not a conservative! HE'S NOT A CONSERVATIIIIIIIIIIIIIVE!!!!!!! :lol


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Did anyone see Rubio kinda killing it in his OKC speech today? Different model of robot for sure.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> Did anyone see Rubio kinda killing it in his OKC speech today? Different model of robot for sure.


 still the same in dallas.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

It only makes me want to see a Trump/Clinton debate

"Can you explain the Clinton legal fund?"

"Can you explain why criminals represented by your defense attorney brother received presidential pardons after their convictions?"


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I just want a Sanders/Trump presidential race. The laughs to be had from the debates. Clinton would work as well, but something about a Sanders/Trump feud just seems like money. :trump


----------



## Blackbeard

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> I voted for Donald J. Trump today.


:wee-bey


----------



## birthday_massacre

Beatles123 said:


> Blackbeard? That's not what happened, and if it was the lion had his balls cut off later :trump
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BASED.
> 
> CRUZ GOT COCKBLOCKED! :lmao


Trump got destroyed last night. Stop lying to yourself. It may be too little too late but Trump got knocked out big time .



stevefox1200 said:


> It only makes me want to see a Trump/Clinton debate
> 
> "Can you explain the Clinton legal fund?"
> 
> "Can you explain why criminals represented by your defense attorney brother received presidential pardons after their convictions?"


Hillary would ask about this fraud for Trump University and hiring of al those illegals and making his ties in China. 

It will be a shit show.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump got destroyed last night. Stop lying to yourself. It may be too little too late but Trump got knocked out big time .
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary would ask about this fraud for Trump University and hiring of al those illegals and making his ties in China.
> 
> It will be a shit show.


The challenge with debating Trump about his business activates is he can always argue "it was just business" 

Everyone know that business people do shady and immoral things to make money and while it annoys people it does not drive them crazy unless you do something crazy

Abusing political power on the other hand REALLY pisses people off 

Your boss screws you over for money, its sucks but you get it

Your boss screws you over for a personal favor or because he just doesn't like you, it fucking enrages you


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> The challenge with debating Trump about his business activates is he can always argue "it was just business"
> 
> Everyone know that business people do shady and immoral things to make money and while it annoys people it does not drive them crazy unless you do something crazy
> 
> Abusing political power on the other hand REALLY pisses people off
> 
> Your boss screws you over for money, its sucks but you get it
> 
> Your boss screws you over for a personal favor or because he just doesn't like you, it fucking enrages you


Right so the american people, the smart ones, will see Trump is just telling people what they want to hear, and in the end will screw them over.
Trump will screw over the american people out of their money, to give all the tax breaks to the rich.

And that is a good thing?

The smart americans do get it and that is why they are not voting for Trump. The uneducated ones that Trump loves are the ones who don't get it.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Australia's been doing the same thing for years unfortunately Sally. Everything is for sale here to the highest bidder, and once you buy it's all yours.
> 
> Try doing the same thing in Japan for example and see how far you get.


Oh Gosh in Japan it's horrible! The Government there had a tendency to audit anyone buying non Japanese cars etc. I mean really? That's so shameful yet the US allowed the Japanese businesses to come to America and practice "dumping" which means they made a product which was inferior then sold it for less than what it was worth to simply fuck up the market so American companies couldn't compete. I'm sad it's the same way in Aussieland. I'm not saying countries should take Chinese and Japanese products and toss them into the ocean but countries should stand up to awful company practices and look out for their own. In Japan for a while there, (no idea if it still goes on) they wouldn't honor any patents that weren't Japanese and would steal off other people.

This notion of everything is for sale to manipulating foreign companies is just terrible. Every country should be trying to build their own economies and look after it's people, not sell out to people looking to make a buck off the very people the Government is supposed to care for.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Japan also has an Anti-Aggressive Takeover law for foreign companies so they can't take over local Japanese businesses, which is why you will not see Microsoft buy Sony or Nintendo any time soon @Blackbeard. :mj


----------



## Blackbeard

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> Japan also has an Anti-Aggressive Takeover law for foreign companies so they can't take over local Japanese businesses, which is why you will not see Microsoft buy Sony or Nintendo any time soon @Blackbeard. :mj


Why would _Microsoft_ waste money investing in a company that's losing relevancy with each new day and is stuck living off of past glory


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Blackbeard said:


> Why would _Microsoft_ waste money investing in a company that's losing relevancy with each new day and is stuck living off of past glory


But that's enough about Nintendo...


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

These are the sort of sociopaths who have been ruling the Republican Party for a couple of generations now:






Stay safe, Donald.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> My favorite part of the debate was, in part, Rubio and Cruz insisting that Trump "have a plan" for healthcare. Statists to the core. And yet they, despite being politicians are lacking in all politesse, displaying apparent outrage over "letting people die on the street." They don't even recognize what is happening. Trump's point about the state lines has tremendous merit. His smiling and waving at the insurance company man in the crowd waving back was priceless. The biggest insurance companies in America effectively authored the "Affordable Care Act." It would appear that neither Rubio or Cruz even understand any of this. Rubio attempted to use Trump's repetition of "removing the barriers of state lines" to make him look like he was repeating himself only demonstrated how consistent Trump is on the matter.





markoutsmarkout said:


> Well said. The obsession with a "plan" is such political crap. No plans survive contact with Congress. And, why do we need a plan? Trump just said to get rid of state lines and have healthcare savings accounts and let the market do it's thing. That's it. That's the plan. Why is everyone obsessed with the GOVERNMENT doing everything?
> 
> Lubio thought he was making great points but really everyone realized that Trump was the normal guy there.


I would like to say Trump has watched WF because I have mentioned this as the alternative to the ACA. :grin2: Seriously, the idea of Rubio and Cruz asking Trump to have a plan makes sense. At some point, he needs to start showing the American people exactly how he plans to do things. It's not enough to say that we are going to make America great again, we need to see how. This is the vetting process that he needs to go under.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Republican Governor of Maine, Paul LePage has endorsed MrMister's Donald J. Trump for president. :done

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/26/m...p-he-could-be-one-of-the-greatest-presidents/



> “He’s the only candidate who’s showing a vision for the future,” he said. “He’s a businessman. I’m a businessman… I think he could be one of the greatest presidents if he sits down and puts together a good team.”
> 
> Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/26/m...one-of-the-greatest-presidents/#ixzz41KyzatsJ


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump vs Bernie


----------



## Legend797

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump lost favor with me last night. I wasn't going to vote for him but I wasn't down on him. Yesterday exposed him for lacking substance. I gave Rubio the win in the head-to-head.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



BruiserKC said:


> I would like to say Trump has watched WF because I have mentioned this as the alternative to the ACA. :grin2: Seriously, the idea of Rubio and Cruz asking Trump to have a plan makes sense. At some point, he needs to start showing the American people exactly how he plans to do things.  It's not enough to say that we are going to make America great again, we need to see how. This is the vetting process that he needs to go under.


You are falling for the narrative. Things don't require a government "plan" to bail us out of our lives. This isn't the USSR. His plan is healthcare savings accounts and removing state insurance lines. Boom, done. That's it.

We don't need some Rubiocare to feel like something is being "done."


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Legend797 said:


> Trump lost favor with me last night. I wasn't going to vote for him but I wasn't down on him. Yesterday exposed him for lacking substance. I gave Rubio the win in the head-to-head.


Why?

Seriously, why?

He repeated himself, you say?

Yes, because the gay twink (look it up) kept interrupting or not understanding him. He wasn't doing what SWEATIO did and reciting a speech.

He didn't give any details, you say?

What details do you need? You eliminate state lines, you let the user choose his coverage of choice and let the free market do it's thing. it is literally that easy.

There is NOTHING Rubio zinged him on that was anything to lose faith in Trump over. All it was was a soundbite.

Edit: Here's Rush Limbaugh (love em or hate em) on state lines and why what Trump said was correct:



> RUSH: Let me try this again. I got... (interruption) No, Trump was right on the state lines business. I understand Trump was right. Let me try this again. It's rare that I have to say things again because I make the complex understandable. But I may have had to hurry through this. Here's Rubio making fun of Trump talking about getting rid of the lines in the health insurance market. "You gotta get rid of the lines around the state," Trump said. "You gotta keep getting rid of the lines."
> 
> And Rubio says, "What is this, 'Get rid of the lines'?" and he starts making circles with his hands. "Lines? What is he talking about, 'Get rid of the lines'?" And Trump says, "You gotta get rid of the lines. Everybody knows this! You gotta get rid of the lines." So you get rid of the lines, it means the insurance companies can go sell their products in more than just one state and it expands competition and then it lowers prices. That's true. But Rubio is making a joke about Trump's continual usage of the word "lines."
> 
> My point is, Trump has... This is what I think happened. I think this is the explanation for it. Not that Trump doesn't understand market principles. Come on. Of course he does. But he's got advisors. There's no question. We know he's got advisors. Their names are known and their jobs are known, and occasionally we know that Trump meets with them. And like before any debate, he has powwows with all of his advisors, and they might even rehearse.
> 
> They might pepper Trump with questions about things that have or have not come up, to give him familiarity with it so that he's ready to go if the question does come up, and I'll just guarantee you that when Trump has been advised about this aspect of Obamacare and the conservative belief that the insurance companies have an unfair deal here, that Obama's greased their skids by limiting competition and demanding that customers (Americans) buy the product. And it's true.
> 
> I mean, the insurance companies, there's no way they're not gonna support Obama. He's just passed a law requiring citizens to buy their product -- which is unconstitutional, until John Roberts got hold of it and changed all of that to a tax, which meant the government could do it. But at the end of the day, the federal government still requires every citizen, mandates that everybody buy insurance. The second aspect is insurance companies can only sell where they are licensed and regulated within single states.
> 
> People in New York, for example.
> 
> People in New York state, I believe, have four options, four plans to choose from because they cannot go out of state. They can't go to Connecticut, they can't go to Pennsylvania, they can't go to New Jersey in a quest or in seeking a better deal because of the way the federal government has set it up to protect the insurance companies, to limit their competition, to give them a guaranteed market. I am convinced that the way this was explained to Trump was, "We need to allow insurance companies to cross state lines and do their business."
> 
> That's the way this issue is discussed, it's the way it's taught to people that don't understand it. It's the way it's explained. State lines are just borders, and to cross the state line, just means that you are able to sell anywhere, and means you're able to go anywhere and buy if you're a customer. But because it'd been drilled into him I'm sure by his advisors, I'm sure the phrase "got to let people cross state lines to go out," that's what he remembers from the advice sessions, and that's what he kept repeating.
> 
> Rubio starts making fun of that. Now, Trump on the substance of it all was dead right. It's a closed market. It's the government guaranteeing the insurance companies customers, and it's price-fixing. When customers are limited in options to buy, then there's no need to cut prices. So I'm not... I'm just trying to explain why the whole thing about lines was a deal, why Rubio was able to make fun of it, and why Trump continued to use the phrase, 'cause I'm convinced that's how he learned what's going on here.
> 
> My guess is that most people do not know the intricate details of how Obamacare works, including, I think, probably some people that are running for office or planning to run for office. It's very few people that really know the intimate details of this monstrosity. It's 2,000 pages. And there's some highlights in this thing that everybody has to know if you're gonna oppose it. They have to be taught, they have to be informed, and this is one of those key things. We have to allow customers to cross state lines to buy policies.
> 
> We have to allow insurance companies to sell across state lines.
> 
> That's just the way it's explained to people. And if you didn't know it beforehand and that's what it took to get you to remember it and understand it, that's what you're gonna use. So I'm just saying that's how Trump learned about it, or that's how he was informed. That's how his advisors brought him up to speed on the whole thing.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

A fundamentally sound argument from Rush Limbaugh, @Beatles123. 

I do not believe that either Rubio or Cruz understand that the biggest insurance companies essentially authored "Obamacare." In addition to the points raised by Trump and Limbaugh above, I shall now shamelessly quote myself from another thread: http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anyth...eally-just-insurance-scam-4.html#post54039930



> The costs of providing health care insurance are increasing largely due to Obamacare. One majorly respected consultant to health insurance companies, Robert Laszewski, has unveiled the ugly truth of the matter, which is that there exists two "stealth" provisions within Obamacare that guarantee that insurance companies will be subsidized and bailed out by American taxpayers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that $1.071 trillion will be transferred--through coercive means, naturally--from taxpayers to enormous, elephantine insurance companies through 2023. This colossal redistribution of wealth will take place via these two stealth programs embedded in the Affordable Health Care Act. The first is the Reinsurance Program under which large claims are capped for insurers offering individual plans under Obamacare. Insurers pay for claims up to $45,000, while the Federal government--i.e., taxpayers--picks up 80% of the costs exceeding $45,000 up to a maximum of $250,000. This means that Obamacare is a public-private insurance scheme, a scheme which actively moves the American health care system halfway toward the "single-payer" insurance program that Obama seeks as the endgame.
> 
> Obama and those who support him within the media have diligently avoided public references to the Risk Corridor Program, the other stealth provision, which limits total losses for insurance companies via a highly complex formula that takes a weekend to look over. To make it as simplified as possible, under the Risk Corridor Program provision, taxpayers will be on the hook for 80% of an insurance company's losses. The titanic taxpayer-funded subsidization of costs and socialization of losses is what makes Obamacare remarkably palatable to insurance companies and the public for at least a little while, since insurance companies will not need to raise any of their premiums as much as they would have if they were forced to bear the full burden of cost increases and the risk of huge, grievous losses. This will allow Obamacare the time with which to take full root and finally wreak havoc with what quality remains in the American health care system. Since Obamacare is probably about to become permanent, Americans as both taxpayers and consumers of medical services will be wondering about how they will pay their onerous tax bills and where, exactly, they will find remnants of quality health care.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> You are falling for the narrative. Things 'Idon't require a government "plan" to bail us out of our lives. This isn't the USSR. His plan is healthcare savings accounts and removing state insurance lines. Boom, done. That's it.
> 
> We don't need some Rubiocare to feel like something is being "done."


I'm just saying that Trump now needs to show us exactly what he plans to do to make America great again. The motivational speaker bit now needs to give way to explaining what he wants to do. I'm not asking for a government plan, but people will want to see a plan. In the past, I've been touting removing state insurance lines as a free-market solution for the ACA's removal. Especially if we are overhauling the ACA and affecting health care for many, we need to show what will replace it.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

WHO'S READY TO SEE BERNIE GET BTFO TODAY? :Banderas

*EDIT:*

HOLY FUCKING DOG SHIT!

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @markoutsmarkout @MrMister @MissSally

LATEST POLLS:



















WHAT HAVE WE DONE?!

(And why won't the Mention system work??)


----------



## Diavolo

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The far right is on rise again(only this can save the world)

Trump in US, Le Pen in France, UKIP in UK and Salvini in Italy to name 4 top countries


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Diavolo said:


> The far right is on rise again(only this can save the world)
> 
> Trump in US, Le Pen in France, UKIP in UK and Salvini in Italy to name 4 top countries


Now we need to get Trudeau out of Canuckville!


----------



## TheFranticJane

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump is a necessary evil.
Multiculturalism and apologism simply doesn't work. Many immigrants, if asked, will say that the American value they love most is "being free to do what we want" - which, so often, means failing to integrate, promoting segregation, promoting violence and spreading hate speech.
Simply put, an overabundance of liberty is tearing America apart. Universities are full of these subversive elements, the internet is full of videos were any fool can outright call for murder and general mayhem against the US, and society itself is being shaped by these elements.

Social progress is not bad, not at all. And, yes, we have much to do in the furtherance of racial and gender equality. But the loudest champions of these causes, and I cannot stress this enough, _have NO concept of civilized debate_. They shout, they scream, and if you _do_ agree with them, they will still despise you for not being acceptably oppressed for their tastes.

All of this is the sign of a sick culture, a rotten culture which is imploding. I do not like Trump, I do not think Trump is a good man, but we need a social revolution to purge these elements and flush them into the sea.
Such people have gained too much power, too quickly, and even when appeased do not possess the basic decency to view white people, males or hetereosexuals as other human beings with rights and feelings. If Trump can get rid of them, he's got my vote.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TheFranticJane said:


> Trump is a necessary evil.
> Multiculturalism and apologism simply doesn't work. Many immigrants, if asked, will say that the American value they love most is "being free to do what we want" - which, so often, means failing to integrate, promoting segregation, promoting violence and spreading hate speech.
> Simply put, an overabundance of liberty is tearing America apart. Universities are full of these subversive elements, the internet is full of videos were any fool can outright call for murder and general mayhem against the US, and society itself is being shaped by these elements.
> 
> Social progress is not bad, not at all. And, yes, we have much to do in the furtherance of racial and gender equality. But the loudest champions of these causes, and I cannot stress this enough, _have NO concept of civilized debate_. They shout, they scream, and if you _do_ agree with them, they will still despise you for not being acceptably oppressed for their tastes.
> 
> All of this is the sign of a sick culture, a rotten culture which is imploding. I do not like Trump, I do not think Trump is a good man, but we need a social revolution to purge these elements and flush them into the sea.
> Such people have gained too much power, too quickly, and even when appeased do not possess the basic decency to view white people, males or hetereosexuals as other human beings with rights and feelings. If Trump can get rid of them, he's got my vote.


What is it about Trump you dislike?


----------



## Overcomer

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Why?
> 
> Seriously, why?
> 
> He repeated himself, you say?
> 
> Yes, because the gay twink (look it up) kept interrupting or not understanding him. He wasn't doing what SWEATIO did and reciting a speech.
> 
> He didn't give any details, you say?
> 
> What details do you need? You eliminate state lines, you let the user choose his coverage of choice and let the free market do it's thing. it is literally that easy.
> 
> There is NOTHING Rubio zinged him on that was anything to lose faith in Trump over. All it was was a soundbite.
> 
> Edit: Here's Rush Limbaugh (love em or hate em) on state lines and why what Trump said was correct:


I did think it was funny that because Rubio finally "came out of his shell" and was able to hurl a few rehearsed insults at him *clearly out of desperation* that it means anything. The reality is Trump is crushing all of them and winning all the polls despite the media being against him. Marco Rubio can't even win his own state- his own people aren't behind and that tells you all you need to know.


----------



## Truthbetold

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



BruiserKC said:


> I'm just saying that Trump now needs to show us exactly what he plans to do to make America great again. The motivational speaker bit now needs to give way to explaining what he wants to do. I'm not asking for a government plan, but people will want to see a plan. In the past, I've been touting removing state insurance lines as a free-market solution for the ACA's removal. Especially if we are overhauling the ACA and affecting health care for many, we need to show what will replace it.


Nothing will replace it. We don't need a "plan."


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

This healthcare thing with Trump is really not a big deal. His "plan" is having much for competition for healthcare. This is as opposed to Obamacare where it encourages less competition because people are pretty much forced to buy it (thanks John Roberts). 

Bernie will be done come Tuesday.... Hilary would be stupid to choose him as her VP IMO as well. She's going to get the younger vote for the most part. 

Trump will take over Tuesday and put Kasich and Carson down for sure. Rubio will be president someday, just not this year. I would love to see Kasich become the VP for Trump to get Ohio and the fact that Kasich is a positive person and has experience. 

Notice how the main ammo for the average Democrat Trump has taken away though. Clinton cannot rip Trump for being a Bush fan and all the things Bush did because he does not like him. I mean even birthday massacre has to admit that's pretty smart!>


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Those polls look really good fro Trump. According to this he could win Florida in both the primary and the presidential election. If he takes Kasich as VP he could also take Ohio. That alone is almost a swing of 50 Electoral Votes from the last presidential election.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

^^^That's why I've been saying Trump will pick Kasich as his running mate. Kasich is a great contrast to Trump, and he can potentially help win Ohio, a critical state. 


In regards to that KKK shirt video above, David Duke endorsed Trump.

Then Christie endorsed Trump. I was thinking the Christie endorsement was to quell Marco, but it was probably more to take attention from the Duke endorsement.

Also Trump disavowed the Duke endorsement.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Fascinating numbers, @Beatles123 and @FITZ... 

There is definitely an "enthusiasm gap" between the Democratic primaries and the Republican ones. Hillary/Sanders is proving to be predictably falling along demographic lines in state after state. Hillary's definitely not attracting new Democratic voters the way Obama did. Yet curiously she's enjoying an even larger share of the black vote than Obama did against her. The young like Sanders, and that is where the bulk of his support is, but he's getting slaughtered in the minority demographics. 

As much as Kasich would help Trump in Ohio I'm deeply apprehensive about him. He's essentially an establishment, pro-war Republican, who keeps saying that the U.S. ought to "punch the Russians in the nose," whatever that means. Perhaps in selecting him Trump could engender a sort of compromise with other elements of the GOP but such a selection would give me qualms. At least he wants a less expensive military, so there's something there to like among the plethora of his foreign policy boo-boos. 

The Republican Party's masters will not go quietly, however. Rumblings from Roger Stone reveal that the Koch Brothers and other GOP establishmentarians will seek to bring Mitt Romney into the race should their favored candidate, Marco Rubio, fail.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

rip Bernie Sanders good job good effort


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

:Banderas USA rejecting socialism ftw!

It warms my heart. I am SO proud to be an American knowing we are so much smarter than Bernie says we are!

If you head on over to /r/SandersForPresident you can see some LOLS right now. Literally their only defense is "DONATE MORE GUYS, GOGOGO!" :lol

Meanwhile TRUMP says "Yeah, no donations, I got this!" :trump

Feels good, @DesolationRow ! Feels real good 

AMERICA!


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> :Banderas USA rejecting socialism ftw!
> 
> It warms my heart. I am SO proud to be an American knowing we are so much smarter than Bernie says we are!
> 
> If you head on over to /r/SandersForPresident you can see some LOLS right now. Literally their only defense is "DONATE MORE GUYS, GOGOGO!" :lol
> 
> Meanwhile TRUMP says "Yeah, no donations, I got this!" :trump
> 
> Feels good, @DesolationRow ! Feels real good
> 
> AMERICA!


Gives me a little more hope about our country after what was voted in the last 2 elections honestly.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

As much as I hate cheering for Hillary, Bernie getting blown out is beyond awesome and hilarious.

#feelthebern 

Bernie's reddit is melting down


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I don't really understand why black people love the Clintons so much.


----------



## Rick Sanchez

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FITZ said:


> I don't really understand why black people love the Clintons so much.


Back in the 90s, people were calling Bill Clinton America's first black president. I never looked into why but he was always popular with African American voters and apparently so is Hillary.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

It's not that they like Clinton, its that socialism has never, can never, will never and SHOULD never be allowed into this country in any form. Only mindless college students who's brains are as dough to be molded by people with an agenda are supporting Sanders, and historically this demographic NEVER votes. Sanders is/was nothing more than an old crusty geezer spouting every 1960's cliche in order to appeal to the "MUH PEACE AND LOVE" counterculture. It didn't work then, its not working now, and i thank God for it.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> :Banderas USA rejecting socialism ftw!
> 
> It warms my heart. I am SO proud to be an American knowing we are so much smarter than Bernie says we are!
> 
> If you head on over to /r/SandersForPresident you can see some LOLS right now. Literally their only defense is "DONATE MORE GUYS, GOGOGO!" :lol
> 
> Meanwhile TRUMP says "Yeah, no donations, I got this!" :trump
> 
> Feels good, @DesolationRow ! Feels real good
> 
> AMERICA!


:lol

I wish I could feel better about Sanders's presidential campaign collapse but the ascendancy of Hillary Clinton is difficult to watch. Nevertheless, you make a good point, *Beatles123*! :woo

That said, were America truly smart, no one would vote at all. :aryha Particularly in this year's Democratic cycle; at least Trump presents a major alternative to the usual GOP dross.
@AryaDark @CamillePunk

A solid podcast starring Thomas E. Woods, Jr. and Lew Rockwell discussing the latest debate: http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-603-the-gop-debate-gets-ugly-so-lew-and-tom-have-fun/


The Republican Party establishment is endeavoring to somehow, someway, stop Trump: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/donald-trump-republican-party.html?_r=0

In what may be the most delicious turn of events in many an election cycle, a ballot law blowback may be brewing for the Republican Party. The atrocious ballot laws throughout the country that the Democratic/Republican duopoly has instituted in order to keep third parties and independent candidates with as little political agency as possible may now be in direct opposition to what they seek. Should Trump become the presumptive Republican nominee in a few short days, it would appear that, based on what Roger Stone is saying to numerous individuals, the GOP's oligarchical powers like the Koch Brothers and their political surrogates like Senator Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, and the Goldman Sachs-influenced bigwigs and plutocratic corporatists, will find the very laws that they supported and which kept all third party and independent candidate aspirations contained opposing their own efforts to thwart Trump.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

hello everyone - mrmr


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> MUH


:kobe9 muh memes


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



KILL V. Oxi said:


> :kobe9 muh memes


Doesn't change a thing.


----------



## Captain Edd

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



> free basketball shoes and chickenwings


Wtf :maury


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Doesn't change a thing.


Sure it does. The perception of the legitimacy of your political opinion and commentary is affected by your word choice, like most things. :mj


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



KILL V. Oxi said:


> Sure it does. The perception of the legitimacy of your political opinion and commentary is affected by your word choice, like most things. :mj


it's still a fact. would you rather I worded it like this?:

"Bernie Sanders is the amalgamation of every 1960's counterculture stereotype."

That is no different than me saying "Muh peace and love" because that is essentially what it is, no matter what manner in which you describe it.

Sanders is going to lose this election. He's going to lose it because he is appealing to the people who have been molded to adopt the fragments of a long-dead anti-war, anti-rich youth rebellion that didn't work then and isn't working now. The young vote was 10% in the state of South NC as far as turnout went. That's even less than '08.

The college kids of america cannot be arsed. They will bitch the loudest and then do sweet fuck all, just as the 1960's demonstrated.


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> That is no different than me saying "Muh peace and love" because that is essentially what it is, no matter what manner in which you describe it.


It's the equivalent of using some insult, because that's basically what it is. The difference is it's probably worse because it encapsulates a huge number of Trump followers being people who buy into memes like "muh [insert thing here]" and "cuck" and can't formulate words to get their point across themselves. :draper2


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



KILL V. Oxi said:


> It's the equivalent of using some insult, because that's basically what it is. The difference is it's probably worse because it encapsulates a huge number of Trump followers being people who buy into memes like "muh [insert thing here]" and "cuck" and can't formulate words to get their point across themselves. :draper2


We all can have fun here. Actually, I don't think we've refrained from expressing the views of either side in both comedic and formal ways. Both pro and non Trump support has been pretty even handed thus far, but at the same time I don't think anyone is above humor here. Honestly, if you are gonna nitpick the validity of my point based on humor or lack of it, you're reaching a bit for something to get angry over IMO.

My point about Sanders still stands.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

what was the point of posting that @Beatles123

I edited it out of the post.


----------



## Oxidamus

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> We all can have fun here. Actually, I don't think we've refrained from expressing the views of either side in both comedic and formal ways. Both pro and non Trump support has been pretty even handed thus far, but at the same time I don't think anyone is above humor here. Honestly, if you are gonna nitpick the validity of my point based on humor or lack of it, you're reaching a bit for something to get angry over IMO.


I'm neither laughing nor angry. I wasn't aware it was for humor though, I thought you were trying to make some tangible point by spouting memes like a lot of Trump supporters like to do on the internet. I was just informing you that it's pretty silly to resort to memes when you're trying to actually make a point.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> what was the point of posting that @Beatles123
> 
> I edited it out of the post.


you're right. i didnt realize the poster wasnt genuine until i read the reply.

Oxi: 

I said "Muh peace and love" because that's what it amounted to in the period Sanders draws his philosophy from. That's it in a nutshell. I don't think that took away from the rest of what I said.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Alright guys back to getting along, MAGA


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Bernie was weak, we all knew it and only his white liberal followers actually believe in anything he said. Minorities and others were like "Meh", goes to show you that as bad as Hilary was, Bernie was a bigger joke to Democratic voters. As for blaming the black voters, who is surprised? Hardcore Liberals are only tolerant to people who are on their side, they feel minorities should be grateful to them and vote however they want them to and be good and stand in as rank and file. Young white Liberals are so full of themselves, they really think they are so much smarter and better than everyone else while still clinging to the belief they're "tolerant".

Trump may actually win this even with the fuckery from the Republicans, that may actually gain him more votes and defectors who are tired of the old dinosaurs running things from the shadows. This goes to show we need another party in the states, the Democrats and Republicans have held a monopoly on everything for far too long!


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk










*BAH GAWD, HE'S DOING IT! HE'S TURNING NY RED!!!*

:trump


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

:lol @Beatles123

I will say, there is probably no more perfect candidate/foil for Trump than Hillary Clinton. 

Plutarch noted that "peoples who display harshness toward their great men are strong societies." 

If Plutarch was right, the general electorate of the U.S. is comprised of people who are largely as strong as chocolate pudding. How else to explain the rise and re-rise and re-rise and re-rise of the twin families, Bush and Clinton? 

Yet perhaps after over a full generation of the two parties being steered with extremely marginal differential by fundamentally the same captains, there is sufficient distaste and disgust to change course. 

The U.S. is presently nearing $20 trillion in formal debt; when calculating unfunded "promises" coupled to cumulative trade deficits' impact, the actual real debt of the U.S. may be as high as $65 trillion. 

Meanwhile, the U.S. regime is practicing criminal policies in Syria, in which disparate sectarian groups are all being funded by the U.S., and now all fighting one another. Every other candidate but Trump promises more of the same. 

To what lengths will the Republicrat oligarchy go to protect itself? We're already seeing a wave upon wave of neocons cuddling up to Hillary Clinton for fear of what Trump might represent, namely an end to their mad perpetual warfare state and agitation of Russia. 

How many apparatchiks of both parties parrots the line that a trade war with China will result in the end of days? These are party loyalists whose policies put the U.S. in the hot spot with China in the first place. For all of the fear of the Chinese calling in their loans everyone recognizes that the Chinese enjoy the consumption of their cheap products in the U.S.--and they do not want that to end. 

It does not take more than a moment to recognize that the partisans of the "deep state" within the U.S. state, effectively birthed by the 1947 National Security Act under Truman, will engage in all manner of attack upon Trump. 

Right now _Meet the Press_ and _The New York Times_ have gone after Trump because he quoted Italian World War I soldier Bernardo Vicario, who wrote on a wall in the village of Fagarè in June of 1918 while under attack, "_Meglio vivere un giorno da leone che cent'anni da pecora._" Or, in English, "It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep." The media auxiliaries for the establishment have claimed that this quote was straight from Italian fascist strong man Benito Mussolini--but _Il Duce_ only happened to quote it a few times in speeches and writings. The hilariousness of this cannot be overstated, as the establishment protects a system of NSA-spearheaded spying on all American citizens, economic corporatist fascism ala Wall Street financial bailouts and public works projects along with the sort of reflexive military interventionism abroad that would make Mussolini blush, positing that Trump's usage of this quote means that he's a fascist. The U.S. regime has been "through the looking glass" for a while now. :lol


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I Sanders volunteer from Iowa came to my house to promote primaries

She give me a Sanders leaflet

It has some nice pictures and features a strange positive shout out to John McCain (the only other politician mentioned in the whole thing) 

I do like how he promotes himself using only his first name, both unique and make him relateable 

I give a C+, light on content but the pictures are nice


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Screw it, I'm done with Cruz and Rubio. Trump is the only one that can win this election. Only moderate I am happy with voting for.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> Screw it, I'm done with Cruz and Rubio. Trump is the only one that can win this election. Only moderate I am happy with voting for.


High energy!! :trump

Get this man a coat!!


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BAH GAWD, HE'S DOING IT! HE'S TURNING NY RED!!!*
> 
> :trump


Wow! I can't believe that sexting debacle was a hoax!


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, known for and often cited by Ted Cruz as "leading the fight against illegal immigration", has officially endorsed Donald J Trump for president. He's the first sitting senator to endorse The Donald. This seems like a huge blow to Cruz, considering how often he name-dropped Sessions during past debates. 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/28/politics/donald-trump-jeff-sessions-endorsement/index.html

I wonder if it will become a pattern that every time the media tries to conjure up some irrelevant bullshit on Trump that the Trump campaign will respond by presenting a major endorsement. :lol He might be keeping these guys in reserve for every such incident that comes up.


----------



## gamegenie

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> Bernie was weak, we all knew it and only his white liberal followers actually believe in anything he said. Minorities and others were like "Meh", goes to show you that as bad as Hilary was, Bernie was a bigger joke to Democratic voters. As for blaming the black voters, who is surprised? Hardcore Liberals are only tolerant to people who are on their side, they feel minorities should be grateful to them and vote however they want them to and be good and stand in as rank and file. Young white Liberals are so full of themselves, they really think they are so much smarter and better than everyone else while still clinging to the belief they're "tolerant".
> 
> Trump may actually win this even with the fuckery from the Republicans, that may actually gain him more votes and defectors who are tired of the old dinosaurs running things from the shadows. This goes to show we need another party in the states, the Democrats and Republicans have held a monopoly on everything for far too long!


Trump doesn't stand a chance, and us liberals want the GOP to nominate him. 

Hillary Clinton has had this on lock, the Dems are talking about real issues, your candidate Trump is just spurting off the mouth non-sense. 

He's the Palin 2.0 of this Election, Hillary's race will go down just like Obama's did in '08. Mark my words and I hope they sticky this thread so I can make fun of it 10 months from now.


----------



## Smarkout

gamegenie said:


> Trump doesn't stand a chance, and us liberals want the GOP to nominate him.
> 
> Hillary Clinton has had this on lock, the Dems are talking about real issues, your candidate Trump is just spurting off the mouth non-sense.
> 
> He's the Palin 2.0 of this Election, Hillary's race will go down just like Obama's did in '08. Mark my words and I hope they sticky this thread so I can make fun of it 10 months from now.


If coin flips are involved in the general election then I 100% agree with you.

On a serious note the last thing the media and Libs want is Trump. This is precisely the reason why they have been trying to take him out. Take a look at this site:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

Those polls say something different then what you are saying. Republicans will have to shoot themselves in the foot to lose this election, whether you like em or not. Hilary Clinton lied to innocent families and let men die. She should be in prison for what she did. 

What are the real issues? Gun control? Finding a way to legalize 11 million illegal immigrants to secure Democratic control? Find excuses to allow illegals to keep pouring in?

Really, what are the issues?


----------



## TripleG

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I blame the PC parade and Social Justice Warriors for Donald Trump. For the last few years, we were preached at to not say anything even remotely offensive, so much so that it became almost like a bullying movement all its own. South Park's interpretation of it was one of their more spot on parodies. 

After all this time of being told "You're a racist!" or "You're a sexist!" (whether it was deserved or not), I think a large portion of America just got fed up. When people get sick and tired of being sick and tired, they just go to the other extreme and someone like Donald Trump, a blowhard that says whatever crazy crap he wants that drives the PCers completely nuts, looks appealing to those that are frustrated. It is the whole pendulum effect. 

And once again, we have an election that has become a complete and utter farce that is more about sensationalist media coverage, social media activism, and widespread headline anger responses with nobody seeming to care about what issues really matter, but are more focused on getting engrossed in this three ring circus of awful the Rs and Ds have given us yet again. 

Yeah, I'm writing in Ron Swanson with Scrooge McDuck as VP. Fuck Republicans and Fuck Democrats. They all suck.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TripleG said:


> I blame the PC parade and Social Justice Warriors for Donald Trump. For the last few years, we were preached at to not say anything even remotely offensive, so much so that it became almost like a bullying movement all its own. South Park's interpretation of it was one of their more spot on parodies.
> 
> After all this time of being told "You're a racist!" or "You're a sexist!" (whether it was deserved or not), I think a large portion of America just got fed up. When people get sick and tired of being sick and tired, they just go to the other extreme and someone like Donald Trump, a blowhard that says whatever crazy crap he wants that drives the PCers completely nuts, looks appealing to those that are frustrated. It is the whole pendulum effect.
> 
> And once again, we have an election that has become a complete and utter farce that is more about sensationalist media coverage, social media activism, and widespread headline anger responses with nobody seeming to care about what issues really matter, but are more focused on getting engrossed in this three ring circus of awful the Rs and Ds have given us yet again.
> 
> Yeah, I'm writing in Ron Swanson with Scrooge McDuck as VP. Fuck Republicans and Fuck Democrats. They all suck.


Love your vids, G. gonna have to disagree. Trump is right on the biggest issue of them all: Immigration. Trade is #2 .

Also:










WHAT, CRUZ??? WHAT! :lol


----------



## gamegenie

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> If coin flips are involved in the general election then I 100% agree with you.
> 
> On a serious note the last thing the media and Libs want is Trump. This is precisely the reason why they have been trying to take him out. Take a look at this site:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
> 
> Those polls say something different then what you are saying. Republicans will have to shoot themselves in the foot to lose this election, whether you like em or not. Hilary Clinton lied to innocent families and let men die. She should be in prison for what she did.
> 
> What are the real issues? Gun control? Finding a way to legalize 11 million illegal immigrants to secure Democratic control? Find excuses to allow illegals to keep pouring in?
> 
> Really, what are the issues?


Ha, the Benghazi red herron, nice try. 
Do you know how many people died under George W. Bush's Weapons of Mass Destruction conquest. Over 4,000 US troops + 150,000 Iraqis. 


Some of Hillary's real issues:


  End the era of mass incarceration.
  Protect immigrants’ rights and keep families together. 
 Defend every American’s right to vote. 
  Give working families a raise, and tax relief that helps them manage rising costs.
  Create good-paying jobs and get pay rising by investing in infrastructure, clean energy, and scientific and medical research to strengthen our economy and growth.
 Close corporate tax loopholes and make the most fortunate pay their fair share.

More information can be found by going to HillaryClinton.com :drake2


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



gamegenie said:


> Ha, the Benghazi red herron, nice try.
> Do you know how many people died under George W. Bush's Weapons of Mass Destruction conquest. Over 4,000 US troops + 150,000 Iraqis.
> 
> 
> Some of Hillary's real issues:
> 
> 
> End the era of mass incarceration.
> Protect immigrants’ rights and keep families together.
> Defend every American’s right to vote.
> Give working families a raise, and tax relief that helps them manage rising costs.
> Create good-paying jobs and get pay rising by investing in infrastructure, clean energy, and scientific and medical research to strengthen our economy and growth.
> Close corporate tax loopholes and make the most fortunate pay their fair share.
> 
> More information can be found by going to HillaryClinton.com :drake2


A lot of your points have to do with "immigrants". Do Republicans go against immigrants? We both know the answer to that! Of course not! 

Illegal Immigrants? Oh.. PAY FOR THEM ANYWAY

Defend every American's right to vote? Of course I stand for that as well. Allowing the 11 million illegal immigrants to just be allowed to vote? lol

Tax reliefs for working families... You realize that most candidates (besides Bernie really) want to give tax cuts to middle class families right? Right?? The higher class is where the disagreements begin. 

We all know by "pay raising" it most likely means to continue raising the minimum wage. Listen, I'm 17 years old and I have a minimum wage job.. I do NOT need to make $15.00 an hour... Half my employees would get laid off..

Ahh the rich aren't paying enough.. Did you know 86% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 25%? The top 50% pay 97% of income taxes.. 

Spare me the comments about the rich please.. 

Hilary Clinton should be in prison. Let's not forget her response to a question about Benghazi either. *“What difference at this point does it make?!”*


P.S. Bush wasn't a great president... I'm not sure why you assumed I like him?


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



gamegenie said:


> End the era of mass incarceration.
> Protect immigrants’ rights and keep families together.
> Defend every American’s right to vote.
> Give working families a raise, and tax relief that helps them manage rising costs.
> Create good-paying jobs and get pay rising by investing in infrastructure, clean energy, and scientific and medical research to strengthen our economy and growth.
> Close corporate tax loopholes and make the most fortunate pay their fair share.


You also might want to mention the Clinton Crime Family's other areas of interest such as :

* The *CLINTON FOUNDATION* which "reeks of hoods, theives, and crooks..."
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-reeks-crooks-thieves-and-hoods-deroy-murdock

* The *WHITEWATER, TRAVELGATE, FILEGATE, CHINAGATE SCANDALS* and other scams of Bonnie & Clyde Clinton
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/klayman/130126

* *HILLARY'S ENABLING OF HER SEXUAL PREDATOR HUSBAND*
http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/08...-excusing-juanita-broaddricks-sexual-assault/
http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/21/hillary-clinton-is-no-friend-to-sexual-assault-survivors/

* *AND OTHER VARIOUS HILLARY CLINTON SHADY DEALINGS *
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/10-scandals-involving-hillary-clinton-you-may-have-forgotten


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



gamegenie said:


> Ha, the Benghazi red herron, nice try.
> Do you know how many people died under George W. Bush's Weapons of Mass Destruction conquest. Over 4,000 US troops + 150,000 Iraqis.


Herring*

You know what's hilarious about this? W has NOTHING to do with Trump. In fact, Hillary VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR WHILE TRUMP CONDEMNED IT!

Y'all don't even know basic facts. That's just low energy, low effort. Very sad.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I'm sorry but the Clinton's are dirty as fuck and not in the Richard Nixon or GWB way ,where you can argue that they honestly think they are helping the country but in a petty Borgia, stuff your pockets and fuck your over enemies way 

I "get" Watergate, you wanted a leg up on your political rivals, its scummy but I get it 

I don't "get" TRAVELGATE, you are already rich and already president, why are you doing this low level kickback shit?

That's the problem with Clinton's, their "gates" are not shady allegiances or illegal detainees, they are fucking money kickbacks and hiding files

complete and total petty bullshit and they think they can do whatever they want


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BAH GAWD, HE'S DOING IT! HE'S TURNING NY RED!!!*
> 
> :trump


If it gets close in the polls my vote might actually count in New York. 



gamegenie said:


> Trump doesn't stand a chance, and* us liberals want the GOP to nominate him. *
> 
> Hillary Clinton has had this on lock, the Dems are talking about real issues, your candidate Trump is just spurting off the mouth non-sense.
> 
> He's the Palin 2.0 of this Election, Hillary's race will go down just like Obama's did in '08. Mark my words and I hope they sticky this thread so I can make fun of it 10 months from now.


Recent polling numbers don't really support that statement. Trump is getting new people to turn out to vote. Republican primary turnout has been way higher than it has in the past few elections.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> You also might want to mention the Clinton Crime Family's other areas of interest such as :
> 
> * The *WHITEWATER, TRAVELGATE, FILEGATE, CHINAGATE SCANDALS* and other scams of Bonnie & Clyde Clinton
> http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/klayman/130126


Great article, written by the great impartial commentator Larry Klayman, whom, among other things "He has been credited as being the inspiration for the Tea Party movement. (See "Larry Klayman — The One Man TEA Party," by Dr. Richard Swier.)"

Thanks for the link to the site as well, now I can read other great articles such as:

Rev. Austin Miles
Bastard Muslim's cruelty to dogs! 

and

Kevin Fobbs
If Obama has Supreme Court Justice pick Christianity will be decimated

and

Madeline Crabb
Political correctness: destroying America through lies, deception, manipulation (Part One)


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> I'm sorry but the Clinton's are dirty as fuck and not in the Richard Nixon or GWB way ,where you can argue that they honestly think they are helping the country but in a petty Borgia, stuff your pockets and fuck your over enemies way
> 
> I "get" Watergate, you wanted a leg up on your political rivals, its scummy but I get it
> 
> I don't "get" TRAVELGATE, you are already rich and already president, why are you doing this low level kickback shit?
> 
> That's the problem with Clinton's, their "gates" are not shady allegiances or illegal detainees, they are fucking money kickbacks and hiding files
> 
> complete and total petty bullshit and they think they can do whatever they want


You make it sounds like having illegal detainees or subverting the political process is better than flying first class on occasion. Terrifying.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> You make it sounds like having illegal detainees or subverting the political process is better than flying first class on occasion. Terrifying.


Your missing my point

I understand why the president would have illegal detainees, its not right but I can understand why you would do it 

I don't understand why the president risk their reputation to get travel money kickbacks 

Its like the mafia shaking down a lemonade stand, doing something illegal for super little gain 

I am not saying its right but I get the logic

The Clinton's had real power and used it to commit fraud like a middle manger

They are like hillybillies who win the lottery and buy the tackiest shit and gold plate it


----------



## Nickelbackrules

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I hope this guy with the Beatles circa 1966 haircut, at least lets me climb over the wall so I can get some tequila shots.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Nickelbackrules said:


> I hope this guy with the Beatles circa 1966 haircut, at least lets me climb over the wall so I can get some tequila shots.


Like that isn't a based haircut. Just look at my AVATAR! :nerd:

Found this:







Also, LOL at the Cruz camp now saying Sessions is a traitor :lmao


----------



## DOPA

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk

http://fee.org/articles/hating-the-establishment-is-not-the-same-as-supporting-liberty/



> Many friends of mine — people who have worked for the progress of liberty for years — are mightily encouraged by the popularity of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. My friends point out that they are both radicals of a sort, people who represent a threat to the established political order. We too are against the establishment, so their rise suggests rising discontent with the status quo. That’s a step in the right direction, they say.
> 
> As far as it goes, I see the point, and I sympathize. In fact, on these pages, I’ve drawn parallels between the Tea Party and the Occupy movement: both oppose the status quo in ways partisans of liberty can appreciate.
> 
> But there’s a problem. The state power we oppose is not identical to the establishment we reject. You can overthrow the establishment and still be left with a gigantic machinery of legalized exploitation. All the agencies, laws, regulations, and powers are still in place. And now you have a problem: someone else is in charge of the state itself. You might call it a new establishment. It could be even more wicked than the one you swept away.
> 
> Indeed, it usually is. Maybe always.
> 
> Anatomy of the Establishment
> 
> What is an establishment? It is a network of large and cooperating interest groups that have developed a stable relationship with state power. It includes finance, organized labor, public bureaucrats, government contractors, big businesses with quid pro quo relationships with regulators and politicians, political families with a strong stake in the election process, intellectuals at state-friendly think tanks and universities, and so on.
> 
> Czarist Russia had a deeply entrenched establishment: the church, business, government, aristocracy all working together in a stable relationship. The corruption was obvious. Then it became intolerable with the war draft and rampant inflation. The establishment failed and was overthrown. What came it its place was a transitional government and finally Bolshevik rule.
> 
> Weimar Germany had an entrenched establishment: banking, government, corporations, bureaucracy all working together. The corruption was obvious. Then it became intolerable with hyperinflation and deep economic retrenchment. People were suffering and looking for answers. Most people regarded Hitler as a non-ideal messenger, but he was fine in a pinch. No one expected the results.
> 
> The list of failed establishments replaced by still more wicked states is long indeed: Mexico, Spain, Italy, Argentina, Venezuela in the last century, and Iraq, Syria, and Libya in our own times.
> 
> The conflation of the state and the establishment has caused countless revolutionary movements to go wrong. Eastern Europe overthrew its establishments in 1989 but kept their states, resulting in mixed-economy social democracies. Russia got rid of the Bolsheviks in 1990 and created an authoritarian oligarchy in its place. To be sure, the results in these cases were better than before. But as the Italian, Russian, French, and German cases illustrate, that is not always the case. The results differ according to the plans and designs of the new power holders.
> 
> Good Revolution?
> 
> You might point to the American Revolution as a contrary case. We tossed out the British monarchy and invented freedom! But think again. The war itself created a new establishment consisting of politicians, military generals, bond dealers, and influential landholders. Twelve years after the Declaration of Independence, these groups got together and formed a new government that, in time, became as oppressive and restrictive — and in some ways, more so — as the one the revolutionaries overthrew. And this occurred despite the existence of classical liberal political norms and intellectual culture.
> 
> Nonetheless, in our times, freedom lovers have become so enraptured with the idea of opposing the establishment as such that many have lost sight of the actual goal of establishing freedom. It’s for this reason that so many have fallen for Donald Trump’s claim that he deserves support solely because he owes nothing to anyone. Therefore, he is not part of the establishment.
> 
> Why is that good for liberty? He has said nothing about dismantling power. Indeed, he is on record with his desire to radically expand the power of the state. He wants surveillance, controls on the internet, religious tests for migration, war-like tariffs, industrial planning, and autocratic foreign-policy power. He’s praised police power and toyed with ideas such as internment and killings of political enemies. His entire governing philosophy boils down to arbitrary, free-wheeling authoritarianism.
> 
> As for Sanders, everything that is bad about the current establishment he promises to make worse with more programs, bureaucracy, taxes, controls, and government power in order to making life fair, just, and equitable. He speaks as if he’s never heard of the failed history of socialism and certainly hasn’t learned anything from it.
> 
> Some of these ideas are so extreme that, it’s true, the establishment doesn’t like them. That’s a good thing. Establishments are as Machiavelli described: stable machines that keep competitors at bay but otherwise seek to make the system work for themselves. They resist rampant populism that would lead to a pillaging of the nation that is serving them so well.
> 
> Bonfire of the Vanities
> 
> To understand Machiavelli, realize that his black beast was the cleric Savonarola, Florence’s quasi-dictator who led a mass movement of crazed pietists who pillaged and burned material possessions as a pathway to heaven. The Bonfire of the Vanities of 1487 was one result. This is exactly the kind of mania that establishments exist to keep at bay.
> 
> It is the height of political naivete and historical ignorance to believe that anti-establishment populism and the cause of human liberty are united in the same struggle. They are not.
> 
> Not that there is anything wrong with “the people” as such. As Trump might say, “I love the people.” They are great as consumers using their own property, as workers and entrepreneurs creating value, as family members, as managers of their own lives. But the people as absolute rulers over the political system? That’s a different matter. For instance, polls show that many people (30% of Republicans, 19% of Democrats) support bombing Agrabah, the fictional country in Disney’s “Aladdin.”
> 
> Think of Iraq or Libya as recent cases. From what we observed from media coverage, the masses were struggling against despots and sought their overthrow, hoping for a future of human rights and democracy. What we got was the opposite. Only too late did most people discover that these wicked establishments were all that were standing between their populations and the advent of terror.
> 
> Here’s the problem with political revolutions. One group leads the revolution, while others follow. If the revolution succeeds, the leaders expect a payout. The main payout is the control of the state apparatus that outlives the establishment’s overthrow. It makes sense that the results will tend to be more ruthless, vengeful, and bloody than anything that came before.
> 
> This is not a case for the establishment. It is a case against disestablishmentarianism as an ideal. The ideal is liberty, not the overthrow of existing elite structures as such. Rampant and unchecked populism can be as much an enemy of liberty as unchecked rule by an entrenched power elite.
> 
> We need to be alert to the difference. A movement toward a lasting liberty has to think long term, and not find itself buffeted by the winds of politics that promise overnight results. The goal should be the tearing down of power itself and its replacement by simple human rights and a society that functions according to civilized standards.
> 
> Top Down or Bottom Up?
> 
> Top-down political putsches are particularly dangerous in our times. The establishment is already on the run because of technological innovation. The ruling class is gradually losing control over communication, education, industrial development, civic planning, consumption, and so much else. The old models have been discredited and new ones are replacing them, organically, in a sustainable way.
> 
> A new autocrat from the left or right threatens everything. A political movement fueled by bloodlust — mobilized by raw resentment and crying out for vengeance — could empower a new form of oligarchic control, resulting in a calamity that no one intended but no one can control once it has power.



Just some food for thought and an alternative view on the rise of Trump and Sanders. I happen to agree with this article quite a bit, although Trump has said things that have made a lot of sense there are some questionable policies he has some of which have been mentioned in this article which are pretty scary. Hence why I am not a Trump supporter.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



L-DOPA said:


> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk
> 
> http://fee.org/articles/hating-the-establishment-is-not-the-same-as-supporting-liberty/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just some food for thought and an alternative view on the rise of Trump and Sanders. I happen to agree with this article quite a bit, although Trump has said things that have made a lot of sense there are some questionable policies he has some of which have been mentioned in this article which are pretty scary. Hence why I am not a Trump supporter.


Which policies are these?


----------



## Nickelbackrules

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Like that isn't a based haircut. Just look at my AVATAR! :nerd:
> 
> Found this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, LOL at the Cruz camp now saying Sessions is a traitor :lmao


I don't believe in them trickle down economics, I believe letting the beer flow immensely over the greater part of the nation.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Nickelbackrules said:


> I don't believe in them trickle down economics, I believe letting the beer flow immensely over the greater part of the nation.


Trickle down worked until Dems crippled the fuck out of it. :nerd:


----------



## Nickelbackrules

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Trickle down worked until Dems crippled the fuck out of it. :nerd:


See, I've had a lot of beverages in my times..even going back to the 1980's and communities be hurting from them Reganomics. Bill paid off all that debt from those far right wing guys. I don't approve of those views at all. I'm glad that Chad said no to the Cruz campaign of using the song "How You Remind Me".


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*






David Duke setting things straight. Seems like he's not KKK at all!


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Which policies are these?


did you read the article?

excerpt:



> Nonetheless, in our times, freedom lovers have become so enraptured with the idea of opposing the establishment as such that many have lost sight of the actual goal of establishing freedom. It’s for this reason that so many have fallen for Donald Trump’s claim that he deserves support solely because he owes nothing to anyone. Therefore, he is not part of the establishment.
> 
> Why is that good for liberty? He has said nothing about dismantling power. Indeed, he is on record with his desire to radically expand the power of the state. He wants surveillance, controls on the internet, religious tests for migration, war-like tariffs, industrial planning, and autocratic foreign-policy power. He’s praised police power and toyed with ideas such as internment and killings of political enemies. His entire governing philosophy boils down to arbitrary, free-wheeling authoritarianism.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Goku said:


> did you read the article?
> 
> excerpt:


him owing nothing is not why people support trump. it is added validation.

Trump is not doing anything that excerpt claims. His policies boil down to, does america get something from it or not? We DONT with our immigration, Trade, military OR foreign relations. We are the old, fat sow that other nations suckle off of. His recognizing this does not make him authoritarian.

But, if you want a real debunking of this, this is @DesolationRow's bag.

Edit: Right on cue!


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

A most fascinating article indeed, @L-DOPA. To some extent I feel as though I could have written it myself. (Though the excessive leaning upon "human rights" and other Enlightenment-era concepts of abstraction is definitive proof that I did not.)

The sad fact is that the overwhelming majority of Americans rejected the concept of a government restricted by the rule of law... I hazard to make a guess how long ago. 

Instead, we have an exterior government--a, I suppose we could call it, state for public consumption--made up of personalities. It's why most of the Left sits out antiwar rallies when Obama is in the White House rather than George W. Bush; as though the bombs, bullets and bloodshed are suddenly benign because the new chief executive has a winning smile or an ostensibly higher intelligence than his immediate predecessor.

I do not doubt for one instant that the execution of governance with Trump as president could and probably would come down to a series of involved and serpentine deals in which liberty is even further extinguished than it already is. The power of government is like J.R.R. Tolkien's "One Ring"; even the best and purest of minds and hearts can and almost always will be corrupted by its pernicious influence. 

What ought to be remembered is that over here in the U.S., time is running out. We only have two political parties; their constant legislation to nip all third-party and independent party campaigns in the bud has helped to see to that, along with mass conditioning of the population, which government-engendered and -funded schools are all too happy to peddle. 

Most of Trump's more odious policies are what is happening already anyway. He's definitely more "out in the open" about being cool with torture than Obama is, but let us not think for a moment that Obama's hands are clean, either. And as Clinton-Bush-Obama demonstrates, the imperial presidency has never been so robust as it is today. Congress is merely along for the ride in the realm of foreign policy; while Trump would continue that _modus operandi_, at least many of his foreign policy _statements_ are shockingly refreshing in a climate that, on the "mainstream" (read: Israeli lobby-controlled and -financed) Republican side, apparently sees the Palestinians as sub-human desert creatures and based on numerous remarks at these debates, is open to targeted assassination of world leaders while seeking to escalate the already dire conflict between the U.S. and Russia. 

As for the immigration matter, the U.S. is the ultimate amusement park fun-house of the world, both invading the world and inviting the world, at the same time. Naturally it's an astonishingly arrogant and self-destructive policy. All while being insolvent and with unfunded liabilities counted as much as $65 trillion in debt. Trump's rhetoric concerning Muslim immigration itself is incendiary, and I would wager intentionally so, but speaking with complete truthfulness on the matter, there's really no reason why a nearly-complete "timeout" (of, say, two years?) on most immigration should not be undertaken, for the sheer lack of any oversight as to who is in the country and who is not. The proper response to September 11, 2001 would have been that aforementioned "timeout" with far better security on borders and at ports, not the gallivanting around the world as with Caesar's legions. A study from a few days ago finds that only 4,680 undocumented migrant minors have been deported from a roster of nearly 130,000 apprehended over the last twenty-four months. The U.S. domestic "security" agencies indicate that they have lost track of most of these children after apprehending them. 

As the old song goes, please don't let me be misunderstood. There's no magical solution to this matter, and illegal immigration isn't even a root problem; it's more like yet another symptom. The saw that applies to the gold standard applies to this. If the rulers of the country are so utterly corrupt that only hard money will keep them in financial line, then they are so corrupt that they will find a way to get around the gold standard. A wall or a security fence (Arizona has one to a major degree) are all well and good but if the ruling interests seek greater influxes of helot (child?) labor they will get around the wall and the fence. 

Ultimately it's all a parlor game. The U.S. economy has been like a game of Thimblerig with no pea since the early-to-mid-1970s. It's an insolvent country that is remaining on its international throne through one duplicitous measure after another. As refreshing as Trump may be, and as much as he may stand in political opposition with the "deep state" that exists beneath the cosmetic exterior, there is ample reason to believe his would be a rule compromised immediately. He himself is a shareholder of Goldman Sachs, and his love of "making deals" would fit with the Wall Street and financial masters' agenda. 

The good news is that I don't consider myself, strictly, a Trump-supporter. Politics is at its basest just another sport; far more crooked than others, and vastly more dangerous and painful, but the process itself is built upon showmanship--or con-artistry--and outright mendacity. I was listening to Obama- and Hillary Clinton-supporters on MSNBC for a few minutes Sunday evening. I'm not sure if they are actually so dumb that they believe what they say or if they have become such remarkable political actors that their performances are flawless, but they genuinely spoke of how Hillary Clinton will seek nothing less than the betterment of American middle class, and that she will stand up to corporate lobbying and particular moneyed interests. What does one say to such commentary? The January 1995 Mexico crisis tells a different story. After the Clinton administration pushed for NAFTA, Mexico going belly-up shortly thereafter was considered one of the most embarrassing financial calamities in U.S. trade history. The Clinton administration pushed for a $50-billion global bailout of Mexico, while arguing that to not deliver this bailout would mean nothing less than sheer devastation for the U.S. and global economy. What was left unsaid was that it would have most directly devastated numerous major Wall Street banks. Money had been flying out of Mexico, and most of it was going through Wall Street firm after Wall Street firm, all of which sold investors' Mexican bonds, and to whom those bonds were being sold back to those firms. Of course, as is the Wall Street way, those firms had not merely sold Mexican bonds to clients; instead the firms almost invariably did so by utilizing new derivatives product in order to eschew regulatory "catches" (a fine example of how government regulation actually creates more immoral practices in capitalism) while utilizing the competitive advantage in tax rules, while lending the clients money.The Clinton administration never intervened, and when the Mexican collapse hit, and tens upon tens of millions were lost on Wall Street, with Mexico drifting toward a default, which would have resulted in the loss of _hundreds upon hundreds of millions_, including Lehman Brothers, which stood to lose billions upon billions due to the aggressiveness with which they traded in such peerless volume. The bailout worked, and it gifted Wall Street banks and firms with the exit ramp without which a major financial calamity would have hit. The Clinton administration continued using bailouts throughout the world to bailout banks... And of course in 2008 we had the financial collapse "adverted" through more bailouts, which Obama, George W. Bush, John McCain (who's come out supporting Hillary in case Trump's the GOP nominee) and Hillary all supported.

I expect Trump will be enmeshed by the establishment about which the quoted article speaks, *L-DOPA*. For now, though, he's the only candidate whose very existence is driving a major sector of the establishment crazy. Also, while politicians are by their nature never to be trusted, there has to be _something_ said for the uproariously hot political climate of the U.S. right now for we see a conservative, sitting Republican Senator in the state of Alabama, Jeff Sessions, speak of Trump as the last best opportunity to take the U.S. out of the hands of "the oligarchy." This is potent, even if Sessions and Trump are ultimately as genuine as Hillary and Obama. At least the anger and vitriolic hatred being spewed against Trump gives the observer a faint ray of hope to see through the political pollution.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/704077089461260288


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump is the only one, the ONLY one, that wants the USA to be FIRST. I couldn't care less if other nations hate us for cutting off their free ride.

Also


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> him owing nothing is not why people support trump. it is added validation.
> 
> Trump is not doing anything that excerpt claims. His policies boil down to, does america get something from it or not? We DONT with our immigration, Trade, military OR foreign relations. We are the old, fat sow that other nations suckle off of. His recognizing this does not make him authoritarian.
> 
> But, if you want a real debunking of this, this is @DesolationRow's bag.
> 
> Edit: Right on cue!


You, @Goku and @L-DOPA may all be speaking at cross purposes to some extent. 

There are valid "libertarian" arguments against Trump. The article brings up a fair number. 

The problem is, no "leader," no "great man" can change the character of the people. The body politic of the U.S. is rotten from within, diseased. 

John Adams put it well. Before a nation is deprived of its freedom, "she must be fitted for slavery by her vices." Ancient Greece and Rome probably stand out as the two most perspicuous examples; their republicanism died not from dastardly terrorists or military invasions from without but from utter rot and decay from within. 

In a couple of short years the U.S. will cross the Rubicon of the zero-sum algorithm as it were. In other words, there will be (and arguably already are) more "takers" by way of governmental assistance, welfare, food stamps, Department of Education-led programs, than "makers," i.e., the people from whom the government forcibly seizes a considerable portion of their wealth. Adams wrote eloquently of the death of such states built upon public largesse as well. Such are the putrid fruits of democracy. 

The Democratic Party has been so much cagier about all of this than their Republican counterparts, who evidently seek to commit political suicide rather than put a stop to the very system that much of their supporters quite clearly despise at this point. The Democrats of the last century have recognized what public "entitlement" programs would inevitably engender: a permanent self-interested voting bloc. The Republicans have had their self-interested blocs, too, with military voters and Wall Street but they are far smaller and have recently begun defecting to Democrats, if the "deep state"-constituted counties south of Washington, D.C. in Virginia and other such areas are to be gauged. 

Samuel Adams wrote in a 1749 essay that, "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." Perhaps Americans are not universally corrupt but it's fairly close. When intellectualism is rejected, along with the rule of law, it becomes a time for demagogues. Trump is, in some way, a demagogue but he may yet be a useful one. That gives him a certain possible advantage. 

The "Grand Old Party" has been deploying one miserable presidential candidate after another that have helped to make the party a widespread political joke, from Bob Dole to John McCain to Mitt Romney. George W. Bush was of course easily the foulest and dumbest, which explains why he won two elections, gifting him with the opportunity to squander untold trillions and see the end to countless lives on a pointless and horrible war in Iraq while finishing off the bankrupting of the U.S. (which, somehow, Obama has managed to continue and exacerbate). 

Trump at least admits that he was a perennial bribe-payer for both sides of the political ruling class while noting that the entire system is corrupt. How he could do any worse than the presidents the U.S. has been electing cycle after cycle is a mystery.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@DesolationRow

No man on this earth is perfect. No leader this nation has ever had is perfect. We've had so many of them with their own backgrounds, successes, and failures. Each one has tried to the best of their ability to help the country, and just even having the cajones to RUN is to be respected. The title of President is one that has been scientifically proven to drive those who possess it to become stressed and to shorten lifespans. Have you seen how these people age? Obama is no longer the smiling young senator he was in 08. He's a grey haired mess. Bill Clinton looks like an aids victim on opium these days. This job KILLS people. No sane person should even want it, but the people that have it do the job WILLINGLY out of a love for the USA. I can bitch about Obama all day, but my skinny ass will never be able to lead this land the way he has. He has faced challenges i never will in my lifetime.

Trump, love him or hate him, is trying to save this country irregardless of your personal feelings about his methods, and he's been the most honest about it to boot. I have NEVER seen this out of any president as long as i've been alive. He may not get everything perfect, but he's going to give it more of an honest shot than ANY other person running, and that's what I want.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

What worries me is both the GOP and Democrats do not want Trump elected and it's not because of his policies or anything to that matter, the entire Media is out to get this guy and when you have all sides of the Media and both Political parties with the same agenda it shows that they obviously fear this guy and not because of anything he may do but because he's not a puppet. If anything this should wake people up, regardless if you hate Trump, the bashing he gets is pretty unfair compared to someone like Hilary who's sins the Media seems to overlook. It's almost completely obvious now that the two party system is utterly and unmistakably corrupt to it's very core. If Democrats really cared about the Nation they wouldn't be supporting Hilary, they should be bringing her to justice, if the top GOP really was on the lookout for the Nation they wouldn't be side stepping illegal immigration for cheap labor and allowing capital to be shipped to other parts of the world. 

Hardcore Liberals think Trump is going to lose to Hilary and if Hilary is brought up on charges, Bernie will step in. These people should have more brains than that, their methods of mudslinging and OTT nonsense will not derail this man. Even if Trump loses I hope Americans realize what their two parties have done, one supporting a criminal which has got Americans killed, is a warmonger and career criminal but hey, she believes in pro-choice so she's awesome! And the Republicans who backstab their own and continue to not look in the mirror to understand why their party is shrinking. Hispanics and many Blacks and Asians are conservative from their culture yet the Republicans alienate them to suck up to the mega rich who are at the top of the party. I only hope one day we get a third party which uses logic, smart fiscal plans and determination to win and not act like the two circus acts who pretend they're not two sides to the same coin.


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> @DesolationRow
> 
> No man on this earth is perfect. No leader this nation has ever had is perfect. We've had so many of them with their own backgrounds, successes, and failures. Each one has tried to the best of their ability to help the country, and just even having the cajones to RUN is to be respected. The title of President is one that has been scientifically proven to drive those who possess it to become stressed and to shorten lifespans. Have you seen how these people age? Obama is no longer the smiling young senator he was in 08. He's a grey haired mess. Bill Clinton looks like an aids victim on opium these days. This job KILLS people. No sane person should even want it, but the people that have it do the job WILLINGLY out of a love for the USA. I can bitch about Obama all day, but my skinny ass will never be able to lead this land the way he has. He has faced challenges i never will in my lifetime.
> 
> Trump, love him or hate him, is trying to save this country irregardless of your personal feelings about his methods, and he's been the most honest about it to boot. I have NEVER seen this out of any president as long as i've been alive. He may not get everything perfect, but he's going to give it more of an honest shot than ANY other person running, and that's what I want.


and that's the whole point. What's best of the country is not necessarily what's best for liberty (not that such a thing can be quantified).

It's a conflict of ideologies. Deposing the establishment does not guarantee liberation.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Goku said:


> and that's the whole point. What's best of the country is not necessarily what's best for liberty (not that such a thing can be quantified).
> 
> It's a conflict of ideologies. Deposing the establishment does not guarantee liberation.


Of course it doesn't! No one can predict anything, but I will have made my vote knowing I voted for the candidate I felt was going to give it the best shot he could to run this country the way it should be run from this point onward in order to save it from economic and social doom.

If we continue down this path, we don't HAVE another 8 years left. This two-party system must be CLEANSED, and right now Trump is the only one trying to do that.


----------



## GothicBohemian

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I'll be blunt - I dislike Trump immensely. I find his attitude and actions abhorrent. Nothing would compel me to vote for the man, including an equally distasteful alternative such as Hillary as Democratic nominee. Thankfully, I'n not American so this is a potential choice between lesser evils I needn't make. 

@DesolationRow Some of your posts I could nearly co-sign in agreement yet we part ways when it comes to welfare state-ism. I believe that education, health care, clean water, basic housing and simple, nutritious food can and should be freely supplied to all. That isn't going to happen without some form of outside regulation. While I feel humans are essentially good I'm realistic enough to know we have a tendency to put ourselves first, even when we lack for nothing. However, my socialist leaning have nothing to do with Trump and don't belong in this thread. 

Moving on, American elections have always confused me. I don't understand why your country invests such time and money into a process most places begin and complete in a matter of weeks or months. Presidential candidates are as much selected by their respective parties as our party leaders are, only here there's no illusion otherwise. We recently elected a leader based on public dissatisfaction with the incumbent; to say that many hated Stephen Harper would be an understatement. In Canada, we have multiple parties to choose from, not only two, and the result can often be minority government and leaders who capture far less than 50% of the vote - and such was the case with Harper. Enter Justin Trudeau, young, handsome, the son of a revered former Prime Minister and, most importantly, not Stephen Harper. He swept to power on a promise to restore Canada to it's roots, to return us to who we once were. Sound familiar? Trump, pledging to make America great again, is similarly drawing the dissatisfied voters.

Now it has to said that what Canadians, or the majority of us, were dissatisfied with was almost the opposite of what frustrates many Americans. Those who voted based on more than pure anti-Harper sentiment voted to increase immigration, to resettle Syrian refugees (25,000 so far), to reinvigorate our social programs and strengthen environmental regulations - all things the Harper Conservatives were seen to oppose. The one common ground we share with some of our southern neighbours supporting Trump is a distaste for further military intervention in places where we really don't belong. However, it doesn't really matter what our reasons were for voting in the less experienced, different candidate; it was still essentially a protest vote. Trudeau won and, should he get the nomination, I expect Trump may win as well. That makes me sad but, considering the options, it's unlikely to make much difference who wins. Democrats and Republicans seem to have a handful of issues where they sit in direct opposition but the majority of their policies are nearly identical.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

John Oliver totally exposing Trump for what he is.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> John Oliver totally exposing Trump for what he is.


What we think of John Oliver is what you think of....well, any republican apparently.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



GothicBohemian said:


> I'll be blunt - I dislike Trump immensely. I find his attitude and actions abhorrent. Nothing would compel me to vote for the man, including an equally distasteful alternative such as Hillary as Democratic nominee. Thankfully, I'n not American so this is a potential choice between lesser evils I needn't make.
> 
> @DesolationRow Some of your posts I could nearly co-sign in agreement yet we part ways when it comes to welfare state-ism. I believe that education, health care, clean water, basic housing and simple, nutritious food can and should be freely supplied to all. That isn't going to happen without some form of outside regulation. While I feel humans are essentially good I'm realistic enough to know we have a tendency to put ourselves first, even when we lack for nothing. However, my socialist leaning have nothing to do with Trump and don't belong in this thread.
> 
> Moving on, American elections have always confused me. I don't understand why your country invests such time and money into a process most places begin and complete in a matter of weeks or months. Presidential candidates are as much selected by their respective parties as our party leaders are, only here there's no illusion otherwise. We recently elected a leader based on public dissatisfaction with the incumbent; to say that many hated Stephen Harper would be an understatement. In Canada, we have multiple parties to choose from, not only two, and the result can often be minority government and leaders who capture far less than 50% of the vote - and such was the case with Harper. Enter Justin Trudeau, young, handsome, the son of a revered former Prime Minister and, most importantly, not Stephen Harper. He swept to power on a promise to restore Canada to it's roots, to return us to who we once were. Sound familiar? Trump, pledging to make America great again, is similarly drawing the dissatisfied voters.
> 
> Now it has to said that what Canadians, or the majority of us, were dissatisfied with was almost the opposite of what frustrates many Americans. Those who voted based on more than pure anti-Harper sentiment voted to increase immigration, to resettle Syrian refugees (25,000 so far), to reinvigorate our social programs and strengthen environmental regulations - all things the Harper Conservatives were seen to oppose. The one common ground we share with some of our southern neighbours supporting Trump is a distaste for further military intervention in places where we really don't belong. However, it doesn't really matter what our reasons were for voting in the less experienced, different candidate; it was still essentially a protest vote. Trudeau won and, should he get the nomination, I expect Trump may win as well. That makes me sad but, considering the options, it's unlikely to make much difference who wins. Democrats and Republicans seem to have a handful of issues where they sit in direct opposition but the majority of their policies are nearly identical.


GB, thank you for being civil. you are not unwelcome here.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> What we think of John Oliver is what you think of....well, any republican apparently.


Everything he said about Trump is true. And John Oliver is great. Trump as our president will be an utter disaster. He will do so much damage to the US it may never recover.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Everything he said about Trump is true. And John Oliver is great. Trump as our president will be an utter disaster. He will do so much damage to the US it may never recover.


The continuing debt from Obama makes me think the same exact thing. It's still probably the fault of Bush though lol.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

"The comedian who agrees with me on everything and makes fun of the people we disagree with is great"

you don't say

Latest CNN poll puts Trump at 49% and Cruz/Rubio at 15% each. :kobe6


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> The continuing debt from Obama makes me think the same exact thing. It's still probably the fault of Bush though lol.


I don't like Obama, I didn't vote for him. He wasn't a great president by any means but he was better than Bush.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

John Oliver is hilarious. 


The fact John Cornyn won't even endorse Ted Cruz amuses me. Cornyn is an asshole too, but lol he hates Ted just like everyone else does. Now if only Texans could open their eyes...


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Everyone not on the right makes fun of Trump for being the meme candidate, but they support John Oliver. The guy who, to everyone not a liberal, is the Meme spokesman for liberalism.

Go figure.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> John Oliver is hilarious.
> 
> 
> The fact John Cornyn won't even endorse Ted Cruz amuses me. Cornyn is an asshole too, but lol he hates Ted just like everyone else does. Now if only Texans could open their eyes...


I liked Oliver way more than Jon Stewart, i thought he did a better job on the Daily Show than Jon did. It was too bad HBO snatched up Oliver, I would have loved for Oliver be his replacement.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Everyone not on the right makes fun of Trump for being the meme candidate, but they support John Oliver. The guy who, to everyone not a liberal, is the Meme spokesman for liberalism.
> 
> Go figure.


That is because everyone but the right calls out Trump his bullshit. Trump is a clown. I also love how you support doing what he does to guys like Rubio and Cruz but when people do it back to Trump you take issue.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> That is because everyone but the right calls out Trump his bullshit. Trump is a clown. I also love how you support doing what he does to guys like Rubio and Cruz but when people do it back to Trump you take issue.


Oh calm down it was a joke. 

Anyway, do you read my posts in this thread? Just began backing Trump like 2 days ago lol. I was a Rubio and Cruz supporter beforehand butttt I guess I don't support when people do it back to Trump? 

I like what Rubio is doing. 

I'm confused are you saying that I am this big Trump guy? So confused why would you assume that??


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> Oh calm down it was a joke.
> 
> Anyway, do you read my posts in this thread? Just began backing Trump like 2 days ago lol. I was a Rubio and Cruz supporter beforehand butttt I guess I don't support when people do it back to Trump?
> 
> I like what Rubio is doing.
> 
> I'm confused are you saying that I am this big Trump guy? So confused why would you assume that??



Is Beatles123 an ALT account for you? Did you forget what account you are posting under?

I quoted Beatles123 not you. Maybe you have been exposed of having two accounts ?

Maybe you are confused to who I was replying to, since I was replying Beatles123 comment.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Is Beatles123 an ALT account for you? Did you forget what account you are posting under?
> 
> I quoted Beatles123 not you. Maybe you have been exposed of having two accounts ?
> 
> Maybe you are confused to who I was replying to, since I was replying Beatles123 comment.


Oops lol. My apologies I was like "wtf is this guy talking about". See Republicans make mistakes too!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



gamegenie said:


> Trump doesn't stand a chance, and us liberals want the GOP to nominate him.
> 
> Hillary Clinton has had this on lock, the Dems are talking about real issues, your candidate Trump is just spurting off the mouth non-sense.
> 
> He's the Palin 2.0 of this Election, Hillary's race will go down just like Obama's did in '08. Mark my words and I hope they sticky this thread so I can make fun of it 10 months from now.


Hilary does not have this on lock against Trump. Sanders would but not Hillary. Hillary could lose to Trump. If it comes down to Hillary vs Trump its going to be super close and Trump could win, don't fool yourself.

If its Trump vs Hillary it could be a super low turnout on the democratic side and that will favor the GOP since he is getting tons of people to come out and vote for him.

Also the independent voters are between Bernie and Trump, and if Bernie is out, all those independent votes will go to Trump and that is probably what will win him the election over Hillary.


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

john oliver is funny so long as you realize he's a talking head from the liberal mainstream media with an agenda. Of course, an agenda does not lessen his efforts, merely frames it better.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Hilary does not have this on lock against Trump. Sanders would but not Hillary. Hillary could lose to Trump. If it comes down to Hillary vs Trump its going to be super close and Trump could win, don't fool yourself.
> 
> If its Trump vs Hillary it could be a super low turnout on the democratic side and that will favor the GOP since he is getting tons of people to come out and vote for him.
> 
> Also the independent voters are between Bernie and Trump, and if Bernie is out, all those independent votes will go to Trump and that is probably what will win him the election over Hillary.


Sanders would worry me as a guy versing the Republicans honestly. He can win it, but Hilary is such a weak candidate.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

All I was saying BM is that he appeals to those on your side. I never doubted he was funny to you. Its very much a partisan matter of taste. There is no right or wrong about liking Oliver.

That said, I can tolerate Colbert a lot better because he's pretty fair to both and it's all satire.

Edit: Also, the notion that i can't laugh at jokes made about Trump is untrue. I just mentioned I LOL'd at Colbert, and he goes after Trump nearly every show. The difference is, he's not just shitting on Trump. He's shitting on everything and its not just a way for him to shout "DON'T VOTE FOR THIS GUY LOL"


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Oliver's skewering of Donald Drumpf was amazing.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> All I was saying BM is that he appeals to those on your side. I never doubted he was funny to you. Its very much a partisan matter of taste. There is no right or wrong about liking Oliver.
> 
> That said, I can tolerate Colbert a lot better because he's pretty fair to both and it's all satire.
> 
> Edit: Also, the notion that i can't laugh at jokes made about Trump is untrue. I just mentioned I LOL'd at Colbert, and he goes after Trump nearly every show. The difference is, he's not just shitting on Trump. He's shitting on everything and its not just a way for him to shout "DON'T VOTE FOR THIS GUY LOL"


Nothing Oliver said about Trump wasn't true. It was all true. That is why you are not laughing. And its why no one should be laughing. Trump is a walking disaster and is not fit to be president.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Nothing Oliver said about Trump wasn't true. It was all true. That is why you are not laughing. And its why no one should be laughing. Trump is a walking disaster and is not fit to be president.


Nothing Crowder said about Sanders wasn't true. It was all true. That is why you are not laughing. And its why no one should be laughing. Sanders is a walking disaster and is not fit to be president.

See how easy that is?

There is no right or wrong in this debate. there are only opinions.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Nothing Crowder said about Sanders wasn't true. It was all true. That is why you are not laughing. And its why no one should be laughing. Sanders is a walking disaster and is not fit to be president.
> 
> See how easy that is?
> 
> There is no right or wrong in this debate. there are only opinions.


the only difference is Sanders is fit to be president and Trump is not. And Sanders is far from a walking disaster.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> the only difference is Sanders is fit to be president and Trump is not. And Sanders is far from a walking disaster.


To you. Just like the reverse is to me. We think that way because that is the side we have chosen, nothing more.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> To you. Just like the reverse is to me. We think that way because that is the side we have chosen, nothing more.


So how is Sanders a walking disaster and not fit to be president.


----------



## Blackbeard

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I am still rooting for the young Lion, Marco Rubio :thecause


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I enjoyed that Oliver video. I think he's really funny. Obviously he made some unfair points (comparing his name change to Stewart's name change) but he was funny and made him look bad and that was the goal.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> All I was saying BM is that he appeals to those on your side. I never doubted he was funny to you. Its very much a partisan matter of taste. There is no right or wrong about liking Oliver.
> 
> That said, I can tolerate Colbert a lot better because he's pretty fair to both and it's all satire.
> 
> Edit: Also, the notion that i can't laugh at jokes made about Trump is untrue. I just mentioned I LOL'd at Colbert, and he goes after Trump nearly every show. The difference is, he's not just shitting on Trump. He's shitting on everything and its not just a way for him to shout "DON'T VOTE FOR THIS GUY LOL"


Play the argument not the man. Can you dispute these points Oliver brought up? In bolded are some Trump supposed strong points.



> *"He tells it like it is"*: "Does he? Because the website PolitiFact checked 77 of his statements, and rated 76 percent of them as varying degrees of false."
> 
> *"He is truly independent and not beholden to anyone":* "While it is true that he hasn't taken corporate money, the implication that he has personally spent $20 to $25 million is a bit of a stretch, because what he's actually done is loaned his own campaign $17.5 million and has just personally given just $250,000. And that's important, because up until the convention he can pay himself back for the loan with campaign funds."
> 
> *"He's tough":* "For a tough guy, he has incredibly thin skin. Back in 1988, Spy magazine called him a short-fingered vulgarian. And ever since, the editor Graydon Carter says he receives envelopes from Trump, always with a photo on which he circled his hand to highlight the length of his fingers, usually with a note reading, 'See, not so short!'"
> 
> *"His success":* "While yes, he has made more money than most of us will make in a lifetime, not only did he get a multimillion-dollar inheritance from his father, but he's also lost a huge amount."
> 
> Oliver then played a clip of Trump's daughter saying, "I remember once my father and I were walking down Fifth Avenue and there was a homeless person sitting right outside of Trump Tower. And I remember my father pointing to him and saying, 'You know, that guy has $8 billion more than me.' Because he was in such extreme debt at that point."
> 
> Oliver also noted one other issue with Trump: He's wildly inconsistent. "He's been pro-choice and pro-life, for and against assault weapon bans, in favor of both bringing in Syrian refugees and deporting them out of the country."
> 
> Or take Trump's inconsistent statements on former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke's endorsement of Trump. To CNN, Trump said, "I don't know anything about David Duke. Okay? I don't know anything about what you're even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists."
> 
> Oliver was not having it, pointing to Trump's past remarks to journalists: "Really? That's your best answer there? Because you definitely know who he is — partly because you called him 'a bigot' and 'a racist' in the past."


Taken from here, which I have no idea if or not is just a leftist propaganda website, my apologies if it is.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132366/john-oliver-donald-trump-last-week-tonight


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Why is being inconsistent a bad thing?

I have changed my views on things over the years as I saw different things and different views 

We bitch when our politicians follow party line and then we bitch when they don't


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Why is being inconsistent a bad thing?
> 
> I have changed my views on things over the years as I saw different things and different views
> 
> We bitch when our politicians follow party line and then we bitch when they don't


If Trump was asked he wouldn't say he was inconsistent. People view inconsistencies as being weak minded in politicians, and the other side uses it as attacking points. 

Have you ever heard Trump say he 'changed his mind' on issues? He wouldn't.

So yes it is a bad thing, and if the same criticism was brought up against the Dems, the republicans and their supporters would be all over it.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Play the argument not the man. Can you dispute these points Oliver brought up? In bolded are some Trump supposed strong points.
> 
> 
> 
> Taken from here, which I have no idea if or not is just a leftist propaganda website, my apologies if it is.
> 
> http://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132366/john-oliver-donald-trump-last-week-tonight


I can dispute them, but they will not be disputed correctly to you or in the minds most leftests. My analysis of Oliver doesn't matter. What matters is his audience and they agree with him.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> If Trump was asked he wouldn't say he was inconsistent. People view inconsistencies as being weak minded in politicians, and the other side uses it as attacking points.
> 
> Have you ever heard Trump say he 'changed his mind' on issues? He wouldn't.
> 
> So yes it is a bad thing, and if the same criticism was brought up against the Dems, the republicans and their supporters would be all over it.


Its like we want our politicians to be zealots because that equals STRONG

Its why politicians have to lie, if they EVER admit they were wrong about something hindsight or their views have changed with shifting of the situation they are considered weak


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Reagan was inconsistent too. He's deified by the GOP. It doesn't really matter if your views change. The context of why or how they change matters.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> Reagan was inconsistent too. He's deified by the GOP. It doesn't really matter if your views change. The context of why or how they change matters.


But those reasons will always change depending who you ask. and who has which opinion will always depend on whether they are an R or a D. Just as the question of which of these two opinions is the right one does.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> I can dispute them, but they will not be disputed correctly to you or in the minds most leftests. My analysis of Oliver doesn't matter. What matters is his audience and they agree with him.


That is what i thought.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> Reagan was inconsistent too. He's deified by the GOP. It doesn't really matter if your views change. The context of why or how they change matters.


If president came out and said "The side we supported turned out to be tyrants, they sold us a bill of goods and they lied so we are going to remove them from power and fix the mess" I would support it 100%

Instead once said expects them to support their initial foresight 100% and the other side wants them to resign in shame and commit suicide to restore your honor

I could never be in politics, your side wants you to be a zealot and the other encourages you to fail as hard as possible and legit wants you and your side to suffer for any mistakes

I would lie and take short cuts too

What defines your true character is not never failing but how you handle your failures and evolve and how you go back and "do it right"


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> That is what i thought.


You take my statement as surrender but it's rather pointing out that this discussion has no correct answer.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Thank you for your thoughts, @GothicBohemian and @Miss Sally and @Beatles123! 



Blackbeard said:


> I am still rooting for the young Lion, Marco Rubio :thecause



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/704341617189126145
:mj

What we have learned today is that ROCKY has come out for Trump. 

The GOP primary season is officially over imo.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I am so inspired. 

GONNA FLY NOW


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> I can dispute them, but they will not be disputed correctly to you or in the minds most leftests. My analysis of Oliver doesn't matter. What matters is his audience and they agree with him.


That's not true and I'm not a leftist. I couldn't explain to you in any great detail what the left and right even mean or where the concepts originated.

You spend a lot of time in here spruiking Trump and celebrating his victories.
If you can't be bothered defending him from percieved weaknesses and outright lies, then we should only content that you can't.

Again, this is not about Oliver, it's about the points I posted.


Edit: Dickensian Sly? I'm not sure that means what Sly thinks it means. Too much blow at the Oscar parties?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

At the end of it, none of it matters. If Hilary wins or Trump, I still am crippled. I still struggle with depression. I still will watch as the side i disagree with eventually wins as people like me are phased out and the world passes me by as I sit here behind a computer screen doing nothing but aging. I'll be the same person i've always been, still wondering why we can't all love one another and realize that all opinions are nothing. All of us, are in effect, worth, nothing. In millions of years we'll all be gone. No one will give a shit who we were, or what we did. Or what we dreamed we could do. Our descendants will rebel against our ways long enough down the line and unravel everything we fought for today just like we are right now. The founding fathers would universally spit on this country, and long enough down the line we will have spat on the world that is to come, but they won't care. They won't even know what we were like hundreds of years after that.

That's the sobering reality. None of the "my side, your side" shit matters. Even right now, you don't matter. You, whoever you are reading this no matter who it is in the thread, YOU don't matter. Life, the universe, existed before you and it will after you. It is so much more vast and complex than your shitty life and your tiny, insignificant opinion about what goes on on this tiny, insignificant rock floating in space. You're going to die and your very existence until then is merely a coincidental afterthought.

So, by all means, bring on the election. Bring on the hate, the celebration, the joy, the pain, the salvation of america, the death of america, walls, no walls, Democrat, republican, who cares.

We are what we are, and what we are is equivelent to nothing but our own individual subjective conclusions.

There. I solved everything.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> At the end of it, none of it matters. If Hilary wins or Trump, I still am crippled. I still struggle with depression. I still will watch as the side i disagree with eventually wins as people like me are phased out and the world passes me by as I sit here behind a computer screen doing nothing but aging. I'll be the same person i've always been, still wondering why we can't all love one another and realize that all opinions are nothing. All of us, are in effect, worth, nothing. In millions of years we'll all be gone. No one will give a shit who we were, or what we did. Or what we dreamed we could do. Our descendants will rebel against our ways long enough down the line and unravel everything we fought for today just like we are right now. The founding fathers would universally spit on this country, and long enough down the line we will have spat on the world that is to come, but they won't care. They won't even know what we were like hundreds of years after that.
> 
> That's the sobering reality. None of the "my side, your side" shit matters. Even right now, you don't matter. You, whoever you are reading this no matter who it is in the thread, YOU don't matter. Life, the universe, existed before you and it will after you. It is so much more vast and complex than your shitty life and your tiny, insignificant opinion about what goes on on this tiny, insignificant rock floating in space. You're going to die and your very existence until then is merely a coincidental afterthought.
> 
> So, by all means, bring on the election. Bring on the hate, the celebration, the joy, the pain, the salvation of america, the death of america, walls, no walls, Democrat, republican, who cares.
> 
> We are what we are, and what we are is equivelent to nothing but our own individual subjective conclusions.
> 
> There. I solved everything.


That's why everybody should live their life to try and enjoy every second of it. Even if it is talking politics on a wrestling forum.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> That's why everybody should live their life to try and enjoy every second of it. Even if it is talking politics on a wrestling forum.


exactly.

in fact, thats why its futile to be negative about any of this. When you examine it, you realize how petty it all is.


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

As a non-American I want anyone but Hillary. She's a psycho. I like Trump because of how direct he is. He doesn't come across as a politician. I've seen it said elsewhere that Trump is doing well with black people. Is there any truth to that?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Dazzler said:


> As a non-American I want anyone but Hillary. She's a psycho. I like Trump because of how direct he is. He doesn't come across as a politician. I've seen it said elsewhere that Trump is doing well with black people. Is there any truth to that?


25%. Higher than any repub has ever got


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> *At the end of it, none of it matters. If Hilary wins or Trump, I still am crippled.* I still struggle with depression. I still will watch as the side i disagree with eventually wins as people like me are phased out and the world passes me by as I sit here behind a computer screen doing nothing but aging. I'll be the same person i've always been, still wondering why we can't all love one another and realize that all opinions are nothing. All of us, are in effect, worth, nothing. In millions of years we'll all be gone. No one will give a shit who we were, or what we did. Or what we dreamed we could do. Our descendants will rebel against our ways long enough down the line and unravel everything we fought for today just like we are right now. The founding fathers would universally spit on this country, and long enough down the line we will have spat on the world that is to come, but they won't care. They won't even know what we were like hundreds of years after that.
> 
> That's the sobering reality. None of the "my side, your side" shit matters. Even right now, you don't matter. You, whoever you are reading this no matter who it is in the thread, YOU don't matter. Life, the universe, existed before you and it will after you. It is so much more vast and complex than your shitty life and your tiny, insignificant opinion about what goes on on this tiny, insignificant rock floating in space. You're going to die and your very existence until then is merely a coincidental afterthought.
> 
> So, by all means, bring on the election. Bring on the hate, the celebration, the joy, the pain, the salvation of america, the death of america, walls, no walls, Democrat, republican, who cares.
> 
> We are what we are, and what we are is equivelent to nothing but our own individual subjective conclusions.
> 
> There. I solved everything.


That is why you should be voting for Bernie Sanders. Also the quicker the GOP is phased out the better. The GOP sides is for intolerance and ignorance. They try to shove the bible and religion down our throats and they still refuse to believe in climate change when its scientifically proven to be a fact. The GOP breeds hate and fear mongering. 

the USA will be better off when the GOP is gone.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> That is why you should be voting for Bernie Sanders. Also the quicker the GOP is phased out the better. The GOP sides is for intolerance and ignorance. They try to shove the bible and religion down our throats and they still refuse to believe in climate change when its scientifically proven to be a fact. The GOP breeds hate and fear mongering.
> 
> the USA will be better off when the GOP is gone.


Don't, Bm. You know nothing of my situation and Bernie has nothing for me, I assure you.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Don't, Bm. You know nothing of my situation and Bernie has nothing for me, I assure you.


OH you mean that literally and not figurative. I am sorry, my apologies, I thought you mean that as a metaphor.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> OH you mean that literally and not figurative. I am sorry, my apologies, I thought you mean that as a metaphor.


i suppose figuratively i could be as well.

Funny enough, that's part of the reason i laugh at the Trump opposition.

they like to label us as angry, racist, uneducated...but you have no clue. You couldn't even DREAM of feeling the way i and people like me are feeling about this country right now. It's something deeper than you think it is, and treating us like freaks in a sideshow to be mocked isn't making us go away. So many people like you and the media for example gravely underestimate the depth of what I feel when i wake up and look at this world every day, and it's going to be not just the GOP's downfall, but the DEMS as well.

They'll be saying "Why"? on election night and chalk it up to ignorance, while I smile as i watch the ants burn under the magnifying glass.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Well, that went downhill fast.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> i suppose figuratively i could be as well.
> 
> Funny enough, that's part of the reason i laugh at the Trump opposition.
> 
> they like to label us as angry, racist, uneducated...but you have no clue. You couldn't even DREAM of feeling the way i and people like me are feeling about this country right now. It's something deeper than you think it is, and treating us like freaks in a sideshow to be mocked isn't making us go away. So many people like you and the media for example gravely underestimate the depth of what I feel when i wake up and look at this world every day, and it's going to be not just the GOP's downfall, but the DEMS as well.
> 
> They'll be saying "Why"? on election night and chalk it up to ignorance, while I smile as i watch the ants burn under the magnifying glass.


Trumps book is called crippled america that is what I thought you were referring to. 

And trust me I can relate to how you feel. 

As for the GOP being racist or bigoted, their platform most definitely is. Trumps platform is all about illegally banning mexicans and muslims. The GOP is all about being against gays equal rights for marriage and the womens right to choose, being against planned parenthood just to name a few.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trumps book is called crippled america that is what I thought you were referring to.
> 
> And trust me I can relate to how you feel.
> 
> As for the GOP being racist or bigoted, their platform most definitely is. Trumps platform is all about illegally banning mexicans and muslims. The GOP is all about being against gays equal rights for marriage and the womens right to choose, being against planned parenthood just to name a few.


Last I checked Trump was for planned parenthood.. Last I checked the GOP debates this year had women, blacks, Spanish, and whites. Last I checked these "mexicans" were illegal. 

NOTHING will ever be done about gay marriage and abortion though, it will always be too difficult to change back or change to a conservative view. Which is fine. Even though I may not agree with one or the other people should still probably have the choice. 

My opinion doesn't matter though, it simply won't change. 

I mean come on, calling the GOP racist is like me calling the Dems communist pigs. Neither is true and both are extreme stretches of the imagination.


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trumps platform is all about illegally banning mexicans and muslims.


He wants to stop illegals entering. How is that illegal? He's just enforcing the law.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> Last I checked Trump was for planned parenthood.. Last I checked the GOP debates this year had women, blacks, Spanish, and whites. Last I checked these "mexicans" were illegal.
> 
> NOTHING will ever be done about gay marriage and abortion though, it will always be too difficult to change back or change to a conservative view. Which is fine. Even though I may not agree with one or the other people should still probably have the choice.
> 
> My opinion doesn't matter though, it simply won't change.
> 
> I mean come on, calling the GOP racist is like me calling the Dems communist pigs. Neither is true and both are extreme stretches of the imagination.


GOP is against planned parenthood and Trump is or isn't depending on which way the wind is blowing that day. 

Nothing should be done about gay marriage or abortion but the GOP will try. 

The GOP are bigoted , not saying all the people that vote republicans are, but most of the politicians views are. The GOP is all about the top 1% and the rich white crowd.


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> At the end of it, none of it matters. If Hilary wins or Trump, I still am crippled. I still struggle with depression. I still will watch as the side i disagree with eventually wins as people like me are phased out and the world passes me by as I sit here behind a computer screen doing nothing but aging. I'll be the same person i've always been, still wondering why we can't all love one another and realize that all opinions are nothing.


I don't think it makes a difference who gets in. If Trump wasn't under control I doubt he'd have got this far. Still though I enjoy the laughs he brings. We're living in exciting times at least. Imagine how shitty our lives would be if we were born at any other time in history. We hit the jackpot when you think of it like that! :dance2


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trumps book is called crippled america that is what I thought you were referring to.
> 
> And trust me I can relate to how you feel.
> 
> As for the GOP being racist or bigoted, their platform most definitely is. Trumps platform is all about illegally banning mexicans and muslims. The GOP is all about being against gays equal rights for marriage and the womens right to choose, being against planned parenthood just to name a few.


No, man. No you honestly can't. This isn't something like a passing phase. This is every day of my life. This is every bus ride I had as a child. Every awkward stare. Every time I ever thought to myself, "What the hell makes me such an imperfect being" from overgrown narcissists like the ones on the left, who have it so entrenched in their brains that they have to demonize me because I love my own country, or because of my spirituality or my hesitance to adopt whatever radical craze they tell me in order to be accepted. You have no idea how it is to be raised in a certain part of the world, have it blamed for all the ills in america, and then watch them turn around and say YOU are the ones that CAN be slandered and stereotyped. Now the pendulum is going to swing the other way. It's easy to live in a world that's on YOUR side politically, but soon the people you hate are going to start pushing back for all of the poking and prodding you've done over the years to try and shame people like me out of existence. I dunno if Trump will be the one to bring it all to a head, but i'll tell you this much: If we don't start acting more bipartisan and people who vote for Trump can feel like THEY matter, you WILL see what real racism and bigotry look like and it won't be for lack of people like me trying to warn you.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> No, man. No you honestly can't. This isn't something like a passing phase. This is every day of my life. This is every bus ride I had as a child. Every awkward stare. Every time I ever thought to myself, "What the hell makes me such an imperfect being" from overgrown narcissists like the ones on the left, who have it so entrenched in their brains that they have to demonize me because I love my own country, or because of my spirituality or my hesitance to adopt whatever radical craze they tell me in order to be accepted. You have no idea how it is to be raised in a certain part of the world, have it blamed for all the ills in america, and then watch them turn around and say YOU are the ones that CAN be slandered and stereotyped. Now the pendulum is going to swing the other way. It's easy to live in a world that's on YOUR side politically, but soon the people you hate are going to start pushing back for all of the poking and prodding you've done over the years to try and shame people like me out of existence. I dunno if Trump will be the one to bring it all to a head, but i'll tell you this much: If we don't start acting more bipartisan and people who vote for Trump can feel like THEY matter, you WILL see what real racism and bigotry look like and it won't be for lack of people like me trying to warn you.


Trump is the last person you should be voting for if you want bipartisan. Trump is all about hate and fear mongering, and letting a lot of racist, (not saying you) be openly racist because that is exactly what Trump is doing.

Just curious, who is shaming you exactly. Are you super christian and you feel like you are being shamed because of it? 

As for showing your love for your country, how are you going about that?


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump is talking about illegal Mexicans, last I heard and know that illegal means illegal. So not sure how securing the border and deporting illegals is a bad thing? I guess it's bad if you're a Democrat and want those votes in exchange for handouts. The US has the least protected border, of course if you fly in they check you every which way they can but crossing in Texas? Nah, don't need to worry! Let's not forget both parties benefit from illegals, one gets votes, other gets cheap expendable labor. Trump wants to end that.

If the GOP is a bunch of bigots then so is the Democrats for keeping people in perpetual poverty, using minorities as a platform for their idiotic programs and then using minorities further as a prop for their "tolerance", we've seen how tolerant these Democrats are when minorities do not vote their way. The insults lobbed at minorities for voting anything but Democrat. Isn't the Democrats ran by a bunch of rich white people? Oh, we're not supposed to notice these things, I'm so sorry!


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is the last person you should be voting for if you want bipartisan. Trump is all about hate and fear mongering, and letting a lot of racist, (not saying you) be openly racist because that is exactly what Trump is doing.
> 
> Just curious, who is shaming you exactly. Are you super christian and you feel like you are being shamed because of it?
> 
> As for showing your love for your country, how are you going about that?


Your first sentences show me you don't get it tbh, bm.

Trump supporters aren't going to vote for him in this way because we want a Klansman. Far from it. We are tired of that narrative, because we have lived with it for years. You rub that label of being racist in our faces, almost like you think if you simply CALL US racist it makes it true--and now you have it to the point where apparently we can't even have the right to decide what our own area's flag means. You decide it for us. Your OFFENSE decides it for us because of the notion that "Dem dere suthrehn bo'ahz hate people!" But no one ever talks about how that makes US feel. No one ever thinks about how conservatives feel to be asked to fuck off daily. No one ever asked ME how i feel being called a racist because I thought Cam Newton acted like an immature asshole in the superbowl. You think it's just some foregone understanding that conservatives are the scum of the earth and that the hatred is a one way street. It's not. and you hold people to this BS double standard and say that anyone who steps out of line with that belief is an ignorant buffoon. 

People are tired of the left and we're tired of the right BECOMING the left without an inch of middleground. You want to know who it was that caused Trump to happen? The left. You made both parties different extremes of the same thing instead of compromising, and now they're both going to burn because NO ONE is happy.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Your first sentences show me you don't get it tbh, bm.
> 
> Trump supporters aren't going to vote for him in this way because we want a Klansman. Far from it. We are tired of that narrative, because we have lived with it for years. You rub that label of being racist in our faces, almost like you think if you simply CALL US racist it makes it true--and now you have it to the point where apparently we can't even have the right to decide what our own area's flag means. You decide it for us. Your OFFENSE decides it for us because of the notion that "Dem dere suthrehn bo'ahz hate people!" But no one ever talks about how that makes US feel. No one ever thinks about how conservatives feel to be asked to fuck off daily. No one ever asked ME how i feel being called a racist because I thought Cam Newton acted like an immature asshole in the superbowl. You think it's just some foregone understanding that conservatives are the scum of the earth and that the hatred is a one way street. It's not. and you hold people to this BS double standard and say that anyone who steps out of line with that belief is an ignorant buffoon.
> 
> People are tired of the left and we're tired of the right BECOMING the left without an inch of middleground. You want to know who it was that caused Trump to happen? The left. You made both parties different extremes of the same thing instead of compromising, and now they're both going to burn because NO ONE is happy.


You are right, I don't know why anyone would want to vote for Trump. Since it does not make any sense.

If you are tired of the narrative you should be voting for Sanders. You really Trump cares about the middle and lower classes? He doesn't. He is for the top 1% because he is in that top 1%. 

It is true the GOP party is racist. What they stand for is racist. 

As for your area's flag, I take it you mean the confederate flag. It is a racist flag and it stands for the treason. That is a FACT. The confederate flag was always about keep slavery alive in the south. We had a whole thread on this.

Im sorry if you are tired of the left for pushing for equal rights and not letting the right force their religious book onto everyone. But there is a thing called separation of church and state. Its always interesting how people on the right claim they are being infringed upon because they can't push their believes onto others like banning gay marriage, or banning abortion.

IF someone doesn't know US history then they are ignorant. Ignorant means uneducated. Just like anyone that claims the earth is only 10,000 years old because of the bible is ignorant.

Also there is no middle ground when it comes to racism. Either something is racist or its not.

Are you also upset because states can't stop gays from getting married now?


----------



## mike331111

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

How is this guy the favorite?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are right, I don't know why anyone would want to vote for Trump. Since it does not make any sense.
> 
> If you are tired of the narrative you should be voting for Sanders. You really Trump cares about the middle and lower classes? He doesn't. He is for the top 1% because he is in that top 1%.
> 
> It is true the GOP party is racist. What they stand for is racist.
> 
> As for your area's flag, I take it you mean the confederate flag. It is a racist flag and it stands for the treason. That is a FACT. The confederate flag was always about keep slavery alive in the south. We had a whole thread on this.
> 
> Im sorry if you are tired of the left for pushing for equal rights and not letting the right force their religious book onto everyone. But there is a thing called separation of church and state. Its always interesting how people on the right claim they are being infringed upon because they can't push their believes onto others like banning gay marriage, or banning abortion.
> 
> IF someone doesn't know US history then they are ignorant. Ignorant means uneducated. Just like anyone that claims the earth is only 10,000 years old because of the bible is ignorant.


And we're back where we began. You are just proving with your condescending nature why Trump's support keeps growing. Not everyone thinks like you, and you expect them to otherwise they are wrong. only YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUU have the truth on your side! "Get educated, ******!"

And thus.....none of this matters. The struggle will go on till the ends of time because there is no middle ground. You think Sanders would make all the racist whites go away but you are pushing for the very thing that will eventually cause racism on a mass scale to occur the way you THINK it is now. You keep demonizing anyone who isn't a liberal and the right WILL go too far. Trump actually wants equality, but that isn't what YOU call it.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I'm unsure how there is "no middle ground to racism" what does this even mean? does this mean one cannot call a spade a spade? I cannot make an observation or use facts when it comes to race? That's a no-no? So we suspend fact, evidence and everything else because it maybe "racist"? I'm really confused by this notion of this thinking.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> I'm unsure how there is "no middle ground to racism" what does this even mean? does this mean one cannot call a spade a spade? I cannot make an observation or use facts when it comes to race? That's a no-no? So we suspend fact, evidence and everything else because it maybe "racist"? I'm really confused by this notion of this thinking.


It means nothing. Don't even try to fit into it. It's just more bogus crap by the identify-politics left trying to divide the American people.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> I'm unsure how there is "no middle ground to racism" what does this even mean? does this mean one cannot call a spade a spade? I cannot make an observation or use facts when it comes to race? That's a no-no? So we suspend fact, evidence and everything else because it maybe "racist"? I'm really confused by this notion of this thinking.


Because either you are racist or you are not. There is no oh someone is kinda racist. You really think if someone is just against blacks but not mexicans for example, that means they are just kind of racist? NO it means they are racist.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

It's okay. They'll get what they want in the end when every southerner is ashamed of who they are and we believe in one universal way of thinking and nothing else. When Men are no longer men. When woman can abuse their husbands. When marriage--not the definition, but the ritual itself--is a thing of the past and when there is no longer any people of one skin color. It's already headed there.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> And we're back where we began. You are just proving with your condescending nature why Trump's support keeps growing. Not everyone thinks like you, and you expect them to otherwise they are wrong. only YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUU have the truth on your side! "Get educated, ******!"
> 
> And thus.....none of this matters. The struggle will go on till the ends of time because there is no middle ground. You think Sanders would make all the racist whites go away but you are pushing for the very thing that will eventually cause racism on a mass scale to occur the way you THINK it is now. You keep demonizing anyone who isn't a liberal and the right WILL go too far. Trump actually wants equality, but that isn't what YOU call it.




Its a fact that the confederate flag is racist. Just like its a fact the earth is billions of years old. If you don't think either of those things are true you are wrong. Just if you don't think 2+2=4 then you are wrong.

There is no middle ground when it comes to facts. There is no middle ground when it comes to racism. 

No Trump does not want equality. 

Also yes, I will call out anyone that doesn't know the confederate flag is a symbol for racism and treason. Its called trying to educate someone that doesn't know the facts.
Just like I would tell someone that thinks 1+1=3 no, the answer is 2 not 3.

But you would act like telling someone they are wrong to think its 3 is condescending .


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Because either you are racist or you are not. There is no oh someone is kinda racist. You really think if someone is just against blacks but not mexicans for example, that means they are just kind of racist? NO it means they are racist.


What about if they don't like white people? Is that racist? You're not say statistical data for crime etc is racist are you?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its a fact that the confederate flag is racist. Just like its a fact the earth is billions of years old. If you don't think either of those things are true you are wrong. Just if you don't think 2+2=4 then you are wrong.
> 
> There is no middle ground when it comes to facts. There is no middle ground when it comes to racism.
> 
> No Trump does not want equality.
> 
> Also yes, I will call out anyone that doesn't know the confederate flag is a symbol for racism and treason. Its called trying to educate someone that doesn't know the facts.
> Just like I would tell someone that thinks 1+1=3 no, the answer is 2 not 3.
> 
> But you would act like telling someone they are wrong to think its 3 is condescending .


It is when you don't do it with humility or class, like you have before.

Have you ever lived in the south, BM?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> It's okay. They'll get what they want in the end when every southerner is ashamed of who they are and we believe in one universal way of thinking and nothing else. When Men are no longer men. When woman can abuse their husbands. When marriage--not the definition, but the ritual itself--is a thing of the past and when there is no longer any people of one skin color. It's already headed there.


Southerns think the bible should be used in science class and that the earth is 10,000 years old, and they also think the confederate flag is not racist. They are wrong and need to be educated on what is fact. 

As for the ritual or marriage being the thing of the past. how exactly is that a thing of the past? Oh you mean because the same gender can get married now so that ruined married ?

And you wonder why people so called look down on you, if that is how you think.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> It is when you don't do it with humility or class, like you have before.
> 
> Have you ever lived in the south, BM?


You are claiming you can do racism with humility or class? 

My brother lives in the south for the past 10 year and I go down there every summer for a week to visit.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Southerns think the bible should be used in science class and that the earth is 10,000 years old, and they also think the confederate flag is not racist. They are wrong and need to be educated on what is fact.
> 
> As for the ritual or marriage being the thing of the past. how exactly is that a thing of the past? Oh you mean because the same gender can get married now so that ruined married ?
> 
> And you wonder why people so called look down on you, if that is how you think.


more snobby adhom. NO, that's NOT what I mean. see how you just assumed that because "LOL REPUBLICAN"?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> more snobby adhom. NO, that's NOT what I mean. see how you just assumed that because "LOL REPUBLICAN"?


What did you mean then. You were not very clear

Also did you say that you are against interracial marriage as well?


I did answer. My brother has for over 10 years, and I got down there every summer for a week


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

If your brother and you really looked at it unbiased, you'd see that while there is an old fashioned nature about the south, most of us are decent hard working FARMER people, and when we hoist the flag we do so in memorial of the soldiers of the south that died. NOT for racist reasons, but because we are proud of the south itself. I dunno what your experiances are, but be careful before you speak for the majority.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> more snobby adhom. NO, that's NOT what I mean. see how you just assumed that because "LOL REPUBLICAN"?


I don't agree with BM's sometimes blatant bluntness and semi-insultery on the right, but to be fair you and others have been doing the same by basically blaming everything on 'the left' and democrats. You even blamed the rise of Trump himself on the left.

Ideally we should distance ourselves with these ideas of left and right, it puts up a barrier and makes it harder to debate issues on their own merit or lack thereof.


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Because either you are racist or you are not.


Labelling someone racist doesn't make them a racist though.



birthday_massacre said:


> No Trump does not want equality.


Why do you think that?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Dazzler said:


> Labelling someone racist doesn't make them a racist though.
> 
> 
> Why do you think that?


let me ask you.

So you don't think someone is racist if they are pro confederate flag which stood for keeping slavery in the south, and someone who is against the mixing of the races?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> What did you mean then. You were not very clear
> 
> Also did you say that you are against interracial marriage as well?
> 
> 
> I did answer. My brother has for over 10 years, and I got down there every summer for a week


Not at all. I mean there will come a day where the bonds between a married couple mean nothing because it will be viewed as a meaningless ceremony instead of something beautiful. Straight, gay or not.

Hard to be against interracial when my own true love is African American, but im sure you thought as a southerner there'd be no way in hell that could happen. Excuse me while I go pluck the banjo You probably think I have.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> I don't agree with BM's sometimes blatant bluntness and semi-insultery on the right, but to be fair you and others have been doing the same by basically blaming everything on 'the left' and democrats. You even blamed the rise of Trump himself on the left.
> 
> Ideally we should distance ourselves with these ideas of left and right, it puts up a barrier and makes it harder to debate issues on their own merit or lack thereof.


A house divided cannot stand, there are people who benefit from this. I never understood how people can support their side no matter what even when it's wrong. It's almost as bad as brand loyalty. I've met people from both sides who refuse to talk to people based on political affiliation while claiming to be tolerant. That's silly. Also have met some who even if they 100% agree with something someone said will not admit it or fight against it because it came from someone not in their party. Really only the mega rich benefit from us be at each others throats.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> If your brother and you really looked at it unbiased, you'd see that while there is an old fashioned nature about the south, most of us are decent hard working FARMER people, and when we hoist the flag we do so in memorial of the soldiers of the south that died. NOT for racist reasons, but because we are proud of the south itself. I dunno what your experiances are, but be careful before you speak for the majority.


You know why those soldiers in the south died right?

Because they were traitors to the US they wanted to keep slavery alive unlike the rest of the country. They were fighting to keeps blacks enslaved. You do get that right? 
What you are saying would be like Germans waving a Nazi flag in memorial of the soldiers who died ( the ones who put the Jewish people in the gas chamber) 



Beatles123 said:


> Not at all. I mean there will come a day where the bonds between a married couple mean nothing because it will be viewed as a meaningless ceremony instead of something beautiful. Straight, gay or not.
> 
> Hard to be against interracial when my own true love is African American, but im sure you thought as a southerner there'd be no way in hell that could happen. Excuse me while I go pluck the banjo You probably think I have.


why would marriage become something meaningless, what would make it meaningless ?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You know why those soldiers in the south died right?
> 
> Because they were traitors to the US they wanted to keep slavery alive unlike the rest of the country. They were fighting to keeps blacks enslaved. You do get that right?
> What you are saying would be like Germans waving a Nazi flag in memorial of the soldiers who died ( the ones who put the Jewish people in the gas chamber)
> 
> Also did you claim you are against the mixing of the races? that is what it seemed like by your comments when everyone will be one color at some point.


No, bm, i don't give a shit about interracial marriage when two people love each other. I just told you: I love an african american.

But i know the rest of the world wouldn't mind if there were no pure bloods left eventually. That has nothing to do with love

Edit: The soldiers were southerners who fought in a war and died. Their lives don't matter any less and Slavery was NOT the only thing they fought for.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> No, bm, i don't give a shit about interracial marriage when two people love each other. I just told you: I love an african american.
> 
> But i know the rest of the world wouldn't mind if there were no pure bloods left eventually. That has nothing to do with love.


Answer the first part of my post.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I realize now we're WAY off topic. imma end this here as it'll just get uglier

BACK ON TOPIC

Super Tuesday, woot!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> I realize now we're WAY off topic. imma end this here as it'll just get uglier
> 
> BACK ON TOPIC
> 
> Super Tuesday, woot!


So is Trump going to sweep super tuesday?

he has a good shot which is pretty scary.


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> let me ask you.
> 
> So you don't think someone is racist if they are pro confederate flag which stood for keeping slavery in the south, and someone who is against the mixing of the races?


I was talking about Trump.

As for the flag, I don't believe every southerner who wants the flag also wants slavery back. It's just a symbol of their pride.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> So is Trump going to sweep super tuesday?
> 
> he has a good shot which is pretty scary.


Do you think Sanders can still win, may I ask?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Dazzler said:


> I was talking about Trump.
> 
> As for the flag, I don't believe every southerner who wants the flag also wants slavery back. It's just a symbol of their pride.


I didn't say that. Their symbol of pride is a symbol of racism and the racist soldiers that fought in the war. Its a symbol for racism and treason.


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trumps book is called crippled america that is what I thought you were referring to.
> 
> And trust me I can relate to how you feel.
> 
> As for the GOP being racist or bigoted, their platform most definitely is. Trumps platform is all about illegally banning mexicans and muslims. The GOP is all about being against gays equal rights for marriage and the womens right to choose, being against planned parenthood just to name a few.


What exactly does he plan on doing that is illegal with Muslims and Mexicans? If he denies Muslim Americans entry into the US than yes that would be illegal but I don't know what law he violates by not letting the non Americans in. Same thing goes with a mass deportation. As long as he complies with the due process rights that they have he can have them deported. 

Now I don't think a mass deportation is practical and maybe not possible since it would involve so many hearings and would involve the incarceration of a staggering number of people. I'm also not sure if it's the best policy but I don't think it's illegal.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Do you think Sanders can still win, may I ask?


If all depends on how he does tomorrow. He needs to win MA and CO. If he doesn't, he is pretty much done.

He needs to win 4 starts to still be in it.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> If all depends on how he does tomorrow. He needs to win MA and CO. If he doesn't, he is pretty much done.
> 
> He needs to win 4 starts to still be in it.


Did you think he had a shot pre-Nevada?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FITZ said:


> What exactly does he plan on doing that is illegal with Muslims and Mexicans? If he denies Muslim Americans entry into the US than yes that would be illegal but I don't know what law he violates by not letting the non Americans in. Same thing goes with a mass deportation. As long as he complies with the due process rights that they have he can have them deported.
> 
> Now I don't think a mass deportation is practical and maybe not possible since it would involve so many hearings and would involve the incarceration of a staggering number of people. I'm also not sure if it's the best policy but I don't think it's illegal.


Banning all Muslims from the country is illegal. Also deporting kids that are US citizens born to illegal immigrants is also illegal He wants to end birthright citizenship.

Do you even know Trumps policies ?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Did you think he had a shot pre-Nevada?


Of course. Super Tuesday was always the do or die for Sanders. You asked if I think he can still win. So you know I thought he could win pre nevada.

The thing I find the most ironic is Sanders polls agains the GOP way better than Hillary but the DNC is all about pushing to get Hillary the nomination. Its going to cost hem the election if she does beat out Sanders.

If Hillary does beat Sanders , I will laugh if Trump destroys her in the generation election. Trump and Bernie both are fighting for the independents but that means if in the general its Hillary vs Trump, Trump will get all those votes and that will probably win him the election since its a virtual tie between Hillary and Trump in the general. Where Bernie is way ahead of Trump.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> I didn't say that. Their symbol of pride is a symbol of racism and the racist soldiers that fought in the war. Its a symbol for racism and treason.


Not everyone in the South held slaves, it was a very small number of rich land owners. Many who fought for the South didn't even have slaves and that includes many whites, some blacks, native american tribes and spanish. The reason they fought was just like anyone else fighting, they were getting attacked by someone else. The whole thing was a debacle of epic proportions and has been skewed by History. It simply wasn't a war between racists and people who weren't that's just so silly. It was a war fought over industrial and agricultural means. Lincoln would have let them keep their slaves if they came back to the Union but by that time the North and South were completely fractured.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> Not everyone in the South held slaves, it was a very small number of rich land owners. Many who fought for the South didn't even have slaves and that includes many whites, some blacks, native american tribes and spanish. The reason they fought was just like anyone else fighting, they were getting attacked by someone else. The whole thing was a debacle of epic proportions and has been skewed by History. It simply wasn't a war between racists and people who weren't that's just so silly. It was a war fought over industrial and agricultural means. Lincoln would have let them keep their slaves if they came back to the Union but by that time the North and South were completely fractured.


Yes the south for their industrial and agricultural means was owning slaves where the north said no more slaves and that is what the war was over. It was always about having slaves or not.
The only skewing that that has gone on was the south trying to white wash history.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FITZ said:


> What exactly does he plan on doing that is illegal with Muslims and Mexicans? If he denies Muslim Americans entry into the US than yes that would be illegal but I don't know what law he violates by not letting the non Americans in. Same thing goes with a mass deportation. As long as he complies with the due process rights that they have he can have them deported.
> 
> Now I don't think a mass deportation is practical and maybe not possible since it would involve so many hearings and would involve the incarceration of a staggering number of people. I'm also not sure if it's the best policy but I don't think it's illegal.


It is legal. Carter did it. Theres a passage that says if the president sees any danger from a group that could be a threat, he has the ight to cease migration by that group until he sees fit. I posted it somewhere in here.


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> Not everyone in the South held slaves, it was a very small number of rich land owners. Many who fought for the South didn't even have slaves and that includes many whites, some blacks, native american tribes and spanish. The reason they fought was just like anyone else fighting, they were getting attacked by someone else. The whole thing was a debacle of epic proportions and has been skewed by History. It simply wasn't a war between racists and people who weren't that's just so silly. It was a war fought over industrial and agricultural means. Lincoln would have let them keep their slaves if they came back to the Union but by that time the North and South were completely fractured.


The figures given here are the percentage of slave-owning families as a fraction of total free households in the state. The data was taken from a census archive site at the University of Virginia.
Mississippi 49%
South Carolina 46%
Georgia 37%
Alabama 35%
Florida 34%
Louisiana 29%
Texas 28%
http://www.civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Of course. Super Tuesday was always the do or die for Sanders. You asked if I think he can still win. So you know I thought he could win pre nevada.
> 
> The thing I find the most ironic is Sanders polls agains the GOP way better than Hillary but the DNC is all about pushing to get Hillary the nomination. Its going to cost hem the election if she does beat out Sanders.
> 
> If Hillary does beat Sanders , I will laugh if Trump destroys her in the generation election. Trump and Bernie both are fighting for the independents but that means if in the general its Hillary vs Trump, Trump will get all those votes and that will probably win him the election since its a virtual tie between Hillary and Trump in the general. Where Bernie is way ahead of Trump.


I guess what i mean is when did you realize bernie wouldn't make it (the way things are now)


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> It is legal. Carter did it. Theres a passage that says if the president sees any danger from a group that could be a threat, he has the ight to cease migration by that group until he sees fit. I posted it somewhere in here.


Its fascism. Its also illegal since its banning someone based on their religion and that is unconstitutional.


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its fascism. Its also illegal since its banning someone based on their religion and that is unconstitutional.


This is true. In the modern era, federal immigration law has generally cited religion to protect and welcome refugees facing religious discrimination by other countries not to advance discrimination by the U.S. In 1980, for example, Congress passed an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act to protect some potential refugees facing "fear of persecution" on account of their "religion," among other factors.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its fascism. Its also illegal since its banning someone based on their religion and that is unconstitutional.


It is not because of their religion but because of risk of attack.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> I guess what i mean is when did you realize bernie wouldn't make it (the way things are now)


Bernie can still make it, like I said it all depends on super Tuesday. If you are asking when the red flag when up, you can point to NH when the super delegates screwed over Sanders and gave most of them to her, then the BS coin flips that were totally screwy that went to Hillary, and in the debates the deck being stacked against Sanders.

Seeing how some of the super delegates already pledged to Hillary even before the elections in those states pretty much showed Bernie is being railroaded by the DNC. And its going to blow up in their faces.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> It is not because of their religion but because of risk of attack.


But what makes it unconstitutional is them asking for their religion and banning anyone that says they are Muslim.


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> It is not because of their religion but because of risk of attack.


What law says "risk of attack" can ban a religious group from entering the country lol.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> John Oliver totally exposing Trump for what he is.


Great, now Oliver should do the same exposé on Hillary. A woman with more skeletons in her closet, literally. Trump's ancestral surname is a topic....what year is this? FUCK




birthday_massacre said:


> Everything he said about Trump is true. And John Oliver is great. Trump as our president will be an utter disaster. He will do so much damage to the US it may never recover.


Rather have Trump than Hillary :draper2


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Ultimate Warrior said:


> Great, now Oliver should do the same exposé on Hillary. A woman with more skeletons in her closet, literally. Trump's ancestral surname is a topic....what year is this? FUCK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rather have Trump than Hillary :draper2


I agree 100% Hillary is just as bad as Trump in some way , just different ways. I won't vote for Hillary in the general election. Ill write in Sanders or vote 3rd party.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> But what makes it unconstitutional is them asking for their religion and banning anyone that says they are Muslim.


If everyone committing crimes in sucession like this were Christian and religiously motivated, you'd want them screened. It has nothing to do with hatred of the religion. Its because that is where the risk is. that group.


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> I agree 100% Hillary is just as bad as Trump in some way , just different ways. I won't vote for Hillary in the general election. Ill write in Sanders or vote 3rd party.


This is foolish. In order to prevent the disaster that would be Trump winning, it is important we stand by Hillary even if we trust Bernie far more (which I do).


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> If everyone committing crimes in sucession like this were Christian and religiously motivated, you'd want them screened. It has nothing to do with hatred of the religion. Its because that is where the risk is. that group.


If it was Christians talking of a ban would never even be discussed. They don't even call it terrorism in the US when its Christian terrorist attacking.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Lodi Lawless said:


> What law says "risk of attack" can ban a religious group from entering the country lol.


The law itself is that if there is any immigrating party that the president sees as a threat, he can suspend it from entering until such time as he sees fit

We've done this before.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> If it was Christians talking of a ban would never even be discussed. They don't even call it terrorism in the US when its Christian terrorist attacking.


If it were christians blowing themselves up in the name of jesus on a regular basis in this country yes, that sect of it would need to be quelled.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Lodi Lawless said:


> This is foolish. In order to prevent the disaster that would be Trump winning, it is important we stand by Hillary even if we trust Bernie far more (which I do).


Hillary isn't for us, she is a republican lite. I won't vote for her. Im not a democrat or a republican, I vote for who I like the best.

I voted for Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Romney and I will be voting for Bernie tomorrow.

I didn't even vote in 08 since I hated both Obama and McCain.

I think if it ends up Hillary vs Trump it will be one of the lowest turn outs in history and that is going to get Trump as the winner.

I think if Bernie loses, a lot of people of the left are going to give up end not vote.


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> If everyone committing crimes in sucession like this were Christian and religiously motivated, you'd want them screened. It has nothing to do with hatred of the religion. Its because that is where the risk is. that group.


So you want to change the constitution?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> The law itself is that if there is any immigrating party that the president sees as a threat, he can suspend it from entering until such time as he sees fit
> 
> We've done this before.


You can't do that for a religion.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Hillary isn't for us, she is a republican lite. I won't vote for her. Im not a democrat or a republican, I vote for who I like the best.
> 
> I voted for Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Romney and I will be voting for Bernie tomorrow.
> 
> I didn't even vote in 08 since I hated both Obama and McCain.
> 
> I think if it ends up Hillary vs Trump it will be one of the lowest turn outs in history and that is going to get Trump as the winner.
> 
> I think if Bernie loses, a lot of people of the left are going to give up end not vote.


.......You seriously did not suggest Hill us anywhere NEAR what we call "Republican"


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Hillary isn't for us, she is a republican lite. I won't vote for her. Im not a democrat or a republican, I vote for who I like the best.
> 
> I voted for Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Romney and I will be voting for Bernie tomorrow.
> 
> I didn't even vote in 08 since I hated both Obama and McCain.
> 
> I think if it ends up Hillary vs Trump it will be one of the lowest turn outs in history and that is going to get Trump as the winner.
> 
> I think if Bernie loses, a lot of people of the left are going to give up end not vote.


Fair enough


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You can't do that for a religion.


Good, because we aren't. It isn't islam we're after.


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> The law itself is that if there is any immigrating party that the president sees as a threat, he can suspend it from entering until such time as he sees fit
> 
> We've done this before.


If you think that all Muslims wish to overthrow our country.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> .......You seriously did not suggest Hill us anywhere NEAR what we call "Republican"


Hillary is a republican lite. 

She is for big banks, against the regulation of wall street, she was for the big wars, she is pro jails for profits, she was against the carbon tax, she was for the keystone pipe line , she was against gay marriage until 2010 when it became ok to be for it. Do i really need to go on?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Good, because we aren't. It isn't islam we're after.


Now you're simply applying the same prejudice to the muslim population that you were accusing the left of applying to you and everyone else in the south 3 pages ago.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Lodi Lawless said:


> If you think that all Muslims wish to overthrow our country.


That's where the threat we face at the moment is. It's not assuming every muslim is dangerous. It's precautionary and nothing against them as a race or religion as a whole.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> That's where the threat we face at the moment is. It's not assuming every muslim is dangerous. It's precautionary and nothing against them as a race or religion as a whole.


You still can't ban a group based on religion . Its against the constitution .

Don't take it from me.
Take if from a Havard law professor 


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...-weigh-donald-trumps-plan-ban-muslims-n476041

"I believe Trump's unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution," said Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. "Both the First Amendment's Religion Clauses and the equality dimension of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

Donald Trump proposed a system of religious discrimination for U.S. immigration policy on Monday, advocating a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," according to a written campaign statement.

The incendiary proposal was swiftly denounced by Trump's rivals in both parties, and as a policy proposal it is probably illegal.

"I believe Trump's unprecedented proposal would violate our Constitution," said Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. "Both the First Amendment's Religion Clauses and the equality dimension of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

Facebook Twitter Google PlusEmbed
Will Trump's comments on Muslims help or hurt his campaign? 3:45
Tribe, a constitutional law expert, said Trump's proposal also conflicts with the Constitution's general prohibition on religious tests outside of the immigration context. "It would also conflict with the spirit of the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI," Tribe told MSNBC Monday evening.

Beyond the law, Tribe said it was also notable that using religious discrimination for immigration would be "impossible to administer" and "stupidly play into the hands of extreme Islamic terrorists."


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Now you're simply applying the same prejudice to the muslim population that you were accusing the left of applying to you and everyone else in the south 3 pages ago.


it would be one thing if only certain southerners were what they bashed. We already acknowledge there are civil muslims


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> That's where the threat we face at the moment is. It's not assuming every muslim is dangerous. It's precautionary and nothing against them as a race or religion as a whole.


Your argument keeps hitting the same wall. The religion itself is not trying to overthrow the government. Therefor immigrants cannot be persecuted based on their beliefs.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Lodi Lawless said:


> Your argument keeps hitting the same wall. The religion itself is not trying to overthrow the government. Therefor immigrants cannot be persecuted based on their beliefs.


What to you would constitute the religion itself as a threat? (this is unrelated to what we're discussing.)


----------



## #Mark

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

lol now i know why i don't go on this site anymore

you cacs are devils


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> What to you would constitute the religion itself as a threat? (this is unrelated to what we're discussing.)


Sense there are 5 different sects of Muslim beliefs it is really hard to draw that particular line. To me most religions are oppressive and a threat to progress.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> it would be one thing if only certain southerners were what they bashed. We already acknowledge there are civil muslims


We? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

Your idea is terrible for many reasons but the worst is probably it's tactically a terrible option. The US banning muslims from entering would be exactly what groups like ISIS wants. It would turn already disenfranchised muslims into America-hating extremists and their ranks would grow. There would be more people willing to find a way in any way they could and start an attack.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Lodi Lawless said:


> Sense there are 5 different sects of Muslim beliefs it is really hard to draw that particular line. To me most religions are oppressive and a threat to progress.


Well, on this we could go round for hours. Perhaps a fair assessment can be drawn by @DesolationRow


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> We? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
> 
> Your idea is terrible for many reasons but the worst is probably it's tactically a terrible option. The US banning muslims from entering would be exactly what groups like ISIS wants. It would turn already disenfranchised muslims into America-hating extremists and their ranks would grow. There would be more people willing to find a way in any way they could and start an attack.


This is right.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> We? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
> 
> Your idea is terrible for many reasons but the worst is probably it's tactically a terrible option. The US banning muslims from entering would be exactly what groups like ISIS wants. It would turn already disenfranchised muslims into America-hating extremists and their ranks would grow. There would be more people willing to find a way in any way they could and start an attack.


i think you paint the law abiding ones as too unstable.


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Well, on this we could go round for hours. Perhaps a fair assessment can be drawn by @DesolationRow


Just don't hurt anyone. We are the forgotten class and Trump says a lot of great things about bringing that back but sadly it's gone. The jobs he promises to bring back will never come. Manufacturing has left this Country for good. Wealth distribution is disturbing in this Country and we need a change. Just remember who is looking out for you and who is looking out for themselves.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Lodi Lawless said:


> Just don't hurt anyone. We are the forgotten class and Trump says a lot of great things about bringing that back but sadly it's gone. The jobs he promises to bring back will never come. Manufacturing has left this Country for good. Wealth distribution is disturbing in this Country and we need a change. Just remember who is looking out for you and who is looking out for themselves.


While I understand you're concern, I believe Trump can get closer to achieving it than anyone else.


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> While I understand you're concern, I believe Trump can get closer to achieving it than anyone else.


Achieving what? Those jobs are gone. We are way behind when it comes to manufacturing, we can't catch up. You are a smart guy, I respect you but the industrial age packed its bags and moved to China long ago.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> While I understand you're concern, I believe Trump can get closer to achieving it than anyone else.


You mean the guy that makes his ties in China, uses illegal immigrants, defrauds college kids, and had 4 companies bankrupt. The guy who doesn't want to raise the minimum wage You mean that guy


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> i think you paint the law abiding ones as too unstable.


What in god's name are you saying? That's not a rebuttle to my point. How is trying to shut all muslims out a good tactic?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You mean the guy that makes his ties in China, uses illegal immigrants, defrauds college kids, and had 4 companies bankrupt. The guy who doesn't want to raise the minimum wage You mean that guy


Ayup. I'll let someone else here field those, i gotta get up tomorrow for Trump's win.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Ayup. I'll let someone else here field those, i gotta get up tomorrow for Trump's win.


Nice to see a rightist admit defeat for once!


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Well, on this we could go round for hours. Perhaps a fair assessment can be drawn by @DesolationRow


Hello!

Well, it is probably prudent to recall that the U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favor of curbing immigration from particular "Muslim countries" back in December, 407-19. Here is an article summarizing it: http://fox13now.com/2015/12/08/hous...ia-iran-sudan-from-entering-u-s-without-visa/



> WASHINGTON – The House overwhelmingly passed legislation on Tuesday (407 to 19) that would overhaul the federal visa waiver program and bar those from Iraq, Syria, Iran and the Sudan, or those who have visited those countries in the last five years, from traveling to the United States without a visa.
> 
> Action on the proposal comes in response to the recent attacks in Paris from ISIS operatives, and the shooting in California by a couple that expressed support for the terror group on social media.
> 
> “This will help neutralize the threat from foreign terrorists entering our country,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said on Tuesday.
> 
> The GOP proposal, which top House Democrats have endorsed, calls for greater sharing of information among the 38 countries that participate in the program with the United States. Currently those eligible can travel for limited time periods without having to apply for a visa. The bill would authorize the Department of Homeland Security to terminate any country’s participation in the program if it doesn’t adequately transmit data. It also looks to beef up efforts to detect fraud from those traveling with electronic passports.
> 
> President Barack Obama called on Congress to address the visa waiver program during his prime-time address to the nation on Sunday about his administration’s efforts to combat the threat from ISIS.
> 
> Ryan criticized the Oval Office speech, saying, “We heard the President defend staying the course. But why would we stay the course when the enemy is evolving?”
> 
> He repeated his call for the President to offer a “real, comprehensive strategy to defeat — defeat, not contain, ISIS.”
> 
> The vote was delayed for a short period on the House floor, as Democrats offered procedural motions designed to force a vote on Rep. Peter King’s, R-New York, measure to block gun purchases from those on the terror watch list. Ryan has argued that idea is a “distraction” and that the broader focus should be on measures aimed at fighting terrorism.
> 
> The No. 2 House Democrat, Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, said he worked closely with GOP leaders on the visa waiver bill and that the measure said it was “reasonable” and “measured” plan. He contrasted it with the call from Donald Trump, the billionaire businessman who is calling for a ban on all Muslims from entering the U.S.
> 
> “The important issue here is no one is excluded by this bill. There are however additional requirements designed to ensure that those who come in this country are in fact not a risk to this country,” Hoyer said.
> 
> The Senate may consider the bill as well although Republican leaders have not said when that would occur.


Of course it is a highly flawed bill. 

The U.S., as it is allied with ISIS and the al-Nusra Front in Syria, evidently does not want to address the point that the Paris and San Bernardino attacks, for instance, were carried out by zealous Sunnis, practitioners of Wahhabism, certainly not Shias as found in Iran, which today boasts one of the most secular populations on the planet. Since the U.S. is closely allied with the Sunnis in the Middle East on behalf of the Israeli-directed "Sunni turn" or "the redirection" as Seymour Hersh referred to it the U.S. will not address immigration from, say, Saudi Arabia.

In any event, carry on!

:dancingpenguin Super Tuesday Eve! :dancingpenguin

This is hilarious: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1d062796-df3f-11e5-b67f-a61732c1d025.html Goldman Sachs putting a fairly high-ranking financial advisor on paid leave due to Donald Trump hats. :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> Hello!
> 
> Well, it is probably prudent to recall that the U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favor of curbing immigration from particular "Muslim countries" back in December, 407-19. Here is an article summarizing it: http://fox13now.com/2015/12/08/hous...ia-iran-sudan-from-entering-u-s-without-visa/
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is a highly flawed bill.
> 
> The U.S., as it is allied with ISIS and the al-Nusra Front in Syria, evidently does not want to address the point that the Paris and San Bernardino attacks, for instance, were carried out by zealous Sunnis, practitioners of Wahhabism, certainly not Shias as found in Iran, which today boasts one of the most secular populations on the planet. Since the U.S. is closely allied with the Sunnis in the Middle East on behalf of the Israeli-directed "Sunni turn" or "the redirection" as Seymour Hersh referred to it the U.S. will not address immigration from, say, Saudi Arabia.
> 
> In any event, carry on!
> 
> :dancingpenguin Super Tuesday Eve! :dancingpenguin
> 
> This is hilarious: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1d062796-df3f-11e5-b67f-a61732c1d025.html Goldman Sachs putting a fairly high-ranking financial advisor on paid leave due to Donald Trump hats. :lmao :lmao :lmao


Bill excludes refugees... from religious persecution.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Nice to see a rightist admit defeat for once!


Where did i do that? im fucking tired! D:


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Lodi Lawless said:


> We are the forgotten class


who are you?


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Goku said:


> who are you?


I'm Batman


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Lodi Lawless said:


> Bill excludes refugees... from religious persecution.


Which of course could be construed to mean all sorts of different things, and the criteria are ever-changing. It's a rather strict bill, also requiring all foreigners who have ever even visited Iraq, Iran or Syria, or who hold dual citizenship from those countries, to apply for a visa before visiting the U.S., making it all but impossible for them to do so in all likelihood. 

It is effectively what Trump has been arguing for; interestingly it was passed shortly after Trump brought up the point that immigration from Muslim societies should be curtailed. 

I would recommend to you, @Miss Sally, @CamillePunk, @Goku and @L-DOPA and many others Murray Rothbard's _Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation State_. Rothbard demonstrated that one of the chief goals of Stalin was to settle as many ethnic Russians as possible in Estonia. The goal was not to gift the Baltic people with the pleasantries of diversity; it was manufactured by the state so that the dominant Estonian culture could be undermined and subverted. Consequently the population was made considerably more docile and less likely to cause any problems for the Soviet empire being run out of the Kremlin. 

Much of the present mass immigration conducted by the European Union and the United States are likewise established so that the once-dominant cultures of those societies are irrevocably changed. Obviously in Europe several countries including Hungary want no part of it. 

I myself do not know whether or not Donald Trump understand the nuances of this, or the forces against which he has politically planted himself, but his claims that the subject would not even be widely discussed during the presidential campaign has significant validity to it. 

According to all United Nations statistics, the continent of Africa had 1.1 billion people in it in the year 2013, and will more than double that to 2.4 billion by the year 2050. That will nearly double yet again to 4.3 billion by the year 2100. For the continent of Europe, the matter becomes, how many millions will be heading northward in the years to come? Germany is already expecting no fewer than 3.6 million refugees by the year 2020. Europe has become so utterly paralyzed that it would appear to be transforming into precisely what Jean Raspall mocked in _The Camp of the Saints_.

The U.S. situation is more aptly summed up by American novelist Edward Abbey, categorizing the mass immigration policy of the two U.S. parties thusly: Republicans want their cheap labor, Democrats want their cheap cause. And being run by political crime lords, neither has the slightest concern for the future of the country for their or anyone else's children.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I was just listening to Glen Beck on my car radio. Based on the venom and pure spite that he was throwing at The Donald, it is obvious that Beck and the other GOP establishment types are in a sheer panic. Seriously, the guy was just attacking Trump with a vigor and nastiness that surprised me.

I believe that this bodes well for The Donald in today's super-Tuesday primaries. We will find out this evening when the dust settles. However, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump even edges out Cruz or loses to him by only a tiny margin in Cruz's home state of Texas!

- Mike


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Get out and vote Trumpets!


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

AMERICAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA



Hey, Libertarians! Ron Paul defended Trump this morning


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> What in god's name are you saying? That's not a rebuttle to my point. How is trying to shut all muslims out a good tactic?


It's a good tactic if you're involved in wars in Muslim countries (some illegal). And you're killing them in drone attacks. It's probably not a good idea to let them in at the same time. If European countries are suffering from terror attacks, what makes you think you'll be okay? I don't even believe the war on terror bullshit and I think it's a bad idea.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

We've done it as far back as WWII.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Milo Yiannopoolos is doing an AMA an the Trump Subreddit if anyone is interested:

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/48ia89/i_am_milo_yiannopoulos_and_donald_trump_is_my/


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Milo Yiannopoolos is doing an AMA an the Trump Subreddit if anyone is interested:


Milo always brings the laughs. :grin2:


> *Marry fuck kill: Cruz, Rubio, and Trump*
> 
> Kill Cruz because he's a weird amphibian loser. Fuck Rubio (even though I don't want Aids... well, maybe I do, all that attention and weight loss??) Marry Trump because although he's my Daddy I'd get to spend the rest of my life soaking in his divine majesty.


I didn't know he spoke at the University of Pittsburgh. It's called the "Dangerous ****** Tour". Fucking hell that's funny! :laugh:


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> I was just listening to Glen Beck on my car radio. Based on the venom and pure spite that he was throwing at The Donald, it is obvious that Beck and the other GOP establishment types are in a sheer panic. Seriously, the guy was just attacking Trump with a vigor and nastiness that surprised me.
> 
> I believe that this bodes well for The Donald in today's super-Tuesday primaries. We will find out this evening when the dust settles. However, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump even edges out Cruz or loses to him by only a tiny margin in Cruz's home state of Texas!
> 
> - Mike


I have spent far too much time reading neocon journals like _The National Review_ and _The Weekly Standard_ and _Commentary_. Just as the neocons' political ancestors were ex-Trotskyists, turned-Old Left/New Right "Cold Warriors" so too are they presently effectively leftists masquerading as conservatives. John Podhoretz's inane, rabid squealing over Trump is simply hilarious to look at. :lmao 

To these individuals, if you say you want to be "as neutral as possible" between Israel and the Palestinians, you are an anti-Semite. If you note that Saddam Hussen and Muammar Gaddafi killed terrorists, you are an appeaser and dictator-lover. 

Where is the neocon apology for the Iraq War? Or for the advocacy of policies which infuriated most actual conservatives throughout the George W. Bush years? 

They would all rather sign on to supporting Hillary Clinton than see Donald Trump become the next president. It makes sense. They have a soft spot for American war criminals.



Beatles123 said:


> AMERICAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Libertarians! Ron Paul defended Trump this morning


:woo



The Dazzler said:


> Milo always brings the laughs. :grin2:
> 
> I didn't know he spoke at the University of Pittsburgh. It's called the "Dangerous ****** Tour". Fucking hell that's funny! :laugh:


:lol


Some voter irregularities in Texas. According to Austin, Texas radio station KLBJ, "computer freezeups" and "glitches" are resulting in voting snafus throughout Travis County, with votes for Trump being "switched" by the machines to "Rubio."

Naturally the machines would come to Rubio's aid.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Dear God, the rise of the machines has begun.

Marco Rubio is the vanguard of our destruction. :done


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

And even if he fails to win the nomination this election cycle, @CamillePunk... He'll be back.

Fully expecting him to say that in the closing remarks of his campaign suspension speech in a few weeks.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Insiders say FL Gov. *RICK SCOTT* will endorse Trump tonight.

TFW FL's own Govenor won't vouch for Little Marco! :lol


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Man, I still like Rubio more (just for electable) but the media is dumping super fucking hard on Trump while saying he is going to win at the same time 

They are trying to say he is a KKK supporter of all fucking things (the modern KKK is tiny and holds zero clout) because his response to David Duke's support of him was basically "I don't really know anything about him and don't really care"

Another stupid thing about politics, you can only have friends and enemies, anyone you do not damn to hell and call scum is assumed to be your ally

Once again this would be a trap I would fall into, if a reporter asked me what i thought about the KKK I would likely say "who gives a fuck about them" which is enough label me a cross burner


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Man, I still like Rubio more (just for electable) but the media is dumping super fucking hard on Trump while saying he is going to win at the same time
> 
> They are trying to say he is a KKK supporter of all fucking things (the modern KKK is tiny and holds zero clout) because his response to David Duke's support of him was basically "I don't really know anything about him and don't really care"
> 
> Another stupid thing about politics, you can only have friends and enemies, anyone you do not damn to hell and call scum is assumed to be your ally
> 
> Once again this would be a trap I would fall into, if a reporter asked me what i thought about the KKK I would likely say "who gives a fuck about them" which is enough label me a cross burner


Trump said the because he wants the racist KKK votes
He knows who David Duke is.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

He's knows who David Duke is come on. I'm not saying Trump is a secret KKK or even wants their support, but his handling of that was bad and it's going to come back to haunt him.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump said the because he wants the racist KKK votes
> He knows who David Duke is.


I know who the fuck David Duke is, but I don't KNOW him as in personally 

and KKK can vote for who every the fuck they want to vote for

Ron Paul the Internets candidate had literal Neo Nazi supporters who he refused to disavow because he felt that they had the right to support anyone they wanted

I think the david duke thing will become a definition of "is" is style situation


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The ridiculousness the MSM has sunk to. :done

MSNBC asked a black Donald Trump supporter about the David Duke endorsement, his response begins at 0:55: 






So the guy essentially says "who the hell cares about David Duke", and the host, in full damage control mode, says the most ridiculous thing ever. "Most Donald Trump supporters are not African American (NO SHIT THEY'RE ONLY 13% OF THE POPULATION) and we don't know how many African Americans were in that building". This is the absurdity the MSM has sunk to in trying to race-bait America into a narrative where Trump is a racist.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> He's knows who David Duke is come on. I'm not saying Trump is a secret KKK or even wants their support, but his handling of that was bad and it's going to come back to haunt him.


The sad thing he all he had to do is point to his 2000 quote. "I leave the Reform Party to David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Lenora Fulani. That is not company I wish to keep."

But like I said, he wants the racist vote so he was careful with his words. Trump does not stand for anything. HE tries to tell everyone what they want to hear even though he is a walking contradiction.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Yeah I don't know why you wouldn't just distance yourself as much as possible if you heard your own name mentioned in the same sentence as a KKK kingpin. It's pretty fishy.


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Banning all Muslims from the country is illegal. Also deporting kids that are US citizens born to illegal immigrants is also illegal He wants to end birthright citizenship.
> 
> Do you even know Trumps policies ?


OK so when I say I'm not sure how something is illegal it's not a very good response to respond with, "It's illegal."

I'm also not sure if it does violate the Constitution. The Constitution protects Americans and people in the United States. If you aren't a citizen and aren't in the US I don't see how you have any Constitutional rights. 

There's a case out there where US federal agents did an operation in Mexico. They did a search without probable cause or a warrant and just stormed in and raided the place. They found drugs. The guy tried to sue in US court and they said he had no 4th Amendment protection. I'm not sure how the 1st Amendment is different. 

Banning Muslims doesn't violate the establishment clause since they aren't holding one religion above others. And free exercise doesn't seem to be violated since any American citizen or person within the United States is free to practice Islam and the US. 

Wanting to end birthright citizenship isn't illegal. You just have to amend the Constitution. It's not going to happen but wanting to get it done isn't illegal. Also I would say that if you're a kid that is born in the US you aren't a Mexican. You're American. I still say that deporting illegal Mexican immigrants isn't illegal. 





birthday_massacre said:


> Hillary is a republican lite.
> 
> She is for big banks, against the regulation of wall street, she was for the big wars, she is pro jails for profits, she was against the carbon tax, she was for the keystone pipe line , she was against gay marriage until 2010 when it became ok to be for it. Do i really need to go on?


I largely agree with you on this. She's a conservative Democrat that has just changed her opinions as the party line has changed.


----------



## Silent KEEL

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> The ridiculousness the MSM has sunk to. :done
> 
> MSNBC asked a black Donald Trump supporter about the David Duke endorsement, his response begins at 0:55:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the guy essentially says "who the hell cares about David Duke", and the host, in full damage control mode, says the most ridiculous thing ever. "Most Donald Trump supporters are not African American (NO SHIT THEY'RE ONLY 13% OF THE POPULATION) and we don't know how many African Americans were in that building". This is the absurdity the MSM has sunk to in trying to race-bait America into a narrative where Trump is a racist.


ROFL. That black Trump supporter STUMPED the reporter that wanted to call Trump supporters racist. 

Love it. And I agree with the guy about stopping the race baiting, but the media will only vamp it up to try to portray Trump as a racist. I doubt it's going to work, most of Trump's supporters are sick of the establishment and MSM. Oh well.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Guys, Rubio is gonna get in his pick up truck and go to all 50 states etc


----------



## Blackbeard

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Can I pop open my bottle of champagne for Rubio yet?


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

:lmao at that clip, @CamillePunk and @Silent KEEL. I was sharing that with friends as well and was considering posting it here but I'm glad that you did, *Camille*.

Twelve minutes out until the first polls close! :woo :woo :woo


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Silent KEEL said:


> ROFL. That black Trump supporter STUMPED the reporter that wanted to call Trump supporters racist.
> 
> Love it. And I agree with the guy about stopping the race baiting, but the media will only vamp it up to try to portray Trump as a racist. I doubt it's going to work, most of Trump's supporters are sick of the establishment and MSM. Oh well.


The political establishment and its media cohorts are scared shitless of The Donald and are grabbing at anything to try to separate him from his supporters and bring him down.

IRS investigations of Trump, implying that he is pandering to the KKK for support, etc., etc. ad infinitum. Tonight's super-Tuesday primary results will prove that none of their dirty smear tactics have worked!

The only option they will have left is to attempt some sort of manipulation and not accept his delegates at the Republican Convention. If they do that get ready for the second American Civil War!

- Mike


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


>


That's amazing. Thank you based black man! :bow

The woman showed how full of shit she is. She couldn't argue with what he said so she brought up his race. I should be surprised but I expect it now. Wtf! 



CamillePunk said:


> The ridiculousness the MSM has sunk to. :done


I'm subscribed to some left-wing channels so I can dislike their race-baiting vids. They've been posting vids anytime a Trump supporter does something wrong. Like that's somehow Trump's fault. They're getting really desperate. :laugh:


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Gwahahaha that black Trump supporter was fantastic, stop with the race baiting and the nonsense, people like David Duke come out from under the rocks all the time, aint nobody paying him no mind. Those MSNBC reporters are like uhhh... MSNBC is just so fucking bad. That one guy took out all the wind in their sails. MSNBC bringing up race, wow why do these liberial leaning newsources keep race baiting when they're supposed to not be racist?


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@AryaDark @Batko10 @CamillePunk

:maisielol One financial bigwig after another is declaring today that they are going to vote for Hillary over Trump. :maisielol

Says. It. All.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

It's not just MSNBC hitting Trump on the Duke thing. The GOP is doing it too.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

From the primaries so far

Trump is massacring everywhere but Texas and Oklahoma where Ted has an advantage, for most of them its not even close

Hilliary is dominating in any state with a large amount of minority voters but Bernie took a few left leaning but primarily white states and a few states were pretty close

For the GOP the Rubio experiment has failed, in the states that Trump is not winning Ted is and even Kasich beat Rubio in Vermont

The Democrats are going to have a tricky choice, Hilliary looks like she will be the clear winner but I feel that if Sanders does not get the nomination his supporters just won't vote or will defect to third party where I feel Hilliary supporters will vote for Sanders

This election is going to be bloody


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @Batko10 @CamillePunk
> 
> :maisielol One financial bigwig after another is declaring today that they are going to vote for Hillary over Trump. :maisielol
> 
> Says. It. All.


What does that indicate? Genuinely curious.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> What does that indicate? Genuinely curious.


"Rich people" are supposed to back the "conservative" candidate because they tend to better protect their power and their money

By backing Hilliary they are implying that she is their best chance to protect their money and their power, the exact oppoiste of the democrats are stereotyped to be AKA stick up for the little 

TLDR The establishment(I hate that term but I can't think of a better one) feels that supposedly progressive candidate is the least likely weaken their power which is fucking weird

Its very rare for the official "RICH" vote to be democrat unless their is some kind of weird backroom shenanigans in play with favors being owed typically to a Kennedy style power family


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> What does that indicate? Genuinely curious.


That Hillary is a vassal to the corporate overlords.


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

If big business is on the side of Hilary then the argument that Democrats make isn't valid anymore since big business would be on the side of the Democrats.


----------



## The_It_Factor

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I hate watching the news during elections, but gave it an hour or so this evening...

All I can say is, the Republicans are so scared of Trump getting elected, that, as one commentator mentioned, I wouldn't be surprised if they put forward another nominee as a 3rd party candidate to "save face" for the GOP, effectively splitting the party in half.... Hey, at least then I'd have a party to vote for.

But the Democrats are sitting pretty right now, as they should be... Just let the Republican establishment (hate that term) tear itself apart, then swoop in for the final blows when someone gets nominated.

It's not even that I like Trump's policies so much as I like that I FINALLY have an option that 1) isn't in the pocket of super pac's, and 2) doesn't go along with everything the Republican Party says. I've always hated the two party system, because you either adapt to that party's uniform beliefs, or perish (see what I did there?).

It also helps that he isn't PC 



I was never that big of a Trump supporter, but the more I see the Republican Party (which I've felt disenfranchised from for some time now) try to methodically destroy him, the more I like him. I especially like the sentiment that they're somehow saving the middle class, which they essentially eliminated, from Trump.



With all of that said, I'm going to enjoy Trolling hundreds of people with the "Make America Great Again" hat that I just ordered. In my particular city, it's sort of like wearing a Roman Reigns shirt to an NXT show.


----------



## gamegenie

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> "Rich people" are supposed to back the "conservative" candidate because they tend to better protect their power and their money
> 
> By backing Hilliary they are implying that she is their best chance to protect their money and their power, the exact oppoiste of the democrats are stereotyped to be AKA stick up for the little
> 
> TLDR The establishment(I hate that term but I can't think of a better one) feels that supposedly progressive candidate is the least likely weaken their power which is fucking weird
> 
> Its very rare for the official "RICH" vote to be democrat unless their is some kind of weird backroom shenanigans in play with favors being owed typically to a Kennedy style power family


Sander voters are the young 20 somethings, they are non-factor. 

Hillary has the Obama coalition voters. The young people who are now slightly older now and wiser and are picking the candidate that can win Hillary.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> That Hillary is a vassal to the corporate overlords.


And I'm sure trump won't be. Anyone who thinks he won't be big business' best buddy is s fool.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The Clinton's have been in politics a long time and have created a spider web of connections and allies to various corporations and politicians

She has always received MASSIVE amounts of private funds for her runs 

I don't want to be mr.conspiracy but I feel that Clintons made connections that would try to try to make sure at least one of them would be in the white house for as long as possible

They couldn't do it Bush/Gore because it would be stupid for a wife to run back to back with her husband (not to mention a female president was not really a big idea at the time)and they didn't want to do it during Bush/Kerry because they didn't want to have their reputations hurt being trying weed through the Bush era complications and empowered Christan Right 

They tried hard in 08 but Obama came out of nowhere and grabbed the youth vote even though Hilliary spent more and had more powerful supporters but many of the politicians outside of her circle backed Obama but she got a nice position as a consolation

Now she and allies are throwing everything they have, a dark horse is sweeping the Republicans and her competition in her party is considered "too extreme" which leads to most established democrats supporter her unlike the Obama election 

I think this is her last shot before her allies cannibalize her and her family and turn them into an eternal dead end position in the senate



yeahbaby! said:


> And I'm sure trump won't be. Anyone who thinks he won't be big business' best buddy is s fool.


Trump has burned a shit ton bridges with his politics and his business competition hates the fuck out of him

Most businessmen turned politicians ran things like investment firms where there is a lot less "competition" and more mutual gain and oil which is territory driven (AKA industries that far more diplomatic than competitive)



gamegenie said:


> Sander voters are the young 20 somethings, they are non-factor.
> 
> Hillary has the Obama coalition voters. The young people who are now slightly older now and wiser and are picking the candidate that can win Hillary.


I don't think all the Obama voters will side with Hilliary, they were massive rivals in 08 and most more loyal to Obama than they were to democrat party

I was in high-school (My birthday was two months late to vote that year) and most of supporters did not even know Joe Biden was going to be his VP months after he made the announcement 

08 was not Dem vs Rep is was the Obama party vs the Palin party


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

YUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE night, fellas!

Call vermont already!!


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

BASED JEFF LORDE JUST BLEW THE FUCK OUT OF THE MEDIA ON CNN


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> And I'm sure trump won't be. Anyone who thinks he won't be big business' best buddy is s fool.


Trump is utterly _despised_ by the _Wall Street Journal_. He's the most anti-illegal immigration, anti-"free trade" major presidential nominee in a long, long time. The financial world recoils at the thought of Trump versus Hillary. Every banker I personally know loathes the idea of Trump for what he has said about the Federal Reserve requiring an audit. Hillary is pro-illegal immigration, pro-"free trade," has consistently aided Wall Street throughout her national political career since 1993 all the way to today while Trump has spoken out against financial bailouts.

Of course, the U.S. economy has been fascistic in its major financial makeup for a long time now with cartelized businesses and a stunning network of conglomerates. So anyone becoming president will be some sort of "friend" to "big business" even if he/she doesn't want to be in all likelihood, but trust me, to the _Wall Street Journal_--which declared decades ago that, "There shall be a new Constitutional Amendment: '_There shall be open borders_...'" and supports the "free trade" agreements which have resulted in half-trillion annual trade deficits with China, for instance--and the neoconservatives in general, Trump is practically the Devil.

As one trader remarked to me a couple of hours ago, "[Hillary's] always done right by [Wall Street]" and he's terrified that Trump would deviate too far toward "unbridled populism." In other words, he and many others on Wall Street and in the U.S. financial world see Trump as being the first wildcard figure in a good long while, and potentially representing someone who wouldn't merely follow the plan. Trump's addressing the deindustrialized state of the U.S. is like hitting my friend with droplets of holy water, if he were possessed by Pazuzu. :lol

Again, what an aspiring politician says and what he does can be like night and day, and Hillary Clinton is a marvelous example of precisely that. It's just that for folks like my friend, they don't even want to hear it. Haha.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> Trump is utterly _despised_ by the _Wall Street Journal_. He's the most anti-illegal immigration, anti-"free trade" major presidential nominee in a long, long time. The financial world recoils at the thought of Trump versus Hillary. Every banker I personally know loathes the idea of Trump for what he has said about the Federal Reserve requiring an audit. Hillary is pro-illegal immigration, pro-"free trade," has consistently aided Wall Street throughout her national political career since 1993 all the way to today while Trump has spoken out against financial bailouts.
> 
> Of course, the U.S. economy has been fascistic in its major financial makeup for a long time now with cartelized businesses and a stunning network of conglomerates. So anyone becoming president will be some sort of "friend" to "big business" even if he/she doesn't want to be in all likelihood, but trust me, to the _Wall Street Journal_--which declared decades ago that, "There shall be a new Constitutional Amendment: '_There shall be open borders_...'" and supports the "free trade" agreements which have resulted in half-trillion annual trade deficits with China, for instance--and the neoconservatives in general, Trump is practically the Devil.
> 
> As one trader remarked to me a couple of hours ago, "[Hillary's] always done right by [Wall Street]" and he's terrified that Trump would deviate too far toward "unbridled populism." In other words, he and many others on Wall Street and in the U.S. financial world see Trump as being the first wildcard figure in a good long while, and potentially representing someone who wouldn't merely follow the plan. Trump's addressing the deindustrialized state of the U.S. is like hitting my friend with droplets of holy water, if she were possessed by Pazuzu. :lol
> 
> Again, what an aspiring politician says and what he does can be like night and day, and Hillary Clinton is a marvelous example of precisely that. It's just that for folks like my friend, they don't even want to hear it. Haha.


Ah ah, remember, its not about being anti FREE trade, its being pro SMART trade.

The USA need to get something in return for our services.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Ah ah, remember, its not about being anti FREE trade, its being pro SMART trade.
> 
> The USA need to get something in return for our services.


Ah, yes. Gotcha. 

It's difficult for me to think in political terms.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> Ah, yes. Gotcha.
> 
> It's difficult for me to think in political terms.


Its been a knock on trump that his wording is too simplified. Me, I think it's by design.

You hear him talk, and he's very blunt and to the point. "We will win. We need fair trade" Etc--but that's what people latch onto. he'd not complicated. He doesn't have to lecture us about the why, or give scripted answers on what needs to be done, just, "Look, this is where we are, but THIS is where we can be. We need to be reimbursed."

Boom. That's all he had to say. From just that alone, the listener is all in.

Compare this to Carson and his speech pattern. Educated? yes. Compelling? no.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Its been a knock on trump that his wording is too simplified. Me, I think it's by design.
> 
> You hear him talk, and he's very blunt and to the point. "We will win. We need fair trade" Etc--but that's what people latch onto. he'd not complicated. He doesn't have to lecture us about the why, or give scripted answers on what needs to be done, just, "Look, this is where we are, but THIS is where we can be. We need to be reimbursed."
> 
> Boom. That's all he had to say. From just that alone, the listener is all in.
> 
> Compare this to Carson and his speech pattern. Educated? yes. Compelling? no.


Trump could take a dump on your grandma and you'd somehow twist into something good.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Such would be said by any non-supporter of any candidate about that candidate's supporters.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Such would be said by any non-supporter of any candidate about that candidate's supporters.


Not really brah. There's been plenty of people here in this thread saying they don't like this or that about Trump yet will probably vote for him as they respond to other things.

Being so one-eyed and ignorant to any weaknesses in your role models is dangerous to personal development. :grin2:


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Not really brah. There's been plenty of people here in this thread saying they don't like this or that about Trump yet will probably vote for him as they respond to other things.
> 
> Being so one-eyed and ignorant to any weaknesses in your role models is dangerous to personal development. :grin2:


im talking on averages here. you see weaknesses in trump and strength in others. for me iits the reverse. neither of us is wrong.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Alex Jones, meet Louis Farrakhan... http://www.infowars.com/louis-farrakhan-supports-trump/

Completely fascinating. Cannot disagree with much of what Farrakhan says.

Perhaps Trump will be heralding Farrakhan's endorsement, just to anger some more neocons and mainstream media folks. :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> im talking on averages here. you see weaknesses in trump and strength in others. for me iits the reverse. neither of us is wrong.


You're reaching new heights of absurd nonsense with this. I have no stake in this as you'll note I haven't endorsed anyone in this or any other thread.

What I have observed is an apparent soulless following of Heavenly Father Trump, blissfully unable to entertain any weakness of the man. It appears to be the same sort of blind devotion usually reserved for cult followers.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@DesolationRow

I'm worried. The establishment are going to screw him just so Hilary gets elected to spite Trump.

He needs to put the nom on lock and talk to the party to try and salvage as many people to his side as possible before it's too late


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> You're reaching new heights of absurd nonsense with this. I have no stake in this as you'll note I haven't endorsed anyone in this or any other thread.
> 
> What I have observed is an apparent soulless following of Heavenly Father Trump, blissfully unable to entertain any weakness of the man. It appears to be the same sort of blind devotion usually reserved for cult followers.


If it were really blind I wouldn't have made this thread for you to express your concerns. Trump has a VERY high risk reward factor and many of us here see that. However the reward is the only shot we have at fixing this country.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Wasn't expecting Cruz to take 3 states and for Trump to bleed so many delegates. 

I think Minnesota should be gifted to Canada after their complicity in the GOP conspiracy to undermine democracy, as imperfect a beast as it is.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Wasn't expecting Cruz to take 3 states and for Trump to bleed so many delegates.
> 
> I think Minnesota should be gifted to Canada after their complicity in the GOP conspiracy to undermine democracy, as imperfect a beast as it is.


He's still on his way. After this Cruz has no states left with a base.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@CamillePunk @Miss Sally



Beatles123 said:


> @DesolationRow
> 
> I'm worried. The establishment are going to screw him just so Hilary gets elected to spite Trump.
> 
> He needs to put the nom on lock and talk to the party to try and salvage as many people to his side as possible before it's too late


Oh, yeah.

The Establishment is already siding with Hillary over him. Neocon after neocon, from Max Boot to Robert Kagan, et. al., are already in the process of defecting. 

Something else to remember: the Republican primary vote is approximately one-sixth of what the national general electorate is. 

I doubt a Republican ever wins the presidency again due to rapidly changing demographics, but because Donald Trump appeals to certain moderates and even some Democrats, apparently, he may have the best shot. 

Resigned myself to Hillary as president years ago, truthfully. 

Let there also be no mistake in analyzing the landscape: the next president is probably going to reap a whirlwind. Every macroeconomic indicator suggests that far from the economy improving, the U.S. is on the precipice of slipping into a sustained, exacerbated recession. The indicators in retail, for instance, are unavoidable. The national GDP was practically zilch in the final quarter of 2015. Trump's rhetoric about the sky-high true unemployment numbers is based in reality (it's probably right around 25%). The deleterious effects of "Obamacare" are already being deeply felt: the national average for annual insurance premiums is hovering at around 12%-15% at the present, and the health care profession is beginning to feel the true squeeze due to the mass exodus of doctors who decided to leave with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Interestingly, one of the chief architects of "Obamacare" was convicted felon Robert Creamer, who actually authored 628 pages of the bill while he was in prison. Creamer is an fascinating figure--a senior Democratic operative who defrauded many banks so that he could sustain his Marxist community organization. He was charged and convicted on sixteen counts of bank and tax fraud. Of course much of what inspired Obamacare was also straight from the Heritage Foundation, purported conservative think tank, and particularly from one Stuart Butler, in what became the Republican answer to "Hillarycare." 

In any event, the next president is probably destined to experience a catastrophic "reign," not unlike Jimmy Carter following the madness of Johnson-Nixon-Ford, not that Carter was blameless, either. Yet if Hillary wins, as she probably will, I suspect that she will be re-elected as well because the shift in demographics is so overwhelming at the present. Perhaps it is merely the deep distrust of democracy entire that is speaking to some extent, but this is the view that is available from here, however unfortunate a view it is.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@DesolationRow


It is baffling to me that the republican party, when asked by the republican PEOPLE to do what we elected them to do, don't. We were told that if we gave them the senate, and the house, and this, and that, we could BEAT liberalism in this country. We did, and they said "Nope, Haha, FUCK YOU!" instead. Is it any wonder why we turned to Trump?

Now here we are again: The republican people of the USA WANT Trump. By any normal standard this would have been clear after New Hampshire at least, and upon that time it would fall to the party to rally around who we the people had chosen in an effort to elect him as we desired. Not so with Trump. Again, we are TELLING them who we want, and they refuse to make it happen for us. THIS is why there's anger: THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE IS NOT BEING HEARD.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

It's true, @Beatles123. The backlash against Obama gifted Republicans with majorities and they have squandered their opportunity--intentionally so, of course. The only way in which the Republican Party is "conservative" is that it seeks to conserve the gains of their particularly connected moneyed interests and the cultural "achievements" of their supposed political adversaries. 


In any event, this may be a possible refutation of my previous post:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/704952965430431744
Who knows what to make of this? Is it proof that Trump will triumph in a general election against Hillary Clinton? Proof that he is doomed? As with so many other factors he brings to this election, I do not believe anyone surely knows as of now. Except that professor @CamillePunk posted about the other day.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> It's true, @Beatles123. The backlash against Obama gifted Republicans with majorities and they have squandered their opportunity--intentionally so, of course. The only way in which the Republican Party is "conservative" is that it seeks to conserve the gains of their particularly connected moneyed interests and the cultural "achievements" of their supposed political adversaries.
> 
> 
> In any event, this may be a possible refutation of my previous post:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/704952965430431744
> Who knows what to make of this? Is it proof that Trump will triumph in a general election against Hillary Clinton? Proof that he is doomed? As with so many other factors he brings to this election, I do not believe anyone surely knows as of now. Except that professor @CamillePunk posted about the other day.


All im saying is, it is the job of the party to do the will of the people. The whole reason we vote is to collectively tell those in power what we want to be done. They have, then, no right to question our intelligence in whatever it is we ask of them. It doesn't matter how "Uneducated" the people were because they didn't follow whatever thinking you as a party official have, It doesn't matter if you think it's a bad idea or that you think there will be consequences. If our collective voice, through our vote, says we think something is for the best, it is then your job as the power that speaks on our behalf against the other party to make it happen. That's what we elect you for! To make what we want come to pass.

That, sadly, is taking a backseat to the established order's own corrupted welfare as of late.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Not a good night for Trump. 

How did this get on the 2nd page? Coincidence? Pls Trump more.

If this thing winds up Cruz v Hillary, I'm not sure I will retain my sanity srs.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> Not a good night for Trump.
> 
> How did this get on the 2nd page? Coincidence? Pls Trump more.
> 
> If this thing winds up Cruz v Hillary, I'm not sure I will retain my sanity srs.


Why do you feell it wasn't a good night for Trump???

The bulk of Cruz's delegates were won in his home state. And, he only took 40% of the vote in his base - 60% of Cruz's fellow Texans went to other candidates. The rest were won in neighboring Oklahoma. Alaska was almost a tie.

On the other hand, The Donald won cutting a swath of territory starting in New England and across the South. When the dust settled Trump had 292 delegates and Cruz 186.

How is this a bad night?

- Mike


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

He's only up around 100 delegates. That is not that big of a lead at all. Rubio bails, that'll be be worse for Trump than it will be for Cruz.

edit: Oh yeah and winner take all starts up soon. Pretty volatile situation at that point.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> He's only up around 100 delegates. That is not that big of a lead at all. Rubio bails, that'll be be worse for Trump than it will be for Cruz.
> 
> edit: Oh yeah and winner take all starts up soon. Pretty volatile situation at that point.


If Cruz and Rubio keep attacking Trump like they did last debate and keep hammering home about his fraud in Trump university and how he had 4 businesses go bankrupt, as well as his ties being made in China and his use of illegals Trump could be in serious trouble moving forward.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> He's only up around 100 delegates. That is not that big of a lead at all. Rubio bails, that'll be be worse for Trump than it will be for Cruz.
> 
> edit: Oh yeah and winner take all starts up soon. Pretty volatile situation at that point.


Well, I would rather be up 100+ delegates than down by that number! 

I don't think Rubio will bail until after he loses his home state of Florida to Trump. And, if he does it is impossible to say how many of voters will go to Cruz or to Trump. 

BTW, what happens to a candidates delegates if he bails??? Are they divided up between the remaining candidates or just deep sixed???

- Mike


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I'm not saying it was a disaster or even bad really. Just not something I'd qualify as good. 

I'm not sure what happens to delegates when someone quits.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> Well, I would rather be up 100+ delegates than down by that number!
> 
> I don't think Rubio will bail until after he loses his home state of Florida to Trump. And, if he does it is impossible to say how many of voters will go to Cruz or to Trump.
> 
> BTW, what happens to a candidates delegates if he bails??? Are they divided up between the remaining candidates or just deep sixed???
> 
> - Mike


Take this for what its worth. what is seems like if someone drops out their delegates act like super delegates. 


https://www.quora.com/U-S-President...of-the-race-what-happens-to-his-her-delegates

It depends on several factors.

1. Technically, a delegate is only bound to vote for their candidate if their candidate is actually nominated for the nomination at the convention. Not all candidates who ran get nominated for the nomination. If a delegate's pledged candidate is not nominated for the nomination, then the delegate is free to vote their conscience.
2. There are two sorts of "Dropping out". 
A Candidate can formally withdraw from the race. If that happens, their pledged delegates are automatically freed to vote their conscience. 
A Candidate can also just "Suspend My Active Campaign". If they do this, they are still *legally* "Running" for the office, they just are not making speeches and the like. Candidates do this so they can keep their campaign committees open and raise money to pay off campaign debt (fun fact, there are still technically candidates "Running" for election to the Presidency in 2008, their campaigns are working on retiring the campaign debts). A candidate who is just "suspending" maintains their bound delegates (Assuming they Are nominated for the nomination at the convention, see #1 above).
3. A candidate, when dropping out, can formally endorse and recommend another candidate for the office. If they do that, their delegates are NOT *required* to vote for the other candidate, but it's heavily expected.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> I'm not saying it was a disaster or even bad really. Just not something I'd qualify as good.
> 
> I'm not sure what happens to delegates when someone quits.


You have a strange definition of "good" then. Trump rolled.


----------



## The Masked One

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

People actually vote for this fat degenerate? Does he even understand what he's talking about?


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Take this for what its worth. what is seems like if someone drops out their delegates act like super delegates.
> 
> 
> https://www.quora.com/U-S-President...of-the-race-what-happens-to-his-her-delegates
> 
> It depends on several factors.
> 
> 1. Technically, a delegate is only bound to vote for their candidate if their candidate is actually nominated for the nomination at the convention. Not all candidates who ran get nominated for the nomination. If a delegate's pledged candidate is not nominated for the nomination, then the delegate is free to vote their conscience.
> 2. There are two sorts of "Dropping out".
> A Candidate can formally withdraw from the race. If that happens, their pledged delegates are automatically freed to vote their conscience.
> A Candidate can also just "Suspend My Active Campaign". If they do this, they are still *legally* "Running" for the office, they just are not making speeches and the like. Candidates do this so they can keep their campaign committees open and raise money to pay off campaign debt (fun fact, there are still technically candidates "Running" for election to the Presidency in 2008, their campaigns are working on retiring the campaign debts). A candidate who is just "suspending" maintains their bound delegates (Assuming they Are nominated for the nomination at the convention, see #1 above).
> 3. A candidate, when dropping out, can formally endorse and recommend another candidate for the office. If they do that, their delegates are NOT *required* to vote for the other candidate, but it's heavily expected.


Everyone that I've seen drop out says that they're suspending their campaign. 

I think for this one we could see some different things happen if Trump is leading in delegates but doesn't have enough delegates to get the nomination. Someone like Kasich has 25 delegates right now. If he wants Trump to get the nomination because he's going to be VP or something he might drop out and ask his delegates to vote for Trump. 

But if someone like Rubio ends up dropping out with over 100 delegates there is no way he withdraws, he would just suspend his campaign and not let his delegates vote for someone else on the first round of voting. 

I think at this point Rubio is hoping for a contested convention in hopes he somehow walks away with the nomonation.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump needs to dominate since he has the world aligned against him. He didn't really dominate. Perhaps this is just a blip because of Texas, but this snapshot doesn't look good. The split vote is helping Trump. I'm not sure what happens if that goes away.

I'm attempting to look at this objectively rather than with my TRUMP goggles on.


----------



## Cashmere

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Over 800 post and 15,000 views ITT!? :lol. He must be doing something right :lol.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Cruz wants the competition to PRAYERFULLY drop out. This guy oozes slime.


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> Trump needs to dominate since he has the world aligned against him. He didn't really dominate. Perhaps this is just a blip because of Texas, but this snapshot doesn't look good. The split vote is helping Trump. I'm not sure what happens if that goes away.
> 
> I'm attempting to look at this objectively rather than with my TRUMP goggles on.


I think it depends on who drops out. If Cruz drops out then I think Trump destroys Rubio and wins. If Trump wasn't running I feel like Cruz would be trying to present himself as the guy that the Establishment doesn't want to be nominated. I think more of his supporters would go with Trump than Rubio. 

If Rubio drops out I'm not entirely sure who is supporters would go with.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> Trump needs to dominate since he has the world aligned against him. He didn't really dominate. Perhaps this is just a blip because of Texas, but this snapshot doesn't look good. The split vote is helping Trump. I'm not sure what happens if that goes away.
> 
> I'm attempting to look at this objectively rather than with my TRUMP goggles on.


:lol uh, we took away 20% of Cruz's own state, near swept the south, and won MAS and VT. Cruz and Rubio have no base left.


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

hoping that trump still gets through, but I'm less confident than before.


----------



## TheResurrection

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

It's over, Trump's going to win easily. Rubio and Cruz will stick around long enough to split the vote and make sure he has the most delegates by the time of the convention. 

The brokered convention will not happen, the Republican establishment knows that if Trump gets most delegates but gets screwed over he can run as a third party. If he does that the Republicans stand approximately zero chance of winning.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

This whole thing is a mess on the Rep side

Trump is disliked by his party 

Cruz's main appeal is in the religious right who hold far less power since Bush left office

Rubio is enough of a factor to take supporters from the other 2 but not enough to get any real momentum 

I don't know

If they choose the wrong horse and the Dems trash them its done


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> This whole thing is a mess on the Rep side
> 
> Trump is disliked by his party
> 
> Cruz's main appeal is in the religious right who hold far less power since Bush left office
> 
> Rubio is enough of a factor to take supporters from the other 2 but not enough to get any real momentum
> 
> I don't know
> 
> If they choose the wrong horse and the Dems trash them its done


Trump is disliked, yes, but we don't care. The party must be cleansed.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> This whole thing is a mess on the Rep side
> 
> Trump is disliked by his party
> 
> Cruz's main appeal is in the religious right who hold far less power since Bush left office
> 
> Rubio is enough of a factor to take supporters from the other 2 but not enough to get any real momentum
> 
> I don't know
> 
> If they choose the wrong horse and the Dems trash them its done


Anyone they choose on the republican side is going go be bad. They are all terrible and will ruin the country for different reasons. 

They all have a better shot a winning against Hillary than Sanders, that is why the DNC is so dumb for rigging the election for Hillary.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

If Trump does win will he rename/rebrand the GOP as the TRUMP PARTY?

pls say yes


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Anyone they choose on the republican side is going go be bad. They are all terrible and will ruin the country for different reasons.
> 
> They all have a better shot a winning against Hillary than Sanders, that is why the DNC is so dumb for rigging the election for Hillary.


I know you are a Bernie fan but it's time to face that facts that Sanders clearly does not have the support. He can't get the minority vote. 

And how do you know the Republicans will ruin the country? Many people are still waiting on that "hope and change".


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> I know you are a Bernie fan but it's time to face that facts that Sanders clearly does not have the support. He can't get the minority vote.
> 
> And how do you know the Republicans will ruin the country? Many people are still waiting on that "hope and change".


Bernie is gaining on minority support the more they learn about him. When it comes to the generation election the south will go to the republicans anyways so it the south does not even matter. 

Sanders is going to start to rack up the deletes the next few primaries. 

As for how will the republicans ruin the country, trickle down economics has proven not to work, they want to cut taxes for the rich even more, IT DOES NOT WORK.

they also still want to over turn roe vs wade, still want to ban gay marriage again, want to shut down planned parenthood not to mention they want to ban all muslims and kick out the mexicans even the legal children of illegal parents. they want to screw us out of social security, our medial benefits, medicare for old people, they want to make american dumber by letting the bible into science class when the bibles just mythology, not to mention they want to cut public school money. Trump wants to ammendl the fist amendment . The republicans want to take away our rights.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> If Trump does win will he rename/rebrand the GOP as the TRUMP PARTY?
> 
> pls say yes












Glorious.

So I think someone said if the Repubs don't go with Trump, he can still tell them to get fucked and run as an indie? Is that correct?


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Bernie is gaining on minority support the more they learn about him. When it comes to the generation election the south will go to the republicans anyways so it the south does not even matter.
> 
> Sanders is going to start to rack up the deletes the next few primaries.
> 
> As for how will the republicans ruin the country, trickle down economics has proven not to work, they want to cut taxes for the rich even more, IT DOES NOT WORK.
> 
> they also still want to over turn roe vs wade, still want to ban gay marriage again, want to shut down planned parenthood not to mention they want to ban all muslims and kick out the mexicans even the legal children of illegal parents. they want to screw us out of social security, our medial benefits, medicare for old people, they want to make american dumber by letting the bible into science class when the bibles just mythology, not to mention they want to cut public school money. Trump wants to ammendl the fist amendment . The republicans want to take away our rights.


Ok so I'm not going to respond to the last two paragraphs because it is useless, you be make a great drive by media person lol. You need to have a bit of an open mind when it comes to Republicans. There are different ways of running the country that CAN work. 

Socialism has worked in SMALL doses but can it work in the US? 

One of the most conservative presidents in Ronald Reagan proved America can thrive under Republican principals. Can it work once again? We haven't really seen a Reagan in a while.

It seems somebody has put all lies in your head and propaganda when it comes to Republicans. I don't get it. Why is the bible mythology? I believe in God. Am I stupid for that? Am I stupid for believing that and having faith?


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Please don't feed the birthday_massacre. His algorithms run output-only.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> Ok so I'm not going to respond to the last two paragraphs because it is useless, you be make a great drive by media person lol. You need to have a bit of an open mind when it comes to Republicans. There are different ways of running the country that CAN work.
> 
> Socialism has worked in SMALL doses but can it work in the US?
> 
> One of the most conservative presidents in Ronald Reagan proved America can thrive under Republican principals. Can it work once again? We haven't really seen a Reagan in a while.
> 
> It seems somebody has put all lies in your head and propaganda when it comes to Republicans. I don't get it. Why is the bible mythology? I believe in God. Am I stupid for that? Am I stupid for believing that and having faith?


Right you won't respond because its all true and they are FACTS so of course you won't respond. 

You asked how they are going to ruin the country and I told you, and you cant even refute what I said because its all true.

The USA is already part socialist. That is how the GOVT pays for public schools, post office, roads, trash collection, social security, medicare, public libraries , welfare like food stamps/wic, etc etc

Oh yeah but socialism doest work in the US. yeah ok

The bible is mythology just like Zeus and Thor and MT Olympus is mythology. They are just made up stories by man. Would you call someone stupid if they said they believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

As for somebody has put all lies and propaganda in my head, no I am just way more informed than people like you.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Right you won't respond because its all true and they are FACTS so of course you won't respond.
> 
> You asked how they are going to ruin the country and I told you, and you cant even refute what I said because its all true.
> 
> The USA is already part socialist. That is how the GOVT pays for public schools, post office, roads, trash collection, social security, medicare, public libraries , welfare like food stamps/wic, etc etc
> 
> Oh yeah but socialism doest work in the US. yeah ok
> 
> The bible is mythology just like Zeus and Thor and MT Olympus is mythology. They are just made up stories by man. Would you call someone stupid if they said they believe in the flying spaghetti monster?
> 
> As for somebody has put all lies and propaganda in my head, no I am just way more informed than people like you.


See I'm just not in a mood for argument #575860 with you lol because we have different viewpoints. You will come up with excuses for your viewpoint and the same goes for me. There's examples of both ways working, which you fail to admit. 

I mean there are many stories of near death experiences and miracles happening that we don't see on this news. Just because I believe in God doesn't make me stupid. 

Sorry I really just don't feel like having a pointless argument with you, it's not something I ever plan on doing because you will NEVER take a step back from your point. You will never even give anybody a chance and say "well okay that could actually work and be interesting". There's just no point, you make fun of us for being Republicans but you are one of the most liberal minded people I have ever had the pleasure of talking to. 

I'm just not down for it again lol. 


Anyway, expecting Cruz and Rubio to go after Trump again, I will be interested to see if he can handle it this debate.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> See I'm just not in a mood for argument #575860 with you lol because we have different viewpoints. You will come up with excuses for your viewpoint and the same goes for me. There's examples of both ways working, which you fail to admit.
> 
> I mean there are many stories of near death experiences and miracles happening that we don't see on this news. Just because I believe in God doesn't make me stupid.
> 
> Sorry I really just don't feel like having a pointless argument with you, it's not something I ever plan on doing because you will NEVER take a step back from your point. You will never even give anybody a chance and say "well okay that could actually work and be interesting". There's just no point, you make fun of us for being Republicans but you are one of the most liberal minded people I have ever had the pleasure of talking to.
> 
> I'm just not down for it again lol.
> 
> 
> Anyway, expecting Cruz and Rubio to go after Trump again, I will be interested to see if he can handle it this debate.


Again you won't debate it because what I said was right. Facts are facts and the fact are on my side. And you are right in your case its pointless because you would lose the argument. Its just a waste of your time.

And I'm not making fun of anyone. I am just dismantling the GOP and their policies. The whole GOP side is a clown car, they are all awful candidates (that are left). 

Finally if you ever want to debate the bible or god feel free to open a thread.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Again you won't debate it because what I said was right. Facts are facts and the fact are on my side. And you are right in your case its pointless because you would lose the argument. Its just a waste of your time.
> 
> And I'm not making fun of anyone. I am just dismantling the GOP and their policies. The whole GOP side is a clown car, they are all awful candidates (that are left).
> 
> Finally if you ever want to debate the bible or god feel free to open a thread.


I don't think you get it lol. I have no urge to debate the bible or my faith with you. People have argued with you this entire thread on Republican vs Democrat and you just don't agree with them. Why should I argue with you when you clearly won't agree lol?

I have a few Bernie friends that I enjoy talking politics with because it's not a constant "oh it's the Republicans fault" or "oh it's all those liberals that are awful". Democrats and Republicans have both had their time and both parties did shit with it. Barrack Obama passed some quite confusing things and when the Republicans won landslide midterm elections they did nothing with it. 

You attempting to blame it all on the GOP just is incorrect, the country has had a Democrat in office for the past 8 years!

Also I don't think the words "awful candidates" should come in your posts when the left has an absolutely AWFUL candidate who will beat Bernie Sanders.


----------



## Blackbeard

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I just watched John Oliver's special on *Drumpf*. :ti at anyone who voted for him.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Voter turnouts are heavily favored to Trump

States set new records for turnout at the Republican primaries with Texas having 1.2 million more voters than the last election

Trump has gotten people who don't not normally vote to the polls

Republicans have been trying to do that for years and now the man they don't want is doing it

The Democrats broke no records and some states reported better turn outs in the 80s and 90s per-internet years 

Sander's internet supporters did what he feared and just didn't vote like they have done for every other "internet choice" candidate

Sanders main advantage over Hilliary was he could could bring in people who otherwise would sit the election out but it looks like the youth vote was as it always is, unreliable


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Blackbeard said:


> I just watched John Oliver's special on *Drumpf*. :ti at anyone who voted for him.


At least there wasn't a movie made about him. That would suck!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> I don't think you get it lol. I have no urge to debate the bible or my faith with you. People have argued with you this entire thread on Republican vs Democrat and you just don't agree with them. Why should I argue with you when you clearly won't agree lol?
> 
> I have a few Bernie friends that I enjoy talking politics with because it's not a constant "oh it's the Republicans fault" or "oh it's all those liberals that are awful". Democrats and Republicans have both had their time and both parties did shit with it. Barrack Obama passed some quite confusing things and when the Republicans won landslide midterm elections they did nothing with it.
> 
> You attempting to blame it all on the GOP just is incorrect, the country has had a Democrat in office for the past 8 years!
> 
> Also I don't think the words "awful candidates" should come in your posts when the left has an absolutely AWFUL candidate who will beat Bernie Sanders.


I do get it, you just can't back yourself for voting republican and that is fine. You just keep proving my point on people that vote for Trump. You debate with people that don't agree. You don't when you do agree, that is when its pointless. But I do get it you can't back up your stance and I understand. 

The country had a republican congress and blocked over 500 of Obama's bills and even said they refused to work with him. they did everything they could to handcuff Obama trying to help the middle class.
Hows that not the GOPs fault? Again just showing how you are not very informed. 

As for claiming any of those GOP candidates would beat Sanders, once again you show you are uninformed.










Even more up to date

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...nders-outperforms-clinton-against-republicans

In a new CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday morning, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) defeats Donald Trump (R) in a general election match-up by 55 percent to 43 percent, 
defeats Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) by 57 percent to 40 percent 
defeats Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) by 53 percent to 45 percent.

Bernie still has a shot at being Hillary, most of the upcoming states favor Bernie


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> At least there wasn't a movie made about him. That would suck!


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Right you won't respond because its all true and they are FACTS so of course you won't respond.


A lot of what you said were opinions.



birthday_massacre said:


> The bible is mythology just like Zeus and Thor and MT Olympus is mythology. They are just made up stories by man. Would you call someone stupid if they said they believe in the flying spaghetti monster?


I agree. I don't believe in God. Still though we shouldn't be mocking those who do. I doubt you'd be talking to him this way if he were from another faith.



birthday_massacre said:


> As for somebody has put all lies and propaganda in my head, no I am just way more informed than *people like you.*


What do you even mean by that? Republicans? Christians?


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Lodi Lawless said:


>


Holy shit! That was Trump. :surprise:


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

If Donald Trump's last name was Drumpf we'd associate "Drumpf" with excellence. :toomanykobes This idea that Trump's name has somehow helped him is just another chapter in the left's constant need to discredit people who actually work hard for their success so they can justify giving handouts to people who don't. It's not their fault you see, their name just contains the wrong syllables.  I feel sorry for people who fall for this stuff. You'll never succeed in life with that attitude.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Dazzler said:


> A lot of what you said were opinions.
> 
> 
> I agree. I don't believe in God. Still though we shouldn't be mocking those who do. I doubt you'd be talking to him this way if he were from another faith.
> 
> 
> What do you even mean by that? Republicans? Christians?


What I said are not opinions they are facts, what the republicans stand for are not my opinions they are facts.

I was not mocking people that believe in god, I was mocking the fact that republicans want to put the bible into science class like the bible is scientific fact like evolution. Huge difference. 

I am talking about uniformed Trump supporters, they are super uniformed as you can see in this very thread.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> If Donald Trump's last name was Drumpf we'd associate "Drumpf" with excellence. :toomanykobes This idea that Trump's name has somehow helped him is just another chapter in the left's constant need to discredit people who actually work hard for their success so they can justify giving handouts to people who don't. It's not their fault you see, their name just contains the wrong syllables.  I feel sorry for people who fall for this stuff. You'll never succeed in life with that attitude.


Trump got like $40 million for his father, he didn't earn his money, it was a handout.

As for Sanders so called handouts, again you show how unformed you are. He is using our tax payer dollars to benefit US. Anyone who calls what Bernie is trying to do as a handout shows they don't know what they are talking about.


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> If Donald Trump's last name was Drumpf we'd associate "Drumpf" with excellence. :toomanykobes This idea that Trump's name has somehow helped him is just another chapter in the left's constant need to discredit people who actually work hard for their success so they can justify giving handouts to people who don't. It's not their fault you see, their name just contains the wrong syllables.  I feel sorry for people who fall for this stuff. You'll never succeed in life with that attitude.


Handouts like Trumps 40 million inheritance.


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Dazzler said:


> Holy shit! That was Trump. :surprise:


He also ate his pizza backwards!


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

How the fuck is inheriting money from your dead father a handout? :kobe Also he was already worth billions when his father died in 1999.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> I do get it, you just can't back yourself for voting republican and that is fine. You just keep proving my point on people that vote for Trump. You debate with people that don't agree. You don't when you do agree, that is when its pointless. But I do get it you can't back up your stance and I understand.
> 
> The country had a republican congress and blocked over 500 of Obama's bills and even said they refused to work with him. they did everything they could to handcuff Obama trying to help the middle class.
> Hows that not the GOPs fault? Again just showing how you are not very informed.
> 
> As for claiming any of those GOP candidates would beat Sanders, once again you show you are uninformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even more up to date
> 
> http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...nders-outperforms-clinton-against-republicans
> 
> In a new CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday morning, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) defeats Donald Trump (R) in a general election match-up by 55 percent to 43 percent,
> defeats Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) by 57 percent to 40 percent
> defeats Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) by 53 percent to 45 percent.
> 
> Bernie still has a shot at being Hillary, most of the upcoming states favor Bernie


Sorry I meant Hilary lol, that sentence didn't really make any sense did it? haha

What's the fun in debating with someone who thinks all Republicans are liars, racists, sexists, and the reason for all the bad in the world? Like I said, you are a result of the drive by media. You don't fully realize it I suppose and that's fine. Ignorance is bliss. 

The only reason I am rooting for Trump at this point is because Cruz is done, he was never my first choice. 

Like I said, you treat others like they are uninformed and just stupid if they don't agree with you. I won't debate with you because you just treat others harshly for that, not because I can't debate with a socialist. But keep treating me like a low information voter, that's exactly what I am!


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump got like $40 million for his father, he didn't earn his money, it was a handout.
> 
> As for Sanders so called handouts, *again you show how unformed you are*. He is using our tax payer dollars to benefit US. Anyone who calls what Bernie is trying to do as a handout shows they don't know what they are talking about.


Isn't that what it is though? Tax payer dollars come from... well... tax payers. Bernie wants to give that money around the United States to others who need the big bad rich money. What would you call that other than a handout? 

Not that I have a problem with it but why wouldn't it be a handout? Whatever you want to call it he is redistributing the money people earn. What would you call it? 

Bolded shows why you treat others like a complete dick lol, it's okay for others to disagree that's life bro.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Pretty sure I can decide how to use my own money to benefit myself and mine far better than any politician can.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> Sorry I meant Hilary lol, that sentence didn't really make any sense did it? haha
> 
> What's the fun in debating with someone who thinks all Republicans are liars, racists, sexists, and the reason for all the bad in the world? Like I said, you are a result of the drive by media. You don't fully realize it I suppose and that's fine. Ignorance is bliss.
> 
> The only reason I am rooting for Trump at this point is because Cruz is done, he was never my first choice.
> 
> Like I said, you treat others like they are uninformed and just stupid if they don't agree with you. I won't debate with you because you just treat others harshly for that, not because I can't debate with a socialist. But keep treating me like a low information voter, that's exactly what I am!


If you are uninformed and spouting off incorrect information then you should be called out on that. Sorry if you don't like that. You have proven in this thread you are not very well informed. I am just giving the facts but you don't seem to like that. 

Cruz is not done yet, he isn't too far behind Trump, and he could even pull ahead if he took Rubio as his VP and they pooled their delegates which which would get them ahead of Trump but I doubt Cruz and Rubio would do that. The will probably take it to the end where Trump not have enough electoral votes, then the real fun would begin. That is where Rubio would probably pull off a miracle and get the nomination. 

But if that happened Trump could run 3rd party and screw the GOP having any chance at winning. Their whole side is a MESS as Trump would say.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> Not a good night for Trump.
> 
> How did this get on the 2nd page? Coincidence? Pls Trump more.
> 
> If this thing winds up Cruz v Hillary, I'm not sure I will retain my sanity srs.


It was only a less-than-exceptional night for Trump because clearly some of the attacks of the previous week succeeded in turning "late-deciders" primarily toward Rubio or other candidates. Trump could really have used multiple 50%+ wins to cross the "winner-take-all" threshold.

On the other hand, though, aside from winning an irrelevant state for the Republicans and doing well with the military-industrial complex and think tank voters in Virginia, it was a nightmarish night for Rubio. What really sinks him is that he failed to reach 20% in Texas, thus he ends up with not a single Texas delegate. 

The next several major states are states in which Rubio should perform better than Cruz. Cruz's stronghold got to speak up the loudest it ever will last night, and, yes, it was a fairly solid night for him as a result, but it's difficult to see where he starts rolling up victories, particularly if Rubio stays in for at least the next few weeks. In a way Rubio winning Florida would probably not be the worst thing for Trump. Ohio's a massive prize, though. 

As this illustrates, though... http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/delegate-count-tracker ...Anyone who thinks Trump "has it" is being preemptive in the celebration. As you noted, he doesn't even have a 100-delegate lead on Cruz now. 

If one of Rubio or Cruz dropped out, Trump would be in major trouble going forward. It's pretty clear that the attacks in the last debate and in the tens of millions spent in advertising had an effect on Trump's numbers (he consistently underperformed his polling from a few days ago).

Watching the John Oliver thing, I can't believe how weak it is after all of the hype given to it. OH MY GOD LOOK AT HIS GERMAN SURNAME! OH MY GOD OUT OF THE COUPLE OF HUNDRED BUSINESS VENTURES HE ENGINEERED, FOUR OF THEM FAILED!!!!!! :lmao 

However, voters are generally moved by such silliness, as Trump is finding out. 

Trump did well enough that some major Republican heavyweights are sitting out the future primaries: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-koch-exclusive-idUSMTZSAPEC32FPEGCF 

Also, the optics of last night may have an effect in altering how Trump and Rubio and Cruz are all perceived. Rubio's been slinging mud at Trump for a couple of weeks now, bringing out the A-material like "Maybe we can all just call him The CONald," ho ho ho, and by contrast Trump looked like someone willing to unite the party. 

A 1952-like Convention could be in the works, though, which sees the Republican apparatchiks simply disregard the will of the people and the delegates, in the battle between Robert A. Taft and Dwight Eisenhower. This resulted in conservative writer Phyllis Schlafly authoring _A Choice, Not an Echo_. Interestingly Schlafly today detests Marco Rubio for his many betrays of conservatism since becoming elected after she personally worked hard to see him rise. 

Some forces are clearly plotting against Trump: Mitt Romney is scheduled to speak tomorrow in Utah, and he may be the Establishment's choice to thwart Trump. Also look for Megyn Kelly and the Fox News goons to go after him as hard as possible. 

Of course, the neocons and masters of finance are already preparing to side with Hillary Clinton. In that case, the nomination is hers; Bernie Sanders is done, thanks in large part to the superdelegates and the particularly tyrannical way the Democratic Party goes about its electoral business.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Pretty sure I can decide how to use my own money to benefit myself and mine far better than any politician can.


Nice idea but, are you going to build your own roads privately or something? Build your own hospital or just consult 'prostate surgery for dummies'?


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> If you are uninformed and spouting off incorrect information then you should be called out on that. Sorry if you don't like that. You have proven in this thread you are not very well informed. I am just giving the facts but you don't seem to like that.
> 
> Cruz is not done yet, he isn't too far behind Trump, and he could even pull ahead if he took Rubio as his VP and they pooled their delegates which which would get them ahead of Trump but I doubt Cruz and Rubio would do that. The will probably take it to the end where Trump not have enough electoral votes, then the real fun would begin. That is where Rubio would probably pull off a miracle and get the nomination.
> 
> But if that happened Trump could run 3rd party and screw the GOP having any chance at winning. Their whole side is a MESS as Trump would say.



I'm not even saying any facts, how does that show I am uninformed (well I can see how that's ironic)? You are giving facts but this country is still not in amazing shape with a Democrat in control. 

The only way Rubio gets the nomination is if Republican establishment fucks over Trump or Cruz. In my opinion they hate Cruz more than Trump, but that's just me. It just seems hopeless at this point, I think Washington will be better off without a real politician and somebody who takes this country in the direction the actually believe in. I still like Cruz but I am not as positive about the situation, Trump has been pulling in Reagan Democrats and that's obviously important. He's a complete moderate though. Hates most of what Bush did, yet wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants. Likes Planned Parenthood, yet wants to not let Muslims into the country. He really is an odd candidate. 

I'm sorry I really don't feel debating right now and giving you the facts, but I'll probably be down tomorrow before the debate bro. I'm going to bed, had a long day.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> I'm not even saying any facts, how does that show I am uninformed (well I can see how that's ironic)? You are giving facts but this country is still not in amazing shape with a Democrat in control.
> 
> The only way Rubio gets the nomination is if Republican establishment fucks over Trump or Cruz. In my opinion they hate Cruz more than Trump, but that's just me. It just seems hopeless at this point, I think Washington will be better off without a real politician and somebody who takes this country in the direction the actually believe in. I still like Cruz but I am not as positive about the situation, Trump has been pulling in Reagan Democrats and that's obviously important. He's a complete moderate though. Hates most of what Bush did, yet wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants. Likes Planned Parenthood, yet wants to not let Muslims into the country. He really is an odd candidate.
> 
> I'm sorry I really don't feel debating right now and giving you the facts, but I'll probably be down tomorrow before the debate bro. I'm going to bed, had a long day.


the republican congress BLOCKED over 500 of Obama's bills. They did not let him get anything done. It just shows how uniformed you are that you don't even know how the country runs. I even explained it to you and you ignored it. Obama can't do much unless the GOP controls approve it. Do you even understand that? That is why you put the blame on the GOP because they refused to work with Obama.

You don't even understand this simple concept.

Trump does not even know what he believes in, he changes his stance every time he speaks on most issues. He doesn't even know what he is doing or how to get it done, that is why its mindboggling that anyone would vote for him. If you want real change you should be voting for Sanders.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Nice idea but, are you going to build your own roads privately or something? Build your own hospital or just consult 'prostate surgery for dummies'?


WHO WILL BUILD THE ROADS


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> the republican congress BLOCKED over 500 of Obama's bills. They did not let him get anything done. It just shows how uniformed you are that you don't even know how the country runs. I even explained it to you and you ignored it. Obama can't do much unless the GOP controls approve it. Do you even understand that? That is why you put the blame on the GOP because they refused to work with Obama.
> 
> *You don't even understand this simple concept.*
> 
> Trump does not even know what he believes in, he changes his stance every time he speaks on most issues. He doesn't even know what he is doing or how to get it done, that is why its mindboggling that anyone would vote for him. If you want real change you should be voting for Sanders.


I understand that this "concept" you speak of did NOT apply to Bush, which is why it can be ignored. Republicans warned Dems of housing crisis and nothing was done. It can be ignored and will be ignored because that's politics. So, do YOU even understand that? OH THE BIG BAD RIGHT! You realize the people voted them in for a reason, right? You realize that's what politics is about right? Do you understand why we don't have a dictatorship? Do you understand this? Do you understand Bernie is not getting most of his proposes through Congress? It simply won't happen. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

But keep talking about the liberal BS you talk about. We will be like Europe in no time. Woo hoo!


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> WHO WILL BUILD THE ROADS


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

BM is banned from the thread for now. Arguing is encouraged but you have to do it without baiting and/or borderline insults (and blatant insults).


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

:drose


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> WHO WILL BUILD THE ROADS


WHO WILL DO IT


----------



## Blackbeard

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> BM is banned from the thread for now. Arguing is encouraged but you have to do it without baiting and/or borderline insults (and blatant insults).


MrMr confirmed to be on *Drumpf*'s payroll :vince$


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Blackbeard said:


> MrMr confirmed to be on *Drumpf*'s payroll :vince$


----------



## Blackbeard

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Who the hell eats pizza from the back :wtf2 :wtf2 :wtf2


----------



## DOPA

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The irony of a socialist complaining about handouts :lmao.


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


>







The more I see of what's going on, I am starting to reconsider sitting on the sidelines and not supporting Trump if he's the nominee. Especially now as the RINOs in Congress are losing their minds. This is what the GOP has done to themselves...folding up like a cheap suit and giving Obama and company their way at every opportunity. They had the chance to stop him with the power of the purse and stop financing things they don't agree with, and cut back on spending. They failed in both of those regards. They are the reason we started seeing revolt with the Tea Party, then the libertarians, then the Wall Street revolt. 

Trump might be the idea of a fiscal conservative, libertarian on social issues that might be what the party needs to go in a different direction. Stay out of the bedroom and let people live their lives. I have had a chance to read his plan on replacing Obamacare. Don't know yet, but I'm starting to consider giving him a chance.


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Nice idea but, are you going to build your own roads privately or something? Build your own hospital or just consult 'prostate surgery for dummies'?


Are you aware that there are over 1,000 privately owned for profit hospitals operating in the US right now? 

General infrastructure is where I draw the line and begrudgingly admit that the government should collect taxes and get them built and maintain them. That and schools I view as things that the government should be providing. There are a few other things but in general I want as little government involvement as possible but at some point you do need some government involvement and I don't think a world without taxes is possible. 



Smarkout said:


> I'm not even saying any facts, how does that show I am uninformed (well I can see how that's ironic)? You are giving facts but this country is still not in amazing shape with a Democrat in control.
> 
> The only way Rubio gets the nomination is if Republican establishment fucks over Trump or Cruz. In my opinion they hate Cruz more than Trump, but that's just me. It just seems hopeless at this point, I think Washington will be better off without a real politician and somebody who takes this country in the direction the actually believe in. I still like Cruz but I am not as positive about the situation, Trump has been pulling in Reagan Democrats and that's obviously important. He's a complete moderate though. Hates most of what Bush did, yet wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants. Likes Planned Parenthood, yet wants to not let Muslims into the country. He really is an odd candidate.
> 
> I'm sorry I really don't feel debating right now and giving you the facts, but I'll probably be down tomorrow before the debate bro. I'm going to bed, had a long day.


Trump is an odd candidate and I really like that about him. There are plenty of things he says where I don't agree with him but I'm just happy that he is an example that someone doesn't have to have the same view on every political issue as their party.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FITZ said:


> Are you aware that there are over 1,000 privately owned for profit hospitals operating in the US right now?


Well I wasn't aware of the number, but through watching socialist-hippy leftist news I am aware of the the concept of private hospitals. Evil private hospitals that is.

Are there no public hospitals that might apply to my point?



FITZ said:


> General infrastructure is where I draw the line and begrudgingly admit that the government should collect taxes and get them built and maintain them. That and schools I view as things that the government should be providing.


That's big of you. How about a park for little Timmy and Tammy to play in? Is that ok?


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Massachusetts exit polls show that Trump won across the board with college educated voters in the primary, in which he brought in over 20,000 new GOP voters from the Democratic side. More people in Massachusettes voted for Trump than did Romney in 2012 (although Romney had a much higher percentage - 70% to Trump's 49%, which signifies the amazing turnout in these GOP primaries).


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Fascinating numbers from Massachusetts, @CamillePunk! Thank you for sharing!

This should be good:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/705188461007994882

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/705234561756696576

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/705217155911045120
From the people who brought you the Iraq War: Operation Trump Takedown.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Wall Street is preparing its attack on Trump: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/donald-trump-wall-street-220141



> There’s Still Time for a Primary Bombshell
> 
> By POLITICO Magazine
> 
> NEW YORK — Wall Street is getting ready to go nuclear on Donald Trump.
> 
> Terrified that the reality TV star could run away with the Republican nomination and bring his brand of anti-immigrant, protectionist populism to the White House, some top financiers are writing big checks to fund an effort to deny Trump a majority of delegates to the GOP convention.
> 
> The effort is centered on the recently formed Our Principles PAC, the latest big-money group airing anti-Trump ads, which is run by GOP strategist Katie Packer, deputy campaign manager for Mitt Romney in 2012.
> 
> The group, initially funded by $3 million from Marlene Ricketts, wife of billionaire T.D. Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts, wants to saturate the expensive Florida airwaves ahead of the state’s March 15 primary with hopes of denying Trump a victory that could crush the hopes of home state Sen. Marco Rubio.
> 
> A conference call on Tuesday to solicit donors for the group included Paul Singer, billionaire founder of hedge fund Elliott Management; Hewlett Packard President and CEO Meg Whitman; and Chicago Cubs co-owner Todd Ricketts, one of Joe and Marlene Ricketts’ three sons. Wealthy Illinois businessman Richard Uihlein is also expected to help fund the effort. Jim Francis, a big GOP donor and bundler from Texas, was also on the phone call on Tuesday.
> 
> One person close to the Our Principles PAC said money will not be an issue.


I am sure it will not be.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@DesolationRow @KCBruiser @CamillePunk @MrMister

*BREAKING!!!!

DONALD TRUMP HAS RELEASED HIS FULL HEALTHCARE REFORM PLAN:*

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform



> HEALTHCARE REFORM TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
> 
> Since March of 2010, the American people have had to suffer under the incredible economic burden of the Affordable Care Act—Obamacare. This legislation, passed by totally partisan votes in the House and Senate and signed into law by the most divisive and partisan President in American history, has tragically but predictably resulted in runaway costs, websites that don’t work, greater rationing of care, higher premiums, less competition and fewer choices. Obamacare has raised the economic uncertainty of every single person residing in this country. As it appears Obamacare is certain to collapse of its own weight, the damage done by the Democrats and President Obama, and abetted by the Supreme Court, will be difficult to repair unless the next President and a Republican congress lead the effort to bring much-needed free market reforms to the healthcare industry.
> 
> But none of these positive reforms can be accomplished without Obamacare repeal. On day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare.
> 
> However, it is not enough to simply repeal this terrible legislation. We will work with Congress to make sure we have a series of reforms ready for implementation that follow free market principles and that will restore economic freedom and certainty to everyone in this country. By following free market principles and working together to create sound public policy that will broaden healthcare access, make healthcare more affordable and improve the quality of the care available to all Americans.
> 
> Any reform effort must begin with Congress. Since Obamacare became law, conservative Republicans have been offering reforms that can be delivered individually or as part of more comprehensive reform efforts. In the remaining sections of this policy paper, several reforms will be offered that should be considered by Congress so that on the first day of the Trump Administration, we can start the process of restoring faith in government and economic liberty to the people.
> 
> Congress must act. Our elected representatives in the House and Senate must:
> 
> - Completely repeal Obamacare:
> 
> Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.
> Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.
> Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.
> 
> - Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs):
> 
> Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.
> Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.
> 
> - Block-grant Medicaid to the states:
> 
> Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.
> 
> - Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products:
> 
> Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.
> 
> The reforms outlined above will lower healthcare costs for all Americans. They are simply a place to start. There are other reforms that might be considered if they serve to lower costs, remove uncertainty and provide financial security for all Americans. And we must also take actions in other policy areas to lower healthcare costs and burdens. Enforcing immigration laws, eliminating fraud and waste and energizing our economy will relieve the economic pressures felt by every American. It is the moral responsibility of a nation’s government to do what is best for the people and what is in the interest of securing the future of the nation.
> 
> Providing healthcare to illegal immigrants costs us some $11 billion annually. If we were to simply enforce the current immigration laws and restrict the unbridled granting of visas to this country, we could relieve healthcare cost pressures on state and local governments.
> 
> To reduce the number of individuals needing access to programs like Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program we will need to install programs that grow the economy and bring capital and jobs back to America. The best social program has always been a job – and taking care of our economy will go a long way towards reducing our dependence on public health programs.
> 
> Finally, we need to reform our mental health programs and institutions in this country. Families, without the ability to get the information needed to help those who are ailing, are too often not given the tools to help their loved ones. There are promising reforms being developed in Congress that should receive bi-partisan support.
> 
> To reform healthcare in America, we need a President who has the leadership skills, will and courage to engage the American people and convince Congress to do what is best for the country. These straightforward reforms, along with many others I have proposed throughout my campaign, will ensure that together we will Make America Great Again.


:Banderas

:lenny

:trump


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Lodi Lawless said:


> He also ate his pizza backwards!


In a commercial for STUFFED CRUST PIZZA. Come on.


----------



## DOPA

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

It can only be a great thing that the Neo-Con's are trying their damndest to stop Trump. That means they are scared. Good, good.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



L-DOPA said:


> It can only be a great thing that the Neo-Con's are trying their damndest to stop Trump. That means they are scared. Good, good.


Isn't it fascinating?

I hear BEN CARSON may endorse Trump today!


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Bill Kristol looks like he's on the verge of a nervous breakdown. 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-give-white-house-hillary-trump-shouldnt-win/

I watched this interview. So he's telegraphing the plan lol. Surely they're not this stupid. GOP seems doomed to me. If Trump wins, he could conceivably usurp the party. Maybe he already has. If the "resistance" plan to have a brokered convention works and they seriously nominate Cruz or Rubio, the betrayal will be overt. I can't imagine Trump supporters, a sizable portion of GOP voters so far, ever voting GOP again. They'd have culled their numbers even further, and this would threaten even their gerrymandered vote suppressing strategy to hold Congress. It'd be crazy if we witness the demise of a major political party in our lifetime (of course it's really just one half of the same party but we'll pretend it's not).


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

So the GOP plans to stop Trump, who has his support because people are sick of the establishment....With Romney, the face of the establishment. :lmao 

Trump's entire platform will become PROVEN FACT after today. The GOP are out of touch with their own base and this speech will showcase that fact to the entire voting populace.


----------



## Silent KEEL

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

This idea nullifies the entire point of an election.

The only candidate that should even get behind it is Rubio since he will be the obvious choice of the establishment when all is said and done. Cruz will get as fucked over as Trump.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> BM is banned from the thread for now. Arguing is encouraged but you have to do it without baiting and/or borderline insults (and blatant insults).


BM is banned from the topic? :O But he needs to inform of us all and stuff..I imagine he kept talking about Sanders and unrelated things and MrMister is like.. "Okay.. no more Mr Nice guy...."











That's clearly MrMister, Camillepunk, DesolationRow and Beatles123 right there! Poor BM


----------



## Cashmere

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Lodi Lawless said:


> He also ate his pizza backwards!


Lol I'm sorry. This doesn't seem like a big deal but...

Eating Pizza backwards though :lol!? See something new everyday... :taker


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Why the fuck would you drag Romney's tired ass out?

He is hardly remembered as an Al Gore figure who would of "completely changed the path of nation"

His voters were GOP loyalist who would have voted right no matter what 

This in fighting is KILLING your party, its fucking killing it 

You could of cut Trump's legs out at he start but you ignored him till he became the biggest movement in right has had since Regan and NOW you are going to war with him

Do they think that if they kill Trump all those supporters will go their candidate?


----------



## samizayn

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Why is failed presidential candidate Mitt Romney the face of the Republican pahty


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Watching the GOP implode before our eyes. They have lost their minds. Romney is now a pathetic cuck.


----------



## TripleG

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



samizayn said:


> Why is failed presidential candidate Mitt Romney the face of the Republican pahty


Because somebody has to be....I guess.


----------



## Truthbetold

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FITZ said:


> General infrastructure is where I draw the line and begrudgingly admit that the government should collect taxes and get them built and maintain them. That and schools I view as things that the government should be providing. There are a few other things but in general I want as little government involvement as possible but at some point you do need some government involvement and I don't think a world without taxes is possible.


why do you think you need government involvement to have these things? If the majority want these things (as evidenced by them happening in a 'democracy'), it will still happen, no?

a world without taxes is probably not possible as long as there is a de-facto ruling class. Is a world without said ruling class possible?


----------



## Freelancer

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

This whole situation with Romney coming out and degrading Trump has SNL skit written all over it.

I find it laughable that they are trying to put a stop to Trump now. This is killing that party. They are pretty much guaranteeing a victory for the Democrats.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Truthbetold said:


>


He has disavowed him at least more than 3 times now. At minimum that i know of.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

RALLY LIVESTREAM POST THE ROMNEY RANT, GET IN HERE LADS:






OVER 15,000 AND COUNTING WATCHING NOW!

DIS GON' BE GOOD! :nerd:


----------



## Truthbetold

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Freelancer said:


> This whole situation with Romney coming out and degrading Trump has SNL skit written all over it.
> 
> I find it laughable that they are trying to put a stop to Trump now. This is killing that party. They are pretty much guaranteeing a victory for the Democrats.


Trump killing the GOP should be respected by Democrats.

Because he's the first person to really go at the Neo-Cons necks.

If the Neo-Cons fall the entire GOP goes down with them.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Goku said:


> a world without taxes is probably not possible as long as there is a de-facto ruling class. Is a world without said ruling class possible?


A "world" without taxes was the Soviet Union. The state owned *ALL* the means of production and everything else, and was the only employer. Based on its computations it set prices and salaries. There was no need to take taxes from workers' salaries since everything was already centrally planned by the state. This is *SOCIALISM*.

A world without a ruling class is socialism taken to its final evolutionary (or revolutionary) stage - *COMMUNISM*. 

The later has never existed.

- Mike


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> RALLY LIVESTREAM POST THE ROMNEY RANT, GET IN HERE LADS:


Trump vs the establishment. This feud is going to be great! :banderas


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I didn't see Mitt or Trump. I bet I missed exactly nothing with Mitt.




> "I could have said Mitt drop to your knees and he would have dropped to his knees," Trump said.


:lol


----------



## Truthbetold

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Dazzler said:


> Trump vs the establishment. This feud is going to be great! :banderas


The most destructive force in the history of America to minorities is the Neo-Cons and Trump is attacking them.

So why has the media made Trump into what he is essentially destroying?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Dazzler said:


> Trump vs the establishment. This feud is going to be great! :banderas


The establishment has X-pac heat :trump


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I liked Trump's Healthcare plan a lot. No mandates, lots of competition, transparency in pricing when you go to see a doctor. Perfect. Doctors and Insurance companies wouldn't be able to overcharge because someone would charge less and if they all charged too much it wouldn't be affordable and they would lose customers. Oh and there is as little government involvement as I think you can get away with having. 




Goku said:


> why do you think you need government involvement to have these things? If the majority want these things (as evidenced by them happening in a 'democracy'), it will still happen, no?
> 
> a world without taxes is probably not possible as long as there is a de-facto ruling class. Is a world without said ruling class possible?


We might still have roads and schools without taxes. But chance in hell poor people are getting to use roads and schools without taxes. 

My parents did their best to provide for me and they did a good job. But if they had to pay for my education out of their own pockets they wouldn't have been able to. 



Batko10 said:


> A "world" without taxes was the Soviet Union. The state owned *ALL* the means of production and everything else, and was the only employer. Based on its computations it set prices and salaries. There was no need to take taxes from workers' salaries since everything was already centrally planned by the state. This is *SOCIALISM*.
> 
> A world without a ruling class is socialism taken to its final evolutionary (or revolutionary) stage - *COMMUNISM*.
> 
> The later has never existed.
> 
> - Mike


I feel like you're on the opposite end of the spectrum. The Soviet Union is the exact opposite of a world without taxes. It was a world with all of the taxes. What's a tax? It's when the government takes your money or stuff that you earned. What did the Soviet Union do? They took all the stuff and money. Also there was pretty clearly a ruling class in the Soviet Union.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Normally I would love to wreck you statist geeks in a debate about the need for government but this thread is about Donald Trump, who is far from a libertarian.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

WE ARE ALL NIMBLE NAVIGATORS HERE. 

As Trump supporters we should lift each other up with our HIGH ENERGY! :trump


----------



## TripleG

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

You magnificent bastard, I READ YOUR BOOK!

http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump-explained-how-dominate-media-1987-i-play-peoples-fantasies-2218125

If you haven't read "Art of the Deal" this article pretty much explains how Trump has played the media like a fiddle and how he documented it step for step in his book. Dude knows how to play the media to get the most attention possible. I was reading the other day that he spent significantly less than the other candidates on campaigning in states that he won. Well OF COURSE HE'S SPENDING LESS!!! He's got all the free coverage in the world by how he's manipulated the media into talking about him non-stop to where he's basically the only name you see most of the time. 

And just to drive the point home, how many other candidates have their own thread in this forum?


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FITZ said:


> I feel like you're on the opposite end of the spectrum. The Soviet Union is the exact opposite of a world without taxes. It was a world with all of the taxes. What's a tax? It's when the government takes your money or stuff that you earned. What did the Soviet Union do? They took all the stuff and money. Also there was pretty clearly a ruling class in the Soviet Union.


A tax is when the *capitalist *state takes your money to finance its operation including the construction and maintenance of the physical infrastructure of society.

In a truly socialist economy such as the Soviet Union had the state owns the means of production and sets prices and salaries. There are no taxes, because the salaries of workers and public works projects were already financed according to state central planning computations. 

In a capitalist economy (or mixed economy) the means of production are privately owned and the state has to tax the privately owned businesses and its workers in order to raise capital to run the government and pay for public works projects.

I never said the Soviet Union did not have a ruling class. In fact, I stated that under socialism there is a ruling class. It is under communism that the state theoretically whithers away and there is no ruling class.

- Mike


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TripleG said:


> You magnificent bastard, I READ YOUR BOOK!
> 
> http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump-explained-how-dominate-media-1987-i-play-peoples-fantasies-2218125
> 
> If you haven't read "Art of the Deal" this article pretty much explains how Trump has played the media like a fiddle and how he documented it step for step in his book. Dude knows how to play the media to get the most attention possible. I was reading the other day that he spent significantly less than the other candidates on campaigning in states that he won. Well OF COURSE HE'S SPENDING LESS!!! He's got all the free coverage in the world by how he's manipulated the media into talking about him non-stop to where he's basically the only name you see most of the time.
> 
> And just to drive the point home, how many other candidates have their own thread in this forum?


What did you think of the book as a whole, @TripleG ?


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> Bill Kristol looks like he's on the verge of a nervous breakdown.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-give-white-house-hillary-trump-shouldnt-win/
> 
> I watched this interview. So he's telegraphing the plan lol. Surely they're not this stupid. GOP seems doomed to me. If Trump wins, he could conceivably usurp the party. Maybe he already has. If the "resistance" plan to have a brokered convention works and they seriously nominate Cruz or Rubio, the betrayal will be overt. I can't imagine Trump supporters, a sizable portion of GOP voters so far, ever voting GOP again. They'd have culled their numbers even further, and this would threaten even their gerrymandered vote suppressing strategy to hold Congress. It'd be crazy if we witness the demise of a major political party in our lifetime (of course it's really just one half of the same party but we'll pretend it's not).





Beatles123 said:


> So the GOP plans to stop Trump, who has his support because people are sick of the establishment....With Romney, the face of the establishment. :lmao
> 
> Trump's entire platform will become PROVEN FACT after today. The GOP are out of touch with their own base and this speech will showcase that fact to the entire voting populace.


Of all the neocons I want to see go apoplectic, Bill Kristol is probably at the head of the list. Dude is one of the slimiest, most intellectually shallow, philosophically craven individuals in the entire Republicrat duopoly establishment. 
@AryaDark @Batko10 @CamillePunk @Goku @L-DOPA @Miss Sally

This is hilarious, demonstrating that Bill Kristol was as right about Trump as he was about Iraq:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/704722642360778753

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/704722519987716097

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/704722249509695488

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/704722025559035905

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/704721599245717504


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

You have to respect his consistency.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

:lol @FITZ 
@AryaDark @samizayn






:dance :dance :dance :dance :dance :dance :dance


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/en...us_56d501c2e4b0871f60ec98ba?section=australia

Black students removed from Trump Rally who were only standing silently apparently.

Also other reports have surfaced of Trump supporters reacting violently towards dissenters and protestors.

Team Trump, shouldn't Donald be pouring cold water on this and stressing non-violence at his rallies?

Or is it all just bullshit because it's on the Huffpost?


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/en...us_56d501c2e4b0871f60ec98ba?section=australia
> 
> Black students removed from Trump Rally who were only standing silently apparently.
> 
> Also other reports have surfaced of Trump supporters reacting violently towards dissenters and protestors.
> 
> Team Trump, shouldn't Donald be pouring cold water on this and stressing non-violence at his rallies?
> 
> Or is it all just bullshit because it's on the Huffpost?


http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1087016697987364&id=150225644999812

Just #BlackLivesMatter doing their usual shtick where they lie and misrepresent and then play the victim. 

But yes, nearly everything the Huffington Post puts up is bullshit.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/en...us_56d501c2e4b0871f60ec98ba?section=australia
> 
> Black students removed from Trump Rally who were only standing silently apparently.
> 
> Also other reports have surfaced of Trump supporters reacting violently towards dissenters and protestors.
> 
> Team Trump, shouldn't Donald be pouring cold water on this and stressing non-violence at his rallies?
> 
> Or is it all just bullshit because it's on the Huffpost?


you mean the same huffingtons that have a deep hatred for trump personally?


----------



## TNA is Here

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Truthbetold said:


>


I love Trump. He's acting like a man and not crapping on someone just cause the fascistic PC lefties on the media wants to black ball somebody. 

He's right, I'm not gonna condemn somebody without knowing what he is about. 

Media wants people to crawl and back down. Trump is not letting it happen. 

The Left is anti-discussion, anti having free thought. Buchanan was right about that.


----------



## TNA is Here

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> Bill Kristol looks like he's on the verge of a nervous breakdown.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-give-white-house-hillary-trump-shouldnt-win/
> 
> I watched this interview. So he's telegraphing the plan lol. Surely they're not this stupid. GOP seems doomed to me. If Trump wins, he could conceivably usurp the party. Maybe he already has. If the "resistance" plan to have a brokered convention works and they seriously nominate Cruz or Rubio, the betrayal will be overt. I can't imagine Trump supporters, a sizable portion of GOP voters so far, ever voting GOP again. They'd have culled their numbers even further, and this would threaten even their gerrymandered vote suppressing strategy to hold Congress. It'd be crazy if we witness the demise of a major political party in our lifetime (of course it's really just one half of the same party but we'll pretend it's not).


Unbelievable finally a true Conservative is leading the Reps. and they piss their pants. 

The NWO is alive and real.


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/en...us_56d501c2e4b0871f60ec98ba?section=australia
> 
> Black students removed from Trump Rally who were only standing silently apparently.
> 
> Also other reports have surfaced of Trump supporters reacting violently towards dissenters and protestors.
> 
> Team Trump, shouldn't Donald be pouring cold water on this and stressing non-violence at his rallies?
> 
> Or is it all just bullshit because it's on the Huffpost?


The story contradicts itself in the opening lines. The students said that Secret Service kicked them out and then the Secret Service say that they don't deal with protesters unless they are a danger. The story then says that local law enforcement kicked them out.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1087016697987364&id=150225644999812
> 
> Just #BlackLivesMatter doing their usual shtick where they lie and misrepresent and then play the victim.
> 
> But yes, nearly everything the Huffington Post puts up is bullshit.


With regards to the facebook post, what a surprise, the police chief is covering their backs. What is the chief going to do say 'Yes I think actually we went too far, can someone investigate us please?'.

Did you even read the article?

Geez guys, I don't know why but I expected a bit more than your instant utter dismissal of this.


----------



## Rugrat

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I haven't been paying too close attention to Trump's campaign, so anyone care to answer this?

Is it actually correct that he intends to spend $11 bn on a wall to divide USA and Mexico? If so, do you guys agree with this or is it that his other policies sufficiently counter-balance this?


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> With regards to the facebook post, what a surprise, the police chief is covering their backs. What is the chief going to do say 'Yes I think actually we went too far, can someone investigate us please?'.


We don't have any reason to doubt him.



yeahbaby! said:


> Did you even read the article?


The article is saying they were just students and not protesters so it's hard to take the rest seriously.



Rugrat said:


> Is it actually correct that he intends to spend $11 bn on a wall to divide USA and Mexico?


Yes. And he wants Mexico to pay for it. :laugh:



Rugrat said:


> If so, do you guys agree with this or is it that his other policies sufficiently counter-balance this?


I don't see how it'll work. Couldn't they just use a ladder/rope or dig a tunnel?


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Rugrat said:


> Is it actually correct that he intends to spend $11 bn on a wall to divide USA and Mexico? If so, do you guys agree with this or is it that his other policies sufficiently counter-balance this?


He should ask the Romans and Chinese how walls did for 'em. Emperor Hadrian and Emperor Qin Shi Huangdi can give him some pointers. :trump


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> He should ask the Romans and Chinese how walls did for 'em. Emperor Hadrian and Emperor Qin Shi Huangdi can give him some pointers. :trump


Yes, he should. They worked for years :trump


Rugrat: Yes, but id ask @DesolationRow for the most unbiased recap.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Yes, he should. They worked for years :trump


Ask the Mongols/Xiongnu about the Great Wall of China, though. :trump


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> With regards to the facebook post, what a surprise, the police chief is covering their backs. What is the chief going to do say 'Yes I think actually we went too far, can someone investigate us please?'.
> 
> Did you even read the article?
> 
> Geez guys, I don't know why but I expected a bit more than your instant utter dismissal of this.


I explained problems with the story. 

Police chief also said they had body camera on. It should be pretty simple to find out what actually happened (a good reason for body cameras). 



Rugrat said:


> I haven't been paying too close attention to Trump's campaign, so anyone care to answer this?
> 
> Is it actually correct that he intends to spend $11 bn on a wall to divide USA and Mexico? If so, do you guys agree with this or is it that his other policies sufficiently counter-balance this?


Well he says Mexico is going to pay for it. 

I'm not really sure why people view this as an absurd policy. The United States has a problem with illegal immigration coming in from Mexico. This isn't really a debatable point. It's really a rather simple concept, don't let them cross the border. 

I mean this is what parts of the border looks like:









And even if you want to say that people sneaking into the US isn't that big of a problem there are a lot of drugs entering over the border. 

I mean when you have things like this:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/us/drug-super-tunnel-tijuana-san-diego/

there is another compelling reason for a more secure border. 

I know in other nations they don't have crazy borders. But I don't think these other nations have to deal with that drug smuggling tunnel that I just posted a picture of.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FITZ said:


> Well he says Mexico is going to pay for it.
> 
> I'm not really sure why people view this as an absurd policy. The United States has a problem with illegal immigration coming in from Mexico. This isn't really a debatable point. It's really a rather simple concept, don't let them cross the border.
> 
> I mean this is what parts of the border looks like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And even if you want to say that people sneaking into the US isn't that big of a problem there are a lot of drugs entering over the border.
> 
> I mean when you have things like this:
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/us/drug-super-tunnel-tijuana-san-diego/
> 
> there is another compelling reason for a more secure border.
> 
> I know in other nations they don't have crazy borders. But I don't think these other nations have to deal with that drug smuggling tunnel that I just posted a picture of.


What you said is all true. Expecting Mexico to pay for it, though? That's where the absurdity comes from. The wall itself isn't absurd. It's asking another country to pay for it, one that likely sees the wall as running counter-point to its own desires.


----------



## Blackbeard

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

*Drumpf* is getting slapped around tonight.


----------



## Rugrat

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Some interesting points raised.

I was under the impression that he was going to subtract the money that Mexico paid for the wall from their trade deficit to the USA, so America were paying for it.


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> What you said is all true. Expecting Mexico to pay for it, though? That's where the absurdity comes from. The wall itself isn't absurd. It's asking another country to pay for it, one that likely sees the wall as running counter-point to its own desires.


Exports to the United States are very important to Mexico. I've been along the border in Texas and it's just truck after truck coming into the country. The US decides what gets to come in, and how long it takes to come in. 

Let's say there are 50 people working along the border clearing trucks to enter. If the US decides that they want to have 5 people work at the border instead there is massive disruption.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FITZ said:


> Exports to the United States are very important to Mexico. I've been along the border in Texas and it's just truck after truck coming into the country. The US decides what gets to come in, and how long it takes to come in.
> 
> Let's say there are 50 people working along the border clearing trucks to enter. If the US decides that they want to have 5 people work at the border instead there is massive disruption.


Of course. I'm not disputing that. 

I just wonder how it's going to be feasible. We're being told of the _what_ and _why_ and _who_, but not the _how_.


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Rugrat said:


> Some interesting points raised.
> 
> I was under the impression that he was going to subtract the money that Mexico paid for the wall from their trade deficit to the USA, so America were paying for it.


That's not how trade deficit works. The US government isn't giving the Mexican government money. Mexicans sell more things to the US than Americans sell the Mexico. 



Oda Nobunaga said:


> Of course. I'm not disputing that.
> 
> I just wonder how it's going to be feasible. We're being told of the _what_ and _why_ and _who_, but not the _how_.


Yeah he's not saying how. There are ways though because the amount we're talking about isn't all that high in the grand scheme of everything.


----------



## Beatles123

Blackbeard said:


> *Drumpf* is getting slapped around tonight.


No.

Grasping at straws, they are.

No one gives a fuck about Ted or his polls.



FITZ said:


> That's not how trade deficit works. The US government isn't giving the Mexican government money. Mexicans sell more things to the US than Americans sell the Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah he's not saying how. There are ways though because the amount we're talking about isn't all that high in the grand scheme of everything.


They will pay for it by having them pay back into the trade imbalance.


----------



## Blackbeard

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> No.
> 
> Grasping at straws, they are.
> 
> No one gives a fuck about Ted or his polls.


*Drumpf* has been exposed tonight. The circus act is over.


----------



## Silent KEEL

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Blackbeard said:


> *Drumpf* has been exposed tonight. The circus act is over.


Yet more people will vote for him than any other candidate...


----------



## Blackbeard

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Silent KEEL said:


> Yet more people will vote for him than any other candidate...


:mj2


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> No.
> 
> Grasping at straws, they are.



Thank you Master :yoda 

Debate's going okay. Megyn and Rubio did the effective double team on Trump U.


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Blackbeard said:


> *Drumpf* has been exposed tonight. The circus act is over.


Do you really believe that? Because I can very easily describe as the hosts and the 3 other candidates all ganging up on Trump and that will only make people like him more.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Blackbeard said:


> :mj2


Don't underestimate the Drumpf. :trump


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Yes, he should. They worked for years :trump
> 
> 
> Rugrat: Yes, but id ask @DesolationRow for the most unbiased recap.


Indeed... They worked well... The barbarians eventually overtook them. :mj2 @Oda Nobunaga 



FITZ said:


> That's not how trade deficit works. The US government isn't giving the Mexican government money. Mexicans sell more things to the US than Americans sell the Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah he's not saying how. There are ways though because the amount we're talking about isn't all that high in the grand scheme of everything.


Indeed... @Rugrat 

Trump is essentially saying that he's going to cut down on the trade deficit (at $58+ billion and rising) between the U.S. and Mexico, and from those "windfalls" he'll pay for the wall. It's a pretty cute point.



Blackbeard said:


> *Drumpf* has been exposed tonight. The circus act is over.


This is all leading to eight years of sociopathic war criminal and statist Queen of Hearts Hillary Clinton. :mj2


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I am glad I am not running for president 

My last name not only sounds like a surname a nazi war criminal would have but could also be shifted into a several phrases and puns most of which I heard in middle-school


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

It would appear that in early polling the public believes that The Donald won the debate tonight. The consensus is that he held up well under the attacks on him by the all the other candidates and moderators. 

*TRUMP IN 2016*!

- Mike

P.S. This is a legitimate poll - you can only vote once. I know, because I acted like a Democrat and tried to vote a second time. I'm so ashamed!fpalm

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/03/poll_who_won_the_republican_presidential_debate_03.html







[/IMG]


----------



## Beatles123

All of them pledged to support Trump as the nom, begrudgingly LOL



THE SHIV said:


> Thank you Master :yoda
> 
> Debate's going okay. Megyn and Rubio did the effective double team on Trump U.


Trump U isn't anything.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/705605282936852480
:mj2


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The Roman wall and great wall of China worked for a very long time. I don't think the wall was even finished by the time the Mongols invaded. The US/Mexican border is so insecure that it's pathetic. Walls work with proper maintaining, you need guards and you need eyes. If walls didn't work people wouldn't build them.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The Donald still leads the poll about who won tonight's debate after about 55,000 votes have been tallied.

- Mike








[/IMG]


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

What is going to kill Trump are those NYT tapes, released or unreleased.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> What is going to kill Trump are those NYT tapes, released or unreleased.


Implying Trump can be killed :nerd:


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> I am glad I am not running for president
> 
> My last name not only sounds like a surname a nazi war criminal would have but could also be shifted into a several phrases and puns most of which I heard in middle-school


vote for President Hohenheim of Light.


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> The Donald still leads the poll about who won tonight's debate after about 55,000 votes have been tallied.


It accepted my vote for Trump. Feels good. :rock4


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> The Donald still leads the poll about who won tonight's debate after about 55,000 votes have been tallied.
> 
> - Mike


What an accomplishment.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Lodi Lawless said:


> What an accomplishment.


Look, this thing with Trump is real and we casted our vote fairly. Come to peace with it.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

OH MY GOD

OH

MY

GOD!

*CRUZ LEGIT ATE A BOOGER AT THE DEBATE!*






@MrMister :lmao

I hope this shit goes viral :lol

@DesolationRow


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Look, this thing with Trump is real and we casted our vote fairly. Come to peace with it.


And now he is president?


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Lodi Lawless said:


> And now he is president?


No, he hasn't slaughtered enough people for that "honor." The Deep State won't allow anyone but Hillary take the prize this upcoming fall.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I understand that the candidates wants votes but what are the other GOP candidates doing :chan is all the rotten insults, bias and mud-slinging, against Trump, really necessary? What's he done that's so bad? I don't believe any of the MSM spin.

Whereas the war criminal is just sitting back, cackling as she did in 2011, watching the GOP tear itself apart again!


----------



## Muerte al fascismo

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

This debate proved how easy the Dems will take Trump apart. He's in a weak field and both Rubio and Cruz got good shots in without effective rebuttals. 

He'll have to improve a hell of a lot to compete. You can't win a presidency by just being a good attack dog. 

Mitt set the narrative on where to attack Trump. The Dems have a slick propaganda operation, they will exploit these weaknesses.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump was so teamed up on last night. For everyone who complains about Trump acting like a middle schooler Cruz and especially Rubio did the same exact thing. Kasich is the only one standing back waiting for VP honestly. 

It won't be everybody against Trump at the Presidential debate is all I'm saying.


----------



## Muerte al fascismo

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> Trump was so teamed up on last night. For everyone who complains about Trump acting like a middle schooler Cruz and especially Rubio did the same exact thing. Kasich is the only one standing back waiting for VP honestly.
> 
> It won't be everybody against Trump at the Presidential debate is all I'm saying.


This is nothing compared to the Dems media blitz. You only have to look at the lies, distortions and character assassinations they attacked Palin and Mitt with. 

Trump's charisma will probably see him through, but the cracks have started to appear. 

Kasich might be able to provide the political experience that he needs to reach the top. He'll also be a good guy to get the party pulling in the same direction again.

I've never liked Rubio and Cruz is to radical for me, but they did damage tonight. A Trump/Kasich ticket can work, but Trump needs to up his game. We all know Hillary is the Queen of dirty political tricks and the establishment's choice.


----------



## Truthbetold

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## Truthbetold

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> Trump was so teamed up on last night. For everyone who complains about Trump acting like a middle schooler Cruz and especially Rubio did the same exact thing. Kasich is the only one standing back waiting for VP honestly.
> 
> It won't be everybody against Trump at the Presidential debate is all I'm saying.


Rubio and Cruz are the All Time worst competition in the history of Presidential debates.

Trump is destroying them like Vader vs jobbers.


----------



## truelove

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> Trump was so teamed up on last night. For everyone who complains about Trump acting like a middle schooler Cruz and especially Rubio did the same exact thing. Kasich is the only one standing back waiting for VP honestly.
> 
> It won't be everybody against Trump at the Presidential debate is all I'm saying.


Kasich said he has no desire to be VP but I'm 99% certain himself and Trump are together.
Kasich is making sure Ohio is in the bag and once Trump wins Florida it's over for the field. 
If Trump was smart he'd have Kasich as VP and Rand as secretary of state and Carson and surgeon general. Hell give Cruz Scalia's seat for Supreme Court 
Run a ticket where you have level headed guys who will keep Trump in line while not losing voters.


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The media savagely attacking him cause he will not conform to liberal political correctness. 

But even though folks and I include myself in this, we don't agree with some of his agendas, but he's the first to be blunt! Adamantly blunt and straightforward. I like that about anyone, it isn't just cursing but the cursing drives the point home and draws line in sand. 

Even if you are arguing with me, or angry, or from an opposing view, if you think for yourself and be blunt and straightforward and not "beat around the bush" I may not like it, but I'll damn sure respect you more so than someone that I do agree with yet are parrots using talking points , can't think for self, and obfuscates their position to appease folks.


He don't try to make everyone happy by using soft language and giving answers that makes everyone happy yet when you try and figure out the answer it's so convoluted and obscured in appeasing language you still don't know the stance. 



I love this montage.

https://youtu.be/dZf5FUlPyoc







Even if ya hate the bastard, give him 1 term instead of 2. 

It's time for U.S. Government: Attitude Era

And liberal lobbyists can't control him so it's full on attack in media. If a 1 term Trump doesn't stay blunt and puts in a good cabinet to help filter him a bit then we boot him out, if he does anything illegal Supreme Court controls his and Congress laws. And Congress can impeach if he did go nuts.

Trump is not a politician, he's a business man that knows how corporations lobby, bullshit, bribe, he was inside it. Last time we had a business man run for president was Ross Perot and he predicted the bailouts 100% and predicted the era it would happen.






People that claim cursing shows poor vocabulary or intelligence, let me introduce Stephen Fry, probably one of the largest vocabularies and understanding of perfect English grammar, even the most obscure rules in grammar. His explanation and reversal opinion that it's the non cursing that shows poor vocabulary.

https://youtu.be/s_osQvkeNRM


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump has appealed directly to large blocs of voters who think the government fails all the time and always has an excuse for itself that doesn't make sense, and never listens to them. Trump is saying, 'I am listening to you. Your wishes are as legitimate as everybody else's. These assholes don't listen to you and they fuck up anyway and always get away with it. I am going to clean out all these losers who think they're better than you and I'm going to succeed, not fail.'

After 16 years of Bush (incompetently fought wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Great Recession) and Obama incompetence (worst economic recovery in history, a labor participation rate 3% lower than it was in 2009, an Obamacare that still has pathetic poll numbers, more incompetently fought wars in Syria and Libya), this is an argument with a powerful appeal to a lot of people. No other candidate is openly saying things like that. Trump's attacks on Democrats and Republicans both plays right into the 'they're all arrogant and stupid and they can't do things right' feeling that is widespread across the country. People feel like politicians and bureaucrats are arrogant against them, Trump is saying 'I am arrogant _for_ you.' 

The good thing is that after he wins the primary and the general (sorry, corrupt and creepy as fuck Hillary ain't beating THE DONALD), four years of him governing the country will end up in him being destroyed in the 2020 GOP primaries or the 2020 general election, and he'll slink back to Atlantic City to build the greatest college campus ever built, for Trump U.


----------



## Blackbeard

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Wow, that poll is baffling. *Drumpf* had a poor showing at the debate, I don't understand how anyone could feel he won it.

It's terrifying that people still continue to support him. The thought of him even catching of a whiff of the White House is a scary prospect.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Blackbeard said:


> Wow, that poll is baffling. *Drumpf* had a poor showing at the debate, I don't understand how anyone could feel he won it.
> 
> It's terrifying that people still continue to support him. The thought of him even catching of a whiff of the White House is a scary prospect.


You know what's even scarier?

*MARCO RUBIO: GAY TWINK!*



















http://www.queerty.com/are-these-photos-of-marco-rubio-at-a-gay-miami-foam-party-20160202

I mean, c'mon man It's 2016, Marco! ACCEPT THIS IS PART OF YOU~ 0


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Blackbeard said:


> Wow, that poll is baffling. *Drumpf* had a poor showing at the debate, I don't understand how anyone could feel he won it.
> 
> It's terrifying that people still continue to support him. The thought of him even catching of a whiff of the White House is a scary prospect.


It's not scary. Scary is the current state of the United States of America. 

The fact Bill Kristol is against Drumpf is a reason anyone should support Drumpf.


also read that post by deepelemblues above yours. it's some good insight into why Trump is a thing.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Blackbeard said:


> Wow, that poll is baffling. *Drumpf* had a poor showing at the debate, I don't understand how anyone could feel he won it.
> 
> It's terrifying that people still continue to support him. The thought of him even catching of a whiff of the White House is a scary prospect.


What is scary about a Trump presidency? Besides that the liberal media have told you he's scary and so you repeat it. 

Just because he was ganged up on by the other candidates and had all the moderators openly debating with him and baiting the other candidates to attack him doesn't mean he lost the debate. The facts about how much money the US can save by having pharmaceutical companies bid were completely misrepresented by the panel. Megyn Kelly has already admitted post-debate that she was wrong about Trump University and that Trump was right. What else did he supposedly do wrong that would make someone think he "lost" the debate (as if these debates can truly be won or lost when you have 60 seconds to discuss hugely complex issues). 

What's scary is that the one Republican candidate who is BY FAR least likely to provoke a conflict with Russia is the one the media have all colluded to portray as dangerous. It's a world gone mad and people who actually depend on the mainstream media are living in a fantasy.

Hillary Clinton is guilty of espionage. Does anyone even care? Oh wait, Trump ran private seminars a few years ago and a small portion of people who paid are unhappy. Clearly more important.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



deepelemblues said:


> Trump has appealed directly to large blocs of voters who think the government fails all the time and always has an excuse for itself that doesn't make sense, and never listens to them. Trump is saying, 'I am listening to you. Your wishes are as legitimate as everybody else's. These assholes don't listen to you and they fuck up anyway and always get away with it. I am going to clean out all these losers who think they're better than you and I'm going to succeed, not fail.'
> 
> After 16 years of Bush (incompetently fought wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Great Recession) and Obama incompetence (worst economic recovery in history, a labor participation rate 3% lower than it was in 2009, an Obamacare that still has pathetic poll numbers, more incompetently fought wars in Syria and Libya), this is an argument with a powerful appeal to a lot of people. No other candidate is openly saying things like that. Trump's attacks on Democrats and Republicans both plays right into the 'they're all arrogant and stupid and they can't do things right' feeling that is widespread across the country. People feel like politicians and bureaucrats are arrogant against them, Trump is saying 'I am arrogant _for_ you.'
> 
> *The good thing is that after he wins the primary and the general (sorry, corrupt and creepy as fuck Hillary ain't beating THE DONALD), four years of him governing the country will end up in him being destroyed in the 2020 GOP primaries or the 2020 general election, and he'll slink back to Atlantic City to build the greatest college campus ever built, for Trump U.*


You had me until the bolded.

If Trump beats Hillary and does the wall or ANYTHING he says, his re-election is secured unless he's killed, which could happen actually.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The best part of all of this is people whining wanting to go to Canada if Trump gets elected. Go to Mexico if you're so offended at his opposition of illegal Mexican immigration


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Muerte al fascismo said:


> This debate proved how easy the Dems will take Trump apart. He's in a weak field and both Rubio and Cruz got good shots in without effective rebuttals.
> 
> He'll have to improve a hell of a lot to compete. You can't win a presidency by just being a good attack dog.
> 
> Mitt set the narrative on where to attack Trump. The Dems have a slick propaganda operation, they will exploit these weaknesses.


You have to be kidding. The Dems try to hide Hildebeast. All of their "debates" were televised at odd times or during crucial professional sports events so Hillary would be seen and heard by the least amount of people. While Trump was giving the GOP debate broadcasts *20 million+ *viewers the Dems were getting *8-9 million *for their broadcasts (and praying for even less people to watch).

Hillary annoys the hell out of people and comes across as a fucking witch in a pants suit. Even Dems don't really like here. I sincerely hope that the FBI doesn't arrest the Hildebeast. The Donald will crush her in the national elections as he would that creepy, old pussy - Bernie Sanders. 

The only one who could beat him might be Joe Biden if the Dems' political machine decides to sabotage the convention and pull the rug out from under both *Hildebeast* and *Creepo*.

- Mike


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I honestly think the democrats are in the middle of "reloading"

They struck it out of the park when it came to pushing Obama but they did not have a good follow up ready yet

So they just threw a bone to the party loyalist and expected to run against a broken republican party


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



truelove said:


> Kasich said he has no desire to be VP but I'm 99% certain himself and Trump are together.
> Kasich is making sure Ohio is in the bag and once Trump wins Florida it's over for the field.
> If Trump was smart he'd have Kasich as VP and Rand as secretary of state and Carson and surgeon general. Hell give Cruz Scalia's seat for Supreme Court
> Run a ticket where you have level headed guys who will keep Trump in line while not losing voters.


If Kasich wants to be Trumps VP he needs to withdraw from the race before Ohio. Him winning Ohio will only hurt Trump. Trump need a majority of delegates to get the nomination. The first vote of the delegations it is mandatory that they vote for the person they were elected to vote for. If Kasich wins Ohio his delegates must vote for him at the convention unless he drops out of the race completely. But even if he does that his delegates would then not be obligated to vote for anybody specific. 

If Kasich wants Trump to win he needs to get off the ballot in Ohio and endorse Trump before the election there even starts.


----------



## TNA is Here

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lybr4EPkZRE

Trump on Romney and Free Trade. 

"I love free trade but a controled free trade, not people losing their jobs and companies putting their business in Mexico"

:clap

I don't understand why the left, esp. Sanders supporters wouldn't like Trump.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Stinger Fan said:


> The best part of all of this is people whining wanting to go to Canada if Trump gets elected. Go to Mexico if you're so offended at his opposition of illegal Mexican immigration


Americans have zero rights in Mexico which is ironic considering Libs and the Mexican Government is always complaining about how America treats them.. it's almost comical.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Feraligatr said:


> Lol I'm sorry. This doesn't seem like a big deal but...
> 
> Eating Pizza backwards though :lol!? See something new everyday... :taker


Stuffed crust pizza, hence the inverse eating pattern, bruh bruh. :trump


----------



## Muerte al fascismo

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> You have to be kidding. The Dems try to hide Hildebeast. All of their "debates" were televised at odd times or during crucial professional sports events so Hillary would be seen and heard by the least amount of people. While Trump was giving the GOP debate broadcasts *20 million+ *viewers the Dems were getting *8-9 million *for their broadcasts (and praying for even less people to watch).
> 
> Hillary annoys the hell out of people and comes across as a fucking witch in a pants suit. Even Dems don't really like here. I sincerely hope that the FBI doesn't arrest the Hildebeast. The Donald will crush her in the national elections as he would that creepy, old pussy - Bernie Sanders.
> 
> The only one who could beat him might be Joe Biden if the Dems' political machine decides to sabotage the convention and pull the rug out from under both *Hildebeast* and *Creepo*.
> 
> - Mike


You've missed my point.

The Dems propaganda machine and attack dogs are good at painting the picture, regardless if it fits in with the truth. They portrayed Palin as a ideological creature, lacking in intelligence. However, if you've followed her career, she was extremely effective working with all sides in Alaska. Before everything blew up, everybody would say she was an honest broker and was very effective at her job. It was this brutal misrepresentation that effectively sunk McCain.

The same happened with Mitt. I've no doubt that under Mitt, the economic situation would've been 100x better then today. His record proves this. Obama has even used several of his blueprints to create policy. He was the clear, best choice for president. What killed him was the Dems effectively used the politics of envy, turning his success against him. He was portrayed as out of touch and only in politics to protect the 1%. This was completely false, but Mitt never managed to shake that image. 

If Trump doesn't kill the lines of attack that have had some success on him, he will get crushed. Hillary will never fight an honest game. Rubio's and Cruz's tricks will be nothing compared to the full force of the Dems operation. 

Trump's attack dog persona works for getting the nomination, especially with the weak field. It will not work against someone with the experience of Hillary, combined with the best political propaganda machine in a very, long time. 

I'll give some credit to Trump, his recent flexibility appears to show he understands these problems.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Muerte al fascismo said:


> You've missed my point.
> 
> The Dems propaganda machine and attack dogs are good at painting the picture, regardless if it fits in with the truth. They portrayed Palin as a ideological creature, lacking in intelligence. However, if you've followed her career, she was extremely effective working with all sides in Alaska. Before everything blew up, everybody would say she was an honest broker and was very effective at her job. It was this brutal misrepresentation that effectively sunk McCain.
> 
> The same happened with Mitt. I've no doubt that under Mitt, the economic situation would've been 100x better then today. His record proves this. Obama has even used several of his blueprints to create policy. He was the clear, best choice for president. What killed him was the Dems effectively used the politics of envy, turning his success against him. He was portrayed as out of touch and only in politics to protect the 1%. This was completely false, but Mitt never managed to shake that image.
> 
> If Trump doesn't kill the lines of attack that have had some success on him, he will get crushed. Hillary will never fight an honest game. Rubio's and Cruz's tricks will be nothing compared to the full force of the Dems operation.
> 
> Trump's attack dog persona works for getting the nomination, especially with the weak field. It will not work against someone with the experience of Hillary, combined with the best political propaganda machine in a very, long time.
> 
> I'll give some credit to Trump, his recent flexibility appears to show he understands these problems.


You haven't been paying attention.

Republicans are going after Trump on EVERYTHING. I, mean, EVERYTHING! There has not been one soundbite, one personality trait, one position past or present, one tiny INKLING they haven't exploited. From woman to KKK to raping his own daughter, (YES, EVEN THAT.)

There is NOTHING the dems can throw at him that isn't being thrown at him already. If he survives this, Old man Bill and his Hillary-to-die-on will be a cakewalk. ESPECIALLY against a would-be un-enthused Dem voter base that is SWALLOWED in comparison to the far more passionate Repub base this cycle.

Bernie is, quoting him, "IN MOY VHYEW!!" their only shot, and he's tanking thus far.


----------



## Banez

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

To lighten the mood a bit.






And because i couldn't watch 30 seconds further :lol


----------



## AT&T Stadium

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



deepelemblues said:


> Trump has appealed directly to large blocs of voters who think the government fails all the time and always has an excuse for itself that doesn't make sense, and never listens to them. Trump is saying, *'I am listening to you. Your wishes are as legitimate as everybody else's. These assholes don't listen to you and they fuck up anyway and always get away with it. I am going to clean out all these losers who think they're better than you and I'm going to succeed, not fail.'*


This is exactly what Carketti (spelling wrong) said in season 4 of The Wire. He got elected but soon found out he couldn't fix anything. I have a feeling Donald will find that out as well.


----------



## amhlilhaus

I believe the country is doomed. Our debt, our ious to the future (estimates as high as 100 trillion) are too great. We have two camps of 40 % of the population who think the other side is the devil (im guilty of this) and our leaders wont do anything to change it, because to do so would piss EVERYONE off, everbody would lose a lot of skin to change. The politicians if they did have the guts to try would lose re elections, if they were really successful might even get killed. At this point, the only question is how do we fall. Is there a collapse, massive violence and start over, or does the government control more and more of our lives while reducing services and everyone becomes broke and miserable?

That said im voting trump. If he wins, he might not change anything, but hed be entertaining as shit. Its all we have to fall back on. The future here is very bleak, and we will take the world with us


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



amhlilhaus said:


> We have two camps of 40 % of the population who think the other side is the devil (im guilty of this) and our leaders wont do anything to change it, because to do so would piss EVERYONE off, everbody would lose a lot of skin to change.


The problem is that the "*takers*" have reached such numbers that the "*producers*" in our society cannot support them and the infrastructure of society anymore. When the number of parasites gets to a certain point the body can no longer keep going and dies.

The ironic part is that the SJWs and PC assholes along with the media are constantly attacking the very working class people who keep this country afloat.

- Mike


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> The problem is that the "*takers*" have reached such numbers that the "*producers*" in our society cannot support them and the infrastructure of society anymore. When the number of parasites gets to a certain point the body can no longer keep going and dies.
> 
> The ironic part is that the SJWs and PC assholes along with the media are constantly attacking the very working class people who keep this country afloat.
> 
> - Mike


What you're saying is backed up by statistics actually. 

I just looked at the US Census clock and it estimates 323 million people in the US. Our labor participation rate is about 63% and that only includes people 16 and over not in an institution. About 20% of our population is 15 or under. Participation rate just means working or looking for rate. Our unemployment is around 5%. So you have 58% of adults working. When you factor in all of the kids and then all of the working people that are part time and are on some type of government assistance it's pretty easy to see why there is a serious problem.


----------



## TomahawkJock

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FITZ said:


> What you're saying is backed up by statistics actually.
> 
> I just looked at the US Census clock and it estimates 323 million people in the US. Our labor participation rate is about 63% and that only includes people 16 and over not in an institution. About 20% of our population is 15 or under. Participation rate just means working or looking for rate. Our unemployment is around 5%. So you have 58% of adults working. When you factor in all of the kids and then all of the working people that are part time and are on some type of government assistance it's pretty easy to see why there is a serious problem.


Does this take into retirees? And or old people just sitting on their ass waiting to retire?


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TomahawkJock said:


> Does this take into retirees? And or old people just sitting on their ass waiting to retire?


It does. Unless they happen to be institutionalized.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Apologies if posted before but this is brilliant!


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

How's Trump doing? It says in the news that Cruz is closing in on him? :crying:


yeahbaby! said:


> Apologies if posted before but this is brilliant!


That's hilarious. He's really good at the lip-syncing! :laugh:


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Dazzler said:


> How's Trump doing? It says in the news that Cruz is closing in on him? :crying:
> 
> That's hilarious. He's really good at the lip-syncing! :laugh:


Cruz won big in Kansas and Maine and lost close in Louisiana and Kentucky. Cruz gained 15 delegates on Trump and is now 83 behind. 

If Rubio doesn't drop out before Florida which he won't it will be very hard for Cruz to catch Trump still. Cruz got enough tonight to make it interesting but probably not enough to take the lead later. Between Super Tuesday and today Rubio fell a lot and Trump stayed stagnant. Cruz got a big boost from ex-Ben Carson people and a bunch of people who flipped from Rubio to him but there's still 10-15% of the vote Marco is splitting which does nothing but help Trump at this point.


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

MSNBC (the mirror opposite of FOX with extreme left), host has a segment explode in her face as she tried the media "race baiting" tactics to sling shit at Trump.



Host is gonna show Trump pulling in racists live at a Trump rally.

She tosses it to a Voxpop clip supposedly going to show proof to race bait viewers into being pissed and keep the anger up, (propaganda's job), and Woops! Look here she just race baited and then cut straight to a clip of a smart black man AT the Trump Rally bitching about media race baiting and how the media is pushing the racism angle. 

When it cuts back to host, she's speechless as her premise just bombed and she stammers a recovery ;-) 

Haha! Caught red handed like Fox News 

I love when mainstream media makes a damn fool of themselves. >
The man recording the DVR clip with phone, I guess adds "well that didn't go well for ya huh?"

:grin2:


https://youtu.be/LltnLzLXs7U








Pay Close attention to her recovery words... She says "Clearly no blacks support Trump!" then being racist herself and shows actual "racism" against her own race, she denies the black man's identity and calls him a "person" saying they will cut that footage. 

So black Trump supporters are not black the liberal media strips them of their race if they support Trump. 



By the way pay attention to this tactic. It's a very old debate tactic, and it works very well for those that don't stop a second and think. 

She and the far left are attacking Trump because of some supporter says something different/stupid/or is a bad guy. Yes the Right does same and it's why never believe mainstream media.


This is a very common logical fallacy. I want everyone to understand, when you are arguing , the use of logical fallacies are underhanded tactics to win and used to prove a negative, or to prove an assumption, or to use a false authority as a proof of your argument. A way to straight up lie without looking like you are because you tell one truth then compare your assumptions on this truth even when the truth you stated has no relevance at all to your premise.

The ONLY place logic fallacies should exist is in debate competitions where even the if the pro or con side is debating a known bad guy but in competition has to compete and win their side it's all about trapping your opponent in a cage of logical traps that if good enough it's "checkmate" where opponent loses no matter the reply due to setting the trap just like chess. 

And the other uses are informal arguments or online. But using them online all the time just exposes you as a troll when its the only way you always argue.

Note when media uses a logic fallacy then you instantly know they are lying if you have concrete fact checked 100% true footage and proof then thats all that is needed to instant win, theres no real room to argue except attempt to question context by using "begging the question" fallacy and "appeal to authority" fallacy, or just go strawman.


*So here's a list of the basic logic fallacies:* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

*Here's more advanced fallacies, check section on relevance on how to attack opponents relevance: *
http://www.logicalfallacies.info


*In the MSNBC clip the Host was using :*

*Association Fallacy: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy



> An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion


And 

*Argumentum ad populum:* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum



> In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."




Race baiting and claiming Trump racist because some supporter is racist. In truth makes zero sense. For example if I made a post and some agreed and some disagreed, well the one that disagreed finds out one of the people that agreed with my post is a felon or a whatever bad guy, so they make claim that if the bad guy supported my post then that means I must share same guilt as the bad guy. 

Or a more blatant example. You post on Reddit that kindergarten should reinstitute recess, you believe the children deserve a moment break and to help build socializing skills and friendship. But then some pedophile retweeted your post. Now your opponents all attack you demanding you withdraw your statement otherwise you are or you support a pedophile.

See how stupid using logical fallacies are when they occur outside informal arguments or debate competition? 



You want your mind blown? Study some of the logical fallacies, the popular ad hominem to strawman to the more advanced wordplay to trick a " laymen" audience. You will instantly, seriously, you will immediately know whose premise is bullshit. But you do have to pay attention as these logic fallacies are not supposed to be used in news where facts not opinion belongs. So when both sides are using fallacies you know neither side has a hard fact source that proves their point. So then you must fact check manually online then see which idiot you agree with even if they use tactics that should never be used on news. 

Magazine shows like 60 minutes/ Dateline NBC/ 20/20 , inside edition, extra, CBS news sunday morning .... Now those are where opinion belongs. Not news.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Pronoss said:


> MSNBC (the mirror opposite of FOX with extreme left), host has a segment explode in her face as she tried the media "race baiting" tactics to sling shit at Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Host is gonna show Trump pulling in racists live at a Trump rally.
> 
> She tosses it to a Voxpop clip supposedly going to show proof to race bait viewers into being pissed and keep the anger up, (propaganda's job), and Woops! Look here she just race baited and then cut straight to a clip of a smart black man AT the Trump Rally bitching about media race baiting and how the media is pushing the racism angle.
> 
> When it cuts back to host, she's speechless as her premise just bombed and she stammers a recovery ;-)
> 
> Haha! Caught red handed like Fox News
> 
> I love when mainstream media makes a damn fool of themselves. >
> The man recording the DVR clip with phone, I guess adds "well that didn't go well for ya huh?"
> 
> :grin2:
> 
> 
> https://youtu.be/LltnLzLXs7U


Um yeah hate to burst your bubble but that was posted like 5 pages ago and we all had a good chuckle before returning to outrage.


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Um yeah hate to burst your bubble but that was posted like 5 pages ago and we all had a good chuckle before returning to outrage.



What bubble you bursting?


Half the opponent's didn't even understanding the implications of the video. And had a superficial laugh.


So I wanted to bring it back up and explain it to the laymen who didn't get it


Read entire posts, you learn stuff.


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



deepelemblues said:


> Cruz won big in Kansas and Maine and lost close in Louisiana and Kentucky. Cruz gained 15 delegates on Trump and is now 83 behind.
> 
> If Rubio doesn't drop out before Florida which he won't it will be very hard for Cruz to catch Trump still. Cruz got enough tonight to make it interesting but probably not enough to take the lead later. Between Super Tuesday and today Rubio fell a lot and Trump stayed stagnant. Cruz got a big boost from ex-Ben Carson people and a bunch of people who flipped from Rubio to him but there's still 10-15% of the vote Marco is splitting which does nothing but help Trump at this point.


Thanks! If the GOP take Rubio out of the race, could that mean Cruz could get most of his votes?



Pronoss said:


> You want your mind blown? Study some of the logical fallacies, the popular ad hominem to strawman to the more advanced wordplay to trick a " laymen" audience. You will instantly, seriously, you will immediately know whose premise is bullshit.


I recognise those tactics from interacting with sjws on twitter. The MSNBC woman wouldn't have brought up his race if he had agreed with her. You can see the dislike on her face. You're allowed an opinion only if you agree with them. This is especially true if you're a minority. I've seen black gamers get called house n*****s on twitter by sjws. They always seem to get away with it. Even with their friends. It'd be great if Trump could get lots of black supporters to break the left's narrative. BLM are probably doing the most damage to that.

As for the association fallacy it's not just the KKK. They're using Louis Farrakhan as well. He likes Trump apparently. :laugh:


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Thank God. We're out of the bible belt....ugh, it hurts as a Christian to say that.

Now Trump can CRUSH FL and win Michigan and MIS.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Pronoss said:


> What bubble you bursting?
> 
> 
> Half the opponent's didn't even understanding the implications of the video. And had a superficial laugh.
> 
> 
> So I wanted to bring it back up and explain it to the laymen who didn't get it
> 
> 
> Read entire posts, you learn stuff.


Impressed with your ability to jump inside the minds of the great unwashed and decide for them they can't understand your big concepts.

Oh the irony of Trump supporters feeling intellectually superior! 
(I keed Team Trump, I keed)


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@AryaDark @Batko10 @Beatles123 @CamillePunk @The Dazzler @FITZ @Miss Sally @Pronoss @samizayn @scrilla 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/706195549737844738


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Impressed with your ability to jump inside the minds of the great unwashed and decide for them they can't understand your big concepts.
> 
> Oh the irony of Trump supporters feeling intellectually superior!
> (I keed Team Trump, I keed)


Do you? I dunno if you do.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I just watched that clip where the black guy "ambushes" MSNBC.

There is a producer of that show. That producer watched that clip before it went live. It was not a surprise to the producer. On the contrary. It seems to me they ambushed Hall with this clip. The title at the bottom even reads "Trump Supporters Dismiss David Duke Controversy." The producer knew exactly what he or she was doing. Hall had no clue since she's just a talking head. They didn't cut his sound. The clip was over. Hall just made that shit up because she was shocked, and probably pissed, that her producer just made her look dumb.

I'm of the opinion that MSNBC wants Trump to win. And it's not just because of this clip.


Marco in the HUGE chair :lmao


Also motherfucker, Ted Cruz is right there in this thing. I hope there aren't any more caucuses so the GOP can't rig the results as easily. LOL THE GOP CHEATED THEIR ASSES OFF LAST NIGHT. Apparently Kentucky has more integrity than Maine and Kansas:side:

But yeah this is why I didn't think Trump had a good Super Tuesday. The lead was not large enough. Hopefully Trump can still get that 1237, but we'll see. Lots of shenanigans could occur.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Blackbeard said:


> Wow, that poll is baffling. *Drumpf* had a poor showing at the debate, I don't understand how anyone could feel he won it.
> 
> It's terrifying that people still continue to support him. The thought of him even catching of a whiff of the White House is a scary prospect.


I agree. 

We may be the minority of this opinion in this particular thread, but Trump is openly wading in racism, xenophobia and "othering". Most of his supporters dismiss his blatant bigotry, holding on to the blanket slogan of "Make American Great Again". When I hear those words, it means "Make America White Again". I won't sugarcoat that or try to put a nice bow on it. Too many people have been included in the "American Dream" now and the resentment has reached a tipping point. There's nothing great about era where minorities, women, LGBT, etc weren't afforded the full protection of the law and healthcare wasn't more affordable to a swath of people. 


He's having black students kicked out of his rallies, hedges on disavowing the KKK, photographers are being assaulted and asking those at his rallies to pledge their support. When he isn't talking about his penis size, he's threatening to force the armed forces to act against the law. 

I hope he isn't elected as well. Trump is a showman and should continue in that pursuit, not as America's Commander In Chief.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*






^^^^ PIPEBOMB!


Everyone should hear this @DesolationRow@CamillePunk


----------



## Headliner

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> I agree.
> 
> We may be the minority of this opinion in this particular thread, but Trump is openly wading in racism, xenophobia and "othering". Most of his supporters dismiss his blatant bigotry, holding on to the blanket slogan of "Make American Great Again". When I hear those words, it means "Make America White Again". I won't sugarcoat that or try to put a nice bow on it. Too many people have been included in the "American Dream" now and the resentment has reached a tipping point. There's nothing great about era where minorities, women, LGBT, etc weren't afforded the full protection of the law and healthcare wasn't more affordable to a swath of people.
> 
> 
> He's having black students kicked out of his rallies, hedges on disavowing the KKK, photographers are being assaulted and asking those at his rallies to pledge their support. When he isn't talking about his penis size, he's threatening to force the armed forces to act against the law.
> 
> I hope he isn't elected as well. Trump is a showman and should continue in that pursuit, not as America's Commander In Chief.


We know this. Any _sane_ minority wouldn't vote for him. Especially because of his white supremacist supporters who have been crazy disrespectful to people. 

But this isn't really the thread for you. You'll be met with foolish rebuttals. Let the Trump supporters cook in peace. Why you trying to interrupt their meal? :lol


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> We know this. Any _sane_ minority wouldn't vote for him. Especially because of his white supremacist supporters who have been crazy disrespectful to people.
> 
> But this isn't really the thread for you. You'll be met with foolish rebuttals. Let the Trump supporters cook in peace. Why you trying to interrupt their meal? :lol


I got time today.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Name one "Crazy Disrespectful White Supremacist" In this thread, @Headliner

I have been nothing but as respectful as I can be to any who disagree with Trump here. I also respect their right to disagree so long as they do so in a respectful manner. I believe the rest of us do too.

Look at @GothicBohemian's post and tell me she hasn't been treated well here. I actually LIKE her opposing views.


----------



## Silent KEEL

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

If the race card is all you have against Trump, it's not even worth arguing about.

I feel like BLM is a racist group that got its start by defending a criminal. And now they think it's okay to be disrespectful to police because of it. And I'm glad Trump kicked them out of his rally.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Name one "Crazy Disrespectful White Supremacist" In this thread, @Headliner
> 
> I have been nothing but as respectful as I can be to any who disagree with Trump here. I also respect their right to disagree so long as they do so in a respectful manner. I believe the rest of us do too.
> 
> Look at @GothicBohemian's post and tell me she hasn't been treated well here. I actually LIKE her opposing views.


Surely Headliner didn't mean anyone in this thread. I am assuming he's talking about at rallies.


----------



## Headliner

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Name one "Crazy Disrespectful White Supremacist" In this thread, @Headliner


Did I say this thread? No, I didn't. :rudy



Silent KEEL said:


> I feel like BLM is a racist group that got its start by defending a criminal. And now they think it's okay to be disrespectful to police because of it. And I'm glad Trump kicked them out of his rally.


Stay sleep.


----------



## Silent KEEL

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> Did I say this thread? No, I didn't. :rudy
> 
> 
> Stay sleep.


WUT


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> Surely Headliner didn't mean anyone in this thread. I am assuming he's talking about at rallies.


I feel that while HE feels he we undermine the support racists give him, I feel he in turn undermines the sane people that also do, and do not SUPPORT based on any racist notions, or racist interpretations of his words.

Trump's "Racism" is not the reason he has support. The largest reason his support exists is because we do not SEE his actions as examples of racism. He's not burned any crosses on lawns. He has only said things people are choosing to hear in a racist way. 

I have a black girlfriend, and I love her very much. I'm not seeing any anti-black rhetoric from Trump. He disavowed the KKK NUMEROUS times already. The media won't explain that though, because there is a need to PUSH racial tension in america. Just like they pushed it by assuming Trump was slamming Mexicans.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> Did I say this thread? No, I didn't. :rudy
> 
> 
> Stay sleep.


I didn't say you did. You are however painting with a broad brush.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> Did I say this thread? No, I didn't. :rudy
> 
> 
> Stay sleep.


Unfortunately, the rest of us don't have the privilege of staying sleep. It's very easy for some to dismiss BLM and assign all activists as people who have nothing better to do with their time; as though all Black people are savages who aren't entitled to the due protection of the law. I respect law enforcement but a badge is not a get out of jail free card. 

This does not merit respect or capitulation:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/706177989680226304
Last time I checked, Donald Trump isn't president yet. There is still freedom of Assembly and protest. That hasn't been outlawed but assault is a crime.







__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/704784499507380224
Thanks to social media, one of the men who assaulted her got discharged from the Marines. 

So, yes, race is a big factor for some of us. I'd like not to be regarded as a criminal on sight because of mine.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> Unfortunately, the rest of us don't have the privilege of staying sleep. It's very easy for some to dismiss BLM and assign all activists as people who have nothing better to do with their time; as though all Black people are savages who aren't entitled to the due protection of the law. I respect law enforcement but a badge is not a get out of jail free card.
> 
> This does not merit respect or capitulation:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/706177989680226304
> Last time I checked, Donald Trump isn't president yet. There is still freedom of Assembly and protest. That hasn't been outlawed but assault is a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/704784499507380224
> Thanks to social media, one of the men who assaulted her got discharged from the Marines.
> 
> So, yes, race is a big factor for some of us. I'd like not to be regarded as a criminal on sight because of mine.


Right of assembly belonged to Trump in that instance though. By trying to interrupt, they impede on that. If they want to protest there are many ways they could have chosen to do so and not been impeding.

However, you are right. I don't support anyone beaten up. Though I doubt it was entirely because of race. Protestors do this out of pure memeness anymore at Trump Rallies, of all races, and anger is shown to them.

It's a shame all around. They SHOULD protest, and they SHOULD be treated with respect, but not at the expense of those who came to see him.

Edit: *THE POST IS SHOWING AS A QUOTE, BUT I DIDN'T PUT THIS MESSAGE INSIDE A QUOTE TAG. MODS, CAN YOU FIX?*


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

See the edit in my post/quote. Its glitching for me.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@Beatles123

Donald Trump did have the right of assembly. You're right about that, but dissension shouldn't lead to immediate violence. The protesters could've been escorted out without injury. Instead, many of the Trump supporters chose assault and to hurl racist sentiments. This is becoming a recurring theme at his rallies and it's partly, if not entirely, due to racial animus. I just don't see how some deny that plays any part in Donald Trump's rise and appeal.


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Was just on WWE.com browsing a couple new videos and an anti-Trump ad popped up. :lol


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> @Beatles123
> 
> Donald Trump did have the right of assembly. You're right about that, but dissension shouldn't lead to immediate violence. The protesters could've been escorted out without injury. Instead, many of the Trump supporters chose assault and to hurl racist sentiments. This is becoming a recurring theme at his rallies and it's partly, if not entirely, due to racial animus. I just don't see how some deny that plays any part in Donald Trump's rise and appeal.


In the case of Trump, he's damned no matter what he does. If he says not to hurt them, he gets labeled the next day as too soft. If he says "Get them the hell out!', suddenly he's a Nazi dictator.

Again, there's no winning with this. The Anti-Trump people are so vile that it pushes otherwise sane supporters over the edge, which, it doesn't make it right, but it upsets protesters and starts the cycle over again.

What this can all be boiled down to is this: People on both the repub and dem side are pissed. I'm a republican, and I am angry. Our side has failed, so then Trump comes along. As far as we care Trump could be absolutely no worse than what we think Hilary would be. On the Dem side they're pissed for the reverse: They see Hill as TOO rightwing, and see Bernie as no more of a disaster than Hill or Trump.

Don't you see? As far as the nation is concerned, we are already dead. Anything is better than our establishments at this point.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> In the case of Trump, he's damned no matter what he does. *If he says not to hurt them, he gets labeled the next day as too soft. If he says "Get them the hell out!', suddenly he's a Nazi dictator.*
> 
> Again, there's no winning with this. The Anti-Trump people are so vile that it pushes otherwise sane supporters over the edge, which, it doesn't make it right, but it upsets protesters and starts the cycle over again.
> 
> What this can all be boiled down to is this: People on both the repub and dem side are pissed. I'm a republican, and I am angry. Our side has failed, so then Trump comes along. As far as we care Trump could be absolutely no worse than what we think Hilary would be. On the Dem side they're pissed for the reverse: They see Hill as TOO rightwing, and see Bernie as no more of a disaster than Hill or Trump.
> 
> Don't you see? As far as the nation is concerned, we are already dead. Anything is better than our establishments at this point.


I think there's much ground in between Trump's course language and behavior and simply turning the other cheek. I don't begrudge anyone for having a backbone or projecting strength. We seem to differ in whether Trump exemplifies that. He comes off like a petulant bully to me. His actions as nominee offer a glimpse as to what he'd be like as Commander In Chief. I can easily see him throwing a tantrum, launching a war or ordering the police to serve at his sole behest rather than the law. 

However, I do give Donald Trump credit for being unapologetic about his behavior. He has no pretense. I don't agree with his positions or how he chooses to channel his bravado, but at least he's honest for the most part. He is who he is. I can respect that. 

I understand the anger. I just don't see it as a license to potentially roll back civil rights and hard fought progress. This is where my fear comes in. Does assembly, dissension, autonomy and being free from a police state legally exist under a President Trump? That may be hyperbole to some but it's one of my fears.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> I think there's much ground in between Trump's course language and behavior and simply turning the other cheek. I don't begrudge anyone for having a backbone or projecting strength. We seem to differ in whether Trump exemplifies that. He comes off like a petulant bully to me. His actions as nominee offer a glimpse as to what he'd be like as Commander In Chief. I can easily see him throwing a tantrum, launching a war or ordering the police to serve at his sole behest rather than the law.
> 
> However, I do give Donald Trump credit for being unapologetic about his behavior. He has no pretense. I don't agree with his positions or how he chooses to channel his bravado, but at least he's honest for the most part. He is who he is. I can respect that.
> 
> I understand the anger. I just don't see it as a license to potentially roll back civil rights and hard fought progress. This is where my fear comes in. Does assembly, dissension, autonomy and being free from a police state legally exist under a President Trump? That may be hyperbole to some but it's one of my fears.


Regardless of what you may feel, let me at least mention also that I thank you for your willingness to have a meaningful dialog and you come across as thoughtful even in your disagreements. That's what this thread is for. Too much of this uproar over Trump is lost in the chatter of "You guys are idiots" vs. "You guys are globalist shills." I Think what we all want is to understand. To make sense of all the anger and try to accept both sides peacefully. We are all human first before Repub or Dem.

That said, I think you'll find that Trump has been the one, surprisingly, that's been the most AGAINST going to war unless we have to. He as already spoken of wanting peace with Russia and cites our growing debt as a reason why going to war would be disastrous for us.

It should be noted that with "Progress" comes demonization on all sides. I would argue that much of our "Progress" made by BLM as well as others have actually HURT the black race rather than helped it.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Do you know how insanely hard it would be to "roll back civil rights" or "declare a police state" ?

First off, there is a separation of powers and the only way anything that drastic would go through is if congress pretty much unanimously supports it which never happens unless their is a Pearl Harbor situation 

They other way would be through an executive order which would be suicide unless you more or less have 100% support from Washington and would be begging for an impeachment

The presidential position is fairly weak unless congressmen owe you a shit ton of favors so the only candidate who could pull off drastic moves would be Hilliary Clinton 

Congressmen only serve 2 years so supporting a drastic switch in policy is also begging to get your ass burned


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

As a short break from our political mud slinging back and forth, but still "Trump Related"

My vote for Trump is my vote against political correctness. And I think Trump can act like a nutter since he doesn't censor or filter himself. His being able to take brutal hits having a sense of humor and not getting jokes censored like Sheen and Beiber did.

2 of my favorite "dark humor and insult comics" at moment is Daniel Tosh and Anthony Jeselnik.

Jeselnik had his show after Tosh.0 but he eventually was just too controversial for them and with so much heat they cancelled the show. 


He was great at the Roast of Donald Trump.

He gives the caveat at beginning about roasting only the ones you love so later as he's going through list he pretty much skips Lisa Lampanelli which many didn't "get it" why he didn't roast her, because that was the roast  she definitely got it.

Definitely watch Anthony Jeselnik stand-up special on Netflix or torrents. He has 2, Caligula is the better one, it's dark and sadistic as hell. The Marquis de Sade and Caligula himself would have been proud  



That Michael Douglas joke at end directed at Trump was dark and harsh as fuck.

Trump was cool at this, he also made fun of himself when it was "rebuttal" turn. He made fun of his own hair  

https://youtu.be/KTfTBZ58QjA





Trump has great sense of humor, and the jokes he got at this roast there isn't anything media can say to hit as hard as the comics did at his roast. It just sucks that this was after the "roastmaster" Greg Giraldo died. Greg would have destroyed.


Jeselnik was also at the Charlie Sheen roast, but he had jokes that comedy central cut for being "too far"


Jeselnik tells the banned Mike Tyson joke and the edited out joke from Sheen roast about his family.

https://youtu.be/SnmW0mYUuyo










** **We now return you to your regularly scheduled political mudslinging *


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Regardless of what you may feel, let me at least mention also that I thank you for your willingness to have a meaningful dialog and you come across as thoughtful even in your disagreements. That's what this thread is for. Too much of this uproar over Trump is lost in the chatter of "You guys are idiots" vs. "You guys are globalist shills." I Think what we all want is to understand. To make sense of all the anger and try to accept both sides peacefully. We are all human first before Repub or Dem.
> 
> That said, I think you'll find that Trump has been the one, surprisingly, that's been the most AGAINST going to war unless we have to. He as already spoken of wanting peace with Russia and cites our growing debt as a reason why going to war would be disastrous for us.
> 
> It should be noted that with "Progress" comes demonization on all sides. I would argue that much of our "Progress" made by BLM as well as others have actually HURT the black race rather than helped it.


Thank you and same to you as well.

I do think that Donald Trump is very malleable. That would be mild comfort for some and outrage others. At last week's GOP Debate, he defended Planned Parenthood against assertions that it only performs abortion. At one point, he also told Ted Cruz that he wanted to ensure that people had health care and not die on the street. I was also surprised that he went after Former President George W. Bush; disarming the argument he kept us "safe" while acting as though his presidency began on 9/12/01. I'm not blaming Bush for 9/11, but it did happen on his watch and the invasion of Iraq was built upon lies. To be honest, he sounds like a liberal half of the time. Although, I think he's neither Republican or Democrat. I find him more opportunistic. 

As for civil liberties being eroded under a President Trump, there's already gerrymandering and the restriction of voting rights. If a police officer runs afoul of the law, I should have the right to protest without fear of the state. He also wants to ban all Muslims from entering the U.S. I'm not a Muslim, but I am an "other" from the white male that would endorse Trump. I don't want my name ending up on a list as a new form of McCarthyism takes shape. Trump even warned Paul Ryan to get in line or else and he's Speaker of the House. Dissension shouldn't be snuffed out, regardless of who is President. 

Trump plays fast and loose about what he'd do. After a certain point, I want the trolling & winks and nods to end. Most of the people threatening to flee the U.S aren't going anywhere. We're all sharing this nation. I may not like a President Trump, but I'd sleep better if I knew he couldn't utilize executive orders to curtail and roll back rights. With the Supreme Court in balance, it may be easier for him to potentially do so. 

In regards to immigration, I fully understand that anger. The laws should be enforced. But I don't believe he's really building a wall or having Mexico pay for it.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> Thank you and same to you as well.
> 
> I do think that Donald Trump is very malleable. That would be mild comfort for some and outrage others. At last week's GOP Debate, he defended Planned Parenthood against assertions that it only performs abortion. At one point, he also told Ted Cruz that he wanted to ensure that people had health care and not die on the street. I was also surprised that he went after Former President George W. Bush; disarming the argument he kept us "safe" while acting as though his presidency began on 9/12/01. I'm not blaming Bush for 9/11, but it did happen on his watch and the invasion of Iraq was built upon lies. To be honest, he sounds like a liberal half of the time. Although, I think he's neither Republican or Democrat. I find him more opportunistic.
> 
> As for civil liberties being eroded under a President Trump, there's already gerrymandering and the restriction of voting rights. If a police officer runs afoul of the law, I should have the right to protest without fear of the state. He also wants to ban all Muslims from entering the U.S. I'm not a Muslim, but I am an "other" from the white male that would endorse Trump. I don't want my name ending up on a list as a new form of McCarthyism takes shape. Trump even warned Paul Ryan to get in line or else and he's Speaker of the House. Dissension shouldn't be snuffed out, regardless of who is President.
> 
> Trump plays fast and loose about what he'd do. After a certain point, I want the trolling & winks and nods to end. Most of the people threatening to flee the U.S aren't going anywhere. We're all sharing this nation. I may not like a President Trump, but I'd sleep better if I knew he couldn't utilize executive orders to curtail and roll back rights. With the Supreme Court in balance, it may be easier for him to potentially do so.
> 
> In regards to immigration, I fully understand that anger. The laws should be enforced. But I don't believe he's really building a wall or having Mexico pay for it.


Of all the things Mr. Trump detests about Obama, one thing he has been particularly loud about is his use of Executive orders and how much he'd rather work to hash things out between both sides. I don't forsee that being an issue.

On the wall, it's not as simple as Mexico handing us a check. The position is that if we can get our trade imbalances under control, the money Mexico will then be putting into the US can go to paying for it. Among other things. 

You would also not be on a list if you are a legal, law abiding citizen

Edit: I misread you. All Trump is saying there is if the repubs dont get behind him we msy lose this thing. He's not without readon to believe that would indeed be the case. As I said, Establishment repubs--AKA, RYAN--are not listening to the people.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@Beatles123

Thank you for engaging with me today. You're the first Trump supporter I've had a dialogue with that I felt acknowledged and understood my concerns. I don't feel it's a race thing or animosity that's motivating your support of him. I have a friend who's potentially supporting Mr. Trump and I try not to broach the subject. Although, I think his reasoning has to do primarily with immigration. 

Admittedly, I am thinking of the worst possible scenarios under a Trump administration. I've just witnessed the tightening and infringement of civil liberties/rights in recent years. I don't want to see that corrosion continue. But we don't elect Kings; even President's have checks and balances against abuse of power.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Where the hell were the cops or security guards at those Trump rally stopping that black woman getting pushed around and abused?

Why hasn't Trump spoken pout against such behaviour at his rallies either? He must know about it. He should be condemning actions like that from his supporters, it's the right thing to do.


----------



## CoolGuy45

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Fuck Donald Trump and all of his supporters. You people are a cancer to society and are all incredibly bigoted and stupid. Innocent Muslims and Mexicans will suffer because of you fucks. Fuck every single one of you. Fuck this thread. Fuck Donald Trump.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> @Beatles123
> 
> Thank you for engaging with me today. You're the first Trump supporter I've had a dialogue with that I felt acknowledged and understood my concerns. I don't feel it's a race thing or animosity that's motivating your support of him. I have a friend who's potentially supporting Mr. Trump and I try not to broach the subject. Although, I think his reasoning has to do primarily with immigration.
> 
> Admittedly, I am thinking of the worst possible scenarios under a Trump administration. I've just witnessed the tightening and infringement of civil liberties/rights in recent years. I don't want to see that corrosion continue. But we don't elect Kings; even President's have checks and balances against abuse of power.


You're very welcome and i'm glad I was able to fight the perception that all Trump supporters are akin to KKK members and Nazis....far from it. In fact, those people are a small fraction of who we are. It makes me happy we could peacefully discuss this where so few wish to listen.
@CoolGuy45

Exhibit A.


----------



## Vic Capri

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The racist, arrogant blowhard > career criminal Hillary.

- Vic


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Vic Capri said:


> The racist, arrogant blowhard > career criminal Hillary.
> 
> - Vic


I'll take an arrogant son of a bitch that can kick ass for America any day over The Wicked Witch or Col. Sanders and his Free Chicken!


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Col. Sanders and his Free Chicken!


:hmm: This just may be a deal breaker for me. As long as it's not KFC.


----------



## TheResurrection

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Where the hell were the cops or security guards at those Trump rally stopping that black woman getting pushed around and abused?
> 
> Why hasn't Trump spoken pout against such behaviour at his rallies either? He must know about it. He should be condemning actions like that from his supporters, it's the right thing to do.


He has, he's condemned these assholes who turn up to disrupt and cause trouble and said in the good old days they'd have had the shit beat out of them. If they're stupid enough to turn up anyway after that what can he do?

Condemning his own supporters would be very dumb, he needs them to win the election. Trump won't do that because Trump is smart.



CoolGuy45 said:


> Fuck Donald Trump and all of his supporters. You people are a cancer to society and are all incredibly bigoted and stupid. Innocent Muslims and Mexicans will suffer because of you fucks. Fuck every single one of you. Fuck this thread. Fuck Donald Trump.


Some might say judging hundreds of thousands of people who you've never met based on their political affiliation is bigoted.

Trump's plan doesn't target any innocent Mexicans by the way, unless you include the Mexican taxpayer. The wall would only be there to stop criminals sneaking across the border, but for innocent Mexicans who are allowed into the US there will be a big beautiful door right in the middle. They could call it the Trump door. It'll be tremendous.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TheResurrection said:


> *He has, he's condemned these assholes who turn up to disrupt and cause trouble and said in the good old days they'd have had the shit beat out of them. * If they're stupid enough to turn up anyway after that what can he do?
> 
> *Condemning his own supporters would be very dumb, he needs them to win the election. Trump won't do that because Trump is smart.*


Sorry are you talking about the people getting pushed around or the pro Trump abusers? If he's condemned the idiots who were videoed pushing around women who dared to turn up and protest then fine, I stand corrected.

Regarding the second bolded part, how far does this line of thinking go? It seems like you're saying Trump needs people who feel comfortable pushing women around at his rallies.... Am I correct?


----------



## TheResurrection

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Sorry are you talking about the people getting pushed around or the pro Trump abusers? If he's condemned the idiots who were videoed pushing around women who dared to turn up and protest then fine, I stand corrected.
> 
> Regarding the second bolded part, how far does this line of thinking go? It seems like you're saying Trump needs people who feel comfortable pushing women around at his rallies.... Am I correct?


I'm talking about the troublemakers who hate Trump turning up to Vote Trump rallies. They're idiots. 

Would you turn up to Manchester United Vs. Liverpool and sit with the Manchester United supporters wearing a Liverpool shirt, cheering for Liverpool or saying Manchester United suck and you hope they lose? 

I'm saying Trump needs every vote he can get, that's how he's going to have the best chance of winning. Condemning his own voters would be very dumb.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TheResurrection said:


> I'm talking about the troublemakers who hate Trump turning up to Vote Trump rallies. They're idiots.
> 
> Would you turn up to Manchester United Vs. Liverpool and sit with the Manchester United supporters wearing a Liverpool shirt, cheering for Liverpool or saying Manchester United suck and you hope they lose?
> 
> I'm saying Trump needs everything vote he can get, that's how he's going to have the best chance of winning. Condemning his own voters would be very dumb.


The woman in the video wasn't creating trouble, or didn't appear to be on the footage we saw. Still, that guy was more than comfortable pushing her around and people were shouting abuse at her for apparently just being there. Comparing the situation to a soccer game is apples and oranges so I'm not sure why you brought that up. 

None the less you seem to be excusing pushing women around for no reason?


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> The woman in the video wasn't creating trouble, or didn't appear to be on the footage we saw. Still, that guy was more than comfortable pushing her around and people were shouting abuse at her for apparently just being there. Comparing the situation to a soccer game is apples and oranges so I'm not sure why you brought that up.
> 
> None the less you seem to be excusing pushing women around for no reason?


She was a protester. Yeah it's fucked up but some people will get angry. The left-wing media are trying to say it was just because she's black. I don't get why BLM are so obsessed with Trump.


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Dazzler said:


> She was a protester. Yeah it's fucked up but some people will get angry. The left-wing media are trying to say it was just because she's black. I don't get why BLM are so obsessed with Trump.


Well the other 2 big Republican front runners have the last names of Cruz and Rubio so they couldn't possibly be racist. This is the Republican party so someone has to be racist. 

It doesn't make a ton of sense why they're going after Trump over any of the other candidates. Trump isn't involved in the government at all. His main thing is to bring jobs back to America. The unemployment rate for African Americans is almost double that of white people. I don't think many of what he's trying to do should create hate with BLM.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The media love to assume that anything bad that happens to any minority must be racism.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*










Oh, yeah, WE'RE the racists! :no:


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I completely agree with the concerns @Empress raises concerning a Trump presidency being an increase in the reach of an already ominous American police state. 

For instance, the powers that the U.S. government considers legal for itself through the passage of Patriot Acts I and II coupled to the ever-growing clout of FEMA are definitively alarming. As are the Department of Homeland Security measures which we have seen in action, referring to Ron Paul supporters, individuals who flag the American flag upside-down, disaffected veterans, people who decorate their car's bumper with slogans supporting limited government or anti-Obama references and others as potential homegrown terrorists. (This is a solid article on the subject from the _Washington Times_, which I shall quote:


> In her statement Wednesday, Ms. Napolitano defended the report, which says “rightwing extremism” may include groups opposed to abortion and immigration, as merely one among several threat assessments.


 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/?page=all)

In the wake of the Snowden case it should be taken for granted that the U.S. government is unequivocally endeavoring to spy on every single citizen and that whatever soft, spongy limits to and buffers from a complete centralized police state are one major terror strike or economic calamity away from dissolving. In that sense the temperament of the next president matters greatly. While Donald Trump unquestionably gives me pause with his cavalier attitude toward torture, for instance, all of the major candidates from both political parties seem indubitably odious and frightening in these matters--and in the realm of global adventurism, Clinton, Cruz, Rubio, Sanders and Kasich are all dramatically worse--and while Trump's nationalism could produce myriad gnarly results, the globalism of the other candidates (Sanders being slightly better than the others) seems to suggest that they could all be worse in other ways as well. I appreciate the concerns voiced by you, though, *Empress*. Because of the degradation of language and the increasing vulgarity in the transmission of ideas over the past century I must admit that I am finding in Trump some genuine entertainment value, and, in the meantime, attempt to grasp to the faint hope that he is to the destructive two-party establishment steered by an all-powerful elite of highly-connected "banksters" and oligarchs what Thomas Becket was to King Henry II, once as connected and protected as anyone, until he "saw the light" and, in a manner of speaking, rebelled against his master.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

What Bernie said about white people never knowing what it's like to be poor is much worse than anything Trump has ever said. Invalidates the experience of over 20 million Americans including myself for most of my life based on the color of their skin. Utterly reprehensible. I always thought Bernie was just a goofy deluded old man with passionate economic ideas paired with an utter absence of economic understanding. But no, he is a vile human being.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Oh, yeah, WE'RE the racists! :no:


Sure it was a silly thing to say, but if you bother to read the whole quote you can see what he was getting at:



> "When you are white, you don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto, you don’t know what it’s like to be poor, you don’t know what it’s like to be hassled when you are walking down a street or dragged out of a car," Sanders said when asked about his personal racial blind spots. "We must be firm in making it clear that we will end institutional racism and reform a broken criminal justice system."


I know most here believe things like institutional racism are a crock, but Bernie doesn't and I feel like he was being honest about what he believes in. I'm sure he knows there are plenty of poor white people out there in the US but I think he was making a point that it's worse for black people.

Again, silly thing to say, but your second pic is a huge leap and OTT, it's pure propaganda and if you are indeed the person you were saying you are in your dialogue with Emress I think it was, you should really remove it. It's beneath you and it should be beneath Trump if he's the leader you say he is.

You honestly cannot tell me Trump hasn't said a million things like this as well either, so let's quit the faux outrage.


----------



## Cliffy

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The full quote is bullshit aswell

Sanders is a conman, no white or black person should be voting for him


----------



## Silent KEEL

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Not surprisee by Sander's quote, he's the one that allowed BLM to take over his rally and call all of his white supporters racist.

He's so desperate for the black vote he's willing to lose white voters.


----------



## GothicBohemian

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TheResurrection said:


> I'm saying Trump needs everything vote he can get, that's how he's going to have the best chance of winning. Condemning his own voters would be very dumb.


No matter what they do or what ideology they embrace nothing should be said because they'll vote as desired? What a terrible way to think. I understand the rationale from a _win-at-all-costs_ viewpoint but these people are giving their support in expectation of being rewarded with government that reflects their desires. Using them for votes is just as wrong as turning a blind eye to them or quietly agreeing with them. 



Silent KEEL said:


> Not surprisee by Sander's quote, he's the one that allowed BLM to take over his rally and call all of his white supporters racist.
> 
> He's so desperate for the black vote he's willing to lose white voters.


Is this the reality of US politics, choosing between black and white voters? How did it fall to this level? Sad.


----------



## TheResurrection

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> The woman in the video wasn't creating trouble, or didn't appear to be on the footage we saw. Still, that guy was more than comfortable pushing her around and people were shouting abuse at her for apparently just being there. Comparing the situation to a soccer game is apples and oranges so I'm not sure why you brought that up.
> 
> None the less you seem to be excusing pushing women around for no reason?


Do you think she had a good reason to be there - ie. as a Trump supporter or as a journalist documenting events?

The comparison is relevant. If you are opposed to a particular group or person it is very unwise to stand amidst a group of people who fervently support that group or person and publicise the fact that you're opposed. Very very dumb.

It doesn't excuse it any more than it would excuse Manchester United fans pushing a Liverpool fan out of their section of the stadium.



GothicBohemian said:


> No matter what they do or what ideology they embrace nothing should be said because they'll vote as desired? What a terrible way to think. I understand the rationale from a _win-at-all-costs_ viewpoint but these people are giving their support in expectation of being rewarded with government that reflects their desires. Using them for votes is just as wrong as turning a blind eye to them or quietly agreeing with them.


I'm not saying nothing should be said, I'm saying nothing should be said _by Trump._ Everyone else can criticise them if they want, but why would he alienate his own supporters?

Assholes get a vote too, if Trump doesn't appeal to them somebody else will.


----------



## Silent KEEL

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



GothicBohemian said:


> No matter what they do or what ideology they embrace nothing should be said because they'll vote as desired? What a terrible way to think. I understand the rationale from a _win-at-all-costs_ viewpoint but these people are giving their support in expectation of being rewarded with government that reflects their desires. Using them for votes is just as wrong as turning a blind eye to them or quietly agreeing with them.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the reality of US politics, choosing between black and white voters? How did it fall to this level? Sad.


It doesn't have to be like that, but it happens when you make stupid comments about one side of it to try to appeal to the other.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TheResurrection said:


> Do you think she had a good reason to be there - ie. as a Trump supporter or as a journalist documenting events?
> 
> The comparison is relevant. If you are opposed to a particular group or person it is very unwise to stand amidst a group of people who fervently support that group or person and publicise the fact that you're opposed. Very very dumb.
> 
> It doesn't excuse it any more than it would excuse Manchester United fans pushing a Liverpool fan out of their section of the stadium.


I don't give a damn why she was there, it's a free country.

It's dumb to protest in the so called greatest country in the world and expect to be treated with respect in broad daylight? How sad. 

I've yet to hear anything like a condemnation out of you for clear footage of the woman being pushed around and abused. Let me ask you directly, do you or do you not approve of pushing women around you disagree with?


----------



## GothicBohemian

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TheResurrection said:


> Do you think she had a good reason to be there - ie. as a Trump supporter or as a journalist documenting events?
> 
> The comparison is relevant. If you are opposed to a particular group or person it is very unwise to stand amidst a group of people who fervently support that group or person and publicise the fact that you're opposed. Very very dumb.
> 
> It doesn't excuse it any more than it would excuse Manchester United fans pushing a Liverpool fan out of their section of the stadium.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying nothing should be said, I'm saying nothing should be said _by Trump._ Everyone else can criticise them if they want, but why would he alienate his own supporters?
> 
> Assholes get a vote too, if Trump doesn't appeal to them somebody else will.



But it absolutely should be said by Trump. He is the one who directly benefits from thier support and he is the one they expect to deliver for them should he get elected. 

You are correct; everyone gets a vote, the "assholes" supporting Trump included. Like everyone else, they also have a right to expect their support to be rewarded. If Trump does not share their passions then he has a responsibility to inform them so that they can find someone who may or, instead, choose to sit out the election process if a like-minded candidate isn't running. 

Also, you say that Trump cannot afford to lose supporters by turning away the questionable ones. Tell me, do you think Trump's support base is such that the voters he loses by not disavowing himself of such characters is smaller than that made up of these "assholes"? Were I in Trump's camp, that would worry me. 



Silent KEEL said:


> It doesn't have to be like that, but it happens when you make stupid comments about one side of it to try to appeal to the other.


Elaborate please. I don't understand why, say, white voters, would be turned off by a candidate saying they don't relate to the life of poor urban blacks or, hypothetically speaking, why black voters would leave a candidate who said they don't relate to the struggles of poor rural whites? There is stereotyping in both statements but, on average, there's truth as well.


----------



## TheResurrection

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> I don't give a damn why she was there, it's a free country.
> 
> It's dumb to protest in the so called greatest country in the world and expect to be treated with respect in broad daylight? How sad.
> 
> I've yet to hear anything like a condemnation out of you for clear footage of the woman being pushed around and abused. Let me ask you directly, do you or do you not approve of pushing women around you disagree with?


It wasn't in broad daylight, it was inside a convention centre used to for a Trump rally. Your freedoms don't extend to going to other people's events.

Suppose you are organising a fan club. You and lots of your friends have booked out a room somewhere to talk about Game of Thrones and how great it is. Some woman turns up to your fan club uninvited and starts saying that the TV show sucks, that The Walking Dead is better, that anyone who likes Game of Thrones is a rape apologist and incest pervert. Do you have the right to remove them?

I'm opposed to any unnecessary use of force. If they had to push her to get her the fuck out of there, more power to them, she shouldn't have been there in the first place.


----------



## TheResurrection

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



GothicBohemian said:


> But it absolutely should be said by Trump. He is the one who directly benefits from thier support and he is the one they expect to deliver for them should he get elected.
> 
> You are correct; everyone gets a vote, the "assholes" supporting Trump included. Like everyone else, they also have a right to expect their support to be rewarded. If Trump does not share their passions then he has a responsibility to inform them so that they can find someone who may or, instead, choose to sit out the election process if a like-minded candidate isn't running.
> 
> Also, you say that Trump cannot afford to lose supporters by turning away the questionable ones. Tell me, do you think Trump's support base is such that the voters he loses by not disavowing himself of such characters is smaller than that made up of these "assholes"? Were I in Trump's camp, that would worry me.
> 
> 
> 
> Elaborate please. I don't understand why, say, white voters, would be turned off by a candidate saying they don't relate to the life of poor urban blacks or, hypothetically speaking, why black voters would leave a candidate who said they don't relate to the struggles of poor rural whites? There is stereotyping in both statements but, on average, there's truth as well.


Can you explain how condemning his own supporters will help him kick Ted Cruz or Hillary Clinton's ass? That's his No. 1 priority.

He's currently trying to appeal to Republican primary voters, there are a large number of aggressive "old fashioned" assholes in that group. If you don't want to appeal to assholes you don't get the Republican nomination.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TheResurrection said:


> It wasn't in broad daylight, it was inside a convention centre used to for a Trump rally. Your freedoms don't extend to going to other people's events.
> 
> Suppose you are organising a fan club. You and lots of your friends have booked out a room somewhere to talk about Game of Thrones and how great it is. Some woman turns up to your fan club uninvited and starts saying that the TV show sucks, that The Walking Dead is better, that anyone who likes Game of Thrones is a rape apologist and incest pervert. Do you have the right to remove them?
> 
> *I'm opposed to any unnecessary use of force. If they had to push her to get her the fuck out of there, more power to them, she shouldn't have been there in the first place.*


Wow you're a real piece of work. Well done, you've contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. You don't have the right to forcibly remove anyone unless they are a physical danger to you. The woman in question clearly was not acting aggressively. It was exactly unnecessary force.

Another hypothetical for you. What's the most these men could've done to this woman that's acceptable to you, as 'she shouldn't have been there in the first place'. Slapping her around a bit? Throw bottles at her? 

Plus, your ridiculous GOT incest rape apologist diatribe is the stupidest thing I've heard. Please. Don't bring that up again.


----------



## Silent KEEL

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



GothicBohemian said:


> Elaborate please. I don't understand why, say, white voters, would be turned off by a candidate saying they don't relate to the life of poor urban blacks or, hypothetically speaking, why black voters would leave a candidate who said they don't relate to the struggles of poor rural whites? There is stereotyping in both statements but, on average, there's truth as well.


You see the sterotyping yet don't understand the problem? And Sanders comments weren't as sugarcoated as you are trying to make them.

As somebody whose family has struggled paycheck to paycheck my entire life, I find it very frustrating that Sanders thinks white people don't understand what it's like to be poor. He didn't claim we don't understand what it's like to live in a poor urban area, just that we don't know what it's like to be poor. Yeah, sure.

I missed the part of the debate of why that comment came up, so I'm sure I'm missing some context, but I've heard enough of Sanders to know he panders to the minorities to try to latch onto votes, not even that he really believes what he says.


----------



## TheResurrection

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Wow you're a real piece of work. Well done, you've contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. You don't have the right to forcibly remove anyone unless they are a physical danger to you. The woman in question clearly was not acting aggressively. It was exactly unnecessary force.
> 
> Another hypothetical for you. What's the most these men could've done to this woman that's acceptable to you, as 'she shouldn't have been there in the first place'. Slapping her around a bit? Throw bottles at her?
> 
> Plus, your ridiculous GOT incest rape apologist diatribe is the stupidest thing I've heard. Please. Don't bring that up again.


Yes you do. If I'm organising an event and have paid for the use of a venue I have every right to remove people who I don't want to have there.

I'm sorry you didn't understand the analogy I drew. The point was that the organiser of an event has every right to remove disruptive people.

Slapping her around or throwing bottles at her would be unnecessary force. Security pushing a troublemaker out is perfectly proportionate.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TheResurrection said:


> Yes you do. If I'm organising an event and have paid for the use of a venue I have every right to remove people who I don't want to have there.
> 
> I'm sorry you didn't understand the analogy I drew. The point was that the organiser of an event has every right to remove disruptive people.
> 
> Slapping her around or throwing bottles at her would be unnecessary force. Security pushing a troublemaker out is perfectly proportionate.


Ok. So you're happy to push women around. Let's just leave it at that then.


----------



## GothicBohemian

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TheResurrection said:


> Can you explain how condemning his own supporters will help him kick Ted Cruz or Hillary Clinton's ass? That's his No. 1 priority.
> 
> He's currently trying to appeal to Republican primary voters, there are a large number of aggressive "old fashioned" assholes in that group. If you don't want to appeal to assholes you don't get the Republican nomination.



Do you think these people are going to vote for Cruz or Clinton? I doubt they would. If a Trump voter is so caught up in his/her Trump fandom that emotions boil over to the point of violence against counter viewpoints and protesters I doubt he/she will switch candidates in a hissy fit. No one mature enough to vote should be that tantrum prone if called out on poor behaviour. 

Trump supporters who are genuinely in line with his platform, and not interested in him as the next best alternative to the extreme sort of candidate they'd prefer, would continue backing Trump if he refused endorsement from questionable sources. He might also bring over some fence sitters who are uncomfortable being lumped in with the more radical right wing. 

So, to be clear, what you're saying is that Trump, as a Republican candidate, has to fake appealing to demographics he has no intention of honouring his promises to, or who's actions he doesn't condone, in order to win? That's what I'm getting from your posts so, if I'm mistaken, please show me where I'm losing the narrative. What I'm saying is that I'm not ok with that. Not only does it underestimate the intelligence of the "old fashioned" party members - Why would they keep falling for that rather than sit out the vote until they get the candidate they want? - it drives a wedge between him and less "old fashioned" Republicans, the ones who, presumably, are embracing the sort of policies less "old fashioned" Trump backers, and Trump himself, actually agree with.

btw, I'm not saying Democratic candidates don't also falsely target select demographics. That's one of the problems with America's limited, two-party system.


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Ok. So you're happy to push women around. Let's just leave it at that then.


The protesters had interrupted Trump several times. Of course they'll be thrown out. Why is her being a woman important? Try going to a Bernie rally as a Trump supporter. Stand in the middle and keep interrupting Bernie while he's trying to speak. Refuse to leave and see what happens to you.


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Ok. So you're happy to push women around. Let's just leave it at that then.


well done for boiling a carefully measured argument down to 'violence against women'.


----------



## GothicBohemian

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Silent KEEL said:


> You see the sterotyping yet don't understand the problem? And Sanders comments weren't as sugarcoated as you are trying to make them.
> 
> As somebody whose family has struggled paycheck to paycheck my entire life, I find it very frustrating that Sanders thinks white people don't understand what it's like to be poor. He didn't claim we don't understand what it's like to live in a poor urban area, just that we don't know what it's like to be poor. Yeah, sure.
> 
> I missed the part of the debate of why that comment came up, so I'm sure I'm missing some context, but I've heard enough of Sanders to know he panders to the minorities to try to latch onto votes, not even that he really believes what he says.


It's human nature to relate everything we hear to ourselves but the full quote doesn't seem intended to say only blacks are poor.



> "When you are white, you don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto, you don’t know what it’s like to be poor, you don’t know what it’s like to be hassled when you are walking down a street or dragged out of a car," Sanders said when asked about his personal racial blind spots. "We must be firm in making it clear that we will end institutional racism and reform a broken criminal justice system."



He's talking about a specific type of poverty, not poverty in general. I've heard enough political rhetoric to know what he's really speaking about in this quote - the way those who live in sprawling, run down apartment blocks are targeted by police and feel as if they live outside 'normal' American life, looking in at something they're not ever given a chance to participate in. When that person is also a minority, it amplifies the sense of not belonging. 

I grew up in an apartment. A lot of my childhood friends came from single-parent welfare homes. Many of them were white, but more were native. It doesn't matter what colour you are when the neighbourhood reputation is so bad that you're prejudged as a problem kid the first day you walk into school. It doesn't matter what language you talk at home when the only way you can get a bike or shoes like the 'rich' kids have is to steal. It doesn't matter what religion you follow when classmates don't invite you to parties because their parents don't want 'trouble makes' from your neighbourhood at the house. However - it's a whole lot easier to believe you can overcome by getting educated to pull yourself out of that life if you are a part of the majority in every way except wealth.


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



GothicBohemian said:


> It's human nature to relate everything we hear to ourselves but the full quote doesn't seem intended to say only blacks are poor.
> 
> He's talking about a specific type of poverty, not poverty in general. I've heard enough political rhetoric to know what he's really speaking about in this quote - the way those who live in sprawling, run down apartment blocks are targeted by police and feel as if they live outside 'normal' American life, looking in at something they're not ever given a chance to participate in. When that person is also a minority, it amplifies the sense of not belonging.


Yes, his intention has been misrepresented, but people are reacting to it. Very much the same way as the left (and right) misrepresents Trump and reacts to it.


----------



## GothicBohemian

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Goku said:


> Yes, his intention has been misrepresented, but people are reacting to it. Very much the same way as the left (and right) misrepresents Trump and reacts to it.


In other words, people are reacting to misinterpretations, often deliberate misinterpretations designed to incite anger from specific groups, rather than what candidates actually say and mean. The fault then lies with those reacting. To a lesser degree the deliberate misinterpreters also carry guilt but the onus is on us to look at all the available information, and the legitimacy of those we look to for information, before deciding to be upset. 

It also reinforces my position that Trump, and any other candidate, is best served by being clear in what actions and which people he wants casually associated with him in the public eye. It's not enough to ignore or claim to know nothing about an individual such as the oft-mentioned David Duke. Perhaps Trump's people feel this can be played as admirable, not judging people for their personal lives, but our personal lives define who we are and what we believe. Some of those who have come out publicly for Trump are tied to ideologies or have been seen acting in ways that cannot be glossed over without causing people, and the media, to ask why.


----------



## TheResurrection

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Ok. So you're happy to push women around. Let's just leave it at that then.


Already answered. Moronic line of argument.

I'm not happy for anyone to be pushed around, sometimes it's legitimate to remove people. If they refused to leave when asked then it's legitimate to push them out.



GothicBohemian said:


> Do you think these people are going to vote for Cruz or Clinton? I doubt they would. If a Trump voter is so caught up in his/her Trump fandom that emotions boil over to the point of violence against counter viewpoints and protesters I doubt he/she will switch candidates in a hissy fit. No one mature enough to vote should be that tantrum prone if called out on poor behaviour.
> 
> Trump supporters who are genuinely in line with his platform, and not interested in him as the next best alternative to the extreme sort of candidate they'd prefer, would continue backing Trump if he refused endorsement from questionable sources. He might also bring over some fence sitters who are uncomfortable being lumped in with the more radical right wing.
> 
> So, to be clear, what you're saying is that Trump, as a Republican candidate, has to fake appealing to demographics he has no intention of honouring his promises to, or who's actions he doesn't condone, in order to win? That's what I'm getting from your posts so, if I'm mistaken, please show me where I'm losing the narrative. What I'm saying is that I'm not ok with that. Not only does it underestimate the intelligence of the "old fashioned" party members - Why would they keep falling for that rather than sit out the vote until they get the candidate they want? - it drives a wedge between him and less "old fashioned" Republicans, the ones who, presumably, are embracing the sort of policies less "old fashioned" Trump backers, and Trump himself, actually agree with.
> 
> btw, I'm not saying Democratic candidates don't also falsely target select demographics. That's one of the problems with America's limited, two-party system.


I think they might not vote at all, in the primaries at least. If they're supporting Trump and Trump says fuck you to them they're not going to be enthused to vote for him over other Republicans.

Yes, of course he does. It doesn't matter if you're OK with that, it's what happens. If he didn't do it, if he just ran by the positions he believed in some other guy would come in and appeal to all the people he's appealing to now and they'd win. There's no guarantee they'd actually believe in it either.

Once Trump has won the nomination I've no doubt he'll move towards winning more moderate voters, he'd be very foolish not to. The ones he's currently trying to appeal to will definitely back him over Clinton and even more definitely over Comrade Sanders even if he is a bit further from them than they'd been lead to believe.

I agree that it's a problem with the system, it's something we just have to accept though. It would be easier to change the direction the earth spins in that get major voting reform in the US.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

If Sanders gets a pass for being misinterpreted, then people owe Trump a YUGE apology over their reaction to 90% of what he has said as well. You can't play the context card and not apply it to both ends. It just shows you that media and party bias goes a long way.


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Sure it was a silly thing to say, but if you bother to read the whole quote you can see what he was getting at:
> 
> 
> *
> I know most here believe things like institutional racism are a crock, but Bernie doesn't and I feel like he was being honest about what he believes in*. I'm sure he knows there are plenty of poor white people out there in the US but I think he was making a point that it's worse for black people.
> 
> Again, silly thing to say, but your second pic is a huge leap and OTT, it's pure propaganda and if you are indeed the person you were saying you are in your dialogue with Emress I think it was, you should really remove it. It's beneath you and it should be beneath Trump if he's the leader you say he is.
> 
> You honestly cannot tell me Trump hasn't said a million things like this as well either, so let's quit the faux outrage.


I believe Institutional racism is a real thing. I'm white. If I had the option to be black but everything else about me were to stay the same there is no way in hell I would want that. 

He started off with the poor part and not the racism part. If he started off with "white people don't know what it's like to be black" and then started talking about all of the discrimination black people face and while he was on a role threw in that white people don't know what it's like to be poor I think the statement was more forgivable. But he started off with the stuff about being poor. 

The impression that I'm left with is that if you're poor and white you aren't all that poor because you're still white.


----------



## sesel

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

So, is it true that Trump and KKK are some sort of friends or they think equally? Here in Brazil the news said he refused to talk about the KKK guy supporting him, which could be a proof that he hates the same minorities KKK did. Can someone tell me about it?



Sorry for bad english.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

So people are twisting themselves into pretzels to make Bernie Sanders seem like he was just misrepresented but when Trump is blatantly misrepresented people stand silently on the sidelines. Fuck off with that. It was clear what he said and what he meant. He was pandering to blacks by saying whites aren't ever really poor because they're white.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



GothicBohemian said:


> Is this the reality of US politics, choosing between black and white voters? How did it fall to this level? Sad.


This is what the political left has been doing for decades. Preying on the empathy of white people with this "white guilt" bullshit narrative and pandering to minorities by making them feel like perennial victims who need a big government to protect them from the evil white people. Certain members/staff of this forum are so swallowed up by this narrative it's impossible to have a conversation with them based in facts.







Stefan Molyneux takes apart John Oliver's critique of "Donald Drumpf" in a video too long for any of you guys to watch.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



sesel said:


> So, is it true that Trump and KKK are some sort of friends or they think equally? Here in Brazil the news said he refused to talk about the KKK guy supporting him, which could be a proof that he hates the same minorities KKK did. Can someone tell me about it?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for bad english.


It's not true at all, @sesel

it speaks to how overblown the media has made this thing. He said he Disavowed duke AT LEAST 3 TIMES BEFORE. 

I don't even know why it matters. DAVID DUKE IS NOT A CLANSMAN.


----------



## asdf0501

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> So people are twisting themselves into pretzels to make Bernie Sanders seem like he was just misrepresented but when Trump is blatantly misrepresented people stand silently on the sidelines. Fuck off with that. It was clear what he said and what he meant. He was pandering to blacks by saying whites aren't ever really poor because they're white.


So you do the same you criticize, you admit so, but "fuck it" i going to do it equally because someone else did it to the guy i like ?

Also seeing the video and contrasting it with the Oliver video you can see how both are misleading. For example Molyneux talks about why he doesn't mind the facts of Trump doing Lawsuits when the Oliver critic is of the fact that Trump mention Lawsuits that he never follow just to make for the fact someone critcized him, it would be fine to see both evidences and contrasting them instead of just following what you thinks is more suited for you, it's the same with the 3 billion thing, Oliver is doing the critic because Trump says his name value is 3 billion but in his own deposition he also says that his value changes on HOW HE FEELS ABOUT IT, obviously this is not adressed in any point of the Molineux video becuase it shows that Trump overvalue himselfs Business wise .


It would be fine and dandy uing this thread as an oportuinity of discussing the evidence in both sides instead of constantly screaming "you're lying my reference is ideoligcally close to me, so i'm right"


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



asdf0501 said:


> So you do the same you criticize, you admit so, but "fuck it" i going to do it equally because someone else did it to the guy i like ?


You are like birthday_massacre with proper capitalization. I don't know what this means. 



> Also seeing the video and contrasting it with the Oliver video you can see how both are misleading. For example Molyneux talks about why he doesn't mind the facts of Trump doing Lawsuits when the Oliver critic is of the fact that Trump mention Lawsuits that he never follow just to make for the fact someone critcized him, it would be fine to see both evidences and contrasting them instead of just following what you thinks is more suited for you, it's the same with the 3 billion thing, Oliver is doing the critic because Trump says his name value is 3 billion but in his own deposition he also says that his value changes on HOW HE FEELS ABOUT IT, obviously this is not adressed in any point of the Molineux video becuase it shows that Trump overvalue himselfs Business wise .


First of all, this is not a coherent thought. It was one huge run-on sentence and I have no idea what the hell you're even getting that. I'll respond to the last bit where you say Trump changes his value estimation based on how he feels and how it's supposedly "never addressed" in the video. Go to 41:40 in the video, Stefan spends several minutes debunking Oliver on this point. The full quote has Trump saying his "feeling about the world and where the world is going", not just his own feelings in general. Oliver lied and manipulated Trump's words, and you lied when you said it's never addressed in the video. 



> It would be fine and dandy uing this thread as an oportuinity of discussing the evidence in both sides instead of constantly screaming "you're lying my reference is ideoligcally close to me, so i'm right"


You are objectively incorrect though.


----------



## asdf0501

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> First of all, this is not a coherent thought. It was one huge run-on sentence and I have no idea what the hell you're even getting that. I'll respond to the last bit where you say Trump changes his value estimation based on how he feels and how it's supposedly "never addressed" in the video. Go to 41:40 in the video, Stefan spends several minutes debunking Oliver on this point. The full quote has Trump saying his "feeling about the world and where the world is going", not just his own feelings in general. Oliver lied and manipulated Trump's words, and you lied when you said it's never addressed in the video.


God. 

What he says is that his own value changes depending in how *he feels* about the world and where he feels the world is going, which is still the same, note how he pass fast for the point to see why i say he didn't adressed. Yeah he makes the example of a crash, but that doesn't pass for the feelings part but a reality phenom ocurring in the market. 
He only centers in the omitted part of the quote and construct the sentence from there, not from the entire quote, which still is about how he feels, not only about himself but, about the world and this is not a way to messure business value.



CamillePunk said:


> You are objectively incorrect though.


i'm objectively wrong in wanting to contrast information instead of debating from polarizing corners as a "gotch' ya"? yeah, whatever


----------



## sesel

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> It's not true at all, @sesel
> 
> it speaks to how overblown the media has made this thing. He said he Disavowed duke AT LEAST 3 TIMES BEFORE.
> 
> I don't even know why it matters. DAVID DUKE IS NOT A CLANSMAN.


Thanks, it's important to me know this sort of things. There's a lot of leftists in Brazil( take a look at our president) and they in insist in portraying Trump as crazy guys who hates minorities.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



asdf0501 said:


> God.
> 
> What he says is that his own value changes depending in how *he feels* about the world and where he feels the world is going, which is still the same, note how he pass fast for the point to see why i say he didn't adressed. Yeah he makes the example of a crash, but that doesn't pass for the feelings part but a reality phenom ocurring in the market.
> He only centers in the omitted part of the quote and construct the sentence from there, not from the entire quote, which still is about how he feels, not only about himself but, about the world and this is not a way to messure business value.


Again I don't get what you're saying for most of this but as far as how Trump's feeling about the world would affect his value estimation, of course it would. Trump's value is based on his brand and assets in specific industries (largely real estate), so obviously if those industries are in trouble it affects the value of his brand and assets. This is not a complicated concept to understand. Oliver twisted his words to make it seem like Trump's mood determines his value, which is just not true. Then you repeated this lie even when presented conflicting information. Talking to you past this point is itself pointless. 



> i'm objectively wrong in wanting to contrast information instead of debating from polarizing corners as a "gotch' ya"? yeah, whatever


Trying to understand you is taxing. I'm not going to talk to you anymore because the truth doesn't matter to you and you can't express yourself clearly. What I'll say is there couldn't be anything more "gotchya" than Oliver's entire lie-ridden segment on Donald Trump. He's a complete puppet of the political left who cowardly hides behind "oh I'm just a comedian!" so if you point out any of his bullshit he can pretend he's not liable for anything he says. But clearly he does want what he says to have an effect on people, particularly people who don't do research and don't think for themselves. Not going to name any names though.


----------



## Badbadrobot

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



sesel said:


> Thanks, it's important to me know this sort of things. There's a lot of leftists in Brazil( take a look at our president) and they in insist in portraying Trump as crazy guys who hates minorities.


He wants build a wall to stop Mexicans illegally coming to America, Mexico has stated they won't pay for it, so Donald says it just got another 10 foot higher and they're still paying ... I think this example tells you everything you need to know about the lack of thought that powers drumpfs rhetoric. Isolationist and idiotic.

But as he says you've got to pander to those right wing crazies.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Again I don't get what you're saying for most of this but as far as how Trump's feeling about the world would affect his value estimation, of course it would. Trump's value is based on his brand and assets in specific industries (largely real estate), so obviously if those industries are in trouble it affects the value of his brand and assets. This is not a complicated concept to understand. Oliver twisted his words to make it seem like Trump's mood determines his value, which is just not true. Then you repeated this lie even when presented conflicting information. Talking to you past this point is itself pointless.
> 
> Trying to understand you is taxing. I'm not going to talk to you anymore because the truth doesn't matter to you and you can't express yourself clearly. What I'll say is there couldn't be anything more "gotchya" than Oliver's entire lie-ridden segment on Donald Trump. He's a complete puppet of the political left who cowardly hides behind "oh I'm just a comedian!" so if you point out any of his bullshit he can pretend he's not liable for anything he says. But clearly he does want what he says to have an effect on people, particularly people who don't do research and don't think for themselves. Not going to name any names though.


For Petes sake Camille make an effort. He's clearly calling you out on your own bias which a small child could even point out, but the best you can come up with is "your posts make no sense, I can't understand you!". Funnily enough I understood the post just fine.

Besides I think the real reason righties hate people like John Oliver is they don't have anyone on their side smart enough to be that funny! Funnily enough in that same trump episode he highlighted Obamas failure to close Gitmo, and showed some embarrassing early clip of Obama. Don't suppose you saw that?

Now God bless you and let's have a wonderful day.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I can see why CP has problems understanding asdf. I'm pretty sure English is not asdf's native/1st language. 

I can't see why CP is wanting to debunk a comedy bit though.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> For Petes sake Camille make an effort. He's clearly calling you out on your own bias which a small child could even point out, but the best you can come up with is "your posts make no sense, I can't understand you!". Funnily enough I understood the post just fine.


I responded to what I could understand. :draper2 I guess you're more versed in incoherent rambling than I am. 



> Besides I think the real reason righties hate people like John Oliver is they don't have anyone on their side smart enough to be that funny! Funnily enough in that same trump episode he highlighted Obamas failure to close Gitmo, and showed some embarrassing early clip of Obama. Don't suppose you saw that?


Oh man, you really got me here. Oh wait. Yes I did see the segment and here it is for those who haven't:






So basically, President Obama is admirable, the GOP are just in his way, the law is against him, and the worst moment of Obama's presidency is apparently him asking "Greg" about something mid-press conference. What a fucking takedown. Clearly comparable to his 22-minute lie-ridden attack on the Republican frontrunner.  No bias here at all.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Actually I take that back, I can see why you'd want to debunk a comedy bit. Some people could see Oliver as a journalist that is attempting to inform rather than entertain.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> I can't see why CP is wanting to debunk a comedy bit though.


That's the cowardice I was talking about. John Oliver voices all these strong opinions regarding politics, framed in this goofy "I'm a blind parrot in a bank" way so anyone who calls him out on the bullshit can be told "lol ur debating a comedian", meanwhile everyone is hailing his supposed "takedown" of Trump. People want to have it both ways.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Personally I hate political or "philosophical" comedian 

People aren't laughing because they think its funny, they are laughing because they agree with the opinions being said 

They are literally being paid to preach to the choir 

Look at how many people use George Carlin as a "source" online

stupid as fuck


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Also if someone can explain to me the comedic content in saying Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are politically consistent (he said "you know where they stand", which means the same thing), while saying Donald Trump isn't, even though Cruz and Rubio have been politicians for years and so their political stances are infinitely more significant than some private citizen with a mic in his face just saying what he thinks about subjects that aren't his forte, I'd be happy to hear it. Cruz has played both sides of the immigration battle and has railed against banks while taking banker money and while his wife works for Goldman-Sachs. Rubio has been all over the place on everything which is well-documented. Why would John Oliver lie about that in his so-called comedy skit attacking Trump?

It's not comedy. He has a political agenda. The jokes are an insurance policy against criticism.


----------



## MrMister

Well now we're getting into what is comedy and that's just pointless.



> People aren't laughing because they think its funny, they are laughing because they agree with the opinions being said


I can't speak for anyone else, but I laughed at the bit because it's funny. i'm still voting for Trump over Hillary in November, assuming Trump is the GOP guy.

Hello


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Quite frankly what was most funny about the Trump, I'm sorry DRUMPF segment was DRUMPF himself. He's naturally funny in what he says and how he says it, just basically yelling at the camera like an 80s wrestling promo. Plus all the hair-brained schemes he's had! I mean, Trump Steaks? Really? Oliver is the icing on the cake of the already bizarre Trump.

May favourite part was Trump saying (paraphrased) 'I'm well educated, I went to an Ivy League school, I know words, I know the best words!' (and yes I'm well aware he was saying Obama is 'stupid').


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Yeah the steaks thing was hilarious. SHARPER IMAGE EXCLUSIVE

also this is off topic forgive me lord but...

@stevefox1200 are you saying you don't find George Carlin funny?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> Yeah the steaks thing was hilarious. SHARPER IMAGE EXCLUSIVE


Thank god. A Trump supporter with a sense of humor, not constantly deflecting and denying anything that takes away from Trump's glory.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I wouldn't call myself a supporter if I'm being totally serious, but I'm enough of a rube to think Trump isn't on the take the same way Hillary is.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Don't just stop with Marco pls.

That ad is pretty great. Perfect somber tone and the narrator is on point with the delivery.


----------



## virus21

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## Menacing Nemesis

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

What do you guys think about this wall Trump wants to build? Personally I say it's a waste of time. Anyone who wants to climb over it or under it could do that without a problem. I'm not convinced it would keep many people out. At least he cares about illegal immigration though and that's more than I would say about Hillary or Bernie.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

There's a millionaire turned politician in Australia called Clive Palmer, and he wanted to build a Dinosaur Park, as In Jurassic Park with mechanical dinosaurs I believe. He also had a plan to build Titanic 2.

The wall idea isn't quite as stupid as those, but it's not far off. It has about the same chance of getting off the ground too.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> There's a millionaire turned politician in Australia called Clive Palmer, and he wanted to build a Dinosaur Park, as In Jurassic Park with mechanical dinosaurs I believe. He also had a plan to build Titanic 2.
> 
> The wall idea isn't quite as stupid as those, but it's not far off. It has about the same chance of getting off the ground too.


Only if you think Mexico has say in it.


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Menacing Nemesis said:


> What do you guys think about this wall Trump wants to build? Personally I say it's a waste of time. Anyone who wants to climb over it or under it could do that without a problem. I'm not convinced it would keep many people out. At least he cares about illegal immigration though and that's more than I would say about Hillary or Bernie.


Well they wouldn't be able to get vehicles across. And if you build it tall enough and have barbed wire on top of it I think it would be difficult to cross. Then you devote a larger portion of border patrol to being on the wall and it becomes a lot more difficult to cross. The US has a lot of border patrol people that don't actually patrol the border. They operate up to 100 miles away from the border. With a giant wall that takes a while to get over if you can get over it at all and increased chances of someone seeing you trying to do it then it would be more difficult to cross.


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

These corrupt fucks. :frown2:


> *Seeing Trump as vulnerable, GOP elites now eye a contested convention*
> 
> PARK CITY, Utah — The presentation is an 11th-hour rebuttal to the fatalism permeating the Republican establishment: Slide by slide, state by state, it calculates how Donald Trump could be denied the presidential nomination.
> 
> Marco Rubio wins Florida. John Kasich wins Ohio. Ted Cruz notches victories in the Midwest and Mountain West. And the results in California and other states are jumbled enough to leave Trump three dozen delegates short of the 1,237 required — forcing a contested convention in Cleveland in July.
> 
> The slide show, shared with The Washington Post by two operatives advising one of a handful of anti-Trump super PACs, encapsulates the newly emboldened view of many GOP leaders and donors. They see a clearer path to stopping Trump since his two losses and two narrower-than-expected wins in Saturday’s contests.
> 
> In private conversations in recent days at a Republican Governors Association retreat here in Park City and at a gathering of conservative policy minds and financiers in Sea Island, Ga., there was an emerging consensus that Trump is vulnerable and that a continued blitz of attacks could puncture the billionaire mogul’s support and leave him limping onto the convention floor.
> 
> The stop-Trump movement’s leading super PAC, Our Principles PAC, is adopting what its operatives call a “surround sound” strategy in Florida: more than $3 million in television advertisements, plus direct-mail pieces, digital ads, phone banking and emails — all designed to sow doubts about Trump’s character, convictions and fitness for office.
> 
> “There is not a silver bullet,” said Brian Baker, a strategist involved with planning the super PAC’s activities. “It’s the cumulative effect of all of these messages.”


----------



## blackholeson

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Menacing Nemesis said:


> What do you guys think about this wall Trump wants to build? Personally I say it's a waste of time. Anyone who wants to climb over it or under it could do that without a problem. I'm not convinced it would keep many people out. At least he cares about illegal immigration though and that's more than I would say about Hillary or Bernie.


I think it will create more jobs for Americans and Mexicans. However, we can't start talking about wall until we know that Trump wants to end the private sector corruption that is stagnant in Washington. Donald says he wants to stop people like him, from running our government as they have done for nearly a century long. If this is the case, then I would imagine Donald Trump is truly serious at stopping Mexican Government corruption because it's there too. Drug Cartels exists partly due to the lack of money coming back to Mexico where it belongs. The America Private sector does not all Mexico to Nationalize their resources. Of course they allow the Mexican Government to take it's share, but that leaves very little for the farmers. Many of which live in poverty.


----------



## amhlilhaus

The gop plotting how to stop trump.

They still havent learned the lessons from 08 an 12: conservatives WILL NOT vote a gop establishment guy. They wont stop trump and cruise to victory. Their best bet is push trump hard, and hope he wins, then deal with him. They wont get anything from the other side


----------



## TheResurrection

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Menacing Nemesis said:


> What do you guys think about this wall Trump wants to build? Personally I say it's a waste of time. Anyone who wants to climb over it or under it could do that without a problem. I'm not convinced it would keep many people out. At least he cares about illegal immigration though and that's more than I would say about Hillary or Bernie.


Easily climb over a 65 foot tall wall?


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TheResurrection said:


> Easily climb over a 65 foot tall wall?


you seen game of thrones?


----------



## TheResurrection

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Goku said:


> you seen game of thrones?


Yeah.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Oh man a fucking SCYTHE on the Trump Wall. :mark: 

Rubio ain't winning Florida.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/michigan-republican/

NINETY
TWO
PERCENT!


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



amhlilhaus said:


> The gop plotting how to stop trump.
> 
> They still havent learned the lessons from 08 an 12: conservatives WILL NOT vote a gop establishment guy. They wont stop trump and cruise to victory. Their best bet is push trump hard, and hope he wins, then deal with him. They wont get anything from the other side


lucky for them the only guy with a shot beating trump is the conservatiest conservative ever ted cruz lol


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Menacing Nemesis said:


> What do you guys think about this wall Trump wants to build? Personally I say it's a waste of time. Anyone who wants to climb over it or under it could do that without a problem. I'm not convinced it would keep many people out. At least he cares about illegal immigration though and that's more than I would say about Hillary or Bernie.


It will buy us time the same way the walls of the Alamo bought time for Sam Houston to consolidate his troops!!!

*MAN THE WALLS AND STOP THE FLOOD OF ILLEGALS!!! *-Mike


----------



## Nick Baker

*Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










*https://www.donaldjtrump.com/*
*https://www.hillaryclinton.com/*

_Election Day:_ *November 8, 2016*​


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Election*

It says a lot to me about the current state of the Democratic Party that they had to bring in a Socialist like Bernie Sanders to make a run in order to make Hillary appear as a Moderate. :mj4


----------



## virus21

*Re: Election*

Thats it. I'm voting 3rd party. Now lets see...


----------



## amhlilhaus

virus21 said:


> Thats it. I'm voting 3rd party. Now lets see...


Id vote for cobra commander

If he let me fly one of those city sized ships the joes would bring down with a paper airplane and a firecracker


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*










TRUMP TAKING NO PRISONER TONIGHT!


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Isn't this wall just going to be a money vacuum with all the construction, upkeep and officers etc etc?

I mean I know he's apparently going to get Mexico to pay for it, but I just don't see that happening.

Surely Drumpf needs to spend more time reducing debt rather than building a giant wall.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

*Sighs* A giant wall helps reduce the cost of illegal crime related problems, in Texas, Arizona and other border states insurance is high because the chances of getting hit by an illegal are high, medical bills go unpaid by illegals and illegals send money back to Mexico, not spend in the US. The difference between legal and illegal immigration is one plans to be a citizen and stay in the US and build a future, the other wishes to make money to send back home, there are illegals who aspire to become citizens but there are ways to do this without crossing illegally. 

A wall will be costly but over time will reduce the money needed for deportation, processing, welfare and other means. Walls work very well, there isn't a wall conspiracy where wall builders make them to line their pockets. If walls don't work than why are all the places you wish to protect lined with them? The border patrol can man the wall and stop drug runners and put a big dent in the illegal problem. Is a wall 100% full proof? No, but the whole notion of "If you build a 50 foot wall, they'll get a 60 foot ladder" is stupid, open borders are not a good idea.Nothing is ever full proof, condoms, washing your hands, cooking your food at certain temps can still fail, this doesn't mean we should go condom-less, stop washing our hands after using the bathroom nor start eating raw food.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Isn't this wall just going to be a money vacuum with all the construction, upkeep and officers etc etc?
> 
> I mean I know he's apparently going to get Mexico to pay for it, but I just don't see that happening.
> 
> Surely Drumpf needs to spend more time reducing debt rather than building a giant wall.


One can easily spin it as a job creation endeavour.  Job creation in your own country with the government of another country footing the bill!



Miss Sally said:


> Is a wall 100% full proof? No, but the whole notion of "If you build a 50 foot wall, they'll get a 60 foot ladder" is stupid, open borders are not a good idea.


Sounds awfully similar gun control advocates' logic to 2nd amendment purists anti-gun control rhetoric.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> One can easily spin it as a job creation endeavour.  Job creation in your own country with the government of another country footing the bill!
> 
> Sounds awfully similar gun control advocates' logic to 2nd amendment purists anti-gun control rhetoric.


I don't believe in banning all guns if that's what you mean. Drinking, smoking and cars kill more people than guns do. Banning booze didn't stop the problem, putting a blanket ban on anything never works.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> I don't believe in banning all guns if that's what you mean. Drinking, smoking and cars kill more people than guns do. Banning booze didn't stop the problem, putting a blanket ban on anything never works.


I mean those fighting for more gun control are using very similar logic to what you said but somehow they are bad to some Trump supporters but a wall is deem a great idea.

Putting a blanket ban on anything never works, but somehow a blanket ban on Muslims entering the country is seen as a good policy to some Trump supporters.


----------



## Hennessey

I won't pretend that I know much about politics, but don't illegal immigrants already pay billions of dollars in taxes every year, which helps this country? Didn't they pay nearly 12 billion in taxes a few years ago.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> I mean those fighting for more gun control are using very similar logic to what you said but somehow they are bad to some Trump supporters but a wall is deem a great idea.
> 
> Putting a blanket ban on anything never works, but somehow a blanket ban on Muslims entering the country is seen as a good policy to some Trump supporters.


The wall and border control has always been needed, have you ever flown out of the country and then back in? They grill you, check you and double check you yet at the Mexican border one can cross freely. It's a problem, a wall is a good idea, people can still apply to be citizens and people will be accepted. There is nothing bad, dumb or pointless about it. If one has to be checked and re-checked flying in well people should be stopped from crossing into the US via the desert. 

I don't agree with banning Muslims but extensive background checks? You bet! People should check people before they enter the states, would you let just anyone enter your house because they ask? Because they look nice? No? So why should people enter freely without being thorough?


@Hennessy That's only if they're using a fake social, if they stole one they're ripping off someone and costing millions in identity theft. Let's remember illegal mexicans are working the most minimum wage jobs they can and that's if they work one that doesn't pay under the table. So whatever they put in tax wise isn't much considering illegals can get welfare, food stamps, the WIC program and sending money back to Mexico, not paying for any accidents they cause via car wrecks, getting sent to prison for crimes or not paying medical bills. That sort of "But they don't get taxes back!" is silly thinking considering the fact they don't make much money to put into taxes anyways. Unless there is a large group of middle class illegals paying massive amounts of taxes I'm not aware of.


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” Donald Trump
So U.S. manufacturing is gone baby gone and to deny global warming is aging a lapse in rationalization.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Hennessey said:


> I won't pretend that I know much about politics, but don't illegal immigrants already pay billions of dollars in taxes every year, which helps this country? Didn't they pay nearly 12 billion in taxes a few years ago.


I won't pretend to know the exact stats, but don't a large portion, if not most, illegal aliens get paid under the table paying no taxes and send most of their money back home not putting it back into the economy of this country???

Also, how many of the low skilled jobs did they take away from American citizens who are unskilled??? How much did illegals lower the wages in certain jobs by working for alot less than even minimum wage???

- Mike


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Isn't this wall just going to be a money vacuum with all the construction, upkeep and officers etc etc?
> 
> I mean I know he's apparently going to get Mexico to pay for it, but I just don't see that happening.
> 
> Surely Drumpf needs to spend more time reducing debt rather than building a giant wall.


Yes, of course. You don't see it happening. Just like no one saw Trump ever leading the race happening. :nerd:


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> I won't pretend to know the exact stats, but don't a large portion, if not most, illegal aliens get paid under the table paying no taxes and send most of their money back home not putting it back into the economy of this country???
> 
> Also, how many of the low skilled jobs did they take away from American citizens who are unskilled??? How much did illegals lower the wages in certain jobs by working for alot less than even minimum wage???
> 
> - Mike


Immigrants pay taxes, in the form of income, property, sales, and taxes at the federal and state level. As far as income tax payments go, sources vary in their accounts, but a range of studies find that immigrants pay between $90 and $140 billion a year in federal, state, and local taxes. Undocumented immigrants pay income taxes as well, as evidenced by the Social Security Administration's "suspense file" (taxes that cannot be matched to workers' names and social security numbers), which grew by $20 billion between 1990 and 1998.
(Source: http://tpr.org/post/immigrants-work...tax-returns-without-fear-deportation#stream/0)


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I wonder how luxurious Trump Water is.


LOL MARCO


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Lodi Lawless said:


> Immigrants pay taxes, in the form of income, property, sales, and taxes at the federal and state level. As far as income tax payments go, sources vary in their accounts, but a range of studies find that immigrants pay between $90 and $140 billion a year in federal, state, and local taxes. Undocumented immigrants pay income taxes as well, as evidenced by the Social Security Administration's "suspense file" (taxes that cannot be matched to workers' names and social security numbers), which grew by $20 billion between 1990 and 1998.
> (Source: http://www.immigrationforum.org/about/articles/tax_study.htm)


Why are you bringing up* legal immigrants*??? We know that they pay taxes the same way American citizens do. We oppose *illegal immigrants.
*
Regarding your evidence that illegals pay taxes, I have to take that with a large grain of salt. Obviously some do, but they still send their money home, take jobs from American workers, and cause wages to go down.

Any taxes that they pay are negated by the other ills that they cause. More importantly, they a breaking the law and should be deported! 

- Mike


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Why does Cruz block funding to Flint?


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> Why are you bringing up legal immigrants??? We know that they pay taxes the same way American citizens do. We oppose *illegal immigrants.
> *
> Regarding your evidence that illegals pay taxes, I have to take that with a large grain of salt. Obviously some do, but they still send their money home, take jobs from American workers, and cause wages to go down.
> 
> Any taxes that they pay are negated by the other ills that they cause. More importantly, they a breaking the law and should be deported!
> 
> - Mike


In addition to the consumer spending of immigrant households, immigrants and their businesses contribute $162 billion in tax revenue to U.S. federal, state, and local governments. While it is true that immigrants remit billions of dollars a year to their home countries, this is one of the most targeted and effective forms of direct foreign investment.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Lodi Lawless said:


> Immigrants pay taxes, in the form of income, property, sales, and taxes at the federal and state level. As far as income tax payments go, sources vary in their accounts, but a range of studies find that immigrants pay between $90 and $140 billion a year in federal, state, and local taxes. Undocumented immigrants pay income taxes as well, as evidenced by the Social Security Administration's "suspense file" (taxes that cannot be matched to workers' names and social security numbers), which grew by $20 billion between 1990 and 1998.
> (Source: http://tpr.org/post/immigrants-work...tax-returns-without-fear-deportation#stream/0)


As I said that's if they're using a fake social, if they're using a stolen one or paid under the table they're not contributing much. People still aren't realizing all the programs they can get, the unpaid medical bills and problems that comes with illegals committing crimes, most send their money back home which does not boost our economy. Most live together in large groups as to pay the minimal cost to rent a place. I'd like to see a study on how much illegals cost the Government and economy by sending money out of the states and from the cost of schooling, welfare, food programs, paid under the table wages and other variables.


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> As I said that's if they're using a fake social, if they're using a stolen one or paid under the table they're not contributing much. People still aren't realizing all the programs they can get, the unpaid medical bills and problems that comes with illegals committing crimes, most send their money back home which does not boost our economy. Most live together in large groups as to pay the minimal cost to rent a place. I'd like to see a study on how much illegals cost the Government and economy by sending money out of the states and from the cost of schooling, welfare, food programs, paid under the table wages and other variables.


During the 1990s, half of all new workers were foreign-born, filling gaps left by native-born workers in both the high- and low-skill ends of the spectrum. Immigrants fill jobs in key sectors, start their own businesses, and contribute to a thriving economy. The net benefit of immigration to the U.S. is nearly $10 billion annually. As Alan Greenspan points out, 70% of immigrants arrive in prime working age. That means we haven't spent a penny on their education, yet they are transplanted into our workforce and will contribute $500 billion toward our social security system over the next 20 years.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Lodi Lawless said:


> In addition to the consumer spending of immigrant households, immigrants and their businesses contribute $162 billion in tax revenue to U.S. federal, state, and local governments. While it is true that immigrants remit billions of dollars a year to their home countries, this is one of the most targeted and effective forms of direct foreign investment.


You're starting to sound like Birthday Massacre. Stop repeating the same thing over and over again while ignoring what I said in the previous posts.

You are talking about legal immigrants with whom we have no problem. The problem is with the illegals for the reasons I previously mentioned.

- Mike


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> You're starting to sound like Birthday Massacre. Stop repeating the same thing over and over again while ignoring what I said in the previous posts.
> 
> You are talking about legal immigrants with whom we have no problem. The problem is with the illegals for the reasons I previously mentioned.
> 
> - Mike


Around 75% of today's immigrants have legal permanent (immigrant) visas; of the 25% that are undocumented, 40% overstayed temporary (non-immigrant) visas.
(Source: Department of Homeland Security http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/index.htm)


----------



## Hennessey

Let's be honest. The whole taking the jobs from Americans argument is just dumb. The Mexicans take the jobs that most Americans would not even touch.


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Hennessey said:


> Let's be honest. The whole taking the jobs from Americans argument is just dumb. The Mexicans take the jobs that most Americans would not even touch.


You like Reigns and I like Dean. But Tonight, I'm a Reigns mark. Great work. Rep to you.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Yes, of course. You don't see it happening. Just like no one saw Trump ever leading the race happening. :nerd:


That's wonderful Beatles, but I'm not down on it just because it's DRUMPF. 

It's because government projects like a big massive long wall tend to take a be a huge headache blowing out on money, materials, manpower and timeframes. I mean, is it going to stretch across the whole border of (i looked it up!) 1,954 miles?

That's going to take FOREVER. I don't know maybe he can build half the wall with expired TRUMP STEAKS?


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Lodi Lawless said:


> During the 1990s, half of all new workers were foreign-born, filling gaps left by native-born workers in both the high- and low-skill ends of the spectrum. Immigrants fill jobs in key sectors, start their own businesses, and contribute to a thriving economy. The net benefit of immigration to the U.S. is nearly $10 billion annually. As Alan Greenspan points out, 70% of immigrants arrive in prime working age. That means we haven't spent a penny on their education, yet they are transplanted into our workforce and will contribute $500 billion toward our social security system over the next 20 years.


Are you bringing up legal immigrants? Nobody is talking about banning LEGAL immigrants but ILLEGAL. ILLEGALS do not start up businesses nor contribute as much as they take. LEGAL immigrants do not send money back home in huge amounts, LEGALS pay taxes, pay rent, buy homes and often times send their children to college. LEGAL immigrants are needed. There are ways to apply for a way to LEGALLY apply for citizenship within the US.

We're talking about ILLEGAL immigrants who contribute what 20 billion at best? Compared to what exactly? Why does nobody tally up the cost of their children's education, money sent from the country, unpaid medical bills, any other bills, identity theft, cost for imprisoning criminals, cost of processing/deportation and forcing wages down? Maybe it's because what they "contribute" in taxes that's if they are not paid under the table would be paltry to what they cost the tax payers.

Again this is not about legal immigration, this is about illegals. Illegals I'm assuming are as smart as legals so why do they not go about things the way legal immigrants do? This is why a wall and tighter border control is needed. Nobody wants to stop legal immigration so please stop bringing up legals this isn't about them.

PS Mexicans taking American jobs is a thing, maybe not as bad as some right Wing media portrays but manufacturing is a big business in America yet these companies either hire illegals or move their plants to Mexico or other places with cheap labor, is that not stealing jobs?


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Lodi Lawless said:


> Around 75% of today's immigrants have legal permanent (immigrant) visas; of the 25% that are undocumented, 40% overstayed temporary (non-immigrant) visas.
> (Source: Department of Homeland Security http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/index.htm)


So, what does that prove??? 

75% of immigrants are legal, work legally or own businesses, pay their share of taxes, and are *NOT* breaking the law.

25% are *illegal aliens *(they are not "immigrants," undocumented or otherwise) who are breaking the law just by being in our country. They further exacerbate our societal problems by taking jobs from American citizens and legal aliens, forcing down wages, sending money out of the country, and, for the most part, working under the table and not paying taxes. Add the fact that they use our social services costing society hundreds of millions of dollars.

- Mike


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Hennessey said:


> Let's be honest. The whole taking the jobs from Americans argument is just dumb. The Mexicans take the jobs that most Americans would not even touch.


There are plenty of low skilled Americans who would take those jobs the illegal aliens have. The fact that they work under the table for lower wages and no benefits is one reason the lower skilled Americans can't get those jobs.

Many Afro-Americans who are low skilled and would like to get off welfare can't, because illegal aliens have taken the jobs requiring a lower skill set.

- Mike


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

According to the 2005 Economic Report of the President, "more than half of all undocumented immigrants are believed to be working ‘on the books'…[and]… contribute to the tax rolls but are ineligible for almost all Federal public assistance programs and most major Federal-state programs." According to the report, undocumented immigrants also "contribute money to public coffers by paying sales and property taxes (the latter are implicit in apartment rentals)."

All immigrants (legal and undocumented) pay the same real estate taxes and the same sales and other consumption taxes as everyone else. The University of Illinois at Chicago found in 2002 that undocumented immigrants in the Chicago metro area spent $2.89 billion annually from their earnings and these expenditures generated $2.56 billion additional spending for the local economy.

Legal immigrants pay income taxes and indeed many undocumented immigrants also pay income taxes or have taxes automatically withheld from their paychecks—even though they are unable to claim a tax refund, Social Security benefits or other welfare benefits that these taxes support. In the Chicago metro area for example, approximately seventy percent of undocumented workers paid payroll taxes, according to the University of Illinois study from 2002.32 In the Washington Metro Region, immigrants paid the same share of the region's overall taxes (18 percent) as the rest of the population (17.4 percent), according to a 2006 Urban Institute study.33 This study also points to the fact that immigrants' tax payments support both local and state services in addition to the federal government.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) holds that undocumented immigrants "account for a major portion" of the billions of dollars paid into the Social Security system—an estimated $520 billion as of October 2005.34 The SSA keeps a file called the "earnings suspense file" on all earnings with incorrect or fictitious Social Security numbers and the SSA's chief actuary stated in 2005 that "three quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes."35 Their figures show that the suspense file is growing by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 to 7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.


----------



## Hennessey

illegal immigrants come here and a lot of them just want a better life for them and their families. I Personally can't fault them for that. 

My family came here from Europe legally when I was ten years old, but the whole process took us nearly 3 years and cost a lot of money. A lot of people from Mexico just don't have the money or the time.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

There is *NO* argument for keeping illegal aliens here. They are *BREAKING THE LAW * just by being in this country. That in itself is the only reason needed to arrest and deport them.

The fact that they are hurting our economy and workers is important, but secondary. 

*ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE BREAKING THE LAW AND SHOULD BE DEPORTED, NOT REWARDED!* 

- Mike


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> There is *NO* argument for keeping illegal aliens here. They are *BREAKING THE LAW * just by being in this country. That in itself is the only reason needed to arrest and deport them.
> 
> The fact that they are hurting our economy and workers is important, but secondary.
> 
> *ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE BREAKING THE LAW AND SHOULD BE DEPORTED, NOT REWARDED!*
> 
> - Mike


Lol as if all Europeans entered the Country legally.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Hennessey said:


> illegal immigrants come here and a lot of them just want a better life for them and their families. I Personally can't fault them for that.
> 
> My family came here from Europe legally when I was ten years old, but the whole process took us nearly 3 years and cost a lot of money. A lot of people from Mexico just don't have the money or the time.


That's no fucking excuse. My people came here legally, your people came here legally, so why should others not have to follow the same rules???

BTW, if we take everyone in just because they are poor and want a better life the entire North American continent would sink into the sea (metaphorically speaking).

We have enough poor U.S. citizens that need help without having to take care of illegal aliens.

Stop the hand wringing, liberal whining. The borders have to be protected or there won't be anything to protect after awhile.

- Mike


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Hennessey said:


> illegal immigrants come here and a lot of them just want a better life for them and their families. I Personally can't fault them for that.
> 
> My family came here from Europe legally when I was ten years old, but the whole process took us nearly 3 years and cost a lot of money. A lot of people from Mexico just don't have the money or the time.


I'm from L.A. but my folks from Mexico. Illegals... I've never committed a crime, never gone to jail.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Lodi Lawless said:


> According to the 2005 Economic Report of the President, "more than half of all undocumented immigrants are believed to be working ‘on the books'…[and]… contribute to the tax rolls but are ineligible for almost all Federal public assistance programs and most major Federal-state programs." According to the report, undocumented immigrants also "contribute money to public coffers by paying sales and property taxes (the latter are implicit in apartment rentals)."
> 
> All immigrants (legal and undocumented) pay the same real estate taxes and the same sales and other consumption taxes as everyone else. The University of Illinois at Chicago found in 2002 that undocumented immigrants in the Chicago metro area spent $2.89 billion annually from their earnings and these expenditures generated $2.56 billion additional spending for the local economy.
> 
> Legal immigrants pay income taxes and indeed many undocumented immigrants also pay income taxes or have taxes automatically withheld from their paychecks—even though they are unable to claim a tax refund, Social Security benefits or other welfare benefits that these taxes support. In the Chicago metro area for example, approximately seventy percent of undocumented workers paid payroll taxes, according to the University of Illinois study from 2002.32 In the Washington Metro Region, immigrants paid the same share of the region's overall taxes (18 percent) as the rest of the population (17.4 percent), according to a 2006 Urban Institute study.33 This study also points to the fact that immigrants' tax payments support both local and state services in addition to the federal government.
> 
> The Social Security Administration (SSA) holds that undocumented immigrants "account for a major portion" of the billions of dollars paid into the Social Security system—an estimated $520 billion as of October 2005.34 The SSA keeps a file called the "earnings suspense file" on all earnings with incorrect or fictitious Social Security numbers and the SSA's chief actuary stated in 2005 that "three quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes."35 Their figures show that the suspense file is growing by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 to 7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.


"Believed" is the key word here, also most illegals rent. Which is why they tend to live in large groups in houses. They do not own homes and pay property taxes, they also do not spend much money sans the common needs. Again I want to know how much the US loses out on all the money sent out, unpaid medical bills, credit cards etc. Also Illegals can get welfare and Government aid, even more so if the woman claims single. No, they don't get income taxes back commonly but there are ways around this, an illegal I worked with was claiming income tax and claiming her children in Mexico and getting massive income taxes back, this was not legal but what is the IRS going to do to her? 

But thank you for speaking on illegal this time and not trying to lump in legal immigrants with the illegals.

[email protected] illegals don't have the time or money to apply, well if you don't have the time or money then maybe it's not meant to be? I don't have the time or money for medical school but doesn't mean I should get to be a brain surgeon because I want to be. There are so many Mexicans that apply here legally or after coming here apply for citizenship. Why do illegals not get held to the same standard as let's say Asian or Middle Eastern or European immigrants? They normally have to apply to get here legally so why should these others get a pass? It's just completely laughable.


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> Putting a blanket ban on anything never works, but somehow a blanket ban on Muslims entering the country is seen as a good policy to some Trump supporters.


Most of Muslims who launched terror attacks in America were people who entered the country legally or were citizens. I don't like the idea of banning all Muslims. But if your goal is to protect America/Americans it does make some sense. At least until you figure out what's going wrong. More sense than launching wars/drone killing/arming rebels and then taking in the refugees that you are creating.


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> "Believed" is the key word here, also most illegals rent. Which is why they tend to live in large groups in houses. They do not own homes and pay property taxes, they also do not spend much money sans the common needs. Again I want to know how much the US loses out on all the money sent out, unpaid medical bills, credit cards etc. Also Illegals can get welfare and Government aid, even more so if the woman claims single. No, they don't get income taxes back commonly but there are ways around this, an illegal I worked with was claiming income tax and claiming her children in Mexico and getting massive income taxes back, this was not legal but what is the IRS going to do to her?
> 
> But thank you for speaking on illegal this time and not trying to lump in legal immigrants with the illegals.


It's true that remittances are the biggest sources of foreign currency for most Latin American countries and surpass any amount of foreign aid sent by the U.S. The money sent by immigrants to their family members allows many people to stay in their home countries who might otherwise feel compelled to migrate to the U.S.

And while 51 percent of Latino immigrants send remittances home,36 they are spending their money in the United States as well. In fact, a 1998 study found that immigrants become net economic contributors after 10 to 15 years in the U.S.

In addition to paying taxes and Social Security, immigrants spend money on goods and services in the United States. A study of Latino immigrants in California found significant gains in home ownership between those who had been in this country for ten years (16.4 percent are homeowners) and those who had been here for over thirty years (64.6 percent).38 Furthermore, a 2002 Harvard University study of U.S. Census data found that there were more than 5.7 million foreign- born homeowners in the United States. The study found that foreign-born new homeowners are buying their homes by saving more than native-born homebuyers and stretching their incomes more.

While homeownership nationally was approximately 69% in 2006, it was 60% for Asians and 50% for Latinos—each group with large immigrant populations and therefore greater impediments to obtaining bank loans. Although homeownership is largely correlated with legal status in the U.S., undocumented immigrants are also buying into the "American Dream" of homeownership in some of the most expensive housing markets in the country.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Lodi Lawless said:


> I'm from L.A. but my folks from Mexico. Illegals... I've never committed a crime, never gone to jail.


Now the truth comes out why you are defending illegal aliens. Your parents are illegal aliens! *FAIL*!!!

- Mike


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

In 1980 a very young Donald Trump says (at that time) he would not want to become President. But listen to him describe what the ideal President would have to be. He predicted people's reaction to him. 

He says (I paraphrase):
The guy running for President would have to be someone with the kind of views that are unpopular, it would be right, but it'd definitely be unpopular, but he'd probably have no chance of winning versus opponent with small brain 'unintelligent' but had a good smile'.



The year 1980:
Rich young Trump

https://youtu.be/O5VEjF1uhYo







I was playing in my toybox in 1980, no fucks given  


But honestly if you remove his trolling Obama , trolling media and liberals and the campaign promos, he is a very smart fella.

Little fact folks don't know:

Senior Justice Maryanne Barry, aka Maryanne Trump-Barry.

Donald Trump's sister Maryanne Trump Barry is a Senior Federal Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit she was appointed to the a lower Federal Court by Ronald Reagan himself and quickly confirmed by Congress actually so fast she was confirmed and at work the following day. An exceptional Justice. 

She was then appointed to the Senior Justice on the Federal Court of appeals 3rd circuit by Bill Clinton. Making her reputation so good both Republican Reagan and Democrat Clinton both appointed her. 


One popular case she threw the book at 2 detectives trying to accept a plea bargain after caught protecting a drug dealer. Prosecution was gonna let these guys slide with plea bargains but she threw out the plea bargain and fucked those corrupt cops up. And she precided over mafia case.


Quote:



> In 1989, while a district court judge in Essex County, New Jersey, she disapproved a plea bargaining deal that would have freed two county detectives accused of protecting a drug dealer, and forced the case to trial, where the detectives were convicted and received jail terms. She also presided over the conviction of Louis Manna, the Genovese crime family boss accused of plotting to assassinate rival John Gotti.
> 
> In January 2006, Barry testified in support of the appointment of fellow Third Circuit Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.




You know what could happen?

Republicans block Supreme Court nominee by outgoing Obama. Trump could win and appoint his sister as Supreme Court Justice.

She is beloved by Reagan admirers and Clinton supporters she'd likely get confirmed. 

:grin2:


Trump does have a Bachelor's degree in Economics from Wharton at University of Pennsylvania. His younger schooling was at New York Military Academy.


Been reading up on the very young Trump. And not revisionist history articles, but using way back machine and archive.org to find original articles when he first got into real estate as a landlord of apartments. Reading old interview, or writer's old pieces, back then the media kept calling comparing him to Robert Redford after he was first compared in November 1976 by a female deleted he must have impressed.











Yea .... I've been bored tonight.


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> Now the truth comes out why you are defending illegal aliens. Your parents are illegal aliens! *FAIL*!!!
> 
> - Mike


I respect you. Respect me!


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> Now the truth comes out why you are defending illegal aliens. Your parents are illegal aliens! *FAIL*!!!
> 
> - Mike


When have I insulted your parents. Don't go that low.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Lodi Lawless said:


> I respect you. Respect me!


Respect you??? You're an "anchor baby" arguing for illegal aliens, because your parents are illegals.

How am I or anyone else supposed to respect your self-serving opinion???

- Mike


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> Respect you??? You're an "anchor baby" arguing for illegal aliens, because your parents are illegals.
> 
> How am I or anyone else supposed to respect your self-serving opinion???
> 
> - Mike


64 and act like a kid. No wonder you are voting for Trump. I feel sorry for you. I'm sure you ex-wife doesn't...


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Lodi Lawless said:


> When have I insulted your parents. Don't go that low.


You are the one who stated that your parents are illegal aliens, not me. If that is an "insult" then you are the one who made it first. I never cursed them or denigrated them. *I simply repeated what you said - they are illegals.
*
- Mike


----------



## Badbadrobot

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

love or breed fear hate and greed? 

I know what I want my kids to believe and it ain't hating those with less.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Lodi Lawless said:


> 64 and act like a kid. No wonder you are voting for Trump. I feel sorry for you. I'm sure you ex-wife doesn't...


No, I am acting like an American who is outraged at illegal aliens, the lack of the government's control over our borders, and at someone like you who is the kid of illegal aliens and believes he has some kind of high moral ground.

Your people came here illegally and you are the one dictating morals to the rest of us??? 

*TRUMP IN 2016!!!*

- Mike


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> No, I am acting like an American who is outraged at illegal aliens, the lack of the government's control over our borders, and at someone like you who is the kid of illegal aliens and believes he has some kind of high moral ground.
> 
> Your people came here illegally and you are the one dictating morals to the rest of us???
> 
> *TRUMP IN 2016!!!*
> 
> - Mike


You still the man.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Pronoss said:


> In 1980 a very young Donald Trump says (at that time) he would not want to become President. But listen to him describe what the ideal President would have to be. He predicted people's reaction to him.
> 
> He says (I paraphrase):
> The guy running for President would have to be someone with the kind of views that are unpopular, it would be right, but it'd definitely be unpopular, but he'd probably have no chance of winning versus opponent with small brain 'unintelligent' but had a good smile'.
> 
> 
> 
> The year 1980:
> Rich young Trump
> 
> https://youtu.be/O5VEjF1uhYo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was playing in my toybox in 1980, no fucks given
> 
> 
> But honestly if you remove his trolling Obama , trolling media and liberals and the campaign promos, he is a very smart fella.
> 
> Little fact folks don't know:
> 
> Senior Justice Maryanne Barry, aka Maryanne Trump-Barry.
> 
> Donald Trump's sister Maryanne Trump Barry is a Senior Federal Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit she was appointed to the a lower Federal Court by Ronald Reagan himself and quickly confirmed by Congress actually so fast she was confirmed and at work the following day. An exceptional Justice.
> 
> She was then appointed to the Senior Justice on the Federal Court of appeals 3rd circuit by Bill Clinton. Making her reputation so good both Republican Reagan and Democrat Clinton both appointed her.
> 
> 
> One popular case she threw the book at 2 detectives trying to accept a plea bargain after caught protecting a drug dealer. Prosecution was gonna let these guys slide with plea bargains but she threw out the plea bargain and fucked those corrupt cops up. And she precided over mafia case.
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what could happen?
> 
> Republicans block Supreme Court nominee by outgoing Obama. Trump could win and appoint his sister as Supreme Court Justice.
> 
> She is beloved by Reagan admirers and Clinton supporters she'd likely get confirmed.
> 
> :grin2:
> 
> 
> Trump does have a Bachelor's degree in Economics from Wharton at University of Pennsylvania. His younger schooling was at New York Military Academy.
> 
> 
> Been reading up on the very young Trump. And not revisionist history articles, but using way back machine and archive.org to find original articles when he first got into real estate as a landlord of apartments. Reading old interview, or writer's old pieces, back then the media kept calling comparing him to Robert Redford after he was first compared in November 1976 by a female deleted he must have impressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea .... I've been bored tonight.


So it took you a while to finish apparently? 

'Ohhhh, Oh yesss Trump! Trump! Yes, anywhere you want Trump! You're so big Trump!'


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Dazzler said:


> Most of Muslims who launched terror attacks in America were people who entered the country legally or were citizens. I don't like the idea of banning all Muslims. But if your goal is to protect America/Americans it does make some sense. At least until you figure out what's going wrong. More sense than launching wars/drone killing/arming rebels and then taking in the refugees that you are creating.


Most guns used in mass shooting in America were purchased legally. I don't like the idea of banning all guns. But if your goal is to protect America/Americans, it does make some sense. At least until you figure out what's going wrong. More sense than spending so much effort and resources to absolve any responsibility freely availability of guns play in such incidents/blaming solely on mental health/lament victims lack of arms to fight back and then use the opportunity to sell more arms from the fearmongering you are creating.

Does that look stupid to you? That is how stupid your logic sound.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I respect you and your opinion @Lodi Lawless.

I'm also glad you have a platform to voice it.


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> I respect you and your opinion @Lodi Lawless.
> 
> I'm also glad you have a platform to voice it.


I love you.


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> So it took you a while to finish apparently?
> 
> 'Ohhhh, Oh yesss Trump! Trump! Yes, anywhere you want Trump! You're so big Trump!'


Well I'm reading 2 of his books, he's written around 10. But I'm not interested in real estate tactics.



But I'm currently reading this from 2000 before his president ideations or at least serious ideas.


http://amzn.com/1580631312


Then next I've downloaded a newer book from 2015
http://amzn.com/1621574954



While I voted in primary for him, my vote is a protest vote wanting eradication of liberal political correctness created in 1902. Causing the cultural genocide of Indians by brainwashing young Indian generation to hate their culture, religion, heritage and to attack their own race with the made up word racist. This was a human experiment to get Indians to voluntarily leave reservations to become taxpayers and lose their free tax free land , zero sales tax, zero TAx on imports. And it worked too good until conservatives stopped it, disgraced Pratt and his legacy tainted as the worst cultural genocide ever. It took decades to repair damage liberal political correctness had done to the minds of the youth in this human experiment.



Anyhow ignoring that.. Since I did vote for him I'm not a sheep. I research, so yeah got my primary vote. But I'm reading his youth, his 3 big lawsuits him and his father won, and a lawsuit won against new york. And what Hunter S. Thompson wrote about him nthe 80s. Hunter inventor of Gonzo journalism, and author of Fear and Loathing series well a couple Fear and Loathing on the campaign trail and the popular Las Vegas.

Then there is a very odd cryptic criticism by Any Rand, she was an objectivist and anti capitalism. So instant bias, but she criticised his huge growth in 80s, but she had some mixed opinions criticising then complimenting back and forth where it's screwy of course some thought her nutty, but Donahue was completely mesmerized by her idea of how "if she had power to change everything what would she do?". It came off sounding like Star Trek's politics on Earth where "money" was eliminated. Your skill is your wealth.



See I'm babbling, but when I actually jump into a topic that I'm not just opinionated on, I want to know "what's the catch" and true history not what TV says. Now reading his books gives me idea how he thinks, you can't trust it as it's 1 sided but until he's proven to have lied you trust until you have reason not to. Just as innocent until proven guilty, I believe in trust until proven a liar.

So I read the fringe authors and the "Fuck Government" authors like Hunter S Thompson and their opinions and reports of him.



I did same thing on Obama and you immediately find the lie in his autobiography. He makes a huge admission in his autobiography but during campaign he agreed on felonies for "hard drugs". Yet if his bragging ass in his book had got busted there is no way he could have been President. As once a felon you lose the right to run for office. 

This why I read and ignore rhetoric. I want to learn about the guy. He's a damn good troll.



He trolled media in 80s during business deal, media business analyst kept reporting on a possible buy out. Trump was spotted arriving and in meetings. Well this caused stock prices bouncing over speculation, Trump has a Brokers license btw,or did in 80s.

So he made outlandish controversial statements and folks leaked Trump was in talks with Peter Malkin chairman and son Anthony Malkin of Empire Trust Realty owner of Empire State Building and dozen other locations in NY.

So the normal media jumped on the rumors this buried the business reports as this was bigger news. Media attacked him as leaks that Trump would turn it into low income apartments, media panicked about bringing in low income brings in crime. Lol 

Trump trolled good, Malkin's kept saying wtf are you talking about noone has called us from Trump. 

So with that nice media distraction and nosey business analyst not getting their stories printed stock leveled back down to its original lower value and he was now owner of nice piece of land.

Price was low due to crime as this was prior to Guliani coming in, banning strip joints, gentrifying the city and now Trump's investment (now prime real estate) was used to take him from bankrupting a casino he got into back into several hundred million. 



He's good at manipulating the media to look foolish but he's had a few backfires but some interesting stories, the best was in 1973 with his dad. His "wild oat sowing days".


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> Most guns used in mass shooting in America were purchased legally. I don't like the idea of banning all guns. But if your goal is to protect America/Americans, it does make some sense. At least until you figure out what's going wrong. More sense than spending so much effort and resources to absolve any responsibility freely availability of guns play in such incidents/blaming solely on mental health/lament victims lack of arms to fight back and then use the opportunity to sell more arms from the fearmongering you are creating.
> 
> Does that look stupid to you? That is how stupid your logic sound.


Can't you just argue your point without that last part? I'm confident you can.


----------



## Lodi Lawless

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> Can't you just argue your point without that last part? I'm confident you can.


Would it be better if I used 'does that look reasonable instead of does that look stupid?'

I thought this was the non-PC fanbase.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Election*


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> Most guns used in mass shooting in America were purchased legally. I don't like the idea of banning all guns. But if your goal is to protect America/Americans, it does make some sense. At least until you figure out what's going wrong. More sense than spending so much effort and resources to absolve any responsibility freely availability of guns play in such incidents/blaming solely on mental health/lament victims lack of arms to fight back and then use the opportunity to sell more arms from the fearmongering you are creating.
> 
> Does that look stupid to you? That is how stupid your logic sound.


The two are nothing alike. :laugh: 
A risk comes with you allowing Muslims to enter the US (higher than other countries). Is the risk worth it? Well that's for the American people to decide. If they choose Trump they'll have made their decision.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Dazzler said:


> The two are nothing alike. :laugh:
> A risk comes with you allowing Muslims to enter the US (higher than other countries). Is the risk worth it? Well that's for the American people to decide. If they choose Trump they'll have made their decision.


The logic is very alike. What risks are you talking about? Why is it higher for their entry into the US than other countries?

Banning 20% of the world's population from entering the country sounds like a very high cost for something that has taken less lives than gun violence in the country.


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Election*

If anyone still has any doubts, remember that a vote for Bernie Sanders is a vote against Hillary Clinton. Seriously, just pick the lesser of two evils.


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> What risks are you talking about? Why is it higher for their entry into the US than other countries?


Your foreign policy.


FriedTofu said:


> Banning 20% of the world's population from entering the country sounds like a very high cost for something that has taken less lives than gun violence in the country.


Why is it a high cost? Do you mean morally?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Election*

Bernie won Michigan. :lol @ pollsters getting it wrong by such a huge margin.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Dazzler said:


> Your foreign policy.
> 
> Why is it a high cost? Do you mean morally?


I'm not American if that is what you are implying.

High cost towards the economy by losing potential Muslim labour from working in America/potential tourism dollars from Muslims etc.


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> I'm not American if that is what you are implying.


Wasn't implying, I see no location so I just assumed. Sorry for that.



FriedTofu said:


> High cost towards the economy by losing potential Muslim labour from working in America/potential tourism dollars from Muslims etc.


Yeah they'd probably lose some money there. It's up to Americans though. Saying he'll ban Muslims doesn't seem to have done him any harm. He's doing better with Muslims than the rest of the GOP. :laugh:


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Dazzler said:


> Yeah they'd probably lose some money there. It's up to Americans though. Saying he'll ban Muslims doesn't seem to have done him any harm. He's doing better with Muslims than the rest of the GOP. :laugh:


Not that hard to believe when the other two are seeking the Evangelical votes which would rightfully frighten them more than Trump's rhetoric that would never pass.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Hennessey said:


> Let's be honest. The whole taking the jobs from Americans argument is just dumb. The Mexicans take the jobs that most Americans would not even touch.


Tell that to anyone where I live. Ask them if they won't work in the sun, I DARE you.

Stop with the "Lazy American" meme.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Let's get on topic:
@Blackbeard

*AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :trump

EAT SHIT, LUBIO!

NO DELEGATES IN 3 STATES TONIGHT!* :vince2


----------



## Super Sexy Steele

*Re: Election*


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> Not that hard to believe when the other two are seeking the Evangelical votes which would rightfully frighten them more than* Trump's rhetoric that would never pass.*


The Donald's policy on Muslim immigration is based on precedent. The President and the the U.S. Congress can ban immigration if they deem it in the national interest.

- Mike

http://www.infoplease.com/us/immigration/legislation-timeline.html
*1924 *
The National Origins Act reduces the number of immigrants entering the U.S. each year to 165,000 and the nationality quota set forth in the Quota Law of 1921 is cut to 2% of the population of that nationality based on the 1890 census. The quota system did not apply to immigrants from the western hemisphere. 

The U.S. Border Patrol is created.

*1929 *
The National Origins Act once again reduces the annaul cap on the number of immigrants allowed to enter the U.S., this time to 150,000. The 2% quota is linked to 1920 census data, thereby further limiting the number of immigrants from eastern and southern Europe.


*1940 *
The Alien Registration Act (Smith Act) requires that all immigrants age 14 and up register with the government and be fingerprinted. The act also bans individuals considered “subversives” from immigrating.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> The Donald's policy on Muslim immigration is based on precedent. The President and the the U.S. Congress can ban immigration if they deem it in the national interest.
> 
> - Mike
> 
> http://www.infoplease.com/us/immigration/legislation-timeline.html
> *1924 *
> The National Origins Act reduces the number of immigrants entering the U.S. each year to 165,000 and the nationality quota set forth in the Quota Law of 1921 is cut to 2% of the population of that nationality based on the 1890 census. The quota system did not apply to immigrants from the western hemisphere.
> 
> The U.S. Border Patrol is created.
> 
> *1929 *
> The National Origins Act once again reduces the annaul cap on the number of immigrants allowed to enter the U.S., this time to 150,000. The 2% quota is linked to 1920 census data, thereby further limiting the number of immigrants from eastern and southern Europe.
> 
> 
> *1940 *
> The Alien Registration Act (Smith Act) requires that all immigrants age 14 and up register with the government and be fingerprinted. The act also bans individuals considered “subversives” from immigrating.


Good luck enforcing this policy if you are serious that it is in the nation's best interests.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> Good luck enforcing this policy if you are serious that it is in the nation's best interests.


Luck is not needed - *resolve* is! When Trump is elected that resolve will have been mandated by the American people and the borders will be controlled again.

- Mike


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Three more states join The Donald's victory march while Cruz gets one, and Rubio and Kasich score a goose egg yesterday!

- Mike

Congratulations to Michigan, Mississippi, and Hawaii! 








[/IMG]








[/IMG]


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> Would it be better if I used 'does that look reasonable instead of does that look stupid?'
> 
> I thought this was the non-PC fanbase.


It's baiting. This isn't rants, so it's just better if we don't bait and flame.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Good night for The Donald, although the massive polling fail in Michigan on the Democrat side has me concerned about all the states coming up in which Trump has considerable poll leads. 

Obviously Rubio needs to drop out if the GOP want to stop Trump but I rather like the idea of watching him give a victory speech after losing his home state. I don't think he'd ever be taken seriously again as a political candidate.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Deadpool said:


> It says a lot to me about the current state of the Democratic Party that they had to bring in a Socialist like Bernie Sanders to make a run in order to make Hillary appear as a Moderate. :mj4


Hillary has already been a moderate, she even admitted it last year when she didn't treat Bernie as a threat. Now she has to pretend she is a progressive because Bernie is pushing her to the left. Hillary tells people what they want to hear. She changes her views depending on who she is talking to.


----------



## TomahawkJock

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

It's not so much Trump's policies I personally have a problem with, it's the way he goes about them. He's not professional at all and I'm afraid his mouth would get us into foreign issues in which I don't want to be a part of. I think he could promote his unpopular rhetoric with more of a civil approach.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TomahawkJock said:


> It's not so much Trump's policies I personally have a problem with, it's the way he goes about them. He's not professional at all and I'm afraid his mouth would get us into foreign issues in which I don't want to be a part of. I think he could promote his unpopular rhetoric with more of a civil approach.


and be the same fake, rehearsed Washington creation that has failed us over and over?


----------



## TomahawkJock

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> and be the same fake, rehearsed Washington creation that has failed us over and over?


There's ways to go about it. He repeatedly kicks out protesters, who are silently protesting at his events. I know many of people who have showed up, whether they be Muslim, black or just people wearing shirts of other candidates who sit there in silence, not making a sound who are escorted out by authority because Trump "didn't want them there". If he handles minor, very minor protesters like that, I'm worried what will happen if he controls our country. Just how he handles things is worrisome to me.


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

There are incidents we hear on local news or many see up close on border.

We got a huge problem. Governors on border requested more border patrol but administration "couldn't afford it".

So the state Militia volunteered for free, they capture, drop off at the INS right at border, then they get sent back. Course many still get through.


But you will see what I just wrote, and you are basing your judgements, some knee jerk reactions to call " racist" (made up word btw), because liberal media including "Fox" ultimately do what they're told. And there was a full act of war on US soil that occurred, which is what triggered the request for more border patrol, and it's what triggered the state militia to volunteer free, juggling shifts patrolling while still maintaining a job and supporting family. Until they send more, hire more or whatever.



On June 26, 2014 a Mexican helicopter flew over the border into US airspace and attacked the border patrol, opening fire on U.S. Federal agents in their vehicle. 

Border patrol is "federal"


> The United States Border Patrol (USBP) is an American federal law enforcement agency. Its mission is to detect and prevent illegal aliens, terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, and prevent illegal trafficking of people and contraband.



We here in South had it on our local news and newspaper. 

Another thing is there are open armed conflicts and fighting at border all the time. The media usually does the single mention and the subject is dropped , or never introduced sometimes. 

So a lot of Yankees that demonize those of us for wanting to start beefing up protection at our southern border and call it "racist" , when they are, on a whole generally, likely ignorant of the conflicts and don't realize we got armed skirmishes, folks living near border attacked . 

The other reason Border patrol is unable to stop things is due to the massive littering of illegals that have turned large sections of the state at border a trash like of strewn garbage left behind piling up. So instead of sending more patrols to block illegals they pulled patrol away from spots to try and ease up the trash piling up. So the militia patrols best it can but it's out of control.

*Info*: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...-crossing-border-and-firing-on-border-patrol/



> Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained documents from the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) that confirm a June 26, 2014, attack by a Mexican government helicopter on U.S. Border Patrol agents. The Mexican helicopter crossed into U.S. airspace before firing on U.S. Border Patrol personnel.
> 
> The Mexican government initially denied that the attack near Arizona’s San Miguel Gate occurred, but later admitted to the armed incursion.


While 1 helicopter fired guns there were 6 choppers in total. 





Now was Trump discussing the MASSIVE rape and murder by Mexicans "racist" nope.

Trump even mentioned the incident at the city where 10,000+ pack as they illegally jump in. 



*Ciudad Juárez *

In terms of the crimes, similarities across cases include the rape, torture, mutilation, and murder of the victims.


According to Amnesty International, as of February 2005, more than 370 young women and girls had been murdered in the cities of Ciudad Juárez and Chihuahua. More recently, prosecutors from the state of Chihuahua reported that in 2010, 270 women were killed within the state, of these murders 247 occurred in Juarez. In 2011, Chihuahua's Attorney General, Carlos Manuel Salas, announced during a briefing in August 2011 that 222 women had been killed in Chihuahua since January of that year. Of these 222 murders, 130 of them occurred in Ciudad Juarez. In total, more than 300 women were murdered in the city in 2011.




> According to Pantaleo, "While around 400 girls and women have been abducted and murdered, few arrests and convictions have resulted."For convictions that have been made, there is a great deal of controversy that surrounds them. Police have been accused of conducting rushed investigations with questionable methodology and integrity.Further, suspects that have been apprehended have claimed that they were tortured into confessing.This has caused uncertainty of the legitimacy of both investigations and convictions.


Many have crossed the border illegally and these murderers and rapists get a taxpayer free ride.



> In 1996, an Egyptian national, Omar Sharif Latif or Abdul Latif Sharif was convicted of 3 murders and sentenced to a 30-year prison term After his arrest in 1995, the murders continued and authorities claimed that Sharif directed members of the "Los Rebeldes" gang to continue the murders while he was incarcerated.These members were indicted and convicted as a result of this connection.The gang members accused of carrying out murders under Sharif's orders claimed they were tortured while in police custody.According to Monarrez Fragoso, "In the year 2000, it was known that the body of Elizabeth Castro Garcia, whose murder was attributed to Omar Sharif Latif, does not belong to her."His conviction is currently under appeal.
> In 2001, Victor Garcia Uribe and Gustavo Gonzalez Meza were apprehended for eight murders.Gustavo Gonzalez Mesa died suspiciously while in police custody. In 2004, Victor Garcia Uribe, a bus driver, was convicted of eight murders that took place in 2001. He confessed to these murders but claimed that he was tortured into confessing by police.
> 
> In 2008 16-year-old Ruby Frayre Escobedo was murdered by Sergio Barraza Bocanegra who was acquitted at his first trial for lack of evidence. Following two years of activism, a retrial convicted Bocanegra who remained on the run. In 2010, Ruby's mother, Marisela Escobedo Ortiz, was assassinated by a shot to the head at point blank range while demonstrating for justice in front of the Governor's Palace in Chihuahua.





> After surveying only 155 of the killings out of 340 so far at that, numbers have since hit 400, the committee found that roughly half were prompted by motives like robbery and gang wars, while more than a third involved sexual assault before the murder.


These hundreds of raped and murdered women whose attackers flee into US, these incidents have been brought up in pop culture even though liberals hide it.


*In music:*


> Tori Amos wrote a song about these incidents titled "Juárez", for her album To Venus and Back (1999-2000), after reading about them.
> 
> At the Drive-In's song "Invalid Litter Dept." (2001) contains lyrics about the murders.
> 
> Los Tigres del Norte's song "Mujeres de Juarez" discusses the lack of government action in finding the perpetrators.
> 
> The Misfits wrote a song about Juarez titled "Where Do They Go?" from their 2011 album The Devil's Rain. In the lyrics, the incidents are referred to as femicides.
> 
> The World Is a Beautiful Place & I Am No Longer Afraid to Die's song "January 10th, 2014" is about the murders and the vigilante justice that took place in their aftermath.




*In Print*



> In Roberto Bolaño's novel, 2666 (2004), the murders serve as material for a major section entitled "The Part about the Crimes".
> 
> Alicia Gaspar de Alba's mystery novel, Desert Blood (2005), addresses this topic.
> 
> "Each and Her" (2010) by Valerie Martinez is a book-length poem that addresses the murders in the context of politics, gender oppression, mythology, art, and more.
> 
> "If I Die In Juarez" (2008) by Stella Pope Duarte.
> 
> In Eve Ensler's Vagina Monologues female homicides in Juarez feature in the monologue "Memory of Her Face."
> 
> "Señorita X - Song for the Yellow-Robed Girl from Juárez" (2007) by Juan Felipe Herrera
> 
> "The Daughters of Juarez: A True Story of Serial Murder South of the Border" (2007) by Teresa Rodríguez





It's such a taboo among liberals as the perps disappeared into US. 

So when Trump stated a FACT the sheep parroted what mainstream media said by calling it "racist" 

When he was speaking fact.


Plus the Mexican Government Admitted to attacking US Border Patrol on US Soil with helicopter! That is an act of war
































The hundreds and hundreds of link crosses cover from Juarez up to border.


https://youtu.be/1ZKIY1IbaXI






https://youtu.be/arb_YCZgra8


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TomahawkJock said:


> There's ways to go about it. He repeatedly kicks out protesters, who are silently protesting at his events. I know many of people who have showed up, whether they be Muslim, black or just people wearing shirts of other candidates who sit there in silence, not making a sound who are escorted out by authority because Trump "didn't want them there". If he handles minor, very minor protesters like that, I'm worried what will happen if he controls our country. Just how he handles things is worrisome to me.


Why would he and SHOULD he want them there? The man has been compared to Hitler for merely asking people to JOKINGLY pledge to vote. Protesters needn't be able to stir the pot.

THINK about it.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I feel a bit better about Trump having a 100 or so delegate lead now than I did after Super Tuesday.

Still a bit too close for my liking. FL and OH, Thrill Me.


fucking LOL Marco. im wondering if he's done as a politician if he loses Florida. opponents will be able to use that against him forever. you never did your job as a senator and you couldn't even win your state in a primary.


----------



## TomahawkJock

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Why would he and SHOULD he want them there? The man has been compared to Hitler for merely asking people to JOKINGLY pledge to vote. Protesters needn't be able to stir the pot.
> 
> THINK about it.


I can understand if the protesters were standing up and being disruptive, but they weren't. Hell, some people just went to learn more about Trump yet still got kicked out. I don't hate Donald. I think Cruz would be much worse for this country. It's just the minor things that bother me with Trump. Seems to be thin-skinned and if he has issues with minor protesters at a minor rally, how will he handle other things?

Maybe I'm just looking too far into it. Definitely not going to stand here and call your logic flawed or insult you like other people have in this thread. Just genuinely interested in learning other people's points of view.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TomahawkJock said:


> I can understand if the protesters were standing up and being disruptive, but they weren't. Hell, some people just went to learn more about Trump yet still got kicked out. I don't hate Donald. I think Cruz would be much worse for this country. It's just the minor things that bother me with Trump. Seems to be thin-skinned and if he has issues with minor protesters at a minor rally, how will he handle other things?
> 
> Maybe I'm just looking too far into it. Definitely not going to stand here and call your logic flawed or insult you like other people have in this thread. Just genuinely interested in learning other people's points of view.


Look, I understand how it may appear to someone who hasn't followed every Trump event, but these protesters are a very real problem. We have people showing up dressed as Trump supporters claiming to be from the KKK, we have people sneaking up to the light switch and turning them off mid-speech, we have people asking Trump questions claiming to be from cities that don't exist trying to bait Trump into saying false things, We even have people from campaigns of other candidates in the audience trying to spread lies.

If you are a protester, most arenas now have designated protest areas OUTSIDE. They can go there. They know the risks when they come in and are checked by security. They are asked "Are you here to support Trump?" and reply "Yes" knowing full well the consequences of being caught. 

Every time these people are given an inch they take a mile. They shouldn't be given the chance to cause trouble. If they wanted to listen, they wouldn't draw attention to themselves.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Protesters can protest outside, disrupting a Trump rally is stupid and only makes the person acting like a child look foolish. I'm sure if a bunch of people disrupted a Sanders rally all the time people would be crying about how it's not fair. These people need to follow the rules just like everyone else, sneaking in and stirring up problems isn't the solution. If you wouldn't want this done to your politician of choice then you should extend that courtesy to everyone else, for people who say they believe in human rights, they sure don't believe in common courtesy or respect. It's almost done now just so they can get kicked out and cry about how they're the victim. People just amuse me to no end.


----------



## polar bear

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Now I am an undecided Republican voter (I'm leaning toward Cruz) though I really don't see what Donald Trump has said that is all that controversial 


banning muslims ( Look at Europe that's going so well)

the Wall ( should of been built at least 30 years ago , Israel and the Vatican have walls why can't America)

no plan ( he has plenty of plans to bring jobs back to the US and plenty of ideas to cut the debit ( the penny plan)

I personally think these illegals should be thrown in prison for a minimum of 20 years if we deport them they're just going to try and come back


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



polar bear said:


> Now I am an undecided Republican voter (I'm leaning toward Cruz) though I really don't see what Donald Trump has said that is all that controversial
> 
> 
> banning muslims ( Look at Europe that's going so well)
> 
> the Wall ( should of been built at least 30 years ago , Israel and the Vatican have walls why can't America)
> 
> no plan ( he has plenty of plans to bring jobs back to the US and plenty of ideas to cut the debit ( the penny plan)
> 
> I personally think these illegals should be thrown in prison for a minimum of 20 years if we deport them they're just going to try and come back


May I ask, why Cruz?


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



polar bear said:


> Now I am an undecided Republican voter (I'm leaning toward Cruz) though I really don't see what Donald Trump has said that is all that controversial
> 
> 
> banning muslims ( Look at Europe that's going so well)
> 
> the Wall ( should of been built at least 30 years ago , Israel and the Vatican have walls why can't America)
> 
> no plan ( he has plenty of plans to bring jobs back to the US and plenty of ideas to cut the debit ( the penny plan)
> 
> I personally think these illegals should be thrown in prison for a minimum of 20 years if we deport them they're just going to try and come back


Vote Trump. He's your only chance for change. Everyone else is just more of the same. He told the truth about Iraq and that there were no WMDs. He beats Cruz for that alone.


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Election*

I had seen people on Twitter calling Bernie sexist because he shouted at Hillary (bullshit). I thought that might have hurt him. Glad it didn't.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TomahawkJock said:


> I can understand if the protesters were standing up and being disruptive, *but they weren't. Hell, some people just went to learn more about Trump yet still got kicked out.* I don't hate Donald. I think Cruz would be much worse for this country. It's just the minor things that bother me with Trump. Seems to be thin-skinned and if he has issues with minor protesters at a minor rally, how will he handle other things?


Citation needed. Every incident involving protesters I've seen so far involved them being disruptive. 

Given that the media representation of Trump has been far from fair or objective, the fact people are riled up enough by their idea of what Trump is to protest him shouldn't be surprising or an indictment of the man himself. 

I don't see any problem with having protesters ejected from private events. They don't have a right to be there.

Re: Ted Cruz I actually agree with him on a lot except foreign policy. Ideologically I match up with Cruz far more than Trump. However, I don't think Cruz is "his own man" the way Trump is, having ties to Goldman-Sachs which undermine his independence, and he's a shady guy in general. He says the right things more often than Trump does, but I believe Trump more than I believe Cruz. In other words, I don't #TrusTed.

Watching the Democratic debate tonight I made the following remark on Twitter:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/707755712382783488


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Watching the Democratic debate tonight I made the following remark on Twitter:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/707755712382783488


Bernie said Hillary was against giving illegal immigrants driving licenses in the past. He said it as though that were a bad thing. :shocked:


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Citation needed. Every incident involving protesters I've seen so far involved them being disruptive.
> 
> Given that the media representation of Trump has been far from fair or objective, the fact people are riled up enough by their idea of what Trump is to protest him shouldn't be surprising or an indictment of the man himself.
> 
> I don't see any problem with having protesters ejected from private events. They don't have a right to be there.


If he needs a citation for that, then you need to provide citations for all your assertions you've made with certainty that all these protesters have caused all this trouble you keep talking about every time.

Considering we've already seen one clip of a black lady being pushed out for doing nothing that's one documented case against you!










Now won't you join me in a celebratory belt of scotch?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> If he needs a citation for that, then you need to provide citations for all your assertions you've made with certainty that all these protesters have caused all this trouble you keep talking about every time.
> 
> Considering we've already seen one clip of a black lady being pushed out for doing nothing that's one documented case against you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now won't you join me in a celebratory belt of scotch?


Because clearly her case is the rule and not the exception.


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> If he needs a citation for that, then you need to provide citations for all your assertions you've made with certainty that all these protesters have caused all this trouble you keep talking about every time.
> 
> Considering we've already seen one clip of a black lady being pushed out for doing nothing that's one documented case against you!


Protesters were shouting, raising signs and had interrupted Trump half a dozen times. He got fed up and called for them all to be kicked out. The black lady wasn't the only one. The veteran tried to escort her out himself. He was wrong and should have left it to the police. She was refusing to leave and he was shoving her. She kept stopping and playing with her phone. Basically trolling. A few idiots took the bait. She can't help smiling in the clip below as she's getting the reaction she wanted.






She's trolling the veteran in the clip below. Look at her body language and face. It looks like she took a picture of them both and went back to show him it. That or she went back to ask for a pic with him. Either way LOL. :grin2:


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


>


That's some video! It's great that so many people are seeing through the media's lies. :grin2:


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Hillary has already been a moderate, she even admitted it last year when she didn't treat Bernie as a threat. Now she has to pretend she is a progressive because Bernie is pushing her to the left.


I disagree with Hillary being a Moderate. To my mind, the whole reason the Dem Party is having Sanders run is to help paint her as someone who may seem like a "middle of the road" kind of candidate in order to broaden her appeal. What amuses me greatly is the idea that it could all backfire on them if Sanders gets the Nomination, as unlikely as that seems.



> Hillary tells people what they want to hear. She changes her views depending on who she is talking to.


I can find nothing with this statement that I can disagree with at all.

Although she is a politician, and etc.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*















*Trump protester sucker-punched at North Carolina rally, videos show*
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-punched-at-north-carolina-rally-videos-show/


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708005032839548929

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708013148339630082
*Inside Trump’s inner circle, his staffers are willing to fight for him. Literally.*
https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...2b18e8-e660-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


>


Lol seriously who made that video?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Dazzler said:


> Protesters were shouting, raising signs and had interrupted Trump half a dozen times. He got fed up and called for them all to be kicked out. The black lady wasn't the only one. The veteran tried to escort her out himself. He was wrong and should have left it to the police. She was refusing to leave and he was shoving her. She kept stopping and playing with her phone. Basically trolling. A few idiots took the bait. She can't help smiling in the clip below as she's getting the reaction she wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She's trolling the veteran in the clip below. Look at her body language and face. It looks like she took a picture of them both and went back to show him it. That or she went back to ask for a pic with him. Either way LOL. :grin2:


Uh, thanks for illustrating my point. Pushed around and called leftist scum for smiling? Sounds reasonable.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I can't wait for Trump to start screaming for someone to remove Hillary at the first debate then some stringy-haired unshaven guy runs up on the stage and cold-cocks her. That'll teach her and all those who dare stand in the way of Donaldus Maximus.


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Thought I'd toss some other annoyances around border towns in South that has border or is near border with Mexico.



Mexican store owner illegally flying Mexico flag above the US flag. It was reported to local news reporters. And they went to check and sure enough it was true. But US military veteran fixes the issue and makes a point.

https://youtu.be/qplrfw9TFfs







This one got a federal civil service employee in trouble. Although the USPS employee was a US citizen who had Legally immigrated, passed the citizenship exam, and took the oath which you under law and before a Judge renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to your country of origin. But in this workers attempt to show support to illegal aliens situation he made a big mistake, he flew a foreign flag at a the post office, a Federal company. 

That was finally the "straw that broke the camel's back" as Mexican flags were being placed everywhere in an act of spite and protest. But on a Federal USPS building that's illegal. 

So there were Mexican protesters but a majority of supporters, the Maywood police department cordened off the area and removed flag and a ticket was given 



> The display of a foreign flag on a public building, or the UN flag other than subordinate to the U.S. flag on public property is prohibited.


Which is also part of their state law which is where the employee goofed.

https://youtu.be/nEOkFD3W4ac







But In US no flag can fly above the US flag. 



> THE UNITED STATES FLAG CODE
> 
> Title 4, Chapter 1
> 
> § 7(c) No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy. No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United States at any place within the United States or any Territory or possession thereof.
> 
> 
> Title 4, Chapter 1
> 
> § 8(a)The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.



Only place all nation flags can fly as equals is United Nations and Embassies.
So the British embassy has Union Jack and US same height as does US embassy in London.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Damn that sounds annoying alright. I think also they tried to serve nachos over freedom fries and that just caused chaos.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Damn that sounds annoying alright. I think also they tried to serve nachos over freedom fries and that just caused chaos.


When Trump is taking the oath of office I'm going to blame people like you.


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

There are liberals and morons that even want to try and change the Oath you give when sworn in after passing the citizenship exam and all the prerequisites and become a legal citizen

*Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States *


> "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Damn that sounds annoying alright. I think also they tried to serve nachos over freedom fries and that just caused chaos.


I find your role in this thread interesting. You're claiming to be neutral yet you aren't very pro trump either. Which is it? Do you not see any merit to him or are you merely playing devil's advocate? Just curious.


----------



## deepelemblues

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> I find your role in this thread interesting. You're claiming to be neutral yet you aren't very pro trump either. Which is it? Do you not see any merit to him or are you merely playing devil's advocate? Just curious.


He's a paid member of the Trump campaign who understands that the mocking, contemptuous, disdainful Daily Show/Colbert Report/Full Frontal/Last Week Tonight/Real Time with Bill Maher attitude has caused a backlash in this country that will propel the Donald all the way to the Oval Office.


----------



## Nick Baker

*Re: Election*

If it really came down to Hilary and Bernie, I would vote for Bernie. From what I have seen thus far, at least he doesn't think he is above the law while I do disagree with his comment about the Hilary and her emails. I think that plays a much bigger role than what we realize because it is a glimpse of what we will see if she is elected. 

Another thing is how do people come to the conclusion any one who is a critic of her's is automatically sexist? I guess when supporters get desperate they throw anything at the wall and hoping something sticks. 

Her and her worsh....I mean followers seem way too cocky and really needs to be taken down a few notches. Hope the FBI reacts accordingly that doesn't show double speak. (Arresting people for law violations then letting Hilary have a pass on this one)

Then again, it is our government I am talking about....


----------



## virus21

*Re: Election*

I think I've found the right candidate


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Deadpool said:


> I disagree with Hillary being a Moderate. To my mind, the whole reason the Dem Party is having Sanders run is to help paint her as someone who may seem like a "middle of the road" kind of candidate in order to broaden her appeal. What amuses me greatly is the idea that it could all backfire on them if Sanders gets the Nomination, as unlikely as that seems.
> 
> 
> 
> I can find nothing with this statement that I can disagree with at all.
> 
> Although she is a politician, and etc.


Hillary admitted she was a moderate. 




Hillarys problem is she starts off in the center then when the right pushes on her, she goes into the red (so to speak).

Where as with a progressive like Bernie, he is far left so when he has to give, he is still on the left.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

[QUOTE = Beatles123]I find your role in this thread interesting. You're claiming to be neutral yet you aren't very pro trump either. Which is it? Do you not see any merit to him or are you merely playing devil's advocate? Just curious.[/QUOTE]

I don't think I've really claimed neutrality at any point, I guess I'm just keen on speaking up about some hypocritical or just downright weird Trumpisms, mainly because Team Trump in this thread seem so unwilling to admit their existence.




deepelemblues said:


> He's a paid member of the Trump campaign who understands that the mocking, contemptuous, disdainful Daily Show/Colbert Report/Full Frontal/Last Week Tonight/Real Time with Bill Maher attitude has caused a backlash in this country that will propel the Donald all the way to the Oval Office.


I could never get through a whole ep of The Daily Show as John Stewart's shtick wasn't for me, but I must admit I was a Colbert devotee and I think he's one of the best talents in modern western entertainment, and I do like LWT. 

Despite this I am being paid by the DRUMPF campaign for general obfuscation, but only in Trump steaks and expired bottles of Trump champagne.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Pronoss said:


> There are liberals and morons that even want to try and change the Oath you give when sworn in after passing the citizenship exam and all the prerequisites and become a legal citizen
> 
> *Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States *


For me that's just a bit old fashioned. I would suggest updating the whole thing and making it a bit more fun. Perhaps.....



> Now, this is a story all about how
> My life got flipped-turned upside down
> And I'd like to take a minute
> Just sit right there
> I'll tell you how I became the prince of a town called Bel Air
> 
> In west Philadelphia born and raised
> On the playground was where I spent most of my days
> Chillin' out maxin' relaxin' all cool
> And all shootin some b-ball outside of the school
> When a couple of guys who were up to no good
> Started making trouble in my neighborhood
> I got in one little fight and my mom got scared
> She said 'You're movin' with your auntie and uncle in Bel Air'
> 
> I begged and pleaded with her day after day
> But she packed my suit case and sent me on my way
> She gave me a kiss and then she gave me my ticket.
> I put my Walkman on and said, 'I might as well kick it'.
> 
> First class, yo this is bad
> Drinking orange juice out of a champagne glass.
> Is this what the people of Bel-Air living like?
> Hmmmmm this might be alright.
> 
> But wait I hear they're prissy, bourgeois, all that
> Is this the type of place that they just send this cool cat?
> I don't think so
> I'll see when I get there
> I hope they're prepared for the prince of Bel-Air
> 
> Well, the plane landed and when I came out
> There was a dude who looked like a cop standing there with my name out
> I ain't trying to get arrested yet
> I just got here
> I sprang with the quickness like lightning, disappeared
> 
> I whistled for a cab and when it came near
> The license plate said fresh and it had dice in the mirror
> If anything I could say that this cab was rare
> But I thought 'Nah, forget it' - 'Yo, holmes to Bel Air'
> 
> I pulled up to the house about 7 or 8
> And I yelled to the cabbie 'Yo holmes smell ya later'
> I looked at my kingdom
> I was finally there
> To sit on my throne as the Prince of Bel Air


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Hillary admitted she was a moderate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillarys problem is she starts off in the center then when the right pushes on her, she goes into the red (so to speak).
> 
> Where as with a progressive like Bernie, he is far left so when he has to give, he is still on the left.


That is a fair assessment. She is still far too leftist for my tastes.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Deadpool said:


> That is a fair assessment. She is still far too leftist for my tastes.


If real polices are right. Bernie is pushing her to the left and she is faking it. She is for Fracking, that is not liberal she was always against same sex marriage until it was popular to believe that. Hillary is far from progressive. She is a republican lite.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Trump and clinton would both be train wrecks, and bernie would never get anything done because of protestors taking the microphone from him.

Gonna be a fun 4 years


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Election*

As a non-American, I'm really hoping that America elects Hilary because she seems to be the only one that isn't pro-isolationism. Trump or Bernie's rhetoric would be a train wreck to the global community.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Election*



Nick Baker said:


> Another thing is how do people come to the conclusion any one who is a critic of her's is automatically sexist? I guess when supporters get desperate they throw anything at the wall and hoping something sticks.


Bit of a strawman that kind of thinking though.

It's like me saying Trump supporters are racist bigots. It's a silly generalisation.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Uh, thanks for illustrating my point. Pushed around and called leftist scum for smiling? Sounds reasonable.


She shouldn't have been pushed around but there are spots for protesters. At this point she's trolling and trying to bait and that's dishonest especially if you're trying to advocate for a cause. There is no reason these people cannot follow the rules, as I said before, if protesters were doing the same thing to Bernie and Hilary that they're doing to Trump there would be a lot of outrage. Since it's Trump, it's okay I guess? You'd think that these college students and other people would have more brains and common decency, you know the things they ask for but aren't willing to give to anyone whom doesn't agree with them.

So yes, this person is scum for pulling this bullshit. She still shouldn't have been shoved and people need to let security do their job. I think Bernie is the biggest cuck of a politician around but I'd not sneak into his rally and start up trouble about it. Hilary is a criminal who's actually got people killed yet I'd not disrupt her rally simply because I believe the people will speak and the right person will be elected. Why should these protesters be special snowflakes?


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Uh, thanks for illustrating my point. Pushed around and called leftist scum for smiling? Sounds reasonable.


No one should have touched her. They should have left it to the police to escort her out. But do you care about the truth or not? She was there for that reaction. The protesters were causing trouble before Trump asked for them to be removed.

Same as the huffingtonpost article you put up a week back. The student said they were kicked out for being black and they were only there to hear Trump out. But if you look deeper into it you read the other students with her saying they were there to protest. Dressed in black and standing on top of the bleachers. The only disagreement on what happened was the police and Trump staff say they were being disruptive and using profanity. If we pretend the police/Trump staff are lying (no reason to believe that), then what are the police/Trump staff guilty of? They see 30-40 BLM silent protesters standing on top of the bleachers and escort them out. Maybe they were too hasty? They should have waited to see if they'd cause trouble before doing so. Do you agree it's really dishonest to sell that event as black students kicked out for being black?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Dazzler said:


> No one should have touched her. They should have left it to the police to escort her out.* But do you care about the truth or not? She was there for that reaction. The protesters were causing trouble before Trump asked for them to be removed.*


Hold on a sec, you're again just projecting and assuming they were doing more than what we saw on the video. If there's more to the story that you know about and I don't then please post the evidence. 

I'm not saying they weren't, but when you use definitive language like you're doing, it makes people think you know that as a true fact, and I've yet to see evidence of this.


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Pronoss said:


> Thought I'd toss some other annoyances around border towns in South that has border or is near border with Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> Mexican store owner illegally flying Mexico flag above the US flag. It was reported to local news reporters. And they went to check and sure enough it was true. But US military veteran fixes the issue and makes a point.
> 
> https://youtu.be/qplrfw9TFfs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This one got a federal civil service employee in trouble. Although the USPS employee was a US citizen who had Legally immigrated, passed the citizenship exam, and took the oath which you under law and before a Judge renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to your country of origin. But in this workers attempt to show support to illegal aliens situation he made a big mistake, he flew a foreign flag at a the post office, a Federal company.
> 
> That was finally the "straw that broke the camel's back" as Mexican flags were being placed everywhere in an act of spite and protest. But on a Federal USPS building that's illegal.
> 
> So there were Mexican protesters but a majority of supporters, the Maywood police department cordened off the area and removed flag and a ticket was given
> 
> 
> 
> Which is also part of their state law which is where the employee goofed.
> 
> https://youtu.be/nEOkFD3W4ac
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But In US no flag can fly above the US flag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only place all nation flags can fly as equals is United Nations and Embassies.
> So the British embassy has Union Jack and US same height as does US embassy in London.



Aside from the post office which is government owned (or something like that, I'm not researcher that) the rest is all a bunch of bullshit and stuff that makes me dislike conservatism. If I own 2 flags and I want to fly one flag over another flag it's absolute bullshit and against everything the Constitution stands for if the government tells me I can't do that. 

I don't see how the guy got a ticket for doing that. You can burn a flag and you can't get prosecuted.


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Hold on a sec, you're again just projecting and assuming they were doing more than what we saw on the video. If there's more to the story that you know about and I don't then please post the evidence.
> 
> I'm not saying they weren't, but when you use definitive language like you're doing, it makes people think you know that as a true fact, and I've yet to see evidence of this.


there is no truth in journalism, only angles. It's best to identify the different angles from which a story is projected to gauge the agenda behind them (i.e. who does it help, who does it hurt, what does it convey etc.) rather than trying to hunt for the reality of the situation. The press has no interest in presenting the truth as such.


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Hold on a sec, you're again just projecting and assuming they were doing more than what we saw on the video. If there's more to the story that you know about and I don't then please post the evidence.


It was reported. The protesters were interrupting Trump so he called for them to be removed.



> http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/elections/kentucky/2016/03/01/donald-trump-rally-louisville/81023044/
> 
> During a 35-minute speech to thousands of rabid supporters at the Kentucky International Convention Center, Trump was interrupted more than half a dozen times by protesters raising signs and shouting.
> 
> “Get ‘em the hell out of here. Get out. Get out,” Trump yelled into the microphone as his security team and police officers led people away and the crowd cheered loudly.
> 
> “Out. Out. Out.”


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Ok then, looks like they got the.....

'Trump Bump'

YEAAAAAAAAH!


But regarding the black lady getting pushed out by the tough guy, was she reported as disrupting? Because that's what we were talking about originally. Anyway it's done to death let's move on.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

VERY good debate by Trump. Didn't take any bait this time and didn't hurl insults. President mode, activate?


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

So putting tens of thousands of troops on the ground against ISIS is now a thing for all the candidates? :woah

Btw Kasich comes off far more unhinged on foreign policy than anyone and yet people act like he's the calm, responsible adult. Most likely candidate to get us into a conflict with Russia by far, from either party.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Beatles123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find your role in this thread interesting. You're claiming to be neutral yet you aren't very pro trump either. Which is it? Do you not see any merit to him or are you merely playing devil's advocate? Just curious.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I've really claimed neutrality at any point, I guess I'm just keen on speaking up about some hypocritical or just downright weird Trumpisms, mainly because Team Trump in this thread seem so unwilling to admit their existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could never get through a whole ep of The Daily Show as John Stewart's shtick wasn't for me, but I must admit I was a Colbert devotee and I think he's one of the best talents in modern western entertainment, and I do like LWT.
> 
> Despite this I am being paid by the DRUMPF campaign for general obfuscation, but only in Trump steaks and expired bottles of Trump champagne.
Click to expand...

You said before you had not endorsed any candidate, which would imply you see at least some good in all of them. Is this not the case?


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FITZ said:


> Aside from the post office which is government owned (or something like that, I'm not researcher that) the rest is all a bunch of bullshit and stuff that makes me dislike conservatism. If I own 2 flags and I want to fly one flag over another flag it's absolute bullshit and against everything the Constitution stands for if the government tells me I can't do that.
> 
> I don't see how the guy got a ticket for doing that. You can burn a flag and you can't get prosecuted.


Flag laws aren't conservative. Thank the Democrats , it was conservatives in 1990 that changed burning.

But Truman and some democrats enacted a large part of the flag and international flag law by executive decision. 
Always remember, Democrats are big government, federal control of everything. Republicans are tiny government, state controls their citizens more.


Federal laws still apply but burning was allowed the only reason it easily passed is the correct way under federal flag code to dispose of a worn flag is by burning.

So the courts said "well it says burn a worn flag, so easy peasy, let protesters burn"

But that was the only flag law changed.

Although flag law is like "jaywalking" laws. They are selectively enforced. Some won't give a shit if noone complains. But if folks complain and it is a law, then cop will act. It's selective enforcement of light laws.

Quote:



> Congress enacted the Flag Protection Act of 1989 to provide criminal penalties for certain acts which violate the physical integrity of the flag. This law imposed a fine and/or up to one year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor, or trampling upon any flag of the United States. In 1990, however, the Supreme Court held that the Flag Protection Act was unconstitutional only as it pertained to the burning of the flag in a public protest. Thus allowing for the first time US citizens to burn flag in protest.



But the court did warn there is a catch. That yes, you can burn a flag in protest, but while doing so you attempt to incite a riot you can be arrested for inciting a riot.

Quote:
*Incite a Riot Law & Legal Definition*



> Under federal law, a riot is a public disturbance involving an act of violence by one or more persons assembled in a group of at least three people. Inciting a riot applies to a person who organizes, encourages, or participates in a riot. It can apply to one who urges or instigates others to riot. According to 18 USCS § 2102 "to incite a riot", or "to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot", includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.”



So yes burn flag, but 3 or more start encouraging violence you can get arrested. So no one burns a flag. If folks responded against you instead of for you, guess what? You just invited a riot, even if they attack you for burning a flag  

It's the loophole rule that bans flag burning by using loophole.>



There's over 23,000 pages of Federal Laws in the USC. You probably break a dozen every day


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> So putting tens of thousands of troops on the ground against ISIS is now a thing for all the candidates? :woah
> 
> Btw Kasich comes off far more unhinged on foreign policy than anyone and yet people act like he's the calm, responsible adult. Most likely candidate to get us into a conflict with Russia by far, from either party.


"ARM THE UKRAINIANS!"

"ENACT REGIME CHANGE IN PYONGYANG!"

"CREATE A MASSIVE GLOBAL ALLIANCE TO CONTAIN AND DEFEAT ISIS AND SEND 30,000+ TROOPS INTO SYRIA AND IRAQ TO BEAT 'EM!"

"STAND WITH ISRAEL NO MATTER WHAT, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO, OR HOW DISPARATE THEIR INTERESTS ARE FROM OURS!"

"IF AMERICAN CREDIBILITY IS ON THE LINE, WE MAY HAVE TO BOMB IRAN!" 

"PUNCH PUTIN'S REGIME IN THE NOSE!"

John Kasich may be the single most psychopathic candidate in the entire race, which is breathtaking to consider when you literally have Hillary Clinton running for the Democrats. 

It speaks volumes about how the optics of these matters are--fittingly?--ostensibly far more important to most people observing the debates and candidates in general than the actual statements by the candidates. Kasich has successfully branded himself as the staid, dull, boring, reasonable political hack going way back and many people have, for good or ill, bought into it. Dude sounds downright mad.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Election*

Bernie Sanders defeats Hillary Clinton in Michigan but comes out of the state with fewer delegates. Why? "Super-delegates," pledged to Hillary Clinton.

The Democratic Party is anything but democratic. Which is not to say that the Republican Party is republican--they are both self-serving, corrupt and oppressive.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708142942335016960
Stay safe, Donald. :side:


----------



## NeyNey

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Dazzler said:


> It was reported. The protesters were interrupting Trump so he called for them to be removed.


I cringed so hard at these "USA" chants. fpalm 
I still can't believe Trump isn't just a gimmick.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...5dee3e-e4c2-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html



> The limited public record of the lawsuit includes interesting revelations. One is Trump’s admission, under questioning from O’Brien’s attorneys during a deposition, that *he relied on his own “feelings” to assess the value of his holdings.*
> 
> An attorney asked: Feelings?
> 
> “Yes, even my own feelings as to where the world is, where the world is going, and that can change rapidly from day to day,” Trump said, according to the court record. “Then you have a September 11th, and you don’t feel so good about yourself and you don’t feel so good about the world and you don’t feel so good about New York City. Then you have a year later, and the city is as hot as a pistol. Even months after that it was a different feeling. So yeah, even my own feelings affect my value to myself.”


:LOL


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...5dee3e-e4c2-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html


how do you assess intangible assets like brand value? It's very common in business.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Goku said:


> how do you assess intangible assets like brand value? It's very common in business.


Pretty sure it is not a day to day feeling.


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Election*



DesolationRow said:


> Bernie Sanders defeats Hillary Clinton in Michigan but comes out of the state with fewer delegates. Why? "Super-delegates," pledged to Hillary Clinton.
> 
> The Democratic Party is anything but democratic. Which is not to say that the Republican Party is republican--they are both self-serving, corrupt and oppressive.


Well put.


----------



## BRITLAND

Ben Carson has now endorsed Trump.


Looks like Christie vs Carson for Trump's running mate? I would of thought Carson would of endorsed Cruz as they are both very conservative but Carson obviously wants to be Vice President I guess, and Trump would more likely pick him than Cruz.


----------



## TheGeneticFreak

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump just mentioned WWE in a press conference.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



NeyNey said:


> I cringed so hard at these "USA" chants. fpalm
> I still can't believe Trump isn't just a gimmick.


You are free to discuss your concerns here if you wish.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



BRITLAND said:


> Ben Carson has now endorsed Trump.
> 
> 
> Looks like Christie vs Carson for Trump's running mate? I would of thought Carson would of endorsed Cruz as they are both very conservative but Carson obviously wants to be Vice President I guess, and Trump would more likely pick him than Cruz.


Carson endorsing Cruz doesn't make sense since Cruz sabotaged Carson in Iowa.

Christie doesn't help Trump from a strategic electoral perspective.

I thought it was going to be Kasich because of Ohio, but I'm hoping Trump picks someone who isn't on the take so to speak.

inb4 Roger Stone:side:


----------



## NeyNey

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> You are free to discuss your concerns here if you wish.


For example, why did the mob even start to chant USA? 
Since the protesters weren't there to hate the country.
To me, there's only one reason but maybe you can tell me a better one.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



NeyNey said:


> For example, why did the mob even start to chant USA?
> Since the protesters weren't there to hate the country.
> To me, there's only one reason but maybe you can tell me a better one.


Part of the reason is that Trump's whole platform is based on bringing a sense of priority back to the nation. Most of Trump's protesters are apologists who think America ought to be sorry if it it isn't PC enough. They seek a world in which Trump and people like him are condemned for racism, when he has said things that are only racist if you CHOOSE for them to be. They cry for equality yet cannot give Trump his right to an uninterrupted assembly, which by liberalism's very doctrine is a direct violation of the principles they seek to protect. It's not what America is about, and the people are just letting the protesters know they can see through their attempt to spin a narrative.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

nvm I'm dumb

Did a write-up on why Trump should pick Elon Musk but he was born in South Africa. It really would be a match made in Republican heaven/Democrat hell though.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> nvm I'm dumb
> 
> Did a write-up on why Trump should pick Elon Musk but he was born in South Africa. It really would be a match made in Republican heaven/Democrat hell though.


Elon Musk was at the "Stop Trump" meeting the GOP conducted a few days ago though. I don't think he's on his side.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Not according to him. :draper2


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/707632249340952577


----------



## Stunning Steve

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Dump Trump


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Stunning Steve said:


> Dump Trump


Make us, via evidence.

Also, your post was not an argument.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Not according to him. :draper2
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/707632249340952577


He SAYS that, but if he did have a secret meeting he wouldn't tell us, would he? :hmm:


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I prefer to start with the evidence and work from there.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

He's spamming multiple threads to get post count up imo.

Serious despite use of imo.


----------



## Nick Baker

*Re: Election*



yeahbaby! said:


> Bit of a strawman that kind of thinking though.
> 
> It's like me saying Trump supporters are racist bigots. It's a silly generalisation.


Well, there are people on social media that say Donald Trump supporters a long with him are racist biggots.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



DesolationRow said:


> Bernie Sanders defeats Hillary Clinton in Michigan but comes out of the state with fewer delegates. Why? "Super-delegates," pledged to Hillary Clinton.
> 
> The Democratic Party is anything but democratic. Which is not to say that the Republican Party is republican--they are both self-serving, corrupt and oppressive.


Those super delegates don't count until the official vote. In 2008 the same thing was happening to Obama but when Obama won the popular vote and had more deletes the super delegates sided with Obama.

There is no need for super deletes it just lets the democrats try to rig the election if needed. 

The GOP and the DNC are both trying to rig their elections this cycle because they don't want the non-establishment candidates to win in Trump or Sanders.

The GOP is hoping Trump doesn't get enough delegates so they can have a brokered convention and pick their favorite. 

I hate Trump but if they screw him out of the nomination I can't imagine what his fans will do.

Both sides are super corrupt and it seems like this cycle they are not even trying to hide it.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> He's spamming multiple threads to get post count up imo.
> 
> Serious despite use of imo.


who? I missed something i guess...


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> who? I missed something i guess...


Stunning Steve aka the guy that posted Dump Trump earlier.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Pat Buchanan with a fine column about the oligarchical elites meeting one another on Sea Island, Georgia, in an effort to bring about the political ruin of Donald Trump, and the deep corruption of a capital city gone mad with power, hubris and perpetual militarism...

http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2016/03/11/the-sea-island-conspiracy-n2131692



> Over the long weekend before the Mississippi and Michigan primaries, the sky above Sea Island was black with corporate jets.
> 
> Apple's Tim Cook, Google's Larry Page and Eric Schmidt, Napster's Sean Parker, Tesla Motors' Elon Musk, and other members of the super-rich were jetting in to the exclusive Georgia resort, ostensibly to participate in the annual World Forum of the American Enterprise Institute.
> 
> Among the advertised topics of discussion: "Millennials: How Much Do They Matter and What Do They Want?"
> 
> That was the cover story.
> 
> As revealed by the Huffington Post, Sea Island last weekend was host to a secret conclave at the Cloisters where oligarchs colluded with Beltway elites to reverse the democratic decisions of millions of voters and abort the candidacy of Donald Trump.
> 
> Among the journalists at Sea Island were Rich Lowry of National Review, which just devoted an entire issue to the topic: "Against Trump," and Arthur Sulzberger, publisher of the Trumphobic New York Times.
> 
> Bush guru Karl Rove of FOX News was on hand, as were Speaker Paul Ryan, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Lindsey Graham, dispatched by Trump in New Hampshire and a berserker on the subject of the Donald.
> 
> So, too, was William Kristol, editor of the rabidly anti-Trump Weekly Standard, who reported back to comrades: "The key task now, to ... paraphrase Karl Marx, is less to understand Trump than to stop him."
> 
> Kristol earlier tweeted that the Sea Island conclave is "off the record, so please do consider my tweets from there off the record."
> 
> Redeeming itself for relegating Trump to its entertainment pages, the Huffington Post did the nation a service in lifting the rug on "something rotten in the state."
> 
> What we see at Sea Island is that, despite all their babble about bringing the blessings of "democracy" to the world's benighted, AEI, Neocon Central, believes less in democracy than in perpetual control of the American nation by the ruling Beltway elites.
> 
> If an outsider like Trump imperils that control, democracy be damned. The elites will come together to bring him down, because, behind party ties, they are soul brothers in the pursuit of power.
> 
> Something else was revealed by the Huffington Post -- a deeply embedded corruption that permeates this capital city.
> 
> The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research is a 501(c)(3) under IRS rules, an organization exempt from U.S. taxation.
> 
> Million-dollar corporate contributions to AEI are tax-deductible.
> 
> This special privilege, this freedom from taxation, is accorded to organizations established for purposes such as "religious, educational, charitable, scientific, literary ... or the prevention of cruelty to children or animals."
> 
> What the co-conspirators of Sea Island were up at the Cloisters was about as religious as what the Bolsheviks at that girls school known as the Smolny Institute were up to in Petrograd in 1917.
> 
> From what has been reported, it would not be extreme to say this was a conspiracy of oligarchs, War Party neocons, and face-card Republicans to reverse the results of the primaries and impose upon the party, against its expressed will, a nominee responsive to the elites' agenda.
> 
> And this taxpayer-subsidized "Dump Trump" camarilla raises even larger issues.
> 
> Now America is not Russia or Egypt or China.
> 
> But all those countries are now moving purposefully to expose U.S. ties to nongovernmental organizations set up and operating in their capital cities.
> 
> Many of those NGOs have had funds funneled to them from U.S. agencies such as the National Endowment for Democracy, which has backed "color-coded revolutions" credited with dumping over regimes in Serbia, Ukraine and Georgia.
> 
> In the early 1950s, in Iran and Guatemala, the CIA of the Dulles brothers did this work.
> 
> Whatever ones thinks of Vladimir Putin, can anyone blame him for not wanting U.S. agencies backing NGOs in Moscow, whose unstated goal is to see him and his regime overthrown?
> 
> And whatever one thinks of NED and its subsidiaries, it is time Americans took a hard look at the tax-exempt foundations, think tanks and public policy institutes operating in our capital city.
> 
> How many are like AEI, scheming to predetermine the outcome of presidential elections while enjoying tax exemptions and posturing as benign assemblages of disinterested scholars and seekers of truth?
> 
> How many of these tax-exempt think tanks are fronts and propaganda organs of transnational corporations that are sustained with tax-deductible dollars, until their "resident scholars" can move into government offices and do the work for which they have been paid handsomely in advance?
> 
> How many of these think tanks take foreign money to advance the interests of foreign regimes in America's capital?
> 
> We talk about the "deep state" in Turkey and Egypt, the unseen regimes that exist beneath the public regime and rule the nation no matter the president or prime minister.
> 
> What about the "deep state" that rules us, of which we caught a glimpse at Sea Island?
> 
> A diligent legislature of a democratic republic would have long since dragged America's deep state out into the sunlight.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump rally postponed in Chicago due to a very large group of protestors.

Could turn ugly.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> Trump rally postponed in Chicago due to a very large group of protestors.
> 
> Could turn ugly.


The city of Cleveland has requested massive orders of riot gear while bolstering their SWAT and security forces for the Republican Convention.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I'm watching the chaos unfolding at the Chicago rally now. Donald Trump needs to recognize that his hyper partisan attacks and encouraging violence has its consequences. Someone is going to get seriously hurt or worse. 

Reporters are being assaulted, protesters are being beaten without cause while Trump fans the flames. He is such a divisive figure and is only a nominee. I shudder to think what will happen if he were to assume office. 

And the chants of "USA" at fellow Americans is just a sign of demagoguery taking root and an expression of bigotry; these horrific scenes are not taking place at other rallies.

This is a pic of the protest:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708443664448552960


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> I'm watching the chaos unfolding at the Chicago rally now. Donald Trump needs to recognize that his hyper partisan attacks and encouraging violence has its consequences. Someone is going to get seriously hurt or worse.
> 
> Reporters are being assaulted, protesters are being beaten without cause while Trump fans the flames. He is such a divisive figure and is only a nominee. I shudder to think what will happen if he were to assume office.
> 
> And the chants of "USA" at fellow Americans is just a sign of demagoguery taking root and an expression of bigotry; these horrific scenes are not taking place at other rallies.


LOL only you could somehow spin it as being Trump's fault. These leftist terrorists (yes, terrorists is what they are) need to be put down. They are anti-democracy. They are causing violence and disrupting political events.

It's not Trump's fault that SJWs, BLM idiots, and leftists are raving violent lunatics.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

This is pretty amazing, concerning Ted Cruz and his father's beliefs regarding Israel. :lol http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Article...s-Fanaticism-The-Worst-Possible-Marriage.aspx



> In current politics, presidential candidate Ted Cruz has taken up where G.W. Bush left off. He is pushing the “war for Israel” button HARD. And don’t forget that both Ted and his wife, Heidi, are ardent disciples of G.W. Bush--and Heidi was also a long-standing member of the quintessential neocon organization, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Ted’s preacher-father is an outspoken leader in “Greater Israel” prophecy circles. He (Ted’s dad) goes to churches all over America preaching the idea that God has called Ted to “save Israel” and usher in the Second Coming of Christ.


Some good tidbits about the Clintons and Bushes, too. :lol


> When I was hosting my radio talk show back in the 1990s, a close friend of Bill Clinton, L.D. Brown, told me that the Bushes and Clintons routinely vacationed together and were best friends. For a little background: L.D.’s wife was Chelsea’s nanny, and L.D. was Governor Bill Clinton’s chief of security. Clinton also helped L.D. get into the CIA with G.H.W. Bush’s presidential approbation, which ultimately led (sadly for Bill) to Brown’s discovery and eventual exposure of the whole Mena, Arkansas, affair. Bill assumed that his friendship with L.D. would negate any convictions of honesty L.D. might have had. Bill was wrong.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Hyperbole by back to back posters. Keep it civil in this thread.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> I'm watching the chaos unfolding at the Chicago rally now. Donald Trump needs to recognize that his hyper partisan attacks and encouraging violence has its consequences. Someone is going to get seriously hurt or worse.
> 
> Reporters are being assaulted, protesters are being beaten without cause while Trump fans the flames. He is such a divisive figure and is only a nominee. I shudder to think what will happen if he were to assume office.
> 
> And the chants of "USA" at fellow Americans is just a sign of demagoguery taking root and an expression of bigotry; these horrific scenes are not taking place at other rallies.
> 
> This is a pic of the protest:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708443664448552960


No. Are you kidding?? THE TRUMP SUPPORTERS HAVE BEEN ASSAULTED!


Liberals ruining america again. (not you @Empress)

Trump cancelled to AVOID this!!!


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> LOL only you could somehow spin it as being Trump's fault. These leftist terrorists (yes, terrorists is what they are) need to be put down. They are anti-democracy. They are causing violence and disrupting political events.
> 
> It's not Trump's fault that SJWs, BLM idiots, and leftists are raving violent lunatics.


Only me? We know each other? Are we besties who regularly discuss politics and talk about how our day went? That would be a no. 

I hold Donald Trump accountable because he is a bigot who is encouraging violence. Call me a "leftist", "lunatic" or "terrorist". But the increase of hostility has been sewn by Donald Trump. 

Protest is at the root of democracy. Trump got a reminder today.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> Only me? We know each other? Are we besties who regularly discuss politics and talk about how our day went? That would be a no.
> 
> I hold Donald Trump accountable because he is a bigot who is encouraging violence. Call me a "leftist", "lunatic" or "terrorist". But the increase of hostility has been sewn by Donald Trump.
> 
> Protest is at the root of democracy. Trump got a reminder today.


Cmon, @Empress, we've had this discussion...you are only seeing one side.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Get enough of these free-speech hating uncivilized lunatics together - easily done in Chicago, and this is what you get. A huge indictment of the anti-Trump movement tonight. I expect Trump to get a boost after this.


----------



## nucklehead88

markoutsmarkout said:


> LOL only you could somehow spin it as being Trump's fault. These leftist terrorists (yes, terrorists is what they are) need to be put down. They are anti-democracy. They are causing violence and disrupting political events.
> 
> It's not Trump's fault that SJWs, BLM idiots, and leftists are raving violent lunatics.


Swing and a miss. Those are Americans using their first amendment right. The ability to protest and speak your mind against a politician is almost literally the definition of a democracy. But it was a good try.



CamillePunk said:


> Get enough of these free-speech hating uncivilized lunatics together - easily done in Chicago, and this is what you get. A huge indictment of the anti-Trump movement tonight. I expect Trump to get a boost after this.


How are they free speech hating by....using their right to free speech?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



nucklehead88 said:


> Swing and a miss. Those are Americans using their first amendment right. The ability to protest and speak your mind against a politician is almost literally the definition of a democracy. But it was a good try.


Reports are now that they planned to rush the stage. That is not civil protest....AND THEY JUST DID RUSH IT, by the way.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



nucklehead88 said:


> How are they free speech hating by....using their right to free speech?


This is not free speech. :lmao They turned a political rally into a mosh pit. This is coercion. If Trump had gotten on that stage they would've attacked him, 100%.

Stay safe, Donald. You're winning.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Reports are now that they planned to rush the stage. That is not civil protest....AND THEY JUST DID RUSH IT, by the way.


Insult and piss off enough people, do you not expect some sort of backlash?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

UHHHH, GUYS?


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> No. Are you kidding?? THE TRUMP SUPPORTERS HAVE BEEN ASSAULTED!
> 
> 
> Liberals ruining america again. (not you @Empress)
> 
> Trump cancelled to AVOID this!!!


Donald Trump, just this morning, doubled down on the instances of violence that has been taking place. He has mentioned the "good old days" where people could punch each other.

I don't condone violence outside of self defense. I wish Mr. Trump had the same mindset. His supporters (who are entitled) and those who protest (who have the right) shouldn't have to fear for their physical safety. Just this past week, a female reporter was allegedly assaulted by a Trump campaign spokesperson. 

I know many of you believe, perhaps rightly, that Trump is a phenomenon in politics. But there is also a strong movement opposing his candidacy. He has set the incendiary tone at these rallies. Not everyone watching this unfold wants to cheer him on. There was always going to be a backlash. Yes, some came to cause trouble. Others are rightly outraged by his words and conduct thus far.

Trump has not reacted as a man who wants to stop this reoccurring violence.


----------



## Cliffy

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

there's going to be a ton of copy cats after this


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> Donald Trump, just this morning, doubled down on the instances of violence that has been taking place. He has mentioned the "good old days" where people could punch each other.
> 
> I don't condone violence outside of self defense. I wish Mr. Trump had the same mindset. His supporters (who are entitled) and those who protest (who have the right) shouldn't have to fear for their physical safety. Just this past week, a female reporter was allegedly assaulted by a Trump campaign spokesperson.
> 
> I know many of you believe, perhaps rightly, that Trump is a phenomenon in politics. But there is also a strong movement opposing his candidacy. He has set the incendiary tone at these rallies. Not everyone watching this unfold wants to cheer him on.


These protesters in CHI ARE NOT the innocent beings you think they are.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> Just this past week, a female reporter was allegedly assaulted by a Trump campaign spokesperson.


This might not turn out to be 100% true. We shall see.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Oh man. I'm all for protesting but violence isn't the answer.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> Only me? We know each other? Are we besties who regularly discuss politics and talk about how our day went? That would be a no.
> 
> I hold Donald Trump accountable because he is a bigot who is encouraging violence. Call me a "leftist", "lunatic" or "terrorist". But the increase of hostility has been sewn by Donald Trump.
> 
> Protest is at the root of democracy. Trump got a reminder today.


Ah yes, mob violence and voter intimidation, the purest form of democracy.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



nucklehead88 said:


> Insult and piss off enough people, do you not expect some sort of backlash?


I'm confused with you standpoint.. On one hand you expect Trump and Trump supporters to simply deal with the backlash (understandable) but on the other you believe protestors who want to attack people an okay action. 



On another note Cruz killed it last night by the way. Him and Rubio have to team up as VP and nominee in order to beat Trump. That will be the only way to take him out.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Well, I think the first thing we must remember is that democracy is inherently corrupting and destructive. I wish Trump were far more of a small-r republican but I fear that no such candidate could ever appeal to the masses of the post-republican U.S. He definitely employs demagoguery but we should recall that democracy by its nature breeds such. In that sense I am entertained by him because he's standing within the political matrix as a force against a parasitic establishment even if I don't formally support him (it's more like a rooting interest against the _status quo_). The free speech issue is valid to an extent but just as someone is not legally allowed to scream, "Fire!" in a movie theater, Trump's rallies and events are free to eject individuals who are unruly or uncivil. The man who punched the individual protesting was utterly in the wrong, however, but that is a separate matter.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



nucklehead88 said:


> Oh man. I'm all for protesting but violence isn't the answer.


Exactly.

Some will argue they are returning the favor but this is the kind of thing the left embodies. Trump will get a boost from this.


----------



## Headliner

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

What's fair is fair. If Trump supporters are able to attack black protesters while the cops go after the black protester instead of the attacker, spit in a Mexican protestor's face, and tell another Mexican protestor to go back to their country, and say "***********" at a Trump event, then shit like this is fine too. It goes both ways. 

You reap what you sow. No excuses.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> This might not turn out to be 100% true. We shall see.


A video was released this morning that seemed to support this allegation. I'm curious as to how it unfolds because I am a journalist. Ms. Fields has now filed charges. I don't agree with the politics of the reporter involved. However, I believe reporters should be free to do their jobs without violence. There is intimidation taking place at these events that is unsettling. Every citizen should be able to voice their dissent without threats of physical harm, especially not to have it endorsed.

Below is the alleged video of the altercation. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708333405692231680


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> What's fair is fair. If Trump supporters are able to attack black protesters while the cops go after the black protester instead of the attacker, spit in a Mexican protestor's face, and tell another Mexican protestor to go back to their country, and say "***********" at a Trump event, then shit like this is fine too. It goes both ways.
> 
> You reap what you sow. No excuses.


Funny, then the same can be said about Trump supporters deserving retaliation as they are the ones being beaten right now.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> I'm confused with you standpoint.. On one hand you expect Trump and Trump supporters to simply deal with the backlash (understandable) but on the other you believe protestors who want to attack people an okay action.
> 
> 
> 
> On another note Cruz killed it last night by the way. Him and Rubio have to team up as VP and nominee in order to beat Trump. That will be the only way to take him out.


I didn't know they had gone as far as violence. Violence is not ok. Protesting in mass is a right everyone should uphold. Being violent isn't. Doesn't matter whos side you're on.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> A video was released this morning that seemed to support this allegation. I'm curious as to how it unfolds because I am a journalist. Ms. Fields has now filed charges. I don't agree with the politics of the reporter involved. However, I believe reporters should be free to do their jobs without violence. There is intimidation taking place at these events that is unsettling. Every citizen should be able to voice their dissent without threats of physical harm, especially not to have it endorsed.
> 
> Below is the alleged video of the altercation.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708333405692231680


That was not Corey, according to Breitbart.


----------



## Headliner

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Funny, then the same can be said about Trump supporters deserving retaliation as they are the ones being beaten right now.


My post stands.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

They should just divide the US into two countries again. Would solve all of this bs. Nothing is ever going to get done because we have two extremely different ideologies in this country with significant populations and supporters who just want to duke it out. No civil war, though. That's too much. Of course, the need for this was supposed to be negated by a state's relative autonomy, but that has proven a joke.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> Ah yes, mob violence and voter intimidation, the purest form of democracy.


What is this tweet meant to prove? Dissension and protest is a part of the American democracy. Ann Coulter's analogy of the day doesn't change that. 

This is still America. It's suppossed to be 2016 America. Instead, we have Donald Trump who is harkening back to the era of George Wallace. People have a right to protest his views, especially if he is to hold the highest office in the nation. He is helping to erode civility.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@Empress: If she was assaulted I do hope there can be better proof than that video.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Donald Trump is speaking on Fox News right now.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> They should just divide the US into two countries again. Would solve all of this bs. Nothing is ever going to get done because we have two extremely different ideologies in this country with significant populations and supporters who just want to duke it out. No civil war, though. That's too much. Of course, the need for this was supposed to be negated by a state's relative autonomy, but that has proven a joke.


Secession! :woo Nullification! :woo 

One of the funniest developments of American history is how, before 1865, everyone referred to themselves first as Virginians/Pennsylvanians/New Yorkers/Massachusettsians/Alabamans/Tennesseans, etceteras, etceteras, and the constitutionally-joined federation of states made up what everyone commonly called "these United States of America"... After 1865, the country became "_the_ United States of America." :lol

My favorite little development, though, is how, shortly after World War II, as the U.S. became, in large part, a national-security state with global reach, the Department of War became known as the Department of Defense, just when in reality it was becoming a bureau of perpetual war for a state bent upon perpetual war. :lol


----------



## TNA is Here

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Democracy should be go in there and support your candidates. If you go to other rallies to antagonizes, you deserve violence. 

These people who go to Trump conference to stir shit are doing an act of violence cause they don't have confidence in their own candidates. And as such deserve violence on them. 

Hell they know all this, they do this so that Trump gets bad press.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> What is this tweet meant to prove? Dissension and protest is a part of the American democracy. Ann Coulter's analogy of the day doesn't change that.
> 
> This is still America. It's suppossed to be 2016 America. Instead, we have Donald Trump who is harkening back to the era of George Wallace. People have a right to protest his views, especially if he is to hold the highest office in the nation. He is helping to erode civility.


People have the right to protest, but *NOT* the right to disrupt a legal assembly. Protest in the street. If you go into the meeting to cause a disturbance you will get what you asked for. 

BTW, every time these agitators attempt to disrupt a Trump rally and get themselves beat up to make Trump look bad they are just pulling more and more people into the Trump camp. The people are fed up with SJWs, PC crap, and those who demand civil rights for themselves while ignoring the civil rights of people they disagree with.

- Mike


----------



## GothicBohemian

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Just like there are fervent Trump supporters there are also those incensed by the circus of high emotion surrounding his campaign. Violent confrontation was easy to predict and no one should be surprised to see an escalation in that direction. I can imagine it getting worse; this is what happens when you string along the radical elements with their "old fashioned" far right beliefs. They called out the far left, along with assorted others who worry where all this "old fashioned" conservatism is headed, and here they are. Enjoy them. 

However, this isn't my problem. My Prime Minister just had a lovely State Dinner with Obama and is still enjoying increased popular support up here months after his election. Carry on carrying on down there in the south, folks. I wish your country luck.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> What is this tweet meant to prove? Dissension and protest is a part of the American democracy. Ann Coulter's analogy of the day doesn't change that.
> 
> This is still America. It's suppossed to be 2016 America. Instead, we have Donald Trump who is harkening back to the era of George Wallace. People have a right to protest his views, especially if he is to hold the highest office in the nation. He is helping to erode civility.


Using a date or time does not prove your argument (or disprove it.)

Edit:










IS THIS GUY FOR REAL??????


----------



## TNA is Here

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> People have the right to protest, but *NOT* the right to disrupt a legal assembly. Protest in the street. If you go into the meeting to cause a disturbance you will get what you asked for.
> 
> BTW, every time these agitators attempt to disrupt a Trump rally and get themselves beat up to make Trump look bad they are just pulling more and more people into the Trump camp. The people are fed up with SJWs, PC crap, and those who demand civil rights for themselves while ignoring the civil rights of people they disagree with.
> 
> - Mike


These Chicago protestors are

1. Against Freedom of Speach

2. For the Present Corrupt Rulers

3. Are pro-violence.


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> Below is the alleged video of the altercation.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708333405692231680


wat.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Chicago as a civilized city. :sodone :sodone :sodone

If I had known Trump was going to have a rally in Chicago I would've predicted this. My first thought when I saw this news was "Oh god why would he have a rally in CHICAGO". I'm not sure if this was a strategic move to garner more support by exposing the hypocritical violent left or what. In any case, I think it's going to boost Trump.


----------



## TNA is Here

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



GothicBohemian said:


> Just like there are fervent Trump supporters there are also those incensed by the circus of high emotion surrounding his campaign. Violent confrontation was easy to predict and no one should be surprised to see an escalation in that direction. I can imagine it getting worse; this is what happens when you string along the radical elements with their "old fashioned" far right beliefs. They called out the far left, along with assorted others who worry where all this "old fashioned" conservatism is headed, and here they are. Enjoy them.


Those that appause Trump should just support their own sides, their own candidates. They are the ones causing violence.



> However, this isn't my problem. My Prime Minister just had a lovely State Dinner with Obama and is still enjoying increased popular support up here months after his election. Carry on carrying on down there in the south, folks. I wish your country luck.


Trudeau is a fucking moron and a disgrace. I'm a Canadian too and all he wants is to take pictures. He wants to be a pop star. The day he became Prime Minister was a black mark to this country. He's a pauseur. He's not even a real adult.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> People have the right to protest, but *NOT* the right to disrupt a legal assembly. Protest in the street. If you go into the meeting to cause a disturbance you will get what you asked for.
> 
> BTW, every time these agitators attempt to disrupt a Trump rally and get themselves beat up to make Trump look bad they are just pulling more and more people into the Trump camp. *The people are fed up with SJWs, PC crap, and those who demand civil rights for themselves while ignoring the civil rights of people they disagree with.*
> 
> - Mike


It's not the fault of "SJW's" or "PC crap" that Donald Trump and some of his supporters do not grasp the concept that there are consequences to behavior. Mr. Trump has sown a campaign of division, anchored around the notion that America is no longer "great" because the N word can't be casually used in conversation or other slurs and that tone is important; that SJW's want civil liberties enforced across the board and not just for the some who look like Trump or mirror his views. He has insulted all kinds of people without regret because he's tired of being "PC". If you want to erode civility, this is what happens. 

As for the disruptions of legal assemblies, black people are being ejected out of these rallies just because. Reporters are being assaulted for asking questions. All the while, Trump encourages this behavior, offering to pay the legal fees of those who engage in violence. He's cheered because he's not being "PC". Some of us rightfully take offense to the heavy handed antics. 

You can take heart that more and more people will vote for Trump because of these violence outbursts/protests. I take heart in the fact that 10,000 people showed up today and highlighted that there is resistance to his brand. Trump just may be the greatest get out the vote recruitment, not only for himself.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The identity politics and divisiveness driven by the left continues to rear its ugly head. Absolutely disgusting stuff. The sad part is all the people who are brainwashed by it.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Goku said:


> wat.


Do you have more to add beyond "wat"?


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> It's not the fault of "SJW's" or "PC crap" that Donald Trump and some of his supporters do not grasp the concept that there are consequences to behavior. Mr. Trump has sown a campaign of division, *anchored around the notion that America is no longer "great" because the N word can't be casually used in conversation* or other slurs and that tone is important;


Dear God. :kobe And you're going to become a journalist? Well, I'm sure the Huffington Post will happily have you. 



> As for the disruptions of legal assemblies, black people are being ejected out of these rallies just because. Reporters are being assaulted for asking questions.


:kobe No.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> It's not the fault of "SJW's" or "PC crap" that *Donald Trump and some of his supporters do not grasp the concept that there are consequences to behavior. Mr. Trump has sown a campaign of division, anchored around the notion that America is no longer "great" because the N word can't be casually used in conversation or other slurs and that tone is important; that SJW's want civil liberties enforced across the board and not just for the some who look like Trump or mirror his views. He has insulted all kinds of people without regret because he's tired of being "PC". If you want to erode civility, this is what happens.
> 
> As for the disruptions of legal assemblies, black people are being ejected out of these rallies just because. Reporters are being assaulted for asking questions. All the while, Trump encourages this behavior, offering to pay the legal fees of those who engage in violence. He's cheered because he's not being "PC". Some of us rightfully take offense to the heavy handed antics.
> 
> You can take heart that more and more people will vote for Trump because of these violence outbursts/protests. I take heart in the fact that 10,000 people showed up today and highlighted that there is resistance to his brand. Trump just may be the greatest get out the vote recruitment, not only for himself.*


*

You are living in a weird, sad world of delusion and fantasy. That's all I have to say. There is clearly no point in conversing with you. You live in a warped and twisted fantasy land. You should probably stop reading and watching all things politics for one to five years and try to detox your mind because something is wrong.

I urge EVERYONE in this thread to no longer reply to Empress, for her own sake. We are only contributing to her issues. Please be kind and do not feed this delusion in any way, shape, or form.

God bless, get well.*


----------



## TNA is Here

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> It's not the fault of "SJW's" or "PC crap" that Donald Trump and some of his supporters do not grasp the concept that there are consequences to behavior. Mr. Trump has sown a campaign of division, anchored around the notion that America is no longer "great" because the N word can't be casually used in conversation or other slurs and that tone is important; that SJW's want civil liberties enforced across the board and not just for the some who look like Trump or mirror his views. He has insulted all kinds of people without regret because he's tired of being "PC". If you want to erode civility, this is what happens.
> 
> As for the disruptions of legal assemblies, black people are being ejected out of these rallies just because. Reporters are being assaulted for asking questions. All the while, Trump encourages this behavior, offering to pay the legal fees of those who engage in violence. He's cheered because he's not being "PC". Some of us rightfully take offense to the heavy handed antics.
> 
> You can take heart that more and more people will vote for Trump because of these violence outbursts/protests. I take heart in the fact that 10,000 people showed up today and highlighted that there is resistance to his brand. Trump just may be the greatest get out the vote recruitment, not only for himself.


Frankly I'm not Empress-ed. 

Those people that are ejected are so cause they want to cause trouble. Not cause they are black!

Typical SJW retoric. 

You violence is "right" cause it's "just". Please go hide under a bridge.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Dear God. :kobe And you're going to become a journalist? Well, I'm sure the Huffington Post will happily have you.
> 
> :kobe No.


I am a journalist for your personal knowledge. Thank you so much for wondering about which organizations will potentially hire me. I'm comforted by your concern.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> You are living in a weird, sad world of delusion and fantasy. That's all I have to say. There is clearly no point in conversing with you. You live in a warped and twisted fantasy land. You should probably stop reading and watching all things politics for one to five years and try to detox your mind because something is wrong.
> 
> I urge EVERYONE in this thread to no longer reply to Empress, for her own sake. We are only contributing to her issues. Please be kind and do not feed this delusion in any way, shape, or form.
> 
> God bless, get well.


This would be happening with any leading Republican nominee too. The difference this time is the top 3 guys would be able to handle themselves with the media whereas you would've thought Romney was the next coming of the devil in 2012.


----------



## Headliner

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The term SJW is hilarious. Empress stop wasting your time with these people.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> I am a journalist for your personal knowledge. Thank you so much for wondering about which organizations will potentially hire me. I'm comforted by your concern.


As a journalist, are you at all concerned that so many of your comments in this thread have zero basis in fact? Do you think it's important to tell the truth as a journalist? If so, how do you reconcile that with your constant lying?


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Beware of personal insults itt, guys. Even something small can be misconstrued as a direct attack, so choose your words carefully. 

I know this is getting a bit heated, but I'm sure you can all keep a cool composure.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TNA is Here said:


> Frankly I'm not Empress-ed.
> 
> Those people that are ejected are so cause they want to cause trouble. Not cause they are black!
> 
> Typical SJW retoric.
> 
> You violence is "right" cause it's "just". Please go hide under a bridge.


*Black students ejected from Trump rally in Ga.*
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...donald-trump-georgia-rally-valdosta/81129964/

*Black Students Were Ejected From a Trump Rally*
http://fortune.com/2016/03/01/black-students-donald-trump/

These students were not causing trouble. They were kicked out due to race, profiled only because of their skin and assumed to be a threat. You may want to brush up on who you're defending. If the WiFi under my "bridge" works just fine, you can use google as well.


----------



## TNA is Here

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> The term SJW is hilarious. Empress stop wasting your time with these people.


Why? You clearly saw it in its purest expresssion at work when Empress said that people were thrown out cause they were black.

This is what the concept of SJW is: Fake social defense.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> *Black students ejected from Trump rally in Ga.*
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...donald-trump-georgia-rally-valdosta/81129964/
> 
> *Black Students Were Ejected From a Trump Rally*
> http://fortune.com/2016/03/01/black-students-donald-trump/
> 
> These students were not causing trouble. They were kicked out due to race, profiled only because of their skin and assumed to be a threat. You may want to brush up on who you're defending. If the WiFi under my "bridge" works just fine, you can use google as well.


Bullshit. There are plenty of black Trump supporters at his rallies. Considering they turn tens of thousands of people away, it's no surprise they would want to kick out protesters to let in more actual supporters who WANT to participate. Saying it's racism because they're black is just nonsensical race-baiting.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> As a journalist, are you at all concerned that so many of your comments in this thread have zero basis in fact? Do you think it's important to tell the truth as a journalist? If so, how do you reconcile that with your constant lying?


As a journalist, I have paid due diligence to the facts. Every assertion I've made has been supported by a link. I have provided supporting proof. But yet, I'm assailed as a "SJW" and told to go live under a "bridge". And now you're calling me a liar. You're one to talk since I caught you slipping the other day. I would've said something, but didn't bother. 


I'm not here to "Em-press". I'm stating opinions and facts. It just so happens that this thread is compromised of many Trump supporters but dissension does not scare or intimidate me.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Election*

And I'm banned from the Trump thread :renee3 What a freaking joke.


----------



## Truthbetold

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Chicago as a civilized city. :sodone :sodone :sodone
> 
> If I had known Trump was going to have a rally in Chicago I would've predicted this. My first thought when I saw this news was "Oh god why would he have a rally in CHICAGO". I'm not sure if this was a strategic move to garner more support by exposing the hypocritical violent left or what. In any case, I think it's going to boost Trump.


Did Hillary get protested in Chicago like this for calling black teens "super predators"


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Bullshit. There are plenty of black Trump supporters at his rallies. Considering they turn tens of thousands of people away, it's no surprise they would want to kick out protesters to let in more actual supporters who WANT to participate. Saying it's racism because they're black is just nonsensical race-baiting.


Did you bother to read the links or go for a knee jerk reaction of insults? I'll choose the latter. 

Those students did not cause a disruption. They were ejected on the command of Donald Trump's campaign nonetheless. The authorities confirmed as much.

But here are other instances of racism and from what I presume to be your favorite outlet, The Huffington Post.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> As a journalist, I have paid due diligence to the facts. Every assertion I've made has been supported by a link. I have provided supporting proof. But yet, I'm assailed as a "SJW" and told to go live under a "bridge". And now you're calling me a liar. You're one to talk since I caught you slipping the other day. I would've said something, but didn't bother.


Providing a link that agrees with you is not journalism or "providing proof". :lmao The links you provided, which I read, make the same egregious errors in logic that you do. They don't prove their own assertions.

If I made a mistake please correct me. I welcome new information and don't want to spread falsehood.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> Did you bother to read the links or go for a knee jerk reaction of insults? I'll choose the latter.
> 
> Those students did not cause a disruption. They were ejected on the command of Donald Trump's campaign nonetheless. The authorities confirmed as much.


I don't dispute that Trump's campaign would want to eject non-supporters in favor of letting more supporters in. Also given the frequency of protests it's reasonable to assume that people who are not in there in support might plan on causing trouble. Again, no evidence that there's a racial motivation whatsoever.

People are not *entitled* to attend a political rally.


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> Do you have more to add beyond "wat"?


naw.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Providing a link that agrees with you is not journalism or "providing proof". :lmao The links you provided, which I read, make the same egregious errors in logic that you do. They don't prove their own assertions.
> 
> If I made a mistake please correct me. I welcome new information and don't want to spread falsehood.


You accused me of being a liar; that I arbitrarily made up assertions. That is not the case. I stand by all that I've posted in this thread and the references I've noted. You have continually made implications about my intelligence and character. I'm not the one who has waded in assumptions; that's been you.



Goku said:


> naw.


You learn something new everyday through stimulating discourse such as this.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

This is getting stupid..

Yes, people have a right to protest, in areas designated for protesting.

Yes, Trump can have people removed in an assembly if those people are there to protest/cause problems because there is an area provided for such activities.

Yes, these people turning off lights, sneaking in and causing problems and trolling people deserve to be kicked out. Instead of supporting someone they believe in their main objective is to be asshats.

No, people should not be hurt for simply protesting.

No, people protesting should not be allowed in when others wish to support, make better use of your time and go support Bernie or whatever.

No, people on both sides should not be resorting to violence.

These are simple facts, if you have no respect for anyone else, you should not be given any. There are clear places for people to protest and yet they ignore it to cause problems. If this were to happen to Bernie/Cliton people would be all upset, but don't agree with Trump? Break the rules! Please stop being foolish and trying to justify these morons activities. No one should get hurt just like nobody should be disrupting a peaceful rally simply because you disagree with someone. I think Furries are weird but I'm not going to go to a furry convention and harass them simply because they're strange.

This should be the end of it, it doesn't matter if "They were just standing there", it's not a rally for them. Again there are other places and activities for this. Nobody has a right to be in this rally where they cannot be removed. Would anyone complain if someone was removed from a movie theatre because they were playing with their phone? They don't have a RIGHT to be there.


----------



## Headliner

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Empress, it doesn't matter what you say. You have to remember that the things that happen to minorities happen to them because of chance. It's not because of racism. White privilege doesn't exist. Racism doesn't exist. Discrimination doesn't exist. Trump protesters are just barbaric "thugs" that should know their place. Today's event was not a reaction to Trump's words and his supporters' outrageous acts of discrimination. 

We can't be people with opinions. Because standing up for your own people means you're labeled as a social justice warrior. Empress let's just go eat chicken and be good ******.:lelbron.


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> Beware of personal insults itt, guys. Even something small can be misconstrued as a direct attack, so choose your words carefully.
> 
> I know this is getting a bit heated, but I'm sure you can all keep a cool composure.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Goku said:


>


I have been thus far, Goku/HOL/Invincible. As a fellow Kamelot fan to another, I would hope you'd understand.

And Ken Watanabe the GOAT. :banderas


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Ted Cruz was responding to the insanity tonight when he moved on to discussing who the GOP nomine will be, and he slipped up and instead of saying "Republican nominee" he first said "Romney". :done



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708485637872091137
:banderas


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Ted Cruz was responding to the insanity tonight when he moved on to discussing who the GOP nomine will be, and he slipped up and instead of saying "Republican nominee" he first said "Romney". :done


da fuq :lmao

you have a link for this?


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Ted Cruz was responding to the insanity tonight when he moved on to discussing who the GOP nomine will be, and he slipped up and instead of saying "Republican nominee" he first said "Romney". :done


I'd sooner vote for hilary over Romney, though I'd vote for Hilary over Bernie too. Mister "You're not really poor if you're white." This guy is a huge pandering dork.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Goku said:


> da fuq :lmao
> 
> you have a link for this?


I was watching it on MSNBC live.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> Empress, it doesn't matter what you say. You have to remember that the things that happen to minorities happen to them because of chance. It's not because of racism. White privilege doesn't exist. Racism doesn't exist. Discrimination doesn't exist. Trump protesters are just barbaric "thugs" that should know their place. Today's event was not a reaction to Trump's words and his supporters' outrageous acts of discrimination.
> 
> We can't be people with opinions. Because standing up for your own people means you're labeled as a social justice warrior. Empress let's just go eat chicken and be good ******.:lelbron.


I'll bring some Kendrick. #WeGonBeAlright


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708472164429799425


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Let's all be frawends.  Pizza for the white folk, chicken for the black folk, tacos for @Oda Nobunaga.

Actually right now I want to hang out with *Oda Nobunaga*. Tacos. :sodone

Also, that is hilarious concerning Romney @CamillePunk. :lmao If the Republican Party wants to hijack their own process and attempt to anoint Romney... well... Again, I advocate no violence by anyone against anyone. 

It won't be pretty, though.


----------



## Headliner

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> I'll bring some Kendrick. #WeGonBeAlright
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708472164429799425


Black Excellencebama4


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Ted Cruz was responding to the insanity tonight when he moved on to discussing who the GOP nomine will be, and he slipped up and instead of saying "Republican nominee" he first said "Romney". :done


I'm very disappointed that I missed this.


I want tacos too for the record. Tex Mex is godly.


----------



## Truthbetold

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

You gotta love Pastor Manning

I check in on his channel every now and then it's pure gold.


Pastor Manning supporting Trump attacks liberals for using blacks as pawns not as equals, race baiting non liberals using blacks only as a tool to bait. But Manning's extremism is funny.
https://youtu.be/w1hVEpAFhTc






Atlah gets me though, long time ago when I first saw the clips on Reddit, I saw Atlah ministry I thought at first "no fucking way" but thankfully I had got it mixed up with ATWA. 

For a few seconds until I could Google and check my memory which was wrong I thought Atlah was the name of the cult of Manson. 

But a quick search corrected my memory it was ATWA not Atlah lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATWA


I think I'd have shit my pants if Pastor Manning was "Atwa ministry" haha!


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Liberals have always used blacks and minorities as pawns. For votes, for platforms, for pretty much everything. Look at how they turn on any minority who doesn't fall in line to what they say. At the moment that's exactly what they're doing, cannot derail Trump with attacks and other nonsense so have to try and make it a race thing. Look at the video above, mostly whites in that crowd who were happy the Trump rally got stopped.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> I'm very disappointed that I missed this.
> 
> 
> I want tacos too for the record. Tex Mex is godly.


Haha, I thought you might! :mark:

This may be the tweet of the 2016 election cycle thus far:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/703733273504018432


----------



## Silent KEEL

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump will play this protest way up. It will only garner him more support.

Hopefully that was the protesters intention...


----------



## SpeedStick

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I wonder who did that in chicago ﻿


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*










Maybe she was just trying to ask a question?


----------



## Monster Hunter

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Embarrassing performance by Trump in the latest debate. He clearly has no idea how things like Common Core works or how the US's strategy against ISIS. Even more painful to see the moderators not follow-up and call him out on his bullshit by allowing him to revert to vague talking points. Guess it doesn't matter because the Republican party has completely shown its ass this election season and will get slaughtered by either Sanders or Clinton. Every poll is showing Trump getting spanked in a general election lol


----------



## AttitudeEraFan

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Monster Hunter said:


> Every poll is showing Trump getting spanked in a general election lol


You are underestimating how popular Trump's anti-Muslims speeches are. Most of my colleagues support him secretly. They say they are scared to be labelled as Islamphobes if they support him openly. 

I do not want this to happen. But if Europe witnesses a major terrorist attack like the one in France, people will become scared and Trump will seem a safer option.


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> Those students did not cause a disruption. They were ejected on the command of Donald Trump's campaign nonetheless. The authorities confirmed as much.
> 
> But here are other instances of racism and from what I presume to be your favorite outlet, The Huffington Post.


Gawker/Huff Post are so dishonest. It says for no apparent reason. That's just a lie. There were BLM protesters (dressed in black) standing on the bleachers and using profanity. The police confirmed this.



> To clear up these allegations, everyone must understand that the Trump Campaign rented the entire PE Complex where the event was held which made the event under Georgia Law a private event. It is true that spectators obtained tickets to the rally but they were free and issued by the Trump Campaign. This means that his campaign staff had the right to decide who can and cannot enter and remain on the premises. That is the law, regardless if I or anyone else likes it or not.
> 
> Second, *the youths were clearly being disruptive and according to various sources to include law enforcement, the Trump staff, and other spectators who observed the initial actions of the youth, they were being disruptive to include using profanity, well before law enforcement made contact with them. This and only this reason was why they were asked to leave the complex*. Further, once the youths were escorted outside the complex, they tried to re-enter by jumping in front of others who were waiting to enter the complex. At that point, law enforcement advised the youth again that they must leave the property. To be clear, the youth at that time could have been arrested but law enforcement decided not to which was one of our initial objectives in the first place; to avoid arresting spectators if possible. *Body-camera video of the incident showed the youths were disruptive and used profanity against law enforcement. But even then, no force was used against these youth and they were even given alternate protest locations where they may go*.
> 
> But to suggest that this incident was racially motivated is unfair and simply not factual. If these students had not had a previous agenda to be disruptive, this incident would not have happened. if anyone wishes to place blame on why this happened, the blame lies solely with the youths; period.


It wasn't just black people removed. Though if you're Huff Post and want to paint it as racist, it's best to ignore that fact. Here's an account from one of the people ejected.



> *VSU student: Removal from Trump rally not racial*
> 
> VALDOSTA — Tamelonie Thomas was one of several students removed from the Donald Trump rally at Valdosta State University.
> 
> Thomas is a black VSU student.
> 
> *"It was not racial," she said. "There was profanity and the entire group was taken outside because of the profanity."*
> 
> *A few of the students were dressed in all black clothing and were located behind the stage where Trump was going to be speaking.
> 
> They were removed about 30 minutes before the Republican front-runner began his fiery campaign speech Monday evening. *
> 
> "Nothing happened," she said. "No one was arrested. No one was mistreated. Everyone was respectful."
> 
> According to Thomas, while she had met the group of 30 or more students at the rally, she was not among those who were using profanity, and said she thinks if anyone needed to be removed, it should have been the individuals that were loudly using bad language, not the entire group
> 
> *Caucasian students in the group were removed as well, she said.*
> 
> Thomas told The Valdosta Daily Times students had been instructed prior to the event that protests had to be confined to specific areas and would not be allowed in the arena or in the area surrounding it.
> 
> Thomas said the entire removal was done in what she called a very discreet way and said there was no real ruckus.
> 
> Once outside, Thomas said they were met by the Valdosta Police Department.
> 
> "They were very nice. They told us where protests could take place," again insisting the police department was "respectful," during the entire process.
> 
> *"I just don't like people, and the media, trying to turn this into something that it was not," Thomas said.*


Understand these lies are told to trick black people. They sell it as black students kicked out so that you think it'd happen to you. Just for being black. They don't want you to think for yourself. Protesters are being kicked out no matter what race they are.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

There is one thing i've been proud of...

I made this thread. Not as a Trump circle jerk, but because I felt there were two distinct camps of thought regarding Trump:

- You love Trump and see any opposition as globalist, PC, commie scum

- You hate Trump and view any support of him as Xenophobic, Nazi Racism.

I feel good in the fact that through making this thread, I have created a place where we can attempt to understand both sides of the Trump equation. Where supporters who would otherwise feel afraid to say as much can come here and vent the same frustrations that I as a supporter feel in being called an idiot for agreeing with a large portion of his candidacy, but also have non-supporters give non-slanderous, peaceful reasoning as to the potential dangers they feel Trump represents.

There has been quite a bit of both, yet here we are over a hundred pages in having an honest dialog about something I don't think many bothered to look at with balance on WF before, and no one who has remained civil has been turned away on either side.

I wasn't sure how this thread was going to go, but I am SO thankful it has become what it has. I hope these unfortunate developments regarding the election tonight will not stir up that ire on either side to the point our discussion is lost. I urge all of you to remember: *ALL WE HAVE ARE OUR OPINIONS!* No one not on your side is going to believe you have any facts eventually unless we try to build a bridge over what is separating us from peacefully understanding WHY we feel this way. Name calling and baiting do not make our respective sides any more appealing to someone not already on them.

Thank you all none the less for participating. Let's see where this crazy ride goes from here, shall we? :trump


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

^ Well said. I expected people to go crazy (both sides) when this was created. Most people have been respectful to each other.
This thread is better than Raw. :smile2:


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> There is one thing i've been proud of...
> 
> I made this thread. Not as a Trump circle jerk, ? :trump


Just some feedback.

You've pretty much made it a Trump jerk fest for the most part let's face it. The majority 80% are intensely pro Trump and any possible Trump weakness is deflected away.

I honestly can't believe I saw someone write something to the effect of 'These protesters go and get themselves beaten up'.


I'm sorry if I've rained your parade here, but you seem to almost believe your impartial and I just can't stand by without disputing that.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@The Dazzler

I cited the black students being ejected from the Donald Trump rallies because there were suggestions in this thread that there were no racial overtures for their removal. The accompanying link offered further examples. However, my previous comments were never meant to imply that Trump is only targeting minorities. He has an overall issue with dissent.

As for the sites that I cited, the various videos more than speak from themselves. I and others aren't being manipulated if there's offense taken to a protester being escorted out and then sucker punched. 






The man who assaulted the protester without provocation has since been arrested. He also added he wanted to kill the next time. 

Media outlets aren't lying when Trump is quoted for "loving the old days" and wanting to "punch" folks and people "carried out on a stretcher".







A conservative journalist, far from someone who could be accused of having a left wing agenda, has taken the step of filing a criminal complaint against Trump's campaign manager. Other conservatives/Republicans are against his candidacy. He's uniting individuals of all stripes against him. 

There comes a point when Donald Trump has to assume some responsibility for the part that he has played in the further decay of our national politics. The events that took place in Chicago didn't occur in a vacuum. He started his campaign by labeling Mexicans "rapists" and has continued his smears since. It may surprise him, but not everyone in this country has gotten aboard the Trump Train. He can't bully those who don't support him into silence. The protest in Chicago may energize Trump's supporters even more but last night was a demonstration that there is a serious push back.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> [MENTION=160732] He started his campaign by labeling Mexicans "rapists" and has continued his smears since.


You're repeating smears that have been debunked a million times already. You have no interest in having an honest discussion about Trump or his campaign. You're just repeating lies over and over and when people debunk you you just find more links that say the same thing. You're contributing zero value to this thread.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> You're repeating smears that have been debunked a million times already. You have no interest in having an honest discussion about Trump or his campaign. You're just repeating lies over and over and when people debunk you you just find more links that say the same thing. You're contributing zero value to this thread.


I will come and go in any thread of my choosing on this board. You are no one to restrict my access. In fact, I will remain in this thread and be sure to post it in every single day. Your thin skinned reactions to my postings is not my issue. It's yours. I'm not easily bullied, pushed around or silenced. So, either put me on ignore, keep it moving or deal with it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



yeahbaby! said:


> Bit of a strawman that kind of thinking though.
> 
> It's like me saying Trump supporters are racist bigots. It's a silly generalisation.


Its not a straw man when it comes to Sanders. Just look at the Bernie Bro BS coming from the Clinton side. Or how people were calling Sanders sexist because Sanders said to Hillary excuse me, its his turn to speak, when she kept trying to cut him off.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Both sides are super corrupt and it seems like this cycle they are not even trying to hide it.


Why hide it when the average voter does not even care? Most people vote according to their own personal "bubble". All candidates have to do anymore is simply appeal to the most possible "bubbles". We all know politicians lie, and yet as a whole (society) we tolerate it and vote for the lesser of two evils, with the exception of the complete and utter fools who go into any voting booth and mark (D) or (R) all the way down regardless of who is running.

People by and large are sheep and want to be led (as well as told what to think). If this were not the case we would not have the current state of government that we have.

IMO :mj


----------



## Wildcat410

*Re: Election*

One message this election cycle is once again driving home is the great need for viable alternative parties. Ideally, several of them. 

It's a damn shame that the system is rather set up against such.


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I'm gonna repost what I posted in 2nd part of my post on page 125 cause clearly noone read it . Any that still call Trump racist for calling the hundreds of rapists fled into US are morons at this point when he was 100% correct. Even musicians and authors have paid tribute to the slain and are against the liberal protection of murderers. 

I get so annoyed because all the uneducated and feeble minded nowdays that can only repeat what they are told on television. 

Yes hundreds of rapists flooded the border.

First half on page 125 I showed an act of war admitted by Mexican government. Government chopper flew into US shooting at border patrol. 

Then on Hundreds fleeing into US all rapists and murderers fleeing police, but Mexican police owned by Zetas so no one gives a fuck. Except Trump.


What television is banned from reporting as it would instantly destroy the Democrat party. As each Democrat candidate supports these murderers and rapists by not adamantly opposing illegal aliens and boosting border patrol, we've had dozens of firefights on border TV won't ever tell you as it's covered up as it would end liberals if people knew truth for once and stopped using tolerance to ass kiss rapists.

Paste:

*When Trump said Mexicans that fled into US is where the rapists and murderers went, was he being racist? 

Nope *

btw the word racist is a made up word. Invented by Richard Henry Pratt in 1902 when he INVENTED liberal political correctness to control people like sheep making youth hate their own ethnicity, culture and shun their society under the newly invented word racism. He erased an entire generation and caused dozens of native languages and traditions to go extinct single handedly, creating a cultural genocide. It's use was banned until time forgot cause dumbing down of kids creates each new generation more and more educationally retarded purposefully. And then history repeats itself. 
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswi...e-ugly-fascinating-history-of-the-word-racism


Trump even mentioned the incident at the city where 10,000+ pack as they illegally jump in. 



*Ciudad Juárez *

In terms of the crimes, similarities across cases include the rape, torture, mutilation, and murder of the victims.


According to Amnesty International, as of February 2005, more than 370 young women and girls had been murdered in the cities of Ciudad Juárez and Chihuahua. More recently, prosecutors from the state of Chihuahua reported that in 2010, 270 women were killed within the state, of these murders 247 occurred in Juarez. In 2011, Chihuahua's Attorney General, Carlos Manuel Salas, announced during a briefing in August 2011 that 222 women had been killed in Chihuahua since January of that year. Of these 222 murders, 130 of them occurred in Ciudad Juarez. In total, more than 300 women were murdered in the city in 2011.




> According to Pantaleo, "While around 400 girls and women have been abducted and murdered, few arrests and convictions have resulted."For convictions that have been made, there is a great deal of controversy that surrounds them. Police have been accused of conducting rushed investigations with questionable methodology and integrity.Further, suspects that have been apprehended have claimed that they were tortured into confessing.This has caused uncertainty of the legitimacy of both investigations and convictions.


Many have crossed the border illegally and these murderers and rapists get a taxpayer free ride.



> In 1996, an Egyptian national, Omar Sharif Latif or Abdul Latif Sharif was convicted of 3 murders and sentenced to a 30-year prison term After his arrest in 1995, the murders continued and authorities claimed that Sharif directed members of the "Los Rebeldes" gang to continue the murders while he was incarcerated.These members were indicted and convicted as a result of this connection.The gang members accused of carrying out murders under Sharif's orders claimed they were tortured while in police custody.According to Monarrez Fragoso, "In the year 2000, it was known that the body of Elizabeth Castro Garcia, whose murder was attributed to Omar Sharif Latif, does not belong to her."His conviction is currently under appeal.
> In 2001, Victor Garcia Uribe and Gustavo Gonzalez Meza were apprehended for eight murders.Gustavo Gonzalez Mesa died suspiciously while in police custody. In 2004, Victor Garcia Uribe, a bus driver, was convicted of eight murders that took place in 2001. He confessed to these murders but claimed that he was tortured into confessing by police.
> 
> In 2008 16-year-old Ruby Frayre Escobedo was murdered by Sergio Barraza Bocanegra who was acquitted at his first trial for lack of evidence. Following two years of activism, a retrial convicted Bocanegra who remained on the run. In 2010, Ruby's mother, Marisela Escobedo Ortiz, was assassinated by a shot to the head at point blank range while demonstrating for justice in front of the Governor's Palace in Chihuahua.





> After surveying only 155 of the killings out of 340 so far at that, numbers have since hit 400, the committee found that roughly half were prompted by motives like robbery and gang wars, while more than a third involved sexual assault before the murder.


These hundreds of raped and murdered women whose attackers flee into US, these incidents have been brought up in pop culture even though liberals hide it.


*In music:*


> Tori Amos wrote a song about these incidents titled "Juárez", for her album To Venus and Back (1999-2000), after reading about them.
> 
> At the Drive-In's song "Invalid Litter Dept." (2001) contains lyrics about the murders.
> 
> Los Tigres del Norte's song "Mujeres de Juarez" discusses the lack of government action in finding the perpetrators.
> 
> The Misfits wrote a song about Juarez titled "Where Do They Go?" from their 2011 album The Devil's Rain. In the lyrics, the incidents are referred to as femicides.
> 
> The World Is a Beautiful Place & I Am No Longer Afraid to Die's song "January 10th, 2014" is about the murders and the vigilante justice that took place in their aftermath.




*In Print*



> In Roberto Bolaño's novel, 2666 (2004), the murders serve as material for a major section entitled "The Part about the Crimes".
> 
> Alicia Gaspar de Alba's mystery novel, Desert Blood (2005), addresses this topic.
> 
> "Each and Her" (2010) by Valerie Martinez is a book-length poem that addresses the murders in the context of politics, gender oppression, mythology, art, and more.
> 
> "If I Die In Juarez" (2008) by Stella Pope Duarte.
> 
> In Eve Ensler's Vagina Monologues female homicides in Juarez feature in the monologue "Memory of Her Face."
> 
> "Señorita X - Song for the Yellow-Robed Girl from Juárez" (2007) by Juan Felipe Herrera
> 
> "The Daughters of Juarez: A True Story of Serial Murder South of the Border" (2007) by Teresa Rodríguez





It's such a taboo among liberals as the perps disappeared into US. 

So when Trump stated a FACT the sheep parroted what mainstream media said by calling it "racist" 

When he was speaking fact.


Plus the Mexican Government Admitted to attacking US Border Patrol on US Soil with helicopter. That is an act of war
































The hundreds and hundreds of pink crosses cover from Juarez up to border.


https://youtu.be/1ZKIY1IbaXI






https://youtu.be/arb_YCZgra8






Since then the raped and murdered number over 400, the rapists/murderers then jump border since it's a border town.

Now Mexico don't have to deal with their shit trash, our liberals kiss the ass of the illegal criminals when they should be executed by chair or lethal injection for first degree murder and rape of women from children to adult.

They are dogs and any candidates defending illegals that have done this should be banned from the election for sponsoring the first degree murder of over 400.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Wildcat410 said:


> One message this election cycle is once again driving home is the great need for viable alternative parties. Ideally, several of them.
> 
> It's a damn shame that the system is rather set up against such.


Its because the system is bought and paid for. There is a reason why most of the people running get millions from corporations, banks, and their party. 

If Bernie Sanders was not getting railroaded by his party, he would be way ahead of Hillary right now. Just imagine if he actually got fair and unbiased treatment in the mainstream media. It wouldn't even be close. Sanders still can beat her since after Tuesday the states start to favor him. He could go on a run of winning states, he just needs to start winning by a wide margin, like Hillary was in the south.


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> I cited the black students being ejected from the Donald Trump rallies because there were suggestions in this thread that *there were no racial overtures for their removal*.


That's true! They were removed because they're protesters. That's it!



Empress said:


> The accompanying link offered further examples.


In those examples they were also protesters except for the homeless man. But is Trump responsible for every action of his supporters, even outside the rallies? Why does this only apply to Trump?



Empress said:


> However, my previous comments were *never meant to imply that Trump is only targeting minorities*.


Okay then. Do you agree that's how the media are spinning it?



Empress said:


> As for the sites that I cited, the various videos more than speak from themselves. I and others aren't being manipulated if there's offense taken to a protester being escorted out and then sucker punched.


That wasn't planned. He was ejected for protesting/disrupting the event and some nutter took a swing.



Empress said:


> The man who assaulted the protester *without provocation* has since been arrested. He also added he wanted to kill the next time.


So he's a lunatic. But how are his actions Trump's fault? Are we just going to pretend the protester wasn't flipping off the crowd?



Empress said:


> There comes a point when Donald Trump has to assume some responsibility for the part that he has played in the further decay of our national politics. The events that took place in Chicago didn't occur in a vacuum. He started his campaign by labeling Mexicans "rapists" and has continued his smears since.


He was talking about illegal immigration when he said that. He wasn't labelling all Mexicans rapists.



Empress said:


> *He can't bully those who don't support him into silence*. The protest in Chicago may energize Trump's supporters even more but last night was a demonstration that there is a serious push back.


That's exactly what the protesters are doing. You don't like Trump, then vote for someone else. Protest peacefully. There are places set up to do just that at the rallies. Instead they're sneaking in as supporters and disrupting them. They've just had one shut down because of the threat of violence.


----------



## Wildcat410

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> *Its because the system is bought and paid for. There is a reason why most of the people running get millions from corporations, banks, and their party.*
> 
> If Bernie Sanders was not getting railroaded by his party, he would be way ahead of Hillary right now. Just imagine if he actually got fair and unbiased treatment in the mainstream media. It wouldn't even be close. Sanders still can beat her since after Tuesday the states start to favor him. He could go on a run of winning states, he just needs to start winning by a wide margin, like Hillary was in the south.


Indeed

I sent my vote in for Bernie last week. I hope it added to others I know support his candidacy can end up pulling a rabbit out of the hat. Though I am hardly getting my hopes up. The monied power brokers will continue to screw with him at every turn. 

It's a shame too because Sanders would make for a better general election candidate. Trump is going to drain a lot more populist leaning people from her than he would from Bernie. Plus you wouldn't have to worry about constant lingering questions regarding his honesty.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Wildcat410 said:


> Indeed
> 
> I sent my vote in for Bernie last week. I hope it added to others I know support his candidacy can end up pulling a rabbit out of the hat. Though I am hardly getting my hopes up. The monied power brokers will continue to screw with him at every turn.
> 
> It's a shame too because Sanders would make for a better general election candidate. Trump is going to drain a lot more populist leaning people from her than he would from Bernie. Plus you wouldn't have to worry about constant lingering questions regarding his honesty.



Bernie gets most of the independent vote, that is why he is crushing it in open elections vs the poll numbers like in Michigan. The thing you have to worry about is, if Hillary does beat Bernie how many of those Bernie supporters are going to write his name in or vote 3rd party, or god forbid for Trump. 

Plus the last thing you want is Hillary being indicted during the general election. She should drop out now with that hanging over her head. She could screw the whole party over. And you know Trump is going to hammer her on that in the general ,Bernie is too nice. Trump is going to attack the hell out of her, and Hillary seems to rattle easily when things don't go her way. Trump doesn't either for that matter, but since Trump is not the establishment, even though Hillary right now leads him head to head by a good number, who knows what the GOP will do in the general. Especially with how Cruz wife works for Goldman Sachs and I am sure she would have no issue getting a copy of Hillary's speeches.

that would be a disaster.

the only thing that could save Hillary would be taking either Bernie or Liz Warren as her running mate.

Bernie could easily spin it saying, well Hillary claims she is going to be strong with banks, i am going to hold her to that. Bernie supports would probably vote for Hillary if he was going to be the VP if she won.

Not to mention if Bernie or Warren was the running mate and Hillary was indicted, they would still get votes and could still win the election since both are a better choice than Hillary. But if Hillary goes with another schil that is super establishment, then forget about it if she gets indicted.


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Election*



Wildcat410 said:


> One message this election cycle is once again driving home is the great need for viable alternative parties. Ideally, several of them.
> 
> It's a damn shame that the system is rather set up against such.


As Jesse Ventura said, the two party system is phenomenal. You get one more choice than the communists. And in the words of George Carlin, it is called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Pronoss said:


> I'm gonna repost what I posted in 2nd part of my post on page 125 cause clearly noone read it . Any that still call Trump racist for calling the hundreds of rapists fled into US are morons at this point when he was 100% correct. Even musicians and authors have paid tribute to the slain and are against the liberal protection of murderers.


Yeah I must admit I didn't read that, still haven't my atent attenton attention ain' twhat it used to be. 

But I'm educated I know words, I have all the best words.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Just some feedback.
> 
> You've pretty much made it a Trump jerk fest for the most part let's face it. The majority 80% are intensely pro Trump and any possible Trump weakness is deflected away.
> 
> I honestly can't believe I saw someone write something to the effect of 'These protesters go and get themselves beaten up'.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry if I've rained your parade here, but you seem to almost believe your impartial and I just can't stand by without disputing that.


and in your disputing that, the thread's purpose is validated.


----------



## Punkhead

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*






:lmao


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> I will come and go in any thread of my choosing on this board. You are no one to restrict my access. In fact, I will remain in this thread and be sure to post it in every single day. Your thin skinned reactions to my postings is not my issue. It's yours. I'm not easily bullied, pushed around or silenced. So, either put me on ignore, keep it moving or deal with it.


No one here wants to bully you, least of all me. Both sides are understandably on edge considering the situation.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*

You know who we can all agree sucks?

Kasich.

Boom, world peace.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*










I wonder if they're proud of themselves...


----------



## GothicBohemian

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TNA is Here said:


> Those that appause Trump should just support their own sides, their own candidates. They are the ones causing violence.


They've been incited to protest. Trump has followers who've baited these people and his campaign has done nothing to distance him from them. I discussed my concern with other posters in this thread who assured me his is a clever course of action. They want Trump to appease what one called the "old fashioned" Republicans so that these people vote for him. Well, fine then, but having such supporters is going to draw out their opponents and those folks are just as determined as their "old fashioned" nemesis. 

Also, you have to look at this from the perspective of those concerned when they keep hearing the "mexican rapists" and "no muslim immigration" rhetoric. In this thread people are tossing around insults about black voters being manipulated, as if blacks are a hive mind of easily led children. Then there's _Oh, there's lots of blacks who support Trump_. That's like saying _I have some black friends_. 

Forgive me if I've mistaken you for someone else but I think you're from Quebec, right? I'm sure I've read posts where you supported separation and one where you mentioned seeing benefit in "keeping to your own kind", or something to that effect, which I presume means French and English as separate solitudes. How would you feel about a Prime Minsterterial candidate who talked about the negative influence of French Canada? Would his or her supporters making anti-Quebec statements concern you? (btw, I'm from New Brunswick, where there have been politcal and legal battles between the two languages for generations. While many of us are bilingual there are many, many unilingual NBers and the anger sometimes flares between sides. It does effect our elections.)




TNA is Here said:


> Trudeau is a fucking moron and a disgrace. I'm a Canadian too and all he wants is to take pictures. He wants to be a pop star. The day he became Prime Minister was a black mark to this country. He's a pauseur. He's not even a real adult.


He came in on his father's reputation but I like what he's done so far. While many countries are talking about immigration bans and building walls, the Trudeau Liberals have given new chances to Syrian refugees and finally addressed the disproportionate murder. suicide and incarceration rates among First Nation citizens. He's pro climate and anti war. He may not be everything I would want in a leader but he's better, for folks like me, than what we've had for the last decade. 


And since this thread is getting a bit heated, here's some levity of non-US origin:



> It’s 2017: Trump refugees are here with U-Hauls full of crap
> 
> Any news organization can tell you what happened yesterday. Only Maclean’s can tell you what happened a year from now.
> 
> OTTAWA (March 18, 2017) — Under pressure from human rights groups and probably also Bono, the federal government has announced it will take in a quarter of a million Americans who have been massing along the Canadian border since the election of President Donald Trump.
> 
> “This is a humanitarian crisis,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said, while doing that thing where he squints a little bit to show that, yeah, he gets it. “Along our border, Trump refugees are arriving with the shirt on their back—plus U-Hauls crammed with pleather sofas, large-screen TVs and, in all likelihood, more shirts.” There are reports a small faction of refugees recently spent the night at a Best Western near the Buffalo airport. “It’s worse than we feared,” Trudeau said.
> 
> In a move designed to highlight the severity of the crisis, the federal government revealed a video montage of sad Bernie Sanders supporters set to a Sarah McLachlan song.
> 
> Reaction from Washington was swift. “They’re a bunch of losers and Canada can have them,” President Trump said. “And, by the way, those traitors are not getting back in. We’re going to build a wall 200 feet high —and Canada is going to pay for it. And paint it.” The new Canada Wall will eventually meet up with the recently announced Trump Dome, which is being constructed to protect the U.S. from parachuting Mexicans.
> 
> The scale of the northward exodus clearly caught Trump off guard. After spending the weekend at Camp Trump, the President travelled on Air Trump One to the Trump House, where he addressed the nation from Trump West Wing, a new five-star luxury resort only steps from the Oval Office. Most of his 48-minute speech was about how someone had obviously been sitting in his chair while he was gone, because it felt higher or maybe lower but definitely different.
> 
> In an attempt at damage control, the Trump administration revealed that a number of Canadians have moved to the U.S. since the November election. That “number” turned out to be one. “Look, I just want to live in a country where the lazy, ill-informed views of crackpots are blindly accepted as gospel,” Kevin O’Leary said.
> 
> Since taking office, the President has been preoccupied with making good on his pledge to round up the 11 million illegal immigrants from Mexico currently living in America. Phase one of his plan—putting out plates of tacos and deporting everyone who grabs a bite—has so far met with limited success.
> 
> Political observers also question the wisdom of Trump’s month-long fight in Congress to have Heidi Klum enshrined in law as “at best an eight.” And they insist legislative progress has been undermined by Trump’s choice of a nominee for the Supreme Court: himself in a fake moustache.
> 
> The pressure at the Canadian border began the morning after Trump was elected in November. It escalated after his inauguration, during which the new commander-in-chief forced the U.S. poet laureate to recite a limerick about the presidential “package.” (A hardcover edition of There Once Was a Man from Wig Weenus—“with doodles by President Donald Trump!”—was subsequently published.)
> 
> Over the past few months, thousands of left-leaning Americans have been caught trying to sneak into Canada. All have been sentenced to the harshest penalty available under Canadian law: a firm “You go back home now, you.”
> 
> In Ottawa, Immigration Minister John McCallum called on church groups and other Canadian sponsors to be diligent in their support of Trump refugees. “I can’t overstate the emotional trauma of fleeing your homeland and trying to build a new life in a country that doesn’t have the good Netflix.”
> 
> That’s just one of the challenges. Many Americans will arrive with only a limited knowledge of Canada, McCallum said. “Most of them are expecting something between the ice planet Hoth and a barren moonscape devoid of life, hope and joy. But there’s only so many people we can send to Winnipeg.”
> 
> Speaking from his hometown of Calgary, the newly chosen leader of the federal Conservative party criticized Trudeau’s plan and said Canada should close its border to Americans. “Those people deserve what they’re getting,” Ted Cruz said.


----------



## TheResurrection

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Kicking out antagonistic protesters isn't racist, doesn't matter if they're black or white.

Black Lives Matter is a very dangerous organisation, inspired by one of America's most wanted terrorists, who promote a narrative that the authorities want to kill blacks. I'd be very worried about my safety if any of these fuckers turned up in force because they're likely to think it's justifiable to use force against the Police and others in defence of their lives.


----------



## Silent KEEL

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

BLM is no better than the KKK. They've already killed police in the name of their cause, just another racist group.

Anybody that gets endorsed by them should he forced to "disavow" them.


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



GothicBohemian said:


> In this thread people are tossing around insults about black voters being manipulated, as if blacks are a hive mind of easily led children.


Is this directed at me? (Ignore if not (and sorry), this thread is way too long to read through every post.)
If so, I've never insulted black voters! :frown2: I said the left-wing media were telling the lies to trick black people. It isn't working! People are seeing through it.



Beatles123 said:


> I wonder if they're proud of themselves...


Damn. It's scary to think this is going to get worse for everyone.


----------



## Badbadrobot

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

So many scared white folk looking to kick these below them because they can't wrap their tiny brains around the real terror lying in the hands of the powerful


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> No one here wants to bully you, least of all me. Both sides are understandably on edge considering the situation.


We've been able to have a discourse without insults being thrown around. That isn't true for everyone in this thread. 

@The Dazzler

At the moment, these violent confrontations only seem to be taking place at Donald Trump rallies. His more incendiary words are akin to screaming fire in a crowded theater. His behavior and words do have consequences. Trump has set the tone.


----------



## SpeedStick

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> There is one thing i've been proud of...
> 
> I made this thread. Not as a Trump circle jerk, but because I felt there were two distinct camps of thought regarding Trump:
> 
> - You love Trump and see any opposition as globalist, PC, commie scum
> 
> - You hate Trump and view any support of him as Xenophobic, Nazi Racism.
> 
> I feel good in the fact that through making this thread, I have created a place where we can attempt to understand both sides of the Trump equation. Where supporters who would otherwise feel afraid to say as much can come here and vent the same frustrations that I as a supporter feel in being called an idiot for agreeing with a large portion of his candidacy, but also have non-supporters give non-slanderous, peaceful reasoning as to the potential dangers they feel Trump represents.
> 
> There has been quite a bit of both, yet here we are over a hundred pages in having an honest dialog about something I don't think many bothered to look at with balance on WF before, and no one who has remained civil has been turned away on either side.
> 
> I wasn't sure how this thread was going to go, but I am SO thankful it has become what it has. I hope these unfortunate developments regarding the election tonight will not stir up that ire on either side to the point our discussion is lost. I urge all of you to remember: *ALL WE HAVE ARE OUR OPINIONS!* No one not on your side is going to believe you have any facts eventually unless we try to build a bridge over what is separating us from peacefully understanding WHY we feel this way. Name calling and baiting do not make our respective sides any more appealing to someone not already on them.
> 
> Thank you all none the less for participating. Let's see where this crazy ride goes from here, shall we? :trump


Good job , now start a Soros thread, that Trump and Hiliary boss


----------



## gamegenie

CamillePunk said:


> This is not free speech. :lmao They turned a political rally into a mosh pit. This is coercion. If Trump had gotten on that stage they would've attacked him, 100%.
> 
> *Stay safe, Donald. You're winning.*


Keep Hope Alive brother! 













markoutsmarkout said:


> Ah yes, mob violence and voter intimidation, the purest form of democracy.


peaceful Trump rally. 


:bron2

Lulz, even Ann Coulter joined in on the fun of ribbing Trump rallies with that sarcasm.



Beatles123 said:


> Funny, then the same can be said about Trump supporters deserving retaliation as they are the ones being beaten right now.


and now you've created a loop. 

Shall we have 1,000 years war over this like the Middle East now since your side is not going to own up and be the bigger person and walk away. :kobe


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> At the moment, these violent confrontations only seem to be taking place at Donald Trump rallies.


The Hillary/Sanders rallies aren't getting the amount of protesters Trump is. If you had Trump supporters sneak into one of their rallies and keep interrupting them, cursing at people and refusing to leave, well it could get violent. Even at a Star Trek convention it'd be a dodgy thing to do.



Empress said:


> His more incendiary words are akin to screaming fire in a crowded theater. His behavior and words do have consequences. Trump has set the tone.


I agree with you there. He should be stressing to his supporters that it's up to the police to escort them out. It's a mistake, politically at least.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> You know who we can all agree sucks?
> 
> Kasich.
> 
> Boom, world peace.


:lenny2


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



GothicBohemian said:


> They've been incited to protest.* Trump has followers who've baited these people* and his campaign has done nothing to distance him from them.
> 
> Also, you have to look at this from the perspective of those concerned when they keep hearing the "mexican rapists" and "no muslim immigration" rhetoric. *In this thread people are tossing around insults about black voters *being manipulated, as if blacks are a hive mind of easily led children. Then there's _Oh, there's lots of blacks who support Trump_. That's like saying _I have some black friends_.
> :


BLM has baited people much worse, and insulting and blaming whites for all of their problems is a standard part of its rhetoric. During their attempts to disrupt our Minnesota State Fair last August they chanted for the killing of cops. Why don't you condemn these people? Oh, sorry. That wouldn't be politically correct.

- Mike


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Fascinating firsthand account from someone who was at the would-be rally last night in Chicago: http://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4a2bu9/what_really_happened_at_the_chicago_rally_my/



Spoiler



At 2:30 p.m., I arrived at the Donald Trump rally located at the UIC pavilion in Chicago, IL. There was light police presence at the Blue Line station, and the pavilion was short walk away. There I waited in line for about an hour until making it to the front doors, going through a security scanner, and finding a seat in the main hall.

For nearly two hours the pavilion filled until it neared capacity. It was clear that protesters were seated around the room, given easily away by their manner of dress. Most of the Trump supporters, being suburbanite or small town white people from outside of Chicago, were dressed strikingly normal—jeans and t-shirts, yoga pants or dresses, and the occasional suit.

The first protestors began around 5:30 when two young white males pulled off their coats to reveal t-shirts with anti-Trump slogans. At this point I noticed the police presence inside the rally was a mere 8 police officers, bolstered with hands-off event staff.

Before 6:00 p.m., a man spoke on the microphone and requested that rally attendees do not touch or harm protesters who interrupt the event. He reminded the protesters that Donald Trump supports the first amendment as much as the second.

Following this was a string of smaller incidents, such as people holding up improvised signs and shouting. 
•One entire bleacher row was filled with protesters and they began chanting and throwing around torn up signs. 
•A few people who began standing up and screaming, and were slowly escorted out by police. The police kept leaving the protesters unattended throughout this, taking 4-8 officers to escort protesters out one at a time.
•A black man in a black jacket ran up to the front stage, bumped into the podium, and attempted to speak, but was wrestled down by two men in suits. As they escorted him through the crowd, he took a swing at a Trump supporter. The men escorting him were incredibly gentle and restrained themselves from using any force.

Then voice came on and declared that the event was postponed. A few minutes later, they informed us that Trump had landed in Chicago and spoken to Chicago Police officers, and that due to safety concerns, the rally was canceled.

At this point, the protesters began to descend into chaos. Aside from a few mild “TRUMP” and “USA” chants, the Trump supporters were mostly quiet and bewildered as the protesters began to scream, chant, and run around the main floor area in a huge pack, flipping off the rally attendees and swearing at them. There were a few tense altercations between the two groups, but from what I saw at this point, no violence.

The rally was instructed to leave the pavilion, and I have to admit, the Chicago Police messed up bad here. 

We walked straight out of the building and into enormous packs of protesters screaming at us, with little police presence to protect the Trump supporters. 

Following this, I wandered the protest grounds to see what was going on. My memory is a bit jumbled at this point because I was so pumped up, but let me string together the events as clearly as possible:
•Many of Trump propaganda signs, most commonly depicting him as Adolf Hitler, but others showing him with a small penis, simple signs of text English and Spanish, signs.
•Young women shouting anti-white racial epithets. 
•“THE PEOPLE ARE UNITED. WE WILL NOT BE DIVIDED” being shouted at Trump supporters who holed themselves up in a parking garage, quietly fearing for their safety. Another good one by the protesters was “FREEDOM FIRST! FREEDOM FIRST!” Strangely enough, there were a good amount of signs calling for peace and freedom. Lots of peace signs being flashed with the fingers.
•A single white Trump supporter who held up a sign and stood quietly as three dozen people surrounded him, smiling and screaming, snatching and pushing at him until he had to run for police cover. Someone grabbed his American flag and threw it on the ground and he fought to recover it. The police escorted him away.
•Two young men, perhaps 17-19, standing quietly as they waited for a ride home. They were wearing their MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN hats, looking terrified as people cursed and swore at them, and occasionally threw furious challenges for debate. The two young men held their ground. Only once did one of those hats come down, and it quickly went back on again.
•A general atmosphere of pleasure and happiness from the protesters. A common chant was “WE WON!” and “WE STOPPED* TRUMP!” It honestly felt like a social event for the protesters. There was plenty of mingling 
•Plenty of shouts at Trump protesters that Trump and his supporters are not welcome in Chicago. I challenged one on the first amendment. He said he does not consider himself an American and continued insulting the grizzled old white man he was arguing with.
•Extremely inefficient police presence. The cops were lined up on their horses or standing behind barricades, but generally were not present where Trump supporters were being hounded and occasionally struck by protesters.
•The protesters were primarily composed of millennial-aged: white hipsters, African Americans, Hispanics, and Muslims. Some of the protesters were teenagers below voting age.
•The protesters flew a big set of American, Mexican, and Puerto Rican flags. There were lots of small American and Mexican flags too. *The Trump supporters mostly fled for safety immediately. You have to understand, they were outnumbered by thousands of protesters. 
•There was media presence, but not as much as you’d think. Plenty of areas where chaos was going on had no media nearby. The reporters were mostly getting people to talk to them off to the side where nothing was going on, or focusing ongoing debates between Trump supporters and rally members.
•A small amount of the protesters were smoking weed. (I have nothing against this personally, just included for accuracy.)
•Plenty of chants for “BERNIE! BERNIE! BERNIE!” Some Trump supporters looked at each other in bewilderment. “But Bernie Sanders isn’t even running against Donald Trump,” was the common sentiment.
•Edit: The Trump supporters had a general trust for the police, while the protesters saw their presence as antagonistic. This is especially interesting to me, because as a foreigner and person of color I am generally afraid of police. 

Closing statement:

Obviously I did not see everything that occurred as I wandered the protest grounds outside the cancelled Chicago rally. What I did see, however, was fear. Fear from the rally attendees for their immediate safety, and fear of Donald Trump from the protesters. 

More than that, I feel that I experienced today, for the first time in my life, true totalitarianism and authoritarianism, expressed laterally from citizen to citizen, in order to silence opinions from being shared. This enforcement was shared through sheer numbers and intimidation, and in a few cases, violence.

People brought their children, loved ones, and friends to attend the Trump rally. I saw an older Asian man and his white wife in attendance, and the looks on their faces when the rally was declared cancelled almost broke my heart. I saw scared children clinging to their parents’ sides as they exited the building to the screams of protesters. I saw a quiet, but excited crowd of Donald Trump supporters get thrown out of Chicago.

Worst of all, I saw the first amendment trampled, spit on, and discarded like trash.

This cannot go on. As I finish this, I feel a sense of utter dread and hopelessness for what is becoming of the youth in this country, particularly those of the regressive left. So polarized has political opinion become, that dissenting thoughts on college campuses are now seen as hateful. These people deal in absolutes. They are right, and whatever means they must take to achieve their ends, they will do it. They will not stop themselves from violence or censorship. They will do it, and they will call hell down upon you if anyone dare does upon them the same.

Tonight I went to the Trump Rally to hear the thoughts of not only the man who was supposed to come and speak, but the people who support him. I found respect. I found calmness. I found peace.

The truth is, I am a legal immigrant, not a US citizen. I am not American. I am not white. I cannot vote.

After tonight, I support Donald Trump.

Lastly, for anyone who thinks the protesters didn’t incite violence tonight, I offer you this.

Updates:

Tallon5 posted a bunch of images and videos that match up to my personal accounts

Super Hat Bros FOUND! Personal friend of theirs speaks out

Another account from the PoliticalDiscussion subreddit

Thanks for the gold and all the kind comments. I hope you guys stay safe. Remember that the best way to make America great again isn't just voting, but making yourself great too. That goes to anyone who reads this, regardless of who you support or what you believe.



It's a fascinating tale, and I've seen it corroborated by numerous sources, individuals who were planning to attend the Trump rally.

Revealed to be one of the figures behind this was Bill Ayers, the "domestic terrorist" as he's often referred to, who's taken to the Internet, championing the "anti racist youth." Ayers apparently led the most direct charge of "protestors," who were essentially declaring that they should be allowed in to violently attack the stage and anyone who stepped foot on it.

Firstly, what we can make of this is that there was considerable financing of this operation. It was definitely well-organized and well-supported. Secondly, the general attitude of the protestors seems to have been signposted by the innumerable instances of such violent outbursts, almost always planned ahead of time, on American university campuses, where most students are taught by their Marxist professors (trust me, I had a few!) that certain forms of speech are "violence" and must be censored at all costs, including physical attack. Individuals such as Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, George Will and many others have each had dozens of such events shut down, almost always due to the threat of violence. (How _anyone_ could get even emotional, much less potentially violent over stodgy old, dull George Will is truly remarkable. Perhaps in his case he simply paid them off to force him to cancel. :lol) Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld among other comedians who tend to flirt with politically incorrect humor almost never perform on U.S. college campuses for this same phenomenon now. 

Like the individual I quoted, I do not trust the police, either. :lol

It is intriguing, though, is it not? Between 1998 and 2011, Wall Street and insurance companies added 4.3% to U.S. output, while taking 29.9% of all U.S. profits. Politicians squandered $3.8 trillion (and rising) on the Iraq War and well over $1 trillion on the war in Afghanistan; the U.S. Federal Reserve, which of course is neither federal, nor a reserve, secretly lent $7.7 trillion to the bankers... RBS received $1.2 billion. In 2008, and 2009, the U.S. government bailed out AIG. Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, _Société Générale_, Deutsche Bank and UBS to the tune of $33 billion. Goldman Sachs paid out $16.4 billion in bonuses in 2009; Gordon Brown borrowed to bail out banks and bank creditors, a great many of them foreign. The total U.S. bailout has cost taxpayers $24 trillion, a loss which equals 170% of national income. To make a quick comparison, Sweden is at 15% to the good, because following its major bank bust of the early 1990s, the Swedish government made the shareholders bear the cost. 

The U.S. regime has, as I have pointed out earlier in this thread, supported the financial institutions of the country in a way that can only be described, economically, as fascistic or corporatist. 

And yet the youth of the country seem to be directed toward these activities, probably by George Soros, who is betting on the crashing of the U.S. dollar (which today has 2% of the value it had when the aforementioned Federal Reserve was created). At this point, the four largest U.S. banks are all about 40% larger than they were in 2008 when they were bailed out, and the derivatives market Armageddon is not far off into the future. A financial calamity is likely to strike in the near future. 

In any event, this is a fine article by Justin Raimondo concerning Thursday night's GOP debate in Miami, and particularly the foreign policies espoused by Donald Trump: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/03/11/donald-trump-good-bad-ugly/ 

In the meantime, I'm pleased that Trump is now hammering that craven hack Kasich in Ohio for supporting NAFTA, GATT and TPP. :lol It would have been inexplicable to not address that point in Ohio after positioning himself as the "anti-free trader" candidate.

Anyone else see that bit about Rubio imploring Ohioans to vote for Kasich? :lmao


----------



## GothicBohemian

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Dazzler said:


> Is this directed at me? (Ignore if not (and sorry), this thread is way too long to read through every post.)
> If so, I've never insulted black voters! :frown2: I said the left-wing media were telling the lies to trick black people. It isn't working! People are seeing through it.
> 
> 
> Damn. It's scary to think this is going to get worse for everyone.


No, it isn't directed at you.  The majority of discussion in this thread is civil; there is, however, an undertone to some posts that makes me cringe.



Batko10 said:


> BLM has baited people much worse, and insulting and blaming whites for all of their problems is a standard part of its rhetoric. During their attempts to disrupt our Minnesota State Fair last August they chanted for the killing of cops. Why don't you condemn these people? Oh, sorry. That wouldn't be politically correct.
> 
> - Mike


Where did I say I condone violence? The reason protesters are focusing on Trump and not the other candidates is because of messages like the one you send with this post - that he's the candidate for disenfranchised whites. It sets his team up as the enemy for groups who are already locking horns with each other. I find the entire situation disturbing.


----------



## Headliner

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TheResurrection said:


> Black Lives Matter is a very dangerous organisation, inspired by one of America's most wanted terrorists, who promote a narrative that the authorities want to kill blacks. I'd be very worried about my safety if any of these fuckers turned up in force because they're likely to think it's justifiable to use force against the Police and others in defence of their lives.





Silent KEEL said:


> BLM is no better than the KKK. They've already killed police in the name of their cause, just another racist group.
> 
> Anybody that gets endorsed by them should he forced to "disavow" them.


Incorrect. The obliviousness on this forum is cute. 

The black panthers were not a terrorist organization. They were a self-defense group for African Americans to protect them against police harassment and police brutality. In addition to standing up for those being harassed by the police during a very racial and prejudice time in America, the black panther organization also organized various black community events to help struggling back families and uplift communities. 



> Black Child's Pledge
> 
> I pledge allegiance to my Black People.
> I pledge to develop my mind and body to the greatest extent possible.
> I will learn all that I can in order to give my best to my People in their struggle for liberation.
> I will keep myself physically fit, building a strong body free from drugs and other substances which weaken me and make me less capable of protecting myself, my family and my Black brothers and sisters.
> I will unselfishly share my knowledge and understanding with them in order to bring about change more quickly.
> I will discipline myself to direct my energies thoughtfully and constructively rather than wasting them in idle hatred.
> I will train myself never to hurt or allow others to harm my Black brothers and sisters for I recognize that we need every Black Man, Woman, and Child to be physically, mentally and psychologically strong.
> These principles I pledge to practice daily and to teach them to others in order to unite my People.


Whenever there are revolutions of movements, there are always a few extremists in the group who may take things too far. It's the same exact way with the super Trump supporters who have spit in Mexican's faces, legit told them to go back to their own country in front of their faces, and screamed *********** at Trump events. 

The difference is African Americans are ALWAYS labeled by the extremists in our groups. Any attempt to show black pride gets white washed and redefined as terrorist, racist, etc because people like you only tend to focus on the bad apples of the group and define the entire group based on them while ignoring the true intentions of the groups. It's the same reason African Americans are stereotyped, labeled and pre-judged based on other bad apples of the group. We don't have control over our identity the same way you are able to disown the "white trash" from your identity as a race. 

So please, in the future please do not discuss things you know nothing about. You end up looking foolish. Please stick to Donald Trump.


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> Fascinating firsthand account from someone who was at the would-be rally last night in Chicago: http://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4a2bu9/what_really_happened_at_the_chicago_rally_my/


That's a great read. Damn scary though.



GothicBohemian said:


> No, it isn't directed at you.  The majority of discussion in this thread is civil; there is, however, an undertone to some posts that makes me cringe.


I see. :smile2:

Btw I think the black vote will be really important. Liberals and Trump supporters have made up their minds already. I was surprised when I learned Trump was doing well with black people considering the press he's had. Though I think that'll change with the way the media is attacking him. I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## TheResurrection

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> Incorrect. The obliviousness on this forum is cute.
> 
> The black panthers were not a terrorist organization. They were a self-defense group for African Americans to protect them against police harassment and police brutality. In addition to standing up for those being harassed by the police during a very racial and prejudice time in America, the black panther organization also organized various black community events to help struggling back families and uplift communities.
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever there are revolutions of movements, there are always a few extremists in the group who may take things too far. It's the same exact way with the super Trump supporters who have spit in Mexican's faces, legit told them to go back to their own country in front of their faces, and screamed *********** at Trump events.
> 
> The difference is African Americans are ALWAYS labeled by the extremists in our groups. Any attempt to show black pride gets white washed and redefined as terrorist, racist, etc because people like you only tend to focus on the bad apples of the group and define the entire group based on them while ignoring the true intentions of the groups. It's the same reason African Americans are stereotyped, labeled and pre-judged based on other bad apples of the group. We don't have control over our identity the same way you are able to disown the "white trash" from your identity as a race.
> 
> So please, in the future please do not discuss things you know nothing about. You end up looking foolish. Please stick to Donald Trump.


The reading comprehension on this forum is piss poor. I offered no opinion on the black panthers as a whole, neither did the other person you quoted. I said that they were inspired by one of America's most wanted terrorists.

Cop killer Assata Shakur is one of America's most wanted terrorists, Fact.

Assata Shakur is an inspirational figure for the Black Lives Matter movement. She is quoted on their website. Fact.

If you're going to post in such an arrogant, condescending and disrespectful fashion in future please refer to what the people you're quoting have actually talked about instead of responding with a load of unrelated shit.

Who is the fool now, eh?


----------



## Silent KEEL

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> Incorrect. The obliviousness on this forum is cute.
> 
> The black panthers were not a terrorist organization. They were a self-defense group for African Americans to protect them against police harassment and police brutality. In addition to standing up for those being harassed by the police during a very racial and prejudice time in America, the black panther organization also organized various black community events to help struggling back families and uplift communities.
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever there are revolutions of movements, there are always a few extremists in the group who may take things too far. It's the same exact way with the super Trump supporters who have spit in Mexican's faces, legit told them to go back to their own country in front of their faces, and screamed *********** at Trump events.
> 
> The difference is African Americans are ALWAYS labeled by the extremists in our groups. Any attempt to show black pride gets white washed and redefined as terrorist, racist, etc because people like you only tend to focus on the bad apples of the group and define the entire group based on them while ignoring the true intentions of the groups. It's the same reason African Americans are stereotyped, labeled and pre-judged based on other bad apples of the group. We don't have control over our identity the same way you are able to disown the "white trash" from your identity as a race.
> 
> So please, in the future please do not discuss things you know nothing about. You end up looking foolish. Please stick to Donald Trump.


I didn't even mention the black panthers.

I won't even bother replying to you again, all you do is mock and bait Trump supporters and act like you know more about any topic. Not that it's any different than any other topic you try to "discuss".


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Just saw this on CNN:

Trump: "Thugs" shut down my "1st Amendment Rights"

Why be a king, when you can be a god (of trolling)? :trump


----------



## Born of Osiris

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> Liberals have always used blacks and minorities as pawns. For votes, for platforms, for pretty much everything. Look at how they turn on any minority who doesn't fall in line to what they say. At the moment that's exactly what they're doing, cannot derail Trump with attacks and other nonsense so have to try and make it a race thing. Look at the video above, mostly whites in that crowd who were happy the Trump rally got stopped.


Indeed. This thread is just making anti-Trump people look a bit foolish :deandre I'm not even for Trump but the arguments I've seen in this thread is :kobelol


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Dazzler said:


> The Hillary/Sanders rallies aren't getting the amount of protesters Trump is. If you had Trump supporters sneak into one of their rallies and keep interrupting them, cursing at people and refusing to leave, well it could get violent. Even at a Star Trek convention it'd be a dodgy thing to do.
> 
> 
> I agree with you there. He should be stressing to his supporters that it's up to the police to escort them out. It's a mistake, politically at least.


We're mostly in agreement.

Bernie Sanders addressed that his supporters were heavily involved last night. He said he didn't condone it but put pressure on Donald Trump to tone down his rhetoric. (I'm looking for the video but I saw it on CNN)

It starts at the top. I would hope that Sanders and Hillary Clinton would not encourage their supporters to "punch" protesters who show up en masse and make jokes about it. 

Marco Rubio also commented on the events that took place last night.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708680534063509504

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708657520374452224


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

This is another decades old tactic.

It's also in Sun Tzu - Art of war 

When it comes to war , Sun Tzu is the Bible it's mandatory reading in officer school and how to tactically and psychology win, and how to manipulate morale and talk a human into dying for you.




But what the protest disruptions are is this:

Wiki is just the basics, but read this article then all the Trump protests, the occupy movement violence the tea party violence, and Ferguson violence makes perfect sense

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO




How a King tested Sun Tzu's Art of War tactics on turning anyone into soldier. King tried to trick Sun and say "What about a woman?" 

After the results Sun Tzu became general 




Spoiler: Sun Tzu Art of War, a 3rd hand historical account giving eye witness to Sun Tzu in action tested against women



Sun Tzu Wu was a native of the Ch`i State. His ART OF WAR brought him to the notice of Ho Lu, King of Wu. Ho Lu said to him: "I have carefully perused your 13 chapters. May I submit your theory of managing soldiers to a slight test?"

Sun Tzu replied: "You may." 

Ho Lu asked: "May the test be applied to women?" 

The answer was again in the affirmative, so arrangements were made to bring 180 ladies out of the Palace. Sun Tzu divided them into two companies, and placed one of the King's favorite concubines at the head of each. He then bade them all take spears in their hands, and addressed them thus: "I presume you know the difference between front and back, right hand and left hand?"

The girls replied: Yes.

Sun Tzu went on: "When I say "Eyes front," you must look straight ahead. When I say "Left turn," you must face towards your left hand. When I say "Right turn," you must face towards your right hand. When I say "About turn," you must face right round towards your back."

Again the girls assented. The words of command having been thus explained, he set up the halberds and battle-axes in order to begin the drill. Then, to the sound of drums, he gave the order "Right turn." But the girls only burst out laughing. Sun Tzu said: "If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame."

So he started drilling them again, and this time gave the order "Left turn," whereupon the girls once more burst into fits of laughter. Sun Tzu: "If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, the general is to blame. But if his orders ARE clear, and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers."

So saying, he ordered the leaders of the two companies to be beheaded. Now the king of Wu was watching the scene from the top of a raised pavilion; and when he saw that his favorite concubines were about to be executed, he was greatly alarmed and hurriedly sent down the following message: "We are now quite satisfied as to our general's ability to handle troops. If We are bereft of these two concubines, our meat and drink will lose their savor. It is our wish that they shall not be beheaded."

Sun Tzu replied: "Having once received His Majesty's commission to be the general of his forces, there are certain commands of His Majesty which, acting in that capacity, I am unable to accept."

Accordingly, he had the two leaders beheaded, and straightway installed the pair next in order as leaders in their place. When this had been done, the drum was sounded for the drill once more; and the girls went through all the evolutions, turning to the right or to the left, marching ahead or wheeling back, kneeling or standing, with perfect accuracy and precision, not venturing to utter a sound. Then Sun Tzu sent a messenger to the King saying: "Your soldiers, Sire, are now properly drilled and disciplined, and ready for your majesty's inspection. They can be put to any use that their sovereign may desire; bid them go through fire and water, and they will not disobey."

But the King replied: "Let our general cease drilling and return to camp. As for us, We have no wish to come down and inspect the troops."

Thereupon Sun Tzu said: "The King is only fond of words, and cannot translate them into deeds."

After that, Ho Lu saw that Sun Tzu was one who knew how to handle an army, and finally appointed him general. In the west, he defeated the Ch`u State and forced his way into Ying, the capital; to the north he put fear into the States of Ch`i and Chin, and spread his fame abroad amongst the feudal princes. And Sun Tzu shared in the might of the King.


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

We can settle the debate. Let's see how a white protester is treated. :smile2:




We'll never know. One tap on the head and he gets the fuck out of there! :booklel


----------



## Headliner

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TheResurrection said:


> The reading comprehension on this forum is piss poor. I offered no opinion on the black panthers as a whole, neither did the other person you quoted. I said that they were inspired by one of America's most wanted terrorists.
> 
> Cop killer Assata Shakur is one of America's most wanted terrorists, Fact.
> 
> Assata Shakur is an inspirational figure for the Black Lives Matter movement. She is quoted on their website. Fact.
> 
> If you're going to post in such an arrogant, condescending and disrespectful fashion in future please refer to what the people you're quoting have actually talked about instead of responding with a load of unrelated shit.
> 
> Who is the fool now, eh?


What arrogance? Awwww you mad that I won't go for your little perfect white agenda?

Nice try but your're wrong again. 

a)Assata Shakur was a black panther and a lot of people say they were influenced by the black panthers. I knew who you were talking about. (Btw you should do your homework on that 1973 case, you'll find a lot of interesting revelations. But wait, better yet, stay sleep since you've been sleep already.)

b)Take a look at the Shakur quote straight from the link you posted: 


> It is our duty to fight for our freedom, it is our duty to win. We must love each other and support each other. We have nothing to lose but our chains.


There is absolutely nothing wrong with that quote. Did she say kill a bunch of cops? No. Her quote is a representation of what the movement is about due to the history of oppression, police harassment and brutality on African Americans. 

But, but, but, wait. She's a "terrorist". Therefore the BLM group is a dangerous delusional organization. :lelbron.

But, but, but, wait, let's not fight oppression, police aggression & brutality. Let's just be good ****** and thank masta for whipping us into shape. :lelbron



Some Guy Named Headliner said:


> The difference is African Americans are ALWAYS labeled by the extremists in our groups. Any attempt to show black pride gets white washed and redefined as terrorist, racist, etc because people like you only tend to focus on the bad apples of the group and define the entire group based on them while ignoring the true intentions of the groups. It's the same reason African Americans are stereotyped, labeled and pre-judged based on other bad apples of the group. We don't have control over our identity the same way you are able to disown the "white trash" from your identity as a race.


Once again, please don't comment on shit you don't know. Stay in your lane. 


Silent KEEL said:


> I didn't even mention the black panthers.
> 
> I won't even bother replying to you again, all you do is mock and bait Trump supporters and act like you know more about any topic. Not that it's any different than any other topic you try to "discuss".


I know what you said. I quoted both of you at the same time because you said similar things. 

I don't act like I know more. I'm just the type of person people like you can't take.


----------



## SpeedStick

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I still think Trump is nothing but a false flag candidate to help Hilary win


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708560458547073025


----------



## animus

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I think the Chicago protests did more harm than good for the #StopTrump movement. I can't stand Trump myself, but it's only going to make the support for him stronger. I'm also afraid that this won't be the last violent protest.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I don't know much about Shakur, but the FBI report on her read A LOT like propaganda to me. Of course I don't trust the FBI at all so there's that.


----------



## Joff

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

It seems Trump is the only man in America that can unite the passion between all groups @DesolationRow


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> I don't know much about Shakur, but the FBI report on her read A LOT like propaganda to me. Of course I don't trust the FBI at all so there's that.


Never trust FBI.


Read the Cointelpro article I linked.

They have and continue to bust up political party rallies, start violence at protests, and worse.


Here is an actual copy of the letter FBI used in psyops trying to get Martin Luther King Jr to commit suicide. 

Long before "cyber bullying weak into suicide with mind games social engineers have done on internet", it's an old tactic the government also used

King though was no weak minded individual, they had to kill him 

From FOIA request


----------



## Joff

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The BLM movement isn't terrorism. Their movement has come off amateur a lot though. brb storming a library and repeating BLM... goob job brehs and brehettes. they often come across as that kid crying for mom to buy them a new toy, er i mean game. kids now don't want toys they want games. The KKK will forever be known as the gayest race cult though. I wish my people had a cooler cult sometimes.



I don't think the hostility between the races will ever disappear btw. IRL it's not as bad as anonymous forums where both sides are racist but deny it. ITT i I see whites being racist against blacks and blacks doing the same thing in a more subtle tone. I would rather see you all fight to the death than insult e/o on keyboards, but I'm not that lucky.


----------



## TheResurrection

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> What arrogance? Awwww you mad that I won't go for your little perfect white agenda?
> 
> Nice try but your're wrong again.
> 
> a)Assata Shakur was a black panther and a lot of people say they were influenced by the black panthers. I knew who you were talking about. (Btw you should do your homework on that 1973 case, you'll find a lot of interesting revelations. But wait, better yet, stay sleep since you've been sleep already.)
> 
> b)Take a look at the Shakur quote straight from the link you posted:
> 
> 
> There is absolutely nothing wrong with that quote. Did she say kill a bunch of cops? No. Her quote is a representation of what the movement is about due to the history of oppression, police harassment and brutality on African Americans.
> 
> But, but, but, wait. She's a "terrorist". Therefore the BLM group is a dangerous delusional organization. :lelbron.
> 
> But, but, but, wait, let's not fight oppression, police aggression & brutality. Let's just be good ****** and thank masta for whipping us into shape. :lelbron
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, please don't comment on shit you don't know. Stay in your lane.
> 
> I know what you said. I quoted both of you at the same time because you said similar things.
> 
> I don't act like I know more. I'm just the type of person people like you can't take.


I'm not mad, I'm slightly embarrassed for you that you wrote all that irrelevant stuff while acting like you are some kind of mastermind talking to children.

I'm not interested in the black panther organisation. I've no opinion on that organisation. Let me be clear - I'm talking about this one individual terrorist who BLM see as an inspiration. I am not talking about any other organisation she may have been a member of.

Your argument about the black panther is as relevant as saying she was in the girl scouts and they are a great organisation.

I'm not criticising the fucking quote, I'm criticising the fact that they hold one of America's most wanted terrorists up as an inspirational figure. Bin Laden probably had some great quotes about American imperialism but I wouldn't use them because I abhor his methods, you can't extricate the two. If BLM proudly holds up a cop killing terrorist as an inspirational figure that tells you a lot about them.

The best way to avoid police brutality is to avoid committing crimes, if you do commit a crime don't risk arrest, and whatever you do don't engage in combat with someone who has a weapon. If you follow these simple steps police brutality almost certainly won't be an issue you suffer from.

You quoted us both because we said similar things and wrote a response to things that we didn't say.

You obviously have a great deal you want to say about this topic - who knows, maybe some of it has value - but nothing of what you've said has had relevance to the posts you originally quoted.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Indeed, it has become plain as day that the FBI and Memphis Police Department collaborated with one another to ensure the death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The FBI finally disclosed the COINTELPRO harassment of Dr. King while revealing that one of Dr. King's most trusted friends and confidantes, Ernest Withers, had been working as a clandestine mole for the FBI within Dr. King's inner circle. 

On March 18, 1968, Dr. King spoke at a Memphis rally promising to lead a march in the next couple of weeks to support the city's striking sanitation workers, but according to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, a black civil rights group named the Invaders sabotaged the March 28 rally by distributing several hundred two-by-two sticks attached to placards into the hands of impressionable black youngsters caught breaking store windows. The Invaders, according to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, incited disruptive chaos and mayhem specifically against Dr. King's orders of peaceful resistance. Due to the violence perpetrated during the demonstration on March 28, the city government of Memphis filed a formal complaint against Dr. King and all of his closest associates. 

Withers was but one of five paid FBI informants who reported to the Bureau's Memphis Field Office, and a corrupt black undercover Memphis PD officer named Marrell McCollough had become a Memphis PD mole inside the Invaders group in the winter of 1968. Despite the Lorraine Motel being cleared of Invaders members several hours before Dr. King's assassination, McCollough remained in the motel's parking lot until after Dr. King's death. McCollough would later claim that he had spent the entire day shopping with Reverend James Orange and Reverend James Bevel. ABC News would reveal in the late 1970s that McCollough had gone on to join the CIA; he would testify on March 12, 1978, to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. 

In 1999, the civil trial of _King v. Jowers_ determined that former Memphis police officer Loyd Jowers had been complicit in a wide-ranging conspiracy to assassinate Dr. King. In late 1993 Jowers broke his silence on ABC's "Prime Time Live," admitting that he had participated in the plot to murder Dr. King. Jowers theorized that Memphis police department Lieutenant Earl Clark fired the shot that killed Dr. King, not James Earl Ray. 

The FBI has only admitted--"only"--to attempting to discredit Dr. King, destroy his marriage and compel him to commit suicide, as @Pronoss so convincingly notes above.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

BLM and the anti and pro trump protests show me why there will never be another successful social movement

Before the days of social media it was hard to get a large group of people together for a protest, as such they tended to be informed, there was caution for "new members" who might be violent, and there tended to be a clear leader to officially state demands and rhetoric and make official statements

In today's social media world there is zero of that

In today's protest you make a facebook page and random people just show up, you know nothing about them and everyone is a "new member", there is no clear leadership because "the official twitter says everything" so you get tons of different demands from different spectrum from Marxists to violent upheaval style anarchists 

In the past people who wanted to be "revolutionaries" tend to be pushed out of protest groups and due to the difficulty of finding a large enough group of people who also wanted to smash the state they had to mellow out or be a one man army

Now the revolutionaries are all connected by the internet, can be man children and have to be included because of their size

It used to be you had to be civil and become "martyrs" so the general public would accept you, it was a sign that you were succeeded when the Jones who had no stake in the protest or the local news supported you

Now you can just lock your self in a social media echo chamber and say that people who don't support you are "asleep" and don't matter, you then end up with a masturbatory incestuous origination that is closer the stagnated government social club you are fighting than the regular people who you claim to be representing

When one side yells at me saying I am "ignorant and asleep" for being neutral and the other side says "your not ignorant, they are just pricks" I am siding with the second guy because he is not accusing me of being stupid for not entering a fight I have no stake in 

I have not seen a single "protest movement" in my life that was not a disorganization mess of different ideologies saying different things or a group of incestuous extremists who jack off over how "intense" they are


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

At Trump's Dayton, Ohio rally today a protester attempted to rush the stage while Trump was speaking. Trump looked ready to charge toward the danger like fucking Batman. :done Luckily it appears the guy got nowhere close and was quickly apprehended by police. 






Man, this guy could easily be running his multi-billion dollar company with his family, but instead he's doing this, and literally putting himself in danger. Please stay safe, Donald.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708714539525808128


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> You know who we can all agree sucks?
> 
> Kasich.
> 
> Boom, world peace.


He is the only sane one on the GOP side.


----------



## Headliner

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TheResurrection said:


> I'm not mad, I'm slightly embarrassed for you that you wrote all that irrelevant stuff while acting like you are some kind of mastermind talking to children.
> 
> I'm not interested in the black panther organisation. I've no opinion on that organisation. Let me be clear - I'm talking about this one individual terrorist who BLM see as an inspiration. I am not talking about any other organisation she may have been a member of.
> 
> Your argument about the black panther is as relevant as saying she was in the girl scouts and they are a great organisation.
> 
> I'm not criticising the fucking quote, I'm criticising the fact that they hold one of America's most wanted terrorists up as an inspirational figure. Bin Laden probably had some great quotes about American imperialism but I wouldn't use them because I abhor his methods, you can't extricate the two. If BLM proudly holds up a cop killing terrorist as an inspirational figure that tells you a lot about them.
> 
> The best way to avoid police brutality is to avoid committing crimes, if you do commit a crime don't risk arrest, and whatever you do don't engage in combat with someone who has a weapon. If you follow these simple steps police brutality almost certainly won't be an issue you suffer from.
> 
> You quoted us both because we said similar things and wrote a response to things that we didn't say.
> 
> You obviously have a great deal you want to say about this topic - who knows, maybe some of it has value - but nothing of what you've said has had relevance to the posts you originally quoted.





TheResurrection said:


> Black Lives Matter is a very dangerous organisation, inspired by one of America's most wanted terrorists, who promote a narrative that the authorities want to kill blacks. I'd be very worried about my safety if any of these fuckers turned up in force because they're likely to think it's justifiable to use force against the Police and others in defence of their lives.





> Black Lives Matter is a very dangerous organisation,


How? Because a few people got out of hand? So that means the entire organization is like that? 

Wait, wait, wait, I think some guy named Headliner mentioned something about that twice already:


Some Guy Named Headliner Again. said:


> The difference is African Americans are ALWAYS labeled by the extremists in our groups. Any attempt to show black pride gets white washed and redefined as terrorist, racist, etc because people like you only tend to focus on the bad apples of the group and define the entire group based on them while ignoring the true intentions of the groups. It's the same reason African Americans are stereotyped, labeled and pre-judged based on other bad apples of the group. We don't have control over our identity the same way you are able to disown the "white trash" from your identity as a race.





> inspired by one of America's most wanted terrorists, who promote a narrative that the authorities want to kill blacks.


First of all she's not a terrorist. 

-If you go by the legal bullshit definition of a terrorist, then everyone who has ever murdered or tried to murder someone is a terrorist. 

-Those who formed groups to change government policies in the prejudice 60's are terrorists according the definition.

-And if you go by the definition that people who assault others in the name of their political or religious ideas are terrorists then you are wrong again. Did she ever say "Yeah I murdered that cop because fuck police officers! Black power! Black Panthers! You can all kiss my ass take me to jail!" 

To imply that the were influenced by a "terrorist" would imply that they were influenced by all the traits of a terrorist. And that's wrong as you were already shown. You can't twist your words to say different. 

She promotes what has happened in the last 300, 400 years to African Americans and still happens today. She's not making this up our of thin air. Are all police officers bad people that want to harm minorities? No. Are there police officers that want to brutalize minorities? Yes. 

The issue is that the groups in society are not judged on the individual basis. They are judged as a group. Therefore when police officers engage in corruption and brutality, the whole police organization's image is painted the same way blacks, Muslims and Hispanics are judged based on the bad apples in their race. 


> I'd be very worried about my safety if any of these fuckers turned up in force because they're likely to think it's justifiable to use force against the Police and others in defence of their lives.


It is absolutely necessary to use force if the situation is justified and calls for it. If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything. Should a minority walk up on a police officer and swing? Of course not. Should a minority protect themselves if police starts being aggressive without warrant or merit? Absolutely. And that's been the story over the last few hundred years. 

Please stay in your lane. I don't talk about drinking tea with rich folks so please don't talk about movements you'll never understand.


----------



## gamegenie

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Pronoss said:


> You gotta love Pastor Manning
> 
> I check in on his channel every now and then it's pure gold.
> 
> 
> Pastor Manning supporting Trump attacks liberals for using blacks as pawns not as equals, race baiting non liberals using blacks only as a tool to bait. But Manning's extremism is funny.
> https://youtu.be/w1hVEpAFhTc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atlah gets me though, long time ago when I first saw the clips on Reddit, I saw Atlah ministry I thought at first "no fucking way" but thankfully I had got it mixed up with ATWA.
> 
> For a few seconds until I could Google and check my memory which was wrong I thought Atlah was the name of the cult of Manson.
> 
> But a quick search corrected my memory it was ATWA not Atlah lol
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATWA
> 
> 
> I think I'd have shit my pants if Pastor Manning was "Atwa ministry" haha!


This is that same preacher who was shouting... 'OBAMA!!!', 'OBAMA IS A PIMP!!!!'....

'OBAMA IS MACK DADDY PIMPING BLACK WOMEN AND WHITE WOMEN!! ...

oh yeah that Pastor Manning from '08. 

How could we forget. 

This is who you all are rallying behind who's favoring your support for Trump. 



Classic.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*






Found this to be interesting


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



gamegenie said:


> This is that same preacher who was shouting... 'OBAMA!!!', 'OBAMA IS A PIMP!!!!'....
> 
> 'OBAMA IS MACK DADDY PIMPING BLACK WOMEN AND WHITE WOMEN!! ...
> 
> oh yeah that Pastor Manning from '08.
> 
> How could we forget.
> 
> This is who you all are rallying behind who's favoring your support for Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Classic.


Wrong

I posted it as a joke, I explicitly stated it was comedy

No one at all is rallying pastor Manning.

You just proved you do not read.

And you have no reading comprehension


----------



## gamegenie

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Pronoss said:


> Wrong
> 
> I posted it as a joke, I explicitly stated it was comedy
> 
> No one at all is rallying pastor Manning.
> 
> You just proved you do not read.
> 
> And you have no reading comprehension


yeah sure, 

That crazy Pastor Manning like Donald Trump says the things you all think internally but are to afraid to say it out publicly. 

Why on earth would you bring up Pastor Manning today then? What relevance does he even have other than the fact that he speaks the same talking point as Donald Trump and his supporters who are very anti-Obama.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



gamegenie said:


> Keep Hope Alive brother!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peaceful Trump rally.
> 
> 
> :bron2
> 
> Lulz, even Ann Coulter joined in on the fun of ribbing Trump rallies with that sarcasm.
> 
> 
> and now you've created a loop.
> 
> Shall we have 1,000 years war over this like the Middle East now since your side is not going to own up and be the bigger person and walk away. :kobe


Trump is the only one that wants no wars.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Watched The Donald's rally in Cleveland today. Only 2 or 3 protesters, wearing Hillary/Bernie gear. Trump was keen to ignore them, and also took Bernie to task for telling Trump to get his people in line when it has been Bernie's people who have been causing a lot of the trouble.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708699182224285696
:done Top bantz from the Huckster.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> He is the only sane one on the GOP side.


I would think coming from you he'd be worse than Trump. He's more war mongering than Trump ever dreamed of being.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

:lol Okay, that was a good one from Hucksterbee.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

BASED HUCK


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Another angle of the would-be assailant at the Dayton, Ohio rally. Interestingly you can see him emerge toward the front of the barrier while looking off in another direction. Was this a ruse or was he awaiting a signal of some kind? Interesting. 

Anyway, as you can see, he actually got really close to the Donald, who looked ready to throw down.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> I would think coming from you he'd be worse than Trump. He's more war mongering than Trump ever dreamed of being.


Trump is much worst, Trump is a fascist. And I don't like Kasich at all but he is easily the lesser of all the 4 evils left on the GOP side. As for being more of a war monger than Trump, I don't think so. Trump admitted he would commit war crimes and even said he as president would make it legal to torture terrorist and carpet bomb terrorist families. 

Kasich isn't even close to being as bad as Trump. No one on the GOP side is fit to be president but out of the ones left, he sadly is the most sensible one left.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I love how whenever a protest turns violent supporters use the "a few bad apples" explanation

THE EXACT SAME EXCUSE THAT THE POLICE AND GOVERNMENT THEY ARE SUPPOSEDLY PROTESTING USE 

Your cause being more "just" does not give you special privileges

If a few people do not spoil your protest than its hard to argue against a few bad cops don't spoil police 

At least the "Man" has a PR who can make the excuses look professional as opposed to twitter bombing 

GET YOUR SHIT TOGETHER


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> I love how whenever a protest turns violent supporters use the "a few bad apples" explanation
> 
> THE EXACT SAME EXCUSE THAT THE POLICE AND GOVERNMENT THEY ARE SUPPOSEDLY PROTESTING USE
> 
> Your cause being more "just" does not give you special privileges
> 
> If a few people do not spoil your protest than its hard to argue against a few bad cops don't spoil police
> 
> At least the "Man" has a PR who can make the excuses look professional as opposed to twitter bombing
> 
> GET YOUR SHIT TOGETHER


BUT WHITES ARE PRIVILEGED SO FUCK EM.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is much worst, Trump is a fascist. And I don't like Kasich at all but he is easily the lesser of all the 4 evils left on the GOP side. As for being more of a war monger than Trump, I don't think so. Trump admitted he would commit war crimes and even said he as president would make it legal to torture terrorist and carpet bomb terrorist families.
> 
> Kasich isn't even close to being as bad as Trump. No one on the GOP side is fit to be president but out of the ones left, he sadly is the most sensible one left.


I won't pretend to agree with you but I think if you are against Trump, Kasich is even more insane. He wants to topple russia and start WWIII over Palestine/Isreal.


----------



## TheResurrection

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> How? Because a few people got out of hand? So that means the entire organization is like that?
> 
> Wait, wait, wait, I think some guy named Headliner mentioned something about that twice already:
> 
> 
> First of all she's not a terrorist.
> 
> -If you go by the legal bullshit definition of a terrorist, then everyone who has ever murdered or tried to murder someone is a terrorist.
> 
> -Those who formed groups to change government policies in the prejudice 60's are terrorists according the definition.
> 
> -And if you go by the definition that people who assault others in the name of their political or religious ideas are terrorists then you are wrong again. Did she ever say "Yeah I murdered that cop because fuck police officers! Black power! Black Panthers! You can all kiss my ass take me to jail!"
> 
> To imply that the were influenced by a "terrorist" would imply that they were influenced by all the traits of a terrorist. And that's wrong as you were already shown. You can't twist your words to say different.
> 
> She promotes what has happened in the last 300, 400 years to African Americans and still happens today. She's not making this up our of thin air. Are all police officers bad people that want to harm minorities? No. Are there police officers that want to brutalize minorities? Yes.
> 
> The issue is that the groups in society are not judged on the individual basis. They are judged as a group. Therefore when police officers engage in corruption and brutality, the whole police organization's image is painted the same way blacks, Muslims and Hispanics are judged based on the bad apples in their race.
> 
> It is absolutely necessary to use force if the situation is justified and calls for it. If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything. Should a minority walk up on a police officer and swing? Of course not. Should a minority protect themselves if police starts being aggressive without warrant or merit? Absolutely. And that's been the story over the last few hundred years.
> 
> Please stay in your lane. I don't talk about drinking tea with rich folks so please don't talk about movements you'll never understand.


It's a dangerous organisation because it promotes the idea that police are a threat to all black people's lives rather than to criminals lives. If you can make people believe the authorities want to kill them you can make them commit atrocities against the authorities.

She's one of America's most wanted terrorists. Most terrorist sympathisers don't see the people they sympathise with as terrorists. Ask Hamas supporters if they're terrorist sympathisers and they will say "No, we support freedom fighters!". *Bullshit*. You don't get to decide.

You also don't get to use force to respond to your grievances with the police, the state has a monopoly on the use of force, it has to be that way or you don't have a state. There are well established means by which you can raise grievances with the authorities and if you don't like them you can vote for a government which will replace them. If the people who have a grievance do respond with force it's the duty of the authorities to respond with greater force and crush them.

You need to understand that if you can't convince people who don't already agree with you that you're right, if you just react like a condescending dick head and tell people that they will never understand you, you will never win.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> I won't pretend to agree with you but I think if you are against Trump, Kasich is even more insane. He wants to topple russia and start WWIII over Palestine/Isreal.


Trump would invade Mexico if they didn't build his stupid wall and again he admitted he would be a war criminal.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

This Trump supporter right here. The moral courage and composed use of reason in the face of multiple people trying to shout him down with race-baiting rhetoric is staggering, and inspiring. :clap Incredible human being. 






When the gentleman in the Guy Fawkes mask says "What future?! The future gonna look like fuckin X-Men apocalypse when that shit comes out, damn!" split me open. :lmao Totally uninformed remark, but still hilarious.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



nucklehead88 said:


> Maybe she was just trying to ask a question?


 Now we know: http://imgur.com/r/The_Donald/LyGZQmT

*BERNIE MUST DISAVOW THIS WOMAN NOW, PERIOD.*

He will, Right guys?

*RIGHT, GUYS???*

:nerd:


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



gamegenie said:


> yeah sure,
> 
> That crazy Pastor Manning like Donald Trump says the things you all think internally but are to afraid to say it out publicly.
> 
> Why on earth would you bring up Pastor Manning today then? What relevance does he even have other than the fact that he speaks the same talking point as Donald Trump and his supporters who are very anti-Obama.


You can't be serious, you really can't tell a meme when I prefaced and postfaced that post that it was pure comedy from a nutter ? You prove you didn't read it, or see when it was posted. I posted Manning is an idiot I post his vids many times , hell I mentioned him in the conspiracy thread, and last year I used Manning to troll with. The regulars know when I'm making a joke or serious. That post was at 2-3AM last night and I even made joke thinking it was ATWA and not Atlah, go reread. 


As there is absolutely no reason to continue writing when you obviously do not read posts you cherry pick to troll or seem to make hollow points, it's an age old cheap parlor gimmick in the art of argument, at least use a more obfuscated method to attack someone, you'd actually trick more younger folks since common core removed Rhetoric from English classes.

*
I'll get ya started with an easy basic lesson in Rhetoric 101 on spotting fallacies:* 
http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/fallacies/



> It is particularly easy to slip up and commit a fallacy when you have strong feelings about your topic—if a conclusion seems obvious to you, you’re more likely to just assume that it is true and to be careless with your evidence



If you did have comprehension and click my profile, the go view my post history you'd know I don't agree with Trump on many things, and I already posted my "protest vote" on super Tuesday, you'd also know the many many comedy posts and trolls I've made in this thread, and you'd know I have bounced between comedy post and serious post back and forth since thread began. 

I've posted anti trump funny meme and pro trump memes.

I am not of any party affiliation, but i do agree with the ideology of Libertarian, Constitution party, and Green party, but I'm an individualist, so I'd never join a collective.
My voting history since age 18 has been Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Ron Paul.
I dont vote based on party affiliations, i vote Anti-political correct, and reduced government size.


Read a person's post and don't cherry pick, it instantly makes your point irrelevant.


If I wanted to post black Trump supporters in a serious post you'd know, as I always make my humor vs serious posts obvious.


Now stop cherry picking a joke.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump would invade Mexico if they didn't build his stupid wall and again he admitted he would be a war criminal.


A fucking goat could successfully invade Mexico if it paid the cartel


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I have edited my last post with the correct link.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Now we know: http://imgur.com/r/The_Donald/LyGZQmT
> 
> *BERNIE MUST DISAVOW THIS WOMAN NOW, PERIOD.*
> 
> He will, Right guys?
> 
> *RIGHT, GUYS???*
> 
> :nerd:


She's white, he doesn't care about white people


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump would invade Mexico if they didn't build his stupid wall and again he admitted he would be a war criminal.


Do you have any specific evidence he would invade mexico?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I mean, say what you want, it is an outright low down campaign move. She was trying to deceive people into thinking she was actually for Trump. Bernie must disavow if we are holding him to the same standard as Trump.

We ARE doing that, aren't we?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> Do you have any specific evidence he would invade mexico?



Trump said in 2015 the US should have invaded Mexico instead of Iraq. You don't think he would invade if they refused to build a wall?

He said just the other day he would intimate Mexico into building the wall. What do you think that means exactly if they refused.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Election*

the liberal media projects Kasich as a moderate. Public representations of personalities seem to be better enduring than any position an individual might take, especially in acts of appealing to masses. Kasich himself has adopted said persona, perhaps he even orchestrated it.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump said in 2015 the US should have invaded Mexico instead of Iraq. You don't think he would invade if they refused to build a wall?
> 
> He said just the other day he would intimate Mexico into building the wall. What do you think that means exactly if they refused.


Careful, you'll pull a muscle if you reach any farther. :nerd:


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Election*

I honestly don't know why anyone questions Hillary Clinton's honesty in the year 2016.

It's plain as day that she does not have any. 
@Goku: Bingo.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> Careful, you'll pull a muscle if you reach any farther. :nerd:


How is that a reach exactly? Trump in the past said we should have invaded Mexico, AND 

On MSNBC on Wednesday, journalist Bob Woodward asked Trump, “Would you be willing to go to war to make sure we get the money to pay for this wall?”
“Trust me, Bob, when I rejuvenate our military, Mexico’s not going to be playing with us with war, that I can tell you. Mexico isn’t playing with us with war,”

That is a threat by Trump about what would happen if they didn't pay for the wall.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> This Trump supporter right here. The moral courage and composed use of reason in the face of multiple people trying to shout him down with race-baiting rhetoric is staggering, and inspiring. :clap Incredible human being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the gentleman in the Guy Fawkes mask says "What future?! The future gonna look like fuckin X-Men apocalypse when that shit comes out, damn!" split me open. :lmao Totally uninformed remark, but still hilarious.


Remarkable video.

Reminds me a bit of this: 




:lol @Beatles123, yes, she was certainly quite the ineffective plant. In 2016 these same old Communist Party USA-style tactics seem kind of dated, with social media and whatnot being around. Though I recognize that Bernie Sanders was inculcated in Marxist values at a largely Stalinist Israeli kibbutz by the name of Sha’ar Ha’Amakim in the early 1960s and enjoyed his honeymoon in the Soviet Union, so it's hardly surprising that many of his supporters have yet to catch up with the times.


----------



## Headliner

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TheResurrection said:


> It's a dangerous organisation because it promotes the idea that police are a threat to all black people's lives rather than to criminals lives. If you can make people believe the authorities want to kill them you can make them commit atrocities against the authorities.


Wrong again. It promotes the fact that police has gotten away with crimes against minorities for centuries while not giving a fuck about them in the process. It promotes historical police harassment, aggression and profiling toward African Americans. It also promotes a historically corrupt justice system that has led to numerous cover ups to either a)Wrong fully imprison African Americans, b)Over-sentence African Americans, c)Get white suspects off the hook against black victims. It promotes awareness, and to know the law when the police approach you. 

It promotes the harsh realities of the world we live in. Cold truth. African Americans who act out against police tend to do it because of their personal experiences, because of what they seen other people go through, and because of the historical relationship between African Americans and the police. Should they just attacking officers? Of course not. Do I understand the psychology behind it? Of course. Because I can relate. You can't. Just like you'll never understand any of this and that's because: 


> Social Identity
> A social group is more than two people who share the same social identity. Those in the group identify and evaluate themselves in the same way and have the same definition of who they are, what attributes they have, and how they relate to and differ from people who are not in their group.


You really don't understand what being profiled as a African American, Hispanic, or Muslim is like. Some people handle it in different ways. When you are profiled as the damn boogeyman, you are being discriminated against. And that anger/frustration is easy to build because nobody wants to be treated as less than something. Therefore violence becomes a sign of retaliation. 

By the way, if you were going to post that BLM link you should have at least did your homework and read up on it. 
http://blacklivesmatter.com/11-major-misconceptions-about-the-black-lives-matter-movement/



> She's one of America's most wanted terrorists. Most terrorist sympathisers don't see the people they sympathise with as terrorists. Ask Hamas supporters if they're terrorist sympathisers and they will say "No, we support freedom fighters!". *Bullshit*. You don't get to decide.


Just because she's on a FBI list doesn't make her a terrorist. :mj4

The United States don't even know what a terrorist is anymore. Let's look at the definitions of terrorism. Here's the definition from 2001. 


> *Using the definition preferred by the state department, terrorism is*: "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant* targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." (The asterisk is important, as we shall see later.)


That's not Shakur.:rudy So here's the definition from the FBI website. 


> Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;


So according to that definition then every single person who has committed murder, attempted murder or assault is a terrorist. :rudy


> Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;


That's not Shakur. :rudy


> to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;


So in theory every single civil rights activism who faught for our freedoms leading up the 60's is a terrorist. :lelbron 


> (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and


That's not Shakur.:rudy





> You also don't get to use force to respond to your grievances with the police, the state has a monopoly on the use of force, it has to be that way or you don't have a state. There are well established means by which you can raise grievances with the authorities and if you don't like them you can vote for a government which will replace them. If the people who have a grievance do respond with force it's the duty of the authorities to respond with greater force and crush them.


Except historically the authorities and the government have been in cahoots and that's why the justice system's history is notoriously corrupt. That's why groups like the black panthers were created. 

Please know your history. 


> You need to understand that if you can't convince people who don't already agree with you that you're right, if you just react like a condescending dick head and tell people that they will never understand you, you will never win.


Uh no. What you need to understand is that when you try to voice a bias narrative while ignoring other parts of the puzzle or actions that cause a reaction, people like me show up to correct you. 

Please don't speak on what you don't know. Stay in your lane. I don't talk about mosh pits and guitar smashing so please don't talk about social movements that not only will you never understand, but have already attempted to incorrectly identify the identity and purpose of the movement.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The "you'll never understand" is the kind of thing that leads to stagnation and incestuous group think 

You'll never change anything until the people who don't have a stake side with you


----------



## Silent KEEL

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> The "you'll never understand" is the kind of thing that leads to stagnation and incestuous group think
> 
> You'll never change anything until the people who don't have a stake side with you


Which will never happen if most have an attitude like Headliner.


----------



## TheResurrection

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> Wrong again. It promotes the fact that police has gotten away with crimes against minorities for centuries while not giving a fuck about them in the process. It promotes historical police harassment, aggression and profiling toward African Americans. It also promotes a historically corrupt justice system that has led to numerous cover ups to either a)Wrong fully imprison African Americans, b)Over-sentence African Americans, c)Get white suspects off the hook against black victims. It promotes awareness, and to know the law when the police approach you.
> 
> It promotes the harsh realities of the world we live in. Cold truth. African Americans who act out against police tend to do it because of their personal experiences, because of what they seen other people go through, and because of the historical relationship between African Americans and the police. Should they just attacking officers? Of course not. Do I understand the psychology behind it? Of course. Because I can relate. You can't. Just like you'll never understand any of this and that's because:
> 
> 
> You really don't understand what being profiled as a African American, Hispanic, or Muslim is like. Some people handle it in different ways. When you are profiled as the damn boogeyman, you are being discriminated against. And that anger/frustration is easy to build because nobody wants to be treated as less than something. Therefore violence becomes a sign of retaliation.
> 
> By the way, if you were going to post that BLM link you should have at least did your homework and read up on it.
> http://blacklivesmatter.com/11-major-misconceptions-about-the-black-lives-matter-movement/
> 
> 
> Just because she's on a FBI list doesn't make her a terrorist. :mj4
> 
> The United States don't even know what a terrorist is anymore. Let's look at the definitions of terrorism. Here's the definition from 2001.
> 
> That's not Shakur.:rudy So here's the definition from the FBI website.
> 
> So according to that definition then every single person who has committed murder, attempted murder or assault is a terrorist. :rudy
> 
> That's not Shakur. :rudy
> 
> So in theory every single civil rights activism who faught for our freedoms leading up the 60's is a terrorist. :lelbron
> 
> That's not Shakur.:rudy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except historically the authorities and the government have been in cahoots and that's why the justice system's history is notoriously corrupt. That's why groups like the black panthers were created.
> 
> Please know your history.
> 
> Uh no. What you need to understand is that when you try to voice a bias narrative while ignoring other parts of the puzzle or actions that cause a reaction, people like me show up to correct you.
> 
> Please don't speak on what you don't know. Stay in your lane. I don't talk about mosh pits and guitar smashing so please don't talk about social movements that not only will you never understand, but have already attempted to incorrectly identify the identity and purpose of the movement.


It promotes what I said using what you said. 

I can relate, I'm from a minority in my own country, many of the people within that minority have historically supported terrorists. Why don't you stay in your lane instead of talking about my life?

The difference between me and you is that when I'm profiled due to my background I can relate to the officers doing it, they are just behaving rationally. I blame the people within my group who have committed terrorist acts and support the terrorist organisations.

If the FBI say she's a terrorist that's good enough for me. Again, most terrorists on that list will have sympathisers who say they shouldn't be on it. I pay you the same respect I'd pay them on this.

If you don't like the government change the government. We have this great thing in the West alled democracy.

It's a biased narrative. *Biased*. Bias is something one displays. Biased is something a thing can be. Uneducated people often confuse the two.

Telling people to stay in their lane and only talk about things they know - ie. people who agree with you - will convince nobody.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

As I have before, the best future for humans is to get rid of the idea you have "a people"

Use things like race and birth nation to describe you and not define you

Be proud of you history but don't ignore the man in favor of the traits they have in common with you

We all be humans

and while there are many people who will judge you, will treat you like shit for being different just keep in mind, no one said doing the right thing and being fair was easy


----------



## Headliner

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TheResurrection said:


> It promotes what I said using what you said.


No it doesn't.:mj4 

I explained already but I forgot it doesn't fit your narrative so it doesn't count. 


> I can relate, I'm from a minority in my own country, many of the people within that minority have historically supported terrorists. Why don't you stay in your lane instead of talking about my life?


No you can't. You don't even live in America to know what's really going on. :rudy


> The difference between me and you is that when I'm profiled due to my background I can relate to the officers doing it, they are just behaving rationally. I blame the people within my group who have committed terrorist acts and support the terrorist organisations.


Uh no, the difference is that when minorities are profiled it is a reminder that we still have a lot of problems to tackle with racism, discrimination and equality. 

Don't judge a book by it's cover is one of the oldest, truest statements. Doing the exact opposite is a representation of hate and/or ignorance. 


> If the FBI say she's a terrorist that's good enough for me. Again, most terrorists on that list will have sympathisers who say they shouldn't be on it. I pay you the same respect I'd pay them on this.


:mj4 True definition of taking a word at face value without analyzing the meaning behind it. Pretty sure I did the exact opposite in the previous post. 


> If you don't like the government change the government. We have this great thing in the West alled democracy.


No shit. However, it is much more than just changing government. That doesn't solve the issue. That's one dimensional thinking. 


> It's a biased narrative. *Biased*. Bias is something one displays. Biased is something a thing can be. Uneducated people often confuse the two.





> Bias: prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.


Don't insinuate that I'm uneducated. I'm probably more educated or just as educated as you. Nice try though. 



> Telling people to stay in their lane and only talk about things they know - ie. people who agree with you - will convince nobody.


Incorrect again. People among the same circles disagree all the time. The difference is when people from the outside looking in try to tell the informed people in the circle what their issues/movements/identity/etc is. That's when you look foolish.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

A second round of Donald Trump untruth debunking from libertarian philosopher Stefan Molyneux: 






The first video was great and well worth your time, and while I haven't begun this video yet, given the high quality of all of Stef's videos I'm sure it'll be more of the same. Looking forward to diving into this after lunch. :mark:


----------



## gamegenie

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Trump is the only one that wants no wars.


and yet you feel his protesters were oblige to retaliate in rally attacks when they initiated it. 

No side is going to be the bigger group and take ownership and walk away, thus you'll end up like Israelis and Palestinians fighting a never ending war.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



gamegenie said:


> and yet you feel his protesters were oblige to retaliate in rally attacks when they initiated it.
> 
> No side is going to be the bigger group and take ownership and walk away, thus you'll end up like Israelis and Palestinians fighting a never ending war.


No need for Trump supporters to "walk away" from Trump rallies. They're the only ones who have any business being there. These protesters should stick to their Bernie and Hillary rallies where you don't have disrespectful Trump supporters showing up to protest. This is common sense and shouldn't need to be said. Alas, the need remains for some to coddle certain groups instead of speaking plainly and rationally.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Now we know: http://imgur.com/r/The_Donald/LyGZQmT
> 
> *BERNIE MUST DISAVOW THIS WOMAN NOW, PERIOD.*
> 
> He will, Right guys?
> 
> *RIGHT, GUYS???*
> 
> :nerd:


LOL I was about to post yesterday about how Sanders supporters would start doing stuff like this, luckily we live in the age of the internet so these people get found out pretty fast. Sanders supporters also love to take to reddit and shit on minorities who don't vote their way, so really who are the Nazis here?


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

It's already been done. A few weeks ago there were "KKK" members at Trump rallies with signs about KKK endorsing Trump who in fact were not Trump supporters or KKK members at all. Common leftist smear tactics.


----------



## gamegenie

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Now we know: http://imgur.com/r/The_Donald/LyGZQmT
> 
> *BERNIE MUST DISAVOW THIS WOMAN NOW, PERIOD.*
> 
> He will, Right guys?
> 
> *RIGHT, GUYS???*
> 
> :nerd:


No because that connection has been debunk. :bayley

http://patterico.com/2016/03/12/woman-who-gave-nazi-salute-is-not-leftist-false-flag/


She's still a suspect Trumpeter like the rest of you ass clowns.


----------



## TheResurrection

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> No it doesn't.:mj4
> 
> I explained already but I forgot it doesn't fit your narrative so it doesn't count.
> 
> No you can't. You don't even live in America to know what's really going on. :rudy
> 
> Uh no, the difference is that when minorities are profiled it is a reminder that we still have a lot of problems to tackle with racism, discrimination and equality.
> 
> Don't judge a book by it's cover is one of the oldest, truest statements. Doing the exact opposite is a representation of hate and/or ignorance.
> 
> :mj4 True definition of taking a word at face value without analyzing the meaning behind it. Pretty sure I did the exact opposite in the previous post.
> 
> No shit. However, it is much more than just changing government. That doesn't solve the issue. That's one dimensional thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't insinuate that I'm uneducated. I'm probably more educated or just as educated as you. Nice try though.
> 
> 
> Incorrect again. People among the same circles disagree all the time. The difference is when people from the outside looking in try to tell the informed people in the circle what their issues/movements/identity/etc is. That's when you look foolish.


Hardly anything worth responding to in this post.

Your views on terrorism are unimportant next to those of the FBI.

I'm not insinuating that you are uneducated. I'm telling you how what you're writing is coming across to someone who is educated. You should be thanking me.

Are you aware of the concept of echo chambers?


----------



## Headliner

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TheResurrection said:


> Hardly anything worth responding to in this post.
> 
> Your views on terrorism are unimportant next to those of the FBI.
> 
> I'm not insinuating that you are uneducated. I'm telling you how what you're writing is coming across to someone who is educated. You should be thanking me.
> 
> Are you aware of the concept of echo chambers?


Except I broke down definitions, parts and other things, and provided solid, reasonable explanations for things while you haven't. 



> Insinuate: suggest or hint (something bad or reprehensible) in an *indirect *and unpleasant way.


Saying things like that is indirect association. Yes, I should thank you for incorrectly observing something. Thank you and your welcome. 

Of course I know what it means. Unfortunately minorities have been the victim of it for centuries.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708759387909677056*
Man At Trump Rally Shouts “Go Back To Africa”*
http://www.buzzfeed.com/salvadorher...s-go-back-to-africa-at-protestors#.qi64bBpLMG


----------



## virus21

*Re: Election*

I read that the Libertarian Party is going to hold its first on air debate on the 15th. Seems like it could be interesting.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> It's already been done. A few weeks ago there were "KKK" members at Trump rallies with signs about KKK endorsing Trump who in fact were not Trump supporters or KKK members at all. Common leftist smear tactics.


It's kind of funny because Hilary was actually seen with former Senator and KKK member Robert Byrd, even kissing him. Notice how people try to forget that? I'm not a supporter of anyone but its hilarious how not only , offended people are getting over Trump but just how much they try to make him look as bad as humanly possible. Deporting illegal immigrants some how makes him racist and hates Mexicans lol. Hes the second coming of Hitler(Bush was given this moniker too) but people don't realize he has a Jewish daughter and grandchildren.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump/index.html

Right, Bernie. Uhuh. Yeah. ONLY Trump is at fault. ONLY. :side:

Not the racebaiters. Not the ones with Uzis, not the Bernie supporters dressed as Trump supporters. Not the Deport Racism fuckwads. We deserve 100% of the blame and you don't have to disavow shit.

We have to answer for our zealots but not you?

WHERE IS THE FAIRNESS???


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

*Trump Supporter Who Made Nazi Salute Explains Why She Made the Gesture*










The photo, taken outside the arena where Donald J. Trump’s appearance had just been canceled on Friday in Chicago, circulated far and wide: A woman in a Donald Trump T-shirt, eyes locked with a protester, her right arm raised skyward, her palm faced down.

It did not take a second glance to understand that she was making a Nazi salute. Many took the photo, published by The Chicago Tribune, as a sign of the support Mr. Trump has engendered from extremists. Others surmised that it was maybe a Bernie Sanders supporter in disguise.

But in an interview on Saturday from her home in Yorkville, Ill., Birgitt Peterson, 69, who says she was the woman in the photo, explained why she had made the salute.

She and her husband, Don, had attended the rally to check out the candidate in person. “The Republican Party needs to be broken up, and I believe Donald Trump is the one to do it,” Ms. Peterson said.

After the rally was canceled, the Petersons found themselves in the middle of a group of protesters, some of whom they described as “rude.” One was holding a poster with a picture of Adolf Hitler on it.

Ms. Peterson, who was born in West Berlin in 1946 and became an American citizen in 1982, said she took offense to the comparison of Mr. Trump to Hitler.

“They said Trump is a second Hitler,” Ms. Peterson said. “I said do you know what that sign stands for? Do you know who Hitler really was?”

“I make the point that they are demonstrating something they had no knowledge about,” she said. “If you want to do it right, you do it right. You don’t know what you are doing.”

That is when she made the Nazi salute — a gesture that is banned in Germany — as a form of counterprotest. But that is all it was, she said.

“Absolutely I’m not a Nazi, no,” she said. “I’m not one of those.”

The couple said they had not yet seen the photo, but they had received calls from family members about it.

Social media on Saturday was inundated with people sharing the photo, as well as the account of Michael Joseph Garza, who said he was the protester in the frame. Mr. Garza, in a Facebook post, said he had attempted to help the couple leave as some in the crowd grew hostile.

“I start to clear the path. I walk right up to her and say, ‘Ma’am we have listened to you. We understand this is all a little wild, but we have cleared a path for you to leave.'”

“My right hand was constantly swinging in motion, showing her the path out we made for her,” Mr. Garza wrote. “She goes, and I quote, ‘Go? Back in my day, you know what we did.'”

Mr. Peterson said the couple was upset by the accusations. “It’s insulting for anyone to assume that we have anything to do with Nazis,” he said. “We have never done anything other than demonstrate to a bunch of idiots that when they talk about Nazism, they better learn about it first.”

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...e-the-gesture/?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> How is that a reach exactly? Trump in the past said we should have invaded Mexico, AND
> 
> On MSNBC on Wednesday, journalist Bob Woodward asked Trump, “Would you be willing to go to war to make sure we get the money to pay for this wall?”
> “Trust me, Bob, when I rejuvenate our military, Mexico’s not going to be playing with us with war, that I can tell you. Mexico isn’t playing with us with war,”
> 
> That is a threat by Trump about what would happen if they didn't pay for the wall.


No it isn't. It's a statement of fact that we need to be militarily respected. Not that we'd go to war if they didn't pay.

You act as if Trump expects them to write a check.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> *Trump Supporter Who Made Nazi Salute Explains Why She Made the Gesture*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The photo, taken outside the arena where Donald J. Trump’s appearance had just been canceled on Friday in Chicago, circulated far and wide: A woman in a Donald Trump T-shirt, eyes locked with a protester, her right arm raised skyward, her palm faced down.
> 
> It did not take a second glance to understand that she was making a Nazi salute. Many took the photo, published by The Chicago Tribune, as a sign of the support Mr. Trump has engendered from extremists. Others surmised that it was maybe a Bernie Sanders supporter in disguise.
> 
> But in an interview on Saturday from her home in Yorkville, Ill., Birgitt Peterson, 69, who says she was the woman in the photo, explained why she had made the salute.
> 
> She and her husband, Don, had attended the rally to check out the candidate in person. “The Republican Party needs to be broken up, and I believe Donald Trump is the one to do it,” Ms. Peterson said.
> 
> After the rally was canceled, the Petersons found themselves in the middle of a group of protesters, some of whom they described as “rude.” One was holding a poster with a picture of Adolf Hitler on it.
> 
> Ms. Peterson, who was born in West Berlin in 1946 and became an American citizen in 1982, said she took offense to the comparison of Mr. Trump to Hitler.
> 
> “They said Trump is a second Hitler,” Ms. Peterson said. “I said do you know what that sign stands for? Do you know who Hitler really was?”
> 
> “I make the point that they are demonstrating something they had no knowledge about,” she said. “If you want to do it right, you do it right. You don’t know what you are doing.”
> 
> That is when she made the Nazi salute — a gesture that is banned in Germany — as a form of counterprotest. But that is all it was, she said.
> 
> “Absolutely I’m not a Nazi, no,” she said. “I’m not one of those.”
> 
> The couple said they had not yet seen the photo, but they had received calls from family members about it.
> 
> Social media on Saturday was inundated with people sharing the photo, as well as the account of Michael Joseph Garza, who said he was the protester in the frame. Mr. Garza, in a Facebook post, said he had attempted to help the couple leave as some in the crowd grew hostile.
> 
> “I start to clear the path. I walk right up to her and say, ‘Ma’am we have listened to you. We understand this is all a little wild, but we have cleared a path for you to leave.'”
> 
> “My right hand was constantly swinging in motion, showing her the path out we made for her,” Mr. Garza wrote. “She goes, and I quote, ‘Go? Back in my day, you know what we did.'”
> 
> Mr. Peterson said the couple was upset by the accusations. “It’s insulting for anyone to assume that we have anything to do with Nazis,” he said. “We have never done anything other than demonstrate to a bunch of idiots that when they talk about Nazism, they better learn about it first.”
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...e-the-gesture/?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0


Now where are the anti Bernie articles?


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

This "post a youtube video or picture of other side acting like an asshole" is the most childish bullshit I have seen in a while

Guess what?!!

Racists (of any race) have the right to exist and have the right to support whoever the fuck they want

Communist have the right to exist and support for whoever the fuck they want

People on this forum bitch ENDLESSLY about letting one example judge a whole group and then they FUCKING DO THEMSELVES

"Violent protesters don't represent the movement but all trump supporters are racist nazis"

"All Mexicans need to go back to mexico" 

Sometimes I am ashamed by this bullshit and some of the people on here need to grow the fuck up


----------



## TheResurrection

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> Except I broke down definitions, parts and other things, and provided solid, reasonable explanations for things while you haven't.
> 
> 
> 
> Saying things like that is indirect association. Yes, I should thank you for incorrectly observing something. Thank you and *your* welcome.
> 
> Of course I know what it means. Unfortunately minorities have been the victim of it for centuries.


*you're


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Now where are the anti Bernie articles?


This thread is about Donald Trump. If and when one is devoted exclusively about Bernie Sanders, I will post videos, tweets and stories. There is some discussion that his campaign also weighs heavily on recruiting the white vote. Given his difficulty in putting a dent in Hillary Clinton's firewall support among Blacks, it may have some element of truth. 

I specifically posted this article because of an earlier comment suggesting that the woman making the Nazi salute was a Sanders supporter attempting to make Trump and his supporters look bad. Some saw it as a "gotcha". However, she has since identified herself as for Trump and explained her actions. 

There's no grand conspiracy in my mind about painting a less than flattering depiction of Trump and some of his supporters when the proof is in the pudding. It's readily available for all to see and judge for themselves.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> This thread is about Donald Trump. If and when one is devoted exclusively about Bernie Sanders, I will post videos, tweets and stories. There is some discussion that his campaign also weighs heavily on recruiting the white vote. Given his difficulty in putting a dent in Hillary Clinton's firewall support among Blacks, it may have some element of truth.
> 
> I specifically posted this article because of an earlier comment suggesting that the woman making the Nazi salute was a Sanders supporter attempting to make Trump and his supporters look bad. Some saw it as a "gotcha". However, she has since identified herself as for Trump and explained her actions.
> 
> There's no grand conspiracy in my mind about painting a less than flattering depiction of Trump and some of his supporters when the proof is in the pudding. It's readily available for all to see and judge for themselves.



Actually people have been posting Sanders stuff and while a Trump thread posting Sanders videos of his followers isn't against the spirit of the thread if it's used to compare. I don't think anyone will mind Empress!


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TheResurrection said:


> The difference between me and you is that when I'm profiled due to my background I can relate to the officers doing it, they are just behaving rationally. *I blame the people within my group who have committed terrorist acts and support the terrorist organisations*.
> .


You are spot on! Being of Byelorussian ethnic extraction I totally relate to that. 

Russian mobsters came over to the States in the '70s and '80s and were some of the most vicious, immoral bastards whom you can imagine. They created a mafia style organized crime syndicate that originated in Brighton Beach (Brooklyn) and expanded westward. 

Now, if I had the attitude of most black Americans I would start screaming "discrimination" and "profiling" while telling everyone, "You just don't understand" when the news reported the activities of these Russian criminals. Instead, I denounced (and continue to denounce) these people even though they are of my ethnic background. In fact, *ESPECIALLY* because they are of my ethnic background. These animals make my people look bad.

Unfortunately, most black Americans have the exact opposite attitude. They circle the wagons whenever a black is accused of a crime and start playing the race card. 

Until blacks stop blaming whites, the police and everyone else, and begin to take responsibility for themselves and their actions they are not going to make any real progress in improving their lives and becoming productive citizens.

- Mike


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> Actually people have been posting Sanders stuff and while a Trump thread posting Sanders videos of his followers isn't against the spirit of the thread if it's used to compare. I don't think anyone will mind Empress!


In that case, I will put some information that I come across on Sanders. I didn't care for his "ghetto" comments last week or his increasingly one note candidacy. He seems like a sincere person but "Wall Street" being his default answer to everything is quite tiring. There was also the "Bern the Witch" event which his campaign took down.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Ah, so the "Nazi salute woman" is just another one of the millions of confused voters in America's corrupt democracy. Thank you for shedding light on this, @Empress. 

Bernie Sanders is still a crazed statist. osey2 :lol


----------



## Headliner

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TheResurrection said:


> *you're


Strategic move to see if that would be your only contribution and it was. God I'm the king of this shit. Always chess not checkers.

So let's get back on topic and talk about how Donald Trump is going to be our savior.:lelbron


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> Strategic move to see if that would be your only contribution and it was. God I'm the king of this shit. Always chess not checkers.
> 
> So let's get back on topic and talk about how Donald Trump is going to be our savior.:lelbron


I have a hard time believing you did that on purpose. You could easily claim that. Cmon now.


----------



## Headliner

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> I have a hard time believing you did that on purpose. You could easily claim that. Cmon now.


There's nothing for me to lie about. I've admitted to many mistakes in the past and in the chatbox when people corrected me. 

I knew he didn't have much else to offer so I figured if I made some mistake in my post he would call himself "correcting me" to make himself look smart. 

King of this shit. What's unbelievable for you is normal for me. Not my first rodeo.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> No it isn't. It's a statement of fact that we need to be militarily respected. Not that we'd go to war if they didn't pay.
> 
> You act as if Trump expects them to write a check.


Its a threat Trump would.

just like when the mobs tells someone they better pay them off or else.

You really think that is the job just asking for respect. And you claim I am grasping at straws.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> In that case, I will put some information that I come across on Sanders. I didn't care for his "ghetto" comments last week or his increasingly one note candidacy. He seems like a sincere person but "Wall Street" being his default answer to everything is quite tiring. There was also the "Bern the Witch" event which his campaign took down.




Thank you Empress, this thread allows for all comparisons and I hope nobody has made you upset, Trump gets a lot of backlash and the media is on a crusade against him. I'm really happy you joined in on this thread to give your opinions and thoughts, I really appreciate people like you! I may not agree with everyone and you may never change your mind but you're willing to listen and that to me means a lot. :>

@beatles One time I was walking across a parking lot in heels after it snowed, hit black ice and fell on my ass! People laughed but totally did it like a boss to show them I'm the Queen of ice walking, all apart of an elaborate game my friend! I never make mistakes, I just have staged accidents so people around me aren't intimidated by my overwhelming superiority!


----------



## TomahawkJock

*Re: Election*










Bernie Sanders held a rally on my campus at Missouri State today. It was so awesome to see him speak live. Had a good turnout of about 3500 and there was only one day's notice that he was coming. Definitely glad I got the opportunity to see Bernie.


----------



## TheResurrection

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> Strategic move to see if that would be your only contribution and it was. God I'm the king of this shit. Always chess not checkers.
> 
> So let's get back on topic and talk about how Donald Trump is going to be our savior.:lelbron


Oh yes, you are a mastermind who has managed to bamboozle me with a simple grammatical mistake. How foolish I was to think you a barely literate idiot when in fact you're a strategic king who has won the argument so easily. I am so impressed.

Do you have a newsletter or blog I can subscribe to to get more pearls of wisdom?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



TomahawkJock said:


> Bernie Sanders held a rally on my campus at Missouri State today. It was so awesome to see him speak live. Had a good turnout of about 3500 and there was only one day's notice that he was coming. Definitely glad I got the opportunity to see Bernie.


Cool beans! 

Here's Trump, to compare:


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> There's nothing for me to lie about. I've admitted to many mistakes in the past and in the chatbox when people corrected me.
> 
> I knew he didn't have much else to offer so I figured if I made some mistake in my post he would call himself "correcting me" to make himself look smart.
> 
> King of this shit. What's unbelievable for you is normal for me. Not my first rodeo.


To me it sounds rather conceited of you tbh, fam. No shade.

Anyone would have corrrected you regardless of the subject st hand. How did you even burn (Bern? :nerd him? Seems like a textbook way to get cheap heat to me.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> @beatles One time I was walking across a parking lot in heels after it snowed, hit black ice and fell on my ass! People laughed but totally did it like a boss to show them I'm the Queen of ice walking, all apart of an elaborate game my friend! I never make mistakes, I just have staged accidents so people around me aren't intimidated by my overwhelming superiority!


Pshh, don't you know? In "DA PROGRESSIVE SCHTACK!1!!1!" You're already superior to me as i'm a white male who should be punished for decades of white people shaming you and treating your gender like objects. Unless you want to be an object and I stop you, Then I'm slut-shaming! :nerd: Unless I leave it up to you, of course. Then I'm enabling problematic behavior, AND WE CAN'T HAVE THAT! JUST LOOK AT WHAT THAT OAFISH BRUTE TRUMP IS DOING! :trump 

But, I'm just a cis male bigot. What do I know? 0


----------



## Headliner

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> To me it sounds rather conceited of you tbh, fam. No shade.
> 
> Anyone would have corrrected you regardless of the subject st hand. How did you even burn (Bern? :nerd him? Seems like a textbook way to get cheap heat to me.


I'm showing you want arrogance can look like. :sip

Anyway, I'm done. Ya'll can go back to the Trump lovefest and I'll be sure to await the next ignorant thing Trump says or the next rally of fuckery.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> I'm showing you want arrogance can look like. :sip
> 
> Anyway, I'm done. Ya'll can go back to the Trump lovefest and I'll be sure to await the next ignorant thing Trump says or the next rally of fuckery.


I'm sorry it bothers you that we have a different view than that of the ruling liberal school of thought, boss! We'll try harder.


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> I'm showing you want arrogance can look like. :sip
> 
> Anyway, I'm done. Ya'll can go back to the Trump lovefest and I'll be sure to await the next ignorant thing Trump says or the next rally of fuckery.


did you ban resurrection for this conversation? If so, why?


----------



## Headliner

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> I'm sorry it bothers you that we have a different view than that of the ruling liberal school of thought, boss! We'll try harder.


There is no left wing, right wing, democrat or republican in this. It's about what's morally right, how words are twisted to fit narratives, and how words can have harsh consequences. 

That's been the issue this whole time. I'm glad you will try harder to make the world a better place.:lelbron


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Headliner said:


> There is no left wing, right wing, democrat or republican in this. It's about what's morally right, how words are twisted to fit narratives, and how words can have harsh consequences.
> 
> That's been the issue this whole time. I'm glad you will try harder to make the world a better place.:lelbron


Someone has to. We're in a cultural shift tho, brudda! Sit tight, we ot this. :nerd:


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The "I'm playing chess while your playing checkers" line has to be one of the lamest in history

I learned how to play chess when I was 7

Its not a hard or complex game 

Its like saying "I passed 3rd grade when everyone else was in second" congratulations


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> *Trump Supporter Who Made Nazi Salute Explains Why She Made the Gesture*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The photo, taken outside the arena where Donald J. Trump’s appearance had just been canceled on Friday in Chicago, circulated far and wide: A woman in a Donald Trump T-shirt, eyes locked with a protester, her right arm raised skyward, her palm faced down.
> 
> It did not take a second glance to understand that she was making a Nazi salute. Many took the photo, published by The Chicago Tribune, as a sign of the support Mr. Trump has engendered from extremists. Others surmised that it was maybe a Bernie Sanders supporter in disguise.
> 
> But in an interview on Saturday from her home in Yorkville, Ill., Birgitt Peterson, 69, who says she was the woman in the photo, explained why she had made the salute.
> 
> She and her husband, Don, had attended the rally to check out the candidate in person. “The Republican Party needs to be broken up, and I believe Donald Trump is the one to do it,” Ms. Peterson said.
> 
> After the rally was canceled, the Petersons found themselves in the middle of a group of protesters, some of whom they described as “rude.” One was holding a poster with a picture of Adolf Hitler on it.
> 
> Ms. Peterson, who was born in West Berlin in 1946 and became an American citizen in 1982, said she took offense to the comparison of Mr. Trump to Hitler.
> 
> “They said Trump is a second Hitler,” Ms. Peterson said. “I said do you know what that sign stands for? Do you know who Hitler really was?”
> 
> “I make the point that they are demonstrating something they had no knowledge about,” she said. “If you want to do it right, you do it right. You don’t know what you are doing.”
> 
> That is when she made the Nazi salute — a gesture that is banned in Germany — as a form of counterprotest. But that is all it was, she said.
> 
> “Absolutely I’m not a Nazi, no,” she said. “I’m not one of those.”
> 
> The couple said they had not yet seen the photo, but they had received calls from family members about it.
> 
> Social media on Saturday was inundated with people sharing the photo, as well as the account of Michael Joseph Garza, who said he was the protester in the frame. Mr. Garza, in a Facebook post, said he had attempted to help the couple leave as some in the crowd grew hostile.
> 
> “I start to clear the path. I walk right up to her and say, ‘Ma’am we have listened to you. We understand this is all a little wild, but we have cleared a path for you to leave.'”
> 
> “My right hand was constantly swinging in motion, showing her the path out we made for her,” Mr. Garza wrote. “She goes, and I quote, ‘Go? Back in my day, you know what we did.'”
> 
> Mr. Peterson said the couple was upset by the accusations. “It’s insulting for anyone to assume that we have anything to do with Nazis,” he said. “We have never done anything other than demonstrate to a bunch of idiots that when they talk about Nazism, they better learn about it first.”
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...e-the-gesture/?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0




:nerd:

Interesting fact:

The Nazi salute was stolen from United States.

It's how we pledged allegiance to the flag. Up until 1930s when Hitler copycat us. Instead of us ignoring Hitler and we keep using it, Hitler won out forcing our pledge to be changed and the salute, as well as all US military salutes standardized. It's based on the Roman Salute, which Greece & Rome was the inspiration how our founders formed the 3 branches of government, but now you can see "history erased" even though the salute was American it wasnt "Nazi" it was Roman. There were other copycats, Canada used it also. Until Nazi's wanted to use it as well. 


Here's some old footage:















































*Canada*:










https://youtu.be/xipJGXUWjTU





https://youtu.be/m3a1DEoB59k







*Bonus*:

I bet this would shock folks that never learned history











When I rant on history erased, revised, and such. It's the 1 thing that pisses me off, when it's just erased. And with history erased those that do know get harder and harder to communicate with those that don't know 


copycats





After our pledge was changed couple decades later comedian Red Skelton discusses the controversy of the new pledge, but he defines each word.

This video was entered into the Congressional record, you can look up Skelton on Wikipedia. Only comedian to have his words added permanently to congressional record

https://youtu.be/eMR6d_9GsCQ







Edit: forgot to add the Red Skelton defines the original pledge and the addition that was controversial. 
See wiki for Red Skelton pledge


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Welp, some kook at a Trump rally composed of tens of thousands of people did or said something ridiculous, guess I better support a socialist or a Goldman-Sachs mouthpiece.


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Pronoss said:


> :nerd:
> 
> Interesting fact:
> 
> The Nazi salute was stolen from United States.


Yea well ever since the 1930's, it's only been associated with one thing:



















The swastika used to be a symbol of peace too.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



nucklehead88 said:


> Yea well ever since the 1930's, it's only been associated with one thing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The swastika used to be a symbol of peace too.


actually my main man Benito was the one who started rocking due to it being an old Roman salute (there is no real recorded evidence of Romans using it but myths spread even back then) 

So Dalf be rippin off my boy but who can blame him with that style










Also funny is for all the comparisons Trump gets to Hitler his style and rhetoric has FAR more in common with Mussolini and would make much better signs and parodies (hitler is overdone)


----------



## nucklehead88

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Actually you're right. He does seem more like Mussolini


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> Cool beans!
> 
> Here's Trump, to compare:



Sanders crushes Trump head to head in polls by an average of 10 points.

the latest poll Sanders beating him by 18 points.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Sanders crushes Trump head to head in polls by an average of 10 points.
> 
> the latest poll Sanders beating him by 18 points.


Also cool beans! :smile2: See you in the general!


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Election*










:lmao

And look at all this pseudo-journalist propaganda crap. This is what happens when you control the media:


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

fun fact: The Mussolini quote Trump quoted? Wasn't Mussolini.
@DesolationRow debunked it several pages back.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

A lot of powerful nations modeled a lot after Rome, the Nazi Eagle is also one, the Eagle was a standard in Rome. Even after a few thousand years Rome has had great influence. All the Trump comparisons are pretty wrong, hate him all you want but he isn't a Hitler or Mussolini.


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump/index.html
> 
> Right, Bernie. Uhuh. Yeah. ONLY Trump is at fault. ONLY. :side:


I expected better from him. The protesters went with the intentions to stop the rally with violence. There's no excuse for that, ever.



CamillePunk said:


> This Trump supporter right here. The moral courage and composed use of reason in the face of multiple people trying to shout him down with race-baiting rhetoric is staggering, and inspiring. :clap Incredible human being.


Damn! I have so much respect for that guy. :bow


----------



## The Game

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

#MakeDonaldDrumpfAgain


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Scavet said:


> #MakeDonaldDrumpfAgain


----------



## TheRealFunkman

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Hmm Trump promotes hate, yet non of his supporters bombard other candidates' rallies?.., interesting...


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> Also cool beans! :smile2: See you in the general!


Hillary beats trump too. the last poll she crushed trump by 13 points


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Hillary beats trump too. the last poll she crushed trump by 13 points


So you and I are both fucked then. Oh well. at least mine will actually get nominated :nerd:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> So you and I are both fucked then. Oh well. at least mine will actually get nominated :nerd:


Trump might not even get the nomination if there is a contested convention. Trump still has not gotten over 50% of the vote, he isn't close to getting 50% plus 1 of the delegates yet, he may not even get enough delegates to get the nomination.

Not to mention Cruz isn't even that far behind Trump. If Rubio were to drop out, most of his votes would go to Cruz and that could put Cruz over Trump since Cruz beats Trump head to head.

That being said, Cruz would be an even bigger disaster than Trump as president.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump might not even get the nomination if there is a contested convention. Trump still has not gotten over 50% of the vote, he isn't close to getting 50% plus 1 of the delegates yet, he may not even get enough delegates to get the nomination.
> 
> Not to mention Cruz isn't even that far behind Trump. If Rubio were to drop out, most of his votes would go to Cruz and that could put Cruz over Trump since Cruz beats Trump head to head.
> 
> That being said, Cruz would be an even bigger disaster than Trump as president.


The only thing that will stop Trump from at the very least getting the Nom is if by possibly losing Ohio he is then slowed down enough not to make the count.

Or if he's shot. Libs are working on that.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> The only thing that will stop Trump from at the very least getting the Nom is if by possibly losing Ohio he is then slowed down enough not to make the count.
> 
> Or if he's shot. Libs are working on that.


If Rubio drops out, Cruz is close enough to catch him. Cruz is only like 100 delegates being Trump 

The winner take all states are going to be huge. IF Trump does not win them , he will be in trouble.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> If Rubio drops out, Cruz is close enough to catch him. Cruz is only like 100 delegates being Trump
> 
> The winner take all states are going to be huge. IF Trump does not win them , he will be in trouble.


My post stands.


----------



## TomahawkJock

To be fair, this rally had 7000 people, I was sitting near the front. It was also on one days notice. Id say that's pretty damn impressive.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Amidst calls for Donald Trump to fire his campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, allegations that Trump is now "allowing people to assault reporters", and"corroboration" from other reporters that this assault happened...new footage has emerged showing Michelle Fields to be a complete liar, her "corroberaters" to be complete liars, and once again that the media and everyone else who doesn't want Trump will jump at the chance to defame the Trump campaign.










Will there be apologies across the media? Will the people in this thread who asserted that Fields was assaulted as a fact when the evidence was always extremely shaky apologize? It doesn't matter. Trump is winning and every time people try this shit they end up looking like fools.


----------



## RLStern

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Amidst calls for Donald Trump to fire his campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, allegations that Trump is now "allowing people to assault reporters", and"corroboration" from other reporters that this assault happened...new footage has emerged showing Michelle Fields to be a complete liar, her "corroberaters" to be complete liars, and once again that the media and everyone else who doesn't want Trump will jump at the chance to defame the Trump campaign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will there be apologies across the media? Will the people in this thread who asserted that Fields was assaulted as a fact when the evidence was always extremely shaky apologize? It doesn't matter. Trump is winning and every time people try this shit they end up looking like fools.


I don't get it. What does this footage prove?

edit: nvm, I was unfamiliar with the whole story.


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Election*

America has to choose between a crazy communist, crazy pro-corporate and crazy fascist. US politics, man. This is better than TV. You can't script shit like this.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

What Bernie said has really pissed me off. It's wrong to put the entire Brunt of the blame on one side, but for me I just see it as further proof of the fact they may as well kill me now. Seriously. The left fucking runs this county and anyone who would deny it should be able to see it more and more clearly as the days go by. They'll get what they want in the end. We'll all die out and they can have a world where the only people that oppose their brand of "Common sense" are either shot or in the nut-house. They already want to prosecute climate change deniers.

If Trump doesn't win, this nation is forever fucked. It doesn't matter though. Like i said earlier, I'll continue life merely as I always have for what seems like ages now: Being the outcast. The only difference is I may get killed for it.


----------



## TomahawkJock

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11202540/trump-violent

This article does a good job explaining my beliefs about the violence at Trump rallies and how he himself incites it.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I tried reading that article but got to this line...



> It is horrifying.


This is nothing more than sensationalist hyperbole to make a situation far more dire than it really is. Chicago was ugly, but it was not horrifying. I can see why people don't like Trump's rhetoric, but it is not horrifying. 

Ok I skimmed some more but didn't read it because I can't take it seriously anymore

Found this 



> reporter Michelle Fields, who was thrown to the ground by Trump's campaign manager on Tuesday night.


Something might have happened to Fields. Perhaps she was grabbed. But I see no proof she was thrown to the ground. I don't even think Fields is saying she was. The person who wrote this article is terrible.


So I can now no longer ever read anything from vox.com and take it seriously. It might as well be the National Enquirer. It might as well have stories about Batboys and Satan escaping hell.


----------



## TomahawkJock

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> I tried reading that article but got to this line...
> 
> 
> 
> This is nothing more than sensationalist hyperbole to make a situation far more dire than it really is. Chicago was ugly, but it was not horrifying. I can see why people don't like Drumpf's rhetoric, but it is not horrifying.
> 
> Ok I skimmed some more but didn't read it because I can't take it seriously anymore
> 
> Found this
> 
> 
> 
> Something might have happened to Fields. Perhaps she was grabbed. But I see no proof she was thrown to the ground. I don't even think Fields is saying she was. The person who wrote this article is terrible.
> 
> 
> So I can now no longer ever read anything from vox.com and take it seriously. It might as well be the National Enquirer. It might as well have stories about Batboys and Satan escaping hell.



Wasn't saying the article was un-biased at all. I just agree with it and it's opinion runs in correlation with mine.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

And that's ok. My post wasn't aimed to attack your beliefs. 

It was just to shit on that article as being pure garbage. The overall message is fine, some people don't like Trump, but the messenger is a terrible journalist.


----------



## The_It_Factor

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Ordered a hat from his official website 2 weeks ago. Processed and paid. Didn't get so much as a tracking number. They won't respond to my email and don't have a phone number to call.

Tl;dr Don't order stuff from his website


----------



## TomahawkJock

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Also, don't know if you read the part of the article where Drumpf said the people who beat a homeless Latino were "just passionate about this country" (that's not really biased, its just what he said). He didn't condemn them or say violence was wrong. He incites the violence at his rallies and seems to think it is okay. It's not about being politically correct. It's about being someone you can look up to as the leader of this country. I can't support a guy who doesn't condemn unnecessary violence. And how do you explain something like that to children? I believe some journalist asked him about his use of vulgar language and what he had to say about it, and told the journalist to stop being politically correct. 

Yeah, sure, there's being not politically correct and then there's being vile and disgusting. I think he's crossed over into the latter. He just doesn't care what he says and that's not very Presidential like.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TomahawkJock said:


> Drumpf


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

How is Drumpf even funny or a jab?

My last name is weird as fuck and its roots are even weirder but if someone's insult to me was "HURDUR your name be funny" I would look at them like they used Velcro straps on their shoes 

JOHN RHYMES WITH PAWN, I TOTALLY PWNED YOU


----------



## TomahawkJock

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


>


I think my Drumpfinator did that... My apologies. Argument still stands though.


----------



## The Game

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> How is Drumpf even funny or a jab?
> 
> My last name is weird as fuck and its roots are even weirder but if someone's insult to me was "HURDUR your name be funny" I would look at them like they used Velcro straps on their shoes
> 
> JOHN RHYMES WITH PAWN, I TOTALLY PWNED YOU


Because it shows how much of a hypocritical moron he is. 

Quote from Donald: "If Jon Stewart is so above it all & legit, why did he change his name from Jonathan Leibowitz? He should be proud of his heritage!"

That was supposed to be a dig at Jon Steward. Donald, if you're so above it all and legit, then why did YOU change your name from Donald Drumpf? Trust me, bringing Drumpf up would've pissed Donald Trump off so much knowing how obsessed he is with this image and spell he puts you people under.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Scavet said:


> Because it shows how much of a hypocritical moron he is.
> 
> Quote from Donald: "If Jon Stewart is so above it all & legit, why did he change his name from Jonathan Leibowitz? He should be proud of his heritage!"
> 
> That was supposed to be a dig at Jon Steward. Donald, if you're so above it all and legit, then why did YOU change your name from Donald Drumpf? Trust me, bringing Drumpf up would've pissed Donald Trump off so much knowing how obsessed he is with this image and spell he puts you people under.


:lmao :lmao :lmao Donald Trump never changed his name and that's not what John Oliver even accused him of oh my god you are so clueless please leave the thread I am so embarrassed for you


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Scavet said:


> Because it shows how much of a hypocritical moron he is.
> 
> Quote from Donald: "If Jon Stewart is so above it all & legit, why did he change his name from Jonathan Leibowitz? He should be proud of his heritage!"
> 
> That was supposed to be a dig at Jon Steward. Donald, if you're so above it all and legit, then why did YOU change your name from Donald Drumpf? Trust me, bringing Drumpf up would've pissed Donald Trump off so much knowing how obsessed he is with this image and spell he puts you people under.


John Stewart's last name isnt a symbol of high quality like the Trump name has been. It's already in his brand. Plus, Trump did not change his name, his grandfather did.

John just changed his for no real reason..


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Your grandfather changing his name as a part of integrating into this country is not at all equivalent to a person changing his own name. One is a choice YOU make, one is the choice that was made decades before you were ever alive. 

For the record, I don't give a shit if someone changes their name. I doubt Trump does either. Trump hits back at people who hit him, it doesn't have to make sense.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TomahawkJock said:


> I think my Drumpfinator did that... My apologies. Argument still stands though.


No it really doesn't, mang.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TomahawkJock said:


> Also, don't know if you read the part of the article where Drumpf said the people who beat a homeless Latino were "just passionate about this country" (that's not really biased, its just what he said). He didn't condemn them or say violence was wrong. He incites the violence at his rallies and seems to think it is okay. It's not about being politically correct. It's about being someone you can look up to as the leader of this country. I can't support a guy who doesn't condemn unnecessary violence. And how do you explain something like that to children? I believe some journalist asked him about his use of vulgar language and what he had to say about it, and told the journalist to stop being politically correct.
> 
> Yeah, sure, there's being not politically correct and then there's being vile and disgusting. I think he's crossed over into the latter. He just doesn't care what he says and that's not very Presidential like.


The sad thing with this post is I can 100% see your point of view. I actually understand it, but with the "Drumpf" thing you seem like the type of person that would not be voting for a Republican anyway. So honestly who cares?

But hey, I could be wrong. Would you support Ted Cruz?


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The thing I find hilarious is with all this talk about racism , no one wants to really focus on Hilary and her ties with Robert Byrd who is a noted KKK member


----------



## The Game

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> :lmao :lmao :lmao Donald Trump never changed his name and that's not what John Oliver even accused him of oh my god you are so clueless please leave the thread I am so embarrassed for you


Don't make me laugh
He's telling Jon Stewart that he should be proud of his heritage. Drumpf was his family name. Sure it wasn't him that changed it to Trump and but he sure as hell would rather people didn't know. Of course I'd be the same, Trump is a much better name. Just funny. 

& you make me cringe dude. A Trump supporter, is telling me that I'm clueless. Good job! Don't get me started. Trump isn't winning anything man. Sorry to break it to you. Guys a goof


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Scavet said:


> Don't make me laugh
> He's telling Jon Stewart that he should be proud of his heritage. Drumpf was his family name. Sure it wasn't him that changed it to Trump and but he sure as hell would rather people didn't know. Of course I'd be the same, Trump is a much better name. Just funny.
> 
> & you make me cringe dude. A Trump supporter, is telling me that I'm clueless. Good job! Don't get me started. Trump isn't winning anything man. Sorry to break it to you. Guys a goof


Idk though... Maybe it's because I am a Republican. It 100% could be IMO, but is it that big of a deal? I mean he didn't kill anybody, he didn't even change his name!


----------



## blackholeson

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Scavet said:


> Don't make me laugh
> He's telling Jon Stewart that he should be proud of his heritage. Drumpf was his family name. Sure it wasn't him that changed it to Trump and but he sure as hell would rather people didn't know. Of course I'd be the same, Trump is a much better name. Just funny.
> 
> & you make me cringe dude. A Trump supporter, is telling me that I'm clueless. Good job! Don't get me started. Trump isn't winning anything man. Sorry to break it to you. Guys a goof


Trump, or as you like to call it Drumpf will be winning the GOP nomination. To say that Trump isn't winning anything just shows that you are clueless. He leads all polls right now in Florida and Ohio. Get a clue.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Scavet said:


> Don't make me laugh
> He's telling Jon Stewart that he should be proud of his heritage. Drumpf was his family name. Sure it wasn't him that changed it to Trump and but he sure as hell would rather people didn't know. Of course I'd be the same, Trump is a much better name. Just funny.
> 
> & you make me cringe dude. A Trump supporter, is telling me that I'm clueless. Good job! Don't get me started. Trump isn't winning anything man. Sorry to break it to you. Guys a goof


A lot of times when you emigrated to US you didn't exactly get a choice to keep your last name

If no one in your family was fully literate in English or the guy working the emigration office didn't know how to spell your name he would just write down something close and that became your legal name

Not to mention having an extremely German name was not a good idea for about a half a century in the US 

Fucking Poles used to change their names when the came to the US in the 30s and 40s because they would be outcast and harassed for surrendering to the Nazi's let alone someone who actually had a last name that could originally be German

I would say most people who's family have lived in the US since the 1800s do not have a legit family name, they are likely named after a location or an Anglo version of their family name (not having a British name could get your house burned down in the 1800s)


----------



## The Game

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



blackholeson said:


> Trump, or as you like to call it Drumpf will be winning the GOP nomination. To say that Trump isn't winning anything just shows that you are clueless. He leads all polls right now in Florida and Ohio. Get a clue.


Obviously, but he won't win the election
You really think he'll be president don't you?


----------



## The Game

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> A lot of times when you emigrated to US you didn't exactly get a choice to keep your last name
> 
> If no one in your family was fully literate in English or the guy working the emigration office didn't know how to spell your name he would just write down something close and that became your legal name
> 
> Not to mention having an extremely German name was not a good idea for about a half a century in the US
> 
> Fucking Poles used to change their names when the came to the US in the 30s and 40s because they would be outcast and harassed for surrendering to the Nazi's let alone someone who actually had a last name that could originally be German
> 
> I would say most people who's family have lived in the US since the 1800s do not have a legit family name, they are likely named after a location or an Anglo version of their family name (not having a British name could get your house burned down in the 1800s)


Would you believe it, a legitimate response! Thanks. I didn't know that.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Stinger Fan said:


> The thing I find hilarious is with all this talk about racism , no one wants to really focus on Hilary and her ties with Robert Byrd who is a noted KKK member


People are ignoring all her crimes too, it's a bit funny. Even Sanders has made some eyebrow raising comments. If this election year has shown anything is that there is a media bias and that the same group of people control both parties.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Scavet said:


> Don't make me laugh
> He's telling Jon Stewart that he should be proud of his heritage. Drumpf was his family name. Sure it wasn't him that changed it to Trump and but he sure as hell would rather people didn't know. Of course I'd be the same, Trump is a much better name. Just funny.
> 
> & you make me cringe dude. A Trump supporter, is telling me that I'm clueless. Good job! Don't get me started. Trump isn't winning anything man. Sorry to break it to you. Guys a goof


You are just here to troll and repeat nonsense so the only response you'll get from me will be provided by BASED DONALD


----------



## Badbadrobot

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Hasn't it been proved that right wing voters are actually intellectually inferior? Pretty sure that's a fact.

Gawd knows what that says about trump fans.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Badbadrobot said:


> Hasn't it been proved that right wing voters are actually intellectually inferior? Pretty sure that's a fact.
> 
> Gawd knows what that says about trump fans.


This is just baiting. Not tolerated here.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Election*



Punkhead said:


> America has to choose between a crazy communist, crazy pro-corporate and crazy fascist. US politics, man. This is better than TV. You can't script shit like this.


The sheople love their drama. :draper2


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

:done This pastor destroying the race-baiters. GREEN PEOPLE I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON BUT I LIKE IT. 






:clap This legal immigrant for TRUMP.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> People are ignoring all her crimes too, it's a bit funny. Even Sanders has made some eyebrow raising comments. If this election year has shown anything is that there is a media bias and that the same group of people control both parties.


I honestly feel bad for Sanders

He is has never really "campaigned" like this before and is not used to character assassination

He just says what he honestly thinks and gets flamed for it


----------



## Truthbetold

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> I honestly feel bad for Sanders
> 
> He is has never really "campaigned" like this before and is not used to character assassination
> 
> He just says what he honestly thinks and gets flamed for it


Sanders saying white people don't know what it's like to be poor will hurt him.


----------



## DA

*Re: Election*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/709146918387998720
:dahell


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

What is funny is that all presidential candidates, but particularly Donald Trump, should be bringing up the crashed oil and industrial commodities prices, as well as the all-time low of the Baltic Dry Index, coupled to the volatility in the U.S. and German stock markets, are all indicative that a colossal financial meltdown is fairly imminent. The Baltic Dry Index demonstrates that the storm at sea in the realm of international trade, which has clearly slowed down to shocking levels, is soon to hit land. It has sunk by over 65% in the past three months. 

The Chinese have built the greatest Ponzi scheme market in the history of the world. That economy has slowed down and will continue to slow down throughout 2016.

Approximately 70% of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) is driven by consumer spending. The true unemployment rate, rather than the government's, which we could call the "underemployment rate," is high, perhaps as high as 15%. If you look at inflation since the purported end to the recession in 2009, wages have not only remained stagnant; they have _declined_ (usually by 2-5%) for the majority of U.S. workers. Between 2009 and 2016, 25% of individuals in the lowest-paid occupations saw their wages decline an average of 6%. Many individuals in retail, personal care aids, cleaners, home health aide and food preparation. For restaurant cooks, the decline was sharp--9.8%. Food prep workers saw a decline of 7.7%; home health aides, 6.3%. 

The massive yo-yo trajectory of stocks since early 2015 has caused many investors to become optimistic. As of last month, approximately 33.3% of investors are bullish for the next six months. Only 29.1% are bearish and a massive 37% are reportedly neutral. The optimism is doubtless bolstered by what the Case Shiller CAPE PE/Ratio has noted, which is that the S&P 500 is presently overvalued by 62%. Since 2006, usually CAPE notes that the S&P 500 is overvalued by "around 15%"; at the end of February it was sitting at 25%. The only times the ratio was higher, vis-a-vis company earnings against what investor were willing to pay, were in 1929, 2000 and 2007.

Every last indication is that, to put it in stark terms, it's about to hit the fan. To what degree remains indecipherable, but a storm is on the way.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Scavet said:


> Obviously, but he won't win the election
> You really think he'll be president don't you?


How does anybody know what to expect? We have heard for MONTHS "this is peak trump at 25%" 

Two weeks later:

"This is peak Trump at 30%"

It keeps going, on and on. 

The Democrats also have no Barrack Obama or Bill Clinton either. They have a very weak candidate. 

I'm not saying what will happen but to say he definitely won't win is a tad silly. We have been hearing this for months now.


----------



## TomahawkJock

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> The sad thing with this post is I can 100% see your point of view. I actually understand it, but with the "Drumpf" thing you seem like the type of person that would not be voting for a Republican anyway. So honestly who cares?
> 
> But hey, I could be wrong. Would you support Ted Cruz?


I would consider Rubio and I was actually a supporter of Rand Paul. I tend to lean with the Democrats on most occasions though. And again, the Drumpfinator changed Donald's last name. I just find the word funny is all and it makes me laugh. Don't know why people are making such a big deal about this.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> People are ignoring all her crimes too, it's a bit funny. Even Sanders has made some eyebrow raising comments. If this election year has shown anything is that there is a media bias and that the same group of people control both parties.


Yeah , its pretty insane really. Don't get me wrong, Trump has said some bad things too but Hillary's crimes and basically saying you're sexist if you dont' vote for her and Bernie claiming whites cannot be poor or victims of violent crimes are baffling and its crazy to me that no one bothers to say anything about it. They're considered small blips in contrast to things Trump has said.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TomahawkJock said:


> *Also, don't know if you read the part of the article where Drumpf said the people who beat a homeless Latino were "just passionate about this country" (that's not really biased, its just what he said). He didn't condemn them or say violence was wrong.* He incites the violence at his rallies and seems to think it is okay. It's not about being politically correct. It's about being someone you can look up to as the leader of this country. I can't support a guy who doesn't condemn unnecessary violence. And how do you explain something like that to children? I believe some journalist asked him about his use of vulgar language and what he had to say about it, and told the journalist to stop being politically correct.
> 
> Yeah, sure, there's being not politically correct and then there's being vile and disgusting. I think he's crossed over into the latter. He just doesn't care what he says and that's not very Presidential like.


I noted Team Trump didn't address this point at all, just honed in on the 'Drumpf' reference and wrote off the rest.

Why hasn't Trump denounced violence by anyone at his rallies yet? He's the figurehead, the statesmen, running for the highest office, he has a responsibility to stand up and say to his supporters AND protesters that violence isn't on.

I'm not saying he's inciting anything directly, but I do believe he needs to be a bigger man and denounce any violence, otherwise we I beleive he's keeping quiet to gain votes from violent nutters and that ain't right.


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TomahawkJock said:


> I would consider Rubio and I was actually a supporter of Rand Paul. I tend to lean with the Democrats on most occasions though. And again, the Drumpfinator changed Donald's last name. I just find the word funny is all and it makes me laugh. Don't know why people are making such a big deal about this.


That is actually very interesting. You lean Democrats but you supported Rand Paul? 

How do you go from supporting Rand Paul and possibly Marco Rubio to Hilary Clinton? Are you more of a candidate guy rather than a party guy?


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> I noted Team Trump didn't address this point at all, just honed in on the 'Drumpf' reference and wrote off the rest.
> 
> Why hasn't Trump denounced violence by anyone at his rallies yet? He's the figurehead, the statesmen, running for the highest office, he has a responsibility to stand up and say to his supporters AND protesters that violence isn't on.
> 
> I'm not saying he's inciting anything directly, but I do believe he needs to be a bigger man and denounce any violence, otherwise we I beleive he's keeping quiet to gain votes from violent nutters and that ain't right.


He really should, if others get violent with Trump supporters again at least he can say he made sure that his supporters did not stir up violence. Keeping silent doesn't really help him but it does harm him. you want people to be passionate and angry at the polls, not in the streets with fist fights and chains!


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> I noted Team Trump didn't address this point at all, just honed in on the 'Drumpf' reference and wrote off the rest.
> 
> Why hasn't Trump denounced violence by anyone at his rallies yet? He's the figurehead, the statesmen, running for the highest office, he has a responsibility to stand up and say to his supporters AND protesters that violence isn't on.
> 
> I'm not saying he's inciting anything directly, but I do believe he needs to be a bigger man and denounce any violence, otherwise we I beleive he's keeping quiet to gain votes from violent nutters and that ain't right.


Trump is new to politics and says some stupid shit now and then

Politics is the land of saying stupid shit without thinking to beat the other guy and have the first response 

I like Trump, I feel that my family would do well if he was in office and I like a nationalistic policy but I can still see how his blunt words can cause problems with people who want permission to act out their aggression 

Stupid words or stupid people? 

I don't know and I don't think anyone else ever will

Its worth noting that attacks on minorities and foreigners is a global problem no matter what kind of government is in power, personally I will take an occasional beating due to poorly chosen words over a Malaysian style race riot that kills over a thousand people


----------



## TomahawkJock

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> That is actually very interesting. You lean Democrats but you supported Rand Paul?
> 
> How do you go from supporting Rand Paul and possibly Marco Rubio to Hilary Clinton? Are you more of a candidate guy rather than a party guy?


I don't support Hillary Clinton. I'm more Bernie. And yeah, definitely more of a candidate guy. I think political parties divide the country.

And I wouldn't MIND Rubio but I certainly don't really like him at all. He's just the best out of the three potential GOP candidates left.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TomahawkJock said:


> I don't support Hillary Clinton. I'm more Bernie. And yeah, definitely more of a candidate guy. I think political parties divide the country.
> 
> And I wouldn't MIND Rubio but I certainly don't really like him at all. He's just the best out of the three potential GOP candidates left.


Political parties are set up to keep us all at each others throats and divided, sure people will sperate on some issues but the right candidate would get elected with or without a party. Dissolving the parties means the rich masters don't get to play people against each other. We won't have someone only voting one way because their party demands it.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

We need a Philosopher King/Queen, Michelandeso. Hopefully, out of this chaos, an enlightened candidate will rise in the coming years. :mj2
@DesolationRow


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

So true, @Oda Nobunaga. :lol :sodone


----------



## Truthbetold

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Stinger Fan said:


> Yeah , its pretty insane really. Don't get me wrong, Trump has said some bad things too but Hillary's crimes and basically saying you're sexist if you dont' vote for her and Bernie claiming whites cannot be poor or victims of violent crimes are baffling and its crazy to me that no one bothers to say anything about it. They're considered small blips in contrast to things Trump has said.


Hillary called black teens "super predators" yet Trump is painted the racist one.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> We need a Philosopher King/Queen, Michelandeso. Hopefully, out of this chaos, an enlightened candidate will rise in the coming years. :mj2
> @DesolationRow


 @DesolationRow and Oda, I long for a day we have no parties, only candidates who get elected based on merit and merit alone. A society which is truly equal, that means no special privilege for anyone, no more if you're this skin color or this ethnicity you get more money for college or preference when looking for a job. You'll need to prove why you're good for the job! A society with clear rules, a society that praises hard work, honor and ethics. A society which shuns overwhelming political correctness and a society which holds it's media to the highest standards, one that specializes in truth not truth bought and paid for by special interest groups.

I want a society where crime is weighed on what was committed, not locking up young offenders who stole a car with murders and rapists! A society where the Police is unified so serial killers and patterns of crime are tracked more easily, where criminals cannot simply state hop. A society which welcomes immigration but enforces integration and stops segregation! One which respects other cultures but ensures that it's main culture is not dislodged and is respected.

I want a more modern and well thought out Rome. I want people to be eager to be a Citizen. Not to be a non-Citizen and get the same aid or keep to their old destructive cultures that they so eagerly want to escape but will not let go! We need a strong society, not one lead by pandering fools and keeping people slaves with handouts while ensuring only the mega rich get a say and an escape to nearly everything! We need a change, a change for the better, a move forward not dwelling on the past or past issues. One where no matter what race you or or country you came from, as long as you're a citizen you get the same opportunities, protection and rights to justice! You're no longer this or that American, you're just an American.

Iurant autem milites omnia se strenue facturos quae praeceperit imperator, numquam deserturos militiam nec mortem recusaturos pro Americana republica!


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

:woo @Miss Sally launching her campaign right here! :woo Haha! I like it.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> @DesolationRow and Oda, I long for a day we have no parties, only candidates who get elected based on merit and merit alone. A society which is truly equal, that means no special privilege for anyone, no more if you're this skin color or this ethnicity you get more money for college or preference when looking for a job. You'll need to prove why you're good for the job! A society with clear rules, a society that praises hard work, honor and ethics. A society which shuns overwhelming political correctness and a society which holds it's media to the highest standards, one that specializes in truth not truth bought and paid for by special interest groups.
> 
> I want a society where crime is weighed on what was committed, not locking up young offenders who stole a car with murders and rapists! A society where the Police is unified so serial killers and patterns of crime are tracked more easily, where criminals cannot simply state hop. A society which welcomes immigration but enforces integration and stops segregation! One which respects other cultures but ensures that it's main culture is not dislodged and is respected.
> 
> I want a more modern and well thought out Rome. I want people to be eager to be a Citizen. Not to be a non-Citizen and get the same aid or keep to their old destructive cultures that they so eagerly want to escape but will not let go! We need a strong society, not one lead by pandering fools and keeping people slaves with handouts while ensuring only the mega rich get a say and an escape to nearly everything! We need a change, a change for the better, a move forward not dwelling on the past or past issues. One where no matter what race you or or country you came from, as long as you're a citizen you get the same opportunities, protection and rights to justice! You're no longer this or that American, you're just an American.
> 
> Iurant autem milites omnia se strenue facturos quae praeceperit imperator, numquam deserturos militiam nec mortem recusaturos pro Americana republica!


Funny thing is one of the main ways Rome expanded was the way the US tried to do during the Cold War 

Offer so much cool shit and money that traditional values did not seem worth it any more 

In many of the cold war conflicts that did not go well for the US many of the people who left not only did so because their side lost but because their westernized standard of living was so much better than the workers paradise that the other side was offering


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> :woo @Miss Sally launching her campaign right here! :woo Haha! I like it.


"Marmoream relinquo, quam latericiam accepi."


@stevefoxInnovation, Education and hard work won over many. Simply conquering people doesn't work, you need to show them that what you're offering simply isn't snake oil! I think America would be less fractured and much better off if Politicians worked for the better of the country, not just themselves or for a few screaming people on twitter and social media. Don't talk about change, make it! People will lose the urge to fight and cause problems when the system works for them and in return they get something out of what they put in.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@Miss Sally I haven't said this enough yet but you are one of my fav posters here. You literally kneecap the narrative that woman can't like Trump and be intelligent, PLUS you have a lot of class.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Also one more histopry lesson

To people saying Trump is a fascist and supports the KKK

That is ideologically impossible

Fascist believe in extremely powerful and over arching government

The KKK believes in a small very weak government .

The Nazi's wanted government sponsored racism

The KKK was against government sponsored tolerance

The Nazi's put loyalty to the party above all else

The KKK is primarily a religious organization that believes the rule of god over rides the rule of man

The Nazi's favor massive organization and a lifestyle mapped out by the party

The KKK favor disorganization of its members who live their lives independently and use the group as a social club and a voting block 

The KKK and Neo-Nazi's hate each other and think that the other gives them a bad name and fights for the wrong things


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> "Marmoream relinquo, quam latericiam accepi."
> 
> 
> @stevefoxInnovation, Education and hard work won over many. Simply conquering people doesn't work, you need to show them that what you're offering simply isn't snake oil! I think America would be less fractured and much better off if Politicians worked for the better of the country, not just themselves or for a few screaming people on twitter and social media. Don't talk about change, make it! People will lose the urge to fight and cause problems when the system works for them and in return they get something out of what they put in.


Funny you mention snake oil because that's what many who are anti-Trump is viewing his rhetoric as selling snake oil to the American voters. Just look at him parading out other people's products slapped with the Trump brand and claiming they are still in business just because of criticisms of his failed businesses in his victory speech. If that isn't a snake oil merchant and raises red flags about Trump's temperament, I don't know what is.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> Funny you mention snake oil because that's what many who are anti-Trump is viewing his rhetoric as selling snake oil to the American voters. Just look at him parading out other people's products slapped with the Trump brand and claiming they are still in business just because of criticisms of his failed businesses in his victory speech. If that isn't a snake oil merchant and raises red flags about Trump's temperament, I don't know what is.


No, that's fact. They ARE still in business and his opponents are saying they aren't. Don't act like he has no right to correct the record.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Michelle Fields's journalistic career given an autopsy by Charles C. Johnson here: http://gotnews.com/calling-bullshit-michelle-fields/



> Full disclosure: I’m a supporter of Ted Cruz. I’ve even bet on him to win the election and primary, but I’m not going to allow a serial liar control the discussion of what happened.
> 
> Sometimes you can tell a story is fake really quick. Sometimes you can tell a reporter is a fraud even faster just by talking to them.
> 
> Last month Breitbart’s Michelle Fields falsely accused me of hacking her computer after she sent me a LinkedIn request and I called her. Not only was this absurd to accuse another reporter of a federal crime but she didn’t correct her tweet about it until I called her bosses at Breitbart and forced her to. No apology, nothing. That kind of pissed me off. I mean she’s hot but not accuse you of a federal crime hot. I guess GOTIS really is a thing.
> 
> Anyway, I called her because several months before that I published a story about how she had been sexually assaulted by former congressman (and her former colleague) Allen West. She wanted to be a source, then she didn’t, then she did, then she didn’t. It got exhausting, so I published what I had and called it a day. She freaked out and called me over and over again until I put a crappy update in it. I didn’t want to make life difficult for a victim, after all. (I still believe that West assaulted women, but I don’t know if I believe Michelle Fields. If she cared so much about the victims why did she waffle?)
> 
> I’ve since been told that she claimed she was assaulted when she worked for Students for Liberty and threatened the organization when they asked her to do work.
> 
> It’s important to stress here that Fields is pretty lazy. She was fired from the Daily Caller for not doing work. Her famous questioning of celebrities reportedly required a lot of coaching from her Reason.tv videographer.
> 
> Fields is supposed to be covering Cruz for Breitbart, but she doesn’t actually go out and cover Cruz, but she doesn’t actually go to Cruz rallies. You can get a sense of her process by watching her interview with Brian Lamb of C-Span. She finds her stories on Facebook or Twitter, of course.
> 
> Daily Caller senior editor Jamie Weinstein is Michelle’s on again, off again boyfriend. He’s important and will come up again later. Weinstein and I have a gentleman’s understanding that he’s not to mess with me, and I intend to honor it up until the moment he doesn’t so I won’t go too much into him. You’re welcome, Jamie.
> 
> Weinstein and Fields are a wannabe DC power couple. Jamie brings the money; Michelle brings the hotness. Both of them have aspirations of rising beyond their new media station, and yet it hasn’t happened yet. Indeed, it’s no coincidence that the story was leaked to the Daily Beast, a sort of way station between right-wing new media world and mainstream respectability. It’s a path taken by Betsy Woodruff (formerly National Review) & Will Rahn (son of WSJ columnist Peggy Noonan, former Daily Caller).
> 
> A media mentor even advises I take that path which is why I wrote a few pieces for the Daily Beast in 2014 or so. And get paid so little? Fuck that. I want Tina Turner’s job where you can lose millions. (That mainstream media ship sailed when I debunked the gun stats of Everytown and was branded a pro-gun nut by those pricks for proving that the stats used by the Bloomberg front group were bullshit. You might have seen my work on that plagiarized by a Conservative Inc. website.)
> 
> Let’s review the facts of Corey Lewandowski-Michelle Fields dust up, shall we?
> 
> She wears high heels when she goes out reporting. And has fallen down before when she was covering Occupy Wall Street. Maybe she falls down a lot? Don’t know. Maybe she does it to get attention.
> 
> But I do find it odd that she says she’s never tried to make herself the story. That’s precisely what she always tries to do.
> 
> Here are some questions I have as she gets her media moment.


Continue on through the link to read the rest of the story.

It certainly sounds like Michelle Fields has truly made a career out of this sort of behavior.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> Funny you mention snake oil because that's what many who are anti-Trump is viewing his rhetoric as selling snake oil to the American voters. Just look at him parading out other people's products slapped with the Trump brand and claiming they are still in business just because of criticisms of his failed businesses in his victory speech. If that isn't a snake oil merchant and raises red flags about Trump's temperament, I don't know what is.


That's not snake oil

That's not even close

When you give someone your brand you also have to give them finical support and they gain access to your connections and your tools

Branding has had a long and successful history of making people a lot of money (funny story, my grandpa was offer an early McDonald's chain in St.Louis and turned it down because it thought it was too expensive and would not make its money back, good job grandpa...)

Snake oil is offering something that has no proven history of working and is completely unproven and can be hard to counter because most of the time it is so mundane that it has little research or investment making its actual results unavailable

Snake oil trick require what you are selling to be NEW, DIFFERENT, SECRET, or nowadays WHAT THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW 

Branding is tired and true


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Gonna vote for Trump in NC on Tuesday!! :mark: First time voting ever!


----------



## Truthbetold

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

*Must watch video*


----------



## Chevy727

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

If you vote for Sanders or vote for Hillary. You are pretty much voting for the final nail in the coffin for this country. 

I watched the debate the other day when Hillary said we should hold gun manufactures liable for mass shootings. Like Sandy hook families suing Bushmaster. How is Bushmaster liable for that? That's stupid as hell. As much as I don't like Bernie, I am glad he said he was against that. My local newspaper ran a front page story on how this Glock gun was a criminal because it was involved in over like 17 shootings. The newspaper called it a "community gun" where gang members would hide it for other gang members to use. The newspaper pretty much said the gun was criminal and it killed like 3 people. I laughed when I was reading the story. It's funny because my Glock is in my holster right now next to me, and it hasn't taken off by itself and shot anyone. I am still waiting for it to do that one of these days. Democrats like to blame guns and not blame the criminals. They say we need more gun control, but they clearly don't know how to enforce the laws that we already have. There was a 9 year old that was gun downed in Chicago. He was lured into an alley and shot point blank in the head. It was a gang retaliation hit I believe. The guy who killed the kid had a pending gun charge against him. Soooo.. he has a pending gun charge but still out on the streets? Can anyone understand that? There was a guy that was shot in the ass by police. The police found him outside a house with a mask on. He robbed the house by gunpoint. Guess what. He was in jail for three years on a illegal weapon charge with intent to use. There are probably hundreds of stories like this throughout the country. Criminals aren't being held responsible and doing the time like they should be. I'm all for background checks. Completed my background check, completed my mental health check, did my handgun training, and was given a permit. Criminals don't give a crap about any of that. Hell-- go look on Facebook at pictures of thugs in Chicago- You will find pictures of them flashing gang signs, holding drugs in their photos, holding drug money in one hand and a handgun in the other. We all know they got their guns legally right!? LOL.

How about we start holding these judges accountable for not holding these criminals responsible for their actions?

Also health care. Bernie's plan for a single player system just won't cut it. Healthcare is WAY too expensive here. It needs a major overhaul before anything can be done. I work in a hospital in a pharmacy. I can tell you how outrageous drug prices are. There's a brain cancer drug that costs $27,000 a box. That's how much I paid for my truck. Most of these patients, when they have to have it, they need 8-10 treatments. Let's not count other drugs they will need, medical supplies, food and the actual cost of the hospital stay. Just go Google some the prices of the highest drugs and you will be amazed. The country just can't afford that right now. I know someone who came down with sores on his legs. It was some weird name what he was diagnosed with. He is declaring bankruptcy because he racked up almost $300k in medical bills. There needs to be a healthcare overhaul-- not just raise the taxes to cover the cost of healthcare, it will never work. I wear hearing aids because I was born with hearing loss and I suffered a lot of ear infections. I paid $4,000 out of pocket for my hearing aids. My health insurance through my employer for the past 8 years hasn't covered it. I probably won't be able to afford any new ones soon so hopefully these will last years and years. Now-- this year my employer decided to cover somewhat of the cost of hearing aids. $1,000 per every 3 years. Now-- if Bernie becomes president-- It sounds like he would expand Obamacare and everything would be covered. Eye glasses, prescriptions, hearing aids, etc. There are 35 million people with hearing loss and with hearing aids being $1500-$2500 a piece, good luck with that one, Bernie. I bet he doesn't know that expanding coverage of those things will drastically increase healthcare costs therefore increase taxes more than people realize.. He probably hasn't thought about all the processed foods, the obesity we have here in America, and the amount it costs every year.. it will just keep going up too. There was something I believe Sanders said: "People who get sick will not have to worry about paying a deductible or making a co-payment. They could go to the doctor when they should, and not end up in the emergency room." What happens when EVERYONE has insurance? Good luck getting a doctors appointment. There aren't enough doctors to see everyone. Hell--- I called my doctor in the middle of February to get a checkup--- the secretary said he is overbooked and the earliest appointment I could get was March 31st. Now--- take Bernie's plan and expand it to EVERYONE. Have fun getting a doctors appointment. What happens when someone has an issue but doctors are booked months in advanced? The VA scandal should ring a bell. When people can't get doctors appointments-- they will flood to the ER and Urgent Care centers. They are already over crowed as it is.

Do I like Trump? Yes and No. I feel like he is going to drop out of being a Republican and run as an Independent splitting votes and allowing Hillary to win the election easily. Bernie won't run as an Independent, so I could very well see this happening. I do like almost all the Republican nominees but Trump is going to win the nomination if he doesn't drop out. I am sure the Democrats are going to use illegal immigrants and dead people to help them win the next election--- so we are probably screwed anyways. I like to think--- Obama and the Government wouldn't allow all their work they did for the past 8 years to destry the USA go to waste. So get ready--- we will probably have Hillary as the next president. Say hi to more welfare, higher prices like with food, higher healthcare costs(wait until more taxes for Obamacare come into affect next year) and you can say goodbye to our gun rights. Anyone but Democrats!


----------



## Truthbetold

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Gonna vote for Trump in NC on Tuesday!! :mark: First time voting ever!


Wow first time voter. Congratulations.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> No, that's fact. They ARE still in business and his opponents are saying they aren't. Don't act like he has no right to correct the record.


Some are still in business, but some of the products he was parading on stage were already out of business. He was outright claiming others products that were sold in his establishments as under the Trump brand when he doesn't own or operate those businesses.



stevefox1200 said:


> That's not snake oil
> 
> That's not even close
> 
> When you give someone your brand you also have to give them finical support and they gain access to your connections and your tools
> 
> Branding has had a long and successful history of making people a lot of money (funny story, my grandpa was offer an early McDonald's chain in St.Louis and turned it down because it thought it was too expensive and would not make its money back, good job grandpa...)
> 
> Snake oil is offering something that has no proven history of working and is completely unproven and can be hard to counter because most of the time it is so mundane that it has little research or investment making its actual results unavailable
> 
> Snake oil trick require what you are selling to be NEW, DIFFERENT, SECRET, or nowadays WHAT THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW
> 
> Branding is tired and true


He is selling the same product with his branding and telling consumers that those products are of superior quality than before. If that's not snake oil trick, what is? He is claiming businesses that operate at his properties are under the Trump brand until being corrected. That's not trying to sell something that isn't what is?


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> Wow first time voter. Congratulations.


:mark: Congratulations indeed, @Beatles123! It is true, The Donald is bringing in tens of thousands of "new" voters, people who have never voted before.

I will always remember my first election. 2004. Bush vs. Kerry.

Wrote in, "Thomas Jefferson/James Madison."


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> :mark: Congratulations indeed, @Beatles123! It is true, The Donald is bringing in tens of thousands of "new" voters, people who have never voted before.
> 
> I will always remember my first election. 2004. Bush vs. Kerry.
> 
> Wrote in, "Thomas Jefferson/James Madison."


You share the blame for a second Bush term. :lmao


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> Some are still in business, but some of the products he was parading on stage were already out of business. He was outright claiming others products that were sold in his establishments as under the Trump brand when he doesn't own or operate those businesses.
> 
> 
> 
> He is selling the same product with his branding and telling consumers that those products are of superior quality than before. If that's not snake oil trick, what is? He is claiming businesses that operate at his properties are under the Trump brand until being corrected. That's not trying to sell something that isn't what is?


No

He is saying that these products are better because they have support from his chain of businesses

If I am selling Popsicle and then get brought into FREEZEPOP LLC I now have access to their flavor formula, their marketing teams and advertising contracts, their distribution chain, their legal team, their factories and production centers, their warehouses etc. but I have to pay a large percentage to the parent company to get these goodies and I lose direct ownership 

Getting branded is a HUGE deal and a failing product could very easily become successful under a brand umbrella

If I am making the best skin cream in the world but it is only available in 3 independent drug stores in central Ohio it does not mean much but if I get my cream as an Olay product I am now sold in almost every store that carries skin cream the world

Its safe to say that they "made me"


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> Some are still in business, but some of the products he was parading on stage were already out of business. He was outright claiming others products that were sold in his establishments as under the Trump brand when he doesn't own or operate those businesses.
> 
> 
> 
> *He is selling the same product with his branding and telling consumers that those products are of superior quality than before. If that's not snake oil trick, what is? He is claiming businesses that operate at his properties are under the Trump brand until being corrected. That's not trying to sell something that isn't what is?*


I agree it doesn't sound good, but it's also basically Marketing.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> No
> 
> He is saying that these products are better because they have support from his chain of businesses
> 
> If I am selling Popsicle and then get brought into FREEZEPOP LLC I now have access to their flavor formula, their marketing teams and advertising contracts, their distribution chain, their legal team, their factories and production centers, their warehouses etc. but I have to pay a large percentage to the parent company to get these goodies and I lose direct ownership
> 
> Getting branded is a HUGE deal and a failing product could very easily become successful under a brand umbrella
> 
> If I am making the best skin cream in the world but it is only available in 3 independent drug stores in central Ohio it does not mean much but if I get my cream as an Olay product I am now sold in almost every store that carries skin cream the world
> 
> Its safe to say that they "made me"


But did those products really get better with the support from his chain of businesses? Trump steak was sold exclusively at Sharper Image. Trump university wasn't chartered as a university but was promoted as one.

The discussion isn't whether branding has value, but how Trump is using his name to sell products of poor quality and promoting them as of premium quality. Not average quality, but poor quality.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> I agree it doesn't sound good, but it's also basically Marketing.


It went from marketing to fraud when he knows he isn't selling what is being promoted though.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> But did those products really get better with the support from his chain of businesses? Trump steak was sold exclusively at Sharper Image. Trump university wasn't chartered as a university but was promoted as one.
> 
> The discussion isn't whether branding has value, but how Trump is using his name to sell products of poor quality and promoting them as of premium quality. Not average quality, but poor quality.


Quality and marketing is subjective

Most brands have quality standards that if a new product doesn't pass it does distribute 

Trump is saying that his network and quality standards improved the product

If you agree or not is up in the air (and 99.9% of for profit schools are scams)


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The fraudulent Michelle Fields has resigned from Breitbart, prompting Ben Shapiro to do the same.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> The fraudulent Michelle Fields has resigned from Breitbart, prompting Ben Shapiro to do the same.


Scandal! So Ben Shapiro knew of her 'truthiness' as well it seems?


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> You share the blame for a second Bush term. :lmao


Nah: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_2004 :lol



CamillePunk said:


> The fraudulent Michelle Fields has resigned from Breitbart, prompting Ben Shapiro to do the same.


As *MrMister* might say, rip.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*






Just saw this video, what a terrible 'assault' on her!

Turns out I've assaulted tons of people in this fashion throughout my life. Men, women, children, the elderly, I'll assault anyone.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Chevy727 said:


> Also health care. Bernie's plan for a single player system just won't cut it. Healthcare is WAY too expensive here. It needs a major overhaul before anything can be done. I work in a hospital in a pharmacy. I can tell you how outrageous drug prices are. There's a brain cancer drug that costs $27,000 a box. That's how much I paid for my truck. Most of these patients, when they have to have it, they need 8-10 treatments. Let's not count other drugs they will need, medical supplies, food and the actual cost of the hospital stay. Just go Google some the prices of the highest drugs and you will be amazed. The country just can't afford that right now. I know someone who came down with sores on his legs. It was some weird name what he was diagnosed with. He is declaring bankruptcy because he racked up almost $300k in medical bills. There needs to be a healthcare overhaul-- not just raise the taxes to cover the cost of healthcare, it will never work. I wear hearing aids because I was born with hearing loss and I suffered a lot of ear infections. I paid $4,000 out of pocket for my hearing aids. My health insurance through my employer for the past 8 years hasn't covered it. I probably won't be able to afford any new ones soon so hopefully these will last years and years. Now-- this year my employer decided to cover somewhat of the cost of hearing aids. $1,000 per every 3 years. Now-- if Bernie becomes president-- It sounds like he would expand Obamacare and everything would be covered. Eye glasses, prescriptions, hearing aids, etc. There are 35 million people with hearing loss and with hearing aids being $1500-$2500 a piece, good luck with that one, Bernie. I bet he doesn't know that expanding coverage of those things will drastically increase healthcare costs therefore increase taxes more than people realize.. He probably hasn't thought about all the processed foods, the obesity we have here in America, and the amount it costs every year.. it will just keep going up too. There was something I believe Sanders said: "People who get sick will not have to worry about paying a deductible or making a co-payment. They could go to the doctor when they should, and not end up in the emergency room." What happens when EVERYONE has insurance? Good luck getting a doctors appointment. There aren't enough doctors to see everyone. Hell--- I called my doctor in the middle of February to get a checkup--- the secretary said he is overbooked and the earliest appointment I could get was March 31st. Now--- take Bernie's plan and expand it to EVERYONE. Have fun getting a doctors appointment. What happens when someone has an issue but doctors are booked months in advanced? The VA scandal should ring a bell. When people can't get doctors appointments-- they will flood to the ER and Urgent Care centers. They are already over crowed as it is.



Isn't Bernie's plan to set up a government run healthcare system not just the government paying the current insurance providers? 

Your system is inefficient, healthcare doesn't cost other countries, per capita, anywhere near as much as it seems to be costing people in the US. 

Near 30k for a drug is insane. That's just illegal here. It didn't cost them 30k to make the damn thing, it's merely profiteering for profiteering's sake. Really the gov should set the price of drugs for life threatening illnesses, it's not like a video game system, and I imagine Bernie would be doing things like that, not just paying 30k to the drug companies for everyone that needed it. Regulation for regulations sake is terrible, but some regulation, like water quality standards or measures for setting the price of drugs for life threatening illnesses are sensible and do the economy good.

I mean I think your post is the most intelligent argument against universal healthcare in America I've ever read, don't get me wrong, but I think saying "healthcare costs too much hence we can't have it" misses the point, healthcare costs too much in America because you have an inefficient system, a government run healthcare system, if you believe statistics, is more efficient, healthcare costs are cheaper per capita in countries with universal healthcare than countries without. Economies of scale and all that.

Another example of what I'm trying to get at is your point about there not being enough doctors, that's something that Bernie's free college policy would help with, more people going to college would mean more doctors. For the record I don't support free college education, but rather government provided interest free loans should be made available to people with high enough academic results that are then collected back through tax when people start earning money from their degrees. Otherwise you get the perverse situation where someone working a menial job ends up paying for other people to do fancy degrees that will get them high paying jobs. But wealth should never be an impediment to achieving an education, not if you believe in capitalism.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Fun fact: Sanders wants to emulate Denmark but Denmark has nothing close to most of his big policies.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Isn't Bernie's plan to set up a government run healthcare system not just the government paying the current insurance providers?
> 
> Your system is inefficient, healthcare doesn't cost other countries, per capita, anywhere near as much as it seems to be costing people in the US.
> 
> Near 30k for a drug is insane. That's just illegal here. It didn't cost them 30k to make the damn thing, it's merely profiteering for profiteering's sake. Really the gov should set the price of drugs for life threatening illnesses, it's not like a video game system, and I imagine Bernie would be doing things like that, not just paying 30k to the drug companies for everyone that needed it. Regulation for regulations sake is terrible, but some regulation, like water quality standards or measures for setting the price of drugs for life threatening illnesses are sensible and do the economy good.
> 
> I mean I think your post is the most intelligent argument against universal healthcare in America I've ever read, don't get me wrong, but I think saying "healthcare costs too much hence we can't have it" misses the point, healthcare costs too much in America because you have an inefficient system, a government run healthcare system, if you believe statistics, is more efficient, healthcare costs are cheaper per capita in countries with universal healthcare than countries without. Economies of scale and all that.
> 
> Another example of what I'm trying to get at is your point about there not being enough doctors, that's something that Bernie's free college policy would help with, more people going to college would mean more doctors. For the record I don't support free college education, but rather government provided interest free loans should be made available to people with high enough academic results that are then collected back through tax when people start earning money from their degrees. Otherwise you get the perverse situation where someone working a menial job ends up paying for other people to do fancy degrees that will get them high paying jobs. But wealth should never be an impediment to achieving an education, not if you believe in capitalism.


we don't bid out drugs here. If we did (as Trump points out) we can save 300 million.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> Nah: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_2004 :lol


Gotta love Orange County voting against Obama twice. :lol I should really move back there some day.

Nah, too far from GIANTS.


----------



## Richard Di Natale

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump is racist, sexist and a shit cunt.


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TomahawkJock said:


> Also, don't know if you read the part of the article where Drumpf said the people who beat a homeless Latino were "just passionate about this country" (that's not really biased, its just what he said). He didn't condemn them or say violence was wrong. He incites the violence at his rallies and seems to think it is okay. It's not about being politically correct. It's about being someone you can look up to as the leader of this country. I can't support a guy who doesn't condemn unnecessary violence. And how do you explain something like that to children? I believe some journalist asked him about his use of vulgar language and what he had to say about it, and told the journalist to stop being politically correct.





yeahbaby! said:


> I noted Team Trump didn't address this point at all, just honed in on the 'Drumpf' reference and wrote off the rest.


Trump had no idea about the incident when he made those comments. It's unfair to not consider that.

He also said "*I haven't heard about that. I think that would be a shame. But I haven't heard about that.* I will say the people that are following me are very passionate. They love this country. They want this country to be great again. And they are very passionate. I will say that."

After learning what had happened he made this tweet.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/634765744673267712


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Gotta love Orange County voting against Obama twice. :lol I should really move back there some day.
> 
> Nah, too far from GIANTS.


:lol Orange County! :woo

Yeah, you want to hang out with GIANTS fans, not Angels fans. :side: @Dub

This is a wonderful little video: http://www.infowars.com/this-is-what-msm-is-hiding-at-trump-rallies/


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Dazzler said:


> Trump had no idea about the incident when he made those comments. It's unfair to not consider that.
> 
> He also said "*I haven't heard about that. I think that would be a shame. But I haven't heard about that.* I will say the people that are following me are very passionate. They love this country. They want this country to be great again. And they are very passionate. I will say that."
> 
> After learning what had happened he made this tweet.
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/634765744673267712


Hmmm very careful language there by Trump. 'I think it would be a shame' if someone were beaten up my supporters?


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Hmmm very careful language there by Trump. 'I think it would be a shame' if someone were beaten up my supporters?


I think you're really reaching there.



> noun: shame
> 
> 1. a painful feeling of humiliation or distress caused by the consciousness of wrong or foolish behaviour.
> 2. a regrettable or unfortunate situation or action.


 What else could he say until knowing more? Her question was like 5 words.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@Beatles123 @CamillePunk @The Dazzler @Miss Sally @samizayn 

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206094857355959&set=p.10206094857355959&type=3&theater :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Dazzler said:


> I think you're really reaching there.
> 
> What else could he say until knowing more? Her question was like 5 words.


Yeah I'll cop that. It's just that Trump has a habit of saying 'I haven't heard of this or this person etc' when trouble arises.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> @Beatles123 @CamillePunk @The Dazzler @Miss Sally @samizayn
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10206094857355959&set=p.10206094857355959&type=3&theater :lol


5/10


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Richard Di Natale said:


> Trump is racist, sexist and a shit cunt.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> 5/10


You really are an AUS when it comes to posts, i must say :lol


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Stinger Fan said:


> The thing I find hilarious is with all this talk about racism , no one wants to really focus on Hilary and her ties with Robert Byrd who is a noted KKK member


There's also this from @DesolutionRow's Hillary emails thread. And she might become president. :surprise:



> There is however, ample documentation by journalists, academics, and human rights groups demonstrating that black Libyan civilians and sub-Saharan contract workers, a population favored by Gaddafi in his pro-African Union policies, were targets of “racial cleansing” by rebels who saw black Libyans as tied closely with the regime.[1]
> 
> Black Libyans were commonly branded as “foreign mercenaries” by the rebel opposition for their perceived general loyalty to Gaddafi as a community and subjected to torture, executions, and their towns “liberated” by ethnic cleansing. This is demonstrated in the most well-documented example of Tawergha, an entire town of 30,000 black and “dark-skinned” Libyans which vanished by August 2011 after its takeover by NATO-backed NTC Misratan brigades.
> 
> These attacks were well-known as late as 2012 and often filmed, as this report from The Telegraph confirms:
> 
> After Muammar Gaddafi was killed, hundreds of migrant workers from neighboring states were imprisoned by fighters allied to the new interim authorities. They accuse the black Africans of having been mercenaries for the late ruler. Thousands of sub-Saharan Africans have been rounded up since Gaddafi fell in August.
> 
> It appears that Clinton was getting personally briefed on the battlefield crimes of her beloved anti-Gaddafi fighters long before some of the worst of these genocidal crimes took place.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> You really are an AUS when it comes to posts, i must say :lol


Please explain Champ


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Please explain Champ


No, no. by all means, you've done enough already. I'll leave that to you and 4chan. 

(Understand, I kid.)


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I appreciate the retrospective on my Hillary emails thread, @The Dazzler. :mj2 :cry :banderas :lol


----------



## Freelancer

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I was watching him on the news this morning and noticed that he really needs to take it easy on the spray tan. There's bad, then there is Trump bad.


----------



## RiC David

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> You are spot on! Being of Byelorussian ethnic extraction I totally relate to that.
> 
> Russian mobsters came over to the States in the '70s and '80s and were some of the most vicious, immoral bastards whom you can imagine. They created a mafia style organized crime syndicate that originated in Brighton Beach (Brooklyn) and expanded westward.
> 
> Now, if I had the attitude of most black Americans I would start screaming "discrimination" and "profiling" while telling everyone, "You just don't understand" when the news reported the activities of these Russian criminals. Instead, I denounced (and continue to denounce) these people even though they are of my ethnic background. In fact, *ESPECIALLY* because they are of my ethnic background. These animals make my people look bad.
> 
> Unfortunately, most black Americans have the exact opposite attitude. They circle the wagons whenever a black is accused of a crime and start playing the race card.
> 
> Until blacks stop blaming whites, the police and everyone else, and begin to take responsibility for themselves and their actions they are not going to make any real progress in improving their lives and becoming productive citizens.
> 
> - Mike


It takes a really twisted mind to talk about "taking responsibility" meaning "be held responsible for the actions of other people".

Here's what else is wrong with your perspective (aside from the demeaning way you say "a black" to mean "a black person" but that's the least of your issues):

Who are these black people who don't "denounce" the actions of the minority of violent criminals, murderers etc.? Who says that? You denounce the actions of Russian mafias, well of coure - who doesn't? That's not some act of nobility or integrity, that's the default "I hate that these people are doing terrible things".

The only way I can imagine you reaching the conclusion that the majority of black people don't denounce the actions of those people is that most of us naturally resent having them used as justification for, say, publicly executing a 12 year old child in less than two seconds--this just being the most egregious of cases where black Americans (unarmed in these other cases, this boy had a toy gun) are responded to as though they could snap their fingers and kill the officer even if they're 15 feet away without a weapon while the officer has a gun pointed at them.

You talk about "the race card" insinuating that it's false but it's backed up by numbers - black citizens are 5x more likely to be shot and killed WHILE UNARMED than white citizens (this from 2012, I'd be shocked if it weren't higher) and lethal force is resorted to in less time. What's the reason for this? They see us (especially people darker than myself) as being innately life threatening even when we're naked (sometimes literally) and they're the one with the deadly weapon pointed our way.

Your justification is that it's just an objective difference in reaction based on the actions of black Americans relative to white Americans - like humans are perfect machines calculating probability without prejudice. These police attitudes aren't region specific though, it's not "Oh in this region it's mostly Eastern European immigrants bringing up the violent crime rate so I'll be trigger happy with them but not black people". Just as how black Americans smoke cannabis less than white Americans but are more likely to be arrested and criminalised for possession, it's a self sustaining and self propagating expectation system.

So when did it start? In your 'racism is an excuse' world, black Americans must have been terrorising white communities to cement their reputation surely? Prior to that they must have been treated equally because 'race' is just a "card" surely? White Americans have ALWAYS been fearful of black people and ALWAYS seen us as dangerous animals - not surprising when they kept us in chains and cages. You could go back to the not so distant days of African slavery and hear the same damn justification you're making - "Oh we have to beat, torture, rape, murder these animals because they're violent" - if a slave escaped and took revenge upon their enslaver then "See, I told you they were angry and dangerous". What about post (legal) slavery? "Oh we have to lynch these blacks and mutilate their bodies while making a public picnic of the event, they're dangerous you see"

This is NOT a recent attitude, and it is NOT a response but an INSTIGATION. The hallmark of this is *having the gigantic number and power disparity but still thinking you're the one who's outnumbered and outgunned*. Look at this grotesque talk of "white genocide", listen to the armoured gun toting cops speaking of unarmed black men with their hands up like they're fucking starved tigers with long distance weaponry.

You talk about circling the wagon when "a black" is accused of a crime. When the wagons (of paid public servants who should be scrutinised) are circled is when yet another black American dies in police custody and when yet another black American who is UNARMED is publicly executed without trial despite OBVIOUSLY being of no mortal danger to the officer. This happens to all Americans but it happens to my African American cousins (literally and figuratively) at least five times as frequently.

So the mother, father, son, daughter, best friend, brother, sister of that murdered citizen should "take responsibility" or that murdered citizen should "take responsibility" for whose actions? The police get to kill us but it's not them who need to take responsibility for the actions OF THEIR OWN HAND, it's every black person who needs to take responsibility for the actions of unrelated individuals who bear their skin colour. And you can totally relate because your unarmed Byelorussian relatives are being publicly executed without trial on a weekly (to be conservative) basis aren't they? You have to wonder if they'll make it home due to being Russian, don't you? You'd have to live with not only a dead son but also millions of people like yourself saying they had it coming, wouldn't you? Until you can show me the numbers on unarmed Byelorussian Americans being murdered by police and then blamed for their murder, don't act like these situations are interchangeable.

I'll include, as I've done before, two videos both of an interview of a former Baltimore (and other department) police officer, one full one abridged. Anyone who insists that it's all just 'race cards' being falsely played would be unable to claim that after hearing this man's account of every police dep he ever worked in - oh and he's white so you can believe him. I say "would" because so far not a single person has bothered to listen to the interview (or at least acknowledge what they heard). This cop was sick of black people being told that they're just lying or exaggerating and so he told all. You can be a shameless liar and say "Oh this doesn't count because he's interviewed by a liberal" but the host just gives him a platform and lets him talk - you can find him interviewed by other hosts but I'll leave that to those dishonest enough to claim that his damning reports don't count because of who he spoke to.

Full:





Abridged:





My crystal ball tells me someone will slap one of these magic labels on the man to magically dismiss every word he spoke. "liberal, PC, SJW, left, regressive left, white guilt" <--people here wondered why I cared so much about the use of these labels/stereotypes, it's because of how they're used. Just apply where desired and *poof* no rebuttal necessary! Use liberally for best results,


----------



## Reservoir Angel

*Re: Election*



DwayneAustin said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/709146918387998720
> :dahell


Essentially the Republican party will have to represented by 1 of 2 utter maniacs.

You know, I remember the days when people thought George W. Bush was as low as the Republican party would sink. Then Sarah Palin arrived. Michelle Bachmann appeared. And now Ted Cruz, and Donald fucking Trump of all people.

If this trend continues I can't wait to see what screaming nuisance they run with in 2020.


----------



## GothicBohemian

*Re: Election*



DwayneAustin said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/709146918387998720
> :dahell


Charming. 

Raving Lunatic Pastor - "Don't you dare carve happy faces on open puss sores!" and Jesus directed death to gays - introduces yet another scary political candidate; how completely unsurprising. Where are the Republicans and Democrats finding these people they hope to make presidents out of? Even more perplexing, why do these people have supporters? 

I've seen train wreck election drama before but not anything of this calibre from the Americans until now. True, it's been bad, and getting more ridiculous for some time, but the 2016 crop is low budget reality show level. I actually expect post-election drama with whoever wins being hauled into court over his or her legal issues.


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Election*



DwayneAustin said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/709146918387998720
> :dahell


Holy shit, what a maniac! People were clapping. :surprise:
Does Cruz want Trump to win? Why else would he associate himself with that guy?


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



RiC David said:


> Who are these black people who don't "denounce" the actions of the minority of violent criminals, murderers etc.? Who says that? ]


The last I heard blacks were still defending thug Mike Brown despite the fact even Obama's DOJ couldn't crucify the white officer despite trying every trick in the book. They had to admit the officer involved shooting was justified.

You are a typical example of what I was talking about. You will back a black involved in an incident without thinking even though the facts aren't in yet. Conversely, you will condemn a police officer, especially if he is white, based on the inflammatory reporting of the liberal media.

Most of the racists out there are black Americans like you, *NOT *whites. Isn't it about time to stop blaming whites, the police, and everyone else for your problems and look inward??? Taking responsibility for the babies you make would be a good start. Latest data indicates that 74% of black children are living in one parent homes with mom while dad has absconded and abrogated his parental responsibilities. 

- Mike


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@AryaDark @Beatles123 @Blackbeard @CamillePunk @The Dazzler @Deadpool @Goku @GothicBohemian @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @Reaper @samizayn

Ladies and gentlemen, we have crossed over into the land of the surreal.

Jean-Claude Van Damme, Belgian ex-action film star, trenchantly speaks on a French political show this weekend about how the immensely powerful Rockefeller and Rothschild dynasties will never allow Donald Trump to become the next president due to his anti-globalism. 

I give Mr. Van Damme all of the credit in the world for pointing this out. As we have seen, the U.S. regime is, to some extent or another, effectively run by major banking interests. Perhaps in the near future in this thread I will write out a labyrinthine, detailed history of how massive banking houses have dictated the last 125-130 years of U.S. foreign policy. Every presidential election since at least 1912 has been a matchup between two candidates who were backed by certain banks. 

Well done, Mr. Van Damme. :clap (It's a little curious that he believes that which holds true for Trump is also the case for Ted Cruz... I don't believe that, but I am sure that the globalists and bankers' first pick is undeniably Hillary Clinton. They adore what her hypothetical administration would represent.)


----------



## Reaper

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

^This is what I've been saying all along to my friends and family that are shitting over a potential Trump election. 

For all his shit-talking about immigration and appealing to the lowest common denominator, Trump is effectively a lone-shark and lone-sharks do not win elections in America. The king-makers cannot allow it and will not allow it. 

We're stuck with a federal criminal as our next president .. might as well start accepting that fact.



Batko10 said:


> Most of the racists out there are black Americans like you, *NOT *whites. Isn't it about time to stop blaming whites, the police, and everyone else for your problems and look inward??? Taking responsibility for the babies you make would be a good start. Latest data indicates that 74% of black children are living in one parent homes with mom while dad has absconded and abrogated his parental responsibilities.
> 
> - Mike


You continue to stay malignantly misinformed about the american police system. Perhaps it's because you were once a pawn of that system so I can excuse some of the naivete ... I mean, it's like expecting a faith healer to accept responsibility for why their child died because their belief makes them susceptible to whorring themselves out to a deity instead of accepting responsibility in part of being part of a system that indoctrinates/brainwashes them to have no minds of their own. 

We've known for decades that there is a HUGE disparity in convictions and jail terms for non-violent blacks and non-violent whites. Part of the reason why so many african americans are economically worse off is because of that system that intentionally creates that disparity. I mean if you're gonna lock up every single black man you can find for whatever bullshit reason you want, then obviously their family is going to be poor and kids are going to be raised without fathers. 

It's really chicken and the egg .. For some people not really smart or knowledgeable enough, they can make arguments for how it's hard to tell, but those that are well-informed about evolution know that it was always the chicken that came first and the egg evolved after. Same with how the culture of mass african american incarceration is at least in major part responsible for creating the negative african american culture you guys cry about. First play a hand in creating that culture, then use it as a justificatiion to keep crying about it but deny the hand in the creation of it. Can't have it both ways.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

:lmao JCVD knows about the Rockefellers and Rothschilds.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Reaper said:


> ^
> 
> You continue to stay malignantly misinformed about the american police system. Perhaps it's because you were once a pawn of that system so I can excuse some of the naivete ... in part of being part of a system that indoctrinates/brainwashes them to have no minds of their own.


This is the typical liberal's response to those who disagree with their agenda - you are naive, brainwashed, a pawn of the system, etc., etc. ad infinitum.

Of course, the liberals will show us the path to the promised land... fpalm

- Mike


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Start your own thread about cops and black people please.


----------



## Reaper

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> This is the typical liberal's response to those who disagree with their agenda - you are naive, brainwashed, a pawn of the system, etc., etc. ad infinitum.
> 
> Of course, the liberals will show us the path to the promised land... fpalm
> 
> - Mike


Did you even read the rest of what I wrote?

You KNOW I'm not a typical liberal. And yet when I lay out a pretty detailed post, you ignore it. I'll re-iterate and hopefully you actually read it ... The mass incarceration of blacks over whites for non-violent crimes (which is statistically proven) plays a huge part in creation of the "destitute and fatherless" african american home you guys cry about all the time.


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> Ladies and gentlemen, we have crossed over into the land of the surreal.
> 
> Jean-Claude Van Damme, Belgian ex-action film star, trenchantly speaks on a French political show this weekend about how the immensely powerful Rockefeller and Rothschild dynasties will never allow Donald Trump to become the next president due to his anti-globalism.


I used to watch his movies all the time as a kid. I can't believe he had the balls to say it. :mark:



yeahbaby! said:


> Please explain Champ


lurk moar


Spoiler



It's a 4chan thing. The Aussies' shitposting is legendary there. Be proud! :grin2:


----------



## Municipal Waste

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I think Donald Trump uses controversial and potentially dangerous rhetoric to play to the voters that he's courting, that it's impossible to know if he believes this crap himself (although there is evidence of it that predates his candidacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cen...rtisement_from_Donald_J_Trump_And_Controversy), and that mathematically he cannot win a general election on the social platform that he's running, so none of it matters beyond agitating a bipartisan political divide that reduces our country to Playstation/XBox, Yankees/Red Sox level fanboy hysterics.

Frankly, passing decisive legislation through Congress is akin to trying to beat the final stage of Frogger with one life, and all of the most controversial rhetoric that he's spouting is tied to legislation that will never, ever be passed while containing any kind of decisive language. What people really ought to be concerned with in a President is in their role as Commander & Chief of the military. Whether you're conservative or liberal, believe in policing the world or isolationism, or believe Isis or Iran are inevitably a world problems or should be sorted by neighbors in their region, we should all be able to agree on a few key points:

Executive powers as Commander & Chief allow more freedom for the President than any power he/she will have over legislation, and is thus a more important component. (I would also rate appointing SCOTUS positions to be more important than legislative promises.)

George W. Bush lived in a family during a time when it was politically concentrated on middle-eastern foreign policy, and even he couldn't have understood the cultural and political nuances that led to the rise of Isis within the power vacuum that our war in Iraq fostered.

And, finally, and most importantly, as far as those midfle-eastern foreign military policies, Donald Trump doesn't even know who the players are, much less how his actions would effect the game. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34135543)

I consider myself an Independent, and while I find Trump's pandering to xenophobes to be troubling, I don't think it would cause half the trouble that his complete and total lack of experience in world politics would cause. Again, look at the rise of Isis in the wake of that Bush-fostered power vacuum, and Bush is somebody who I think held as complete an understanding of the region as anybody.


----------



## GothicBohemian

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@DesolationRow

Some of what he says is sensible and, imo, some is veering into conspiracy territory. I missed where he claims Trump and Cruz are similar; one of the female panellists compares the two but JCVD only dismisses them both as not candidates who will ultimately win. Perhaps, since this is what he moves onto next, he feels neither has the full support of behind the scenes power brokers but I felt like he had switched the conversation back to Trump vs Hilary, with Hilary's shadow supporters being his focus. I assume I misinterpreted what you meant by the same holding true for both (Trump and Cruz) as I've watched that portion out of context from the entire televised discussion. 

I've been so distracted by the sideshow quality of the Republican rallys to have not noticed which of their candidates has the establishment on his side. Surely it's not ultra-religious, not-born-on-US-soil Cruz!?? Or is it? 

I do agree that Hilary is the preferred choice of bankers and that she's, unfortunately, the front runner in what masquerades as a presidential race. That she can represent 'the left' is rather amusing to me, but then the standard American left is quite different from the left as represented elsewhere.


----------



## Municipal Waste

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



GothicBohemian said:


> @DesolationRow
> 
> Some of what he says is sensible and, imo, some is veering into conspiracy territory.* I missed where he claims Trump and Cruz are similar*; one of the female panellists compares the two but JCVD only dismisses them both as not candidates who will ultimately win. Perhaps, since this is what he moves onto next, he feels neither has the full support of behind the scenes power brokers but I felt like he had switched the conversation back to Trump vs Hilary, with Hilary's shadow supporters being his focus. I assume I misinterpreted what you meant by the same holding true for both (Trump and Cruz) as I've watched that portion out of context from the entire televised discussion.
> 
> I've been so distracted by the sideshow quality of the Republican rallys to *have not noticed which of their candidates has the establishment on his side. Surely it's not ultra-religious, not-born-on-US-soil Cruz!??* Or is it?
> 
> I do agree that Hilary is the preferred choice of bankers and that she's, unfortunately, the front runner in what masquerades as a presidential race. That she can represent 'the left' is rather amusing to me, but then the standard American left is quite different from the left as represented elsewhere.


Cruz and Trump both affiliate themselves with the Tea Party contingent to varying degrees. These factions within the party have presented problems as far as being on one page and getting legislation passed since they are less willing to compromise. Cruz's affiliation is straightforward and Trump's is basically just campaign lip service. The fact that they cause internal disagreement sometimes puts Tea Party delegates at odds with the central GOP establishment, but places them more in leagues with the establishment than a total outsider like Trump. Ironically, Trump's best asset is that he would be extraordinarily willing to compromise.


----------



## Truthbetold

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## GothicBohemian

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Municipal Waste said:


> Cruz and Trump both affiliate themselves with the Tea Party contingent to varying degrees. These factions within the party have presented problems as far as being on one page and getting legislation passed since they are less willing to compromise. Cruz's affiliation is straightforward and Trump's is basically just campaign lip service. The fact that they cause internal disagreement sometimes puts Tea Party delegates at odds with the central GOP establishment, but places them more in leagues with the establishment than a total outsider like Trump. Ironically, Trump's best asset is that he would be extraordinarily willing to compromise.


I figured Cruz was the Tea Party man. He has the hallmarks of their sort of candidate. Trump is attracting some of them but he's more reliant on drawing in voters who normally wouldn't affiliate with Tea Party politics such as some right-leaning independents, libertarians and cult-of-personality celebrity fans. 

As you say, Trump isn't a true Tea Party-er; I won't necessarily even class him as a true Republican and yes, he's without doubt a candidate who would compromise on many issues. He's not an ideologue, just a rich individual seeing how far his name value and attention-grabbing media savvy will take him. Trump's appalling ignorance of foreign interests and Cruz's fundamentalist outlook on same are both worrying. 

So who would the typical Republican backers want? I can only picture Cruz, with his Tea Party connections, as a 'lesser of evils' option for them.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The Tea party is split because Republicans are having, pardon the irony, a "coming to jesus" moment in regards yo what they wanna be. The establishment way isn't working and many of us no longer care who can hold the bible the highest.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Reaper said:


> Did you even read the rest of what I wrote?
> 
> You KNOW I'm not a typical liberal. And yet when I lay out a pretty detailed post, you ignore it. I'll re-iterate and hopefully you actually read it ... The mass incarceration of blacks over whites for non-violent crimes (which is statistically proven) plays a huge part in creation of the "destitute and fatherless" african american home you guys cry about all the time.


Why would I want to read what followed your insults??? 

In any case, I'm sure that the mass incarceration of blacks for the* violent* crimes that they commit also plays some role. However, most of these cases of abandonment of parental responsibilities have nothing to do with the father being locked up in jail. *It has to do with the irresponsibility of young black males who impregnate multiple women and then take off and let society support their offspring*.

The fact that blacks put thugs like Michael Brown on a hero's pedestal while looking at an educated, successful black man like Dr. Carson as if he's an "uncle Tom" says a great deal about the present state of black culture in this country.

- Mike


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Batko10 said:


> Why would I want to read what followed your insults???
> 
> In any case, I'm sure that the mass incarceration of blacks for the* violent* crimes that they commit also plays some role. However, most of these cases of abandonment of parental responsibilities have nothing to do with the father being locked up in jail. *It has to do with the irresponsibility of young black males who impregnate multiple women and then take off and let society support their offspring*.
> 
> The fact that blacks put thugs like Michael Brown on a hero's pedestal while looking at an educated, successful black man like Dr. Carson as if he's an "uncle Tom" says a great deal about the present state of black culture in this country.
> 
> - Mike


Start a new thread for this ffs.

Or even better just PM each other.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The republican party has always seen the religious vote as a necessary evil

Outside of the bible belt they brand themselves as an economic focused party 

I think they want to get out of the "rule of god" business and hook in the small government supporters to replace them 

Problem is that demo has allied with someone they don't like as have the religious demo

The republican party now only has control of the "rich white men" and they are not enough to be a good voting block, not to mention many of them don't give a fuck who is president and prefer to get support from people in congress


----------



## Municipal Waste

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



GothicBohemian said:


> I figured Cruz was the Tea Party man. He has the hallmarks of their sort of candidate. Trump is attracting some of them but he's more reliant on drawing in voters who normally wouldn't affiliate with Tea Party politics such as some right-leaning independents, libertarians and cult-of-personality celebrity fans.
> 
> As you say, Trump isn't a true Tea Party-er; I won't necessarily even class him as a true Republican and yes, he's without doubt a candidate who would compromise on many issues. He's not an ideologue, just a rich individual seeing how far his name value and attention-grabbing media savvy will take him. Trump's appalling ignorance of foreign interests and Cruz's fundamentalist outlook on same are both worrying.
> 
> So who would the typical Republican backers want? I can only picture Cruz, with his Tea Party connections, as a 'lesser of evils' option for them.


That's exactly right. They would have preferred Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, but the former has proven to not be viable, and the latter, I believe, is still polling third in what is essentially a 3-man race. Uh-oh for them.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Municipal Waste said:


> That's exactly right. They would have preferred Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, but the former has proven to not be viable, and the latter, I believe, is still polling third in what is essentially a 3-man race. Uh-oh for them.


The GOP is so out of touch with what our side wants. We gave them everything they asked and they did sweet fuck all. It's no wonder they originally backed Jeb(!) Who's as bought and paid for as you could get.


----------



## Municipal Waste

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> The GOP is so out of touch with what our side wants. We gave them everything they asked and they did sweet fuck all. It's no wonder they originally backed Jeb(!) Who's as bought and paid for as you could get.


My father-in-law, a lifelong conservative, has been saying the same thing, and he's very upset at Romney and any plans to derail Trump at the convention; He's not even a Trump guy, he's just disgusted at the transparency of the process.

I'm an Independent who had to register as a Democrat to caucus for Bernie, and it's just as disgusting across the aisle.

Bunch of power-hungry beaurocrats.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Municipal Waste said:


> My father-in-law, a lifelong conservative, has been saying the same thing, and he's very upset at Romney and any plans to derail Trump at the convention; He's not even a Trump guy, he's just disgusted at the transparency of the process.
> 
> I'm an Independent who had to register as a Democrat to caucus for Bernie, and it's just as disgusting across the aisle.
> 
> Bunch of power-hungry beaurocrats.


Oh yeah, they're everywhere. 

It all comes down to this: If the people want someone, the party should unite behind them and I don't care who it is. Even Bernie, if he was truly what most wanted, should have Dem support.

I think Bernie (and you must understand, i'm a Republican.) is still too radical for what most people on the left want in Washington. That said, Hildawg is slime and I wouldn't EVER want her as Prez. At least with Bernie he's trying to modernize us, but I don't agree with his platforms or his far left leanings at all.

With Trump, though, Dems like you at LEAST won't get skullfucked like we were with Obama. Trump actually WANTS to be fair to you, which again is why the establishment wants him stopped. They want only a pro-RIGHT president. 

Fun fact: Trump has no superdelegates.


----------



## GothicBohemian

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Do either Bernie or Trump have superdelegates? Their lack of such would indicate little establishment love for either in their respective parties. 

Obviously, I'm further left than most anyone in this thread - I'm a crazy northern socialist :grin2: - so Bernie would be my candidate by default, though even he has said things that give me pause. I'm leery of Trump's seeming disinterest in educating himself on world politics (and the potential consequences of that), and I'm VERY put off by his "anti PC" aura and concerning flirtations with race baiters, but at least he isn't Hilary, nor is he someone who cares about what happens in my bedroom or what church I do, or don't, attend.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Municipal Waste said:


> I consider myself an Independent, and while I find Trump's pandering to xenophobes to be troubling,* I don't think it would cause half the trouble that his complete and total lack of experience in world politics would cause. *Again, look at the rise of Isis in the wake of that Bush-fostered power vacuum, and Bush is somebody who I think held as complete an understanding of the region as anybody.


Except for Trump, U.S. foreign policy under any of the candidates from either party will continue as it has continued since the post WW II period. Worldwide regime changes in nations who refuse to toe the line, hostility and threatening behavior toward Russia, invasions and bombings of sovereign nations, etc., etc. Regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat administration is running the country foreign policy varies very little.

Donald Trump could do no worse than any of the previous presidents of the past 6 decades in the area of foreign affairs. The strong possibility is that he will do a hell of a lot better, because he is *NOT* an ideologue.

Trump is not mentally chained to a conservative right wing agenda, nor a liberal left wing course. He is a businessman who negotiates for the best deal and understands compromise without capitulation. That is something none of the other candidates from either Party can best him at.

Seriously, Trump is the only candidate who does not saber rattle against Putin and Russia. He openly states that he can work with Russia and create a relationship favorable to both countries. Everyone else is still locked in the old Cold War mentality.

Regarding the Middle East, the U.S. and its Western allies have been butt fucking the Middle Eastern nations since before WW I. Despite his present position on Muslim immigration to the U.S., I can't see Trump doing any worse. In the long run, he may turn out to be a better influence on relations in the Middle East by virtue of his non-ideological approach to foreign policy.

- Mike


----------



## Municipal Waste

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Oh yeah, they're everywhere.
> 
> It all comes down to this: If the people want someone, the party should unite behind them and I don't care who it is. Even Bernie, if he was truly what most wanted, should have Dem support.
> 
> I think Bernie (and you must understand, i'm a Republican.) is still too radical for what most people on the left want in Washington. That said, Hildawg is slime and I wouldn't EVER want her as Prez. At least with Bernie he's trying to modernize us, but I don't agree with his platforms or his far left leanings at all.
> 
> With Trump, though, Dems like you at LEAST won't get skullfucked like we were with Obama. Trump actually WANTS to be fair to you, which again is why the establishment wants him stopped. They want only a pro-RIGHT president.
> 
> Fun fact: Trump has no superdelegates.


If Sanders can't get enough votes then it is what it is. I always did consider him a longshot for exactly the reason's you're saying, but the pocess of it, from the minimal number of Dem debates to play Hillar's exposure advantage, to the transparant bias published daily by CNN, it's that kind of shit that pisses you off.

I'm going to be voting for an Independent candidate against Hillary in a general election. I want nothing to do with these people.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



GothicBohemian said:


> Do either Bernie or Trump have superdelegates? Their lack of such would indicate little establishment love for either in their respective parties.
> 
> Obviously, I'm further left than most anyone in this thread - I'm a crazy northern socialist :grin2: - so Bernie would be my candidate by default, though even he has said things that give me pause. I'm leery of Trump's seeming disinterest in educating himself on world politics (and the potential consequences of that), and I'm VERY put off by his "anti PC" aura and concerning flirtations with race baiters, but at least he isn't Hilary, nor is he someone who cares about what happens in my bedroom or what church I do, or don't, attend.


This country has become kneecaped by PC culture. If it progresses we will move "Forward" off a cliff. To quote Bernie, "IN MOY VHEYOO!" we need to at least scale it back. 

Billionaires like Mr. George Soros have created a monopoly on PC culture as a way to push their anti Republican agenda to the masses, He financed the CHI riots and pours money into Black Lives Matter to this day. The left NEEDS a war like this to cover their bottom line, so they fan the flames of discourse where there in any other case would be none.

How about Rahm Emmanuel and his order that the police make no arrests? 

Yes, Trump may be riding a certain wave his showmanship has created, but if you think he really wants to incite a war and not the left, you'd be mistaken.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Municipal Waste said:


> If Sanders can't get enough votes then it is what it is. I always did consider him a longshot for exactly the reason's you're saying, but the pocess of it, from the minimal number of Dem debates to play Hillar's exposure advantage, to the transparant bias published daily by CNN, it's that kind of shit that pisses you off.
> 
> I'm going to be voting for an Independent candidate against Hillary in a general election. I want nothing to do with these people.


But then your vote doesn't count against Hilary. Vote Trump and you actually have a candidate more Akin to Bernie than you may realize.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



GothicBohemian said:


> @DesolationRow
> 
> Some of what he says is sensible and, imo, some is veering into conspiracy territory. I missed where he claims Trump and Cruz are similar; one of the female panellists compares the two but JCVD only dismisses them both as not candidates who will ultimately win. Perhaps, since this is what he moves onto next, he feels neither has the full support of behind the scenes power brokers but I felt like he had switched the conversation back to Trump vs Hilary, with Hilary's shadow supporters being his focus. I assume I misinterpreted what you meant by the same holding true for both (Trump and Cruz) as I've watched that portion out of context from the entire televised discussion.
> 
> I've been so distracted by the sideshow quality of the Republican rallys to have not noticed which of their candidates has the establishment on his side. Surely it's not ultra-religious, not-born-on-US-soil Cruz!?? Or is it?
> 
> I do agree that Hilary is the preferred choice of bankers and that she's, unfortunately, the front runner in what masquerades as a presidential race. That she can represent 'the left' is rather amusing to me, but then the standard American left is quite different from the left as represented elsewhere.


Thank you for the thorough response. I shall go through your post point by point.

Firstly, we must always keep in mind that politics and governance are guided by all sorts of conspiracies. A fair number may even be wholly benign but conspiracies they do remain. In that post I teased about writing someday, haha, I shall do my best to connect the dots of how institutions such as J.P. Morgan, the Rockefeller empire and myriad other, lesser players in the financial world played integral roles in steering U.S. policy through their governmental proxies (I would say puppets but it's probably too early in the day to be that mean about it) for no less than a complete century. Conspiracies in the world of governments are everywhere. The 2008/2009 bailout for Wall Street by the U.S. was a conspiracy, no matter how out in the open it may have been. Transparency, as the U.S. nominally has, does not negate the power of the moneyed interests behind the throne. The Sea Island, Georgia meeting held by neoconservative policy wonks and "masters of the universe" in the realms of high-technology, finance and industry some days ago would appear to be nothing less than a conspiracy among powerful entities to take Trump down. The Bush administration lied about Iraq and created false conspiracies linking Saddam Hussein's regime to al-Qaeda and vice versa; numerous neocons were involved in a conspiracy, in part through what was called the "Office of Special Plans," to, effectively, engender a whole bunch of lies, lies which they would let fly throughout the world of media like air balloons. A conspiracy was behind the Chicago protests a few nights ago, and it doubtless goes all the way to George Soros and perhaps even Hillary Clinton, as Roger Stone is now saying all over media. 

As for JCVD's linking of Trump and Cruz, the way I see it, he means that both individuals are _persona non grata_ with the "Establishment," but, in this context, even more pointedly with the globalist bankers. I disagree with his lumping Cruz in with Trump in that way since Cruz has backed TPP and TPA, is easily tied in with Goldman Sachs on several different levels, and, generally speaking still speaks in the generally familiar Republican platitudes concerning foreign and trade policy, respectively. 

However, what you posit is indeed the case: which is to say, Cruz is not beloved by the "Establishment," either. For a long time the "Establishment" backed Jeb Bush lmao :lmao :lmao) and when his campaign sank to the bottom of the Mariana Trench, they largely clustered around Marco Rubio, but his campaign has hit an iceberg and is presently en route to sinking. John Kasich would doubtless be their next, last choice, but he inspires such pallid, nonexistent enthusiasm--I was watching about fifteen minutes of a Kasich "rally" in Ohio this weekend and everyone there, including the candidate, looked like they belonged in _Night of the Living Dead_--that the prospects of him ever making it, particularly after having gone literally winless up to this point, are just about zero.

To the point that they are overemphasized by media and political parties, "Left" and "Right" are largely the construct of a false dialectic and faulty paradigm in any event. What Trump's candidacy displays, in vivid Technicolor, is that a certain anti-Establishment populism has been bubbling under the surface of the water, and it only needed a candidate of such broad appeal and, as someone who still holds to the semantics of not becoming an actual "Donald Trump supporter--I'm more anti-anti-Trump, a bit like Justin Raimondo has been characterizing himself online, seeing in Trump a genuine "rooting interest"--fairly simplistic language to penetrate the rotten edifice of the GOP's corrupt establishment. You rightly point out how phony Hillary Clinton is as a leftist--though _culturally_-speaking she would certainly be hardline leftist, through and through--but imagine, for a moment, being an American conservative or libertarian. The entire gamut of Republican choices outside of Trump are, when carefully scrutinized, reflexively hawkish, doggedly imperialistic, devoutly in favor of what they characterize as "free trade," and unmistakably open to the increased weakening of American sovereignty. 

Now, Trump is not a conservative, exactly, either, as you correctly note. However, he's more intrinsically opposed to the centralization of education, which has been ruinous in the U.S., and seeks to shift many social matters back down to the realm of the states, where they belong. He wants to strengthen rather than oversee the continued dilution of American sovereignty, and he has dared to touch third rails like the catastrophic trade deals such as NAFTA and GATT. These points are all anathema to the entire "Establishment," and by that I mean the domain of the entire two-party duopoly. He's created all of the right enemies: globalists, neocons, avaricious, connected bankers, the Federal Reserve, the Council on Foreign Relations, Goldman Sachs, George Soros, the corrupt Mexican government, the corrupt U.S. government, the corrupt Chinese government (why do I keep saying "corrupt"? talk about redundancies!), the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the hardcore, take-no-prisoners, burn-it-all-down nihilistic Left, the national-security military-industrial-congressional-complex ("congressional" was in the first draft of Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address warning, but someone took it out minutes before he went on the air), innumerable Deep State actors and think tanks, _National Review, The New Republic, Commentary_, George Will, the sinister Bush family, the crooked Clinton clan, the Pentagon, the "Israel First" crowd, bribed and bought-for politicians in Washington, D.C. of every stripe, slimy Super-PACS and most of the entire media punditocracy. 

He has numerous significant flaws. He's going to have to learn a great deal. He wants power so he is not to be trusted. 

Yet, he must be doing _something_ right. :lol


----------



## Municipal Waste

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> But then your vote doesn't count against Hilary. Vote Trump and you actually have a candidate more Akin to Bernie than you may realize.


Splitting the liberal vote has the same effect either way, but I like the idea of being on paper as against this harmful bipartisan structure that we keep propagating for no good reason, since my vote has very little real value in any case.

Representative Democracy is a thinly-veiled facade. Since the advent of broadband the entire idea that I need some well-groomed dimple-smiler to physically travel to Washington, D.C. and cast a vote that's 1/10,000th on my behalf remains absolutely absurd.


----------



## hbgoo1975

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Any white racist who believes in Donald Trump is a WHITE CHICKEN SHIT!


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> This country has become kneecaped by PC culture. If it progresses we will move "Forward" off a cliff. To quote Bernie, "IN MOY VHEYOO!" we need to at least scale it back.
> 
> *Billionaires like Mr. George Soros have created a monopoly on PC culture as a way to push their anti Republican agenda to the masses, He financed the CHI riots and pours money into Black Lives Matter to this day. The left NEEDS a war like this to cover their bottom line, so they fan the flames of discourse where there in any other case would be none.*
> 
> How about Rahm Emmanuel and his order that the police make no arrests?
> 
> Yes, Trump may be riding a certain wave his showmanship has created, but if you think he really wants to incite a war and not the left, you'd be mistaken.


I'm just puzzled by this. How do you figure Mr Bigshot Soros 'financed the CHI riots'? He paid people to turn up? Don't think we didn't notice you changing a protest into a 'riot' either. Classic right doublespeak move.

Also, a 'left' war? What war? A PC war? What possible evidence or justification do you have for sating that? Then you say 'THE LEFT' needs a war to cover their bottom line as if a political leaning idealogy is a corporation? Who else is a part of this war-mongering left can I ask?


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> He's created all of the right enemies: globalists, neocons, avaricious, connected bankers, the Federal Reserve, the Council on Foreign Relations, Goldman Sachs, George Soros, the corrupt Mexican government, the corrupt U.S. government, the corrupt Chinese government (why do I keep saying "corrupt"? talk about redundancies!), the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the hardcore, take-no-prisoners, burn-it-all-down nihilistic Left, the national-security military-industrial-congressional-complex ("congressional" was in the first draft of Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address warning, but someone took it out minutes before he went on the air), innumerable Deep State actors and think tanks, _National Review, The New Republic, Commentary_, George Will, the sinister Bush family, the crooked Clinton clan, the Pentagon, the "Israel First" crowd, bribed and bought-for politicians in Washington, D.C. of every stripe, slimy Super-PACS and most of the entire media punditocracy.
> 
> He has numerous significant flaws. He's going to have to learn a great deal. He wants power so he is not to be trusted.
> 
> Yet, he must be doing _something_ right. :lol


:sodone 

Deso elegantly detailing the primary reason I support Donald Trump. His enemies are my enemies. Perhaps once he has obtained the ring of power he will become my enemy. It wouldn't surprise me. For now I'm cheering him on to victory against a wealth of contemptible scum who collude to ruin this country. 

Being "anti-anti-Trump" is a fair way of putting it. :lol However, I'm not afraid to say that I am a Trump supporter (not that I'm saying you are afraid), so far as wanting him to win the election. Past that point, well, we'll see. I remain an anarcho-capitalist in all respects and have compromised none of my principles in this pursuit, as I am forever locked into a situation of coercion against me. I might as well try to nudge the gun barrel away from where I'm standing.


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> I'm just puzzled by this. How do you figure Mr Bigshot Soros 'financed the CHI riots'? He paid people to turn up? Don't think we didn't notice you changing a protest into a 'riot' either. Classic right doublespeak move.


Soros funded MoveOn.org were involved in what happened in Chicago. They're promising more protests at Trump's events. Chicago's probably just the beginning. 8*D


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/708478400357277696


----------



## Truthbetold

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> How about Rahm Emmanuel and his order that the police make no arrests?


Is this true?

If this is true, worst mayor ever and Chicago's crime and murder rate explain it'self.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

You are far too kind, @CamillePunk.  

Yes, seriously, at this point, I'm "objectively pro-Trump," insofar as I support, at the least, a complete exposure of, and, perhaps if we are truly fortunate, an utter annihilation, of the "Establishment." :lol

It's thrilling to see the entire system set up to serve these hacks be turned against them, someone who was in on paying them off not too long ago, but who's become a traitor to his class, as it were, and refuses to take bribes while hammering them. 



Truthbetold said:


> Is this true?
> 
> If this is true, worst mayor ever and Chicago's crime and murder rate explain it'self.


I do not want to state for a fact that it is true but it is popping up from a plethora of news sites now. 

Rahm Emanuel was probably behind the scenes of the Laquan McDonald shooting, and his Chicago cronyism and corruption are stunningly pervasive by every metric according to news story after news story. Meanwhile, the much of the inner-city is a terrible war zone (272 gunshot victims and 51 homicides in the month of January alone). It's a complete mess, and it's on the long road to becoming Detroit West.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## Truthbetold

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> Yes, seriously, at this point, I'm "objectively pro-Trump," insofar as I support, at the least, a complete exposure of, and, perhaps if we are truly fortunate, an utter annihilation, of the "Establishment." :lol


The left needs to respect how Trump is burying the Neocons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/o...-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Stefan Molyneux brings the clarity of reason once again regarding the protests.


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Should I take offence to @DesolationRow 's use of '_nihilistic_' left?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump's anti-hero tweener run is getting him over BIG!! 

https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/03/14/trump-rises-national-support-rubio-falls-and-carso/

HE'S GETTING THE STONE COLD PUSH, @DesolationRow! :mark:

Once Trump forms his stable with Carson, Cruz, Carl Icahn and Chris Christie to take on Hilary's Establishment stable, this feud is going to be MONAAAAAAAAAY! :kermit

THINK OF THE PPV BUYS THE DEBATES WILL GET. :vince5


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



hbgoo1975 said:


> Any white racist who believes in Donald Trump is a WHITE CHICKEN SHIT!


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Truthbetold said:


> The left needs to respect how Trump is burying the Neocons.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/o...-ready-to-ally-with-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0


Oh, yes. The neocons have been writing little love letters to Hillary for a long while now. 

Robert Kagan and his wife Victoria Nuland are a pair of repulsive apparatchiks who are doubtless more comfortable with the idea of President Hillary Clinton than any of the Republican aspirants to the throne. And :lmao at Max Boot. He recently noted that he would literally vote for Joseph Stalin over Donald Trump. Admittedly, that is quite a statement for such a bloodthirsty neoconservative, a standard-bearer for an intellectual subset of individuals whose origins emanate from Trotskyism. Trump: seventy-five-plus years after Trotsky's assassination, bringing pseudo-Trotskyists and Stalinists together. 

Right now the greatest hope for the neocons is Hillary Clinton. Which says everything you need to know about both them, and her.



Goku said:


> Should I take offence to @DesolationRow 's use of '_nihilistic_' left?


:lol I put that in there specifically for you.  :curry2



Beatles123 said:


> Trump's anti-hero tweener run is getting him over BIG!!
> 
> https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/03/14/trump-rises-national-support-rubio-falls-and-carso/
> 
> HE'S GETTING THE STONE COLD PUSH, @DesolationRow! :mark:
> 
> Once Trump forms his stable with Carson, Cruz, Carl Icahn and Chris Christie to take on Hilary's Establishment stable, this feud is going to be MONAAAAAAAAAY! :kermit
> 
> THINK OF THE PPV BUYS THE DEBATES WILL GET. :vince5


:woo


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

If there are no more good stories between now and the general election--always a probability in politics--I will at least be glad to have witnessed the political self-immolation of this creepy loser.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/709552473048887297


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Highly recommend everyone check out the two videos I posted above. 

Meanwhile, in Ohio, Kasich seems like he should be in to take the state, and this could be part of the reason why: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/14/john-kasich-has-clear-edge-in-ohio/



> Ohio has a partially-open primary. Only members of the Republican party can vote in the primary, but any voter can become a member of the Republican party on election day.
> 
> Trump has generally done well in primaries that are open to Democrats and Independents, as well as Republicans. If a large wave of Democrats or Independents vote in the Republican primary, Trump could outperform his poll numbers and win the Buckeye State, but that is a very large hypothetical.


I could easily see a large number of Trump supporters turned off by the idea of having to register with the Republican party. Hopefully enough people will bite that bullet and do it so they can vote Trump. Winning Ohio would be fantastic when he seems so far ahead in Florida. It would all but secure the nomination, given his support in the other primary states to come.

Of course, winning Ohio is not a necessity for Trump to win the nomination outright, as outlined by a delegate forecast provided to me by resident scholar and king among men, @DesolationRow, in which Trump loses Ohio but wins Florida as well as a number of other states he is expected to win: 

https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/trump-delegate-forecast-sreadsheet/


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

:lol  @CamillePunk once again... :done :lol

I'll be sure to watch those videos at some point in the near future. :mark: (Perhaps early tomorrow morning! :woo)


----------



## Smarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I'm sick and tired of hearing how Trump and Cruz have no shot against Hilary, but we need to elect another moderate! McCain and Romney did not get it done, why would Kasich get it done? 

Rubio's time simply is not now, he isn't a moderate IMO but his time isn't now. He needs to drop out ASAP and save himself from this Establishment tag ASAP.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

One more thing I want to point out about the media hypocrisy regarding Trump. They paint Trump as someone who spews "divisive rhetoric", and blames the violence at his rallies on this. 

By far the most divisive thing I've heard anyone say in this entire election cycle, and something far more divisive (that is, alienating to the largest number of people), was by Hillary Clinton, at an earlier Democratic Debate. 






Let's stop pretending the political left has anything against divisive rhetoric. The projection is strong in the liberal media, and among the other candidates.


----------



## AttitudeEraFan

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The Democrats hate Trump. The Republicans hate Trump. The media hates Trump. The Middle East hates Trump. The businessmen hate Trump. Hollywood hates Trump. 


Two reasons. Either he is bad for the country. Or he is bad for all these rich and powerful assholes above.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> One more thing I want to point out about the media hypocrisy regarding Trump. They paint Trump as someone who spews "divisive rhetoric", and blames the violence at his rallies on this.
> 
> By far the most divisive thing I've heard anyone say in this entire election cycle, and something far more divisive (that is, alienating to the largest number of people), was by Hillary Clinton, at an earlier Democratic Debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's stop pretending the political left has anything against divisive rhetoric. The projection is strong in the liberal media, and among the other candidates.


I'm struggling to see why this statement was so bad? She's saying the republicans are her enemies, prefaced by other answers said quite obviously in jest? I mean, she's Mrs Democrat so ofcourse she's going to be as anti republican as possible. I'm not trying to troll I'm seriously asking.

Also about your statement about the left and divisive rhetoric, it would seem to me the way Team Trump has described Hillary that she's not left at all. If she is indeed bought and paid for by wall street and as someone last page mentioned is liked by the 'neocons' then that doesn't sound so left to me. Quite the opposite. Hillary seems at the very least centre, even centre-right.

I think the only leftie in the race is Bernie.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

She is on the left, regardless of her core principles (of which I am not sure she has any). 

My point is that she's labeled half of the politically involved country as an enemy. It's far more divisive than anything Trump has said. Whether it's acceptable or not is irrelevant and not my point. If you're going to accuse Trump of being divisive (when I would argue that he is more of a unifier than a divider given his broad appeal among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, plus he also has more black and Muslim support than the other GOP candidates combined), then you have to say Hillary is even more divisive. But no, only Trump is painted with this brush.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> She is on the left, regardless of her core principles (of which I am not sure she has any).
> 
> My point is that she's labeled half of the politically involved country as an enemy. It's far more divisive than anything Trump has said. Whether it's acceptable or not is irrelevant and not my point. If you're going to accuse Trump of being divisive (when I would argue that he is more of a unifier than a divider given his broad appeal among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, plus he also has more black and Muslim support than the other GOP candidates combined), then you have to say Hillary is even more divisive. But no, only Trump is painted with this brush.


Okay. But can you not place any stock in how it was said? Do you have the whole question? Just the way she said it to me sounded a bit throwaway as if the question were a bit of a joke. Her tone was that of 'ok I know this isn't serious but I'll play along'. Again, I'm no Hillary supporter, I'm basing this on her tone of voice and the context of what else she said. 

Whereas I would say Trump has said all his outrageous shit loud, clear and serious in his shouting into the microphone way. I'm not going to list the shitty things he's said because I'm sure you won't agree they are, but there is a big difference in context and the way things are said.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



AttitudeEraFan said:


> The Democrats hate Trump. The Republicans hate Trump. The media hates Trump. The Middle East hates Trump. The businessmen hate Trump. Hollywood hates Trump.
> 
> 
> Two reasons. Either he is bad for the country. Or he is bad for all these rich and powerful assholes above.


He can be and is both. Trump is exactly the same as all these rich and powerful 'assholes'. He is only bad for them because he couldn't beat them at the same game they were all playing and wanted to change the rules.


----------



## KingofKings1281

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I think our whole political system is a joke, and the candidates left are all embarrassing to some degree, but Trump better watch his back. If you think for one second that the people who ACTUALLY run this country are going to let him anywhere near the White House, you're sadly mistaken. I wish no ill will on Trump, but he's in dangerous territory.


----------



## Batko10

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

With The Donald beating Rubio in all the polls in Florida by more than 2 to 1, another nail in little Marco's coffin was hammered in this evening.

Florida State's Attorney General, Pam Bondi, came out and endorsed Trump tonight. Florida has a "winner take all" primary and it looks like The Donald will be picking up its 99 delegates tomorrow.

If Trump can just eke out a narrow victory in Ohio's "winner take all" primary it's going to be all over but the shouting (and BLM instigated riots!). Cruz is leading the polls only in Missouri while The Donald is leading in the polls in all the other states up for grabs tomorrow.

*TRUMP IN 2016!* 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-picks-up-big-florida-endorsement/?ftag=YHF4eb9d17

- Mike


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> we don't bid out drugs here. If we did (as Trump points out) we can save 300 million.


Sanders also supports bidding for drugs, you're kinda proving my point re him supporting structural change rather than just a gov take over.

Also Denmark, while the most right wing Scandinavian country do still have universal healthcare which is Sanders main policy.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*










Sanders supporters are nice, right?? :side


----------



## GothicBohemian

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> Thank you for the thorough response. I shall go through your post point by point.
> 
> Firstly, we must always keep in mind that politics and governance are guided by all sorts of conspiracies. A fair number may even be wholly benign but conspiracies they do remain. In that post I teased about writing someday, haha, I shall do my best to connect the dots of how institutions such as J.P. Morgan, the Rockefeller empire and myriad other, lesser players in the financial world played integral roles in steering U.S. policy through their governmental proxies (I would say puppets but it's probably too early in the day to be that mean about it) for no less than a complete century. Conspiracies in the world of governments are everywhere. The 2008/2009 bailout for Wall Street by the U.S. was a conspiracy, no matter how out in the open it may have been. Transparency, as the U.S. nominally has, does not negate the power of the moneyed interests behind the throne. The Sea Island, Georgia meeting held by neoconservative policy wonks and "masters of the universe" in the realms of high-technology, finance and industry some days ago would appear to be nothing less than a conspiracy among powerful entities to take Trump down. The Bush administration lied about Iraq and created false conspiracies linking Saddam Hussein's regime to al-Qaeda and vice versa; numerous neocons were involved in a conspiracy, in part through what was called the "Office of Special Plans," to, effectively, engender a whole bunch of lies, lies which they would let fly throughout the world of media like air balloons. A conspiracy was behind the Chicago protests a few nights ago, and it doubtless goes all the way to George Soros and perhaps even Hillary Clinton, as Roger Stone is now saying all over media.
> 
> As for JCVD's linking of Trump and Cruz, the way I see it, he means that both individuals are _persona non grata_ with the "Establishment," but, in this context, even more pointedly with the globalist bankers. I disagree with his lumping Cruz in with Trump in that way since Cruz has backed TPP and TPA, is easily tied in with Goldman Sachs on several different levels, and, generally speaking still speaks in the generally familiar Republican platitudes concerning foreign and trade policy, respectively.
> 
> However, what you posit is indeed the case: which is to say, Cruz is not beloved by the "Establishment," either. For a long time the "Establishment" backed Jeb Bush lmao :lmao :lmao) and when his campaign sank to the bottom of the Mariana Trench, they largely clustered around Marco Rubio, but his campaign has hit an iceberg and is presently en route to sinking. John Kasich would doubtless be their next, last choice, but he inspires such pallid, nonexistent enthusiasm--I was watching about fifteen minutes of a Kasich "rally" in Ohio this weekend and everyone there, including the candidate, looked like they belonged in _Night of the Living Dead_--that the prospects of him ever making it, particularly after having gone literally winless up to this point, are just about zero.


I believe we (and probably JCVD) are more or less on the same page. Neither Trump or Cruz is the chosen candidate and each is problematic to the GOP for different reasons. 



DesolationRow said:


> To the point that they are overemphasized by media and political parties, "Left" and "Right" are largely the construct of a false dialectic and faulty paradigm in any event. What Trump's candidacy displays, in vivid Technicolor, is that a certain anti-Establishment populism has been bubbling under the surface of the water, and it only needed a candidate of such broad appeal and, as someone who still holds to the semantics of not becoming an actual "Donald Trump supporter--I'm more anti-anti-Trump, a bit like Justin Raimondo has been characterizing himself online, seeing in Trump a genuine "rooting interest"--fairly simplistic language to penetrate the rotten edifice of the GOP's corrupt establishment ...


Yes, 'Left' and 'Right' are media constructs. No one adheres to everything either "side" is said to embrace. These are only labels designed to simplify issues for quick consumption via sound bites and video clips. Few people are happy with the label they've been told they fit or the politicians who tell them they represent their label when really no one does. 



DesolationRow said:


> ... You rightly point out how phony Hillary Clinton is as a leftist--though _culturally_-speaking she would certainly be hardline leftist, through and through--but imagine, for a moment, being an American conservative or libertarian. The entire gamut of Republican choices outside of Trump are, when carefully scrutinized, reflexively hawkish, doggedly imperialistic, devoutly in favor of what they characterize as "free trade," and unmistakably open to the increased weakening of American sovereignty.


This falls in line with how 'Left' and 'Right', American style, are frequently viewed from the outside. Your left is closer to centrist - sometimes even right leaning centrist - whereas there's a perception of your right as an unhappy combination of religious hawks and wealthy ultra capitalists. The options are so limited; where are libertarians, socialists, fiscal-but-not-social-conservatives (and their opposite) and many others given a voice? 

I can easily understand why those who find nothing for themselves in the options available are tired of the process and waiting for someone or something to shake it up. Until a little over a decade ago there were only regional parties that matched the _religion, war and money_ pattern here but what was once The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada was swallowed up from within by a coalition of our own versions of the Tea Party, creating The Conservatives, who came to minority power by "uniting the right" - being the one and only right wing alternative against three national and one semi-national/provincial left leaning alternatives. Until The Liberal Party played the Justin Trudeau card, photos of a little Syrian boy drowned at sea circulated everywhere and a failing Alberta oil industry combined to unite the left, trigger Canada's self-manufactured national identity as open door peacekeepers and disillusion the fiscal conservative vote, we were being governed by a party with less than 40% of the nation's support. 



DesolationRow said:


> Now, Trump is not a conservative, exactly, either, as you correctly note. However, he's more intrinsically opposed to the centralization of education, which has been ruinous in the U.S., and seeks to shift many social matters back down to the realm of the states, where they belong. He wants to strengthen rather than oversee the continued dilution of American sovereignty, and he has dared to touch third rails like the catastrophic trade deals such as NAFTA and GATT. These points are all anathema to the entire "Establishment," and by that I mean the domain of the entire two-party duopoly. He's created all of the right enemies: globalists, neocons, avaricious, connected bankers, the Federal Reserve, the Council on Foreign Relations, Goldman Sachs, George Soros, the corrupt Mexican government, the corrupt U.S. government, the corrupt Chinese government (why do I keep saying "corrupt"? talk about redundancies!), the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the hardcore, take-no-prisoners, burn-it-all-down nihilistic Left, the national-security military-industrial-congressional-complex ("congressional" was in the first draft of Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address warning, but someone took it out minutes before he went on the air), innumerable Deep State actors and think tanks, _National Review, The New Republic, Commentary_, George Will, the sinister Bush family, the crooked Clinton clan, the Pentagon, the "Israel First" crowd, bribed and bought-for politicians in Washington, D.C. of every stripe, slimy Super-PACS and most of the entire media punditocracy.


How and why does centralization not work in America? Is it due to population size (unlikely, considering China)? Diversity? A different mindset from much of the world? Canada seems to do best when we have one system for all in certain areas - education, health care, social programs - while allowing the provinces, territories and First Nations to handle their own municipal taxation and regional services. The exceptions haven't been successful; New Brunswick, for example, runs two separate systems for all government services, French and English schoolchildren don't even share buses in most communities, and this stupidity is bankrupting our already poor province. The First Nations band councils are a bit of mess too. Living conditions for aboriginal Canadians are not catching up on average despite increased self-determination. 

NAFTA has been wonderful for Canada in some respects but not in others. We have very little national identity any more; we've become America North in ways we didn't want to be. It's also eroded our national brands - very little is actually manufactured here for Canadian consumption. What we do build - and what we fish, harvest and creatively produce as well - is mainly for export; we import most of what we buy. It's quite rare to see a 'Made In Canada' label. Even The Bay and Roots apparel isn't made here as far as I know. The Hudson Bay Company _was_ Canada for generations, sort of how Americans used to order from the Sears Catalogue back in the day. 

This plays a role in why Justin Trudeau is our current Prime Minister. He inspires nostalgia for his father's heyday, back when Canada wasn't so tied to the US, when we did our own thing, built our own stuff and had a government that didn't care about our personal beliefs and didn't put up with whining from special interest groups or domestic terrorism. In our case, we also want a social safety net with unified services offered to a multicultural, bilingual population but otherwise we're not that far off from what Americans looking at Trump for change desire. 



DesolationRow said:


> He has numerous significant flaws. He's going to have to learn a great deal. He wants power so he is not to be trusted.
> 
> Yet, he must be doing _something_ right. :lol


No disagreement here. (Y)


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



GothicBohemian said:


> Problematic


Gotta keep it real with you, I quite enjoy your posts but honestly? If it weren't for the fact that you were using this word in the right context and you were being at least fair in the way you said it, I would have cringed. :surprise: We need to stop using buzzwords like these to make ourselves sound superior. (Which isn't what you were doing, but rather the trend as of now.)

JUST VOTED IN NC, LADS!! :mark: :trump

Here in Duplin County Beulaville, NC we are much smaller, so I asked the precinct lady how many had voted so far that morning. She said around 51 had voted, which for that precinct was good for that time of morning


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Sanders also supports bidding for drugs, you're kinda proving my point re him supporting structural change rather than just a gov take over.
> 
> Also Denmark, while the most right wing Scandinavian country do still have universal healthcare which is Sanders main policy.


But not the tax system he assumes it does. What he wants is largely not even the way Denmark is.

Also, Yes. Sanders and Trump are very alike except Trump's ideas aren't as radical. He doesn't support single payer, for example, but he DOES care about our infrastructure and rebuilding our roads and bridges, etc.

He and sanders also agree that our trade deals are retarded.

I have spoken to many Sanders supporters who would vote Trump if Bernie fails them.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I'm with Deso and Punk on this, I'm an anti-anti-trump supporter. I think both Trump and Sanders have good ideas but Sanders is both radical yet weak. I cannot vote for someone so wimpy. He still has good ideas, if some of the people spouting anti-trump nonsense would listen to his actual policies and what he wishes to do, they would like them. This is why this party loyalty stuff is stupid. It helps nobody and just makes people closed minded. 

I think Trump or Sanders will have issues if they make it to the white house, it's obvious who both Democrats and the GOP wants to win, that's hilary! Hey Democrats, take a look at your party, one of your candidates is getting supported by neocons and super rich people. I thought your party was one of the people since the big bad republicans were oh so racist and mean! Guess they're not too different are they?

This is just so grand, the media, the Democrats and Republicans getting exposed, Republicans turning on the GOP, the Democrats happy about that until they see Democrats now noticing the obvious party flaws and backroom meetings. Just so wonderful!


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> I'm with Deso and Punk on this, I'm an anti-anti-trump supporter. I think both Trump and Sanders have good ideas but Sanders is both radical yet weak. I cannot vote for someone so wimpy. He still has good ideas, if some of the people spouting anti-trump nonsense would listen to his actual policies and what he wishes to do, they would like them. This is why this party loyalty stuff is stupid. It helps nobody and just makes people closed minded.
> 
> I think Trump or Sanders will have issues if they make it to the white house, it's obvious who both Democrats and the GOP wants to win, that's hilary! Hey Democrats, take a look at your party, one of your candidates is getting supported by neocons and super rich people. I thought your party was one of the people since the big bad republicans were oh so racist and mean! Guess they're not too different are they?


Sanders being a total cuckold doesn't help my perception of him either.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Sanders being a total cuckold doesn't help my perception of him either.


When he first spoke I was actually excited then I seen his pandering, his odd comments his total cuckold way about him and knew if he cannot handle anything like this, congress would eat him alive. Also his idea of 15 dollar an hour wages not only fucks over anyone making that now but prices for everything. Corporations are not just going to pay out their ass for every single job. 

Honestly if Sanders wasn't so hardcore, Trump/Sanders would actually be interesting.


----------



## Truthbetold

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Truthbetold said:


>


I feel you, based black man.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Does cuckold have a new retarded definition I'm not aware of?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> Does cuckold have a new retarded definition I'm not aware of?


un-masculine. A doormat to any outside force, particularly angry woman.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> Does cuckold have a new retarded definition I'm not aware of?


Cuckold is a word that's been around since the Medieval ages, along with Catamite. Cuckold is pretty much a henpecked man who has no authority over anything in his life to the point he's even a laughing stock to his family, friends and coworkers, people who should respect him. Also is used for a man who's wife puts him in a position where she cheats on him at will but he can do nothing, by either lack of will or simply being a coward.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I know what the actual definition of cuckold is @Miss Sally. That's why I asked if there was a new definition. It was being used ITT to mean something other than it doesn't.


I mean ITT someone could construe that it means grouchy, or really stereotypical Jewish, or etc.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I think it still fits him.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

It's used to describe men who roll over for third wave feminist misandry, white men who roll over for BLM's racism toward whites (hi Bernie), and men of European ancestry who welcome immigration or "refugees" from non-Western European nations (which only really began with the immigration act passed in 1965, despite popular misconception that the US was always open to immigrants from everywhere) who have very different cultural values even though those immigrants are going to live off of them and eventually vote for leftists, expanding the power of the state against them. There is a metaphorical parallel to letting some strange guy come into your house and fuck your wife. 

I'm not sure a better word exists to describe Bernie Sanders having his podium taken away from him by belligerent BLM supporters while he stood off to the side with his hands clasped over his crotch looking down, or the way he asserted there were no poor white people (even though he doesn't seem to have earned a paycheck before the age of 40, and never outside of the public sector) while pandering to black voters who overwhelmingly vote Hillary anyway.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> I know what the actual definition of cuckold is @Miss Sally. That's why I asked if there was a new definition. It was being used ITT to mean something other than it doesn't.
> 
> 
> I mean ITT someone could construe that it means grouchy, or really stereotypical Jewish, or etc.


As far as I know, no. I use the term for him after he was hijacked and made to look limp when those two BLM women took his platform from him and when he seemingly bowed out to Hilary when his campaign first started. I've always used it as a term to describe his utter weakness. This just reminds me of Sanders anytime it comes to standing up for himself or actually having a chance to do something big, just gets slapped down.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Thank you @CamillePunk. It makes more sense now.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Yeah, the term is mainly used to describe weakness and appeasing people who are hostile toward you or will work against your interests. 

I used to not care much for the term, but then I'd see a lot of leftists complain about the term while calling people who disagree with them racist, misogynist, sexist, etc. without grounds. Now I'm OK with it. Turning point for me was probably when Bernie sacrificed 20 million poor white people to the altar of white guilt. I don't know what it is with communists and sacrificing tens of millions of people. :side:


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I think this might be the last election of the republican and democratic party as we know it

Many right wingers are pissed at the Republicans for supporting Hillary who they are supposed to be competing against and any left wingers are pissed that she is writing off Sanders and openly siding with rich powerful bussinessmen

I think we might see some type of 3 or 4 legit candidate race at the next election 

A far left, a far right and a more centralist democrat party 

I don't see the Republicans surviving this election, they are either going to re brand and reorganize or break up 

This election has show that the democrats and the republicans were two haves of the same party and the election is more about bragging rights than anything else

Edit\

Also one more SUPER FUN HISTORY LESSON

I have seen many people say that breaking up Trump events is liking trying to stop Hitler before he took power. One of the main reasons Hitler took power was because established politicians and other parties used to fuck with the Nazi's even when they were not being violent (and don't think that the Nazi's were the only anti-semantic party, antisemitism was one thing a majority of the smaller parties on both sides of the spectrum had in common) and made the Nazis legit look like a downtrodden and abused party that "the man" was holding down and gave them tons of sympathy. The fact that communists continued to have gun fights in the streets and burned down the Reichstag (historians have found that it was not in fact a Nazi false flag) also gave the Nazis more than enough excuse to crack down on any opposing views

Quit quoting and looking to history and then doing exactly what you claim you are avoiding


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

This cuckold business is a new low for this thread IMO. It has nothing to do with anything apart from demonising your opponent in the same (or even worse) way you all cry to the hills about the big bad media doing to poor Trump. 

Team Trump pretends to be intelligent, across the issues and 'above' the Anti-Trumpers, and then yet you all jump on that ridiculous bandwagon with glee, rubbing your hands together. I don't know why, but I expected a bit more.

I'm sure Trump would love it though, so well done.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I just explained the meaning behind the term and why it is apt to apply it to Bernie. Your post contains zero counter-arguments so thank you for your irrelevant, hysterical input as usual.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/709892018240163840
It looks like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will be the big winners of tonight's primaries. Although, Kasich may pull out a win in Ohio. Trump has picked up an endorsement from Foxy Brown.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/709885270380965890


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Rubio is gone! Suspended his campaign tonight after being utterly crushed by Trump in his own state of Florida. I was expecting the win but was 60/40 on Rubio staying in and continuing to be an annoyance, so I'm happy he's gone. 

Kasich looks like he has Ohio in the bag so he's gonna stick around just to bleed delegates from Trump and see what happens in a contested convention scenario.


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Looks like Kasich is winning in Ohio. No idea why you would vote for him at this point though since after tomorrow I think he might be mathematically eliminated from winning the nomination.


----------



## Cliffy

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Sanders the cuck getting destroyed :haha


----------



## NotGuilty

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Another one bites the dust. Donald Trump slaying the weak and making America great again. :thumbsup


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Ohio is the *1* in the *1-30* record of Kasich so far. And, yes, he needs more delegates to win than are available the rest of the way.


----------



## HiddenFlaw

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

yea trump :jesse

yea america :jesse


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@GothicBohemian, great thoughts. I shall attempt to better answer a question or two of yours at some point in the future when I have more time with which to do so, haha! Thank you for the fantastic reply!
@CamillePunk, I watched the "Donald Trump Assassination" video, quite well-done. Thank you! The "Protestors" video will have to wait until later tonight!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/709901060534501376

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/709901352462233600

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/709903571374845952

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/709904003014860801


----------



## Overcomer

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

What do you guys think will happen if there is a brokered convention and the nomination goes to someone other than Trump?


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Overcomer said:


> What do you guys think will happen if there is a brokered convention and the nomination goes to someone other than Trump?


The GOP would effectively break itself into two, hand the presidency to Hillary Clinton and people would rightly see politics as the sham that it is.


----------



## Overcomer

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> The GOP would effectively break itself into two, hand the presidency to Hillary Clinton and people would rightly see politics as the sham that it is.


Oh definitely. It would essentially be a middle finger & a resounding Fuck you to the voters and I can see where it would essentially be the end of the GOP altogether. I do fear the possible anger and backlash on a lower level, ie, you and I the citizen.


----------



## gamegenie

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump and his supporters tonight have been silenced. 

Trump straight got thumped by Kasich in Ohio tonight.


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



gamegenie said:


> Trump and his supporters tonight have been silenced.
> 
> Trump straight got thumped by Kasich in Ohio tonight.


Trump is currently leading in every other state. That's not silenced.


----------



## gamegenie

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FITZ said:


> Trump is currently leading in every other state. That's not silenced.


Losing a swing State like Ohio is a clear sign that it will go to Hillary in the General. 

He won Illnois and Florida but those States are going to go to Hillary in the General. 

:smile2:


----------



## truelove

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



gamegenie said:


> Trump and his supporters tonight have been silenced.
> 
> Trump straight got thumped by Kasich in Ohio tonight.


Kasich is the governor in Ohio and has a high approval rating.. add in he's never lost an election there before :trump


----------



## truelove

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



gamegenie said:


> Losing a swing State like *Ohio* is a clear sign that it will go to Hillary in the General.
> 
> He won Illnois and *Florida* but those States are going to go to Hillary in the General.
> 
> :smile2:


Kasich is going to be the VP for Trump... so :nah
Florida is a toss up in every election, so I don't see how you can just assume that


----------



## truelove

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Overcomer said:


> What do you guys think will happen if there is a brokered convention and the nomination goes to someone other than Trump?


I actually heard Bush would be a serious choice :ha :tysonlol :HA :Jordan


----------



## Overcomer

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



truelove said:


> I actually heard Bush would be a serious choice :ha :tysonlol :HA :Jordan


Maybe his family would go and vote for him....everyone else would skip it and stay home.

This video tells it all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdCYMvaUcrA


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



truelove said:


> I actually heard Bush would be a serious choice :ha :tysonlol :HA :Jordan


also :heston


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Only a massive failure loses in their home state

To put in perspective after Carter's disastrous presidency Regan took 47 out of 50 states with Georgia, a classic red state and Carter's home, being one of the ones he lost 

When Regan went up for reelection he won 49 out of 50 states with Mondale ONLY taking Minnesota, Mondale's fucking campaign phrase was "WHERES THE BEEF?" and he STILL took his home state

Rubio couldn't beat Where's the beef?


----------



## gamegenie

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



truelove said:


> Kasich is going to be the VP for Trump... so :nah
> Florida is a toss up in every election, so I don't see how you can just assume that


Obama won Florida twice. 

You don't think Hillary Clinton is going to win Florida, you are on dream street.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Look at the results of Obama's victories in Florida. Very close. It's a toss up state.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

BERNIE HAS BEEN COMPLETELY OBLITERATED!!!! 

SOCIALISM: REJECTED!


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Florida is the hardest state to win

Lots of demos and many of them are from very conservative cultures not to mention the north and eastern shores are ******* city while the south and end land are heavy in Latino voters not to mention a large Jewish vote

I don't even think the Mexican thing will hurt Trump in Florida THAT much because of how much the Latin community are Castro hating Cuban's who hate anything resembling socialism

People act like the "minority vote" is one big block but mostly only cover the black and Mexican vote 

The US filled with people who immigrated during the cold war for places like Vietnam, Cuba, and various South American countries after siding the losers and they tend to be EXTREMELY right wing

I was reading "The 25 Year Century" which was written by the youngest general in the Republic of Vietnam and many of the Vietnamese communities hate the democrats due to their statements on the Vietnam war and how it used to symbolism a war not worth fighting (its easy to say that when its not your family who is being shot to death in the streets for owning your own house)


----------



## truelove

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



gamegenie said:


> Obama won Florida twice.
> 
> You don't think Hillary Clinton is going to win Florida, you are on dream street.


and Bush won Florida twice... and Obama didn't win by much in Florida. Obama also had something Hillary won't, the young voters and independents. Add in Hillary is far more loathed than President Obama even on his worst day.


----------



## gamegenie

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Hillary will have Obama's coalition in tact. If you don't think so, you're going to be sorely disappointed in November. 

Switching gears....

Donald Trump is really making Kasich's speech tonight seem spectacular, this dude is repeating the same thing over and over.


----------



## truelove

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



gamegenie said:


> Hillary will have Obama's coalition in tact. If you don't think so, you're going to be sorely disappointed in November.
> 
> Switching gears....
> 
> Donald Trump is really making Kasich's speech tonight seem spectacular, this dude is repeating the same thing over and over.


:hano


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The last few minutes of Trump's victory speech where he talked about all the negative ads against him was hilarious. :lmao


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Missouri is insanely close right now. Trump was just up by 3,000 and now he's down by under 1,000.

Edit: Now Trump is back in the lead by about 1,000 votes. That's crazy.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/15/11225128/donald-trump-gullible-internet

Honest question, Trump supporters aren't concerned about his disregard in fact-checking before speaking out? Or do you consider that just a campaign strategy until this point and he would change once it gets into general election or if he gets elected? Or is that part of the appeal as a president to shoot first ask question later?


----------



## truelove

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Cruz is begging for Rubio to join him so he get those delegates, you one devious cunt


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

It's not important. 

The guy tried to attack a presidential candidate and CNN gave him a nationally televised interview. Seems more significant. You aren't even supposed to show these type of people on camera or acknowledge them, because you don't want to encourage copycats, let alone give them an interview. CNN obviously disagrees with that policy, or at least they'll make an exception for anyone who's anti-Trump.

If someone tried to attack Clinton there is no question the media would dig into the person's past and present him as an unhinged "anti-government" lunatic. That's the real story here.


----------



## Rick Sanchez

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I fully expect it to be Hillary vs. Trump come Election time.

Not a huge fan of either, but if I do vote I'll probably vote for Hillary if only in hopes for getting a female President for the first time ever.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> http://www.vox.com/2016/3/15/11225128/donald-trump-gullible-internet
> 
> Honest question, Trump supporters aren't concerned about his disregard in fact-checking before speaking out? Or do you consider that just a campaign strategy until this point and he would change once it gets into general election or if he gets elected? Or is that part of the appeal as a president to shoot first ask question later?


Obama said his uncle helped liberate Auschwitz

Fact checking means absolutely nothing 

(auschwitz was on the eastern front)


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Dexter Morgan said:


> I fully expect it to be Hillary vs. Trump come Election time.
> 
> Not a huge fan of either, but if I do vote I'll probably vote for Hillary if only in hopes for getting a female President for the first time ever.


She would get a sex change if she thought it would help her win.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Drumpf already celebrating with some of his closest business colleagues!


----------



## Rick Sanchez

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> She would get a sex change if she thought it would help her win.


Perhaps. But being the first female President is a huge deal.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Dexter Morgan said:


> I fully expect it to be Hillary vs. Trump come Election time.
> 
> Not a huge fan of either, but if I do vote I'll probably vote for Hillary if only in hopes for getting a female President for the first time ever.


Pretty shitty reason, fam. Pretty shitty person to be that woman as well.


----------



## TheRealFunkman

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Dexter Morgan said:


> I fully expect it to be Hillary vs. Trump come Election time.
> 
> Not a huge fan of either, but if I do vote I'll probably vote for Hillary if only in hopes for getting a female President for the first time ever.


Great reason.....


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Obama said his uncle helped liberate Auschwitz
> 
> Fact checking means absolutely nothing
> 
> (auschwitz was on the eastern front)


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama/uncle-liberated-camp-but-not-auschwitz/

Compared to

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hecking-donald-trumps-claims-about-trump-uni/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/


----------



## Rick Sanchez

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Pretty shitty reason, fam. Pretty shitty person to be that woman as well.


People vote for different reasons every time. I doubt every voter is voting for noble reasons. A lot of people vote only because of the party system. Most Democrats will vote Democrat regardless, same for Republicans. That's not a very good reason either. Some do vote for better reasons, but certainly not everyone.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> http://www.vox.com/2016/3/15/11225128/donald-trump-gullible-internet
> 
> Honest question, Trump supporters aren't concerned about his disregard in fact-checking before speaking out? Or do you consider that just a campaign strategy until this point and he would change once it gets into general election or if he gets elected? Or is that part of the appeal as a president to shoot first ask question later?


That's a great link. My biggest takeaway is that according to Dr. Harold Bornstein of Lenox Hill Hospital in Manhattan (Trump's Doctor) is Trump's incredible health! Excerpt below



> "If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency," Bornstein writes. "His blood pressure, 110/65, and laboratory test results were astonishingly excellent. ... His physical strength and stamina are extraordinary."
> 
> "Reached for comment regarding this, a spokesperson at the American Medical Association just giggled," reported the Daily Beast.


ASTONISHINGLY EXCELLENT!


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/709941293477195776
:lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama/uncle-liberated-camp-but-not-auschwitz/
> 
> Compared to
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hecking-donald-trumps-claims-about-trump-uni/
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/


These guys don't worry about little things like truth and facts dude, we're making America Great Again!


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I have CNN's map up and it goes by county. Boone County is at 74% and it was double digits for Cruz so if that holds more votes for Cruz (who is down a little over 3,000 votes). Cruz was up 2,500 votes in that county so with another 2,500 I guess you could expect him to be up around 625 more votes once they finish. So we're looking at like 2,400 votes. 

Missouri gives 12 delegates to the candidate with the most votes. That very well could be the difference between Trump getting the nomination or not. 

Which brings me to Perry County Missouri. It has 0% reporting... 

This is the wikipedia for the county.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_County,_Missouri

I feel like I might only be _slightly _ exaggerating when I say that Perry County holds the fate of the world in it's hands...


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> I think this might be the last election of the republican and democratic party as we know it
> 
> Many right wingers are pissed at the Republicans for supporting Hillary who they are supposed to be competing against and any left wingers are pissed that she is writing off Sanders and openly siding with rich powerful bussinessmen
> 
> I think we might see some type of 3 or 4 legit candidate race at the next election
> 
> A far left, a far right and a more centralist democrat party
> 
> I don't see the Republicans surviving this election, they are either going to re brand and reorganize or break up
> 
> This election has show that the democrats and the republicans were two haves of the same party and the election is more about bragging rights than anything else
> 
> Edit\
> 
> Also one more SUPER FUN HISTORY LESSON
> 
> I have seen many people say that breaking up Trump events is liking trying to stop Hitler before he took power. One of the main reasons Hitler took power was because established politicians and other parties used to fuck with the Nazi's even when they were not being violent (and don't think that the Nazi's were the only anti-semantic party, antisemitism was one thing a majority of the smaller parties on both sides of the spectrum had in common) and made the Nazis legit look like a downtrodden and abused party that "the man" was holding down and gave them tons of sympathy. The fact that communists continued to have gun fights in the streets and burned down the Reichstag (historians have found that it was not in fact a Nazi false flag) also gave the Nazis more than enough excuse to crack down on any opposing views
> 
> Quit quoting and looking to history and then doing exactly what you claim you are avoiding


Thank you! I been saying this, despite the mean messages I been getting here this is exactly why I am enjoying this. We get to see an exposed Republican and Democratic party. Republicans get to see their leadership manipulate and screw things over and don't care who they want. We get to see Democrats fuck over Bernie in favor of someone who possibly will be indited, who's gotten people killed in a civil war and is racist with calling blacks "Super predators", I thought Republicans were the "racist" party and here we are. Both sides are getting exposed and shown they're two sides to the same coin which many of us in this thread have been saying!

It's glorious to witness, there needs to be more than two parties and both sides need to cast off their wealthy overlords. I find it ironic that people are so scared of what Trump may do, they ignore what Hilary has actually done. They're like kids scared of the "monster in the closet" one that may not exist that they ignore the creepy man in the beat up old van driving around. Potential to be bad does not = established bad.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama/uncle-liberated-camp-but-not-auschwitz/
> 
> Compared to
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hecking-donald-trumps-claims-about-trump-uni/
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/


Auschwitz is the most notorious concentration camp of all time 

To claim that your uncle liberated a camp that killed 1.5 million people and was fucking total extermination camp with no other goal than to make sure no one who goes in ever comes out and then herp derp I got it mixed up Buchenwald which was a work camp and killed 56,545 is fucking insulting

Obama used fucking Auschwitz to make it look like he came from a family of liberators and heroes 

He had a true story of heroism but it wasn't SPICY enough

Trump has said a lot of shit but I never compared the two, all I was saying lying has nothing to do with electable and yes in my mind Auschwitz is a bigger mistake because it was one the most important parts of the most important event of 1900s

My grandpa was in the Marines in the 60s, I guess I can say he held of the Tet offensive and saved countless Catholics

The greatest death count of a single location and he got it wrong

I also compared to Trump to Mussolini and said his rhetoric can motivate people to due to some stupid shit so don't think I am some kind of fanboy


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

It's a great comparison by FriedTofu because it shows PolitiFact's bias, which is well-documented. The BBB DID give Trump University an A+ rating. Obama DID lie about his grandfather liberating Auschwitz. Trump got a "False" when he was correct. Obama got a "Mostly True" when he was incorrect. According to PolitiFact Hillary Clinton is a very honest woman. Tells you all you need to know.


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> It's a great comparison by FriedTofu because it shows PolitiFact's bias, which is well-documented. The BBB DID give Trump University an A+ rating. Obama DID lie about his grandfather liberating Auschwitz. Trump got a "False" when he was correct. Obama got a "Mostly True" when he was incorrect. According to PolitiFact Hillary Clinton is a very honest woman. Tells you all you need to know.


They also said Trump was lying when he said Common Core was Washington controlling out schools (or something like that I'm not going to fucking look it up again) because states opt in. OK that's true but they just leave out the part that states have a financial incentive to opt into it. So of course they're going to opt in and let the federal government have a bigger say in how their education is run. Even after reading the explanation that they gave I don't think I would say that I disagree with Trump. 
Seems more like a statement of opinion in all honesty. 

I have to say that looking at this map of Missouri is fascinating. In St. Louis County (it is it's own Congressional District so whoever wins it gets 5 delegates) Cruz and Trump are separated by 1,300 votes! It's crazy how close it is. 

Also Perry County had their numbers come in. I guess they do it all at once there. Trump won by 31 votes (did I tell you how close Missouri is right now?).

http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/mo

Just look at this map. 

Mcdonald County.... 9 FUCKING VOTES WAS THE DIFFERENCE!!!! 9 Votes.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Auschwitz is the most notorious concentration camp of all time
> 
> To claim that uncle liberated a camp that killed 1.5 million people and was fucking total extermination camp with no other goal than to make sure no one who goes in ever comes out and then herp derp I got it mixed up Buchenwald which was a work camp and killed 56,545 is fucking insulting
> 
> Obama used fucking Auschwitz to make it look like he came from a family of liberators and heroes
> 
> He had a true story of heroism but it wasn't SPICY enough
> 
> Trump has said a lot of shit but I never compared the two, all I was saying lying has nothing to do with electable and yes in my mind Auschwitz because it was one the most important parts of the most important event of 1900s
> 
> My grandpa was in the Marines in the 60s, I guess I can say he held of the Tet offensive and saved countless Catholics


So in other words you have no standards on who gets your vote. The fact that you have to quote Obama using a family anecdote which he clarified when others pointed out his mistake and equate it to Trump's conduct during his campaign so far is hilariously sad to deflect away from a valid concern of how a Trump presidency would look like.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FITZ said:


> I have CNN's map up and it goes by county. Boone County is at 74% and it was double digits for Cruz so if that holds more votes for Cruz (who is down a little over 3,000 votes). Cruz was up 2,500 votes in that county so with another 2,500 I guess you could expect him to be up around 625 more votes once they finish. So we're looking at like 2,400 votes.
> 
> Missouri gives 12 delegates to the candidate with the most votes. That very well could be the difference between Trump getting the nomination or not.
> 
> Which brings me to Perry County Missouri. It has 0% reporting...
> 
> This is the wikipedia for the county.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_County,_Missouri
> 
> I feel like I might only be _slightly _ exaggerating when I say that Perry County holds the fate of the world in it's hands...


Show me the winner(s), Missouri. :aryha


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> So in other words you have no standards on who gets your vote. The fact that you have to quote Obama using a family anecdote which he clarified when others pointed out his mistake and equate it to Trump's conduct during his campaign so far is hilariously sad to deflect away from a valid concern of how a Trump presidency would look like.


Dude, I think any president can be a tyrant 

I think everyone in this election is baiting violence on the other sides supporters 

I AM NOT SAYING OBAMA'S STATEMENT WAS EQUAL TO TRUMPS, THERE IS NO COMPARISON

Personally you can think that what Obama said was no big deal, its no problem to me 

I think Obama's was worse because I am super into world war 2 and cold war history (I tons of bios, I have taken history classes solely focused on the war, I import films just to get a new perspective on the conflicts, I play those games like Hearts of Iron that only history nerds play)

In my mind getting Auschwitz mixed up with any other camp other than say Treblinka is liking saying "My dad put out the fire on 9/11, no sorry my dad put out the fire at 711" both are impressive, one is a much bigger deal and only a total idiot would mix them up 

Its not like Guy who jumped onto stage during Trump rally has a major wikipedia article

As for conduct Marion Berry was elected after smoking crack with a hooker and cursing out the cops when they arrested him, unless you get caught gutting a man conduct means jack shit to the average person


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> These guys don't worry about little things like truth and facts dude, we're making America Great Again!


"HA HA HA! LAUGH AT THOSE INFERIOR NON LIBERAL BEINGS WHO CANNOT SEE OUR "FACTS" "

This is why you guys can't win. Treat us like muck and see how far it gets you.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> It's a great comparison by FriedTofu because it shows PolitiFact's bias, which is well-documented. The BBB DID give Trump University an A+ rating. Obama DID lie about his grandfather liberating Auschwitz. Trump got a "False" when he was correct. Obama got a "Mostly True" when he was incorrect. According to PolitiFact Hillary Clinton is a very honest woman. Tells you all you need to know.


That is because the main point of Obama's speech was about having a family member serving during the time of war and saw combat. He got the camp wrong and was rightfully pointed out and he corrected it. There was no intent to mislead.

Trump university once got an A+ rating but it's most recent rating when they were still taking in new students was a D. Trump was intentionally trying to mislead with his statements.

You can go to other factchecking websites if you think Politifact is too biased and see Trump's misleading statements.


stevefox1200 said:


> Dude, I think any president can be a tyrant
> 
> I think everyone in this election is baiting violence on the other sides supporters
> 
> I AM NOT SAYING OBAMA'S STATEMENT WAS EQUAL TO TRUMPS, THERE IS NO COMPARISON
> 
> Personally you can think that what Obama said was no big deal, its no problem to me
> 
> I think Obama's was worse because I am super into world war 2 and cold war history (I tons of bios, I have taken history classes solely focused on the war, I import films just to get a new perspective on the conflicts, I play those games like Hearts of Iron that only history nerds play)
> 
> In my mind getting Auschwitz mixed up with any other camp other than say Treblinka is liking saying "My dad put out the fire on 9/11, no sorry my dad put out the fire at 711" both are impressive, one is a much bigger deal and only a total idiot would mix them up
> 
> Its not like Guy who jumped onto stage during Trump rally has a major wikipedia article
> 
> As for conduct Marion Berry was elected after smoking crack with a hooker and cursing out the cops when they arrested him, unless you get caught gutting a man conduct means jack shit to the average person


If there was no comparison why bring it up? To you, lack of fact-checking about a family story that was passed down in the family is worse than attempting to mislead the public on Trump university's ratings because of your interest in history. These are your words.


> What defines your true character is not never failing but how you handle your failures and evolve and how you go back and "do it right".


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump wins MO!


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> "HA HA HA! LAUGH AT THOSE INFERIOR NON LIBERAL BEINGS WHO CANNOT SEE OUR "FACTS" "
> 
> This is why you guys can't win. Treat us like muck and see how far it gets you.


Oh you poor baby. 'Treat us like much waaaaa'! MAN THE FUCK UP


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Election*



Reservoir Angel said:


> Essentially the Republican party will have to represented by 1 of 2 utter maniacs.
> 
> You know, I remember the days when people thought George W. Bush was as low as the Republican party would sink. Then Sarah Palin arrived. Michelle Bachmann appeared. And now Ted Cruz, and Donald fucking Trump of all people.
> 
> If this trend continues I can't wait to see what screaming nuisance they run with in 2020.


They made their bed when they courted the bigotry votes during Bush's second term and ever since. A bigot's vote is the same as a regular vote.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

RECOUNT

2000 LEVEL SHIT HERE!


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Oh you poor baby. 'Treat us like much waaaaa'! MAN THE FUCK UP


Top tier baiting. BM level snark.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

R.I.P. in peace Little Marco :hayden3

Kudos to Kasich on stunning everyone and nabbing his homestate, though.


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

This whole thing is as predictable as a WWE storyline. Just sayin'.
The WWE Unive...I mean the registered voters are just as easily worked too.
For as many smarks that are supposedly here, I just see a whole lot of re-christened marks...


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



ManiacMichaelMyers said:


> This whole thing is as predictable as a WWE storyline. Just sayin'.
> The WWE Unive...I mean the registered voters are just as easily worked too.
> For as many smarks that are supposedly here, I just see a whole lot of re-christened marks...


Trump will swerve you if you don't start paying attention.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Trump will swerve you if yoy don't start paying attention.


He's going to turn heel on you if he gets elected. :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Hillary to slap down Trump Stephanie McMahon style in the final match up! Queen Heel Clinton!


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> He's going to turn heel on you if he gets elected. :lol


Perhaps, but he would have been the only candidate that if he were truthful I felt could do any good. I will have no regrets. We're already a shithole. Either it works or it doesn't.


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Trump will swerve you if you don't start paying attention.


I am paying attention to this absurd sideshow unfolding before my eyes.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



ManiacMichaelMyers said:


> I am paying attention to this absurd sideshow unfolding before my eyes.


Beat him. That's all you have to do.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Perhaps, but he would have been the only candidate that if he were truthful I felt could do any good. I will have no regrets. We're already a shithole. Either it works or it doesn't.


if you are talking only about Republicans, yeah he is the least crazy of the bunch. And that's saying much.

The swerve is Trump and Hilary will team up and form the two-man(?) power trip and run roughshod over the entire roster. :lol


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Also, MO FRAUD!!!

#MoMISCHIEF :vince4


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Beat him. That's all you have to do.


Can I use Mick's 'Barbie'? >

And I meant the whole, to use the wrestling analogy, build up to Wrestlemania. Not specifically Trump. Ease up there buddy. I know you are an ardent supporter but I'm talking about the RTWM.

I already know who's headlining, I just don't know who's going to steal the show..
It'll be close.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Perhaps, but he would have been the only candidate that if he were truthful I felt could do any good. I will have no regrets. We're already a shithole. Either it works or it doesn't.


Already a shithole? Jesus have you ever travelled? Try visiting a third world country where they struggle to get clean drinking water on a daily basis.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/709945341802446849
As of now, with tech....lly 99.9% of the votes counted, that is now 925,549 Republican primary votes in the state of Missouri.

Must be the electrifying John Kasich, i.e., the more effeminate version of Hillary Clinton.


----------



## Death Rider

The fact the Americans choice is between trump and hilary says it all really.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/709945341802446849
> As of now, with tech....lly 99.9% of the votes counted, that is now 925,549 Republican primary votes in the state of Missouri.
> 
> *Must be the electrifying John Kasich, i.e., the more effeminate version of Hillary Clinton.*


Someone (other than me) is reading Ann Coulter's twitter feed. :lol


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

:lol @CamillePunk. The "Protestors" video was grand as well!


----------



## Truthbetold

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Already a shithole? Jesus have you ever travelled? Try visiting a third world country where they struggle to get clean drinking water on a daily basis.


European Americans must expect to build societies with clean drinking water.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Election*



FriedTofu said:


> They made their bed when they courted the bigotry votes during Bush's second term and ever since. A bigot's vote is the same as a regular vote.


What makes the Dubya run, as pushed by Karl Rove, all the more disgusting is that the Bush administration had the perfect opportunity to strip all state marriage laws from review by federal courts, a perfectly constitutional procedure, but Rove wanted the Republican candidates to be able to run on the issue in 2004. Politics took precedence over the purported morality that these charlatans claim they care about. When Republican congressmen including Ron Paul sought the removal of state legislation placing restrictions on abortion from federal court review, Bush refused to back that as well, while implementing the stripping of all cases involving the detention center Guantanamo Bay from federal courts. The message was clear: waterboarding and torture called upon Republican support to curb federal court review, but 1.3 million abortions each year in the U.S. did not. 

The _Obergefell v. Hodges_ ruling was, for all of its unconstitutionality, and, as Antonin Scalia noted in his dissent, being supported by the "mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie," the just deserts for "social conservatives" who trusted the Republican Party to do anything for them. They have been used for votes and votes only time and time again.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ican-donors-disappointed-donald-trump-attacks



> The Koch network’s decision to refrain from Trump attacks, despite widespread dislike of the real estate mogul’s views on taxes, trade and other issues, stemmed from several factors besides the divisions among donors: there were concerns that any large TV ad effort could backfire or be ineffective, and more broadly that they had not been involved in presidential primaries before.
> 
> Mark Holden, the chairman of Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, which is the umbrella fundraising hub for the Koch network, said no precedent existed for Trump attacks in the primaries. “First of all, we never have engaged in a presidential primary, and we have no plans to do so now,” Holden said in an email.
> 
> 
> But one donor said the network had serious concerns that an effort could “bounce back” and hurt the Koch network given Trump’s penchant for launching tough attacks against critics. When Trump learned last month that Marlene Ricketts had given $3m to Our Principles, he tweeted ominously that her family “better be careful, they have a lot to hide”.
> 
> Nonetheless, Short was raising alarms about Trump inside the conservative political network, which had been riding high after helping the GOP recapture the Senate in 2014 and was looking at spending a staggering $889m this election cycle. Roughly $300m of those funds are said to be for political activities including Senate campaigns.


The failure of Big Money. :lol


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Already a shithole? Jesus have you ever travelled? Try visiting a third world country where they struggle to get clean drinking water on a daily basis.


:lol you have NO right to judge the state of America never living here. YES: By our standards we are indeed, and i'll repeat it: *A SHITHOLE!* 

:lmao Ahh, the "AMERICANS DON'T KNOW WHAT REAL SUFFERING IS!" meme. :nerd:


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*

SOCIALISM BLOWN THE FUCK OUT TONIGHT :mark:


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Election*



DesolationRow said:


> What makes the Dubya run, as pushed by Karl Rove, all the more disgusting is that the Bush administration had the perfect opportunity to strip all state marriage laws from review by federal courts, a perfectly constitutional procedure, but Rove wanted the Republican candidates to be able to run on the issue in 2004. Politics took precedence over the purported morality that these charlatans claim they care about. When Republican congressmen including Ron Paul sought the removal of state legislation placing restrictions on abortion from federal court review, Bush refused to back that as well, while implementing the stripping of all cases involving the detention center Guantanamo Bay from federal courts. The message was clear: waterboarding and torture called upon Republican support to curb federal court review, but 1.3 million abortions each year in the U.S. did not.
> 
> The _Obergefell v. Hodges_ ruling was, for all of its unconstitutionality, and, as Antonin Scalia noted in his dissent, being supported by the "mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie," the just deserts for "social conservatives" who trusted the Republican Party to do anything for them. They have been used for votes and votes only time and time again.


Never really understood why abortions became politicised. Why deny a woman the choice of having an abortion due to your religious beliefs? Wouldn't the same issue that prohibition created happen if abortion was 'banned' and make abortion a black market commodity and endanger the lives of those women?

As for same-sex marriages, I'm with you on it. It was clear some states were not yet ready for it. It was wrong to force the changes on those states except to clear up legality issue since some states recognized them and some don't. My 2cents: I thought states supported marriages to boost fertility rates and offered incentives for couples. I get why some would be reluctant to support same-sex marriages other than on religious grounds. Yeah it sounds crude and some might say 'what about childless hetero marriages?' but isn't that why marriages get all the incentives in the first place? Classifying them as civil unions with less benefits (since there is zero chance of a child produced from the union) would be nice compromise for me but meh it seemed neither side deemed that as acceptable.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> SOCIALISM BLOWN THE FUCK OUT TONIGHT :mark:


I love how you are proud to be against democratic socialism and proud that you are for fascism.


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

https://youtu.be/j7_Hxvitzm8







Just to point out Obama during his campaign, had a viral video follower that was invited to his campaign and even brought her on stage.

"Obama Girl" constantly in news being just as annoying...

So I ignore viral videos as I get skeptical of legit or ploy. 


Then there are others of course attacked by their own sadly 
A Democrat switched to Trump after years.

https://youtu.be/evJWyQQEdxE








Or voting in GA we were all cracking jokes and ribbing each other, even country women saying "hell no don't put that woman in the white house" hilarious stuff, damn near like a comedy show. We all had fun but small towns are like that mostly. It's the big cities that the extremes fight and argue.


I hate linking a Jones channel vid but this was interesting

https://youtu.be/vLUjYfAS--Q





Mainstream media bans showing the amount of good interactions and discussion without insulting candidates it beliefs. Just trying to understand each other and why and how media does race bait and provoke like the KKK morons turned out to be provocateur protesters trolling to cause shit on purpose to get on TV.



Personally I just want political correctness to start dying, bring back 90s type freedom. Otherwise I don't care about the politics, just stop extreme liberalism long enough to break PC. Back to 90s-mid 2000s levels. And if he can get "no child left behind" repealed I'd be even happier as schools stop churning out sissies.

Otherwise I don't really give a shit, President don't have all the power to do much, but outspoken pres can begin the death of extreme PC. Just by being himself. I want to see a State of the Union where Trump gets to podium and calls the politicians of both parties fucking retards or morons lol.


You'd hear the applause as the whole nation "popped" lol


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

After last night:


----------



## BruiserKC

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ican-donors-disappointed-donald-trump-attacks
> 
> 
> 
> The failure of Big Money. :lol


The Koch brothers knew that to attack Trump would backfire, it has done so up to this point. Every critic that has gone after Trump has received backlash. 

As we lean towards what is seeming to be an inevitable coronation of Trump (unless Rubio's delegates all go to Cruz), I wonder if Trump can unify the GOP or if the party is finally heading for a split. Trump talks about bringing everyone together, but many of his comments have alienated too many people to the point they will never support him.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



BruiserKC said:


> The Koch brothers knew that to attack Trump would backfire, it has done so up to this point. Every critic that has gone after Trump has received backlash.
> 
> As we lean towards what is seeming to be an inevitable coronation of Trump (unless Rubio's delegates all go to Cruz), I wonder if Trump can unify the GOP or if the party is finally heading for a split. Trump talks about bringing everyone together, but many of his comments have alienated too many people to the point they will never support him.


'First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then you win.'


----------



## ThirtyYearFan

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



BruiserKC said:


> The Koch brothers knew that to attack Trump would backfire, it has done so up to this point. Every critic that has gone after Trump has received backlash.
> 
> As we lean towards what is seeming to be an inevitable coronation of Trump (unless Rubio's delegates all go to Cruz), I wonder if Trump can unify the GOP or if the party is finally heading for a split. Trump talks about bringing everyone together, but many of his comments have alienated too many people to the point they will never support him.


I think when the smoke clears to use an old expression and Trump is nominated as the Republican candidate that the party will circle the wagons and fully support Trump. It might not be what the GOPe wanted but the main concern becomes defeating Hillary in the general election. As much as the Republicans did not agree with much of Obama's policies and political ideals-I think ironically Republicans are even more concerned about a Hillary Presidency which could make Obama's Presidency look moderate in comparison. In other words, a Hillary Presidency is the Republicans worst nightmare to use an old expression.

I cannot foresee any traditional Republican who would vote for Hillary over Trump. The worst case scenario would likely be a Republican staying home and not voting in protest. However, I just don't see much of that because I think the Republicans and even moderates are smart enough to realize that this election is a crucial one in shaping Americas future for possibly the next several decades. (Especially considering SCOTUS picks and the possible future of the ACA amongst other things)


----------



## elhijodelbodallas

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

This is just hilarious to watch. If those people in politics are as smart as they say then they should know by now that every criticism directed to Trump just makes the hatred that fuels his supporters that much stronger. These people are pissed off and they want and need conflict in their lives.

If you want him to go away then just ignore him. But since the media knows that everything Trump leads to clicks, hits and ratings it can only get stronger. Just a sad state of affairs all-around but what else would you expect in a society that worships Kanye West, Beyonce, Jay-Z, Taylor Swift and Kim Kardashian...

Trump has no chance in the general election but he's going to be the candidate, there's no way around it now.


----------



## ThirtyYearFan

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



elhijodelbodallas said:


> This is just hilarious to watch. If those people in politics are as smart as they say then they should know by now that every criticism directed to Trump just makes the hatred that fuels his supporters that much stronger. These people are pissed off and they want and need conflict in their lives.
> 
> If you want him to go away then just ignore him. But since the media knows that everything Trump leads to clicks, hits and ratings it can only get stronger. Just a sad state of affairs all-around but what else would you expect in a society that worships Kanye West, Beyonce, Jay-Z, Taylor Swift and Kim Kardashian...
> 
> Trump has no chance in the general election but he's going to be the candidate, there's no way around it now.


I don't understand this notion or logic or reasoning that Trump stands no chance in the General Election. If anything, Trump has become sort of a modern day populist who has the best potential to gain the moderate votes and even voters who normally vote democratic not seen since the Reagan Presidency. Combine that with Hillary maybe not being as appealing to voters as Obama and Bill was then it would not be anywhere unrealistic to think that Trump has a good chance of winning.


----------



## elhijodelbodallas

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



ThirtyYearFan said:


> I don't understand this notion or logic or reasoning that Trump stands no chance in the General Election. If anything, Trump has become sort of a modern day populist who has the best potential to gain the moderate votes and even voters who normally vote democratic not seen since the Reagan Presidency.  Combine that with Hillary maybe not being as appealing to voters as Obama and Bill was then it would not be anywhere unrealistic to think that Trump has a good chance of winning.


I don't think so. A lot of people will be turned off by the sheer craziness of his persona. Why would a person who usually votes democratic vote for Trump over Hillary? Hillary is the embodiment of the democratic party, she's the status quo, so why turn now and especially for someone like Trump? The candidates who can take votes off democrats are generally well-respected, moderate republicans, like John McCain for example, Trump is the polar opposite of that. Doesn't most of the moderate electorate see Trump as the buffoon he is?

Trump has benefited a lot from a lack of competition from within the republican party. It's not as if he's going up against candidates that people take seriously and the fact that someone as uncharismatic and unappealing as Ted Cruz is the second strongest candidate says a lot. I can see most of the country either not voting or voting for Hillary simply to keep Trump off the presidency. All she has to do is to continue being the robot she is and she'll probably get a pretty sizeable victory because Trump will destroy himself eventually. He's not even consensual enough within the republican party, let alone the whole country.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



BruiserKC said:


> The Koch brothers knew that to attack Trump would backfire, it has done so up to this point. Every critic that has gone after Trump has received backlash.
> 
> As we lean towards what is seeming to be an inevitable coronation of Trump (unless Rubio's delegates all go to Cruz), I wonder if Trump can unify the GOP or if the party is finally heading for a split. Trump talks about bringing everyone together, but many of his comments have alienated too many people to the point they will never support him.


Whoa, whoa, whoa... Donald Trump's comments have alienated Republicans to the point that they will never support him? 

What about the comments by the three bloodsucking parasitical puppets, Ted Cruz, John Kasich and Marco Rubio, before the blood on the Chicago street was dry, giving the tiniest little slaps on the wrists of the George Soros-funded leftist agitators who brought about the violence before launching into monotonous tirades about how Donald Trump brought it all on himself and his supporters? 

Or the endless negative campaign ads funded by a bloated roster of dirty Super-PACS? 

Many folks are asking why Trump has become so popular. One of the simplest reasons--and one I do not see mentioned anywhere--is that he comes across as entirely un-coached, unscripted and unfiltered. Look at the display of the craven Republican aspirants to the nomination Friday night; I'm guessing that, as with most Democratic Party-pushed operations, their Republicans "opponents" knew all about it ahead of time and they were coached up and given the exact same song sheet from which to sing to all forms of media, just as they are on every subject by their handlers and corporate masters. Along with the vapid Megyn Kelly on Fox News, they all had the same platitudes to say together, almost in unison. It was a despicable display of cowardice, and political opportunism, but a genuine look into the lack of character these individuals have to show for themselves. 

Of presidential candidates from the last epoch I can think of only a few names who did not have robotic-sounding speeches, all written out by handlers and staffers, who spoke from their own mind and heart. Ralph Nader; Pat Buchanan; Gary Johnson; Lyndon LaRouche; Ron Paul; to a lesser extent, Paul's son, Rand. Naturally these individuals were loathed by the corrupt establishments of the two-party duopoly. For all of his faults, Trump falls in line with these individuals in this manner, even if he's philosophically and politically not nearly so refined or smooth as at least several of them. He at times comes across a bit like the fictional version of Huey Long in _All the King's Men_--a fervent demagogic populist whose mastery of crowds far exceeds his grasp of the issues, but at least he's not having every last statement and physical gesture drilled into him like he's in a Maoist reeducation camp ala every other presidential candidate worth noting since at least the advent of television and perhaps radio. 

Were I Trump I would be feeling a bit alienated by these professional charlatans and avatars of bureaucracy after the last few days. The truth is, Trump holds the cards, and he does so because the Republican Party's establishment was correctly viewed as terminally corrupt and wicked by much of its base, and a plurality of voters saw Trump as, however imperfect, a plainspoken truth-teller in a sea of deceit and sameness (again, to a significant extent, Rand Paul is excused). Trump ventilated the establishment so easily because it was like shooting fish in a barrel to use the old cliché. 

Trump is radically far from my ideal personage or temperament or political creature for the role he is now cast in, but next to the oleaginous Cruz, sniping Rubio and mealy-mouthed Kasich? I hope he repudiates all of them. While, belatedly and somewhat less ostentatiously, accepting their eventual support should they deign to give him that, being the craven, bought-and-paid-for hacks that they are.


----------



## gamegenie

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I saw this on another forum. I can't stop laughing at it. :lmao












:curry2


----------



## ThirtyYearFan

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



elhijodelbodallas said:


> I don't think so. A lot of people will be turned off by the sheer craziness of his persona. Why would a person who usually votes democratic vote for Trump over Hillary? Hillary is the embodiment of the democratic party, she's the status quo, so why turn now and especially for someone like Trump? The candidates who can take votes off democrats are generally well-respected, moderate republicans, like John McCain for example, Trump is the polar opposite of that. Doesn't most of the moderate electorate see Trump as the buffoon he is?
> 
> Trump has benefited a lot from a lack of competition from within the republican party. It's not as if he's going up against candidates that people take seriously and the fact that someone as uncharismatic and unappealing as Ted Cruz is the second strongest candidate says a lot. I can see most of the country either not voting or voting for Hillary simply to keep Trump off the presidency. All she has to do is to continue being the robot she is and she'll probably get a pretty sizeable victory because Trump will destroy himself eventually. He's not even consensual enough within the republican party, let alone the whole country.


I actually think Trump is the best thing to happen to the GOP since Ronald Reagan. Obviously, he is not the conservative that Reagan was but he has the dynamic personality and charisma that relatively few GOP presidential candidates have had since the Reagan era. I honestly feel that most conservatives and even half the moderates in this country are weary of the establishment politics that have been a major factor in this country the past several decades. I think we can all agree that Trump is unorthodox and his speeches can come off as abrasive at times. However, I feel that many Americans have come to realize that it is better to embrace a candidate with an unorthodox style rather than the same political ideals from the establishment that has done nothing but cast a stranglehold on the middle class. While political civility and political correctness are good in their own time and place-there comes a time when the truth and straight talk must be embraced to solve political issues. America is at a cross road and times where it takes a populist to hep solve issues. I remember the Reagan Presidency and since he left office this nation has steadily declined in so many ways. Maybe it takes a Donald Trump to bring greatness back to America again.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Election*

Time for a George Orwell (i don't really like the guy but he fought in a legit war with fascists)

"the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'"

Fascism and authoritarianism are not the same thing 

Some of Trumps Rhetoric has fascist undertones but so does nearly every politician who has ever ran for anything

Trump's medical plan is already enough to not be called fascist


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The way I see it there are four types of politicians

1. The established types: this includes most of the established politicians, people with a ton of somewhat shady connections. They tend to be successful and have lots of hidden support from their rivals. Their terms tend to pretty normal as they avoid rocking the boat and only really push a simple agenda that most people will agree with (these are your Bushs and Clintons political dynasty types) 

2. Young guns: These are spirited young politicians who have party support. They tend to be charismatic but tend to trip over their words and tow the party line. They tend to rely on a mentor which often makes them seem like a party "tool". They act as a young face for the older politicians. Their terms tend to be pretty meh as they follow the party line hard which puts them in conflict with rivals and they expect little give and take. (Your Rubios and Obamas)

3.Rich dudes who get into politics: A guy who pay his own way into a public office. Can fall into any political ideology. They tend to be disliked by more established types due to their ability to run their own campaign without support and for stealing votes. Their terms tend to fluctuate from going well to being complete and total disasters depending on the person (Trump of course fits here)

4. Grassroots: These tend to be congressmen who have a following with a specific demographic. They are not liked by the established but tend to be the only people in congress with a legit voting block that always support them. They honestly believe in what they are saying, for better or worse, and have very little give. Their terms tend to either have them pushing their own ideas or getting totally cockblocked and doing nothing. (this would be your Sanders type)


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Election*

I used to tell my parents that I was jealous that they got to live through the Carter/Ford election and I didn't. I mean, how funny must that have been? Two cartoon characters bumbling and stumbling their way through an election. It must have been hysterical. Don't get me wrong. Ford and Carter both came across like good enough people, but also seemed way out of their depth too and I would have loved to experience it. 

Well, the old saying be careful what you wish for comes to mind here because it seems like I will now be living through Trump and Hilary. This couldn't be any funnier if you tried. You have arguably the biggest troll to ever run for the office of president and Hilary Clinton who has inexplicably been labeled a genius and has the PC shield around her to where if you even attempt to question her on anything, you are labeled a sexist. 

This is going to be fun...or scary....or both. I don't know.


----------



## Freelancer

*Re: Election*

Seeing how this is going to more than likely be Hillary vs Trump, the American people are the real losers here. I guess If you're a comedian, this makes your job 1000x easier.........


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Election*

So the choice is between Hillary and Trump. "1984" vs "Idiocracy". Well done, America, Well done :clap


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



stevefox1200 said:


> Time for a George Orwell (i don't really like the guy but he fought in a legit war with fascists)
> 
> "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'"
> 
> Fascism and authoritarianism are not the same thing
> 
> Some of Trumps Rhetoric has fascist undertones but so does nearly every politician who has ever ran for anything
> 
> Trump's medical plan is already enough to not be called fascist


Trump is a fascist, he wants to shut down anyone that does not agree with him. He wants to change the freedom of the press in the first amendment . He talked about giving the Muslims with ID cards in the US and putting them in a database.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is a fascist, *he wants to shut down anyone that does not agree why with*. He wants to change the freedom of the press in the first amendment . He talked about giving the Muslims with ID cards in the US and putting them in a database.


so do you. :towns

well, the sentence makes no sense but I appropriated.


----------



## Reaper

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I never ever thought I'd say this, but given the state of the other republican candidates, I'm sorta glad that Trump is doing so well in the primaries. 

He just won FL yesterday and I know it isn't because of his own politics, but more so because everyone else fucking sucks. It seems to me like Republicans might be using Trump to send a message to other republicans about how bad they all are instead of how much they love Trump. 

Thankfully, my county was primarily Democrat though :shrug


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Goku said:


> so do you. :towns
> 
> well, the sentence makes no sense but I appropriated.


LOL. Not sure how I typoed that bad. That sentence was a bigger disaster than Trumps so called healthcare plan


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



gamegenie said:


> I saw this on another forum. I can't stop laughing at it. :lmao
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :curry2


Who WOULDN'T be terrified of Bernie's Crypt Keeper looking ass?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Reaper said:


> I never ever thought I'd say this, but given the state of the other republican candidates, I'm sorta glad that Trump is doing so well in the primaries.
> 
> He just won FL yesterday and I know it isn't because of his own politics, but more so because everyone else fucking sucks. It seems to me like Republicans might be using Trump to send a message to other republicans about how bad they all are instead of how much they love Trump.
> 
> Thankfully, my county was primarily Democrat though :shrug


I think you underestimate how much of Trump's stances are, follow me on this one, actually supported.


----------



## Reaper

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> I think you underestimate how much of Trump's stances are, follow me on this one, actually supported.


Trust me I don't. 

But the fact that other republican candidates are absolute shit and are dividing up the voting shouldn't also be under-estimated.

Democrats are easy. You really have a choice between 2. Republicans are still like a 3-4 headed monster :shrug


----------



## elhijodelbodallas

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



ThirtyYearFan said:


> I actually think Trump is the best thing to happen to the GOP since Ronald Reagan. Obviously, he is not the conservative that Reagan was but he has the dynamic personality and charisma that relatively few GOP presidential candidates have had since the Reagan era. I honestly feel that most conservatives and even half the moderates in this country are weary of the establishment politics that have been a major factor in this country the past several decades. I think we can all agree that Trump is unorthodox and his speeches can come off as abrasive at times. However, I feel that many Americans have come to realize that it is better to embrace a candidate with an unorthodox style rather than the same political ideals from the establishment that has done nothing but cast a stranglehold on the middle class. While political civility and political correctness are good in their own time and place-there comes a time when the truth and straight talk must be embraced to solve political issues. America is at a cross road and times where it takes a populist to hep solve issues. I remember the Reagan Presidency and since he left office this nation has steadily declined in so many ways. Maybe it takes a Donald Trump to bring greatness back to America again.


Well, you're right that Trump has a dynamic personality and charisma but those aren't essential qualities for a president. Musicians and actors have those attributes too and they're not fit to be political leaders either. 

I don't know what you see in Trump that makes you believe he'll be better for the middle class than any of the other candidates. I'd be willing to accept a candidate who's abrasive and/or inflammatory in his speeches if he was tremendously intelligent or somehow incomparably more qualified than his peers but from everything we know about Trump that doesn't seem to be the case. Not only does he come off as a fearmonger and a manipulator but he has no track record when it comes to politics on any level and his main propositions sound like nothing more than incoherent, irrealistic drivel. Even as a businessman his record is shoddy so I don't know what people think are his qualifications to be in the most powerful political position in the entire world.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

"No track record when it comes to politics" is an ASSET. People HATE "Politics." The GOP was "Politics" until Trump came and said fuck you all, and the people thank him for it.


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Not scientific at all


But with States opposing Obama and Democrat legislation. If Trump votes follow this map, he's got the electoral college won.














I posted the while back but just for those that haven't seen it

First how electoral college works






Now... How you can win the Presidency of the U.S. with barely any votes.

All you need is 21% of the vote to gain President, you can beat the opposition even if they have 78% of the vote.

Sounds impossible? 78% of America could vote Clinton and 21% Trump and Trump can still win the President.

This is the alternate strategy, play the electoral game, ignore the majority of people.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> I love how you are proud to be against democratic socialism and proud that you are for fascism.


Patriotism and regular nationalism are things we need. You don't see it that way, that's fine. Focus on getting your man elected and don't be salty.


----------



## Muerte al fascismo

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump will not beat Hillary, unless the FBI find shit on her.

The numbers don't add up. A political strategy that doesn't address demographic changes and electoral reality. I'll wager any money on that, with anybody.

Hillary, despite the challenge from Bernie, retains the same Obama coalition. She'll give a push to some of Bernie's less stupid ideas, to get most of his supporters back.

She's connected, smart and been in the game long enough to take the L on another populist candidate. Old Bill will do the hype, she'll work the system to neutralize Trump.

I hate Hillary, but I wouldn't recommend putting money down against her winning.


----------



## ThirtyYearFan

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



elhijodelbodallas said:


> Well, you're right that Trump has a dynamic personality and charisma but those aren't essential qualities for a president. Musicians and actors have those attributes too and they're not fit to be political leaders either.
> 
> I don't know what you see in Trump that makes you believe he'll be better for the middle class than any of the other candidates. I'd be willing to accept a candidate who's abrasive and/or inflammatory in his speeches if he was tremendously intelligent or somehow incomparably more qualified than his peers but from everything we know about Trump that doesn't seem to be the case. Not only does he come off as a fearmonger and a manipulator but he has no track record when it comes to politics on any level and his main propositions sound like nothing more than incoherent, irrealistic drivel. Even as a businessman his record is shoddy so I don't know what people think are his qualifications to be in the most powerful political position in the entire world.


I think you bring up legitimate concerns and I will state that Trump is not the perfect candidate. However, I feel that he has become the focus of galvanizing many in the Republican party who are weary of what they feel as a betrayal by their own party to effectively defend or put into action conservative ideals which supposedly is the theme of the Republican platform. Since Reagan left office the so called neoconservatives have hijacked the party and turned into more liberal moderate. As a general rule of thumb instead of the Republican party elected officials vigorously defending its platform many times they have compromised or acquiesced to the democrats the past several decades. At least credit should be given to the democratic officials who at least stand their ground and try to actively implement their party ideals. Many conservatives just are fed up with the ineffectiveness of the GOP. The Tea Party schism was just a wake up call that reform was needed.


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Hillary has way too many legal skeletons in closet. She lost the nomination last time due to her past being brought up.

Whitewater her lawfirm she was managing partner her other partners took the bullet and fell on their swords going to jail to keep her out, then Vince Foster suicide (rumor of assassination) as it was proven his office broken into all tax forms, contracts he handled for her was taken and brought to her she filtered and cleaned out incriminating evidence then turned it over via subpoena, then that was so obvious what she done and she was not the one subpoenaed for those docs yet she was grilled why did she have them? It was similar to Watergate in a way (break-in to steal records that was getting subpoenaed)


1979 stock market fraud insider trading. Turned 1000 into 100,000 in 10 months.

1993 "Travelgate"
Catherine Cornelius, a 25-year-old cousin of Bill's was allegedly promised the position of director of the travel office. Hillary Clinton then (indirectly) fired seven employees from the United States travel office and replaced them with associates from Arkansas. Records were either nowhere to be found or incorrectly filed. And, there's a reported attempt to give a White House airline contract to friend. Hillary had the FBI investigate Billy Dale, the head of the travel office, ruining his career who was found to do nothing wrong, but was then audited by the IRS for three years after.



Violating privacy and spying on Republicans and using info "Filegate":

Filegate Scandal - Craig Livingstone, director of the White House's Office of Personnel Security "improperly" accessed FBI files on several hundred individuals.
Hillary called it a, "completely honest bureaucratic snafu."
Many of these files were on people from previous Republican administrations. Hillary Clinton hired Livingston and is alleged to have looked at the files and requested this move. She was accused by Republicans of violating privacy rights of individuals she viewed as political adversaries.


Stealing White House furniture "Lootergate":

Hillary started to ship White House furniture to their personal home in Chappaqua, N.Y.. The Clintons claimed they were donated, but at only some were proven to be donated and meant to stay in the White House after contacting the manufacturers. The Clintons returned some of the furniture after pressure was put on them to do so.


Drug Dealer contribution so large he was invited to White House where meeting without any secret service present:

Convicted drug trafficker Jorge Cabrera apparently made such a big donation to the Clinton’s campaign that he was invited to the White house without Secret Service present.



Hillary accepted and didn't return money by convicted Ponzi scam artist buying favors:

Ponzi Scheme and Political Favor Scandal - Norman Yung Yuen Hsu was a convicted pyramid investment promoter, and major Democratic donor. He contributed an undisclosed amount to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign. 
“He was sentenced to more than 24 years in prison in 2009 by a judge who accused him of funding his fraud by manipulating the political process in a way that 'strikes at the very core of our democracy.”

Of course Benghazi




And the lists go on and on with crimes by her or her husband's appointees as well.

It became such a parody this old site "parodies" them as a "mafia" and while its name paodies mafia it lists the basics of a lot of shit
http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/clintcrimefamily.html

BTW that site isn't some new smear site. It was out up during Clinton's presidency hence why it's primitive layout, the site has been up since 1996.
And was stopped updating in 2010 it seems. Which I checked with way back machine


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> Patriotism and regular nationalism are things we need. You don't see it that way, that's fine. Focus on getting your man elected and don't be salty.


Trump has nothing to do with patriotism. The US was build on immigrates and the country being a melting pot. Nationalism is a bad not a good thing. It promotes intolerance and racism as well as xenophobia things this country needs to get away from. Nationalism also leads to full blown fascism, which is exactly what Trump is trying to do. The Nazi moment great out of nationalism.


----------



## Muerte al fascismo

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I get your point, but for me, Obama won because his hope and change message fooled the rubes. Bush had killed the credibility of the party on both the economy and foreign policy. Under Obama, the economy is doing better and while foreign policy is an issue, its nowhere near Bush levels of fuckery. You can't attack the dems on F.Policy, without Bush's legacy killing that angle of attack

Hillary knows how to implement a good ground game and has huge support in the demographics you need to pull ahead in the clutch. She also has the entire establishment protecting her. Trump has his own skeletons without the same protection, or the traditional conservative media 100% supporting him

Trump knows how to get the core vote, the same energy the Tea-Party generated, but I'm not sure how appealing he is outside of it. 

For the sake of the country, I really hope I'm wrong.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump has nothing to do with patriotism. The US was build on immigrates and the country being a melting pot. Nationalism is a bad not a good thing. It promotes intolerance and racism as well as xenophobia things this country needs to get away from. Nationalism also leads to full blown fascism, which is exactly what Trump is trying to do. The Nazi moment great out of nationalism.


I vehemently disagree. It's not about immigration. it's about assimilation.

You want Sanders to be president, mang? Nominate him. Make him win. You claim socialism is such a good idea, so let's see it. Thus far this country has stood up and shouted "NO!". YOU have to turn that around. Don't blame my side for winning when you can't do the same.


----------



## Muerte al fascismo

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump has nothing to do with patriotism. The US was build on immigrates and the country being a melting pot. Nationalism is a bad not a good thing. It promotes intolerance and racism as well as xenophobia things this country needs to get away from. Nationalism also leads to full blown fascism, which is exactly what Trump is trying to do. The Nazi moment great out of nationalism.


The Nazi's were National Socialists. Take away the racism, there was a lot of left-style economics.

Trump is not a fascist. That's a ridiculous assertion and ideologically wrong. His political style reminds me of Hugo Chávez. 

What next, calling Bernie a Trotskyist, who wants to lead a new vanguard against the enemies of the proletarian? (Likely true before he softened)


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Muerte al fascismo said:


> The Nazi's were National Socialists. Take away the racism, there was a lot of left-style economics.
> 
> Trump is not a fascist. That's a ridiculous assertion and ideologically wrong. His political style reminds me of Hugo Chávez.
> 
> What next, calling Bernie a Trotskyist, who wants to lead a new vanguard against the enemies of the proletarian? (Likely true before he softened)


No it's not. Trump today just said if he doesn't win the nomination there will be riots. He flat out threatened it, but of course framed it, well I'm not condoning it but ..... 

Trump is always threatening violence against people that oppose him, he even said not too long ago he would pay anyones legal bills that punches any protestor against him in the face.

That is fascism.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> I vehemently disagree. It's not about immigration. it's about assimilation.
> 
> You want Sanders to be president, mang? Nominate him. Make him win. You claim socialism is such a good idea, so let's see it. Thus far this country has stood up and shouted "NO!". YOU have to turn that around. Don't blame my side for winning when you can't do the same.


Trump isn't even really winning. He doesn't even have the majority of the delegates. 

And socialism has been working in the US for decades. That is how they pay for public schools, highways and roads, libraries, police, fire dept, social security , medicare, post office, IRS,court system ETC ETC


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> No it's not. Trump today just said if he doesn't win the nomination there will be riots. He flat out threatened it, but of course framed it, well I'm not condoning it but .....
> 
> Trump is always threatening violence against people that oppose him, he even said not too long ago he would pay anyones legal bills that punches any protestor against him in the face.
> 
> That is fascism.


It's amazing how quickly the language changes in these things to enhance perceived threats and raise the stakes. It didn't take long at all for certain commentators to turn the chicago violent protests into 'riots'. Now Trump has obviously jumped on the 'riot' bandwagon. Now if there is an actual riot that won't be enough, it will be labelled a 'civil war' or something to get more mileage.

Perhaps it's a trick from Trump's book of Hitler speeches? Who knows?


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

_The New York Times_ with a sturdy look at Donald Trump's path to 1,237 delegates and the Republican nomination: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ruz-kasich-republican-delegate-lead.html?_r=0 



> Rubio’s Exit Leaves Trump With
> an Open Path to 1,237 Delegates
> 
> By GREGOR AISCH, JOSH KATZ, JOSH KELLER and ALICIA PARLAPIANO	MARCH 16, 2016
> 
> Donald J. Trump’s series of victories on Tuesday extended his delegate lead and forced Senator Marco Rubio of Florida out of the presidential race. Mr. Trump’s path to winning enough delegates to secure the Republican nomination is not assured, but he is in a strong position.
> 
> Here are some ways the Republican nominating contest could unfold. Try adjusting the sliders to see how the outcomes change. Each line in the chart represents one possible outcome.


Follow the link above to find a solid article with some cool-looking charts. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



yeahbaby! said:


> It's amazing how quickly the language changes in these things to enhance perceived threats and raise the stakes. It didn't take long at all for certain commentators to turn the chicago violent protests into 'riots'. Now Trump has obviously jumped on the 'riot' bandwagon. Now if there is an actual riot that won't be enough, it will be labelled a 'civil war' or something to get more mileage.
> 
> Perhaps it's a trick from Trump's book of Hitler speeches? Who knows?


I am not even talking about the Chicago incident I am talking about what Trump said today.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...lence-only-this-time-its-directed-at-the-gop/


"Trump said Wednesday that a contested GOP convention could be a disaster if he goes to Cleveland a few delegates shy of 1,237 — and doesn’t leave as the party’s nominee.

“I think you’d have riots,” Trump said on CNN.

Noting that he’s “representing many millions of people,” he told Chris Cuomo: “If you disenfranchise those people, and you say, ‘I’m sorry, you’re 100 votes short’…I think you’d have problems like you’ve never seen before. I think bad things would happen.”"

-----


That is Trump telling the GOP if he doesn't get the nomination his supporters could riot.
He is planting the seeds to his supporters, if he doesn't get it telling them to riot without coming out and directly saying it. He is implying they will.


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> I am not even talking about the Chicago incident I am talking about what Trump said today.
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...lence-only-this-time-its-directed-at-the-gop/
> 
> 
> "Trump said Wednesday that a contested GOP convention could be a disaster if he goes to Cleveland a few delegates shy of 1,237 — and doesn’t leave as the party’s nominee.
> 
> “I think you’d have riots,” Trump said on CNN.
> 
> Noting that he’s “representing many millions of people,” he told Chris Cuomo: “If you disenfranchise those people, and you say, ‘I’m sorry, you’re 100 votes short’…I think you’d have problems like you’ve never seen before. I think bad things would happen.”"
> 
> -----
> 
> 
> That is Trump telling the GOP if he doesn't get the nomination his supporters could riot.
> He is planting the seeds to his supporters, if he doesn't get it telling them to riot without coming out and directly saying it. He is implying they will.


He absolutely should not have said this. It is the same against thing the liberals did in Baltimore. 

I mean let's see what their idiotic mayor said to the people are were rioting: *Mayor Rawlings: “We also gave those who wish to destroy space to do that as well.”*


It goes on for both sides. Also, for people to think all of the Trump supporters are these animals who attack the innocent Bernie/Hilary supporters it is not true. Of course the same goes for Trump supporters who believe their guys are getting attacked for no reason. 

I feel like this post is not left or right leaning but very down the middle and fair. I'm interested to see whether or not you agree with this.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Smarkout said:


> He absolutely should not have said this. It is the same against thing the liberals did in Baltimore.
> 
> I mean let's see what their idiotic mayor said to the people are were rioting: *Mayor Rawlings: “We also gave those who wish to destroy space to do that as well.”*
> 
> 
> It goes on for both sides. Also, for people to think all of the Trump supporters are these animals who attack the innocent Bernie/Hilary supporters it is not true. Of course the same goes for Trump supporters who believe their guys are getting attacked for no reason.
> 
> I feel like this post is not left or right leaning but very down the middle and fair. I'm interested to see whether or not you agree with this.


Trump caters to the bigoted, the racist and the ignorant/uninformed people of the united states. Now is everyone that is Pro Trump fall into those categories, probably not but most of them are. A good number of Trump supports are glad then dont have to be closet bigots anymore , that is why they love him so much. 

Like Trump said, he loves the uneducated people that vote for him. 

Trump is objectively bad anyway you look at it. Not all his followers are. Some are just sick of the GOP establishment.


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump caters to the bigoted, the racist and the ignorant/uninformed people of the united states. Now is everyone that is Pro Trump fall into those categories, probably not *but most of them are*. A good number of Trump supports are glad then dont have to be closet bigots anymore , that is why they love him so much.
> 
> Like Trump said, he loves the uneducated people that vote for him.
> 
> Trump is objectively bad anyway you look at it. Not all his followers are. Some are just sick of the GOP establishment.


Do you really believe that?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



The Dazzler said:


> Do you really believe that?


Its true. Most of Trumps supporters fall into one of those categories. I didn't mean most fit into all of them. Its one or a combination of them.


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump caters to the bigoted, the racist and the ignorant/uninformed people of the united states. Now is everyone that is Pro Trump fall into those categories, probably not but most of them are. A good number of Trump supports are glad then dont have to be closet bigots anymore , that is why they love him so much.
> 
> Like Trump said, he loves the uneducated people that vote for him.
> 
> Trump is objectively bad anyway you look at it. Not all his followers are. Some are just sick of the GOP establishment.


You don't believe both sides have ignorant voters? OR you just believe that the Republicans have more ignorant one's?


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its true. Most of Trumps supporters fall into one of those categories. I didn't mean most fit into all of them. Its one or a combination of them.


Racists, bigots or ignorant/uninformed? How do you know their reasons for supporting Trump?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Smarkout said:


> You don't believe both sides have ignorant voters? OR you just believe that the Republicans have more ignorant one's?


Trump has the most ignorant / uninformed / uneducated voters. Of course all sides have ignorant / uninformed / uneducated voters but Trump has by far the most. Hillary has a lot of them as well. A lot of people are voting for her just based on her name alone. Hillary is easily a close 2nd when it comes to the ignorant/uninformed voters. Hillary is pretty bigoted herself, especially when it comes to gays. The only reason she changed her stance on gay marriage is because it became much more accepted in the US in 2010 so she decided to chance her stance because she knew it would get her more votes. I don't even believe she is really pro same sex marriage. She just pretends to be. Hillary and Trump are pretty close in their untrustfulness. I would say its worse in Hillary's case because she has flip flopped so many times. Trump is telling people what he wants to hear now. Who knows what he stances will be in the general election. But the people that are voting for Hillary deserve what they get much more than the ones that vote for Trump. Because with Hillary you know she is full of shit what she is saying. If Bernie was not running, she never would have moved this far to the left. She is a moderate and admitted it but now she is trying to claim she is progressive. Trump is crazy and who knows what he will do once he gets in office, it will be a disaster, but with Hillary we know what we are going to get. In the generation election, she is going to move back to the center right again. 

The GOP is full of people that are ignorant and bigoted. But that is because the GOP side is heavily Christian. 





The Dazzler said:


> Racists, bigots or ignorant/uninformed? How do you know their reasons for supporting Trump?


Because I pay attention, and you just need to look at what platforms Trump is running on. Just watch his rallies you can clearly see it. You can't miss it.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*

Pretty sure they would riot even if he told them not to. :shrug stating fact aint inciting shit, and besides that, if it were Bernie that got that far (HAH :nerd and got screwed, you can bet your ass there would be riots worse than anything Trump could command.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> Beatles123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patriotism and regular nationalism are things we need. You don't see it that way, that's fine. Focus on getting your man elected and don't be salty.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has nothing to do with patriotism. The US was build on immigrates and the country being a melting pot. Nationalism is a bad not a good thing. It promotes intolerance and racism as well as xenophobia things this country needs to get away from. Nationalism also leads to full blown fascism, which is exactly what Trump is trying to do. The Nazi moment great out of nationalism.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was built on LEGAL immigration. 

Something the left doesnt understand, legal. Not people swimming across a river.

And im sure if he was asked trump would have no problem with legal immigrants, especially engineers and scientists because we dont train them anymore.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



amhlilhaus said:


> Yes, it was built on LEGAL immigration.
> 
> Something the left doesnt understand, legal. Not people swimming across a river.
> 
> And im sure if he was asked trump would have no problem with legal immigrants, especially engineers and scientists because we dont train them anymore.


The US was build on ILLEGAL immigrants. You really think all the immigrants that took the land from the native americans were legal? 

that being said, Trump wants just deport the illegals. no questions asked even if they are not criminals. He also said that children born in the US to illegal immigrants must also be deported. Those kids are us citizens. He can't do that. That is the issue. Not to mention Trump said most of them were rapists and criminals which is just not true. 

The left says they can stay as long as they are not violent or criminals, and the US should make it easy path for them to become US citizens.

that is the difference between the left and the right.

The right wants to just kick them out and then have them come back legally even their US citizen children . Where as the left wants to get illegals to become legal.


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Because I pay attention, and you just need to look at what platforms Trump is running on. Just watch his rallies you can clearly see it. You can't miss it.


I'll leave the racist/bigot thing because that's silly. Why do you think Trump supporters are ignorant/uninformed? Most I assume know exactly why they're choosing Trump. It's possible they just have different views to you? Some may say you're uninformed for voting Bernie/Hillary and expecting them to do what's in the peoples' interests.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*

Because they don't subscribe to his way of thinking because OOOOOOOOOOONLY LIBERAAAAAAAALLLLS have the facts. He's said as much in the past.


----------



## Pronoss

*Re: Election*

This is older Penn Jillette Obama rant on his podcast.
He's libertarian, skeptic, member of James Randi "jref" , I enjoy his podcasts when I get chance to listen.

But I like when he spelled out the hypocrisy that truly "technically" Obama would be ineligible to hold any office. But it's not illegal to brag, just don't get caught.

This rant was beauty, even though Penn never drank or did drugs but supports decriminalization of all drugs.

https://youtu.be/wWWOJGYZYpk





I remember him promoting book on late shows and no one called him out on this which is why Penn goes off on a rant.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Muerte al fascismo said:


> I get your point, but for me, Obama won because his hope and change message fooled the rubes. Bush had killed the credibility of the party on both the economy and foreign policy. Under Obama, the economy is doing better and while foreign policy is an issue, its nowhere near Bush levels of fuckery. You can't attack the dems on F.Policy, without Bush's legacy killing that angle of attack
> 
> Hillary knows how to implement a good ground game and has huge support in the demographics you need to pull ahead in the clutch. She also has the entire establishment protecting her. Trump has his own skeletons without the same protection, or the traditional conservative media 100% supporting him
> 
> Trump knows how to get the core vote, the same energy the Tea-Party generated, but I'm not sure how appealing he is outside of it.
> 
> For the sake of the country, I really hope I'm wrong.


No one. Wants. Hildawg.

She is literally the Wicked Witch of D.C. Even her own secret service agents say she's a bitch. Hell, listen to the way she speaks. She's pure evil incarnate. Look at the Dem turn out this cycle: NO Dems are showing up compared to before. If they are they've all switched to Republicans because as much as they hate Trump, he's actually the one candidate that is party neutral on many issues. They'd rather watch the word Burn than watch it Bern.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Election*

One could easily say Sanders cater to the ignorant liberals as well. Every issue turns into the subject of class warfare and income inequality. Race? Blacks are poor because the rich is holding them back. Foreign policy? Trade is bad, wall street is screwing over main street. How to pay for free tuition? Make the rich pay for it.

Let's not pretend that both Trump and Sanders are using populist rhetoric in this campaign and both if allowed to implement their policies would hurt America more than help it.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> No one. Wants. Hildawg.
> 
> She is literally the Wicked Witch of D.C. Even her own secret service agents say she's a bitch. Hell, listen to the way she speaks. She's pure evil incarnate. Look at the Dem turn out this cycle: NO Dems are showing up compared to before. If they are they've all switched to Republicans because as much as they hate Trump, he's actually the one candidate that is party neutral on many issues. They'd rather watch the word Burn than watch it Bern.


You can't be serious about this. Wanting to keep discussion civil yet posting this kind of BS about another candidate.

Hilary is the most qualified candidate but she don't have the likeability factor. Hilarious you are sprouting that Trump supporters would rather watch the world burn, which really says it all really.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> No one. Wants. Hildawg.
> 
> She is literally the Wicked Witch of D.C. Even her own secret service agents say she's a bitch. Hell, listen to the way she speaks. She's pure evil incarnate. Look at the Dem turn out this cycle: NO Dems are showing up compared to before. If they are they've all switched to Republicans because as much as they hate Trump, he's actually the one candidate that is party neutral on many issues. They'd rather watch the word Burn than watch it Bern.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> You can't be serious about this. Wanting to keep discussion civil yet posting this kind of BS about another candidate.
> 
> Hilary is the most qualified candidate but she don't have the likeability factor. Hilarious you are sprouting that Trump supporters would rather watch the world burn, which really says it all really.


You misread me.

Those Dems supporting TRUMP would rather, in their minds, see the world burn under Trump if they cannot have Bernie.

Also, this IS a civil discussion as I don't think any of us want hildabeast. Show me a Clinton fan here and i'll remove the post.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


>


Hahaha he's gonna keep doing it. 

the Chan has taught you well.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> You misread me.
> 
> Those Dems supporting TRUMP would rather, in their minds, see the world burn under Trump if they cannot have Bernie.
> 
> Also, this IS a civil discussion as I don't think any of us want hildabeast. Show me a Clinton fan here and i'll remove the post.


They are still Trump supporters.

It is civil when you get to insult but it isn't when you get the same treatment? Talk about thin skin just like the candidate you support.

Anyway, Trump might just make America great again by knocking FOX news down a notch or two. :lol

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/16/11244314/donald-trump-polls-debate


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> They are still Trump supporters.
> 
> It is civil when you get to insult but it isn't when you get the same treatment? Talk about thin skin just like the candidate you support.


This was not your argument. You said I wasn't being civil by attacking Hilary, but I did so because there were no Hilary people here. If one wanted to have an honest discussion about her merit or lack thereof here, they could. The fact of the matter is no one likes her here that i've seen, so I assumed Hildawg was actually COMON ground between us.

Further, the Dems I speak of are not Trump supporters. They will vote Trump to spite Bernie being shafted and, USING THEIR OWN WORDS, "Watch the world burn" for not picking Bernie.

Don't shoot the messenger here.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> You misread me.
> 
> Those Dems supporting TRUMP would rather, in their minds, see the world burn under Trump if they cannot have Bernie.
> 
> Also, this IS a civil discussion as I don't think any of us want hildabeast. Show me a Clinton fan here and i'll remove the post.


I like Hilary, not that your comments bothered me particularly, but I'd expect you to be totally cool with similar comments made about Trump like pointing out the fact that he's a bona fide fascist and anyone who supports him is morally equivalent to the people who supported Hitler. 

Don't forget, before the election Hitler just wanted to kick the jews out, he didn't start killing them until his borders were closed by WW2.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> This was not your argument. You said I wasn't being civil by attacking Hilary, but I did so because there were no Hilary people here. If one wanted to have an honest discussion about her merit or lack thereof here, they could. The fact of the matter is no one likes her here that i've seen, so I assumed Hildawg was actually COMON ground between us.
> 
> Further, the Dems I speak of are not Trump supporters. They will vote Trump to spite Bernie being shafted and, USING THEIR OWN WORDS, "Watch the world burn" for not picking Bernie.
> 
> Don't shoot the messenger here.


You seem to lack the understanding of being civil. So if nobody likes something or someone here, we are allowed to give them labels because lulz? If I make a thread about you in a non-rant section and nobody likes you, we are allowed to be called civil if we insult you in said thread?

Being PC only applies to Trump but not to others?


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Clinton refuses to give an answer gets mad and excuses her lie to Americans, advisors , etc as "it doesn't matter"

It's an easy easy question. 

1 phone call, instead she lied to American people and got caught lying. 

She is questioned about why not make 1 phone call , she finally says the fact of how it started don't matter, the Senator landed a nice TKO on this point. She admits yes she lied to Americans, and why? It don't fucking matter 

She can't answer 1 question, instead dances and excuses all over until she loses temper and just says it doesn't matter, excusing her lie to Americans, media, advisors, etc.


https://youtu.be/TC0AKNQBV80





There lots more vids if you'd like to see her "sweat" lose temper, and never able to answer a question.

There's hours of her testimony and she never can give an answer. She gets asked yes or no questions dozens of times, she can't answer, she has to give excuse after excuse and pontificate for 15 minutes then senator replies I just want yes or no, why is that impossible.





Heres when Representative Susan Brooks busted and caught Hillary in another lie, hilarious "let me show you something"



https://youtu.be/QEbY_ayO0z4


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> You seem to lack the understanding of being civil. So if nobody likes something or someone here, we are allowed to give them labels because lulz? If I make a thread about you in a non-rant section and nobody likes you, we are allowed to be called civil if we insult you in said thread?
> 
> Being PC only applies to Trump but not to others?


I really think you're reading way too much into my intent. 

These are all opinions we have. Just because I say Hilary is evil, doesn't mean I don't want Hilary supporters here. It's my opinion. I don't like her but I'm not trying to bait people into replying or acting superior to them. At least, I'm not trying to. I had assumed you being a staunch Bernie supporter would actually find agreement in my opinion.
@Alkomesh2

Of course. I'm not going to agree with what you're saying, but if you want to discuss it we can.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> I really think you're reading way too much into my intent.
> 
> These are all opinions we have. Just because I say Hilary is evil, doesn't mean I don't want Hilary supporters here. It's my opinion. I don't like her but I'm not trying to bait people into replying or acting superior to them. At least, I'm not trying to. I had assumed you being a staunch Bernie supporter would actually find agreement in my opinion.
> 
> @Alkomesh2
> 
> Of course. I'm not going to agree with what you're saying, but if you want to discuss it we can.


I wasn't reading your intent, but merely pointing out your double standards. That's all. You claim to want a proper discussion yet you aren't above throwing petty insults but cry baiting if someone does the same to you.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> I wasn't reading your intent, but merely pointing out your double standards. That's all. You claim to want a proper discussion yet you aren't above throwing petty insults but cry baiting if someone does the same to you.


There is a difference between having a discussion and baiting. What WE'RE having is a discussion. Saying that you are objectively superior to another, as BM said for example when he was here, is baiting. I can take opposing views as long as they are respectful, and I think most of us have been as such. I like @GothicBohemian and she's very anti Trump but also fair.

EDIT: As far as petty insults go, bro, as long as its in fun have at it. @yeahbaby! posted some "Petty" imagery directed at me and I didn't complain  Stuff like that in a ribbing sense I can take.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> There is a difference between having a discussion and baiting. What WE'RE having is a discussion. Saying that you are objectively superior to another, as BM said for example when he was here, is baiting. I can take opposing views as long as they are respectful, and I think most of us have been as such. I like @GothicBohemian and she's very anti Trump but also fair.
> 
> EDIT: As far as petty insults go, bro, as long as its in fun have at it. @yeahbaby! posted some "Petty" imagery directed at me and I didn't complain  Stuff like that in a ribbing sense I can take.


But you do have clear double standards. You've made several posts throughout this thread patting yourself on the back at staying civil and staying on issues, yet you've made several OTT childish posts attacking Hilary and Bernie.

It would be one thing if you just admit it. But the fact you still deflect time and time again and refuse to back pedal makes people want to pick you up on it.

I'm happy to admit half the time I'm serious on here and the other I mess around, I'm an idiot and make stupid posts.

But you can't act all high and mighty and complain against Trump character assassinations, then do it yourself with the rest of the gang.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Guys Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are not members of this forum. We can insult them personally.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Guys Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are not members of this forum. We can insult them personally.


Thanks Camille, now back to Trump Tower with you, there's a Trump steak with Trump champagne waiting.



BTW have you guys seen Johnny Depp as Trump in 'The Art of The Deal'? The make up is incredible I have to say. Unfortunately it's just not that funny, there's funny moments but overall the jokes are lame.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/ae...vie-trailer?_cc=__d___&_ccid=9163471c075d90e7


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I just want a Trump helicopter ride with Wil Wheaton.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> I just want a Trump helicopter ride with Wil Wheaton.


I want to have dinner with Wil Wheaton so I can ask him what he wants and when he replies I yell at him, "You'll get nothing and you'll like it!"


----------



## Reaper

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Here's my facebook status update for the day and I'm especially proud of it because I see Trump hate everywhere. I'm sure everyone's seen the various stupid comments about how Americans must be racist because they're voting Trump ... 

"I don't get why it's ok to say that all Americans must be racists or something because some Americans are voting Trump while also constantly whining that not all Muslims are terrorists because some Muslims are terrorists ... Can't have it both ways and not be called out on how hypocritical that is."

I have a lot of muslims on my feed that are now deathly afraid of Trump coming into power :shrug I guess they don't realize the irony of this situation at all.

BTW, it was decided a long ass time ago that extreme critique (including extreme expressions of hatred and dislike) of political figures is absolutely fair game and an integral part of free speech - so I don't see the problem with calling them self-serving pieces of shit.


----------



## polar bear

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

As much as I hate to say I wouldn't be shocked to see some major race war happen in America in the near future


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



polar bear said:


> As much as I hate to say I wouldn't be shocked to see some major race war happen in America in the near future


Seriously? With who? LOL race war.


----------



## BoT

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Eh I'd say I'm screwed. I plan to leave my country in 2 years time, but I look Mexican and am Arab, can I get any unluckier? lel


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



The Dazzler said:


> I'll leave the racist/bigot thing because that's silly. Why do you think Trump supporters are ignorant/uninformed? Most I assume know exactly why they're choosing Trump. It's possible they just have different views to you? Some may say you're uninformed for voting Bernie/Hillary and expecting them to do what's in the peoples' interests.


Trump doesn't even know what he is for. He never says anything. He just says oh this will be GREAT or I am for A GOOD DEAL. Or stupid BS like that. He never says anything of substance if you actually listen to him. He always lies about everything as well. He is a buffoon. 





Beatles123 said:


> Because they don't subscribe to his way of thinking because OOOOOOOOOOONLY LIBERAAAAAAAALLLLS have the facts. He's said as much in the past.


Yeah I deal in facts sorry about that. You should try it sometime. You can't even refute what I have said, you always just made stupid comments like this. 





FriedTofu said:


> One could easily say Sanders cater to the ignorant liberals as well. Every issue turns into the subject of class warfare and income inequality. Race? Blacks are poor because the rich is holding them back. Foreign policy? Trade is bad, wall street is screwing over main street. How to pay for free tuition? Make the rich pay for it.
> 
> Let's not pretend that both Trump and Sanders are using populist rhetoric in this campaign and both if allowed to implement their policies would hurt America more than help it.


That is because everything is tied to that one major issue. Most of the issues in american stem for money and corruption in politics.

How exactly would Sanders policies hurt america?

You want know what would hurt America, Trumps health plan.

It would cost 21 MILLION people to lose their healthcare coverage, and it would cost the US $270 BILLION over ten years. Not to mention it would bring back insurance companies able to not give someone insurance for preexisting conditions.

Trump would be a disaster for this country.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Six18 said:


> Eh I'd say I'm screwed. I plan to leave my country in 2 years time, but I look Mexican and am Arab, can I get any unluckier? lel


what


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> what


he plans to leave his country is 2 years time, but he looks mexican and is arab.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Goku said:


> he plans to leave his country is 2 years time, but he looks mexican and is arab.


WHAT


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The next war will be stopping the countless murderers and yes rapists over 400 girls and women killed in Juarez on the border.
The Femicide of Mexico border town: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_homicides_in_Ciudad_Juárez

The Mexican government has lost control on border but American media has blackout on border news. It would end Democrats who support illegals, the murderers and rapists fled into US to avoid capture, but now the cartels have military weapons 

The Mexican government themselves admitted to flying government chopper into US territory and shot at US border patrol. That's an act of war, yet it's covered up by the left. They absolutely do not want Americans to know what is going in at our border.

It's a war zone that is slowly getting worse.


I would predict if liberals stay in power then this will get to point Americans in South will say Fuck the Fed, take up arms and go to war to protect their towns.

Or if independent, libertarian or Republican gets in, they'll take care of it.
Mexico better hope they stop being in cartel pockets, one day they'll look North and the Border Patrol will have disappeared...
Instead they'll shit their pants when instead they see US Marines incoming.



Here's what you can see & hear on Border (machine guns, 50 Cal, grenades)
https://youtu.be/nX2gtblTeqI






Mexico government flies into US territory shoots at border patrol:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...-crossing-border-and-firing-on-border-patrol/


US government helicopter fired upon from across the border.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...ter-shot-while-patrolling-Mexican-6310535.php



I predict this is our next war. The last time we went to war with Mexico it was insanely embarrassing loss for them.

Mexico lost half of its territory 

Then here's insult to injury..after US defeated Mexico and was done.

The Native Americans invaded Mexico and slaughtered the new border town's men as they were jumping the US border. But the problem was across the border where illegals were entering was Native American sovereign territory given to them by US. Since a reservation is technically sovereign land the Natives definitely weren't going through that bullshit again with foreigners entering their land, so the border tribes in the US fucked Mexico up, after the US had already ended the war. Mexico asked the US to calm the Indians.

That's when 2 native tribes became famously known for not taking any bullshit and being fierce unmerciful warriors. The Apache and the Comanche


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Guys Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are not members of this forum. We can insult them personally.


This.










As long as you don't insult or personally attack members, feel free to personally attack any political candidate you want. No holds barred. Whether it helps your argument or not is none of my concern, though.


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Funny, Hillary standing in front of the "O"


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> This.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you don't insult or personally attack members, feel free to personally attack any political candidate you want. No holds barred. Whether it helps your argument or not is none of my concern, though.


Question, can I insult the real Oda Nobunaga or does that also include you?

Killing Buddhist monks and fighting a giant multi-headed snake, whats up with that am I right?


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> But you do have clear double standards. You've made several posts throughout this thread patting yourself on the back at staying civil and staying on issues, yet you've made several OTT childish posts attacking Hilary and Bernie.
> 
> It would be one thing if you just admit it. But the fact you still deflect time and time again and refuse to back pedal makes people want to pick you up on it.
> 
> I'm happy to admit half the time I'm serious on here and the other I mess around, I'm an idiot and make stupid posts.
> 
> But you can't act all high and mighty and complain against Trump character assassinations, then do it yourself with the rest of the gang.


Not admit it? I've admitted it already. I JOKE about Bernie, but his supporters can come here and have an honest discussion and i will explain why I don't like him. They don't have to agree with me.

Now compare that to other posts that say that if you don't agree with Bernie you are objectively wrong...That's not what I've been doing, and as far as Trump jokes go, plenty have been made in this thread. The Bernie scare gif for example. Sure, I retorted back and said "Who wouldn't be scared of Bernie?" but that doesn't mean I was upset that it was posted.

It would be one thing if we were saying "You are a fucking communist piece of shit and f*ck your ideals!" but we aren't. We can poke fun at each other. As I said, I don't get mad at you when you post flaming wheelchairs. I'm right there with you laughing. I laughed at the Bernie Gif. I laugh at Gifs involving Trump's hair. They aren't accurate, but I laugh at them.

I will say sometimes I can't tell when you are or aren't serious so there may be a few times i've acted out of turn.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah I deal in facts sorry about that. You should try it sometime. You can't even refute what I have said, you always just made stupid comments like this.


 It's like you're a parody of everything wrong with the leftist attitude. C'mon, man. Check your ego.

You LITERALLY just pulled the "I deal in facts" card, JUST LIKE I SAID.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Pronoss said:


> The next war will be stopping the countless murderers and yes rapists over 400 girls and women killed in Juarez on the border.
> The Femicide of Mexico border town: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_homicides_in_Ciudad_Juárez
> 
> The Mexican government has lost control on border but American media has blackout on border news. It would end Democrats who support illegals, the murderers and rapists fled into US to avoid capture, but now the cartels have military weapons
> 
> The Mexican government themselves admitted to flying government chopper into US territory and shot at US border patrol. That's an act of war, yet it's covered up by the left. They absolutely do not want Americans to know what is going in at our border.
> 
> It's a war zone that is slowly getting worse.
> 
> 
> I would predict if liberals stay in power then this will get to point Americans in South will say Fuck the Fed, take up arms and go to war to protect their towns.
> 
> Or if independent, libertarian or Republican gets in, they'll take care of it.
> Mexico better hope they stop being in cartel pockets, one day they'll look North and the Border Patrol will have disappeared...
> Instead they'll shit their pants when instead they see US Marines incoming.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what you can see & hear on Border (machine guns, 50 Cal, grenades)
> https://youtu.be/nX2gtblTeqI
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mexico government flies into US territory shoots at border patrol:
> 
> http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...-crossing-border-and-firing-on-border-patrol/
> 
> 
> US government helicopter fired upon from across the border.
> http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...ter-shot-while-patrolling-Mexican-6310535.php
> 
> 
> 
> I predict this is our next war. The last time we went to war with Mexico it was insanely embarrassing loss for them.
> 
> Mexico lost half of its territory
> 
> Then here's insult to injury..after US defeated Mexico and was done.
> 
> The Native Americans invaded Mexico and slaughtered the new border town's men as they were jumping the US border. But the problem was across the border where illegals were entering was Native American sovereign territory given to them by US. Since a reservation is technically sovereign land the Natives definitely weren't going through that bullshit again with foreigners entering their land, so the border tribes in the US fucked Mexico up, after the US had already ended the war. Mexico asked the US to calm the Indians.
> 
> That's when 2 native tribes became famously known for not taking any bullshit and being fierce unmerciful warriors. The Apache and the Comanche



Didn't the US sponsored "Fast and Furious" also see military grade weapons into the hands of the cartels? Just another scandal under Obama's watch, what's with this guy giving crazy people guns then crying about gun control on TV? The way the US puts up with Mexico's bullshit is astounding, no other country would put up with this. The constant sending people over to run illegal items, to pilfer funds to send back home, the no tolerance of American's owning land there but happily taking American plants for jobs and advocating for illegals to own US property. 

The cartels have already committed acts of war against the US, it could actually be considered acts of terror but it's largely ignored. Instead we have people crying we should have open borders when the border is a dangerous zone not only to Americans but also Mexicans. The insanity of it all shows the Mexican Government is fully corrupt yet the US seeks to work with it.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Black Lives Matter activist says they will incite riots if Trump wins:

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=54378

BUT IT'S OUR FAULT GUYS.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Black Lives Matter activist says they will incite riots if Trump wins:
> 
> http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=54378
> 
> BUT IT'S OUR FAULT GUYS.


Poor form by 'rapper' Teff Poe there. That ain't right no doubt. I would hope he's all bark and no bite....


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> It's like you're a parody of everything wrong with the leftist attitude. C'mon, man. Check your ego.
> 
> You LITERALLY just pulled the "I deal in facts" card, JUST LIKE I SAID.


Cmon man, it's not leftist to pass off everything one says as fact, it's a human ego thing. Ain't no left or right about it.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Question, can I insult the real Oda Nobunaga


Be my guest.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> It's like you're a parody of everything wrong with the leftist attitude. C'mon, man. Check your ego.
> 
> You LITERALLY just pulled the "I deal in facts" card, JUST LIKE I SAID.


Yup, just what I thought still can't refute what I said. 




yeahbaby! said:


> Cmon man, it's not leftist to pass off everything one says as fact, it's a human ego thing. Ain't no left or right about it.



So tell me then what I said about Trump that isn't true? Is it not a fact he wants to amendment the first amendment when it comes to freedom of the pressure?
Is it not a fact that Trump incites violence well he tells others to people people in the face during his rallies?
Is it not a fact that Trump said he would pay for legal fees for people that punch a protester?
Is it not a fact that Trump said he would considering giving Muslims ID cards ?
Is it not a fact that Trump said he loves the uneducated?
Is it not a fact Trump threatened bad things would happen if he doesn't get he nomination ?

ETC ETC ETC

Those are all facts that point to Trump being a fascist. 

Tell me how any of those facts are not facts or are wrong?

How about you and beatles start defending your view and saying why you disagree with me instead of just commenting personally. Its probably because you know there is no defending Trump but just don't want to admit it.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



yeahbaby! said:


> Cmon man, it's not leftist to pass off everything one says as fact, it's a human ego thing. Ain't no left or right about it.


Which to be fair is why I said his behavior is parody level regarding the WORST of leftism.

I have cited @GothicBohemian before as a socialism believer I enjoy hearing from. @Reaper too. 


It's not really what he believes, it's the manner in which he debates it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Election*

Yo, don't label me a socialist. At most I'm a critical rationalist that's partly libertarian, partly for welfare stateism and mostly for finding a democratic means to establish a hybrid, but small government. 

Deep down, I'm anti-government and pro-self governance :shrug 

Probably the opposite of a socialist actually.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



Reaper said:


> Yo, don't label me a socialist. At most I'm a critical rationalist that's partly libertarian, partly for welfare stateism and mostly for finding a democratic means to establish a hybrid, but small government.
> 
> Deep down, I'm anti-government and pro-self governance :shrug
> 
> Probably the opposite of a socialist actually.


I stand corrected. Your views as someone who grew up in places like that interest me was my point 

Should have been clear, my bad.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Black Lives Matter activist says they will incite riots if Trump wins:
> 
> http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=54378
> 
> BUT IT'S OUR FAULT GUYS.


Of course they will, regardless of the fact that Trump's policies would help blacks far more than the other candidates. It's never been about the facts for BLM. Let them riot and wreck the credibility of their movement even further.


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump doesn't even know what he is for.


You can read what he's for here.



birthday_massacre said:


> He never says anything. He just says oh this will be GREAT or I am for A GOOD DEAL. Or stupid BS like that. He never says anything of substance if you actually listen to him.


I kind of see what you mean. It was the *most* Trump supporters are ....... that I disagree with. It was stated as fact rather than an opinion or joke.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



The Dazzler said:


> You can read what he's for here.
> 
> 
> I kind of see what you mean. It was the *most* Trump supporters are ....... that I disagree with. It was stated as fact rather than an opinion or joke.



I am talking about in debates, Trump is just like, OH I make great deals, I will get it done by being GREAT. My ideas are GREAT, that is all he ever says. He cannot even support his plans.
You still have not refuted what i said about Trump 





Beatles123 said:


> Which to be fair is why I said his behavior is parody level regarding the WORST of leftism.
> 
> I have cited @GothicBohemian before as a socialism believer I enjoy hearing from. @Reaper too.
> 
> 
> It's not really what he believes, it's the manner in which he debates it.


The reason I debate it the way I do is because people like you make comments like you just did and can't even try to refute what I point out so instead you go to comments like this.

You still have not refuted anything I said about Trump, because you can't.


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> I am talking about in debates, Trump is just like, OH I make great deals, I will get it done by being GREAT. My ideas are GREAT, that is all he ever says. He cannot even support his plans.


I said I can see what you mean. But when you say most Trump supporters are ...... I'll call :bs:


birthday_massacre said:


> You still have not refuted what i said about Trump


Which post?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> I am talking about in debates, Trump is just like, OH I make great deals, I will get it done by being GREAT. My ideas are GREAT, that is all he ever says. He cannot even support his plans.
> You still have not refuted what i said about Trump
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I debate it the way I do is because people like you make comments like you just did and can't even try to refute what I point out so instead you go to comments like this.
> 
> You still have not refuted anything I said about Trump, because you can't.


I'm not doing that because you'll turn this into a bait fest. Like you are right now.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> So tell me then what I said about Trump that isn't true? Is it not a fact he wants to amendment the first amendment when it comes to freedom of the pressure?
> Is it not a fact that Trump incites violence well he tells others to people people in the face during his rallies?
> Is it not a fact that Trump said he would pay for legal fees for people that punch a protester?
> Is it not a fact that Trump said he would considering giving Muslims ID cards ?
> Is it not a fact that Trump said he loves the uneducated?
> Is it not a fact Trump threatened bad things would happen if he doesn't get he nomination ?
> 
> ETC ETC ETC
> 
> Those are all facts that point to Trump being a fascist.
> 
> Tell me how any of those facts are not facts or are wrong?
> 
> How about you and beatles start defending your view and saying why you disagree with me instead of just commenting personally. Its probably because you know there is no defending Trump but just don't want to admit it.


Well I was responding to Beatles use of labelling you as the worst of a 'leftist' attitude and saying there's no left or right about it. 

I was playing devil's advocate by saying the 'opinions not facts' thing as that seems to be the only way to get through to him.

Personally, no I can't really dispute any of the things you have written about Trump, however plenty others would on this forum by saying he was taken out of context, the media is against him blah blah blah so why bother?

As much as Trump is a loud mouth he also seems to use quite careful language sometimes, so he wasn't blatantly inciting violence by saying 'bad things would happen' is my take on it, but the message is there. As much as he's a buffoon IMO, he's also a bit slippery.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> I'm not doing that because you'll turn this into a bait fest. Like you are right now.


The only one turning this into a bait fest here is you, with your last 3 or posts.

I have been giving facts why Trump is a fascist. But of course you won't try to refute those facts because you can't.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



yeahbaby! said:


> Well I was responding to Beatles use of labelling you as the worst of a 'leftist' attitude and saying there's no left or right about it.
> 
> I was playing devil's advocate by saying the 'opinions not facts' thing as that seems to be the only way to get through to him.
> 
> Personally, no I can't really dispute any of the things you have written about Trump, however plenty others would on this forum by saying he was taken out of context, the media is against him blah blah blah so why bother?
> 
> As much as Trump is a loud mouth he also seems to use quite careful language sometimes, so he wasn't blatantly inciting violence by saying 'bad things would happen' is my take on it, but the message is there. As much as he's a buffoon IMO, he's also a bit slippery.


Here is what I laugh at. People like beatles and the other Trump supports who will remain nameless can be far right and that is ok but they love to call out anyone who is super liberal. Its just all very amusing. I love how you are not calling out beatles for the BS he is doing, yet I get "called out" for presenting facts and calling them facts witch they are (like on that list). 

when it comes to facts there is no left and no right there are just FACTS. And those things about Trump are FACTS. 

As for Trump being taken out of context, how are they taken out of context when its on videos in perfect context. Anyone claiming that is just making excuses because they can't refute it.
The media is not against Trump, they are just calling out his ignorance and bigotry. If you want to see someone who the media is really against that is Bernie Sanders. They do everything they can do bury him.

The media loves Trump , they cover him all the time. The media never covers Sanders when its something positive, its always to slant it negative against him when he is doing positive things. 
Just look at all the debates he wins, yet the media claims Hillary one, especially the one who Bernie overwhelming one in all online polls,and CNN claimed Hillary won then hide their own poll showing Sanders won.

Or look at what the New York Times did today by putting out one good article for ONE HOUR letting Bernie tweet it out , then they go back and change it with no edited notes at the time, and make it an article slamming him.

Trump is using very careful language to get the desired effect, being just careful enough to not go way over that line. He knows exactly what he is doing. Just like the whole KKK BS where he pretended not to know who David Duke was, so he wouldn't have to renounce the KKK, then after he was called out on how much of a liar he was, he finally later admitted it. 

Trump knows exactly what to say to con people into voting for him and people are falling for it, just liked the were conned with Trump university.

And just wait until the general election, I bet most of his stances change yet again to try and con even more people into voting for him.


Don't get me wrong Hillary is doing to do the exact same thing. She is going to go back to the center and be her moderate, even republican lite self once she conned those liberals into voting for her. can't wait until all those people on the left and right wake up one day and release how they were conned by two of the best con people in the business.

I blame the people falling for Hillary's BS way more than the people falling for Trump. Because Hillary's record in politics speak for itself. Not sure why people didn't fall for it when she went up against Obama. Too bad they are falling for her lies now. But oh well, that is on them.

At least with Hillary as president we know what we are getting, more of the same moderate bought and paired for by super pacs, id take that any day over a fascist like Trump.

His fascism is getting worse and worse as each day passes.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> The only one turning this into a bait fest here is you, with your last 3 or posts.
> 
> I have been giving facts why Trump is a fascist. But of course you won't try to refute those facts because you can't.


You've thrown the whole damn fishing pole into the water now.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> That is because everything is tied to that one major issue. Most of the issues in american stem for money and corruption in politics.
> 
> How exactly would Sanders policies hurt america?
> 
> You want know what would hurt America, Trumps health plan.
> 
> It would cost 21 MILLION people to lose their healthcare coverage, and it would cost the US $270 BILLION over ten years. Not to mention it would bring back insurance companies able to not give someone insurance for preexisting conditions.
> 
> Trump would be a disaster for this country.


So black people wouldn't experience racism if they are no corruption in politics or they become rich? All foreign policies are tied to wealth inequality? Face it, Bernie is a one-issue candidate that wouldn't and shouldn't have made it this far if not for Hilary's unlikeability.

Sanders plan of having a much higher minimum wage would make American products even more uncompetitive. 

Sanders promoting higher education as a right and should be free would add extra burden to the taxpayers, or in his rhetoric, extra burden to the RICH PEOPLE. While the idea of cheaper higher education to reduce student debt is great, getting the rich to pay for it is either naive or populist rhetoric no different than Trump's make Mexico pay for it.


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> So tell me then what I said about Trump that isn't true? Is it not a fact he wants to amendment the first amendment when it comes to freedom of the pressure?


Changing the libel laws? Then yes.



birthday_massacre said:


> Is it not a fact that Trump said he would considering giving Muslims ID cards ?


To be fair an NBC reporter suggested it. Trump hasn't ruled it out so I'll give you that one.



birthday_massacre said:


> Is it not a fact that Trump incites violence well *he tells others to people people in the face during his rallies*?


Punch people? If so, source?



birthday_massacre said:


> Is it not a fact that Trump said he would pay for legal fees for people that punch a protester?


He was told the protester was flipping off the crowd and taunting. He wanted to see video first and said he may pay the legal fees for that man. That is not the same as saying he'll pay legal fees for any people that punch protesters. :laugh:



birthday_massacre said:


> Is it not a fact that Trump said he loves the uneducated?


This was the full comment.

"We won the evangelicals," Trump said. "We won with young. We won with old. We won with highly educated. We won with poorly educated — I love the poorly educated. We're the smartest people, we're the most loyal people."

Not sure how that makes him a fascist. :shrug



birthday_massacre said:


> Is it not a fact Trump threatened bad things would happen if he doesn't get he nomination ?


Threatened? Really?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



FriedTofu said:


> So black people wouldn't experience racism if they are no corruption in politics or they become rich? All foreign policies are tied to wealth inequality? Face it, Bernie is a one-issue candidate that wouldn't and shouldn't have made it this far if not for Hilary's unlikeability.
> 
> Sanders plan of having a much higher minimum wage would make American products even more uncompetitive.
> 
> Sanders promoting higher education as a right and should be free would add extra burden to the taxpayers, or in his rhetoric, extra burden to the RICH PEOPLE. While the idea of cheaper higher education to reduce student debt is great, getting the rich to pay for it is either naive or populist rhetoric no different than Trump's make Mexico pay for it.


Black people wouldn't be going to prison for stupid minor drug offenses like they are now because of prison for profit. Blacks to go jail way more than whites because of minor drop offense. Also, if police were held accountable for harassing blacks for no reason or killing unarmed blacks or roughing them up that too would solve a lot of problems. What white cops to do blacks, like pulling them over for no reason, trying to bait them s they can just arrest them for simple traffic stops would make racism much less in the US if you fixed that problem. 

Bernie is far from a one issue candidate, anyone who claims that really shows they don't know what the are talking about.

Sanders is for getting rid of money in politics, wall st. reform, getting rid of trade agreements that are hurting the US, free state college, single payer healthcare , making sure the police reflect the community they are in, raising the minimum wage to a living wage, etc etc etc

How is that just one issue again? 

Raising the min. wage would help not hurt the economy and would stimulate it as well as create more jobs because the middle class would have more disposable income which they would spend. The top 1% rarely ever spend their disposable income its the middle class that does. That is why when the middle class is making money, the economy is better because they put that money back into the economy.

Higher education should be a right. There is a reason why the US is so low in education in the world. They are no where close to the top, they are near the middle. It would not put a burden on tax payers. 

You do understand when the rich that is always when we get the best economic growth. 

Trickle down economics (i.e. tax cuts for the rich) has proven not to work and it has been a complete and utter failure.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



The Dazzler said:


> Changing the libel laws? Then yes.


That is what Trump said he wants to do. Its against the first amendment and its also a fascist idea.





The Dazzler said:


> o be fair an NBC reporter suggested it. Trump hasn't ruled it out so I'll give you that one.


Trump said he wanted to ban all Muslims. NBC said would you consider tagging them and he said yes.
It didn't rule it out like you admitted. He could have easily said no.

That is another example of Trump being fascist.





The Dazzler said:


> Punch people? If so, source?
> He was told the protester was flipping off the crowd and taunting. He wanted to see video first and said he may pay the legal fees for that man. That is not the same as saying he'll pay legal fees for any people that punch protester







Here is it. 
HE has said it on more than one occasion, he even said a number of numbers, he himself would like to punch someone in the face as well.

Here is one example.






Also, that protestor did not throw any punches, Trump was lying to act like the protestor threw a punch. 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/donald-trump-punch-protester-219655

"According to multiple South Point security personnel, the man did not throw any punches. Trump "was just over-exaggerating," said one security guard, who asked that his name not be used.


Trump being fascist, anyone against him needs to be beat up. 





The Dazzler said:


> He said he loves uneducated people did he not? He didn't say he won those groups like the others. That was the point. Because he really does love the uneducated.


Yes he threatened bad things would happen.


"I think we’ll win before getting to the convention, but I can tell you, if we didn’t and if we’re 20 votes short or if we’re, you know, 100 short and we’re at 1,100 and somebody else is at 500 or 400, because we’re way ahead of everybody, I don’t think you can say that we don’t get it automatically. I think you would have riots. I think you would have riots.

… I think you would see problems like you’ve never seen before. I think bad things would happen. I really do. I wouldn’t lead it, but I think bad things would happen."




And don't claim that is not a threat. Thats like saying when a mob boss telling a person he is extorting if you don't pay me bad things will happen.

That is a threat. Just like Trump is making a threat. Its his subtle way of making a threat without actually saying, I will make my people riot if I don't win. Just like the mob boss or their goons tell people, pay up or there will be trouble.

That is also super fascist threatening violence if things don't go his way.

So how is Trump not a fascist again?


----------



## Pronoss

*Re: Election*

Libertarian on why always mistrust government. And government is supposed to be small and insignificant as it was founded not this juggernaut.

https://youtu.be/WvaZwPPd7m0


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Black people wouldn't be going to prison for stupid minor drug offenses like they are now because of prison for profit. Blacks to go jail way more than whites because of minor drop offense. Also, if police were held accountable for harassing blacks for no reason or killing unarmed blacks or roughing them up that too would solve a lot of problems. What white cops to do blacks, like pulling them over for no reason, trying to bait them s they can just arrest them for simple traffic stops would make racism much less in the US if you fixed that problem.
> 
> Bernie is far from a one issue candidate, anyone who claims that really shows they don't know what the are talking about.
> 
> Sanders is for getting rid of money in politics, wall st. reform, getting rid of trade agreements that are hurting the US, free state college, single payer healthcare , making sure the police reflect the community they are in, raising the minimum wage to a living wage, etc etc etc
> 
> How is that just one issue again?
> 
> Raising the min. wage would help not hurt the economy and would stimulate it as well as create more jobs because the middle class would have more disposable income which they would spend. The top 1% rarely ever spend their disposable income its the middle class that does. That is why when the middle class is making money, the economy is better because they put that money back into the economy.
> 
> Higher education should be a right. There is a reason why the US is so low in education in the world. They are no where close to the top, they are near the middle. It would not put a burden on tax payers.
> 
> You do understand when the rich that is always when we get the best economic growth.
> 
> Trickle down economics (i.e. tax cuts for the rich) has proven not to work and it has been a complete and utter failure.


You just stated other factors contributing to blacks feeling persecuted in America that is not related to income inequality. Yet Bernie won't and prefer to go back to his single issue campaigning. Nothing wrong with that, but in previous elections he would have been shredded for it. He is a single issue because his point is always about vilifying the rich, much like Trump vilifying the establishment.

Except that studies have shown that minimum wages have reduce jobs over a period of time after implementation. Raising minimum wages would help the few that still retain their jobs but will not help unemployment numbers. Employers would just resort to automation to compensate for the increase in demand you anticipate with higher spending by those middle class people who have more disposable income. Jobs created by robots use won't be entry-level jobs that raising minimum wages are supposed to help.

Higher education is not a right no matter how much you want it to be. The reason US is so low in education is from the grassroot level, not at the top. US universities are still some of the best in the world.


----------



## muttgeiger

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> At least with Hillary as president we know what we are getting, more of the same moderate bought and paired for by super pacs, id take that any day over a fascist like Trump.


Unfortunately, this is the Key here. It's the devil you know. You know what you are getting. It's not great, but she will hold the fort.

I don't care about political party lines, and I would love an outsider or a strong third party candidate. But it's just not happening this time. Yes Trump is an outsider- just because he's not part of the establishment, doesn't mean he's not a disaster waiting to happen. TBH, I don't believe Trump is really a hardline conservative at all, and I think he would probably do ok in some areas, like appointing pretty balanced supreme court justices. But I have zero confidence that he wont make rash decisions that turn into major blunders, particularly when it comes to foreign policy.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Election*

Trump is apparently polling terribly with women, which shouldn't be shocking if true.

Hillary is almost a lock to be elected next president. Let's see how she can fuck this up though. If anyone can fuck this up, it's her. 


Sanders is done. Good job good effort. We probably shouldn't talk about him anymore.

The drama now is all about Trump and the fractured GOP. And how Hillary can STILL not win:lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



FriedTofu said:


> You just stated other factors contributing to blacks feeling persecuted in America that is not related to income inequality. Yet Bernie won't and prefer to go back to his single issue campaigning. Nothing wrong with that, but in previous elections he would have been shredded for it. He is a single issue because his point is always about vilifying the rich, much like Trump vilifying the establishment.
> 
> Except that studies have shown that minimum wages have reduce jobs over a period of time after implementation. Raising minimum wages would help the few that still retain their jobs but will not help unemployment numbers. Employers would just resort to automation to compensate for the increase in demand you anticipate with higher spending by those middle class people who have more disposable income. Jobs created by robots use won't be entry-level jobs that raising minimum wages are supposed to help.
> 
> Higher education is not a right no matter how much you want it to be. The reason US is so low in education is from the grassroot level, not at the top. US universities are still some of the best in the world.


I already showed you Bernie is not a one issue person. I love how you just ignored everything I said and went back to your wrong point.

Also like I said before, Bernies NUMBER ONE issue is money in politics since that is tied to pretty much EVERYTHING. Politicians taking contributions aka BRIBES from Banks, Pharma, monsanto, etc etc. Everyone has a number one policy but that doesn't mean that is his only policy. 

That is like saying Trumps a one policy candidate and its just immigration, which is not true. 

Min. wage increase do not cause job loss over time in most cases. 

http://www.businessforafairminimumw...-minimum-wage-increases-do-not-cause-job-loss

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ing-the-minimum-wage-did-to-jobs-in-11-states

"Comparing the last six months of 2014 with the first half of this year, payroll gains accelerated in seven states and slowed in four. Still, employment only grew as fast as the U.S. average in Arkansas in the last half of 2014. "

http://cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blog/2014-job-creation-in-states-that-raised-the-minimum-wage

"2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage"


Higher education is a right if you have the grades for it, just like K-12 is a right . You probably don't think healthcare is a right either.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Election*

MrMister obviously hasn't read Bernie Sanders' latest literary work, _Trump-And-Woman_, which should illuminate female voting projections in the coming election. 

An exclusive excerpt for you... "A woman enjoys supporting Hillary Clinton - as she fantasizes voting for Donald Trump."


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



MrMister said:


> Trump is apparently polling terribly with women, which shouldn't be shocking if true.
> 
> Hillary is almost a lock to be elected next president. Let's see how she can fuck this up though. If anyone can fuck this up, it's her.
> 
> 
> Sanders is done. Good job good effort. We probably shouldn't talk about him anymore.
> 
> The drama now is all about Trump and the fractured GOP. And how Hillary can STILL not win:lol


Sanders still has a slim chance since the upcoming states mostly favor him. He just needs to win big. CA and NY are what will decide he is done or not. If he doesn't win those big, then he is done. Lets see if he goes on a run with the next few primaries that favor him. We all know the first half was going to favor Hillary, the 2nd half favors Sanders.

As for her fucking it up. An indictment would do that trick.

Trump could still lose to Cruz with Rubio out now. Most of Rubios votes could be going to Cruz which could put Cruz over Trump. It will be interesting. Esp. since if I'm not mistaken a lot of the rest of the GOP states winner take all.


----------



## truelove

Trump or Sanders or third party


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*

:lol This isn't even a Trump thread and he's dominating the discussion!


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> That is what Trump said he wants to do. Its against the first amendment and *its also a fascist idea*.


Not really. We have similar laws here in the UK to what he wants.



birthday_massacre said:


>


Holy shit! I hadn't seen that. :booklel



birthday_massacre said:


> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/donald-trump-punch-protester-219655
> 
> "According to multiple South Point security personnel, the man did not throw any punches. Trump "was just over-exaggerating," said one security guard, who asked that his name not be used.
> 
> 
> Trump being fascist, *anyone against him needs to be beat up*.


Not anyone. It's just disruptive protesters that need to watch out. :trump



birthday_massacre said:


> Yes he threatened bad things would happen.
> 
> "I think we’ll win before getting to the convention, but I can tell you, if we didn’t and if we’re 20 votes short or if we’re, you know, 100 short and we’re at 1,100 and somebody else is at 500 or 400, because we’re way ahead of everybody, I don’t think you can say that we don’t get it automatically. I think you would have riots. I think you would have riots.
> 
> … I think you would see problems like you’ve never seen before. I think bad things would happen. I really do. I wouldn’t lead it, but I think bad things would happen."
> 
> And don't claim that is not a threat. Thats like saying when a mob boss telling a person he is extorting if you don't pay me bad things will happen.
> 
> That is a threat. Just like Trump is making a threat. Its his subtle way of making a threat without actually saying, I will make my people riot if I don't win. Just like the mob boss or their goons tell people, pay up or there will be trouble.


Watch the vid. He said he'd just move on if not chosen. He 'thinks' there would be riots. He says he wouldn't be leading it. Those could just be his honest thoughts. If Sanders was not chosen despite winning the most delegates and he said the same, would you think that's a threat?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Election*

Hillary being arrested for Sanders becoming president is a very tempting trade.


----------



## CoolGuy45

*Re: Election*

I would take Hillary over any of the Republican twats and I hate Hillary. Hoping for a Bernie win but it's looking less likely every day.


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Election*

I've seen this online about Sanders' healthcare. Is this true or bullshit?



> "It would cover everyone, *including aspiring Americans*," said Warren Gunnels, senior policy adviser to the Vermont senator's campaign, *when asked whether the plan would cover immigrants in the country illegally*.
> 
> That proposal separates Sanders' plan even further from Obamacare, whose framers carefully excluded undocumented immigrants from any form of assistance or access to coverage offered through the law.





CoolGuy45 said:


> I would take Hillary over any of the Republican twats and I hate Hillary. Hoping for a Bernie win but it's looking less likely every day.


As a non-American I want anyone but Hillary. She seems the most likely to start WW3. :woo


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> I already showed you Bernie is not a one issue person. I love how you just ignored everything I said and went back to your wrong point.
> 
> Also like I said before, Bernies NUMBER ONE issue is money in politics since that is tied to pretty much EVERYTHING. Politicians taking contributions aka BRIBES from Banks, Pharma, monsanto, etc etc. Everyone has a number one policy but that doesn't mean that is his only policy.
> 
> That is like saying Trumps a one policy candidate and its just immigration, which is not true.
> 
> Min. wage increase do not cause job loss over time in most cases.
> 
> http://www.businessforafairminimumw...-minimum-wage-increases-do-not-cause-job-loss
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ing-the-minimum-wage-did-to-jobs-in-11-states
> 
> "Comparing the last six months of 2014 with the first half of this year, payroll gains accelerated in seven states and slowed in four. Still, employment only grew as fast as the U.S. average in Arkansas in the last half of 2014. "
> 
> http://cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blog/2014-job-creation-in-states-that-raised-the-minimum-wage
> 
> "2014 Job Creation Faster in States that Raised the Minimum Wage"
> 
> 
> Higher education is a right if you have the grades for it, just like K-12 is a right . You probably don't think healthcare is a right either.


Interesting links though most of the studies prior to the past couple of decades showed there is more than a negligible impact with a higher minimum wage. I'm merely quoting textbook economics here and I believe over time there will be more job losses due to forced innovation and entry-level workers will suffer worse. Agree to disagree and see how things end up with a 100% increase in min. wage. I'll share some links that support increase in min. wages but also believe it will cost jobs.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995

http://fortune.com/2016/02/29/why-the-next-president-should-raise-the-minimum-wage/



> There’s an important caveat: This detour from strict supply and demand can work only for moderate increases. At some wage (pick a number: $15 an hour, $20), the arithmetic becomes overwhelming. A few cities, such as Seattle, recently have imposed *Sanders-level wage hikes*; early returns suggest that Seattle has indeed suffered restaurant job losses.


Just ask yourself this, what is a fair wage for the supervisor of entry-level workers that is earning less than $15/hr to ask for? A similar 100% increase? And to the next level? Costs add up and consumer spending won't keep up. Something has to give, either consumers pay for the increase or employers find ways to cut costs by either selling less for the same price or cutting benefits and jobs.

And no, I believe access to basic medical care in his/her country is a right.


----------



## Karma101

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> :lol This isn't even a Trump thread and he's dominating the discussion!


That's hardly surprising when you run a campaign based around saying outrageous things to gain publicity.


----------



## BoT

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

So can anyone help me out here? No one here ever talks about anything in the political race except Donald Trump's "racism".

Who is the better candidate, Clinton or Trump? I know Bill was pretty good, not sure about anyone else.


Thanks.


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Six18 said:


> So can anyone help me out here? No one here ever talks about anything in the political race except Donald Trump's "racism".
> 
> Who is the better candidate, Clinton or Trump? I know Bill was pretty good, not sure about anyone else.
> 
> 
> Thanks.


Narcissism is more apt to describe Donald Trump. There is more than racism about Trump in here, such as anti-trade, blaming the establishment and being the lesser evil compared to the likes of Ted Cruz from the GOP.

Personally I feel Clinton is a better candidate even though she is a very mediocre candidate. She has a better gasp of foreign policy, and isn't anti-trade which would further damage the already fragile global economy bracing for the China bubble to burst.

Trump is saying a lot of things his base wants to hear, so I wouldn't put that much stock in that defining how he will be president. Bush was very much against interventionist in his campaigning but he spent more and launched wars overseas after 9/11. 

The only thing we can judge how Trump will be as President is how he deal with adversity and it scares me with how he reacts to criticisms over the years, and during this campaign. The link below (admittedly from a liberal bias source) is why I feel it is terrifying to have someone like Trump as the leader of the free world.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-lies-gaslighting_us_56e95d21e4b065e2e3d7ee82


----------



## Art Vandaley

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump is never going to be the leader of the free world, will defacto go to whoever the primeminister of Britain is or whoever the most charismatic english speaking leader is, not gonna be Trump though whether he becomes Pres of the US or not.


----------



## Miss Sally

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> Narcissism is more apt to describe Donald Trump. There is more than racism about Trump in here, such as anti-trade, blaming the establishment and being the lesser evil compared to the likes of Ted Cruz from the GOP.
> 
> Personally I feel Clinton is a better candidate even though she is a very mediocre candidate. She has a better gasp of foreign policy, and isn't anti-trade which would further damage the already fragile global economy bracing for the China bubble to burst.
> 
> Trump is saying a lot of things his base wants to hear, so I wouldn't put that much stock in that defining how he will be president. Bush was very much against interventionist in his campaigning but he spent more and launched wars overseas after 9/11.
> 
> The only thing we can judge how Trump will be as President is how he deal with adversity and it scares me with how he reacts to criticisms over the years, and during this campaign. The link below (admittedly from a liberal bias source) is why I feel it is terrifying to have someone like Trump as the leader of the free world.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-lies-gaslighting_us_56e95d21e4b065e2e3d7ee82


A discarded pile of pubic hair would make a better candidate than Hilary. If her past, her carelessness with US secrets and involvement in the Libyan civil war shows us anything is that she'd be a megalomaniac who will sell even more arms to terrorists, destabilize more countries and pass laws which will fuck over everyone who isn't extremely rich or who doesn't back her. How anyone doesn't realize this boggles my mind, it's like holding a live grenade in your hand with no pin (Hilary) but you're worried if you left the iron plugged in at home after you left. (Trump)


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> A discarded pile of pubic hair would make a better candidate than Hilary. If her past, her carelessness with US secrets and involvement in the Libyan civil war shows us anything is that she'd be a megalomaniac who will sell even more arms to terrorists, destabilize more countries and pass laws which will fuck over everyone who isn't extremely rich or who doesn't back her. How anyone doesn't realize this boggles my mind, it's like holding a live grenade in your hand with no pin (Hilary) but you're worried if you left the iron plugged in at home after you left. (Trump)


You do realize Trump is also a megalomaniac who will throw his 'friends' under the bus to preserve the illusion of his Trump brand? And Trump would blatantly rip you off, even if you are a stakeholder in his enterprise as long as he profit from it. Trump will sell you a story that his defunct businesses are still running by slapping his brand on others' products in a victory speech just to prove a point. Who know what he will do to offend other countries for a perceived slight?

Trump has not even been elected and has already destabilize your allies and prompted their leaders to voice their concerns even before a general election. Hilary is the devil you know, Trump is the devil you don't.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Election*






Here's some Ted Cruz so we have other candidates to discuss about. The GOP. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



The Dazzler said:


> Not really. We have similar laws here in the UK to what he wants.
> 
> 
> Holy shit! I hadn't seen that. :booklel
> 
> 
> Not anyone. It's just disruptive protesters that need to watch out. :trump
> 
> 
> Watch the vid. He said he'd just move on if not chosen. He 'thinks' there would be riots. He says he wouldn't be leading it. Those could just be his honest thoughts. If Sanders was not chosen despite winning the most delegates and he said the same, would you think that's a threat?


Its still fascist , Trump wants to be able to sue the newspapers that say anything negative about him even when what they are saying is true. 

Trump was basically saying, his people would riot if he didn't get the nomination then was like but I'm not telling them to, wink wink. 

Sanders would never say anything like that. If he did say that, then yes it would be considered a threat. If anyone did it would be but especially from Trump since he incites violence at his rallies. Bernie has never do anything remotely like that.



The Dazzler said:


> I've seen this online about Sanders' healthcare. Is this true or bullshit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a non-American I want anyone but Hillary. She seems the most likely to start WW3. :woo


The democrats were trying to add in undocumented works into obamacare not too long ago. There was even workaround in some states to get them healthcare coverage 
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/09/us/obamacare-undocumented-immigrants/

As for Hillary being the one to start WW3, how do you figure? That person would be Trump not Hillary. Trump would start WW3 over something stupid, just look at how he got when his small hands are insulted.
Trump even threatened Mexico with the US military if they didn't build the wall. Trump is the last person you want with their finger on the button. 





FriedTofu said:


> Interesting links though most of the studies prior to the past couple of decades showed there is more than a negligible impact with a higher minimum wage. I'm merely quoting textbook economics here and I believe over time there will be more job losses due to forced innovation and entry-level workers will suffer worse. Agree to disagree and see how things end up with a 100% increase in min. wage. I'll share some links that support increase in min. wages but also believe it will cost jobs.
> 
> https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995
> 
> http://fortune.com/2016/02/29/why-the-next-president-should-raise-the-minimum-wage/
> 
> 
> 
> Just ask yourself this, what is a fair wage for the supervisor of entry-level workers that is earning less than $15/hr to ask for? A similar 100% increase? And to the next level? Costs add up and consumer spending won't keep up. Something has to give, either consumers pay for the increase or employers find ways to cut costs by either selling less for the same price or cutting benefits and jobs.
> 
> And no, I believe access to basic medical care in his/her country is a right.




With the min. wage thing, it does depend on what state you are looking at, that does factor into it. 

If you are in a professional entry level job, you should not be making less than $15 an hour which is just $30k a year. A supervisor should be making at least $40k, managers $50k or more for entry level jobs.
Those are for jobs that require a degree, not fast food for example where teens work part time to get through college or while they are in high school.

They should just tier out min. wage. So like for example, if it's a part time job to get you through HS or College like at a Burger King or Mc Ds, those don't have to be $15 and can stay the same or even at a clothing retail store those could stay the same as well.

But if you are full time and its your job, then it should be $15 an hour since you need a living wage for that. Of course you will have companies abusing that and just not hire full time workers but those companies could get fines for doing so.

As for prices going up to offset a min. wage increase at retail places, so what, you will be better off playing 10% more for a burger for example and making double what you were before , you would still come out in top.

For example, would you rather be making $8 an hour and paying $4 for a big mac or make $15 an hour and pay $5 or even $6 for a big mac?

Consumer spending will go way up. In that above example.

If the first case where you are making $8 and hour, after buying one big mac, you would have HALF of your hourly salary left which is $4.
where as in the 2nd example with the $15 min wage, you would pay $5 for a big mac then have $10 left over, (or $9 if it was $6)(.

That is a ton of disposable income. You really don't think people will use that extra money back into the economy ? Of course they will.


----------



## GothicBohemian

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> Hilary is the devil you know, Trump is the devil you don't.


Which makes neither of them appealing. Might as well just write in a pet hamster for all the choice those two options offer.

I can't give an American voting advice because I haven't a clue how I'd react heading to the polling station knowing anything but a vote for the 2016 Dem or Rep candidate would be as effective as not voting at all.


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its still fascist , Trump wants to be able to sue the newspapers that say anything negative about him even when what they are saying is true.


Here in the UK if you print something false like so and so is a Neo-Nazi, then that person can take you to court. You'd have to prove the statement is true. Unless you're printing lies it wouldn't affect you. If it works that same way for all people then it's not really fascist. There are similar laws in a lot of European countries.



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump was basically saying, his people would riot if he didn't get the nomination then was like but I'm not telling them to, wink wink.


I don't think it's a threat. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Btw do you watch The Young Turks? I just watched their vid and you're saying similar things. (Not hating, I'm just curious.)



birthday_massacre said:


> The democrats were trying to add in undocumented works into obamacare not too long ago. There was even workaround in some states to get them healthcare coverage
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/09/us/obamacare-undocumented-immigrants/


So it's true? I thought it might just be fearmongering. Do you think this applies to all illegals or just undocumented workers? Aspiring Americans could mean both?



birthday_massacre said:


> As for Hillary being the one to start WW3, how do you figure? That person would be Trump not Hillary. Trump would start WW3 over something stupid, just look at how he got when his small hands are insulted.
> Trump even threatened Mexico with the US military if they didn't build the wall. Trump is the last person you want with their finger on the button.


She seems the most likely to start trouble with Russia. Also all the shit from her emails. I'd pick anyone over her.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



The Dazzler said:


> Here in the UK if you print something false like so and so is a Neo-Nazi, then that person can take you to court. You'd have to prove the statement is true. Unless you're printing lies it wouldn't affect you. If it works that same way for all people then it's not really fascist. There are similar laws in a lot of European countries.
> 
> 
> I don't think it's a threat. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
> Btw do you watch The Young Turks? I just watched their vid and you're saying similar things. (Not hating, I'm just curious.)
> 
> 
> So it's true? I thought it might just be fearmongering. Do you think this applies to all illegals or just undocumented workers? Aspiring Americans could mean both?
> 
> 
> She seems the most likely to start trouble with Russia. Also all the shit from her emails. I'd pick anyone over her.



I am not taking about slander , that is different. Trump wants to change it so you can't say anything bad about him even if its true. He wants to be able to sue someone if they say anything bad about you even when what they are saying is true. he wants to appeal libel laws which would be fascism. We are not talking about defamation of character. That is totally different.

Yes since they are the only real liberal news outlet. 

From what I understand it just applies to undocumented workers, don't see how it could apply to illegals, since you would have to sign up and if an illegal tried to sign up for insurance they would be caught.

So you are against Hillary's emails but are ok with how Trump has frauded (is that even a word lol) people out of thousands of dollars and has bankrupted 4 companies and preaches hate and violence aa well as admitted he would commit war crimes or make it legal to carpet bomb families of terrorist and bring back torture. How would that not start a war?

Cruz is a religious nut who cant separate church and state. And like someone said in another post, Kasich is a war monger . If anyone would start WW3 it would probably be him.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



Karma101 said:


> That's hardly surprising when you run a campaign based around saying outrageous things to gain publicity.


It's only outrageous if you keep building it up.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I wanna throw out the fact that Trump is more anti war than any other candidate.


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> I am not taking about slander , that is different. Trump wants to change it so you can't say anything bad about him even if its true. *He wants to be able to sue someone if they say anything bad about you even when what they are saying is true*. he wants to appeal libel laws which would be fascism. We are not talking about defamation of character. That is totally different.


If he can sue for telling the truth then that'd be bad and not like here in the UK.



birthday_massacre said:


> From what I understand it just applies to undocumented workers, don't see how it could apply to illegals, since you would have to sign up and if an illegal tried to sign up for insurance they would be caught.


Aren't undocumented workers also illegal though? I thought they were illegals working off the books. Does it mean something else?



birthday_massacre said:


> So you are against Hillary's emails but are ok with how Trump has frauded (is that even a word lol) people out of thousands of dollars and has bankrupted 4 companies and preaches hate and violence aa well as admitted he would commit war crimes or make it legal to carpet bomb families of terrorist and bring back torture. How would that not start a war?


Hillary's emails show her involvement with what happened in Libya. She was aware of genocide taking place against the dark skinned Libyans (by the rebels she was supporting).



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump has frauded (is that even a word lol) people out of thousands of dollars and has bankrupted 4 companies


I don't think that means he'll start a war.



birthday_massacre said:


> and preaches hate and violence aa well as admitted he would commit war crimes or make it legal to carpet bomb families of terrorist and bring back torture. How would that not start a war?


You're already bombing and torturing. He said he wants to work with Russia against ISIS. That makes more sense than what you're currently doing.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Election*

Defraud is the word you are looking for there @birthday_massacre.


Trump has defrauded people out of thousands of dollars and has bankrupted 4 companies


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Hillary Clinton has taken better care of her Goldman Sachs speech transcripts than U.S. national security secrets. She knew about the death squads in Libya and cheered like a sadist at the torture and murder of Gaddafi. During the Clinton administration Hillary was instrumental in directing the IRS to target all "anti-Clinton groups" and conservative groups with audits. She was the chief figure behind "Filegate," keeping FBI files on all "Republican enemies." Emailgate alone should be sending her to trial right now and prison later. There are the myriad bribes that she and her husband took from Chinese mega-banks in 1996, leading to the selling of high-tech secrets to China. Travelgate. Whitewater. Her petty but ridiculous lie about "landing under sniper fire" in Bosnia. Her inexplicably "missing law firm records." Her huge role in "Pardongate." Cattlegate. The slush fund gangster-like "Clinton Foundation." They raised tens of millions of dollars for poor Haitians and pocketed almost all of it, to the protest of Haitians. 

She's a corrupt monster and stalwart defender of Wall Street and the international banking order. It's little surprise that she's probably going to be the next president of the U.S.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The face of the modern left:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIjljucvBI4


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

*Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President**:*

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president


THIS IS FINE!!1!!1!!


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



> "We want Hillary Clinton to win," he said. "She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. Once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colors are going to show. Border policies are going to be put in place. Our second amendment rights that she’s saying she’s against now, she’s not against. She’s just our choice for the presidency."


That white trash piece of shit isn't wrong here.


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> The face of the modern left:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIjljucvBI4


The fat woman with glasses is batshit insane. :surprise:


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Honestly, I don't see Hillary losing 

I see 8 more years of business as usual

At least things will be pretty stable, rich business men prefer things to not be on fire


----------



## Truthbetold

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> I wanna throw out the fact that Trump is more anti war than any other candidate.


It shouldn't be overlooked.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Truthbetold said:


> It shouldn't be overlooked.


Sadly, it is...


----------



## FriedTofu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



GothicBohemian said:


> Which makes neither of them appealing. Might as well just write in a pet hamster for all the choice those two options offer.
> 
> I can't give an American voting advice because I haven't a clue how I'd react heading to the polling station knowing anything but a vote for the 2016 Dem or Rep candidate would be as effective as not voting at all.


But not every candidate will appeal to you all the time. At least in America, they get to choose not to vote. 



Beatles123 said:


> I wanna throw out the fact that Trump is more anti war than any other candidate.


I want to throw out the fact that Trump is also the candidate that said he will force American soldiers to target innocent relatives of terrorists.


----------



## Pratchett

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



GothicBohemian said:


> Which makes neither of them appealing. Might as well just write in a pet hamster for all the choice those two options offer.
> 
> I can't give an American voting advice because I haven't a clue how I'd react heading to the polling station knowing anything but a vote for the 2016 Dem or Rep candidate would be as effective as not voting at all.


Well, at least you have a firm grasp of how voting for President in the US is like. Because that has been how I've viewed it the last six times I did. That old chestnut about the "definition of insanity"... Yet every four years we go through the same old tired motions and end up once again trying to decide between the lesser of two evils.

Still, there might be a candidate that comes out and fits into the first part of your post:

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/08/29/rabbit-hash-dog-mayor-announce-something-big/71383920/

One of the few politicians I look forward to actually meeting someday. :mj


----------



## Stinger Fan

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> *Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President**:*
> 
> http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
> 
> 
> THIS IS FINE!!1!!1!!


Its strange how she keeps having ties to the KKK and no one seems to care. Yet if a KKK member endorses Trump its proof of him being this racist who wants to kill all minorities off lol


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> With the min. wage thing, it does depend on what state you are looking at, that does factor into it.
> 
> If you are in a professional entry level job, you should not be making less than $15 an hour which is just $30k a year. A supervisor should be making at least $40k, managers $50k or more for entry level jobs.
> Those are for jobs that require a degree, not fast food for example where teens work part time to get through college or while they are in high school.


Not every supervising job requires a degree. It sounds increasingly like liberals are exploiting min. wage workers depending on minimum wages to ask for a raise for themselves because they think they aren't compensated fairly. Are you one of them?



> They should just tier out min. wage. So like for example, if it's a part time job to get you through HS or College like at a Burger King or Mc Ds, those don't have to be $15 and can stay the same or even at a clothing retail store those could stay the same as well.
> 
> But if you are full time and its your job, then it should be $15 an hour since you need a living wage for that. Of course you will have companies abusing that and just not hire full time workers but those companies could get fines for doing so.


Now you are discriminating against young workers.



> As for prices going up to offset a min. wage increase at retail places, so what, you will be better off playing 10% more for a burger for example and making double what you were before , you would still come out in top.
> 
> For example, would you rather be making $8 an hour and paying $4 for a big mac or make $15 an hour and pay $5 or even $6 for a big mac?


The issue here is job losses or a slowing down in job creation. No doubt those able to retain their job will be better off. Btw, having $4 increase to $5 or $6 is a 25%-50% increase in prices, not 10%.



> Consumer spending will go way up. In that above example.
> 
> If the first case where you are making $8 and hour, after buying one big mac, you would have HALF of your hourly salary left which is $4.
> where as in the 2nd example with the $15 min wage, you would pay $5 for a big mac then have $10 left over, (or $9 if it was $6)(.
> 
> That is a ton of disposable income. You really don't think people will use that extra money back into the economy ? Of course they will.


If your logic holds, why not increase wages to $50 instead of $15? The argument against Sanders hike isn't that it won't benefit those that still are employed but the threat it has on employment. We disagree on this issue since you think companies will hire more due to increased demands while I think companies will cut jobs in the long run because it isn't profitable.


----------



## Pratchett

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> *Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President**:*
> 
> http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
> 
> 
> THIS IS FINE!!1!!1!!


Honestly, although I believe Hillary is the kind of person who would push her own daughter in front of a city bus if it guaranteed her winning the Presidency, I have trouble accepting the veracity of Mr. Quigg's "endorsement". :mj


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Yeah, it's a highly suspect endorsement. Hillary has enough reprehensible people (with actual power and influence, unlike David Duke or the KKK) supporting her you really don't need to add the KKK to the list. Still, I have no doubt that if a similar endorsement was made of Donald Trump, the media would treat it as serious.

It's not surprising to me that white supremacists would support Trump though. The open border has been radically changing US demographics for decades in a very non-white direction (as well as a very authoritarian direction, in terms of people's political views). Obviously white supremacist groups would support any measure to curb that tide. Doesn't make the policy any less legitimate though, just because it's possible consequences might align with certain racist organizations.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

OH LOOK, TRUMP INCITED VIOLENCE AGAIN

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4b1gcv/on_cnn_live_right_now_bernie_supporters_and/

OBVIOUSLY. RIGHT GUYS?????


----------



## Pratchett

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

"Shillary" :mj4


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

:lol: in fairness I was trying to link to the report IN the thread


----------



## Pratchett

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*










Found this while looking for something completely unrelated. :lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Based Herman Cain wrecking these lying race-baiters :done


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcFp1k3Buew&feature=youtu.be 

Clinton and the "Jew Bastard". 

Not gonna take sides. Just posting more info to take as you will.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> That white trash piece of shit isn't wrong here.


From the same article:



> Based on his past statements, it doesn’t appear highly credible that he has changed his effusive allegiance to Donald Trump,” Brian Levin, a former New York police officer who is director of the Centre for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University in San Bernardino, told the Telegraph. “The timing seems suspect. I think this is a function of not wanting to undermine the Trump campaign.”


Oh but I suppose this former NYPD is just a leftie right?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Based Herman Cain wrecking these lying race-baiters :done


Shucky Ducky! Herman Cain approves of Herman Cain's stance on this issue!

Trump, please get Herman Cain as your VP. He can Shucky Ducky his way into greatness I know it!


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

https://www.facebook.com/events/215738695442862/

Protesters plan assault on trump tower.

LEFTIST TOLERAAAAAAAAAANCE.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Shucky Ducky! Herman Cain approves of Herman Cain's stance on this issue!
> 
> Trump, please get Herman Cain as your VP. He can Shucky Ducky his way into greatness I know it!


Uh. The protester got shot down by Megyn of all people. The dude straight lied.


----------



## GothicBohemian

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Deadpool said:


> Well, at least you have a firm grasp of how voting for President in the US is like. Because that has been how I've viewed it the last six times I did. That old chestnut about the "definition of insanity"... Yet every four years we go through the same old tired motions and end up once again trying to decide between the lesser of two evils.
> 
> Still, there might be a candidate that comes out and fits into the first part of your post:
> 
> http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/08/29/rabbit-hash-dog-mayor-announce-something-big/71383920/
> 
> One of the few politicians I look forward to actually meeting someday. :mj


Lucy Lou for canine commander in chief. (Y) She spreads love and happiness. Who doesn't like love and happiness?


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@CamillePunk @CJ @The Dazzler @Deadpool @Empress @Fringe @Goku @GothicBohemian @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @THE SHIV



stevefox1200 said:


> Honestly, I don't see Hillary losing
> 
> I see 8 more years of business as usual
> 
> At least things will be pretty stable, rich business men prefer things to not be on fire


Agreed on the first point, but I'm not sold on things being stable for much longer.

In Europe, the corrupt European Central Bank is actually going to "negative interest rates" to prop up the EU's weakening economies--and the Bank of Japan is doing the same thing in Japan right now. The nefarious U.S. Federal Reserve policy-making committee just voted a few days ago against hiking up interest rates at all for fear of an economic collapse. While Janet Yellen insists that the Fed will not look into "negative interest rates" in the U.S. the fact that it's even being talked about, coupled to the palpable fear of even the slightest increase in interest rates, displays just how utterly weak and on-the-brink the present U.S. economy is. 

These are people who know that their house of cards is teetering. Indicators as disparate as the Baltic Dry Index displaying how global trade is down almost 20% since the end of 2014 (with U.S. exports down nearly 10% alone, one of the key indicators) to the crushing impact genuine inflation is having on the lower class in the U.S., whose wages have not only not climbed or kept pace but in recent years _fallen_ in value, are telling. 

The entire stimulus, partly orchestrated by the Fed, was to be put to an end some months back, and there had been chatter about increasing the interest rates but Yellen and the Fed committee members recognize how perilous the state of the economy truly is going into mid-2016. So she has given the stock market the green light through quantitative easing. The first canary in the coal mine has appeared with governments around the world dumping U.S. debt like never before. Granted, with their own monetary schemes and negative interest rates, they are building their economies like sand castles, and making U.S. debt far more attractive than it ought to be. 

The globalists, the financial world order titans, just never quite learn. Their solution to everything is to keep inflating, keep easing the money supply. Never let the pain come and go; they would rather just keep gorging themselves. Wall Street is getting richer than ever as a result; the only three times in U.S. history the stock market was more overvalued than it is right now were 1929, 2000 and 2007. 

All of the central planning and all of the king's men will not be able to keep the U.S. from sliding into an excruciating recession in the coming months. In a way, whoever is the next president will be inheriting a financial and economic live hand grenade. That's become a presidential tradition: Obama received Bush's meltdown, who inherited Clinton's, who had the good fortune of coming into office at the tail end of Bush the Elder's. 

Except thanks to wholly profligate and irresponsible policies set forth by Janet Yellen's Federal Reserve, this one's going to hurt really, really bad. Of course, it's been building up for a good long while. Republicans, Democrats, supposed "conservatives," "liberals," they all had a hand in it if they were in Washington, D.C., more or less, and not named Ron Paul. 

Whatever savings and investments middle-class and lower-class baby-boomers have left are about to become squeezed like toothpaste, until there is barely anything left. 

As someone who's 30 years old, I recognize how "screwed" our generation is, too. 

Thomas Jefferson's pen tells the tale vividly in the form of a warning: 



> And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.


"[O]ur rulers" set us on the wrong course long ago.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



FriedTofu said:


> Not every supervising job requires a degree. It sounds increasingly like liberals are exploiting min. wage workers depending on minimum wages to ask for a raise for themselves because they think they aren't compensated fairly. Are you one of them?


The only people that are exploiting the min. wage are the ones that think its already too higher or should not go higher. No one can live and get by on the minimum wage when that is their full time job. And the minimum wage workers are never paid what they are worth, those are always the people that get screwed the most.




FriedTofu said:


> Now you are discriminating against young workers.


then make it $15 across the board. Problem solved.




FriedTofu said:


> The issue here is job losses or a slowing down in job creation. No doubt those able to retain their job will be better off. Btw, having $4 increase to $5 or $6 is a 25%-50% increase in prices, not 10%.


citation please.

You need to stop making things up.
it would only go up 4.7%, . So it wouldn't even be 10% l, let alone the made up 25-50%l

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/03/3687171/15-minimum-wage-big-mac/

" the minimum wage were increased to $15 an hour, prices at fast food restaurants would rise by an estimated 4.3 percent, according to a new study. That would mean a McDonald’s Big Mac, which currently goes for $3.99, would cost about 17 cents more, or $4.16."




FriedTofu said:


> If your logic holds, why not increase wages to $50 instead of $15? The argument against Sanders hike isn't that it won't benefit those that still are employed but the threat it has on employment. We disagree on this issue since you think companies will hire more due to increased demands while I think companies will cut jobs in the long run because it isn't profitable.



I love your logic, people ask for a $15 min wage and you are like oh why not make it $50 an hour. You can't be taking seriously when you use that as a rebuttal. 

I already showed stats where in the long run it does not make a huge difference, and guess what? Companies are constantly laying off people even when they are not giving out raises to the minimum wage. 

You could easily have a min. wage increase and everything would be fine if the CEOs and top execs were not getting their tens of millions dollars bonuses every year. Stop over paying the people at the top and start giving the money to the people at the bottom who are the ones keeping the company going.

Since its clear are you just making numbers up and super over exaggerating things. Until you start backing up your views with facts, I'm done.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> From the same article:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh but I suppose this former NYPD is just a leftie right?


Actually the thought definitely crossed my mind that the KKK douchebag is endorsing Hillary because he thinks it could hurt her. 

He's still not wrong about her.


----------



## The Dazzler

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Based Herman Cain wrecking these lying race-baiters :done


Make America white again. What a liar. :surprise:
The BLM guy was expressionless throughout but started laughing at the pigs in a blanket part. Fucking hell dude you're on tv. :laugh:


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The guy obviously has some type of mental disability so whatever. Not sure what the guy on the left's excuse is.


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The author of the Constitution warned everyone you do not want a democracy! You will fuck yourselves.

The U.S. was only 11 years old when James Madison gave his reasons and warnings. You had the party that would become the Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence & Grievances and declaring war against England officially, he also helped with wording of the Constitution as needed. Then you had the party that would eventually become the Democrats led by Alexander Hamilton they wanted more power, big government, and a central bank.

But James Madison is the main author of the U.S. Constitution. He had to write it with terms that could not be misinterpreted, no double meanings, no inferences, and it was revised to fix phrasing with help by Jefferson one of the smartest most educated men, hell if he lived today he'd still be smarter than "average" leaders, he studied history so intensely he traveled to France to study books written hundreds of years before the US, much less the colonies existed. An aside, there are statues of Jefferson and Franklin in France, they had that big an impact. Jefferson's writings on the French word "Liberty" and the idea of "inalienable rights" also was used during the French revolution.

Monument statue of Thomas Jefferson in Paris: http://comps.canstockphoto.com/can-stock-photo_csp12406571.jpg

Monument statue of Benjamin Franklin in Paris: http://www.vanderkrogt.net/statues/Foto/fr/frif017.jpg



Back on topic, the United States is at this time only 11 years old. The author of the Constitution, James Madison is warning the people that a democracy is a very bad idea to New York left wing bankers, "stock jobbers" as Jefferson called them, and what was becoming "big business". They didn't like our Republic form of government. A republic kept the government "chained" by the people, and the people didn't like big business (they claimed) the proof was the monopoly laws, the tariffs, if a private company sold goods overseas they got hit with high tariffs (think of them almost exactly like taxes), but if a private company sold goods made in America to Americans, they had little to no tarrifs. Now the Government could export and import bypassing tarrifs, but that was to help others or bring us needed materials, and strengthen friendship with allies and grow the Treasury. 

While James Madison was in New York he spoke and wrote giving an explanation of why the US never wants a pure democracy. Our economy would fall, the government become fascist. 

Here is a copy & paste of his own words he wrote dated November 23, 1787 on a Friday explaining the problems he's heard and why democracy is not the answer, it is very bad. While business had complaints, the citizens did too. The people were becoming afraid our government was turning into a "rival party" slugfest, and the will of the people ignored while the will of the party was listened to instead, and this made our government unstable. 

James Madison travelled around explaining our Constitution and what it meant to the young "pre-teen" United States (13 States), and warned those that wanted democracy that it was a very bad system. He was the "PR" man for our new government in a way. He wrote it, so go explain it.  



*James Madison on Republic vs Democracy:*

I pasted the main excerpt of his republic vs democracy form of government. Split in 2 pastes, first he explains to people hating parties why parties will always exist, then 2nd paste he gives why the Republic is the solution to avoid total party control.

He states the complaints of people about Political Parties trying to ignore the will of people and only work for the Party. If a person wants to be heard he/she had to join that party. And it's screwing up. He also states the corporation complaint of ruling at consent of the people while people cause penalties and ban monopolies etc.

I highly recommend taking a moment to read these 2 pastes. Once you do you will see why they chose James Madison to write the Constitution. He writes so beautifully, eloquently, and as neutral as possible, explaining why things will happen and why the Republic was chosen as it blocks parties from taking over, but a democracy doesn't. See what the author of Constitution believed and how they knew what would happen. How did they know? Easy the famous cliché "those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it". They were highly educated and studied history intensely to get this right the best they could.





Spoiler: Critique of, and why Political Parties will exist






> _I pasted after he restated the complaints_
> ...
> The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.
> 
> No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
> 
> It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.







Now he explains how the above is solved even if you don't have "enlightened statesmen" (or in modern vernacular if dumbasses become leaders) Democracy sounds good but leads to loss of freedom and privacy, sound familiar?

This is a little longer but he explicitly defines a Republic form of government and why we were that, and defines Democracy and why we don't want that, in clear and great detail.




Spoiler: ...continued from above, Madison explains the solution to parties and a balance in the Republican and how Democracy is not the path to take






> The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.
> 
> If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.
> 
> By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
> 
> From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
> 
> A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
> 
> The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
> 
> The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
> 
> In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
> 
> In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
> 
> It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.
> 
> The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
> 
> Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
> 
> The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
> 
> In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.


----------



## CHAMPviaDQ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> Hillary Clinton has taken better care of her Goldman Sachs speech transcripts than U.S. national security secrets. She knew about the death squads in Libya and cheered like a sadist at the torture and murder of Gaddafi. During the Clinton administration Hillary was instrumental in directing the IRS to target all "anti-Clinton groups" and conservative groups with audits. She was the chief figure behind "Filegate," keeping FBI files on all "Republican enemies." Emailgate alone should be sending her to trial right now and prison later. There are the myriad bribes that she and her husband took from Chinese mega-banks in 1996, leading to the selling of high-tech secrets to China. Travelgate. Whitewater. Her petty but ridiculous lie about "landing under sniper fire" in Bosnia. Her inexplicably "missing law firm records." Her huge role in "Pardongate." Cattlegate. The slush fund gangster-like "Clinton Foundation." They raised tens of millions of dollars for poor Haitians and pocketed almost all of it, to the protest of Haitians.
> 
> She's a corrupt monster and stalwart defender of Wall Street and the international banking order. It's little surprise that she's probably going to be the next president of the U.S.


A female president elected at a time where 'feminism' is everywhere.











markoutsmarkout said:


> The face of the modern left:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIjljucvBI4


That video is terrifying.


----------



## Pronoss

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

















:troll


Gotta balance my serious posts with a troll occasionally


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Watched the Trump rally in Tuscon.

Trump: We're going to win so much you're going to say "Mr. President please, we're winning way too much, I can't handle all this winning!" and I'm going to say "I DON'T CARE!". 

:sodone :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## CHAMPviaDQ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Based Herman Cain wrecking these lying race-baiters :done


:lmao Talk about getting hammered and losing credibility within a span of about a minute. This is what's wrong with some people in general. I could post a false quote on FB right now that fits a certain narrative and if I get it to get a decent amount of likes, it will catch on and most won't even question it's validity. People are too lazy to fact check, quick to believe anything. Just like they said it is easy to take a quote, chop it down or twist it and hammer it into people's minds and it becomes the truth. That's politics and propaganda though, take advantage of the ill informed. The few times I've gotten onto FB recently has opened my eyes at how ignorant some people are when it comes to absorbing information and how easily the logical people are drowned out in a sea of stupidity in the comments sections.

:wtf2

The KONY 2012 campaign really put the spotlight on how people will just follow a trend for the sake of being a part of something.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/19/trumpprotests/

WE AINT BOUT DAT HATE, CRACKAS! :side:


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/711279836422139904

WHAT A LOAD OF SHIT!

Keep burying yourselves, libs!


----------



## CHAMPviaDQ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/19/trumpprotests/
> 
> WE AINT BOUT DAT HATE, CRACKAS! :side:




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/711237359103115264
atass


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*










MFW My idol, John "BAH GAWD" Lennon did more for peace by laying in a bed doing nothing for a week than these race-baiting liberal jabronies ever will by rioting in their entire lives. :banderas


----------



## FITZ

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Watched the Trump rally in Tuscon.
> 
> Trump: We're going to win so much you're going to say "Mr. President please, we're winning way too much, I can't handle all this winning!" and I'm going to say "I DON'T CARE!".
> 
> :sodone :lmao :lmao :lmao


That is a fantastic line.


----------



## WesternFilmGuy

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I think Trump would be in more trouble for his life maybe 30 years ago than he is now. I am glad that is the case. : )


----------



## Reservoir Angel

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I'm genuinely considering putting a bet down on Trump winning the Presidency. Not because I think he's going to, or because I want him to. Just so that if it does end up happening at least I get a cash payout to lessen the blow of knowing that a thin-skinned tiny-fingered narcissist is now the most powerful person in the world.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> The only people that are exploiting the min. wage are the ones that think its already too higher or should not go higher. No one can live and get by on the minimum wage when that is their full time job. And the minimum wage workers are never paid what they are worth, those are always the people that get screwed the most.


You didn't answer the question.



> then make it $15 across the board. Problem solved.


Then why bring up the distinction in the first place? Could it be deep down you know that it is an absurd amount of compensation for just showing up which is what most min. wage jobs are?




> citation please.
> 
> You need to stop making things up.
> it would only go up 4.7%, . So it wouldn't even be 10% l, let alone the made up 25-50%l
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/03/3687171/15-minimum-wage-big-mac/
> 
> " the minimum wage were increased to $15 an hour, prices at fast food restaurants would rise by an estimated 4.3 percent, according to a new study. That would mean a McDonald’s Big Mac, which currently goes for $3.99, would cost about 17 cents more, or $4.16."


Dude, I was using your example. You stated prices would increase by 10% for a burger and then said the price increase would be $1 to $2 for a $4 burger. Please tell me you at least have a basic understanding of maths when discussing economics.




> I love your logic, people ask for a $15 min wage and you are like oh why not make it $50 an hour. You can't be taking seriously when you use that as a rebuttal.


Why can't you take it seriously? It is a legitimate question because the recommended increase is up to $10.10. Why are you asking for $15?



> I already showed stats where in the long run it does not make a huge difference, and guess what? Companies are constantly laying off people even when they are not giving out raises to the minimum wage.


Your stats only show the effect of a marginal increase in minimum wage. That is nothing compared to the 100% increase Sanders is seeking. Studies have shown that even the marginal increase have enticed companies to increase productivity either by outsourcing for cheap labour or implement more automation.

By your logic, companies are constantly giving out wage increases without a raise in minimum wage so why raise minimum wage?



> You could easily have a min. wage increase and everything would be fine if the CEOs and top execs were not getting their tens of millions dollars bonuses every year. Stop over paying the people at the top and start giving the money to the people at the bottom who are the ones keeping the company going.


I agree CEO bonuses are way too much. But that is the market rate for what they do. If someone is offering you a huge amount to be CEO, are you going to refuse it? If your peers are getting paid huge amount doing the same job, would you not leverage that in your negotiation for the same type of job? 

You are literally arguing for someone flipping burgers to be paid more than what their direct supervisors are being paid right now and you see no irony in your bias.



> Since its clear are you just making numbers up and super over exaggerating things. Until you start backing up your views with facts, I'm done.


Typical response from you again.


----------



## stevefox1200

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

These are some of the most disorganization protests I have seen in a while

They show up, half of them have Guy Fawkes masks and memes on their signs, stand in the middle of the street, have no clue what to do when the cops just close off the road and get their cars towed

The Latin protesters yell in Spanish (which doesn't help)and smash the state type show and hand out their worker revolution leaflets

I thought the goal of a protest was to spread information about your cause, get normal people to support you by showing unity and apply pressure

They are failing at all accounts, they have a mixed message, they are harassing people who are not involved and when the police start kicking their asses the normal people don't give a shit and think they deserve it for being a pain

THERE IS MORE TO A PROTEST THAN BEING LOUD AND HAVING A PICKET LINE!


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Donald Trump's campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, has once again been accused of violence. This time it's against a protestor. The campaign is once again denying any charges.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/711329895339536384

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/711352716425990147
*Video Appears to Show Trump Campaign Manager Grabbing Protester by Shirt Collar*
http://www.mediaite.com/online/vide...paign-mgr-grabbing-protester-by-shirt-collar/

There was more violence at the Tucson, AZ Trump event. A Trump supporter launched into an unprovoked attack.



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/711323229399298048

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/711323486950596608
According to a reporter there, the most popular insult at the event was "Go Back to Mexico". It would follow with other supporters shouting "‘Go to Auschwitz!’" last week.







I find nothing particularly "great" about these antics. I'm ready for November to get here already and just put this to a general election vote.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Oh yes, Trump's campaign manager pulls the collar of a person disrupting their private event, and some random guy at his rally punches a protester, so clearly the answer is to support Hillary Clinton and her Libyan death squads. :lol Because after all, TRUMP INCITES VIOLENCE. :lol


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Very convincing performance art there in Tuscon.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> Donald Trump's campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, has once again been accused of violence. This time it's against a protestor. The campaign is once again denying any charges.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/711329895339536384
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/711352716425990147
> *Video Appears to Show Trump Campaign Manager Grabbing Protester by Shirt Collar*
> http://www.mediaite.com/online/vide...paign-mgr-grabbing-protester-by-shirt-collar/
> 
> There was more violence at the Tucson, AZ Trump event. A Trump supporter launched into an unprovoked attack.
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/711323229399298048
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/711323486950596608
> According to a reporter there, the most popular insult at the event was "Go Back to Mexico". It would follow with other supporters shouting "‘Go to Auschwitz!’" last week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find nothing particularly "great" about these antics. I'm ready for November to get here already and just put this to a general election vote.


Fascinating. Now report the evil doings of the protesters who threatened to kill Trump's grandchildren.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The hell? Why is my post glitched? Read the last line in the quote.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@Beatles123

You're welcome to post that information just as you post flattering stories about him. I don't agree with threats against Donald Trump's life/family because of his policies or what I feel are his encouragement to incite violence. Similarly, I won't look the other way as the chaos increases at his rallies.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

ACCORDING TO REPORTS ONLINE: Apparently the guy who got punched was wearing a KKK hood earlier (you can see the woman behind him wearing one in the video, and promptly taking it off once she saw what happened to the dude in front of her :lol). Someone in the crowd pulled it off his head. Trump himself pointed it out and said "That's a disgrace". Now, it's unclear if that's what actually happened, but if it is, I can see why the black Trump supporter (and I doubt you'll see the media emphasizing his race very much, whereas they certainly would if it was a white supporter beating a black protester) lost his cool. Doesn't excuse violence, but... :draper2 If I wear a KKK hood and some black dude beats me up I would expect zero sympathy and would deserve none.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> @Beatles123
> 
> You're welcome to post that information just as you post flattering stories about him. I don't agree with threats against Donald Trump's life/family because of his policies or what I feel are his encouragement to incite violence. Similarly, I won't look the other way as the chaos increases at his rallies.


I don't post the negative articles because those are the only ones journalists focus on, and you being a journalist seem to be leaning that way. Can you at least also report the positive things and the NEGATIVES about the protesters?


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> I don't post the negative articles because those are the only ones journalists focus on, and you being a journalist seem to be leaning that way. Can you at least also report the positive things and the NEGATIVES about the protesters?


If you look a few pages back, I posted the AP results and the endorsement that Donald Trump received from Foxy Brown. She later clarified that her comments were not an endorsement. That wasn't "negative". 

Furthermore, the events that took place at Donald Trump rallies occurred today. Most of the videos were timely. I'm not going to ignore it because the incidents don't put Mr. Trump in a flattering light. I don't make a big deal when others post more "positive" depictions of him. I'm not interfering or stopping others from posting what they choose fit.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> If you look a few pages back, I posted the AP results and the endorsement that Donald Trump received from Foxy Brown. She later clarified that her comments were not an endorsement. That wasn't "negative".
> 
> Furthermore, the events that took place at Donald Trump rallies occurred today. Most of the videos were timely. I'm not going to ignore it because the incidents don't put Mr. Trump in a flattering light. I don't make a big deal when others post more "positive" depictions of him. I'm not interfering or stopping others from posting what they choose fit.


Yes, but you are only posting the things you see as negative about Trump at the event. What about the black man telling his child we're all KKK members? What about when a KKK protester was scolded by Trump? Isn't that what people want him to do? Why don't we talk about that?


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Oh boy, here comes that pesky little thing called "context" to ruin the race-baiting media's day :lol: 






Skip ahead to about 8 minutes. Trump says "We wanna do it with in love" (with respect to getting the protesters out peacefully), repeatedly saying "it's fine, don't worry about them" (certainly NOT inciting violence). Then he shames a "guy" (unclear if he meant the woman, or the guy who got attacked) for wearing a KKK hat. This leads to the guy in front of the woman getting attacked by a black Trump supporter. The fact that of all the Trump supporters in that area, the one guy to lose his cool and go off is black, I don't know...makes me think the guy was probably saying or doing some racist shit. That's just speculation on my part. He's with a woman wearing a KKK hood though, so...

In any event, clearly Trump was advocating peace and restraint. You can decide for yourself if that guy got what he had coming or not. I'm not shedding any tears for him. I abhor racism and it seems like this guy was involved in that.


----------



## tbm98

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

When he was in WWE for a short time, I'm just surprised he was never put through a table, stunned or Rock bottomed. I mean Drew Carey offered money to Kane but he was almost chokeslammed.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Yes, but you are only posting the things you see as negative about Trump at the event. What about the black man telling his child we're all KKK members? What about when a KKK protester was scolded by Trump? Isn't that what people want him to do? Why don't we talk about that?


You seem more upset that the videos exists rather than their content and my intentions. I think Donald Trump is fostering a hostile environment. As long as these incidents continue to occur, I will post them. 

Furthermore, I don't lump all Trump supporters as racists. There are those who have malice and bigotry in their hearts but I won't make a sweeping indictment on the entirety of his base. Although, I can understand why this Black parent would feel so strongly. I don't have to agree to understand. 

If Trump did scold a KKK member, I'm glad he did. I have no problem stating so.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> You seem more upset that the videos exists rather than their content and my intentions. I think Donald Trump is fostering a hostile environment. As long as these incidents continue to occur, I will post them.
> 
> Furthermore, I don't lump all Trump supporters as racists. There are those who have malice and bigotry in their hearts but I won't make a sweeping indictment on the entirety of his base. Although, I can understand why this Black parent would feel so strongly. I don't have to agree to understand.
> 
> If Trump did scold a KKK member, I'm glad he did. I have no problem stating so.


Perfect example, Empress:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/653864/Donald-Trump-Utah-rally-Republican-nomination

Why aren't you reporting THIS??

You have a view of Trump and will not report things that suggest it ISN'T Trump that's the problem.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Perfect example, Empress:
> 
> http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/653864/Donald-Trump-Utah-rally-Republican-nomination
> 
> Why aren't you reporting THIS??
> 
> *You have a view of Trump and will not report things that suggest it ISN'T Trump that's the problem*.


I could accuse you of the same. How often have you posted stories that may not reflect Donald Trump in a positive light? I'm not the only one with a bias; you just disagree with mine. 

I'm participating in a thread that is supposed to be open to all members. I just happen to take a different view from the majority in this discussion that seemingly support Trump. I don't see you challenging those who share your opinions to look outside their favorable view.


----------



## Japanese Puroresu

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Perfect example, Empress:
> 
> http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/653864/Donald-Trump-Utah-rally-Republican-nomination
> 
> Why aren't you reporting THIS??
> 
> You have a view of Trump and will not report things that suggest it ISN'T Trump that's the problem.


Because Journalism is a joke and people rather post and write emotional narrative than facts or unbiased information.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Based driver no-sells the anti-Trump blockade as this hysterical lunatic loses her fucking mind. "That's attempted murder!" :lol These people belong in a mental institution.


----------



## Goku

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The media is fostering the hostile environment, honing in on the worst aspects (some of them fabricated) related to Trump and projecting them as the only absolute. When the news you seek is right in front of you, I wouldn't expect you to go scouring for contrary evidence. And thus the narrative prevails.

This is potentially true for all sides.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> I could accuse you of the same. How often have you posted stories that may not reflect Donald Trump in a positive light? I'm not the only one with a bias; you just disagree with mine.
> 
> I'm participating in a thread that is supposed to be open to all members. I just happen to take a different view from the majority in this discussion that seemingly support Trump. I don't see you challenging those who share your opinions to look outside their favorable view.


I just told you why. I think Trump says things he shouldnt simply because half our population is too dense to see what he actually means. I have said Trump could easily fail this before.

My question still remains to you why did you, AS A JOURNALIST, not report the other side of the story yourself?


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*






*Scott Baio Endorses Donald Trump: "He Speaks Like I Speak"*

The actor spoke about the presidential candidate with Fox News' Judge Jeanine Pirro on Saturday.

Scott Baio became the latest Hollywood figure to endorse Donald Trump for president on Saturday. 

Telling Fox News' Judge Jeanine Pirro that Trump "speaks like I speak," Baio said that he is "fed up" with Republicans and now considers himself a conservative independent, but values Trump's forthrightness. 

"It's very simple, because when he speaks I understand him," Baio told Pirro. "He speaks like I speak, he communicates with people very well. I want him, as any one person can do, to go into Washington and blow it up."

The actor, well-known for his roles in Charles in Charge, Happy Days and its spin-off Joanie Loves Chachi, expounded on his leaving the Republican party, saying they've "lied and conned and B.S.ed me." 

"They're going to attack whomever the Republican nominee is," he said, "and we need somebody to relentlessly, relentlessly attack Hillary. It's the only way we're going to win. I'm trying to be a classy guy, but to win elections nowadays, the Democrats and liberals attack viciously."

He joins a long list of Hollywood supporters for Trump, which currently includes Jon Voight, Ted Nugent, Aaron Carter, Kid Rock, Stephen Baldwin and Duck Dynasty's Willie Robertson.

This is a change in his presidential endorsement, as Baio had previously come out as endorsing Scott Walker last spring. 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/scott-baio-endorses-donald-trump-876898?utm_source=twitter


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

That cop giving the Draper shrug:lmao

People in Arizona are pretty famously nuts. It's the desert. No clue why anyone willingly lives in a desert.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Now, to show you i'm not biased:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0Bd--ASXL8

I think the security shouldnt've let him on through. no reason to risk hitting them.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> I just told you why. I think Trump says things he shouldnt simply because half our population is too dense to see what he actually means. I have said Trump could easily fail this before.
> 
> My question still remains to you why did you, AS A JOURNALIST< not report the other side of the story yourself?


This is the Donald Trump thread, not my place of work. I'm not punching in for a 9 to 5 job. Even still, my profession doesn't shield me from having an opinion that you are growing increasingly uncomfortable with because I won't toe the line. It's not happening. I won't be looking for fluff articles to fit in. I post what I do. Just as you and others do.

When someone says he wishes for times when he could "punch" people (among other things), I take him for exactly what it means. There's nothing dense or too complicated to understand.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> This is the Donald Trump thread, not my place of work. I'm not punching in for a 9 to 5 job. Even still, my profession doesn't shield me from having an opinion that you are growing increasingly uncomfortable with because I won't toe the line. It's not happening. I won't be looking for fluff articles to fit in. I post what I do. Just as you and others do.
> 
> When someone says he wishes for times when he could "punch" people (among other things), I take him for exactly what it means. There's nothing dense or too complicated to understand.


Ma'm, there's no line I expect you to tow but fairness. If you want to post something related to Trump you can, but you are acting like there is only one way to rightly believe. As a journalist I would think you would try to see the merit in both sides, Not just your personal one. That's all.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Now, to show you i'm not biased:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0Bd--ASXL8
> 
> I think the security shouldnt've let him on through. no reason to risk hitting them.


:kobe They are risking being hit when they're standing in the middle of the damn road.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Ma'm, there's no line I expect you to tow but fairness. If you want to post something related to Trump you can, but you are acting like there is only one way to rightly believe. As a journalist I would think you would try to see the merit in both sides, Not just your personal one. That's all.


I posted videos and you immediately took exception (because they didn't paint Trump and his supporters in a positive light) and now you're all but issuing a "Fairness Doctrine" to me and no one else. I doubt that those who are against Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders will now be directed to be "fair" in their judgments. 

I don't recall once asking others to "believe" as I do. I just have the backbone to stand behind what I post. 

As a journalist, I know how to conduct myself in any official capacity. This is not one of those instances. Although, I have paid due diligence in offering links, supporting evidence to what I've posted.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> :kobe They are risking being hit when they're standing in the middle of the damn road.


Im trying to meet her halfway here. :shrug:


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> I posted videos and you immediately took exception (because they didn't paint Trump and his supporters in a positive light) and now you're all but issuing a "Fairness Doctrine" to me and no one else. I doubt that those who are against Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders will now be directed to be "fair" in their judgments.
> 
> I don't recall once asking others to "believe" as I do. I just have the backbone to stand behind what I post.
> 
> As a journalist, I know how to conduct myself in any official capacity. This is not one of those instances. Although, I have paid due diligence in offering links, supporting evidence to what I've posted.


Ill have you know the last Hilary link I posted, I was not taking sides and merely posted more info to consider.


----------



## Empress

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Ill have you know the last Hilary link I posted, I was not taking sides and merely posted more info to consider.


That's cool, but if people don't like Hillary Clinton, that's entirely their right. I don't love her either, but take her as it with the many faults. I was just using her as an example in my previous reply.


----------



## Beatles123

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

In other news, I think Rush gets it.


----------



## Truthbetold

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Oh yes, Trump's campaign manager pulls the collar of a person disrupting their private event, and some random guy at his rally punches a protester, so clearly the answer is to support Hillary Clinton and her Libyan death squads. :lol Because after all, TRUMP INCITES VIOLENCE. :lol


That Death Toll from the Iraq war Hillary signed off on was a million people.

But i'm mad because a few people behaved bad at a Trump rally!!!!

SJW


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CHAMPviaDQ said:


> That video is terrifying.


Yes it is. The thing about the left is that they are actually scary. Scary in the sense that they are so fanatical and convinced that they're morally right that they're just one trigger away from turning to killing. They already engage in violence. But they are so, so close to murder and terrorism. Heck, we already have had leftist terrorism for decades going back to the 1960s. But these people are truly scary in how deranged they are. 

They honestly believed that they are saving the world and that their opponents are destroying the world. They don't just look at people as political rivals, they see them as enemies.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

http://fox4kc.com/2016/03/19/woman-...orse-says-there-are-two-sides-to-every-story/

Anti-Trump protester *smacked* a police horse in the face, trying to spook it in a crowded area. What kind of deranged filth does something like this? :no: So many people could've gotten hurt, not to mention the poor horse, whose professionalism in this tense situation was unparalleled.


----------



## MrMister

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Horse definitely showed serious poise and tolerance not to retaliate.

The moron who hit the horse says there are two sides to every story. I need hear hers.


----------



## DesolationRow

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Following this exhibition of bravery Horse should move to Florida and get elected to Marco Rubio's old U.S. Senate seat.


----------



## CamillePunk

*re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

This is actually the article I meant to post: http://fox4kc.com/2016/03/19/woman-charged-for-abuse-of-police-service-animal-at-kc-trump-protest/ 

The horse is named Dan. The woman's name is unimportant because she is literally Hitler.


----------



## Goku

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Horse Dan should be Trump's VP.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

So Stefan did ANOTHER of these because the BS about Trump has grown that large.






:banderas


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Election*

@DesolationRow @AryaDark @CamillePunk @Beatles123 @Goku @Miss Sally @Empress @THE SHIV @Deadpool @CJ; @GothicBohemian

WHOEVER the next president is and part of me feels it won't matter at this point considering who we have left in the election, they will have to deal with the insurmountable debt growing under Congress and the FED's watch as well as the next inevitable economic collapse and crisis coming. The Federal Reserve is growing as an issue and will become a huge one in the next 5-10 years whether Democrats or Republicans want it to be.


----------



## TheResurrection

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The lengths Trump's terrorist sympathising opponents will go to are pretty frightening. Most of them claim to be liberal, but if you've no respect for others' freedom of speech or right to support a candidate you disagree with that rings very hollow.

If you're against Trump you should follow him by supporting some other candidate, not disrupting his rallies or rioting. Not only is it the ethical, liberal thing to do it's also the most effective. More than that, if your candidate loses you have a moral obligation to accept whoever defeated them as the legitimate winner,in the same way Trump supporters would be obliged to accept Bernie Sanders if he won.


----------



## Empress

*Re: Election*

I do agree that whoever is elected President, Democrat or Republican, will have to deal with the growing debt. It depends on who you think will be the lesser of evils implementing ideas to start putting a dent or taking more drastic actions and eliminating programs that are a financial drain. We shouldn't keep kicking the issue down the road.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> http://fox4kc.com/2016/03/19/woman-...orse-says-there-are-two-sides-to-every-story/
> 
> Anti-Trump protester *smacked* a police horse in the face, trying to spook it in a crowded area. What kind of deranged filth does something like this? :no: So many people could've gotten hurt, not to mention the poor horse, whose professionalism in this tense situation was unparalleled.


Oh my god is the horse ok? Thank god it wasn't a left horse otherwise we know it would've resorted to violence immediately while campaigning for social justice.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> So Stefan did ANOTHER of these because the BS about Trump has grown that large.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :banderas


Who is this guy and why should we care what he thinks? All I'm getting on Google is "Canadian Blogger and Self Published Author". He's not exactly blowing my skirt up.


----------



## Goku

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Who is this guy and why should we care what he thinks?


maybe give him a listen and decide for yourself if what he's saying has value instead of relying on google?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

What excuse is there for slapping a horse and trying to get it to go wild? These protesters are idiots but so classy to see people here defending them. So glad we have people who are anti-Trump without knowing anything much about him, people protesting without any real direction and reason and people supporting Hilary, you know the real criminal and the one with actual ties to the KKK and who actually has said racist things. People are funny. By the time the election comes around these protesters will look so bad it may shoe Trump in just because of their idiocy.






 Very scary video, lots of "Informed young voters".


----------



## GothicBohemian

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@Miss Sally There isn't any excuse for it. People are dumb and some people are dumber than others. 

I'm not supporting anything of the sort and I hope you don't think I am. I did like YeahBaby!'s post, but not as a horse slapping endorsement but for the more-subtle-than-his-usual-sledgehammer tactic of pointing out the hysterical labelling of the 'other side' is coming from both directions. The ill-informed and crazy come in various flavours, including Democrat and Republican. The 2016 election seems to be drawing these folks out from social media and onto the mainstream news reports where none of them know how to reign in their fanaticism or even realize that they should; they're accustomed to functioning in their YouTube and Twitter bubbles, surrounded by like-minded 'friends'.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



GothicBohemian said:


> @Miss Sally There isn't any excuse for it. People are dumb and some people are dumber than others.
> 
> I'm not supporting anything of the sort and I hope you don't think I am. I did like YeahBaby!'s post, but not as a horse slapping endorsement but for the more-subtle-than-his-usual-sledgehammer tactic of pointing out the hysterical labelling of the 'other side' is coming from both directions. The ill-informed and crazy come in various flavours, including Democrat and Republican. The 2016 election seems to be drawing these folks out from social media and onto the mainstream news reports where none of them know how to reign in their fanaticism or even realize that they should; they're accustomed to functioning in their YouTube and Twitter bubbles, surrounded by like-minded 'friends'.



Trust me I think both parties are evil and ran by the same people  I'd never think you'd advocate meanness to animals Gothic! You're a genuine nice person, way nicer than myself! I don't think anyone here could tell me something bad of you and me believing it.  I understood your like, don't worry!


----------



## GothicBohemian

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> Trust me I think both parties are evil and ran by the same people  I'd never think you'd advocate meanness to animals Gothic! You're a genuine nice person, way nicer than myself! I don't think anyone here could tell me something bad of you and me believing it.  I understood your like, don't worry!


Thanks. It's just that me, Empress and a handful of others are viewed as the 'Left' itt, and I hope folks realize that we're not radical nuts, nor The Enemy, based solely on our not riding the Trump Train.


----------



## Pronoss

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Give this 3 minutes of your time. Let a wise man tell you the truth about government, our "democracy" that is not supposed to exist. We were formed as a republic but Roosevelt New Deal fucked us more than he!p us.



In result, decades later.....


A Wiseman makes it very clear it doesn't matter, the ending line about "the American dream" adds a nice sting to it.

https://youtu.be/DsKpKBdjBEQ


----------



## Pronoss

*Re: Election*

Perot predicted 100% what would happen to our economy and jobs.


He was 100% opposed to NAFTA. There was a "giant sucking sound", as millions of jobs went to India and other countries. Which has happened since and is why our pay has dropped and doesn't match what it supposed to under current cost of living and worth of the dollar.







I voted for him as I wanted a non politician to give it a go. He's a rich business man that knows how to save money and budget, else he wouldn't be a successful businessman. When it came to discussing money he had a much higher education than his opponents and knew how to fix it. His buying a 1 hour infomercial slot to explain exactly how to fix economy with graphs and actual numbers was solid but he explained as Congress is owned by lobbyist and foreign interest groups, it'd be war to pass it but it'd fix it and in 20 years time under his budget we would have been the richest liquid economy in world with highest paid employees. And the total elimination of the lower class.


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Now, to show you i'm not biased:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0Bd--ASXL8
> 
> I think the security shouldnt've let him on through. no reason to risk hitting them.


The fuckers were climbing on the car and they still play the victim! Attempted murder my ass. :laugh:


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

A dark side of protests is people attempt to get the police to attack them so they can become victims and get sympathy

You see it when people hurl bricks at cops and try to start a riot when they get arrested

Note to these people, during civil rights the police attacked first, that's why people were sympathetic

I have no problem with protests but it seems in today's world you can more success by having a small dedicated special interest group online that having 100 people wearing sweatshop masks and have them DANK MEMES on their signs or having LEET HAXOR attack their website

Treat it like a businessmen or like its politics and you will have more success 

Treat it like the French revolution or the THE INTERNET UPRISING and people will laugh at you when you get arrested


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Skip ahead to about 8 minutes. Trump says "We wanna do it with in love" (with respect to getting the protesters out peacefully), repeatedly saying "it's fine, don't worry about them" (certainly NOT inciting violence). Then he shames a "guy" (unclear if he meant the woman, or the guy who got attacked) for wearing a KKK hat. This leads to the guy in front of the woman getting attacked by a black Trump supporter. The fact that of all the Trump supporters in that area, the one guy to lose his cool and go off is black, I don't know...makes me think the guy was probably saying or doing some racist shit. That's just speculation on my part. He's with a woman wearing a KKK hood though, so...
> 
> In any event, clearly Trump was advocating peace and restraint. You can decide for yourself if that guy got what he had coming or not. I'm not shedding any tears for him. I abhor racism and it seems like this guy was involved in that.


The woman in the KKK hood was doing Nazi salutes as well. I hope the Trump supporter isn't punished. :frown2:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



FriedTofu said:


> Typical response from you again.


It is typical for people that don't deal in facts, which you are not. Stop making up numbers and I won't need to say things like that.
You can't be taken seriously when we are talking about raising the min. wage to $15 an hour and your come back is well if you are going to raise it to $15 an hour why not $50 an hour.

It show you are not serious about having a legit debate about it, so i won't with you.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Empress said:


> I do agree that whoever is elected President, Democrat or Republican, will have to deal with the growing debt. It depends on who you think will be the lesser of evils implementing ideas to start putting a dent or taking more drastic actions and eliminating programs that are a financial drain. We shouldn't keep kicking the issue down the road.


That answer is simple, its Bernie Sanders, all the other candidates take bribes to do what big banks/wall, pharama, monsanto and others pay them to do and only care about helping the 1% because they are the 1%.

Not to mention Sanders is a liberal and will ask for the most, so even when he has to comparison he will get way more than someone like Hillary who tries for the bare minimum and still has to comprise then really doest get anything


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> That answer is simple, its Bernie Sanders, all the other candidates take bribes to do what big banks/wall, pharama, monsanto and others pay them to do and only care about helping the 1% because they are the 1%.


Bernie is no good.








> *The Origins and Path of Audit The Fed*
> 
> In March of 2009 The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 (H.R. 1207), introduced (at the time) by 9 term Texas Congressman and two time Presidential Candidate Ron Paul went to the Senate. Paul had been working closely with Bernie Sanders, who was just finishing up his first term in the Senate, and likely wanted to make a name for himself quickly. Sponsored by Benrnie Sanders, the bill was introduced to the Senate under the title of The Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009 (S. 604).
> 
> According to Ron Paul in his video released in 2010 *Bernie Sanders, “Switched it. He watered it down, and really, it adds nothing. It’s a possibility that it even makes the current conditions worse.*” Paul explains, “The is essentially the bill plus more of the bill we beat in the House financial committee, the Mel Watt’s bill”
> 
> We need to get as many messages as possible to any senator you can think of — especially to Bernie Sanders’ office — that we don’t want this version. *We want a true audit of the Fed. We need to know what the Open Market Committee does and we need to know what they’re doing overseas with the agreements with central banks and financial institutions and other governments.*”
> 
> One of the provisions *removed by Bernie Sanders was the provision to disclose arrangements made between the Federal Reserve, and other foreign central banks.*







> *Rand Paul on why Bernie Sanders won’t support his Audit the Fed bill*
> Sen. Rand Paul hit the campaign trail this week promoting the latest version of his Audit the Fed bill, first pioneered by his father, former Congressman Ron Paul. The Pauls are longtime critics of the Federal Reserve, sounding the alarm that the semi-private bank artificially regulates interest rates and, according to Sen. Paul, exacerbates income inequality.
> “The Fed makes income inequality worse by doling out money to the large commercial banks first, who get to use it before the money depreciates as it trickles out to the rest of us,” said Paul Monday, explaining why this bill is so important.
> 
> Paul said that he expects the vast majority of his Republican colleagues to support Audit the Fed, with some help from a minority of Democrats.
> We asked Paul why he believes that only some of his Democratic colleagues are on board with Audit the Fed, particularly when they speak so frequently about the perils of income inequality.
> 
> “It’s been disappointing, *because people like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who rail against big banks, they have been more so protectors of the biggest bank in our country, which is the Federal Reserve*,” said Paul.
> 
> *“I’d hoped to get more support from Sanders and Warren,” said Paul. “It’s disappointing that they talk a good game, but when push comes to shove, they’re not willing to have increased regulation on the biggest bank in our country*,” he added.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



The Dazzler said:


> Bernie is no good.


This was Sanders response



Sanders released a statement explaining why he voted against most Democrats, saying:

“Too much of the Fed’s business is conducted in secret, known only to the bankers on its various boards and committees. In 2010, I inserted an amendment in Dodd-Frank to audit the emergency lending by the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis. As a result of this audit, we learned that an institution that was created to serve all Americans had been hijacked by the very bankers it regulates.

We must expand on that first review of the Fed’s activities. Requiring the Government Accountability Office to conduct a full and independent audit of the Fed each and every year, would be an important step towards making the Federal Reserve a more democratic institution that is responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans rather than the billionaires on Wall Street.”

Sounds like Sanders is very good. he voted to audit the fed. 

http://observer.com/2016/01/what-be...ed-says-about-his-devotion-to-bipartisanship/


----------



## truelove

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> This is the Donald Trump thread, not my place of work. I'm not punching in for a 9 to 5 job. Even still, my profession doesn't shield me from having an opinion that you are growing increasingly uncomfortable with because I won't toe the line. It's not happening. I won't be looking for fluff articles to fit in. I post what I do. Just as you and others do.
> 
> When someone says he wishes for times when he could "punch" people (among other things), I take him for exactly what it means. There's nothing dense or too complicated to understand.


the protesters are exactly how I take the candidates. Those who want it their way or burn the world to ground if it isn't. It's a shame Bernie seems like a geniune good guy but his supporters can mostly get the fuck out of this country because they are useless and most the reason this country is not getting taken seriously anymore
Trump has balls and it seems to have resonated with a great many people sick of this PC culture. The Bernie supporters hopefully leave this country after Trump wins. Or hell cut the country in half, California Oregon Washington, the northeast, Illinois, Minnesota, Hawaii and Michigan and be those blue states. The south, Utah and most Midwest states can be red states. Let the rest of them vote and just cut the country so those people who want to see their stupid vision of a perfect world watch it not be so perfect. I think people wouldn't even mind that at this point because we'll never get along again.


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Sanders released a statement explaining why he voted against most Democrats, saying:
> 
> “Too much of the Fed’s business is conducted in secret, known only to the bankers on its various boards and committees. In 2010, I inserted an amendment in Dodd-Frank *to audit the emergency lending by the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis*. As a result of this audit, we learned that an institution that was created to serve all Americans had been hijacked by the very bankers it regulates.


How do you explain him changing it from a full audit to that?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



The Dazzler said:


> How do you explain him changing it from a full audit to that?


Because he compromised to make sure it got passed. Better something than nothing. HIs version of the audit passed unanimously . 

What did the original full amendment say?

He still voted for the audit, so don't try to act like he didn't. He just voted against what Vitter was trying to add to it.

Also, if even I disagree with him on not voting for the full bill, and settling on the lesser version, that still does not mean anything. No one agrees with anyone on 100% of the issues.

When I took that ISIDEWITH test, I sided with Bernie 95%, so of course there will be a few things here and there I won't agree with him on.

He is still miles better than any other candidate.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Election*

Sanders is a fraud, BM. Time to accept it. 

But not as much of a fraud as Shillary:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



CamillePunk said:


> Sanders is a fraud, BM. Time to accept it.
> 
> But not as much of a fraud as Shillary:


Trump is the biggest fraud of them all. Its ironic you would claim Sanders is a fraud when Trump has legit defrauded (Thanks Mr. Mister lol) people.
Not to mention he always loves to bash companies for taking their jobs to China when his ties are made in China.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Election*

At least we are in agreement that Bernie Sanders is in fact a fraud.


----------



## truelove

*Re: Election*



The Dazzler said:


> Bernie is no good.


and the fucks I gave for Sanders suddenly vanished


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is the biggest fraud of them all. Its ironic you would claim Sanders is a fraud when Trump has legit defrauded (Thanks Mr. Mister lol) people.
> Not to mention he always loves to bash companies for taking their jobs to China when his ties are made in China.


I can't believe you are comparing Trump's "crimes" (Yeah, right.) to someone with actual blood on her hands, who defends raping murderers.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> I can't believe you are comparing Trump's "crimes" (Yeah, right.) to someone with actual blood on her hands, who defends raping murderers.


Nice straw man there since I have never defined Hillary especially on that. My post said nothing about Clinton. But keep strawmannirg you are good at it

And Trump admitted he would commit war crimes by killing the families of terrorist and torturing people to get info. He even said he would make them legal. so if you want to talk about someone getting blood on their hands Trump is just as bad if not worse than Hillary if he got his way.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



GothicBohemian said:


> @Miss Sally There isn't any excuse for it. People are dumb and some people are dumber than others.
> 
> I'm not supporting anything of the sort and I hope you don't think I am. I did like YeahBaby!'s post, but not as a horse slapping endorsement but for the more-subtle-than-his-usual-sledgehammer tactic of pointing out the hysterical labelling of the 'other side' is coming from both directions. The ill-informed and crazy come in various flavours, including Democrat and Republican. The 2016 election seems to be drawing these folks out from social media and onto the mainstream news reports where none of them know how to reign in their fanaticism or even realize that they should; they're accustomed to functioning in their YouTube and Twitter bubbles, surrounded by like-minded 'friends'.


Trust me, @GothicBohemian, if we had more leftists that could see compromise and work together instead of taring down one ideal to uplift their own, we'd be set.

Don't think either that I'm suggesting this doesn't happen in the Republican party. On the contrary, the GOP "True" conservatives are saying any compromise is a bad idea. Trump coincidentally is the only one saying "Look, we have to sit down with the democrats and figure these issues out via negotiation." Which is precisely why people like, say, Ted Cruz will holler "SEE?? HE'S NOT ONE OF US!!! HE WANTS TO MAKE DEALS WITH THE DEMOCRATS!"

If we had more liberals like you, who could see what we don't like about the sort of cultural Marxism coming from the radical left, maybe I wouldn't feel so distraught when I wake up every morning and wonder what shit they're going to label me today. Maybe my depression would lessen somewhat and then I could actually feel like the future has a place for someone like me again. Maybe I wouldn't feel so incompatible with modern society when I look at social media or any other place where people my age express how they feel, and perhaps I wouldn't feel as if I don't even belong in my own generation all just because I don't have a seething hatred for my own gender, skin color, faith, or ancestors. 

Who knows...*sigh* If only, eh?...


----------



## Empress

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



GothicBohemian said:


> Thanks. It's just that me, Empress and a handful of others are viewed as the 'Left' itt, and I hope folks realize that we're not radical nuts, nor The Enemy, based solely on our not riding the Trump Train.


 @Miss Sally, @The Dazzler and @DesolationRow and a few others are great to have dialogue with, even disagreement in this particular thread. I always make it a point to read what @DesolationRow posts. I don't always agree but he always gives me something to think about since his posts are detailed and provide a lot of information. I think there is a knee jerk reaction to be repelled by Donald Trump. I'm guilty of this, but I do take the time to understand why he has such a base of support that goes beyond simple black and white. 
@truelove

My issue is that there's a fine difference between PC culture and just creating climates of violence and breeding hostilities. As for a possible separation of the states, I know you're slightly kidding but I like having different people, backgrounds and experiences around me. I think that holds true for others as well. At the end of the day, we always find some way to come together as Americans.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Nice straw man there since I have never defined Hillary especially on that. My post said nothing about Clinton. But keep strawmannirg you are good at it
> 
> And Trump admitted he would commit war crimes by killing the families of terrorist and torturing people to get info. He even said he would make them legal. so if you want to talk about someone getting blood on their hands Trump is just as bad if not worse than Hillary if he got his way.


Technically torturing terrorists is legal, war crimes only cover troops in uniform who fight for an officially recognized nation that has signed the most modern war treaties


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Election*

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @The Dazzler 


I have some thoughts regarding Audit The FED and Bernie Sanders. I urge everyone to read these two articles concerning Audit the Fed and Bernie's modification of the Bill:

http://www.worldnewsdirectory.com/ron-paul-on-bernie-sanders-at-the-last-minute-he-switched-it/

Key Quote:



> A compromise amendment requiring the GAO to conduct a one-time audit of the Federal Reserve’s emergency-response programs unanimously passed the Senate by a 96-0 vote. The amendment had been introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and calls for for releasing the names of institutions that received in total more than $2 trillion in loans from the central bank during the peak of the financial crisis.
> 
> Sanders had originally used the language of Ron Paul’s HR 1207, which passed in the House as an amendment last year, but *later changed his amendment under pressure by the Federal Reserve and the Obama administration.* Sen. Vitter reintroduced an amendment with the original Audit the Fed language.
> 
> Basically, the Fed will now give us the names of the banks they lent to and tell us how much money they spent on office supplies, but no real information will likely be shared with the public. This is 21st century government transparency.
> 
> David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, attempted to keep Ron Paul’s original language in the bill, but for some unknown reason (ahem…), the Senate rejected this amendment 37-62.


The "Compromise" that was struck up was not with Ron Paul and those supporting the original Audit the Fed bill at the time, the compromise was with Obama and the Federal Reserve; the very people who in this situation should not be compromised with at all as they support and want continue the status quo. The Federal Reserve system whose policies have caused much of the boom and bust cycle periods which happen on occurrence due to inflationary policies and large scale of quantitative easing, who have helped widen the gap between the rich and poor and have helped increase income inequality all across the United States. The very same private bank, the biggest one at that who help prop up the banker class and who are effectively the median which allow special interest groups from that class to put forward policy which is directed to only benefit them. The very same people Bernie Sanders is against, by that definition you would believe Bernie would stick to his principles and not fold to pressure from the very same group of people who want to keep the established order. It is one thing if Bernie did not agree with Ron Paul on principle of the bill but by the looks of things and it's reported on several sites, Bernie watered down the bill right at the last minute. Either he buckled under pressure or he does not believe as strongly in his principles as he says he does. 



> The Federal Reserve’s decisions affect every single American, including those who have yet to be born. The issue of transparency shouldn’t even be an issue! This is common sense, is it not? We do not need “one time disclosures” as per the Senate bill. We need constant transparency. Does anyone really trust the Fed, Treasury and other to do the American people right if there is no cross-check?


Why this is such a big deal and not just a simple "compromise" (which I wouldn't even call it that to be quite honest) is that a one time auditing of a very specific case allows the FED to get away with not being thoroughly investigated in all of it's dealings. It could have potentially blocked any and all future bills that would properly audit the FED so that every American who is interested in the issue would know how exactly their taxpayer money is essentially being used. This was a compromise and a bill on an issue that people already knew the story of. This is detailed in the second article.

*Second Article:* http://thehill.com/policy/finance/96559-sanders-agrees-to-modify-measure-requiring-fed-audit



> A Sanders aide said the bill would now include a “one-time” audit of the steps taken since 2007 to provide emergency lending to banks and other institutions. The Fed is required to post on its website by Dec. 1, 2010 the names of institutions that received aid from its emergency programs.


This essentially refers to the bail out of the private banks done by the FED during the sub-mortgage crisis in 2007. We already knew and know that large banks such as Goldman Sach's were bailed out by the Federal Reserve during that period. All this *one time audit* does is go into detail the extent of it and the banks/instituions that were involved. It does not reveal anything new about FED policy which remained and still remains secretive. We learned nothing about the FED and how it operates or what it does with the public's money or the monetary policy which it has employed in the US and it's interactions with other large Central Banks. Nothing. The Bill maintains the status quo. So much so that Neal Wolin, the deputy Treasury Secretary was happy to oblige.



> The Federal Reserve and White House had repeatedly expressed concern that the amendment, before it was modified, would have *compromised the independence of the bank as it sets monetary policy.* The modified language is a major relief to the Fed and White House, and the Treasury Department quickly lent its support to the new amendment to the Wall Street overhaul bill.
> 
> "We are confident that the revised amendment proposed by Sen. Sanders strikes the appropriate balance," said Neal Wolin, deputy Treasury secretary.
> 
> A Sanders aide said the bill would now include a “one-time” audit of the steps taken since 2007 to provide emergency lending to banks and other institutions. The Fed is required to post on its website by Dec. 1, 2010 the names of institutions that received aid from its emergency programs.
> 
> A summary of the amendment said it preserves statutory protections for Fed monetary policy. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) would also be required to audit the Fed’s governance structure.
> 
> *“We want an independent Fed,” Sanders said on the Senate floor.*
> 
> Shortly thereafter, *Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) said on the Senate floor that he supported the modified language.*


The first part of this quote essentially confirms Sanders compromise with the Central Bankers and the Treasury Department. The problem with progressives is that they recognize the problem of Bankers yet some do not understand the problem with a private Central Bank and even if they do they are not willing to take steps in order to dismantle the system they are truly fighting against or at least put that system under major scrutiny. Bernie Sanders is a classic case and example of this.

The second major point of this quote is around the subject of an independent federal reserve. In this case, an Independent FED essentially means a private one. One which can continue it's monetary policies in secrecy with no scrutiny or criticism. Congressional oversight is a huge part of the bills both Ron and Rand Paul have advocated for. As well as a thorough and full audit of the Federal Reserve, The FED's policies need to be challenged and brought to public light through Congress and the Senate, so that every detail of what the FED is doing with the US's money, economy and perpetuating the debt is brought out to the public and in effect not only made transparent but also scrutinized so that the average joe knows exactly where it's dollars are going towards. Audit the FED is essentially the first step to ending the private Central Banking Cartel, a Democratic Socialist like Bernie Sanders would never support this. They are FOR private and independent Central Banks.

Sander's quote said it all: "We want an Independent FED"

That is code for wanting to keep the established order. It is not a cry for a full Audit where Congress would have proper oversight like how the FED bill was first written nor is it a demand for the public to know exactly how the Federal Reserve is handling the economy and monetary policy as a whole.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> @Miss Sally, @The Dazzler and @DesolationRow and a few others are great to have dialogue with, even disagreement in this particular thread. I always make it a point to read what @DesolationRow posts. I don't always agree but he always gives me something to think about since his posts are detailed and provide a lot of information. I think there is a knee jerk reaction to be repelled by Donald Trump. I'm guilty of this, but I do take the time to understand why he has such a base of support that goes beyond simple black and white.
> 
> @truelove
> 
> My issue is that there's a fine difference between PC culture and just creating climates of violence and breeding hostilities. As for a possible separation of the states, I know you're slightly kidding but I like having different people, backgrounds and experiences around me. I think that holds true for others as well. At the end of the day, we always find some way to come together as Americans.


and it should be pointed out in case it got lost in the Exchange we had yesterday, @Empress, that even though things got heated between us, I would never silence you from saying what you want to say and your opinion is welcome here as long as civil heads continue to prevail as they have thus far and we can agree to disagree. I suppose I got overly heated at how quick you were to point out anything that was a flaw of Trumps without what I felt was an accurate accounting for the people and events that others take part in that make the anger on Trump's side feel valid and justified. Perhaps I was too picky in looking for that. You were likely less biased than you seemed and for that I apologize. As my above post already might make clear, this election cycle has made me feel about as disgruntled as you could ever imagine. Not BECAUSE of Trump's positions or the way he acts or the things he says, but because I believe he's right and has been demonized by multiculturalist pigs who want America never to catch onto the fact that it's not about equality with these people. It's about inducing shame into the american people. It's about demanding reparations for America being the leader of the free world in every aspect it can be forced out of us, from race relations to gender barriers to religion to class warfare to everything in between. America is wrong. America never deserved anything because we're all racist uneducated bigots who come from inbred places like the south, where people who work with their hands, believe in small government, the right to protect our families and the freedom to be proud of our culture are considered hicks that should be eradicated from the planet because clearly all we REALLY want is to see brown people hung from a rope, surely. That's how it is and it's all AMERICA'S fault. We stole this land. We didn't earn it. There was no deal struck. There were no beads exchanged, we just went in and slaughtered millions of Indians and it's just like that. Just that way. So we diserve NOTHING. If you disagree you are objectively a bigot and must rot in hell. Why? Because it's 2016, ******! THAT'S WHY. It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what kind of person you are or how you feel inside. You are BORN with a debt that YOU have to pay to US! We'll complain to the highest court in the land and have you stripped of your own NUTS if you don't comply. FUCK YOU, IT'S OUR TURN! Meanwhile, good fucking luck getting your party to defend you, we control BOTH OF THEM!! You WILL conform to our world because we control it. We control the colleges, where you'll be laughed out of debate halls if you challenge us. We control the media, where you can do nothing but learn from us. We control hollywood, where our messages are broadcast in small, subtle doses to the masses. We even control your own churches and make it impossible to fight against us and claim you love your God doing it.

That's the America I see right now. Right or wrong, THAT is the state of the nation to me, in my eyes. In my heart. THAT is how i feel. Yes, I AM angry, because i believe this is WRONG and nobody wants to stop us from taring away at everything we ever held to love about this land and demonizing people like ME to elevate another. No politician has ever done anything to make ME feel better about the nation because no one REALLY stands up to these assholes on the progressive left. They wouldn't dare say we need a wall because people KNEW they'd be called racist for it. That's why they've been playing Drag-your-ass with it all these years. Now Trrump comes along, spouting common fucking sense that EVERYONE should agree with, but that would require believing America shouldn't be a doormat and that would mean we'd have no guilt. The left can't have that. It's the only way George Soros and Anita Sarkesian can have a job in this world they and others like them have molded, so of COURSE Trump is a racist. He won't kick THEM out of their ivory towers without hell to pay! This world is OURS, Mr. Trump!

Fuck it all. If Hilary wins, this nation deserves to burn. I won't be the one inciting violence either, but there are OTHERS like me who aren't as willing to roll over and die en masse like they expect us to. This is why you see violence at Trump rallies, NOT because of racism, but because we're tired of the ruling political school of thought! We are tired of our nation being CUCKED! How will we deal with it? Well I hope it's peaceful, but I don't think we'll be bending over and smiling as we get screwed for much longer that I can both tell you and warn you. I AM angry, and so are many others. We have been for years and it hasn't been heard as anything but "LOL BIGOTRY!" How ELSE do you think we'd react to Trump?

...God, even typing all this has pissed me off. I just want to be understood. That's really all it is.

Edit: And no, im not endorsing the assholes who punch protesters because they make us look no better than the protesters and it gives them what they want to see to fuel the narrative. However I know what will happen if Trump gets screwed when this is all over and people like me are left to rot for much longer. I hope it doesn't come to that.


----------



## Empress

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@Beatles123

I accept your apology and hope you'll accept mine. I can concede that a lot of the protesters are going to the Donald Trump rallies to instigate a reaction. It's unsettling how easy it is to get one and the bile that spews forth. People are angry, but it is manifesting into something more than just wanting the countries fortune to turn around IMO. Our presidential rallies shouldn't be turning into some of the stuff we've seen. 

Although, it would seem that the GOP establishment will wage more of a scorched earth campaign against Trump than protesters/Democrats. I do believe the GOP is headed for a brokered convention. I think some Republicans would rather have Hillary Clinton as president and control/obstruct through the Senate.


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Election*



L-DOPA said:


> I have some thoughts regarding Audit The FED


Great post! (Y) I hadn't seen the Bernie quote about wanting an independent Fed. I agree with everything you said. :smile2:

This is good for people who want to know the sequence of events.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

African American (race is significant due to the narrative that Trump is somehow racist against blacks) Tucson police officier relates his experience at a Trump rally. He doesn't support Trump, but was surprised by his experience at the event. 

https://www.facebook.com/Tatumbug34/videos/988608861209475/


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump announced today he would hand pick ten justices everyone liked and let them choose from there.

Sounds fair to me!


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> African American (race is significant due to the narrative that Trump is somehow racist against blacks) Tucson police officier relates his experience at a Trump rally. He doesn't support Trump, but was surprised by his experience at the event.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/Tatumbug34/videos/988608861209475/


That was interesting! Props to him for going there and staying open minded. 430k views and rising. He's going to be famous now. :smile2:


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump spoke at a conference in Palm Beach, Florida today regarding the protester incidents in Arizona over the weekend. 






He starts talking about the incident where an African American Trump supporter attacked the guy who was with the KKK-garbed protester at about 16 minutes in.

This is not a typical stump speech, pretty sure almost everything he says here is "new". Haven't finished listening to it though.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

So I just got negged by someone who has never posted here to my knowledge for the post I made last. Something I had to dig deep to fully explain, and his reasoning?

"lol".

Why?

This is part of the reason people are pissed. No one listens without insulting back.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Trust me, @GothicBohemian, if we had more leftists that could see compromise and work together instead of taring down one ideal to uplift their own, we'd be set.
> 
> Don't think either that I'm suggesting this doesn't happen in the Republican party. On the contrary, the GOP "True" conservatives are saying any compromise is a bad idea. Trump coincidentally is the only one saying "Look, we have to sit down with the democrats and figure these issues out via negotiation." Which is precisely why people like, say, Ted Cruz will holler "SEE?? HE'S NOT ONE OF US!!! HE WANTS TO MAKE DEALS WITH THE DEMOCRATS!"
> 
> If we had more liberals like you, who could see what we don't like about the sort of cultural Marxism coming from the radical left, maybe I wouldn't feel so distraught when I wake up every morning and wonder what shit they're going to label me today. Maybe my depression would lessen somewhat and then I could actually feel like the future has a place for someone like me again. Maybe I wouldn't feel so incompatible with modern society when I look at social media or any other place where people my age express how they feel, and perhaps I wouldn't feel as if I don't even belong in my own generation all just because I don't have a seething hatred for my own gender, skin color, faith, or ancestors.
> 
> Who knows...*sigh* If only, eh?...


If you have depression then you should seek help. 

Here in Aus we have counselling sessions covered by Medicare (just a small gap payment) that I have utilised before and it was a great help to me. You just basically go to the dr and say you're depressed and they can refer you to a psychologist. You get 8 sessions and you don't pay much.

I'm not sure what Trumps stance is on mental illness and public help programs etc....


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> African American (race is significant due to the narrative that Trump is somehow racist against blacks) Tucson police officier relates his experience at a Trump rally. He doesn't support Trump, but was surprised by his experience at the event.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/Tatumbug34/videos/988608861209475/


Video won't work for me, summary?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Election*



stevefox1200 said:


> Technically torturing terrorists is legal, war crimes only cover troops in uniform who fight for an officially recognized nation that has signed the most modern war treaties


Ok so you're ok morally with your country torturing people? This is a yes or no answer.


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> This is not a typical stump speech, pretty sure almost everything he says here is "new". Haven't finished listening to it though.


I ended up watching the whole thing. It's a really good speech. A lot of funny parts. You're spending $400 million a year on Gitmo with 91 prisoners. That is crazy. :laugh:



Beatles123 said:


> So I just got negged by someone who has never posted here to my knowledge for the post I made last. Something I had to dig deep to fully explain, and his reasoning?


I repped you to undo some of it. :smile2:



yeahbaby! said:


> Video won't work for me, summary?


He wasn't a Trump supporter but he went to a rally. He speaks on what he experienced there. Here's a youtube mirror. There's a summary here.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> If you have depression then you should seek help.
> 
> Here in Aus we have counselling sessions covered by Medicare (just a small gap payment) that I have utilised before and it was a great help to me. You just basically go to the dr and say you're depressed and they can refer you to a psychologist. You get 8 sessions and you don't pay much.
> 
> I'm not sure what Trumps stance is on mental illness and public help programs etc....


I don't think you understand the issue here.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



stevefox1200 said:


> Technically torturing terrorists is legal, war crimes only cover troops in uniform who fight for an officially recognized nation that has signed the most modern war treaties


No its not, its a war crime. Its also against the 8th amendment of cruel and unusual punishment. 

The USA legislatively prohibited torture and other war crimes under 18 U.S. Code § 2441. Here is the law.


(A) Torture.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
The law also leaves no room for the argument that the law doesn’t apply to the military or during times of war:

(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).

So no torture is not legal.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



L-DOPA said:


> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk @The Dazzler
> 
> 
> I have some thoughts regarding Audit The FED and Bernie Sanders. I urge everyone to read these two articles concerning Audit the Fed and Bernie's modification of the Bill:
> 
> http://www.worldnewsdirectory.com/ron-paul-on-bernie-sanders-at-the-last-minute-he-switched-it/
> 
> Key Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Compromise" that was struck up was not with Ron Paul and those supporting the original Audit the Fed bill at the time, the compromise was with Obama and the Federal Reserve; the very people who in this situation should not be compromised with at all as they support and want continue the status quo. The Federal Reserve system whose policies have caused much of the boom and bust cycle periods which happen on occurrence due to inflationary policies and large scale of quantitative easing, who have helped widen the gap between the rich and poor and have helped increase income inequality all across the United States. The very same private bank, the biggest one at that who help prop up the banker class and who are effectively the median which allow special interest groups from that class to put forward policy which is directed to only benefit them. The very same people Bernie Sanders is against, by that definition you would believe Bernie would stick to his principles and not fold to pressure from the very same group of people who want to keep the established order. It is one thing if Bernie did not agree with Ron Paul on principle of the bill but by the looks of things and it's reported on several sites, Bernie watered down the bill right at the last minute. Either he buckled under pressure or he does not believe as strongly in his principles as he says he does.
> 
> 
> 
> Why this is such a big deal and not just a simple "compromise" (which I wouldn't even call it that to be quite honest) is that a one time auditing of a very specific case allows the FED to get away with not being thoroughly investigated in all of it's dealings. It could have potentially blocked any and all future bills that would properly audit the FED so that every American who is interested in the issue would know how exactly their taxpayer money is essentially being used. This was a compromise and a bill on an issue that people already knew the story of. This is detailed in the second article.
> 
> *Second Article:* http://thehill.com/policy/finance/96559-sanders-agrees-to-modify-measure-requiring-fed-audit
> 
> 
> 
> This essentially refers to the bail out of the private banks done by the FED during the sub-mortgage crisis in 2007. We already knew and know that large banks such as Goldman Sach's were bailed out by the Federal Reserve during that period. All this *one time audit* does is go into detail the extent of it and the banks/instituions that were involved. It does not reveal anything new about FED policy which remained and still remains secretive. We learned nothing about the FED and how it operates or what it does with the public's money or the monetary policy which it has employed in the US and it's interactions with other large Central Banks. Nothing. The Bill maintains the status quo. So much so that Neal Wolin, the deputy Treasury Secretary was happy to oblige.
> 
> 
> 
> The first part of this quote essentially confirms Sanders compromise with the Central Bankers and the Treasury Department. The problem with progressives is that they recognize the problem of Bankers yet some do not understand the problem with a private Central Bank and even if they do they are not willing to take steps in order to dismantle the system they are truly fighting against or at least put that system under major scrutiny. Bernie Sanders is a classic case and example of this.
> 
> The second major point of this quote is around the subject of an independent federal reserve. In this case, an Independent FED essentially means a private one. One which can continue it's monetary policies in secrecy with no scrutiny or criticism. Congressional oversight is a huge part of the bills both Ron and Rand Paul have advocated for. As well as a thorough and full audit of the Federal Reserve, The FED's policies need to be challenged and brought to public light through Congress and the Senate, so that every detail of what the FED is doing with the US's money, economy and perpetuating the debt is brought out to the public and in effect not only made transparent but also scrutinized so that the average joe knows exactly where it's dollars are going towards. Audit the FED is essentially the first step to ending the private Central Banking Cartel, a Democratic Socialist like Bernie Sanders would never support this. They are FOR private and independent Central Banks.
> 
> Sander's quote said it all: "We want an Independent FED"
> 
> That is code for wanting to keep the established order. It is not a cry for a full Audit where Congress would have proper oversight like how the FED bill was first written nor is it a demand for the public to know exactly how the Federal Reserve is handling the economy and monetary policy as a whole.


wanting an independent fed means that big banks and the govt wouldn't have control over it so it can't be bought and paid for like people running for office or president always are. It prevents anyone from office from serving on the board of the Fed which is a good thing not a bad thing. 

Sanders also called for independent audits, which is another good thing. So people being bought off can't just look the other way.

Don't act like Sanders was the only once against Pauls version of the bill. Even if he voted for his version it would not have passed. But Sanders made a version that 100% of congress agreed with.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*

Neither is blowing people up. It makes no sense to take any kind of moral high ground against an enemy that has none. It doesn't help us. It handicaps us.

And I know about being handicapped. :troll


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> Neither is blowing people up. It makes no sense to take any kind of moral high ground against an enemy that has none. It doesn't help us. It handicaps us.
> 
> And I know about being handicapped. :troll


Torture does not work, it has been proven it does not work. Also the US and its citizens get infuriated when ISIS for example tortures and kills, then some of those same people want the US to do those same horrific acts?

And how can anyone think its ok to kill the families or terrorist?


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Thank you so very much for the kind words, @Empress. 

I agree, it's good to hear different perspectives on a whole litany of matters...

Ultimately, it would be wonderful to see politics return to the human scale. Perhaps the day is not too far off when such an eventuating will take place.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Torture does not work, it has been proven it does not work. Also the US and its citizens get infuriated when ISIS for example tortures and kills, then some of those same people want the US to do those same horrific acts?
> 
> And how can anyone think its ok to kill the families or terrorist?


Your defense isn't valid. You think Isis cares if you think it doesn't work? We cannot beat them by using lesser force on the reasoning of principal.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> Your defense isn't valid. You think Isis cares if you think it doesn't work? We cannot beat them by using lesser force on the reasoning of principal.


My defense is based on facts, something you like to ignore or not use.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/senate-committee-cia-torture-does-not-work

"Report says that CIA detainees subjected to ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ produced either faulty intelligence or no intelligence at all
Landmark report reveals brutal and ineffective use of torture "


"http://www.newsweek.com/neurosciencetorture-doesnt-work-and-heres-why-79365"

"NEUROSCIENCE:TORTURE DOESN'T WORK"




http://ciceromagazine.com/opinion/why-america-should-not-torture/

"A Former U.S. Army Interrogator on Why Torture Doesn’t Work"


-----------------------------------

It doesn't matter what ISIS thinks if torture works or not. The US should not be torturing anyone since its ineffective.
Not to mention is wrong and if the US tortures people, it makes them no better than ISIS or or terrorist groups that do it.

Answer this question. If torture is proven to not work, what is the point of torturing someone?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Will the GOP steal the nomination from Donald Trump? Stefan Molyneux's analysis:


----------



## polar bear

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

You know I actually liked Kasich until he said he was for amnesty though I believe a lot of these protesters have to be payed protesters frankly I don't even know what Trump has done or said that is really all that bad or controversial for that matter


Though I do think we may be in for a brokered or contested convention I see Cruz winning Utah, Arizona, and most of the West coast , frankly I think Trump and Kasich should of done that debate 

by them not doing the debate it makes both them look cowardly


----------



## polar bear

*Re: Election*

all these illegals can get in here though isis can't I'm just saying


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



polar bear said:


> You know I actually liked Kasich until he said he was for amnesty though I believe a lot of these protesters have to be payed protesters frankly I don't even know what Trump has done or said that is really all that bad or controversial for that matter
> 
> 
> Though I do think we may be in for a brokered or contested convention I see Cruz winning Utah, Arizona, and most of the West coast , frankly I think Trump and Kasich should of done that debate
> 
> by them not doing the debate it makes both them look cowardly


Trump is ahead in ARI


----------



## polar bear

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Trump is ahead in ARI




Well if he can win Arizona it would be huge that's for sure though other then Nevada he's had trouble out West so far, I was a bit surprised that Wyoming and Idaho went for Cruz


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> I don't think you understand the issue here.


Depression is a disease, it's serious, you need to take responsibility and deal with it. I'm 100% serious.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> Your defense isn't valid. You think Isis cares if you think it doesn't work? We cannot beat them by using lesser force on the reasoning of principal.


You will destroy yourself in the process by lowering yourself to their level. You become the enemy you sought to defeat in the name of justice.

We could literally use your 'torture is justified' logic to defend Hillary for all her so-called war crimes you like to bring up. Honestly listen to yourself, you're defending torture. John Lennon is rolling in his grave.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> wanting an independent fed means that big banks and the govt wouldn't have control over it so it can't be bought and paid for like people running for office or president always are. It prevents anyone from office from serving on the board of the Fed which is a good thing not a bad thing.
> 
> Sanders also called for independent audits, which is another good thing. So people being bought off can't just look the other way.
> 
> Don't act like Sanders was the only once against Pauls version of the bill. Even if he voted for his version it would not have passed. But Sanders made a version that 100% of congress agreed with.


But Big Banks already have massive influence over the FED and the FED in turn has massive influence over government, all with the public not knowing what is truly going on. How do you reckon the Big Banks were able to be bailed out in the first place? They demanded that the Federal Reserve bail them out for their irresponsible practices and in turn the FED asked Congress to pass legislation to bail out the banks it irresponsibly lent money to about the market level via quantitative easing which in the simplest of terms caused the boom and bust economic crash of 2007.

In a true free market economy, those banks should and would have collapsed and defaulted, allowing new banks to rise up through the market economy. In a free market economy it would reward banks who are careful with their OWN money and punish those who are irresponsible with their lending. Why? Because without the Federal Reserve, the Banks would run like any other business, unlike today where they are run through the money printed out by the Central Bank which in this case is the FED. How do you think Big Banks can get away with all that they did before 2007 in the first place? Because it doesn't matter how many regulations you place on those Banks, if they end up collapsing through their own fault they know that the Federal Reserve, Congress and the general taxpayer i.e YOU would always be there to bail them out. That is what Sanders and yourself don't understand. The Big Banks and Wallstreet, the top 1% become richer BECAUSE of the FED whilst the middle and lower classes get squeezed. The only way to stop this is to abolish the system. Is Bernie Sanders for even challenging it? The evidence says absolutely not.

We both know that Big Banks already wield big influence over the political class in Washington. We know that Hillary and Obama are owned by Wallstreet. We also know that Republicans like Ted Cruz are owned by banks like Goldman's Sachs. An independent FED in the way Sanders wants (according to yourself) does not change any of that. It maintains the level of secrecy they want. It's right there in the article, do you think if Sander's bill had any shred of challenging the status quo that they would vote for it? Are you really that naive? Of course people voted against Paul's bill. Who do you reckon who voted for it? Those who are clean or those whose interests lie with the FED and the banker class? Use your head, think. The Neo-Con's and the Neo-Liberals of both parties, the ones who you should be against are the ones who voted against Paul's bill and voted for the one Sanders compromised for. Sanders is not doing anything positive for change in regards to the FED.

An independent FED has ALWAYS mean't a Federal Reserve that conducts it's own monetary policy in secret without any congressional scrutiny. It has always mean't total control of the money supply and policy in regards to the Dollar. That is what Sanders, the FED and the Department of Treasury mean by this. You cannot twist what is right in front of you. I know you are a Bernie supporter but please think about this issue and really challenge what Bernie wants on it instead of just following along because he's your guy.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



L-DOPA said:


> But Big Banks already have massive influence over the FED and the FED in turn has massive influence over government, all with the public not knowing what is truly going on. How do you reckon the Big Banks were able to be bailed out in the first place? They demanded that the Federal Reserve bail them out for their irresponsible practices and in turn the FED asked Congress to pass legislation to bail out the banks it irresponsibly lent money to about the market level via quantitative easing which in the simplest of terms caused the boom and bust economic crash of 2007.
> 
> In a true free market economy, those banks should and would have collapsed and defaulted, allowing new banks to rise up through the market economy. In a free market economy it would reward banks who are careful with their OWN money and punish those who are irresponsible with their lending. Why? Because without the Federal Reserve, the Banks would run like any other business, unlike today where they are run through the money printed out by the Central Bank which in this case is the FED. How do you think Big Banks can get away with all that they did before 2007 in the first place? Because it doesn't matter how many regulations you place on those Banks, if they end up collapsing through their own fault they know that the Federal Reserve, Congress and the general taxpayer i.e YOU would always be there to bail them out. That is what Sanders and yourself don't understand. The Big Banks and Wallstreet, the top 1% become richer BECAUSE of the FED whilst the middle and lower classes get squeezed. The only way to stop this is to abolish the system. Is Bernie Sanders for even challenging it? The evidence says absolutely not.
> 
> We both know that Big Banks already wield big influence over the political class in Washington. We know that Hillary and Obama are owned by Wallstreet. We also know that Republicans like Ted Cruz are owned by banks like Goldman's Sachs. An independent FED in the way Sanders wants (according to yourself) does not change any of that. It maintains the level of secrecy they want. It's right there in the article, do you think if Sander's bill had any shred of challenging the status quo that they would vote for it? Are you really that naive? Of course people voted against Paul's bill. Who do you reckon who voted for it? Those who are clean or those whose interests lie with the FED and the banker class? Use your head, think. The Neo-Con's and the Neo-Liberals of both parties, the ones who you should be against are the ones who voted against Paul's bill and voted for the one Sanders compromised for. Sanders is not doing anything positive for change in regards to the FED.
> 
> An independent FED has ALWAYS mean't a Federal Reserve that conducts it's own monetary policy in secret without any congressional scrutiny. It has always mean't total control of the money supply and policy in regards to the Dollar. That is what Sanders, the FED and the Department of Treasury mean by this. You cannot twist what is right in front of you. I know you are a Bernie supporter but please think about this issue and really challenge what Bernie wants on it instead of just following along because he's your guy.



Like I said, even if you want to say Sanders is on the wrong side of this, no one is going to agree with 100% of any candidate. Again, I sided with Sanders on 95% of his stances. There are going to be a couple of things that fall into that 5%/ 

Could he have been much stronger on this sure.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Depression is a disease, it's serious, you need to take responsibility and deal with it. I'm 100% serious.


:side: As if i'm not.


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The thing about the Trump supporters "fighting back" (figuratively and literally) that makes me smile just a tad is how much shit many Republicans have faced over the years. If you are religious they think you are a religious nut, if you don't want illegals living in this country they call you racist, if you do not agree with the BLM movement you are just another animal like the cops.

I really think Donald Trump is just a guy who perfectly displays their feelings over these past few years. I'm not saying that I agree with the fighting but it's just an interesting part my dad brought up when we were having a convo about the Trump rally issues.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Smarkout said:


> The thing about the Trump supporters "fighting back" (figuratively and literally) that makes me smile just a tad is how much shit many Republicans have faced over the years. If you are religious they think you are a religious nut, if you don't want illegals living in this country they call you racist, if you do not agree with the BLM movement you are just another animal like the cops.
> 
> I really think Donald Trump is just a guy who perfectly displays their feelings over these past few years. I'm not saying that I agree with the fighting but it's just an interesting part my dad brought up when we were having a convo about the Trump rally issues.


Oh those poor republicans. It goes both ways. Anyone opposing e republicans is called a leftist, leftie loony, terrorist sympathiser etc. let's not pretend it's all one sided thanks.


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Oh those poor republicans. It goes both ways. Anyone opposing e republicans is called a leftist, leftie loony, terrorist sympathiser etc. let's not pretend it's all one sided thanks.


I don't believe I ever said that, I apologize if you got that from my post. The same thing would be happening if the Republicans had control the past 8 years as well though (maybe). 

I think what many are failing to realize is a candidate like Trump has never really existed. While many people on the left are usually called those things, it must have not gotten to the degree of what's going on today with the right. If it was, I'm sure we would have seen a much more radical candidate actually having a good chance of winning. 

That's all the post was... you leftist >


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

So Hildawg's VP Warren said the same insults the left has recycled for the past 6 months plus on Twitter today and the blogosphere is parading her as some kind of genius. lol.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

:banderas When over-educated parasites who spend their entire lives in the competition-free safe space of academia and the public sector come out of the woodwork to project their inadequacies onto people who actually produce value in society.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> :banderas When over-educated parasites who spend their entire lives in the competition-free safe space of academia and the public sector come out of the woodwork to project their inadequacies onto people who actually produce value in society.


You mean like, teachers and professors and stuff?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> You mean like, teachers and professors and stuff?


Yep.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Yep.


Uh, teachers don't contribute value to society? They teach kids math n shit that they need silly.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

How can they be producing value if they depend on coercion to be paid? There are no market forces at work whatsoever. Educators can definitely contribute value, and educators who work in the private sector or teach online and solicit subscriptions or donations can point to their value, but if they get paid no matter how well they do and it's almost impossible to fire them then I don't know how you can make the argument they're producing any value.

If someone thinks they can do the most good by being a teacher in the public sector then fine, but don't then criticize people who actually subject themselves to competition and the voluntary participation of their customers. You're in a glass house at that point.


----------



## Rugrat

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> How can they be producing value if they depend on coercion to be paid? There are no market forces at work whatsoever. Educators can definitely contribute value, and educators who work in the private sector or teach online and solicit subscriptions or donations can point to their value, but *if they get paid no matter how well they do and it's almost impossible to fire them then I don't know how you can make the argument they're producing any value.*


There are measures such as OFSTED in the UK at least (maybe there's a California equivalent) to see how well a school and it's students perform in terms of teaching and exams. You could also further state that there are some market forces in play, in that the more successful schools get more funding and hence teachers there are better looked after.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Most public school teachers I know are pretty dedicated to their work

I remember joking with my economics teacher, who had quite a bit of money during the 2008 crash buying cheap stocks, that "You don't become a teacher to get rich"

Then again most of the schools I went were in pretty decent areas, in poor inner city eras where students legit get stabbed, I would dread my job as well



Rugrat said:


> There are measures such as OFSTED in the UK at least (maybe there's a California equivalent) to see how well a school and it's students perform in terms of teaching and exams. You could also further state that there are some market forces in play, in that the more successful schools get more funding and hence teachers there are better looked after.


The US has a similar system where if a school's scores are too low a government backed crew comes in and reworks the school, hires new people, makes a new curriculum etc. the problem is it leads to get good schools get more and more rewards and getting better and better and poorer school constantly having to start over, having to hire new teachers and rework their classes


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

There are math teachers, who are important.

Then there are tenured professors that get paid absurd to insane amounts of money just to talk.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Rugrat said:


> There are measures such as OFSTED in the UK at least (maybe there's a California equivalent) to see how well a school and it's students perform in terms of teaching and exams. You could also further state that there are some market forces in play, in that the more successful schools get more funding and hence teachers there are better looked after.


Doesn't matter. You're still talking about funds coerced from taxpayers who have no choice. You can't say you're producing value when your customers have no choice. You simply don't know.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> There are math teachers, who are important.
> 
> Then there are tenured professors that get paid absurd to insane amounts of money just to talk.


My my first high school math teacher was a doctor who insisted we call him doctor because "He worked for seven years to get to be called doctor so do it"

Can't really debate that


----------



## Goku

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

A teacher cultivates in his students the will to learn and the capacity to evaluate. Everything else is procedural.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Rugrat said:


> There are measures such as OFSTED in the UK at least (maybe there's a California equivalent) to see how well a school and it's students perform in terms of teaching and exams. You could also further state that there are some market forces in play, in that the more successful schools get more funding and hence teachers there are better looked after.


We have stuff like that. All of the poor schools under perform and teachers only take jobs there if they can't get a job anywhere else. The nice areas that have no problems with scores have tenured teachers. If you've been in a school long enough they pretty much can't fire you unless you do something really terrible.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> There are math teachers, who are important.
> 
> Then there are tenured professors that get paid absurd to insane amounts of money just to talk.


This is the problem with some schools and colleges. These guys get paid to teach opinion and not fact, Science is fact, Math is fact, History is mostly fact, reading/learning language and the better use of it is also fact and useful. Babbling about what the teacher thinks is important isn't fact.

Many kids come out of school with absolutely nothing useful but paying tons of money for something stupid. They go just to hear these people talk rather than getting into a career that will benefit them. These types of "teachers, professors and doctors" are a damn joke.

@the videos being posted of the young black man at the Trump rally, there was a black female BLM student who was kicked out during a trump rally and she said the Police and everyone else was kind and that in the BLM group people were swearing and that's what go them ejected. Despite that people were saying Police were manhandling them. But I guess she's an "uncle tom" to people. It's nice seeing people post unbiased videos.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Doesn't matter. You're still talking about funds coerced from taxpayers who have no choice. You can't say you're producing value when your customers have no choice. You simply don't know.


Pretty harsh mate. What if my kids are getting good grades, telling me they're enjoying class and clearly increasing their knowledge. Isn't that proof of doing a good job?

Parents and families do have a choice, they can take their kids and move them to a different school or private schooling, or home schooling if they're insane.

And I hope you're not singling out teachers as the only ones who apparently "get paid no matter how well they do and it's almost impossible to fire them".

There are many, many people in private sectors who fit that description. Most of them are called Managers.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Pretty harsh mate. What if my kids are getting good grades, telling me they're enjoying class and clearly increasing their knowledge. Isn't that proof of doing a good job?


What do good grades mean? Standards get lowered to make schools look good. You don't know what a good grade even means. I've gotten a lot of good grades over the years in subjects I don't know anything about. Getting good grades has little to do with learning. 



> Parents and families do have a choice, they can take their kids and move them to a different school or private schooling, or home schooling if they're insane.


Why is home schooling "insane"? :kobe Putting your kid in these government indoctrination centers is insane. Kids home-schooled in a structured setting way outperform other students. More shit-posting by you. You've lost all credibility on the subject with that hugely erroneous comment. 



> And I hope you're not singling out teachers as the only ones who apparently "get paid no matter how well they do and it's almost impossible to fire them".
> 
> There are many, many people in private sectors who fit that description. Most of them are called Managers.


:lmao Oh okay so you have no fundamental understanding of business whatsoever. Go back to reading Marx while the adults who live in reality have a conversation.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> What do good grades mean? Standards get lowered to make schools look good. You don't know what a good grade even means. I've gotten a lot of good grades over the years in subjects I don't know anything about. Getting good grades has little to do with learning.
> 
> Why is home schooling "insane"? :kobe Putting your kid in these government indoctrination centers is insane. Kids home-schooled in a structured setting way outperform other students. More shit-posting by you. You've lost all credibility on the subject with that hugely erroneous comment.
> 
> :lmao Oh okay so you have no fundamental understanding of business whatsoever. Go back to reading Marx while the adults who live in reality have a conversation.


Calm down, Sorry to get you so upset. No need to be so condescending. Perhaps you got an A in that from your Mom though. BTW, the only Marx I've read is Groucho.

Government indoctrination centers? No worries, Jesse Ventura.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


>


What are they gonna do? Probably take some more prescription drugs, right Rush?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


>


Also have to remember how Republican top guys look out only for themselves and will vote against something even if it benefits their voters, same with Democrats. The two party system has turned the US into a nation divided with loyalists on both sides despite neither of the parties truly having their voters best interests at heart. 

We've seen America go from a country that listens to it's voters to one that only listens to special interest groups and it's own politicians. It went from American culture to this toss salad bullshit leftists like to promote, multiculturalism has never worked and never will. Not all cultures can be equal because then who decides what gets done? It's like if everyone is special, who is really special? The fore fathers started America to get away from all that European bullshit and now people are trying to bring it back, no culture should be greater than that of the American culture already established.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> We've seen America go from a country that listens to it's voters to one that only listens to special interest groups and it's own politicians. It went from American culture to this toss salad bullshit leftists like to promote, multiculturalism has never worked and never will.


I would suggest it's more like America went from a country controlled by big business lobbyists, to a country controlled by big business lobbyists... The rest is just window dressing my lass.

Why do you say MC has never worked? By and large it works quite well in places that have lots of immigration, like my home country Australia. Sure there's problems and I'm sure there is in America too, but overall people get on with each other, it's only given a bad name by the minority.

Among other things, I'd hate to think how boring food would be without MC.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> I would suggest it's more like America went from a country controlled by big business lobbyists, to a country controlled by big business lobbyists... The rest is just window dressing my lass.
> 
> Why do you say MC has never worked? By and large it works quite well in places that have lots of immigration, like my home country Australia. Sure there's problems and I'm sure there is in America too, but overall people get on with each other, it's only given a bad name by the minority.
> 
> Among other things, I'd hate to think how boring food would be without MC.


I don't mean immigration doesn't work, I mean MC where there is no dominant culture or language. There is no uniting that. Even when great Empires held massive amounts of land there was always a dominant language and culture present to ensure everything went along nicely. I enjoy different foods and different people but I'm against segregation and against people not wanting to learn the host country's language or customs. I don't expect perfection but some respect. Would you go to let's say Japan, live there and not bother to learn the culture, language, customs but expect them to respect yours when you don't show the same in return?

When you go to another country and live there, it's up to you to realize we must all work twords a goal which is what the American forefathers made it for. They didn't make it just to fracture itself like Europe is or half the world is, that leads to nothing good. You can be any race/religion/ethnicity/sexuality/still partake in your parent culture and still work to the goals of your host country without giving up any sort of identity, besides if you cannot why move from your own culture in the first place?


----------



## Well Well Well

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> I would suggest it's more like America went from a country controlled by big business lobbyists, to a country controlled by big business lobbyists... The rest is just window dressing my lass.
> 
> Why do you say MC has never worked? By and large it works quite well in places that have lots of immigration, like my home country Australia. Sure there's problems and I'm sure there is in America too, but overall people get on with each other, it's only given a bad name by the minority.
> 
> Among other things, I'd hate to think how boring food would be without MC.


Because you can't trade for shit like rice and spices without letting millions of people move to your country


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> I don't mean immigration doesn't work, I mean MC where there is no dominant culture or language. There is no uniting that. Even when great Empires held massive amounts of land there was always a dominant language and culture present to ensure everything went along nicely. I enjoy different foods and different people but I'm against segregation and against people not wanting to learn the host country's language or customs. I don't expect perfection but some respect. Would you go to let's say Japan, live there and not bother to learn the culture, language, customs but expect them to respect yours when you don't show the same in return?
> 
> When you go to another country and live there, it's up to you to realize we must all work twords a goal which is what the American forefathers made it for. They didn't make it just to fracture itself like Europe is or half the world is, that leads to nothing good. You can be any race/religion/ethnicity/sexuality/still partake in your parent culture and still work to the goals of your host country without giving up any sort of identity, besides if you cannot why move from your own culture in the first place?



"You can be any race/religion/ethnicity/sexuality/still partake in your parent culture" = MC to me.

There's no dominant American culture?

Sure I agree people should make an effort to learn the language et etc, but you can't force people, it's not practical.

Also, what are the goals of America to you?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> There's no dominant American culture?
> 
> Sure I agree people should make an effort to learn the language et etc, but you can't force people, it's not practical.
> 
> Also, what are the goals of America to you?


There is a dominant American culture but people are trying to make it so all are equal which cannot work. I'm not saying all cultures shouldn't get equal rights etc but there cannot be equal ruling among all cultures. Like let's say me, you, Deso, Arya, Punk, Thwagger, Gothic and MrMister were in a group, we could make group decisions but there has to be someone who has the final word or else chaos ensues. I just don't agree with the tossed salad nonsense, it doesn't work. 

You cannot force anyone to do anything but there should be rules in place to see it doesn't get out of hand. 

Main goal of America is to be better than everyone else, to form a society where you're just American, not anything else no matter who you are. To have one purpose to ensure we and our children, and children's children have much better lives and better things without giving up who we are and letting outsiders dictate to us what to do. To have a nation of many people but with one united goal of ensuring everyone who subscribes to this has a chance at a better life. 

Also to watch Europe burn and keep them from coming over here! (Kidding about this part.. maybe.. dun dun dun!)


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> "You can be any race/religion/ethnicity/sexuality/still partake in your parent culture" = MC to me.
> 
> There's no dominant American culture?
> 
> Sure I agree people should make an effort to learn the language et etc, but you can't force people, it's not practical.
> 
> Also, what are the goals of America to you?


Bro, i know you're aus and all and maybe it's different in your country, but we spend more here trying to accommodate for their language than we do teaching them our own. It's ass backwards to hell and no other nation does this like we do. It used to be simple: You come here, you assimilate. Now WE are doing the assimilation into THEIR countries and not the reverse. It's all done with the idea that America needs to be more like other nations and "Give back" instead of being the standard for THEM to measure up to.

When immigration is done En masse, history teaches us that it is ALWAYS the host country that suffers. Our years of allowing neglect on our southern boarder and other places to keep happening unopposed has caused our culture to be slowly overtaken. That is not a slight on any immigrant, it is a statement of fact. We have no standard for people that come here to work to. We are becoming a doormat.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

more JCVD:mark:







Never mind. I linked this before even watching it. This is just Alex Jones.

Fucking bummer. I want more JCVD dealing reality.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> more JCVD:mark:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind. I linked this before even watching it. This is just Alex Jones.
> 
> Fucking bummer. I want more JCVD dealing reality.


OT, but I imagine @MrMister as the actual Jason Garrett. :lol Like He's actually him posting on WF while Tony Romo gets glued back together in the background. 

"Hey, coach, I think I'm injured again! "

"iper1 SHUT UP, DAMN IT! I'M POSTING ABOUT DONALD TRUMP. NOW LEAVE ME ALONE BEFORE I BENCH YOUR ASS FOR BRANDON WEEDEN AGAIN, YOU FIBERGLASS-BONED PUSSY!" :lmao


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

:garrett


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Bro, i know you're aus and all and maybe it's different in your country, but we spend more here trying to accommodate for their language than we do teaching them our own. *It's ass backwards to hell and no other nation does this like we do. It used to be simple: You come here, you assimilate. Now WE are doing the assimilation into THEIR countries and not the reverse.* It's all done with the idea that America needs to be more like other nations and "Give back" instead of being the standard for THEM to measure up to.


Can you give some examples of this?


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## Genking48

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> Also have to remember how Republican top guys look out only for themselves and will vote against something even if it benefits their voters, same with Democrats. The two party system has turned the US into a nation divided with loyalists on both sides despite neither of the parties truly having their voters best interests at heart.
> 
> We've seen America go from a country that listens to it's voters to one that only listens to special interest groups and it's own politicians. It went from American culture to this toss salad bullshit leftists like to promote, multiculturalism has never worked and never will. Not all cultures can be equal because then who decides what gets done? It's like if everyone is special, who is really special? The fore fathers started America to get away from all that European bullshit and now people are trying to bring it back, no culture should be greater than that of the American culture already established.


What is American culture if not the American dream and the freedom to pursue it? And English the common language? They go to your country to have a chance at improving their lives, and at least have a working knowledge of English to find work. Isn't that what you require of them really?

You want immigrants to assimilate to American culture, yet shun them when they do it too well by understanding their 1st amendment rights?


----------



## polar bear

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

man I hate democrats, these protests aren't protests they're all out riots


prime example on why I hate the left


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> What is American culture if not the American dream and the freedom to pursue it? And English the common language? They go to your country to have a chance at improving their lives, and at least have a working knowledge of English to find work. Isn't that what you require of them really?
> 
> You want immigrants to assimilate to American culture, yet shun them when they do it too well by understanding their 1st amendment rights?


Great story, but lacking in it's relevance to reality.

http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Legal-Illegal-Immigrant-Households



















Most of them aren't coming here to live the American dream and assimilate. They're coming for the "free" stuff. And then they overwhelmingly vote for the politicians who promise to give them more of it.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Great story, but lacking in it's relevance to reality.
> 
> http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Legal-Illegal-Immigrant-Households
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of them aren't coming here to live the American dream and assimilate. They're coming for the "free" stuff. And then they overwhelmingly vote for the politicians who promise to give them more of it.


Great story, but lacking in relevance to the topic in discussion.

I'm sure their first objective in moving to different country is to get your 'free stuff' and not to improve their lives.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> What is American culture if not the American dream and the freedom to pursue it? And English the common language? They go to your country to have a chance at improving their lives, and at least have a working knowledge of English to find work. Isn't that what you require of them really?
> 
> You want immigrants to assimilate to American culture, yet shun them when they do it too well by understanding their 1st amendment rights?


The first amendment doesn't supersede everything to the point that Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech can dictate everything to the point that the US Government and it's citizens must placate to those who don't wish to learn the common language or even be a citizen. Before you start to babble and talk in circles my issue has always been with illegal immigrants who are well, here illegally and those who wish to subvert the American culture with their own despite the fact they don't live in their old country and possibly come from a culture which is destructive and nearly incompatible with the Freedoms Americans enjoy. 

Anyone who wishes to become a citizen must obey the laws, respect the culture and play their part. It's really not difficult to understand nor is it asking to much of someone to do. There is a reason why the forefathers wanted a melting pot instead of the way Europe and the rest of the world is ran. People who come here legally tend to learn the language, enjoy the freedoms and live decent lives. The element I'm referring isn't them so try not to pretend I'm saying that this is about Immigration, this is about coming to a new place and leaving your old world behind. The reason America was started in the first place.


----------



## Neuron

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I have no arguments, therefore Hitler.

AIDS Skrillex and Carl the cuck are my favorite memes to be born out of the footage of psychotic anti-trump protesters. Screaming in people's faces and not being able to comprehend someone going against their views. They're basically an incarnation of the religious right that was big a while back.



Genking48 said:


> ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?



ARE YOU CUCKING ME?*

Fixed that for ya. :wink2:


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> The first amendment doesn't superseded everything to the point that Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech can dictate everything to the point that the US Government and it's citizens must placate to those who don't wish to learn the common language or even be a citizen. Before you start to babble and talk in circles my issue has always been with illegal immigrants who are well, here illegally and those who wish to subvert the American culture with their own despite the fact they don't live in their old country and possibly come from a culture which is destructive and nearly incompatible with the Freedoms Americans enjoy.
> 
> Anyone who wishes to become a citizen must obey the laws, respect the culture and play their part. It's really not difficult to understand nor is it asking to much of someone to do. There is a reason why the forefathers wanted a melting pot instead of the way Europe and the rest of the world is ran. People who come here legally tend to learn the language, enjoy the freedoms and live decent lives. The element I'm referring isn't them so try not to pretend I'm saying that this is about Immigration, this is about coming to a new place and leaving your old world behind. The reason America was started in the first place.


Your issue is more than just about illegal immigrants given you take on multiculturism, don't need to be PC about it in a Donald Trump thread. 

I get your dislike for immigrants, no matter how you try to paint a nicer picture to it. My country faces the same issue of starting to lose our national identity I grew up with due to the import of massive number of foreign workers in addition to declining local birthrates. But that is the realities of a global economy in a developed country that have to depend on foreign workers to do jobs the locals are unwilling to do. 

But the question I had was what American culture are you speaking of exactly? America is so vast that what can be considered a part of American culture in one area is totally alien to another American from another part of the country. The one uniting principle I get from a foreigner is Americans are untied in the belief that their country is the land of opportunities as long as you are willing to work for it. And that doesn't seem lost from the influx of immigrants.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I am starting to fear for Trump's safety. The left is out of control.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

In my mind integration is a two way street

When you move to a new place they should not treat you like shit but at the same time you need to understand that this is a different place and change your lifestyle accordingly

Your both supposed to "change" a little bit


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> Your issue is more than just about illegal immigrants given you take on multiculturism, don't need to be PC about it in a Donald Trump thread.
> 
> I get your dislike for immigrants, no matter how you try to paint a nicer picture to it. My country faces the same issue of starting to lose our national identity I grew up with due to the import of massive number of foreign workers in addition to declining local birthrates. But that is the realities of a global economy in a developed country that have to depend on foreign workers to do jobs the locals are unwilling to do.
> 
> But the question I had was what American culture are you speaking of exactly? America is so vast that what can be considered a part of American culture in one area is totally alien to another American from another part of the country. The one uniting principle I get from a foreigner is Americans are untied in the belief that their country is the land of opportunities as long as you are willing to work for it. And that doesn't seem lost from the influx of immigrants.


I'm not at all being PC about it, go back maybe ten pages, my idea of a perfect America is no political parties, no divide, people no matter what skin color simply just being American. That being an American citizen entitles you to just about everything a person can hope for. 

America is vast but I can go to any part of the US and communicate with just about everyone there, some slang and different words maybe used but generally no where else in the world can you go to a place as large as America and speak one language and not feel out of place. Unlike Europe where every 50 feet it's another language or alien culture. Certain states have different ways but what unities everyone is the fact as citizens we're all entitled to our ideas, our liberties and our pursuits. It's not some generic statement, it's just a matter of fact. Not everyone's personal goal is the same.

The problem is people wish to take part of America but yet wish to remain closed off in their own communities, segregated from others never learning anything about the host country, never really doing much. You have people who think this should be okay but it would ruin the entire fabric of what made America, America in the first place. Being American isn't about being a certain race, Religion or creed. It's about belonging to a place where you can leave your old culture behind and embrace one that doesn't ask much of you besides voting, doing some civic duties, learning the language and history and getting along with everyone.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*






This is why, even though I ideologically agree with Ted on a lot more than Trump, I would never support him. He is a scumbag.


----------



## TheResurrection

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> Great story, but lacking in it's relevance to reality.
> 
> http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Legal-Illegal-Immigrant-Households
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of them aren't coming here to live the American dream and assimilate. They're coming for the "free" stuff. And then they overwhelmingly vote for the politicians who promise to give them more of it.


Why the hell do you let illegal immigrants claim welfare? Why aren't you finding out who they are before they get welfare and deporting them?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

America is the land of the free and you MUST act the way we want you to lol!


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TheResurrection said:


> Why the hell do you let illegal immigrants claim welfare? Why aren't you finding out who they are before they get welfare and deporting them?


Hillary Clinton wants to give illegal immigrants Obamacare. Democrats on the whole oppose voter ID laws because "certain people may not have the resources to acquire a state ID" (it costs a few bucks, who the hell can't afford one?). You have to remember, the Democratic party views these immigrants as future voters, either through by obtaining citizenship or having children who will be considered US citizens and grow up to vote Democrat. This is why no Democrat will even use the term "illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien". They just call them "undocumented immigrants". 

They're literally selling out our country and our culture for political power.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/...-there-is-something-bad-going-on-in-brussels/

Just a quick circling back to a couple months ago when Trump was vilified by the media for suggesting there was something amiss in Brussels.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> America is the land of the free and you MUST act the way we want you to lol!


Anyone in ANY nation should. If I was AUS i would never fly an American flag.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Can you give some examples of this?


Sure.

Exhibit A: Voting.

http://www.breitbart.com/california...rown-signs-bill-allowing-illegal-aliens-vote/

Exhibit B: The entire state of Florida.

You ever visit? I've lived there up until 4 years ago. You take a look at the Ft. Myers area. Where there was once mom & pop Pizza chains are now Spanish only super markets. We even have food in our grocery stores that are cheap Spanish knock offs of things like chips and other snacks. Not to mention the English version of anything is immediately preceded by a Spanish translation just about. I cannot tell you how many people there outright refuse to speak English or if they do it's some half-assesd, couldn't-give-two-shits attempt. I'm not saying all do this. I'm saying we give these people less of a reason to learn English because Spanish is so accommodated for here in the US. It's even stressed in our colleges and schools that learning it is a big asset in this country. It shouldn't be. Learning ENGLISH should be an asset for THEM.

It's becoming like that more and more as the years go by. Other nations don't just up and accommodate for their visitors to the point of BECOMING the country they left like we're slowly doing. You try going to a McDonald's in Japan and ordering in English, see how that works.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> I'm not at all being PC about it, go back maybe ten pages, my idea of a perfect America is no political parties, no divide, people no matter what skin color simply just being American. That being an American citizen entitles you to just about everything a person can hope for.
> 
> America is vast but I can go to any part of the US and communicate with just about everyone there, some slang and different words maybe used but generally no where else in the world can you go to a place as large as America and speak one language and not feel out of place. Unlike Europe where every 50 feet it's another language or alien culture. Certain states have different ways but what unities everyone is the fact as citizens we're all entitled to our ideas, our liberties and our pursuits. It's not some generic statement, it's just a matter of fact. Not everyone's personal goal is the same.
> 
> The problem is people wish to take part of America but yet wish to remain closed off in their own communities, segregated from others never learning anything about the host country, never really doing much. You have people who think this should be okay but it would ruin the entire fabric of what made America, America in the first place. Being American isn't about being a certain race, Religion or creed. It's about belonging to a place where you can leave your old culture behind and embrace one that doesn't ask much of you besides voting, doing some civic duties, learning the language and history and getting along with everyone.


You still haven't answered what it is you think is American culture that is being taken over by leftist BS crap about multiculturalism besides the use of the English language.

When they become citizens, aren't they entitled to their ideas, their liberties, their pursuits as well? Within reasons of course. You can't have everyone go out bombing abortion clinics. It takes both sides to ease the segregation, the fact that so much of it is happening is the failure of the community leaders on both sides.

America don't really ask of its citizens to vote base on what I see from voter turnouts every elections though. :troll


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> This is why, even though I ideologically agree with Ted on a lot more than Trump, I would never support him. He is a scumbag.


I said it before and I'll say it again: "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

God, how I hate politics. :no:


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The US should leave NATO if other countries don't pull their weight. Especially Germany. I'm tired of our tax dollars and lives going to protect these losers.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Election*

Who do you think is going to win tonight for the Dems and Repubs?


ARIZONA: Hillary vs Sanders
Trump vs Cruz vs Kasich

IDAHO: Hillary vs Sanders

UTAH: Trump vs Cruz vs Kasich


----------



## TheResurrection

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Sure.
> 
> Exhibit A: Voting.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/california...rown-signs-bill-allowing-illegal-aliens-vote/
> 
> Exhibit B: The entire state of Florida.
> 
> You ever visit? I've lived there up until 4 years ago. You take a look at the Ft. Myers area. Where there was once mom & pop Pizza chains are now Spanish only super markets. We even have food in our grocery stores that are cheap Spanish knock offs of things like chips and other snacks. Not to mention the English version of anything is immediately preceded by a Spanish translation just about. I cannot tell you how many people there outright refuse to speak English or if they do it's some half-assesd, couldn't-give-two-shits attempt. I'm not saying all do this. I'm saying we give these people less of a reason to learn English because Spanish is so accommodated for here in the US. It's even stressed in our colleges and schools that learning it is a big asset in this country. It shouldn't be. Learning ENGLISH should be an asset for THEM.
> 
> It's becoming like that more and more as the years go by. Other nations don't just up and accommodate for their visitors to the point of BECOMING the country they left like we're slowly doing. *You try going to a McDonald's in Japan and ordering in English, see how that works*.


I reckon you'd be fine doing that. In most developed countries in the world it's common to have a second language, that language is often English. As a monoglot who travels to a lot of countries I find this tremendously useful, I just say "English?" and I can pretty easily do business with 99% of people I come across.

I was in Germany a couple of months ago and many of the signs were in English since it's a language that most tourists there will have some understanding of. I didn't think that Germany was turning into England because of it though.

As far as it being an asset is concerned, of course it's an asset to know English in the US. Being a monoglot Spanish speaker is hugely limiting to your opportunities, it generally means you can only do shit jobs and have little real chance of progress.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TheResurrection said:


> I reckon you'd be fine doing that. In most developed countries in the world it's common to have a second language, that language is often English. As a monoglot who travels to a lot of countries I find this tremendously useful, I just say "English?" and I can pretty easily do business with 99% of people I come across.
> 
> I was in Germany a couple of months ago and many of the signs were in English since it's a language that most tourists there will have some understanding of. I didn't think that Germany was turning into England because of it though.
> 
> As far as it being an asset is concerned, of course it's an asset to know English in the US. Being a monoglot Spanish speaker is hugely limiting to your opportunities, it generally means you can only do shit jobs and have little real chance of progress.


Never said it was impossible. I said no one is reverse assimilating faster than we are, that I know of.

I wouldn't say it's limiting to only know Spanish in FL at all


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



yeahbaby! said:


> You will destroy yourself in the process by lowering yourself to their level. You become the enemy you sought to defeat in the name of justice.
> 
> We could literally use your 'torture is justified' logic to defend Hillary for all her so-called war crimes you like to bring up. Honestly listen to yourself, you're defending torture. John Lennon is rolling in his grave.


"I'd fight to defend." - Lennon.

Of course that above quote is before Lennon changed ideals circa '75.

But no, what was that about challenging the Beatles expert?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



gamegenie said:


> Who do you think is going to win tonight for the Dems and Repubs?
> 
> 
> ARIZONA: Hillary vs Sanders
> Trump vs Cruz vs Kasich
> 
> IDAHO: Hillary vs Sanders
> 
> UTAH: Trump vs Cruz vs Kasich


I got Cruz winning UT. it's Glen B(L)eck Mormon country.


----------



## TheResurrection

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Never said it was impossible. I said no one is reverse assimilating faster than we are, that I know of.
> 
> I wouldn't say it's limiting to only know Spanish in FL at all


Have you ever been to another country? Virtually the whole world is assimilating your culture - McDonalds, Coke, Budweiser, Hollywood etc.- far more than you assimilate theirs.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> "I'd fight to defend." - Lennon.
> 
> Of course that above quote is before Lennon changed ideals circa '75.
> 
> But no, what was that about challenging the Beatles expert?


Don't change the subject and try to wriggle out of your defence of torture.

'I'd Fight' doesn't mean 'I'd torture people'.

Care to try again?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



yeahbaby! said:


> Don't change the subject and try to wriggle out of your defence of torture.
> 
> 'I'd Fight' doesn't mean 'I'd torture people'.
> 
> Care to try again?


Oh nonono, I fully acknowledge this is a different subject, I just refuse to see you label Lennon incorrectly. Don't go there. it isn't something factual. Just saying that now. If you continue to use Lennon in this you will be objectively incorrect in doing so. I think you're smart enough to trust me on that, so leave Lennon out of this for the sake of your own argument.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TheResurrection said:


> Have you ever been to another country? Virtually the whole world is assimilating your culture - McDonalds, Coke, Budweiser, Hollywood etc.- far more than you assimilate theirs.


You can believe that if you want. Coincidentally? They shouldn't either.


----------



## GothicBohemian

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> America is the land of the free and you MUST act the way we want you to lol!


Americans, and a few others (the Japanese come to mind) do not go in for multiculturalism. Theirs is a melting pot society where new arrivals are expected to leave thier old world behind and assimilate. A lot of that has to do with America's roots; while there were certainly other populations there, the nation was founded by a bunch of English guys from Europe. 

Most other countries are a little different. These are places where more than one language and culture set up housekeeping alongside each other. There are countless dialects in India. Russia is very diverse. Many, many countries have the official language of whatever empire they once belonged to and the language they use at home. Eastern Canada was settled by two distinct populations - one from France and one from England, Scotland and Ireland. I live in a city where I switch between two languages at work depending on who I'm speaking with. To me, bilingual diversity, with all it's divisive politics, seems normal because it's been federal policy all my life and a near necessity if working for the government or with the public where I live. To an American it probably wouldn't seem natural at all to have two distinct cultures, one with a large majority, demanding equal rights in one country, though English/Spanish bilingualism isn't exactly uncommon in the US. 

Is Australia different from America or is it fairly uniform culturally? I honestly wouldn't know; I've never visited. 



Beatles123 said:


> Anyone in ANY nation should. If I was AUS i would never fly an American flag.


People fly all sorts of flags here. In my neighbourhood alone I've seen German flags, French flags, Dutch flags, Southern Cross flags... and local businesses and hotels often fly American flags alongside Canadian, Provincial and Acadian (local French) flags. Our city hall even flies foreign flags for various holidays; they have a special flag pole set aside for that and, yes, Pride flags get flown at city hall during Pride Week and First Nation flags go up whenever there's an aboriginal event. I guess we just really like all those pretty coloured pieces of cloth in these parts. 



TheResurrection said:


> I reckon you'd be fine doing that. *In most developed countries in the world it's common to have a second language, that language is often English.* As a monoglot who travels to a lot of countries I find this tremendously useful, I just say "English?" and I can pretty easily do business with 99% of people I come across.


Yep. English is an international language of commerce. Folks all over the world learn it as a popular second or third language.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



GothicBohemian said:


> Americans, and a few others (the Japanese come to mind) do not go in for multiculturalism. Theirs is a melting pot society where new arrivals are expected to leave thier old world behind and assimilate. A lot of that has to do with America's roots; while there were certainly other populations there, the nation was founded by a bunch of English guys from Europe.
> 
> Most other countries are a little different. These are places where more than one language and culture set up housekeeping alongside each other. There are countless dialects in India. Russia is very diverse. Many, many countries have the official language of whatever empire they once belonged to and the language they use at home. Eastern Canada was settled by two distinct populations - one from France and one from England, Scotland and Ireland. I live in a city where I switch between two languages at work depending on who I'm speaking with. To me, bilingual diversity, with all it's divisive politics, seems normal because it's been federal policy all my life and a near necessity if working for the government or with the public where I live. To an American it probably wouldn't seem natural at all to have two distinct cultures, one with a large majority, demanding equal rights in one country, though English/Spanish bilingualism isn't exactly uncommon in the US.
> 
> Is Australia different from America or is it fairly uniform culturally? I honestly wouldn't know; I've never visited.
> 
> 
> 
> People fly all sorts of flags here. In my neighbourhood alone I've seen German flags, French flags, Dutch flags, Southern Cross flags... and local businesses and hotels often fly American flags alongside Canadian, Provincial and Acadian (local French) flags. Our city hall even flies foreign flags for various holidays; they have a special flag pole set aside for that and, yes, Pride flags get flown at city hall during Pride Week and First Nation flags go up whenever there's an aboriginal event. I guess we just really like all those pretty coloured pieces of cloth in these parts.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. English is an international language of commerce. Folks all over the world learn it as a popular second or third language.


Still would never fly one and shouldn't. If I was AUS i would be Team AUS and no other.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> Oh nonono, I fully acknowledge this is a different subject, I just refuse to see you label Lennon incorrectly. Don't go there. it isn't something factual. Just saying that now. If you continue to use Lennon in this you will be objectively incorrect in doing so. I think you're smart enough to trust me on that, so leave Lennon out of this for the sake of your own argument.


Are you saying Lennon would be in favour of torture like you appear to be?

And answer the fucking question, stop trying to wriggle out of it. You're either for torture or against it.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



yeahbaby! said:


> Are you saying Lennon would be in favour of torture like you appear to be?
> 
> And answer the fucking question, stop trying to wriggle out of it. You're either for torture or against it.


I am totally for it.

Lennon, you ask? Well, for that I ask you, Which Lennon? The Young, brash Lennon that peed onto nuns? Beatlemania Lennon? '66 agnostic Lennon? '68 spiritual Lennon? '69 liberal doped up vegitable Lennon? '70 Radical Atheist Lennon? Desperate Jesus Freak Lennon? How do I ask him the question? Is he on good relations with his father when I ask him? Is he not? Is he in primal scream therepy? Is it his Lost Weekend? If it is, what portion? The Harry Nilsson sessions? The Mae Pang months?

I warned you, now we've went there. IT'S TOO LATE.

COME WITH ME, LAD! HERE WE GO!


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> I am totally for it.


Thank you for finally admitting you support the torture of people. Trump would be proud, Lennon would not.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



yeahbaby! said:


> Lennon would not.


Which one? Under what circumstances and why? You're avoiding this line of questioning because you know as well as I do Lennon is a person you know next to nothing about.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> Which one?


Any of them.

You can claim to be some huge expert on the Beatles, I'm sure you are and good for you, they're great and I grew up on them, Abbey Road is one of my favourite albums. No need for you to comment on that by the way.

Nevertheless regardless of whatever changes John Lennon went through, you can't convince me or a blind dog that he would've approved and supported torture like you do. God I can't believe we're having this conversation.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



yeahbaby! said:


> Any of them.
> 
> You can claim to be some huge expert on the Beatles, I'm sure you are and good for you, they're great and I grew up on them, Abbey Road is one of my favourite albums. No need for you to comment on that by the way.
> 
> Nevertheless regardless of whatever changes John Lennon went through, you can't convince me or a blind dog that he would've approved and supported torture like you do. God I can't believe we're having this conversation.


Oh, can't I? Welp. Here we go.

All of them? Well, then, that would take me a GIANT WALL O' TEXT.

So I'll summarize: 

There is no better quote to describe Lennon than the ACTUAL lyric on Revolution: "Don't you know that you can count me out...*IN.*"

"I'm always likely to change me' mind" - Lennon, explaining the song.

There was no firm belief system or even one opinion held over any great length of time by John Winston Ono-Lennon.

I'm sorry to break that to you. I'm sorry to dispel the myth that John was this sort of patriot saint of peace and love, but the fact is by the end of his life he had renounced all of it.

In fact, The reality is that by the end of his life he was a radically different person than he ever was at the height of his anti war, anti violent belief system. The fact is that John was a man who tried philosophy after philosophy only for the worst of it to betray him.

If you asked him by 1980 if he supported torture, you know what your most likely response would have been? 

"I don't know."

Because he didn't, and by this point in his life, he didn't care to know. That is actually the beauty of Lennon in this, his final stage: He didn't care anymore. He had spent his entire life trying to care. Trying to take up some cause or other. Even ones that directly contrasted with views he held just a year beforehand. He was ALWAYS never satisfied no matter what opinion about anything he held in the moment. In fact, here's a real shock: he HATED "Imagine" and his other song, "God" later claiming it wasn't what he felt at all. 

By 1980, Lennon only cared about one thing: Being happy. He HAD no convictions toward any belief or opinion anymore. He was free.

In short, this is why using Lennon is invalid to your argument. You can call me wrong on torture, you can even say Trump is wrong, but saying Lennon would agree with you is like saying it's Tuesday. Soon, it won't be. It will change and become Wednesday.

I can even point you to periods in Lennon's life he would have flat out said "Yes" if you want.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Election*

^Lets just put this to bed, it's a ridiculous thing to be arguing about. 

I'm just happy that after dancing around it for a few pages you're happy to finally admit you support the use of torture, I'll let that speak for itself.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



yeahbaby! said:


> ^Lets just put this to bed, it's a ridiculous thing to be arguing about.
> 
> I'm just happy that after dancing around it for a few pages you're happy to finally admit you support the use of torture, I'll let that speak for itself.


Mate, I don't know why you think that's some Zinger. I don't WANT to torture people if we don't need to, but if it comes to it, I don't want us hampered based on MORALS when it comes to winning a war with murderers.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> Mate, I don't know why you think that's some Zinger. I don't WANT to torture people if we don't need to, but if it comes to it, I don't want us hampered based on MORALS when it comes to winning a war with murderers.


Torture DOES NOT WORK, its been proven time and time again it does not work. The CIA waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 180 times and got nothing out of him.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Sure.
> 
> Exhibit A: Voting.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/california...rown-signs-bill-allowing-illegal-aliens-vote/
> 
> Exhibit B: The entire state of Florida.
> 
> You ever visit? I've lived there up until 4 years ago. You take a look at the Ft. Myers area. Where there was once mom & pop Pizza chains are now Spanish only super markets. We even have food in our grocery stores that are cheap Spanish knock offs of things like chips and other snacks. Not to mention the English version of anything is immediately preceded by a Spanish translation just about. I cannot tell you how many people there outright refuse to speak English or if they do it's some half-assesd, couldn't-give-two-shits attempt. I'm not saying all do this. I'm saying we give these people less of a reason to learn English because Spanish is so accommodated for here in the US. It's even stressed in our colleges and schools that learning it is a big asset in this country. It shouldn't be. Learning ENGLISH should be an asset for THEM.
> 
> It's becoming like that more and more as the years go by. Other nations don't just up and accommodate for their visitors to the point of BECOMING the country they left like we're slowly doing. You try going to a McDonald's in Japan and ordering in English, see how that works.



I recommend to you the reading of Inglehart

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2657288?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



asdf0501 said:


> I recommend to you the reading of Inglehart
> 
> http://www.jstor.org/stable/2657288?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents


And I recommend you to live how I have.

I'll read the book though.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Torture DOES NOT WORK, its been proven time and time again it does not work. The CIA waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 180 times and got nothing out of him.


They also obviously get lots of false information. Not surprisingly people will say any old bullshit when they're being tortured.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Torture DOES NOT WORK, its been proven time and time again it does not work. The CIA waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 180 times and got nothing out of him.


At least you gave reason for your neg this time. :nerd:


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*

CNN just said it is now mathematically impossible for Sanders to win the Nom. If He won everything left, Hillary still leads and would then wins via Superdeligates.


Don't shoot the messenger. :shrug


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Election*



yeahbaby! said:


> Thank you for finally admitting you support the torture of people. Trump would be proud, Lennon would not.


Lennon was kind of a cock


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



stevefox1200 said:


> Lennon was kind of a cock


Naaaah, I wouldn't say cuck as much as unsure what he wanted in life. He had the woman he loved though and that was enough. He tried the solo thing without her and it didn't work.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

mmmm ok.

But is not a book, it's a paper....


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> CNN just said it is now mathematically impossible for Sanders to win the Nom. If He won everything left, Hillary still leads and would then wins via Superdeligates.
> 
> 
> Don't shoot the messenger. :shrug


That is simply 100% false. Also the super delegates don't even count until the convention and they will flip like in 2008 of Sanders has the majority of the delegates like Obama did.

Also

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/politics/2016-election-poll-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/index.html

Poll: Trump, Clinton score historic unfavorable ratings

And those may be the two nominees for each party. What a joke

the funniest thing is you can already see Hillary going back to the right now that she thinks she has Sanders beaten.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> That is simply 100% false. Also the super delegates don't even count until the convention and they will flip like in 2008 of Sanders has the majority of the delegates like Obama did.


Hey, im only telling you what I saw them draw up on screen.


----------



## BarackYoMama

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> Hey, im only telling you what I saw them draw up on screen.


They also did mention that some of the Super deligates would likely change if he started to pick up wins like that.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*

I think I found what they meant:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian...ining-contests-lose-nomination_b_9521520.html

Judge for yourselves, I'm only posting the link.


----------



## BarackYoMama

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> I think I found what they meant:
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian...ining-contests-lose-nomination_b_9521520.html
> 
> Judge for yourselves, I'm only posting the link.


Yeah he could still lose, that's true. But it's also not 100% fact he would. He'd still be behind even with winning the rest of them, but we could see some of them super deligates change and go to Bernie, which could help him out. It's a very long shot, but nothing is impossible still. Sucks, as at this point I don't like Donald or Hillary and we'll likely end up with one of them two.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



Priceless Blaze said:


> Yeah he could still lose, that's true. But it's also not 100% fact he would. He'd still be behind even with winning the rest of them, but we could see some of them super deligates change and go to Bernie, which could help him out. It's a very long shot, but nothing is impossible still. Sucks, as at this point I don't like Donald or Hillary and we'll likely end up with one of them two.


Unless the GOP swerve us all and Romney gets the nom! :hutz


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> Hey, im only telling you what I saw them draw up on screen.


You mean on the Clinton News Network. Its just more establishment bullshit like how they add in super delegates into the real delegates to taint the real results.



Beatles123 said:


> Unless the GOP swerve us all and Romney gets the nom! :hutz



Never going to happen.

If anyone would join the GOP race it would be Paul Ryan. Who would be terrible but not nearly as bad as Trump or Cruz.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*

Voter fraud going on in AZ , why am I not surprised.

http://usuncut.com/news/arizona-polling-disaster/

People waiting in line for 4 hours to vote. People that were registered as a democrat showed up and were magically listed as a R or an indy so they couldn't vote and had to use a provisional ballot. They were running out of ballots, they had over 1000 people still in line waiting to vote when the polls were closing. Here is my favorite, 2012 primary had 300,000 voters and 200 polling places. 2016 primary has estimated 800,000 voters at 60 polling places.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Voter fraud going on in AZ , why am I not surprised.
> 
> http://usuncut.com/news/arizona-polling-disaster/
> 
> People waiting in line for 4 hours to vote. People that were registered as a democrat showed up and were magically listed as a R or an indy so they couldn't vote and had to use a provisional ballot. They were running out of ballots, they had over 1000 people still in line waiting to vote when the polls were closing. Here is my favorite, 2012 primary had 300,000 voters and 200 polling places. 2016 primary has estimated 800,000 voters at 60 polling places.


To be fair we experianced that a lot facing Rubio as well. Both establishments hate our guys so this we can both say is BS.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Election*

Maybe Arizona should have hired more foreign workers to cope with having more polling places. :lol


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Welp, Trump won AZ, but the Glen becks of the world united in UT.


----------



## SpeedStick

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## TheResurrection

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> You can believe that if you want. Coincidentally? They shouldn't either.


It's true! Have you ever been to another country? 

This is Red Square in Moscow










This is Leciester Square in London










This is some place in Japan. They are very strange people.










Look at the cinema listings for every country in the world - American films.

And we shouldn't stop either, I would be devastated if the UK stopped taking on American culture, it's great. If people don't like it they will stop selling here, if they do, tremendous, give the people what they want.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TheResurrection said:


> It's true! Have you ever been to another country?
> 
> This is Red Square in Moscow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is Leciester Square in London
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is some place in Japan. They are very strange people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the cinema listings for every country in the world - American films.
> 
> And we shouldn't stop either, I would be devastated if the UK stopped taking on American culture, it's great. If people don't like it they will stop selling here, if they do, tremendous, give the people what they want.


Our country should never become the one they left. I'll leave it there as this is a touchy subject and i'm trying to remain civil. It's not an easy problem to identify a solution to, i'll say that.


----------



## bullshitter

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

mental note never look at anything but wrestling threads on this forum.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



bullshitter said:


> mental note never look at anything but wrestling threads on this forum.


rejoiner?


----------



## TheResurrection

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Our country should never become the one they left. I'll leave it there as this is a touchy subject and i'm trying to remain civil. It's not an easy problem to identify a solution to, i'll say that.


Maybe you shouldn't be so sensitive then. You're named after a scouse pop band and you have a problem with cultural exchange FFS.

America will never become the country they left, it will take elements of many of the cultures of the immigrants who come to it. It's when it doesn't do this that you get seriously problems because you have groups of people within the country who feel alienated and excluded from civil society.

There are several factors that prevent the United States from being the insular paradise you seem to think it should be. 

First of all your population is made up of immigrants from many many different backgrounds - you already killed most of the natives. 

Second, you have two very long land borders and two very long sea borders, this means you have to accept some level of immigration and those immigrants are going to bring their own culture with them. Fighting against that is like fighting against the sunrise.

Third - and perhaps most importantly - it's 2016, people are going to take on other cultures from around the world. The idea of the nation as we know it is dying, it will be long dead in 100 years. National distinctiveness flourishes only in isolation, culturally that isolation is long gone thanks to the improvement in media, what we see now is a remnant that is getting less and less as time goes on.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> This is why, even though I ideologically agree with Ted on a lot more than Trump, I would never support him. He is a scumbag.


Cruz is a very creepy guy.

Trump gave warning before the attack.


----------



## TripleG

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwid8Z2rh9fLAhUC8z4KHSrmC5IQqQIIHTAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-3504893%2FPIERS-MORGAN-comes-terror-isn-t-time-started-listening-seriously-Trump.html&usg=AFQjCNHYTlzciHzjj6S7X5NE3qixMpvL9g&sig2=VBewobyNe9KoiO6IXCCFAw

This right here is an interesting read as Piers Morgan talks about Donald Trump's stances on terror and immigration in the wake of the attack in Brussels. 

Personally, I don't agree with Trump on alot of things and he uses hyperbole and brashness to make his arguments and his points (which is done to get attention more than anything else). 

But it shocks me that he's the only one really talking about this stuff. Do I advocate all immigrants being banned from coming into this country? Not at all, but the lackadaisical approach to properly vetting these immigrants is astounding to me. I look at border security the same way I would my own home. Would I let complete strangers that I don't know from a hole in the wall enter my home? No. Would I leave my door unlocked at night or when I'm not around? Of course not. That isn't racist or unfair. That is logical common sense to me. So why are we being expected to just let anyone and everyone into the country without proper security or properly vetting these people? That makes no sense and only opens the door for all kinds of security problems. 

This is where being PC really drives me nuts because everybody else almost seems afraid to talk about this stuff out of fear of offending people, when to me, this is exactly the type of stuff the President should be talking about and of all the options, Donald Trump is the ONLY one taking any kind of stance on this.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Election*

I don't often agree with birthday massacre but he's (and other people who have said the same as him) right about torture :shrug


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

That feel when the student facebook page for my university is full of people talking about how great last night's Bernie rally was and how they plan to protest Trump rallies. :sodone


----------



## TomahawkJock

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Has Trump said where he stands on Israel? Last I heard he was neutral but I am curious about that. I think its ridiculous how much aid they receive from the United States and their latest proposal of raising that aid from 3 to 5 billion is absurd to me. All the other candidates (bar Bernie who also seems to be heavily neutral) are in bed with Netanyahu. Where does Trump stand on this?

EDIT: Nevermind, listened to the AIPAC speech. He is no different than anyone else. He loves Israel. Still wondering about the foreign aid part though.


----------



## A-C-P

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*






:trump


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TomahawkJock said:


> Has Trump said where he stands on Israel? Last I heard he was neutral but I am curious about that. I think its ridiculous how much aid they receive from the United States and their latest proposal of raising that aid from 3 to 5 billion is absurd to me.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



A-C-P said:


> :trump


Weird Al is better. :justsayin


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TheResurrection said:


> This is some place in Japan. They are very strange people.


Immediately though of this. Ed 209






"Please consume the delicious can of coke. Failure to comply will result in physical force"


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TripleG said:


> but the lackadaisical approach to properly vetting these immigrants is astounding to me. I look at border security the same way I would my own home. Would I let complete strangers that I don't know from a hole in the wall enter my home? No. Would I leave my door unlocked at night or when I'm not around? Of course not. That isn't racist or unfair. That is logical common sense to me. So why are we being expected to just let anyone and everyone into the country without proper security or properly vetting these people? That makes no sense and only opens the door for all kinds of security problems.


Is that what is actually happening though? Are they really just letting anyone and everyone do whatever they want?


----------



## Pronoss

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

It's very simple and the founders put it right in black & white. And it's made very simple to become a legal immigrant. 

If you are an illegal alien, you get deported buh-bye, don't pass go, don't collect $200. Just be happy and say "thank you" because INS will give you a free plane flight home after you sit in the INS detention center until they have enough to fill the plane, or you can opt to fly yourself back on your own dime. 


I don't understand what's so hard to get about illegal immigration?



I've spoken of my neighbor who is Guatemalan. He legally immigrated when his country entered civil war in 90's. And he's very blunt why the only real problem is from south of the border, which I could go into, but he's got horror stories and he doesn't trust anyone from Mexico but he has some pretty insane stories of why, and how the cartels have made it so there really isn't any innocents. You work for them or die, you give them sanctuary or die, you help them or die, you snitch you die. And they have all the local governments in the pocket and even some of the national government according to him. 


But legal immigration is not hard. He did it in just under 3 years. He came over on a Visitor's Visa (you aren't allowed employment or enter school, it's the standard "vacationer's or tourist" visa). Once here, he found a company that would hire him, he then applied for the H-2A Temporary worker's visa and the company signed to 'sponsor' so they knew he had guaranteed employment, at least to begin with. 

The H-2A Temp worker's visa is maximum 3 years then you have to leave and can't come back for few months before you can reapply. But he used the 3 years and our free public library system as well as the free study materials the embassy will send you if you qualify, and apply to become a U.S. citizen through Naturalization. 

He studied US History, and Civics and some practice example tests the embassy sends to give you idea what it'll look like. He paid the application fee.


About the fees, my neighbor points out this is where illegals want to bitch and whine. "it's too expensive" which he says is bullshit, most illegals are making way more than any of us and yes many live in 1 place so they pay almost nothing in rent as it's all split. The rest of the money is wired back into Mexico, or sent to loan sharks that forced them to jump border to pay off debts. 

The H-2A Temporary workers visa is just $190. That's not "prohibitive", that gets you in and working in the US, you have 3 years on that worker's visa, if you don't want to be a permanent citizen then 3 years are up go home. Then come back after waiting period.

But in 3 years working, you've have no trouble paying for the US Citizen Naturalization application.



> The current filing fee for Form N-400, the Application for Naturalization, with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, for adult applicants is $680 ($595 plus an $85 biometric fee)



You get scheduled a date and time to take the test. Then after a few days you'll be notified if you passed or failed, if you failed you get another chance 60-90 days later to retake. 

If you passed you get another scheduled date, when you show up this time there will be few people there, or a lot, depends. But this is when you take the Oath of citizenship and officially get your green card and are citizens with all the rights of a US citizen except become President of course 



That's how it works. 

That's legal immigration, and I don't know of anyone that is AGAINST Legal immigration. 
Those that came to Ellis Island long long ago came here Legally. 



The quality on this video is a bit shitty but just to toss this in. 
Comedian and ex host of the Late Late Show, Craig Ferguson worked in the U.S. on television with a Temporary Workers Visa as well. 

Except instead of the H-2A my neighbor came in on, Craig used the O-Visa
https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/employment/temporary.html

*O-Visas:*


> For persons with extraordinary ability or achievement in the sciences, arts, education, business, athletics, or extraordinary recognized achievements in the motion picture and television fields, demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim, to work in their field of expertise. Includes persons providing essential services in support of the above individual



But over time he became such a hardcore patriot he went all in and became a US Citizen









*Craig Ferguson & Stephen Fry discuss why America is great, and why Craig became a Citizen:*

Craig also mentions how liberals have pushed to discourage pride, patriotism, and love of America and he doesn't understand that "movement"









I'm 100% for Legal immigration.
Illegal Immigrants, deported. 
It's easy to become a legal immigrant or work legally. 
noone should defend illegals they steal and leech from taxpayers and don't contribute to the social security which is a shared account of every single US citizen.


My neighbor Simon had a good sorta "scenario" about a lot of illegals:

Think about it like this, and this doesn't mean all, he was using this only as a basic general example, he didn't say 100% of them, but he does believe 100% of illegals got to go as it's too easy to get legal.

Let's say you come into the U.S. illegally maybe forced by a cartel to sling dope, or payback a loan shark, or to make some quick cash, or commit crimes, or make as much cash as possible, or forced to work illegally to send money back to cartels. 

Which would you prefer?

1. If you enter US Illegally, and do any of the above and you get busted by police. You could be dealing heroin/cocaine, or committing wire fraud, money laundering, get busted working illegally during FDA inspection of an agriculture business, or committing a crime say robbing a liquor store or mugging someone, You get arrested and you get deported. 

The way it supposed to work is once deported the Mexico federali's take you into custody and put you in prison. But they don't as most are in cartel pockets. 
So you wait a couple days and jump the border and do it again. over and over and over, leeching off and harming America.

Or the alternative.

2. You legally enter the U.S. with a workers visa or gaining US citizenship, now if you do any of the above crimes you go to prison. Now you have to pay taxes, and contribute to society, if you don't pay taxes you go to prison. 

So of course illegals are gonna fight like hell to remain illegal. They never get in real trouble, except when they don't do what the cartel says do, as in Mexico Los Zetas and Gulf Cartel are "God".




Now in the U.S. there are American gangs that are allied with either Los Zetas or Gulf Cartel who help smuggle dope and spread it to other states, and sometimes help move illegal aliens "mules".

*Here is a chart of who is allied with either Mexican Cartel:*


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Hillary will probably be no different from Obama, Bush or Bill Clinton was which is why the status quo looks to continue.

I already assume she is going to win easy looking at her Pledged delegates & Superdelegates.

I doubt Bernie Sanders or Trump will even stand a chance against her.

The average American believes their vote matters but most don't understand the Electoral College.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TripleG said:


> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwid8Z2rh9fLAhUC8z4KHSrmC5IQqQIIHTAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-3504893%2FPIERS-MORGAN-comes-terror-isn-t-time-started-listening-seriously-Trump.html&usg=AFQjCNHYTlzciHzjj6S7X5NE3qixMpvL9g&sig2=VBewobyNe9KoiO6IXCCFAw
> 
> This right here is an interesting read as Piers Morgan talks about Donald Trump's stances on terror and immigration in the wake of the attack in Brussels.
> 
> Personally, I don't agree with Trump on alot of things and he uses hyperbole and brashness to make his arguments and his points (which is done to get attention more than anything else).
> 
> But it shocks me that he's the only one really talking about this stuff. Do I advocate all immigrants being banned from coming into this country? Not at all, but the lackadaisical approach to properly vetting these immigrants is astounding to me. I look at border security the same way I would my own home. Would I let complete strangers that I don't know from a hole in the wall enter my home? No. Would I leave my door unlocked at night or when I'm not around? Of course not. That isn't racist or unfair. That is logical common sense to me. So why are we being expected to just let anyone and everyone into the country without proper security or properly vetting these people? That makes no sense and only opens the door for all kinds of security problems.
> 
> This is where being PC really drives me nuts because everybody else almost seems afraid to talk about this stuff out of fear of offending people, when to me, this is exactly the type of stuff the President should be talking about and of all the options, Donald Trump is the ONLY one taking any kind of stance on this.


I think border control is more like looking at it from a point of view of a store owner. You want to keep out undesirable people but don't want to put up measures that would prevent legit customers from patronizing your store.

There is already vetting of people entering America legally. That is why so many enter America illegally because they either can't afford to wait out the process or do not meet the requirements. But just like everything else in this world, nothing is foolproof. It's the struggle between security and liberty. Do you want big brother watching your every move if it helps security but doesn't prevent all attacks? Americans sure wouldn't.

Do anyone really think a wall will keep out illegal immigrants from Mexico when the fences don't work? Even Trump let slip on how stupid the idea was when asked how would the illegals counter a wall. Use a freaking rope. And the costs of the wall goes up every time Trump is asked about it.

Do you think a blanket ban on Muslims if enforced is going to deter terrorists from entering America? They can just lie about their religion when asked. It is allowed to pretend to be non-Muslims to infiltrate a community according to handbooks found on arrested terrorists.


----------



## Kenny

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> I think border control is more like looking at it from a point of view of a store owner. You want to keep out undesirable people but don't want to put up measures that would prevent legit customers from patronizing your store.
> 
> There is already vetting of people entering America legally. That is why so many enter America illegally because they either can't afford to wait out the process or do not meet the requirements. But just like everything else in this world, nothing is foolproof. It's the struggle between security and liberty. Do you want big brother watching your every move if it helps security but doesn't prevent all attacks? Americans sure wouldn't.
> 
> Do anyone really think a wall will keep out illegal immigrants from Mexico when the fences don't work? Even Trump let slip on how stupid the idea was when asked how would the illegals counter a wall. Use a freaking rope. And the costs of the wall goes up every time Trump is asked about it.
> 
> Do you think a blanket ban on Muslims if enforced is going to deter terrorists from entering America? They can just lie about their religion when asked. It is allowed to pretend to be non-Muslims to infiltrate a community according to handbooks found on arrested terrorists.



A wall won't stop illegals 100% I don't think anyone has said that, Isreal has a wall and it doesn't keep out all the muslim crazies but it does reduce the problem. At the moment the border is a wide open free for all, that's not better than a wall no matter how you try to say it is.

You're right nothing is full proof so let's remove child proof pill bottles, lighters, back ground checks for buying guns, seat belts and air bags. They won't work 100% so why bother? 

There are so many people who enter legally that there is ZERO excuse for entering illegally, if you have to enter illegally it prolly means you shouldn't be entering. At what point can a person not wait? At what point is something too expensive? What happened to working hard for something you wanted? Just because there maybe a few exceptions to the rules doesn't mean the rules shouldn't be followed.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> A wall won't stop illegals 100% I don't think anyone has said that, Isreal has a wall and it doesn't keep out all the muslim crazies but it does reduce the problem. At the moment the border is a wide open free for all, that's not better than a wall no matter how you try to say it is.
> 
> You're right nothing is full proof so let's remove child proof pill bottles, lighters, back ground checks for buying guns, seat belts and air bags. They won't work 100% so why bother?
> 
> There are so many people who enter legally that there is ZERO excuse for entering illegally, if you have to enter illegally it prolly means you shouldn't be entering. At what point can a person not wait? At what point is something too expensive? What happened to working hard for something you wanted? Just because there maybe a few exceptions to the rules doesn't mean the rules shouldn't be followed.


But does it really reduce the problems? The border had fences and it didn't work. Would a wall be better?

I never said anything about removing things that don't work 100%. I was addressing the concern that vetting is not done correctly on potential immigrants. There are rules and regulations there, but you can't bat 1.00 on every case. Is there room for improvement? Sure, but blanket bans and building a wall surely is going to cost a lot more than sensible enforcing of existing rules. (sounds like gun nut reasoning eh?)

I am not giving excuses for those that don't wait. I am merely stating what is happening. And that the there is a strict vetting process which is why there is a waiting process.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> But does it really reduce the problems? The border had fences and it didn't work. Would a wall be better?
> 
> I never said anything about removing things that don't work 100%. I was addressing the concern that vetting is not done correctly on potential immigrants. There are rules and regulations there, but you can't bat 1.00 on every case. Is there room for improvement? Sure, but blanket bans and building a wall surely is going to cost a lot more than sensible enforcing of existing rules. (sounds like gun nut reasoning eh?)
> 
> I am not giving excuses for those that don't wait. I am merely stating what is happening. And that the there is a strict vetting process which is why there is a waiting process.



The vetting process is needed 100% which is why there NEEDS to be border control or else you'll start having more than drug runners slipping into the border because of how lax the security is. Have you seen the fences? They're left alone, not at all well guarded. A manned wall would actually make a difference. Nothing is 100% but it certainly is a start.

Should the process for getting in be faster? Sure, why not but that doesn't mean a border doesn't need to be watched when you have more than just people looking for jobs coming in.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Pronoss said:


> It's very simple and the founders put it right in black & white. And it's made very simple to become a legal immigrant.
> 
> If you are an illegal alien, you get deported buh-bye, don't pass go, don't collect $200. Just be happy and say "thank you" because INS will give you a free plane flight home after you sit in the INS detention center until they have enough to fill the plane, or you can opt to fly yourself back on your own dime.
> 
> 
> I don't understand what's so hard to get about illegal immigration?
> 
> 
> 
> I've spoken of my neighbor who is Guatemalan. He legally immigrated when his country entered civil war in 90's. And he's very blunt why the only real problem is from south of the border, which I could go into, but he's got horror stories and he doesn't trust anyone from Mexico but he has some pretty insane stories of why, and how the cartels have made it so there really isn't any innocents. You work for them or die, you give them sanctuary or die, you help them or die, you snitch you die. And they have all the local governments in the pocket and even some of the national government according to him.
> 
> 
> But legal immigration is not hard. He did it in just under 3 years. He came over on a Visitor's Visa (you aren't allowed employment or enter school, it's the standard "vacationer's or tourist" visa). Once here, he found a company that would hire him, he then applied for the H-2A Temporary worker's visa and the company signed to 'sponsor' so they knew he had guaranteed employment, at least to begin with.
> 
> The H-2A Temp worker's visa is maximum 3 years then you have to leave and can't come back for few months before you can reapply. But he used the 3 years and our free public library system as well as the free study materials the embassy will send you if you qualify, and apply to become a U.S. citizen through Naturalization.
> 
> He studied US History, and Civics and some practice example tests the embassy sends to give you idea what it'll look like. He paid the application fee.
> 
> 
> About the fees, my neighbor points out this is where illegals want to bitch and whine. "it's too expensive" which he says is bullshit, most illegals are making way more than any of us and yes many live in 1 place so they pay almost nothing in rent as it's all split. The rest of the money is wired back into Mexico, or sent to loan sharks that forced them to jump border to pay off debts.
> 
> The H-2A Temporary workers visa is just $190. That's not "prohibitive", that gets you in and working in the US, you have 3 years on that worker's visa, if you don't want to be a permanent citizen then 3 years are up go home. Then come back after waiting period.
> 
> But in 3 years working, you've have no trouble paying for the US Citizen Naturalization application.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get scheduled a date and time to take the test. Then after a few days you'll be notified if you passed or failed, if you failed you get another chance 60-90 days later to retake.
> 
> If you passed you get another scheduled date, when you show up this time there will be few people there, or a lot, depends. But this is when you take the Oath of citizenship and officially get your green card and are citizens with all the rights of a US citizen except become President of course
> 
> 
> 
> That's how it works.
> 
> That's legal immigration, and I don't know of anyone that is AGAINST Legal immigration.
> Those that came to Ellis Island long long ago came here Legally.
> 
> 
> 
> The quality on this video is a bit shitty but just to toss this in.
> Comedian and ex host of the Late Late Show, Craig Ferguson worked in the U.S. on television with a Temporary Workers Visa as well.
> 
> Except instead of the H-2A my neighbor came in on, Craig used the O-Visa
> https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/employment/temporary.html
> 
> *O-Visas:*
> 
> 
> 
> But over time he became such a hardcore patriot he went all in and became a US Citizen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Craig Ferguson & Stephen Fry discuss why America is great, and why Craig became a Citizen:*
> 
> Craig also mentions how liberals have pushed to discourage pride, patriotism, and love of America and he doesn't understand that "movement"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm 100% for Legal immigration.
> Illegal Immigrants, deported.
> It's easy to become a legal immigrant or work legally.
> noone should defend illegals they steal and leech from taxpayers and don't contribute to the social security which is a shared account of every single US citizen.
> 
> 
> My neighbor Simon had a good sorta "scenario" about a lot of illegals:
> 
> Think about it like this, and this doesn't mean all, he was using this only as a basic general example, he didn't say 100% of them, but he does believe 100% of illegals got to go as it's too easy to get legal.
> 
> Let's say you come into the U.S. illegally maybe forced by a cartel to sling dope, or payback a loan shark, or to make some quick cash, or commit crimes, or make as much cash as possible, or forced to work illegally to send money back to cartels.
> 
> Which would you prefer?
> 
> 1. If you enter US Illegally, and do any of the above and you get busted by police. You could be dealing heroin/cocaine, or committing wire fraud, money laundering, get busted working illegally during FDA inspection of an agriculture business, or committing a crime say robbing a liquor store or mugging someone, You get arrested and you get deported.
> 
> The way it supposed to work is once deported the Mexico federali's take you into custody and put you in prison. But they don't as most are in cartel pockets.
> So you wait a couple days and jump the border and do it again. over and over and over, leeching off and harming America.
> 
> Or the alternative.
> 
> 2. You legally enter the U.S. with a workers visa or gaining US citizenship, now if you do any of the above crimes you go to prison. Now you have to pay taxes, and contribute to society, if you don't pay taxes you go to prison.
> 
> So of course illegals are gonna fight like hell to remain illegal. They never get in real trouble, except when they don't do what the cartel says do, as in Mexico Los Zetas and Gulf Cartel are "God".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now in the U.S. there are American gangs that are allied with either Los Zetas or Gulf Cartel who help smuggle dope and spread it to other states, and sometimes help move illegal aliens "mules".
> 
> *Here is a chart of who is allied with either Mexican Cartel:*


Seems like the Cartels are the common denominator in a lot of these problems which contribute to illegal immigration.

If what you say here is true



> the cartels have made it so there really isn't any innocents. You work for them or die, you give them sanctuary or die, you help them or die, you snitch you die. And they have all the local governments in the pocket and even some of the national government according to him.


Then it sounds pretty fucking shit to be living in Mexico, and I couldn't really blame people wanting to get out of those sort of living conditions ASAP by any means necessary. If it meant their families' lives I would expect any person reading this would do so as well, legal or not. That's human nature.

Therefore, how do you stop the cartels or can they be stopped?

The glaring thing to me is their drug trade. The demand won't go down, so the government(s) should take control of the supply. Decriminalise, restrict and legalise the main substances, and take the power away from the cartels. It wouldn't happen overnight but you would chip away at their power IMO. 

For addicts treat them more like a health issue than a criminal issue. Study after study has shown the cost of programs like that are far less than the costs of incarceration. Besides that you also get muey tax dollars from the licenced sale of the drugs.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> The vetting process is needed 100% which is why there NEEDS to be border control or else you'll start having more than drug runners slipping into the border because of how lax the security is. Have you seen the fences? They're left alone, not at all well guarded. A manned wall would actually make a difference. Nothing is 100% but it certainly is a start.
> 
> Should the process for getting in be faster? Sure, why not but that doesn't mean a border doesn't need to be watched when you have more than just people looking for jobs coming in.


Building a wall and blanket ban on Muslims literally does nothing to help border control. Border control isn't only guarding the border between American and Mexico. It also include better border control at airports and ports where you know, places where most people enter America. This myopic view on building a wall to act as border control is just for symbolism sake, as the video mentioned.

Have you ever done guard duty? A manned wall at night is almost as useless as a fence across the border. How many people are you going to employ to man those walls day and night? And who is going to pay for them?

It is a start all right, a start for construction and security companies to start taking taxpayers money for something that is not needed.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> There are so many people who enter legally that there is ZERO excuse for entering illegally, if you have to enter illegally it prolly means you shouldn't be entering. At what point can a person not wait?


Just a question. Do you consider refugees to be entering illegally or genuine refugees?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Just a question. Do you consider refugees to be entering illegally or genuine refugees?


Refugees are refugees in my opinion but a refugee is a temporary guest, so not illegal. They should be looked after but they shouldn't expect to stay for long nor should they get to leave the designated refugee area unless they pass vetting and apply for citizenship. Refugees should have the options of integration/citizenship or staying for a while until whatever is happening is over with or shows signs of slowing or it's safe again. I don't think it should be used in a way as bypassing legally immigrating but if any refugees are willing to be vetted, show a willingness to work and become a citizen they should get the same options. 

Regardless of anyone's circumstances I do not want criminals, chomos and other undesirables running around which is why vetting is so important not only to the host country but also so these people can be booted from refugee camps before they prey upon other refugees.

@tofu I never said anything about banning Muslims and yes a wall will help, walls help. They're not going to stop illegals 100% but it will put a huge dent in free passing and cartels running drugs and bringing in weapons or taking weapons/cash out. A manned wall at night is NOT useless, American bases in the Middle East are walled and manned, they don't leave any bases just wide open for anyone to walk into. (Unless they have land mines etc all over the place.) Airports are already fairly secured, so is the ocean, the Mexico border is not which is why it's a huge target for any terrorists or cartel activity. How can you not understand this? We're talking about illegal immigration and illegal activity, how many of those people are flying in on planes?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> Regardless of anyone's circumstances I do not want criminals, chomos and other undesirables running around which is why vetting is so important not only to the host country but also so these people can be booted from refugee camps before they prey upon other refugees.


Chomos? Child Molesters? How weird you brought that up specifically. We're not talking about the Catholic Church here are we?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Chomos? Child Molesters? How weird you brought that up specifically. We're not talking about the Catholic Church here are we?


Lots of reports came out of refugee camps in Europe of child molesting, not to mention they've already had young girls and boys molested by migrants. Refugee camps and new territory is prime for these sick fucks as refugee camps tend to not be very secure and new areas means nobody knows what these guys are yet. I don't know about any priests molesting kids in camps but I know muhammad enjoyed kids, guess Religious people like them young.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

We want people to come here. We just want them to do so legally.

This isn't some complicated issue.


----------



## Rick_James

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> We want people to come here. We just want them to do so legally.
> 
> This isn't some complicated issue.


This. There's nothing wrong or evil with wanting people to come to the country through legal means only. The silliest part of the whole ordeal is that we hear the "xenophobia" claims but the laws for sneaking into Mexico illegally are far worse, so by that logic, mexicans are far more xenophobic then Americans..... so why would we want to bring xenophobic people to our country? lol.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*






Sean ROASTED this fool. I've heard more intelligent arguments against the wall in this very thread.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

^ I actually caught that live. Hannity went HAM all over that moron. :done 

So I'm going to get a MAGA hat to wear around my ultra liberal university campus. Deciding which one to get. 










There's the classic red of course, but I gotta say, I'm partial to "The Trapper" myself.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



CamillePunk said:


> ^ I actually caught that live. Hannity went HAM all over that moron. :done
> 
> So I'm going to get a MAGA hat to wear around my ultra liberal university campus. Deciding which one to get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's the classic red of course, but I gotta say, I'm partial to "The Trapper" myself.


Why not both?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

It's a great point. I more wanted an excuse to post the image.

Based Japanese girl supports TRUMP. :done


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*












Might I suggest for the shirt CP


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



NotGuilty said:


> Might I suggest for the shirt CP


Can I actually buy that?


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Can I actually buy that?


Yeah, its on Amazon


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Election*

http://gizmodo.com/donald-trump-and-ted-cruz-got-into-a-late-night-twitter-1766785311

The two frontrunner of the GOP. :lol

Funny the potential nominees of the party of old people are behaving worse than tweens on social media.


----------



## Account dealer

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Donald trump is a terrible person, enough said.


----------



## Mystery Rey

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


>


This really is happening, isn't it?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Account dealer said:


> Donald trump is a terrible person, enough said.


 >two posts

Yeeeeah, I'mma call bait.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Election*

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/24/libertarian-gary-johnson-double-digits-race-agains/

Although I don't expect him to make a huge dent in the election (should he get the nomination) I do find this very interesting. I would vote for him if I was American now that Rand Paul is officially out of the race.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*

Liz Warren totally dismantled Trump on Twitter







































You would think the GOP would have been doing this from day one with him.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Election*



L-DOPA said:


> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/24/libertarian-gary-johnson-double-digits-race-agains/
> 
> Although I don't expect him to make a huge dent in the election (should he get the nomination) I do find this very interesting. I would vote for him if I was American now that Rand Paul is officially out of the race.


I supported Gary in 2012 (although I didn't actually vote in that election), but I won't be supporting him this time. Aside from some of his unfavorable ideological shifts (although obviously I'm still much closer to him than Trump), this election is too crucial and this opportunity to elect a non-politician who's willing to talk about the real issues too unique not to throw my support behind Trump.


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


>


She's the loser. Pretending to be 1/32 Indian so she can get employment as a minority. She's realizing Trump can win. :trump


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/711951004749664256Like slavery and genocide? Mexico-American war? That tweet is so dumb. fpalm
(Not hating on you Americans. We British have our past too. Just pointing out how stupid she is. (Y))


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



The Dazzler said:


> She's the loser. Pretending to be 1/32 Indian so she can get employment as a minority. She's realizing Trump can win. :trump
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/711951004749664256Like slavery and genocide? Mexico-American war? That tweet is so dumb. fpalm
> (Not hating on you Americans. We British have our past too. Just pointing out how stupid she is. (Y))


She isn't pretending to be 1/32 Native American. 

Trump is not going to win, Hillary and Sanders are both crushing him in polls. Hillary beats him by 17 points and Bernie beats him by 19.

Trump would be for slavery, and he is for fascism. Trump is breeding hate and ignorance. Hell Trump admitted he is for war crimes like carpet bombing families or terrorist and said we should go back to torturing and even go further in the methods of torture. 

How is Trump not trying to tear america apart? He is trying to set back the US hundreds of years. 

Everything she said about Trump is 100% true

I love how you didn't even try to refute the stuff she said about Trump, its because you know you can't since its all true


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> She isn't pretending to be 1/32 Native American.


She has in the past to claim she's a minority. You can read about it here. 


birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is not going to win, Hillary and Sanders are both crushing him in polls. Hillary beats him by 17 points and Bernie beats him by 19.


We'll see. :smile2:


birthday_massacre said:


> Trump would be for slavery


What do you base that on?


birthday_massacre said:


> How is Trump not trying to tear america apart? He is trying to set back the US hundreds of years.


I was mocking her for saying America was *built on values like decency, community, and concern for our neighbours*. Especially when she claims to be part Indian.


birthday_massacre said:


> Everything she said about Trump is 100% true
> 
> I love how you didn't even try to refute the stuff she said about Trump, its because you know you can't since its all true


What did she say that was objectively true? Her calling him a loser/racist/bully are just opinions.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



The Dazzler said:


> She has in the past to claim she's a minority. You can read about it here.
> 
> We'll see. :smile2:
> 
> What do you base that on?
> 
> I was mocking her for saying America was *built on values like decency, community, and concern for our neighbours*. Especially when she claims to be part Indian.
> 
> What did she say that was objectively true? Her calling him a loser/racist/bully are just opinions.


Liz Warren is 1/32 Native American

http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump...ate-senators-native-american-ancestry-2340546

"It was determined in 2012 that Warren is likely 1/32 Cherokee, but many have still questioned whether that ties her to the Native American community."
Having ties to a community has nothing to do with if you are part native american. that is like claiming someone is not african american if they grew up with a white family and a white community for most of their life.


Trump would be for slavery because he used illegals in the US to build his Tower. He always uses slave labor in China to make his ties, and his modeling agency treated the teens like slaves.

Like I said you are mocking her because you can't dispute what she said about Trump. Nice ad hominem attack there. You still have not disproven what she said about Trump.

What did she say that was objectively true? About him keeping his fathers empire afloat by declaring bankruptcy OBJECTIVE FACT
That he would have more money today if he just kept all of it in the stock market FACT
That he shows how insecure he is by his bullying, attacks on women , racism, etc FACT

Calling him a racist and a bully are facts. You can even dispute that. 

She is part native American. Not sure why you don't understand that. The whole thing about the native american came up was because the establishment dont like her just like they don't like Bernie Sanders so they do everything thing they can do to beat them. Its what the GOP does since they can't attack her on her issues because she speaks for the people and has their best interests in mind and not big banks or the establishment. 

I also love how Trumps fans love when he does what Warren did to him but when he gets a taste of his own medicine but using facts about him and not BS, you get mad.

Trump is not going to be president. Even if he does, the first thing he does wrong he will be impeached since both the DOP and DNC hate him.


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> Liz Warren is 1/32 Native American
> 
> http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump...ate-senators-native-american-ancestry-2340546
> 
> "It was determined in 2012 that Warren is likely 1/32 Cherokee, but many have still questioned whether that ties her to the Native American community."
> Having ties to a community has nothing to do with if you are part native american. that is like claiming someone is not african american if they grew up with a white family and a white community for most of their life.
> 
> She is part native American. Not sure why you don't understand that. The whole thing about the native american came up was because the establishment dont like her just like they don't like Bernie Sanders so they do everything thing they can do to beat them. Its what the GOP does since they can't attack her on her issues because she speaks for the people and has their best interests in mind and not big banks or the establishment.


She didn't claim to be part Native American until her late 30s. When originally asked she denied knowing anything about it. The evidence all points to her lying.



> The Genealogical Evidence Shows Warren Has No Native American Ancestry
> 
> *Detailed genealogical investigation by a group of Cherokee genealogists showed that Warren had no Cherokee or other Native American ancestry*. The findings are set forth at the blog Thoughts From Polly’s Grandaughter which based the research on over one hundred primary sources, and detailed the findings:
> 
> The team and I have done an exhaustive search on the genealogy of Elizabeth Warren. *We have researched ALL of her ancestral lines, but have only posted those she claimed were Indian here in the blog. None of her direct line ancestors are ever shown to be anything other than white, dating back to long before the Trail of Tears.
> *





birthday_massacre said:


> Like I said you are mocking her because you can't dispute what she said about Trump. Nice ad hominem attack there. You still have not disproven what she said about Trump.


I was mocking the tweet. It's a stupid tweet. You don't have to defend it because she attacked Trump.



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump would be for slavery because he used illegals in the US to build his Tower. He always uses slave labor in China to make his ties, and his modeling agency treated the teens like slaves.


Many US brands are using what we'd consider slave labour. Trump hiring illegals doesn't mean he wants slavery back in the US.


birthday_massacre said:


> What did she say that was objectively true? About him keeping his fathers empire afloat by declaring bankruptcy OBJECTIVE FACT
> That he would have more money today if he just kept all of it in the stock market FACT


The bankruptcy one is the only fact. I'm seeing different answers on the net for the stock market. You get different answers depending which date you use. She seems to know this because she said might.


birthday_massacre said:


> That he shows how insecure he is by his bullying, attacks on women , racism, etc FACT
> 
> Calling him a racist and a bully are facts. You can even dispute that.


This is an opinion. How do you know he's insecure? He seems really confident to me. Attacks on women? Is it that bad now that you can't say anything to a woman? That it'll be turned into an attack on ALL women? Lol at bullying. What racism?


birthday_massacre said:


> I also love how Trumps fans love when he does what Warren did to him but when he gets a taste of his own medicine but using facts about him and not BS, you get mad.


Not mad at all. I've got the flu but I'm feeling good. :sk


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Election*

Trump being for slavery. :banderas birthday_massacre trollin' hard.


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Milo was on the Rubin report and he talked about Trump. It's must watch! :grin2:


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

National Enquirer (some of you may wish to stop reading there) running with this Ted Cruz sex scandal story, alleging that he cheated on his wife with 5 known women, including Fox News consultant and Trump campaign spokesperson Katrina Pierson: 










Kinda don't wanna believe it because Katrina is bae. 

A reporter for the Washington Times claims at least part of the story is legitimate:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/713222276875812865
There's also the argument that the Enquirer wouldn't run this story right as Gawker is being annihilated by Hulk Hogan if they weren't 100%. Who knows. 


ANYWAY: In other news, Democratic presidential candidate Jim Webb, best known as the guy as the first Democrat debate who sounded like he should've been at the GOP debate instead, has said he would not vote for Hillary Clinton but is considering voting for Trump. 

http://prntly.com/blog/breaking-democrat-icon-jim-webb-endorses-donald-trump-over-hillary/


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



The Dazzler said:


> Milo was on the Rubin report and he talked about Trump. It's must watch! :grin2:


I watched this earlier today, phenomenal interview! Milo is a treasured voice in the fight against SJWs and the regressive left.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Roger Stone was telling Alex Jones a several weeks ago about this Ted Cruz "sex scandal" so I knew it was on its way to being discovered soon.
@The Dazzler I will have to watch the Milo Yiannopoulos videos soon, perhaps tomorrow. I just finally caught up with all of the videos @CamillePunk had recommended for me. :lol They were all worth it, however! :mark:

:dancingpenguin :dancingpenguin :dancingpenguin

Wonder what Glenn Beck will say about this Cruz scandal. :aryha


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Glenn Beck is legitimately crazy. 






You know, when you consider the sex scandal, this becomes even harder to watch than it already was.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

That video is truly terrifying, @CamillePunk. :woah

Glenn Beck's mad. 

People who tie their religion into their politics like that are never to be *trusted*. :side:


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@CamillePunk @The Dazzler

Here is where Roger Stone most recently spoke of this incoming scandal for Ted Cruz on Alex Jones's show:


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

HOLY SHIT THIS IS THE #1 TWITTER TREND ON TWITTER IN THE US!

When Trump sees this, this is gonna go NUCLEAR!!!


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump will have fun with this.. tho Cruz bangs some women and people will be outraged, Hilary has death squads and people are calling her a great leader.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



The Dazzler said:


> She didn't claim to be part Native American until her late 30s. When originally asked she denied knowing anything about it. The evidence all points to her lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was mocking the tweet. It's a stupid tweet. You don't have to defend it because she attacked Trump.
> 
> 
> Many US brands are using what we'd consider slave labour. Trump hiring illegals doesn't mean he wants slavery back in the US.
> 
> The bankruptcy one is the only fact. I'm seeing different answers on the net for the stock market. You get different answers depending which date you use. She seems to know this because she said might.
> 
> This is an opinion. How do you know he's insecure? He seems really confident to me. Attacks on women? Is it that bad now that you can't say anything to a woman? That it'll be turned into an attack on ALL women? Lol at bullying. What racism?
> 
> Not mad at all. I've got the flu but I'm feeling good. :sk


It was not a stupid tweet, since it was all true. If you want to see stupid tweets then you should see the bullshit that Trump and Cruz are doing, those are stupid tweets.

It is a fact that Trump is super insecure . Just look at how he had to comment about his dick because Rubio joked since Trump has small hands that implies he has a small dick, and of course Trump had to comment oh everything is fine down there, that I can assure you. Not to mention when a writer for spy magazine commented how Trump had small fingers for 25 YEARS Trump has been sending him picture of his hands circled saying, SEE they look pretty big here. That is the very definition of insecure. 

Yes it is bad when you attack a women about her period or calling women a fat slop or other bullshit like that. Trump was scared of Meghan Kelly because he stood up to her , that is why he ditched one of the debates she was going to at. Trump is a huge bully he told people at his rallies to punch people in the face and he would pay for their bills. He also said he would love to punch someone in the face at his rally. How is that not a bully exactly. The stuff he said about mexicans was super racist, he didn't condemn the KKK that were campaigning for him until he got asked a number of times, after he got their votes of course. He approved that black lives matter person who was beat up by one of his supporters claiming they deserved it. The whole Obama thing not being an american was all about racism because Obama was the first black president. Most of Trumps camping is on bigotry. You have to go out of your way to ignore all the bigotry Trumo has done. Hell just use Trump racist and you can see all the examples pop uo.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump being for slavery. :banderas birthday_massacre trollin' hard.


That was just hyperbole mixed with sarcasm since Trump is such a racist, he probably would be for slavery if it was still legal.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Election*

I like how BM says everything is a fact so no one can rebut it. I had a professor who used to do the same thing.


----------



## Empress

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I'm not a fan of Trump's politics, but I have to give him credit for just getting all of his opponents out of the way. He doesn't pretend to play fair. He's in this to win, rules be damned. Something about Ted Cruz has always rubbed me the wrong way. I don't agree with the attacks against Heidi. Wives and families should be left out of it, but Cruz made himself open for attacks by making himself out to be the family values candidate. He's such a phony. A lot of people dismiss the National Enquirer but they have been right about a lot of things.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Goku said:


> I like how BM says everything is a fact so no one can rebut it. I had a professor who used to do the same thing.


No one does rebut it.

Go ahead and try. They just do what you do and attack me personally because you know you can't refute what I am saying because they are FACTS.

Instead of saying what you just did, try to refute what I said about Trump. 

Did he not have failed business? Does he not disrespect women? Did he not use illegals to build one of his buildings? Does he not use his ties in China? Does he not have many failed business ? Did he not say that most people coming from Mexico are rapist or criminals? Has Trump not been sending a writer pics of his hands for 25 years?

Those things are all facts.

saying Trump being a bully is just opinion is like saying someone from the KKK isn't a racist.

No, its a fact.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Election*

Has he really been sending someone pics of his hands for 25 years?

The efforts he goes to keep up his character are impressive.



TRUMP said:


> I am right so often it's amazing.


He also has the best words.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



MrMister said:


> Has he really been sending someone pics of his hands for 25 years?
> 
> The efforts he goes to keep up his character are impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> He also has the best words.


Yes he has. http://www.people.com/article/donald-trump-fingers-small-vanity-fair-hands


"Carter wrote that Trump sends "the occasional envelope" of torn-out magazine pages, "On all of them he has circled his hand in gold Sharpie in a valiant effort to highlight the length of his fingers." "

if that is not proof of Trump being insecure (along with Trump talking about his dick in a debate) I don't know what is

the funniest part is he does it in GOLD SHARPIE


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

The funny thing about the "attacks against Heidi" that the media keep talking about is that there have been no attacks against Heidi. A Cruz super PAC put out a photo of Trump's wife with some caption asking if America really wants a beautiful model as their first lady (I don't even UNDERSTAND this strategy), and Trump basically said Cruz and his people better watch out or he'll spill the beans about Heidi. That's all he said. That's not an attack. The media assumed what Trump was talking about, and have since blatantly lied and said Trump is "attacking Heidi". He hasn't, at all. Trump is a counter-attacker, who only follows his opponents' lead but goes harder and further when he counters - and he wins every time. This idea that Trump just attacks people out of nowhere is so wrong and biased, and he hasn't even attacked Heidi at all. It's all just more media lies about Trump. They really don't want a people's choice non-politician with no special interest strings in power. The corporate media loves the status quo.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Election*

I knew TRUMP allegedly did this but didn't know he'd been doing this for over two decades.



> "Like the other packages, this one included a circled hand and the words, *also written in gold Sharpie: 'See, not so short!'* I sent the picture back by return mail with a note attached, saying, 'Actually, quite short.' "


:lmao


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*










Source: http://archive.is/VDOYG

Zoinks! :surprise:


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Election*

Trump knows how to live. Amazing business, amazing family, amazing and hilarious public persona, makes enemies of all these disgusting people like politicians, the corporate media, and the regressive left. He's living the dream. :mj2 I just hope he STAYS SAFE, DONALD. The sheer bravery to be putting himself in the crosshairs of all of these dangerous people just to help try and save this country from the brink of collapse is staggering, inspiring, tear-inducing. :mj2 

GOD BLESS YOU DONALD TRUMP :mj2


----------



## Overcomer

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Empress said:


> I'm not a fan of Trump's politics, but I have to give him credit for just getting all of his opponents out of the way. He doesn't pretend to play fair. He's in this to win, rules be damned. Something about Ted Cruz has always rubbed me the wrong way. I don't agree with the attacks against Heidi. Wives and families should be left out of it, but Cruz made himself open for attacks by making himself out to be the family values candidate. He's such a phony. A lot of people dismiss the National Enquirer but they have been right about a lot of things.


I've always been against Ted Cruz after that email incident involving Dr. Ben Carson. I also remember @ that debate when Carson missed his cue lyin' Ted walked past him with that stupid smug look on his face. He sure seemed like he was enjoying himself. The only one who remotely cared was Trump who missed his cue and stood by Carson so they could walk out together. Trump catches a lot of hell from the media over the things he says- I don't think he is as bad as the media wants to portray him but also admit he doesn't' have the best choice of words at times. At the very least you know what you are getting with him and he is forthright unlike lyin snake in the grass Ted Cruz who you know speaks 99% bullshit. He will not tell you what he really means, but only what is convenient at the time. Out of all the candidates that have been running he is easily the one that looks and seems the most unlikeable and untrustworthy. It's written all over that stupid face.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*

I love how @MrMister posted that purely to rile him up and BM took the bait :lmao


----------



## Empress

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Overcomer said:


> I've always been against Ted Cruz after that email incident involving Dr. Ben Carson. I also remember @ that debate when Carson missed his cue lyin' Ted walked past him with that stupid smug look on his face. He sure seemed like he was enjoying himself. The only one who remotely cared was Trump who missed his cue and stood by Carson so they could walk out together. Trump catches a lot of hell from the media over the things he says- I don't think he is as bad as the media wants to portray him but also admit he doesn't' have the best choice of words at times. At the very least you know what you are getting with him and he is forthright unlike lyin snake in the grass Ted Cruz who you know speaks 99% bullshit. He will not tell you what he really means, but only what is convenient at the time. Out of all the candidates that have been running he is easily the one that looks and seems the most unlikeable and untrustworthy. It's written all over that stupid face.


Ted Cruz strikes me as very sinister. There's something off about him. I've always felt that way. No one in the Senate even wants to endorse him. I wouldn't be surprised if the National Enquirer has a sex tape or something. 

I believe he did try to sabotage Ben Carson and did coordinate with the Super Pacs to attack Melania. I hope the wives and children will be left out of this increasingly ugly election cycle. At this point, it seems like nothing is off limits though.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Yes, Ted Cruz is, truly, a "nasty" individual, to use Donald Trump's word. 
@AryaDark @Beatles123 @CamillePunk @The Dazzler @Empress @Goku @GothicBohemian @Miss Sally @scrilla @THE SHIV

Full article here: http://abcnews.com.co/donald-trump-protester-speaks-out-i-was-paid-to-protest/



> Donald Trump Protester Speaks Out: “I Was Paid $3,500 To Protest Trump’s Rally”
> 
> By abcnews -
> 
> March 25, 2016
> 
> Fountain Hills, AZ — For weeks, rumors have circulated the web that individuals were being paid to protest at rallies held by Presidential hopeful, Donald Trump. Today a man from Trump’s rally on Saturday in Fountain Hills, Arizona has come forward to say that he was paid to protest the event.
> 
> “I was given $3,500 to protest Donald Trump’s rally in Fountain Hills,” said 37-year-old Paul Horner. “I answered a Craigslist ad a little over a week ago about a group needing actors for a political event. I interviewed with them and got the part.”
> 
> Trump supporters have been claiming for weeks that the protesters are being paid for by Bernie Sanders’ campaign, but Horner disagrees.
> 
> “As for who these people were affiliated with that interviewed me, my guess would be Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” Horner said. “The actual check I received after I was done with the job was from a group called ‘Women Are The Future’. After I was hired, they told me if anyone asked any questions about who I was with or communicated with me in any way, I should start talking about how great Bernie Sanders is.” Horner continued, “It was mostly women in their 60’s at the interview that I went to. Plus, all the people that I communicated with had an AOL email address. No one still has an AOL email address except people that would vote for Hillary Clinton.”


:lmao

Of course, as with the Ted Cruz sex scandal, Roger Stone was the first to note that Hillary Clinton's campaign was the true source of these well-organized Trump protesters, so I knew corroborative evidence would be on its way. :lol

As the end of the article states,


> ABC News reached out to Hillary Clinton’s campaign for comment but did not receive a response.


----------



## Empress

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@DesolationRow

I'm reading that the admission in question was a hoax. I'm going to look for more independent corroboration either way. Ultimately, I do believe there are pockets of people who are may be being paid to disrupt but the overwhelming dissent is done for free. 

Here is Cruz speaking out against the National Enquirer story about him and demanding that Heidi be left alone. I've never seen Cruz so....gotten to. I respect any man that stands up for his wife. But I also suspect that Cruz is upset because Donald Trump is beating him at his own game. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/713482589936492544

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/713121675651317760


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Interesting, @Empress, interesting. 

:lmao at Ted Cruz.

The day before Brussels Donald Trump brought up the point that I did in a high school essay: that the U.S. should withdraw from the outdated NATO alliance, and leave Europe's defense to Europe. Within hours of the attack in Brussels, before the rubble had been cleared, Cruz effectively blamed Trump for Brussels, saying that Trump was looking to somehow "surrender to ISIS and Putin." What Putin has to do with Brussels is anyone's guess.

NATO's Article V guarantee that an attack on one member nation is an attack on all member nations puts the U.S. on a potential collision course with Russia over regional conflicts that have no vital American interests attached to them. Trump should ask Cruz and those who support his position, how many Americans does he figure are willing to risk nuclear strikes on New York City or Chicago for the sake of defending Riga or Tallinn? 

Cruz is ceaselessly opportunistic. He has exhibited some of the most shameless behavior of the entire presidential race thus far.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Cruz is the male version of Hilary, guy attacks everyone whenever he can but tries to play the victim at all costs.


----------



## Empress

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> Interesting, @Empress, interesting.
> 
> :lmao at Ted Cruz.
> 
> The day before Brussels Donald Trump brought up the point that I did in a high school essay: that the U.S. should withdraw from the outdated NATO alliance, and leave Europe's defense to Europe. Within hours of the attack in Brussels, before the rubble had been cleared, Cruz effectively blamed Trump for Brussels, saying that Trump was looking to somehow "surrender to ISIS and Putin." What Putin has to do with Brussels is anyone's guess.
> 
> NATO's Article V guarantee that an attack on one member nation is an attack on all member nations puts the U.S. on a potential collision course with Russia over regional conflicts that have no vital American interests attached to them. Trump should ask Cruz and those who support his position, how many Americans does he figure are willing to risk nuclear strikes on New York City or Chicago for the sake of defending Riga or Tallinn?
> 
> *Cruz is ceaselessly opportunistic. He has exhibited some of the most shameless behavior of the entire presidential race thus far.*


He really is. Now, I do feel bad for Heidi, but I'm slightly amused by how much Donald Trump has outsmarted him and gets under his skin. Cruz thought Trump would bury himself. Granted, most thought that but Cruz believed he could claim the Trump support for himself. At least Donald is himself, love or hate him. Ted is such a phony and kind of creepy. 

I have no shame in admitting that I'm picking up the new issue of the National Enquirer. :grin2:


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

I wouldn't feel bad for Heidi @Empress. Since she's married to TrusTED, it's likely she's just as slimy as he is. It's possible she's slimier.


----------



## Empress

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@DesolationRow

The story about the protester alleging to have been paid is apparently false after all. Corey Lewandowski, Donald Trump's campaign manager, deleted his tweet that made reference to it.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



> Sarah Bradley, a spokeswoman for Sock It Forward, a group that provides the homeless and those less fortunate with brand new socks told ABC News that she does not understand why Trump protesters would need to be paid.
> 
> “I’ll protest that guy for free,” Bradley said. “Trump is creating a place for like-minded, hate-filled, individuals to gather. You wouldn’t have to pay me anything to protest that.” Bradley continued, *“Trump supporters are the last kind of people to donate socks to the homeless, they only care about themselves and their white race.”*


I found it disturbing in this article that this woman just assumes because of my skin color and who I might support that this makes me incapable of charity. I wonder if anyone called her out for saying this? :hmm:


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Deadpool said:


> I found it disturbing in this article that this woman just assumes because of my skin color and who I might support that this makes me incapable of charity. I wonder if anyone called her out for saying this? :hmm:


Ironically if someone were to say that they don't support BLM because it's only about blacks caring about themselves people would go ape shit! Regardless of how you feel about Trump or his supporters, there are many people of different races within his supporters. It's like they don't want to even recognize this, they want to pretend all Trump supporters are White and any non-whites are denied their race. Which these people seem to stand against.. unless it's a non-white supporting something they don't like.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

At this point, the GOP has exposed itself as even more of a fraud throwing their support for Cruz over Trump. Both are equally divisive and repulsive. The only reason they are putting their support on Cruz is because Trump is more of a moderate and could threaten the degree of conservatism in the party. It is just the same on the democratic front where some prefer Sanders over Hilary because he is more leftist in ideology.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Yes indeed, @Empress. I just discovered that the story was false, and the website is even fake. :lol 

Apologies to @AryaDark @Beatles123 @CamillePunk @The Dazzler @Empress @Goku @GothicBohemian @Miss Sally @scrilla @THE SHIV as well as *MrMr*...

Admit it, though, the story was still worth reading because of that funny AOL line. :lol

As for Cruz, his actions have merited such a comeuppance! :mark: :lol It's too bad, too, because I sense that he's a fairly smart man but unfortunately the political game tends to attract "evil geniuses." Haha!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

You know a point we're all missing here?

This whole thing started when an anti-Trump, pro-Cruz PAC berated Trump's wife.

Now, Ted is saying he had nothing to do with it, but consider this:

Donald Trump doesn't endorse Super PACS. Even ones that work for him. He has stated he wants nothing, positive or negative, to do with them. It makes one wonder why, then, if Cruz doesn't at least endorse slandering Melania, has he not disavowed the actions of the PAC in doing so? 

@DesolationRow correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't this similar to what Bush did against Kerry in '04? I can barely remember, but my father tells me there were a number of veterans that worked independently alongside Bush to discredit Kerry's service in 'Nam. They essentially enabled him to attack Kerry without Bush himself ever actually saying anything.

I suspect Lyin' Ted loved everything about that Ad in much the same way. He EMBRACES any help he can get. Look at Lindsey Graham and Jeb Bush endorsing him. You'd think for a candidate running on being "Anti-establishment", those two would be the ones you'd LEAST want to associate with.

His true colors are showing more and more ever since Iowa and Trump knows it. All he has to do is let Ted get more and more desperate to catch him and let him dig his own grave. He's already branded him "Lyin' Ted". Now all he has to do is sit back and watch Ted live up to it and we're seeing it before our eyes.

It's really quite brilliant on Trumps part.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> You know a point we're all missing here?
> 
> This whole thing started when an anti-Trump, pro-Cruz PAC berated Trump's wife.
> 
> Now, Ted is saying he had nothing to do with it, but consider this:
> 
> Donald Trump doesn't endorse Super PACS. Even ones that work for him. He has stated he wants nothing, positive or negative, to do with them. It makes one wonder why, then, if Cruz doesn't at least endorse slandering Melania, has he not disavows the actions of the PAC in doing so?
> @DesolationRow correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't this similar to what Bush did against Kerry in '04? I can barely remember, but my father tells me there were a number of veterans that worked independently alongside Bush to discredit Kerry's service in 'Nam. They essentially enabled him to attack Kerry without Bush himself actually saying anything.
> 
> I suspect Lyin' Ted loved everything about that Ad in much the same way. He EMBRACES any help he can get. Look at Lindsey Graham and Jeb Bush endorsing him. You'd think for a candidate running on being "Anti-establishment", those two would be the ones you'd LEAST want to associate with.
> 
> His true colors are showing more and more ever since Iowa and Trump knows it. All he has to do is let Ted get more and more desperate to catch him and let him dig his own grave. He's already branded him "Lyin' Ted". Now all he has to do is sit back and watch Ted live up to it and we're seeing it before our eyes.
> 
> It's really quite brilliant on Trumps part.


Yes, this is true. :agree:


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Also, I just picked up that _National Enquirer_ at a local "Safeway" grocery store, @Empress. :lol


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

All things considered, it is just hilarious that Trump is using the GOP standard operating procedure over the years against them.

Tell a lie, shout louder but never admit wrong when pointed out on mistake, double down on the agenda of telling the lie. Profit.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



FriedTofu said:


> All things considered, it is just hilarious that Trump is using the GOP standard operating procedure over the years against them.
> 
> Tell a lie, shout louder but never admit wrong when pointed out on mistake, double down on the agenda of telling the lie. Profit.


Oh don't act like Hildawg hasn't done that her entire career.


----------



## Empress

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



DesolationRow said:


> Also, I just picked up that _National Enquirer_ at a local "Safeway" grocery store, @Empress. :lol


I'm hoping Target will have it tomorrow. If not, I'll have to find one of those grocery stores too. I read that the National Enquirer may do a drip, drip, drip expose on Cruz. :lol :lmao

Cruz just seems too smart for his own good. Sometimes, our greatest strength can be a weakness. I agree that Donald Trump just has to sit back and let him destroy himself. 

I read the mainstream media wasn't going to touch this story and then this CNN interview happened. It's taken on a life of its own.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Beatles123 said:


> Oh don't act like Hildawg hasn't done that her entire career.


Why bring her into this? Just saying Drumpf and the Republicans are made for each other.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> I love how @MrMister posted that purely to rile him up and BM took the bait :lmao


You mean I gave EVIDENCE that Trump has been doing it for 25 years because MR MR asked if that was really true, and I showed him it was true that is taking the bait ?

I know you hate facts and people giving evidence but was Jeb says, C MON GIVE ME A BREAk


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@Empress if you're going to Target can you get me some Captain Crunch? 

@tofu So does that mean Hilary and the Democrats are made for each other? So you're saying both parties have fundamental flaws when super rich Republicans are openly supporting a Democratic candidate with such a shady past?


----------



## World's Best

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Everyone running in the presidential race seem to be complete assholes. I can't imagine voting for anyone on either side. I usually hate politics but from what I've heard,I'm disgusted with the comments each candidate has made. They're all shady. I didn't think it could get much worse, but it seems like it will.........the future for me AND my kids is gonna be grim.


----------



## AttitudeEraFan

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

*Muslim groups are organizing registration drives to mobilize voters against Donald Trump*
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/25/11303878/muslims-donald-trump


This is how it starts. When they increase in numbers and can swing votes politicians will start appeasing to them by creating special laws for them. My relatives in India tell me this is what happened in India 50 years back when they were less than 10% of the total population. Today they are more than 15% of India's population and politicians have created laws which allow polygamy and triple talaq just to appease them


----------



## TheResurrection

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

"Donald Trump may be a rat but I have no desire to copulate with him"

What the fuck?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> @tofu So does that mean Hilary and the Democrats are made for each other? So you're saying both parties have fundamental flaws when super rich Republicans are openly supporting a Democratic candidate with such a shady past?


If you think democrats behave the same way as the GOP then sure. Just saying that is what many outside of the conservative bubble's impression of the GOP and their campaigning strategy since 2008. Just watch that Comedy Central bit and notice that what Trump is doing isn't new. It is what the GOP has been doing since Obama was elected. Only now, Trump is using the same methods against them and they are scrambling to stop it.

Democrats are no saints either, seeing as how they threatened to do the same to Bush in the past as well. But they either didn't have the balls to do it, or they actually thought of the greater good of not shutting down the government over petty ideological disagreements. It is up to you to believe which one led to the GOP being more drastic in their measures than the democrats.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

@Empress, :lmao That is great. Ted Cruz is truly quite the reptilian creature. I'm sure he will, as you say, destroy himself.
@FriedTofu, if only the government could be truly shut down! :mark: 

Of course I know that practically speaking the regime on the Potomac will not stop destroying the value of our currency while bankrupting us.  

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Great Britain's status as a true world power concluded with the Suez Crisis in 1956 because it became clear to the entire world that the British could not act on international stage without the approval of the United States, when Dwight Eisenhower stood up to the British. The U.S. had the power to cripple the British economy without firing a single shot. 

Thanks to Bush, Republicans, Obama, Democrats, the Federal Reserve of Greenspan, Bernanke and Yellen, the U.S. is quickly approaching such a point. 

Not long ago the Chinese humiliated the U.S. government by bringing in several European partners to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, something the U.S. government had strongly denounced. Even with the robust support of numerous European regimes, the AIIB capitalized a mere fifty billion dollars, representing modest competition. As other regimes see signs of the weakening standing of the U.S. thanks to the gradual loss of U.S. singularity holding the dollar as the reserve currency of the earth perpetrated by the U.S. government and Federal Reserve, many new institutions can arise and the rules of the international game can, and most likely will, change with considerable alacrity. Dramatic reversals of fortune tend to occur with violent suddenness, like in the cases of the British in 1956 and the Soviets in 1989. Most of the world, irritated at the U.S.'s longstanding arrogance, is eagerly waiting for the chance to mimic Eisenhower's Suez strategy against the Americans. 

Shutting down the government? Sounds like a great idea to preserve what's left of the U.S.'s standing in the world to me!


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



AttitudeEraFan said:


> *Muslim groups are organizing registration drives to mobilize voters against Donald Trump*
> http://www.vox.com/2016/3/25/11303878/muslims-donald-trump
> 
> 
> This is how it starts. When they increase in numbers and can swing votes politicians will start appeasing to them by creating special laws for them. My relatives in India tell me this is what happened in India 50 years back when they were less than 10% of the total population. Today they are more than 15% of India's population and politicians have created laws which allow polygamy and triple talaq just to appease them


I heard in Britain Muslims can have multiple wives and those wives also claim benefits and money. I'm unsure on it all but if that's the case that's a massive loop hole within the welfare system.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

My neck hairs were tingling. Did somebody mention shutting down the government? :trump 

Syrian refugee thought to be involved in the Paris and Belgian attacks. 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/europe/mysterious-syrian-terror-attacks/index.html



> A second source briefed by German investigators tells CNN that Hamed's photograph was shown to refugees at the center, and a number of people recognized him. CNN has been unable to establish when his photograph was circulated at the center.
> The same source says a police document has Hamed listed in a European database known as the Schengen Information System as using a black Audi A3. The system allows national authorities in the European Union to enter and check alerts on certain categories of wanted or missing persons. The source says the entry is from March 10, 12 days before the Brussels attacks.
> Choukri's fingerprints, according to the Belgian prosecutor, were found at a safe house used by the Paris attackers in the town of Auvelais. Significantly, police found a false Syrian passport bearing the name of Monir Ahmed Alaaj and a false identity card in the name of Amin Choukri when they raided a house in the Forest district of Brussels, a week before the Belgian attacks.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Trump spokesperson Katrina Pierson absolutely destroyed Heidi Cruz, and by proxy, Ted Cruz. Nothing "below the belt" about this quick, concise dismantlement of Heidi and her fraudulent husband. 






These are not "attacks" by the way. These are FACTUAL statements about Heidi's professional career, which raise serious alarms about the sincerity of Ted Cruz, and the special interest strings which are clearly attached to his back. Heidi and Ted were both Bush operatives by the way. Ted isn't an anti-establishment guy, he's not an "outsider", he's just not well-liked because of his horrid personality. He's as much tangled up with this actual nest of vipers as any of them. Trump is the *only* outsider in this election cycle.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> You mean I gave EVIDENCE that Trump has been doing it for 25 years because MR MR asked if that was really true, and I showed him it was true that is taking the bait ?
> 
> I know you hate facts and people giving evidence but was Jeb says, C MON GIVE ME A BREAk


The fact you couldn't see the clear sarcasm in his post and had to post your "Evidence" instead of leaving it alone is what I'm talking about...He even said "He also has the best words." to see what he could coax out of you and it worked.

He played you like a damn fiddle, boy!


----------



## AttitudeEraFan

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Miss Sally said:


> I heard in Britain Muslims can have multiple wives and those wives also claim benefits and money. I'm unsure on it all but if that's the case that's a massive loop hole within the welfare system.


http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/25/britain-rewards-extra-benefits-to-polygamous-immigrants/


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Cruz lost Louisiana, but he's taking more delegates and committee slots to Cleveland, which helps greatly if a brokered convention is possible. Pretty brilliant. This is right out of the 2012 Ron Paul playbook where Paul supporters pushed many of Mitt Romney's delegates out of convention roles in various states and vociferously attempted to commandeer the convention.

Hopefully, there was no violence in Louisiana this time around.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ted-cru...re-to-donald-trump-1458861959?mod=rss_US_News


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

This is THE best Trump video I've EVER seen. Go on a journey that began all the way back in 1980! 






Edit: mind the piano music and click the annotation if it bothers you.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



AttitudeEraFan said:


> http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/25/britain-rewards-extra-benefits-to-polygamous-immigrants/


That's just sad, rewarding something illegal. Having 4 wives, 10+ kids, all on welfare, disgusting.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Beatles123 said:


> The fact you couldn't see the clear sarcasm in his post and had to post your "Evidence" instead of leaving it alone is what I'm talking about...He even said "He also has the best words." to see what he could coax out of you and it worked.
> 
> He played you like a damn fiddle, boy!


It was not sarcasm because he admitted he didn't know he has been doing it for 25 years just that he allegedly did this.

And I didn't even say anything about Trump uses the best words comment.

But once again you just hate to ignore facts and evidence but that is what Trump supports do, so I am not surprised at all.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Interesting column Wayne Allyn Root put out a few weeks ago, he stated that Ted Cruz should make a phone call to Trump. He said they should put aside their differences and have Cruz be Trump's running mate. That would make a great team, both hate the establishment and would be almost a shoo-in to top Hillary in November. Apparently, that won't happen now with Wifegate. To be honest, though, I wouldn't kick either Melania or Heidi out of bed for eating crackers. :grin2: 

I'm becoming more and more disillusioned and disgusted with the so-called conservatives that have hijacked this thing. Liz Mair, the person behind the Make America Awesome super-PAC, was on Governor Scott Walker's campaign until she was fired. Notice that this comes out shortly after Trump starts meeting with top conservatives and spoke to AIPAC. They clearly want Trump to be on his own with no assistance from the Republican Party in any form. After all, Christie is the only candidate that has endorsed Trump after dropping out, and Christie is just about irrelevant anyway. You have the chance to win the presidency, it's right in your hands, and you're pissing it away by pitting the two guys who have the best shot against each other. 

At the end of the day, does it matter that Melania Trump once upon a time posed nude for GQ magazine? I would imagine people are voting for him, not her.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Election*

I like how you can call people whatever you want and it automatically becomes fact without any evidence or facts to back up said claim. You can be as hypocritical, slimy and underhanded as you like as long as you're doing it for "The greater good". It's nice to see Democrats get all worked up and sling mud at Republicans but love to roll in the shit as much as anyone else while pretending their party actually stands for anything other than the special interest groups pulling the strings.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

I hope the OP doesn't mind that I changed the thread title (if you do have an issue, feel free to let me know and I'll change it back). I'd like this to be the official 2016 US Elections thread. So, for future reference, every general discussion about the US elections for 2016 should go in this thread.


----------



## Overcomer

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



TheResurrection said:


> "Donald Trump may be a rat but I have no desire to copulate with him"
> 
> What the fuck?


lolllll he's such a weirdo. Still, the best video was the one from the day before when he was putting on a tough guy front pointing into the camera and calling him coward.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

The path to victory for Hillary Clinton looks pretty clear on the Democratic side.

At this point, I'd be surprised if Donald Trump didn't get the nomination on the Republican side, but it's going to be a fight for every last delegate. If Trump can't grab enough, Ted Cruz might sneak in with a contested convention. As I explained in the Trump thread, Cruz supporters already pushed aside Trump's people in Louisiana and are heading to the convention just in case there's a round two. Cruz has had the best ground game on the Republican side, so expect more scenarios like that as other states decide on their representatives.

In the general, most Republicans I talk to have essentially resigned from the presidential election and are now just hoping that Trump being at the top of the tickets doesn't cause a calamity for everyone else. The Democrats had a very good chance of overtaking the Senate before Trump took over the election cycle, but no one thought the party could grab the House too. Then, about a week ago, the respectable Cook Political Report shifted ten House races in favor of the Democrats and conservatives immediately ran for their Pepto-Bismol bottles.

Trump fans are welcome to guess his path to victory, but I'm not seeing one with such an insurmountable likability deficit. I mean, the _Deseret News_, one of the most conservative papers in the country, has Trump currently down in Utah to Clinton by a few points. Granted, the poll is within the margin of error, but a Democrat hasn't won reliably-red Utah since the Republicans elected Barry Goldwater, and we all know what happened there.


----------



## Pronoss

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Should have just renamed it "2016 US Erections"

Seems we are arguing who has the best. But they are all dicks

:troll


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Miss Sally said:


> I like how you can call people whatever you want and it automatically becomes fact without any evidence or facts to back up said claim. You can be as hypocritical, slimy and underhanded as you like as long as you're doing it for "The greater good". It's nice to see Democrats get all worked up and sling mud at Republicans but love to roll in the shit as much as anyone else while pretending their party actually stands for anything other than the special interest groups pulling the strings.


But there was evidence shown to back it up as facts. I love how people like you just ignore all that evidence. 

Keep ignoring all the evidence given, just because you ignore it, doesn't mean it has not been given.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



BruiserKC said:


> Interesting column Wayne Allyn Root put out a few weeks ago, he stated that Ted Cruz should make a phone call to Trump. He said they should put aside their differences and have Cruz be Trump's running mate. That would make a great team, both hate the establishment and would be almost a shoo-in to top Hillary in November. Apparently, that won't happen now with Wifegate. To be honest, though, I wouldn't kick either Melania or Heidi out of bed for eating crackers. :grin2:


Bruiser is still an "outsider" Cruz truther. :mj2 To quote The Donald, "Sad!".


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

I'm thinking whatever Trump has planned for Hillary Clinton ought to win him over a lot of Republicans who are now against him.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Fuck Cruz i hope Trump finally bury's the entire GOP. Regardless if Trump beats Hillary or not he has single-handedly destroyed the republican party's leadership which are Neo-Cons.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*






:done


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

pls @BruiserKC see the light.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*

Is Trump becoming a part time European Poet?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> But there was evidence shown to back it up as facts. I love how people like you just ignore all that evidence.
> 
> Keep ignoring all the evidence given, just because you ignore it, doesn't mean it has not been given.


What you call evidence, is only evidence to YOU.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

The #CubanMistressCrisis continues:

http://spectator.org/articles/65888/sex-scandal-who-cares

Heidi "Refuses" to live with Ted?


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

So many people hate Trump, but, he's the most honest President America would ever have. He says some pretty fucking stupid shit, but, at least if he ever made office, people would know exactly what they are getting. I don't agree with everything he says, but, I respect his brutal honesty.


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

The Young Turks put up a vid about Trump appearing in an ISIS promo. It turns into an excuse to bash Trump. Pointing out the problems in Belgium is slapping them in the face apparently. Cenk quotes him as saying 'we're going to go in and kill all the Muslims'. Ana says Trump has been very successfully in helping ISIS recruit people (yeah right, ISIS people are just upset with Trump ).


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Catalanotto said:


> So many people hate Trump, but, he's the most honest President America would ever have. He says some pretty fucking stupid shit, but, at least if he ever made office, people would know exactly what they are getting. I don't agree with everything he says, but, I respect his brutal honesty.


At least since Jimmy Carter who came off as being honest.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

I feel like ISIS would be all on board with the idea of not letting Muslims go to the US and get westernized.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



FITZ said:


> I feel like ISIS would be all on board with the idea of not letting Muslims go to the US and get westernized.


But then CAIR wouldn't get to whine all the time and get money to send to terrorist organizations.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Catalanotto said:


> So many people hate Trump, but, he's the most honest President America would ever have. He says some pretty fucking stupid shit, but, at least if he ever made office, people would know exactly what they are getting. I don't agree with everything he says, but, I respect his brutal honesty.


I certainly like the idea of Trump a lot more than I like him. I mean the idea of him is fantastic. Everyone is tired of the same shit so we elect someone that's not a politician as president. This guy says what he wants and isn't afraid to speak his mind. All of that sounds great. He just occasionally comes out with things that I don't agree with at all and there are times when I wish I could explain things for him. 

Still, I hope that Trump at least changes the way campaigns are run and how politicians conduct themselves. Even if he loses and all we get out of him is the information that people will vote for you without you having to be full of bullshit I think that's a plus.


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

The man says what a lot of people think, no matter how wrong it is, no matter how much people want to pretend they don't even think it.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Catalanotto said:


> The man says what a lot of people think, no matter how wrong it is, no matter how much people want to pretend they don't even think it.


Just because we've been taught for years that what Trump says is wrong, doesn't mean it is.

Liberal conditioning has silently been infecting the US for years. Trump is a welcome attempt to break it.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*










WE'RE DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE NOW, BOYS!


----------



## SpeedStick

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

Damn O'Reilly saying this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KegE285GQuc


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



MrMister said:


> pls @BruiserKC see the light.


I just want the most conservative candidate that can win. The idea of the GOP moving to the center to win is total bullshit, the lamestream media keeps forcing this idea. In reality, the party needs to move to the right and provide the people a clear-cut difference come November. 

I have studied the issues and stances...so far, Trump seems to do and say the right things. However, has he changed his stance and become a conservative from where he was once a bleeding heart liberal? Once upon a time, he was liberal and donated very heavily to liberal causes. As much as Hillary and Bernie both scare the shit out of me, it's not enough to just find someone to beat them. I don't want to compromise my beliefs and just vote for someone just because they have the "R" next to their name. I did that with McCain and Romney...I don't want to make that mistake again.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



BruiserKC said:


> I just want the most conservative candidate that can win. The idea of the GOP moving to the center to win is total bullshit, the lamestream media keeps forcing this idea. In reality, the party needs to move to the right and provide the people a clear-cut difference come November.
> 
> I have studied the issues and stances...so far, Trump seems to do and say the right things. However, has he changed his stance and become a conservative from where he was once a bleeding heart liberal? Once upon a time, he was liberal and donated very heavily to liberal causes. As much as Hillary and Bernie both scare the shit out of me, it's not enough to just find someone to beat them. I don't want to compromise my beliefs and just vote for someone just because they have the "R" next to their name. I did that with McCain and Romney...I don't want to make that mistake again.


The right is finished in America and Trump is the nail in the Neo-cons coffin.

Don't know how you can't see that.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Truthbetold said:


> The right is finished in America and Trump is the nail in the Neo-cons coffin.
> 
> Don't know how you can't see that.


I'm not a neo-con. Neo-cons are not true conservatives, as a true conservative actually believes in the Constitution and doesn't use it for toilet paper. I'd be more of a libertarian/paleoconservative. I believe in limited government, limited involvement in the world (including limited intervention in foreign wars), individual freedoms, and fiscal frugality. The neo-cons represent the worst in conservatives, but in reality many of them are liberals. They have given us wars with no end-games, forfeiture of civil rights, and continue to rack up our country's immense national debt.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



BruiserKC said:


> I'm not a neo-con. Neo-cons are not true conservatives, as a true conservative actually believes in the Constitution and doesn't use it for toilet paper. I'd be more of a libertarian/paleoconservative. I believe in limited government, limited involvement in the world (including limited intervention in foreign wars), individual freedoms, and fiscal frugality. The neo-cons represent the worst in conservatives, but in reality many of them are liberals. They have given us wars with no end-games, forfeiture of civil rights, and continue to rack up our country's immense national debt.


Neo-Cons took the GOP over in 1989 when Bush Sr took office.

I don't see the republican party ever recovering from Bush Sr & Bush Jr.

White people choosing Obama over John Mccain in 2008 proved that.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Truthbetold said:


> Neo-Cons took the GOP over in 1989 when Bush Sr took office.
> 
> I don't see the republican party ever recovering from Bush Sr & Bush Jr.
> 
> White people choosing Obama over John Mccain in 2008 proved that.


The neo-cons really started having influence in the late 60s and early 70s. They got their foot in the door during the Reagan administration, especially with Reagan's aggressive stance towards the Soviet Union. 

I would love to see a party that leans towards social libertarianism and fiscal conservatism...go back to what the Founding Fathers intended with limited government. The government should handle the basics and leave the rest to the states and individual communities. I think we just might see that in years to come, especially if we can push the neo-cons out the door. Many of them were really liberal anyway, pushing big government programs while wanting to be the world's cop. I don't want to be the world's cop, and I sure as hell don't want to nation-build.


----------



## HardKoR

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



BruiserKC said:


> The neo-cons really started having influence in the late 60s and early 70s. They got their foot in the door during the Reagan administration, especially with Reagan's aggressive stance towards the Soviet Union.
> 
> I would love to see a party that leans towards *social libertarianism and fiscal conservatism*...go back to what the Founding Fathers intended with limited government. The government should handle the basics and leave the rest to the states and individual communities. I think we just might see that in years to come, especially if we can push the neo-cons out the door. Many of them were really liberal anyway, pushing big government programs while wanting to be the world's cop. I don't want to be the world's cop, and I sure as hell don't want to nation-build.



I believe in this similarly. I've had discussions with friends and other people and discovered many of them are liberals because of social issues. Also people seem to think there is only two side of the coin when in comes to politics.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

An interesting question to proffer:

Regardless of your ideology, what would be the smart game for the eventual nominee of each party to use as the basis of their campaigns? And, no, I don't mean anything conspiratorial or "gutter" politics. How should the parties sell themselves to America in this election?

For me, I think the Republican side is pretty obvious: immigration. Ever since George W. Bush tried to push immigration reform, Republicans have been pretty uneasy about compromising. Even after 2012, when many conservatives conceded that reform might be a necessity for the party, it was still very difficult to get anything to President Obama's desk. This issue has certainly motivated the base, and the Trump campaign (for argument's sake, let's say he gets the needed delegates) seems to think it can influence enough blue-collar Union workers in Ohio and Pennsylvania with this issue. Will it work? The polls show a difficult climb for Trump in the Rust Belt, but there have been reports that some union circles were uneasy about the support Trump was getting within. Also, the convention is in Ohio, which could help if it doesn't turn into a circus act. It's a populist movement, but could Trump getting enough voters to think security should be the number one issue?

On the Democratic side, I think Hillary Clinton (I'm 99% convinced she'll be the nominee) would be smart to bring up the economic conditions of Kansas and Louisiana, two states under Republican rule that have been decimated by drastic tax cutting (to be fair, Louisiana's ailments also have much to do with the price of oil falling). The middle classes of these states basically pay all the state taxes now, which simply hasn't been enough, especially considering that both states are rather poor. The amount of issues that have occurred, thanks to the influence of the Laffer Curve, has been tremendous. Why bring these states up in the general? Trump's massive tax cut (dynamic scoring says it will cost $10 trillion, but projections without it are thinking it could be possibly be around $16 trillion) would be pretty similar to the plans we saw in Kansas and Louisiana but on a much grander scale. Many Republican politicians disagree with Trump on many issues, but his tax cut would be something they would gladly jump on. After all, they implanted dynamic scoring into budget projections just last year. Wouldn't it be smart for Clinton to ask Republicans to rethink taxes a bit, especially considering that pretty-red Louisiana just overwhelmingly voted for a Democratic governor?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

Being world police and getting involved with others has cost the US big time. I don't think we need to become isolationists but we need to let the world handle their own shit and we focus on getting back to basics.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Election*



birthday_massacre said:


> But there was evidence shown to back it up as facts. I love how people like you just ignore all that evidence.
> 
> Keep ignoring all the evidence given, just because you ignore it, doesn't mean it has not been given.


What evidence? You mean your blanket statements about political parties you don't like? Or people you don't like? I've yet to see any evidence from you that wasn't your opinion or just conjecture.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

I'm as libertarian as it gets but the public have made it clear that they won't support even libertarian lite candidates. They get smeared from the left by Marxist propaganda, from the right by hysteria about "isolationism" and giving terrorists free rein.

The whole political structure needs a bullet to the head. Luckily, we've got one. :trump


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*










Y'KNOW WHAT'S BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLSHIT?! :trump


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

@HardKoR many of us believe they're two sides to the same coin, this is why the top GOP are jumping over to Hilary. This would never happen if those GOP actually believed in what they said but honestly the left and right are controlled by rich men. The fact that the left and right met up to discuss trump all happen to be mega rich guys is a sign of this. These men do not have our best interest at heart, look at Tim Cook with Apple, says most Apple employees are white males and something needs to be done about that, yet all the top Apple people are white lol, also he doesn't count the Chinese slave labor building the apple products but he is supposed to be some great guy.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

Why is it surprising that moderate Republicans would prefer Hilary over Trump or Cruz? Doesn't mean they are all controlled by rich men just because of difference in opinions.

Tim Cook can use the same excuse Trump has used about outsourcing to China. Currency manipulation. If it is good enough for Trump, it is good enough for everyone right?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



FriedTofu said:


> Why is it surprising that moderate Republicans would prefer Hilary over Trump or Cruz? Doesn't mean they are all controlled by rich men just because of difference in opinions.
> 
> Tim Cook can use the same excuse Trump has used about outsourcing to China. Currency manipulation. If it is good enough for Trump, it is good enough for everyone right?


They're not moderate. Trump isn't a liberal man who babbles about being PC, Tim Cook is so don't pretend it's the same thing, it's not right in any case but pretending to care is more disgusting.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Miss Sally said:


> They're not moderate. Trump isn't a liberal man who babbles about being PC, Tim Cook is so don't pretend it's the same thing, it's not right in any case but pretending to care is more disgusting.


Many of them are fighting for election in moderate states.

In a similar logic, Trump is a businessman whose family outsources manufacturing overseas who babbles about other American companies relocating factories overseas and pretending to care about the average working American, is even more disgusting.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Election*



Miss Sally said:


> What evidence? You mean your blanket statements about political parties you don't like? Or people you don't like? I've yet to see any evidence from you that wasn't your opinion or just conjecture.


I love how people like you and beatles always ignore all the evidence and facts, it just makes you super ignorant. You two sound like creationist when you ignore all the evidence and facts about evolution
But you are Trump supports, so I would expect nothing less.

AGAIN

Did Trump not declare bankruptcy 4 times? Does he not disrespect women? Did he not use illegals to build one of his buildings? Does he not use his ties in China? Does he not have many failed business ? Did he not say that most people coming from Mexico are rapist or criminals? Has Trump not been sending a writer pics of his hands for 25 years?

Those things are all facts.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Always

Bernie is catching up to the delegate lead by Hillary. Its now 1261-2031 for pledged delegates. I love how the media totally ignored the Sanders landslide victories on Sat. We all know if Hillary would have won that big it would have been a huge story. Bernie has won 6 out of 7 states the last week or so, and the next states also favor him. if he can keep winning big, he is going to over take her. NY and CA are the most important and if he loses either of those, then he is done.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



FriedTofu said:


> Many of them are fighting for election in moderate states.
> 
> In a similar logic, Trump is a businessman whose family outsources manufacturing overseas who babbles about other American companies relocating factories overseas and pretending to care about the average working American, is even more disgusting.


He may deal with them, but he doesn't have to like it. He just knows it's necessary. Not, however, to the extent it's happening to us as a whole.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



CamillePunk said:


> The whole political structure needs a bullet to the head. Luckily, we've got one. :trump


This is by far what I like most about Trump.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Beatles123 said:


> He may deal with them, but he doesn't have to like it. He just knows it's necessary. Not, however, to the extent it's happening to us as a whole.


Let's put it this way, why is it disgusting for one to be a liberal who babble about PC and then uses outsourcing? But one who vilify outsourcing but tries to hide his use of it until called out on isn't?

If pretending to care is disgusting, why is one case more disgusting than the other?


----------



## A-C-P

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

The Trump Train running through Green Bay, WI tomorrow :trump


----------



## Muerte al fascismo

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

Trump's campaign manager getting charged with assault is dumb as hell. I've seen the video. That is not assault. A stupid exercise from idiots, with some fake ass outrage.

You see this way to much in society..


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

Report: Secret Service Says Michelle Fields Touched Trump Before Lewandowski Intervened

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journa...-touched-trump-before-lewandowski-intervened/

Sue her for all she's got!!!!!!!!!


----------



## polar bear

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

I hate th democrats anyone voting for crazy bernie or that criminal lesbian hiliary needs to be admitted to a mental hospital asap


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

In before CNN hails Michelle Fields as a hero for interfering with the security of a presidential candidate.


----------



## amhlilhaus

CamillePunk said:


> In before CNN hails Michelle Fields as a hero for interfering with the security of a presidential candidate.


And left wing bloggers who get paid by democrats lament she didnt kill him, then call conservatives hate mongers the next day


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

Even if he did nothing else, compared to all of the other candidates on both sides, Donald Trump is an American Hero for (a) acknowledging that the Iraq War's propagandists and Dubya administration officials lied the country into war (with the willing aid and comfort of the "mainstream media" and their Democratic Party "counterparts"), (b) bringing up the 28 redacted pages from the 9/11 Commission, and pointing to the overwhelmingly obvious tie between the Bush administration and the Saudi royal family, all to Jeb Bush's most passionately relayed chagrin, (c) changing the terms of the debate about America's "alliance" with Israel, (d) broaching the military-industrial complex's shield against all sensible criticism, noting that the U.S. needs to withdraw from Europe (which is evidently seeking its own self-immolation in these next generations anyway) and South Korea and the economically collapsing Japan, and pointing out the undeniable truth that NATO is an outdated, unnecessary alliance as it is presently constructed and the U.S. should leave Europe's defense to Europe going forward, or at least establish fees for the effort, and (e) saying that the foolish politicians whose actions led to the destruction of Libya and, consequentially, rise of ISIS in said nation, would have been better off going to the beach rather than launching the attack on Gaddafi's regime. 

Is it any wonder that the Hillary wing of the Democratic Party loathes him, or that most of the Republican establishment finds him repugnant? This is without even touching the trade and immigration issues which are demonstrably impacting the U.S.'s middle and working classes to dizzying degrees.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

You do realize most of the things you listed were brought up by the 'liberal bias' 'lamestream' media more than a decade ago? Not the current highly partisan media landscape that emulated FOX news method of bias reporting for their financial success. 

Heck Trump as well as others were on those 'lamestream' media all those years ago saying the same thing, but nobody listened. Not the establishment, not the middle class of America, nobody. Realize that freedom fries was a real thing back then over disagreements with the French over the Iraq invasion.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



DesolationRow said:


> Even if he did nothing else, compared to all of the other candidates on both sides, Donald Trump is an American Hero for (a) acknowledging that the Iraq War's propagandists and Dubya administration officials lied the country into war (with the willing aid and comfort of the "mainstream media" and their Democratic Party "counterparts"), (b) bringing up the 28 redacted pages from the 9/11 Commission, and pointing to the overwhelmingly obvious tie between the Bush administration and the Saudi royal family, all to Jeb Bush's most passionately relayed chagrin, (c) changing the terms of the debate about America's "alliance" with Israel, (d) broaching the military-industrial complex's shield against all sensible criticism, noting that the U.S. needs to withdraw from Europe (which is evidently seeking its own self-immolation in these next generations anyway) and South Korea and the economically collapsing Japan, and pointing out the undeniable truth that NATO is an outdated, unnecessary alliance as it is presently constructed and the U.S. should leave Europe's defense to Europe going forward, or at least establish fees for the effort, and (e) saying that the foolish politicians whose actions led to the destruction of Libya and, consequentially, rise of ISIS in said nation, would have been better off going to the beach rather than launching the attack on Gaddafi's regime.
> 
> Is it any wonder that the Hillary wing of the Democratic Party loathes him, or that most of the Republican establishment finds him repugnant? This is without even touching the trade and immigration issues which are demonstrably impacting the U.S.'s middle and working classes to dizzying degrees.


All this good is being overlooked simply because the MSM labeled him a racist.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Sanders' Pacific victories were huge, no doubt. If he can pull off a surprise win in Wisconsin, he could start swaying superdelegates. Sixty-five percent of the remaining delegates, though, are in California, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland - all states Clinton is currently leading in. It's very much an uphill battle for Sanders.

On the Republican side, Trump might've had his worst day yesterday. His likability numbers with women were already in the toilet before the plane presser, and I could only imagine where they are now. Women are around 53% of the electorate, and the things he's been doing/saying are not smart for a candidate who needs their support. 

Trump also attacked Gov. Scott Walker for not raising taxes, confusing conservatives everywhere. If Trump thinks raising taxes is the answer to Wisconsin's economic woes, why offer a tax plan that does the exact opposite? He has a very difficult time staying on message.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

I always took it with a grain of salt by those saying that Trump could start World War 3, but his recent comments in a prepared environment is making me really uncomfortable. WTF was he thinking saying he is OK with Japan and Korea getting Nuclear weapons? And his statement that he wants the host countries to pay 100% for American troops stationed there is very similar to racketeering. He is either oblivious or pretending that containing China and Russia isn't in American interests when American troops are stationed in Europe and Japan. I don't know which is worse.


----------



## TheResurrection

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



FriedTofu said:


> I always took it with a grain of salt by those saying that Trump could start World War 3, but his recent comments in a prepared environment is making me really uncomfortable. WTF was he thinking saying he is OK with Japan and Korea getting Nuclear weapons? And his statement that he wants the host countries to pay 100% for American troops stationed there is very similar to racketeering. He is either oblivious or pretending that containing China and Russia isn't in American interests when American troops are stationed in Europe and Japan. I don't know which is worse.


Do you realise what the situation is with regard to nuclear weapons? Japan and South Korea don't pay shit towards the US nuclear programme, but they still get a nuclear deterrent. They are freeloading. They should at least make a contribution.

Same applies to the troops. Why should the US pay for Japan and South Korea's defence and not Japan, Europe and South Korea?

You need to understand that Donald Trump is a businessman. He doesn't want South Korea or Japan to get nuclear weapons and he doesn't want US troops to be withdrawn from the area. The likely outcome from this (in the unlikely event he becomes POTUS) is that Japan and South Korea will make contributions to the US defence budget in exchange for the protections they enjoy. This is the opening gambit in a negotiation.


----------



## Genking48

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

They are probably recieving protection since US, by protecting Japan/South Korea keeps North Korea in check and at the same time hinders China in gaining more influence in the area.


TheResurrection said:


> Do you realise what the situation is with regard to nuclear weapons? Japan and *South Korea don't pay shit* towards the US nuclear programme, but they still get a nuclear deterrent. They are freeloading. They should at least make a contribution.
> 
> Same applies to the troops. Why should the US pay for Japan and South Korea's defence and not Japan, Europe and South Korea?
> 
> You need to understand that Donald Trump is a businessman. He doesn't want South Korea or Japan to get nuclear weapons and he doesn't want US troops to be withdrawn from the area. The likely outcome from this (in the unlikely event he becomes POTUS) is that Japan and South Korea will make contributions to the US defence budget in exchange for the protections they enjoy. This is the opening gambit in a negotiation.


But that is clearly a lie, South Korea pays about $694 million to the US for protection.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/130172.pdf

Maybe Trump is of the opinion that they do not pay _enough_ or that they should pay some extra fee for nuclear protection, but saying that they do not pay for the protection they are recieving is an outright lie.


----------



## TheResurrection

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Genking48 said:


> They are probably recieving protection since US, by protecting Japan/South Korea keeps North Korea in check and at the same time hinders China in gaining more influence in the area.
> 
> But that is clearly a lie, South Korea pays about $694 million to the US for protection.
> 
> http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/130172.pdf
> 
> Maybe Trump is of the opinion that they do not pay _enough_ or that they should pay some extra fee for nuclear protection, but saying that they do not pay for the protection they are recieving is an outright lie.


I stand corrected. The principle's the same though.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



TheResurrection said:


> Do you realise what the situation is with regard to nuclear weapons? Japan and South Korea don't pay shit towards the US nuclear programme, but they still get a nuclear deterrent. They are freeloading. They should at least make a contribution.
> 
> Same applies to the troops. Why should the US pay for Japan and South Korea's defence and not Japan, Europe and South Korea?
> 
> You need to understand that Donald Trump is a businessman. He doesn't want South Korea or Japan to get nuclear weapons and he doesn't want US troops to be withdrawn from the area. The likely outcome from this (in the unlikely event he becomes POTUS) is that Japan and South Korea will make contributions to the US defence budget in exchange for the protections they enjoy. This is the opening gambit in a negotiation.


When did I said Japan or Korea paid for the US nuclear programme? They aren't freeloading because they were assured of American nuclear deterrent to not pursue nuclear weapons. Trump's suggestion is to reverse decades of non-proliferation because Japan and Korea aren't paying ALL of the expenses of having troops stationed there. 

Take it from me that live in a former British colony, our history has taught us that overseas troops aren't dependable to protect the host country. They are there to protect their own country's interests. 

You seem to be under the assumption that the host countries aren't paying for American troops in their country, which is wrong. Many of the locals even resent the presence of American troops because their governments are paying for American interests and some of the American soldiers commit crimes. Their own version of you are probably saying "They're bringing drugs,' crime and are 'rapists" about American soldiers stationed there.

Stop being a Trump apologist and downplay this as merely an opening gambit in negotiation because it is irresponsible that could spark a new global arms race if Trump really get elected.


----------



## TheResurrection

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



FriedTofu said:


> When did I said Japan or Korea paid for the US nuclear programme? They aren't freeloading because they were assured of American nuclear deterrent to not pursue nuclear weapons. Trump's suggestion is to reverse decades of non-proliferation because Japan and Korea aren't paying ALL of the expenses of having troops stationed there.
> 
> Take it from me that live in a former British colony, our history has taught us that overseas troops aren't dependable to protect the host country. They are there to protect their own country's interests.
> 
> You seem to be under the assumption that the host countries aren't paying for American troops in their country, which is wrong. Many of the locals even resent the presence of American troops because their governments are paying for American interests and some of the American soldiers commit crimes. Their own version of you are probably saying "They're bringing drugs,' crime and are 'rapists" about American soldiers stationed there.
> 
> Stop being a Trump apologist and downplay this as merely an opening gambit in negotiation because it is irresponsible that could spark a new global arms race if Trump really get elected.


It's well recognised in academic circles that Japan are a free rider. This is true less so of South Korea but it's certainly true with respect to the nuclear arsenal.

I conceded the point about them paying some contribution above. 

If the host country doesn't like it they can kick them out, can't they? The US actually has laws against the people Trump talked about crossing the border, but they do it anyway.

I'm not a Trump apologist, I'm a neutral party who happens to find him amusing. I come from a highly educated university, there I learned that it was best practice to try and read between the lines and look at what politicians actually mean when they speak, assuming good faith where possible, rather than taking it at face value or reading what people who hate them say about it.

If the US goes into the discussion about contributions with the nuclear deterrent off the table they are weaker. If they continue to say that they would hate to see Japan or SK get nuclear weapons because of the arms race it would trigger, then Japan and South Korea have very little interest in actually contributing towards the one that defends them because the US is obligated to protect them.

If the US says "Fuck it, develop your own if you want them that badly, we're not looking after you any more" Japan and SK are likely to ask the US to protect them and be willing to pay more money to do it, because whatever fee they pay will still be much cheaper and popular among their own people than developing their own.

This is all about leverage.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*






BRUH.

:sodone ANDERSON COOPER IS DEAD!!!!!! 

TRUMP, STOP THIS! THE MEDIA HAVE FAMILIES, BAH GAWD!! :bahgawd


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



TheResurrection said:


> It's well recognised in academic circles that Japan are a free rider. This is true less so of South Korea but it's certainly true with respect to the nuclear arsenal.
> 
> I conceded the point about them paying some contribution above.
> 
> If the host country doesn't like it they can kick them out, can't they? The US actually has laws against the people Trump talked about crossing the border, but they do it anyway.
> 
> I'm not a Trump apologist, I'm a neutral party who happens to find him amusing. I come from a highly educated university, there I learned that it was best practice to try and read between the lines and look at what politicians actually mean when they speak, assuming good faith where possible, rather than taking it at face value or reading what people who hate them say about it.
> 
> If the US goes into the discussion about contributions with the nuclear deterrent off the table they are weaker. If they continue to say that they would hate to see Japan or SK get nuclear weapons because of the arms race it would trigger, then Japan and South Korea have very little interest in actually contributing towards the one that defends them because the US is obligated to protect them.
> 
> If the US says "Fuck it, develop your own if you want them that badly, we're not looking after you any more" Japan and SK are likely to ask the US to protect them and be willing to pay more money to do it, because whatever fee they pay will still be much cheaper and popular among their own people than developing their own.
> 
> This is all about leverage.


What leverage is he seeking? Japan and SK are already paying their fair share of having American troops stationed in the region that benefits both parties. American troops aren't stationed there to protect the locals, they are there to protect American interests.

What you are assuming Trump is doing with his statement is racketeering.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Beatles123 said:


> BRUH.
> 
> :sodone ANDERSON COOPER IS DEAD!!!!!!
> 
> TRUMP, STOP THIS! THE MEDIA HAVE FAMILIES, BAH GAWD!! :bahgawd


That was so enjoyable. The look on Anderson Cooper's face when Trump revealed he had Michelle Fields' bogus statement on hand. All control of the narrative lost. Completely exposed as a corporate media shill for the political establishment. 

His name was Anderson Cooper. Rest in peace, sweet prince.

#CantStumpTheTrump :trump


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

:lmao http://usuncut.com/politics/arizona-election-fraud-primary/ :lmao
@Beatles123 @CamillePunk @Deadpool @samizayn

It's the Clinton Restoration, and she is not even president yet! :done


@L-DOPA, my post about the Federal Reserve is still on the backburner... someday soon!  :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



IronMaiden7 said:


> Sanders' Pacific victories were huge, no doubt. If he can pull off a surprise win in Wisconsin, he could start swaying superdelegates. Sixty-five percent of the remaining delegates, though, are in California, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland - all states Clinton is currently leading in. It's very much an uphill battle for Sanders.
> 
> On the Republican side, Trump might've had his worst day yesterday. His likability numbers with women were already in the toilet before the plane presser, and I could only imagine where they are now. Women are around 53% of the electorate, and the things he's been doing/saying are not smart for a candidate who needs their support.
> 
> Trump also attacked Gov. Scott Walker for not raising taxes, confusing conservatives everywhere. If Trump thinks raising taxes is the answer to Wisconsin's economic woes, why offer a tax plan that does the exact opposite? He has a very difficult time staying on message.


 The more people learn about Sanders the more that vote for him, that is why Hillary does not want any more debates because she knows she just loses them and will lose votes because of them. Bernie needs to just do a bunch of town halls without her.

As for Trump he is always talking out of his ass, he has no clue what he is talking about. He has never been able to stay on message.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



birthday_massacre said:


> The more people learn about Sanders the more that vote for him, that is why Hillary does not want any more debates because she knows she just loses them and will lose votes because of them. Bernie needs to just do a bunch of town halls without her.
> 
> As for Trump he is always talking out of his ass, he has no clue what he is talking about. He has never been able to stay on message.


Why do I detect salt?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



CamillePunk said:


> That was so enjoyable. The look on Anderson Cooper's face when Trump revealed he had Michelle Fields' bogus statement on hand. All control of the narrative lost. Completely exposed as a corporate media shill for the political establishment.
> 
> His name was Anderson Cooper. Rest in peace, sweet prince.
> 
> #CantStumpTheTrump :trump


Poor Anderson, I really hate that guy. Regardless of his stances or anything he just comes off a self important weasel. Also Japan is a massive freeloader, Japan would pay for US protection, Russia and China both dislike Japan, Japan on it's own doesn't sound like it would work well in Japan's favor. Not to mention the US has put up with Japan's bullshit business practices, disregards for patents and US trade laws and didn't even hide the fact they audit their own people who buy American made cars. Japan has been able to practice all it's xenophobic and sneaky business methods because they have US backup.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Beatles123 said:


> Why do I detect salt?


There you go again with childish comments instead of trying to refute anything I said. Typical of you.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



birthday_massacre said:


> There you go again with childish comments instead of trying to refute anything I said. Typical of you.


I don't see questions, I see salt.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

You guys watching Trump's Town Hall on Hardball?


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



IronMaiden7 said:


> An interesting question to proffer:
> 
> Regardless of your ideology, what would be the smart game for the eventual nominee of each party to use as the basis of their campaigns? And, no, I don't mean anything conspiratorial or "gutter" politics. How should the parties sell themselves to America in this election?
> 
> For me, I think the Republican side is pretty obvious: immigration. Ever since George W. Bush tried to push immigration reform, Republicans have been pretty uneasy about compromising. Even after 2012, when many conservatives conceded that reform might be a necessity for the party, it was still very difficult to get anything to President Obama's desk. This issue has certainly motivated the base, and the Trump campaign (for argument's sake, let's say he gets the needed delegates) seems to think it can influence enough blue-collar Union workers in Ohio and Pennsylvania with this issue. Will it work? The polls show a difficult climb for Trump in the Rust Belt, but there have been reports that some union circles were uneasy about the support Trump was getting within. Also, the convention is in Ohio, which could help if it doesn't turn into a circus act. It's a populist movement, but could Trump getting enough voters to think security should be the number one issue?
> 
> On the Democratic side, I think Hillary Clinton (I'm 99% convinced she'll be the nominee) would be smart to bring up the economic conditions of Kansas and Louisiana, two states under Republican rule that have been decimated by drastic tax cutting (to be fair, Louisiana's ailments also have much to do with the price of oil falling). The middle classes of these states basically pay all the state taxes now, which simply hasn't been enough, especially considering that both states are rather poor. The amount of issues that have occurred, thanks to the influence of the Laffer Curve, has been tremendous. Why bring these states up in the general? Trump's massive tax cut (dynamic scoring says it will cost $10 trillion, but projections without it are thinking it could be possibly be around $16 trillion) would be pretty similar to the plans we saw in Kansas and Louisiana but on a much grander scale. Many Republican politicians disagree with Trump on many issues, but his tax cut would be something they would gladly jump on. After all, they implanted dynamic scoring into budget projections just last year. Wouldn't it be smart for Clinton to ask Republicans to rethink taxes a bit, especially considering that pretty-red Louisiana just overwhelmingly voted for a Democratic governor?


Tax cuts work if you have spending cuts to go with them. Dubya's 8 years are an example of that, there were tax cuts for many but the government kept spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. The state of Louisiana is right now looking at having to cut costs now, especially having their governor threaten the possibility that spring football for LSU might not be able to take place since there was not enough money to keep the school open through the end of the year. 

Here's my idea for both parties...

For the Republicans...the economy. Yes, there are issues with immigration and national security that need to be dealt with, but the bottom line is that right now the economy is still somewhat shaky. We are seeing a national debt at almost $20 trillion and climbing. Businesses are moving their headquarters out of the country (Burger King, for example). The stock market has had a massive up-and-down movement over the last several months, and is still not exactly stable. Add to that dropping oil prices (while I appreciate gas at less than $2/gallon, it isn't good for the world markets) and we are waiting for the bottom to drop out. When it does, it will make 2008 look pale in comparison. 

For the Democrats...it will need to be about Obama's legacy, such as the Affordable Care Act and equality for same-sex marriage. For most intents and purposes, it's going to be hard enough for the GOP to undo the ACA if they take the White House, but they will be able to do it if they win. A Democratic victory in '16 means it will be nearly impossible for them to do it come 2020 or '24. Plus, they would be looking at being able to nominate a conservative judge to the Supreme Court to replace Scalia.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Miss Sally said:


> Poor Anderson, I really hate that guy. Regardless of his stances or anything he just comes off a self important weasel. Also Japan is a massive freeloader, Japan would pay for US protection, Russia and China both dislike Japan, Japan on it's own doesn't sound like it would work well in Japan's favor. Not to mention the US has put up with Japan's bullshit business practices, disregards for patents and US trade laws and didn't even hide the fact they audit their own people who buy American made cars. Japan has been able to practice all it's xenophobic and sneaky business methods because they have US backup.


Ironic that you seem to hate Japan so much yet you have that anime-like sig.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

If the government is unable or unwilling to cut spendings, then wouldn't it be better to not use the tax cuts rhetoric every elections? It seems like the Republicans want their cake and eat it too. Almost every Republican government spent more while at the same time push for tax cuts which are unsustainable. Republicans spend on defence. Democrats spend on welfare. Both are hard to argue for spending cuts as the cost/benefit of either are difficult to quantify. Unless both sides are able to spend more efficiently on their pork barrels, pushing for more tax cuts in unproductive.

Also Republicans like to cut spending on healthcare and education when they cut taxes, which sounds about right that LSU is a candidate for spending cuts.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Ironic that you seem to hate Japan so much yet you have that anime-like sig.


I don't see how it's ironic, I simply do not like Japan's business methods as they're unfair and underhanded. I feel since they do not need to put much money into defense, paying some sort of stipend would be fair. I love Japanese culture and I love anime and manga. I'm not headoverheels for it but that doesn't mean I cannot critique certain aspects of a culture.

For example you have a Wrestling avatar, he's from Canada I believe and WWF is an American company, you may critique both Wrestling and WWE but that doesn't mean your avatar is ironic, neither would you pointing out flawed aspects of American culture, politics or business. 

Japan as a nation has done some pretty horrific things, things that are hidden in the closet. That goes for every people and culture in the world. I don't love anything enough not to point out anything I dislike about it, I'm not a "homer" but I do not hate Japan as a whole, that would be silly just because I find somethings the country does unsavory. If it came off like that then I apologize, I was certain I made it clear that it was the business practices that I was not fond of.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Beatles123 said:


> BRUH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANDERSON COOPER IS DEAD!!!!!!
> 
> TRUMP, STOP THIS! THE MEDIA HAVE FAMILIES, BAH GAWD!!


This is why im voting for him, he will not take the medias shit.

If they hit him with gotcha questions, he will call them out for it then embarrass them, like they should be.

I actually hope if hes elected that he eviscerates BOTH parties, exposing all the lies theyve built up TOGETHER might be the best thing ever to see


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



amhlilhaus said:


> This is why im voting for him, he will not take the medias shit.
> 
> If they hit him with gotcha questions, he will call them out for it then embarrass them, like they should be.
> 
> I actually hope if hes elected that he eviscerates BOTH parties, exposing all the lies theyve built up TOGETHER might be the best thing ever to see


It's always been my dream to see the Republican and Democratic parties exposed and then burnt to the ground. I want it to be spectacular, brutal yet beautiful. I want it to be like the War of the Roses, so lovely in name but horrifying in actuality, it escapes me but in one battle 1% of the total population of England died in that single battle. It's so terrible yet so unreal that it paints the war like that of a fable.


People waking up to see both parties for what they are....:trips5


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

thoughts on Chris Matthews forcing Trump into an unforced error?

The dream is over. The women's vote is going to bury Trump, assuming he even gets the GOP nomination.

I am sorry @Beatles123


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



BruiserKC said:


> Tax cuts work if you have spending cuts to go with them. Dubya's 8 years are an example of that, there were tax cuts for many but the government kept spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. The state of Louisiana is right now looking at having to cut costs now, especially having their governor threaten the possibility that spring football for LSU might not be able to take place since there was not enough money to keep the school open through the end of the year.
> 
> Here's my idea for both parties...
> 
> For the Republicans...the economy. Yes, there are issues with immigration and national security that need to be dealt with, but the bottom line is that right now the economy is still somewhat shaky. We are seeing a national debt at almost $20 trillion and climbing. Businesses are moving their headquarters out of the country (Burger King, for example). The stock market has had a massive up-and-down movement over the last several months, and is still not exactly stable. Add to that dropping oil prices (while I appreciate gas at less than $2/gallon, it isn't good for the world markets) and we are waiting for the bottom to drop out. When it does, it will make 2008 look pale in comparison.
> 
> For the Democrats...it will need to be about Obama's legacy, such as the Affordable Care Act and equality for same-sex marriage. For most intents and purposes, it's going to be hard enough for the GOP to undo the ACA if they take the White House, but they will be able to do it if they win. A Democratic victory in '16 means it will be nearly impossible for them to do it come 2020 or '24. Plus, they would be looking at being able to nominate a conservative judge to the Supreme Court to replace Scalia.


If you look at the history of the US when the economic was at its best is when the top 1% was taxed the most. Trickledown economics has never worked, its proven not to work but the GOP doesn't care. 

The more money the middle class has , the better the economy does because they have more disposable income and they spend that money back into the economy unlike the rich.

I also love how the GOP bashes the ACA when its a republican plan. Its based on Romneycare and what he did in MA, I should know since I live in MA. 

As for the GOP putting in a conservative SCJ, Obama has already picked one for them. Garland is a center right. Hell John Kasich said Garland was on his list.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

It's great how the GOP said they would not do anything with an Obama nomination. Then Obama nominates Garland.

So now LOL, they either have to look like the retards that they are and confirm Garland, or risk whatever Hillary has in store.

Yes, Hillary will be the next president I am sorry.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



MrMister said:


> thoughts on Chris Matthews forcing Trump into an unforced error?
> 
> The dream is over. The women's vote is going to bury Trump, assuming he even gets the GOP nomination.
> 
> I am sorry @Beatles123


not even.

Abortion is a non-issue to republicans.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Beatles123 said:


> not even.
> 
> Abortion is a non-issue.


That doesn't matter. You miss the point.

Start getting used to TRUMP not being elected president. It's time to accept this darkest timeline.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

Can someone please ban MrMister from the thread for baiting?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Beatles123 said:


> not even.
> 
> Abortion is a non-issue to republicans.


I'm sorry what? Abortion is a huge issue to the repubs! It gets drudged up every year by some bible bashing ultra conservative republican.

I don't see how you can say with a straight face it's a non issue. It's always on the R agenda, ready to surface again when needed.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

MrMister is a silly goose, I want to put a party hat on him!


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Obama is the Cena to the GOP's IWC smarks.

I wonder what they will do once Obama is gone to try to justify their positions without a bogeyman.


----------



## Beatles123

yeahbaby! said:


> I'm sorry what? Abortion is a huge issue to the repubs! It gets drudged up every year by some bible bashing ultra conservative republican.
> 
> I don't see how you can say with a straight face it's a non issue. It's always on the R agenda, ready to surface again when needed.


Not in this election it aint.

compared to everything else abortion is way down the list.



MrMister said:


> That doesn't matter. You miss the point.
> 
> Start getting used to TRUMP not being elected president. It's time to accept this darkest timeline.


Don't let CNN mislead you.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



yeahbaby! said:


> I'm sorry what? Abortion is a huge issue to the repubs! It gets drudged up every year by some bible bashing ultra conservative republican.
> 
> I don't see how you can say with a straight face it's a non issue. It's always on the R agenda, ready to surface again when needed.


It is such a non-issue that planned parenthood funding almost shut down the federal government last year. :lol


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Beatles123 said:


> Don't let CNN mislead you.


Chris Matthews works for MSNBC.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



MrMister said:


> Chris Matthews works for MSNBC.


Sorry. It's all the same evil crock of shit to me. My bad.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Beatles123 said:


> Sorry. It's all the same evil crock of shit to me. My bad.


Don't fall into the trap of the echo chamber.


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

I hope when he gets elected he sells advertisement slots on the wall, keep out the bad people immigrating and also boost the U.S bank account


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



FriedTofu said:


> Obama is the Cena to the GOP's IWC smarks.
> 
> I wonder what they will do once Obama is gone to try to justify their positions without a bogeyman.


Obama's selling is way better.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



FriedTofu said:


> Don't fall into the trap of the echo chamber.


If I was, I wouldn't feel nearly as upset about the state of this world.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Beatles123 said:


> If I was, I wouldn't feel nearly as upset about the state of this world.


I don't see the connection with that.



> An echo chamber is a situation in which information, ideas, or beliefs are amplified or reinforced by transmission and repetition inside an "enclosed" system, where different or competing views are censored, disallowed, or otherwise underrepresented.


Going by your posts and reactions in this thread, I think you are seeking one though. Not judging because we are all susceptible to it too. Who doesn't like to have everyone agree with their views and opinions all the time?

We just need to realize that sometimes what our community think is widely accepted opinions might not really be the case.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



FriedTofu said:


> I don't see the connection with that.
> 
> 
> 
> Going by your posts and reactions in this thread, I think you are seeking one though. Not judging because we are all susceptible to it too. Who doesn't like to have everyone agree with their views and opinions all the time?
> 
> We just need to realize that sometimes what our community think is widely accepted opinions might not really be the case.


If I was in an eco-chamber or falling into one, i'd be oblivious to the fact this world is in very real danger.

This thread is not an eco-chamber nor was it intended to be.

I think what is "widely accepted" is quickly becoming the problem in the US.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



yeahbaby! said:


> Obama's selling is way better.


Really? He seems to no-sell quite a lot, actually. bama3


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



FriedTofu said:


> It is such a non-issue that planned parenthood funding almost shut down the federal government last year. :lol


Eh. I'm left leaning but I agreed with removing a government subsidy from a private charity. I'm also opposed to bailing out failed corporations. The government subsidy was a small fraction of what PP gets overall so it will still keep chugging along.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Beatles123 said:


> If I was in an eco-chamber or falling into one, i'd be oblivious to the fact this world is in very real danger.
> 
> This thread is not an eco-chamber nor was it intended to be.
> 
> I think what is "widely accepted" is quickly becoming the problem in the US.


You last sentence is exactly what I was cautioning about. It isn't about right or wrong of your beliefs, but the confirmation bias when presented with new information.



Reaper said:


> Eh. I'm left leaning but I agreed with removing a government subsidy from a private charity. I'm also opposed to bailing out failed corporations. The government subsidy was a small fraction of what PP gets overall so it will still keep chugging along.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought most of the federal funding towards PP is from federal healthcare plans that people apply for more affordable healthcare? I felt it was more of providing more accessibility to some services to those who couldn't afford private care. Without government subsidies they might need to scale down their operations due to costs, which would be what the proponents of defunding them want.

I am also against bailing out failed corporations. But sometimes you have to pick your battles. They choose unfair bailouts over potential chaos from the collapse of the banking system. The problem with the GOP has been they have been picking trivial battles at the expense of bigger issues over and over again. It is like the boy who cried wolf, sooner or later nobody will give a shit what you say even if you are right on the important issues.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



FriedTofu said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought most of the federal funding towards PP is from federal healthcare plans that people apply for more affordable healthcare? I felt it was more of providing more accessibility to some services to those who couldn't afford private care. Without government subsidies they might need to scale down their operations due to costs, which would be what the proponents of defunding them want.


Overall, I think that government misallocates its budget anyways and there's a lot to be debated and critiqued there - but I also think that subsidizing abortion clinics is part of that misallocation - not because I want to restrict access to abortion and contraceptives to women, but because the overall attitudes around abortion ought to be conservative and easy access is contributing to a less vigilant and careful society. 

If you look at the overall picture, I agree that one of the goals of reducing the funding is to limit access to abortion to women (which I don't agree with). What should have been done however after taking that money away is a re-allocation of that funding to other welfare programs that support single mothers and fathers. 

Simply taking the money away and not telling us what other social benefit was created in order to off-set that money leads me to believe that that money was taken and misallocated as well - simply because people are so distracted by the fact that the money was taken away - they didn't even stop to think where that money was re-allocated. 

To me, that's the deeper issue here .. not just taking money away from a group that can and will continue to provide services without it.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



FriedTofu said:


> You last sentence is exactly what I was cautioning about. It isn't about right or wrong of your beliefs, but the confirmation bias when presented with new information.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought most of the federal funding towards PP is from federal healthcare plans that people apply for more affordable healthcare? I felt it was more of providing more accessibility to some services to those who couldn't afford private care. Without government subsidies they might need to scale down their operations due to costs, which would be what the proponents of defunding them want.
> 
> I am also against bailing out failed corporations. But sometimes you have to pick your battles. They choose unfair bailouts over potential chaos from the collapse of the banking system. The problem with the GOP has been they have been picking trivial battles at the expense of bigger issues over and over again. It is like the boy who cried wolf, sooner or later nobody will give a shit what you say even if you are right on the important issues.


You try dealing with PC zombie shitheads that want to destroy this country's spine every day and get back to me about conformation bias, pal. It's hell being right wing in this day and age. The only time you feel SAFE is in an eco-chamber and that's bullshit. I'm not going to close my eyes to it so people like BM can run this country further into the elitest hellhole we fell into. You try watching people's lives get ruined just for not conforming to the social justice climate over what once was considered nothing. NOTHING! I'm not going to claim republicans don't do that either. That's why Trump is welcome.

I want to see Tumblr put out of business, then twitter. I want this culture of censorship to END. I'm not going to take away MY rights or anyone else's to uplift another. Not to mention, I refuse to live my life thinking my race owes anyone anything. I could even go further but then we'd really get into unfriendly territory.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Reaper said:


> Overall, I think that government misallocates its budget anyways and there's a lot to be debated and critiqued there - but I also think that subsidizing abortion clinics is part of that misallocation - not because I want to restrict access to abortion and contraceptives to women, but because the overall attitudes around abortion ought to be conservative and easy access is contributing to a less vigilant and careful society.
> 
> If you look at the overall picture, I agree that one of the goals of reducing the funding is to limit access to abortion to women (which I don't agree with). What should have been done however after taking that money away is a re-allocation of that funding to other welfare programs that support single mothers and fathers.
> 
> Simply taking the money away and not telling us what other social benefit was created in order to off-set that money leads me to believe that that money was taken and misallocated as well - simply because people are so distracted by the fact that the money was taken away - they didn't even stop to think where that money was re-allocated.
> 
> To me, that's the deeper issue here .. not just taking money away from a group that can and will continue to provide services without it.


I think the issue if I'm American is PP provide other services such as family planning and sex education besides abortion which could be potentially taken away if they are not allowed access to government subsidy. I think the government's objective is to reduce unplanned pregnancies and sadly one of the measures is abortion.

I agree there need to be greater accountability in how the funds are being allocated though I don't know how that could be achieved without more bureaucratic red tape.



Beatles123 said:


> You try dealing with PC zombie shitheads that want to destroy this country's spine every day and get back to me about conformation bias, pal. It's hell being right wing in this day and age. The only time you feel SAFE is in an eco-chamber and that's bullshit. I'm not going to close my eyes to it so people like BM can run this country further into the elitest hellhole we fell into. You try watching people's lives get ruined just for not conforming to the social justice climate over what once was considered nothing. NOTHING! I'm not going to claim republicans don't do that either. That's why Trump is welcome.
> 
> I want to see Tumblr put out of business, then twitter. I want this culture of censorship to END. I'm not going to take away MY rights or anyone else's to uplift another. Not to mention, I refuse to live my life thinking my race owes anyone anything. I could even go further but then we'd really get into unfriendly territory.


Their are zombies on both sides of the spectrum. 2nd-amendment zombies is just as bad as BLM zombies that 'destroy the spine' of your beloved country.

I don't know, worldwide right wing politics are making a comeback. *shrugs* You feeling safe in an echo chamber doesn't mean being in one is healthy for anyone. It narrows your views on everything.

Funny you mention BM because both of you are stuck in different echo chambers but unwilling to admit it. For what's its worth, I find you more tolerable than BM who seem unable to hold a civil conversation with people who disagree with him.

Regarding not wanting to feel your race owe anyone anything, do you feel taxpayers owe people with disability some formd of finanical aid? :troll


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Oda Nobunaga said:


> Really? He seems to no-sell quite a lot, actually. bama3


Maybe :cena is just much worse at it?


----------



## Dangerous PP

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

One big circus really. President has little power to change anything anyway. Country is run by the silent billionaires.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Dangerous PP said:


> One big circus really. President has little power to change anything anyway. Country is run by the silent billionaires.


And that is why they need to get money out of politics.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

This thread almost fell off the 1st page. Trump losing steam finally. 

Which hurt him worse, possibly nuking Europe, or punishing women for abortions?


----------



## Menacing Nemesis

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

I don't see why what DT said about abortion was so controversial. He already said he's pro-life so that means he thinks abortion should be illegal and when you break the law you get arrested and punished. What's the issue?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Menacing Nemesis said:


> I don't see why what DT said about abortion was so controversial. He already said he's pro-life so that means he thinks abortion should be illegal and when you break the law you get arrested and punished. What's the issue?


Women are supposed to be free from the consequences of their own actions.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Beatles123 said:


> I want to see Tumblr put out of business, then twitter. I want this culture of censorship to END. I'm not going to take away MY rights or anyone else's to uplift another.


You just contradicted yourself. You want the culture of censorship to end, but you want Tumblr and Twitter put out of business? :fuckedup

Let people keep their soapboxes. The best way to combat another person's views is not by silencing 'em, but by challenging 'em. You just end up being as bad as they are if you're going to take away an avenue in which they can freely voice their opinion, no matter how vile or foolish it may be. I may joke about certain sites (many from the VG Section on here know how I feel about Kotaku and Polygon), but never would I want their sites or avenues of discourse to be washed away simply because I disagree.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

Trump enraged both sides of the issue. He was just using quick thinking logic since he's really pro choice. Logic dictates that if abortion is the willful killing of human life then everyone complicit should be punished for the killing.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

@AryaDark @Batko10 @CamillePunk @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @Oda Nobunaga @Pronoss @samizayn

Early this morning, as I could not sleep, I made the great American mistake of turning on my nearest television set for a moment. Changed the channel to CNN. Why, who can say? 

John Kasich was prattling on with Michael Smerconish. First words I hear from Kasich: 

"The Russians have gone way too far... We've allowed them to get away with way too much in the world! _IT'S TIME TO KICK 'EM IN THE SHINS AND PUNCH 'EM IN THE NOSE!_"

Perhaps he was drinking some strong coffee but this was easily the most animated I have ever seen Kasich. 

It's also humorous timing. The neoconservative dictum at the moment, in the face of Donald Trump's valid criticisms of NATO as entity in the year 2016, particularly as it's sustained by the U.S.--the U.S. and Estonia are the only two countries that abide by what is supposedly the "binding agreement" of the treaty--that all member nations use at least 2% of GDP on behalf of national defense, which means that everyone but Estonia is, to one degree or another, a relative free rider, all supported by U.S. taxpayers on behalf of crony capitalist defense contractors and arms manufacturers and all sorts of people within the military-industrial complex--can be summed up as, "_No time to argue about NATO expansion to Russia's border, in spite of George Herbert Walker Bush's pledge to the Russian government that if East and West Germany were allowed to peacefully unite, there would be no NATO expansion! We've got a war to gin up against Russia!_!"

Firstly, Kasich is a poisonous political hack and shill. I would not bring it up if he would spare us from so liberally referring to it--how much of a proud Croatian-American he is. What is he thinking, that he can avenge the Croatian grievances of the 1990s Serbian-Croatian conflict by potentially bombing Russia, Serbia's longtime Slavic "big brother" dating back centuries? It is, after all, chiefly what drew the Russians into World War I, along with their formal-then-informal-then-formal-once-again alliance with France to allow the two nations to "encircle" Germany and Prussia, years before the conflict broke out. 

Could Kasich please return to the "private sector" if we can even call the major banking oligarchy under this proto-fascist/corporatist arrangement we have in the U.S. "private"? This cretin was a major force within Lehman's investment banking division at a particularly interesting time; that is all I shall say about that. 

For any American politician at any level to declare that some other country's regime has gotten "away with way too much in the world..." is truly the height of hubris. And John Kasich is the height of frenzied, hawkish, neocon tedium. 


Meanwhile, if anyone ever wondered if the present State of the U.S. could ever be personified by a living being, we have our answer. As this little piece of footage courtesy of twitter establishes, Hillary Clinton is the living embodiment of the U.S. ruling class and regime. Wagging her finger, putting that unwashed, questioning citizen in her place. Good going, Hillary, good going. Thank you for once again reminding everyone and laying bare the truth, which is that the _status quo_ of national American politics is run by, for and between finger-wagging, statist psychopaths. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/715605547681230848


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> You just contradicted yourself. You want the culture of censorship to end, but you want Tumblr and Twitter put out of business? :fuckedup
> 
> Let people keep their soapboxes. The best way to combat another person's views is not by silencing 'em, but by challenging 'em. You just end up being as bad as they are if you're going to take away an avenue in which they can freely voice their opinion, no matter how vile or foolish it may be. I may joke about certain sites (many from the VG Section on here know how I feel about Kotaku and Polygon), but never would I want their sites or avenues of discourse to be washed away simply because I disagree.


Twitter and Tumblr are not avenues for free speech. They are brainwashing centers. Opposition to their hivemind gets you banned.


----------



## SpeedStick

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

How you feel?


----------



## Angel Moroni

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

There is no reason to vote for this troll, Cruz would be a better option


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Angel Moroni said:


> There is no reason to vote for this troll, Cruz would be a better option


Well I'm convinced.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Angel Moroni said:


> There is no reason to vote for this troll, Cruz would be a better option


#ThingsPaulRyanWantsYouToBelieve


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @Batko10 @CamillePunk @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @Oda Nobunaga @Pronoss @samizayn
> 
> Early this morning, as I could not sleep, I made the great American mistake of turning on my nearest television set for a moment. Changed the channel to CNN. Why, who can say?
> 
> John Kasich was prattling on with Michael Smerconish. First words I hear from Kasich:
> 
> "The Russians have gone way too far... We've allowed them to get away with way too much in the world! _IT'S TIME TO KICK 'EM IN THE SHINS AND PUNCH 'EM IN THE NOSE!_"
> 
> Perhaps he was drinking some strong coffee but this was easily the most animated I have ever seen Kasich.
> 
> It's also humorous timing. The neoconservative dictum at the moment, in the face of Donald Trump's valid criticisms of NATO as entity in the year 2016, particularly as it's sustained by the U.S.--the U.S. and Estonia are the only two countries that abide by what is supposedly the "binding agreement" of the treaty--that all member nations use at least 2% of GDP on behalf of national defense, which means that everyone but Estonia is, to one degree or another, a relative free rider, all supported by U.S. taxpayers on behalf of crony capitalist defense contractors and arms manufacturers and all sorts of people within the military-industrial complex--can be summed up as, "_No time to argue about NATO expansion to Russia's border, in spite of George Herbert Walker Bush's pledge to the Russian government that if East and West Germany were allowed to peacefully unite, there would be no NATO expansion! We've got a war to gin up against Russia!_!"
> 
> Firstly, Kasich is a poisonous political hack and shill. I would not bring it up if he would spare us from so liberally referring to it--how much of a proud Croatian-American he is. What is he thinking, that he can avenge the Croatian grievances of the 1990s Serbian-Croatian conflict by potentially bombing Russia, Serbia's longtime Slavic "big brother" dating back centuries? It is, after all, chiefly what drew the Russians into World War I, along with their formal-then-informal-then-formal-once-again alliance with France to allow the two nations to "encircle" Germany and Prussia, years before the conflict broke out.
> 
> Could Kasich please return to the "private sector" if we can even call the major banking oligarchy under this proto-fascist/corporatist arrangement we have in the U.S. "private"? This cretin was a major force within Lehman's investment banking division at a particularly interesting time; that is all I shall say about that.
> 
> For any American politician at any level to declare that some other country's regime has gotten "away with way too much in the world..." is truly the height of hubris. And John Kasich is the height of frenzied, hawkish, neocon tedium.
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, if anyone ever wondered if the present State of the U.S. could ever be personified by a living being, we have our answer. As this little piece of footage courtesy of twitter establishes, Hillary Clinton is the living embodiment of the U.S. ruling class and regime. Wagging her finger, putting that unwashed, questioning citizen in her place. Good going, Hillary, good going. Thank you for once again reminding everyone and laying bare the truth, which is that the _status quo_ of national American politics is run by, for and between finger-wagging, statist psychopaths.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/715605547681230848


The craziest thing is out of the last three GOP candidates Trump may be the least crazy now LOL
Especially since most of the stuff Trump says he probably doesn't even believe but is just pandering to the GOP base.

Cruz is way worse than Trump thats for sure, and Kasich is turning out to be worse than Trump as well.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Angel Moroni said:


> There is no reason to vote for this troll, Cruz would be a better option


Cruz is absolutely a worse choice. He is representing a movement to bring Christian Sharia law into America. Have friendly ties to a pastor that advocate for executing gays.

At least Trump is trolling, Cruz really believes in the shit he says.


----------



## Dangerous PP

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

I just want to see what happens if Trump does win for the lolz. Sure we probably have nuclear winter within 5 minutes of him taking the hot seat but what a 5 minutes


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Dangerous PP said:


> I just want to see what happens if Trump does win for the lolz. Sure we probably have nuclear winter within 5 minutes of him taking the hot seat but what a 5 minutes


Trump is the least war like out of Cruz and hilary. Not sure where this "zomg the end of the world!" is coming from. 2012 called, they want their prophecies of doom based on nothing back.


----------



## Pronoss

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

I want to point out something I'm not understanding "kinda"

In the abortion thread I posted my stance which folks can go read as it's a little different than what the normal talking points are.



With that said.

Why is abortion even an issue nowadays? This is the 21st century. There no need for going to an abortion clinic anymore "technically" unless I'm missing something obvious. And I may actually be missing it as I had bad insomnia last night so I'm only on 2 hours sleep in 2 days so I admit I definitely am missing something. 


So we have contraceptives.
Men have condom 
Women have diaphragm, sponge, spermicide, birth control arm implant , & birth control pills.

If you've never seen implant:
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02133/nex_2133931a.jpg

What it looks like being installed: http://www.techforyour.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Contraceptive-implant-Nexplanon.jpg




OK so we know there's the rare chance but it's a really rare chance like astronomical if both partners both use contraception. But let's say you hit that one in a million.
Or the girl has no birth control and guy doesn't check his junk that he hasn't tore condom. Or they just aren't safe and are dopamine stupid (flooded with dopamine pleasure you ain't thinking about safety) 

There is still an easy fix, it doesn't require a prescription.

Plan B pill for fuckups.

You got 72 hours (3 days) after sex to take it.


> The first dose of Plan B must be taken as soon as possible after unprotected sex (no later than 72 hours afterward). The second dose must be taken 12 hours after the first dose.


OK let's say you fuck that up, if you procrastinate and don't take plan B. Plan B blocks fertilization of egg. But once egg is fertilized it attaches itself to uterus. Once that occurs the "Morning after pill" Plan B wont do jack squat. 

You have another remedy can take right at home 
2 pills that force a 'period'

First you take 1 mifepristone, this detaches the fertilized egg from uterus. 
Wait 2 days 
Then take 1 misoprostol, this causes a forced 'period', and buh-bye egg.


After 5 days a fertilized egg is just a blastocyst. 

Picture of a blastocyst 











After 2 weeks the blastocyst starts to show a darkened streak. It's technically called "primitive streak". That streak is what could eventually become the spinal cord.

Here's what it looks like after 14 days. That colored line is the " primitive streak" that could become a spinal cord, but there is zero brain. Absolutely zero brain. When a human is on life support but has zero brain activity they "pull the plug" I know cause as the first born and my father unmarried when he went into respiratory failure the machines breathed for him and he had a heart beat but zero brain activity after 3 independent neurological "second opinions" I signed the form that removed my father's life support, that's the shitty part of being first born is those type decisions.











The girl would have known for past several days if pregnant or not with cheap store bought piss stick test.
But mifepristone & misoprostol 2 pills will detach egg from wall and force the period.

And guess what mifepristone & misoprostol works at home even after 9 weeks since conception.




So my question is, why is abortion even an issue? 

Birth control , plan B if lazy and the 2 pill mifepristone & misoprostol for the most lazy procrastinator up to 9 weeks after the fertilized egg attached to uterus.

Why is there a need to go to abortion clinic? Why procrastinate that long. We have the technology to prevent fertilization and the technology to force period and flush a fertilized egg 

So " Plan B" will work to be safe it says within 3 days of sex, but it takes 5 days for fertilized egg to attach to uterus becoming a blastocyst, then still further 2 weeks for the primitive stream to be seen. But you have 9 weeks after blastocyst to take the 2 pulls at home so 9 weeks plus 5 days for home remedy to stop pregnancy.

I can't figure out why wait 9 weeks and 5 days and THEN say "oops I think I goofed" , when 9 weeks & 5 days is tons of time to decide based on the infinite situations 


It pretty much makes abortion clinics obsolete unless I'm missing something, which I admittedly very well may be due to no sleep. So I admit ignorance on a possible obvious reason I'm just not seeing at moment 
:grin2:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-wins-nevada-democratic-caucus/

Bernie Sanders Wins the Nevada Caucus After AllTom Cahill | April 3, 2016

After the Clark County Democratic Convention, Bernie Sanders has flipped his close Nevada caucus loss to a win at the convention stage. The Sanders campaign pulled out a victory in Nevada’s most populous county at this weekend’s convention at the Cashman Center in Las Vegas.

Las Vegas Sun reporter Megan Messerly confirmed the final delegate count, showing Sanders had flipped Clark County in his favor.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Beatles123 said:


> Twitter and Tumblr are not avenues for free speech. They are brainwashing centers. Opposition to their hivemind gets you banned.


Then just let them have their little pools of ignorance to wallow in collectively. If you shut those down, they will only find another place to splash around in. And on top of that, they will have the added benefit of having been martyred for their "ideas". And I don't see how that would help anyone at all.
@Oda Nobunaga was 100% right. Silencing people does nothing to combat what they are saying. I believe even the worst ideas people have need to be put out in the light for everyone to consider, so that they can be examined and picked apart from many angles. Letting ignorance (like mold) hide in the dark only encourages it to grow unchecked.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Deadpool said:


> Then just let them have their little pools of ignorance to wallow in collectively. If you shut those down, they will only find another place to splash around in. And on top of that, they will have the added benefit of having been martyred for their "ideas". And I don't see how that would help anyone at all.
> 
> @Oda Nobunaga was 100% right. Silencing people does nothing to combat what they are saying. I believe even the worst ideas people have need to be put out in the light for everyone to consider, so that they can be examined and picked apart from many angles. Letting ignorance (like mold) hide in the dark only encourages it to grow unchecked.


Perhaps I should be clearer:

I want there to come a day where corrupted places, such as Tumblr and Twitter, because that's what they are--are totally exposed and everyone universally sees them as what they are: Mind control.

In much the same way the Fine Bros. are now unanimously and irreversibly seen as corrupted, so should the same be said about this increasingly regulated world of social media, They are NOT free. They are NOT bastions of equality nor do they promote neutrality in discussing ideas. Twitter is run by femenists, as is Tumblr. They are more of an "Eco-chamber" for social justice and all the evils such an ideology represents. Facebook is becoming the same way. My account got a notice for not following community guidelines simply because I posted, and I quote, "Keep sucking that liberal bottle!" 

I ask you, in all honesty: WHAT was wrong with that statement?? No curse words, no inciting violence, no bullying, just a jab at the fragile nature of said leftist thinking. I have seen WORSE on facebook and have even had it directed at me, and it never gets removed. Not once.

Zuckerberg is in bed with globalists. We all know this. His actions with Obama exemplify this. It is time people called social media out as the liberal filth it is becoming.

As sad as it is, and I do mean, it is SAD--if you want to see real free speech, you're best resided to 4Chan. That's how bad we are right now.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Deadpool said:


> Then just let them have their little pools of ignorance to wallow in collectively. If you shut those down, they will only find another place to splash around in. And on top of that, they will have the added benefit of having been martyred for their "ideas". And I don't see how that would help anyone at all.
> 
> @Oda Nobunaga was 100% right. Silencing people does nothing to combat what they are saying. I believe even the worst ideas people have need to be put out in the light for everyone to consider, so that they can be examined and picked apart from many angles. Letting ignorance (like mold) hide in the dark only encourages it to grow unchecked.


The problem is even when the worst ideas are picked apart, these people double down on it and create a 'us versus them' mentality. Either way the bad ideas are allowed to grow because like-minded individuals are affirming bad ideas with each other and ignoring the contrasting views as 'filth', 'propaganda', 'ignorance'.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Dangerous PP said:


> One big circus really. President has little power to change anything anyway. Country is run by the silent billionaires.


Rather the elites run a country than let the inmates run the asylum. You seen the effect of it on the GOP primary and soon the democrats will see the same with Bernie.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



FriedTofu said:


> The problem is even when the worst ideas are picked apart, these people double down on it and create a 'us versus them' mentality. Either way the bad ideas are allowed to grow because like-minded individuals are affirming bad ideas with each other and ignoring the contrasting views as 'filth', 'propaganda', 'ignorance'.


This is going to happen regardless. Still better imo to allow them to voice their idiocy. Hiding it from everyone and hoping it goes away is not going to work.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Deadpool said:


> This is going to happen regardless. Still better imo to allow them to voice their idiocy. Hiding it from everyone and hoping it goes away is not going to work.


I'm with you on this but sometimes seditious remarks based on falsehood can create avoidable social unrest. Rhetoric by extremists on either side of the political spectrum has led to such a divisive America.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

Wonderful town hall on Hannity with The Donald and the future First Lady, Melania Trump. 






Trump clarifies his abortion comments, Melania says he needs to stop retweeting people, Trump says he regrets retweeting the Heidi Cruz meme, Michelle Fields the fraudulent lying con artist attention whore gets destroyed, and more! 

For those interested in learning about the skeletons in the Clintons' closet which the MSM and the politicians refuse to discuss, here's a great conversation between the one and only Roger Stone and the oft-starred in this thread, Stefan Molyneux:






If Trump goes after Clinton on this stuff. :done We should just name him God Emperor on the spot and be done with this whole democratic farce.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

It's ok Camille, Hillary 'clarified' her skeletons as well so all is forgiven. #forgivehilary


----------



## SPCDRI

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

I JUST VOTED FOR DONALD TRUMP!!!

I got the hat, the shirt, the everything.

WWE has been a little shitty the past year and I needed a man to mark for. TRUMP IS THAT MAN I :mark: for.


----------



## SPCDRI

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

Apparently Wisconsin loves their adultering globalists.


----------



## SPCDRI

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

I voted for Trump in Wisconsin. I expected a loss but not for Cruz to get 50+.

Trump pissed off Reince Priebus, Scott Walker, Paul Ryan and all the shitty talk radio hosts in the state. 

Really, really disappointing.

Oh well. On to New York to get over 75 of those 95 delegates. Fuck Ted Cruz and triple fuck anybody who voted for Kasich over Trump or Cruz. My Lord, it's like they want a riot at a brokered convention.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Bernie wins in Wisconsin...he's won 7 of the last 8 states and continues to be a thorn in the side of Hilary. 

Cruz wins Wisconsin...he also has momentum going now. Kasich needs to drop out, he has no shot and even if he somehow gets to Cleveland and the convention, why would the GOP consider someone who has only one state under his belt? 

We might have two interesting conventions come this late summer.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



BruiserKC said:


> Bernie wins in Wisconsin...he's won 7 of the last 8 states and continues to be a thorn in the side of Hilary.
> 
> Cruz wins Wisconsin...he also has momentum going now. Kasich needs to drop out, he has no shot and even if he somehow gets to Cleveland and the convention, why would the GOP consider someone who has only one state under his belt?
> 
> We might have two interesting conventions come this late summer.


Its actually eight out of nine since he now also won Nevada


----------



## queentiger1989

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

This is my opinion: I don't think a woman should run this country, and I'm a woman. Why? We are screw ups. We are soft. And most importantly, we can't handle men.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

How would the Panama Papers affect the election? My initial reaction is that it makes Sanders look much better with his speech about tax havens in his opposition to the Panama Free Trade deal years ago and Hilary looks much worse with her support of the deal. Hilary isn't a slam dunk for the democratic nomination now.

I think it also shows how hard it is for campaigns to say they will 'close tax loopholes' to fund all the expensive projects like free tuition and building a wall because most decisions aren't unilateral. Just because you close one loophole doesn't mean the other side can't find another one.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Sanders could end up screwed like Trump when it comes to nomination, what is interesting is that if you like Sanders or Trump or hate both, both men represent different types of politicians than we're used to getting. It's refreshing to see that, while both Bernie and Trump supporters can be OTT and both candidates have questionable policies on somethings, it is nice to see something new and that the people want something new. People are sick of the same bullshit that is going on. Though I fear in both the cases of both men if Bernie or Trump wins the Republican and Democratic parties will align and shut them out since big money plays a major role with both parties. The two party system is a failure and that hopefully will change this election.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Miss Sally said:


> Sanders could end up screwed like Trump when it comes to nomination, what is interesting is that if you like Sanders or Trump or hate both, both men represent different types of politicians than we're used to getting. It's refreshing to see that, while both Bernie and Trump supporters can be OTT and both candidates have questionable policies on somethings, it is nice to see something new and that the people want something new. People are sick of the same bullshit that is going on. Though I fear in both the cases of both men if Bernie or Trump wins the Republican and Democratic parties will align and shut them out since big money plays a major role with both parties. The two party system is a failure and that hopefully will change this election.


With Sanders his questionable polices benefit the people where as people like Hillary, Cruz, and Kasitch it benefits big corporations. 

the democrats can't afford to screw over Sanders if he gets more pledged delegates because that could swing the election to the GOP since all the Bernie supporters would vote 3rd party or for the GOP pick to spite Hillary. It would be a disaster for the DNC. Hillary had all the super delegates against Obama too but once Obama won the pledged delegates most switched to him. 

Bernie on the DNC side is a preview of things to come, win or lose, Liz Warren is up next and in 4 or 8 years the real progressives will be even stronger and real change will be a forgone conclusion


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



birthday_massacre said:


> With Sanders his questionable polices benefit the people where as people like Hillary, Cruz, and Kasitch it benefits big corporations.
> 
> the democrats can't afford to screw over Sanders if he gets more pledged delegates because that could swing the election to the GOP since all the Bernie supporters would vote 3rd party or for the GOP pick to spite Hillary. It would be a disaster for the DNC. Hillary had all the super delegates against Obama too but once Obama won the pledged delegates most switched to him.
> 
> Bernie on the DNC side is a preview of things to come, win or lose, Liz Warren is up next and in 4 or 8 years the real progressives will be even stronger and real change will be a forgone conclusion


Kasitch is fucking nuts, Cruz and Hilary are just as bad. I'm not sure how i feel about Liz yet, think she's just a loud mouth. I'm hoping a new party forms from this, the two party system isn't working and money needs to be out of politics. Campaign commercials should be free and donations should only come from people, not businesses. I feel it maybe too late for us all.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Miss Sally said:


> Sanders could end up screwed like Trump when it comes to nomination, what is interesting is that if you like Sanders or Trump or hate both, both men represent different types of politicians than we're used to getting. It's refreshing to see that, while both Bernie and Trump supporters can be OTT and both candidates have questionable policies on somethings, it is nice to see something new and that the people want something new. People are sick of the same bullshit that is going on. Though I fear in both the cases of both men if Bernie or Trump wins the Republican and Democratic parties will align and shut them out since big money plays a major role with both parties. The two party system is a failure and that hopefully will change this election.


We're seeing the revolt already taking place. Many of Sanders' followers say that Obama didn't go far enough in his policies and they want more radical transformation. The folks behind Trump are tired of the GOP's empty promises and rolling over for Obama at every turn. Especially for the GOP now, in the eyes of the establishment there are no good options. If they hate Trump, they despise Cruz more. The idea of someone who has only won one state winning the nomination over them would create a massive revolt from GOPers who would either stay home or even vote for Hillary on Election Day.


----------



## Wildcat410

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

The two party system is garbage and largely serves the elites. I'm all for revolts from both sides. America needs several new _truly viable_ parties.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

So a 34% majority is better than a 51% majority? :troll


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Miss Sally said:


> Kasitch is fucking nuts, Cruz and Hilary are just as bad. I'm not sure how i feel about Liz yet, think she's just a loud mouth. I'm hoping a new party forms from this, the two party system isn't working and money needs to be out of politics. Campaign commercials should be free and donations should only come from people, not businesses. I feel it maybe too late for us all.



it will happen some day http://www.wolf-pac.com especially with more and more young people wanting money out of politics. 

They should get rid of the party system all together IMO, that is what is holding this country back. The leaders are not even fighting for our best interests which is a huge problem.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**






I'm scared.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



birthday_massacre said:


> They should get rid of the party system all together IMO, that is what is holding this country back. The leaders are not even fighting for our best interests which is a huge problem.


I agree. Time to get a true *individual* in there who will put Americans first. 

:trump


----------



## virus21

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Gandhi said:


> I'm scared.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



CamillePunk said:


> I agree. Time to get a true *individual* in there who will put Americans first.
> 
> :trump


Trump is all about putting himself first. That is about it. 

But Trump is clearly the best choice on the GOP side. Cruz is JK are way worst than Trump.

Btw

After seeing all the BS Hillary as been doing and her paid news outlets to slanders Sanders, no way am I voting for her if she gets the nomination. Ill write in Sanders or vote 3rd party.

With what she is doing now, its going to turn off a lot of DNC voters and I wonder how many won't vote for her. You know all the independent voters on the DNC side will go to Trump.

Even know Hillary is leading Trumo head got head in the polls now for the general, if she keeps this lying and slandering of Bernie, its going to blow up in her face. And if she does steal the nomination from Sanders with super delegates, then I will vote for Trump to spite her. That is the only way I would vote for Trump. And if she and the DNC pull that, even though I hate Trump I will root for him to win. Because Trumo may be a dick and even a facist but Hillary is corrupt and thinks she is untitled to be the next president.

The last week the shit she has pulled cost her my vote if she got the nomination. over Sanders and I'm sure others.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is all about putting himself first. That is about it.


Nah, if he was all about himself he'd stick to running his multi-billion dollar empire and stay in the safety of Trump Tower, not run for president as a Republican on a controversial platform whereby most of the media are going to demonize him and pick apart everything he says and dangerous lunatics will try to attack him and most of the media will make famous and legitimize the people who choose to do so. Not to mention the type of danger he'd be in once he becomes president. I don't think Trump is doing this for himself at all. Most people run for president because they're power-addicted career politicians, they need more power like a junkie needs more crack. Political power addiction is a physically real thing. I think Trump's the only candidate in the race who is running because he actually has ideas for the country (and I disagree with a lot of those ideas, some vehemently, trust me) that he thinks will make it great, and wants to implement them. 



> But Trump is clearly the best choice on the GOP side. Cruz is JK are way worst than Trump.
> 
> Btw
> 
> After seeing all the BS Hillary as been doing and her paid news outlets to slanders Sanders, no way am I voting for her if she gets the nomination. Ill write in Sanders or vote 3rd party.
> 
> With what she is doing now, its going to turn off a lot of DNC voters and I wonder how many won't vote for her. You know all the independent voters on the DNC side will go to Trump.
> 
> Even know Hillary is leading Trumo head got head in the polls now for the general, if she keeps this lying and slandering of Bernie, its going to blow up in her face. And if she does steal the nomination from Sanders with super delegates, then I will vote for Trump to spite her. That is the only way I would vote for Trump. And if she and the DNC pull that, even though I hate Trump I will root for him to win. Because Trumo may be a dick and even a facist but Hillary is corrupt and thinks she is untitled to be the next president.
> 
> The last week the shit she has pulled cost her my vote if she got the nomination. over Sanders and I'm sure others.


It's April and you're saying you'll never vote for Hillary. Come November you'll officially be...

One of us. :drose

:trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



CamillePunk said:


> Nah, if he was all about himself he'd stick to running his multi-billion dollar empire and stay in the safety of Trump Tower, not run for president as a Republican on a controversial platform whereby most of the media are going to demonize him and pick apart everything he says and dangerous lunatics will try to attack him and most of the media will make famous and legitimize the people who choose to do so. Not to mention the type of danger he'd be in once he becomes president. I don't think Trump is doing this for himself at all. Most people run for president because they're power-addicted career politicians, they need more power like a junkie needs more crack. Political power addiction is a physically real thing. I think Trump's the only candidate in the race who is running because he actually has ideas for the country (and I disagree with a lot of those ideas, some vehemently, trust me) that he thinks will make it great, and wants to implement them.
> 
> It's April and you're saying you'll never vote for Hillary. Come November you'll officially be...
> 
> One of us. :drose
> 
> :trump


LOL

I would much rather have Trump win than Hillary because that just means it would be a wake up call for the DNC then someone like Liz Warren can and will win in 2020. But if Schillary wins, that means we wont get real change until at least 2024. 

What you said about Trump is way more true about Sanders especially this part " he actually has ideas for the country that he thinks will make it great, and wants to implement them." Trump keeps changing what he claims he wants. Plus he doesn't know what he is talking about half the time.

With Trump though, he may be clueless on most things but he would probably surround himself with people that do what they are doing and hopefully they wouldn't be bought and paid for by huge corporations like Hillary will do. 

If Trump does win, people think he will pick a great VP but i don't think he will do that. If he is smart , he will pick someone way "crazier" than himself that way congress won't try to impeach him. Because you know if he wins they will try to impeach him for any little thing they can do if someone good is his VP.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



birthday_massacre said:


> What you said about Trump is way more true about Sanders especially this part " he actually has ideas for the country that he thinks will make it great, and wants to implement them." Trump keeps changing what he claims he wants. Plus he doesn't know what he is talking about half the time.


Nah, Sanders has been an elected official for a quarter of a century. Being a politician has been what a large chunk of his life has been all about. He has almost zero experience in the private sector. He's lived off of the government most of his life. You can't trust people like that to make sensible decisions about the role of government.


Gandhi said:


>


That video left out the giant door for people to enter the country* legally*. :trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



CamillePunk said:


> Nah, Sanders has been an elected official for a quarter of a century. Being a politician has been what a large chunk of his life has been all about. He has almost zero experience in the private sector. He's lived off of the government most of his life. You can't trust people like that to make sensible decisions about the role of government.


I will say this. If it turns out to be Trump vs Hillary I can't wait for Trump to destroy her in debates. Hillary lies all the time about Sanders and he never calls her out on it. Trump wont stand for that shit and all her corruption he is gong to bring up while sadly Sanders does in a nice way but Trump will go total dickhead and it will be glorious. Hillary won't know what hit her.

I bet she will have as little debates against Trump as she can because she knows he will tear into her. Plus, you know Trump \already has those Goldman Sachs transcripts of her speeches that he will just wait to unleash during the general.

Im no fan of Trump but i can't wait until Hillary gets her comeuppance


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



birthday_massacre said:


> I will say this. If it turns out to be Trump vs Hillary I can't wait for Trump to destroy her in debates. Hillary lies all the time about Sanders and he never calls her out on it. Trump wont stand for that shit and all her corruption he is gong to bring up while sadly Sanders does in a nice way but Trump will go total dickhead and it will be glorious. Hillary won't know what hit her.
> 
> I bet she will have as little debates against Trump as she can because she knows he will tear into her. Plus, you know Trump \already has those Goldman Sachs transcripts of her speeches that he will just wait to unleash during the general.
> 
> Im no fan of Trump but i can't wait until Hillary gets her comeuppance


While all of that is absolutely true, you forget that the media will protect her. Fox News obviously won't, but the Clinton News Network and MSNBC will twist everything around as much as they possibly can. It'll be insufferable. The debates should be hugely entertaining for sure.

Regarding Sanders going easy on Clinton, Trump himself called that way back in September, I believe. When Sanders let her off on the e-mail scandal (which gets worse and worse for her with every development), he set a terrible precedent for his campaign. He wants to be seen as the friendly old uncle but the problem is he's dealing with a power-addicted reptilian shape-shifter who would literally eat him whole to become president.


----------



## Rick Sanchez

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

I saw on the news people are pissing and one dude had his dog shit on Trump's Walk of Fame star. Hilarious.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Sanders needs to be more aggressive towards Hillary, but she -- and the media that supports her -- can easily twist his words around to fit her narrative. She can do the same to Trump as well, unfortunately. She can paint both of 'em as the enemy even if they speak the truth.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



CamillePunk said:


> While all of that is absolutely true, you forget that the media will protect her. Fox News obviously won't, but the Clinton News Network and MSNBC will twist everything around as much as they possibly can. It'll be insufferable. The debates should be hugely entertaining for sure.
> 
> Regarding Sanders going easy on Clinton, Trump himself called that way back in September, I believe. When Sanders let her off on the e-mail scandal (which gets worse and worse for her with every development), he set a terrible precedent for his campaign. He wants to be seen as the friendly old uncle but the problem is he's dealing with a power-addicted reptilian shape-shifter who would literally eat him whole to become president.


The media will protect her true but the have been with Sanders too and Sanders is still in it and has won 8 out of 9 states and will probably win Sat too which would make it 9/10. Trump has fox news and fox news loves Trump. 

Poor Bernie only has the young turks and that is just online and while its the biggest online news (views) most older people dont get their news online. So they believe what they see in the papers. What the new york daily news did to Sanders is reprehensible but of course they will get away with it. And Bernie is too nice to call them out or Hillary out for lying. That has always been his biggest problem. Bernie would have beaten her easily if he didn't treat her with kid gloves especially in the southern states. He should have bene all about showing them her super predator comments and how she and bill put people in jail. Bernie didn't even really do anything about all the voter fraud Hillary and Bill have been doing. He just lets it go. Trump won't do that and at least with that I can give him respect for that even though I don't agree with him on 90% of what he says.

Trump will make sure any BS the clinton media puts out there is refuted, he will just call a press conference like he has been doing and fox will pick it up. 

The most fucked up part is how Hillary keeps claiming Bernie is playing dirty when she has the whole time. Bernie really should have played her game but he didn't.

Trump will change the game against Hillary and she wont know what to do.

At this point, i would love to see Hillary lose to Trump just because she and the DNC deserve it for the shit they have been doing to Bernie.




Oda Nobunaga said:


> Sanders needs to be more aggressive towards Hillary, but she -- and the media that supports her -- can easily twist his words around to fit her narrative. She can do the same to Trump as well, unfortunately. She can paint both of 'em as the enemy even if they speak the truth.


YUP but Hillary and her lackeys are so underhanded they will call Bernie a sexist when he does that. Just like when she kept interrupting him and he said excuse me, its my turn to talk, you had your turn. The whole media used that to dig into Sanders which was just pathetic. 

That is why I can't wait until Trump tears into her.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



CamillePunk said:


> That video left out the giant door for people to enter the country* legally*. :trump


I have a story to share.

I was refused a visit visa to the UK because some British wanker didn't like the idea bank papers presented with my visa documents being in Arabic. No wait, the punch line is that the bank papers were actually _all in English_. Yes, whoever saw my visa application and documents lied to me to keep me out of the UK. I was also said to be most likely a criminal in the visa refusal papers I was given. So basically some British guy lied to me to keep me out of the UK (so I literally couldn't visit the UK for tourism to see my girlfriend, footy team, AND DEADPOOL IN CINEMAS WITH MY GIRLFRIEND). My girl actually put in her address and phone number in my application too to show'em I was harmless, I had almost every document proving I was just a normal guy who wanted to go visit the UK for tourism (mostly seeing United) and hang out with some English lads & lasses I knew. Had proof I paid for hotel bookings, proof I knew friends in the UK, proof I was a University student, proof of my bank papers were IN ENGLISH, and essentially proof I wasn't going to allahu akbar all over the UK. Despite all of that, I was told to fuck off because of a blatant lie. I wish I was making this up, and I'm not going to get into how depressed/stressed I was because of this fucked up experience and I'd genuinely want to stab anyone who was happy about what happened to me in this specific case. Words cannot describe how fucking angry/depressed I was.

I know this sounds over the top, but this really happened to me.

I don't support illegal immigration and understand people should try to immigrate legally, but the last few months had me realize why some people immigrate illegally and I think you get my point.

Edit: The visa English wanker also lied saying I wasn't a university student anymore, even though I gave him proof with papers from my university proving I was still a university student. He might as well have also said that I also used to work for ISIS, fucker called me a criminal too.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

BTW hell must have frozen over since guns n roses (slash duff and Axl) have a reunion and me and CamillePunk kinda agreed on something politically.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Gandhi said:


> I have a story to share.
> 
> I was refused a visit visa to the UK because some British wanker didn't like the idea bank papers presented with my visa documents being in Arabic. No wait, the punch line is that the bank papers were actually _all in English_. Yes, whoever saw my visa application and documents lied to me to keep me out of the UK. I was also said to be most likely a criminal in the visa refusal papers I was given. So basically some British guy lied to me to keep me out of the UK (so I literally couldn't visit the UK for tourism to see my girlfriend, footy team, AND DEADPOOL IN CINEMAS WITH MY GIRLFRIEND). My girl actually put in her address and phone number in my application too to show'em I was harmless, I had almost every document proving I was just a normal guy who wanted to go visit the UK for tourism (mostly seeing United) and hang out with some English lads & lasses I knew. Had proof I paid for hotel bookings, proof I knew friends in the UK, proof I was a University student, proof of my bank papers were IN ENGLISH, and essentially proof I wasn't going to allahu akbar all over the UK. Despite all of that, I was told to fuck off because of a blatant lie. I wish I was making this up, and I'm not going to get into how depressed/stressed I was because of this fucked up experience and I'd genuinely want to stab anyone who was happy about what happened to me in this specific case. Words cannot describe how fucking angry/depressed I was.
> 
> I know this sounds over the top, but this really happened to me.
> 
> I don't support illegal immigration and understand people should try to immigrate legally, but the last few months had me realize why some people immigrate illegally and I think you get my point.
> 
> Edit: The visa English wanker also lied saying I wasn't a university student anymore, even though I gave him proof with papers from my university proving I was still a university student. He might as well have also said that I also used to work for ISIS, fucker called me a criminal too.


Sorry that happened to you but I'd rather have government worker incompetence keep good people out than allow dangerous people in. Particularly people who will try to become citizens and eventually vote democrat or have kids that will grow up to vote democrat.

By the way @birthday_massacre , Fox News definitely does not like Trump. One of the downsides of supporting Trump this cycle is I've watched a lot of mainstream political media. I don't blame you for not watching Fox News, but yeah. They shit on Trump all the time. Fox Business is generally sympathetic toward him, but not the main channel.

All of the MSM networks love having him on because he brings the ratings, but the vast majority don't like him at all.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL
> 
> I would much rather have Trump win than Hillary because that just means it would be a wake up call for the DNC then someone like Liz Warren can and will win in 2020. But if Schillary wins, that means we wont get real change until at least 2024.
> 
> What you said about Trump is way more true about Sanders especially this part " he actually has ideas for the country that he thinks will make it great, and wants to implement them." Trump keeps changing what he claims he wants. Plus he doesn't know what he is talking about half the time.
> 
> With Trump though, he may be clueless on most things but he would probably surround himself with people that do what they are doing and hopefully they wouldn't be bought and paid for by huge corporations like Hillary will do.
> 
> If Trump does win, people think he will pick a great VP but i don't think he will do that. If he is smart , he will pick someone way "crazier" than himself that way congress won't try to impeach him. Because you know if he wins they will try to impeach him for any little thing they can do if someone good is his VP.


You already had the wake-up call for the Dems after the '04 election. Not many were inspired by John Kerry running, so the far left picked up steam starting with the picking of Howard Dean as the head of the DNC. This is folks like Hillary who realize that their gravy train is about to leave the station forever and their control is about gone. This was supposed to be a slam-dunk for her, a make good after Obama set liberal hearts a-flutter back in '08. However, this ain't happening as she continues to fight off Sanders. I respect him as he is consistent in his beliefs. Hillary is that rare person that I would have nothing to do with. I'd have a beer with her husband, but I wouldn't even give that bitch directions. 

BTW, I applaud Bill for shouting down BLM protesters, calling them out for their hypocrisy on cheering gang members killing young African-Americans. 



CamillePunk said:


> Sorry that happened to you but I'd rather have government worker incompetence keep good people out than allow dangerous people in. Particularly people who will try to become citizens and eventually vote democrat or have kids that will grow up to vote democrat.
> 
> By the way @birthday_massacre , Fox News definitely does not like Trump. One of the downsides of supporting Trump this cycle is I've watched a lot of mainstream political media. I don't blame you for not watching Fox News, but yeah. They shit on Trump all the time. Fox Business is generally sympathetic toward him, but not the main channel.
> 
> All of the MSM networks love having him on because he brings the ratings, but the vast majority don't like him at all.


The funny thing is, Fox News has given Trump a fair shake. You know that in the general election he isn't going to get that from the lamestream media. The New York Times, the Marxist News Broadcasting Corporation, and the like won't be kind to him. 

As for the incompetent government official in control of immigration, that should never be acceptable. We need a consistent immigration policy, that's part of the reason why the neo-con/bleeding heart liberals are losing their grip on power. We've voiced what we want, I know I have e-mailed Congressman Young and Senators Grassley and Ernst (my reps in Congress) making sure that they know we don't want amnesty. However, we need to secure the borders, and they are failing in putting that forward. That has to be done first before we talk about immigration reform. And we need competent people hired to do this, not dregs who just go through the motion like many of the clowns that work for the TSA in airports. 

I have decided, and it will make you happy...I will vote for Trump if he becomes the nominee (although I may hold my nose doing it), ditto with Cruz. However, if the GOP decides to put someone like a Kasich in the spot for nominee, my ass will sit at home on Election Day. Hillary as president scares the shit out of me, but if the GOP fucks this up I'm willing to sit back and let this country really go to shit for their chicanery.

As that philospher Dave Mustaine put it, "If there is a new way, I'll be the first in line. But it better work this time."


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/07/c...ock-reporters-from-hearing-fundraiser-speech/

*Clinton Campaign Uses Noise Machine To Block Reporters From Hearing Fundraiser Speech*

WOW. I mean, that is really ridiculous. She is doing everything she can to show everybody how untrustworthy she is and some idiots still support her.


----------



## Marrakesh

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Gandhi said:


> I have a story to share.
> 
> I was refused a visit visa to the UK because some British wanker didn't like the idea bank papers presented with my visa documents being in Arabic. No wait, the punch line is that the bank papers were actually _all in English_. Yes, whoever saw my visa application and documents lied to me to keep me out of the UK. I was also said to be most likely a criminal in the visa refusal papers I was given. So basically some British guy lied to me to keep me out of the UK (so I literally couldn't visit the UK for tourism to see my girlfriend, footy team, AND DEADPOOL IN CINEMAS WITH MY GIRLFRIEND). My girl actually put in her address and phone number in my application too to show'em I was harmless, I had almost every document proving I was just a normal guy who wanted to go visit the UK for tourism (mostly seeing United) and hang out with some English lads & lasses I knew. Had proof I paid for hotel bookings, proof I knew friends in the UK, proof I was a University student, proof of my bank papers were IN ENGLISH, and essentially proof I wasn't going to allahu akbar all over the UK. Despite all of that, I was told to fuck off because of a blatant lie. I wish I was making this up, and I'm not going to get into how depressed/stressed I was because of this fucked up experience and I'd genuinely want to stab anyone who was happy about what happened to me in this specific case. Words cannot describe how fucking angry/depressed I was.
> 
> I know this sounds over the top, but this really happened to me.
> 
> I don't support illegal immigration and understand people should try to immigrate legally, but the last few months had me realize why some people immigrate illegally and I think you get my point.
> 
> Edit: The visa English wanker also lied saying I wasn't a university student anymore, even though I gave him proof with papers from my university proving I was still a university student. He might as well have also said that I also used to work for ISIS, fucker called me a criminal too.


This is unfortunate. You would think that they would be capable of treating each case on it's own merits but often that isn't practical when these guys have certain guidelines to follow and they are shit scared of making any errors. 

You can be sure that they are told that potential terror suspects will provide correct documentation and not to grant entry to anyone who falls into a certain risk group. 

I assume you were traveling alone? This combined with your age, gender and ethnicity probably set off one too many red flags in the current climate. 

You won't be the only guy getting fucked by that system but these are the times we are in.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Marrakesh said:


> This is unfortunate. You would think that they would be capable of treating each case on it's own merits but often that isn't practical when these guys have certain guidelines to follow and they are shit scared of making any errors.
> 
> You can be sure that they are told that potential terror suspects will provide correct documentation and not to grant entry to anyone who falls into a certain risk group.
> 
> I assume you were traveling alone? This combined with your age, gender and ethnicity probably set off one too many red flags in the current climate.
> 
> You won't be the only guy getting fucked by that system but these are the times we are in.


I get it, really, I do.

Yes, I was travelling alone and I fully understand that my age, gender and ethnicity were huge factors in why I was mistreated like this.

I actually fully understand the fear they have, it's justified for them to be scared but it isn't justified for them to blatantly lie to me even though I paid good money and proved I was an innocent. If I told you how applying to get a visa was like for an Egyptian (especially males) you'd think the British designed this system to make sure no one bothered getting a visa not just to immigrate, but to just bloody visit the country for bloody tourism. The memory of me watching a video from the UK's visa immigration site saying "everyone is welcome in the UK" when I was applying seems hilariously sad to me now. I was robbed (yes you pay a lot of money to even apply for a visa) and treated like a criminal just because I have to be an Egyptian man. 

Thing is, I don't actually disagree with Trump with his "keep immigration in check" policies and somewhat think he's a very good candidate the more I did my research on him. I know the guy's not a racist, but I know he's ignoring a major issue people like me face. I have a problem with western politicians/citizens who care very little or not at all about immigrants who are doing everything legally, are decent people, and still get treated like criminals.

*The west not only just needs improve their ways to keep out immigrant criminals, but also improve their ways to let in innocent immigrants. It's hard, but it has to be done and it isn't said enough. It's depressing how not much people speak about how improving BOTH is important.*

*Don't let just anyone in, but don't block everyone out either.*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Gandhi said:


> I have a story to share.
> 
> I was refused a visit visa to the UK because some British wanker didn't like the idea bank papers presented with my visa documents being in Arabic. No wait, the punch line is that the bank papers were actually _all in English_. Yes, whoever saw my visa application and documents lied to me to keep me out of the UK. I was also said to be most likely a criminal in the visa refusal papers I was given. So basically some British guy lied to me to keep me out of the UK (so I literally couldn't visit the UK for tourism to see my girlfriend, footy team, AND DEADPOOL IN CINEMAS WITH MY GIRLFRIEND). My girl actually put in her address and phone number in my application too to show'em I was harmless, I had almost every document proving I was just a normal guy who wanted to go visit the UK for tourism (mostly seeing United) and hang out with some English lads & lasses I knew. Had proof I paid for hotel bookings, proof I knew friends in the UK, proof I was a University student, proof of my bank papers were IN ENGLISH, and essentially proof I wasn't going to allahu akbar all over the UK. Despite all of that, I was told to fuck off because of a blatant lie. I wish I was making this up, and I'm not going to get into how depressed/stressed I was because of this fucked up experience and I'd genuinely want to stab anyone who was happy about what happened to me in this specific case. Words cannot describe how fucking angry/depressed I was.
> 
> I know this sounds over the top, but this really happened to me.
> 
> I don't support illegal immigration and understand people should try to immigrate legally, but the last few months had me realize why some people immigrate illegally and I think you get my point.
> 
> Edit: The visa English wanker also lied saying I wasn't a university student anymore, even though I gave him proof with papers from my university proving I was still a university student. He might as well have also said that I also used to work for ISIS, fucker called me a criminal too.


Did you think that maybe the guy just didn't like you and even if you had the Queen's blessing he simply thought you were an asshole and refused you? He prolly went home had a laugh and enjoyed a beer afterword, maybe even called up a few friends to joke about it, maybe it will even be a yearly story around the Holidays.

Iunno people are weird and do weird stuff all the time.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Miss Sally said:


> Did you think that maybe the guy just didn't like you and even if you had the Queen's blessing he simply thought you were an asshole and refused you? He prolly went home had a laugh and enjoyed a beer afterword, maybe even called up a few friends to joke about it, maybe it will even be a yearly story around the Holidays.
> 
> Iunno people are weird and do weird stuff all the time.


He's never met me though.

The only things he knew about me were in my application, from me being a hardcore Manchester United fan who wanted to see United play to me being a vegan who wanted to eat at the many vegan restaurants in Manchester to me going on holiday to the UK since I passed my finals. That's literally all he knew. Guy didn't know me, and still called me a criminal.

I assume you're just taking the piss tbh, and I don't think it's funny but whatever.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Gandhi said:


> I have a story to share.
> 
> I was refused a visit visa to the UK because some British wanker didn't like the idea bank papers presented with my visa documents being in Arabic. No wait, the punch line is that the bank papers were actually _all in English_. Yes, whoever saw my visa application and documents lied to me to keep me out of the UK. I was also said to be most likely a criminal in the visa refusal papers I was given. So basically some British guy lied to me to keep me out of the UK (so I literally couldn't visit the UK for tourism to see my girlfriend, footy team, AND DEADPOOL IN CINEMAS WITH MY GIRLFRIEND). My girl actually put in her address and phone number in my application too to show'em I was harmless, I had almost every document proving I was just a normal guy who wanted to go visit the UK for tourism (mostly seeing United) and hang out with some English lads & lasses I knew. Had proof I paid for hotel bookings, proof I knew friends in the UK, proof I was a University student, proof of my bank papers were IN ENGLISH, and essentially proof I wasn't going to allahu akbar all over the UK. Despite all of that, I was told to fuck off because of a blatant lie. I wish I was making this up, and I'm not going to get into how depressed/stressed I was because of this fucked up experience and I'd genuinely want to stab anyone who was happy about what happened to me in this specific case. Words cannot describe how fucking angry/depressed I was.
> 
> I know this sounds over the top, but this really happened to me.
> 
> I don't support illegal immigration and understand people should try to immigrate legally, but the last few months had me realize why some people immigrate illegally and I think you get my point.
> 
> Edit: The visa English wanker also lied saying I wasn't a university student anymore, even though I gave him proof with papers from my university proving I was still a university student. He might as well have also said that I also used to work for ISIS, fucker called me a criminal too.


Actually really surprised that these incompetent wankers are at least starting to take notice and vetting people properly

Personally for you it is bullshit i agree. A good pal of mine got refused from entering America about 6 months ago due to the fact that he had been to 3 different countries in the middle east in the last year. He explained that all his travel movements abroad in the last 2 years where work related (He is a I.T consultant) and that is why he was travelling to the U.S. He had proof of everything he was saying and he still got refused. When i went to Atlanta in November for Survivor Series i got pulled into a room for a 25 minute interrogation. I put it down to the fact i was travelling on my own and my age but eventually i got let in with no problems

It is bullshit that you got refused but atm thats just the way it is


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Gandhi said:


> He's never met me though.
> 
> The only things he knew about me were in my application, from me being a hardcore Manchester United fan who wanted to see United play to me being a vegan who wanted to eat at the many vegan restaurants in Manchester to me going on holiday to the UK since I passed my finals. That's literally all he knew. Guy didn't know me, and still called me a criminal.
> 
> I assume you're just taking the piss tbh, and I don't think it's funny but whatever.


I am just teasing you, it does suck you were denied. I still think it was someone from here who knows you were going and blocked you.  Or he read your stuff and was like... "Loves United, is Vegan and passed his exams? This guy has to be a terrorist, all this sounds too good to be true!"

Also I like your take on immigration, don't let just anyone in but don't block everyone out. That's what a lot of us want but some people think open borders and uncontrolled immigration is a great thing for some reason.


----------



## samizayn

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Gandhi said:


> I have a story to share.


Really sorry this happened to you.


Top Shelf said:


> Actually really surprised that these incompetent wankers are at least starting to take notice and vetting people properly


Not sure if this was meant to be serious but, this is not an instance of vetting someone properly. It's the exact opposite. 




BruiserKC said:


> I have decided, and it will make you happy...I will vote for Trump if he becomes the nominee (although I may hold my nose doing it), ditto with Cruz. However, if the GOP decides to put someone like a Kasich in the spot for nominee, my ass will sit at home on Election Day. "


How come not Kasich?



Punkhead said:


> http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/07/c...ock-reporters-from-hearing-fundraiser-speech/
> 
> *Clinton Campaign Uses Noise Machine To Block Reporters From Hearing Fundraiser Speech*
> 
> WOW. I mean, that is really ridiculous. She is doing everything she can to show everybody how untrustworthy she is and some idiots still support her.


Reminds me of this Onion article: http://www.theonion.com/article/clinton-throws-flash-grenade-divert-attention-ques-52499


----------



## Angel Moroni

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

I hate Hilary Clinton, America is not a true democracy, every election should be based off popular vote alone


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

Great conversation between Dave Rubin and Paul Joseph Watson about the regressive left, SJWs, BLM, and Donald Trump:


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Miss Sally said:


> I am just teasing you, it does suck you were denied. I still think it was someone from here who knows you were going and blocked you.  Or he read your stuff and was like... "Loves United, is Vegan and passed his exams? This guy has to be a terrorist, all this sounds too good to be true!"
> 
> Also I like your take on immigration, don't let just anyone in but don't block everyone out. That's what a lot of us want but some people think open borders and uncontrolled immigration is a great thing for some reason.


Apologies for my misunderstanding response, guess I'm just very sensitive about what happened. Heh, I'm leaving out a lot of details in that story but the ridiculous amount of hard work I put into seeing my dream girl (I don't care how cliche it sounds) and my dream team (again, don't care how cliche it sounds) all crashing down with what happened really hurt. I planned to literally have the best vacation in my life, and with my girl I planned on doing so much and on showing her the best time she's ever had and words cannot describe how like a child waiting for Santa I was happy about being with my girl and not getting on bloody skype to be with her (the fact that I had a soft spot for England or the west as an ex muslim who valued many western values didn't help either). I actually hate that I'm this sensitive about the topic, and I seriously hope I get over it asap because it's annoying how people around me try to cheer me up with jokes and I just get depressed and foolishly think people are trying to laugh at me when they mean well.

Also yeah, open borders don't really help anyone but criminals as even the good immigrants who take advantage of open borders will get screwed by the fact that dangerous people will take advantage of open borders too hence will fuck up both the lives of the natives and the decent immigrants who took advantage of open borders. You either help good people, or wretched people.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

Yo, people have no chill....


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

The Ted Cruz campaign flat out embarrassed Trump's people in Colorado today. Cruz picked up all of Colorado's district delegates. The statewide delegates are tomorrow where Cruz will go for the clean sweep.

At the convention, if Cruz ends up with enough delegates during a second go-round to win the nomination, I can see him going out of his way to find Trump backstage, slowly put on a pair of sunglasses and say, "Donald, that's the art of the deal."


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



samizayn said:


> How come not Kasich?


Kasich is moderately conservative, but the man only has one state win under his belt and that's his home state of Ohio. I sure as hell can't get behind a guy who only has one win. The by-laws of the GOP convention, rule 40 to be exact IIRC, states that the presidential nomination is open to folks who have won at least 8 state primaries/caucuses. It was 5 originally until Romney's camp upped the number in '12 to keep Rand Paul out.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



BruiserKC said:


> Kasich is moderately conservative, but the man only has one state win under his belt and that's his home state of Ohio. I sure as hell can't get behind a guy who only has one win. The by-laws of the GOP convention, rule 40 to be exact IIRC, states that the presidential nomination is open to folks who have won at least 8 state primaries/caucuses. It was 5 originally until Romney's camp upped the number in '12 to keep Rand Paul out.


The GOP is super corrupt the can easily try to change the rule again before the convention and make it zero if they want.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



birthday_massacre said:


> The GOP is super corrupt the can easily try to change the rule again before the convention and make it zero if they want.


Let's be honest here, both parties are corrupt to the core.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



IronMaiden7 said:


> The Ted Cruz campaign flat out embarrassed Trump's people in Colorado today. Cruz picked up all of Colorado's district delegates. The statewide delegates are tomorrow where Cruz will go for the clean sweep.
> 
> At the convention, if Cruz ends up with enough delegates during a second go-round to win the nomination, I can see him going out of his way to find Trump backstage, slowly put on a pair of sunglasses and say, "Donald, that's the art of the deal."


Or, on the Democratic side...if Sanders would go forward with it...come out to the convention and give a non-endorsement speech about Hillary like Reagan did in '76 when Ford clinched the nomination the last time there was a brokered convention. 



birthday_massacre said:


> The GOP is super corrupt the can easily try to change the rule again before the convention and make it zero if they want.


The Democratic establishment ain't exactly filled with choirboys and girls, either. Especially if Sanders can keep up momentum, he clinched Wyoming today. Nine of the last ten states has gone to Bernie, Hillary has a major problem. She has been trying to focus on the general election, but Sanders ain't going away. 



L-DOPA said:


> Let's be honest here, both parties are corrupt to the core.


The establishment and leadership of both parties are fighting to maintain their cushy gigs, as there is revolt against them all. Trump and Cruz represent the coup within the GOP. They are the spokespeople for those that have been lied to over the last few years, those who are ready for a change within the hierarchy at the top. On the Democratic side, the establishment there started losing control when Obama took office. Those that support Sanders say Obama didn't do enough, now they want more. They are even willing to go after the Clintons, especially Bill for his rant against the BLM protester in Philly (even though Slick Willie was 100% correct.) 

This election boils down to a referendum on the last 8 years. Do we keep going with the changes Obama created, or do we head in a different direction as a nation? It was much the same way of the '88 election as a referendum of the Reagan Revolution, '00 being the referendum on Clinton, and '08 on Dubya.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

BruiserKC oh i know the DNC is also corrupt, not as much as the GOP but they still are for sure. They are all.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



birthday_massacre said:


> BruiserKC oh i know the DNC is also corrupt, not as much as the GOP but they still are for sure. They are all.


I'm not sure I entirely agree, I think both parties are two sides to the same coin. I see it like this, you have two gangs of robbers, one deals with bank robberies, armored truck heists and the other is more wall street/hacker stuff. Both steal, both are bad but one is slightly more polarizing than the other.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Miss Sally said:


> I'm not sure I entirely agree, I think both parties are two sides to the same coin. I see it like this, you have two gangs of robbers, one deals with bank robberies, armored truck heists and the other is more wall street/hacker stuff. Both steal, both are bad but one is slightly more polarizing than the other.


The GOP is way worse and more corrupt than the DNC. That is why the DNC is stupid. The GOP gets like 90% of the money in police and the DNC takes like 10% so they can't even use that against the GOP.

Plus the GOP is against women and gay rights. They don't even think climate change is real and they want creationism in schools. They are still living in the stone age.

Also don't get me wrong, there are people on the DNC side that are just as bad. Hillary Clinton is one of the most corrupt people ever on the DNC side. She is reprehensible but i don't even view her as a democrat. She is really a republican lite but she is just on the democratic side for some reason.

she is center right for sure the only reason she is claiming she is a "liberal now" which is laughable, is because Bernie is super left winged / liberal and he pushed Hillary to the left but once the general election (if she beas Bernie) comes she will move back to center right.



Here is a question for everyone 

Lets say Bernie and Trump both get fucked over by their parties and both decided to go independent on the general election
So it was Hillary, Cruz, Trump and Sanders. What does everyone think would happen?

I think it would be a shit show and would be the best thing to happen for america in a long time. Not sure who would win but it would be interesting. I doubt Sanders would even run independent even if he loses by fuckery but Trump def would to screw over the GOP.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



birthday_massacre said:


> BruiserKC oh i know the DNC is also corrupt, not as much as the GOP but they still are for sure. They are all.





Miss Sally said:


> I'm not sure I entirely agree, I think both parties are two sides to the same coin. I see it like this, you have two gangs of robbers, one deals with bank robberies, armored truck heists and the other is more wall street/hacker stuff. Both steal, both are bad but one is slightly more polarizing than the other.


At the end of the day...this is like watching a couple of pregnant women walking down the sidewalk and trying to determine if one is a little less pregnant than the other. No such thing.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



BruiserKC said:


> At the end of the day...this is like watching a couple of pregnant women walking down the sidewalk and trying to determine if one is a little less pregnant than the other. No such thing.


That is true a little corrupt and very corrupt is still corrupt but the GOP is worse because of their stances of abortion, same sex marriage, climate change and creationism and religion in pubic schools. That is what makes the GOP mach worse and way more dangerous.


----------



## virus21

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Can't we all just vote Libertarian? I hear its become more popular these days.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



birthday_massacre said:


> That is true a little corrupt and very corrupt is still corrupt but the GOP is worse because of their stances of abortion, same sex marriage, climate change and creationism and religion in pubic schools. That is what makes the GOP mach worse and way more dangerous.


Meanwhile, you have a Democratic party that has been all too happy to use the IRS to put the clamps on conservative groups like the Tea Party, go after phone records of press members, back a woman who if this was a Republican pulling what she did (Hillary on Benghazi) that they'd be demanding her go to prison, run our national debt further out of control, and alienate our allies while emboldening our enemies.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Obama said today in a press conference that the worst mistake of his presidency was not having a plan after the ousting of Gaddifi and hoping that the rebels would stabilize the region 

For as much as people bitch about Obama he is willing to face his criticism head on and take the lashes for people in his cabinet


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



BruiserKC said:


> Meanwhile, you have a Democratic party that has been all too happy to use the IRS to put the clamps on conservative groups like the Tea Party, go after phone records of press members, back a woman who if this was a Republican pulling what she did (Hillary on Benghazi) that they'd be demanding her go to prison, run our national debt further out of control, and alienate our allies while emboldening our enemies.


The Bush's alienated our allies way more than Obama ever did. And the deficit is in better shape under Obama than it was under Bush, and Im not a fan of Obama but its true. Not to mention the GOP didnt let Obama get anything done blocking over 500 of his bills which is the most in the history of the USA.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**


----------



## truelove

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

I recommend anyone here looking up Austin Petersen and John Mcafee before assuming Gary Johnson is the libertarian candidate. Also to the Bernie supporters, are you gonna vote for Hillary if she is the nominate or would you consider the green party or another?


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



virus21 said:


> Can't we all just vote Libertarian? I hear its become more popular these days.







Donald Trump with some truth:


----------



## WesternFilmGuy

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

GOP: WWE
Donald Trump: Daniel Bryan
Ted Cruz: Roman Reigns
Media: WWE asslicking society.

A lot of great comparisons. Just take a step back and look at it.

I can't believe the GOP is actively trying to destroy their party by going with options that the "fans" don't want. Trump will have to jump through circles to get to the General, and that is bullshit when he has millions more votes. Who gives a damn if he can't win in the future? At least you keep people Republicans. Now people are burning their registrations and giving up on the GOP. They deserve another 8 years of a Democrat in charge. We, the people, do not however.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



WesternFilmGuy said:


> GOP: WWE
> Donald Trump: Daniel Bryan
> Ted Cruz: Roman Reigns
> Media: WWE asslicking society.
> 
> A lot of great comparisons. Just take a step back and look at it.
> 
> I can't believe the GOP is actively trying to destroy their party by going with options that the "fans" don't want. Trump will have to jump through circles to get to the General, and that is bullshit when he has millions more votes. Who gives a damn if he can't win in the future? At least you keep people Republicans. Now people are burning their registrations and giving up on the GOP. They deserve another 8 years of a Democrat in charge. We, the people, do not however.


GOP: The Authority
Donald Trump: John Cena
Ted Cruz: CM Punk

Jeb Bush: Roman Reigns
Marco Rubio: Dean Ambrose

Media: IWC

:troll


----------



## Angel Moroni

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



truelove said:


> I recommend anyone here looking up Austin Petersen and John Mcafee before assuming Gary Johnson is the libertarian candidate. Also to the Bernie supporters, are you gonna vote for Hillary if she is the nominate or would you consider the green party or another?


Nope, Hilary is a kale-eating,video game hating asshole, I'm writing in Bernie if that happens.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*


----------



## amhlilhaus

Angel Moroni said:


> truelove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I recommend anyone here looking up Austin Petersen and John Mcafee before assuming Gary Johnson is the libertarian candidate. Also to the Bernie supporters, are you gonna vote for Hillary if she is the nominate or would you consider the green party or another?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, Hilary is a kale-eating,video game hating asshole, I'm writing in Bernie if that happens.
Click to expand...

If it was bernie as nominee they would, liberals march in lockstep, herd mentality


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

@AryaDark @Beatles123 @BruiserKC @CamillePunk @CJ @Deadpool @Fringe @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @Punkhead @samizayn @TomahawkJock @Truthbetold

Hate to say "I told you so," but the fact is that the hogs at the trough were never going to give up their mess of fodder without a fight. Crime bosses seldom willingly abdicate their positions. 

Democracy is a sham. Has been since Pericles in Athens and it will be after the next five generations of each Clinton and Bush plutocratic clan uses the people as they are always intended to be used in "democracy." The best summation of democracy and its participants was, interestingly, stated by Eli Wallach's villainous character Calvera in the 1960 John Sturges-directed, William Roberts-written Western _The Magnificent Seven_: "If God didn't want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep."


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/719912198294867969


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Angel Moroni said:


> Nope, Hilary is a kale-eating,video game hating asshole, I'm writing in Bernie if that happens.


Damn, i was ok with her 'war crimes' but Kale? What a monster.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

Hey peeps!


----------



## Freelancer

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

As much as I don't care for Trump, I'm glad he's speaking out on how corrupt the system is. The Republican party is doing to him the same thing the Democratic party is doing to Bernie. If anybody thinks that people voting are actually going to decide who gets on the ballot, you got another thing coming. 

Stuff like this is why I have almost zero interest in voting anymore.

P.S., if anybody lives in my neck of the woods, do not step foot in Pittsburgh today. We have the Pens first playoff game, a Pirate game, 2 Trump rally's, and a bunch of anti-Trump protests scheduled. That city is going to be a complete mess.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

So a Black girl can spit on a white girl at a Trump rally and this is Ok?

http://i.imgur.com/XR0WaLq.gifv


----------



## southrnbygrace

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

So I'm goofing around online today and found this gem. I about fell out laughing. So sad, but extremely true.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Beatles123 said:


> So a Black girl can spit on a white girl at a Trump rally and this is Ok?
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/XR0WaLq.gifv


She probably thinks she's living under an oppressive system of white supremacy.

Yet she likes the system much better than living in a country where the majority of people look like her.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Beatles123 said:


> So a Black girl can spit on a white girl at a Trump rally and this is Ok?
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/XR0WaLq.gifv


No it's not ok and I don't think people are lining up to say it is. Interesting that you even mentioned the skin colour, isn't it just a woman spitting on someone else? 

It's also not okay to rough house people at Trump rallies, but apparently they asked for it so it is.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



yeahbaby! said:


> No it's not ok and I don't think people are lining up to say it is. Interesting that you even mentioned the skin colour, isn't it just a woman spitting on someone else?
> 
> It's also not okay to rough house people at Trump rallies, but apparently they asked for it so it is.


That's exactly the point. It's not okay regardless of skin color, but unlike Trump supporters, these people will never be made accountable openly in our media for it. Not a liberal outlet. ONLY republicans do this shit, doncha know. 

These are the same people saying Blacks cannot be racist. (and who's interview stating as much was praised in the news.)

PROGRESS1!!1!!!


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

Surely Stefan Molyneaux has already made a compelling video about it


----------



## Pronoss

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

Multiculturalism, the made up redefined word by liberal political correctness is a bad thing, and so is political correctness


I wish Hitchens were still with us, he'd have a field day dismantling the left.


2007 he knew it was coming course Richard Lamm speech was recorded and leaked online in 2005 so he paid attention.

https://youtu.be/5KE0tjgkOC8


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

It's not even multiculturalism, it's this idea that blacks are owed special treatment and not equal treatment. I would condemn her if she were white, black, or purple. The left know how to use anti-white racism just as much as the nuttiest right-wingers use it to shame blacks, but no one talks about it half as much.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Beatles123 said:


> It's not even multiculturalism, it's this idea that blacks are owed special treatment and not equal treatment. I would condemn her if she were white, black, or purple. The left know how to use anti-white racism just as much as the nuttiest right-wingers use it to shame blacks, but no one talks about it half as much.


If white kids learned about the Moors and the Barbary slave trade in school they would realize there is no such thing as white oppression . Black people don't even believe in white privilege because if they did they would never choose to live in countries with a white majority population.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*










http://college.usatoday.com/2016/04/13/tulane-students-fire-back-at-fraternitys-pro-trump-wall/


----------



## Pronoss

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*







Folks might be finally realizing media lies


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

@AryaDark @Beatles123 @BruiserKC @CamillePunk @CJ @The Dazzler @Deadpool @Goku @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @samizayn @THE SHIV @Truthbetold

One of the funnier and more truthful videos to be found on the Internet right now:


----------



## FITZ

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

I'm really enjoying the Democratic Debate. 

They're talking about gun control and it's hilarious. Clinton is criticizing Vermont's gun laws when Vermont has the lowest rate of fun murder in the country. Bernie sounds reasonable in what he's saying about gun. Most fascinating is that they spoke for about 10-15 minutes about gun and neither of them mentioned the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Chokeline

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

:lmao:lmao:lmao


----------



## FITZ

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Going to be honest here, Hitler did have a couple of good points in those quotes.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



FITZ said:


> They're talking about gun control and it's hilarious. Clinton is criticizing Vermont's gun laws when *Vermont has the lowest rate of murder in the country*.










That's because Vermont is 96% White, in the least diverse part this country.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93608

So naturally Vermont will have a low a Murder rate on par with Europe.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Are you implying that there are other factors aside from gun laws that impact the murder rate? Pretty sure that's racist.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



FITZ said:


> Are you implying that there are other factors aside from gun laws that impact the murder rate?


http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anyth...-lowest-murder-rate-america.html#post59079473

^Had to make another thread so we don't go off topic.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



FITZ said:


> Are you implying that there are other factors aside from gun laws that impact the murder rate? Pretty sure that's racist.


Are you implying that he's implying that there's some element inherent in non-white people that just _makes them want to shoot people?_

Wonder what it could be?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

Seems like he has NY on lock


----------



## Pronoss

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Anonymous (the other side)

Message To Hillary Clinton

https://youtu.be/OTMaIX_JPE4


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Pronoss said:


> Multiculturalism, the made up redefined word by liberal political correctness is a bad thing, and so is political correctness
> 
> 
> I wish Hitchens were still with us, he'd have a field day dismantling the left.
> 
> 
> 2007 he knew it was coming course Richard Lamm speech was recorded and leaked online in 2005 so he paid attention.
> 
> https://youtu.be/5KE0tjgkOC8


Ummmmm Hitchens was a Socialist. :HHH2


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



yeahbaby! said:


> Are you implying that he's implying that there's some element inherent in non-white people that just _makes them want to shoot people?_
> 
> Wonder what it could be?


It's probably just a coincidence Vermont doesn't have any famous rappers who glorify shooting people like other parts of America that have very high murder rates.

But that's just a coincidence right? :mj


----------



## Pronoss

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



nucklehead88 said:


> Ummmmm Hitchens was a Socialist. :HHH2


That makes absolutely no difference to his point which is correct.


It won't matter if you like Pokemon or Marvel, Libertarian or Juche , if you state a fact, the fact is still a fact that can't be refuted.


Liberal political correctness has a proven origin and the terms used invented by them to destabilize countries 


It doesn't matter who points out a fact it doesn't lessen the fact.


Plus he said he still admired Che Guevera, he was more libertarian now, yet he had problems with it, he liked Republican ideas but had problems with rest, he liked some of it all.

Except for Theocracy, Capitalistic Democracy , Monarchy, and Juche are silly in his opinion.


I can separate a man's opinion from his fact. If an enemy of mine states a fact ill source it, if an opponent to my beliefs States a fact I'll source it.


If Karl Marx was alive and posted a fact , I'd quote him.


But if it's opinion ID preface with I agree with this opinion.


But Hitchens was not 1 party he was all over place, just as I am. 


Hitchens for a while called himself a paradox he was a conservative Marxist. Which is a funny idea goes over many heads. Marxism is liberal far left, Karl Marx studied the writings of Richard Pratt inventor of liberal political correctness, Marx adopted and added to create his Marxism. So a "Conservative" Marxist is an oxymoron joke.  

On foreign policy he agreed with the US Republicans, and he also liked Ralph Nader of the Green Party.

So he was all over place, and he did like to troll. Be loved to purposely piss off a journalist by saying outrageous things then once the shocked silence occurred that gave him window to speak without interruption.


I don't like him

But when he states a fact I don't care if I like him or not I'll source it.

And yes "multiculturalism" is made up.


----------



## Pronoss

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

I've stated in this thread many pages back probably that things have gone to shit when Monty Python member John Cleese is fed up.

Political correctness and liberalism gone too far.
Sometimes you want to say something to offend on purpose.
Freedom of speech also means people have the right to offend you, it also means you can ignore them. But you have no right to stop speech or the content of such.

That's where liberalism has gone too far. And in 1968 the fall of liberalism occurred and lasted until mid 2000s after retard Bush fucked his party by going against conservative values and signing extreme left wing liberal bills into law multiplying the size of government not seen since Roosevelt New Deal. That's when Bush sabotaged his party.




Anyhow back to the wonderful yet now very annoyed John Cleese , he would have been Sir John Cleese but he refused the honor. He points out the idiocy of the hypersensitive.

If you plug in all the symptoms of the PC and hypersensitive you find it's a mental issue they can't control themselves so they try to control others. Those that push political correctness actually have 100% of the symptoms for severe mental disorder that'd get anyone else committed. The hypersensitivity and having to control what people say and act and demanding safespaces "hugboxes" gets into psychopathy in the realm of borderline personality disorder with narcissistic tendencies, this type of psychopathy is one of the dangerous to others and used to get ya tossed in a mental asylum  

https://youtu.be/QAK0KXEpF8U


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

One thing I'll give credit to when it comes to Hardcore leftists and PC pushers is that they prey on ignorance and guilt. Forcing people to do things with shows of power only makes them want to fight back but with the ideals of "Political Correctness and Multiculturalism" it pretty much sets up something that cannot be contained or stopped without even needing an army. You use this ideology to control people, it's pretty much a Religion within itself, a Religion can have some pretty basic standards but you always get "true believers" who go nuts moving the lines of right/wrong all over the place to suit their fanaticism. This is the same way these ideologies work with the hardcore Leftists, they get more and more zealous to out do each other to the point they'll turn on any moderates! It's crazy but it works, getting rid of Religion won't change much when you have Political Correctness to take it's spot. In a way this leftist ideology is more dangerous, Religion isn't fact but is faith, leftists try to pass off their ideals of the "Great Good" as fact when indeed it is nothing but opinion yet is taught as gospel.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Miss Sally said:


> In a way this leftist ideology is more dangerous, Religion isn't fact but is faith, leftists try to pass off their ideals of the "Great Good" as fact when indeed it is nothing but opinion yet is taught as gospel.


There's no way PC is as dangerous as religion, with bible bashers permeating both sides of the American system and big media to name a few institutions, crusty old white men constantly pushing their religious ideals to every corner of the land, and much more bloodshed and injustice has been created than any PC movement could ever do or will ever do.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Truthbetold said:


> It's probably just a coincidence Vermont doesn't have any famous rappers who glorify shooting people like other parts of America that have very high murder rates.
> 
> But that's just a coincidence right? :mj


Sorry what's your point?? Rappers make people shoot other people? And Vermont doesn't have access to music that is produced outside Vermont? :mj


----------



## Pronoss

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



yeahbaby! said:


> There's no way PC is as dangerous as religion, with bible bashers permeating both sides of the American system and big media to name a few institutions, crusty old white men constantly pushing their religious ideals to every corner of the land, and much more bloodshed and injustice has been created than any PC movement could ever do or will ever do.


PC has done the same things as fundamental religious has done. 

And worse. 



Richard Henry Pratt cultural genocide of native americans the young natives turned on their elders calling them racist and privileged as well as lazy and drunks. The young Natives became taxpaying citizens leaving reservation. Pratt's Motto "Kill the Indian, Save the Man". He invented the word "racist" and "racism" for the sole purpose of giving a new word to native american youth to attack their own people with.


McCarthyism, the era of just saying anything you wished could get you labeled a "Communist", first private citizen's lives were destroyed, then Hollywood, and celebs, then he went after politicians and businessmen, then he went after the US Military and he fucked up 
A Staunch liberal democrat, after 1936 to 1944, due to the open candidacy in his state and he was likely looking at defeat he did swap parties to Republicans to get the election. But his entire run was pure political correctness turned up to 11. 


The Totalitarian Unitary Juche of North Korea


Karl Marx as a teen read the translated works of Richard Henry Pratt and his distilled 'political correctness' and it shaped and influenced what became a foundation of Marxism.


From Marxism you can branch out to few dozen examples and atrocities, and hangings/firing squad/executions for speech/thought/writing that was not the "status quo"




Just like religious extremism.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



yeahbaby! said:


> Sorry what's your point?? Rappers make people shoot other people? And Vermont doesn't have access to music that is produced outside Vermont? :mj


Working at an inner city high school will teach you just how influential the local Hip Hop scene is.

But in Vermont, not so much of that scene making it the state with the least murder in America.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Pronoss said:


> PC has done the same things as fundamental religious has done.
> 
> And worse.
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Henry Pratt cultural genocide of native americans the young natives turned on their elders calling them racist and privileged as well as lazy and drunks. The young Natives became taxpaying citizens leaving reservation. Pratt's Motto "Kill the Indian, Save the Man". He invented the word "racist" and "racism" for the sole purpose of giving a new word to native american youth to attack their own people with.
> 
> 
> McCarthyism, the era of just saying anything you wished could get you labeled a "Communist", first private citizen's lives were destroyed, then Hollywood, and celebs, then he went after politicians and businessmen, then he went after the US Military and he fucked up
> A Staunch liberal democrat, after 1936 to 1944, due to the open candidacy in his state and he was likely looking at defeat he did swap parties to Republicans to get the election. But his entire run was pure political correctness turned up to 11.
> 
> 
> The Totalitarian Unitary Juche of North Korea
> 
> 
> Karl Marx as a teen read the translated works of Richard Henry Pratt and his distilled 'political correctness' and it shaped and influenced what became a foundation of Marxism.
> 
> 
> From Marxism you can branch out to few dozen examples and atrocities, and hangings/firing squad/executions for speech/thought/writing that was not the "status quo"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like religious extremism.


For pete's sake it's not _worse._ You can't say that with a straight face. Now list all the horrendous wars and genocides etc etc that have been enacted over fundamental religion.

Kind of ironic you mentioned McCarthyism, as some in this section talk about the all evil PC as if it were the dreaded reds under the bed in the 50s.


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



yeahbaby! said:


> There's no way PC is as dangerous as religion, with bible bashers permeating both sides of the American system and big media to name a few institutions, crusty old white men constantly pushing their religious ideals to every corner of the land, and much more bloodshed and injustice has been created than any PC movement could ever do or will ever do.


In 2016, hardcore, radical political "correctness" is a bigger issue in the west because it is taken much more seriously by the vast majority of politicians and youth than religion.

Much like feminism if we do not consider how the future will be in 10 years from pushing such hardcore agendas then more harm will be done than good.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



KILL V. Oxi said:


> In 2016, hardcore, radical political "correctness" is a bigger issue in the west because it is taken much more seriously by the vast majority of politicians and youth than religion.


This is Truth and the reason Donald Trump is by far the most popular candidate.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/16/politics/sanders-clinton-fundraiser-dollar-bills/

How appropriate that Sanders supporters are throwing away money in this little stunt. :lol


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Lol political elite and celebs backing up Hilary. Trump saying some truth about Sanders. Regardless, Trump and Sanders have a hard time ahead of them, the elite, rich companies and special interest groups are out for blood.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Vote 1 Clooney


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

I hate political music and the internet age has just made it worse

I am sure 30 years from now that anti-trump/clinton/whoever song will still make sense

Its like all those comedians and TV shows that invested their future in Bill Cliton/GWB still being funny after they left office


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Miss Sally said:


> Lol political elite and celebs backing up Hilary. Trump saying some truth about Sanders. Regardless, Trump and Sanders have a hard time ahead of them, the elite, rich companies and special interest groups are out for blood.


Everyone's out for blood in this election. A decade and more of social media and reality TV has created an entitlement and victimhood culture in every side of the political spectrum.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



KILL V. Oxi said:


> In 2016, hardcore, radical political "correctness" is a bigger issue in the west because it is taken much more seriously by the vast majority of politicians and youth than religion.
> 
> Much like feminism if we do not consider how the future will be in 10 years from pushing such hardcore agendas then more harm will be done than good.


I beg your pardon, politicians have been voting and creating legislation and causing shit based on their religion for a long time, certainly in the US. America still can't and won't elect a President or probably even a governor in most states who doesn't thump his bible once a day and say god bless.

What's the most harm that can be done by _hardcore, radical political "correctness"_ that hasn't already caused by god-driven individuals? Pray tell what the future will be like in ten years because of PC and feminism.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

Political correctness is the result, and process, of postmodern critical theory deconstructive thinking, which is anti-Western civilization at its core. Developed early on in Marxism and brought to US universities in the 1920s, where it has taken over academia (and then the media) ever sense.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Looks like Ted Cruz was on Maury coming out he is in transition .











Wonder how this will effect the election


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



yeahbaby! said:


> I beg your pardon, politicians have been voting and creating legislation and causing shit based on their religion *for a long time*, certainly in the US. America still can't and won't elect a President or probably even a governor in most states who doesn't thump his bible once a day and say god bless.
> 
> What's the most harm that can be done by _hardcore, radical political "correctness"_ that hasn't already caused by god-driven individuals? Pray tell what the future will be like in ten years because of PC and feminism.


I said 2016, not "for a long time".

We live in a time where the President of the United States doesn't look at facts and believes in the wage gap. Justin Trudeau is the PM of Canada. Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton are both fairly possible future Presidents of the US as well. To claim religion has so much more of a hold on America/the west right now than the politically correct movement would be folly to say the least. I would say they're close and wouldn't argue if you believed that religion is still more important, but I believe the PC movement is about the same if not more.

The entire movement of political correctness and feminism is based on shutting down free speech if it offends a certain group or groups of people. That for one can cause thousands of different problems, especially in the US with the US constitutions. Furthermore, the PC movement and feminism especially, generalise a lot of their arguments, broadly group their points, and do more harm than good. I've mentioned this to you before but you don't seem to want to believe it.

Do you think it's right to claim a "wage gap" because people at the age of 55 who were affected by sexism 30-40 years ago when they began their careers earn less than their male counterparts, and then continue to give young women between 18 and 30 more money, more grants, and more special privileges because of it? Consider this as taking a supposed privilege from years and years ago, and not equalising it between everyone, but _just giving it to a different group_. Two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> Political correctness is the result, and process, of postmodern critical theory deconstructive thinking, which is anti-Western civilization at its core. Developed early on in Marxism and brought to US universities in the 1920s, where it has taken over academia (and then the media) ever sense.


God, get a clue please

First of all critical theory is not a part of postmodern thinking, yes postmodern thinking is influenced in a big part by critical theory but postmodernism, outside of art fields, it's not a thing until 1979. Deconstruction outside of arts is also not a thing until Derrida and Foucault or literature philosophers like Saussure (but they never used the term)

Second, critical theory was a thing developed with the program of "liberation thru enlightment", yes most of the thinkers were marxists who dealed with the part of society that Marx didn't touch on his works: Culture. But there was more influence there, Horkheimer and Adorno raised more of his theory from Weber who, influenced by Marx aswell, was more of a individualist centrist and also were close to the ideas of Kant and people of their time like Heidegger.

Third, the "anti western civilization at its core" critique in critic theory was mostly the works of Adorno and Horkheimer and they just expanded on the instrumental rationality identified by Weber which has been criticized by almost all philosphers since then not only the ones on critique theory. Most of the slash is taken by "mass culture" which is seen as a way of domination thrue culture, basically what Adorno advocate for is not a culture of equals but based on difference... yeah, freedom and indivduality.

Even if you were right in that critical theory on the work of Adorno and Horkheimer was anti western civilization. Critical theory also sponsored the works of people like Fromm and currently Habermas both people who were more conservative, in fact Habermas is a champion in interpretaion of the law used by right wings ideas...

Third, Frankfurt wasn't founded until the 30's so i doubt that critical theory is present on America on the 20's. The only claim for that to ve true is on the exile of some of the most notorious figures of the academy to the states, people like Marcuse, Adornor or Horkheimer, but most of them didn't wrote their most notorious works until after the exile, so the claim is ridicule.

Finally, what you're advocating for is "cultural Marxism" which is what most idiots think "political correctness" is. Guess what, "cultural Marxism" is a conspiracy theory developed by a nutjob who believed that it was part of jewish plan of world wide domination

Just from wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory



> Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory[edit]
> "Cultural Marxism" originated in the 1970s as an informal niche term describing certain Western Marxists who transitioned away from Structural Marxism and adopted a more general practice of Cultural analysis.[50][51] The term has since been embroiled in an ongoing Culture War. Cultural Marxism is an historical interpretive framework of the origin of Political correctness, but has come to be framed, as part of the ongoing culture wars, as a "conspiracy theory" by Leftist activitsts.
> 
> Weyrich first aired his conception of Cultural Marxism in a 1998 speech to the Civitas Institute's Conservative Leadership Conference, later discussing the concept in his much publicized Culture War Letter.[52][53][54] At Weyrich's request William S. Lind wrote a short history of their conception of Cultural Marxism for The Free Congress Foundation, in which Lind identifies the presence of homosexuals on television, as a symptom of Cultural Marxist control of the media and claims that Herbert Marcuse considered "a coalition of blacks, students, feminist women and homosexuals" as the vanguard of a possible Cultural revolution.[55][56][57] Lind went on to publish a novel which depicts a fictional account of a post-apocalyptic Cultural Marxist future under the Pen name Thomas Hobbes.[58][59] Lind and Weyrich's writings on this subject advocate fighting Cultural Marxism with "a vibrant cultural conservatism" composed of "retroculture" fashions from the past, a return to rail systems as public transport and an agrarian culture of self-reliance modeled after the Amish.[55][60][61][62][59][63][64]
> 
> In 1999 Lind led the creation of an hour-long program, "Political Correctness: The Frankfurt School".[65] Some of Lind's content was later reproduced in James Jaeger's film "Original Intent" which wrongly attributes quotes from Pat Buchanan's "Death of the West" as having come from Herbert Marcuse.[66][67] The intellectual historian Martin Jay commented on this phenomena saying Lind's documentary;
> 
> "... spawned a number of condensed textual versions, which were reproduced on a number of radical right-wing sites. These in turn led to a welter of new videos now available on YouTube, which feature an odd cast of pseudo-experts regurgitating exactly the same line. The message is numbingly simplistic: all the ills of modern American culture, from feminism, affirmative action, sexual liberation and gay rights to the decay of traditional education and even environmentalism are ultimately attributable to the insidious influence of the members of the Institute for Social Research who came to America in the 1930's."[65]
> 
> Dr. Heidi Beirich likewise claims the concept is used to demonize various conservative "bêtes noires" including "feminists, homosexuals, secular humanists, multiculturalist, sex educators, environmentalist, immigrants, and black nationalists."[68]
> 
> According to Chip Berlet, who specializes in the study of extreme right-wing movements, the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory found fertile ground within the Tea Party movement of 2009, with contributions published in the American Thinker and WorldNetDaily highlighted by some Tea Party websites.[69][70][71]
> 
> In 2003 The Southern Poverty Law Center made the claim that William S. Lind attended a Holocaust Denial conference in 2002 giving a lecture on the topic of Cultural Marxism, but was careful to note that he did not "question whether the Holocaust occurred" and was there in an official capacity "to work with a wide variety of groups on an issue-by-issue basis".[72]
> 
> Although it became more widespread in the late 1990s and 2000s, the modern iteration of the theory originated within Michael Minnicino's 1992 essay "New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness'", published in Fidelio Magazine by the Schiller Institute.[73][65][74] The Schiller Institute, a branch of the LaRouche movement, further promoted the idea in 1994.[75] The Minnicino article charges that the Frankfurt School promoted Modernism in the arts as a form of Cultural pessimism, and shaped the Counterculture of the 1960s after the Wandervogel of the Ascona commune.[73]
> 
> More recently, the Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik included the term in his document "2083: A European Declaration of Independence", which along with The Free Congress Foundation's "Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology" was e-mailed to 1,003 addresses about 90 minutes before the 2011 bomb blast in Oslo for which Breivik was responsible.[76][77][78] Portions of William S. Lind's writings on Cultural Marxism have been found within Breivik's manifesto.[79]
> 
> Philosopher and political science lecturer Jérôme Jamin has stated that "Next to the global dimension of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, there is its innovative and original dimension, which lets its authors avoid racist discourses and pretend to be defenders of democracy".[80] Professor and Oxford Fellow Matthew Feldman has traced the terminology back to the pre-war German concept of Cultural Bolshevism locating it as part of the degeneration theory that aided in Hitler's rise to power.[81] William S. Lind confirms this as his period of interest, claiming that "It [Cultural Marxism] is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I."[82]




Also http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



asdf0501 said:


> God, get a clue please
> 
> First of all critical theory is not a part of postmodern thinking, yes postmodern thinking is influenced in a big part by critical theory but postmodernism, outside of art fields, it's not a thing until 1979. Deconstruction outside of arts is also not a thing until Derrida and Foucault or literature philosophers like Saussure (but they never used the term)
> 
> Second, critical theory was a thing developed with the program of "liberation thru enlightment", yes most of the thinkers were marxists who dealed with the part of society that Marx didn't touch on his works: Culture. But there was more influence there, Horkheimer and Adorno raised more of his theory from Weber who, influenced by Marx aswell, was more of a individualist centrist and also were close to the ideas of Kant and people of their time like Heidegger.
> 
> Third, the "anti western civilization at its core" critique in critic theory was mostly the works of Adorno and Horkheimer and they just expanded on the instrumental rationality identified by Weber which has been criticized by almost all philosphers since then not only the ones on critique theory. Most of the slash is taken by "mass culture" which is seen as a way of domination thrue culture, basically what Adorno advocate for is not a culture of equals but based on difference... yeah, freedom and indivduality.
> 
> Even if you were right in that critical theory on the work of Adorno and Horkheimer was anti western civilization. Critical theory also sponsored the works of people like Fromm and currently Habermas both people who were more conservative, in fact Habermas is a champion in interpretaion of the law used by right wings ideas...
> 
> Third, Frankfurt wasn't founded until the 30's so i doubt that critical theory is present on America on the 20's. The only claim for that to ve true is on the exile of some of the most notorious figures of the academy to the states, people like Marcuse, Adornor or Horkheimer, but most of them didn't wrote their most notorious works until after the exile, so the claim is ridicule.
> 
> Finally, what you're advocating for is "cultural Marxism" which is what most idiots think "political correctness" is. Guess what, "cultural Marxism" is a conspiracy theory developed by a nutjob who believed that it was part of jewish plan of world wide domination
> 
> Just from wikipedia
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism


Quoting wikipedia (which has deleted the cultural marxism page and moved it to conspiracy theory section multiple times) and rationalwiki (left wing shill factory)...please shill go elsewhere. We know what the game is, the game is up. We're fighting back and using your own techniques against you. And we're going to win. This is a culture war, and you are on the #wrongsideofhistory :surprise:


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

Does it matter whether religion or PC fascists hold more sway? Both are terrible and work against individual freedom. It's meet the new boss same as the old boss.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> Quoting wikipedia (which has deleted the cultural marxism page and moved it to conspiracy theory section multiple times) and rationalwiki (left wing shill factory)...please shill go elsewhere. We know what the game is, the game is up. We're fighting back and using your own techniques against you. And we're going to win. This is a culture war, and you are on the #wrongsideofhistory :surprise:



So, of all the rebutting you're worried about the wikipedia quoting? really?

Fighting back to what? what are you even talking about? do you realize you sound like a conpiracy theorist yourself?


You know how can you see if all the above is right or not. Take the books and read...

*edit:* Even, just for a moment, let's sume you're right. Were are the current works in the way of ideology of those "cultural marxists", were are the current great author or proponents of it. What are the works who sustain this today?. How is that Cultural marxism is a term born in the 90's in usa and it was never used in Frankfurt?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Pronoss said:


> Multiculturalism,


Except that Canada managed to achieve a lot of success with multiculturalism. In fact, the very existence and sustainance of their entire economy is based upon their immigration system with the only people that actually face many hardships being immigrants themselves. 

No in-fighting, no radical muslims, no radical fundoo christians, no immigrant crime crises, no terrorism crisis, no rape gangs, no mass shootings, no active mafias. The list goes on. Completely lays waste to any idea of cultural homogeneity having anything to do with success or failure of nations to govern themselves. 

It's only the backward segregationists that continue to believe that different cultures are boogeymen that think it's a made up concept that can't work.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



asdf0501 said:


> So, of all the rebutting you're worried about the wikipedia quoting? really?
> 
> Fighting back to what? what are you even talking about? do you realize you sound like a conpiracy theorist yourself?
> 
> 
> You know how can you see if all the above is right or not. Take the books and read...
> 
> *edit:* Even, just for a moment, let's sume you're right. Were are the current works in the way of ideology of those "cultural marxists", were are the current great author or proponents of it. What are the works who sustain this today?. How is that Cultural marxism is a term born in the 90's in usa and it was never used in Frankfurt?


Cultural marxism is a descriptive term. Not a conspiracy theory.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

With Trump's talk about pulling out of South Korea, I can't say I find this particularly surprising:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/19/china-endorses-donald-trump.html

Much like Trump's NATO talk and the ineffable joy Putin has received from it, China getting to expand its Eastern influence while the U.S. weakens its presence there is a dream come true for it. Looking the other way on Trump's trade talk is fairly easy for China, considering the trade off of expansion works in its favor.


----------



## Pronoss

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Reaper said:


> Except that Canada managed to achieve a lot of success with multiculturalism. In fact, the very existence and sustainance of their entire economy is based upon their immigration system with the only people that actually face many hardships being immigrants themselves.
> 
> No in-fighting, no radical muslims, no radical fundoo christians, no immigrant crime crises, no terrorism crisis, no rape gangs, no mass shootings, no active mafias. The list goes on. Completely lays waste to any idea of cultural homogeneity having anything to do with success or failure of nations to govern themselves.
> 
> It's only the backward segregationists that continue to believe that different cultures are boogeymen that think it's a made up concept that can't work.


In Canada has breathing room.


Look at its size on map
Now look at US size on map


Canada total population 35.16 million
U.S. total population 318.9 million


Can't compare apples and oranges very well.

What works in a microcosm won't necessarily work in a macrocosm, most the time it never does.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Pronoss said:


> In Canada has breathing room.
> 
> 
> Look at its size on map
> Now look at US size on map
> 
> 
> Canada total population 35.16 million
> U.S. total population 318.9 million
> 
> 
> Can't compare apples and oranges very well.
> 
> What works in a microcosm won't necessarily work in a macrocosm, most the time it never does.


Oh god the population excuse again. 

Breathing room? If you're gonna bring up the tired old population argument then you should at least understand what population density means and how population is actually distributed in Canada. 

That said, the overall idea that somehow multiculturalism has "failed" even in the states or any other country is in and of itself based upon believing propaganda that is not backed up by actual facts. 

But let's not let nuance get in the way of small mindedness.

Carry on in your echo chamber. My mistake for jumping into it. You guys do a great job of circle jerking each other's opinions though. Not unlike those you love to bash. 

Just had to point that out.



markoutsmarkout said:


> Cultural marxism is a descriptive term. Not a conspiracy theory.


Within each collection of thought there is several degrees of opinions that range from nuanced to extremist. BUT, the "cultural marxist" is essentially nothing more than a strawman Anti-SJW's have created in order to bash everyone they disagree with. 

Now there are cultural marxists, but the vast majority of people the Anti-SJW considers a cultural marxist isn't one.

If you wanna go purely by the definition of cultural marxism, then it opens up those Anti-SJW's that believe that the roots of problems within black and other ethnic communities _as influenced by their own culture are *also *cultural marxists. _


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> Cultural marxism is a descriptive term. Not a conspiracy theory.


Really?

The person who created the term come with things like this....



> "Most importantly, the Frankfurt School crossed Marx with Freud, taking from psychology the technique of psychological conditioning. Today, when the cultural Marxists want to do something like “normalize” homosexuality, they do not argue the point philosophically. They just beam television show after television show into every American home where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual (the Frankfurt School’s key people spent the war years in Hollywood)."


The guy didn't even understand that psychological conditioning is an idea is from Pavlov and is previous to Freud

Which is worse is that any person who have read Marx will know that "cultural marxism" is an oximoron. Not only that, if you look at the Frankfurt theorist you will see that Horkheimer abandoned completely Marxism by the time he started writing, Adorno's theory defended elitist culture, Marcuse rejected the USRR, Benjamin wrote passionate works advocatinh for the jews and Fromm was more interested in communitarist ideologies.

Do you want to believe that somehow, collectivism and multiculturalism are destroying the west? you're on all your right, but if you want to discuss this ideas do it on a proper terminology and in a way that allows to a real debate instead of using concepts tied to marxism to scare people. 

At the same time, if we are going to condone every form of Marxism for abstract and obscure influences in culture, are we open enough to condemn capitalism for poverty in Africa or the consecuences of USA politics on the Latin american democracies? We can't bash one and give a pass to the other. Is easy to see ghost in the walls ready to destroy my moral thinking, is moral difficult to have an open debate about ideologies and the consecuences of them in applicated escenaries


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*






This is fine.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Beatles123 said:


> This is fine.


Oohooroo! That guy is FABULOUS!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Oohooroo! That guy is FABULOUS!


It's totally fine though. Totally. I will 'totes McGoats post this on my tumblr. That'll show those oppressive white Cissys!!


----------



## Pronoss

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Reaper said:


> Oh god the population excuse again.
> 
> Breathing room? If you're gonna bring up the tired old population argument then you should at least understand what population density means.
> 
> That said, the overall idea that somehow multiculturalism has "failed" even in the states or any other country is in and of itself based upon believing propaganda that is not backed up by actual facts.
> 
> But let's not let nuance get in the way of small mindedness.
> 
> Carry on in your echo chamber. My mistake for jumping into it. You guys do a great job of circle jerking each other's opinions though. Not unlike those you love to bash.
> 
> Just had to point that out.



Don't go personal attacks, we can debate and belittle a position, but just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them any less educated or "small minded". I posit that I can prove or at least provide a written retort that shows how I could also make the same claim. That it is not the moderates Dem/Rep or Libertarian but it is the Liberal Left that are, in fact, "small minded". Of course that is just my opinion, but I am speaking of the whole of Liberalism as a Doctrine, not that any individual is small minded or feeble...


I was pointing out an issue that has been experimented to death and will be argued for eternity of course. But I'd like to retort. 

As a small aside: 
_Many of the world's geniuses warn against "multiculturalism". Even Stephen Hawking warns what has occurred throughout history when this happened and what in his "opinionated" prediction, if we were to find "other" species outside of Earth would possibly occur the exact same way as has been seen throughout history.
So a many Biological Anthropology to Theoretical Astrophysics all "kinda" agree and have seen what the made up word has caused or may cause in future. But this is all hearsay and just a small preface I wanted to make.
_



*Why "Multiculturalism" is an empty word, created by Liberal political correctness and how it's very bad for a country.*


The invented word "multiculturalism" is based on the ideas of the liberal's complete intolerance of the freedom of association and freedom of conscience (aka political correctness). If we ignore "multiculturalism", eliminate it, or at least don't take it seriously and we do accept the ontological and ethical individualism as our nation was founded on, then we are led to defend the individual's right to form and leave associations as they please. The Constitution of the United States requires that not any special protections, "extra" rights, and entitlements for any special groups be allowed as it is the very definition of inequality when one group has rights and entitlements another group does not have. 

To correct the liberals "multiculturalism" of the past we had to amend the constitution to protect individuality. The era of "All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others" was "The Great Lie". Not all "men are equal", it's the very law of nature, while yes, we are all "Created equal", that is completely true, but we are not clones and in this country Individuality is celebrated while blind followers have always been seen as flawed and a "cult" like error in ideology. 


There are no group rights in the Constitution, only individual rights. By granting cultural groups special protections and rights, the state oversteps its role, which is to secure civility, and it risks undermining individual rights of association protected and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. States should not pursue “cultural engineering” aka "social engineering" but rather a “politics of indifference” toward cultural and religious groups.


Multiculturalism is a “politics of recognition” that diverts attention, covers up, and hides the citizens from the real problem that will only continue to get worse. They use "politics of recognition" just as a magician uses slight of hand, to distract the populace with 1 hand, while they unsheathe the knife with which to cut our throats with the other hand.

“Politics of redistribution” (_This is not "wealth redistribution" it has nothing to do with that at all, the left used that term to cause the word redistribution to be demonized, like they did with words like militia, shellshock, stewardess, etc... so keep reading please_) 

"Politics of redistribution" is what the country should focus on, and is normally what the moderates right, left, and Libertarian focuses on (but not all, as one can never speak for an entire party member's beliefs but they can speak for the party's founding belief), yet any time a leader, especially in today's climate, tries to focus on "Politics of redistribution" the Left instantly begins in with topics, questions, attacks, and interruptions that cause constant distraction, so that the citizens never hear the full message, the Liberal Left keeps the people focused on the misdirection and by, any means necessary, they keep the citizenry from seeing the real cause, and harm that is the real root of our social issues.

The Liberals "Politics of recognition" challenges status inequality and the remedy it seeks is cultural and symbolic change, whereas the "Politics of redistribution" challenges economic inequality and exploitation and the remedy it seeks is an economic one to solve the real issue of "class warfare" the distance between the lower class, middle class, and upper class is today the widest gap it has ever been, but worse now is that a very large number of middle class families are now falling into lower class poverty at a mind numbing rate that is very alarming. It is not entitlements of the Liberals that will solve this, it is the jobs, bringing them back, stopping the outsourcing of jobs with stiff penalties, these penalties aren't paid to the government, they are paid to the people as all penalties paid would be put back into the social security fund. Working class mobilization tilts toward the redistribution end of the political spectrum, and the "Multiculturalism", "social justice", "Complete Social Tolerance of All" movement toward the recognition end of the political spectrum. 

Critics worry that multiculturalism's focus on culture and identity diverts attention from or even actively undermines the struggle for economic justice, partly because identity-based politics may undermine potential multiracial, multi-ethnic class solidarity and partly because some multiculturalists tend to focus on cultural injustice without any attention to economic justice. It's very easy to manipulate followers to your side when you speak in easy buzz words that your political correct movement has redefined or invented like "racist, homophobe, social justice (every one should have justice), college students (whining it's too hard, or, I can't work when looked at, or, I want special accommodations, it's not fair handicapped get accommodations, but I cant)". It's all buzzwords that are easy terms to understand, even for the lower educated. 

Everyone knows "Justice" is a good idea so they ignore the economics and think "lets follow them!", or the left attacks a politician by telling the masses via media, protest leaders, "they don't believe in social justice!", the people all act offended and scream "but America is founded on Truth, Justice and the American way", and begin protests, violence against the other side aimed at by the left and used as a "personal army" just like something 4chan would do, all without realizing they [Sound like idiots "to me"]. 

They are blinded by the "easy path", misdirected, only because Economics is boring, Economics is hard, but when their check stops appearing you better believe they'll be screaming "WHERES MY MONEY!?!?" the Left will shrug and say, "you should have learned economics and how to be frugal". As more and more banks go bankrupt, more bailouts, more pensions lost, more life insurance policies forced to be cancelled by insurance companies, houses foreclosed on, cars repossessed, loans denied, gas prices rising, dollar worth pennies, U.S.A. no longer exporting more than it imports, the homeless population rises, and homeless flood into city centers for warmth and safety, or squatting in your apartment next door that was empty, the rise of the squatters, thus becoming extremely visible, and then there is not enough money in Social Security to pay for the welfare of that many people. It was never meant or designed to, and when it reaches $0, the people will finally find out really fast that the meaningless invented term "multiculturalism" means absolutely jack shit. 

And when they find out the truth of where their money went, "where did all that social security go?" and the Right chimes in and metaphorically says "uhm... well you remember those illegal aliens? That issue we tried to deal with and force legal immigration so that they become taxpayers, but we were attacked?". You will then see this whole liberal idea of "Social Justice" will get tossed out the window instantly and a huge nation wide ass kicking will begin against illegals caused by the left. It won't be different cultures anymore it will be Americans cleaning out the country, by force.

"Multiculturalism" tends to portray cultures and religious groups in the same group as the Disabled. They claim that just as the Disabled get special compensation, so should other cultures and religious groups. This is the Liberal multiculturalist's understanding of what equality requires. 

But here's the more egalitarian response to the previous statement as to why that's completely wrong. Religious and cultural groups should be held responsible for bearing the consequences of their own beliefs and practices. Contrasting 'religious and cultural affiliations' with 'physical disabilities' it's plain to see that the former do not constrain people in the way that physical disabilities do. A physical disability supports a strong prima facie claim to compensation because it limits a person's opportunities to engage in activities that others are able to engage in. In contrast, religion and culture may shape one's willingness to seize an opportunity, but they do not affect whether one has an opportunity. For example, just because it's against your religion to allow your child to have a blood transfusion to save his or her life does not mean when your child dies you have the right to sue the hospital or be compensated for some "inequality" because the doctor's wouldn't treat the child based on your religious beliefs. 


Does no one else see how stupid this invented "multiculturalism is?" 




I've got to stop there, or I'd be writing all night as this really does hit on a "soapbox" of mine.



Excuse any grammar nuttiness. Hopefully I've portrayed my position fairly clear.

But I know it's an argument that can never be won. So this is my point, I'll concede with that, as it would become circular arguing afterward. But I just wanted to clarify my position and make it as crystal clear as I could, for the moment.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Pulling out of South Korea would be a big mistake and I doubt the military higher ups would allow it

The South Korean military gets along better with the US than any other ally and never holds things up for support

Trump's choice of SK, Taiwan and Japan as "bad allies who freeeload" is really weird as they are both extremely proactive, are near a legit hostile enemy nation and the US serves more as military support to them than anything

The only thing they really ask for is nulcear protection and sharing military tech in exchange for some of the most strategic bases in the world 

Personally I rather have them and decent relations with China than have great relations with China and let the PRC run them over

China is a ticking time bomb economically and they are not stupid, they won't go to war if it means killing their export based economy but would run over the ROC in heart beat if they thought the US would not stop buying from them

I don't hate Trump or anything but his knowledge of the very delicate balance power balance of East Asia seems to start and end at "China makes shit Americans buy" 

By his definition the European NATO members are worse allies


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

So basically you're attributing everything negative to a singular group of people you call liberal. You do realize that just by doing g that your entire argument falls apart because it's a 2000 word strawman.

There's decent points in there, but attributing literally every negative you can think of to this scarecrow called "liberal" is evidence of a small mind. 

It's not a personal attack. There's no point of having all this information if you can't place and attribute cause, effect and people involved without mislabeling or creating strawmen. I think I've said this to you before as well.

Modern multiculturalism is simply the idea that people are equal and racial/ethnic factors shouldn't be used to form notions about their beliefs. The limits of tolerance and intolerance are defined based on the idea of a well defined concept of morality as established by society by and large. It serves it's purpose in determining what is right and wrong in a larger context where wrong doers are also than brought to justice when they commit crimes as individuals. Since there is individuality expressed within cultures and self identified individuals within cultures therefore equality and the idea that all people are equal allows us to hold individual wrong doers accountable for their negative actions.

This is a process that has been successfully implemented in all nations because all nations are already multiculturalism and they are not failing but succeeding. I brought up Canada as an example of that. If you want to pretend that multiculturalism cannot or doesn't exist, be my guest. But that then lumps you in as a denier of reality.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Pronoss said:


> In Canada has breathing room.
> 
> 
> Look at its size on map
> Now look at US size on map
> 
> 
> Canada total population 35.16 million
> U.S. total population 318.9 million
> 
> *
> Can't compare apples and oranges very well*.



I really hope you didn't learn this on your statistics curse


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

I like some of Trump's ideas but his "fuck east Asia" REALLY turns me off

One of my pet causes is the Republic of China and I am very pro-Kuomintang One China and Trump is basically giving the PRC permission to crush them for better trade deals 

I don't expect the average person to give a fuck but its one of the issues I vote on and its one where I can not support an isolationist or Pro-People's Republic approach

Same for his views of South Korea being a freeloader


----------



## Pronoss

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



asdf0501 said:


> I really hope you didn't learn this on your statistics curse


read my response, and read context. Only reply giving


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Reaper said:


> This is a process that has been successfully implemented in *all nations* because all nations are already multiculturalism and they are not failing but succeeding.


All nations?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Truthbetold said:


> All nations?


Yes. 

You do realize that the world isn't just white people and everybody else, right?


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Reaper said:


> Yes.
> 
> You do realize that the world isn't just white people and everybody else, right?


Honestly i have no idea what you're talking about or why you brought up "white people"

Unless you're saying multicultural nations with a white majority are the only ones succeeding.

Because Israel, most of the Middle East, most of Africa and most of Asia are NOT multicultural society's.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



IronMaiden7 said:


> With Trump's talk about pulling out of South Korea, I can't say I find this particularly surprising:
> 
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/19/china-endorses-donald-trump.html
> 
> Much like Trump's NATO talk and the ineffable joy Putin has received from it, China getting to expand its Eastern influence while the U.S. weakens its presence there is a dream come true for it. Looking the other way on Trump's trade talk is fairly easy for China, considering the trade off of expansion works in its favor.





stevefox1200 said:


> Pulling out of South Korea would be a big mistake and I doubt the military higher ups would allow it
> 
> The South Korean military gets along better with the US than any other ally and never holds things up for support
> 
> Trump's choice of SK, Taiwan and Japan as "bad allies who freeeload" is really weird as they are both extremely proactive, are near a legit hostile enemy nation and the US serves more as military support to them than anything
> 
> The only thing they really ask for is nulcear protection and sharing military tech in exchange for some of the most strategic bases in the world
> 
> Personally I rather have them and decent relations with China than have great relations with China and let the PRC run them over
> 
> China is a ticking time bomb economically and they are not stupid, they won't go to war if it means killing their export based economy but would run over the ROC in heart beat if they thought the US would not stop buying from them
> 
> I don't hate Trump or anything but his knowledge of the very delicate balance power balance of East Asia seems to start and end at "China makes shit Americans buy"
> 
> By his definition the European NATO members are worse allies


The U.S. needs to withdraw from both NATO and South Korea/Japan as soon as possible, in an orderly way. The Chinese are sitting on the biggest Ponzi scheme corporatist bubble in the history of the world, and it has been straining for months now. It would hardly be surprising to see Beijing move forward to outward expansion to distract the population from the economic inferno that is set to break out due to their wanton bubble-producing policies. North Korea and South Korea have in large part been blocked from engaging in a gradual reunification primarily due to the Chinese and Americans endeavoring to keep the present _status quo_ intact for fear of losing strategic balance. 

Meanwhile, Turkey is presently on the brink of an all-out civil war, which could easily drag all NATO members into an internecine conflict on behalf of a rather questionable Ankara regime. Putin's Russia is only so strong as to attempt to strengthen particular buffers and combat ISIS (which the U.S. and U.K. have, quite suspiciously, utterly failed to do--primarily because they have been arming and training groups which fall under the general umbrella of Islamist fighting factions). If Moscow exerting control over Kiev is too much for Europeans to handle, imagine how U.S. intervention in Kiev must be viewed by Russian hardliners. 

The U.S. simply cannot afford to fight a war with Beijing over the Spratlys island chain or Pyongyang for Seoul, or Moscow for Russian intervention in Syria. Taking away defense commitments and all other discretionary spending items Social Security and Medicare represent unfunded liabilities of anywhere between $127 trillion and, to the most extreme estimates, $222 trillion. With the omnibus budget bill going through the U.S. nominal federal debt is about to hit over $21 trillion, and of course that is only a little window through which to view the almost certain decline of the near-future U.S. 

Seoul boasts a country with over twice the population and somewhere around 30x the economic production of Pyongyang. There is no reason whatsoever for the U.S. to keep such a large military presence there, except as a tripwire to bring the U.S. into a major conflagration, and the usual military industrial complex crony capitalist benefits for certain interest. The Japanese are wisely altering their constitution because they recognize the limitations of U.S. power in the post-George W. Bush/Barack Obama world of the imminent future.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Truthbetold said:


> Honestly i have no idea what you're talking about or why you brought up "white people"
> 
> Unless you're saying multicultural nations with a white majority are the only ones succeeding.
> 
> Because Israel, most of the Middle East, most of Africa and most of Asia are NOT multicultural society's.


Your ignornace of the racial and ethnic diversity if middle eastern and other non white countries doesn't mean that they are not multicultural and successfully so. 

There's inter-migration of sub cultures and sub ethnicities as well as completely diverse groups in the entire middle east and yes, that includes Saudi Arabia. They never tell you this but the number of hindus living in Saudi Arabia is around 400,000. There's migration of Africans to middle east and Pakistanis and Indians to Africa. there's plenty of immigrant movement towards China and even Japan is now slowly opening up its borders.

It's clear that you have no understanding of what cultural diversity actually is because your brain can't even account for immigration that happens within the middle east, fareast ...basically non white to non white immigration. You don't even have accounted concept.

Even Israel actually has believe it or not a sociopolitical system that allows a lot of Muslims to succeed in Israel.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

Immigration En masse is never good for the culture of the host country.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Wait...so you think China will be expanding to distract from their economic problems yet you want US influence to retreat and leave your allies to fend for themselves? Whut?


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



FriedTofu said:


> Wait...so you think China will be expanding to distract from their economic problems yet you want US influence to retreat and leave your allies to fend for themselves? Whut?


Precisely. When a state commits itself to policies that it cannot plausibly enforce, with the threat of a growing expansionist state, it is wise to be clear to all parties involved--China, South Korea, Japan, the Spratly Islands, Senkaku Islands, North Korea, the Philippines, Okinawa, et. al.--rather than have the state's credibility shattered when events put in a place where it is put up-or-shut up time, like Obama's declaration concerning chemical weapons in Syria proving to be the prattle of a man unwilling to follow through with his ultimatums. 

A policy of returning to, as Thomas Jefferson remarked, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none," would best suit the world of the near future for the U.S. than perpetually clinging to alliances created to stand together in the Cold War, which ended a generation ago.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



DesolationRow said:


> Precisely. When a state commits itself to policies that it cannot plausibly enforce, with the threat of a growing expansionist state, it is wise to be clear to all parties involved--China, South Korea, Japan, the Spratly Islands, Senkaku Islands, North Korea, the Philippines, Okinawa, et. al.--rather than have *the state's credibility shattered* when events put in a place where it is put up-or-shut up time, like Obama's declaration concerning chemical weapons in Syria proving to be the prattle of a man unwilling to follow through with his ultimatums.
> 
> A policy of returning to, as Thomas Jefferson remarked, "Peace, commerce, and *honest friendship* with all nations--entangling alliances with none," would best suit the world of the near future for the U.S. than perpetually clinging to alliances created to stand together in the Cold War, which ended a generation ago.


kay2


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



FriedTofu said:


> kay2


Well, yes, I agree. The present U.S. state could not have an "honest friendship" with anyone or anything. That is another topic for another time.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Trump is killing it in New York. Small amount in obviously but it seems like he is over performing his polling numbers by a lot. He's killing it in 4 of the 5 boroughs and the few counties that have already reported. 

Not looking great for Sanders though.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



FITZ said:


> Trump is killing it in New York. Small amount in obviously but it seems like he is over performing his polling numbers by a lot. He's killing it in 4 of the 5 boroughs and the few counties that have already reported.
> 
> Not looking great for Sanders though.


He is going up against 'New York values' Cruz though. I expect a crushing victory.

Only the GOP can come up with a Ted Cruz that is even more unlikeable to rally against Trump.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

Regardless of any sort of benefits of "Multiculturalism" en masse immigration is never a good thing. It only works when people assimilate or follow the rules of the host country with transparency, it's human nature and the nature of ideals to compete and try to outdo each other, this is why host nations usually control the amount of people coming in especially with a culture complete opposite of it's own. This is why multiculturalism in some places has failed utterly and why some countries are very, very strict about it, especially in Asia.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



DesolationRow said:


> The U.S. needs to withdraw from both NATO and South Korea/Japan as soon as possible, in an orderly way. The Chinese are sitting on the biggest Ponzi scheme corporatist bubble in the history of the world, and it has been straining for months now. It would hardly be surprising to see Beijing move forward to outward expansion to distract the population from the economic inferno that is set to break out due to their wanton bubble-producing policies. North Korea and South Korea have in large part been blocked from engaging in a gradual reunification primarily due to the Chinese and Americans endeavoring to keep the present _status quo_ intact for fear of losing strategic balance.
> 
> Meanwhile, Turkey is presently on the brink of an all-out civil war, which could easily drag all NATO members into an internecine conflict on behalf of a rather questionable Ankara regime. Putin's Russia is only so strong as to attempt to strengthen particular buffers and combat ISIS (which the U.S. and U.K. have, quite suspiciously, utterly failed to do--primarily because they have been arming and training groups which fall under the general umbrella of Islamist fighting factions). If Moscow exerting control over Kiev is too much for Europeans to handle, imagine how U.S. intervention in Kiev must be viewed by Russian hardliners.
> 
> The U.S. simply cannot afford to fight a war with Beijing over the Spratlys island chain or Pyongyang for Seoul, or Moscow for Russian intervention in Syria. Taking away defense commitments and all other discretionary spending items Social Security and Medicare represent unfunded liabilities of anywhere between $127 trillion and, to the most extreme estimates, $222 trillion. With the omnibus budget bill going through the U.S. nominal federal debt is about to hit over $21 trillion, and of course that is only a little window through which to view the almost certain decline of the near-future U.S.
> 
> Seoul boasts a country with over twice the population and somewhere around 30x the economic production of Pyongyang. There is no reason whatsoever for the U.S. to keep such a large military presence there, except as a tripwire to bring the U.S. into a major conflagration, and the usual military industrial complex crony capitalist benefits for certain interest. The Japanese are wisely altering their constitution because they recognize the limitations of U.S. power in the post-George W. Bush/Barack Obama world of the imminent future.


South Korea could win a war without US support, the problem is North Korea has already told the entire world its invasion plan

They want to take Seoul in 24 hours, lock it down and prevent civilians form fleeing SK can't bring its navy and air force without bombing its own people and turn the war into dirty house to house fighting where tech does not mean as much

If NK has to pull back they will scorch earth with nuclear fire and turn the DMZ area and all nearby cites into a wasteland

SK would win but it would be a Pyrrhic victory and Korea would be a reduced to the southern cost and a likely Chinese quarantined no-mans land in the north

The only thing that could stop that is the US crushing NK nukes and allowing SK to advance unchecked or China disarming North Korea by force or just flat out siding with them 

I am fine with a high military industrial complex to keep that from happening 

In my mind this is an "honest ally" someone who offers you something good for aid in against a very real threat while being able to hold their own and one of the few good allies left in the world

Most allies are either 

1.Saudi and Serbia style pressure cookers who threaten everyone and expect you to provide them with teeth
2.Western European who want a traditional, stay the fuck out relationship outside of war
3.Belarus (sorry batko) style kiss asses who offer nothing and take nothing 

A good ally is someone worth protecting no matter what the cost

I said in the election thread that I am pro-Republic of China and pro-South Korea so I have more "biased perspective" on the issue but if China does fuck up economically and the US prevents it form lashing out than SK and ROK could end up in very good positions and the US could get some good shit out of it


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



asdf0501 said:


> Really?
> 
> The person who created the term come with things like this....
> 
> 
> 
> The guy didn't even understand that psychological conditioning is an idea is from Pavlov and is previous to Freud
> 
> Which is worse is that any person who have read Marx will know that "cultural marxism" is an oximoron. Not only that, if you look at the Frankfurt theorist you will see that Horkheimer abandoned completely Marxism by the time he started writing, Adorno's theory defended elitist culture, Marcuse rejected the USRR, Benjamin wrote passionate works advocatinh for the jews and Fromm was more interested in communitarist ideologies.
> 
> Do you want to believe that somehow, collectivism and multiculturalism are destroying the west? you're on all your right, but if you want to discuss this ideas do it on a proper terminology and in a way that allows to a real debate instead of using concepts tied to marxism to scare people.
> 
> At the same time, if we are going to condone every form of Marxism for abstract and obscure influences in culture, are we open enough to condemn capitalism for poverty in Africa or the consecuences of USA politics on the Latin american democracies? We can't bash one and give a pass to the other. Is easy to see ghost in the walls ready to destroy my moral thinking, is moral difficult to have an open debate about ideologies and the consecuences of them in applicated escenaries


Liberalism, leftism, political correctness, SJW, cultural marxism, I don't care what the label is, it is evil.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> Liberalism, leftism, political correctness, SJW, cultural marxism,* I don't care what the label is, it is evil.*


Lol. 



Miss Sally said:


> Regardless of any sort of benefits of "Multiculturalism" en masse immigration is never a good thing. It only works when people assimilate or follow the rules of the host country with transparency, it's human nature and the nature of ideals to compete and try to outdo each other, this is why host nations usually control the amount of people coming in especially with a culture complete opposite of it's own. This is why multiculturalism in some places has failed utterly and why some countries are very, very strict about it, especially in Asia.


En-masse immigration does not happen. Name one instance of "en-masse" immigration - (without confusing application numbers with actual number of people let in - which is a very typical fallacy)

Multi-culturalism hasn't failed in the vast majority of countries where it exists. What are you even basing this so-called failure on? What are you parameters of success or failure of multiculturalism? 

This is an assertion that simply is not backed up by facts - especially when you look at the actions of the majority vs minority within multicultural countries. Name one country where the majority of any minority is committing more crimes than the majority itself - and then you can say that multiculturalism has failed. 

This is a false belief that is a result of intellectual dishonesty of segregationists who misrepresent information to their listeners. In some cases, they are no better than illuminati, doomsday truthers because they outright lie - using what a small minority is doing in their countries in order to push segregationist agendas. 

As far as cultural assimilation goes by far, by far the minority assimilates the majority's ideals and cultural norms. Again, all you have is a minority of trouble-makers that find their way into other countries which do not cause a significant problem in and of itself. Plus those people always live with the threat of deportation anyways so just kick them the fuck out. And if you think that doesn't happen, then again you have to brush up on your facts.

Far eastern countries are now assimilating diverse groups of people from all over the world. Japan is preparing itself for opening up their immigration. They're doing it slowly which is the right way.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

Trump with a stunning blowout victory tonight!


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



FITZ said:


> Trump is killing it in New York. Small amount in obviously but it seems like he is over performing his polling numbers by a lot. He's killing it in 4 of the 5 boroughs and the few counties that have already reported.
> 
> Not looking great for Sanders though.


Sanders is finished. Big win for Trump, he's got the momentum back and shows once again that he wins the popular vote and not delegate shenaOxiOxiOxiOxins.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

Huge win for The Donald tonight. :mark: Amazing what happens when people are allowed to actually vote. Cruz can no longer mathematically achieved the "magical" 1237 number, which means officially the only way for Trump not to be nominated is through trickery, a fact Cruz can no longer deny. 

What this means is either Trump will be nominated, or the GOP will commit suicide. :mark: Either way, there's cause for celebration. :hb


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Reaper said:


> Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> En-masse immigration does not happen. Name one instance of "en-masse" immigration - (without confusing application numbers with actual number of people let in - which is a very typical fallacy)
> 
> Multi-culturalism hasn't failed in the vast majority of countries where it exists. What are you even basing this so-called failure on? What are you parameters of success or failure of multiculturalism?
> 
> This is an assertion that simply is not backed up by facts - especially when you look at the actions of the majority vs minority within multicultural countries. Name one country where the majority of any minority is committing more crimes than the majority itself - and then you can say that multiculturalism has failed.
> 
> This is a false belief that is a result of intellectual dishonesty of segregationists who misrepresent information to their listeners. In some cases, they are no better than illuminati, doomsday truthers because they outright lie - using what a small minority is doing in their countries in order to push segregationist agendas.
> 
> As far as cultural assimilation goes by far, by far the minority assimilates the majority's ideals and cultural norms. Again, all you have is a minority of trouble-makers that find their way into other countries which do not cause a significant problem in and of itself. Plus those people always live with the threat of deportation anyways so just kick them the fuck out. And if you think that doesn't happen, then again you have to brush up on your facts.
> 
> Far eastern countries are now assimilating diverse groups of people from all over the world. Japan is preparing itself for opening up their immigration. They're doing it slowly which is the right way.


I'd call what is happening to Europe En Masse, I'd call what happened to North America En Masse, I'd call what happened to Persia, parts of Europe and when the Turks invaded En Masse while many of these were military incursions the local populace was replaced or had their entire cultures replaced. I don't call what's happening to Europe something small, it's not small, it's probably bigger than what is being let on. That's not slow or small migration. We've seen what happens to countries after certain cultures sneak in even small and start changing up things. 

Sure Asia is opening up a little in a small way as you said and yes that's the way to do it, I agreed with Gandi on not keeping everyone out but only letting a few people in. That's not happening with Europe. But I'll be very shocked if Japan and China really open up their borders the way everyone else does (well certain countries anyways). As I said multiculturalism only works if everyone follows the host countries rules and language, it doesn't work if it becomes countries within countries with lots of segregation forced or otherwise.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



CamillePunk said:


> Huge win for The Donald tonight. :mark: Amazing what happens when people are allowed to actually vote. Cruz can no longer mathematically achieved the "magical" 1237 number, which means officially the only way for Trump not to be nominated is through trickery, a fact Cruz can no longer deny.
> 
> What this means is either Trump will be nominated, or the GOP will commit suicide. :mark: Either way, there's cause for celebration. :hb


I don't think he could have done much better than he did tonight. CNN already has him at 72 of the 95 delegates and I could see him walking away with 85-90 of them altogether.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Miss Sally said:


> I'd call what is happening to Europe En Masse, I'd call what happened to North America En Masse, I'd call what happened to Persia, parts of Europe and when the Turks invaded En Masse while many of these were military incursions the local populace was replaced or had their entire cultures replaced. I don't call what's happening to Europe something small, it's not small, it's probably bigger than what is being let on. That's not slow or small migration. We've seen what happens to countries after certain cultures sneak in even small and start changing up things.


And none of it corresponds with increased social and political strife or problems. What they see is a brown person. What they don't see is whether that particular brown person has assimilated or not. They can keep a track of first and second generation immigrants, but what they don't keep a track of how many of those immigrants have assimilated and how many have not. How do you even determine what the majority are like anyways? All you can do is look at whether or not there has been a real influx in crime that corresponds with that immigration, and what you actually see is a declining rate of crime across Europe - even in countries that are becoming increasingly multi-cultural. 



> *However, the general trend for the EU-28 shows a decline of about 10 % in the number of violent crimes recorded between 2007 and 2012.* This overall decline is strongly influenced by the data from England and Wales, where there was a fall of 166 thousand violent crimes recorded between 2007 and 2012 (Table 2). Looking at the other EU Member States, the picture appears heterogeneous, with significant rises between 2007 and 2012 in Luxembourg (38 %), Hungary (26 %) and Denmark (23 %) and large decreases in Lithuania (-42 %), Croatia (-33 %), Scotland (-32 %), Latvia and Slovakia (both -30 %), and Malta (-27 %).





> The number of homicides recorded per country is shown in Table 3. The rate of homicides per 100 thousand inhabitants (see Figure 3) reveals a downward trend when comparing the average ratios for 2007–09 with those for 2010–12: a decrease can be noted for all countries except for Greece, Malta and Austria.


The stats just do not back up the doomsday mentality of immigrants making life or living conditions worse in Europe. It's all in your heads created by anti-immigrant propaganda. 

And before you bring up the Sweden mass rape myth, I've already debunked that one in the past.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Reaper said:


> And none of it corresponds with increased social and political strife or problems. What they see is a brown person. What they don't see is whether that particular brown person has assimilated or not. They can keep a track of first and second generation immigrants, but what they don't keep a track of how many of those immigrants have assimilated and how many have not. How do you even determine what the majority are like anyways? All you can do is look at whether or not there has been a real influx in crime that corresponds with that immigration, and what you actually see is a declining rate of crime across Europe - even in countries that are becoming increasingly multi-cultural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stats just do not back up the doomsday mentality of immigrants making life or living conditions worse in Europe. It's all in your heads created by anti-immigrant propaganda.
> 
> And before you bring up the Sweden mass rape myth, I've already debunked that one in the past.


We'll have to see what the effects are within a year or so of this mass migration but we've already seen rape attacks and other problems, that could be a small minority but at this time the entire situation is out of control and European media has been blacking out a lot. That's if this migration actually ends because there is no end in sight.


----------



## Pronoss

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

I'm posting this to NOT make a direct point, just indirect and mainly as it's funny and Americans never saw it as it was a British show.

I'm not endorsing ,I'm not using it as source, I'm posting more as a laugh as he puts it very funny so both sides can laugh.

"Multiculturalism" wasn't a thing then. Individual choice of affiliation was, but this was era of controversy not many years after integration in States, but this wasn't about US it was about a controversial news story in England about an interracial couple. Ali said prior to this video starting it wasnt right.

That stunned host and audience, they'd never heard a black man especially American, say these things. He gets interrupted so as master of rhetoric he uses trick to put host into defense mode which gives Ali full blown offense mode now controlling the interview he used rhetoric trick to take control of the interview. It's hilarious as well as for admirers of rhetoric seeing a master talker play the game, Ali had lightning speed wit. I wish I was that quick witted. And I love his "zero fucks given" attitude as if he was explaining how to pour water. Lol 

But it's hilarious, he has the host scared to talk as in the first few seconds Muhammad Ali turned the hosts words against him leaving him in a defensive "babbling state" a tactic all great talkers use.

https://youtu.be/K_QoxMhHTIg






Anyhow just was browsing opinions on my essay I wrote and say this Ali video in a "related" clip to a Richard Dawkins criticism on liberal craziness

And thought some would find it funny.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Watching tyt imploding on Bernie's loss is like watching Fox imploding when Obama won in 2012.

Glorious.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Sanders losing is really sad, seriously how can people vote for Hilary over this guy? Sure some of his ideas are meh but overall he's vastly better than Hilary in any way conceived.


----------



## WesternFilmGuy

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Ivanka is smoking. Didn't know she was that beautiful. Damn...


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



MrMister said:


> Does it matter whether religion or PC fascists hold more sway? Both are terrible and work against individual freedom. It's meet the new boss same as the old boss.


It matters people are so ignorant to believe that sway you mentioned, doesn't matter. :mj


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Miss Sally said:


> Sanders losing is really sad, seriously how can people vote for Hilary over this guy? Sure some of his ideas are meh but overall he's vastly better than Hilary in any way conceived.


People that 'don't know politics'? That's what TYT is implying. The victimhood culture is strong in Sanders and Trump supporters.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Miss Sally said:


> We'll have to see what the effects are within a year or so of this mass migration but we've already seen rape attacks and other problems, that could be a small minority but at this time the entire situation is out of control and European media has been blacking out a lot. That's if this migration actually ends because there is no end in sight.


Of _what _mass migration? You haven't as yet substantiated this claim with any data to back yourself up with. Application for asylum --- begging to be let in - is not the same as actually being let in. These are completely different situations. There hasn't been a significant increase in immigrants or refugees being let in and the vast majority of european countries have already put caps on letting immigrants in. 

Rape attacks? You know that since the dawn of time the majority has used the spurious claim of "they're raping our women!" without ever backing that up.

Funny thing is, this is literally the exact same playbook that was brought out during the Jim Crow era in the US where the rape of the white woman was somehow seen as a mass epidemic at the hands of blacks ----- that never happened. 

The only way you can actually believe the myth of immigrant criminality now is if you intentionally ignore the counter argument and contradicting facts.


----------



## Rick_James

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

I gotta be honest I'm going to enjoy the rage caused from this Bernie loss.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



FriedTofu said:


> People that 'don't know politics'? That's what TYT is implying. The victimhood culture is strong in Sanders and Trump supporters.


They are right people don't know politics. 
And of course more voter fraud in NY. Why am I not surprised. And the biggest voter fraud just happened to be in Brooklyn where Bernie is from .




Miss Sally said:


> Sanders losing is really sad, seriously how can people vote for Hilary over this guy? Sure some of his ideas are meh but overall he's vastly better than Hilary in any way conceived.


Because some people don't know politics and just vote for the name Clinton. Others vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. Most people only watch the mass media like CNN Fox and MSNBC and don't know the truth they believe all the BS those stations put out there.

Anyone who thinks Hillary is a liberal proves they don't know anything about politics. Hillary is pretty much a republican light. She admitted she was a moderate not to long ago. Its just funny she claims she is more liberal than Sanders. 

With all the BS she and the DNC have pulled with her lies, the BS sexism stuff when anyone criticizes her, and the DNC and Clintons voter front , she has lost my vote in the general and what seems to be a lot of others too. It could end up costing her the election.

ill write in Sanders or vote 3rd party.


----------



## Chokeline

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

So is it safe to say that Bernie Sanders is almost out of the race for Democratic primaries and Hillary Clinton will most likely be declared as the winner??.......pardon me,I'm not American.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



birthday_massacre said:


> They are right people don't know politics.
> And of course more voter fraud in NY. Why am I not surprised. And the biggest voter fraud just happened to be in Brooklyn where Bernie is from .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because some people don't know politics and just vote for the name Clinton. Others vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. Most people only watch the mass media like CNN Fox and MSNBC and don't know the truth they believe all the BS those stations put out there.
> 
> Anyone who thinks Hillary is a liberal proves they don't know anything about politics. Hillary is pretty much a republican light. She admitted she was a moderate not to long ago. Its just funny she claims she is more liberal than Sanders.
> 
> With all the BS she and the DNC have pulled with her lies, the BS sexism stuff when anyone criticizes her, and the DNC and Clintons voter front , she has lost my vote in the general and what seems to be a lot of others too. It could end up costing her the election.
> 
> ill write in Sanders or vote 3rd party.


Basically the progressive movement is evoking elitism while attacking the establishment elites? People can't form an opinion to vote for Hilary because they think she is the best candidate to represent them? How many Sanders supporters are willing to pay for his policies? Maybe Hilary supporters sympathsize with his ideals but don't want to pay for them? Polls show Sanders supporters aren't willing to pay what is needed to implement his policies or don't understand the full costs of them if implemented.

What makes someone voting for Sanders based purely on anger against the rich and the elite anymore different than a vote for Hilary because comfort level with her Clinton name? Both are voting with ignorance.

What makes the sexism charge any different than fringe Sanders supporters calling people that criticises Sanders as supporting corruption? Both strawman attempts to draw away attention on their candidate.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Chokeline said:


> So is it safe to say that Bernie Sanders is almost out of the race for Democratic primaries and Hillary Clinton will most likely be declared as the winner??.......pardon me,I'm not American.


Bernie could still fight for super delegates votes while winning less popular votes to get the nomination. Irony at its best. :lol


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Reaper said:


> Name one country where the majority of any minority is committing more crimes than the majority itself - and then you can say that multiculturalism has failed.


America????


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Pronoss said:


> I'm posting this to NOT make a direct point, just indirect and mainly as it's funny and Americans never saw it as it was a British show.
> 
> I'm not endorsing ,I'm not using it as source, I'm posting more as a laugh as he puts it very funny so both sides can laugh.
> 
> "Multiculturalism" wasn't a thing then. Individual choice of affiliation was, but this was era of controversy not many years after integration in States, but this wasn't about US it was about a controversial news story in England about an interracial couple. Ali said prior to this video starting it wasnt right.
> 
> That stunned host and audience, they'd never heard a black man especially American, say these things. He gets interrupted so as master of rhetoric he uses trick to put host into defense mode which gives Ali full blown offense mode now controlling the interview he used rhetoric trick to take control of the interview. It's hilarious as well as for admirers of rhetoric seeing a master talker play the game, Ali had lightning speed wit. I wish I was that quick witted. And I love his "zero fucks given" attitude as if he was explaining how to pour water. Lol
> 
> But it's hilarious, he has the host scared to talk as in the first few seconds Muhammad Ali turned the hosts words against him leaving him in a defensive "babbling state" a tactic all great talkers use.
> 
> https://youtu.be/K_QoxMhHTIg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyhow just was browsing opinions on my essay I wrote and say this Ali video in a "related" clip to a Richard Dawkins criticism on liberal craziness
> 
> And thought some would find it funny.


What's funny about that video is that this is Ali's Grandson now.



















http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-NFL-recruits-colleges-fighting-already.html


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



birthday_massacre said:


> Anyone who thinks Hillary is a liberal proves they don't know anything about politics. Hillary is pretty much a republican light. She admitted she was a moderate not to long ago. Its just funny she claims she is more liberal than Sanders.


How is she NOT a NeoCon?


----------



## Wrestlefire

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

I don't think people are voting for Hillary.

I think it's clear that (At least the Democratic part of) the 2016 election is a farce.

Voting irregularities have plagued the Democratic primary, almost if not all against Sanders.

It's clear that Bernie Sanders needs to start getting ready for a petition campaign to get on the ballot, because he's not getting on the ballot otherwise. Queen Clinton will see to that.

Not only that, but I think Queen Hillary is trying to get people to stay home from the election. Depress the turnout to 65-70M, and you ensure a friendly government to the same interests of Queen Hillary, no matter if she or Cruz wins.

Trump throws the other monkey wrench into this. If it's Trump/Hillary, Clinton would need election fraud on a scale that makes even this openly fraudulent primary seem tame in comparison.


----------



## Pronoss

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

The Muslim imams ordering the rapes of women, it's admitted they aren't refugees but invaders. Using loopholes to invade and attack within.


Even though I don't like Bill Maher who is extremely liberal, he's too far for me, but his rant on liberals using political correctness to shield islam while they attack and ignore Christian but anyone attacks Islam liberals go crazy. 

I am against liberalist extremists and conservative extremists, but Bill Maher normally a very extremist liberal got shunned by his own and got massive social media attack by his own side, so he's been calling them out "pussy nation" , making the talk show rounds his stop on Kimmel. First time I've agreed with a point a far left liberal made on this topic only at least  

https://youtu.be/OX7Ncq-GOb4








It's already shown in this video how they can't fight a real war so they are using political correctness to invade and take over using liberalism. They even explain what their plan is in interviews, they aren't hiding or denying it.

Most will ever make it through this as it gets waaaaaaaaaay beyond disturbing after the intro. Their own "preachers" giving the free reign to rape *****

https://youtu.be/_5yfu9FzD_o




At 3min is excerpt from 1 attack
Intro ends after 3mins and documentary begins
At 13:40 German's leader Merkel snatches German flags down. "It's offensive" 

BTW I've posted this before but just to clarify for mods this is the edited one, the uncensored one people can look up has the CCTV rape of over 20, and US, German, French liberals saying "it's their culture", but the physical attacks are shown in short clips of dozens of Muslims beating women bloody and unconscious. It gets crazier and the mass migration shows several millions pouring in and overrunning neighborhoods and attacking. 

Exact same liberals that attack men in US and claim rape culture, say rape is OK in Islam because it's true culture and religion, and use Richard Pratt's word "racist" if you argue. It's pure insany hypocrisy, attack American men, but it's OK for Islam their rape culture is religion, yet they attack Christian , fuck it confuses me  

Fundamrntal Liberals are schizophrenic

Even though Islam are not a race, it's like calling Christians a race lol


And liberals are surprised Trump getting insane support 



This is history repeating itself


Cause if you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it.

1968 fall of the liberal Democrats. It was the extremists that destroyed their own party.

Even in the Democrat national convention Democrats turned on each other, liberals fought moderates and the DNC was locked down, and the US got rid of Democrats for many years as punishment which is why 1968-2005 was era of anti-pc greatness. 

Summary of the 1968 fall:

Last time the nation rioted as a whole
The liberals tried to spin it calling it the "White Riot"

https://youtu.be/epxmX_58tOo









Clip from very start of riot in Chicago 1968 the death of political correctness 68-2005 then it reappeared

https://youtu.be/7_9OJnRnZjU








Liberal Democrat delegates physically assaulting moderate Democrats inside convention 1968 when PC fell and took the entire party with it.
https://youtu.be/9aeNJljuZcI






History is about to repeat.


It happened after Richard Pratt took down the party
After Joseph McCarthy
Then after free speech attacked and "Gestapo" tactics used against any dissent.


The celebration for the death of political correctness in 1968 was 1 year later, 1969 Woodstock ;-) 


The very first musician to start Woodstock off was Ritchie Havens.

His improv set the mood the rest of the entire 3 days.

Freedom!

https://youtu.be/rynxqdNMry4


----------



## Chokeline

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Wrestlefire said:


> If it's Trump/Hillary, Clinton would need election fraud on a scale that makes even this openly fraudulent primary seem tame in comparison.


How come?Opinion polling at this stage suggests that if its Hillary/Trump,then Hillary is gonna win with a huge margin.Apologies again if I have misinterpreted as I am not an American.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natio...the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Chokeline said:


> So is it safe to say that Bernie Sanders is almost out of the race for Democratic primaries and Hillary Clinton will most likely be declared as the winner??.......pardon me,I'm not American.


There is still a slight chance Bernie can win but he would have to run the table pretty much and win by a good amount. Its not over yet but this lose by 15 points was a huge loss for Sanders. He needed to lose by 5 points or less or win but he didnt. So its a huge blow. But Hillary still may not get enough delegates to win the nomination, which would make it interesting especially with a possible indictment laying over her head. By the time the convention rolls around who knows where the FBI will stand.



FriedTofu said:


> Basically the progressive movement is evoking elitism while attacking the establishment elites? People can't form an opinion to vote for Hilary because they think she is the best candidate to represent them? How many Sanders supporters are willing to pay for his policies? Maybe Hilary supporters sympathsize with his ideals but don't want to pay for them? Polls show Sanders supporters aren't willing to pay what is needed to implement his policies or don't understand the full costs of them if implemented.
> 
> What makes someone voting for Sanders based purely on anger against the rich and the elite anymore different than a vote for Hilary because comfort level with her Clinton name? Both are voting with ignorance.
> 
> What makes the sexism charge any different than fringe Sanders supporters calling people that criticises Sanders as supporting corruption? Both strawman attempts to draw away attention on their candidate.



It depends what they are claiming Hillary is best to represent them. If they are claim its because of her college plan or because she is going to fight to break up the banks, or that she is for a higher minimum wage (which is much lower than Sanders ) then they are backing the wrong person. Bernie is much better than Hillary for the country when it comes to democratic views.

Bernie pushed her way to the left than she wants to be, and once the general comes along she is going to move back to center right and all the people that were dumb enough to vote for her will wonder what happened.

Bernie supporters are much more versed than Hillary supporters by far. Its really not even close. Anyone who knows the issues can clearly see how much better sanders is. Especially since Hillary has changed most of her polices to try to match Bernie. But like I said that will all change come the general.

You really think Hillary is going to try to break up the banks? You really think Hillary is going to care about the middle class and not cut taxes on the rich when she makes millions per year? She is also for prison for profit and wont try to keep people out of jail, as well as she doesn't give shit about supporting gay marriage until it because the popular thing to do. She was always against same sex marriage until just a few years ago. She is also for fracking and big oil companies. 




Truthbetold said:


> How is she NOT a NeoCon?


You can give her any label but liberal. Like she now claims she is. Hillarys views are super republican. She used to say she was a moderate but you are right she is much more conservative, I was just being kind. 


Like I said she was against same sex marriage until just a few years ago, she supports the patriot act, she was for pretty much all the big wars, she is against breaking up the big banks, against bringing back stegal, for prison for profits, supports fracking and the keystone pipeline, she was against the carbon tax , she supported the NAFTA and TPP. Do I really need to go on?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

It is over for Bernie, jfc birthday_massacre, time to give up already and cast your lot with the future God Emperor. :trump


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



CamillePunk said:


> Huge win for The Donald tonight. :mark: Amazing what happens when people are allowed to actually vote. Cruz can no longer mathematically achieved the "magical" 1237 number, which means officially the only way for Trump not to be nominated is through trickery, a fact Cruz can no longer deny.
> 
> What this means is either Trump will be nominated, or the GOP will commit suicide. :mark: Either way, there's cause for celebration. :hb


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

So Trump apparently got 89 of New York's 95 delegates. Kasich got 3. (Who the fuck are these clowns that are voting for Kasich?) Cruz got zero. :lol 

I have no idea what happens with the remaining 3 delegates.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

Wow massive win for Trump, he just keeps on trucking. I wonder if he'll stop by 9/11 for a celebratory slushie. ZING!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Wow massive win for Trump, he just keeps on trucking. I wonder if he'll stop by 9/11 for a celebratory slushie. ZING!


7-11 WAS A PART TIME JOB!


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*

:lmao "NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!" :lmao

Thank you based *MrMr*.



CamillePunk said:


> Huge win for The Donald tonight. :mark: Amazing what happens when people are allowed to actually vote. Cruz can no longer mathematically achieved the "magical" 1237 number, which means officially the only way for Trump not to be nominated is through trickery, a fact Cruz can no longer deny.
> 
> What this means is either Trump will be nominated, or the GOP will commit suicide. :mark: Either way, there's cause for celebration. :hb


:clap

No one could put it better.

I _want_ the Republican Party to perform an irrevocable act of self-immolation, so the GOP can bring it on as far as I'm concerned and as Dirty Harry said in _The Dead Pool_, we can all break out the marshmallows and weenies.


----------



## Pronoss

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

The problem is there is zero law stating Delegates must vote how the people tell them.

This has happened several times in history where 70% of state Votes A but the delegates vote B ignoring the people.

And is why electoral system is broken and needs to be abolished.



Quick rundown by school teacher on Primary elections

https://youtu.be/_95I_1rZiIs






The delegates and electoral are broken


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



DesolationRow said:


> :lmao "NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!" :lmao
> 
> Thank you based *MrMr*.
> 
> 
> 
> :clap
> 
> No one could put it better.
> 
> I _want_ the Republican Party to perform an irrevocable act of self-immolation, so the GOP can bring it on as far as I'm concerned and as Dirty Harry said in _The Dead Pool_, we can all break out the marshmallows and weenies.


title wasn't me


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



MrMister said:


> title wasn't me


I knew you would say that. :done

Thank you, Anonymous or @Oda Nobunaga...? 

@Pronoss: you are right. Just because the delegates may be assigned to Donald Trump now does not mean that they will stay "assigned." 

Whatever else Trump may say, I do believe he is sincere in wanting to dramatically reform the electoral process of primaries. Because of Ron Paul in 2012 the Republican Party changed myriad rules to keep Paul and his voters in the proverbial shadows, all to run the feckless crony capitalist raider and scavenger Mitt Romney. It's a bit funny how history engenders all of these amusing pieces of symmetry. Because of Barry Goldwater triumphing at the San Francisco Cow Palace in 1964 Romney's father George W. Romney walked out of the Republican National Convention with Nelson Rockefeller, realizing that they had "lost hold" of the party that they had controlled with such puissance over all, as displayed by the machinations to block Robert A. Taft from becoming the nominee against the Rockefeller-backed Dwight D. Eisenhower, who promised the Rockefeller wing that he would conserve FDR's New Deal and Harry Truman's Fair Deal. 

(As an aside, that is the way by which Republicans have been "conservative" since at least Herbert Hoover, who clumsily created the prototype of a "new deal" years before FDR became president; they unwaveringly conserve the "great leaps forward" of the Left. From the aforementioned cases to Richard Nixon with LBJ's Great Society, to Ronald Reagan being instrumental in "saving FDR's Social Security" and George W. Bush massively expanding Medicare and the Department of Education.)


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



DesolationRow said:


> I knew you would say that. :done
> 
> Thank you, Anonymous or @Oda Nobunaga...?


Ahem...? 



Ya didn't think I, the thread starter, would let you guys have all the fun didja?


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

:lol Of course, @Beatles123, of course. :lol


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Hillary has 2 things on her side that's going to push her to finish line. 


1. Obama Coalition backing ..... just think of us as like the silent minority (in contrast to the silent majority that Cons like to brag about) .






and most importantly. :curry2






2. God










/thread


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



> especially with a possible indictment laying over her head.



... never eeeeeeveeerrrr gonna happen...


----------



## Freelancer

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Im not surprised that Hillary won NY, considering all the stories coming out about all the problems at voting locations. Congrats to the Democratic party, you basically have "your" candidate in place now. I never remember a bigger fraud candidate than Hillary. She flip flopped on so many issues that its not even funny, I don't know how anybody in their right mind can believe anything she says. I guess I shouldn't be surprised though, after all this is the country that re-elected George W Bush..... 

On a brighter side, I'm glad The Donald laid the smackdown on Cruz. Go back to Canada Ted.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



Pronoss said:


> read my response, and read context. Only reply giving


In context you're giving an answer based on size's of population when that doesn't matter at all unless one population is tiny like less than one thousand people.

Then you're using that misrepresentation to say you're comparing apples and oranges when statisics doesn't work in that way


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



birthday_massacre said:


> There is still a slight chance Bernie can win but he would have to run the table pretty much and win by a good amount. Its not over yet but this lose by 15 points was a huge loss for Sanders. He needed to lose by 5 points or less or win but he didnt. So its a huge blow. But Hillary still may not get enough delegates to win the nomination, which would make it interesting especially with a possible indictment laying over her head. By the time the convention rolls around who knows where the FBI will stand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends what they are claiming Hillary is best to represent them. If they are claim its because of her college plan or because she is going to fight to break up the banks, or that she is for a higher minimum wage (which is much lower than Sanders ) then they are backing the wrong person. Bernie is much better than Hillary for the country when it comes to democratic views.
> 
> Bernie pushed her way to the left than she wants to be, and once the general comes along she is going to move back to center right and all the people that were dumb enough to vote for her will wonder what happened.
> 
> Bernie supporters are much more versed than Hillary supporters by far. Its really not even close. Anyone who knows the issues can clearly see how much better sanders is. Especially since Hillary has changed most of her polices to try to match Bernie. But like I said that will all change come the general.
> 
> You really think Hillary is going to try to break up the banks? You really think Hillary is going to care about the middle class and not cut taxes on the rich when she makes millions per year? She is also for prison for profit and wont try to keep people out of jail, as well as she doesn't give shit about supporting gay marriage until it because the popular thing to do. She was always against same sex marriage until just a few years ago. She is also for fracking and big oil companies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can give her any label but liberal. Like she now claims she is. Hillarys views are super republican. She used to say she was a moderate but you are right she is much more conservative, I was just being kind.
> 
> 
> Like I said she was against same sex marriage until just a few years ago, she supports the patriot act, she was for pretty much all the big wars, she is against breaking up the big banks, against bringing back stegal, for prison for profits, supports fracking and the keystone pipeline, she was against the carbon tax , she supported the NAFTA and TPP. Do I really need to go on?


The left/right lines aren't as important anymore. The main issue at stake in this election is nationalist vs globalist.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Wrestlefire said:


> I don't think people are voting for Hillary.
> 
> I think it's clear that (At least the Democratic part of) the 2016 election is a farce.
> 
> Voting irregularities have plagued the Democratic primary, almost if not all against Sanders.
> 
> It's clear that Bernie Sanders needs to start getting ready for a petition campaign to get on the ballot, because he's not getting on the ballot otherwise. Queen Clinton will see to that.
> 
> Not only that, but I think Queen Hillary is trying to get people to stay home from the election. Depress the turnout to 65-70M, and you ensure a friendly government to the same interests of Queen Hillary, no matter if she or Cruz wins.
> 
> Trump throws the other monkey wrench into this. If it's Trump/Hillary, Clinton would need election fraud on a scale that makes even this openly fraudulent primary seem tame in comparison.


Liberals are now complaining about the DNC voter fraud, after all these years of using it to win, oh the sweet sweet full circle completion :lmao:booklel:booklel:booklel


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Yea DNC complaining about voter fraud is pretty silly.. considering they were using illegals to vote in elections. Tho not going to bitch or anything, this election should be about waking people up and praising our new God Emperor!



:tucky The Emperor protects!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

People really want Trump to bring fascism to the US?


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



birthday_massacre said:


> People really want Trump to bring fascism to the US?


I'm going to say this one more time

Fascism is super fucking specific

Its requires not only nationalist policy but also an pro-war policy and government backed economic leaders with free trade in the lower end

Obama's health care is closer to fascist as it has a privately run company that gets official government support with lesser companies have free competition 

Hitler, Franco, and Mussolini picked major companies in their country to handle all government contracts and were given government funds to support as opposed to the bidding war strategy Trump supports 

There has not been a legit Fascist politician since that failed coup after Franco died 

Is Trump nationalist right-wing, yes

Is Trump a fascist, no 

His economic polices lack the fascist policies 

If you break it down every politician, including Sanders, have at least one policy in common with fascism but policy is not evil in its concept

If it wasn't for the whole Holocaust thing fascism would still be a legit political system and would likely be the primary party of conservative Europe

Fascism is not a evil politician I don't like

A political system is not evil, people are evil


----------



## samizayn

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (#CubanMistressCrisis)*



CamillePunk said:


> (Who the fuck are these clowns that are voting for Kasich?)


Manhattan, apparently.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



stevefox1200 said:


> Is Trump nationalist right-wing, yes
> 
> Is Trump a fascist, no


How is Trump "nationalist right-wing" when he said he's anti-war and wouldn't cut entitlements?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ch-entitlements-im-going-save-social-security


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

The Pax Trumpana is nigh.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Truthbetold said:


> How is Trump "nationalist right-wing" when he said he's anti-war and wouldn't cut entitlements?
> http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ch-entitlements-im-going-save-social-security


You can be nationalist and still anti-war

I would consider abandoning allies for economic reasons or to strengthen your military for home defense nationalist for example

all nationalist means to me is you put your nations interest first with zero interest in helping other nations unless it involves strengthening yours


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



birthday_massacre said:


> It depends what they are claiming Hillary is best to represent them. If they are claim its because of her college plan or because she is going to fight to break up the banks, or that she is for a higher minimum wage (which is much lower than Sanders ) then they are backing the wrong person. Bernie is much better than Hillary for the country when it comes to democratic views.


Wtf is democratic views? More handouts? That's what Bernie's supporters seem to be implying. Again, are Sanders supporters willing to pay what is required to implement his policies instead of the pie in the sky 'the rich will pay for it' mantra that is similar to Trump's "Mexico will pay for it'? Thus far, most seem to be unwilling to do so or at least at the required amount.



> Bernie pushed her way to the left than she wants to be, and once the general comes along she is going to move back to center right and all the people that were dumb enough to vote for her will wonder what happened.


That's good. Changes are made when the fringes push society either towards center left or center right. It is shocking that being a moderate is now a dirty word in both camps.



> Bernie supporters are much more versed than Hillary supporters by far. Its really not even close. Anyone who knows the issues can clearly see how much better sanders is. Especially since Hillary has changed most of her polices to try to match Bernie. But like I said that will all change come the general.


You say this with a straight face yet Bernie supporters are coming off as immature brats. Bernie bros anyone?



> You really think Hillary is going to try to break up the banks? You really think Hillary is going to care about the middle class and not cut taxes on the rich when she makes millions per year? She is also for prison for profit and wont try to keep people out of jail, as well as she doesn't give shit about supporting gay marriage until it because the popular thing to do. She was always against same sex marriage until just a few years ago. She is also for fracking and big oil companies.


I don't think Hilary will break up the banks, she is just paying lip service to it. Now, do you really think Bernie is capable of breaking up the banks? What happens if he don't? You really think Bernie will not raise taxes on the middle class to pay for his policies? I don't mind keeping people who break the laws in jail.

Anyway I'm not American and the biggest issue in this election for me is the anti-trade rhetoric from the Trump and Sanders camps. It is almost like the Watchmen comic where someone is creating a make-believe monster to unite opposing sides against a common enemy.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



stevefox1200 said:


> I'm going to say this one more time
> 
> Fascism is super fucking specific
> 
> Its requires not only nationalist policy but also an pro-war policy and government backed economic leaders with free trade in the lower end
> 
> Obama's health care is closer to fascist as it has a privately run company that gets official government support with lesser companies have free competition
> 
> Hitler, Franco, and Mussolini picked major companies in their country to handle all government contracts and were given government funds to support as opposed to the bidding war strategy Trump supports
> 
> There has not been a legit Fascist politician since that failed coup after Franco died
> 
> Is Trump nationalist right-wing, yes
> 
> Is Trump a fascist, no
> 
> His economic polices lack the fascist policies
> 
> If you break it down every politician, including Sanders, have at least one policy in common with fascism but policy is not evil in its concept
> 
> If it wasn't for the whole Holocaust thing fascism would still be a legit political system and would likely be the primary party of conservative Europe
> 
> Fascism is not a evil politician I don't like
> 
> A political system is not evil, people are evil



Trump is fascist because he wants to shut down the papers that talk bad about him even when they are telling the truth. He is a fascist because he wants to beat down anyone that apposes him. He is not for free speech if its against him. That is fascism. Him saying he would tag muslims is fascist. 

Trump totally has fascist views. That is a fact as much as you want to spin he is not.



FriedTofu said:


> Wtf is democratic views? More handouts? That's what Bernie's supporters seem to be implying. Again, are Sanders supporters willing to pay what is required to implement his policies instead of the pie in the sky 'the rich will pay for it' mantra that is similar to Trump's "Mexico will pay for it'? Thus far, most seem to be unwilling to do so or at least at the required amount.
> 
> That's good. Changes are made when the fringes push society either towards center left or center right. It is shocking that being a moderate is now a dirty word in both camps.
> 
> You say this with a straight face yet Bernie supporters are coming off as immature brats. Bernie bros anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Hilary will break up the banks, she is just paying lip service to it. Now, do you really think Bernie is capable of breaking up the banks? What happens if he don't? You really think Bernie will not raise taxes on the middle class to pay for his policies? I don't mind keeping people who break the laws in jail.
> 
> Anyway I'm not American and the biggest issue in this election for me is the anti-trade rhetoric from the Trump and Sanders camps. It is almost like the Watchmen comic where someone is creating a make-believe monster to unite opposing sides against a common enemy.


People like you show you don't know what you are talking about especially when you claim Bernie wants give free handouts. He is TAXING US to pay for his plans. How is that a handout? He just wants to use the taxes to help THE PEOPLE and big banks, big oil or pharama. You sound so ignorant when you claim oh Bernie is about handouts. That is like claiming social security checks are handouts. ITS YOUR MONEY.

Why wouldn't we want our tax dollars to be used on US that is what its suppose to be used on. The rich havant been paying their fan share of taxes in a long time especially when it comes to big businesses. 

And trickle down economics has been a huge failure, its why the US is in a recession. Cutting taxes on the rich doesn't work. The country has always ran bette when they pay their taxes. Not sure what is so hard to understand about that.

The more money the middle class has the more they spend, the better off the economy is. And with Sanders healthcare plan, we pay a little more in taxes but save way more on medical bills so you end up SAVIGN MONEY. 

Hillary is just telling people what they want to hear because she is facing Sanders who is a real liberal. Once she is president she will go back to her republican lite ways. She is a huge liar and its a joke her voters are falling for it.

You once again show how ignorant and uninformed you are and keep proving my point. There is no such thing as Bernie Bros, its the same bullshit Hillary pulled with Obama, crying sexism when ever someone says anything bad about her, they would say about any male politician. The fucked up thing is, since her people cry sexism for non sexism acts, when real acts of sexism happen they will just be dissed because they lied about it before. You are so uninformed its not even funny. But thanks for proving my point


Of course Hillary wont break up the banks. They should be broken up right now but Obama isn't doing shit about it and neither was Hillary when she was sectary of state. She got huge bribes from them not to. Its why she wont do shit about big oil or prisons for profit 

There is a reason why her nickname is Shillary.

Yes Bernie is capable of breaking up big banks especially with people like Liz Warren having his back. Also come the midterm elections, you just need the democrats to run on breaking up the banks to oust the republicans and it will be even easier. 


Bernie will raise taxes on the middle class and the rich as well to pay for his polices. But we will all benefit from that and in the long run be better off. HE wont be doing what the other presidents have done and cut taxes on the rich and make just the middle class pay for it that for sure.

The trade agreement that have been passed have been huge disasters. America has lost millions of jobs because of it. How is Carrier and Nabisco moving thousands of jobs not a huge issue? yeah sure maybe if those jobs are moving to your country its not an issue but when its taking jobs away from americans, its a huge issue for americans. Again you are just showing you don't know the issues.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



birthday_massacre said:


> People like you show you don't know what you are talking about especially when you claim Bernie wants give free handouts. He is TAXING US to pay for his plans. How is that a handout? He just wants to use the taxes to help THE PEOPLE and big banks, big oil or pharama. You sound so ignorant when you claim oh Bernie is about handouts. That is like claiming social security checks are handouts. ITS YOUR MONEY.


How is promising free stuff for votes not a handouts? It is a campaigning tactic.



> Why wouldn't we want our tax dollars to be used on US that is what its suppose to be used on. The rich havant been paying their fan share of taxes in a long time especially when it comes to big businesses.


No disagreement there. But to pay for Sanders policies, the middle class have to pay much more. Are you willing to pay more for others? Look at how much is already being spent on social welfare, how much is enough?



> And trickle down economics has been a huge failure, its why the US is in a recession. Cutting taxes on the rich doesn't work. The country has always ran bette when they pay their taxes. Not sure what is so hard to understand about that.


Trickle down economics works if the rich are creating jobs. The issue is the lack of incentives from those cuts to encourage this. I don't see how you can't understand that taxing them more is going drive some away and losing potential employers.



> The more money the middle class has the more they spend, the better off the economy is. And with Sanders healthcare plan, we pay a little more in taxes but save way more on medical bills so you end up SAVIGN MONEY.


How much is a little more? Do you know how much more you have to pay for the education, healthcare reforms?



> Hillary is just telling people what they want to hear because she is facing Sanders who is a real liberal. Once she is president she will go back to her republican lite ways. She is a huge liar and its a joke her voters are falling for it.
> 
> You once again show how ignorant and uninformed you are and keep proving my point. There is no such thing as Bernie Bros, its the same bullshit Hillary pulled with Obama, crying sexism when ever someone says anything bad about her, they would say about any male politician. The fucked up thing is, since her people cry sexism for non sexism acts, when real acts of sexism happen they will just be dissed because they lied about it before. You are so uninformed its not even funny. But thanks for proving my point


Erm.. Bernie bros are people like you who react angrily to anyone that isn't a supporter of Bernie. Most of the time being overly aggressive. Look all over the comment pages, they exist everywhere. Unless you are telling me they are plants by the Clinton campaign to make Sanders look bad?




> Of course Hillary wont break up the banks. They should be broken up right now but Obama isn't doing shit about it and neither was Hillary when she was sectary of state. She got huge bribes from them not to. Its why she wont do shit about big oil or prisons for profit
> 
> There is a reason why her nickname is Shillary.
> 
> Yes Bernie is capable of breaking up big banks especially with people like Liz Warren having his back. Also come the midterm elections, you just need the democrats to run on breaking up the banks to oust the republicans and it will be even easier.


Yeah and Mexico will pay for the wall and Trump will have smart people working for him. And you try to claim Sanders supporters are the best informed one.




> Bernie will raise taxes on the middle class and the rich as well to pay for his polices. But we will all benefit from that and in the long run be better off. HE wont be doing what the other presidents have done and cut taxes on the rich and make just the middle class pay for it that for sure.


All the presidents cut taxes for everyone. They just spend more instead of cutting spendings along with cutting taxes that forces governments to spend less on some programmes.



> The trade agreement that have been passed have been huge disasters. America has lost millions of jobs because of it. How is Carrier and Nabisco moving thousands of jobs not a huge issue? yeah sure maybe if those jobs are moving to your country its not an issue but when its taking jobs away from americans, its a huge issue for americans. Again you are just showing you don't know the issues.


Do you know manufacturing jobs and output has increased during the past half a decade? Jobs are being taken away and returning all the time. Jobs aren't lost to other countries, they are being lost to technological advances. You are the one showing that you don't know what is the root cause of your issues.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



FriedTofu said:


> How is promising free stuff for votes not a handouts? It is a campaigning tactic.
> 
> No disagreement there. But to pay for Sanders policies, the middle class have to pay much more. Are you willing to pay more for others? Look at how much is already being spent on social welfare, how much is enough?
> 
> Trickle down economics works if the rich are creating jobs. The issue is the lack of incentives from those cuts to encourage this. I don't see how you can't understand that taxing them more is going drive some away and losing potential employers.
> 
> How much is a little more? Do you know how much more you have to pay for the education, healthcare reforms?
> 
> Erm.. Bernie bros are people like you who react angrily to anyone that isn't a supporter of Bernie. Most of the time being overly aggressive. Look all over the comment pages, they exist everywhere. Unless you are telling me they are plants by the Clinton campaign to make Sanders look bad?
> 
> 
> Yeah and Mexico will pay for the wall and Trump will have smart people working for him. And you try to claim Sanders supporters are the best informed one.
> 
> 
> All the presidents cut taxes for everyone. They just spend more instead of cutting spendings along with cutting taxes that forces governments to spend less on some programmes.
> 
> Do you know manufacturing jobs and output has increased during the past half a decade? Jobs are being taken away and returning all the time. Jobs aren't lost to other countries, they are being lost to technological advances. You are the one showing that you don't know what is the root cause of your issues.


Because its not free when our taxes are paying for it. Its just like "free" public schools K-12, its technically not free since our taxes pay for that. Do you think K-12 public school is a handout?

I already answered this question. Sure we pay slightly more in taxes but we save more in medical bills. So in the end we are saving money. Not sure what you don't understand about that.

Trickle down economics has proven not to work. It never works when you give the rich tax breaks because the rich just put away that money. Taxing the rich more has proven over the history of the US has stimulated the economy. Economy growth always goes up when the rich are taxed. 

Sanders healthcare plan in the long run over the next ten years would SAVE the US $5-6 TRILLION. 
Sanders healthcare reform would also get rid of copayments which would be huge. The average person would save about $5,000 a year in the end on healthcare when you factor in the slight hike in taxes. 

so how is that not a good deal?


I get angry at people like you that don't know what you are talking about and make stuff up and don't have any of the facts. 

show me all the sexism that Bernie supporters have done to Hillary. Back up what you are claiming with facts. Show examples. 


"All the presidents cut taxes for everyone. They just spend more instead of cutting spendings along with cutting taxes that forces governments to spend less on some programs."

Nice strawman argument. You didnt even refute anything I said . You just keep proving my point about you.



Jobs are being lost to other countries, I just showed you two huge examples. You can't even be truthful. Over 300.000 jobs a year are outsourced. And you wonder why I get mad at people like you


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



birthday_massacre said:


> Because its not free when our taxes are paying for it. Its just like "free" public schools K-12, its technically not free since our taxes pay for that. Do you think K-12 public school is a handout?


It is a handout when it is targeted welfare.



> I already answered this question. Sure we pay slightly more in taxes but we save more in medical bills. So in the end we are saving money. Not sure what you don't understand about that.


No, you haven't. How much is enough? How much MORE is the average supporter willing to pay? Yes in the end you are saving money, but in the short term you are paying more. Are you willing to do so and trust policies won't be reversed when it is your time to benefit?



> Trickle down economics has proven not to work. It never works when you give the rich tax breaks because the rich just put away that money. Taxing the rich more has proven over the history of the US has stimulated the economy. Economy growth always goes up when the rich are taxed.


So why would the rich just put away money while the middle class won't? Are you saying the rich are more frugal than the rest of society?



> Sanders healthcare plan in the long run over the next ten years would SAVE the US $5-6 TRILLION.
> Sanders healthcare reform would also get rid of copayments which would be huge. The average person would save about $5,000 a year in the end on healthcare when you factor in the slight hike in taxes.
> 
> so how is that not a good deal?


 Because his tuition plan will end up costing America more. And did they factor in changing of healthcare behaviour if it becomes 'cheaper'?




> I get angry at people like you that don't know what you are talking about and make stuff up and don't have any of the facts.


Strawman when you can't 'win' in a discussion again.



> show me all the sexism that Bernie supporters have done to Hillary. Back up what you are claiming with facts. Show examples.


I've never claim that. Did you even read what I deem a Bernie Bro is? It isn't all about sexism but the anger displayed towards anyone opposed to Bernie.



> "All the presidents cut taxes for everyone. They just spend more instead of cutting spendings along with cutting taxes that forces governments to spend less on some programs."
> 
> Nice strawman argument. You didnt even refute anything I said . You just keep proving my point about you.


What strawman? You claim trickle down economics don't work. I said it can work if there are incentives built in to encourage employment.




> Jobs are being lost to other countries, I just showed you two huge examples. You can't even be truthful. Over 300.000 jobs a year are outsourced. And you wonder why I get mad at people like you


Just because facts disagree with you, you claim I am not being truthful. Fact is manufacturing has had a mini-revival in recent years in America due to rising costs in China and change in consumer habits (e-commerce which encourages companies to keep factories closer to the market). You have yet to even acknowledge that jobs are lost to technological advances that won't be returning even without trade agreements and you are claiming I am not being truthful.


----------



## Bret Hart

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

They're going to have Hilary win anyway, y'all are wasting your time.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



THE SHIV said:


> The Pax Trumpana is nigh.


Pax Trumpicana, tbh. 










:trump


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> Pax Trumpicana, tbh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :trump


11/10 shop skillz

no pulp? more like no pope


----------



## Yeah1993

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

Did he actually call it 7/11? Like there's no way, right? 

I thought what he said about Lincoln was bad...


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

It's a harmless slip. Quit the clutching at your pearls and fainting act over nothing. There's been more than enough of that in the media over the last several months.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

@AryaDark @Beatles123 @birthday_massacre @CamillePunk @CJ @The Dazzler @Deadpool @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @samizayn @THE SHIV

:woo CLINTONS GONNA CLINTON :woo


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/722894535500509184

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/722911345939587076
:lmao 

So fitting that Andrew Jackson, founder of the Democratic Party, is being pushed aside on the twenty dollar bill, as the postmodern monstrosity that bears his creation's name lazily, lethargically and lugubriously pushes this equally crazed and corrupt warmongering gangster with the blood of thousands on her hands for the nomination en route to the most destructive institution on this planet, the American presidency.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



FriedTofu said:


> It is a handout when it is targeted welfare.
> 
> .


Way to dodge the question. Is free public education K-12 a handout? its a pretty simple question to answer. 




FriedTofu said:


> No, you haven't. How much is enough? How much MORE is the average supporter willing to pay? Yes in the end you are saving money, but in the short term you are paying more. Are you willing to do so and trust policies won't be reversed when it is your time to benefit?
> 
> 
> 
> .


yes I have but you keep ignoring the facts. And with Sanders plan for healthcare the people will save money right away. Its the country that it will save trillions over a decade but at first the country will pay slightly more but that money can easily come from the billions they put into the military that is not needed. Not to mention EVERYONE will be covered under Sanders plan unlike Obamacare or Hillary's plan.




FriedTofu said:


> So why would the rich just put away money while the middle class won't? Are you saying the rich are more frugal than the rest of society?
> 
> 
> 
> .


IT has been PROVEN study after study that the rich would rather save their money they spend it. The rich don't pump the money they make back into the economy like the middle class does. That is how its always works in the US.




FriedTofu said:


> Strawman when you can't 'win' in a discussion again.
> 
> 
> .



its not a strawman when its true. You keep proving you are not following the facts. You flat out ignore them.




FriedTofu said:


> I've never claim that. Did you even read what I deem a Bernie Bro is? It isn't all about sexism but the anger displayed towards anyone opposed to Bernie.
> 
> .


That is not what a Bernie Bro is. You can't change a term and make it what you want. 


FriedTofu said:


> What strawman? You claim trickle down economics don't work. I said it can work if there are incentives built in to encourage employment.
> 
> 
> 
> .


Trickle down economics doest work. That is a fact. cutting taxes for the rich doesn't promo job growth, wage growth, job creation or economic growth. The countries does it bests when the rich are taxed more. it doesn't work even with incentives. Not sure why you don't understand that.



FriedTofu said:


> Just because facts disagree with you, you claim I am not being truthful. Fact is manufacturing has had a mini-revival in recent years in America due to rising costs in China and change in consumer habits (e-commerce which encourages companies to keep factories closer to the market). You have yet to even acknowledge that jobs are lost to technological advances that won't be returning even without trade agreements and you are claiming I am not being truthful.
> 
> .



The facts disagree with you and you still ignore them and claiming something else. That is being untruth. Not sure what you would call it. Its just like how the GOP denies climate change when the facts show its a fact. Its just like how people claim evolution is not real and creationism is when the facts show evolution is a fact. How is that not being untruth? Its either that or they are ignorant. So which is it?

WE are not talking about jobs being lost to technology, we are talking about jobs gong over seas. Jobs lost to technology have nothing to do with those trade agreements But hey nice way to dodge the facts again


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



birthday_massacre said:


> Way to dodge the question. Is free public education K-12 a handout? its a pretty simple question to answer.


 Yes it is. But I don't believe there should be zero handouts, just that there is a limitation to how much a government can afford.

Now is promising to give free stuff that appeals to a specific group of voters a handout for votes tactics?




> yes I have but you keep ignoring the facts. And with Sanders plan for healthcare the people will save money right away. Its the country that it will save trillions over a decade but at first the country will pay slightly more but that money can easily come from the billions they put into the military that is not needed. Not to mention EVERYONE will be covered under Sanders plan unlike Obamacare or Hillary's plan.


You are just repeating the same mantra of how much the plan can 'save'. You are the one ignoring facts when polls showed large section of Bernie supporters either are unwilling to pay more believing the rich will pay for most of it or do not understand how much more they will have to pay. 

You have not addressed the individuals stomach of how much extra they are willing to pay. If individuals are already complaining about ACA premiums increase, what makes you so sure people won't complain about increase in taxes for things that don't benefit them directly like Sander's free college tuition plans? Wouldn't subsidized re-training for new jobs plan be better for the population affected by loss of jobs due to robotics rather than free college tuition that appeal to his liberal college educated base?




> IT has been PROVEN study after study that the rich would rather save their money they spend it. The rich don't pump the money they make back into the economy like the middle class does. That is how its always works in the US.


So the rich have to pump most of their money back into the economy to be considered model citizens? Go after the rich that hide their income in offshore dummy companies to avoid taxes. Don't go after the whole group because they mange their finances and save more.





> its not a strawman when its true. You keep proving you are not following the facts. You flat out ignore them.


Facts and projections are not the same thing. You seem unable to differentiate one from the other.




> That is not what a Bernie Bro is. You can't change a term and make it what you want.


You are one good example of one. That's all I need to know.



> Trickle down economics doest work. That is a fact. cutting taxes for the rich doesn't promo job growth, wage growth, job creation or economic growth. The countries does it bests when the rich are taxed more. it doesn't work even with incentives. Not sure why you don't understand that.


Taxing the rich more just means you are creating incentives for them and their spendings to move away. 

The countries that does it best taxed EVERYONE more. Not in Sander's fairy tale where he just needs to tax the rich more without consequences.






> The facts disagree with you and you still ignore them and claiming something else. That is being untruth. Not sure what you would call it. Its just like how the GOP denies climate change when the facts show its a fact. Its just like how people claim evolution is not real and creationism is when the facts show evolution is a fact. How is that not being untruth? Its either that or they are ignorant. So which is it?
> 
> WE are not talking about jobs being lost to technology, we are talking about jobs gong over seas. Jobs lost to technology have nothing to do with those trade agreements But hey nice way to dodge the facts again


What facts did I dodged that American manufacturing jobs have seen an increase in recent years due to changes in the global economic climate? Job losses are due to more than trade agreements. You are being untruthful if you fail to even acknowledge it.

Traditional jobs are loss to the sharing economy as well. Why not rant against that too?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



FriedTofu said:


> Yes it is. But I don't believe there should be zero handouts, just that there is a limitation to how much a government can afford.
> 
> Now is promising to give free stuff that appeals to a specific group of voters a handout for votes tactics?
> 
> 
> You are just repeating the same mantra of how much the plan can 'save'. You are the one ignoring facts when polls showed large section of Bernie supporters either are unwilling to pay more believing the rich will pay for most of it or do not understand how much more they will have to pay.
> 
> You have not addressed the individuals stomach of how much extra they are willing to pay. If individuals are already complaining about ACA premiums increase, what makes you so sure people won't complain about increase in taxes for things that don't benefit them directly like Sander's free college tuition plans? Wouldn't subsidized re-training for new jobs plan be better for the population affected by loss of jobs due to robotics rather than free college tuition that appeal to his liberal college educated base?
> 
> 
> So the rich have to pump most of their money back into the economy to be considered model citizens? Go after the rich that hide their income in offshore dummy companies to avoid taxes. Don't go after the whole group because they mange their finances and save more.
> 
> 
> 
> Facts and projections are not the same thing. You seem unable to differentiate one from the other.
> 
> 
> You are one good example of one. That's all I need to know.
> 
> Taxing the rich more just means you are creating incentives for them and their spendings to move away.
> 
> The countries that does it best taxed EVERYONE more. Not in Sander's fairy tale where he just needs to tax the rich more without consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What facts did I dodged that American manufacturing jobs have seen an increase in recent years due to changes in the global economic climate? Job losses are due to more than trade agreements. You are being untruthful if you fail to even acknowledge it.
> 
> Traditional jobs are loss to the sharing economy as well. Why not rant against that too?



The Govt can afford to have "free" public college like they do public K-12 schools. Its pretty simple actually. All that would have to happen is corporations would have to pay Reagan era taxes. You know the guy that all the republicans love.

The middle class is willing to pay more taxes to SAVE money for healthcare. Sanders will raise the middle class and rich taxes slightly and they will save an average of $5000 a year on healthcare. We do understand how much more we will have to pay its all on his website.







You keep lying and its getting old. Now I remember why I was ignoring you before. Because you ignore the facts like I have been saying. 

You wouldn't pay a little more in taxes if it would save you $5,000 a year"?

The thing you keep ignoring is when the US has taxed there rich more the economy does BETTER. But keep ignoring that fact.

Jobs going over seas have everything to do with those trade agreements. That is why they need to be shut down. The US has lost 5 MILLION manufacturing jobs overseas since 2000. But keep ignoring the facts. 

You are going back on ignore. You just ignore all the facts, and I'm done.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Seems like there is a lot of voter fuckery going on in CA and RI now too, surprise surprise.

Fuck it, Hillary needs to go down, i wont right in Sanders now or vote 3rd party, I'm just going to vote Trump. As much as i dislike Trump , I dispose Hillary and her smugness and the DNC fuckery even more. She has to lose if the democratic party is going to survive. It can't take 8 years until we get someone like Liz Warren as president.

Id take Trumo for 4 years than Warren in 2020 than Hillary for 8 years.


Ive had it. The GOP is trying to screw Trumo too, so fuck the system. if I can't vote Bernie in the general. ill just vote Trump. I can't wait to see Trumo wipe that smugness off Hillary's face in the general debates.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

I consider this a 'win' then? When someone disagree with you, they are lying. Not surprised you would vote for Trump then. :lmao

Guess I'm lying Ted until you need me then the 'lying' will be dropped. :lmao


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



birthday_massacre said:


> Seems like there is a lot of voter fuckery going on in CA and RI now too, surprise surprise.
> 
> Fuck it, Hillary needs to go down, i wont right in Sanders now or vote 3rd party, I'm just going to vote Trump. As much as i dislike Trump , I dispose Hillary and her smugness and the DNC fuckery even more. She has to lose if the democratic party is going to survive. It can't take 8 years until we get someone like Liz Warren as president.
> 
> Id take Trumo for 4 years than Warren in 2020 than Hillary for 8 years.
> 
> 
> Ive had it. The GOP is trying to screw Trumo too, so fuck the system. if I can't vote Bernie in the general. ill just vote Trump. I can't wait to see Trumo wipe that smugness off Hillary's face in the general debates.


You sat and insulted people calling them Nazi's and fascist for liking Trump but its OK for you to vote for him because you got butt hurt when your guy lost

THIS is the kind of thing that leads to fascism, people so fanatical that they will side with people they hate if it means hurting someone they hate more 

I didn't hate the jews, it just hated the communist but I voted Nazi anyway just to hurt the communists

WHOOPS my single issue protest voting just lead to genocide


----------



## FITZ

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



birthday_massacre said:


> The Govt can afford to have "free" public college like they do public K-12 schools. Its pretty simple actually. All that would have to happen is corporations would have to pay Reagan era taxes. You know the guy that all the republicans love.
> 
> The middle class is willing to pay more taxes to SAVE money for healthcare. Sanders will raise the middle class and rich taxes slightly and they will save an average of $5000 a year on healthcare. We do understand how much more we will have to pay its all on his website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep lying and its getting old. Now I remember why I was ignoring you before. Because you ignore the facts like I have been saying.
> 
> You wouldn't pay a little more in taxes if it would save you $5,000 a year"?
> 
> The thing you keep ignoring is when the US has taxed there rich more the economy does BETTER. But keep ignoring that fact.
> 
> Jobs going over seas have everything to do with those trade agreements. That is why they need to be shut down. The US has lost 5 MILLION manufacturing jobs overseas since 2000. But keep ignoring the facts.
> 
> You are going back on ignore. You just ignore all the facts, and I'm done.


How am I going to save $5,000 per year. Since the new year my healthcare cost has been $0. I might get a check-up this year. Maybe. That's $250. Unless I find myself with some type of horrendous illness that's all I'm going to spend. I'm 25 years old and in good health. I try to avoid taking persciption drugs at all costs, and I've been sick maybe twice in the last 3 years. I suppose there is a slight chance that something happens to me but realistically it's not going to happen. 

Where do my $5,000 in savings come from? 

I have a new job starting next month and I'm considering not getting health insurance. If I get insurance I'm going to be pure profit for whatever company I go with. Whatever I pay them a year will be nowhere near what my medical costs are. 

Financially the best thing for me would be to not get health insurance and not got taxed for not having. Whether I'm forced to buy insurance or I'm forced to have taxes go up for "free" insurance I don't come out any better for it.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



birthday_massacre said:


> Ive had it. The GOP is trying to screw Trumo too, so fuck the system. if I can't vote Bernie in the general. ill just vote Trump. I can't wait to see Trumo wipe that smugness off Hillary's face in the general debates.


----------



## birthday_massacre

stevefox1200 said:


> You sat and insulted people calling them Nazi's and fascist for liking Trump but its OK for you to vote for him because you got butt hurt when your guy lost
> 
> THIS is the kind of thing that leads to fascism, people so fanatical that they will side with people they hate if it means hurting someone they hate more
> 
> I didn't hate the jews, it just hated the communist but I voted Nazi anyway just to hurt the communists
> 
> WHOOPS my single issue protest voting just lead to genocide


Im not really voting for Trump LOL

Im still writing in Bernie. I do hope Hillary loses though. She stole the nomination from Bernie. The GOP are trying to steal the nomination from Trump as well, it still could happen. Just watch

If Trump gets the nomination stolen from him at the brokered convention all you Trump fans will go ballistic .



FITZ said:


> How am I going to save $5,000 per year. Since the new year my healthcare cost has been $0. I might get a check-up this year. Maybe. That's $250. Unless I find myself with some type of horrendous illness that's all I'm going to spend. I'm 25 years old and in good health. I try to avoid taking persciption drugs at all costs, and I've been sick maybe twice in the last 3 years. I suppose there is a slight chance that something happens to me but realistically it's not going to happen.
> 
> Where do my $5,000 in savings come from?
> 
> I have a new job starting next month and I'm considering not getting health insurance. If I get insurance I'm going to be pure profit for whatever company I go with. Whatever I pay them a year will be nowhere near what my medical costs are.
> 
> Financially the best thing for me would be to not get health insurance and not got taxed for not having. Whether I'm forced to buy insurance or I'm forced to have taxes go up for "free" insurance I don't come out any better for it.


Not having insurance is stupid, if you don't have it and get really sick or get in seriously injured you are screwed.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/723108345687715841
:maisielol :maisie2 

An apt metaphor for the results of Sanders's policies.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



FITZ said:


> How am I going to save $5,000 per year. Since the new year my healthcare cost has been $0. I might get a check-up this year. Maybe. That's $250. Unless I find myself with some type of horrendous illness that's all I'm going to spend. I'm 25 years old and in good health. I try to avoid taking persciption drugs at all costs, and I've been sick maybe twice in the last 3 years. I suppose there is a slight chance that something happens to me but realistically it's not going to happen.
> 
> Where do my $5,000 in savings come from?
> 
> I have a new job starting next month and I'm considering not getting health insurance. If I get insurance I'm going to be pure profit for whatever company I go with. Whatever I pay them a year will be nowhere near what my medical costs are.
> 
> Financially the best thing for me would be to not get health insurance and not got taxed for not having. Whether I'm forced to buy insurance or I'm forced to have taxes go up for "free" insurance I don't come out any better for it.


In my opinion, I never want to collect on the full savings because that means I would be suffering from a medical condition.

All in all, health insurance is cheap compared to what one would need to pay if accidents happen. It is more of a peace of mind to have coverage than real actual savings.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



birthday_massacre said:


> Not having insurance is stupid, if you don't have it and get really sick or get in seriously injured you are screwed.


If I get really sick or seriously injured I'm screwed anyway.

I have no assets. I'm over $100,000 in debt from student loans. A hospital can't refuse to treat me if it's an emergency. Absolute worst case scenario is I just have more debt.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

I thought you were above smear campaigns Desolation. Getting desperate?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



yeahbaby! said:


> I thought you were above smear campaigns Desolation. Getting desperate?


Smearing is bringing up something damaging that has no bearing on her ability as a President, what Deso is stating and others have stated are facts which is a clear conflict of interest with her being President, there is a clear difference.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

Thanks Sal


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Thanks Sal


Well Iunno if you're joking or not so wanted to give my statement, Deso has never smeared anyone without facts etc. I have but Deso actually is pretty good about being objective even when it's something he doesn't agree with!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

mfw Trunp's still a better president and business person than Dixie Carter. :bob::fact:jericho2:russo:cena5unk2


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*






I did not know this song existed. :lol


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @Beatles123 @birthday_massacre @CamillePunk @CJ @The Dazzler @Deadpool @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @samizayn @THE SHIV
> 
> :woo CLINTONS GONNA CLINTON :woo
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/722894535500509184
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/722911345939587076
> :lmao
> 
> So fitting that Andrew Jackson, founder of the Democratic Party, is being pushed aside on the twenty dollar bill, as the postmodern monstrosity that bears his creation's name lazily, lethargically and lugubriously pushes this equally crazed and corrupt warmongering gangster with the blood of thousands on her hands for the nomination en route to the most destructive institution on this planet, the American presidency.


But none of that matters because we have the opportunity to elect the first woman President.

_Priorities_, @Deso. :mj


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

*Hillary PAC Spends $1 Million to ‘Correct’ Commenters on Reddit and Facebook*












> Citing “lessons learned from online engagement with ‘Bernie Bros,’” a pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC is pledging to spend $1 million to “push back against” users on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and Instagram.
> Correct the Record’s “Barrier Breakers” project boasts in a press release that it has already “addressed more than 5,000 people that have personally attacked Hillary Clinton on Twitter.” The PAC released this on Thursday.
> The PAC was created in May of last year when it was spun off from the American Bridge SuperPAC, which is run by longtime Hillary and Bill Clinton supporter David Brock. Brock also founded the left-wing media watchdog website Media Matters for America.
> Some Bernie Sanders-supporting users on Reddit already started to notice the changes on Thursday afternoon.
> “This explains why my inbox turned to cancer on Tuesday,” wrote user OKarizee. “Been a member of reddit for almost 4 years and never experienced anything like it. In fact, in all my years on the internet I’ve never experienced anything like it.”
> Correct the Record, which has received $5 million this campaign season and has spent almost $4.5 million of it, according to OpenSecrets.org, outlined its strategy against “swarms of anonymous attackers” in a press release.
> “While Hillary Clinton fights to break down barriers and bring America together, the Barrier Breakers 2016 digital task force will serve as a resource for supporters looking for positive content and push-back to share with their online progressive communities, as well as thanking prominent supporters and committed superdelegates on social media,” the statement read.
> Due to FEC loopholes, the Sunlight Foundation’s Libby Watson found this year that Correct the Record can openly coordinate with Clinton’s campaign, despite rules that typically disallow political campaigns from working directly with PACs.
> “SuperPACs aren’t supposed to coordinate with candidates. The whole reasoning behind (Supreme Court decision) Citizens United rests on (PACs) being independent, but Correct the Record claims it can coordinate,” Watson told The Daily Beast. “It’s not totally clear what their reasoning is, but it seems to be that material posted on the Internet for free—like, blogs—doesn’t count as an ‘independent expenditure.’”
> Watson previously worked at Brock’s Media Matters for America, where “their whole mission is to debunk conservative misinformation [and] a lot of that ends up being defending Hillary Clinton,” but says she’s never seen anything like this initiative.
> “Usually places like MMFA and CTR are defending her against the media and established figures. This seems to be going after essentially random individuals online,” she said. “I don’t know that they’ve done anything like this before.”
> Campaign Legal Center lawyer Paul Ryan (who bears no relation to the Speaker of the House) told Time magazine in September of last year that Correct The Record is “creating new ways to undermine campaign regulation.” Watson used Ryan’s complaint in the Sunlight Foundation’s report about the most influential organizations working behind the scenes for the Clinton camp.
> “Campaign finance lawyers are not that impressed with [CTR’s] logic, but they can get away with it because the [Federal Election Commission] is deadlocked and does nothing,” she said.
> “Barrier Breakers 2016 is focused on pushing out positive content to Hillary supporters online to counter negative attacks and false narratives,” Correct the Record’s communications director, Elizabeth Shappell, told The Daily Beast. “The expanded task force was established in anticipation of the general election.”


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...orrect-commenters-on-reddit-and-facebook.html


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Truthbetold said:


>


Oh come on, you really expect us to take that seriously? FOX?

That dickhead presenter couldn't even get the guest's name right at the end 'Dr.....uh uh Sheriff So and So'.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

I didn't know hot sauce was a black people thing.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



CamillePunk said:


> I didn't know hot sauce was a black people thing.


Once black people like something it's a black thing so therefore white people using it becomes racist!

Also you go Hilary, silence all the people telling truth about you!

Also insurance is expensive because there is no free market for it, if you travel you're fucked if you go out of state, there is no competition and you got carpet baggers that milk insurance and bring up rates. Illegals, people who don't pay and people who abuse insurance make it go up, also when you go in for surgery they rack up the cost so insurance has to pay more! They charge you for EVERYTHING! Most of the time the hospitals get a lot they charge you for, for free! Seriously, all those medical grade drills and equipment and screws etc are all just slightly modified stuff from home depot! It's insane how much money is wasted.


----------



## manstis1804

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

There's no getting money out of politics. When the people complaining about money in politics tell you to donate _them_ money instead, the whole argument falls flat on its face. 

We're a capitalist nation, money makes the whole thing go. I don't think it's necessarily a great thing, but what _realistically_ gets done about that? Say SuperPACs get abolished, some other bullshit loophole will open and that money will get funneled to the candidate of their preference. You're not going to stop the rich from using their money the way they want to. 

Sometimes things just need to be accepted. We're not entitled to utopia. We're the richest nation in the world, with the strongest military, 300,000,000+ people of all kinds of beliefs/backgrounds etc. with access to food/water/shelter/education/health care, all manner of rights and freedoms, even those of us in poverty it's like sure, it's tough, but in the end, the vast vast majority has what they need and then some (though what people "need" has grown far past the means for survival, which is what it actually means), I mean shit everyone's got the internet in their pocket and enough money to drink or smoke cigarettes or pot etc even if they are "poor".

There's always tons of things that can be bitched about, but step back; it's impressive what this country is able to do. We really should not be so damn angry, on both sides. I am all for wanting things to be better, but the over-dramatizing of everything being sooooo fucked up and terrible, I can only imagine reading that from the standpoint of someone in a developing nation.

These politicians love to play protective big bro. "The world is so fucked. I'm the one to fix it. Vote for me, gimme your money. You need me, you know it." Trump gets called an ideologue, and rightfully so, but Bernie Sanders is just as much of one if not more. Don't buy into that bullshit. It's not impossible to go to college if you're poor, most people are just discouraged from trying because everyone wants to put their own fears into them, and people like Bernie Sanders tell you you're helpless.

The playing field has leveled in a lot of ways, despite income inequality. The access to information right now is unparalleled by any time in recorded history. Find a way to exploit this giant system for your own gain instead of worrying about everyone else doing it and it not being fair. It doesn't even have to be anything nefarious, just get an idea and take it as far as you can using all the tools at your disposal.


----------



## Rick_James

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

I wanted to post my story from a Trump rally that I checked out as well as the Trump protestors (many of which seem to be Bernie Sanders supporters). Not sure how many will read my whole story but for me it was a very interesting thing and I think even if you hate Trump you may find what happens to be very interesting, hopefully it's not too redundant but I'm going to try to explain everything so that it makes sense.

Well anyways a few weeks after attending the rally I saw someone post a video on youtube in which a "Trump Supporter" tells someone to "go to Auschwitz". Here's the video:






The implication was that "Trump is a racist and he's rallying his supporters to become racist, one man is openly using German Nazi lingo towards innocent protestors".

It was funny because as I watched the video, something looked familiar, and I realized that was the rally that I actually attended. It was in mid March at the Cleveland IX Center. Not only that but I could tell from the video that this was after the rally was done, and this happened in the same area that I was in when I was exiting the building. Was weird seeing this but I actually remembered going down this exact same path as I was leaving the building (on the right hand side of the walk way, if you are exiting the building).

Long story short, there were protestors there in that spot when I exited the building. Two of them, one that was in a Hitler outfit, no joke lol, and another guy that kept doing that Nazi salute and was yelling stuff like "***********" that were antagonizers, basically trying to mock Trump supporters. From this I gathered that the guy who said "Go to Auschwitz" was actually talking to the Trump protestors that were using Nazi rhetoric themselves, as a way to insult them. 

There's a few indicators for me that this was the case, one was that these protestors were in fact when I was leaving the rally, the only people doing the Nazi gestures and using the rhetoric. None of the Trump Supporters were saying anything like that. Second around the 25 sec mark in the video you can hear someone else yelling out "Auschwitz", I'm figuring it's the protestors, but you also see another person doing the Nazi salute - these people are essentially doing it to mock the protestors who are using that Nazi salute themselves. 

The guy video taping the whole thing is standing close by to these protestors (perhaps he is a buddy of theirs) and says "I got that on camera"... his response to me implies that him and his protester buddies were hoping for and baiting people into these responses. Whether you agree or disagree, it seems pretty clear that the guy holding the camera was standing next to (or very close) to someone that was trying to grab everyone's attention through antics.

Ok, so given all of that information, it came to be a big surprise to me that A LOT of different news sites picked up on this story. Vox was one of them:

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/14/11219302/trump-supporter-auschwitz-cleveland

But there were many others (even in foreign countries), and the video itself had 350,000 views. All of the media reports tried to imply that "Trump's Supporters believe in Hitler" and a lot of people that read the stories or watched the youtube.

Long story short the guy who video taped the whole thing (whom was probably a Trump protester himself) was aware that the Trump protesters were using Nazi hand gestures, one was dressed up as Hitler, and they were yelling out Nazi catchphrases, and that was why people were responding to them accordingly. *He left all of that information out deliberately though because it looks like a more juicy story by trying to portray Trump's Supporters as Hitler Sympathizers*

And the media, youtube, countless news websites and twitter all fell for it hook line and sinker. For many of these sites, it's in their agenda to try to make Trump look as bad as possible. It's one thing to not like his policies, but what happened in the video and it's implications are very far from the truth. 

And for those that do not believe me, here is another youtube video that does in fact show one of the Trump Protestors that was doing the Nazi Salutes and speaking their rhetoric:






You can't see the guy clearly at the beginning in this video, but at the 3:15 mark (which is at almost the very end of the video) you can see the guy as clear as day. He's wearing a white shirt and a black skull cap. This guy was just literally doing that for who knows how long? Pretty much his efforts had two things though, first he was trying to offend Trump Supporters by implying that they like Hitler too (hence why they guy told him to go to Auschwitz) but also I'm figuring he was hoping liberal media outlets may use him as an example of a "racist Trump supporter" as well. The author of the video says that he's a Bernie Sanders supporter, I don't know either way but that's not much of a stretch to believe.

The sad part is that it worked, in particular the guy that video taped the whole thing showed only a very short clip, omitted relevant information to the video (that the protester was using the Nazi gestures), uploaded the video and enjoyed a lot of publicity from it, all based on a lie.

Kind of a depressing story but it goes to show that the Trump protestors (most of which I think are likely Bernie Supporters) will go a long way in telling a lie and trying to paint Trump supporters in a bad light. From what I've heard, in a lot of the stories that the media has picked up just like this, it's typically the protesters that are the aggressors and through either short clips that do not reveal the whole situation, or through selective editing, the media will portray short clips that show Trump supporters as "the bad guys" without showing what sparked the situation in the first place.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

Lyin' Ted and 1-in-41 Kasich = League of Nations

Trump = Roman Reigns

We all know how this shit is gonna go down. :trump


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

I think this is going to be another really good night for Trump as it looks like he might win every state. 

PA and it's weird system seems to be crucial for him getting the nomination. They have 71 delegates total, the winner gets 17 of them. The other delegates are directly elected delegates and those delegates are not bound to vote for anyone in particular. If Trump didn't plan this out right he could cost himself the nomination. He needs to make it clear to the voters which delegates are for him or else this is going to be a total clusterfuck. I mean it would go towards his claim that the entire primary system is rigged if he ends up with 50% of the vote and then the unpledged delegates don't vote for him at the convention but it would be better for him to just figure out how to actually get the delegates that he wants elected.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @Beatles123 @birthday_massacre @CamillePunk @CJ @The Dazzler @Deadpool @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @samizayn @THE SHIV
> 
> :woo CLINTONS GONNA CLINTON :woo
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/722894535500509184
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/722911345939587076
> :lmao
> 
> So fitting that Andrew Jackson, founder of the Democratic Party, is being pushed aside on the twenty dollar bill, as the postmodern monstrosity that bears his creation's name lazily, lethargically and lugubriously pushes this equally crazed and corrupt warmongering gangster with the blood of thousands on her hands for the nomination en route to the most destructive institution on this planet, the American presidency.



The Koch brothers just came out and basically said, Hillary you better be a Clinton and not really mean what you are campaigning for right now. Because if you are the hold Hilary you have our money


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/724633058398375936
:sodone

How can anyone not support this man?


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

I think the deal is going to backfire since all I think it's going to do is piss people off. Doesn't seem like they can stick with it anyway.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

Stefan Molyneux has just released a highly entertaining and spirited interview with Diamond & Silk, who had some very strong opinions about Donald Trump and the history of the Democratic Party re: black Americans. Parts of this may hurt your ears. Headphones not recommended. :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

It seems to be really Diamond is the brains and primary voice of the operation, Silk just seems to be a bit of a hanger-on. Is it too early to promise a cabinet position to Diamond?

Nevertheless, Stef has really raised his stock with this fair and balanced piece.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/724993336000532480

Donald J. TrumpVerified account
‏@realDonaldTrump
*Bernie Sanders has been treated terribly by the Democrats—both with delegates & otherwise. He should show them, and run as an Independent!*


----------



## amhlilhaus

Truthbetold said:


> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/724993336000532480
> 
> Donald J. TrumpVerified account
> ‏@realDonaldTrump
> *Bernie Sanders has been treated terribly by the Democrats—both with delegates & otherwise. He should show them, and run as an Independent!*


Hahahahaha! Democrats have a hive mentality, no way in hell he runs 3rd party.

If they fuck trump at the convention, he should run 3rd party to guarantee the republicans lose.

Then when they start crying he should point out ALL their broken promises.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Miss Sally said:


> Once black people like something it's a black thing so therefore white people using it becomes racist!


A white person liking anti racism just like anti racist black people must be a racist. :kurt


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

I'm so proud of Hillary Clinton's primary victories tonight.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Trump completely dominant tonight. :banderas Remember back when they said Trump had a glass ceiling and would never pull majorities in these primary contents? 

Over 60% in most of the states he's taken tonight. Absolutely dominant in Pennsylvania. 

The media have done everything they can to construct these narratives about Trump, one of which is that he simply can't reach 1,237 delegates. If he were to take Indiana, where he has an 8% lead in polling, and most of California, which he's expected to take, I'd say it's hard to imagine he won't reach that 1,237 mark.

In any event, it is clear that he is the only candidate who could possibly defeat Hillary, not just with popular support, but through their mastery of political branding. He completely wrecked the presumed nominee "Low Energy" Jeb Bush, he wrecked the heir apparent "Little Marco" Rubio, he's stopped "Lyin' Ted" dead in his tracks, and you just have to wonder how successful a "Crooked Hillary" branding campaign would be in the general election. There's certainly a ton of useful material, perhaps more than for all of his past political victims combined. :lol

He's been doing this for less than a year and he's already a master at it. Hugely competent and intelligent individual.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

His penis tastes a bit cheesy though


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

It's over. The GOP/RNC needs to give in. The fact that they're still resisting is pathetic and makes me want Trump even more.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

I don't think that could have possibly gone much better for Trump. He took every delegate in 3 states. Maryland has 3 that are still unaccounted for. I'm assuming a district is still close to award all 3 yet. Trump could get all 3, at least 2 I would think. Google says he is at 950 with 622 delegates still available (which means they either aren't pledged to a candidate or their election hasn't happened). 

Assuming Trump didn't screw up horribly in having the delegates elected in PA I think it's entirely doable. I don't think he gets 1237 by the end of the elections on June 7th but I think he wins on the first vote at the convention because he goes in really close and gets at least some of the unpledged to go for him.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

If I was the Republican party I would have just gave Trump the nom and pumped money to Hillary for political favors if she wins and keep the shit quite

They are still going to try that but everyone is going to know they are doing it because they had to tell everyone up front


----------



## MrMister

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Bernie should run as an independent imo.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Is it strange that I've literally never met someone who supports Hilary?

I've spoken to a lot of Bernie voter, and even more Trump voters, but NEVER have I met a Hilary voter.

....will I have to go on tumblr to talk to one? I'm genuinely curious why anyone would vote for her.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

As @CamillePunk so trenchantly put it, Donald Trump proving to be a better politician than his adversaries after only a few months of becoming one is equally humorous and satisfying. 

Listened to approximately five minutes of Mark Levin's radio show driving through San Francisco this past afternoon. He whined that Trump's big, five-state sweep was "easily predicted," therefore, I suppose, negated...? He also kept repeating a mantra of how Ted Cruz was "the most conservative Republican candidate for the office of the presidency since Ronald Reagan," several times in the few minutes to which I listened. Suppose he never heard of Ron Paul. Oh, wait. Yes he did. He was too busy attacking him for being a "crackpot" because he was not a reflexive neoconservative seeking war with Iran. 

Circling back to Trump, it's hardly surprising that a man whose most pronounced realm of mastery is in market branding has successfully branded his opponents. :lol Though the "One-in-__" for John Kasich seems a bit irrelevant and does not roll off of the proverbial tongue, but then Kasich is irrelevant as well. :lol Kasich's the anti-Brock Lesnar! :woo


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Gandhi said:


> Is it strange that I've literally never met someone who supports Hilary?
> 
> I've spoken to a lot of Bernie voter, and even more Trump voters, but NEVER have I met a Hilary voter.
> 
> ....will I have to go on tumblr to talk to one? I'm genuinely curious why anyone would vote for her.


She is a the "Default candidate" 

The more established candidate or the incumbent barely has to campaign and will still get a massive amount of votes

The Trump and Sanders try to be LOUD to counter this


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



MrMister said:


> Bernie should run as an independent imo.


You are just saying that, like Trump, because if he did, it would guarantee a Trump win in the general.

I can't wait to see Trump tear into Hillary in the debates. She wanted to cry wolf and claim Sanders was being negative and sexist toward her, just wait until Trump attacks her. She wont know what hit her and he will wipe that smug look off her face.

Bernie supporters only hope now is she gets indicted.


----------



## NeverDrewADime

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Lets go Trump!


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Gandhi said:


> Is it strange that I've literally never met someone who supports Hilary?
> 
> I've spoken to a lot of Bernie voter, and even more Trump voters, but NEVER have I met a Hilary voter.
> 
> ....will I have to go on tumblr to talk to one? I'm genuinely curious why anyone would vote for her.


I believe her supporters would be those that are satisfied with the status quo. She is the establishment candidate after all. These voters are usually unlikely to make as much noise as the opposition candidates or 'outsider' candidates like Trump or Bernie supporters.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

SWEEP!


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

Now for the heel turn on conservatives to make himself more electable in the general elections.


----------



## amhlilhaus

FriedTofu said:


> Now for the heel turn on conservatives to make himself more electable in the general elections.


LMAO!

Swerve!

I actually expect him to become more moderate. I dont care. I think the countrys going into the shitter, and im voting trump simply for the lolz. His press conferences, and his fights with the press would/will be comedy gold.

Dont get me wrong, hilarys crooked ass will be great to watch running us into the ground, but it wouldnt be a tenth as interesting as trump.


----------



## amhlilhaus

CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/724633058398375936
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can anyone not support this man?


Trump will destroy hilary with comments like this

In before 'oh noes! Trump hates womenz!'


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



amhlilhaus said:


> LMAO!
> 
> Swerve!
> 
> I actually expect him to become more moderate. I dont care. I think the countrys going into the shitter, and im voting trump simply for the lolz. His press conferences, and his fights with the press would/will be comedy gold.
> 
> Dont get me wrong, hilarys crooked ass will be great to watch running us into the ground, but it wouldnt be a tenth as interesting as trump.


What is more terrifying for me is if Trump can win the nomination, what is there to stop someone like Sarah Palin from winning one in the future? The GOP base is clearly willing to vote for anyone at this point.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



FriedTofu said:


> What is more terrifying for me is if Trump can win the nomination, what is there to stop someone like Sarah Palin from winning one in the future? The GOP base is clearly willing to vote for anyone at this point.


I think they were willing to vote for anyone that didn't seem like more of the same old shit. 

Democrats weren't all that different this year either. Sanders got a lot of votes because he comes across as someone that would give us more of the same. 

Regardless of the outcome this year I think we saw good changes for both sides because the people seemed less controlled by the parties, which has to be a good thing.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



CamillePunk said:


> Stefan Molyneux has just released a highly entertaining and spirited interview with Diamond & Silk, who had some very strong opinions about Donald Trump and the history of the Democratic Party re: black Americans. Parts of this may hurt your ears. Headphones not recommended. :lol


People of all races should watch this video.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*


----------



## amhlilhaus

FriedTofu said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!
> 
> Swerve!
> 
> I actually expect him to become more moderate. I dont care. I think the countrys going into the shitter, and im voting trump simply for the lolz. His press conferences, and his fights with the press would/will be comedy gold.
> 
> Dont get me wrong, hilarys crooked ass will be great to watch running us into the ground, but it wouldnt be a tenth as interesting as trump.
> 
> 
> 
> What is more terrifying for me is if Trump can win the nomination, what is there to stop someone like Sarah Palin from winning one in the future? The GOP base is clearly willing to vote for anyone at this point.
Click to expand...

As are democrats. What hilarys done with the emails should have her in prison. Democrats just shrug and say 'better than a republican'

Its that divide, the fact BOTH sides thinks the other side is the devil that will kill the us.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

Unbelievable speech. More presidential than Obama or anyone else. Really stunning, important speech.



> We will no longer surrender this country, or its people, to the false song of globalism.
> 
> The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down, and will never enter America into any agreement that reduces our ability to control our own affairs.


:trips8 :tucky:tucky:tucky


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



> The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony.


Trump said this? If so, thoughts on this development @CamillePunk


Also, what is to stop Sarah Palin in the future? LOL LMFAO have you ever heard her talk? That's what will stop her in the future.

Trump is kicking ass not just because people desperately want government to work, but also because he's TRUMP.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



MrMister said:


> Trump said this? If so, thoughts on this development @CamillePunk
> 
> 
> Also, what is to stop Sarah Palin in the future? LOL LMFAO have you ever heard her talk? That's what will stop her in the future.
> 
> Trump is kicking ass not just because people desperately want government to work, but also because he's TRUMP.


Trump talks like a 4 grader and look at what he is done. Palin is an idiot that is why she would have no chance. Trump is smart in manipulating people that is why he has done so great. 

Just wait until the general election and he goes to Hillary's left.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePlopVAV6Hc


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Reaper said:


>


How do you feel about this?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Truthbetold said:


> How do you feel about this?


I'm moderate to conservative in a lot of my views - and I think that Trump is the best candidate right now given all other candidates in the race. I don't agree with everything he says, but I agree with the fact (and as was pointed out in the video) that we do need a leader that doesn't say that everything in the country fucking sucks (because that's just not true) but rather we do need a leader that despite all his unpopular opinions has the guts to recognize the potential and attempt to achieve it. I'm not as far left as some people mistakenly think I am. I don't agree with everything that Trump says and I'm able to recognize when he's playing the fool versus when he's being serious. 

I think that there is a great deal of Trump assassination that has gone on and people haven't changed their view on Trump since his first few months on the campaign trail - even though I've noticed that over time Trump has fleshed out his views and opinions a great deal. 

Is Trump the worst thing that can happen to this world. Hell no. A lot of countries already have worse leaders than Trump and America could do a heck of a lot worse. 

I think that if I could vote, I probably would vote Trump. He's distanced himself as the best candidate for me.

Overall though ---- if I knew that my voice of dissent and desire for a society with no government whatsoever even had a hope of existing, I would say ... Don't vote for anyone. But pragmatically that's a pipe dream, so you go for who you think is the best of the lot. Even if you don't agree with everything they stand for. 

It's better than a neoconservative criminal.


----------



## Hencheman_21

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

lmao just say Trump saying Hilary is playing the "woman card" and if she was a male she would not get 5% of the vote AND THEN he said women do not like her. Man that is Trump Logic at it's best.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Hencheman_21 said:


> lmao just say Trump saying Hilary is playing the "woman card" and if she was a male she would not get 5% of the vote AND THEN he said women do not like her. Man that is Trump Logic at it's best.


I can see that making sense - even though he butchered it on its way out of that troll mouth of it.


----------



## Hencheman_21

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Reaper said:


> I can see that making sense - even though he butchered it on its way out of that troll mouth of it.


Well he might have meant one thing but he ended up saying two things that contradict themselves. If women hate here and she is getting by on the "woman card" that means that men are voting for her. Men that would not vote for her if she was a man. That makes no sense. I mean it would if she was a hot stripper or former porn star like you see in other countries running for political office. Hilary does NOT fit that description.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Hencheman_21 said:


> Well he might have meant one thing but he ended up saying two things that contradict themselves. If women hate here and she is getting by on the "woman card" that means that men are voting for her. Men that would not vote for her if she was a man. That makes no sense. I mean it would if she was a hot stripper or former porn star like you see in other countries running for political office. Hilary does NOT fit that description.


I think what he's trying to say is that most women are voting her because she's a woman and sisterhood and all that jazz and that some women hate her. Which isn't far from the truth at all.


----------



## Hencheman_21

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Reaper said:


> I think what he's trying to say is that most women are voting her because she's a woman and sisterhood and all that jazz and that some women hate her. Which isn't far from the truth at all.


Well that is possible. Of course that means women hate her but voting only because she is a women which is demeaning toward women. Not that that is new for Trump.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Reaper said:


> I'm moderate to conservative in a lot of my views - and I think that Trump is the best candidate right now given all other candidates in the race. I don't agree with everything he says, but I agree with the fact (and as was pointed out in the video) that we do need a leader that doesn't say that everything in the country fucking sucks (because that's just not true) but rather we do need a leader that despite all his unpopular opinions has the guts to recognize the potential and attempt to achieve it. I'm not as far left as some people mistakenly think I am. I don't agree with everything that Trump says and I'm able to recognize when he's playing the fool versus when he's being serious.
> 
> I think that there is a great deal of Trump assassination that has gone on and people haven't changed their view on Trump since his first few months on the campaign trail - even though I've noticed that over time Trump has fleshed out his views and opinions a great deal.
> 
> Is Trump the worst thing that can happen to this world. Hell no. A lot of countries already have worse leaders than Trump and America could do a heck of a lot worse.
> 
> I think that if I could vote, I probably would vote Trump. He's distanced himself as the best candidate for me.
> 
> Overall though ---- if I knew that my voice of dissent and desire for a society with no government whatsoever even had a hope of existing, I would say ... Don't vote for anyone. But pragmatically that's a pipe dream, so you go for who you think is the best of the lot. Even if you don't agree with everything they stand for.
> 
> It's better than a neoconservative criminal.


The guy Christopher Cantwell who's video you posted, have you seen his other videos?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Truthbetold said:


> The guy Christopher Cantwell who's video you posted, have you seen his other videos?


No. But I will.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



MrMister said:


> Trump said this? If so, thoughts on this development @CamillePunk


Considering he said that in contrast and resistance to the globalist agenda, I was pleased to read that.

Overall his foreign policy speech was pleasing and refreshingly comprehensible. Obviously there's things in there I'm not a big fan of, such as exaggerating the Iranian threat and all the pro-Israel jargon, but it's a small price to pay for someone who is willing to say no to interventionism, say no to the idea you have to indulge other countries at the expense of your own people, and no to the idea that the US should try to impose our superior western values upon a region of people who will violently uphold their backwards civilizations and beliefs. 

I really liked where he said he doesn't care if someone has a perfect-looking resume but has actually been a disaster in practice. That sums up Hillary Clinton's entire career, and the reason people keep giving for wanting to vote for her. "She's the most experienced". Yeah, and hundreds of thousands of people are dead as a result of that "experience".


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Hencheman_21 said:


> Well that is possible. Of course that means women hate her but voting only because she is a women which is demeaning toward women. Not that that is new for Trump.


Actually ... women hating hillary and voting hillary because she's also a woman is far more sexist than words. To me an act is worse than words. Trump can openly call all women cunts, but if a bunch of women go out there and elect a president based on the fact that they all have vaginas, then to me that is still more sexist than Trump's statement (this is a hypothetical of course).


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



FITZ said:


> I think they were willing to vote for anyone that didn't seem like more of the same old shit.
> 
> Democrats weren't all that different this year either. Sanders got a lot of votes because he comes across as someone that would give us more of the same.
> 
> Regardless of the outcome this year I think we saw good changes for both sides because the people seemed less controlled by the parties, which has to be a good thing.


Change is not always better, be careful what you wish for is the advice I would say to those people who would vote that way. It is similar to fans wanting a coach of a mediocre sports team to be sacked because 'they aren't winning', only to end up much worse than before for a much longer duration.

Oh the democrats are't that much different, but their elites at least still maintain some control over the party compared to the GOP. They might start to lose that in the future though as the far left seems inspired by what the tea party has accomplished to the GOP at the other end of the spectrum .

I think it is a reflection of the growing narcissism of America that the parties have started to lose control of the people. Less people are willing to compromise to, as Donald Trump says it, make a deal. Is it a wonder that the most narcissistic candidate this election cycle made the most noise?


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



CamillePunk said:


> Obviously there's things in there I'm not a big fan of, such as exaggerating the Iranian threat and all the pro-Israel jargon


He has to do this just to even stand a chance against Hillary.


----------



## Empress

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/725674555394646016

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/725720005241888768

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/725714811464638464


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



DesolationRow said:


> As @CamillePunk so trenchantly put it, Donald Trump proving to be a better politician than his adversaries after only a few months of becoming one is equally humorous and satisfying.
> 
> Listened to approximately five minutes of Mark Levin's radio show driving through San Francisco this past afternoon. He whined that Trump's big, five-state sweep was "easily predicted," therefore, I suppose, negated...? He also kept repeating a mantra of how Ted Cruz was "the most conservative Republican candidate for the office of the presidency since Ronald Reagan," several times in the few minutes to which I listened. Suppose he never heard of Ron Paul. Oh, wait. Yes he did. He was too busy attacking him for being a "crackpot" because he was not a reflexive neoconservative seeking war with Iran.
> 
> Circling back to Trump, it's hardly surprising that a man whose most pronounced realm of mastery is in market branding has successfully branded his opponents. :lol Though the "One-in-__" for John Kasich seems a bit irrelevant and does not roll off of the proverbial tongue, but then Kasich is irrelevant as well. :lol Kasich's the anti-Brock Lesnar! :woo


Top GOP don't like Cruz.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



FriedTofu said:


> I believe her supporters would be those that are satisfied with the status quo. She is the establishment candidate after all. These voters are usually unlikely to make as much noise as the opposition candidates or 'outsider' candidates like Trump or Bernie supporters.


My parents like Hillary simply because they think the economy was good in the 90's under her husband.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

This is not an insult or anything, its largely just an awkward coincidence 

Trump has made "America First" the slogan of his foreign policy 

America First was actually the name of a political party in WW2 that promoted the US staying out of the war and appeasing Hitler 

One of their main points was that Hitler was "removing foreign Jew influences from America"

Awkward


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Reaper said:


> No. But I will.


Maybe this is really why he supports trump.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Truthbetold said:


> Maybe this is really why he supports trump.


These stats were debunked as false though.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Truthbetold said:


> Top GOP don't like Cruz.


This is true. 



stevefox1200 said:


> This is not an insult or anything, its largely just an awkward coincidence
> 
> Trump has made "America First" the slogan of his foreign policy
> 
> America First was actually the name of a political party in WW2 that promoted the US staying out of the war and appeasing Hitler
> 
> One of their main points was that Hitler was "removing foreign Jew influences from America"
> 
> Awkward


The America First Committee was the greatest antiwar movement in modern time, spanning over 850,000 dues-paying members, organized in 450 chapters. It was a disparate group of individuals forming a marvelous coalition of unique voices, founded on September 4, 1940. It first began as a student antiwar group spearheaded by R. Douglas Stuart, Jr., the son of the first vice president of the Quaker Oats Company. Chairman of the board of Sears, Roebuck & Co. Robert E. Wood joined Stuart, Jr.'s movement, and enabled the America First Committee to become a national powerhouse, with its own Chicago base of operations, running a multitude of "AFC" newspaper ads which sought to intellectually combat the efforts of the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration to provoke the Axis Powers while arming the British and Soviets. Boasting a huge speakers bureau and numerous publications, with rallies held in almost every major American city and many towns throughout America, the America First Committee spanned the political gamut from right-wing Republican opponents of the New Deal to the Socialist Norman Thomas. William R. Castle, Undersecretary of State in the Herbert Hoover administration was a major speaker at several huge rallies, as were the populist progressive U.S. Senators Burton K. Wheeler and Philip La Follette, along with the aforementioned Thomas. Aviator Charles Lindbergh was a member and gave numerous speeches, and of course unfortunately raised the specter of wealthy Jewish influence behind the push to war with Nazi Germany. Frederick J. Libby was one of the group's few genuine pacifists, being a leading member of the National Council for the Prevention of War. General Hugh Johnson gave the keynote address of the AFC's launching on September 5, pointing out that FDR's usage of American military assets, disseminated between Great Britain and the Soviet Union with the lend-lease and aid short of war was in fact undermining American security, while also provoking Germany. 

The film star Lillian Gish, Kingman Brewster at Yale, whereat the America First Committee had a surplus of members, Gore Vidal, William F. Buckley, a young Gerald Ford, Potter Stewart, Kurt Vonnegut and a host of others were considerable forces in the America First movement. Future president John F. Kennedy contributed $100 with a note that read, "What you are doing is vital."

There were doubtless actual anti-Semites within the group, and probably some Nazi-"appeasers" as well, which is obviously quite unfortunate, but the overwhelming majority of America Firsters were essentially individuals who looked back on the horrors of the Great War and were not interested in a repeat. Many of their writings were downright prophetic about the U.S. becoming a state in large part defined by a constant wartime footing, for as the excellent Old Right writer Garet Garrett recognized, the chief beneficiary of American entry into the war would be the Soviet Union, and the threat of postwar Soviet aggression--I highly recommend Viktor Suvorov's fascinating book, _The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II_--that would grant the U.S. regime with the pretext for a perpetual war footing, as symbolized by the National Security Act of 1947. 

Interestingly, it was FDR and his surrogates' arguing that all who had opposed entry into the war were Nazi-sympathizers that helped to ensure considerable Democratic Party losses in both houses of Congress in the midterm elections of 1942. Numerous governmental bodies and FDR proxies argued that individuals who had opposed U.S. involvement in the war were guilty of "sedition." Today, however, that which was largely rejected throughout the entire country as a vicious smear is part and parcel of the court history of the era.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



stevefox1200 said:


> This is not an insult or anything, its largely just an awkward coincidence
> 
> Trump has made "America First" the slogan of his foreign policy
> 
> America First was actually the name of a political party in WW2 that promoted the US staying out of the war and appeasing Hitler
> 
> One of their main points was that Hitler was "removing foreign Jew influences from America"
> 
> Awkward


It's a great slogan considering WW2 ended up being a worthless war which caused the slaughter of 50 million Europeans for nothing.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



Truthbetold said:


> It's a great slogan considering WW2 ended up being a worthless war which caused the slaughter of 50 million Europeans for nothing.


So people should've just let hitler take over?


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



yeahbaby! said:


> So people should've just let hitler take over?


Hitler would of likely still lost but western Europe would have been a beautiful worker's paradise after Stalin liberated his way to Portugal

To the Soviet Union European countries are like Pringles, once you pop you can't stop


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



yeahbaby! said:


> So people should've just let hitler take over?


Russia handled Hitler at the Battle of Stalingrad. The US will be remembered for dropping Atomic bombs on Japan that didn't need to be dropped.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



stevefox1200 said:


> Hitler would of likely still lost but western Europe would have been a beautiful worker's paradise after Stalin liberated his way to Portugal
> 
> To the Soviet Union European countries are like Pringles, once you pop you can't stop


/This


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

I'm sure mainland Europe would have been thrilled to be glorified mining colonies for the USSR

I'm sure because the NKVD would have insured it

HAPPY THOUGHTS PEOPLE, HAPPY FUCKING THOUGHTS!!!!!!!


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



stevefox1200 said:


> I'm sure mainland Europe would have been thrilled to be glorified mining colonies for the USSR
> 
> I'm sure because the NKVD would have insured it
> 
> HAPPY THOUGHTS PEOPLE, HAPPY FUCKING THOUGHTS!!!!!!!


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



yeahbaby! said:


> So people should've just let hitler take over?


People say leave Syria alone and see what that got us. :shrug


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

The US should not have gotten involved in either World War. Trump being attacked for advocating a non-interventionist attitude while simultaneously being attacked as "a guy who would start WWIII and can't be trusted with the nuclear launch codes" is the kind of political double talk that has permeated the mainstream media in its campaign to discredit the only candidate popular enough to win the election who has not been approved by the gatekeepers of power. 

Trump isn't a "Hitler-esque" character in any way. Trump's vision for the US is dramatically different from Nazi Germany or any comparable regime. The fact these discussions are even being had is proof of the media's ability to brainwash people with these idiotic narratives that don't pass a cursory critical glance from any independent, rational thinker.


FriedTofu said:


> People say leave Syria alone and see what that got us. :shrug


I don't know what this means. Explain yourself so I can tell you why you're wrong (based on your history in these discussions).


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



CamillePunk said:


> Explain yourself so I can tell you why you're wrong (based on your history in these discussions).


Non-interventionists said Obama should leave Syria alone. His administration tried to do anything but seen as directly intervening to appease those people that helped nobody.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



CamillePunk said:


> The US should not have gotten involved in either World War. Trump being attacked for advocating a non-interventionist attitude while simultaneously being attacked as "a guy who would start WWIII and can't be trusted with the nuclear launch codes" is the kind of political double talk that has permeated the mainstream media in its campaign to discredit the only candidate popular enough to win the election who has not been approved by the gatekeepers of power.
> 
> Trump isn't a "Hitler-esque" character in any way. Trump's vision for the US is dramatically different from Nazi Germany or any comparable regime.* The fact these discussions are even being had is proof of the media's ability to brainwash people with these idiotic narratives that don't pass a cursory critical glance from any independent, rational thinker*.I don't know what this means. Explain yourself so I can tell you why you're wrong (based on your history in these discussions).


(Low IQ person) "Trump is Hitler" 

The media does brainwash people with these idiotic narratives that low IQ people regurgitate.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



FriedTofu said:


> Non-interventionists said Obama should leave Syria alone. His administration tried to do anything but seen as directly intervening to appease those people that helped nobody.


But Obama didn't leave Syria alone...at all. We're shipping weapons into the region to groups of questionable credentials (and when they're defeated in the field what happens to those weapons?) You also can't ignore the fact that the Syrian situation is largely due to past history of US intervention in the region.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Reaper said:


> Truthbetold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe this is really why he supports trump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.motherjones.com/files/trump-tweet.png[/IMGe p][/QUOTE]
> These stats were debunked as false though.[/QUOTE]
> 
> Yeah, everyone knows blacks dont kill anyone.
> 
> Its just white people framing them
Click to expand...


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



amhlilhaus said:


> Yeah, everyone knows blacks dont kill anyone.
> 
> Its just white people framing them


How old are you and what's your highest level of education? 

It's just that your statement is so absurd in response to what I said that I have to make sure I don't accidentally talk down to someone uneducated or having some sort of a mental disability.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

Hugely envious of OC-residing-or-adjacent Californians who got to attend his Costa Mesa rally today. Would've loved to have gone if I still lived down there. Unfortunately it doesn't seem too likely he comes up to NorCal. :sad:


----------



## Goku

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Reaper said:


> How old are you and what's your highest level of education?
> 
> It's just that your statement is so absurd in response to what I said that I have to make sure I don't accidentally talk down to someone uneducated or having some sort of a mental disability.


talking down to people doesn't really help either way, does it?

Unless it's for catharsis. <3 catharsis.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



MrMister said:


> Trump said this? If so, thoughts on this development @CamillePunk


Recognizing that you asked for the thoughts of @CamillePunk and he gave them, but throwing in my two not-truly-copper-anymore cents, I would posit that Donald Trump's position is largely set by the rampant globalism of the Bushes, Clintons and Obama. The nation-state is almost inherently corruptive with many major pitfalls. A fair number of nation-states "go bad" as well--from the Soviet Union to Nazi Germany, to far less notable cases.

Yet the nation-state is approximately all we have left at this point.

In the 1993 film _Gettysburg_, General Robert E. Lee and Lieutenant General James Longstreet are discussing the conflict that is before them. Longstreet is melancholic, dwelling on all of the men he knew from West Point, "boys" as he calls them, wearing blue. "I used to command some of those boys. Swore an oath, too. Ah... I... I couldn't fight against Georgia, South Carolina. Not against my own family." General Lee comments: "No, Sir. There was always a higher duty to Virginia. That was our first duty. There was never any question about that." 

This was a time whereupon gentlemen viewed their relationship with governance, and the role of the commonwealth, through a perfectly sane, logical perspective, built by the ties of locality and particular culture. In a little over 150 years these United States of America became _the_ United States of America, got into the mercantilist empire business by the early 1890s, betrayed the founding generation's conception of preserving the particular American advantage and limitless possibility of peace by entering the Great War of the 1910s, directly influencing the conditions for the subsequent inflationary boom and deflationary bust and Great Depression, to, following World War II, a global "hyperpower" as the French have called the U.S., popularly burdened by the purported responsibility of keeping the world entire safe. 

It has long been passed down that when rejecting Union advances to lead their army against his own state, Robert E. Lee noted that he did indeed "love the Union... Yet I love my state of Virginia more." Perhaps paraphrasing for our postmodern times, I may say that I love South Korea, but I love the United States of America more.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

http://gawker.com/satanists-to-boehner-please-dont-associate-us-with-ted-1773735276

:lmao



CamillePunk said:


> But Obama didn't leave Syria alone...at all. We're shipping weapons into the region to groups of questionable credentials (and when they're defeated in the field what happens to those weapons?) *You also can't ignore the fact that the Syrian situation is largely due to past history of US intervention in the region*.


If America simply followed France's lead into military action early on, they wouldn't need to complicate the situation so much. It would still be bloody and messy, but at least America will still be regarded as a strong leader. Now countries are pivoting towards China because of doubts on America's commitment, dealing a blow to America's soft power.


Bolded part is exactly why American cannot ignore critical issues around the world. You can't put your head in the sand just because you made past mistakes and expect things to be alright just like that.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Well my day's just been made in two different ways in terms of US election politics.

The first being the new Pew Research data showing the GOP's unfavourability rating hitting the highest it's been in over 2 decades and backing it up by showing that essentially every gender, race and age demographic in general poll as favouring the Democratic Party more than the Republican Party, except for the generic demographic of "white people" who are evenly split and "white people under college-grad level education" who favour Republicans more.

But that's all very serious and not fun to talk about. Because arguing about statistics is never fun.

The better and more simple way my day's been made is finding out just how much Ted Cruz is utterly despised by other Republican politicians in Congress. Literally, John Boehner called him Lucifer in the flesh and Rep. Steve King said such a comparison was unfair to Lucifer. And that's just in the past day or so. Apparently Republicans have hated the guy for years. It's fucking brilliant.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Saying World war 2 was a mistake is like people who try to analyze history with modern values and claim that everyone who was racist in the 1600s were bad people 

Its super opinionated and to say that the world would have been better off with Stalin controlling half of it is pretty fucking weird

I was always taught that if you see someone in trouble you should try to help them, not worry about yourself or just watch

Which is why I am campaigning for the US to start the Global Defense Initiative who will fight to protect the world from evil and extremism fuck yes

You ask what is our aim? I can answer with one word: Victory.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

Has it gotten so bad for Trump and his battle against the Anti-Trump GOP that he is now begging for Socialist supporters ? :haha

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/29/politics/donald-trump-bernie-sanders/index.html


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



gamegenie said:


> Has it gotten so bad for Trump and his battle against the Anti-Trump GOP that he is now begging for Socialist supporters ? :haha
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/29/politics/donald-trump-bernie-sanders/index.html


No. It's just a fact that he is and has always been the alternative TO Sanders, and Sanders aint winning.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Beatles123 said:


> No. It's just a fact that he is and has always been the alternative TO Sanders, and Sanders aint winning.


I really think that in 8 years time, America might be ready for an independent candidate --- but the only thing I see them holding back is their over-reliance on the "safe" choice. 

Both Bernie and Trump are essentially independents because neither are toeing their party's politics ... Combined they have more than 50% of the vote it seems. Hillary is only winning because americans have a safe-choice first mentality and they fear real change in leadership.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Yeah you guys tried with all your might to try beat Obama in '08. Republicans going across party lines to vote in the Democrat Primaries to keep Hillary going, your 'P.arty U.nity M.y A.ss' movement ended up going no where except to reveal themselves out to who they really were. 

Then John McCain tried to drive on the P.U.M.A. bandwagon against Obama in the General, picking a female candidate Sarah Palin as his running mate. Sarah tried her best to play into the faux-female angered demographic supposedly still upset that Hillary had some how been robbed, and all that got you no-where. 

Throughout that you had your Joe the Plumbers and flag-pin warriors trying to tap on the Obama ironclad political movement. But a simple hand to shoulder dusting gesture from the President and that noise was gone. 

Then throughout Obama's first term you had your agitators in full disruption mode, from the Congressional house, to your Tea-Party rallies with your new brewed figures such as Sarah Palin 2.0's Christine O'Donnell, and Birthers champion Donald Trump all trying to hack into the President's well oiled machine. But your efforts were all met with sheer defeat.

You then poured all your work into that pompous candidate Mitt Romney with your hyperbole movement of 'taking America back' and fast forward today, the American economy having completely rebound since Obama took office. The unemployment rate now down to 5%, American manufacturing been recharged, national healthcare been achieved, automobile industry thriving, Bin Laden captured and now the President make moves to give up his reign to his former rival Hillary, and everyone now acts as though they can't support her. 

America, get a grip and get your head out of the sand.


----------



## virus21

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**









Save us. For the love of God, save us!!!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Reaper said:


> I really think that in 8 years time, America might be ready for an independent candidate --- but the only thing I see them holding back is their over-reliance on the "safe" choice.
> 
> Both Bernie and Trump are essentially independents because neither are toeing their party's politics ... Combined they have more than 50% of the vote it seems. Hillary is only winning because americans have a safe-choice first mentality and they fear real change in leadership.


Perhaps.

My point however remains that Sanders supporters would rather have Trump than Hilary.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

I'd like to think that anybody with a functional brain would rather have Trump over Hilary.

Make no mistake it's not just Americans who are afraid of who will become the next US president.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Reaper said:


> I really think that in 8 years time, America might be ready for an independent candidate --- but the only thing I see them holding back is their over-reliance on the "safe" choice.
> 
> Both Bernie and Trump are essentially independents because neither are toeing their party's politics ... Combined they have more than 50% of the vote it seems. Hillary is only winning because americans have a safe-choice first mentality and they fear real change in leadership.


Americans either go safe choice or way in the fuck out there choices which make no sense to anyone. It's hard to find a happy medium in America at all.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Gandhi said:


> I'd like to think that anybody with a functional brain would rather have *Trump over Hilary*.
> 
> Make no mistake it's not just Americans who are afraid of who will become the next US president.


Reverse that.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



gamegenie said:


> Reverse that.







No.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Gandhi said:


> No.


Is that the video of her denying that she was ever against gay marriage?


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



gamegenie said:


> Is that the video of her denying that she was ever against gay marriage?


I'm not going to tell you.

I guess you'll just have to watch the entire thing to find out.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Gandhi said:


> I'm not going to tell you.
> 
> I guess you'll just have to watch the entire thing to find out.


I'm not going to waste my time on your liberal propaganda youtube vids. 

You can't play gamegenie. :curry2


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



gamegenie said:


> I'm not going to waste my time on your *liberal* propaganda youtube vids.
> 
> You can't play gamegenie. :curry2


lol that's funny


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



gamegenie said:


> I'm not going to waste my time on your liberal propaganda youtube vids.
> 
> You can't play gamegenie. :curry2


How is it propaganda when its literally Hillary lying in her own words?


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

I don't know how you find that funny. Most of all those anti-Hillary videos were created by the extreme socialist Sanders lovin' left who are pro-gay marriage and want to expose Hillary to help their guy Sanders. 

Only the far left feel jaded by Hillary's loose backing of homosexuals wanting to be married. She's a Christian and knows that it's immoral, but she plays the game of politics well and knows how to give people the message they want to hear. 

I'm not sure what dog the Trump supporters would have in this video. It certainly can't be over the bases of the lies, when their candidate lies 24/7 and sort of embellish the tact. Perhaps you all are enamored by Hillary's way of winning and you want your candidate to emulate that so he could get the upper hand. 


I'm right aren't I? 


But you don't have to tell me. Let's play your game at let everyone '*guess*'. :curry2


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



gamegenie said:


> I don't know how you find that funny. Most of all those anti-Hillary videos were created by the extreme socialist Sanders lovin' left who are pro-gay marriage and want to expose Hillary to help their guy Sanders.
> 
> Only the far left feel jaded by Hillary's loose backing of homosexuals wanting to be married. She's a Christian and knows that it's immoral, but she plays the game of politics well and knows how to give people the message they want to hear.
> 
> I'm not sure what dog the Trump supporters would have in this video. It certainly can't be over the bases of the lies, when their candidate lies 24/7 and sort of embellish the tact. Perhaps you all are enamored by Hillary's way of winning and you want your candidate to emulate that so he could get the upper hand.
> 
> 
> I'm right aren't I?
> 
> 
> But you don't have to tell me. Let's play your game at let everyone '*guess*'. :curry2


The whole point of the video and videos like this is to show exactly the point you made here

"she plays the game of politics well and knows how to give people the message they want to hear. "

Hillary is a liar and tells people what they want to hear, she says something different to every group she is pandering to , that is the problem and that is why a lot of people don't want her as president.

Just watch once the general election comes she is going to move back to the right. 

As for gay being immoral, well I hope you don't eat shell fish or like to wear different types of fabrics at he same time because those things are also immoral. I also hope you down shave since the bible also says that is immoral.


----------



## Jersey

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

@Legit BOSS


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



PaigeLover said:


> @Legit BOSS


*I just heard this on XM radio yesterday and thought about pulling up on a Republican rally with it blasting from my ipod.*


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

More WF, more.


----------



## Jersey

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Legit BOSS said:


> *I just heard this on XM radio yesterday and thought about pulling up on a Republican rally with it blasting from my ipod.*


Pac would be proud of you.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



PaigeLover said:


> Pac would be proud of you.


*
But that wouldn't be gangsta *


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> The whole point of the video and videos like this is to show exactly the point you made here
> 
> "she plays the game of politics well and knows how to give people the message they want to hear. "
> 
> Hillary is a liar and tells people what they want to hear, she says something different to every group she is pandering to , that is the problem and that is why a lot of people don't want her as president.
> 
> Just watch once the general election comes she is going to move back to the right.
> 
> As for gay being immoral, well I hope you don't eat shell fish or like to wear different types of fabrics at he same time because those things are also immoral. I also hope you down shave since the bible also says that is immoral.


Homosexuality is immoral. even gays know this, which why half of them act the way they do which is behave very promiscuous. 

Promiscuity is a sin itself and it affect heterosexuals as well. 

But the thing about God, is that he's a forgiving God, and always have his door open when you are ready to repent. 

Edit: I also want to add, that by me pointing this out. I'm not saying that I am without sin. Nobody is, except Jesus.

But because of the faith Hillary has, and how it guided her stance in her earlier political career you can't support Hillary Clinton? But you all think Donald Trump is some how a far better candidate? :kobe:


Come on people! Wake-up, I'm certain half of you all in this thread are nothing but a bunch of band-wagoners. 

You Johnny Come Latelys are here to revere Hillary now because it's the new "cool" thing to do. But in '08 , you all were screaming, Hillary been robbed.


----------



## Jersey

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Legit BOSS said:


> *
> But that wouldn't be gangsta *


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



gamegenie said:


> Homosexuality is immoral. even gays know this, which why half of them act the way they do which is behave very promiscuous.
> 
> Promiscuity is a sin itself and it affect heterosexuals as well.
> 
> But the thing about God, is that he's a forgiving God, and always have his door open when you are ready to repent.
> 
> But because of the faith Hillary has, and how it guided her stance in her earlier political career you can't support Hillary Clinton? But you all think Donald Trump is some how a far better candidate? :kobe
> 
> 
> Come on people! Wake-up, I'm certain half of you all in this thread are nothing but a bunch of band-wagoners.
> 
> You Johnny Come Latelys are here to revere Hillary now because it's the new "cool" thing to do. But in '08 , you all were screaming, Hillary been robbed.


First off god and the bible is just a fairytale, its not even real just like Zeus and those greek gods. 

Homosexuality is natural since even animals have homosexual sex. 

There is no such thing as god. 

I have never been a Hillary fan, but hey nice strawman argument. I didnt even vote in 2008 since I didnt like any of the candidates and in 2012 I voted for Romney.

Hillary was trying to steal the election back in 2008 as well but the super delegates when it came time to vote voted for Obama since he won the pledged delegates.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



PaigeLover said:


> @Legit BOSS


What I got from that song is that these morons accept their news uncritically from liberal sources (hence all the repeated lies and misinformation in this) and are threatening violence if they don't get their way, which is what thugs do. 

Huge endorsement for Donald Trump. Thankfully there are a lot of blacks who want off the Democrat plantation and don't just go against whoever the left tells them to.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



gamegenie said:


> Homosexuality is immoral. even gays know this, which why half of them act the way they do which is behave very promiscuous.
> 
> Promiscuity is a sin itself and it affect heterosexuals as well.
> 
> But thing the about God, is that he's a forgiving God, and always have his door open when you are ready to repent.
> 
> But because of the faith Hillary has, and how it guided her stance in her earlier political career you can't support Hillary Clinton? But you all think Donald Trump is some how a far better candidate? :kobe
> 
> 
> Come on people! Wake-up, I'm certain half of you all in this thread are nothing but a bunch of band-wagoners.
> 
> You Johnny Come Latelys are here to revere Hillary now because it's the new "cool" thing to do. But in '08 , you all were screaming, Hillary been robbed.


Homosexuality is not immoral. Promiscuous behavior is not immoral.

Christianity however is an immoral stupid desert cult, denying this is dishonest or ignorant.

............................................................................................................................................

Speaking of Hilary, she is a sinner as well because she is a lying wretch.

Lying is a sin in christianity.

*“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16)*

*“Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices.” (Colossians 3:9)*

Whoops. I guess Hilary sins as much as a gay pornstars take cocks up their arses.


----------



## Jersey

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



CamillePunk said:


> What I got from that song is that these morons accept their news uncritically from liberal sources (hence all the repeated lies and misinformation in this) and are threatening violence if they don't get their way, which is what thugs do.
> 
> Huge endorsement for Donald Trump. Thankfully there are a lot of blacks who want off the Democrat plantation and don't just go against whoever the left tells them to.


Check this out I (me) Don't (do not) Care. Song must've rubbed you the wrong way since you quoted me about it.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



PaigeLover said:


> Check this out I (me) Don't (do not) Care. Song must've rubbed you the wrong way since you quoted me about it.


Quoted you because you posted it. :kobe Sorry if this is your first time on the internet and thought I was talking to you with my post.


----------



## Jersey

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



CamillePunk said:


> Quoted you because you posted it. :kobe Sorry if this is your first time on the internet and thought I was talking to you with my post.






. We all know that the election is fake and that all of them are related.My first time on the internet yeah that makes if I log on WF daily yeah that's first time for ya.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

I like CamillePunk and think he's funny.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> First off god and the bible is just a fairytale, its not even real just like Zeus and those greek gods.
> 
> Homosexuality is natural since even animals have homosexual sex.
> 
> There is no such thing as god.
> 
> I have never been a Hillary fan, but hey nice strawman argument. I didnt even vote in 2008 since I didnt like any of the candidates and in 2012 I voted for Romney.
> 
> Hillary was trying to steal the election back in 2008 as well but the super delegates when it came time to vote voted for Obama since he won the pledged delegates.


Fairy tale? Ha! Don't make me laugh. You know dang-on well that's not true. 

If you would be serious for a minute and quit lending your ear over to the Devil over your own conscious which is the holy-ghost telling you the right thing. You would realize that it's not worth jeopardizing your own standing with God to out debate me. 

A lot of those Greek gods were pagans symbols of Satan. 
You are right for pointing out that homosexuality is common in animals, but I'm not sure how that suppose to moralize your case. 
Satan lives amongst the wilderness, why do you think he came upon Eve as a slithering snake in the Garden of Eden. 

Also there's no evidence what-so-ever of Hillary trying to steal the '08 Election, that sounds like some more propaganda bull you Johnny Come latelys came up with in the last 6 months to try to smear her. All I got to say to that is, good luck with that. 

I voted for Obama in '08 as well, Hillary and the President united then and they will reunite again this year when she takes the nomination. I don't see why you all can't get on the same boat as we did 8 years ago. 

Only thing that has changed is your unyielding hearts.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



gamegenie said:


> A lot of those Greek gods were pagans symbols of Satan.












Mmmmm, Satan you're tempting me babe...


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



gamegenie said:


> Fairy tale? Ha! Don't make me laugh. You know dang-on well that's not true.
> 
> If you would be serious for a minute and quit lending your ear over to the Devil over your own conscious which is the holy-ghost telling you the right thing. You would realize that it's not worth jeopardizing your own standing with God to out debate me.
> 
> A lot of those Greek gods were pagans symbols of Satan.
> You are right for pointing out that homosexuality is common in animals, but I'm not sure how that suppose to moralize your case.
> Satan lives amongst the wilderness, why do you think he came upon Eve as a slithering snake in the Garden of Eden.
> 
> Also there's no evidence what-so-ever of Hillary trying to steal the '08 Election, that sounds like some more propaganda bull you Johnny Come latelys came up with in the last 6 months to try to smear her. All I got to say to that is, good luck with that.
> 
> I voted for Obama in '08 as well, Hillary and the President united then and they will reunite again this year when she takes the nomination. I don't see why you all can't get on the same boat as we did 8 years ago.
> 
> Only thing that has changed is your unyielding hearts.












You are going to use Pascals Wager ?

If god was real, then you would see that god is the immoral one with all the immoral things he says and does in the bible. The bible is a totally immoral book. Hell the bible says if your son is bad you should stone him to death. OH yeah that is totally moral.

Christianity comes from paganism, almost everything was stole from paganism especially the christian holidays. 

As for animals being homosexual it backs up my case easily that homosexuality isnt a choice and oh are animals having homosexual sex being immoral? Does god send those animals to hell? 

If you want to believe god is real well then the fall of man was gods choice not adam and eve's, since god put the tree where he knew adam and eve would eat from it. They had no choice in the matter. god pushed them into it. Not to mention what is so wrong with having knowledge. The whole adam and eve story shows how god never wanted man to be smart, he wanted to keep them dumb. Which is how most people are who actually believe the bible and god are real. 

Of course they were trying to steal the election for Hillary in 2008 the super delegates were all siding with her until the very end when they had to go with Obama because he beating her. She even pulled a lot of the same BS she is Bernie, like the Bernie bro BS but back then it was the Obama Boys.

Ill never be in the Hillary boat because he is a right winged conservative who doesnt have my or the US people best interest , all she cares about is lining her pockets with all that money she gets from her lobbyist and big oil, pharma, wall st, banks etc


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Christianity comes from paganism, almost everything was stole from paganism especially the christian holidays.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

LOL pls make a new thread to pointlessly debate the existence of god.

The only god we should talk about ITT is TRUMP.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Truthbetold said:


>


This will be my final post concerning religion here.






Zeitgeist is a horrible video to try and debunk christianity, and this is coming from an Egyptian who has studied ancient Egypt's history for the love of it religiously AND has a cousin working at the Cairo Museum. In other words, I know my stuff if you will. Also, I'm not religious, and am infact godless, but when you try to refute christianity do so with accurate information please because you're not helping with false info.


----------



## themuel1

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

Is it possible to talk about politics in the US without bringing religion into it?

Can anyone tell me any of Trump's policies? Specific ones, not just "tighten immigration" (the nice way of saying what Trump wants). 

How's he going to achieve what he's saying he'll do?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



themuel1 said:


> Is it possible to talk about politics in the US without bringing religion into it?
> 
> Can anyone tell me any of Trump's policies? Specific ones, not just "tighten immigration" (the nice way of saying what Trump wants).
> 
> How's he going to achieve what he's saying he'll do?


No because the republicans are all about pushing Christianity onto the rest of the country. That is the problem. Their main reviews brings religion and the bible into their political views especially when it comes to gay marriage and abortion among other things.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are going to use Pascals Wager ?
> 
> If god was real, then you would see that god is the immoral one with all the immoral things he says and does in the bible. The bible is a totally immoral book. Hell the bible says if your son is bad you should stone him to death. OH yeah that is totally moral.


 Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Why do you accuse the law as being immoral and cover for the immorality.

If you lived on a farm and have a vine that doesn't bare fruit, do you not remove it?

The Bible says to honor thy mother and father. 

The passage on stoning is talking about an individual with a persistent and well-established character of vile immorality, uncontrollable excess, and bitterness.

It is that scripture that we have capital punishment laws in place in some states today. All criminals are someone's child.



birthday_massacre said:


> If you want to believe god is real well then the fall of man was gods choice not adam and eve's, since god put the tree where he knew adam and eve would eat from it. They had no choice in the matter. god pushed them into it. Not to mention what is so wrong with having knowledge. The whole adam and eve story shows how god never wanted man to be smart, he wanted to keep them dumb. Which is how most people are who actually believe the bible and god are real.


No, God gave Adam and Eve free will. Eve let Satan influence her thinking on God's orders which caused her to question it and then go against his orders. 

It is the Devil that doesn't want us to be smart, and prefers to keep us all from achieving.



birthday_massacre said:


> Ill never be in the Hillary boat because he is a right winged conservative who doesnt have my or the US people best interest , all she cares about is lining her pockets with all that money she gets from her lobbyist and big oil, pharma, wall st, banks etc


So only some people should be able to be successful and make money for themselves in life, but just not Hillary Clinton. Honestly, the core of your reason to hate Hillary is flawed and hypocritical.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



gamegenie said:


> Deuteronomy 21:18-21
> 
> Why do you accuse the law as being immoral and cover for the immorality.
> 
> If you lived on a farm and have a vine that doesn't bare fruit, do you not remove it?
> 
> The Bible says to honor thy mother and father.
> 
> The passage on stoning is talking about an individual with a persistent and well-established character of vile immorality, uncontrollable excess, and bitterness.
> 
> It is that scripture that we have capital punishment laws in place in some states today. All criminals are someone's child.
> 
> No, God gave Adam and Eve free will. Eve let Satan influence her thinking on God's orders which caused her to question it and then go against his orders.
> 
> It is the Devil that doesn't want us to be smart, and prefers to keep us all from achieving.
> 
> 
> So only some people should be able to be successful and make money for themselves in life, but just not Hillary Clinton. Honestly, the core of your reason to hate Hillary is flawed and hypocritical.


Feel free to open a new thread to discuss religion, ill be happy to debate it.



Bribery is ILLEGAL but i guess you think its ok for Hillary to take bribes to screw over the american people.


----------



## SpeedStick

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*


----------



## themuel1

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Feel free to open a new thread to discuss religion, ill be happy to debate it.
> 
> 
> 
> Bribery is ILLEGAL but i guess you think its ok for Hillary to take bribes to screw over the american people.


I don't think bribes are alien to either Hillary or Trump.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



gamegenie said:


> Deuteronomy 21:18-21
> 
> Why do you accuse the law as being immoral and cover for the immorality.
> 
> If you lived on a farm and have a vine that doesn't bare fruit, do you not remove it?
> 
> The Bible says to honor thy mother and father.
> 
> The passage on stoning is talking about an individual with a persistent and well-established character of vile immorality, uncontrollable excess, and bitterness.
> 
> It is that scripture that we have capital punishment laws in place in some states today. All criminals are someone's child.
> 
> No, God gave Adam and Eve free will. Eve let Satan influence her thinking on God's orders which caused her to question it and then go against his orders.
> 
> It is the Devil that doesn't want us to be smart, and prefers to keep us all from achieving.
> 
> 
> So only some people should be able to be successful and make money for themselves in life, but just not Hillary Clinton. Honestly, the core of your reason to hate Hillary is flawed and hypocritical.


Hey godboy I said take this bullshit to another thread.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

I hope the Hoosier state steps up and their vote is the death knell of the Cruz campaign. It's time to coalesce around Trump. Cruz himself said the winner of Indiana shall be the winner of the nomination, although I could see him try to spin/lie yet another defeat to Trump.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



themuel1 said:


> Can anyone tell me any of Trump's policies? Specific ones, not just "tighten immigration" (the nice way of saying what Trump wants).
> 
> How's he going to achieve what he's saying he'll do?


https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/726934618637766656
I don't see how America will be able to go back to normal election cycles with regular old boring, fake, polished, scripted politicians in 2024. :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/726934618637766656
> I don't see how America will be able to go back to normal election cycles with regular old boring, fake, *polished*, scripted politicians in 2024. :lol


Yeesh don't know how polished some of them are.

I mean, apart from Mr President himself that is.






'Miss Sweden, Miss Argentia...' LOL NAILED


EDIT: That Trump video is great though, if he doesn't get in and needs something else to do, the WWE should throw some money at him, he's perfectly suited for WWE promos. The 'please please' stuff reminded me of when Jesse Ventura would mock the faces by saying 'Oh look he's begging on his knees "PLEASE MR BARBARIAN, I CAN'T TAKE ANYMORE!"


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

This has been probably posted before...










....but still :mark:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/726934618637766656
> I don't see how America will be able to go back to normal election cycles with regular old boring, fake, polished, scripted politicians in 2024. :lol


It wont because you will have people like Liz Warren and real progressives and liberals running on the democratic side and you will get less polished people on the GOP side as well.

Hopefully by 2020 pr 2024 money will be taken out of politics and it will be a different story. The american people are not going to stand for politicians that take money from big corp's to follow their agenda.

Just wait for the mid term elections in two years, the real liberals are going to take over. 

It has already started this cycle really, that is why Sanders was able to do so well out of no where and why someone like Rubio and Bush got embarrassed.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

lol Liz Warren. You're so silly birthday_massacre but your Trump support is so obvious I'm going to allow it.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

I think the GOP elites just scored an own goal with voters outside of their base with their support for Ted Cruz over Trump this campaign.

Everything they said is negative about Trump, is 10x worse in Cruz, yet they are throwing their support behind Cruz. It seems obvious that it isn't because of Trump's divisive nature which they are claiming why Trump isn't getting their support, but his liberal/moderate leaning compared to Cruz's ultra conservative position.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



FriedTofu said:


> I think the GOP elites just scored an own goal with voters outside of their base with their support for Ted Cruz over Trump this campaign.
> 
> Everything they said is negative about Trump, is 10x worse in Cruz, yet they are throwing their support behind Cruz. It seems obvious that it isn't because of Trump's divisive nature which they are claiming why Trump isn't getting their support, but his liberal/moderate leaning compared to Cruz's ultra conservative position.


The reason why they support Cruz over Trump is because the GOP knows they can control Cruz, they can't control Trump. they wanted Rubio because he is the poster child for the establishment polished political but this cycle that is not what the voters want. The RR of Trump has not worked, it has worked in Sanders case because of the voter fraud and suppressing the DNC and Hillary has been doing on the Democratic side. 

The GOP had no other choice once Rubio dropped out.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

Too bad @MrMister and his fellow Texans let us down or else this race would've been over 2 months ago.


----------



## CHAMPviaDQ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Gandhi said:


> No.


:lmao Unbelievable.

Also, lol @ the two idiots in that Jimmy Kimmel video and anyone else thinking Hillary should win on the sole basis of "It's about time we have a female president". 

Can't wait until people want a Latino Transsexual president because "It's about gosh darn time" :mark:


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> The reason why they support Cruz over Trump is because the GOP knows they can control Cruz, they can't control Trump. they wanted Rubio because he is the poster child for the establishment polished political but this cycle that is not what the voters want. The RR of Trump has not worked, it has worked in Sanders case because of the voter fraud and suppressing the DNC and Hillary has been doing on the Democratic side.
> 
> The GOP had no other choice once Rubio dropped out.


[email protected] able to control Cruz and not Trump. 

Yeah they can control Cruz, so much so that almost everyone in the party hated Cruz's methods for years before Trump used a similar strategy as Cruz to win votes. They are supporting Cruz out of spite for Trump and calculating that they can't risk alienating Cruz's evangelical vote as a party base. Trump's supporters can come back to the party in the future with a shift in economic/immigration policies. The evangelical vote will be harder to regain once lost.

Yeah voter fraud is why Sanders lost and not because there are people outside of your echo chambers that thinks his policies as too radical. It shouldn't be a surprise that a candidate running on a populist campaign gets a wider support. Vote for me and get more free stuff is going to win votes across political or idealogical lines.

America is clearly tired of partisan politics, yet they are still voting along those lines because you can't help being #teamA vs #teamB .

If voter fraud was the reason why Sanders is not winning, explain Trump or Bernie winning states? Wouldn't they just cheat all the way instead of cheating just a little and allow them to gain momentum? Voter suppression is the phrase you are looking for.

Bernie supporters like you are coming off as sourgrapes and entitled millennials just because the world don't agree with you all the time.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



FriedTofu said:


> [email protected] able to control Cruz and not Trump.
> 
> Yeah they can control Cruz, so much so that almost everyone in the party hated Cruz's methods for years before Trump used a similar strategy as Cruz to win votes. They are supporting Cruz out of spite for Trump and calculating that they can't risk alienating Cruz's evangelical vote as a party base. Trump's supporters can come back to the party in the future with a shift in economic/immigration policies. The evangelical vote will be harder to regain once lost.
> 
> Yeah voter fraud is why Sanders lost and not because there are people outside of your echo chambers that thinks his policies as too radical. It shouldn't be a surprise that a candidate running on a populist campaign gets a wider support. Vote for me and get more free stuff is going to win votes across political or idealogical lines.
> 
> America is clearly tired of partisan politics, yet they are still voting along those lines because you can't help being #teamA vs #teamB .
> 
> If voter fraud was the reason why Sanders is not winning, explain Trump or Bernie winning states? Wouldn't they just cheat all the way instead of cheating just a little and allow them to gain momentum? Voter suppression is the phrase you are looking for.
> 
> Bernie supporters like you are coming off as sourgrapes and entitled millennials just because the world don't agree with you all the time.


they can easily control Cruz, they have been controlling him. Just because no one likes him doesnt mean they can't control him.

The RNC are the ones who told him and Kaschic to team up to try to make sure Trump can't get enough delegates to get the nomination so they can try to screw him out of the nomination at the brokered convention.

Cruz like the others listens to his super pacs and the people he gets money from. That is why he can be controlled. Just like that is how Hilary is controlled but $$$.

Sanders is losing because of voter fraud and suppression, not to mention all the BS where all the news organizations add in super delegates to the pledged delegates to act like Hillary is further ahead than she really is.
Plus all her cronies in the press shitting on Sanders and making up lies about him, not to mention every time he would kick her ass in a debate the Clinton News Network and others would lie and claim Hilary won even though all the polls would show Bernie won, and CNN even hiding their own poll that had Sanders winning by over 80% and CNN claiming Hilary won.

How are Sanders policies too radical ? How is free college too radical when most top countries in the world have free college? How is single payer universal healthcare too radical when most of the other top countries in the world have it?

Oh yeah those are too radial . Explain how those things are too radical ?

there is tons of voter fraud and suppression going on, there are even cases in the court at this very moment in NY because of it. All you have to do is a single google search and you can see all the voter fraud and suppression that has been going on this cycle. 

It has nothing to do with sour grapes, it has to do with the establishment rigging elections so their candidate wins. Just wait to see what happens if Trump is screwed out of the nomination. But I guess you will call that sour grapes too right?


Was it also sour grapes how Gore got screwed out of the Presidency against Bush when they suppressed the vote in FL where they ignored hundreds of thousands of votes so Bush could win? Jeb stole that election for him. 

The whole super delegate system allows the DNC to rig elections. That was the whole point of it. IT was so someone like Sanders couldn't win over the establishment candidate.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



> they can easily control Cruz, they have been controlling him. Just because no one likes him doesnt mean they can't control him.


roflmao

name one time



> The RNC are the ones who told him and Kaschic to team up to try to make sure Trump can't get enough delegates to get the nomination so they can try to screw him out of the nomination at the brokered convention.


you mean the team-up that lasted all of two days? yeah cruz and kasich sure listened to their establishment overlords there.



> Cruz like the others listens to his super pacs and the people he gets money from. That is why he can be controlled. Just like that is how Hilary is controlled but $$$.


so you don't have any actual evidence, you're using the "come on you know i'm right. COME ON" style of argument. very characteristic of millenials.



> Sanders is losing because of voter fraud and suppression, not to mention all the BS where all the news organizations add in super delegates to the pledged delegates to act like Hillary is further ahead than she really is.


evidence please

hillary has the support of those superdelegates so guess what it's 100% legitimate to add them to her delegate total and you whining about it is just butthurt that the numbers aren't being misleadingly presented to make sanders look in better shape. you don't want no lying, you want lying in favor of the guy you support.



> Plus all her cronies in the press shitting on Sanders and making up lies about him,


list some please



> not to mention every time he would kick her ass in a debate the Clinton News Network and others would lie and claim Hilary won even though all the polls would show Bernie won, and CNN even hiding their own poll that had Sanders winning by over 80% and CNN claiming Hilary won.


list some polls please. internet polls = no count, you can vote as many times as you want on drudge or cnn's website post-debate polls. 

and it's too bad that post-debate polls aren't the same as vote totals, eh? maybe we should change our elections so post-debate polls decide who wins. people aren't supposed to elect officials based on how they feel who won a debate an hour after the debate ends. they're supposed to be deliberative and take their time to decide who to vote for. 



> How are Sanders policies too radical ?


he's losing, ain't he? HINT HINT



> How is free college too radical when most top countries in the world have free college?


argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, and what "most top countries" do is irrelevant. they have no say in american elections or governing america. american voters do.



> How is single payer universal healthcare too radical when most of the other top countries in the world have it?


argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, and what "most top countries" do is irrelevant. they have no say in american elections or governing america. american voters do.



> Oh yeah those are too radial . Explain how those things are too radical ?


democratic primary election results explain how those things are too radical for americans. 



> there is tons of voter fraud and suppression going on, there are even cases in the court at this very moment in NY because of it. All you have to do is a single google search and you can see all the voter fraud and suppression that has been going on this cycle.


ah yes the google search, the definitive option for finding 100% credible information. 

what you mean is that some people have sued in NY, not that there is some kind of official investigation because evidence justifying an investigation has been uncovered. in other words, whiners like you are butthurt over the results so they're suing. 



> It has nothing to do with sour grapes, it has to do with the establishment rigging elections so their candidate wins. Just wait to see what happens if Trump is screwed out of the nomination. But I guess you will call that sour grapes too right?


the democratic and republican parties are private institutions. they are not the US government. they can set up whatever rules to nominate candidates they want. everybody knew what the rules were for both parties a year in advance. yes it is sour grapes when you know what the rules are and never once complained about them until you found out you were losing or in not as strong a position as you thought because others are playing better by the rules than you are. 

donald trump has like 50% of the GOP primary vote but 60-some% of the delegates. how is that fair? 



> Was it also sour grapes how Gore got screwed out of the Presidency against Bush when they suppressed the vote in FL where they ignored hundreds of thousands of votes so Bush could win? Jeb stole that election for him.


LOL hundreds of thousands of votes "ignored"? you're delusional. 

how about networks "suppressing the vote" in northwestern florida by declaring gore the winner before polls closed there? that cost bush tens of thousands of votes at least as bush supporters didn't vote because they thought he'd already lost the state and there was no point to their going to vote in the last hour polls were open there (they close an hour later in that part of the state because time zone).



> The whole super delegate system allows the DNC to rig elections. That was the whole point of it. IT was so someone like Sanders couldn't win over the establishment candidate.


super delegates are chosen by an election process, whine more that bernie sanders is an idiot and didn't get his own supporters elected as superdelegates because he's an incompetent moron who couldn't hold a real job and lived in a shithole apartment that he couldn't keep clean. the man was one step above a bum before he became a politician because that's what his mindset is, that of a whiny, entitled bitch. it's not his fault he didn't do the organizing and campaigning necessary to get his supporters elected as superdelegates, it's the system's fault because it's unfair. a system that he had every opportunity to participate in and succeed but he didn't because he's an incompetent whiner.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



FriedTofu said:


> They are supporting Cruz out of spite for Trump and calculating that they can't risk alienating Cruz's evangelical vote as a party base. Trump's supporters can come back to the party in the future with a shift in economic/immigration policies. The evangelical vote will be harder to regain once lost.


Trump has been winning the evangelical vote.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



deepelemblues said:


> roflmao
> 
> name one time
> 
> 
> .


The GOP controls Cruz with everything. Like i said the deal he made with Kasich to try and screw over Trump so he wont get enough pledged delegates is one example.

Big oil control Cruz big time. 




deepelemblues said:


> you mean the team-up that lasted all of two days? yeah cruz and kasich sure listened to their establishment overlords there.
> .


They still did what they were told now didn't they until they both got crushed in the following primary. 




deepelemblues said:


> so you don't have any actual evidence, you're using the "come on you know i'm right. COME ON" style of argument. very characteristic of millenials.
> 
> .


Do you even follow the elections? What do you think the whole point of super pacs are? Its to BRIBE the candidates to do their bidding. You really think that Big Oil gives all that money to Cruz for nothing ? You really think the big banks giving all that money to Hillary for nothing? Come on now. You are smarter than that. 




deepelemblues said:


> evidence please
> 
> hillary has the support of those superdelegates so guess what it's 100% legitimate to add them to her delegate total and you whining about it is just butthurt that the numbers aren't being misleadingly presented to make sanders look in better shape. you don't want no lying, you want lying in favor of the guy you support.
> 
> .


No its not legit to add those super delegates to the pledged delegates since those super delegates are not even officially cast until the convention. When Obama won in 2008 a lot of those super delegates voted for Obama instead of Clinton, so when they were showing them going to Clinton during the primary before they were official cast was very misleading. Just like it was now. Its to suppress the vote so people think oh one candidate doest have a chance so they don't even bother to vote.




deepelemblues said:


> list some please
> 
> .


List some things about Hilary and the press lying about Sanders.

They called him sexist which was total bullshit, they did the same thing to Obama as well.
They lie about him not mapping on his plan when he said said his plan over and over again in debates and its all on his website.
They lied about him not knowing about how to break up the banks, when it was actually the idiot reporter who was interviewing him that didnt know what they were talking about.
She is always lying about him and his view on guns. 
She lie about him not being there when she was trying to pass her healthcare bills when he was standing right behind her.

Its brought up all the time by me and others when Hillary or the press is lying about Sanders. Stop acting like we have not shown examples.




deepelemblues said:


> list some polls please. internet polls = no count, you can vote as many times as you want on drudge or cnn's website post-debate polls.
> 
> and it's too bad that post-debate polls aren't the same as vote totals, eh? maybe we should change our elections so post-debate polls decide who wins. people aren't supposed to elect officials based on how they feel who won a debate an hour after the debate ends. they're supposed to be deliberative and take their time to decide who to vote for.
> .



LOL oh don't list internet polls. because you now that backs up my point. What other polls do you want to look at? There are none, there are just the internet polls. But you know Sanders kills Hillary in debates and of course you will ask for an example then say oh but you can't use these examples. So typical for someone like you.

I am not even going to bother with the rest since you have proven you will just ignore all the facts and evidence.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

This is not a Bernie Sanders apologist thread BM

Just be thankful I haven't asked you to DISAVOW that crazy old communist in order to board the #TrumpTrain


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



CamillePunk said:


> This is not a Bernie Sanders apologist thread BM
> 
> Just be thankful I haven't asked you to DISAVOW that crazy old communist in order to board the #TrumpTrain


I am not voting for Trump but I do want to see what would happen if he beats Shillary. 

I also don't want to see the GOP screw over Trump . Cruz is way worse than Trump anyways. I just really want to see Trump destroy Shillary in the debates. He is going to tell her how she is a criminal, her idol is a war criminal, and also how he bought and paid for her service when he gave her money in 2008.

She is not going to know what hit her. I want to see Hilary get what is coming to her


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

You are so voting Trump and it's hilarious


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump has been winning the evangelical vote.


Cruz pretty much lost this when he was dicking women other than his wife. Did anything come of that?


----------



## virus21

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Miss Sally said:


> Cruz pretty much lost this when he was dicking women other than his wife. Did anything come of that?


He did? I assume everyone assumes all politicians do that so no one made a big deal of it


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*






This got to me. :mj2 The left is disgusting.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Miss Sally said:


> Cruz pretty much lost this when he was dicking women other than his wife. Did anything come of that?


Are you saying Ted Cruz committed adultery?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Miss Sally said:


> Cruz pretty much lost this when he was dicking women other than his wife. Did anything come of that?


Pretty sure Cruz cumed lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



CamillePunk said:


> This got to me. :mj2 The left is disgusting.


Lol you expect any independent person to take a fluff piece produced by a Trump executive seriously? Does conflict of interest mean anything to you?

Try again, and please try harder than using basically a piece of propaganda as proof that your big bad 'left' is disgusting.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump has been winning the evangelical vote.


That's true, but Cruz represent the most hardcore crowd of the evangelical vote. Those people will be harder to regain imo over evangelicals voting for Trump due to economic reasons. I could be wrong though.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

Are Sanders fans google bombing?

Google image search "dank memes" and like half of them are Bernie Sanders support jokes and insults to Hillary Clinton 

Either that or I have some type of far left themed virus


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

BACK HOME AGAIIIIIIIIIN!

IN INDIAAAAAAAAAANA!


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Lol you expect any independent person to take a fluff piece produced by a Trump executive seriously? Does conflict of interest mean anything to you?
> 
> Try again, and please try harder than using basically a piece of propaganda as proof that your big bad 'left' is disgusting.


How could anyone that intimately knows him and his family ever not have a conflict of interest? 

If anyone that isn't white knows Trump well and believes he isn't racist at all wants to speak about how well they know him and how calling him a racist is a load of crap you can always make the same point.


----------



## TheResurrection

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

Bernie Sanders has got so much attention this year, his supporters bitch about how the mainstream media don't give him enough of a platform, but he gets a tremendous platform for somebody with no chance of winning. The race for the Democratic nomination was over as soon as Hillary announced that she was going to run. The only reason the media are hyping this angry grandfather is that one person running for a nomination against nobody doesn't make good news. If the Democrat nominate him - which they won't - he'll get totally dicked in the election. If you're too left wing to win the populat vote of the left wing party you're not going to win the election.

I'm sure someone will throw some internet polls at me or come up with some massaged stats from Reddit about how he'd beat any Republican, but don't pay any attention to these fanboys. These are the same people who were backing Ron Paul at the 2012 election. They're internet loudmouths in their teens and 20s who amplify their own voices as much as they can, but they don't matter because they don't vote. It's the people in their 50s and 60s who don't know how a computer works that will make the difference in the election.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



TheResurrection said:


> Bernie Sanders has got so much attention this year, his supporters bitch about how the mainstream media don't give him enough of a platform, but he gets a tremendous platform for somebody with no chance of winning. The race for the Democratic nomination was over as soon as Hillary announced that she was going to run. The only reason the media are hyping this angry grandfather is that one person running for a nomination against nobody doesn't make good news. If the Democrat nominate him - which they won't - he'll get totally dicked in the election. If you're too left wing to win the populat vote of the left wing party you're not going to win the election.
> 
> I'm sure someone will throw some internet polls at me or come up with some massaged stats from Reddit about how he'd beat any Republican, but don't pay any attention to these fanboys. These are the same people who were backing Ron Paul at the 2012 election. They're internet loudmouths in their teens and 20s who amplify their own voices as much as they can, but they don't matter because they don't vote. It's the people in their 50s and 60s who don't know how a computer works that will make the difference in the election.


Bernie Sanders destroys the GOP in the general election head to head polls. Not to mention Sanders favorability rating is way higher than anyone who is left. Last time I checked he was the only one in the net positive and everyone else was unfavorable. I do see you are another one who likes to ignore facts and evidence. I have seen a lot of that in this thread. But I am not surprised. 

Also you are wrong, its not the people in their 50s and 60s who make a difference in the elections, its the younger voters who are 18-25 that make a difference. When they get out and vote they make the real difference and swing to it Sanders. Why else do you think there has been so much voter suppression ? Its because Hillary and the DNC don't want the young to get out and vote. 

Hillary also has almost no support from the independent voters, almost all of them vote for Sanders over her on the democratic side. 

I also love how you call Sanders an angry grandfather when he is only a few years older than Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump (5 years).


----------



## TheResurrection

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Bernie Sanders destroys the GOP in the general election head to head polls. Not to mention Sanders favorability rating is way higher than anyone who is left. Last time I checked he was the only one in the net positive and everyone else was unfavorable. I do see you are another one who likes to ignore facts and evidence. I have seen a lot of that in this thread. But I am not surprised.
> 
> Also you are wrong, its not the people in their 50s and 60s who make a difference in the elections, its the younger voters who are 18-25 that make a difference. When they get out and vote they make the real difference and swing to it Sanders. Why else do you think there has been so much voter suppression ? Its because Hillary and the DNC don't want the young to get out and vote.
> 
> Hillary also has almost no support from the independent voters, almost all of them vote for Sanders over her on the democratic side.
> 
> I also love how you call Sanders an angry grandfather when he is only a few years older than Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump (5 years).


Who gives a shit about polls in April or May? He would be totally demolished in the campaign, he's a delusional socialist who'd send everyone's taxes skyrocketing. In a poll on the internet people might vote for him, but in a ballot box not enough people will vote for a guy who will take money out of their pockets and put it in the government's. 

The younger voters don't matter because they vote at a little over half the rate that the older ones do. This is true at every single election, be it mid term and presidential. There's no need for voter suppression, people of that age suppress themselves.

The independent voters will vote for Hillary because she's closer to the centre than Trump is. In Sanders Vs. Trump Trump is closest to the centre meaning he gets all the right wing votes and most of the independents and wins the election.

5 years is a long time when you're in your 70s.

Let me make one thing clear by the way, my politics are probably closer to Sanders than anyone else in the field, but it is *completely* unrealistic to think that he could win.

Sanders supporters need to grow up.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



TheResurrection said:


> Who gives a shit about polls in April or May? He would be totally demolished in the campaign, he's a delusional socialist who'd send everyone's taxes skyrocketing. In a poll on the internet people might vote for him, but in a ballot box not enough people will vote for a guy who will take money out of their pockets and put it in the government's.
> 
> The younger voters don't matter because they vote at a little over half the rate that the older ones do. This is true at every single election, be it mid term and presidential. There's no need for voter suppression, people of that age suppress themselves.
> 
> The independent voters will vote for Hillary because she's closer to the centre than Trump is. In Sanders Vs. Trump Trump is closest to the centre meaning he gets all the right wing votes and most of the independents and wins the election.
> 
> 5 years is a long time when you're in your 70s.
> 
> Let me make one thing clear by the way, my politics are probably closer to Sanders than anyone else in the field, but it is *completely* unrealistic to think that he could win.
> 
> Sanders supporters need to grow up.


Sanders would crush Trump or Cruz in the general , it wouldn't even be close. He is a democratic socialist , not to mention the US is already partially a socialist country. But keep ignoring that fact. 

People in the ballot box are voting for Sanders, but again of course you are ignore those facts. 

The young vote does matter, because when they get out and vote Sanders wins. 

the independent voters are not going to vote for Hillary in the general, they will vote Trump. The independents hate Hilary and its why they are mostly all voting for Sanders on the democratic side. Most of those voters will go to Trump since he is anti establishment.

As for Trump for Sanders you are delusional if you think the independent vote would go to Trump over Sanders . Not to mention, woman hate Trump and most would vote for Sanders. Trump wouldn't stand a chance against Sanders. All the data backs that up. Sanders would embarrass Trump in the general election.

Hillary Clinton is 68, she is almost 70, you are grasping at straws with this one. They are very close in age. 

its not unrealistic that Sanders could win at all. the facts are he would win in the general election against any GOP candidate. All the data and evidence backs that up. You can ignore it all you want but Sanders favorability rating and Trumps unfavorable rating alone prove that.

As the months go on the gap in the polling data for Sanders beating Trump in the general keep getting wider and wider. 

The only people that need to grow up are people like you that ignore all the facts and evidence and still claim the opposite of what the facts show.

You can ignore all the evidence and facts you want about Sanders destroying Trump head to head and you can make up any excuse you want , but facts are facts. You just lose all credibility when you ignore them and claim something else.

You are sounding like a creationist.

The DNC should be backing Sanders over Clinton because he has a much better chance at winning, not to mention Clinton could be indicted before the general election, and if she is the democratic nominee when that happens its going to spell disaster for the democratic party


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

BM still on that Bernie sunken ship:mark:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



MrMister said:


> BM still on that Bernie sunken ship:mark:


The real sinking ship is Hillary, just waiting for her to get indicted.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

Think you'll be waiting a while for that one. Maybe Trump can do something about that super predator's continued existence as a free person once he ascends to his throne.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> I am not voting for Trump but I do want to see what would happen if he beats Shillary.
> 
> I also don't want to see the GOP screw over Trump . Cruz is way worse than Trump anyways. I just really want to see Trump destroy Shillary in the debates. He is going to tell her how she is a criminal, her idol is a war criminal, and also how he bought and paid for her service when he gave her money in 2008.
> 
> She is not going to know what hit her. I want to see Hilary get what is coming to her


BM, after this post you can't vote democrat assuming that Sanders doesn't win. 

If I could vote, I'd vote Trump at this point in time. Last thing I want is another neoconservative bloodthirsty democrat in office ...


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

BM is aware enough to realize that if he doesn't vote for Trump then he is essentially voting for Hillary. I have faith he will realize his grievous error and CAST THAT BALLOT for Trump when the time comes for men and women of courage and principle to stand against evil.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

I know there are a lot of claims that voter suppression is the main reason Bernie isn't winning. I get that a lot of the primaries are closed and independents can't vote for him. I wasn't able to vote in either New York primary because I'm not with a political party. That being said I didn't feel like my vote was suppressed. I'm not a member of either party. How they want to go about selecting the representative that will run for their party is up to them.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Reaper said:


> BM, after this post you can't vote democrat assuming that Sanders doesn't win.
> 
> If I could vote, I'd vote Trump at this point in time. Last thing I want is another neoconservative bloodthirsty democrat in office ...


Im writing in Sanders or voting for Jill Stein. 




FITZ said:


> I know there are a lot of claims that voter suppression is the main reason Bernie isn't winning. I get that a lot of the primaries are closed and independents can't vote for him. I wasn't able to vote in either New York primary because I'm not with a political party. That being said I didn't feel like my vote was suppressed. I'm not a member of either party. How they want to go about selecting the representative that will run for their party is up to them.


The people that were suppressed in NY were people that were listed as democrats but moved to independent or undeclared or them getting purged from the voter registration so they couldn't vote. 

100,000 voters were "mistakenly" purged from the Brooklyn voter rolls alone, and of course that is Sanders home town. Not to mention how in other states you had states closing down polling stations. 

That is the very definition of voter suppression.

Its also happening in southern states too but in a different way. Some states require ID in order to vote because they know the poorer voters may not have IDs and that is suppressing their votes.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Im writing in Sanders or voting for Jill Stein.


Writing in is as good as not voting imo. It'll only ever work if there's _massive _corruption in the primaries and therefore "real" voter power can somehow overturn it. Even then, I doubt that there will be enough write-ins for Bernie to achieve anything. 

It's unfortunate that the Democratic party has become as corrupt as it has. There was a time when I seriously believed that they stood for something. This year has revealed just what they _really _stand for.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

Completed my registration form last night to allow me to become a member of the California Republican Party and vote for The Donald! :mark:

An hour-long shower was necessary to cleanse myself after joining such a terrible political party.

Will surely exit the California Republican Party in a few months. :side:

Here one sees yet more proof of how the American public schools are succeeding in incubating generation upon generation of future voters who detest their country but love their government:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/727200852704796672
2016 is probably the last year in which anyone to the ostensible right of Hillary Clinton has a shot at winning in this country. Frankly, it may already be too late.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Reaper said:


> Writing in is as good as not voting imo. It'll only ever work if there's _massive _corruption in the primaries and therefore "real" voter power can somehow overturn it. Even then, I doubt that there will be enough write-ins for Bernie to achieve anything.
> 
> It's unfortunate that the Democratic party has become as corrupt as it has. There was a time when I seriously believed that they stood for something. This year has revealed just what they _really _stand for.


It just took someone like Sanders to show how corrupt the democratic party has become. Because he was not taking money like all the other candidates do and was pointing out how it needs to stop. Obama and Hillary are both republican lites they claim they are progressive but they really are not, and when you look at Sanders a true progressive you see how Obama and Hillary are not progressive. 

If enough people write in Bernie, he still may not win but it could cost Hillary the election and that would make huge statement.

I could see Bernie telling his supporters if you are thinking of writing him in, vote for Jill Stein instead. But either way, Stein and Sanders could take away enough votes from Hillary and that could give the election to Trump.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Im writing in Sanders or voting for Jill Stein.


This is a vote for Hillary Clinton. You're a part of the problem BM. Years from now when your children or your children's children ask you what you did when Empress Clinton ascended to power and helped sell their lives away to the banking elites, rather than being able to say you cast your vote for the only man who could have done something about it, you'll have to meekly admit that you threw your vote impotently into the abyss, watching while not acting as any hope for their lives was eradicated.

Shame. On. You.

Of course, I still hold out hope that you'll realize the error of your ways and be brought into the circle of reason by the Master Persuader, Donald J Trump. :hb


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> If enough people write in Bernie, he still may not win but it could cost Hillary the election and that would make huge statement.


Bernie is planning to endorse Hillary.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



CamillePunk said:


> This is a vote for Hillary Clinton. You're a part of the problem BM. Years from now when your children or your children's children ask you what you did when Empress Clinton ascended to power and helped sell their lives away to the banking elites, rather than being able to say you cast your vote for the only man who could have done something about it, you'll have to meekly admit that you threw your vote impotently into the abyss, watching while not acting as any hope for their lives was eradicated.
> 
> Shame. On. You.
> 
> Of course, I still hold out hope that you'll realize the error of your ways and be brought into the circle of reason by the Master Persuader, Donald J Trump. :hb


I live in a blue state so if you vote republican my vote wont even matter. Romney was from MA and couldn't even win the state when he went against Obama. 

Only on 80 and 84 did it ever go republican and that is because Regan destroyed everyone in those elections.





Reaper said:


> Bernie is planning to endorse Hillary.


He said he will only endorse her if she adopts some of her policies and she refused to when asked if she would.

Bernie is still taking it to the convention.


----------



## TheResurrection

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Sanders would crush Trump or Cruz in the general , it wouldn't even be close. He is a democratic socialist , not to mention the US is already partially a socialist country. But keep ignoring that fact.
> 
> People in the ballot box are voting for Sanders, but again of course you are ignore those facts.
> 
> The young vote does matter, because when they get out and vote Sanders wins.
> 
> the independent voters are not going to vote for Hillary in the general, they will vote Trump. The independents hate Hilary and its why they are mostly all voting for Sanders on the democratic side. Most of those voters will go to Trump since he is anti establishment.
> 
> As for Trump for Sanders you are delusional if you think the independent vote would go to Trump over Sanders . Not to mention, woman hate Trump and most would vote for Sanders. Trump wouldn't stand a chance against Sanders. All the data backs that up. Sanders would embarrass Trump in the general election.
> 
> Hillary Clinton is 68, she is almost 70, you are grasping at straws with this one. They are very close in age.
> 
> its not unrealistic that Sanders could win at all. the facts are he would win in the general election against any GOP candidate. All the data and evidence backs that up. You can ignore it all you want but Sanders favorability rating and Trumps unfavorable rating alone prove that.
> 
> As the months go on the gap in the polling data for Sanders beating Trump in the general keep getting wider and wider.
> 
> The only people that need to grow up are people like you that ignore all the facts and evidence and still claim the opposite of what the facts show.
> 
> You can ignore all the evidence and facts you want about Sanders destroying Trump head to head and you can make up any excuse you want , but facts are facts. You just lose all credibility when you ignore them and claim something else.
> 
> You are sounding like a creationist.
> 
> The DNC should be backing Sanders over Clinton because he has a much better chance at winning, not to mention Clinton could be indicted before the general election, and if she is the democratic nominee when that happens its going to spell disaster for the democratic party


If he can't win among the left leaning candidates appealing to a left leaning electorate how in the name of god will he win the general election? Fuck the polls, to win as a far left or far right candidate you need to be winning the nomination in dominating fashion or you need a miracle to win the election. 

The Democrats will win easily when they put up Hillary. Every single rational democrat, left leaning independent, or centrist will be closer to her than they will to Trump barring a drastic shift in Trump's positions. Every single one of them. Anybody who would vote for Sanders as the Dem but who would switch to Trump because he's "anti-establishment" is too stupid to live, they're the sorts of people who don't vote at all because thats participating in the establishment.

I know how old the candidates are.

As said, polls in April are irrelevant. Sanders hasn't faced serious scrutiny yet because nobody's taking him seriously, if he ever did he would crumble into dust. He makes promises that even people who already support him aren't willing to pay for (how the fuck he's going to get that past Congress I don't know). When people point out that his policies will see you lose at least $1000 a year nobody is going to vote for this delusional man. He's appealing to people who want free shit and have no idea how it will be paid for, that only goes so far.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



> The GOP controls Cruz with everything. Like i said the deal he made with Kasich to try and screw over Trump so he wont get enough pledged delegates is one example.
> 
> Big oil control Cruz big time.


so, you have no evidence. other than a deal with kasich that lasted two days because both cruz and kasich immediately kept trying to undercut the other. 

you realize that the deal is gone, right? kasich kept campaigning in indiana and cruz said there was no deal in response.

do you have any proof that the cruz-kasich deal was handed down from on high by the establishment? or was it cruz and kasich trying to stop trump because they both think they can win on the 2nd or 3rd ballot if trump doesn't get enough votes on the 1st ballot? are they under some kind of obligation to give up?

like i said, this is the "Come on you know i'm right, i don't need evidence. COME ON YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT WHY AREN'T YOU AGREEING WITH ME YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT" style of "arguing"



> They still did what they were told now didn't they until they both got crushed in the following primary.


no, because the "deal" was over and done with days before the next primaries. it lasted all of 48 hours. 

how do you know they did what they were told? you have some video? audio? no, you just have "COME ON YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT"



> Do you even follow the elections? What do you think the whole point of super pacs are? Its to BRIBE the candidates to do their bidding. You really think that Big Oil gives all that money to Cruz for nothing ? You really think the big banks giving all that money to Hillary for nothing? Come on now. You are smarter than that.


COME ON NOW

Do _you_ even follow elections? You know what super PACs are, right? What do you think their point is? They exist so people who want to spend a lot of money on elections can do so without having to deal with campaign finance limits. You can raise as much money as you want with a super PAC. Donations are unrestricted, a person can donate as much as they want. That's why they exist. 



> No its not legit to add those super delegates to the pledged delegates since those super delegates are not even officially cast until the convention. When Obama won in 2008 a lot of those super delegates voted for Obama instead of Clinton, so when they were showing them going to Clinton during the primary before they were official cast was very misleading. Just like it was now. Its to suppress the vote so people think oh one candidate doest have a chance so they don't even bother to vote.


No delegate votes are officially cast until the convention.

It's all a misleading voter suppression effort ohmiGAWD! 

Maybe you don't understand that when those superdelegates were supporting Clinton they were supporting Clinton, when they were supporting Obama they were supporting Obama, you say a superdelegate is in a candidate's camp when they are in a candidate's camp. When they were supporting Hillary, if the convention had been that day, they would have voted Hillary, so at that time yes sorry it was perfectly legit to have them in her total. The ones that publicly said they were going Obama were added to his total. This was before the convention.



> They called him sexist which was total bullshit, they did the same thing to Obama as well.


What were his quotes that were called sexist that weren't?



> They lie about him not mapping on his plan when he said said his plan over and over again in debates and its all on his website.


Yes, saying that Bernie's numbers don't add up because they don't is lying about him. Bernie can assert he'll have 4% economic growth every year for a decade which would generate enough taxes for his plans but that's not a lie even though he has no proof that he can achieve such growth... because, I guess. Bernie's assertions should be taken at 100% face value, everyone else's assertions are lies. Seems like a double standard.



> They lied about him not knowing about how to break up the banks, when it was actually the idiot reporter who was interviewing him that didnt know what they were talking about.


lol the fuck are you talking about, Bernie embarrassed himself at the NYDN because he couldn't explain how he would break up the banks. He stumbled all over himself. 



> Daily News: And then, you further said that you expect to break them up within the first year of your administration. What authority do you have to do that? And how would that work? How would you break up JPMorgan Chase?
> 
> Sanders: Well, by the way, the idea of breaking up these banks is not an original idea. It's an idea that some conservatives have also agreed to.
> 
> You've got head of, I think it's, the Kansas City Fed, some pretty conservative guys, who understands. Let's talk about the merit of the issue, and then talk about how we get there.
> 
> Right now, what you have are two factors. We bailed out Wall Street because the banks are too big to fail, correct? It turns out, that three out of the four largest banks are bigger today than they were when we bailed them out, when they were too-big-to-fail. That's number one.
> 
> Number two, if you look at the six largest financial institutions of this country, their assets somewhere around $10 trillion. That is equivalent to 58% of the GDP of America. They issue two-thirds of the credit cards in this country, and about one-third of the mortgages. That is a lot of power.
> 
> And I think that if somebody, like if Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, he would look at that. Forgetting even the risk element, the bailout element, and just look at the kind of financial power that these guys have, would say that is too much power.
> 
> Daily News: Okay. Well, let's assume that you're correct on that point. How do you go about doing it?
> 
> Sanders: How you go about doing it is having legislation passed, or giving the authority to the secretary of treasury to determine, under Dodd-Frank, that these banks are a danger to the economy over the problem of too-big-to-fail.
> 
> Daily News: But do you think that the Fed, now, has that authority?
> 
> Sanders: Well, I don't know if the Fed has it. But I think the administration can have it.
> 
> Daily News: How? How does a President turn to JPMorgan Chase, or have the Treasury turn to any of those banks and say, "Now you must do X, Y and Z?"
> 
> Sanders: Well, you do have authority under the Dodd-Frank legislation to do that, make that determination.
> 
> Daily News: You do, just by Federal Reserve fiat, you do?
> 
> Sanders: Yeah. Well, I believe you do.
> 
> Daily News: So if you look forward, a year, maybe two years, right now you have...JPMorgan has 241,000 employees. About 20,000 of them in New York. $192 billion in net assets. What happens? What do you foresee? What is JPMorgan in year two of...
> 
> Sanders: What I foresee is a stronger national economy. And, in fact, a stronger economy in New York State, as well. What I foresee is a financial system which actually makes affordable loans to small and medium-size businesses. Does not live as an island onto themselves concerned about their own profits. And, in fact, creating incredibly complicated financial tools, which have led us into the worst economic recession in the modern history of the United States.
> 
> Daily News: I get that point. I'm just looking at the method because, actions have reactions, right? There are pluses and minuses. So, if you push here, you may get an unintended consequence that you don't understand. So, what I'm asking is, how can we understand? If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go?
> 
> Sanders: I'm not running JPMorgan Chase or Citibank.
> 
> Daily News: No. But you'd be breaking it up.
> 
> Sanders: That's right. And that is their decision as to what they want to do and how they want to reconfigure themselves. That's not my decision. All I am saying is that I do not want to see this country be in a position where it was in 2008, where we have to bail them out. And, in addition, I oppose that kind of concentration of ownership entirely.
> 
> You're asking a question, which is a fair question. But let me just take your question and take it to another issue. Alright? It would be fair for you to say, "Well, Bernie, you got on there that you are strongly concerned about climate change and that we have to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel. What happens to the people in the fossil fuel industry?"
> 
> That's a fair question. But the other part of that is if we do not address that issue the planet we’re gonna leave your kids and your grandchildren may not be a particularly healthy or habitable one. So I can't say, if you're saying that we’re going to break up the banks, will it have a negative consequence on some people? I suspect that it will. Will it have a positive impact on the economy in general? Yes, I think it will.
> 
> Daily News: Well, it does depend on how you do it, I believe. And, I'm a little bit confused because just a few minutes ago you said the U.S. President would have authority to order...
> 
> Sanders: No, I did not say we would order. I did not say that we would order. The President is not a dictator.
> 
> Daily News: Okay. You would then leave it to JPMorgan Chase or the others to figure out how to break it, themselves up. I'm not quite...
> 
> Sanders: You would determine is that, if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. And then you have the secretary of treasury and some people who know a lot about this, making that determination. If the determination is that Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan Chase is too big to fail, yes, they will be broken up.
> 
> Daily News: Okay. You saw, I guess, what happened with Metropolitan Life. There was an attempt to bring them under the financial regulatory scheme, and the court said no. And what does that presage for your program?
> 
> Sanders: It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that.


What a complete fucking moron. How did he explain how the banks would be broken up? Dodd-Frank gives no such authority. Congress would have to pass a new law. He says the president has the authority, then he says the president doesn't. He says the president and the secretary of the treasury would make a "determination." What gives them that legal authority? Who knows, Bernie doesn't. He says the banks themselves would be in charge of how they would be broken up (ROFL). He says he hasn't studied the issue when the courts said the government has no such power in the case of MetLife.

This dipshit is just barely smart enough to know that the big banks can't be broken up under anti-trust laws, which would give the government the legal authority. Problem is, they aren't monopolies. And even under anti-trust laws there must be a determination made by the courts. Not General Secretary Bernie. This guy is an idiot. How would it happen? Whatever, it's gonna happen! 



> She is always lying about him and his view on guns.


What lies did she tell about Bernie's view on guns? Quotes, please. Because if you're talking about the law that prevents gun manufacturers from being sued, yes, Bernie did vote for it, yes, Bernie did support it in remarks he made recently. He flip-flopped on the issue when Hillary started going after him on it and since Democratic voters have an irrational and stupid fear and hatred of guns, he had no choice but to flip-flop. It would have hurt him worse with Democratic voters if he hadn't. 



> She lie about him not being there when she was trying to pass her healthcare bills when he was standing right behind her.


This is the only example where you actually come close to giving some actual details. What healthcare bills though? Obamacare? Hillarycare in 1993? Clarification please.



> Its brought up all the time by me and others when Hillary or the press is lying about Sanders. Stop acting like we have not shown examples.


You haven't... so please do. Asserting that someone has lied without providing details is just pointing a finger without evidence. 



> LOL oh don't list internet polls. because you now that backs up my point. What other polls do you want to look at? There are none, there are just the internet polls. But you know Sanders kills Hillary in debates and of course you will ask for an example then say oh but you can't use these examples. So typical for someone like you.
> 
> I am not even going to bother with the rest since you have proven you will just ignore all the facts and evidence.


So... internet polls that can be manipulated by people voting multiple times are super accurate and dandy and we should just accept them. 

I want to look at polls where it's one person, one vote, not a couple hundred Bernie supporters clicking refresh a hundred times each and voting a hundred times each. 

That's right, you can't use examples that are subject to manipulation so easily and are in fact manipulated. 

There are no non-internet polls? You know, real polling organizations do polls on who won debates, right? Not internet polls. Calling people on the phone and asking them. 

What facts and evidence? You've provided none. It's like I'm talking to my sister when she was in college, ask for real facts and details and she'd have a temper tantrum. Ask her to actually support her arguments with evidence and she'd throw a tantrum. Then she'd go all projection and make accusations that I was doing what she was actually the one doing. 100% millenial nonsense. 

If you don't understand why an internet poll anyone can vote in as many times as they want isn't reliable, well, you're a typical Bernie supporter and we can only hope the real world will smarten you up some eventually.

And oh yeah CNN didn't delete any polls...

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...ernet-cnn-did-not-delete-its-poll-showing-be/

This is the problem with you Bernie-loving millenials, you are very ignorant but since you're young and arrogant you think you know everything. You read some dumb Facebook post that you agree with so it must be accurate and true and everything else is a dirty lie. Grow up.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> I live in a blue state so if you vote republican my vote wont even matter. Romney was from MA and couldn't even win the state when he went against Obama.
> 
> Only on 80 and 84 did it ever go republican and that is because Regan destroyed everyone in those elections.


Trump may be a Reagan-like candidate, especially when you consider who his opponent is. You've said yourself Hillary is not going to know what hit her. Why can't part of that be your state flipping red for The Donald?

Anything could happen between now and November to tip the scales further in his favor as it has already during this election cycle. 

I live in perhaps the bluest of all states - California, yet I plan to cast my vote for Trump and encourage others I know to do the same. You don't want to have to admit to people in the future that you acted in utter futility when Hillary Rodham Clinton became the most powerful person in the world.

*Question:* If Bernie ends up endorsing Hillary (who, even if she "adopts" the policies he wants her to adopt, you and I both know she will *never* implement or plan on implementing), will you vote Trump?

Also, WILL YOU DISAVOW?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> He said he will only endorse her if she adopts some of her policies and she refused to when asked if she would.
> 
> Bernie is still taking it to the convention.


And you think that she won't lie to hoodwink honest abe?

Only difference you can make is with your vote. Trump is the closest we are going to get to a true independent president at this point and I think it's time to realize that red or blue don't matter anymore, only candidates do.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



TheResurrection said:


> If he can't win among the left leaning candidates appealing to a left leaning electorate how in the name of god will he win the general election? Fuck the polls, to win as a far left or far right candidate you need to be winning the nomination in dominating fashion or you need a miracle to win the election.
> 
> The Democrats will win easily when they put up Hillary. Every single rational democrat, left leaning independent, or centrist will be closer to her than they will to Trump barring a drastic shift in Trump's positions. Every single one of them. Anybody who would vote for Sanders as the Dem but who would switch to Trump because he's "anti-establishment" is too stupid to live, they're the sorts of people who don't vote at all because thats participating in the establishment.
> 
> I know how old the candidates are.
> 
> As said, polls in April are irrelevant. Sanders hasn't faced serious scrutiny yet because nobody's taking him seriously, if he ever did he would crumble into dust. He makes promises that even people who already support him aren't willing to pay for (how the fuck he's going to get that past Congress I don't know). When people point out that his policies will see you lose at least $1000 a year nobody is going to vote for this delusional man. He's appealing to people who want free shit and have no idea how it will be paid for, that only goes so far.


Hillary is stealing the election with voter fraud and suppression. 

And AGAIN Sanders DESTROYS Trump and Cruz head to head. That is how he wins the generation election. You can ignore the polls and evidence all you want.
I love how you ask how he can win, then you ignore the evidence and how he would win.


You keep claiming the independents vote for Hillary when they are voting for Sanders. You need too deal in facts but you are not. Trump is hardly dominating on the RNC side. he may not even get enough deletes to secure the nomination. Hillary may not even get there either. She isn't dominating Sanders, she is barely beating him even with all the decks stacked against Sanders and him taking zero money from super pacs and the DNC being all behind Hillary helping her fix the election, and Sanders is still in it. 

As for Sanders not faced serious scrutiny yet , that is laughable, he is had more scrutiny than anyone. There are always articles trashing him and lying about him. Hell just a month or two ago there were like 13 articles in 12 hours trashing Sanders .

Everyone is taking Sanders seriously that is why the DNC is fixing the election for Hillary and why all the big news corp that are for Hillary trash him and lie about him at any chance they get. 

I also love how Trump fans trash Sanders when Trump doesnt even know what is talking about, and talks out of his ass all the time. Trump has no clue what he is talking about and has no plans for anything, he even changes his mind mid sentence sometimes. 

You keep claiming nobody will vote for him yet he is getting votes and is right there with almost beating Hillary Clinton. 

The fact is Sanders would destroy Trump in the general. Trump has no clue about anything and Sanders would embarrass him in debates on the issues.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump may be a Reagan-like candidate, especially when you consider who his opponent is. You've said yourself Hillary is not going to know what hit her. Why can't part of that be your state flipping red for The Donald?
> 
> Anything could happen between now and November to tip the scales further in his favor as it has already during this election cycle.
> 
> I live in perhaps the bluest of all states - California, yet I plan to cast my vote for Trump and encourage others I know to do the same. You don't want to have to admit to people in the future that you acted in utter futility when Hillary Rodham Clinton became the most powerful person in the world.
> 
> *Question:* If Bernie ends up endorsing Hillary (who, even if she "adopts" the policies he wants her to adopt, you and I both know she will *never* implement or plan on implementing), will you vote Trump?
> 
> Also, WILL YOU DISAVOW?


I will never for vote Trump. I will write in Sanders or vote Jill Stein.

And I wouldn't disavow Sanders even if he endorse Hillary. He would do it just so Trump wont win.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> I will never for vote Trump. I will write in Sanders or vote Jill Stein.
> 
> And I wouldn't disavow Sanders even if he endorse Hillary. He would do it just so Trump wont win.


Well, I hope you reconsider, because at this point you're sounding a little irrational - especially with that last paragraph. 

If Sanders endorses Hillary so that Trump won't win, then he's essentially telling you and Americans that everything he himself has stood for means less than if it blocks someone else from winning - which in and of itself reeks of shady politics. So if Sanders stands for anything at all, then he will never endorse Hillary. And if he endorses Hillary then he should rightfully be called a shill himself.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



deepelemblues said:


> so, you have no evidence. other than a deal with kasich that lasted two days because both cruz and kasich immediately kept trying to undercut the other.
> 
> you realize that the deal is gone, right? kasich kept campaigning in indiana and cruz said there was no deal in response.
> 
> do you have any proof that the cruz-kasich deal was handed down from on high by the establishment? or was it cruz and kasich trying to stop trump because they both think they can win on the 2nd or 3rd ballot if trump doesn't get enough votes on the 1st ballot? are they under some kind of obligation to give up?
> 
> like i said, this is the "Come on you know i'm right, i don't need evidence. COME ON YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT WHY AREN'T YOU AGREEING WITH ME YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT" style of "arguing"
> 
> 
> 
> no, because the "deal" was over and done with days before the next primaries. it lasted all of 48 hours.
> 
> how do you know they did what they were told? you have some video? audio? no, you just have "COME ON YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT"
> 
> 
> 
> COME ON NOW
> 
> Do _you_ even follow elections? You know what super PACs are, right? What do you think their point is? They exist so people who want to spend a lot of money on elections can do so without having to deal with campaign finance limits. You can raise as much money as you want with a super PAC. Donations are unrestricted, a person can donate as much as they want. That's why they exist.
> 
> 
> 
> No delegate votes are officially cast until the convention.
> 
> It's all a misleading voter suppression effort ohmiGAWD!
> 
> Maybe you don't understand that when those superdelegates were supporting Clinton they were supporting Clinton, when they were supporting Obama they were supporting Obama, you say a superdelegate is in a candidate's camp when they are in a candidate's camp. When they were supporting Hillary, if the convention had been that day, they would have voted Hillary, so at that time yes sorry it was perfectly legit to have them in her total. The ones that publicly said they were going Obama were added to his total. This was before the convention.
> 
> 
> 
> What were his quotes that were called sexist that weren't?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, saying that Bernie's numbers don't add up because they don't is lying about him. Bernie can assert he'll have 4% economic growth every year for a decade which would generate enough taxes for his plans but that's not a lie even though he has no proof that he can achieve such growth... because, I guess. Bernie's assertions should be taken at 100% face value, everyone else's assertions are lies. Seems like a double standard.
> 
> 
> 
> lol the fuck are you talking about, Bernie embarrassed himself at the NYDN because he couldn't explain how he would break up the banks. He stumbled all over himself.
> 
> 
> 
> What a complete fucking moron. How did he explain how the banks would be broken up? Dodd-Frank gives no such authority. Congress would have to pass a new law. He says the president has the authority, then he says the president doesn't. He says the president and the secretary of the treasury would make a "determination." What gives them that legal authority? Who knows, Bernie doesn't. He says the banks themselves would be in charge of how they would be broken up (ROFL). He says he hasn't studied the issue when the courts said the government has no such power in the case of MetLife.
> 
> This dipshit is just barely smart enough to know that the big banks can't be broken up under anti-trust laws, which would give the government the legal authority. Problem is, they aren't monopolies. And even under anti-trust laws there must be a determination made by the courts. Not General Secretary Bernie. This guy is an idiot. How would it happen? Whatever, it's gonna happen!
> 
> 
> 
> What lies did she tell about Bernie's view on guns? Quotes, please. Because if you're talking about the law that prevents gun manufacturers from being sued, yes, Bernie did vote for it, yes, Bernie did support it in remarks he made recently. He flip-flopped on the issue when Hillary started going after him on it and since Democratic voters have an irrational and stupid fear and hatred of guns, he had no choice but to flip-flop. It would have hurt him worse with Democratic voters if he hadn't.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the only example where you actually come close to giving some actual details. What healthcare bills though? Obamacare? Hillarycare in 1993? Clarification please.
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't... so please do. Asserting that someone has lied without providing details is just pointing a finger without evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> So... internet polls that can be manipulated by people voting multiple times are super accurate and dandy and we should just accept them.
> 
> I want to look at polls where it's one person, one vote, not a couple hundred Bernie supporters clicking refresh a hundred times each and voting a hundred times each.
> 
> That's right, you can't use examples that are subject to manipulation so easily and are in fact manipulated.
> 
> There are no non-internet polls? You know, real polling organizations do polls on who won debates, right? Not internet polls. Calling people on the phone and asking them.
> 
> What facts and evidence? You've provided none. It's like I'm talking to my sister when she was in college, ask for real facts and details and she'd have a temper tantrum. Ask her to actually support her arguments with evidence and she'd throw a tantrum. Then she'd go all projection and make accusations that I was doing what she was actually the one doing. 100% millenial nonsense.
> 
> If you don't understand why an internet poll anyone can vote in as many times as they want isn't reliable, well, you're a typical Bernie supporter and we can only hope the real world will smarten you up some eventually.
> 
> And oh yeah CNN didn't delete any polls...
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...ernet-cnn-did-not-delete-its-poll-showing-be/
> 
> This is the problem with you Bernie-loving millenials, you are very ignorant but since you're young and arrogant you think you know everything. You read some dumb Facebook post that you agree with so it must be accurate and true and everything else is a dirty lie. Grow up.



Yes CNN deleted their poll. There was no link to the poll showing Sanders destroyed Hillary in the debate then claimed Hillary won. The hide the poll because they were embarrassed Hillary lost by so much. It was all over the internet when it was happening. The article even admitted it was not on CNNS website, and it was on there . I just low how they act like, well we down know if it was never on there.

There were screen shots of the poll being on their CNN.com website. 

As for Bernie bumbling over breaking up the banks that is because the idiot who was asking the questions didnt know what he was talking about. Bernie was right about everything he said, then the interview asked how would the FEDs break up the banks which is a bullshit question since they can't and are not involved in that and that is when Sanders got confused because the interviewer was wrong in asking that question. Sanders was on point about everything else. He said the treasury dept or Dodd Frank would break up the banks, Sanders NEVER mentioned the FED, the interviewer kept brining that up and the interview was WRONG. The FED wouldn't be involved. The interviewer didd know the difference between the Fed and the treasury dept. The interview was the idiot not Sanders. 



I am not even going to reply to your other BS since like I said before you ignore all the evidence and I am not wasting my time with you


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

have we seen the Cruz encounter with the Trump comedians?

Holy shit this is hilarious.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Im writing in Sanders or voting for Jill Stein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people that were suppressed in NY were people that were listed as democrats but moved to independent or undeclared or them getting purged from the voter registration so they couldn't vote.
> 
> 100,000 voters were "mistakenly" purged from the Brooklyn voter rolls alone, and of course that is Sanders home town. Not to mention how in other states you had states closing down polling stations.
> 
> That is the very definition of voter suppression.
> 
> Its also happening in southern states too but in a different way. Some states require ID in order to vote because they know the poorer voters may not have IDs and that is suppressing their votes.


Everything you said here supports Clinton Supporters being suppressed. 

Black people are disproportionately poor. Therefore ID lows would disproportionately effect them. Black primary voter disproportionately support Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders (which, on a side, is fucking absurd). 

Brooklyn also demographically favors Hillary Clinton. In fact she won Brooklyn 60/40 (again fucking absurd that people would pick her over Bernie). 

And how would they know which people support Bernie and which support Clinton. 

I believe Hillary would do anything to get elected. She's a horrible and corrupt person. I bet she's done a lot worse than voter suppression. I'm just sure how Clinton supporters would pull it off.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

Blacks really shouldn't be voting for Bernie either. The promise of free stuff hasn't exactly worked out well for them for the last 50 years, and the gravy train is quickly reaching the end of the track. It's going to be disastrous for blacks especially when this occurs. Of course Hillary and her drug war activism is terrible for blacks, but the drug war is only such a problem for blacks in particular due to the state of dependence many of them have been trapped in due to the welfare state, for about 50 years now, thanks to the Democratic Party.

What Trump is offering is a color-blind meritocracy, which is exactly how his business is run, much to the dismay of the left and their "he's a racist/sexist narrative". He's the obvious choice for any rational thinking minority who doesn't want to be dependent on others.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



MrMister said:


> have we seen the Cruz encounter with the Trump comedians?
> 
> Holy shit this is hilarious.


I have no idea what Cruz was thinking there. It could only go badly for him.

That, and Trump baiting Cruz at the 11th hour to throw Cruz into that wild response.

lmao Cruz just looks unhinged at this point. Donald played him perfectly.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



CamillePunk said:


> Blacks really shouldn't be voting for Bernie either. The promise of free stuff hasn't exactly worked out well for them for the last 50 years, and the gravy train is quickly reaching the end of the track. It's going to be disastrous for blacks especially when this occurs. Of course Hillary and her drug war activism is terrible for blacks, but the drug war is only such a problem for blacks in particular due to the state of dependence many of them have been trapped in due to the welfare state, for about 50 years now, thanks to the Democratic Party.
> 
> What Trump is offering is a color-blind meritocracy, which is exactly how his business is run, much to the dismay of the left and their "he's a racist/sexist narrative". He's the obvious choice for any rational thinking minority who doesn't want to be dependent on others.


I agree with you here. I just find it crazy that black people are supporting Hillary over Bernie. A fear that rich Americans have had seemingly forever is to let socialism become popular with black people. Our government has done a really good job at vilifying socialism and communism over the years. 

Now it's out in the open and someone claims to be a socialist is getting a lot of votes. And he's not going to get the nomination because black people won't vote for him.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

Trump wins Indiana. Cruz himself said that the winner here would go on to win the nomination. Time to cue up Dandy Don:


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



THE SHIV said:


> Trump wins Indiana. Cruz himself said that the winner here would go on to win the nomination. Time to cue up Dandy Don:


He backtracked on that statement, probably once it became clear he wasn't going to win Indiana. :lol Much like when he said anyone who has no mathematical path to victory should withdraw, and then continued to stay in the race once he was mathematically eliminated. 

The media and it's "experts" have all along said Trump can't reach 1,237 and he's exposed them as frauds pushing an agenda. This election cycle has been a great story. Let's hope for a happy ending, preferably one where the hideous dragon lady is slain.


----------



## TheResurrection

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Hillary is stealing the election with voter fraud and suppression.
> 
> And AGAIN Sanders DESTROYS Trump and Cruz head to head. That is how he wins the generation election. You can ignore the polls and evidence all you want.
> I love how you ask how he can win, then you ignore the evidence and how he would win.
> 
> 
> You keep claiming the independents vote for Hillary when they are voting for Sanders. You need too deal in facts but you are not. Trump is hardly dominating on the RNC side. he may not even get enough deletes to secure the nomination. Hillary may not even get there either. She isn't dominating Sanders, she is barely beating him even with all the decks stacked against Sanders and him taking zero money from super pacs and the DNC being all behind Hillary helping her fix the election, and Sanders is still in it.
> 
> As for Sanders not faced serious scrutiny yet , that is laughable, he is had more scrutiny than anyone. There are always articles trashing him and lying about him. Hell just a month or two ago there were like 13 articles in 12 hours trashing Sanders .
> 
> Everyone is taking Sanders seriously that is why the DNC is fixing the election for Hillary and why all the big news corp that are for Hillary trash him and lie about him at any chance they get.
> 
> I also love how Trump fans trash Sanders when Trump doesnt even know what is talking about, and talks out of his ass all the time. Trump has no clue what he is talking about and has no plans for anything, he even changes his mind mid sentence sometimes.
> 
> You keep claiming nobody will vote for him yet he is getting votes and is right there with almost beating Hillary Clinton.
> 
> The fact is Sanders would destroy Trump in the general. Trump has no clue about anything and Sanders would embarrass him in debates on the issues.


I'm asking you how an extreme leftist candidate can possibly win the general when he cannot even win the left leaning primary. He's being soundly beaten by a centrist who still wants his supporters' votes in the general. After a campaign against the Republicans he would be totally destroyed.

It's a basic fact of politics that you can't win building a campaign around a demographic who'd don't vote. It's another basic fact that elections are won from the centre, not from the extremes.

Stop being so naïve, grow up, accept that the establishment always wins.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

Only about a third of the vote in but it's looking like it could be another sweep for Trump. Right now Cruz has him beat in 2 counties in the entire state. In one county Cruz is up by like 30 votes and and a couple hundred votes in another.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

Just listened to CNN state it as a fact that Trump attacked Heidi Cruz. fpalm They're trying to portray Cruz going forward as some resilient, courageous hero going up against a big bad bully. Sickening and a total distortion of reality. Trump never attacked Heidi and has been a counter-puncher this entire race.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

Cruz just suspended his campaign. Only Kasich remains to tilt at windmills now.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

:mj2 The absolute madman has done it. He's the GOP nominee and there's nothing they can do to stop him.

:trump :trump :trump

Cruz and the #NeverTrump movement spent over $30 million in Indiana. Trump spent about $900,000.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

It's over. 

There are some things about Trump that have me worried but at the end of the day I'm happy that the people have spoken and have rejected the same old shit we've been force fed for years. 

I still don't know if Trump will win the election but I think great things will come of this regardless.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

Historic moment, no matter what you think of Trump. The madman actually did it, he defeated the entire GOP from within.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

From LYIN' TED to DYIN' TED. :trump

BASED Trump has finally killed the Zodiac Killer. :trips8


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

This election is going to be something. 

I cannot wait to see a Hillary/Trump debate (though I do hope Bernie also pulls out some crazy wins).


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

Lyin' Ted is gone. A little victory music before Trump focuses on the crone.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

If Trump goes all the way, I might be compelled to buy a Make America Great Again hat solely for trolling purposes. :troll



FITZ said:


> This election is going to be something.
> 
> I cannot wait to see a Hillary/Trump debate (though I do hope Bernie also pulls out some crazy wins).


He's already kicking the (Hill)dog by talking about getting the miners back to work, which is fair game considering she had such a weak-ass response for her comment about miners being out of work so fast under her watch due to the Keystone pipeline.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

A more subdued Trump than I was expecting. 

Dare I say he seems presidential?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



FITZ said:


> A more subdued Trump than I was expecting.
> 
> Dare I say he seems presidential?


He's been like this for a few weeks now, likely due to using so much energy in his valiant victories over Low Energy Jeb, Look At That Face (AKA Carly Fiorina), Lyin' Ted and Little Marco.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

YUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE

:trump

Is Kasich even still in the race?! LOL


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> Historic moment, no matter what you think of Trump. The madman actually did it, he defeated the entire GOP from within.


I dunno, he defeated a GOP establishment that never really spent money to go after him until it was too late. They wanted Bush but Bush was a loser, then they wanted Rubio but he was a loser, and they didn't spend much money to help either one. Then they dithered back and forth about spending money to help Ted Cruz because they didn't like Ted Cruz and John Kasich is a nobody who was never an option for anybody. The establishment tied their hands behind their own backs and showed what incompetents they are. 

President Trump is going to be glorious. He'll pardon Hillary to show what a nice guy he is of course. Poor old Hillary in jail? That's not how a dealmaker operates.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Trump has defeated the old Gods! Like him or not he beat out the shilling assholes within the Republican Party! He showed us all a candidate doesn't have to be backed by the rich elite who control the Democratic and Republican parties! I think this could be good, maybe people will wake up and see Hilary for what she really is, I hope Trump does a war of attrition because she will get exposed so hard. Better yet right before voters pick, the FBI arrests hilary. LOL


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*

Good luck to the Trump. Thwart the cancer that is Hillary. :fingerscrossed



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> If Trump goes all the way, I might be compelled to buy a Make America Great Again hat solely for trolling purposes. :troll


You might get your stuff stolen by a woman, and promptly get your face bloodied by a pack of "liberals" for chasing after her. :jim


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



FITZ said:


> A more subdued Trump than I was expecting.
> 
> Dare I say he seems presidential?


He isn't telling it like it is now. :troll


----------



## Trivette

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Cruz summarily rejecTED and defeaTED.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



CamillePunk said:


> This is a vote for Hillary Clinton. You're a part of the problem BM. Years from now when your children or your children's children ask you what you did when Empress Clinton ascended to power and helped sell their lives away to the banking elites, rather than being able to say you cast your vote for the only man who could have done something about it, you'll have to meekly admit that you threw your vote impotently into the abyss, watching while not acting as any hope for their lives was eradicated.
> 
> Shame. On. You.
> 
> Of course, I still hold out hope that you'll realize the error of your ways and be brought into the circle of reason by the Master Persuader, Donald J Trump. :hb


Ok, you will love this lol

I was watching TYTs coverage of the primary and Cenk is in DC and he said he heard some rumblings if Hilary is indicted before the convention the DNC would give all of her delegates and super delegates to Biden.

If that ever happened, then I would vote for Trump.

Because that would be the biggest fraud I have ever seen in my life time.

Just knowing that is what they are planning to do may even persuade me to vote Trump in the general anyways as much as I despise him, at this point I hate the DNC and Hillary even more.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



KILL V. Oxi said:


> You might get your stuff stolen by a woman, and promptly get your face bloodied by a pack of "liberals" for chasing after her. :jim


I'll handle that bitch and the clowns who try to help her just like Kool G Rap did to his ho and the bystanders in Hey Mister Mister. >


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Fringe said:


> Cruz summarily rejecTED and defeaTED.


The only Teds that were ever trustworthy and worthy of buying a beer for were Roosevelt and Mark Wahlberg's stuffed bear.

:fact


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



deepelemblues said:


> I dunno, he defeated a GOP establishment that never really spent money to go after him until it was too late. They wanted Bush but Bush was a loser, then they wanted Rubio but he was a loser, and they didn't spend much money to help either one. Then they dithered back and forth about spending money to help Ted Cruz because they didn't like Ted Cruz and John Kasich is a nobody who was never an option for anybody. The establishment tied their hands behind their own backs and showed what incompetents they are.
> 
> President Trump is going to be glorious. He'll pardon Hillary to show what a nice guy he is of course. Poor old Hillary in jail? That's not how a dealmaker operates.


The establishment was screwed by the tea party uprising. Many of them were inexperienced in how to govern. Ted Cruz is the result of tea party movement. Their only option left was a reluctant Jeb Bush who probably knew he wouldn't get elected due to his last name even though he was the most qualified but was forced to run anyway.

Rubio was their bet to be the GOP version of Obama, but he just isn't charismatic enough. Obama really dealt a huge blow to the GOP establishment, forcing them to rethink what kind of candidate is electable. Now add in Trump this year, they are going to be real confused in what the country wants now.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



FriedTofu said:


> The establishment was screwed by the tea party uprising. Many of them were inexperienced in how to govern. Ted Cruz is the result of tea party movement. Their only option left was a reluctant Jeb Bush who probably knew he wouldn't get elected due to his last name even though he was the most qualified but was forced to run anyway.
> 
> Rubio was their bet to be the GOP version of Obama, but he just isn't charismatic enough. Obama really dealt a huge blow to the GOP establishment, forcing them to rethink what kind of candidate is electable. Now add in Trump this year, they are going to be real confused in what the country wants now.


It's pretty easy to see what they want, well half of them anyway, they want pure, unalloyed patriotism... which is why Trump will win. He's offering a vision, a vision backed by passion. Hillary is offering... well I don't know what she's offering because all she ever really talks about is "first woman president." That is a vision that has *some* passion behind it, but that's a narrower appeal than love of country. And so fucking what, how is having the "first woman president" going to fix anything? Is the "first woman president" a necessary condition to make Americans feel like things aren't getting more and more shitty? What Hillary offers doesn't match up as well with what the times are increasingly demanding. Trump's fits better. Plus Hillary is corrupt as hell and is going to get indicted sooner or later (or if she doesn't Trump is going to go nuclear over how rigged that is and it will help him even more). 

Six months of Trump savaging Hillary and she'll get beat as bad as McCain got beat by Obama.


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Ok, you will love this lol
> 
> I was watching TYTs coverage of the primary and Cenk is in DC and he said he heard some rumblings if Hilary is indicted before the convention the DNC would give all of her delegates and super delegates to Biden.
> 
> If that ever happened, then I would vote for Trump.
> 
> Because that would be the biggest fraud I have ever seen in my life time.
> 
> Just knowing that is what they are planning to do may even persuade me to vote Trump in the general anyways as much as I despise him, at this point I hate the DNC and Hillary even more.


If the most obvious and well known fact about Hillary changing her views on everything to be more popular with voters isn't the most worrying thing about this entire presidential race then I don't know what is. Trump's honesty and Hillary's shady bullshit should be enough reason to know who to vote for.

Anything but Hillary.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



deepelemblues said:


> It's pretty easy to see what they want, well half of them anyway, they want pure, unalloyed patriotism... which is why Trump will win. He's offering a vision, a vision backed by passion. Hillary is offering... well I don't know what she's offering because all she ever really talks about is "first woman president." That is a vision that has *some* passion behind it, but that's a narrower appeal than love of country. And so fucking what, how is having the "first woman president" going to fix anything? Is the "first woman president" a necessary condition to make Americans feel like things aren't getting more and more shitty? What Hillary offers doesn't match up as well with what the times are increasingly demanding. Trump's fits better. Plus Hillary is corrupt as hell and is going to get indicted sooner or later (or if she doesn't Trump is going to go nuclear over how rigged that is and it will help him even more).
> 
> Six months of Trump savaging Hillary and she'll get beat as bad as McCain got beat by Obama.


Trump is offering fascism-lite imo, which is dangerous for the most powerful country in the world. 

Hilary is offering the don't rock the boat vote, which probably isn't the best choice seeing as how more than half of the country are dissatisfied with how things are. On the flip side, that could mean Americans feel safer again to vote this way. Personally I would vote for a candidate like this due to the the impending China bubble burst that will cause a global economic slowdown.

I don't think either of them are corruption-free. Trump probably has just as many shady deals as Hilary but gets to hide behind the cloak of 'I wasn't a politician so that's OK' which is BS.


----------



## TripleG

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Cruz dropped out? 

Fuck it, I'm posting this.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Trump has Neo-Cons like Lindsey Graham talking reckless.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/01/politics/lindsey-graham-gop-civil-war/


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> If Trump goes all the way, I might be compelled to buy a Make America Great Again hat solely for trolling purposes. :troll


Already have mine: 












FriedTofu said:


> Trump is offering fascism-lite imo, which is dangerous for the most powerful country in the world.
> 
> Hilary is offering the don't rock the boat vote, which probably isn't the best choice seeing as how more than half of the country are dissatisfied with how things are. On the flip side, that could mean Americans feel safer again to vote this way. Personally I would vote for a candidate like this due to the the impending China bubble burst that will cause a global economic slowdown.
> 
> I don't think either of them are corruption-free. Trump probably has just as many shady deals as Hilary but gets to hide behind the cloak of 'I wasn't a politician so that's OK' which is BS.


Hate to say this, but if you think that Trump is fascist while the Democrats aren't, then you really haven't been paying attention. Don't buy into the words that are being tossed around for Trump by the liberal media. Look at his actual platform and compare it to the democrats ... While the democrats choose their words wisely, their actions are a scary mix of authoritarian, socialism and neoconservative interventionism .. With Obama's executive decision-making, there's a bit of dictatorship thrown in there for good measure. 

Much, much more right-wing than they've been able to brand themselves. Perception has been key for the Democrats, but Trump has laid waste to that. I think that at this point a lot of left-wingers really need to examine just how left-wing the democrats really are. They've been able to peddle a lot of pandering bullshit to hoodwink well intentioned and empathic people, but misuse that empathy for their own selfish agendas.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



KILL V. Oxi said:


> If the most obvious and well known fact about Hillary changing her views on everything to be more popular with voters isn't the most worrying thing about this entire presidential race then I don't know what is. Trump's honesty and Hillary's shady bullshit should be enough reason to know who to vote for.
> 
> Anything but Hillary.


I don't think that will hurt her that much because people expect that of politicians, they do it all the time, and Trump will do it too because all of them have to do it to stay in the whole fucked up system.

I guess if Trump attacks Hilary for the shady stuff that may work, but IMO he should stay away from the 'woman card' stuff as that will hurt him more.

On the other side, Trump will be hurt by his lack of political experience and apparent lack of knowledge of foreign affairs.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

John Kasich said he will keep the GOP fight going by his lonesome

Its such farce I almost want him to win

Ps: I want someone in this thread to tell me what the fuck they think a fascist is because no one seems to know. Many "fascist lite" policies are in EVERY form of political system


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Reaper said:


> Hate to say this, but if you think that Trump is fascist while the Democrats aren't, then you really haven't been paying attention. Don't buy into the words that are being tossed around for Trump by the liberal media. Look at his actual platform and compare it to the democrats ... While the democrats choose their words wisely, their actions are a scary mix of authoritarian, socialism and neoconservative interventionism .. With Obama's executive decision-making, there's a bit of dictatorship thrown in there for good measure.
> 
> Much, much more right-wing than they've been able to brand themselves. Perception has been key for the Democrats, but Trump has laid waste to that. I think that at this point a lot of left-wingers really need to examine just how left-wing the democrats really are. They've been able to peddle a lot of pandering bullshit to hoodwink well intentioned and empathic people, but misuse that empathy for their own selfish agendas.


Trump's platform of America first, protectionism economics, harping on American's decline and giving non-solutions to make America great again are all signs of fascism.

If democrats are more right-wing than they are branding themselves, Trump is also much more left-wing than the GOP traditional base desire. It is funny the two most centralist candidates are also the two most unlikeable in general election history. It brings back to the growing narcissism of American culture in the social media age, where if someone don't support what you like, they are treated with hostility.


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



yeahbaby! said:


> I don't think that will hurt her that much because people expect that of politicians, they do it all the time, and Trump will do it too because all of them have to do it to stay in the whole fucked up system.
> 
> I guess if Trump attacks Hilary for the shady stuff that may work, but IMO he should stay away from the 'woman card' stuff as that will hurt him more.
> 
> On the other side, Trump will be hurt by his lack of political experience and apparent lack of knowledge of foreign affairs.


I agree Trump has to learn. But he's probably a lot more willing to learn than Hillary is to be honest.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

All Trump needs to know about the Middle East is that the US should leave it the hell alone, which he pretty much does. He wants to bomb ISIS and then get the fuck out. Hillary wants to play kingmaker and try to choose winners and losers, a policy that has been disastrous for decades and has made the US far less safe. The idea anyone would list foreign policy as an advantage for Hillary boggles my mind. 

As far as political experience, Trump has just spent the last 10 months decimating seasoned veterans of the political game. Think he's gonna be OK on that front.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Reaper said:


> Already have mine:


BASED Reaper. :tucky

The camo one is hideous, although it's a necessary evil in order to do an egg for the WHITE TRASH and thus make them feel like they aren't disgusting rubes.

I might go with the white one to match the sweater I'll wear over my shoulders while I go yachting.

:trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Reaper said:


> Already have mine:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to say this, but if you think that Trump is fascist while the Democrats aren't, then you really haven't been paying attention. Don't buy into the words that are being tossed around for Trump by the liberal media. Look at his actual platform and compare it to the democrats ... While the democrats choose their words wisely, their actions are a scary mix of authoritarian, socialism and neoconservative interventionism .. With Obama's executive decision-making, there's a bit of dictatorship thrown in there for good measure.
> 
> Much, much more right-wing than they've been able to brand themselves. Perception has been key for the Democrats, but Trump has laid waste to that. I think that at this point a lot of left-wingers really need to examine just how left-wing the democrats really are. They've been able to peddle a lot of pandering bullshit to hoodwink well intentioned and empathic people, but misuse that empathy for their own selfish agendas.



Is that reaper or Rusev


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> I might go with the white one to match the sweater I'll wear over my shoulders while I go yachting.
> 
> :trump


White is a great color. :trump


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (NEW YORK VALUES, BIATCH!)*



CamillePunk said:


> White is a great color. :trump


So much so that it even comes with its own theme song:






:trips9


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

:mark: and :lol at the @Reaper "Make America Great Again" modeling shot.

Also agree with the point that Trump can, on certain issues, run to Hillary's "left" on, say, Social Security. The financial tug-of-war between Hillary's position and Trump's position will make for an edifying crystallization for millions of Americans. Hillary's version of the future is a neoconservative/"liberal interventionist" cocktail of continuing the project of the American Empire, a future in which Social Security "benefits" must be cut, Social Security eligibility pushed up, and Trump is taking on some talking points from the Ron Paul campaigns, roughly that as massive a behemoth as Social Security is, it could perhaps be paid for, in full, with no compromises or betrayals, if the empire is rolled back or at least a host of free-riding allies started paying up. 

As for the question posed by @stevefox1200 I would hope that Trump would point to the rampant fascism of the U.S. since the New Deal and perhaps most overwhelmingly evidenced in recent years by the 2008 financial bailout. It had been decades since Congress worked with such crushing solidarity and stunning alacrity; think maybe the big banks more or less own "our representatives"? 
@CamillePunk @FITZ @Miss Sally @THE SHIV @Lumpy McRighteous so well stated with so many fine posts. Pleased to see @KILL V. Oxi become an enthusiast, or principled "rooter" for Trump, with the despair-inducing prospect of Hillary Clinton, President of the United States being the most perspicuous alternate reality.

There are still a couple of ways by which the Republican Party can bypass the will of the voters, however, so I'm not sure if we're necessarily out of the woods yet. In fact, I'm sure that we are not. George Will is writing columns with headlines declaring, "If Trump is the Nominee, the Republican Party Must Not Allow Him to Win the Presidency." The bigwigs of the GOP like the Koch Brothers have more in common with Hillary Clinton, and vice versa, than they do with Trump. I have no doubt that the Republicans will endeavor to throw the election for their friend Hillary. Moreover, purported "pledged delegates" could potentially abstain from voting on the first ballot, to keep Trump from attaining the 1,237 delegates necessary to prevent a second ballot, and subsequently vote for Jeb Bush or John Kasich or whoever their party bosses instruct them to vote for in Cleveland. Even if Trump is the nominee, Republican apparatchiks will do their masters' bidding and attempt to undermine their own party's candidate. This is far from over. Neoconservativism, neoliberalism, however we wish to mark the various sects of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Clinton World Order this country has been subjected to for over a generation, are like various types of soda brands. They doubtless have some differences but they are awfully similar, too, with major overlaps. Some of us do not drink soda, however. Some of us want water.


----------



## RVP_The_Gunner

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

As someone from the UK all I can say to America is the world now sees this as *YOUR* IQ test. Appoint Trump and that says a lot more about you than anything else.

On a side note the guy is the best f*cking heel persona in years. I love watching John Oliver rip him to shreds on a weekly basis.


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



DesolationRow said:


> Pleased to see @KILL V. Oxi become an enthusiast, or principled "rooter" for Trump, with the despair-inducing prospect of Hillary Clinton, President of the United States being the most perspicuous alternate reality.


Like I said in our discussions, the only reason I really didn't like the idea of Trump as president was primarily the fact he's not a real politician, and I believe he made it in the running because of his stature as a celebrity. After reading about Reagan I don't think it's as bad as I made it out to be, but he still clearly has some learning to do. And I think Trump is actually dedicated to truly trying to "make America great again" so I also firmly believe that he'll learn or appoint some very knowledgeable people to assist him in his presidency.

His image is a problem still, though. Even if the vast majority of detractors are just ignorant to his beliefs and continue attacking strawmen and following a biased narrative. I've come to realise that's not a product of Trump himself or even the ignorant masses who believe he's such a bad person, but it's the media. And if I am not mistaken, Trump wants to be able to close the huge knowledge gap between political parties in the US caused by biased media (if you could inform me if I'm right or not that'd be great).

Ultimately though... anyone but Hillary.


:trump


----------



## Freelancer

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



RVP_The_Gunner said:


> As someone from the UK all I can to America is this world now sees this as your IQ test. Appoint Trump and that says a lot more about you than anything else.
> 
> On a side note the guy is the best f*cking heel persona in years.


I lost faith in the voting public after we re-elected George W. Bush. I don't expect anything out of them anymore. They also pretty much nominated that fraud Hillary Clinton.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



KILL V. Oxi said:


> Like I said in our discussions, the only reason I really didn't like the idea of Trump as president was primarily the fact he's not a real politician, and I believe he made it in the running because of his stature as a celebrity. After reading about Reagan I don't think it's as bad as I made it out to be, but he still clearly has some learning to do. And I think Trump is actually dedicated to truly trying to "make America great again" so I also firmly believe that he'll learn or appoint some very knowledgeable people to assist him in his presidency.
> 
> His image is a problem still, though. Even if the vast majority of detractors are just ignorant to his beliefs and continue attacking strawmen and following a biased narrative. I've come to realise that's not a product of Trump himself or even the ignorant masses who believe he's such a bad person, but it's the media. And if I am not mistaken, Trump wants to be able to close the huge knowledge gap between political parties in the US caused by biased media (if you could inform me if I'm right or not that'd be great).
> 
> Ultimately though... anyone but Hillary.
> 
> 
> :trump


Fascinating, *Oxi*. Thank you for so capably addressing these points.

Your point about the media is quite well stated. Interestingly it would appear that a general reappraisal of both Donald Trump specifically, but, even more importantly, "The Trump Phenomenon" as I shall call it, has been underway in at least some major areas of the mainstream media. David Brooks, a few weeks ago, more or less came out and admitted that from his Upper East Side residence, and detached lifestyle blissfully free from interaction with normal plebeians, he had utterly underestimated the anger of millions of Americans. Of course, more recently he's doubled down and contended that he must stand against the Trumpian forces for Trump threatens the neocon gravy train entire. 

I would consider your point correct, by the way. Trump was speaking about this very subject a couple of weeks ago, as a matter of fact. He seems to want to do precisely what you state. 

His image definitely has some drawbacks. He seems to be attempting to modify it a little bit as he emerges as the clear presumptive Republican nominee. All while retaining some of that edginess with many within the media, which, to tie into your aforementioned point, has only made him more popular with the majority of voters. It may be getting ahead of ourselves to say this now but this candidacy and election cycle in general seem to possibly represent nothing less than a major paradigmatic shift.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Reagan was governor of California for a while before he ran for Pres, he isn't "not a politician" in the same sense Trump is.

Trump is doing this to increase the worth his branding so he can sell Trump branded stuff for more money than he can now. I feel sad for anybody who can't see that.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Reagan was governor of California for a while before he ran for Pres, he isn't "not a politician" in the same sense Trump is.
> 
> Trump is doing this to increase the worth his branding so he can sell Trump branded stuff for more money than he can now. I feel sad for anybody who can't see that.


Those closely involved cannot see as clearly as those outside.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*


----------



## Malakai

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

First off I'd like to apologise on behalf of Indiana for making Trump the de facto Republican candidate. 
I see Hillary winning unfortunately. 
Myself personally I would love for Sanders to get elected. 
Trump is too rich for the corporations to control. Sanders is too radical. Hillary fits right into their pockets.
On some miracle that Sanders does win, don't be surprised to see him pass away due to some "illness". 
Likewise Trump has enough haters that an "assassination" wouldn't be unlikely.
Either way, corporate amerika already has their puppet ready to go.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

And then there was 4.


----------



## Kenny

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

sanders pls

not sure why i care


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

I was reading the comments in the New York Times, such hilarious comments! I mean Hilary supporters are nuts, calling Trump a "Liar, racist, fascist, bigot, criminal" and I'm thinking to myself, really? You call Trump these things but vote for Hilary with a straight face? Does politics really make people into drooling idiots or what!? You talk to most anti-Trump people about Trump and they have no idea really why they call him those things yet don't even know Hilary called blacks super predators or had ties to the klan!

Another funny thing, Sanders supporters are mostly white by far, so if only white people support him, he must have racist policies right? (Not actually serious.)


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

When Hilary's only defense for her every accusation is to just laugh it off maniacally like a witch, that should tell you something about her.


----------



## Freelancer

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

I used to hate those hardcore Bush supporters, but the Hillary supporters totally blow them out of the water. And that's coming from a registered Democrat. I've never seen a politician pander so much to so many different groups, and its blatantly obvious too. I am really disgusted.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Freelancer said:


> I used to hate those hardcore Bush supporters, but the Hillary supporters totally blow them out of the water. And that's coming from a registered Democrat. I've never seen a politician pander so much to so many different groups, and its blatantly obvious too. I am really disgusted.


While I seen some really crazy Bernie supporters and some crazy Trump supporters, Hilary supporters are the worst. Not only are they crazy but they have access to the net, media etc and still can't be bothered to know anything about the woman. They're completely delusional and think people are just out to get Hilary, tho met a few who think just because she's a woman she should be president and not supporting her is sexist. ~.~


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Miss Sally said:


> You talk to most anti-Trump people about Trump and they have no idea really why they call him those things yet don't even know Hilary called blacks super predators or had ties to the klan!


It feels like a liberal media conspiracy for Trump to finally destroy the Neo-Con ruled GOP.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Sounds like Kasich will also suspend his campaign today as well. Would have been amusing to see the results of him going head to head with Trump in some states. 

Trump probably needs to start talking to people to make sure they still go out and vote. Cruz and Kasich will still be on the ballot in the states with primaries left. Don't want like a 1% turnout of die hard anti-Trump supporters to mess things up.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Kasich's going to suspend also and is the last domino to fall. One would think he would be high on a potential VP list alongside Rubio, or a Susana Martinez.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



THE SHIV said:


> Kasich's going to suspend also and is the last domino to fall. One would think he would be high on a potential VP list alongside Rubio, or a Susana Martinez.


Trump wont have anyone smarter or better than him for VP. He will pick someone crazy like himself so he wont be impeached.

HIs VP pick will probably be someone like Ben Carson


----------



## Marv95

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

The issue I have with Sanders is with him in control taxes for us working folk are gonna skyrocket, including the working poor.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump wont have anyone smarter or better than him for VP. He will pick someone crazy like himself so he wont be impeached.
> 
> HIs VP pick will probably be someone like Ben Carson


He needs someone that complements him. Carson's lack of political experience excludes him because one would think Trump would select a politician to serve as a counterbalance to his own paucity of a political curriculum vitae.

If you want a "crazy" pick, Omarosa or Geraldo Rivera fit that criterion to a tee.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



THE SHIV said:


> He needs someone that complements him. Carson's lack of political experience excludes him because one would think Trump would select a politician to serve as a counterbalance to his own paucity of a political curriculum vitae.
> 
> If you want a "crazy" pick, Omarosa or Geraldo Rivera fit that criterion to a tee.


Trump doesnt like people questioning him, that is why i don't think he would take someone smarter or more competent than him as VP. He would HATE that. Plus like I said if he picked someone like Rubio he would be always questioning Trump and trying to push his own agenda. Plus if Rubio was the VP pick and Trump wins, the GOP would try to impeach Trump the second he does anything illegal. 

Yes Carson has lack of political experience just like Trump and that is why Trump would pick him. Because if they impeach Trump we would be stuck with Carson

I agree Trump SHOULD pick someone like Rubio but I don't think he will.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Omarosa VP how fucking hilarious would that be


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



MrMister said:


> Omarosa VP how fucking hilarious would that be


Watch him pick his kid as VP ha.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Watch him pick his kid as VP ha.


His daughter sometimes comes across as smarter than he is. She turns 35 in October, I don't see how anyone could have possibly been younger than she was and be president or VP. 

That would be pretty funny but I still think he picks someone with some experience in politics. Had Kasich dropped out sooner I would have guessed him.


----------



## Wildcat410

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Yesterday was good, election wise. Bernie won. Sadly he will not get the nomination. But every delegate and state he can accrue gives him a bit more leverage at the convention. Or at least it should have that effect.

And the living plague that walks is finally out. I only skipped over the last few pages, but did anyone post this gif yet?

"Outta the way wifey, I wanna give this hug so badly!" Double shot!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump doesnt like people questioning him, that is why i don't think he would take someone smarter or more competent than him as VP. He would HATE that. Plus like I said if he picked someone like Rubio he would be always questioning Trump and trying to push his own agenda. Plus if Rubio was the VP pick and Trump wins, the GOP would try to impeach Trump the second he does anything illegal.
> 
> Yes Carson has lack of political experience just like Trump and that is why Trump would pick him. Because if they impeach Trump we would be stuck with Carson
> 
> I agree Trump SHOULD pick someone like Rubio but I don't think he will.


No one interested in voting Trump would vote for Cucksich.


----------



## Wildcat410

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> I agree Trump SHOULD pick someone like Rubio but I don't think he will.


Rubio was a terrible candidate and does nothing that does not benefit him primarily. After dropping out, he would not even endorse Ted Cruz because he worried it might slingshot against him in four or eight years if both are running again. (Not complaining about that, just saying.)

I mean, the guy cannot even handle the job of being a Senator. How is he going to be President if called upon there? Marco is the Roman Reigns of politics. Looks great, doesn't have a resume, can't handle the shine.

I suspect Trump goes female and picks Susana Martinez or Mary Fallin.


----------



## Super Sexy Steele

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



MrMister said:


> Omarosa VP how fucking hilarious would that be


Oh good god, No.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Wildcat410 said:


> Rubio was a terrible candidate and does nothing that does not benefit him primarily. After dropping out, he would not even endorse Ted Cruz because he worried it might slingshot against him in four or eight years if both are running again. (Not complaining about that, just saying.)
> 
> I mean, the guy cannot even handle the job of being a Senator. How is he going to be President if called upon there? Marco is the Roman Reigns of politics. Looks great, doesn't have a resume, can't handle the shine.
> 
> I suspect Trump goes female and picks Susana Martinez or Mary Fallin.


I think picking a woman is what he has to do. Susana Martinez seems like it would make a lot of sense because of her last name. I imagine the "Trump hates women and Hispanics" argument would be weakened if we see Trump/Martinez bumper stickers everywhere. And she's a governor so she has the experience that Trump would want in a VP.

There's just the problem that she won't even commit to voting for Trump publicly now that he's the nomination and seems to have been a little outspoken against him earlier.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*





 unkout your time will soon be up Donald.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

So the whole ad is that his political rivals have said a lot of negative things about him? :lol Weak.

She's going to have to do better than repeating a bunch of criticisms (and most of the ones in that video are straight up lies btw) that clearly didn't work for those people.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



CamillePunk said:


> So the whole ad is that his political rivals have said a lot of negative things about him? :lol Weak.


*Translation of CamillePunk's post:* touché


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*






Did anyone see this leaked ad that JK wanted to put out if he didnt drop out lol


Liz Warren would be a perfect pick for the SCOTUS. Also gotta love how this idiot things putting more money into healthcare is a bad thing. thank god this loser got destroyed by Trump

Trump has no clue about healthcare either, non one on the GOP side does to be honest. 

Single payer is still the way to go, but Hillary backed off that when she endorsed Obamacare.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Did anyone see this leaked ad that JK wanted to put out if he didnt drop out lol
> 
> 
> Liz Warren would be a perfect pick for the SCOTUS. Also gotta love how this idiot things putting more money into healthcare is a bad thing. thank god this loser got destroyed by Trump
> 
> Trump has no clue about healthcare either, non one on the GOP side does to be honest.
> 
> Single payer is still the way to go, but Hillary backed off that when she endorsed Obamacare.



Judging by how corrupt and terrible Obamacare is, I don't think the Democrats do either.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Liz Warren would be a perfect pick for the SCOTUS.



She's never been a judge before. The last president to appoint a Supreme Court Justice that wasn't a judge before was Nixon. I understand Democrats would use a liberal judge but I would like to think they would select one with at least some judicial experience.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Sanders campaign manager said even though its impossible for him to get the delegates he needs he is going to run with the goal of fucking up Clinton's numbers

That's going to be an interesting ad "Vote for me because I am butt hurt I lost and its all I can do now"


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Miss Sally said:


> Judging by how corrupt and terrible Obamacare is, I don't think the Democrats do either.


Obamacare seem like a compromise before a true single payer system can be implemented after reforms to healthcare costs. And America badly needs some form of universal healthcare as they are spending almost double the percentage of GDP for their healthcare compared to other developed countries, with less coverage.

Sanders is pushing too hard for something that has already failed in his own state in the current environment.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

We don't need universal healthcare at all. "Coverage" is not some objective good to strive for. I'm a young, healthy person. I don't need to go buy health insurance and I don't need people being taxed to pay for my healthcare, and I certainly want to stop being taxed to supposedly pay for the healthcare of others. 

What we need is less government interference in healthcare. Allow (or rather force, as many insurance companies love the status quo and love Obamacare) insurance companies to compete across state lines to drive down prices, lessen regulations and licensing requirements to allow more cheap healthcare options to flourish. High healthcare costs are a government-created problem. The solution is not a gigantic government program.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



gamegenie said:


> unkout your time will soon be up Donald.


How is Donald Trump a misogynist?

Also all of the people speaking against Trump in that ad are religious bigots.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Criticizing women is misogyny in The Current Year.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

...so basically Hillary is using the woman card just like Trump said she does? 8*D


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

That's like saying you don't need auto insurance at all because you are a safe, careful driver.

Universal healthcare is beneficial for providers to get paid and patients to not go into bankruptcies paying the full costs of treatment in emergencies because patients are covered.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

I'd love to not have to pay for auto insurance. Been driving for 10 years and never been in an accident or used my auto insurance but have paid a lot of money over the years. 

Again the costs are only so high because of all the government interference.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

People supporting Obamacare make me sick to my stomach. They're basically penalizing people of a certain income bracket for not buying a service they don't want.

Ddon't bring autoinsurancee into this because at least in autoinsurance because the vast majority of auto accidents involve other people and therefore in that case protection is necessary. 

BTW, it's not like mandated health insurance has made it any cheaper for anyone. It's only driven up insurance costs now that it's mandated ... They've taken competition out of the picture entirely and therefore companies get to create a cartel and monopolize. 

C'mon guys ... I really hoped you democrat supporters were smarter than this. 

Instead of mandated and penalized health care what you people SHOULD be supporting is philanthropy and charity. In Pakistan we have dozens of hospitals that give 100% free care to poor people because as a society we value charity and philanthropy. We have everything from free heart surgeries, to kidney and liver transplants and even free cancer hospitals. We have so many free hospitals that it isn't even funny and there's no government interference whatsoever. It's because people DONATE to the poor and let them have free treatment because that's true altruism.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Obamacare is a shame, it's a setup to make insurance companies richer and to penalize people who don't get sick or use the insurance. Working in the medical field I can tell you that the costs for health care related stuff is due to poor regulation, greed and stupidity. For example, many materials and instruments they use for surgery are no different then junk you can buy whole sale, they're regulated for medical use but really all that means is they charge 5-10 times more than what they normally would sell something not regulated for medical use. Bureaucracy has created a system that keeps competition low and overcharges the patient for anything and everything.

Ever wonder why hospitals use certain batteries or certain medications? Because they get kickbacks for it, doing surgery with instruments from certain companies? kickbacks. It's a gross wild wild west system in place to fleece people of their hard earned cash.

Old people are especially guilty of this, they do needless surgery on people, over prescribe expensive meds and doctors burn up people's insurance to get more money. It's why insurance rates keep skyrocketing, not to mention you have to have it now so they can milk you for more money.

Obamacare was doomed from the start and just another way to steal from people, Trumps idea of letting insurance coverage go nation wide and having insurance companies compete over it would mean better benefits, less cost and the slow decline of insurance fraud and scamming doctors and carpet bagger medical vendors. This would make things better! John Stossel did a report on a hospital that has flat costs for surgery, basically what they say you'll pay is what you pay. People who are young and healthy shouldn't be paying for old people and people who are abusing the system. Medical care for the elderly should come out what they put into the social security system but at the same time it should be watched to keep vultures from preying on the elderly and to keep needless surgery to a minimal.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Contagious diseases and workplace accidents involves more than the individual too. Price increases isn't due to lack of competition, but needing more funds to cover for the increase in coverage as more at-risk people are being covered.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FriedTofu said:


> Contagious diseases and workplace accidents involves more than the individual too. Price increases isn't due to lack of competition, but needing more funds to cover for the increase in coverage as more at-risk people are being covered.


1. Too rare of an occurrence to the point where it's nothing more than a ridiculous reach. Plus the majority of companies that could have afforded it already were providing their employees with coverage. Industries where accidents are commonplace were already required to provide their employees with insurance. Can you reach anymore? 

2. Shows how little you know about the costs of healthcare and how easily you've been bamboozled by healtchare politics. Now I know full well that there is a fine line between conspiracy theory thinking and not, but having lived in 5 different countries, I have a very unique perspective on healthcare costs having needed medical attention in all of those countries.



Miss Sally said:


> Obamacare is a shame, it's a setup to make insurance companies richer and to penalize people who don't get sick or use the insurance. Working in the medical field I can tell you that the costs for health care related stuff is due to poor regulation, greed and stupidity.


I have a prescription for a ventolin inhaler and anxiety medication (klonipin). The inhaler cost me Rs. 70 (70 cents), and Rs 100 ($1) for 10 klonopin. No insurance required to co-pay or whatever because it's already affordable. My dad required 3 stents in his heart last year and the entire procedure cost him Rs 150,000 ($1,500) including surgery, hospital care and medication while he was in the hospital. He's still alive and kicking and got a clean bill of health when he got everything checked out in Canada because the procedure was not only successful but up to Canadian standards. 

American healthcare system is completely broken and designed to scam people. It's corrupt to the core.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Reaper said:


> 1. Too rare of an occurrence to the point where it's nothing more than a ridiculous reach. Plus the majority of companies that could have afforded it already were providing their employees with coverage. Industries where accidents are commonplace were already required to provide their employees with insurance. Can you reach anymore?


How is it reaching? Do you plan to catch the flu? 
You are the one advocating for relying on philanthropy to reform a healthcare system for 300m+ people and say I am the one reaching?



> 2. Shows how little you know about the costs of healthcare and how easily you've been bamboozled by healtchare politics. Now I know full well that there is a fine line between conspiracy theory thinking and not, but having lived in 5 different countries, I have a very unique perspective on healthcare costs having needed medical attention in all of those countries.


Funny, Canada has a decent public healthcare system that seek universal coverage. Like I said, the ACA was a compromise as America has a larger population than most of the best public healthcare in developed countries. Insurers have larger revenues after ACA but also a much larger costs due to more customers claiming benefits. They aren't using the new system to price gouge as much as conspiracy theorist like to spurn. I won't deny that possibility in capitalist America, just look at big pharma, but that hasn't happened yet.

Are you using private or public care in those countries? Are you a citizen or expatriate there? Do you think the costs would be the same without the governments paying 80% of the costs? Do you think America can afford a similar % purely from public funding?


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*










Noam Chomsky with some truth. This was said in 2010.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FriedTofu said:


> How is it reaching? Do you plan to catch the flu?
> You are the one advocating for relying on philanthropy to reform a healthcare system for 300m+ people and say I am the one reaching?
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, Canada has a decent public healthcare system that seek universal coverage. Like I said, the ACA was a compromise as America has a larger population than most of the best public healthcare in developed countries. Insurers have larger revenues after ACA but also a much larger costs due to more customers claiming benefits. They aren't using the new system to price gouge as much as conspiracy theorist like to spurn. I won't deny that possibility in capitalist America, just look at big pharma, but that hasn't happened yet.
> 
> Are you using private or public care in those countries? Are you a citizen or expatriate there? Do you think the costs would be the same without the governments paying 80% of the costs? Do you think America can afford a similar % purely from public funding?


I'm actually a Canadian, so please don't come at me touting the "success" of their broken healtcare system. Their healtcare system is ONLY good for emergencies and they're over-burdened by idiots that think that they need a doctor for the sniffles. Their healtchare system does NOT cover medication therefore all you really get is fixed if you end up in the hospital. There is no coverage for mental health and since the doctors are paid through a socialist system, there is a significant brain drain. The Canadian system is great if you just got into an accident or need emergency care, but if you need routine check-ups for non-lifethreatening symptoms, you're waiting a long ass time just to see specialists. And no, it's not an exaggeration because I've been in that system. Waited 9 months to see a specialist for severe back pain, never got referred to a psychiatrist even though I told my doctor that I'm going to kill myself and I was routinely over-dosing at the time and was given a 10 month wait to see a knee specialist for chronic knee pain. Don't preach to me about the Canadian health system. They don't give a fuck about you until and unless you can pay cash or are dying. 

At the same time despite all the broken-ness of the health system, the tax burden on Canadians is far worse than it is on Americans. 

And way to simply flat out ignoring any commentary on the actual costs of provision or healthcare as compared to the bloated ones in America. 

Care to explain why the same standards of healthcare, surgeries and pills are literally 10-100 times cheaper in what's supposedly a third world country like Pakistan? I bet you didn't even know that. But I don't fault Americans for not knowing what healthcare actually costs because (and I hate to sound a little marxist) they're so far removed from the processes involved in production that they've lost all knowledge of actual costs vs greed-driven costs. It's just plain ignorance of global economic systems and how they work. 

And yeah, stop putting words in my mouth. I said that the solution to healthcare for the poor is through charity and philanthropy. Not everyone. The real solution is in cracking down on reckless profiteering through removing barriers to healthy competition and not using the government as a shield that pretends that it's doing something "for the people" when it's really doing it for the profits of the industries they lie in bed with.

No one has ever been able to provide an adequate explanation why Americans pay 70-120% higher than other countries for the same pills and treatment because they want to pretend that profiteering and greed aren't part of that equation. But I would LOVE for you to be able to explain how Obamacare is the solution to this very American-exclusive problem. 

What I'm trying to get at is that there is a much, much bigger problem and deeper issues at work than people simply not being covered. Being covered covers the exorbitant costs. What we need to do is find out why the costs are so god damned high in the first place that this sort of coverage is needed. Global analysis shows what I've just stated about the costs of healthcare in America versus other parts of the world. Stop skirting around that and address this point in particular.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Punkhead said:


> Noam Chomsky with some truth. This was said in 2010.


Trump doesn't paint illegal immigrants as enemies, doesn't talk about blacks really at all except to say they need jobs which they do, doesn't talk about white males at all, he's the least militaristic candidate in terms of actually wanting to use the military aggressively, and there's been far, far more violence from anti-Trump supporters than Trump supporters. 

Nice try though. :trump #CantStumpTheTrump

I watched a video where Chomsky was supposed to have destroyed Trump but all he did was talk about global warming for 6 minutes and then vaguely alleged that Trump is somehow more likely to use nuclear weapons, which is completely unfounded and frankly ridiculous. 

Re: global warming, that's nice dear but we're not going to cuck ourselves economically so China can just do whatever it wants anyway.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Reaper said:


> I'm actually a Canadian, so please don't come at me touting the "success" of their broken healtcare system. Their healtcare system is ONLY good for emergencies and they're over-burdened by idiots that think that they need a doctor for the sniffles. Their healtchare system does NOT cover medication therefore all you really get is fixed if you end up in the hospital. There is no coverage for mental health and since the doctors are paid through a socialist system, there is a significant brain drain. The Canadian system is great if you just got into an accident or need emergency care, but if you need routine check-ups for non-lifethreatening symptoms, you're waiting a long ass time just to see specialists. And no, it's not an exaggeration because I've been in that system. Waited 9 months to see a specialist for severe back pain, never got referred to a psychiatrist even though I told my doctor that I'm going to kill myself and I was routinely over-dosing at the time and was given a 10 month wait to see a knee specialist for chronic knee pain. Don't preach to me about the Canadian health system. They don't give a fuck about you until and unless you can pay cash or are dying.
> 
> At the same time despite all the broken-ness of the health system, the tax burden on Canadians is far worse than it is on Americans.
> 
> And way to simply flat out ignoring any commentary on the actual costs of provision or healthcare as compared to the bloated ones in America.
> 
> Care to explain why the same standards of healthcare, surgeries and pills are literally 10-100 times cheaper in what's supposedly a third world country like Pakistan? I bet you didn't even know that. But I don't fault Americans for not knowing what healthcare actually costs because (and I hate to sound a little marxist) they're so far removed from the processes involved in production that they've lost all knowledge of actual costs vs greed-driven costs. It's just plain ignorance of global economic systems and how they work.
> 
> And yeah, stop putting words in my mouth. I said that the solution to healthcare for the poor is through charity and philanthropy. Not everyone. The real solution is in cracking down on reckless profiteering through removing barriers to healthy competition and not using the government as a shield that pretends that it's doing something "for the people" when it's really doing it for the profits of the industries they lie in bed with.
> 
> No one has ever been able to provide an adequate explanation why Americans pay 70-120% higher than other countries for the same pills and treatment because they want to pretend that profiteering and greed aren't part of that equation. But I would LOVE for you to be able to explain how Obamacare is the solution to this very American-exclusive problem.
> 
> What I'm trying to get at is that there is a much, much bigger problem and deeper issues at work than people simply not being covered. Being covered covers the exorbitant costs. What we need to do is find out why the costs are so god damned high in the first place that this sort of coverage is needed. Global analysis shows what I've just stated about the costs of healthcare in America versus other parts of the world. Stop skirting around that and address this point in particular.




In other words, the people that needs affordable healthcare the most gets it, and the price to pay is non-emergency treatment has a long waiting line? I'm curious, would you have gotten the treatment you were seeking in Canada in Pakistan as swiftly as you desire, or would they put your case aside for more patients with more immediate needs? I have to admit that mental health is largely neglected in such a system to avoid spiralling costs. But is Pakistan putting an emphasis on mental health in your philanthropy model?

I'm not American. I live in a country with a very similar pros-and-cons healthcare system with the government subsidizing a major part of the healthcare costs. The system is so that people have access to basic healthcare, but also the option to pay more for private care.

And philanthropy and charity is already providing healthcare aid to the poor in developed countries. Clearly it isn't enough yet that's is your solution. I rather have a system that encourage people to have ownership for access than one where they rely on others for access in a master-slave relationship.

I don't even know why you are using Pakistan as a shining example of good healthcare where many of the people lack access to basic primary healthcare. The costs are cheaper there, and in many parts of the world because big pharmas aren't allowed to price gouge. That is a separate issue with universal coverage.

Obamacare is the first step towards providing access to the treatments that would be out of reach for those under coverage. We seem to be on the same side that the costs are way too high in America. Being covered is desired because almost every developed country have it. Global analysis also shows that healthcare costs are largely subsidized and suppressed by government intervention such as price fixing. That isn't the American way.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FriedTofu said:


> In other words, the people that needs affordable healthcare the most gets it, and the price to pay is non-emergency treatment has a long waiting line? I'm curious, would you have gotten the treatment you were seeking in Canada in Pakistan as swiftly as you desire, or would they put your case aside for more patients with more immediate needs? I have to admit that mental health is largely neglected in such a system to avoid spiralling costs. But is Pakistan putting an emphasis on mental health in your philanthropy model?
> 
> I don't even know why you are using Pakistan as a shining example of good healthcare where many of the people lack access to basic primary healthcare. The costs are cheaper there, and in many parts of the world because big pharmas *aren't allowed to price gouge*. That is a separate issue with universal coverage.


Yes it is to both of your stupid first questions. I had 4 knee surgeries in Pakistan on my knee over 5 years after my accident. And I got an appointment with a Psychiatrist within a week of returning to Pakistan in 2012 and got treated for Bipolar and BPD for 2 years which put them both largely into remission. fpalm 

It's not a separate issue when it is the primary cause for this manufactured necessity for insurance coverage in the first place fpalm You stop price gouging by ensuring healthy competition and make healthcare affordable in the first place and voila no one needs mandated insurance. 

Unfortunately, you have no idea about Pakistan and healthcare at all. Anyone in Pakistan can walk into any hospital and get free treatment because all of our hospitals work in conjunction with local non-governmental organizations that fund their treatment. The problem is that there aren't enough doctors and nurses, NOT money. Infrastructure is the problem not financial resources. We have one of the biggest philanthropic networks in the world. It's just that it's more glamourous to talk about terrorists from Pakistan rather than Pakistani philanthropists therefore people remain ignorant through no fault of their own. 

The primary reason why a lot of people in Pakistan don't get treatment is because we have a greater population than we can realistically cover because of other problems like supporting an apathetic ally in their proxy wars for 3 decades, fighting terrorists for more than a decade and suffering a severe brain drain that restricts our ability to have enough doctors and specialists per capita -- not because of affordability. Even then Pakistanis do the best they can with whatever little infrastructure they have. 

Please don't speak about a country you know nothing about.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Reaper said:


> Yes it is to both of your stupid first questions. I had 4 knee surgeries in Pakistan on my knee over 5 years after my accident. And I got an appointment with a Psychiatrist within a week of returning to Pakistan in 2012 and got treated for Bipolar and BPD for 2 years which put them both largely into remission. fpalm
> 
> It's not a separate issue when it is the primary cause for this manufactured necessity for insurance coverage in the first place fpalm You stop price gouging by ensuring healthy competition and make healthcare affordable in the first place and voila no one needs mandated insurance.
> 
> Unfortunately, you have no idea about Pakistan and healthcare at all. *Anyone in Pakistan can walk into any hospital and get free treatment because all of our hospitals work in conjunction with local non-governmental organizations that fund their treatment. The problem is that there aren't enough doctors and nurses, NOT money.* Infrastructure is the problem not financial resources. We have one of the biggest philanthropic networks in the world. It's just that it's more glamourous to talk about terrorists from Pakistan rather than Pakistani philanthropists therefore people remain ignorant through no fault of their own.
> 
> The primary reason why a lot of people in Pakistan don't get treatment is because we have a greater population than we can realistically cover because of other problems like supporting an apathetic ally in their proxy wars for 3 decades, fighting terrorists for more than a decade and suffering a severe brain drain that restricts our ability to have enough doctors and specialists per capita -- not because of affordability. Even then Pakistanis do the best they can with whatever little infrastructure they have.
> 
> Please don't speak about a country you know nothing about.


Don't you think there is a correlation to the a lack of healthcare providers and the expectation of free treatment? If you have money you can build the infrastructure no? One system is the population subsidizing costs via taxes, the other is a system depending on the few rich people to continue funding the system. I know which one I prefer.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

The "broken" American healthcare system comes down to one problem: Overcharging 

Hospitals and drug companies don't give and fuck and just charge whatever they want and most people don't give a fuck because "insurance pays for it anyway" and insurance companies make so much money that's its not worth rocking the boat to argue 

In theory a government ran healthcare system would make this a federal crime

In practice it can lead to a government sponsored medical and insurance company doing the exact same thing just with no need to have competitive rates 

I am for some form of standardized healthcare but corruption in a standardized system ruins the thing the whole way down


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FriedTofu said:


> Don't you think there is a correlation to the a lack of healthcare providers and the expectation of free treatment? If you have money you can build the infrastructure no? One system is the population subsidizing costs via taxes, the other is a system depending on the few rich people to continue funding the system. I know which one I prefer.


When I said "anyone", I meant the poor people not just "anyone". 

I don't think you're getting the concept of how eastern values dictate people's "expectations". In Pakistan, I'm a rich person therefore I pay for everything out of pocket - as do the vast majority of other rich people. In many cases our employers give us a certain medical expense coverage so our healthcare costs are minuscule in comparison to the rest of the world. 

Same with philanthropy. It's a shared value amongst the majority of rich people. Of course there's a large segment of population that isn't very charitable, but one way or another they are contributing to the medical treatment of the poor. 

How you may ask? Well, the doctors in Pakistan are free to dictate their charges. It's competitive. So most of the doctors have 2-3 different levels of how much they charge. The same doctor will charge a rich person say Rs 2000 for a check up and then run a clinic where he'll charge a poor person Rs 100 for the exact same check up (if that). Why doesn't the rich person care? Because it's an ingrained value. Plus someone getting something for free while he's rich doesn't mean that he'll want it for free for himself ... why should he? Honestly, it's just not how our brains are wired to think. I have to actually force myself to consider it unfair because naturally I don't. The guy who's poor deserves treatment and it's ok if he can't pay for it ... why would I care if I'm being charged more for it. Our tax system and government is completely broken and therefore we try to do as much as we can ourselves for other people. 

Again, the main reason why a lot of people in Pakistan don't get medical treatment isn't because they can't afford it (because they can easily find a way since we have hundreds of charities), but because there just aren't enough medical personnel and hospitals. The people are building up that infrastructure too btw. One of our politicians runs a charity Cancer hospital (Shaukat Khanum if you care to look it up), and there's another called SIUT. Prince Agha Khan provides free healthcare to the poor at all his hospitals. There are more NGO's now developing schools and hospitals in rural areas as well in order to make it all accessible. You also might wanna look up Edhi foundation. They own one of (if not the largest) private network of charities that provide food, shelter clothing and even ambulances funded purely through donations in the world. 

I'm telling you, if philanthropy ever becomes a shared western value (it isn't right now), you guys will really rule the world. You just don't seem to want to move in that direction at all.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



stevefox1200 said:


> The "broken" American healthcare system comes down to one problem: Overcharging
> 
> Hospitals and drug companies don't give and fuck and just charge whatever they want and most people don't give a fuck because "insurance pays for it anyway" and insurance companies make so much money that's its not worth rocking the boat to argue
> 
> In theory a government ran healthcare system would make this a federal crime
> 
> In practice it can lead to a government sponsored medical and insurance company doing the exact same thing just with no need to have competitive rates
> 
> I am for some form of standardized healthcare but corruption in a standardized system ruins the thing the whole way down


Yeah overcharging is the key issue. But I don't see an easy way out in the futrue except emphasising on preventive care. But there is no way out for older people with chronic issues.

Even in countries with the best healthcare that are affordable to the citizens, the government is subsidizing anywhere from 70% to 80% of the true costs. Hospital personnel need to be paid, drugs and facilities can be costly. I read somewhere America is at anywhere from 46% to 64% depending on sources. Maybe they can go higher at the expense of higher taxes? 



Reaper said:


> When I said "anyone", I meant the poor people not just "anyone".
> 
> I don't think you're getting the concept of how eastern values dictate people's "expectations". In Pakistan, I'm a rich person therefore I pay for everything out of pocket - as do the vast majority of other rich people. In many cases our employers give us a certain medical expense coverage so our healthcare costs are minuscule in comparison to the rest of the world.
> 
> Same with philanthropy. It's a shared value amongst the majority of rich people. Of course there's a large segment of population that isn't very charitable, but one way or another they are contributing to the medical treatment of the poor.
> 
> How you may ask? Well, the doctors in Pakistan are free to dictate their charges. It's competitive. So most of the doctors have 2-3 different levels of how much they charge. The same doctor will charge a rich person say Rs 2000 for a check up and then run a clinic where he'll charge a poor person Rs 100 for the exact same check up (if that). Why doesn't the rich person care? Because it's an ingrained value. Plus someone getting something for free while he's rich doesn't mean that he'll want it for free for himself ... why should he? Honestly, it's just not how our brains are wired to think. I have to actually force myself to consider it unfair because naturally I don't. The guy who's poor deserves treatment and it's ok if he can't pay for it ... why would I care if I'm being charged more for it. Our tax system and government is completely broken and therefore we try to do as much as we can ourselves for other people.
> 
> Again, the main reason why a lot of people in Pakistan don't get medical treatment isn't because they can't afford it (because they can easily find a way since we have hundreds of charities), but because there just aren't enough medical personnel and hospitals. The people are building up that infrastructure too btw. One of our politicians runs a charity Cancer hospital (Shaukat Khanum if you care to look it up), and there's another called SIUT. Prince Agha Khan provides free healthcare to the poor at all his hospitals. There are more NGO's now developing schools and hospitals in rural areas as well in order to make it all accessible. You also might wanna look up Edhi foundation. They own one of (if not the largest) private network of charities that provide food, shelter clothing and even ambulances funded purely through donations in the world.
> 
> I'm telling you, if philanthropy ever becomes a shared western value (it isn't right now), you guys will really rule the world. You just don't seem to want to move in that direction at all.


And most of these doctors are working in the USA for better compensation instead of the charging different rates for different income levels.

You assuming I'm Western just because I disagree with you is laughable. And you educating Western philanthropy when they contribute so much to global aid every year is beyond condescending. PS: I'm of 'Eastern value' too.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FriedTofu said:


> And most of these doctors are working in the USA for better compensation instead of the charging different rates for different income levels.
> 
> You assuming I'm Western just because I disagree with you is laughable. And you educating Western philanthropy when they contribute so much to global aid every year is beyond condescending. PS: I'm of 'Eastern value' too.


If you are, then I'm surprised that you're defending a system that it seems like you don't actually understand. 

Western global "philanthropy" isn't entirely "free" nor "altruistic". It comes at a cost of western favorable concessions. Basically it's called "purchasing compliance".

The only true western philanthropy is from actual NGO's and volunteers that risk their lives (and I applaud them) to go out there and help. They're the only ones I consider altruistic in this global mess.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

You guys are a mile off-topic and I'm not sure why either of you regularly post in this thread at all.

@MrMister please clean house.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

TRUMP: MUSLIM MIGRATION “DESTROYING EUROPE, I’M NOT GONNA LET THAT HAPPEN TO THE U.S.”

http://www.infowars.com/trump-musli...rope-im-not-gonna-let-that-happen-to-the-u-s/

:mj2 Thank you based Donald Trump.

In before some irrelevant cuck impotently complains about me posting an InfoWars article.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Gandhi said:


> How is Donald Trump a misogynist?
> 
> Also all of the people speaking against Trump in that ad are religious bigots.


Oh you don't know? Here's why...





 unk2


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

You all just keep hating Trump and he keeps winning.

Maybe, just maybe, the arrogance of people hating Trump and calling his supporters inbred, low IQ inferior beings as if those opposing him sit in ivory towers made of the hopes and dreams of orphans, who would like to see the south blown off of the map, Literally, is going to come back and bite them?

Your way is not the only way.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



CamillePunk said:


> You guys are a mile off-topic and I'm not sure why either of you regularly post in this thread at all.
> 
> @MrMister please clean house.


They're debating the theoretical basis of Trump's policies and if they make sense or not. Seems on topic to me.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



gamegenie said:


> Oh you don't know? Here's why...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unk2


This video doesn't show how he's a misogynist.

I call plenty of women pigs, I say women can't be a 10 without a nice arse.

I criticize a lot of women in general and am not a misogynist. You get the point.

_misogynist
mɪˈsɒdʒ(ə)nɪst/Submit
noun
1.
a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women._

A misogynist is someone who _hates_ women. You can treat women with complete disrespect (and be a schmuck in the process sure depending on the woman), or be completely indifferent to women, and still NOT be a misogynist. Do you know what _hate_ means? Do you understand the strength of the word? Adolf Hitler hated jewish people, THATS HATE. Why would a misogynist get married to a woman like Trump has? Your line of reasoning is inane as to be a misogynist, you must hate women not just disrespect women.

Trump is not a misogynist, you just don't know what misogynists are.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> You all just keep hating Trump and he keeps winning.
> 
> Maybe, just maybe, the arrogance of people hating Trump and calling his supporters inbred, low IQ inferior beings as if those opposing him sit in ivory towers made of the hopes and dreams of orphans, who would like to see the south blown off of the map, Literally, is going to come back and bite them?
> 
> Your way is not the only way.



Our way (the north( isn't the only way but it is the right way. The south breeds hate and intolerance as well as ignorance. The US would be much better off without the south. The south wants creationism tough and schools, they are super racist that still support the confederate flag, they are against gays and transgendered people and they try to push their religion onto everyone. 
That is everything wrong with this country. 

Trump brings out the worst in people, he also gives people a platform to show the racism, ignorance and intolerance they have been hiding for years. 

Trump and the south set back the US hundreds of years. 

So tell me how is teaching creationism in schools a good thing?
How is being against gays and transgendered people a good thing?
How is being a bunch of racist a good thing?

Do tell


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump brings out the worst in people, he also gives people a platform to show the racism, ignorance and intolerance they have been hiding for years.


This is true, especially the last part.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Gandhi said:


> This video doesn't show how he's a misogynist.
> 
> I call plenty of women pigs, I say women can't be a 10 without a nice arse.
> 
> I criticize a lot of women in general and am not a misogynist. You get the point.
> 
> _misogynist
> mɪˈsɒdʒ(ə)nɪst/Submit
> noun
> 1.
> a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women._
> 
> A misogynist is someone who _hates_ women. You can treat women with complete disrespect (and be a schmuck in the process sure depending on the woman), or be completely indifferent to women, and still NOT be a misogynist. Do you know what _hate_ means? Do you understand the strength of the word? Adolf Hitler hated jewish people, THATS HATE. Why would a misogynist get married to a woman like Trump has? Your line of reasoning is inane as to be a misogynist, you must hate women not just disrespect women.
> 
> Trump is not a misogynist, you just don't know what misogynists are.


OK, bub you continue to live in your bubble in believing that. unk2


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Trump being a misogynist is debatable, and could go either. But he is definitely sexist, there is no question about that.

misogynist and sexist are pretty close with misogynist just being a little more extreme.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Our way (the north( isn't the only way but it is the right way. The south breeds hate and intolerance as well as ignorance. The US would be much better off without the south. The south wants creationism tough and schools, they are super racist that still support the confederate flag, they are against gays and transgendered people and they try to push their religion onto everyone.
> That is everything wrong with this country.
> 
> Trump brings out the worst in people, he also gives people a platform to show the racism, ignorance and intolerance they have been hiding for years.
> 
> Trump and the south set back the US hundreds of years.
> 
> So tell me how is teaching creationism in schools a good thing?
> How is being against gays and transgendered people a good thing?
> How is being a bunch of racist a good thing?
> 
> Do tell


The problems you list are not southern problems. They are human problems.

The south has a right wing, pro god way of thinking. That is not a BAD way to think, it is a way different than yours.

You don't even have to love god to hate homosexuals and trans folk.

You also don't have to love god and hate gays or trans people.

Stop thinking of Southerners as a collective of objectively bad people. You know nothing except the left's way of looking at life. Just as someone far into the right cannot accept more centerist ideas.

Again, as i told you months ago, excuse me while I pick the banjo you must believe I own.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> The problems you list are not southern problems. They are human problems.
> 
> The south has a right wing, pro god way of thinking. That is not a BAD way to think, it is a way different than yours.
> 
> You don't even have to love god to hate homosexuals and trans folk.
> 
> You also don't have to love god and hate gays or trans people.
> 
> Stop thinking of Southerners as a collectively bad people. You know nothing except the left's way of looking at life. Just as someone far into the right cannot accept more centerist ideas.
> 
> Again, as i told you months ago, excuse me while I pick the banjo you must believe I own.



They are southern problems since that is where most of those cases happen. You don't see most of those issues on the north or on the west coast. 

yes it is a bad way to think when evolution is a fact and creationism is just fantasy. Its teaching ignorance and making your kids dumb to teach them creationism is real and the bible is literal. 

Its religious people that are against gay people and homosexuals pretty much all the time. They are alway the ones claiming oh its against my religion to serve them or its against god that they get married etc etc.
don't even try to act like that isn't the case.


The south are a bunch if ignorant and bad people when they breed hate, intolerance and ignorance. They are everything wrong with this country 

I know the correct way at looking at life and its not hating gays, hating transgendered, being against facts like evolution , or any of the other things the south does to preach hate , intolerance and ignorance.

You still didnt answer my questions

So tell me how is teaching creationism in schools a good thing?
How is being against gays and transgendered people a good thing?
How is being a bunch of racist a good thing?

you think any of those things is the right way of life?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> They are southern problems since that is where most of those cases happen. You don't see most of those issues on the north or on the west coast.
> 
> yes it is a bad way to think when evolution is a fact and creationism is just fantasy. Its teaching ignorance and making your kids dumb to teach them creationism is real and the bible is literal.
> 
> Its religious people that are against gay people and homosexuals pretty much all the time. They are alway the ones claiming oh its against my religion to serve them or its against god that they get married etc etc.
> don't even try to act like that isn't the case.
> 
> 
> The south are a bunch if ignorant and bad people when they breed hate, intolerance and ignorance. They are everything wrong with this country
> 
> I know the correct way at looking at life and its not hating gays, hating transgendered, being against facts like evolution , or any of the other things the south does to preach hate , intolerance and ignorance.
> 
> You still didnt answer my questions
> 
> So tell me how is teaching creationism in schools a good thing?
> How is being against gays and transgendered people a good thing?
> How is being a bunch of racist a good thing?
> 
> you think any of those things is the right way of life?


No, I don't, BM. and I think you would find that aside from having a belief in a hereafter we southerners are not the be all end all of your woes. If a black man came around these parts, he would never be called a n*gger or hated upon and for the most part I think thats how most feel. There are people like that, but you are throwing us all under the bus as being collectively a bad people. It's true, a ot did grow up in a time where many things that were ok then aren't okay, and I see that as well, but I see a large portion that are just dismayed that everything people think about the way we live is a stereotype. You aren't practicing the tolerance you want out of Trump to muslims.

I don't condemn you for being an atheist. I'm comfortable enough in my own way not to hate you for it. If everyone was that way about religion, we'd be set.

You should try and see that you aren't a paragon of fact. No one is. The human race is a flawed creature and we'll all be gone eventually. Why do you feel the need to suggest ONLY you have the high road all the time? If you just carried yourself in half the way others like you here have we wouldn't be butting heads at all. I don't care what you believe in. It's you that want ME to fade away and you know nothing about me or the majority of people like me.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> No, I don't, BM. and I think you would find that aside from having a belief in a hereafter we southerners are not the be all end all of your woes. If a black man came around these parts, he would never be called a n*gger or hated upon. There are people like that, but you are throwing us all under the bus as being collectively a bad people. It's true, a ot did grow up in a time where many things that were ok then arent okay, and I see that as well, but I see a large portion that are just dismayed that everything people think about the way we live is a stereotype. You aren't practicing the tollerence you want out of Trump to muslims.
> 
> I don't condemn you for being an atheist. I'm comfortable enough in my own way not to hate you for it. If everyone was that way about religion, we'd be set.
> 
> You should try and see that you aren't a paragon of fact. No one is. The human race is a flawed creature and we'll all be gone eventually. Why do you feel the need to suggest ONLY you have the high road all the time? If you just cared yourself in half the way others like you here have we wouldn't be butting heads at all. I don't care what you believe in. It's you that want ME to fade away.



So you don't think any of those are the right way of life, so what I have been saying is right then.
Why are you even disagreeing. The south is known for all of those things and its not a stereotype, its a face the majority of the south is all of those things. 

It is the high road to think that gays and trans people should have the same rights as everyone else. 
Its the high road to not want people to be ignorant and stupid and want to make sure they are leaning facts like evolution over creationism.
its taking the high road to make sure that all races are treated equally. 

If you are a racist, or hate gays / trans people or they want to teach creationism over evolution then Yes those kind of people need to fade away.

Standing up for equality will always be the high road.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> It is the high road to think that gays and trans people should have the same rights as everyone else.
> Its the high road to not want people to be ignorant and stupid and want to make sure they are leaning facts like evolution over creationism.
> its taking the high road to make sure that all races are treated equally.
> 
> If you are a racist, or hate gays / trans people or they want to teach creationism over evolution then Yes those kind of people need to fade away.
> 
> Standing up for equality will always be the high road.


And if you were truly doing that, you wouldn't be blaming the south as a majority of the issue.

Do you know how many of us don't actually give a shit what you are or what you believe? Because if not you need to spend more time down here than just every so often like you told me you do.

Your second and third sentences are an in direct contradiction anyway. Race is one thing, but also, True equality means you leave my belief in God the hell alone as long as I leave you alone. You may dislike certain Christians, but Don't turn your nose at me just because I am one. Treat me The same way you (AND I) want to see gays treated and trans alike.

Of course, you'll never believe that. All you see is "HURKEE DURKEE JOHN DEER TRACTORS!"


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump being a misogynist is debatable, and could go either. But he is definitely sexist, there is no question about that.
> 
> misogynist and sexist are pretty close with misogynist just being a little more extreme.


Sexism is based on discrimination, not hatred.

A person can be a sexist and a misogynist, but a person can also be a sexist and not a misogynist.



gamegenie said:


> OK, bub you continue to live in your bubble in believing that. unk2


I don't live in some bubble, I live in reality.

You however live in your own bubble where you delude yourself saying Trump is a misogynist.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> And if you were truly doing that, you wouldn't be blaming the south a a majority of the issue.
> 
> Do you know how many of us don't actually give a shit what you are or what you believe? Because if not you need to spend more time down here than just every so often like you told me you do.
> 
> Your second and third sentences are a direct contradiction anyway. True equality means you leave mt belief in God the hell alone as long as I live you alone. Don't turn your nose at me just because I am one. The same way you (AND I) want to see gays treated and trans alike.
> 
> Of course, you'll never believe that. All you see is "HURKEE DURKEE JOHN DEER TRACTORS!"



The south is to blame for most of those issues its simply a FACT. The south are the ones who make the big deal about things like abortion , same sex marriage trans community, want creationism and religion in public schools, and supporting the racist confederate flag. 

You can not give a shit what I believe all you want but facts are facts 

My 2nd and 3rd statements not contradict at all. 

As for "True equality means you leave mt belief in God the hell alone as long as I live you alone"

That isn't what is happening. The south pushes their religious rights onto everyone else. That is why they are so against same sex marriage, abortion, want region taught in pubic schools etc.
that is not leaving other non religious people alone.

If the south did that and didn't try to pass laws so they can refuse to serve gays based on their religion , refuse to marry gays or ban abortions, there wouldn't be any issue.

Don't even try to act like the south doest try to do these things.

Are you really going to claim the south as a whole doesnt try to push their Christian values onto the rest of the country ?

You just had Ted Cruz trying to do that very thing this election cycle.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Gandhi said:


> Sexism is based on discrimination, not hatred.
> 
> A person can be a sexist and a misogynist, but a person can also be a sexist and not a misogynist.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't live in some bubble, I live in reality.
> 
> You however live in your own bubble where you delude yourself saying Trump is a misogynist.


That is true but they can't be a misogynist and not a sexist.

That was my point. Trump is def. a sexist, but he may not go as far as being a misogynist. That is up to debate. I never use the term misogynist when describing Trump, I view him more as a sexist.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Well Trump is a christian, christianity alone is a sexist cult so you shouldn't expect much.

Also I'd like to mention that I'm completely fine with not allowing christians to practice christianity.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Gandhi said:


> Well Trump is a christian, christianity alone is a sexist cult so you shouldn't expect much.
> 
> Also I'd like to mention that I'm completely fine with not allowing christians to practice christianity.


Christians shouldn't be practicing christianity in public schools or pushing it onto others in laws anyways. That is what we have separation of church and state in this country.

They can be against gay marriage all they want, they can just not to get married. The church doesnt even have to perform gay marriages but they cannot force gay couples to not be allowed get married by the state.
They can't force the state to not allow abortions and they can't teach creationism in public schools.

If they want to teach creationism do it in christian private schools all they want.

They can do their christian thing all they want in private as long as they are not forcing non christians to follow their bible.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> The south is to blame for most of those issues its simply a FACT. The south are the ones who make the big deal about things like abortion , same sex marriage trans community, want creationism and religion in public schools, and supporting the racist confederate flag.
> 
> You can not give a shit what I believe all you want but facts are facts
> 
> My 2nd and 3rd statements not contradict at all.
> 
> As for "True equality means you leave mt belief in God the hell alone as long as I live you alone"
> 
> That isn't what is happening. The south pushes their religious rights onto everyone else. That is why they are so against same sex marriage, abortion, want region taught in pubic schools etc.
> that is not leaving other non religious people alone.
> 
> If the south did that and didn't try to pass laws so they can refuse to serve gays based on their religion , refuse to marry gays or ban abortions, there wouldn't be any issue.
> 
> Don't even try to act like the south doest try to do these things.


Im not at all.

You are the one saying we would be better without the south and this is a simpleminded way to think, just as bad as the people of westboro are for bashing gays.

Christ, it's like you don't believe how many of us are just wishing you didn't lump us all in the same boat. You are doing to us what you claim Trump does to muslims and much like Reaper has illustrated with them, im trying to tell you the problem isn't that simple. It really comes down to what you believe as a result of religion or lack of one. I don't hate gays. I don't hate interacial marriage. I've TOLD you this. Yet you cling to this stereotype that I or a majority of us do because of who we are and what we sound like and what life path we take. We may believe PERSONALLY that marriage ought to be defined between a man and a woman for example, but people like me also respect the time period we live in and i have plenty of gay friends who i have supported getting married if they really are insistent. People have a right to live. Not all of us are trying to take that away. Just as many on your side aren't being as forward as you are.



I'm really not arguing about this either. I just think it's sad that you can't see me as anything but an enemy.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> Im not at all.
> 
> You are the one saying we would be better without the south and this is a simpleminded way to think, just as bad as the people of westboro are for bashing gays.
> 
> Christ, it's like you don't believe hoe many of us are just wishing you didn't lump us all in the same boat. You are doing to us what you claim Trump does to muslims and much like Reaper has illustrated with them, im trying to tell you the problem isn't that simple. It really comes down to what you believe as a result of religion or lack of one. I don't hate gays. I don't hate interacial marriage. I've TOLD you this. Yet you cling to this stereotype that I or a majority of us do because of who we are and what we sound like. We may believe PERSONALLY that marriage ought to be defined between a man and a woman, but people like me also respect the time period we live in and i have plenty of gay friends who i have supported getting married if they really are insistent. Peoplee have a right to live. Not all of us are trying to take that away. Just as many on your side aren't being as forward as you are.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really not arguing about this either. I just think it's sad that you can't see me as anything but an enemy.


The US would-be better off without the south. The country would be much better off. There would-be way less intolerance and ignorance in our country. Lets just have the civil war again and let then win this time so they can secede from the nation. 

Its not even comparable what I am talking about with the south with is the MAjORITY of them, and what Trump is saying about the Mulisms which is a minuscule amount. 

The majority of the south believes in creationism 
the majority of the south is against gay marriage and gays
the majority of the south is against abortion
the majority of the south lives the racist confederate flag

NONE of those things are stereotypes. Don't even try to claim they are.


The vast majority of Muslims don't agree with what ISIS is doing.
Its not even close to being the same thing. 

Just because you are ok with gay marriage doesn't mean the MAJORY of the south is. You are in the MINORITY in that aspect
Because its laughable you would even claim the majority of the south isn't against gay marriage
You can't even be serious with calming that.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Anyways getting this back on Track to Trump. So Trump being out now, in the open elections, do you think the independate voters that were voting for him will go to Sanders because Trump fans think they can beat Sanders easier than Clinton or do they know Trump has a better shot against Hillary


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

^^For someone complaining about the elites of America, you sure favour an elitism view on others.

I would think Trump supporters would favour going against Hilary as she is just as unliked by the general population as Trump is.

Sanders could win as a viable third party candidate if he is willing to tone down his policies and just win via a popularity contest because I don't think America is ready for the tax hike he will enforce on them to implement them. But seeing as he is a message candidate, I highly doubt so.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FriedTofu said:


> ^^For someone complaining about the elites of America, you sure favour an elitism view on others.
> 
> I would think Trump supporters would favour going against Hilary as she is just as unliked by the general population as Trump is.
> 
> Sanders could win as a viable third party candidate if he is willing to tone down his policies and just win via a popularity contest because I don't think America is ready for the tax hike he will enforce on them to implement them. But seeing as he is a message candidate, I highly doubt so.


yeah its really an elites view to think that gays should be able to get married like straight people, that woman should be able to choose what to do with their own bodies when it comes to abortions, and that we shouldn't descrimate against blacks.

You call that elitist? 

Sanders wouldn't win as a 3rd party candidate, only reason Trump wants Sanders to run 3rd party is to split the vote and that would guarantee Trump winning the election.


----------



## HighFiveGhost

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Supporting Sanders currently but if Hill makes the nomination, you guessed it, jumpng over to the Trump bandwagon. #NeverHillary


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> The US would-be better off without the south. The country would be much better off. There would-be way less intolerance and ignorance in our country. Lets just have the civil war again and let then win this time so they can secede from the nation.
> 
> Its not even comparable what I am talking about with the south with is the MAjORITY of them, and what Trump is saying about the Mulisms which is a minuscule amount.
> 
> The majority of the south believes in creationism
> the majority of the south is against gay marriage and gays
> the majority of the south is against abortion
> the majority of the south lives the racist confederate flag
> 
> NONE of those things are stereotypes. Don't even try to claim they are.
> 
> 
> The vast majority of Muslims don't agree with what ISIS is doing.
> Its not even close to being the same thing.
> 
> Just because you are ok with gay marriage doesn't mean the MAJORY of the south is. You are in the MINORITY in that aspect
> Because its laughable you would even claim the majority of the south isn't against gay marriage
> You can't even be serious with calming that.


We're going to go in circles if this keeps up. I'm not enjoying the subtle pot shots you are taking either.

Yes, a lot of us believe in a god. However, it is BECAUSE i believe in my God that I am peaceful around as many as I can be, and though a hardlined, fear stricken portion of southerners take it to bad extremes, such is true for anywhere in the world.

How I am treating you now is exactly how a great many of us would treat you. We do not CARE if you are atheist. We believe Christianity has value in it that can aid the world and it isn't by hating people different from us. Not inwardly or outwardly. I can believe gay marriage is wrong while still supporting their decision to get married if they want to. If they ask my opinion, i'll tell em. But I wont hate em for it. I am acknowledging the worst of us when it comes to that. You are not acknowledging there is more to us than that. 

It's not hatred. Not a large portion of it. It's a personal thing between God and our culture. That doesn't mean we don't try to treat people the same as anyone else. If a gay man entered my home, my family and I would treat him as WE want to be treated. We do not endorse the KKK. Yes, we hunt. No, we don't believe in murder or senselessly killing animals.

The portion of people like that is larger than you think it is.

Now, I've not said one snide or intentionally rude thing to you. If I have, my apologies. However, No one is trying to bait anyone here, so please quit doing it to me.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



HighFiveGhost said:


> Supporting Sanders currently but if Hill makes the nomination, you guessed it, jumpng over to the Trump bandwagon. #NeverHillary


Hillary is in trouble. She should trounce Trump in the general but I hear this from a lot of Sanders voters. Its because Hillary has alienated Bernie and his supporters. That is why I think a lot of them will write in Sanders or jump to Trump.

OMG that should his new slogan. JUMP TO TRUMP lol.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah its really an elites view to think that gays should be able to get married like straight people, that woman should be able to choose what to do with their own bodies when it comes to abortions, and that we shouldn't descrimate against blacks.
> 
> You call that elitist?
> 
> Sanders wouldn't win as a 3rd party candidate, only reason Trump wants Sanders to run 3rd party is to split the vote and that would guarantee Trump winning the election.


It is elitist to think your views carry more weight than his just because of where he is from. Hey I'm not against elitism entirely, because there are more stupid people like me than smarter people out there. Meritocracy is very similar but different from it.

I just find it ironic that you are projecting what you claim to hate.

Also no doubt, Trump supporters would love a Sanders third party run to split the votes. But in a crazier things have happened in 2016, Trump is the GOP nominee afterall.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> We're going to go in circles if this keeps up. I'm not enjoying the subtle pot shots you are taking either.
> 
> Yes, a lot of us believe in a god. However, it is BECAUSE i believe in my God that I am peaceful around as many as I can be, and though a hardlined, fear stricken portion of southerners take it to bad extremes, such is true for anywhere in the world.
> 
> How I am treating you now is exactly how a great many of us would treat you. We do not CARE if you are atheist. We believe Christianity has value in it that can aid the world and it isn't by hating people different from us. Not inwardly or outwardly. I can believe gay marriage is wrong while still supporting their decision to get married if they want to. If they ask my opinion, i'll tell em. But I wont hate em for it. I am acknowledging the worst of us when it comes to that. You are not acknowledging there is more to us than that.
> 
> It's not hatred. Not a large portion of it. It's a personal thing between God and our culture. That doesn't mean we don't try to treat people the same as anyone else. If a gay man entered my home, my family and I would treat him as WE want to be treated. We do not endorse the KKK. Yes, we hunt. No, we don't believe in murder or senselessly killing animals.
> 
> The portion of people like that is larger than you think it is.
> 
> Now, I've not said one snide or intentionally rude thing to you. No one is trying to bait anyone here, so please quit doing it to me.


Im not taking any pot shots. Its only going in circles because of you.

You can't even try to deny the majority of the people in the south are against same sex marriage or abortion. And that they want creationism taught in schools.

You keep talking about YOU YOU YOU.
that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about THE MAJORITY of the people in the south. If you fall into the MINORITY and what I have said doesnt apply to you, then great.
But it doenst change the fact that those things apply to MOST people in the south.

Not sure why you don't understand this

Also gay marriage is not wrong. Also the funny thing is the bible condoles abortion but most christians don't even realize that

And stop trying to play the victim here, no one is doing any baiting. You are pulling that card because you can't refute anything I am saying.

I am done debating this with you.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FriedTofu said:


> It is elitist to think your views carry more weight than his just because of where he is from. Hey I'm not against elitism entirely, because there are more stupid people like me than smarter people out there. Meritocracy is very similar but different from it.
> 
> I just find it ironic that you are projecting what you claim to hate.
> 
> Also no doubt, Trump supporters would love a Sanders third party run to split the votes. But in a crazier things have happened in 2016, Trump is the GOP nominee afterall.


Nice strawman argument there. 

Its a fact the majority of the south is against same sex marriage, agains abortion, and pro creationism. 

Its a fact the majority of the north and west coast is pro gay marriage prochoice and pro evolution.

Its not elitist to point out those facts and also show the people for gay marriage, prochoice and pro evolution are on the right side.

that is like claiming that the people against slavery were elitist toward the states and people that were pro slavery.


----------



## krtgolfing

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Im not taking any pot shots. Its only going in circles because of you.
> 
> You can't even try to deny the majority of the people in the south are against same sex marriage or abortion. And that they want creationism taught in schools.
> 
> You keep talking about YOU YOU YOU.
> that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about THE MAJORITY of the people in the south. If you fall into the MINORITY and what I have said doesnt apply to you, then great.
> But it doenst change the fact that those things apply to MOST people in the south.
> 
> Not sure why you don't understand this
> 
> Also gay marriage is not wrong. Also the funny thing is the bible condoles abortion but most christians don't even realize that
> 
> And stop trying to play the victim here, no one is doing any baiting. You are pulling that card because you can't refute anything I am saying.
> 
> I am done debating this with you.


I live in gold ole South Carolina. I have to agree the majority of people are against abortion and same sex marriage. North Carolina has a bullshit bathroom law. While I think everyone should be able to marry and be happy in life. This is why there is so much killing going on. People killing people for what sex the like or what religion they follow. In regards to abortion, what if a young girl gets raped, she should be forced to have that baby and possibly die? It should be the woman's choice, end of story. Hilary and Trump look to scare the shit out of me.


----------



## Genking48

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Nice strawman argument there.
> 
> *Its a fact* the majority of the south is against same sex marriage, agains abortion, and pro creationism.
> 
> *Its a fact* the majority of the north and west coast is pro gay marriage prochoice and pro evolution.
> 
> Its not elitist to point out those facts and also show the people for gay marriage, prochoice and pro evolution are on the right side.


Statistics that show these "fact" please.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Im not taking any pot shots. Its only going in circles because of you.
> 
> You can't even try to deny the majority of the people in the south are against same sex marriage or abortion. And that they want creationism taught in schools.
> 
> You keep talking about YOU YOU YOU.
> that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about THE MAJORITY of the people in the south. If you fall into the MINORITY and what I have said doesnt apply to you, then great.
> But it doenst change the fact that those things apply to MOST people in the south.
> 
> Not sure why you don't understand this
> 
> Also gay marriage is not wrong. Also the funny thing is the bible condoles abortion but most christians don't even realize that
> 
> And stop trying to play the victim here, no one is doing any baiting. You are pulling that card because you can't refute anything I am saying.
> 
> I am done debating this with you.


I am NOT only talking about me. That's where you lose track. THERE ARE SANE PEOPLE HERE! This is my point. It's a fairly substantial bit of us too.

Yes, we still have our pure judgmental racists, but they aren't what makes us.

That's the thing i'm trying to tell you.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> I am NOT only talking about me. That's where you lose track. THERE ARE SANE PEOPLE HERE! This is my point. It's a fairly substantial bit of us too.
> 
> Yes, we still have our pure judgmental racists, but they aren't what makes us.
> 
> That's the thing i'm trying to tell you.


The sane people are in the MINORITY.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



krtgolfing said:


> I live in gold ole South Carolina. I have to agree the majority of people are against abortion and same sex marriage. North Carolina has a bullshit bathroom law. While I think everyone should be able to marry and be happy in life. This is why there is so much killing going on. People killing people for what sex the like or what religion they follow. In regards to abortion, what if a young girl gets raped, she should be forced to have that baby and possibly die? It should be the woman's choice, end of story. Hilary and Trump look to scare the shit out of me.


If we could trust people to abort for reasons that call for it, that would work...

There's no entirely easy answer on abortion.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> The sane people are in the MINORITY.


and that for someone actually living here with these people is just about as hurtful a thing as you could say, and close minded of you in the same way you bash Trump for.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> If we could trust people to abort for reasons that call for it, that would work...
> 
> There's no entirely easy answer on abortion.


The easy answer is let the woman choose, its her body.

An embryo is not a person




Beatles123 said:


> and that for someone actually living here with these people is just about as hurtful a thing as you could say, and close minded of you in the same way you bash Trump for.


Its closed minded to point out facts? Sorry if the majority of the south doesnt think like you but that is a reflection on them and not me. How is that closed minded of me exactly for point out the facts?

the one being closed minded here is you but because you can't accept the truth.




Genking48 said:


> Statistics that show these "fact" please.













Pro choice for the East is 59-35
Pro life for the south is 49-41










Against gay marriage South is 50-41
For gay marriage EASt is 71-25


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Nice strawman argument there.
> 
> Its a fact the majority of the south is against same sex marriage, agains abortion, and pro creationism.
> 
> Its a fact the majority of the north and west coast is pro gay marriage prochoice and pro evolution.
> 
> Its not elitist to point out those facts and also show the people for gay marriage, prochoice and pro evolution are on the right side.
> 
> that is like claiming that the people against slavery were elitist toward the states and people that were pro slavery.


Do you even know what a strawman is? Or have you started to use that as a natural deflection after me and some others correctly called you out on that ages ago in this forum?

How have I misrepresented your position? You believe Beatles and people from the South have less right to have a view on these issues because south.

You are the one attempting to make a strawman by tying me accusing you of elitism with the social issues the two of you were arguing about when I was pointing out the attitude you were projecting in the discussion.

Nice large gif neg you gave me. Is that bannable? :troll


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FriedTofu said:


> Do you even know what a strawman is? Or have you started to use that as a natural deflection after me and some others correctly called you out on that ages ago in this forum?
> 
> How have I misrepresented your position? You believe Beatles and people from the South have less right to have a view on these issues because south.
> 
> You are the one attempting to make a strawman by tying me accusing you of elitism with the social issues the two of you were arguing about when I was pointing out the attitude you were projecting in the discussion.
> 
> Nice large gif neg you gave me. Is that bannable? :troll


You did not correctly call me to on anything, thus why its a strawman because you are making up something to try to claim I was wrong about it.

Maybe its you that doest know what a strawman argument is. 

what you are saying right here "You believe Beatles and people from the South have less right to have a view on these issues because south." is a strawman argument since I never said that.

I said the majority of the people from the south are against abortion, against gay marriage and for creationism. I love how you try to make the jump from that to what you are claiming.

But nice try with your strawman argument.


----------



## Marv95

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

If I call a chick flat chested or a fatty does that make me sexist let alone misogynist? Al Bundy is considered a hero by many. If guys can be insulted by chicks then it's vice versa. End of.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You did not correctly call me to on anything, thus why its a strawman because you are making up something to try to claim I was wrong about it.
> 
> Maybe its you that doest know what a strawman argument is.
> 
> what you are saying right here "You believe Beatles and people from the South have less right to have a view on these issues because south." is a strawman argument since I never said that.
> 
> I said the majority of the people from the south are against abortion, against gay marriage and for creationism. I love how you try to make the jump from that to what you are claiming.
> 
> But nice try with your strawman argument.





> The south are a bunch if ignorant and bad people when they breed hate, intolerance and ignorance. They are everything wrong with this country
> 
> *I know the correct way at looking at life *and its not hating gays, hating transgendered, being against facts like evolution , or any of the other things the south does to preach hate , intolerance and ignorance.


Your words.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Marv95 said:


> If I call a chick flat chested or a fatty does that make me sexist let alone misogynist? Al Bundy is considered a hero by many. If guys can be insulted by chicks then it's vice versa. End of.


What about Biff Tannen. He was based on Trump especially in BTTF 2


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FriedTofu said:


> Your words.


Yeah and?

So is the correct way of life hating gays, hating transgendered, being against facts like evolution , or any of the other things the south does to preach hate , intolerance and ignorance. then?

or is it better to

accept gays, accept trans people, accept facts like evolution, and be tolerance to other races?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

I cannot be the only one who sees what is transpiring here.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> I cannot be the only one who sees what is transpiring here.


lets move on and get back to Trump. 

Lets get back to my main point before this whole thing went down the rabbit hole.

Trump brings out the worst in people, he also gives people a platform to show the racism, ignorance and intolerance they have been hiding for years. To add to this, its only going to get worse if he wins, because as President he will still be preaching that hate and insolence and people will think, well if the president can says those things, then I can too. and since they see him thinking like that they will think its ok if they think that way too.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> lets move on and get back to Trump.
> 
> Lets get back to my main point before this whole thing went down the rabbit hole.
> 
> Trump brings out the worst in people, he also gives people a platform to show the racism, ignorance and intolerance they have been hiding for years. To add to this, its only going to get worse if he wins, because as President he will still be preaching that hate and insolence and people will think, well if the president can says those things, then I can too. and since they see him thinking like that they will think its ok if they think that way too.


Stop. The worst that will happen is we might actually be able to move past being offended easily. Anyone that think's we'll all just go shouting "N*GGER!!!" at the top of our lungs like it's casual to insult blacks is fooling themselves.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Gandhi said:


> Sexism is based on discrimination, not hatred.
> 
> A person can be a sexist and a misogynist, but a person can also be a sexist and not a misogynist.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't live in some bubble, I live in reality.
> 
> You however live in your own bubble where you delude yourself saying Trump is a misogynist.


OK, Trump is sexist. unk2


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



gamegenie said:


> OK, Trump is sexist. unk2


He hires more female executives than men and pays them more money.

You're right, he is sexist. Against men. WTF DONALD???


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Gandhi said:


> Well Trump is a christian, christianity alone is a sexist cult so you shouldn't expect much.
> 
> Also I'd like to mention that I'm completely fine with not allowing christians to practice christianity.


are you being facetious here?


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



CamillePunk said:


> He hires more female executives than men and pays them more money.
> 
> You're right, he is sexist. Against men. WTF DONALD???


Context is everything

He, Donald Trump is still sexist. unk2


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



> Originally Posted by Gandhi View Post
> Well Trump is a christian, christianity alone is a sexist cult so you shouldn't expect much.
> 
> Also I'd like to mention that I'm completely fine with not allowing christians to practice christianity.


Well there goes his one world government where different cultures coexist happyland.



gamegenie said:


> are you being facetious here?


Nah, he's very serious about it being okay to use fascism to fight (he says) worse fascism.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



CamillePunk said:


> He hires more female executives than men and pays them more money.
> 
> You're right, he is sexist. Against men. WTF DONALD???


Trump is a sexist, just because he isn't a sexist to all women doesnt mean he still isn't a sexist.

that is like calming someone isnt a racist because they are just racist toward most blacks but are nice and like the rich ones.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is a sexist, just because he isn't a sexist to all women doesnt mean he still isn't a sexist.
> 
> that is like calming someone isnt a racist because they are just racist toward most blacks but are nice and like the rich ones.


What if they hate the rich ones and like the poor ones?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is a sexist, just because he isn't a sexist to all women doesnt mean he still isn't a sexist.
> 
> that is like calming someone isnt a racist because they are just racist toward most blacks but are nice and like the rich ones.


So he's a sexist because The Young Turks told you so and now the burden of proof is on people who say he isn't? 

If his so-called sexism doesn't show up in his HIRING PRACTICES then I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. We all treat the genders differently on a personal level, it's a lie to say we don't. Business is what matters, and he's very progressive in that respect. He's done far more for women than the people who criticize him and label him a misogynist/sexist/whatever.


----------



## Muerte al fascismo

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

BM. You're coming across extremely ignorant. Putting the South into one big box is the same behavior you accuse many others of doing. You ignore any cultural differences and put it all together to fit your agenda.

Calling the majority of people in the south insane is bait designed to cause conflict. Its not a sane position. Its this kind of poison that is preventing any real progress in politics.

Trump's not my guy, but he's a symbol of legitimate concerns that have not been addressed by Obama, Bush or Clinton. Propaganda solves nothing. Sanders and Trump are two radical solutions to the same problem. We need a new consensus as this void is allowing populists to lead the way with dangerous or unfeasible solutions. Trump is a step up from Cruz, who is unlikely to moderate the same way that Trump will.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



CamillePunk said:


> So he's a sexist because The Young Turks told you so and now the burden of proof is on people who say he isn't?
> 
> If his so-called sexism doesn't show up in his HIRING PRACTICES then I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. We all treat the genders differently on a personal level, it's a lie to say we don't. Business is what matters, and he's very progressive in that respect.


He is sexist for all the shit he says against women. Again with the racist thing you can hate black people and call them the N word behind their backs, and still hire them for jobs.
That doesn't mean you are not a racist because oh you hired black people. Your logics so flawed its not even funny 




deepelemblues said:


> What if they hate the rich ones and like the poor ones?


Its still racist .


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> He is sexist for all the shit he says against women. Again with the racist thing you can hate black people and call them the N word behind their backs, and still hire them for jobs.
> That doesn't mean you are not a racist because oh you hired black people. Your logics so flawed its not even funny


:lmao Oh my god please learn what words mean. Criticizing women doesn't make someone a sexist. Criticizing minorities doesn't make you a racist. Trump will attack anyone, and most of the time it's because they attacked him first. Women and minorities don't need you white knighting them any time they face criticism from someone.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Muerte al fascismo said:


> BM. You're coming across extremely ignorant. Putting the South into one big box is the same behavior you accuse many others of doing. You ignore any cultural differences and put it all together to fit your agenda.
> 
> Calling the majority of people in the south insane is bait designed to cause conflict. Its not a sane position. Its this kind of poison that is preventing any real progress in politics.


I put the majority of the south into the box they belong in. And sorry but like it or the stats back up what I said.

Everyone knows the majority of the south is super religious, and is against gays, same sex marriige and transgendered and are against abortion. 

Its not ignorant pint that out when its true. You see it all the time especially on the news. I love how people like you act like its not true when there is so much evidence of it every day. 

Also denying its real is the thing that is preventing any progress. What would be progress would be for everyone to accept gays, transgendered, same sex marriage and let a woman do what she wants with her own body when it comes to abortion.

If you don't want to get married to the same sex thats fine but don't try to make it so others can't.
You don't want to date some one of the same sex that is fine then don't, but don't give people that do shit and call them immoral.
You don't believe in abortion then fine don't have abortions but don't try to force other woman to not have abortions or give them shit for having abortions.

I love the ignorance people that are against other peoples rights call people that call that out and defend others rights ignorant.





CamillePunk said:


> :lmao Oh my god please learn what words mean. Criticizing women doesn't make someone a sexist. Criticizing minorities doesn't make you a racist. Trump will attack anyone, and most of the time it's because they attacked him first. Women and minorities don't need you white knighting them any time they face criticism from someone.


The stuff that Trump said to people like Meghan Kelly is totally sexist. You are the one who doesnt know what being sexist is.

here is an article calling out some of the sexist things he has said

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...that-donald-trump-has-ever-said-10452180.html


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> The stuff that Trump said to people like Meghan Kelly is totally sexist. You are the one who doesnt know what being sexist is.


You must really think little of women if you think they need you to protect them from criticism by baselessly calling people sexist if they say anything negative about them. You leftists do the same thing with minorities. It's the soft bigotry of the left, and it's SAD! 

Trump has done more for women and latinos than all the people who falsely claim he hates women and latinos. It's easy to sit back and produce nothing for society and criticize the people who do, but it really makes you look pathetic.

That article totally fails to support its case with those weak examples. :lmao Men flirting with women or criticizing women who criticized them first is not sexism. Jesus Christ.


----------



## Muerte al fascismo

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> I put the majority of the south into the box they belong in. And sorry but like it or the stats back up what I said.
> 
> Everyone knows the majority of the south is super religious, and is against gays, same sex marriige and transgendered and are against abortion.
> 
> Its not ignorant pint that out when its true. You see it all the time especially on the news. I love how people like you act like its not true when there is so much evidence of it every day.
> 
> Also denying its real is the thing that is preventing any progress. What would be progress would be for everyone to accept gays, transgendered, same sex marriage and let a woman do what she wants with her own body when it comes to abortion.
> 
> If you don't want to get married to the same sex thats fine but don't try to make it so others can't.
> You don't want to date some one of the same sex that is fine then don't, but don't give people that do shit and call them immoral.
> You don't believe in abortion then fine don't have abortions but don't try to force other woman to not have abortions or give them shit for having abortions.
> 
> I love the ignorance people that are against other peoples rights call people that call that out and defend others rights ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stuff that Trump said to people like Meghan Kelly is totally sexist. You are the one who doesnt know what being sexist is.
> 
> here is an article calling out some of the sexist things he has said
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...that-donald-trump-has-ever-said-10452180.html


You can be against something privately, but still not be discriminatory. You're using the vocal minority to spread your prejudice. I suggest you visit and see the real truth, away from the Young Turks style propaganda.

I saw the Sanders supporters rioting and interrupting peaceful rallies. Left Wing people are all terrorists and against democracy. They don't believe in freedom. Do you see how stupid that sounds?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Muerte al fascismo said:


> You can be against something privately, but still not be discriminatory. You're using the vocal minority to spread your prejudice.
> 
> I saw the Sanders supporters rioting and interrupting peaceful rallies. Left Wing people are all terrorists and against democracy. They don't believe in freedom. Do you see how stupid that sounds?


Its not the vocal minority when it comes to those things in the south. I even back it up with FACTS.

The south is super christian that is why the majority is against gays, gay marriage, trans community and abortion. The south freaked out when gay marriage passed. There is a reason why the last states to pass same sex marriage were mostly in the south. 

Its laughable you even claim those are the vocal minority

Also its not the sanders supported that get violent, its the trump supporters. Trump tells them to be violent.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Why do people debate politics on this forum? Wrestling fans are bad enough, and when you mix politics with wrestling fans, you get one of the worst combinations in the world.


----------



## Muerte al fascismo

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its not the vocal minority when it comes to those things in the south. I even back it up with FACTS.
> 
> The south is super christian that is why the majority is against gays, gay marriage, trans community and abortion.
> 
> Its laughable you even claim those are the vocal minority
> 
> Also its not the sanders supported that get violent, its the trump supporters. Trump tells them to be violent.


You're missing the point. You can dislike something but still not be against it/discriminate publicly. A very small minority actively acts on any prejudice.

You've got a false consensus because your politics refuses to move beyond your comfortable circles. 

The only people I saw attacking peaceful demonstrations were Sanders supporters. Trump called off a rally as a preventative measure. These same leftists were cheering that fact. Democracy right?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Muerte al fascismo said:


> You're missing the point. You can dislike something but still not be against it/discriminate publicly. A very small minority actively acts on any prejudice.
> 
> You've got a false consensus because your politics refuses to move beyond your comfortable circles.
> 
> The only people I saw attacking peaceful demonstrations were Sanders supporters. Trump called off a rally as a preventative measure. These same leftists were cheering that fact. Democracy right?


But the south DOES discriminate publicly. You see it on the news all the time how southern states try to pass laws so they don't have too serve gays, so they can make it near impossible to get abortions, and are even trying to make laws so they can ban same sex marriage again. 

Those are not vocal minorities, its the majority.


Protesting is democracy , yes. Thats the very foundation our country was founded on.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Glad I wasn't the only one wondering what definition for sexism BM is using.

It was like cuckold all over again!



LMFAO @ Ted Cruz btw ITT


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



MrMister said:


> Glad I wasn't the only one wondering what definition for sexism BM is using.
> 
> It was like cuckold all over again!
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO @ Ted Cruz btw ITT


Why am I not surprised you don't think Trump is sexist


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



CamillePunk said:


> So he's a sexist because The Young Turks told you so and now the burden of proof is on people who say he isn't?


*Ad-Hominem!!!! 
*
What does him following the The Young Turks have to do with this? 
TYT sucks IMO and I use to watch them routinely back in the day. 



CamillePunk said:


> If his so-called sexism doesn't show up in his HIRING PRACTICES then I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. We all treat the genders differently on a personal level, it's a lie to say we don't. Business is what matters, and he's very progressive in that respect. He's done far more for women than the people who criticize him and label him a misogynist/sexist/whatever.


*Red Herring!!!!!!*


As said earlier, Donald Trump is still sexist. unk2


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> I can believe gay marriage is wrong while still supporting their decision to get married if they want to.


So you'd support people's decisions despite knowing they're wrong? :aj3



gamegenie said:


> are you being facetious here?


Nah, I'm dead serious.



gamegenie said:


> Context is everything
> 
> He, Donald Trump is still sexist. unk2


Well, most men are sexist towards men in many aspects in general.

The majority of men are gynocentric after all, though they're not overall sexist or misandrists.



deepelemblues said:


> Well there goes his one world government where different cultures coexist happyland.


Different cultures? Funny.

I'd rather we kill all cultures, take the positives from each culture and drop the negatives from each culture and create a superior new culture for everybody. I don't care about killing sheep being a part of culture x, I don't care about doing cocaine being a part of culture y, anything unethical and nonproductive doesn't deserve to be respected and left to be done freely. Indians learn from Arabs, and vice versa, and hence a new culture that's Indian/Arab will arise leaving behind the errors of the old culture whilst keeping the rights of the old culture. We've united cultures before, my idea of a culture is just something that'll happen far ahead in the future that unfortunately not even your grandchildren will see. It all depends on how asinine humanity is, the more intelligent we become as a majority the faster this process will happen essentially. Slowly but surely.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



gamegenie said:


> *Ad-Hominem!!!!
> *
> What does him following the The Young Turks have to do with this?
> TYT sucks IMO and I use to watch them routinely back in the day.
> 
> *Red Herring!!!!!!*
> 
> 
> As said earlier, Donald Trump is still sexist. unk2


That's not a red herring 

the first one go either way though


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> here is an article calling out some of the sexist things he has said
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...that-donald-trump-has-ever-said-10452180.html


It's like a stereotypical feminist dumb twat wrote that article.

Do you even know what sexism means?

How is it sexist to call a woman ugly? How is sexist to fantasizing about women? How is it sexist to compare women to a work of art? How is it sexist say you'd only kiss an ugly fat woman if given a trillion dollars? How is it sexist to think breast feeding in public is impolite? How is it sexist to criticize a woman you dislike? How is it sexist to crack a joke against an ugly woman? How is it sexist to insult a woman? How is it sexist to claim someone isn't fit to be president because their partner had an affair? How is it sexist to think grouping men and women together would bring sexual assaults? How is it sexist to say women flirt with you? How is it sexist to say your stupid article doesn't matter?

Answer all my questions, inability to do so shows you know Trump isn't sexist.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Gandhi said:


> Different cultures? Funny.
> 
> I'd rather we kill all cultures, take the positives from each culture and drop the negatives from each culture and create a superior new culture for everybody. I don't care about killing sheep being a part of culture x, I don't care about doing cocaine being a part of culture y, anything unethical and nonproductive doesn't deserve to be respected and left to be done freely. Indians learn from Arabs, and vice versa, and hence a new culture that's Indian/Arab will arise leaving behind the errors of the old culture whilst keeping the rights of the old culture. We've united cultures before, my idea of a culture is just something that'll happen far ahead in the future that unfortunately not even your grandchildren will see. It all depends on how asinine humanity is, the more intelligent we become as a majority the faster this process will happen essentially. Slowly but surely.


unk4

I'm glad my grandchildren won't be around to see a bunch of self-satisfied, masturbatory nonsense masquerading as superior intelligence picking and choosing what is good about culture X and what must be discarded. 

A new Indian/Arab culture will emerge :heyman6 

You don't know anything about Indian and Arab history do you? Past hand-waving it away as irrelevant because it's inevitable that they'll merge. Or that any cultures with long histories of enmity will merge eventually.

Man you can't cover up your massive ignorance with assertions about certainties regarding what's going to happen in the future. 

In 20,000 years a merged culture of Canadians and Amazonian cannibal tribes will rule the world in a utopia of hockey head-shrinking harmony. You can't prove me wrong because hey it's 20,000 years from now. It will happen if only humanity isn't too asinine.


----------



## V. Skybox

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Gandhi said:


> It's like a stereotypical feminist dumb twat wrote that article.
> 
> Do you even know what sexism means?


I feel the need to step in here.

How is it sexist to call a woman ugly? - Making personal attacks against your critics – rather than, say, refuting their points – is wrong no matter who it is, but attacking women who criticise you for their looks is a horribly misogynistic low blow. (Take notes for that one, it's going to come up a lot.)

How is sexist to fantasizing about women? - The Apprentice is a business show, and Trump was reducing a candidate to her looks and basically calling her a whore. Pretty sexist if you ask me.

How is it sexist to compare women to a work of art? - The woman juxtaposed with two _objects_ should probably give you a clue to what's wrong with what Trump said.

How is it sexist say you'd only kiss an ugly fat woman if given a trillion dollars? - Targeting the looks of his female critics instead of their views; see the first question.

How is it sexist to think breast feeding in public is impolite? - He didn't say impolite, he said "disgusting". Breast feeding is natural and it's a seriously backward view that it's a "disgusting" thing that should be hidden away.

How is it sexist to criticize a woman you dislike? - See first question again.

How is it sexist to crack a joke against an ugly woman? - See first question, plus the fact that he brings her love life into it. That's just sick.

How is it sexist to insult a woman? - See first question, for the fifth time.

How is it sexist to claim someone isn't fit to be president because their partner had an affair? - The tweet implies that women are a) only there to please their husbands, and b) defined by their husbands' actions. If those two things aren't sexist I don't know what is.

How is it sexist to think grouping men and women together would bring sexual assaults? - It claims women are vile temptresses who are at fault for the assault by simply existing. It doesn't exactly paint the men in a good light either, but that's probably not what the article writer was thinking about.

How is it sexist to say women flirt with you? - "Flirted unconsciously" shows a complete lack of understanding of respect for women. If they're not flirting consciously, they're definitely not flirting. And I doubt anyone would want to flirt consciously with that dick.

How is it sexist to say your stupid article doesn't matter? - You clearly only read the first half of what Trump said there. Reducing a woman to a "piece of ass" and treating her as some sort of trophy to be presented around is the problem in what he said.

---------------

I know this is totally fruitless as you'll put your fingers in your ears and loudly declare yourself the "winner" no matter what I say, but I made this reply because I just hate it when Trump supporters completely miss the point on how wrong their Supreme Leader's words are.

You made a good start in your post by using the word feminist as an insult BTW. Really prepared me for a well-reasoned, thought-out response.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Gandhi said:


> It's like a stereotypical feminist dumb twat wrote that article.
> 
> Do you even know what sexism means?
> 
> How is it sexist to call a woman ugly? How is sexist to fantasizing about women? How is it sexist to compare women to a work of art? How is it sexist say you'd only kiss an ugly fat woman if given a trillion dollars? How is it sexist to think breast feeding in public is impolite? How is it sexist to criticize a woman you dislike? How is it sexist to crack a joke against an ugly woman? How is it sexist to insult a woman? How is it sexist to claim someone isn't fit to be president because their partner had an affair? How is it sexist to think grouping men and women together would bring sexual assaults? How is it sexist to say women flirt with you? How is it sexist to say your stupid article doesn't matter?
> 
> Answer all my questions, inability to do so shows you know Trump isn't sexist.





V. Skybox said:


> I feel the need to step in here.
> 
> How is it sexist to call a woman ugly? - Making personal attacks against your critics – rather than, say, refuting their points – is wrong no matter who it is, but attacking women who criticise you for their looks is a horribly misogynistic low blow. (Take notes for that one, it's going to come up a lot.)
> 
> How is sexist to fantasizing about women? - The Apprentice is a business show, and Trump was reducing a candidate to her looks and basically calling her a whore. Pretty sexist if you ask me.
> 
> How is it sexist to compare women to a work of art? - The woman juxtaposed with two _objects_ should probably give you a clue to what's wrong with what Trump said.
> 
> How is it sexist say you'd only kiss an ugly fat woman if given a trillion dollars? - Targeting the looks of his female critics instead of their views; see the first question.
> 
> How is it sexist to think breast feeding in public is impolite? - He didn't say impolite, he said "disgusting". Breast feeding is natural and it's a seriously backward view that it's a "disgusting" thing that should be hidden away.
> 
> How is it sexist to criticize a woman you dislike? - See first question again.
> 
> How is it sexist to crack a joke against an ugly woman? - See first question, plus the fact that he brings her love life into it. That's just sick.
> 
> How is it sexist to insult a woman? - See first question, for the fifth time.
> 
> How is it sexist to claim someone isn't fit to be president because their partner had an affair? - The tweet implies that women are a) only there to please their husbands, and b) defined by their husbands' actions. If those two things aren't sexist I don't know what is.
> 
> How is it sexist to think grouping men and women together would bring sexual assaults? - It claims women are vile temptresses who are at fault for the assault by simply existing. It doesn't exactly paint the men in a good light either, but that's probably not what the article writer was thinking about.
> 
> How is it sexist to say women flirt with you? - "Flirted unconsciously" shows a complete lack of understanding of respect for women. If they're not flirting consciously, they're definitely not flirting. And I doubt anyone would want to flirt consciously with that dick.
> 
> How is it sexist to say your stupid article doesn't matter? - You clearly only read the first half of what Trump said there. Reducing a woman to a "piece of ass" and treating her as some sort of trophy to be presented around is the problem in what he said.
> 
> ---------------
> 
> I know this is totally fruitless as you'll put your fingers in your ears and loudly declare yourself the "winner" no matter what I say, but I made this reply because I just hate it when Trump supporters completely miss the point on how wrong their Supreme Leader's words are.
> 
> You made a good start in your post by using the word feminist as an insult BTW. Really prepared me for a well-reasoned, thought-out response.


Looks like someone beat me to it. Better coming from someone else as well since you can't use your BS excuse oh I like TYT so my views don't count because they also think he is sexist.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

I think Trump is like Alec Baldwin - they're both crude, immature men at times who don't care what they're saying to someone they're angry at as long as it's hurtful.

I don't think Trump is sexist or that Baldwin is a homophobe - they're just stuck at the age of 15 sometimes.


----------



## virus21

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Gandhi said:


> I'd rather we kill all cultures, take the positives from each culture and drop the negatives from each culture and create a superior new culture for everybody.


Isn't that what civilization has been doing since the start.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



V. Skybox said:


> I feel the need to step in here.
> 
> How is it sexist to call a woman ugly? - Making personal attacks against your critics – rather than, say, refuting their points – is wrong no matter who it is, but attacking women who criticise you for their looks is a horribly misogynistic low blow. (Take notes for that one, it's going to come up a lot.)
> 
> How is sexist to fantasizing about women? - The Apprentice is a business show, and Trump was reducing a candidate to her looks and basically calling her a whore. Pretty sexist if you ask me.
> 
> How is it sexist to compare women to a work of art? - The woman juxtaposed with two _objects_ should probably give you a clue to what's wrong with what Trump said.
> 
> How is it sexist say you'd only kiss an ugly fat woman if given a trillion dollars? - Targeting the looks of his female critics instead of their views; see the first question.
> 
> How is it sexist to think breast feeding in public is impolite? - He didn't say impolite, he said "disgusting". Breast feeding is natural and it's a seriously backward view that it's a "disgusting" thing that should be hidden away.
> 
> How is it sexist to criticize a woman you dislike? - See first question again.
> 
> How is it sexist to crack a joke against an ugly woman? - See first question, plus the fact that he brings her love life into it. That's just sick.
> 
> How is it sexist to insult a woman? - See first question, for the fifth time.
> 
> How is it sexist to claim someone isn't fit to be president because their partner had an affair? - The tweet implies that women are a) only there to please their husbands, and b) defined by their husbands' actions. If those two things aren't sexist I don't know what is.
> 
> How is it sexist to think grouping men and women together would bring sexual assaults? - It claims women are vile temptresses who are at fault for the assault by simply existing. It doesn't exactly paint the men in a good light either, but that's probably not what the article writer was thinking about.
> 
> How is it sexist to say women flirt with you? - "Flirted unconsciously" shows a complete lack of understanding of respect for women. If they're not flirting consciously, they're definitely not flirting. And I doubt anyone would want to flirt consciously with that dick.
> 
> How is it sexist to say your stupid article doesn't matter? - You clearly only read the first half of what Trump said there. Reducing a woman to a "piece of ass" and treating her as some sort of trophy to be presented around is the problem in what he said.
> 
> ---------------
> 
> I know this is totally fruitless as you'll put your fingers in your ears and loudly declare yourself the "winner" no matter what I say, but I made this reply because I just hate it when Trump supporters completely miss the point on how wrong their Supreme Leader's words are.
> 
> You made a good start in your post by using the word feminist as an insult BTW. Really prepared me for a well-reasoned, thought-out response.


So when a woman calls you a schmuck and you go _"ehhh, she's a fat ugly cow"_ you're suddenly misogynistic even though you show no hatred for women overall? How does that make sense?

So being in a business show and still showing male sexuality is sexist now? How does that make sense?

So comparing beauty to a work of art like humans have been doing for both men and women is sexist now? How does that make sense?

So thinking it's impolite to breast feed in public is sexist despite the discussion of people not wanting to see nudity of women in public is sexist now? Do you not know why he said disgusting? Do you honestly think he thinks breast feeding itself is disgusting? He said something is impolite now he's a sexist? How does that make sense?

How is it sexist to crack a joke about an ugly woman you deem is a horrible person whilst taking shots at the love life of someone you deem is a horrible person? Is me taking shots on the love life of Ted Bundy now sexist too? How does that make sense?

How is it sexist to claim Hillary is a joke if she can't please her husband? Do you not realize he's mocking her the same way a woman would mock a man for not being able to please his woman? How is that sexist? It's sheer mockery for the sake of mockery and implies nothing of what you state. You basically say it's now sexist to criticize a partner who can't please their other partner. How does that make sense? 

How is it sexist to say women were flirting with you unconsciously? Reverse the roles of a woman saying the same about men speaking to her in a room and would it still be sexist? No, because unconscious flirting is a thing and people do it all the time because humans are fuck machines. You're basically saying him saying a woman flirting with him is sexist just because you assume he's a dick (and I'm not saying he isn't). How does that make sense?

How is it sexist to treat woman like a trophy and something to be proud of having the same way a woman would be happy about having a trophy in a good loving husband? Do you not see the symbolism in his wording? Equating a good woman to something to be proud of having is sexist? How does that make sense?

.......................................................................................

Trump is not my supreme leader, he's just the lesser of evils for me and I happen to just defend anyone who happens to be falsely accused of things they're not meant of being accused of. Your post was fruitless because you didn't make any rational points as to why he's a sexist, your entire post is just you being gynocentric and desperately trying to find a way to call Trump sexist. How the fuck is it sexist to call a woman ugly? Jesus effing Christ what is this tumblr?

Seriously, you're as bad as feminists.



birthday_massacre said:


> Looks like someone beat me to it. Better coming from someone else as well since you can't use your BS excuse oh I like TYT so my views don't count because they also think he is sexist.


Yeah, .....no. :cena



deepelemblues said:


> unk4
> 
> I'm glad my grandchildren won't be around to see a bunch of self-satisfied, masturbatory nonsense masquerading as superior intelligence picking and choosing what is good about culture X and what must be discarded.
> 
> A new Indian/Arab culture will emerge :heyman6
> 
> You don't know anything about Indian and Arab history do you? Past hand-waving it away as irrelevant because it's inevitable that they'll merge. Or that any cultures with long histories of enmity will merge eventually.
> 
> Man you can't cover up your massive ignorance with assertions about certainties regarding what's going to happen in the future.
> 
> In 20,000 years a merged culture of Canadians and Amazonian cannibal tribes will rule the world in a utopia of hockey head-shrinking harmony. You can't prove me wrong because hey it's 20,000 years from now. It will happen if only humanity isn't too asinine.


You're a moral nihilist, you don't get to choose what is needed. :heyman6 

You prove again that you have the deduction skills of a 2 year old. Indian & Arab culture already did mix, I'm aware of this and was just giving out an example to show you what I meant. Though yeah, you don't think much before you post so you miss the point a lot when replying to people on most subjects. 

In 20,000 Canadians and Amazonian cannibal tribes will have their cultures clash, and I'd support the superior culture to mostly rule the other whilst removing it's negative cultural aspects from both Canadian & Amazonian and taking the positives from the Amazonian culture to bring a much more intelligent culture and use the wisdom of both cultures (even if the Amazonian culture provided little). If the Amazonian culture is the number 10, with 9 cultural aspects in it being negative and 1 being positive, I will gladly make sure the 9 points are removed from society not caring about Amazonian who care for their culture's identity and take the positive whilst doing the same with every single culture on this planet. Harmless cultural aspects are to be left alone, but unethical cultural aspects are to be wiped out and I don't care about much people who want to preserve their culture feel about it. I'll just tell'em to cry me a river and have that as their precious culture.

Once more I'd like to remind you, you are a moral nihilist and don't get to say who is right and wrong in what cultural aspects need to be praised or left alone or eradicated. Your judgement, means nothing. 



virus21 said:


> Isn't that what civilization has been doing since the start.


They have slowly through centuries yes, and it won't stop. Nationalists and proud ethnic groups from all nations be it Arabians or Westerns or Asians may want it to stop but it's inevitable that cultures will mix more and more and that's exactly what I want.


----------



## virus21

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Gandhi said:


> They have slowly through centuries yes, and it won't stop. Nationalists and proud ethnic groups from all nations be it Arabians or Westerns or Asians may want it to stop but it's inevitable that cultures will mix more and more and that's exactly what I want.


Well thats probably how civilization began. All these little communities and villages exchanging ideas and inter-mingling until they decided to build a bigger village to hold them all, the first city, which became a country, then an empire.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



stevefox1200 said:


> That's not a red herring
> 
> the first one go either way though


He's responded to the video I posted that clearly shows Donald Trump being misogynist by saying Donald Trump has done more for women than men by hiring more women than men in his employment and paying women more than men. That type of Red Herring is called Appeal to Emotion. It is irrelevant to the question to whether Donald Trump is sexist, but it might influence the inquiry by making us feel sorry for him. unk2


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

I'd think it more sexist to not criticize women because they're women. Just like it's pretty racist when leftists think that minorities have to HAVE support from white leftists because obviously minorities are stupid and need that guiding help.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/728297587418247168
:lol Trump wins the media game again with a ridiculous message that we can't help but talk about like we talk about trainwrecks.

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/...s-Cinco-de-Mayo-taco-tweet-has-us-7395864.php

:lol


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*








unkout


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Truthbetold said:


>


Leftists are all for democracy but complain and riot when they don't get the democracy they want


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Gandhi said:


> You prove again that you have the deduction skills of a 2 year old. Indian & Arab culture already did mix, I'm aware of this and was just giving out an example to show you what I meant. Though yeah, you don't think much before you post so you miss the point a lot when replying to people on most subjects.
> 
> In 20,000 Canadians and Amazonian cannibal tribes will have their cultures clash, and I'd support the superior culture to mostly rule the other whilst removing it's negative cultural aspects from both Canadian & Amazonian and taking the positives from the Amazonian culture to bring a much more intelligent culture and use the wisdom of both cultures (even if the Amazonian culture provided little). If the Amazonian culture is the number 10, with 9 cultural aspects in it being negative and 1 being positive, I will gladly make sure the 9 points are removed from society not caring about Amazonian who care for their culture's identity and take the positive whilst doing the same with every single culture on this planet. Harmless cultural aspects are to be left alone, but unethical cultural aspects are to be wiped out and I don't care about much people who want to preserve their culture feel about it. I'll just tell'em to cry me a river and have that as their precious culture.
> 
> Once more I'd like to remind you, you are a moral nihilist and don't get to say who is right and wrong in what cultural aspects need to be praised or left alone or eradicated. Your judgement, means nothing.


You sure feel the need to tell people they mean nothing and that they don't matter. It's a theme with you. If you had your way on that, well, having that kind of power over other people doesn't result in happyland. It also goes against the march of history you like to imagine. Your fantasy benevolent Gandhi types deciding things and everyone goes along and if they don't they're an asshole who doesn't matter and everyone else agrees that they are an asshole who doesn't matter doesn't fit with human social evolution (that could change of course, not that you believe in that kind of negative change either or that it could be enduring) or human nature. 

You miss the point horribly but thanks for telling me I am. Arab and Indian cultures already did mix? How is that working out? They on the road to harmonious convergence? And the mixing they did isn't the kind you're talking about. You know that. You're talking about a common culture, not about two different cultures absorbing some practices from each other while retaining their distinctiveness.

You have all this bravado and certainty about human nature and inevitability and of the overwhelming power of being "right." They're all just fantasies.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



deepelemblues said:


> You sure feel the need to tell people they mean nothing and that they don't matter. It's a theme with you. If you had your way on that, well, having that kind of power over other people doesn't result in happyland. It also goes against the march of history you like to imagine. Your fantasy benevolent Gandhi types deciding things and everyone goes along and if they don't they're an asshole who doesn't matter and everyone else agrees that they are an asshole who doesn't matter doesn't fit with human social evolution (that could change of course, not that you believe in that kind of negative change either or that it could be enduring) or human nature.
> 
> You miss the point horribly but thanks for telling me I am. Arab and Indian cultures already did mix? How is that working out? They on the road to harmonious convergence? And the mixing they did isn't the kind you're talking about. You know that. You're talking about a common culture, not about two different cultures absorbing some practices from each other while retaining their distinctiveness.
> 
> You have all this bravado and certainty about human nature and inevitability and of the overwhelming power of being "right." They're all just fantasies.


You sure do have a theme where you enjoy telling me how vile humans are and how we should wallow in how vile we are because you don't wanna get any better.

I'm not looking for Happyland since no land will ever exist, I'm looking for ForceEthics Land. Basically a world you'd dislike because you're a moral nihilist who wouldn't argue rape is immoral, to which I don't care how unhappy you'd be about it. Benevolent people will never be at peace, the world will never be at peace, and I agree with ethical people who understand ethical philosophy forcing their way against other people who care little for philosophy. I agree with force, good political planning, and even propaganda to make sure both idiotic & unethical masses get with the program. I'm dead serious. 

You know little of how Arab culture is basically Persian/Indian, the majority of the knowledge Arabs brag about was all taken from Persians/Indians and their cultures mixed and beforehand they were not _"common cultures"_. The change wasn't 100% positive or negative, but that's besides the point as to what I wish to see happen.

Ethical people don't have power because they are ethical, but we can find ways to make sure unethical people like you get next to nothing in what they want in life and make sure immorality is in decline in people's actions as much as possible (the last 4 words being the keywords here). Humans have been doing this for centuries, and moral nihilists don't care about it so long as it doesn't get in the way of your selfish desires.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

So here is my conclusion about reading the last 2 pages of this thread:

As a white male I can only talk badly about other white males otherwise I would be sexist and/or racist.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Truthbetold said:


>


Leftist Democracy is like Leftist Tolerance, it only works if it's their brand of it.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



> You prove again that you have the deduction skills of a 2 year old.


 @Gandhi don't post insults like this outside of rants. Thanks.


----------



## Kink_Brawn

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Ah, I see the usual anti-trump retards are out with their usual delusions.....

"B--B--But, he is a racist, sexist, Nazi, Hitler monster!! Twitter and Salon.com told me so!!" 

Like that time Trump forced upper class white communities and country clubs in Palm Beach, Florida to take in more blacks and Jews....what an obvious Klansmen!!


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



MrMister said:


> @Gandhi don't post insults like this outside of rants. Thanks.


Fine. I'll just say he has horrible deduction skills I suppose, you seem fine with that.

Not even going to bother and say much on how he says I masquerade intelligence but whatever.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Kink_Brawn said:


> Ah, I see the usual anti-trump retards are out with their usual delusions.....
> 
> "B--B--But, he is a racist, sexist, Nazi, Hitler monster!! Twitter and Salon.com told me so!!"
> 
> Like that time Trump forced upper class white communities and country clubs in Palm Beach, Florida to take in more blacks and Jews....what an obvious Klansmen!!


A Dutch friend of mine (who supports Trump too) posted this to me.






Makes Hitler look good. :lmao


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

https://www.instagram.com/p/BFCud-DkWNy/?taken-by=nash5959


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/728297587418247168
> :lol Trump wins the media game again with a ridiculous message that we can't help but talk about like we talk about trainwrecks.
> 
> http://www.chron.com/news/politics/...s-Cinco-de-Mayo-taco-tweet-has-us-7395864.php
> 
> :lol


Trump is a genius at playing the media.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

I love how he couldn't help himself ending that tweet with just a blatant I LOVE HISPANICS!

It's brilliant. Maybe it is just the madness we need that will save the world. Trump steaks for all!


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

I really don't even see what he did that was wrong there. He ate mexican food in honor of Cinco de mayo and had fun at the expense of those saying he doesn't like them...he's trolling haters, not the Hispanic people in general.

Edit: Also, Vincente Fox apologized to Trump and they are now friends. Unity!


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*






lol


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*






If you only watch one of these stupid yet amusing videos, this is the one you should watch. :lol


----------



## manstis1804

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

I'm getting to a point where I can't help but kind of like Trump. He's kind of fucking brilliant, honestly. The way he turns around every attack against him and comes out stronger in the end is mindblowing. On pure policy, I don't want him in office, because he sounds like an idiot trying to answer specific questions, and I'm pretty left on social issues. But personality-wise, there's something special there. There's quite an intelligence to his ways, a different type of intelligence than it takes to give a logical answer to a question. 

He is oftentimes inconsiderate of peoples' feelings with the language and tone he uses, but that's different from being sexist or racist. Like the Megyn Kelly insult, or any of his insults against women over the years, that isn't necessarily sexist. He goes after anyone he thinks has wronged him with whatever he believes is their weakness, whatever will get to them the most. He tries to rattle people and keep the upper-hand, and does so without caring if people think he's sexist or anything else. Throughout this campaign, he's insulted men with the same kind of vigor, the same nastiness. He's like the South Park of presidential candidates in that way. And I do love me some South Park. 

There's a level where I do see his "we're too politically correct" schtick have some truth to it. Ignoring the one common trait of the people carrying out attacks and actively recruiting American citizens to attack from the inside is, potentially, a danger to the country. ISIS could very well take advantage of our need not to appear discriminatory and get more of their people on US soil. That's the fear people have, that's why they're into this Muslim ban thing. I think that, along with WALL, is what makes people so into the guy. It's all about safety, authority, law and order.

I am well, well aware that the overwhelming majority of Muslims have nothing to do with this and are fine people. But, if you feel that ISIS is an eminent threat to our safety, and there's this one defining trait that runs through the entire organization, one could logically think "I don't want people who carry that trait coming into the country. We should try and prevent that." Not saying I want that, or that it's remotely feasible outside of refusing to take in any Syrian refugees. I'm just saying, there's a logical thought in there, it doesn't have to be "racist".

There's this tendency on the left to write-off peoples' fears as invalid and trivial, and to label them as bigots or another blanket term designed to dismiss them entirely. The worry about ISIS getting people over here masquerading as Syrian refugees is not irrational. That's some devious shit an outfit like that would think to do, take advantage of our political correctness, our need to do the right thing. It isn't automatically that these people don't care about the freedoms of others, it may just be that their fear, and their need for safety and order, overrides that. And yes, they're often white, and Christian, and straight, and don't understand the struggles of people different from them. But again, that doesn't make their fears less valid.

There's an actual philosophical debate to be had about the inverse relationship of safety and freedom, but it ends up with people talking past each other because their values are so different. Now that we can get in a cozy bubble and digitally hi-five everyone who agrees with us, it's getting worse. 

If it's not blatantly obvious, I'm having a bit of a crisis of alignment as of late. I'm stuck in the middle picking it apart, trying to figure out where I stand (EEEVOLUTION). Forgive me for contradicting myself.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



manstis1804 said:


> I'm getting to a point where I can't help but kind of like Trump. He's kind of fucking brilliant, honestly. The way he turns around every attack against him and comes out stronger in the end is mindblowing. On pure policy, I don't want him in office, because he sounds like an idiot trying to answer specific questions, and I'm pretty left on social issues. But personality-wise, there's something special there. There's quite an intelligence to his ways, a different type of intelligence than it takes to give a logical answer to a question.
> 
> He is oftentimes inconsiderate of peoples' feelings with the language and tone he uses, but that's different from being sexist or racist. Like the Megyn Kelly insult, or any of his insults against women over the years, that isn't necessarily sexist. He goes after anyone he thinks has wronged him with whatever he believes is their weakness, whatever will get to them the most. He tries to rattle people and keep the upper-hand, and does so without caring if people think he's sexist or anything else. Throughout this campaign, he's insulted men with the same kind of vigor, the same nastiness. He's like the South Park of presidential candidates in that way. And I do love me some South Park.
> 
> There's a level where I do see his "we're too politically correct" schtick have some truth to it. Ignoring the one common trait of the people carrying out attacks and actively recruiting American citizens to attack from the inside is, potentially, a danger to the country. ISIS could very well take advantage of our need not to appear discriminatory and get more of their people on US soil. That's the fear people have, that's why they're into this Muslim ban thing. I think that, along with WALL, is what makes people so into the guy. It's all about safety, authority, law and order.
> 
> I am well, well aware that the overwhelming majority of Muslims have nothing to do with this and are fine people. But, if you feel that ISIS is an eminent threat to our safety, and there's this one defining trait that runs through the entire organization, one could logically think "I don't want people who carry that trait coming into the country. We should try and prevent that." Not saying I want that, or that it's remotely feasible outside of refusing to take in any Syrian refugees. I'm just saying, there's a logical thought in there, it doesn't have to be "racist".
> 
> There's this tendency on the left to write-off peoples' fears as invalid and trivial, and to label them as bigots or another blanket term designed to dismiss them entirely. The worry about ISIS getting people over here masquerading as Syrian refugees is not irrational. That's some devious shit an outfit like that would think to do, take advantage of our political correctness, our need to do the right thing. It isn't automatically that these people don't care about the freedoms of others, it may just be that their fear, and their need for safety and order, overrides that. And yes, they're often white, and Christian, and straight, and don't understand the struggles of people different from them. But again, that doesn't make their fears less valid.
> 
> There's an actual philosophical debate to be had about the inverse relationship of safety and freedom, but it ends up with people talking past each other because their values are so different. Now that we can get in a cozy bubble and digitally hi-five everyone who agrees with us, it's getting worse.
> 
> If it's not blatantly obvious, I'm having a bit of a crisis of alignment as of late. I'm stuck in the middle picking it apart, trying to figure out where I stand (EEEVOLUTION). Forgive me for contradicting myself.


Serious question mang: have you considdered reading Trump's books? He's smarter than you may think.


----------



## manstis1804

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> Serious question mang: have you considdered reading Trump's books? He's smarter than you may think.


I don't doubt that he's a bright guy, you have to be in his position. But when he fails to properly articulate his answers about specific policy questions on the spot, it makes me wonder if he's really thought it through, or knows the ins and outs of the issue, or at times actually believes what he's saying. And he is the type that would never admit not knowing something, thus looking weak, so he just plows through it while trying to keep it appealing to his base. That's what I'm presented with as a voter, so it's hard to get on board with him on that level.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*






:lmao


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Yes, Obamacare is certainly a fascistic failure and fiasco. Quoting my own post in a thread begun by @Reaper: http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anyth...eally-just-insurance-scam-4.html#post54039930



> The costs of providing health care insurance are increasing largely due to Obamacare. One majorly respected consultant to health insurance companies, Robert Laszewski, has unveiled the ugly truth of the matter, which is that there exists two "stealth" provisions within Obamacare that guarantee that insurance companies will be subsidized and bailed out by American taxpayers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that $1.071 trillion will be transferred--through coercive means, naturally--from taxpayers to enormous, elephantine insurance companies through 2023. This colossal redistribution of wealth will take place via these two stealth programs embedded in the Affordable Health Care Act. The first is the Reinsurance Program under which large claims are capped for insurers offering individual plans under Obamacare. Insurers pay for claims up to $45,000, while the Federal government--i.e., taxpayers--picks up 80% of the costs exceeding $45,000 up to a maximum of $250,000. This means that Obamacare is a public-private insurance scheme, a scheme which actively moves the American health care system halfway toward the "single-payer" insurance program that Obama seeks as the endgame.
> 
> Obama and those who support him within the media have diligently avoided public references to the Risk Corridor Program, the other stealth provision, which limits total losses for insurance companies via a highly complex formula that takes a weekend to look over. To make it as simplified as possible, under the Risk Corridor Program provision, taxpayers will be on the hook for 80% of an insurance company's losses. The titanic taxpayer-funded subsidization of costs and socialization of losses is what makes Obamacare remarkably palatable to insurance companies and the public for at least a little while, since insurance companies will not need to raise any of their premiums as much as they would have if they were forced to bear the full burden of cost increases and the risk of huge, grievous losses. This will allow Obamacare the time with which to take full root and finally wreak havoc with what quality remains in the American health care system. Since Obamacare is probably about to become permanent, Americans as both taxpayers and consumers of medical services will be wondering about how they will pay their onerous tax bills and where, exactly, they will find remnants of quality health care.


Meanwhile...

Of course *MrMister* is sexist, being a white Texan male. Doubtless a bigot and racist, too.

Well, I sure am torn up inside knowing that the hateful, racist, bigoted, sexist, xenophobic, backward Donald Trump ascending to "presumptive nominee" status has forced the collective hand of the drug-dealing, globalist, rampant government- and surveillance-expanding, neocon war criminals of the Bush Family--most specifically George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, as well as Jeb(!) Bush--to refuse to attend the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. What a loss. Those hundreds of thousands of slaughtered Iraqis don't bother me when I dwell on the sins of this country's government, but, boy, Trump saying some possibly mean things about certain destructive immigrants is definitely crossing the line. 

Trump's rise forcing the Bushes out of the Republican Party?! Just another heroic act! :mark:

And as @Beatles123 notes, George Dubya's good friend Vicente Fox is now apologizing to "The Donald" for his impugning of his character. What is this? Shouldn't Trump be groveling before the Mexican government and its many surrogates? 

:lol at that video you posted here, @CamillePunk. And I appreciate the videos you are embedding here as well, @Truthbetold. I certainly hope Trump holds Queen Hillary Clinton to account for the hundreds of thousands of lives she is to a major extent truly responsible for ending. The "Halloween" theme drizzled over Carly Fiorina speaking with Ted Cruz nearby is truly :lmao-worthy. :lmao :lmao :lmao "The Donald" winning Indiana to "The Rains of Castamere"! :mark: :lmao Kasich being so irrelevant the video just cuts away from him mid-sentence. :lmao

I like Rand Paul but he made the biggest mistake of his political life poking Trump in the eye. :lol Brutal. They all fell to "The Donald," though, so no shame in that. :lol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



manstis1804 said:


> I don't doubt that he's a bright guy, you have to be in his position. But when he fails to properly articulate his answers about specific policy questions on the spot, it makes me wonder if he's really thought it through, or knows the ins and outs of the issue, or at times actually believes what he's saying. And he is the type that would never admit not knowing something, thus looking weak, so he just plows through it while trying to keep it appealing to his base. That's what I'm presented with as a voter, so it's hard to get on board with him on that level.


TBPH, that sort of BSing is a cornerstone of every single politician. Going by what they say on the spot isn't the best way to gauge what their actual policies might entail and this goes for the more seemingly well versed democrats as well.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

According to an article I read Ben Carson is helping Trump pick out a running mate, Carson won't be VP as he feels it would distract from Trump's campaign, what's interesting is that Carson said that they're not going to rule out picking an Independent or a Democrat as his running mate. This is pretty interesting because it would mean Trump is willing to smash party affiliation which is what this country needs!

Sadly what this means is that hardcore Republicans won't like a non-Republican VP even if that person is moderate and shares similar ideas with Trump simply because "Not Republican". Also in the same breath Democrats will bitch because if Trump picks a white male as a VP, even if that person is willing to help Trump set up a good position on things and rebuild the economy it won't mean much because, "Not a Woman, Not a Minority." This proves the two party system is toxic to the core, it needs to be done away with!

Also came across someone mentioning that "Thanks to the electoral vote" it won't matter if people vote for Trump because it technically won't be a national election because of the electoral votes and they were happy about that! Seriously? How can Democrats praise the corrupt electoral voting system yet say they have the people's best interest at heart? The media labeling Trump random things with no proof and nonsense is scary. The "News" is not that anymore, it's a bought and paid for brain washing system to make people think they're hearing the truth on things. What a sad time we live in, so much technology and the net yet most of it is propaganda and filled with lies and agendas!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> Serious question mang: have you considdered reading Trump's books? He's smarter than you may think.


He really isnt, and Trump probably had a ghost writer on his books.


Trump speaks like a 3rd greater. You just need to listen to him speak for 5 minuets and you can see what a simpleton he is.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Bernie Sanders or the High Sparrow from Game of Thrones? 



> 1. “There are no ‘human’ oppressors. Oppressors have lost their humanity.”
> 
> 2. “I don’t consider myself a pariah. ”
> 
> 3. “A lifetime of wealth and power has left you blind in one eye.”
> 
> 4. “Every one of us is poor… and powerless.”
> 
> 5. “Let us wage a moral and political war against war itself.”
> 
> 6. “Together… we can overthrow an empire.”
> 
> 7. “Strip away the gold and the ornaments, knock down the statues and the pillars, and this what remains: something simple… solid… and true.”
> 
> 8. “We are living in a world where greed has become for the wealthiest people their own religion, and they make no apologies for it.”
> 
> 9. “I tell them no one’s special, and they think I’m special for telling them so.”
> 
> 10. “The real issue here, if you look at the Koch Brothers’ agenda, is: look at what many of the extreme right-wing people believe. Obamacare is just the tip of the iceberg. These people want to abolish the concept of the minimum wage, they want to privatize the Veteran’s Administration, they want to privatize Social Security, end Medicare as we know it, massive cuts in Medicaid, wipe out the EPA, you don’t have an Environmental Protection Agency anymore, Department of Energy gone, Department of Education gone. That is the agenda.”





Spoiler: Answers



(1.Bern, 2. Bern, 3. High Sparrow, 4. High Sparrow, 5. Bern, 6. High Sparrow, 7. High Sparrow, 8. Bern, 9. High Sparrow, 10. Weirdly, High Sparrow)



Thanks to my grandma for posting this on facebook. 

https://aboveaverage.com/who-said-it-bernie-sanders-or-the-high-sparrow-from-game-of-thrones/


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Number 10 HAS to be the High Sparrow right? This is too easy.



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump speaks like a *3rd greater*. You just need to listen to him speak for 5 minuets and you can see what a simpleton he is.


Does he write like one too?:side:

He has and uses the best words btw.


Also more seriously, Trump is saying BIG LEAGUE, not bigly. Just want to clear this one up for Brian Williams.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Gandhi said:


> :lmao


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Miss Sally said:


> According to an article I read Ben Carson is helping Trump pick out a running mate, Carson won't be VP as he feels it would distract from Trump's campaign, what's interesting is that Carson said that they're not going to rule out picking an Independent or a Democrat as his running mate. This is pretty interesting because it would mean Trump is willing to smash party affiliation which is what this country needs!


Someone ITT said he should pick a hispanic female. This is a good idea. He loves women and hispanics!


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



MrMister said:


> Someone ITT said he should pick a hispanic female. This is a good idea. He loves women and hispanics!


Not a bad idea! Still cannot believe people are upset that he ate taco salad and said he loved hispanics. Nobody really knows what cinco de mayo is and why a bunch of white americans celebrate it. It's just an excuse to get drunk but someone has to be offended for the hispanics I guess! I wonder how long it took the sjw college students to put down their coronas, tacos and mexican styled party favors down to send out angry tweets?


----------



## manstis1804

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Reaper said:


> TBPH, that sort of BSing is a cornerstone of every single politician. Going by what they say on the spot isn't the best way to gauge what their actual policies might entail and this goes for the more seemingly well versed democrats as well.


It may just be the case that he's not as opaque in spinning the bull as the more experienced politicians. But on the whole it all seems sort of unrealistic, and at times pulled out of his ass. The only time I find him truly convincing is when he's tearing something down, like our trade deals, or foreign policy, or any of his opponents. Contrast with Hillary Clinton, who will mop the floor with anyone on a debate stage, but lacks Trump's ability to shake off criticism and come out looking strong, and all of the other qualities that have him in this race.

And by the way, I'm not saying that how well one answers questions is the #1 indicator of how well someone will do as president. That's probably far from the truth. But it's the main thing we as voters have to go by based on what we see of the candidates, at least in my mind. I've never been one to vote on personality. I voted for _John Kerry_.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

@Miss Sally I live in Texas and I still have no clue what Cinco de Mayo is. I mean I do know, it's celebrating a Mexican victory over the French but LOL it's just the Mexican St. Patrick's Day like you said.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



MrMister said:


> Number 10 HAS to be the High Sparrow right? This is too easy.
> 
> 
> 
> Does he write like one too?:side:
> 
> He has and uses the best words btw.
> 
> 
> Also more seriously, Trump is saying BIG LEAGUE, not bigly. Just want to clear this one up for Brian Williams.


Trump would proudly say that he does speak like a 3rd GREATER. Some people like bm just can't stand the GREATERNESS that is Donaldus Maximus.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Eh you just have to laugh at the delusional hubris of leftists who look at a guy who has accomplished amazing things in his life which require high intelligence and shrewd negotiating skills (which dumb people don't have) and say he's not that intelligent.

Not to mention the masterful way he has orchestrated this campaign. Leftists will just say "oh well his supporters aren't that smart", but the fact is Trump's support has grown and grown as he has masterfully branded and took down his opponents. He just got more people talking about him on social media than ever before for posting a picture of himself with a taco bowl and saying he loves Hispanics. This baited Hillary into making a hugely racist tweet, implying that all Hispanics are illegal immigrants. In one act he got everyone talking about himself once again and absolutely stumped "Crooked Hillary". I'm excited to see how his latest branding maneuver works out. I'm not gonna be the idiot who underestimates him once again, that's for sure.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Trump went right after all the voters that the smirking class has declared don't matter because the future will be ruled by gay black hispanic transgyndyr womyn. How many times since Obama's first election has the white working class been insulted as a bunch of stupid racists who are going to have no say in the future haha laugh at them they're so stupid and they can't do anything about us taking over and never having to listen to their stupid racist fat asses ever again.

Trump the only one smart enough to realize there's still tens of millions of them in this country and they are still the most powerful voting bloc. And that they're pissed off and motivated to do something about it because their wages have been stagnant for a decade and a half and they're tired of being insulted by smirking Jon Stewart wannabes or the supreme asshole and number one cause of the decay of political discourse in this country since 2000, Jon Stewart himself, every time they turn on the TV. 

Leftists have been so full of hubris for over a decade and Donald is their Nemesis coming down from the Rhamnous Trump Tower to dish out all kinds of GREAT comeuppance, the BEST comeuppance, so classy and luxurious.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Yep, underestimate Trump to your folly.

There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again. - GW Bush


----------



## virus21

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



deepelemblues said:


> Trump went right after all the voters that the smirking class has declared don't matter because the future will be ruled by gay black hispanic transgyndyr womyn. How many times since Obama's first election has the white working class been insulted as a bunch of stupid racists who are going to have no say in the future haha laugh at them they're so stupid and they can't do anything about us taking over and never having to listen to their stupid racist fat asses ever again.
> 
> Trump the only one smart enough to realize there's still tens of millions of them in this country and they are still the most powerful voting bloc. And that they're pissed off and motivated to do something about it because their wages have been stagnant for a decade and a half and they're tired of being insulted by smirking Jon Stewart wannabes or the supreme asshole and number one cause of the decay of political discourse in this country since 2000, Jon Stewart himself, every time they turn on the TV.
> 
> Leftists have been so full of hubris for over a decade and Donald is their Nemesis coming down from the Rhamnous Trump Tower to dish out all kinds of GREAT comeuppance, the BEST comeuppance, so classy and luxurious.


Exactly. People in this country have had it with the leftist rabble. It has lead to the ruination of this country and people are sick of it. Heck, Europe is just a powder-keg waiting to blow due to the leftists and wannabe socialists. The majority (and it has to be stated that the leftist are not a majority) are fighting back and the support of Trump is proof that.

Heck the opposition to Trump has shown the left for the intolerant hypocrites that they truly are.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*






Meh stuff, but thought I'd share. 

(Jaclyn Glen sucks doe)


----------



## just1988

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

*This Trump stuff is crazy and is making the US look like a laughing stock.*


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



just1988 said:


> *This Trump stuff is crazy and is making the US look like a laughing stock.*


Yes, laugh at us while your leftist politicians cuck you out to Islam. Definitely have your priorities in order there.

It's not going to happen in this country if we elect Trump. It's already happening in yours.


----------



## virus21

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



just1988 said:


> *This Trump stuff is crazy and is making the US look like a laughing stock.*


Obama was already doing that.


----------



## just1988

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



CamillePunk said:


> Yes, laugh at us while your leftist politicians cuck you out to Islam. Definitely have your priorities in order there.
> 
> It's not going to happen in this country if we elect Trump. It's already happening in yours.














virus21 said:


> Obama was already doing that.


*You think so? He's left it in a much better state than George W. left it in.*


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

@AryaDark

It's funny that @FITZ and his good grandmother are drawing the comparison between The High Sparrow and Bernie Sanders because I have been thinking for a while now that Hillary Clinton is the real-life version of Cersei Lannister. She married a chronically adulterous, philandering husband in a loveless marriage built upon a strategic alliance, and became the "Queen" by forming that alliance, all while being told from her early days by professors and then professional politicians and advisors that she's brilliant, believing every complimentary word. Everything she touches turns to filth, everything she has attempted to stitch together publicly to create a lasting legacy has either gone down in disaster or proved calamitous. She is ruthless and willing to destroy anyone in her path if she deems it necessary. She has reportedly become bisexual, and in the last decade and a half more liberally lesbian, like her supposed idol Eleanor Roosevelt before her, and something of a man-hater because of how she views males due to her relationship with her husband. While being reassured that she is tremendously smart, in spite of having almost every advantage conceivable she mismanages everything she has the chance of managing, including her campaigns. She just sanctioned an anti-Trump ad that displays a host of Republican politicians badmouthing Trump--and everyone who sees the ad says that it _helps_ Trump's image for millions of voters adore how much the most powerful Republican figures in Washington, D.C. seem to despise Trump and his rise.

She pushes the concept that she is a standard-bearer of empowerment for women but she would never be where she is without her marriage.

She compulsively lies when she has no reason to, and loves to create as grand an image of herself as possible, such as barely surviving sniper fire in Bosnia. 

From her Hillarycare push in 1993 to her masterminding the disastrous intervention in Libya in 2011 and beyond, her initiatives have been resounding failures, her foreign policy achievements ruinous, resulting in "ashes" in the "mouth" of the United States of America.

Now, after declaring that she would destroy as many jobs in the coal mining industry as possible, in West Virginia she is telling coal miners who show her pictures of the families her policies will impoverish that her statements were taken out of context.

She is, in truth, incompetent, psychotic and, were the U.S. a country that practiced any measure of justice for those who are "too big" to be brought down, considered a criminal. And considering Chelsea Clinton's demonstrable glee over Antonin Scalia's death and what it may mean for future U.S. Supreme Court decisions pertaining to the First Amendment and Second Amendment of the nearly utterly defunct U.S. Constitution, she has evidently raised her child (almost surely not Bill Clinton's, biologically speaking) in a manner that recalls Cersei's beloved Joffrey. 

She cannot be trusted with state secrets; she cannot be trusted at all, except to do the wrong thing. 

She's a lot less interesting than Cersei, though. C'mon, real life, you have to catch up to literature.


----------



## virus21

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



just1988 said:


> *You think so? He's left it in a much better state than George W. left it in.*


Funny, I haven't seen much of an improvement


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



virus21 said:


> Funny, I haven't seen much of an improvement


Wall Street has, though. 

Sure, the number of blacks under the U.S. government's own "poverty line" has increased by approximately 250% in the last seven years, and the wages of middle class and working class Americans have remained stagnant, but until a few months ago Goldman Sachs was doing splendidly. That Goldman Sachs's profits plunged by 60% and even bonuses finally fell demonstrates yet again that the U.S. economy is already once again in recession, the Federal Reserve's army of soothsayers notwithstanding.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

but obama was going to end the boom/bust era!!!

:lol

He MIGHT have wanted to, then people more powerful than him said...nah.


----------



## virus21

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



MrMister said:


> but obama was going to end the boom/bust era!!!
> 
> :lol
> 
> He MIGHT have wanted to, then people more powerful than him said...nah.


Nah, he was to busy making "Don't Panic' Speeches, going on vacation, being a spotlight hog, building a personality cult and sucking Hollywood's dick to do anything


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



MrMister said:


> but obama was going to end the boom/bust era!!!
> 
> :lol
> 
> He MIGHT have wanted to, then people more powerful than him said...nah.


:lol

It's morosely humorous since the U.S. Federal Reserve, in concert with Obama's policies, have engendered more bubbles than at any other time in American history. :lol

Not wholly unrelated, this fine article concerning how economic data is leaked to markets, courtesy of the Federal Reserve is worth reading: https://mises.org/blog/more-economic-data-leaking-markets @CamillePunk @L-DOPA

Trump just stated yet again that were he to become president, the Federal Reserve would be audited within the first one hundred days of his term.

Imagine all of the "goodies" that could become unveiled.

Honestly, if something were to, let us say, "happen" to him, this could very well be the #1 reason for it.

Stay safe, Donald.

(No idea how or why the "!" was embedded with my post but, looking back on it, I like it. Fitting. Haha.)


----------



## Joff

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark
> 
> It's funny that @FITZ and his good grandmother are drawing the comparison between The High Sparrow and Bernie Sanders because I have been thinking for a while now that Hillary Clinton is the real-life version of Cersei Lannister. She married a chronically adulterous, philandering husband in a loveless marriage built upon a strategic alliance, and became the "Queen" by forming that alliance, all while being told from her early days by professors and then professional politicians and advisors that she's brilliant, believing every complimentary word. Everything she touches turns to filth, everything she has attempted to stitch together publicly to create a lasting legacy has either gone down in disaster or proved calamitous. She is ruthless and willing to destroy anyone in her path if she deems it necessary. She has reportedly become bisexual, and in the last decade and a half more liberally lesbian, like her supposed idol Eleanor Roosevelt before her, and something of a man-hater because of how she views males due to her relationship with her husband. While being reassured that she is tremendously smart, in spite of having almost every advantage conceivable she mismanages everything she has the chance of managing, including her campaigns. She just sanctioned an anti-Trump ad that displays a host of Republican politicians badmouthing Trump--and everyone who sees the ad says that it _helps_ Trump's image for millions of voters adore how much the most powerful Republican figures in Washington, D.C. seem to despise Trump and his rise.
> 
> She pushes the concept that she is a standard-bearer of empowerment for women but she would never be where she is without her marriage.
> 
> She compulsively lies when she has no reason to, and loves to create as grand an image of herself as possible, such as barely surviving sniper fire in Bosnia.
> 
> From her Hillarycare push in 1993 to her masterminding the disastrous intervention in Libya in 2011 and beyond, her initiatives have been resounding failures, her foreign policy achievements ruinous, resulting in "ashes" in the "mouth" of the United States of America.
> 
> Now, after declaring that she would destroy as many jobs in the coal mining industry as possible, in West Virginia she is telling coal miners who show her pictures of the families her policies will impoverish that her statements were taken out of context.
> 
> She is, in truth, incompetent, psychotic and, were the U.S. a country that practiced any measure of justice for those who are "too big" to be brought down, considered a criminal. And considering Chelsea Clinton's demonstrable glee over Antonin Scalia's death and what it may mean for future U.S. Supreme Court decisions pertaining to the First Amendment and Second Amendment of the nearly utterly defunct U.S. Constitution, she has evidently raised her child (almost surely not Bill Clinton's, biologically speaking) in a manner that recalls Cersei's beloved Joffrey.
> 
> She cannot be trusted with state secrets; she cannot be trusted at all, except to do the wrong thing.
> 
> She's a lot less interesting than Cersei, though. C'mon, real life, you have to catch up to literature.



Post of the year


only difference is that hilary is gross


I would drink Cersei's bath water


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark
> 
> It's funny that @FITZ and his good grandmother are drawing the comparison between The High Sparrow and Bernie Sanders because I have been thinking for a while now that Hillary Clinton is the real-life version of Cersei Lannister. She married a chronically adulterous, philandering husband in a loveless marriage built upon a strategic alliance, and became the "Queen" by forming that alliance, all while being told from her early days by professors and then professional politicians and advisors that she's brilliant, believing every complimentary word. Everything she touches turns to filth, everything she has attempted to stitch together publicly to create a lasting legacy has either gone down in disaster or proved calamitous. She is ruthless and willing to destroy anyone in her path if she deems it necessary. She has reportedly become bisexual, and in the last decade and a half more liberally lesbian, like her supposed idol Eleanor Roosevelt before her, and something of a man-hater because of how she views males due to her relationship with her husband. While being reassured that she is tremendously smart, in spite of having almost every advantage conceivable she mismanages everything she has the chance of managing, including her campaigns. She just sanctioned an anti-Trump ad that displays a host of Republican politicians badmouthing Trump--and everyone who sees the ad says that it _helps_ Trump's image for millions of voters adore how much the most powerful Republican figures in Washington, D.C. seem to despise Trump and his rise.
> 
> She pushes the concept that she is a standard-bearer of empowerment for women but she would never be where she is without her marriage.
> 
> She compulsively lies when she has no reason to, and loves to create as grand an image of herself as possible, such as barely surviving sniper fire in Bosnia.
> 
> From her Hillarycare push in 1993 to her masterminding the disastrous intervention in Libya in 2011 and beyond, her initiatives have been resounding failures, her foreign policy achievements ruinous, resulting in "ashes" in the "mouth" of the United States of America.
> 
> Now, after declaring that she would destroy as many jobs in the coal mining industry as possible, in West Virginia she is telling coal miners who show her pictures of the families her policies will impoverish that her statements were taken out of context.
> 
> She is, in truth, incompetent, psychotic and, were the U.S. a country that practiced any measure of justice for those who are "too big" to be brought down, considered a criminal. And considering Chelsea Clinton's demonstrable glee over Antonin Scalia's death and what it may mean for future U.S. Supreme Court decisions pertaining to the First Amendment and Second Amendment of the nearly utterly defunct U.S. Constitution, she has evidently raised her child (almost surely not Bill Clinton's, biologically speaking) in a manner that recalls Cersei's beloved Joffrey.
> 
> She cannot be trusted with state secrets; she cannot be trusted at all, except to do the wrong thing.
> 
> She's a lot less interesting than Cersei, though. C'mon, real life, you have to catch up to literature.


Pray tell if you would direct your towering intellect to draw a Trump/GOT comparison what would it be?

And along with all his greatness, please don't leave out Trump's failed marriages to beauty queens, his failed businesses, his ridiculous beauty pageants and his delusions of grandeur thinking he's going to build a giant wall.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

The Democratic Party is offering one of the most corrupt and self-serving politicians in US history on the one hand, who handwaved a US ambassador being assassinated in a country she was a main cheerleader for destabilizing, whose Clinton Foundation is perhaps the biggest influence-peddling outfit this country has ever seen. And on the other hand a man who advocates a European-style welfare state that no European country even has now because they couldn't afford it any longer. Bernie says he wants the US to be like Denmark, hell, Denmark isn't the same Denmark that Bernie has in his mind anymore. 

Meanwhile the GOP is offering a man with the most fabulous hair since Ted Kennedy.

The choice is easy.



> Pray tell if you would direct your towering intellect to draw a Trump/GOT comparison what would it be?
> 
> And along with all his greatness, please don't leave out Trump's failed marriages to beauty queens, his failed businesses, his ridiculous beauty pageants and his delusions of grandeur thinking he's going to build a giant wall.


Trump says what he wants and doesn't care what others think and repeatedly outmaneuvers his enemies who look down on him as a twisted monster.

What GoT character does that sound like...










You know George RR Martin got that line from Trump. You know it.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Trump = Tyrion is a pretty solid comparison. Can't think of anyone he fits near as well off the top of my head.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



yeahbaby! said:


> And along with all his greatness, please don't leave out Trump's failed marriages to beauty queens, his failed businesses, his ridiculous beauty pageants and his delusions of grandeur thinking he's going to build a giant wall.


Only if we don't leave out Hillary Clinton being a power- and money-grubbing cuckquean who rode the coattails of her sexual superpredator husband to fame and riches and power. It's easier to understand why she doesn't give a shit about a US ambassador being assassinated on her watch when you realize she's been not giving a shit about her husband raping and harassing and seducing multiple young women over the last 40 years. YOLO Hillary don't give a fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck~


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Pray tell if you would direct your towering intellect to draw a Trump/GOT comparison what would it be?
> 
> And along with all his greatness, please don't leave out Trump's failed marriages to beauty queens, his failed businesses, his ridiculous beauty pageants and his delusions of grandeur thinking he's going to build a giant wall.


Thank you for the kind remarks and fascinating question! Donald Trump, with his once-vaguely licentious lifestyle and failed marriages to beauty queens, and a few dozen failed business ventures out of hundreds and aspiration to build a giant wall, is much like Tyrion Lannister, although Trump is a teetotaler whereas Tyrion loves his wine. The Wall is perhaps analogous to the Brobdingnagian network of chain that Tyrion demanded to be built in preparation for the invading fleet of Stannis Baratheon on the Blackwater. And Tyrion will eventually get Stannis to pay for the chain, using only the best words, of course. @deepelemblues covered it quite well, though, so kudos to both of you!


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Joff said:


> *Post of the year*
> 
> 
> only difference is that hilary is gross
> 
> 
> I would drink Cersei's bath water


Beat me to it.

So we know already there will be at least two votes for that post in the End Of The Year Awards for 2016. :woo


----------



## Eva MaRIHyse

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Is America a real country? I mean watching this Trump stuff from a far it seems like its a big budget TV show and not a real place. I just cant decide if its a sitcom or a depressing drama.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*






These videos of Trump are popping everywhere, but I'm not complaining. :lmao


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Pray tell if you would direct your towering intellect to draw a Trump/GOT comparison what would it be?
> 
> And along with all his greatness, please don't leave out Trump's failed marriages to beauty queens, his failed businesses, his ridiculous beauty pageants and his delusions of grandeur thinking he's going to build a giant wall.


Mad King Aerys Tagaryen fits the bill to a tee.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump = Tyrion is a pretty solid comparison. Can't think of anyone he fits near as well off the top of my head.


Jon Snow. Both are our only hope. Both will hold the wall at all costs.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark
> 
> It's funny that @FITZ and his good grandmother are drawing the comparison between The High Sparrow and Bernie Sanders because I have been thinking for a while now that Hillary Clinton is the real-life version of Cersei Lannister. She married a chronically adulterous, philandering husband in a loveless marriage built upon a strategic alliance, and became the "Queen" by forming that alliance, all while being told from her early days by professors and then professional politicians and advisors that she's brilliant, believing every complimentary word. Everything she touches turns to filth, everything she has attempted to stitch together publicly to create a lasting legacy has either gone down in disaster or proved calamitous. She is ruthless and willing to destroy anyone in her path if she deems it necessary. She has reportedly become bisexual, and in the last decade and a half more liberally lesbian, like her supposed idol Eleanor Roosevelt before her, and something of a man-hater because of how she views males due to her relationship with her husband. While being reassured that she is tremendously smart, in spite of having almost every advantage conceivable she mismanages everything she has the chance of managing, including her campaigns. She just sanctioned an anti-Trump ad that displays a host of Republican politicians badmouthing Trump--and everyone who sees the ad says that it _helps_ Trump's image for millions of voters adore how much the most powerful Republican figures in Washington, D.C. seem to despise Trump and his rise.
> 
> She pushes the concept that she is a standard-bearer of empowerment for women but she would never be where she is without her marriage.
> 
> She compulsively lies when she has no reason to, and loves to create as grand an image of herself as possible, such as barely surviving sniper fire in Bosnia.
> 
> From her Hillarycare push in 1993 to her masterminding the disastrous intervention in Libya in 2011 and beyond, her initiatives have been resounding failures, her foreign policy achievements ruinous, resulting in "ashes" in the "mouth" of the United States of America.
> 
> Now, after declaring that she would destroy as many jobs in the coal mining industry as possible, in West Virginia she is telling coal miners who show her pictures of the families her policies will impoverish that her statements were taken out of context.
> 
> She is, in truth, incompetent, psychotic and, were the U.S. a country that practiced any measure of justice for those who are "too big" to be brought down, considered a criminal. And considering Chelsea Clinton's demonstrable glee over Antonin Scalia's death and what it may mean for future U.S. Supreme Court decisions pertaining to the First Amendment and Second Amendment of the nearly utterly defunct U.S. Constitution, she has evidently raised her child (almost surely not Bill Clinton's, biologically speaking) in a manner that recalls Cersei's beloved Joffrey.
> 
> She cannot be trusted with state secrets; she cannot be trusted at all, except to do the wrong thing.
> 
> She's a lot less interesting than Cersei, though. C'mon, real life, you have to catch up to literature.


Savage and accurate :damn


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

The true peoples champ


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*










:trips5:eva:zeb:cena4:sodone


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

If Trump's taco was racist, then what was Hilary's mariachi band?










You can't defend her for this and attack Trump too. Either Hilary is therefore just as racist as Trump, or this country's jimmies have been too easy to rustle for a LONG time now.

Mr. Trump, along with many others--including myself--believe the answer is the latter.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> :trips5:eva:zeb:cena4:sodone


This is sexist right?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> If Trump's taco was racist, then what was Hilary's mariachi band?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't defend her for this and attack Trump too. Either Hilary is therefore just as racist as Trump, or this country's jimmies have been too easy to rustle for a LONG time now.
> 
> Mr. Trump, along with many others--including myself--believe the answer is the latter.


Erm...the tweet wasn't offensive because it was racist, but the disingenuous attempt to mend fences with that community with the I love Hispanic line. The purpose about the tweet was not to celebrate a non-holiday with the Hispanic or to mend fences, but at people like you to feel better about supporting Trump. Very similar to how White liberal politician fight for minority rights, so that their white liberal base feel better about themselves for supporting that candidate.

Not to mention many people laughing at how he can't even resist promoting his brand in that tweet by promoting Trump Tower Grill, which some are saying don't even make Taco bowls.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> I really don't even see what he did that was wrong there. He ate mexican food in honor of Cinco de mayo and had fun at the expense of those saying he doesn't like them...he's trolling haters, not the Hispanic people in general.
> 
> Edit: Also, Vincente Fox apologized to Trump and they are now friends. Unity!


Yeah and you probably think if Trump ate fried chicken grape soda and watermelon on MLK day to poke fun, you wouldn't think that was racist either.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FriedTofu said:


> Erm...the tweet wasn't offensive because it was racist, but the disingenuous attempt to mend fences with that community with the I love Hispanic line. The purpose about the tweet was not to celebrate a non-holiday with the Hispanic or to mend fences, but at people like you to feel better about supporting Trump. Very similar to how White liberal politician fight for minority rights, so that their white liberal base feel better about themselves for supporting that candidate.
> 
> Not to mention many people laughing at how he can't even resist promoting his brand in that tweet by promoting Trump Tower Grill, which some are saying don't even make Taco bowls.


Sigh. Once again, you are played, along with the media. Trump makes a tweet saying "I love Hispanics!" and gets ridiculous amounts of free media, and people attacking him like you just add to his power. 

Haven't you learned by now? Apparently not, your victim complex is too strong.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> Sigh. Once again, you are played, along with the media. Trump makes a tweet saying "I love Hispanics!" and gets ridiculous amounts of free media, and people attacking him like you just add to his power.
> 
> Haven't you learned by now? Apparently not, your victim complex is too strong.


How was I played when I said the exact same thing when I posted the tweet in this very thread? :lol

Nice try but you fell for the very same thing you accuse me of falling for with his tweet about Warren. Talk about self-owning. Do you think that tweet was an attack on Warren, or to make people like you feel better about supporting a liberal-hating candidate? :lol Who got played? :lol


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FriedTofu said:


> How was I played when I said the exact same thing when I posted the tweet in this very thread? :lol
> 
> Nice try but you fell for the very same thing you accuse me of falling for with his tweet about Warren. Talk about self-owning. Do you think that tweet was an attack on Warren, or to make people like you feel better about supporting a liberal-hating candidate? :lol Who got played? :lol


...what? I think you Inception-ed yourself.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> ...what? I think you Inception-ed yourself.


I was just explaining to beatles why that tweet was awful and what I thought was the main purpose of the tweet.

You thought you caught a 'victim complex' lib on a rant when but failed badly because I already acknowledged Trump won the media game with that tweet earlier in the thread.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/6/11607464/trump-haircut-default-debt

Donald Trump just threatened to cause an unprecedented global financial crisis

In an interview Thursday on CNBC, Donald Trump broke with tired clichés about the evils of federal debt accumulation. "I am the king of debt," he said. "I love debt. I love playing with it."

But he replaced fearmongering about debt with an even more alarming notion — a bankruptcy of the United States federal government that would incinerate the world economy.

"I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal," Trump said. "And if the economy was good, it was good. So therefore, you can't lose."

With his statement, Trump not only revealed a dangerous ignorance about the operation of the national monetary system and the global economic order, but also offered a brilliant case study in the profound risks of attempting to apply the logic of a private business enterprise to the task of running the United States of America.

Trump is a businessman, and in terms of thinking like a businessman his idea makes sense.

The interest rate that investors currently charge the United States in order to borrow money is very low. A smart business strategy under those circumstances would be to borrow a bunch of money and undertake a bunch of big investment projects that are somewhat risky but judged to possibly have a huge payoff.

You now have two possible scenarios.

In one scenario, the investments work out and you make a ton of money. In that case, you can easily pay back the loan and everyone wins.

In another scenario, the investments don't work out and you don't make much money. In that case, you objectively can't pay back the loan. You either work out a deal with the people you owe money to in which they accept less than 100 percent of what you owe them (this is called a "haircut") or else you go to bankruptcy court and a judge will force them to accept less than 100 percent.

This is how businesspeople think — especially those who work in capital-intensive industries like real estate. And for good reason. This is the right way to run a real estate company.

Applying this idea to the United States would destroy the economy

The United States of America, however, is not a real estate development company. If a real estate company defaults on its debts and its creditors lose money, that's their problem. If a bank fails as a result, then it's the FDIC's responsibility to clean it up.

The government doesn't work like that. Right now, people and companies all around the world treat US government bonds as the least risky financial asset in the universe. If the government defaults and banks fail as a result, the government needs to clean up the mess. And if risk-free federal bonds turn out to be risky, then every other financial asset becomes riskier. The interest rate charged on state and local government debt, on corporate debt, and on home loans will spike. Savings will evaporate, and liquidity will vanish as everyone tries to hold on to their cash until they can figure out what's going on.

Every assessment of risk in the financial system is based on the idea that the least risky thing is lending money to the federal government. If that turns out to be much riskier than previously thought, then everything else becomes much riskier too. Business investment will collapse, state and local finances will be crushed, and shockwaves will emanate to a whole range of foreign countries that borrow dollars.

Remember 2008, when the markets went from thinking housing debt was low-risk to thinking it was high-risk, and a global financial crisis was the result? This would be like that, but much worse — US government debt is the very foundation of low-risk investments.

What's especially troubling about Trump's proposal is that there is genuinely no conceivable circumstance under which this kind of default would be necessary. The debt of the federal government consists entirely of obligations to pay US dollars to various individuals and institutions. US dollars are, conveniently, something the US government can create instantly and in infinite quantities at any time.

Of course, it might be undesirable to finance debts by printing money rather than raising taxes or cutting spending. In particular, that kind of money printing could lead to inflation, and even though inflation is very low right now there's no guarantee that it will always be low.

But a little bit of inflation is always going to be strictly preferable to destroying the whole American economy, especially because a debt default would cause a crash in the value of the dollar and spark inflation anyway.

Trump doesn't know what he's talking about

This is the second time this week that Trump has revealed a profound ignorance of an issue related to government debts.

The early instance in which he kept proposing that Puerto Rico declare bankruptcy even though doing so is illegal was on a question that's very important to Puerto Ricans but not so important to everyone else. It is, however, important to pay attention to how presidential candidates approach issues across the board — and what we saw with Puerto Rico is that Trump approached the issue by simplistically applying business logic without bothering to check whether it applies to the actual situation.

Now in the CNBC interview he's done the exact same thing on a matter of more consequence —not the debts of Puerto Rico but the debts of the United States of America. It's understandable that a real estate developer might assume that what works in real estate would work in economic policy, but it's not true. And Trump hasn't bothered to check or ask anyone about it.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Basically the too big to fail policy. Which could be feasible since nobody wants the US economy to fail. So there is a method to Trump's madness. Still a huge gamble for the whole world to take for a marginal chance of improving America.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

What trump wants to do would be a disaster for the whole world and would probably kill the US dollar.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

It would definitely be a disaster, look at all of his casinos.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Wikileaks Drops Hillary Email Bomb That Could End Her Campaign but FB Censored It

Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmmnnnnnnnnn nyugggaaaa :mark:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FriedTofu said:


> It would definitely be a disaster, look at all of his casinos.


Did you even read the article? Running a business and the US economy are two different things. 

If Trump collapsed the US economy it would also collapse a number of other countries economy's as well since pretty much the whole worlds economy is based on the dollar. You crash the US dollar you pretty much crash the worlds economy.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Gandhi said:


> These videos of Trump are popping everywhere, but I'm not complaining. :lmao


:clap


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Did you even read the article? Running a business and the US economy are two different things.
> 
> If Trump collapsed the US economy it would also collapse a number of other countries economy's as well since pretty much the whole worlds economy is based on the dollar. You crash the US dollar you pretty much crash the worlds economy.


I don't think you got what I was implying...typical. fpalm


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Gandhi said:


> Wikileaks Drops Hillary Email Bomb That Could End Her Campaign but FB Censored It
> 
> Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmmnnnnnnnnn nyugggaaaa :mark:


If this was happening to Sanders or Trump they would be in jail right now. Its pretty sickening how corrupt the US GOVT is when it comes to the rich and powerful elite in washinton


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FriedTofu said:


> I don't think you got what I was implying...typical. fpalm


Thats because you are awful with ton. What you said is implying sarcasm with the wink, and saying it would be a disaster , look at all his casinos 

Putting a wink after that means you don't think it was a disaster.


You really need to learn how to use better smilies and be more clear.

Because the way you posted it reeked of sarcasm because of the 

but anyways, as long as you know what Trump wants to do would be a huge disaster for not just the US but the world, then we are good


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



deepelemblues said:


> Only if we don't leave out Hillary Clinton being a power- and money-grubbing cuckquean who rode the coattails of her sexual superpredator husband to fame and riches and power. It's easier to understand why she doesn't give a shit about a US ambassador being assassinated on her watch when you realize she's been not giving a shit about her husband raping and harassing and seducing multiple young women over the last 40 years. YOLO Hillary don't give a fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck~


In your attempt to demonize Hillary. 


You just made Hillary seem Gangsta as fuck!



















Hillary is straight gangsta and got you Republicans scared. 
All the reason to vote Hillary > Trump in Nov.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



gamegenie said:


> All the reason to vote Hillary > Trump in Nov.





Gandhi said:


> Wikileaks Drops Hillary Email Bomb That Could End Her Campaign but FB Censored It
> 
> Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmmnnnnnnnnn nyugggaaaa :mark:


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah and you probably think if Trump ate fried chicken grape soda and watermelon on MLK day to poke fun, you wouldn't think that was racist either.


Except what Trump did was eat mexican food to honor a day where mexican food is traditionally eaten. That's not the same thing.

Let it be known also that I've never negged you once in this ebtire conversation and if I have, it's been rarely done. Nice to see you can take other opinions.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Funny how people were talking about Game Of Thrones recently on this thread...






....and this gets uploaded on youtube just yesterday :lol


----------



## Alt

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

I've been researching Trump for a while, and the biggest thing I've seen is how much he's been misrepresented. He's saying a lot of the same things other more "accepted" candidates are saying, except he doesn't sugarcoat it. If it comes down to Trump vs Clinton, I think Trump is the better option.

HOWEVER, something I really dislike about Trump is the fear mongering. Yes, there are many situations that require everybody's attention like ISIS, terrorism, etc. But Trump takes this way too far, and wanting to ban 1/4 of the human race from entering the USA is batshit insane. 

Has the potential to do well though, the government needs a businessman like Trump to lead.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Mark Calaway said:


> I've been researching Trump for a while, and the biggest thing I've seen is how much he's been misrepresented. He's saying a lot of the same things other more "accepted" candidates are saying, except he doesn't sugarcoat it. If it comes down to Trump vs Clinton, I think Trump is the better option.
> 
> HOWEVER, something I really dislike about Trump is the fear mongering. Yes, there are many situations that require everybody's attention like ISIS, terrorism, etc. But Trump takes this way too far, and wanting to ban 1/4 of the human race from entering the USA is batshit insane.
> 
> Has the potential to do well though, the government needs a businessman like Trump to lead.


we have before. We were careful about how we treated the Japanese and the Germans in WWII. Trump's idea is no different. If they were all white, handicapped males I'd understand if I got put under some extra restriction until it stopped.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

I don't see it as a ban but further vetting which is why the border fence is a good idea. It's been noted in years past that the open mexican/us border would make it easy for terrorists to sneak in and leave. I don't think outright banning Muslims is all that great of an idea but he did say it was temp.


@Gandi : I was reading comments in the US times who were Hilary supporters, these people are nuts! They think all of this is fabricated by the GOP and is some kind of conspiracy.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Gandhi said:


>


More smoke and mirrors.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

You guys are acting like third greaters 

calm down


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

The ABSOLUTE MADMAN is doing it, he's going after the Lizard Queen's history of strong-arming Bill Clinton's mistresses/victims. :mark:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-enabler


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> Except what Trump did was eat mexican food to honor a day where mexican food is traditionally eaten. That's not the same thing.
> 
> Let it be known also that I've never negged you once in this ebtire conversation and if I have, it's been rarely done. Nice to see you can take other opinions.


No he didn't eat Mexican food to honor a day. He was doing it to be racist and a dick. What he ate was not even real mexican food, it was the americanized version which is shit.

You can even see the smug look on his face when tweeting it


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> No he didn't eat Mexican food to honor a day. He was doing it to be racist and a dick. What he ate was not even real mexican food, it was the americanized version which is shit.
> 
> You can even see the smug look on his face when tweeting it


I don't think you even know what the word racist means to be quite honest. 

But glad to see he triggered you, mission accomplished.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> I don't think you even know what the word racist means to be quite honest.
> 
> But glad to see he triggered you, mission accomplished.


I do what the word means, racist back Trump so of course they wont think stuff like this he doses racist.

Like I said, you don't think it would be racist if on MLK day or black history mouth Trump tweeted a picture of him eating fried chicken, watermelon and drinking grape soda and saying I love black people.

Of course that would be racist

Also gotta love how Trump picked the taco bell meal that's a wall around it.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

:woo @CamillePunk :woo

Finally someone in American politics is treating the Clintons with the amount of respect that they deserve--which is, of course, to say none.

Meanwhile, Lindsey Graham comes at the King:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/728638472957755392
The King swats Graham away:



> I fully understand why Lindsey Graham cannot support me.
> 
> If I got beaten as badly as I beat him, and all the other candidates he endorsed, I would not be able to give my support either. Every time I see Lindsey Graham spew hate during interviews I ask why the media never questions how I single handily destroyed his hapless run for President.
> 
> As a candidate who did not receive 1% in his own state – compared to my victory at nearly 40% with many others in the race – he has zero credibility.
> 
> He was a poor representative and an embarrassment to the great people of South Carolina. Judging by the incompetent way he ran his campaign, it is easy to see why his military strategies have failed so badly — we can’t even beat ISIS!
> 
> While I will unify the party, Lindsey Graham has shown himself to be beyond rehabilitation. And like the voters who rejected him, so will I!
> 
> Donald J. Trump


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Eating Mexican food on Cinco De Mayo is now racist. :lmao

Except of course people wouldn't be taking issue with Trump's photo if he was Hispanic, which is discrimination, which is ACTUAL racism, but you know. :trump


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> I do what the word means, racist back Trump so of course they wont think stuff like this he doses racist.
> 
> Like I said, you don't think it would be racist if on MLK day or black history mouth Trump tweeted a picture of him eating fried chicken, watermelon and drinking grape soda and saying I love black people.
> 
> Of course that would be racist
> 
> Also gotta love how Trump picked the taco bell meal that's a wall around it.


Please give me your definition of "racism."


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> Please give me your definition of "racism."


Answer the question


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Answer the question


I don't see any question marks.

And, it's impossible to discuss this without you giving your definition of racism. Then, we go from there.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> I don't see any question marks.
> 
> And, it's impossible to discuss this without you giving your definition of racism. Then, we go from there.


Im done with you, if you are not going to answer the question.

You probably don't think its racist to call minorities racial slurs either.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Im done with you, if you are not going to answer the question.
> 
> You probably don't think its racist to call minorities racial slurs either.


:eva

I'm trying to answer but you refuse to let me. I can't answer unless I understand what you mean. So give me your definition of racism.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> :eva
> 
> I'm trying to answer but you refuse to let me. I can't answer unless I understand what you mean. So give me your definition of racism.


Answer the question

Would it be racist if on MLK day or black history mouth Trump tweeted a picture of him eating fried chicken, watermelon and drinking grape soda and saying I love black people?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



> Originally Posted by birthday_massacre View Post
> I do what the word means, racist back Trump so of course they wont think stuff like this he doses racist.
> 
> Like I said, you don't think it would be racist if on MLK day or black history mouth Trump tweeted a picture of him eating fried chicken, watermelon and drinking grape soda and saying I love black people.
> 
> Of course that would be racist
> 
> Also gotta love how Trump picked the taco bell meal that's a wall around it.


So no white person can tweet "I love black people" while including a picture of them eating fried chicken and watermelon and drinking grape soda? Because that would be racist? Lots of black people like fried chicken, watermelon and grape soda. So do lots of white people. White people invented fried chicken and grape soda by the way.* 

From the picture itself it should be instantly clear if they are being sincere, or if they are mocking black people. I'm sure there are plenty of pictures of white politicians like Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders eating fried chicken and/or watermelon and/or drinking grape soda with black people. One of the implicit messages a politician wants to convey with such a picture is "I love black people." Is that racist too? If Donald Trump had a Mexican guy in his Cinco de Mayo picture and didn't explicitly say "I love hispanics!" would it not be racist then?

This is the problem with defining racism down so anything you want to be racist can be if you want it to. You can go down the rabbit hole to the thousandth level on how this is racist and that's racist. Everyone knows what racism is and what it isn't, if they're being honest with themselves. Donald Trump's Cinco de Mayo tweet is not racist. 

*Cultural appropriation! Black people liking fried chicken and grape soda is racist cultural appropriation!


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Answer the question
> 
> Would it be racist if on MLK day or black history mouth Trump tweeted a picture of him eating fried chicken, watermelon and drinking grape soda and saying I love black people?


I'm trying. What do you mean by "racist?" I mean, this is basic language skills 101. To have a sensible discussion, everyone has to be on the same page for what words actually mean. If you ask me if the sky is blue, and I ask what you mean by blue, and you point to green, do you see why clarification is needed? This is basic stuff.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> I'm trying. What do you mean by "racist?" I mean, this is basic language skills 101. To have a sensible discussion, everyone has to be on the same page for what words actually mean. If you ask me if the sky is blue, and I ask what you mean by blue, and you point to green, do you see why clarification is needed? This is basic stuff.


You are doing the presuppositional argument that Christians love to do. You can't even answer a simple question if you thought it was racist or not. At least another poster made an intelligent reply to my question. 







deepelemblues said:


> So no white person can tweet "I love black people" while including a picture of them eating fried chicken and watermelon and drinking grape soda? Because that would be racist? Lots of black people like fried chicken, watermelon and grape soda. So do lots of white people. White people invented fried chicken and grape soda by the way.*
> 
> From the picture itself it should be instantly clear if they are being sincere, or if they are mocking black people. I'm sure there are plenty of pictures of white politicians like Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders eating fried chicken and/or watermelon and/or drinking grape soda with black people. One of the implicit messages a politician wants to convey with such a picture is "I love black people." Is that racist too? If Donald Trump had a Mexican guy in his Cinco de Mayo picture and didn't explicitly say "I love hispanics!" would it not be racist then?
> 
> This is the problem with defining racism down so anything you want to be racist can be if you want it to. You can go down the rabbit hole to the thousandth level on how this is racist and that's racist. Everyone knows what racism is and what it isn't, if they're being honest with themselves. Donald Trump's Cinco de Mayo tweet is not racist.
> 
> *Cultural appropriation! Black people liking fried chicken and grape soda is racist cultural appropriation!


From Trumps words from this whole election cycle we know he is not being sincere with his comments about him loving Mexicans and eating taco bell on Cinco de Mayo. He was doing it to mock. 
Just like someone who would be eating fried chicken, eating water melon and drinking grape soda on MLK day or block history month would be doing it to mock blacks.

So now the debate with his tweet would turn to was Trump mocking or being sincere with his tweet, and if he was mocking the he was being racist


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

So I guess because Trump doesn't want murderers, rapists, and drug traffickers coming in from Mexico he's not allowed to say anything positive about Mexico or Hispanics. Didn't realize the left viewed murder, rape, and drug trafficking as such essential components of Mexican culture.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are doing the presuppositional argument that Christians love to do. You can't even answer a simple question if you thought it was racist or not. At least another poster made an intelligent reply to my question.


I can't answer unless you tell me what racism means. English language 101. I hope you never consider a career in law.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> I can't answer unless you tell me what racism means. English language 101. I hope you never consider a career in law.


You want to play this little game, what is your def. of racism then


----------



## Kink_Brawn

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> No he didn't eat Mexican food to honor a day. He was doing it to be racist and a dick. What he ate was not even real mexican food, it was the americanized version which is shit.
> 
> You can even see the smug look on his face when tweeting it


"Mexican" is not a race.

Fucking. Idiot.

You know, Bernie Sanders said a couple of months ago that white people don't know what it's like to be poor. A while back, President Obama called his grandmother a "typical" white person. Hillary Clinton has support from former Klan members and has referred to blacks as animals. 

never

NEVER do you hear anyone complain about this shit...however, if some business man fucks with his detractors on Twitter....something he is famous for doing....WATCH OUT!! HE IS THE WORST MAN ALIVE!!

You anti Trump people have such misplaced hostility.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You want to play this little game, what is your def. of racism then


Belief in genetic superiority due to race.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Kink_Brawn said:


> "Mexican" is not a race.
> 
> Fucking. Idiot.
> 
> You know, Bernie Sanders said a couple of months ago that white people don't know what it's like to be poor. A while back, President Obama called his grandmother a "typical" white person. Hillary Clinton has support from former Klan members and has referred to blacks as animals.
> 
> never
> 
> NEVER do you hear anyone complain about this shit...however, if some business man fucks with his detractors on Twitter....something he is famous for doing....WATCH OUT!! HE IS THE WORST MAN ALIVE!!
> 
> You anti Trump people have such misplaced hostility.


Oh here we got with the semantic word game to stick up for the racist Trump.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> Belief in genetic superiority due to race.


So white people that calls blacks the N word or calls latinos the S word are not racist by your definition then?

You don't have to think those races are inferior to call them those slurs.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> So white people that calls blacks the N word or calls latinos the S word are not racist by your definition then?
> 
> You don't have to think those races are inferior to call them those slurs.


No, words themselves are not inherently racist. Words are just expression. The N word can be said in many different ways - some racist, some not. Depends on intent.

But do you disagree with my definition? If so, why? And what is yours?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> No, words themselves are not inherently racist. Words are just expression. The N word can be said in many different ways - some racist, some not. Depends on intent.
> 
> But do you disagree with my definition? If so, why? And what is yours?


Racism isn't only thinking another race is inferior to yours , its also having hatred , intolerance or bigoted views of another race as well.

If you can't stand black people just because they are black, and not even think they are inferior to you. Thats still racism. 

Your def of racism is very narrow.

So if a white person calls a black person the N word as an insult, is that racist or not by your definition ?


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Racism isn't only thinking another race is inferior to yours , its also having hatred , hatred or bigoted views of another race as well.
> 
> 
> Your def of racism is very narrow.


Yes, it is very narrow. The dictionary agrees.

rac·ist
ˈrāsəst/
noun
1.
a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
synonyms:	racial bigot, racialist, xenophobe, chauvinist, supremacist More
adjective
1.
having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.
"we are investigating complaints about racist abuse at the club"


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> From Trumps words from this whole election cycle we know he is not being sincere with his comments about him loving Mexicans and eating taco bell on Cinco de Mayo. He was doing it to mock.
> Just like someone who would be eating fried chicken, eating water melon and drinking grape soda on MLK day or block history month would be doing it to mock blacks.
> 
> So now the debate with his tweet would turn to was Trump mocking or being sincere with his tweet, and if he was mocking the he was being racist


Trump has said that he'd have a big beautiful door in his wall to let in hispanics who aren't rapists, murderers, thieves, drug smugglers etc. And here he is saying he loves hispanics. So you pick and choose which of his words you give weight to. 

This is what I'm talking about with defining racism down. Donald Trump's main comments about hispanics are he wants to end illegal immigration to the US, a phenomenon dominated by hispanics. He is not going out day after day talking about how hispanics are dirty or stupid or whatever because they are hispanic. He's not saying they're dirty or stupid or whatever period. He doesn't want them coming to this country illegally. So that means, somehow, he's racist against hispanics.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> Yes, it is very narrow. The dictionary agrees.
> 
> rac·ist
> ˈrāsəst/
> noun
> 1.
> a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
> synonyms:	racial bigot, racialist, xenophobe, chauvinist, supremacist More
> adjective
> 1.
> having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.
> "we are investigating complaints about racist abuse at the club"


http://www.dictionary.com/browse/racism


noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.



or

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/racism

racism - the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races
2.	racism - discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race
Synonyms: racial discrimination, racialism


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/racism
> 
> 
> noun
> 1.
> a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
> 2.
> a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
> 3.
> hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.


Mhm. And eating a taco bowl has nothing to do with racial superiority.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> Mhm. And eating a taco bowl has nothing to do with racial superiority.


Is a white person calling a black person the N word racist as an insult, even it has nothing to do with racial superiority.

Racism isnt just about racial superiority

It also has to do with intolerance , hatred or bigoted views toward another race as well.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Is a white person calling a black person the N word racist as an insult, even it has nothing to do with racial superiority.


Depends on the context. It could be.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Is a white person calling a black person the N word racist as an insult, even it has nothing to do with racial superiority.


It's impossible to call a black person that word, _as an insult,_ and not have it be about implied racial superiority.



> Racism isnt just about racial superiority


Elucidate a racist belief or behavior that does not include racial superiority. You kind of can't. Because without the racial superiority the belief or behavior has no logic whatsoever. Racism without racial superiority would be insane. Not the 'racism is insane' kind of imprecise language nonsense the public education of the 90s gave us, actually insane. Crazy person talk with no mooring in any kind of logical consistency.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



deepelemblues said:


> It's impossible to call a black person that word, _as an insult,_ and not have it be about implied racial superiority.


No its not. And its about an racist slur not just the N word.






markoutsmarkout said:


> Depends on the context. It could be.


So then your argument falls flat then.

Thanks for proving my point. We are done here.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



deepelemblues said:


> It's impossible to call a black person that word, _as an insult,_ and not have it be about implied racial superiority.


Usually yeah. But it is also used these days to describe "ghetto" blacks as opposed to middle-class, white collar blacks. But I mean this is all down in the weeds. Like I said, context.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



markoutsmarkout said:


> Usually yeah. But it is also used these days to describe "ghetto" blacks as opposed to middle-class, white collar blacks. But I mean this is all down in the weeds. Like I said, context.


So do you think that having hatred or intolerance of another race or other races is being a racist?
Do you think having discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race is being racist?

If you answer to either of those questions is no and that racism is just thinking your race is superior to anothers. then yes that is where our disconnect is


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> So do you think that having hatred or intolerance of another race or other races is being a racist?
> Do you think having discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race is being racist?
> 
> If you answer to either of those questions is no and that racism is just thinking your race is superior to anothers. then yes that is where our disconnect is


It likely is, as I don't see why someone would discriminate against a race if they didn't think they were inferior. But I suppose it's possible.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Pretty moot discussion going on ITT since Trump doesn't use racial slurs and has a very progressive hiring record. The only "racism" he's guilty of is the phony racism of the left where a white man can't criticize any group that contains mostly non-white people, even if the criticism has NOTHING to do with race. The left assumes racist intent because he's a white Republican, which is of course extremely bigoted of them, but they don't apply anywhere near the same standards to themselves as they apply to everyone else.

The rise of Trump shows people are fucking tired of it. He's unapologetic and won't be shamed by the phony left, and won't be scared away by the lies spread by the leftist propaganda machine. A ton of people love that, and not just conservatives. His support among Democrats and Independents blows any previous Republican candidate in recent history out of the water.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

While you guys argue about "racism" of Hispanics, know that Hispanics are NOT a race.

There's a reason why the census data, in many Hispanic countries, includes:

- European (White)
- Afrolatino (Black)
- Amerindian (Native American)
- Mulatto (White and Black)
- Mestizo (White and Amerindian)


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

And "The Donald" loves ALL of the Hispanics, @Oda Nobunaga. :trump



Funny thing, when you create a cultural French Revolution spanning decades, it eventually eats its "traitor class."


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/728982828948430848


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



CamillePunk said:


> Pretty moot discussion going on ITT since Trump doesn't use racial slurs and has a very progressive hiring record. The only "racism" he's guilty of is the phony racism of the left where a white man can't criticize any group that contains mostly non-white people, even if the criticism has NOTHING to do with race. The left assumes racist intent because he's a white Republican, which is of course extremely bigoted of them, but they don't apply anywhere near the same standards to themselves as they apply to everyone else.
> 
> The rise of Trump shows people are fucking tired of it. He's unapologetic and won't be shamed by the phony left, and won't be scared away by the lies spread by the leftist propaganda machine. A ton of people love that, and not just conservatives. His support among Democrats and Independents blows any previous Republican candidate in recent history out of the water.


You are right the racist , sexist, bigots and ignorant people of the USA are sick having to hide those thoughts and feeling and now with Trump being all those things they see oh wow the GOP nominee is just like me, they can be openly racist, sexist, bigoted and ignorant all they want now.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*










What I did on May 5th


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> No he didn't eat Mexican food to honor a day. He was doing it to be racist and a dick. What he ate was not even real mexican food, it was the americanized version which is shit.
> 
> You can even see the smug look on his face when tweeting it


Why is it racist? You keep saying it is but without explaining why. 

I took it has him making fun of people that call him racist.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Kink_Brawn said:


> "Mexican" is not a race.
> 
> Fucking. Idiot.
> 
> You know, Bernie Sanders said a couple of months ago that white people don't know what it's like to be poor. A while back, President Obama called his grandmother a "typical" white person. Hillary Clinton has support from former Klan members and has referred to blacks as animals.
> 
> never
> 
> NEVER do you hear anyone complain about this shit...however, if some business man fucks with his detractors on Twitter....something he is famous for doing....WATCH OUT!! HE IS THE WORST MAN ALIVE!!
> 
> You anti Trump people have such misplaced hostility.


*WRONG!!!!

*People were up Obama's ass about anything that had just a slight inkling pertaining to race back in his 2008 campaign. 


Rather it was his "typical white person" comments he said describing his Grandmother. 

or mentioning how the people of West Virginia "cling to their guns & religion" as a dependable of what they have left. 

You had media, mainly conservative throwing a shit-storm.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

off topic but, @birthday_massacre are you a rejoiner formerly known as messi?


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are right the racist , sexist, bigots and ignorant people of the USA are sick having to hide those thoughts and feeling and now with Trump being all those things they see oh wow the GOP nominee is just like me, they can be openly racist, sexist, bigoted and ignorant all they want now.


Muslims and Mexicans aren't races. And deporting illegal immigrants isn't bigotry either. The funny thing is, Hilary Clinton(and even Barrack Obama) as a senator voted to build a wall/fence around Mexico to keep out illegal immigrants. Odd that no one likes to mention that . Also, both sides are bigoted and ignorant of the other. To suggest otherwise is foolish . Call it both ways, you can't attack others then complain that they were attacking you


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> While you guys argue about "racism" of Hispanics, know that Hispanics are NOT a race.
> 
> There's a reason why the census data, in many Hispanic countries, includes:
> 
> - European (White)
> - Afrolatino (Black)
> - Amerindian (Native American)
> - Mulatto (White and Black)
> - Mestizo (White and Amerindian)


Interesting post. Except in the United States Hispanic is it's own race. 

Of course it's not a race in Hispanic countries because they're all Hispanic. What use would that classification even have? 

Race is different in different parts of the world. What is 5 different races in Central America is 1 race in North America.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FITZ said:


> Interesting post. Except in the United States Hispanic is it's own race.
> 
> Of course it's not a race in Hispanic countries because they're all Hispanic. What use would that classification even have?
> 
> Race is different in different parts of the world. What is 5 different races in Central America is 1 race in North America.


The "Hispanic" classification is a cultural identity (with the basis being areas of former Spanish Conquest in the Americas), not a racial one. That's why "Hispanic" is useless in Latin American countries. Actually, the US has begun to differentiate "White Hispanics" and "Black Hispanics" from one another, with labels like "White (of Hispanic origin)" and "Black (of Hispanic origin)".


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> The "Hispanic" classification is a cultural identity (with the basis being areas of former Spanish Conquest in the Americas), not a racial one. That's why "Hispanic" is useless in Latin American countries. Actually, the US has begun to differentiate "White Hispanics" and "Black Hispanics" from one another, with labels like "White (of Hispanic origin)" and "Black (of Hispanic origin)".


Race is culturally defined everywhere.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FITZ said:


> Race is culturally defined everywhere.


True. The notion of "human races" is also disregarded in most scientific circles, though nations will continue to use it.

Still, the notion of "Hispanic" as a "race" becomes ridiculous when you see a dark-skinned Afrolatino Puerto Rican man and a pale-skinned, ginger-haired Mexican woman (both of which I've seen) being considered the same "race", as it were.

EDIT: We may be derailing this topic. Poor Trump. :mj2 :trump


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> EDIT: We may be derailing this topic. Poor Trump. :mj2 :trump


a crying black man next to a smiling donald trump?!

do we need any more proof of trump's disgusting racism?!?! look at how happy he is at the tears of His Airness!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



MrMister said:


> off topic but, @birthday_massacre are you a rejoiner formerly known as messi?


Who? No lol

Plus I have been on the boards since 2013.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

People native to the Americas are the same race as the Chinese or Japanese, they're *********.

Hispanic _"Latino"_ people are mostly folks who are full **********, full caucasoids no differently than Europeans/North Africans/Middle Easterns/West Asian, and people who are a mixture of caucasoids & **********. Latinos are mostly caucasoids though, that's why they get mistaken for middle easterns or whites a lot by people since they're the same race. Once you do your research, races actually make sense.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Five acts of kindness by Donald Trump you won't see or hear about in the media or from Trump himself:

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/11/461...donald-trump-than-just-his-celebrity-persona/


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Is the Taco Bowl Salad Conspiracy still going on? Just shut the fuck up already, it's not racist. Was it a trollish pic? sure it was trolling people who said Trump was racist. Him eating mexican food on cinco De Mayo is not racist, considering the fact the very people bitching about Trump's alleged racism are probably the same people who drink and eat mexican food on this holiday makes this all moot. 

Just shut up about it already, chances are the whiny whites are practicing cultural appropriation nearly every holiday or celebration means technically they're just as racist. Any mexicans complaining need to check their own bullshit with the racist "La Raza" shit, strutting around how "good" they are. The only group of idiots upset about Trump's taco bowl are the very hypocrites doing the same shit every year.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

It was just a tweet who cares it was funny honestly. Nothing wrong with it.


----------



## manstis1804

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Good to see a thoroughly thought out, honest post about conflicted feelings surrounding Donald Trump gets a negative rep from the resident Bernie fanboi. A BernieBro _would_ have problems with nuanced thinking that doesn't insult everyone that disagrees.

And the best part: that kind of bullshit thinking makes it _more_ likely Trump gets in office! Because, obviously, HIllary Clinton can't even think of holding a candle to our morally pure Democratic Socialist overlord. Nope, if you ain't Bernie, you ain't shit.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Sounds like Hillary wanted to build the wall also.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Azealia Banks endorsed Trump. That is quite the interestingly worded endorsement. 
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/azealia-banks-endorses-donald-trump-891709


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

An entertainer endorsing another entertainer for President. 


Color me surprised.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



THE SHIV said:


> Azealia Banks endorsed Trump. That is quite the interestingly worded endorsement.
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/azealia-banks-endorses-donald-trump-891709


It's what Republicans should have been saying to blacks for 30 years now. The Democratic Party has completely fucking failed blacks (hispanics too) and it's time someone pointed it out, over and over again. Democrats have run every major city in this country for 50 years, except for Giuliani and Bloomberg in NYC. The blacks and hispanics in inner cities are almost as bad off today as they were 30 years ago when the crack epidemic was in full swing. Black and hispanic unemployment is still horrible. 3 generations of blacks and hispanics have been mindlessly voting for a political party that has done absolutely jack shit for them. They're still the majority of the lowest socioeconomic class in this country. Democrats haven't done shit to change that and they've had decades to try. Way past time someone pointed it out to blacks and hispanics until they realize "REPUBLIKKKANS ARE RACIST YOU CAN'T VOTE FOR THEM WE'LL PROTECT YOU FROM THEM" is the ultimate bait-and-switch. Every election the Democrats say that the threat of Republican racism is greater than it ever has been before; according to their own campaigns the Democrats have failed at fighting that too, if it's such a horrible danger EVERY SINGLE ELECTION. If you're a poor racial minority individual voting for Democrats you're getting punked. They're happy to take your votes and what you get in return is you still get to live in the ghetto and see half your friends and relatives going in and out of jail, or getting shot, with no end in sight.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

A taco bowl is now racist LOL.

These SJW loons are really reaching and its shit like that which is making Trump so popular.
People are sick of these sheltered spoiled mostly white loser college students putting their feelings over logic.

All they can do is call him names like racist, sexist, misogynist with no substance behind it. These words have lost all meaning.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*






*TRUMP, STOP! THAT MAN HAS A FAMILY!*


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

The whole thing about people being outraged that Trump wants to build a big wall doesn't make a lot of sense. I think any reasonable person, even the most liberal of them, would agree that we have a problem with drugs entering the US from Mexico. And I think they would agree that we should have a secure border. 

I don't see why physically securing the border is such an evil and racist thing to want to do.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FITZ said:


> The whole thing about people being outraged that Trump wants to build a big wall doesn't make a lot of sense. I think any reasonable person, even the most liberal of them, would agree that we have a problem with drugs entering the US from Mexico. And I think they would agree that we should have a secure border.
> 
> I don't see why physically securing the border is such an evil and racist thing to want to do.


Because physically securing the border slows down the process of turning the US into a Western European-style welfare and regulatory state. A lot of future Democrat voters would no longer have the chance to become citizens and vote Democrat or have children who would be citizens and vote Democrat. Democrats have seen the polling of recent immigrants from south of the border, they support Democratic economic/welfare state policies. And Democrats know that illegal immigration is far bigger numbers-wise than legal. So, naturally, physically securing the border, greatly reducing illegal immigration, and not giving illegal immigrants citizenship = RACIST!

That stupid asshole John Kerry said it just a few days ago: we are heading to a borderless world. If you want to leave your poor country and come to our rich country and have us subsidize your new and better life as a poor person in America as opposed to a poor person in Mexico, or as a poor person in Europe instead of as a poor person in North Africa or the Middle East, you have that right, and tough shit for anyone who doesn't like the idea of having an obligation to allow as many poor people into his country as want to come. Those shitty countries have no obligation to make themselves better, we rich countries have an obligation to be an escape valve for those poor countries.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Just to follow up on the vid I posted...

Wikipedia:

After much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of 
Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's 
supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed 
the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61-38.[6]
Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed 
it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on 
January 1, 1994.[7][8]
Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. 
American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I
wouldn't support this agreement."

Bush initialed it and began the process, Clinton passed it into law.﻿


CNN BTFO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :zeb


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Military Times survey: Troops prefer Trump to Clinton by a huge margin.

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/...-donald-trump-beats-hillary-clinton/84132402/


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

That's not a surprise at all. Law Enforcement and Military are pretty consistent in voting Republican. 

Also in that poll Clinton was only 4 points ahead of "I would rather not vote."


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Trump basically calling Hillary a cuck due to Bill's sexual shenanïgans has been as enjoyable as I thought it would be.

:kobe9

On an unrelated note, why the hell can't I spell shenanïgans without the -nani- part being removed? :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Trump was so fucking based in that CNN interview. :kobe6 The media are a bunch of lying clowns and mostly leftist shills and he continues to completely expose them. It was obvious to me what he meant regarding "raising taxes on the wealthy" yet so many people ate up the media's crudely spun narrative.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

@AryaDark


Beatles123 said:


> *TRUMP, STOP! THAT MAN HAS A FAMILY!*





CamillePunk said:


> Trump was so fucking based in that CNN interview. :kobe6 The media are a bunch of lying clowns and mostly leftist shills and he continues to completely expose them. It was obvious to me what he meant regarding "raising taxes on the wealthy" yet so many people ate up the media's crudely spun narrative.


:lmao :sodone

Exquisite interview for Trump's rhetorical blitzkrieg. :lol

Many wondered for years how "the system" as it is known, with its twin pillars of sanctioned and allowable political discourse and professionalization of bribe-taking, would finally reach its inevitable fissure, and it would appear that Donald J. Trump, and even more importantly, the movement he represents, may indeed be the engendering of that fissure. Take note how he even refers to himself as "Trump," and how supporters are invoking his name throughout the country in a way that supersedes mere fealty to a particular political candidate. "Trump" has become the inchoately angered riposte toward "the system" at large, a sort of abstract catch-all that wages war on the abstractions of our age. It only fitting that juxtaposed with legion political hacks pretending to be common men, ripping into pizzas and telling stories of their bartender or mailman fathers, that an oligarchical celebrity figure would be the one character to tap into genuine populism. For all of the quiet, desperate yearning for an outsider like James Stewart's "Mr. Smith" or some homespun variation on Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, Trump is the insider's insider, caustically and gleefully taking note of all of the politicians he has bought and paid for in the past. He has wonderfully made a mockery out of the postmodern American democratic paradigm, which is only a positive. 

It's a lot of fun to watch unfold.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Trump's trying to get legend status at this point, if that happens I don't think Hilary will stand a chance. I don't think Hilary or Bernie supporters could stop him at that point especially if Trump starts gathering blacks and hispanics to him.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

*Clinton-Trump Close In Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll Finds*:

https://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/...ing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2345

LEADING IN OHIO! HE'S DOING IT, FAM! :trump


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FITZ said:


> I don't see why physically securing the border is such an evil and racist thing to want to do.


The problem here is in thinking that a wall, fence or a physical barrier is going to solve that problem. 

It's a limited and archaic solution to a problem that doesn't necessarily require illegals crossing the border because it doesn't address illegal smuggling by legals.

For example: 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-cartels-using-teens-to-smuggle-drugs/

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...s-use-narco-submarines-to-smuggle-6201320.php

http://www.prweb.com/releases/drug/trafficking/prweb8145166.htm

They'll just find another way, and then another way and then another way. I don't think a wall is going to even put a dent in the drug smuggling at all.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Reaper said:


> The problem here is in thinking that a wall, fence or a physical barrier is going to solve that problem.
> 
> It's a limited and archaic solution to a problem that doesn't necessarily require illegals crossing the border because it doesn't address illegal smuggling by legals.
> 
> For example:
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-cartels-using-teens-to-smuggle-drugs/
> 
> http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...s-use-narco-submarines-to-smuggle-6201320.php
> 
> http://www.prweb.com/releases/drug/trafficking/prweb8145166.htm
> 
> They'll just find another way, and then another way and then another way. I don't think a wall is going to even put a dent in the drug smuggling at all.


It's a thousand times better than any other proposal we have had, and besides that, while your critique at least tries to be fair, this isn't the way most people in the USA choose to attempt to discredit the idea. "That's Racist." is all you will hear, and not only is that statement false, it also sweeps the threat of globalism under the rug.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

So it looks like Vincente Fox had a photo taken that looked like this:

http://www.breitbart.com/california...x-giving-donald-trump-finger-huffington-post/

Just a day before he apologized to Trump...on TV.

:trump "You dun goofed, Foxxy!"


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> It's a thousand times better than any other proposal we have had, and besides that, while your critique at least tries to be fair, this isn't the way most people in the USA choose to attempt to discredit the idea. "That's Racist." is all you will hear, and not only is that statement false, it also sweeps the threat of globalism under the rug.


Or maybe the people who are rational get drowned out by the crazies on both sides because it makes for more simplified and less nuanced conversations. 

Anyways, read the articles I posted and after that if you still believe that this is the best proposal (considering that just by virtue of being a proposal doesn't make it great) and not just impractical lip service giving us the illusion of a solution instead of an actual solution.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Reaper said:


> The problem here is in thinking that a wall, fence or a physical barrier is going to solve that problem.
> 
> It's a limited and archaic solution to a problem that doesn't necessarily require illegals crossing the border because it doesn't address illegal smuggling by legals.
> 
> For example:
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-cartels-using-teens-to-smuggle-drugs/
> 
> http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...s-use-narco-submarines-to-smuggle-6201320.php
> 
> http://www.prweb.com/releases/drug/trafficking/prweb8145166.htm
> 
> They'll just find another way, and then another way and then another way. I don't think a wall is going to even put a dent in the drug smuggling at all.


These are good points for the drugs. But I think we need to do our best to make it as hard as possible to get drugs in. I'll phrase it this way. Our border patrol uses a lot of resources patrolling inside the US, within 100 miles of the border. And they spend a good deal of resources look for non US citizens sneaking into the country. If we build a wall that keeps people out then we can devote more resources to the legal border crossings so we can catch more drug smugglers and we can use more resources on ports to stop drugs from coming in by sea. 

And I think there is an economic benefit in keeping illegal immigrants out of the US as well.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FITZ said:


> These are good points for the drugs. But I think we need to do our best to make it as hard as possible to get drugs in. I'll phrase it this way. Our border patrol uses a lot of resources patrolling inside the US, within 100 miles of the border. And they spend a good deal of resources look for non US citizens sneaking into the country. If we build a wall that keeps people out then we can devote more resources to the legal border crossings so we can catch more drug smugglers and we can use more resources on ports to stop drugs from coming in by sea.
> 
> And I think there is an economic benefit in keeping illegal immigrants out of the US as well.


The estimate cost of a wall is about $22 billion. The cost of patrolling the borders is about $12 billion. The cost/benefit ratio of a wall isn't easy to determine, but I don't think that building a wall would radically reduce that cost at all. 

The thing is that let's say we do pay to build the wall - but then like most things - people will forget that there is already systems and budget allocations for border security - and good luck trying to reduce or even redirect that budget. Also, subverting an existing wall with lessened security isn't going to be that hard for drug cartels. One of the articles mentioned that they're using catapults in areas where there are already fences. Then we have to worry about low flying drones (which are literally just a few years on the horizon). 

They'll just find another excuse to get people to fund the wall as well as keep the security costs the same. Has Trump addressed this issue yet? Or has anyone? 

The wall is an additional cost without much benefit. 

I do agree that keeping illegals out of America has a great effect on the economy, but that isn't an immigration fault as much as it is a capitalism fault where the southern land owners actively encourage illegal immigration through their hiring practices. The issue that needs to be addressed is making sure that illegals aren't hired. 

Something that Trump can't even ensure in his own projects.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Trump's plan isn't to just build a wall and hang a Mission Accomplished banner. It goes far deeper than that. I do like what a wall says to a third world country like Mexico though, which is that this country was not founded or enriched by third world immigration and we don't want people with different cultural values here, although we may be 40 years late on that one. Still, with a temp ban on Muslims (I'd like to see this become a permanent ban on immigration from countries with significant terrorist presence, and yes I realize this may soon include European countries as they continue to sacrifice themselves) and a wall between us and Mexico, I'd say we'd be taking significant steps in the right direction. All the smart people left these countries a long time ago. We have no need for the rest, and no obligation to bring them here whatsoever. Despite the lies of liberals, accepting these type of people was never a part of our country's history.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump's plan isn't to just build a wall and hang a Mission Accomplished banner. It goes far deeper than that. I do like what a wall says to a third world country like Mexico though, which is that this country was not founded or enriched by third world immigration and we don't want people with different cultural values here, although we may be 40 years late on that one. Still, with a temp ban on Muslims (I'd like to see this become a permanent ban on immigration from countries with significant terrorist presence, and yes I realize this may soon include European countries as they continue to sacrifice themselves) and a wall between us and Mexico, I'd say we'd be taking significant steps in the right direction. All the smart people left these countries a long time ago. We have no need for the rest, and no obligation to bring them here whatsoever. Despite the lies of liberals, accepting these type of people was never a part of our country's history.


Our country's history is that we took people in when we needed people. Like when we had surplus of low paying, unskilled jobs and then millions of miles of land to give to people to farm. It's not one of letting people in because we wanted to bring in everyone. It's because we needed the extra people.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Florida:

TRUMP 42
CLINTON 43

TRUMP 42
SANDERS 44

Ohio:

TRUMP 43
CLINTON 39

SANDERS 43
TRUMP 41

Pennsylvania:

TRUMP 42
CLINTON 43

SANDERS 47
TRUMP 41

If these are the numbers in May, the landslide in November is gonna be epic :trump


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FITZ said:


> Our country's history is that we took people in when we needed people. Like when we had surplus of low paying, unskilled jobs and then millions of miles of land to give to people to farm. It's not one of letting people in because we wanted to bring in everyone. It's because we needed the extra people.


Modern immigrants wouldn't take anyone's jobs if the modern locals were more hardworking than the immigrants - which they are not - which is why immigrants still come in and succeed more than a good chunk of citizens.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

According to a new Quinnipiac University poll in the enormously crucial swing states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida, Trump and Clinton are running a very tight race.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-clinton-florida-ohio-pennsylvania-222994

It's May. After 6 months of Trump's brilliant branding and master persuasion skills, and all of Hillary's enormous problems, it seems hard to fathom that he wouldn't pull ahead significantly by then. Who knows, maybe this is another "outlier".


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Reaper said:


> Modern immigrants wouldn't take anyone's jobs if the modern locals were more hardworking than the immigrants - which they are not - which is why immigrants still come in and succeed more than a good chunk of citizens.


http://cis.org/node/3876
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/hispanic-immigration-and-poverty/361523/
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/poverty-grows-among-children-immigrants-us

orly

The numbers have stayed fairly steady for some time, immigrants who've been here for a while have a higher poverty rate (around 5%) than native-born, recent immigrants have a much much higher poverty rate.

Must be all that greater success they're having.

At being poor.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



deepelemblues said:


> http://cis.org/node/3876
> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/hispanic-immigration-and-poverty/361523/
> http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/poverty-grows-among-children-immigrants-us
> 
> orly
> 
> The numbers have stayed fairly steady for some time, immigrants who've been here for a while have a higher poverty rate (around 5%) than native-born, recent immigrants have a much much higher poverty rate.
> 
> Must be all that greater success they're having.
> 
> At being poor.


Why is there no nuance in this thread? 

The article does try to make a small case for why some of that poverty is due to how many of these immigrants were illegals once that got immigration status afterwards. Once-illegal immigrants over-states the poverty figures because those people took whatever they could get and even after being made legal stayed in poverty as they were never qualified to begin with. 

The immigrants I'm talking about aren't the mix of illegals and legals because I'm against bringing in illegal immigrants. America's immigration system is only broken to the extent of making it much too easy for illegals to come in and get jobs. It's tougher for economic migrants that actually end up doing a lot better because then they can be hired as per their qualification or set up businesses. 

This is an extremely important distinction because the economic migrants that come here tend to do well because they're already qualified or financially sound when they come here and eventually find jobs they are qualified to do or open up businesses that help the economy. 

I agree that the illegal immigration is a huge part of the problem and that's bringing in a host of problems including poverty - but as I've pointed out before, capitalists have a vested interest in making sure illegal immigration continues because it serves their business interests through reducing their costs of production. 

The solution needs to be multi-fold. Stop the flow of illegal immigrants. Stop awarding US Citizenry based on birth over US soil at the same time encourage businesses with incentives to hire locals and not rely on illegals for cheap production.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Reaper said:


> Why is there no nuance in this thread?
> 
> The article does try to make a small case for why some of that poverty is due to how many of these immigrants were illegals once that got immigration status afterwards. Once-illegal immigrants over-states the poverty figures because those people took whatever they could get and even after being made legal stayed in poverty as they were never qualified to begin with.
> 
> The immigrants I'm talking about aren't the mix of illegals and legals because I'm against bringing in illegal immigrants. America's immigration system is only broken to the extent of making it much too easy for illegals to come in and get jobs. It's tougher for economic migrants that actually end up doing a lot better because then they can be hired as per their qualification or set up businesses.
> 
> This is an extremely important distinction because the economic migrants that come here tend to do well because they're already qualified or financially sound when they come here and eventually find jobs they are qualified to do or open up businesses that help the economy.
> 
> I agree that the illegal immigration is a huge part of the problem and that's bringing in a host of problems including poverty - but as I've pointed out before, capitalists have a vested interest in making sure illegal immigration continues because it serves their business interests through reducing their costs of production.
> 
> The solution needs to be multi-fold. Stop the flow of illegal immigrants. Stop awarding US Citizenry based on birth over US soil at the same time encourage businesses with incentives to hire locals and not rely on illegals for cheap production.


What kind of nuance is there in this statement:



Reaper said:


> Modern immigrants wouldn't take anyone's jobs if the modern locals were more hardworking than the immigrants - which they are not - which is why immigrants still come in and succeed more than a good chunk of citizens.


It's like two different people wrote those two posts too.

And you're missing that there are generally speaking two kinds of economically successful immigrants: the ones who open small businesses and "work hard" and succeed at it, and the immigrants who came to America for a college education and became skilled professionals (the stereotypical "Indian doctor" type). Well three types I guess if you count Persians.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



deepelemblues said:


> It's like two different people wrote those two posts too.
> 
> And you're missing that there are generally speaking two kinds of economically successful immigrants: the ones who open small businesses and "work hard" and succeed at it, and the immigrants who came to America for a college education and became skilled professionals (the stereotypical "Indian doctor" type). Well three types I guess if you count Persians.


Did I need to make the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants when I'm just talking about immigrants?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Reaper said:


> Did I need to make the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants when I'm just talking about immigrants?


Since there are usually great differences between the two sets of people, probably.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*










:trump


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Wonder how it looks for Dem primary voters in a Trump vs Clinton match-up.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

There is a big difference between legal and illegal immigrants, trying to cast them as the same is silly.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

nvm.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

http://thehill.com/policy/national-...-reported-to-have-walked-out-of-fbi-interview

*Clinton aide reported to have walked out of FBI interview!*


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

America first, enough said.


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



NotGuilty said:


>










He's sounding like a winner.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



gamegenie said:


> He's sounding like a winner.


it's the truth. and the tweet is old.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

NEW POLLS!

CLINTON IS CRASHING!!!!

NEW REUTERS NATIONAL POLL: MAY 10, 2016

1,289 RespondentsCredibility Interval: +/-1.2%

Hillary Clinton (Democrat)	41.3%

Donald Trump (Republican)	40.0%

Other/Wouldn't vote/refused	18.7%

http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/T.../20160201-20160510/collapsed/true/spotlight/1


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> NEW POLLS!
> 
> CLINTON IS CRASHING!!!!
> 
> NEW REUTERS NATIONAL POLL: MAY 10, 2016
> 
> 1,289 RespondentsCredibility Interval: +/-1.2%
> 
> Hillary Clinton (Democrat) 41.3%
> 
> Donald Trump (Republican) 40.0%
> 
> Other/Wouldn't vote/refused 18.7%
> 
> http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/T.../20160201-20160510/collapsed/true/spotlight/1


The demographic that votes for Hillary aren't wasting their time on some survey/online poll company. :grin2:

You guys are in for a rude awakening come Nov if you put all your eggs in the bag for polls. 


and WTF is up with West Virginia last night, they showing their TRUE colors. 

Don't be fooled about the 'coal miners' jargon that some media outlets are spinning against Hillary, because if those WV were any smart they would know that Bernie Sanders is more to the left on environment/clean jobs than Hillary. 

Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd touch on the real issue briefly, you can't ignore it. These rust belt states have a Race/Gender problem.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Voters for Hilary aren't online which is why they have no idea of the bullshit she's done or else they wouldn't vote for her. They must not watch the news or talk to anyone over the age of 5.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



gamegenie said:


> The demographic that votes for Hillary aren't wasting their time on some survey/online poll company. :grin2:
> 
> You guys are in for a rude awakening come Nov if you put all your eggs in the bag for polls.
> 
> 
> and WTF is up with West Virginia last night, they showing their TRUE colors.
> 
> Don't be fooled about the 'coal miners' jargon that some media outlets are spinning against Hillary, because if those WV were any smart they would know that Bernie Sanders is more to the left on environment/clean jobs than Hillary.
> 
> Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd touch on the real issue briefly, you can't ignore it. These rust belt states have a Race/Gender problem.


Cuck Todd is literally one of the worst liars on CNN.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



> The demographic that votes for Hillary aren't wasting their time on some survey/online poll company.


And you know this how?



> You guys are in for a rude awakening come Nov if you put all your eggs in the bag for polls.


What are people supposed to rely on instead? Your opinion? My opinion?



> and WTF is up with West Virginia last night, they showing their TRUE colors.


Yeah, they voted against the woman who said she's going to destroy the industry that is the 3rd largest in the state. 



> Don't be fooled about the 'coal miners' jargon that some media outlets are spinning against Hillary, because if those WV were any smart they would know that Bernie Sanders is more to the left on environment/clean jobs than Hillary.


Bernie Sanders hasn't openly stated that he's going to destroy the coal industry though like dumbshit Hillary did.

By the way, there's this:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...of-sanders-voters-in-west-virginia-would-vote



> Nearly half of the voters in the West Virginia Democratic primary who backed Bernie Sanders say they would vote for Republican Donald Trump in the fall presidential election, according to exit polls reported by CBS News.
> 
> Forty-four percent of Sanders supporters surveyed said they would rather back the presumptive GOP nominee in November, with only 23 percent saying they'd support Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. And 31 percent said would support neither candidate in the likely general election match-up.


It wasn't a vote for Sanders, it was a vote against Hillary. This is what Trump is talking about when he says he's going to get millions of Democratic votes.



> Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd touch on the real issue briefly, you can't ignore it. These rust belt states have a Race/Gender problem.


Awwe isn't that cute, two bigots said bigoted things about the only unprotected class in America, the white working class, you can't ignore it is right. 

What these rust belt state inhabitants have is a problem with racists and bigots like Matthews and Todd who have a projection problem. They project their bigotry for the white working class onto the white working class.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

The environmentalist vote is the left equivalent of the corporate vote on the right and represent the most "elitist" demo in the democrats supporters 

They like being told that they are smarter than people who don't like them

They like making the opposite demo "suffer"

And they like telling people who go out of work due to their actions "to just get another job" 

environmentalism is nice but it requires a degree of excess and luxury to be able to do even semi-effectivly


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



deepelemblues said:


> And you know this how?


because...


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



stevefox1200 said:


> The environmentalist vote is the left equivalent of the corporate vote on the right and represent the most "elitist" demo in the democrats supporters
> 
> They like being told that they are smarter than people who don't like them
> 
> They like making the opposite demo "suffer"
> 
> And they like telling people who go out of work due to their actions "to just get another job"
> 
> *environmentalism is nice but it requires a degree of excess and luxury to be able to do even semi-effectivly*


How do ya figure? Don't you think the environment is a big issue? Dare I say the biggest? Not sure where you're getting luxury in environmentalism.

If government invests in alternate energy sources and other solutions for not killing the planet, that means jobs that people from shrinking poisonous industries can do.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



yeahbaby! said:


> How do ya figure? Don't you think the environment is a big issue? Dare I say the biggest? Not sure where you're getting luxury in environmentalism.
> 
> If government invests in alternate energy sources and other solutions for not killing the planet, that means jobs that people from shrinking poisonous industries can do.


Cleaner air than there was 50 years ago

Cleaner water than there was 50 years ago

More trees than there were 50 years ago

Yeah, the environment is a big issue. That humanity has been doing great on. Unless of course you believe in manipulated data that keeps getting manipulated to make the past colder than they said it was then, so they can continue saying that this is the HOTTEST YEAR EVAR and GLOBAL WARMING DIDN'T STOP and whatever other lies they want to peddle today. 

They don't seem to understand that when they said back then that this data is accurate we promise, the world is sooooo hot, but then today they say well the world wasn't quite so hot as we said back then, but the data we have now is accurate we promise WHY DO YOU HATE SCIENCE it kind of kills their credibility.

They manipulate the satellite and weather station temperature data to keep up their charade. Every single thing they say is 100% accurate because it's SCIENCE WHY DO YOU HATE SCIENCE YOU NEANDERTHAL, until it's not 100% accurate because they had it to change it to fit their narrative.

They fought for years to deny that global warming had stagnated since 1998, then they admitted it had, then wait oops no! The temperature data from pre-1998 was inaccurate, the earth was actually colder than we said! So now with the adjusted temperature data it shows that global warming didn't pause. We are 100% certain our data is accurate you science-hating doofus. Just like we were 100% certain our data was accurate back then when we called you a science-hating doofus.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Environment is better now than it was years ago, would be better if China and other third world countries weren't putting a bunch of toxic chemicals into the air, same with the US. The problem with environmentalists is they rarely make compromise so nothing gets done. 

[email protected] NY Times posting opinion pieces as fact, no wonder Newspapers are going downhill. The media now isn't that far off from the national enquirer.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



yeahbaby! said:


> How do ya figure? Don't you think the environment is a big issue? Dare I say the biggest? Not sure where you're getting luxury in environmentalism.
> 
> If government invests in alternate energy sources and other solutions for not killing the planet, that means jobs that people from shrinking poisonous industries can do.


You run a small South American nation that's primary export is logging

A majority of your citizens work in the lumber industry or an industry that supports the lumber industry 

A new law is passed that drastically lowers logging

A majority of the loggers are laid off

a majority of the support industries are closed

Most service industries are closed because no one has any money 

Alternative energy is dominated by corporations who have their own workers and don't need new people 

You can't turn the place into a tourist location because you are landlocked/primarily industrial and even if you have nice sandy beaches you will never be able to compete with places like the Bahamas which have a shit ton of corporate money pumped into them 

Your best hope is that Coke will buy your nation and turn into a colony or try to become an sex tourist hot spot by offering 13 year old boys and perception pills

That people are not going to like that and they are going to rebel leading to government shift that is going to fail and repeat that last step till the end of time

environment polices kills smaller regions that cant afford to keep up the newest tech unless you can somehow move everyone up at the same time and have a way to give jobs to all the people who will lose their livelihood(which is impossible)

The environmental polices that the UN pushes KILLS smaller South American, African and Asian locations that are too poor to modernize and need logging/mining ect. to advance

Its the same thing with states and towns

If you are fine with having little elite green communities with everyone else being a dead end place with zero growth than go ahead

Environmentalism has always taken the stance of "FUCK little communities that relies on these things I dislike, if they don't like it they can just move or get a new job" the EXACT same way that people bitch about companies moving jobs overseas 

Environmentalism is in practice elitist as fuck and only comes from places that already have a green infrastructure in place created by years of non-environmental development

The world is not a nice little suburban neighborhood where everything is available, for some places logging, mining and pumping is the ONLY option


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



stevefox1200 said:


> If you are fine with having little elite green communities with everyone else being a dead end place with zero growth than go ahead
> 
> *Environmentalism has always taken the stance of "FUCK little communities that relies on these things I dislike, if they don't like it they can just move or get a new job" the EXACT same way that people bitch about companies moving jobs overseas
> 
> Environmentalism is in practice elitist as fuck and only comes from places that already have a green infrastructure in place created by years of non-environmental development*
> 
> The world is not a nice little suburban neighborhood where everything is available, for some places logging, mining and pumping is the ONLY option


That's simply not true, there are many organisations out there that have programs and are committed to converting fossil fuel industries to non-fossil fuel and actually give plenty of shits about the communities you mention.

What's your solution, just pretend it's not all happening and see where it takes us?

You clearly have a huge bee in your bonnet about environmental stuff, real hostility I'm seeing. Do you reserve any of that for big oil and agriculture companies and any other unsustainable industries?


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



yeahbaby! said:


> That's simply not true, there are many organisations out there that have programs and are committed to converting fossil fuel industries to non-fossil fuel and actually give plenty of shits about the communities you mention.
> 
> What's your solution, just pretend it's not all happening and see where it takes us?
> 
> You clearly have a huge bee in your bonnet about environmental stuff, real hostility I'm seeing. Do you reserve any of that for big oil and agriculture companies and any other unsustainable industries?


Look at all of the dead coal and oil towns that dot the midwest

We need to improve the environment for people not at the expense of people 

Remember ethanol?

The greener fuel?

Bankrupted a shit ton of farmers when it turned out it was didn't work and the market was flooded with under priced corn

I have lived in small towns and those programs are a farce

They are never going to survive on service alone and it leads to sad "follow the work" situations

The government funds these "green tech" experiments and when they don't work the communities suffer and the green tech companies get tax money to cover their losses 

Green companies do not have to compete with other energy companies and because of that they can sell defective products at dirt low prices and us government money to still make a profit 

They literally play around with peoples livelihoods 

I am all for green tech but it is currently a political tool until we find something works

If you live in city its fine to be as green as fuck but outside of that you don't really have an option unless the state blesses you with a tech center


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



stevefox1200 said:


> I am all for green tech but it is currently a political tool until we find something works


Come on, this is circular and you know it. 

Under your logic we can't find something that works because government is inneficent and can't innovate by himself, then is a private enterprise to create efficient green energy which is also doomed because there isn't incentives to create enviromental friendly energy as is a poor investment compared to normal energy which has a secure return..... 

I wonder however how this people who invested in coil and other traditional energy sources got great results on their time...maybe, just maybe they also failed first, just like any project and they were also a niche at first


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*






I miss this guy.


----------



## Toddograph

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Donald Trump will be America's best President


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Toddograph said:


> Donald Trump will be America's best President


He'll be in the top 5 recent greats:


Donald Trump
Mitt Romney
John McCain 
John Kerry 
Michael Dukakis


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FriedTofu said:


> I miss this guy.


This sure won't go down well on this thread, but the guy makes some intelligent points about the media's role in all this, and the attractive idea of needing to save or take back your country from faceless evil forces.

All we generally see (or should i say I) is Trump's latest shocking statement or gaff etc and not much substance. Is he standing up and saying what his policies and plans are (beyond 5 word slogans) and the media isn't reporting it? Or because of the crash TV controversy style pre-existing in the 'news', is Trump happy with shouting louder but saying less because he knows that means top billing?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



yeahbaby! said:


> This sure won't go down well on this thread, but the guy makes some intelligent points about the media's role in all this, and the attractive idea of needing to save or take back your country from faceless evil forces.
> 
> All we generally see (or should i say I) is Trump's latest shocking statement or gaff etc and not much substance. Is he standing up and saying what his policies and plans are (beyond 5 word slogans) and the media isn't reporting it? Or because of the crash TV controversy style pre-existing in the 'news', is Trump happy with shouting louder but saying less because he knows that means top billing?


You want policy?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Also:

*POLL: TRUMP SUPPORTERS More Conservative Than Average GOP Voter*

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/05/pew-poll-shows-trump-supporters-true-conservatives-gop/

Suck it, establishment! 

:suckit


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



asdf0501 said:


> Come on, this is circular and you know it.
> 
> Under your logic we can't find something that works because government is inneficent and can't innovate by himself, then is a private enterprise to create efficient green energy which is also doomed because there isn't incentives to create enviromental friendly energy as is a poor investment compared to normal energy which has a secure return.....
> 
> I wonder however how this people who invested in coil and other traditional energy sources got great results on their time...maybe, just maybe they also failed first, just like any project and they were also a niche at first


They weren't failing on the taxpayer dime. The first large-scale oil and natural gas producers in America in the 1850s, including those that failed, weren't subsidized by various government methods. Large-scale coal production began in the early 1800s. Government subsidization by various means came in the 1870s with the railroad industry and it spread to other sectors of the economy after that. Huge (for the times) government expenditures in the Civil War didn't hurt the connected businessman either.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*






:banderas


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> You want policy?


What actual policy is there though Beatles?

"I'm the only one, believe me, who can change this"

"We need to get our allies to pay their fair share"

"Previous governments got us into this and that'

'9/11 was the worst in US history'


What is the plan and how will it work?




CamillePunk said:


> :banderas


Tremendous video, so well produced. Reminds me of a Michael Moore type thing.

Man, what a bonehead move it was by the Repubs reeling out Romney to attack Trump. Had all the impact of a wet lettuce leaf and I think it just reminded everyone 'boy we really dodged a bullet by not electing him'.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Truthbetold said:


>


I hope those poor Trump supporters were ok after getting confetti thrown on them and having to endure dirty looks.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...use-new-donations-pay-donald-trump-36-n573291

The heel turn is coming.


----------



## Ruth

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

If Trump gets elected, do I win a free anime?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Froot said:


> If Trump gets elected, do I win a free anime?


Only until Trump makes a deal with the aliens (not Mexicans) to genetically engineer Godzilla at Dulce Base. Better get ready Japan, your days of dumping in America are over!


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Trumps candidacy is really starting to stink up the place like a sour rotten piece of Swiss cheese. 

Our you Republicans users here still happy with your chosen nominee?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Now there's a story that Trump posed as his own spokesman 25 years ago which is said to be well-known in New York media circles? If it is well-known and can be damaging to his candidacy, why is it only revealed now when Trump has all by won the nomination? 

Have the the left fallen into conspiracy theorist mode as much as the delusional right? Or is this another attempt by Trump to gain media attention by leaking this out? What is going on? :chan


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



gamegenie said:


> Trumps candidacy is really starting to stink up the place like a sour rotten piece of Swiss cheese.
> 
> Our you Republicans users here still happy with your chosen nominee?


Not really but he's well-qualified and well-positioned to bitchslap Hillary, which > all to this Republican. 

Oops is that sexist, to say :trump is gonna bitchslap Hillary?



FriedTofu said:


> Now there's a story that Trump posed as his own spokesman 25 years ago which is said to be well-known in New York media circles? If it is well-known and can be damaging to his candidacy, why is it only revealed now when Trump has all by won the nomination?
> 
> Have the the left fallen into conspiracy theorist mode as much as the delusional right? Or is this another attempt by Trump to gain media attention by leaking this out? What is going on? :chan


Jeff Bezos said he has 20 reporters working on digging up info on Trump, and clearly he doesn't want Trump to win.

If this is the best he can do he's not gonna stop The Donald :trump ing his way to the Oval Office.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

LOL this john miller thing is so damn stupid. I listened to the tape, its not even his same manner of speech. :taker


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Well it isn't outside the realm of possibility as Trump has testified under oath that he used another name John Barron before.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*






I love this man. :lmao He is an absolute madman playing inter-dimensional space chess at a level none of us mortals can comprehend. 

He should name John Miller as his VP. 

TRUMP/MILLER 2016


FriedTofu said:


> Now there's a story that Trump posed as his own spokesman 25 years ago which is said to be well-known in New York media circles? If it is well-known and can be damaging to his candidacy, why is it only revealed now when Trump has all by won the nomination?
> 
> Have the the left fallen into conspiracy theorist mode as much as the delusional right? Or is this another attempt by Trump to gain media attention by leaking this out? What is going on? :chan


:lmao @ you thinking this is gonna hurt him at all. It's as if you've not been following the campaign at all.

It sounds EXACTLY like him @Beatles123 don't be ridiculous.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



CamillePunk said:


> lmao @ you thinking this is gonna hurt him at all. It's as if you've not been following the campaign at all.
> 
> It sounds EXACTLY like him @Beatles123 don't be ridiculous.


oh don't get me wrong. I don't think it would hurt him as hit core supporters are going to vote for him no matter what. Just confused why some report are saying this could hurt him when nothing else have stick. If anything, his detour from his original campaign promise is more likely to cost him though he can spin it into Hilary is worse. The test is will his supporters still stick with him if they become disillusioned that Trump is just the same as the rest of them.

I just don't get why this is suddenly brought up. Totally lost at who leaked this. Is it the left attempting their version of the birther movement witchhunt or just Trump leaking it out to grab media attention? And how he can still retain voter confidence with his trasnparent trolling in the media. :chan


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

The media is the most despised group in America. Nobody is going to be upset by Trump trolling the media. :lol


----------



## Ghost Lantern

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

I for one will vote for Trump over Hillary. 

But that is the only case scenario where I would vote for him.

Sad, that we have two alternatives.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Greenlawler said:


> I for one will vote for Trump over Hillary.
> 
> But that is the only case scenario where I would vote for him.
> 
> Sad, that we have two alternatives.


This is our South Park equivalent IRL. We're faced with voting between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. I will probably vote for Trump only because President Hillary Clinton scares the shit out of me, but in reality it's a race between her and one of her top donors. Not exactly the election we want. 

I will say this will be the dirtiest election ever. Trump will not hold back, and while Hillary says she won't go into the gutter she has people that will.


----------



## Dead Seabed

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

trump strong


he make america strong too


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



BruiserKC said:


> This is our South Park equivalent IRL. We're faced with voting between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. I will probably vote for Trump only because President Hillary Clinton scares the shit out of me, but in reality it's a race between her and one of her top donors. Not exactly the election we want.
> 
> I will say this will be the dirtiest election ever. Trump will not hold back, and while Hillary says she won't go into the gutter she has people that will.


This is certainly a real life South Park equivalency, but it's not that '04 Turd vs Douche episode that were mocking John Kerry and George W Bush, if Hillary would have ran in '04 on the Dem ticket. There's a good chance that GWB would have been a 1-term President.
No, the Southpark equivalency is our real life Eric Cartman aka Donald Trump. 

I'll vote for Hillary over Donald Trump because I'm not scared, I do not fall for scare political tactics that political figures tend to ramp up every election year.

Donald Trump is an absolute joke of candidate, it's a pity you all don't see this, or you see it but are closing your eyes, and plugging your ears as if the Elephant is not in the room stinking it up. 

You smell it. :curry2


----------



## Dead Seabed

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



gamegenie said:


> This is certainly a real life South Park equivalency, but it's not that '04 Turd vs Douche episode that were mocking John Kerry and George W Bush, if Hillary would have ran in '04 on the Dem ticket. There's a good chance that GWB would have been a 1-term President.
> No, the Southpark equivalency is our real life Eric Cartman aka Donald Trump.
> 
> I'll vote for Hillary over Donald Trump because I'm not scared, I do not fall for scare political tactics that political figures tend to ramp up every election year.
> 
> Donald Trump is an absolute joke of candidate, it's a pity you all don't see this, or you see it but are closing your eyes, and plugging your ears as if the Elephant is not in the room stinking it up.
> 
> You smell it. :curry2


trump say win 40 times in speech

who argue with that?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

The weaker the criticisms of Trump the more validated I feel to be supporting him. :trump


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



gamegenie said:


> This is certainly a real life South Park equivalency, but it's not that '04 Turd vs Douche episode that were mocking John Kerry and George W Bush, if Hillary would have ran in '04 on the Dem ticket. There's a good chance that GWB would have been a 1-term President.
> No, the Southpark equivalency is our real life Eric Cartman aka Donald Trump.
> 
> I'll vote for Hillary over Donald Trump because I'm not scared, I do not fall for scare political tactics that political figures tend to ramp up every election year.
> 
> Donald Trump is an absolute joke of candidate, it's a pity you all don't see this, or you see it but are closing your eyes, and plugging your ears as if the Elephant is not in the room stinking it up.
> 
> You smell it. :curry2


Are you actually a genuine Hilary supporter? I'm just curios. If she can't even satisfy her own husband, how can she satisfy you? :tommy


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



gamegenie said:


> Donald Trump is an absolute joke of candidate, it's a pity you all don't see this, or you see it but are closing your eyes, and plugging your ears as if the Elephant is not in the room stinking it up.
> 
> You smell it. :curry2


:trump smells your desperation


----------



## amhlilhaus

gamegenie said:


> BruiserKC said:
> 
> 
> 
> And its a pity you would vote for someone whos accomplished nothing in life other than have to give up their law license before getting disbarred, cheating on their spouse, allowed an ambassador to get killed and has a top aide whos a terrorist operative.
> 
> And i didnt even mention her long history of lying
Click to expand...


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Meanwhile, on 4chan...










:lmao I fucking love you, /pol/!

CamillePunk, Which one are you?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> Are you actually a genuine Hilary supporter? I'm just curios. If she can't even satisfy her own husband, how can she satisfy you? :tommy


If Trump can't remain faithful to his wife, what makes you think he will be faithful to his rhetoric in the campaign thus far? :tommy


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



gamegenie said:


> This is certainly a real life South Park equivalency, but it's not that '04 Turd vs Douche episode that were mocking John Kerry and George W Bush, if Hillary would have ran in '04 on the Dem ticket. There's a good chance that GWB would have been a 1-term President.
> No, the Southpark equivalency is our real life Eric Cartman aka Donald Trump.
> 
> I'll vote for Hillary over Donald Trump because I'm not scared, I do not fall for scare political tactics that political figures tend to ramp up every election year.
> 
> Donald Trump is an absolute joke of candidate, it's a pity you all don't see this, or you see it but are closing your eyes, and plugging your ears as if the Elephant is not in the room stinking it up.
> 
> You smell it. :curry2


Why would you vote for a criminal?

No really, Hillary is literally a criminal.


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FriedTofu said:


> If Trump can't remain faithful to his wife, what makes you think he will be faithful to his rhetoric in the campaign thus far? :tommy


:trump is a miles ahead better than Hillary would be in the office, shes already broken the law as Secretary what else would she do in the oval? 


And yes I happen to know that what she's done in just the stuff that's been made public is liable for prosecution, just a matter of if/when.


----------



## manstis1804

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

I don't even get the problem with the John Miller stuff or why anyone would think it would hurt him. There's so much more ammo out there that could hurt him, but somehow it doesn't. This is just funny, it's like something out of a Seinfeld episode.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

From Art of the Deal:










:banderas


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FriedTofu said:


> If Trump can't remain faithful to his wife, what makes you think he will be faithful to his rhetoric in the campaign thus far? :tommy


Trump is already flip flopping on his policies he had for the GOP primary , now that we are in the general he is changing to get the vote of the general election crowd.

Its funny how all of Trumps stances are changing before the GOPs and his supporters eyes


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

What stance has he changed?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



CamillePunk said:


> What stance has he changed?


Prepare for Trump is racist, hates women or some other insult response.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

All candidates moderate their positions after they win the nomination, so what. Of course BernieBro wouldn't that's why he's the best, he wants to be president of the all the Bros who are down with the Cause, the rest of us will figure out it's for our own good sooner or later.

:trump doesn't pretend he knows what's better for you than you do.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Trump has taken very different stance on issues such as campaign financing, total bans on Muslims, minimum wage, tax on the wealthy, abortions. Sometimes changing within the same day. And he hides it behind 'everything is up for negotiation' as an excuse to say outlandish things.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FriedTofu said:


> Trump has taken very different stance on issues such as campaign financing, total bans on Muslims, minimum wage, tax on the wealthy, abortions. Sometimes changing within the same day. And he hides it behind 'everything is up for negotiation' as an excuse to say outlandish things.


:trump knows what TV and the internet have done to society. Better than Hillary and BernieBro!


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



deepelemblues said:


> :trump knows what TV and the internet have done to society. Better than Hillary and BernieBro!


He's living off of the celebrity culture that TV and the internet encouraged. So yeah you could say he thrive better than Hilary and Bernie in the TV and internet age.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FriedTofu said:


> Trump has taken very different stance on issues such as campaign financing, total bans on Muslims, minimum wage, tax on the wealthy, abortions. Sometimes changing within the same day. And he hides it behind 'everything is up for negotiation' as an excuse to say outlandish things.


Nah the media just misreports him constantly. 

He self-financed his primary campaign and is now going to help the party raise money for the general election where there is more at stake than just the presidency. 

He never advocated a "total ban on Muslims". He wants a temporary ban on Muslim immigration. He hasn't changed this stance, although I think he probably should refine it, which I expect to happen once he has consulted more with the people he intends to appoint to his cabinet. 

His stance on the minimum wage has always been leave it to the states. He said he personally thinks it ought to be higher but that's not a policy stance.

He isn't raising taxes on the wealthy either, they just might not get as much of a tax decrease on everyone else through the process of negotiation. 

He's been pro-life the entire campaign. 

Everything IS up for negotiation in politics. Do you think Bernie would get to implement all of his policies EXACTLY as he's proposing them now?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



CamillePunk said:


> Nah the media just misreports him constantly.
> 
> He self-financed his primary campaign and is now going to help the party raise money for the general election where there is more at stake than just the presidency.
> 
> He never advocated a "total ban on Muslims". He wants a temporary ban on Muslim immigration. He hasn't changed this stance, although I think he probably should refine it, which I expect to happen once he has consulted more with the people he intends to appoint to his cabinet.
> 
> His stance on the minimum wage has always been leave it to the states. He said he personally thinks it ought to be higher but that's not a policy stance.
> 
> He isn't raising taxes on the wealthy either, they just might not get as much of a tax decrease on everyone else through the process of negotiation.
> 
> He's been pro-life the entire campaign.
> 
> Everything IS up for negotiation in politics. Do you think Bernie would get to implement all of his policies EXACTLY as he's proposing them now?


Trump purposely said inflammatory things only to backtrack on it and claim 'bias'a and 'misrepresentation'. How has the media constantly misreport him when they are quoting his own words?

He ran in the primary that the system is beholden to big donors. Now he is seeking big donors to fund his campaign. Why wouldn't he be then beholden to the same big donors?

He advocated a 'total ban on Muslims' until America figures out what the hell is going on. Now he is willing to give exceptions.

His stance on the issue of minimum wage went from opposing an increase to supporting an increase.

Trump in his campaigning has said the rich like him might have to pay more taxes. Then proposes a plan where he cut everybody's, including the wealthy's tax.

He said women undergoing abortions should be punished if abortion is illegal, then backtrack on it.

Everything is up for negotiation. But you don't say outlandish things and then say you never said/meant it because it is 'part of the negotiation' and expect everybody to forget about the outlandish statements.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



CamillePunk said:


> What stance has he changed?


He already changed his chance on the minimum wage and the ban on muslims, he has also changed his polices about taxing the rich now. Trump before was pro choice now he is pro life, just watch by the general he will be pro choice again.

This is not the media misreports on him either, its going by his own words at his own speeches.

No where in his statement did he say there were exceptions , he said ALL MUSLIMS.







You can claim what ever you want but Trumps own words show what he is really for or against.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

You guys trust the mainstream media way too much. They are not informing you they are misinforming you. Everything you guys are saying is just repeated headlines with no truth to them.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



CamillePunk said:


> You guys trust the mainstream media way too much. They are not informing you they are misinforming you. Everything you guys are saying is just repeated headlines with no truth to them.


I don't follow the mainstream media That is rich claiming I trust the mainstream media too much when I bitch about that all the time with Sanders.

And I posted a video of Trump himself speaking. the media can't spin a video of Trump speaking and saying he wants to ban all muslims until they figure out what is going on.

Not to mention I watch all the debates and see what Trump has backtracked on or chance his stance on. Again the media can't spin that.

Trump fans love to ignore the facts and what Trump is actually saying, its just funny how he is changing his stance on most things and now his supporters are trying to claim oh its the media.

Trump is always changing his stance on everything, when ever he speaks. He does it mid sentence in the same speech sometimes. Its because Trump speaks out of his ass and he only tells people what they want to hear depending on the group he is talking to.

That is why he is changing his stances for the general because its a much different group than the GOP voters he was just trying to get to be nominated.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*
















http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/14/c...ntion-as-bernie-fans-boo-barbara-boxer-video/






:trump says :trump 

These BernieBros are gonna fuck up the Democratic Party way more than anything :trump has done to the GOP.

Feel that Bern!



CamillePunk said:


> Everything IS up for negotiation in politics. Do you think Bernie would get to implement all of his policies EXACTLY as he's proposing them now?


Ummm, yeah? That's what socialism is, right? If General Secretary Bernie doesn't get to implement every BernieBro policy 100%, then he will have betrayed the BernieBros and the revolution, or the rigged, unfair system will have been too rigged and unfair for him to get to implement the BernieBro revolution EXACTLY as he's proposed! If some other policies were going to make America a socialist paradise of equality, Bernie would be proposing those policies!


----------



## Pronoss

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

One audio tape from mid 80s no media outlet will touch.

Hillary Clinton is asked to be a defense lawyer for a pedophile rapist.
As defense she knows he's guilty the prosecution knows he's guilty. Hillary saw the blood tests and blood/sperm matched the defendant, he's fucked. Zero possibility he's innocent.

Does Hillary ask the Judge to recuse her from the proceedings which a defense lawyer can if they know they can't defend you properly or they are biased. 

What does Hillary do???
She Brags! She got the guy off clean as a whistle. Probably to have gone off and done it again. 

Trump is Anti-PC, and anti illegals we have a legal process to work or become citizen. Also over 500 rapes on border town in Juarez the perps never caught as they jump border live off your tax money to pay a pedophile, rapists, murderers food stamps, low income housing, Medicare, welfare, which zero goes back into circulation, nope, it's shipped, wired, transferred back into Mexico to cartels and such.

I don't agree with a lot of Trump and he is a bit over the top but I think 1 term is short and easy to let's try a business man against political correctness. He can't go nuts since SCOTUS can null and void any executive decision or bills signed into law. But if he continues to be blunt, calls bullshit what it is I'd give a second term if I could.

But Hillary preaching that liberal sjw political correctness, privilege myth, wage gap myth, and supports illegals..... But this interview shows not just rapists but pedophiles she had fun and actually brags


https://youtu.be/e2f13f2awK4







I'd rather have a blunt cussing pissed off guy that can be crass, and is very blunt with his opinions. So even if you have Trump he's told you his honest feelings and opinion. Even if you find it crude he's not "beating around the bush", making metaphors , double talk, stammering, or refusing to answer you ask you get blunt answer which a bit find shocking or don't like his crass language. We need someone to go to Congress tell those motherfuckers they don't work or ADL, PepsiCo, Coke, Verizon, etc they work for citizens only. Just as Constitution States. And remind them our Constitution only pertains to US Citizens, says right in its preamble, you not citizen? Sorry no constitution rights for you until you return legally 

Ask Hillary same question she diverts, never directly answers, cracks joke, blames others, etc.

Even among my friends Id rather have a friend who was extremely blunt, an asshole, crass, maybe vulgar but told me without sugarcoating it if I asked his opinion or for help, instead of a friend who is 2 faced, talk behind my back, but will smile, and lie to my face to keep me happy.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Gandhi said:


> Why would you vote for a criminal?
> 
> No really, Hillary is literally a *criminal*.


In the eyes of who?


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

:maisielol The Clintons' gangsterism knows no ends... :maisielol

Full article with a cool little chart--you almost need a "crime tree" out of _The Wire_ when analyzing the Clintons' myriad crooked endeavors--here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-charity-aided-clinton-friends-1463086383



> Clinton Charity Aided Clinton Friends
> A $2 million commitment arranged by the nonprofit Clinton Global Initiative in 2010 went to a for-profit company part-owned by friends of the Clintons
> 
> 
> By James V. Grimaldi
> May 12, 2016 4:53 p.m. ET
> 1387 COMMENTS
> 
> HASTINGS, Neb.—The Clinton Global Initiative, which arranges donations to help solve the world’s problems, set up a financial commitment that benefited a for-profit company part-owned by people with ties to the Clintons, including a current and a former Democratic official and a close friend of former President Bill Clinton.
> 
> The $2 million commitment was placed on the agenda for a September 2010 conference of the Clinton Global Initiative at Mr. Clinton’s urging, according to a document from the period and people familiar with the matter.
> 
> Mr. Clinton also personally endorsed the company, Energy Pioneer Solutions Inc., to then-Energy Secretary Steven Chu for a federal grant that year, said people with knowledge of the endorsement.
> 
> The company, whose business plan was to insulate people’s homes and let them pay via their utility bills, received an $812,000 Energy Department grant. Mr. Chu, now a professor at Stanford University, said he didn’t remember the conversation.
> 
> The Clinton Global Initiative is a program of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The foundation has been a focus of criticism this political season over donations received from governments and corporations that had business before Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state and that could be affected by decisions she would make as president. The foundation has said it “has strong donor integrity and transparency practices.”
> 
> The Clinton Global Initiative’s help for a for-profit company part-owned by Clinton friends poses a different issue. Under federal law, tax-exempt charitable organizations aren’t supposed to act in anyone’s private interest but instead in the public interest, on broad issues such as education or poverty.
> 
> “The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests,” the Internal Revenue Service says on its website.
> 
> Energy Pioneer Solutions was founded in 2009 by Scott Kleeb, a Democrat who twice ran for Congress from Nebraska. An internal document from that year showed it as owned 29% by Mr. Kleeb; 29% by Jane Eckert, the owner of an art gallery in Pine Plains, N.Y.; and 29% by Julie Tauber McMahon of Chappaqua, N.Y., a close friend of Mr. Clinton, who also lives in Chappaqua.
> 
> Owning 5% each were Democratic National Committee treasurer Andrew Tobias and Mark Weiner, a supplier to political campaigns and former Rhode Island Democratic chairman, both longtime friends of the Clintons.
> 
> The Clinton Global Initiative holds an annual conference at which it announces monetary commitments from corporations, individuals or nonprofit organizations to address global challenges—commitments on which it has acted in a matchmaking role. Typically, the commitments go to charities and nongovernmental organizations. The commitment to Energy Pioneer Solutions was atypical because it originated from a private individual who was making a personal financial investment in a for-profit company.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

This is an actual letter A Trump supporter on R/The_Donald received this morning after her sign was vandalized and then put back up:










How can anyone, Dem or Rep, endorse this censorship? That woman had a right to display her sign!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



FriedTofu said:


> If Trump can't remain faithful to his wife, what makes you think he will be faithful to his rhetoric in the campaign thus far? :tommy


All of his divorces were amicable and he has been honest about them all. That's more than Bill ever was. :russo


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> All of his divorces were amicable and he has been honest about them all. That's more than Bill ever was. :russo


He still cheated on some of his wives. Its irrelevant if the divorce was amicable


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> He still cheated on some of his wives. Its irrelevant if the divorce was amicable


Yes it is.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> This is an actual letter A Trump supporter on R/The_Donald received this morning after her sign was vandalized and then put back up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can anyone, Dem or Rep, endorse this censorship? That woman had a right to display her sign!


Seems legit. Poor woman receiving such a threatening letter.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



gamegenie said:


> In the eyes of who?







In the eyes of everybody who is honest.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Seems legit. Poor woman receiving such a threatening letter.


by all means, it could be fake. If not though it shows how disgusting people are.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Seems legit. Poor woman receiving such a threatening letter.


Could certainly be fake! But let's not pretend this upcoming election hasn't brought out the crazies on both sides! The Hilary and Bernie supporters have done some pretty terrible stuff, like the lady slapping a horse to make it stampede, i think she was a bernie supporter but I don't think all of them are like that.

Or the people who got beat up by the Trump supporter for wearing klan stuff, think those guys were plants. While I don't support violence I would have been happy if that black guy and a bunch of trump supporters stomped those plants into the ground. 

That being said, let's not pretend that at every turn leftists haven't tried to silence the opposition at all turns. Let's also not forget what's in that letter is being said by most of the clueless democratic rabble. So it could be legit!


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

All those terrible things :trump has said about women... then the author of this letter calls Megyn Kelly "the FOX from Fox News." 

I give calling Megyn Kelly "the FOX from Fox News" 3 out of 4 problematics. I can't even with the sexist irony going on there!


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



deepelemblues said:


> All those terrible things :trump has said about women... then the author of this letter calls Megyn Kelly "the FOX from Fox News."
> 
> I give calling Megyn Kelly "the FOX from Fox News" 3 out of 4 problematics. I can't even with the sexist irony going on there!


I'm disgusted at the author calling Kelly "The FOX of FOX News". Clearly that muppet hasn't seen a certain MILF by the name of Ainsley Earhardt. I'm mean seriously, look this face:










Who wouldn't say that face belongs to the true "FOX of FOX News"? :trump


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> I'm disgusted at the author calling Kelly "The FOX of FOX News". Clearly that muppet hasn't seen a certain MILF by the name of Ainsley Earhardt. I'm mean seriously, look this face:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who wouldn't say that face belongs to the true "FOX of FOX News"? :trump


She got a big mouth

Definitely a keeper if you're packin like :trump


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



deepelemblues said:


> She got a big mouth
> 
> Definitely a keeper if you're packin like :trump


Ainsley is FOX News bae for a reason. :trump Same goes for Heather Nauert. :ellen


----------



## Yeah1993

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

The John Miller thing is amazing. He needs to dress up in his next few speeches. Though between Miller and Trump I can't tell which is more fitted for the Slim Shady position.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> All of his divorces were amicable and he has been honest about them all. That's more than Bill ever was. :russo


I hope for your sake your divorce with Trump is also amicable. Trump always trade in for a younger model. :russo


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Gandhi said:


> In the eyes of everybody who is honest.


Thank you. 

So the answer is no one.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



gamegenie said:


> Thank you.
> 
> So the answer is no one.


Why do you ignore all of the videos Hillary is in showing she's literally a criminal?

Are you so afraid of seeing proof of Hillary being a criminal?






Show me proof that this video (or the one before it) does not show how Hillary is a criminal.

Quit being cowardly.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



gamegenie said:


> Thank you.
> 
> So the answer is no one.


Man, I really can't tell if you're serious.


___

Also, in other news:


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Gandhi said:


> Why do you ignore all of the videos Hillary is in showing she's literally a criminal?
> 
> Are you so afraid of seeing proof of Hillary being a criminal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me proof that this video (or the one before it) does not show how Hillary is a criminal.
> 
> Quit being cowardly.


Please refer back to this
http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anyth...ump-thread-rip-lyin-ted-117.html#post59431817

I knew what you were up to the first time you posted that video and I called you out as spreading liberal propaganda as the only people pushing those vids at the time were the extreme left Bernie supporters. 

You and you ilk bandwagoned on because you know your guy Donald Trump is a "Loser" and he needs anything anti-Hillary out there to the public to make him look good. 

In case you haven't noticed, there's plenty of Anti-Trump ads out too. 


















Hillary hasn't been convicted of anything and has no criminal record, so you can cry all you want that she's a criminal, you just come off as butt hurt like the rest in this thread. 

:kermit


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



gamegenie said:


> Please refer back to this
> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anyth...ump-thread-rip-lyin-ted-117.html#post59431817
> 
> I knew what you were up to the first time you posted that video and I called you out as spreading liberal propaganda as the only people pushing those vids at the time were the extreme left Bernie supporters.
> 
> You and you ilk bandwagoned on because you know your guy Donald Trump is a "Loser" and he needs anything anti-Hillary out there to the public to make him look good.
> 
> In case you haven't noticed, there's plenty of Anti-Trump ads out too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary hasn't been convicted of anything and has no criminal record, so you can cry all you want that she's a criminal, you just come off as butt hurt like the rest in this thread.
> 
> :kermit


How is it propaganda you can clearly see Hillary lying? It's right there infront of you. :trips7

Also I am not a leftist Bernie supporter, I don't know what you're talking about.

The fact that I want Trump as president had nothing to do with Bernie losing anything, it simply had to do with how I genuinely liked Trump (and prefer him over Bernie). It needs to be mentioned that you're avoiding what's in my posts though. Stop chickening out of the points in my posts, it's disgusting and immature.

What I posted wasn't an anti campaign ad, it was proof that Hillary Clinton is a criminal.






*Stop running away from my points.*

*Prove to me that what is said in the video I posted doesn't show how Clinton is a criminal, refusal to do so is clear cowardice & intellectual dishonesty.*


----------



## BlueRover

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

I'll just pop in to say one thing - I have no doubt that Trump doesn't even believe 10% of the things he espouses, at least not to the extent that he projects. Liberals hate a Trump that does not exist; "anti-establishment" neo-cons love a Trump that does not exist; hilariously it is only the establishment Republicans that can see the truth about Trump...but they have failed the country so disastrously that no one gives jack shit what they think any more.

In other words, America is screwed.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/national/trump-calls-elizabeth-warren-pocahontas-new-york-t/nrNQB/



> "When I asked if he had been chided by any Republicans for his Twitter feud with Elizabeth Warren, he replied, '*You mean Pocahontas?'*" Dowd wrote in her Sunday column. "So much for reining it in."


:trump :trump :trump

Watching him own the fuck out of America's second most detestable idiot socialist fake "Native American" Elizabeth Warren on Twitter has been hilarious.

EDIT:

BernieBro's wife destroyed Burlington College.

http://heatst.com/politics/breaking...hing-weight-of-debt-acquired-by-jane-sanders/

So much fiscal responsibility in that family.

At least when :trump 's businesses go bankrupt he has a plan and makes them great again!

BernieBro's wife just ran up the bill, took her $200,000 golden parachute and rode off into the sunset with BernieBro, to bring the equality of crushing debt to everyone!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

http://utahpolicy.com/index.php/features/today-at-utah-policy/9518-

Trump now beating Clinton and Sanders in Utah.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

because whatever Utah goes, so does the land.....:booklel


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



gamegenie said:


> because whatever Utah goes, so does the land.....:booklel


Are you going to self-immolate when Trump becomes president and you realize you spent an entire year making lame posts like this one?


----------



## Death Rider

Can someone sum up the reasons they support trump and what policies he is bringing according to himself? 

Fairly curious as the election from someone who has little knowledge looks to me a choice of which is least awful hilary or trump.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



gamegenie said:


> because whatever Utah goes, so does the land.....:booklel


it's not just there.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Roy Mustang said:


> Can someone sum up the reasons they support trump and what policies he is bringing according to himself?
> 
> Fairly curious as the election from someone who has little knowledge looks to me a choice of which is least awful hilary or trump.


www.DonaldJTrump.com/Positions


----------



## Death Rider

Ok interesting gave a glimpse over it. Totally against the gun part but it is a part of American culture i will never really get. That makes more sense as some of his ideas are actually good.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Roy Mustang said:


> Ok interesting gave a glimpse over it. Totally against the gun part but it is a part of American culture i will never really get. That makes more sense as some of his ideas are actually good.


Ya certainly don't need to agree with everything to support a candidate. Just look at most Hilary supporters.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> www.DonaldJTrump.com/Positions


I read the "Pay for the Wall" ideas and it gave me a migrane


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Hilary's not a criminal she hasn't been convicted in a court of law.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Roy Mustang said:


> Can someone sum up the reasons they support trump and what policies he is bringing according to himself?
> 
> Fairly curious as the election from someone who has little knowledge looks to me a choice of which is least awful hilary or trump.


To hear the lamentations of the SJWs is basically the only reason for me except...

Hillary being one of the most corrupt politicians since the 1920s.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



BlueRover said:


> "anti-establishment" neo-cons love a Trump


Anti-establishment neo-cons is pretty much an oxymorons. And neo-cons HATE Trump. Like really, really hate him.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Roy Mustang said:


> Can someone sum up the reasons they support trump and what policies he is bringing according to himself?
> 
> Fairly curious as the election from someone who has little knowledge looks to me a choice of which is least awful hilary or trump.


I support him exclusively for the lulz and non-PC honesty he brings. That being said, I'm not actually voting for Trump. Nor Hillary for that matter.

I'm only invested to watch the clusterfuck unfold before Rome finally burns. :lenny


----------



## virus21

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> I'm only invested to watch the clusterfuck unfold before Rome finally burns. :lenny


Rome's already burning. Has been for the last 8 years.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> I support him exclusively for the lulz and non-PC honesty he brings. That being said, I'm not actually voting for Trump. Nor Hillary for that matter.
> 
> I'm only invested to watch the clusterfuck unfold before Rome finally burns. :lenny


*WHAT?!*


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



deepelemblues said:


> *WHAT?!*


brb slamming my jimmy through Ainsley Earhardt's mouth roof and getting her sweet ass in that polling booth

:trump



virus21 said:


> Rome's already burning. Has been for the last 8 years.


Personally, it's felt more like boiling, but it's definitely getting to the point of being a great ball of fire.

I'll bring the popcorn if you bring the soda for the bonfire, though. :cozy


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



BlueRover said:


> "anti-establishment" neo-cons love a Trump that does not exist;


What is an "anti-establishment neo-con"? 

Over the past few decades the neocons have become the establishment of the Republican Party, and they seem to uniformly fear and loathe Trump.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



DesolationRow said:


> What is an "anti-establishment neo-con"?
> 
> Over the past few decades the neocons have become the establishment of the Republican Party, and they seem to uniformly fear and loathe Trump.


John McCain, the only Establishment he's in is the John McCain Establishment and he's definitely all spread democracy with US Army delivery system. 

Other than that ummm nobody.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

:lol Based on myriad remarks of his, I'm pretty sure John McCain should be in an establishment of sorts, or an institution.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



DesolationRow said:


> :lol Based on myriad remarks of his, I'm pretty sure John McCain should be in an establishment of sorts, or an institution.


"The Greatest Deliberative Body in the World" and I swear 80% of them are there to vote the party line and you never hear about them, another 10% are there to vote the party line and say dumb shit, and the last 10% are there to tell the other 90% what the party line is.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

It is pretty wild that our national debt has pretty much doubled under Obama's term. So much for "Hope".


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Cipher said:


> It is pretty wild that our national debt has pretty much doubled under Obama's term. So much for "Hope".


Bush doubled it

Obama doubled it again

If we get this shit right we can have $100 trillion in debt by 2034!


----------



## Cipher

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



deepelemblues said:


> Bush doubled it
> 
> Obama doubled it again
> 
> If we get this shit right we can have $100 trillion in debt by 2034!


I know that Bush did so as well, it's just wild that it keeps going up.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



CamillePunk said:


> Are you going to self-immolate when Trump becomes president and you realize you spent an entire year making lame posts like this one?


You are truly hopeless if you think that would be my outcome if Hillary Clinton loses to Donald Trump. 

If Donald wins, I would go on with my life as normal. 
Unlike you I don't fear opposing Presidential candidates, the only person I fear is God.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



gamegenie said:


> You are truly hopeless if you think that would be my outcome if Hillary Clinton loses to Donald Trump.
> 
> If Donald wins, I would go on with my life as normal.
> Unlike you I don't fear opposing Presidential candidates, the only person I fear is God.


I'm sorry, don't you ignore solid evidence on this thread of how Hillary is a criminal?

How can one fear god when they are intellectually dishonest? You trying to copy your precious Hillary?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

Trump has more of the Hispanic vote than Romney in 2012.










and the highest percentage of the black vote of any Repub ever.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ong-men-dominate-the-european-migrant-crisis/

WP trying to spin facts and completely lie to discredit Trump, can the media get anymore pathetic?


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> Trump has more of the Hispanic vote than Romney in 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the highest percentage of the black vote of any Repub ever.


Does Spaniards count as Hispanic or white? What about whites from Mexico? That stuff is incredibly confusing


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Stinger Fan said:


> Does Spaniards count as Hispanic or white? What about whites from Mexico? That stuff is incredibly confusing


It depends what the person identifies as.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> Trump has more of the Hispanic vote than Romney in 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the highest percentage of the black vote of any Repub ever.


I don't think having more anything than Romney is anything to crow about is it?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Miss Sally said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ong-men-dominate-the-european-migrant-crisis/
> 
> WP trying to spin facts and completely lie to discredit Trump, can the media get anymore pathetic?


Um whats your problem with this exactly? Trump has continually run his mouth about things he doesn't know the detail of, and has several times had to backpedal or should I say 'clarify' because he's been found to be flat out wrong.

He's suggesting migrants should've stayed behind in their countries and fought because they're majority 'young strong men'? A point the article takes issues with backed up a slew of sources, which is more than Trump was able to offer.

Who knows, perhaps they all had 'bone spurs' in their feet and couldn't fight, just like Trump apparently couldn't when Vietnam came knocking.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



yeahbaby! said:


> I don't think having more anything than Romney is anything to crow about is it?


It is when you consider that Romney could have won with Trump's numbers.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*

*IT’S OFFICIAL: DONALD TRUMP Breaks Bush Record With Most Votes Ever for Republican Primary Candidate:*

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...tion-hillary-one-step-forward-two-steps-back/


@DesolationRow


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

But what about the 30% ceiling???


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/17/11680904/bernie-sanders-nevada-convention

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-nevada-dem-chair_us_573b4b8de4b0aee7b8e7dfa2

Can't wait for Bernie supporters to defend this. :lmao


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: 2016 US Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**



gamegenie said:


> Yeah you guys tried with all your might to try beat Obama in '08. Republicans going across party lines to vote in the Democrat Primaries to keep Hillary going, your 'P.arty U.nity M.y A.ss' movement ended up going no where except to reveal themselves out to who they really were.
> 
> Then John McCain tried to drive on the P.U.M.A. bandwagon against Obama in the General, picking a female candidate Sarah Palin as his running mate. Sarah tried her best to play into the faux-female angered demographic supposedly still upset that Hillary had some how been robbed, and all that got you no-where.
> 
> Throughout that you had your Joe the Plumbers and flag-pin warriors trying to tap on the Obama ironclad political movement. But a simple hand to shoulder dusting gesture from the President and that noise was gone.
> 
> Then throughout Obama's first term you had your agitators in full disruption mode, from the Congressional house, to your Tea-Party rallies with your new brewed figures such as Sarah Palin 2.0's Christine O'Donnell, and Birthers champion Donald Trump all trying to hack into the President's well oiled machine. But your efforts were all met with sheer defeat.
> 
> You then poured all your work into that pompous candidate Mitt Romney with your hyperbole movement of 'taking America back' and fast forward today, the American economy having completely rebound since Obama took office. The unemployment rate now down to 5%, American manufacturing been recharged, national healthcare been achieved, automobile industry thriving, Bin Laden captured and now the President make moves to give up his reign to his former rival Hillary, and everyone now acts as though they can't support her.
> 
> America, get a grip and get your head out of the sand.


White people voted for Obama because he seems like a genuinely nice guy who could improve race relations in America by changing the culture of black crime that's rampant in US inner city's. You can't compare someone easy going like Obama who ran an Anti-War campaign after 8 years of Neo-Con wars to someone like Hillary. It's no comparison.


----------



## manstis1804

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

Question about WALL: wouldn't it make sense to build the wall ourselves, and put Americans to work doing it? Surely there's a ton of labor involved, and the income tax from the labor could help offset the cost, while bringing down unemployment, thus reducing entitlements.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Stinger Fan said:


> Does Spaniards count as Hispanic or white? What about whites from Mexico? That stuff is incredibly confusing


They're mostly Caucasoid & ********* but mostly fully Caucasoid.

Mexicans & South Americans the descendants of both the original inhabitants of such lands (**********, the same race the Japanese/Koreans/Chinese and more specifically the Native Americans are) and Caucasoids (the same race Northern & Southern Europeans are) who landed in the Americas (The Spaniards for example).

Hispanic people in the Americas are essentially either fully ********* (rarely the case), a mix of ********* & Caucasoid, or just Caucasoid. Spaniards in Spain and everybody native to the Mediterranean is a Caucasoid.

Always glad to help.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Um whats your problem with this exactly? Trump has continually run his mouth about things he doesn't know the detail of, and has several times had to backpedal or should I say 'clarify' because he's been found to be flat out wrong.
> 
> He's suggesting migrants should've stayed behind in their countries and fought because they're majority 'young strong men'? A point the article takes issues with backed up a slew of sources, which is more than Trump was able to offer.
> 
> Who knows, perhaps they all had 'bone spurs' in their feet and couldn't fight, just like Trump apparently couldn't when Vietnam came knocking.


The article is a lie, she's implying that Trump's wrong about saying most of the migrants were young men because recently it's dropped to 50% of them being young men tho they're only counting 17-35 I believe and many of the children aren't children. So what the paper is trying to say is Trump lied but he didn't. Right/Left and unbiased sources all say when the migrants first came it was indeed 70%+ males only recently tapering off. But the paper is ignoring that and trying to imply it never was that high using cherry picked data. Also they didn't bring up any source of the massive amount of "Children" actually not being children. That's the problem with the article.

Also Iunno anything about the bone spurs, bone spurs are terrible pain if you have them. My dad couldn't go to Vietnam because he had flat feet so they didn't take him. The Army wouldn't take someone with bone spurs if it's hereditary as they can grow back.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

The democrats are at war hardcore now

Bernie supporters are DOXing and sending death threats to politicians who support Hilary

Bernie is not making it much better by saying "stop that" while at the same time screaming "she is fucking cheating"

The democrats response was "this is why we don't take you seriously, your followers are fucking nuts and you can't control them"


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



stevefox1200 said:


> The democrats are at war hardcore now
> 
> Bernie supporters are DOXing and sending death threats to politicians who support Hilary
> 
> Bernie is not making it much better by saying "stop that" while at the same time screaming "she is fucking cheating"
> 
> The democrats response was "this is why we don't take you seriously, your followers are fucking nuts and you can't control them"


I read an article that it's been bad that Bernie supporters are turning violent against other Democrats. It was from a rightwing source so I wanted to wait and see if it got any traction elsewhere but it seems maybe there is something to it. They did start a riot and assault people before. It's not a bad thing for Trump if Democrats start being violent to each other.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



manstis1804 said:


> Question about WALL: wouldn't it make sense to build the wall ourselves, and put Americans to work doing it? Surely there's a ton of labor involved, and the income tax from the labor could help offset the cost, while bringing down unemployment, thus reducing entitlements.


Pretty sure this is the plan. Who did you think was going to build the wall?

Although my dad did suggest having the illegal immigrants build the wall and just have them be on the Mexico side of it when it's completed. :trump Thought that was choice. (He was joking, he doesn't support Trump or anyone)


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (RIP LYIN' TED!!!)*



Beatles123 said:


> *IT’S OFFICIAL: DONALD TRUMP Breaks Bush Record With Most Votes Ever for Republican Primary Candidate:*
> 
> http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...tion-hillary-one-step-forward-two-steps-back/
> 
> 
> @DesolationRow


:woo :woo :woo


This is one of the chief reasons why Trump is anathema to the directors of the Republican Party. He threatens to win the presidency, and this is a party that is, for a generation now, only comfortable with losing (winning the popular vote for the presidency once out of the last six times). 

Saw four "Make America Great Again" hats on gentlemen at Game 7 of the Predators/Sharks Stanley Cup playoffs series a few days ago. :lol The three white fellows I saw wore the white version of the hat, whereas the Hispanic fellow, who got on television with it sitting behind the Preds' coach, had the ugly camo-with-orange lettering one. :lol


Watching the dismal efforts of Bill Kristol, Mitt Romney and others to engineer a third party run to ensure that Trump fails to win the presidency, while the Democrats have their own internecine war, with Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders going at it verbally, makes one recall yet again just how much we Americans live in a twisted Platonic construct in which our rulers would not be deemed fit to be Plato's slaves.


----------



## manstis1804

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



CamillePunk said:


> Pretty sure this is the plan. Who did you think was going to build the wall?
> 
> Although my dad did suggest having the illegal immigrants build the wall and just have them be on the Mexico side of it when it's completed. :trump Thought that was choice. (He was joking, he doesn't support Trump or anyone)


Oh okay, I misunderstood, I thought by making Mexico pay for it it meant having them build it too. I thought your dad's scenario was actually what it was going to be. Which, when put that way, sounds pretty hilarious.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



manstis1804 said:


> Oh okay, I misunderstood, I thought by making Mexico pay for it it meant having them build it too. I thought your dad's scenario was actually what it was going to be. Which, when put that way, sounds pretty hilarious.


This is how he plans to pay for the wall:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/pay-for-the-wall


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

Meanwhile, at Clinton's fortress of Evil:

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016...ophile-jeffrey-epstein-will-blow-up-campaign/


----------



## manstis1804

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



CamillePunk said:


> This is how he plans to pay for the wall:
> 
> https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/pay-for-the-wall


Interesting. A couple of questions:

1. If the "Know Your Customer" provision doesn't currently extend to money transfer services, how do we know the $24 billion in transfers to Mexico from immigrants is happening? I'm certain that happens, but I don't understand where they'd get the number.

2. Being that a lot of Repubs are against Trump and the idea of building the wall, it only for political points, is that amendment to the Patriot Act a realistic goal?


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



Mark Halperin said:


> She has to stand up herself against a guy with better skills


rip Hillary i am sorry

Last time she faced someone more skilled she lost. thanks Obama.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

Phil Robertson is now on The Trump Train!

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016...rain-and-ill-do-everything-i-can-to-help-him/

In before Cruzbots crucify him!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

@DesolationRow
@CamillePunk

Holy.

Fucking.

DOGSHIT!

If you need ONE reason to support Trump, this is it. This guy GETS IT!!

This is, by the way, from BEFORE Trump came along.


----------



## Irish Jet

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

The Wall is an impossibility and Trump knows it. Anyone who reads too much into his supposedly radical domestic policies doesn't really understand the limitations the president actually has. He's going to back of these statements anyways once the general elections starts and is already doing so with the nomination all but secured. I was saying that would happen all along. He can win a lot of the Bernie support IMO.

Ultimately I love the idea of an anti-establishment candidate, be it Bernie or the Donald. Both have been very critical of the foreign interventions Hilary has been cheer-leading the USA through for decades. The presidents power lies in foreign policy and Trump/Sanders are at least appearing to be the voices of reason in the age where bullshit imperialist interests trump all, pun intended. It wouldn't hurt the US at all to take a backward step, regardless of what their fear mongering elite claim. They should focus on propping up their citizens rather than terrorists. 

That said Obama was preaching a lot of the same stuff when he was campaigning. Probably get assassinated if you threaten the expansion of the empire.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



Beatles123 said:


> @DesolationRow
> @CamillePunk
> 
> Holy.
> 
> Fucking.
> 
> DOGSHIT!
> 
> If you need ONE reason to support Trump, this is it. This guy GETS IT!!
> 
> This is, by the way, from BEFORE Trump came along.


That's not the best example to use

The guy is recommending ignoring congress due to corruption and making choices on their own which is against the point of separation of powers 

The working with the three branches is like pulling teeth but it NEEDS to stay that way

The United States government was designed to be weak and ineffective to prevent abuse and when people say congress "isn't doing anything" it is working as design 

A government should be slow and not adopt ideas and concepts until they are already mainstream

If a government is fast it runs the risk of investing in long term choices for short term problems

Remember the Ebola thing a few years ago, imagine if the government would have spent billions to satisfy a public who knew nothing 

People are short sighted as fuck and they only care what will happen to THEM and people they care about, you have think outside of them 

One person cannot have the power to change things on his own, its FAR to much power and that is what the guy is rooting for


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



Beatles123 said:


> @DesolationRow
> @CamillePunk
> 
> Holy.
> 
> Fucking.
> 
> DOGSHIT!
> 
> If you need ONE reason to support Trump, this is it. This guy GETS IT!!
> 
> This is, by the way, from BEFORE Trump came along.



Bernie Sanders is the one who has stepped forward to deal with most of the things this guy is talking about LOL

Bernie platform is based around the US being extracted through banking, trade and taxes.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



Beatles123 said:


> Meanwhile, at Clinton's fortress of Evil:
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016...ophile-jeffrey-epstein-will-blow-up-campaign/


more slander, gossip and evil speech. 

Good luck with that.

:kermit:


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



gamegenie said:


> more slander, gossip and evil speech.
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> :kermit:


yeah man hanging out with a super-rich pedophile doesn't create the appearance of impropriety or feed the narrative that hillary is an elitist wannabe


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



gamegenie said:


> more slander, gossip and evil speech.
> 
> Good luck with that.
> 
> :kermit:


You don't even have to go with that, she embezzled millions illegal to her campaign from the DNC funds that should go to the whole party.

Between things like that and all the voter fraud and suppression she has done and people have done on her behalf, she should be forced to step down.

Not to mention how her husband was illegally campaigning for her at polling stations and nothing was even done about it.

Hillary and her campaign is by far the most corrupt thing I have ever seen in my life time when it comes to voting. Hillary and the DNC want to get Bernie voters and the independents but they are alienating themselves from those voters with all the bullshit they are pulling.

Its probably going to blow up in her face and its going to give Trump the presidency .

Hillary needs to step down. Its going to be a disaster when she gets the nomination all the stuff Trump will and can use against her plus she still has that indictment hanging over her head.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

General Secretary Bernie currently has the 6th-most votes of any Democratic primary candidate ever.

Hillary Clinton 1st (2008)
Barack Obama 2nd (2008) 
Hillary Clinton 3rd (2016)*
Al Gore 4th (2000)
Bill Clinton 5th (1992)
Bernie Sanders 6th (2016)*

*primary elections not yet over

He is well less than a million votes from getting the 4th most ever. When this campaign is over he will be in 3rd or 4th place all time. But yeah his vote is being suppressed.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

26 flights on a plane owned by a pedo known for hosting pedos on the plane and his pedo island. Which bill went too as well. 5 of these flights told the SS to stay behind why ??? Either bill is a pedo too or enabled it. And let's not pretend Hillary wouldn't know bill is flying on a plane like that. These two are sociopath monsters.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



deepelemblues said:


> General Secretary Bernie currently has the 6th-most votes of any Democratic primary candidate ever.
> 
> Hillary Clinton 1st (2008)
> Barack Obama 2nd (2008)
> Hillary Clinton 3rd (2016)*
> Al Gore 4th (2000)
> Bill Clinton 5th (1992)
> Bernie Sanders 6th (2016)*
> 
> *primary elections not yet over
> 
> He is well less than a million votes from getting the 4th most ever. When this campaign is over he will be in 3rd or 4th place all time. But yeah his vote is being suppressed.



That is exactly why his votes are being suppressed, because he is getting some of the highest vote totals of all time. If his voters were not being surpassed he would be beating Hillary Clinton. You don't suppress the votes of a candidate that has no chance of winning, you suppress the vote when they do have a shot at winning. 

You are proving why he is being suppressed.

Its just like how Al Gore votes were suppressed in FL in the election against Trump that cost Gore the presidency .

Your logic once again is so awful


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

I saw that Trump released a list of candidates he would consider for the Supreme Court vacancy. Seems like a bunch of conservative judges from different US Appellate Courts or State Supreme Courts. I didn't dig into anyone too much but they all seem like they would be qualified.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



FITZ said:


> I saw that Trump released a list of candidates he would consider for the Supreme Court vacancy. Seems like a bunch of conservative judges from different US Appellate Courts or State Supreme Courts. I didn't dig into anyone too much but they all seem like they would be qualified.


BUT DON'T YOU KNOW, HE'LL PICK LIBERALS BECAUSE HE *IS* A LIBERAL BECAUSE HE WANTS TO WORK WITH DEMOCRATS AND THAT'S EVIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLL...


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



FITZ said:


> I saw that Trump released a list of candidates he would consider for the Supreme Court vacancy. Seems like a bunch of conservative judges from different US Appellate Courts or State Supreme Courts. I didn't dig into anyone too much but they all seem like they would be qualified.


He just copied most of those picks from Heritage Foundation list that came out.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

How can Hilary run America if she's hanging out with billionaire paedophiles all the time?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> That is exactly why his votes are being suppressed, because he is getting some of the highest vote totals of all time. If his voters were not being surpassed he would be beating Hillary Clinton. You don't suppress the votes of a candidate that has no chance of winning, you suppress the vote when they do have a shot at winning.
> 
> You are proving why he is being suppressed.
> 
> Its just like how Al Gore votes were suppressed in FL in the election against Trump that cost Gore the presidency .
> 
> Your logic once again is so awful





> That is exactly why his votes are being suppressed, because he is getting some of the highest vote totals of all time.





> That is exactly why *his votes are being suppressed,* because *he is getting some of the highest vote totals of all time.*





> That is exactly why *his votes are being suppressed*, because *he is getting some of the highest vote totals of all time.*


:trips7

I know you mean when Gore lost to Trump, not Bush. And purging felons off the voter rolls is not suppressing the vote, losing your right to vote has been a penalty of being convicted of a felony for a long time. 

All I'll say is that it's funny that you're talking about logic considering what you just said. 

I've been reading up on the allegations of voter suppression in the NY primary and it's 9/11 Troofer type stuff. NY was 6 months to a year behind updating voter information and this was a conspiracy that kept people who switched their registration to Democratic from voting for Bernie. Ummm, Bernie Sanders wasn't considered a serious threat to Clinton a year ago. Six months ago he was a more serious candidate but no one expected him to do as well as he has then. 120,000 voters were incorrectly purged from the rolls in Brooklyn shortly before the primary. Polling places were a disorganized mess on primary day in NYC in particular but also some other places. Seeing as how Clinton got 291,000 more votes than Sanders in NY, wouldn't this have hurt her worse than Sanders? And Sanders won 50 of 62 NY counties. Clinton won in and around NYC. Again, polling place problems in NYC would have hurt her more than Sanders. Mistaken roll purges in Brooklyn? Clinton won Brooklyn by 49,000 votes. 60% to 40%. Again, the incorrect purging probably hurt her more than Sanders. 

The counties Clinton won:

Erie County (Buffalo): 50.4% to 49.6%. Clinton wins by 812 votes.
Monroe County (Rochester): 51.8% to 48.2%. Clinton wins by 2,592 votes.
Onondaga County (Syracuse): 53.0% to 47.0%. Clinton wins by 2,340 votes.
Rockland (bordering NYC): 60.5% to 39.5%. Clinton wins by 5,894 votes.
Orange (bordering Rockland): 51.5% to 48.5%. Clinton wins by 703 votes.
Westchester (bordering NYC): 67.4% to 32.6%. Clinton wins by 35,902 votes.
*Bronx (NYC):* 70.0% to 30.0%. Clinton wins by 54,658 votes.
*Manhattan (NYC):* 66.3% to 33.7%. Clinton wins by 87,269 votes.
*Staten Island (NYC):* 52.9% to 47.1%. Clinton wins by 1,787 votes.
*Bronx (NYC):* 60.0% to 40.0%. Clinton wins by 57,909 votes.
*Queens (NYC):* 61.6% to 38.4%. Clinton wins by 46,081 votes.
Nassau (bordering NYC): 62.6% to 37.4%. Clinton wins by 28,646 votes.
Suffolk (bordering Nassau): 54.7% to 45.3%. Clinton wins by 8,563 votes.

You can't explain away these margins of victories in the 5 counties comprising New York City with "NYC voter roll purges!" and "NYC polling places a mess!"

Once you start examining it the conspiracy claims fall apart, as conspiracy claims do 99% of the time. And it's kind of lame that I actually go look this stuff up and everybody knows you'll come back with another post that has all kinds of allegations and accusations and assertions and zero evidence provided backing any of them up.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



deepelemblues said:


> :trips7
> 
> I know you mean when Gore lost to Trump, not Bush. And purging felons off the voter rolls is not suppressing the vote, losing your right to vote has been a penalty of being convicted of a felony for a long time.
> 
> All I'll say is that it's funny that you're talking about logic considering what you just said.
> 
> I've been reading up on the allegations of voter suppression in the NY primary and it's 9/11 Troofer type stuff. NY was 6 months to a year behind updating voter information and this was a conspiracy that kept people who switched their registration to Democratic from voting for Bernie. Ummm, Bernie Sanders wasn't considered a serious threat to Clinton a year ago. Six months ago he was a more serious candidate but no one expected him to do as well as he has then. 120,000 voters were incorrectly purged from the rolls in Brooklyn shortly before the primary. Polling places were a disorganized mess on primary day in NYC in particular but also some other places. Seeing as how Clinton got 291,000 more votes than Sanders in NY, wouldn't this have hurt her worse than Sanders? And Sanders won 50 of 62 NY counties. Clinton won in and around NYC. Again, polling place problems in NYC would have hurt her more than Sanders. Mistaken roll purges in Brooklyn? Clinton won Brooklyn by 49,000 votes. 60% to 40%. Again, the incorrect purging probably hurt her more than Sanders.
> 
> The counties Clinton won:
> 
> Erie County (Buffalo): 50.4% to 49.6%. Clinton wins by 812 votes.
> Monroe County (Rochester): 51.8% to 48.2%. Clinton wins by 2,592 votes.
> Onondaga County (Syracuse): 53.0% to 47.0%. Clinton wins by 2,340 votes.
> Rockland (bordering NYC): 60.5% to 39.5%. Clinton wins by 5,894 votes.
> Orange (bordering Rockland): 51.5% to 48.5%. Clinton wins by 703 votes.
> Westchester (bordering NYC): 67.4% to 32.6%. Clinton wins by 35,902 votes.
> *Bronx (NYC):* 70.0% to 30.0%. Clinton wins by 54,658 votes.
> *Manhattan (NYC):* 66.3% to 33.7%. Clinton wins by 87,269 votes.
> *Staten Island (NYC):* 52.9% to 47.1%. Clinton wins by 1,787 votes.
> *Bronx (NYC):* 60.0% to 40.0%. Clinton wins by 57,909 votes.
> *Queens (NYC):* 61.6% to 38.4%. Clinton wins by 46,081 votes.
> Nassau (bordering NYC): 62.6% to 37.4%. Clinton wins by 28,646 votes.
> Suffolk (bordering Nassau): 54.7% to 45.3%. Clinton wins by 8,563 votes.
> 
> You can't explain away these margins of victories in the 5 counties comprising New York City with "NYC voter roll purges!" and "NYC polling places a mess!"
> 
> Once you start examining it the conspiracy claims fall apart, as conspiracy claims do 99% of the time. And it's kind of lame that I actually go look this stuff up and everybody knows you'll come back with another post that has all kinds of allegations and accusations and assertions and zero evidence provided backing any of them up.



You know I meant Bush , the fact is Gore got screwed on that election because of voter suppression but keep ignoring the facts like you love to do.

If you read up on the voter suppression you would know that people who were registered democrats for their whole life were magically switched to independent in closed primary states so they couldn't vote.

As for Clinton winning Brooklyn by 49.000 votes, yes and 100.000 in just brooklyn alone were purged. So Brooklyn Bernies home city could have gone differently if not for the 125.000 purged from that city alone. Not not to mention all the other people that were purged across the state. But again don't let the facts get in the way.

The NY state purge was a huge mess just like RI was where they shut down like 60% of the polling stations. But again don't let facts get in the way .

You have proven you don't even know how to do math when in Brooklyn you admit Hillary won by 50k yet 125k in just that city alone were purged and act like that couldn't make a difference.

Not to mention the way the delegates are broken down, if Bernie is screwed out of 4 or 5 delates minimum each state that is 200 to 250 delegate swing for the whole country. 

Once you examine more closely you see how sanders is getting screwed and Hillary and the DNC are stealing the election.

If you don't understand Sanders votes are being suppressed, because he is getting some of the highest vote totals of all time then you truly are clueless.

You only need to suppress the vote when someone is getting close to beating the establishment candidate. If Sanders wasnt so close to Hillary they wouldn't need to suppress the vote.

Not sure what you don't understand that simple concept.

Right now Hillary leads 1768 to 1494 which is 274 delegate lead.

If that lead stayed the same, which is wont since its been shrinking , you take away 200 delegates from Hillary and give them to Bernie (due to voter suppression of 4 delegates per 50 states) then what would make that Hillary would have 1568 to Sanders 1694 and that would give Sanders the win.

Voter suppression is screwing Sanders out of delegates, even when he loses, him losing or winning by 3 or 4 delegates in every state is a huge impact when you look it the total number of delegates across the whole election and not just one by one.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

The absolute madman actually said it. Wow.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



manstis1804 said:


> Question about WALL: wouldn't it make sense to build the wall ourselves, and put Americans to work doing it? Surely there's a ton of labor involved, and the income tax from the labor could help offset the cost, while bringing down unemployment, thus reducing entitlements.


http://nyti.ms/1VaJmLQ

The wall is just flat out impractical, as mentioned multiple times before.

It is just something for the voters to rally around.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

The problem is right now Bernie would need have an overwhelming majority to win the Democratic nomination because the Democrat Party election process much like the Republican side is corrupt to the core. The super delegates essentially are the balance between nomination and coming up short. Obama had an overwhelming majority when Hillary was picking up the super delegates and that was the only way he beat her because they had no choice but to flock to Obama as the presumptive nominee.

Hillary is trying to make sure that doesn't happen again and Bernie is at the same crossroads as Obama only this time it's going to be a lot tougher because unlike Obama who played the system, Bernie I think truly believes what he is saying which makes super delegates being willing to support him even less likely.

I don't like many of Bernie's positions in the slightest other than his foreign policy and wanting to end the war on drugs but it's clear he's fighting an uphill battle against a corrupt system. Much like Trump has done on the Republican side regardless of whether you like him or not.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



yeahbaby! said:


> How can Hilary run America if she's hanging out with billionaire paedophiles all the time?


Her Obama praised a klan member, made it to his funeral. Hilary has time for everyone!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



FriedTofu said:


> http://nyti.ms/1VaJmLQ
> 
> The wall is just flat out impractical, as mentioned multiple times before.
> 
> It is just something for the voters to rally around.


Just like him winning the Nom is?

Oh, and it must also be as impractical as *TRUMP LEADING CLINTON BY 5 POINTS NATIONALLY THIS MORNING:*

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch

Months ago You probably would have said it couldn't happen, but he's doing it.

What will you say when the wall is built?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

The New York Times is a completely discredited publication. They have an enormous bias against Trump as demonstrated by their recent story where they twisted the words and experiences of various women Trump knew through his life, according to their own reports.


----------



## FITZ

CamillePunk said:


> The New York Times is a completely discredited publication. They have an enormous bias against Trump as demonstrated by their recent story where they twisted the words and experiences of various women Trump knew through his life, according to their own reports.


Some of the reporting on Trump is comical. I saw a meme online that said nobody called him a racist until he ran for president so I did a Google search and found an article that said he has been racist for years. Half of the examples were just him having problems with people that just weren't white. At one point the article said he was behind commercials to block an Indian casino in upstate New York. The article actually said he paid for them because he wanted to protect his casinos in Atlantic city. Yet despite giving a non racial reason for stopping the casino he was still racist for trying to stop the casino being built because the potential owners weren't white.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



FITZ said:


> Some of the reporting on Trump is comical. I saw a meme online that said nobody called him a racist until he ran for president so I did a Google search and found an article that said he has been racist for years. Half of the examples were just him having problems with people that just weren't white. At one point the article said he was behind commercials to block an Indian casino in upstate New York. The article actually said he paid for them because he wanted to protect his casinos in Atlantic city. Yet despite giving a non racial reason for stopping the casino he was still racist for trying to stop the casino being built because the potential owners weren't white.


Yeah well that's the world SJWs want

Used to be if you weren't white and you got in white people's way you were uppity and bad shit was gonna happen to you

They want a world where if you are white and you get in non-white people's way you are racist and bad shit is gonna happen to you

Now there's some racial progress for you

The only politician truly interested in stopping this nonsense is :trump

The rest of the GOP might say they want to but really they just want to not be targeted by SJWs

:trump wants to actually stop their bigoted authoritarian nonsense


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



Beatles123 said:


> Just like him winning the Nom is?
> 
> Oh, and it must also be as impractical as *TRUMP LEADING CLINTON BY 5 POINTS NATIONALLY THIS MORNING:*
> 
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch
> 
> Months ago You probably would have said it couldn't happen, but he's doing it.
> 
> What will you say when the wall is built?


The reasoning its happening is because of all the people sick of the DNC and Hillary suppressing the vote and screwing over Sanders, its turning people on the DNC and Hillary and it will get them to vote Trump or 3rd party


A lot of the GOP voters hate Trump and a lot of the DNC voters hate Hillary, if there was ever a year a 3rd party could win the election it could be this won.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> The reasoning its happening is because of all the people sick of the DNC and Hillary suppressing the vote and screwing over Sanders, its turning people on the DNC and Hillary and it will get them to vote Trump or 3rd party
> 
> 
> A lot of the GOP voters hate Trump and a lot of the DNC voters hate Hillary, if there was ever a year a 3rd party could win the election it could be this won.


I disagree.


__

In other news, The Koch Bros are pissed.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...ges-millions-to-fund-spoiler-third-party-run/


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



Beatles123 said:


> I disagree.
> 
> 
> __
> 
> In other news, The Koch Bros are pissed.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...ges-millions-to-fund-spoiler-third-party-run/


gary johnson and a koch spokesman have both dismissed it 

sheldon adelson is already on the :trump TRAIN the koch bros wont be far behind especially once they see what the BernieBros are doing to the democratic party, although they may direct their cash to down-ticket races instead of directly to :trump

they'll want to jump on the perceived weakened foe as much as any other conservative or moderate libertarian types.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



deepelemblues said:


> gary johnson and a koch spokesman have both dismissed it
> 
> sheldon adelson is already on the :trump TRAIN the koch bros wont be far behind especially once they see what the BernieBros are doing to the democratic party, although they may direct their cash to down-ticket races instead of directly to :trump
> 
> they'll want to jump on the perceived weakened foe as much as any other conservative or moderate libertarian types.


The Cuch brothers have refused Trump for ages now. Trump should tell them to fuck off.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



Beatles123 said:


> I disagree.
> 
> 
> __
> 
> In other news, The Koch Bros are pissed.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...ges-millions-to-fund-spoiler-third-party-run/


What do you disagree with exactly?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> What do you disagree with exactly?


No one wants to see either of our candidates run 3rd party because we both know it would allow the other to win against whoever didn't. If Bernie ran, the Dem vote would split. If Trump ran, say hello to Hilary in charge.

...Unless BOTH of them ran as their own new party...:hmm


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



Beatles123 said:


> No one wants to see either of our candidates run 3rd party because we both know it would allow the other to win against whoever didn't. If Bernie ran, the Dem vote would split. If Trump ran, say hello to Hilary in charge.
> 
> ...Unless BOTH of them ran as their own new party...:hmm


Hillary and Trump both have record high unfavorable ratings, huge numbers of voters in both of their parties don't want to see either of them win.

If a strong 3rd party candidate ran they could steal the election.

Hell look at this.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...want-independent-candidate-over-clinton-trump

In a poll

65% said they are willing to support a candidate who isn’t Clinton or Trump.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Hillary and Trump both have record high unfavorable ratings, huge numbers of voters in both of their parties don't want to see either of them win.
> 
> If a strong 3rd party candidate ran they could steal the election.
> 
> Hell look at this.
> 
> http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...want-independent-candidate-over-clinton-trump
> 
> In a poll
> 
> 65% said they are willing to support a candidate who isn’t Clinton or Trump.


And how many of those people are Sanders supporters? The link said 91% under the age of 29 want an independent in the race (and that number alone has me skeptical about this whole thing). Those are Bernie Sanders supporters. And the ones that aren't are Conservatives that are never going to vote for a Socialist.

Trump winning the nomination ruined any chance of someone not being a Republican or Democrat winning the election. For that to happen we would have needed Trump and Bernie to both run on their own.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Hillary and Trump both have record high unfavorable ratings, huge numbers of voters in both of their parties don't want to see either of them win.
> 
> If a strong 3rd party candidate ran they could steal the election.
> 
> Hell look at this.
> 
> http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...want-independent-candidate-over-clinton-trump
> 
> In a poll
> 
> 65% said they are willing to support a candidate who isn’t Clinton or Trump.


Trump's unfavorability has dropped Ten percent since March. Hilary's is going up.


----------



## Kink_Brawn

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

Trump will win. He is already pulling ahead of Hill dog, who hasn't even managed to beat a crazy old socialist yet, and he has 5 months to go.

Also, a lot of people that report on his disapproval ratings and people that endlessly call him a bigot are usually leftist people from internet publications or butt hurt conservatives. I am Amerindian and essentially everyone know is probably going to vote for Trump, so, it's not just crazy ******** that like what the guy is saying....as leftist media would have you believe. Can't stop the Train, man.

The crazy liberal tears will be glorious on inauguration day. I plan on bathing in them.


----------



## Marv95

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

After I found out what Obama is doing letting refugees/illegal immigrants coming here instead of putting his American citizens first and foremost, and not having a plan in place to stem inner city violence nationwide(in the typical places), oh and Obamacare, I'm about to board the Trump train.

As morbid as this sounds the more Islam attacks the better chance Trump wins the election.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

Shouldn't the title say "this train has no stops" or "this train has no brakes"

People will need to try A LOT harder if they want to stop Teflon Don. This misongyny/sexist stuff has failed hard so far.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



MrMister said:


> Shouldn't the title say "this train has no stops" or "this train has no brakes"
> 
> People will need to try A LOT harder if they want to stop Teflon Don. This misongyny/sexist stuff has failed hard so far.


It's no breaks cause it aint slowin' down!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



Marv95 said:


> After I found out what Obama is doing letting refugees/illegal immigrants coming here instead of putting his American citizens first and foremost, and not having a plan in place to stem inner city violence nationwide(in the typical places), oh and Obamacare, I'm about to board the Trump train.
> 
> As morbid as this sounds the more Islam attacks the better chance Trump wins the election.


Welcome. You made the Right choice.

Get this man a coat!


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



MrMister said:


> Shouldn't the title say "this train has no stops" or "this train has no brakes"
> 
> People will need to try A LOT harder if they want to stop Teflon Don. This misongyny/sexist stuff has failed hard so far.


His opponents don't have to try at all. Big Don is self-destructing his own chances, he's been doing that since Sept '15. 

It's funny that you die hard supporters don't see it.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*


----------



## 3ku1

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

Serious Question for you Americans. Take away his bs. His outrageous statements on Women, Race, anything lol. Do any of you actually beleive he is Qualified to be President of the United States? BEcause I See Hillary always blasting Trump. Yet they used to be friendly. So I am not sure she is any more shady then Trump is. I mean the man has run succesfull buisnesses in the past. So I don't know. He has the wealth, the power, and the connections to make it happen. It just seems people are treating him as some harmless sideshow. Well he is not anymore, he is a serious threat.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



3ku1 said:


> Serious Question for you Americans. Take away his bs. His outrageous statements on Women, Race, anything lol. Do any of you actually beleive he is Qualified to be President of the United States? BEcause I See Hillary always blasting Trump. Yet they used to be friendly. So I am not sure she is any more shady then Trump is. I mean the man has run succesfull buisnesses in the past. So I don't know. He has the wealth, the power, and the connections to make it happen. It just seems people are treating him as some harmless sideshow. Well he is not anymore, he is a serious threat.


As long as people begin to recognize that mass democracy is a farcical construct which produces destructive "cult of personality" celebrity candidates like Obama before Trump, only good can come from this.

When a mere sliver of propertied, moneyed individuals had a direct say in American federal elections, statesmen and geniuses like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, et. al. were the standard-bearers of republican governance. With cretins like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush becoming two-term presidents, who can say that mass democracy has been anything but predictably deleterious to the American republic, or whatever is left of it?


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



3ku1 said:


> Serious Question for you Americans. Take away his bs. His outrageous statements on Women, Race, anything lol. Do any of you actually beleive he is Qualified to be President of the United States? BEcause I See Hillary always blasting Trump. Yet they used to be friendly. *So I am not sure she is any more shady then Trump is. *I mean the man has run succesfull buisnesses in the past. So I don't know. He has the wealth, the power, and the connections to make it happen. It just seems people are treating him as some harmless sideshow. Well he is not anymore, he is a serious threat.


I don't know this for sure but I don't think you can find articles with 30 people dying in unusual ways (like multiple suicides and plane crashes) that had a connection to Trump. I'm not saying that they actually had dozens of people murdered (because that would lead to a hit squad at my house if she gets elected) but I wouldn't put some of it past them. If I were told that they had actually had a person murdered I would only be surprised at how we found out about it.

I don't think Donald Trump has covered up for his wife raping people? 

I don't think Donald Trump or anyone in his family goes on a private jet owned by a pedophile over 20 times? 




Is he qualified to be president? I don't think so. But I don't think many people are. I'm not sure how many people I can name that have a lot of experience running a country or having a big role in running a country that haven't been completely corrupted. I don't think those people are qualified to be president either (which was a solid point from Bernie Sanders actually).


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



DesolationRow said:


> *As long as people begin to recognize that mass democracy is a farcical construct which produces destructive "cult of personality" celebrity candidates like Obama before Trump, only good can come from this.*
> 
> When a mere sliver of propertied, moneyed individuals had a direct say in American federal elections, statesmen and geniuses like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, et. al. were the standard-bearers of republican governance. With cretins like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush becoming two-term presidents, who can say that mass democracy has been anything but predictably deleterious to the American republic, or whatever is left of it?


Oh come on, you can't put Obama in the same 'celebrity candidate' category as Trump. Obama had political experience and is/was a statesman with a solid grasp of the diplomacy needed to be a world leader that doesn't occur to Trump at all.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



Beatles123 said:


> Just like him winning the Nom is?
> 
> Oh, and it must also be as impractical as *TRUMP LEADING CLINTON BY 5 POINTS NATIONALLY THIS MORNING:*
> 
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch
> 
> Months ago You probably would have said it couldn't happen, but he's doing it.
> 
> What will you say when the wall is built?


Do you know what impractical even mean? I think you are thinking of improbable to describe Trump's lead over Hilary in the polls.

Yeah the terror is setting in for me. Trump really could become the next American President based on current polls. If Duterte can win in the Philippines, why not Trump?

Did you even read the article about why the wall is impractical or did you choose to refuse any information that doesn't reinforce your own opinions? Did you even read what the constraints are?

If the wall is built, I will applaud Trump for sticking to his campaign promises even though it is a dumb wall that won't fix most issues. But what if it doesn't get built if Trump is elected? He's playing with fire with the likes of you.

Trump has already backtracked on his self-financing rhetoric. Why wouldn't he be beholden to big donors like other politicians now that he is asking for big donors aid?



yeahbaby! said:


> Oh come on, you can't put Obama in the same 'celebrity candidate' category as Trump. Obama had political experience and is/was a statesman with a solid grasp of the diplomacy needed to be a world leader that doesn't occur to Trump at all.


Even the philippines's version of Trump, Duterte, has experience in the political arena. Trump has nothing besides a birther movement encouraged by the GOP leaders.

The world has gone nuts.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



DesolationRow said:


> As long as people begin to recognize that mass democracy is a farcical construct which produces destructive "cult of personality" celebrity candidates like Obama before Trump, only good can come from this.
> 
> When a mere sliver of propertied, moneyed individuals had a direct say in American federal elections, statesmen and geniuses like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, et. al. were the standard-bearers of republican governance. With cretins like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush becoming two-term presidents, who can say that mass democracy has been anything but predictably deleterious to the American republic, or whatever is left of it?


Quoted for TRUTH, and because I felt that everyone should have a chance to read it again without having to go back a page. You are all welcome.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



3ku1 said:


> Serious Question for you Americans. Take away his bs. His outrageous statements on Women, Race, anything lol. Do any of you actually beleive he is Qualified to be President of the United States? BEcause I See Hillary always blasting Trump. Yet they used to be friendly. So I am not sure she is any more shady then Trump is. I mean the man has run succesfull buisnesses in the past. So I don't know. He has the wealth, the power, and the connections to make it happen. It just seems people are treating him as some harmless sideshow. Well he is not anymore, he is a serious threat.


FOUR of his business went bankrupt , I would hardly call that successful. Not to mention all this casinos that failed. 

HE has wealth from his father and he would have EVER MORE if he would have saved his money and invested it instead of all this failed businesses. The only reason he is a serious threat is because the DNC has railroaded Bernie Sanders and decided to back Hillary Clinton . Its going to blow up in the DNCs face and it could give Trump the presidency . 

And you are right, the GOP treated him like a harmless sideshow instead of dealing with him and disposing of him , now he is their nomination. 

Like Trump or hate him, the one good thing that will come out of this is, it could destroy the establishment on both sides and force the DNC and GOP to get their shit together.




Marv95 said:


> After I found out what Obama is doing letting refugees/illegal immigrants coming here instead of putting his American citizens first and foremost, and not having a plan in place to stem inner city violence nationwide(in the typical places), oh and Obamacare, I'm about to board the Trump train.
> 
> As morbid as this sounds the more Islam attacks the better chance Trump wins the election.


I love how people say oh the more Muslim attacks the better to prove Trumps point about how they should ban Muslims but they with the millions that die from mass shootings or even regular shootings, they ignore better gun control and would never say own lets ban guns.

Also you do know that Obamacare was a republican plan right? Its based on what Romney did in Mass.





DesolationRow said:


> As long as people begin to recognize that mass democracy is a farcical construct which produces destructive "cult of personality" celebrity candidates like Obama before Trump, only good can come from this.
> 
> When a mere sliver of propertied, moneyed individuals had a direct say in American federal elections, statesmen and geniuses like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, et. al. were the standard-bearers of republican governance. With cretins like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush becoming two-term presidents, who can say that mass democracy has been anything but predictably deleterious to the American republic, or whatever is left of it?


There is no such thing as democracy in the US, its just an illusion. The system is rigged to give it to the establishment candidate, especially on the DNC side. That is the whole point of the super delegates and its also the whole point of the electoral college in the general. US politics is not what is best for the people or what they want, its all about legalized bribery and the elected officials doing what their donors want them to do.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

The point of the electoral college is so the federal government and the Congress don't ignore and screw over tiny states like Delaware or Vermont, or geographically large states with small populations like Wyoming.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

So in summary: If Trump becomes president and the doubters are proven wrong, it's not you that are the problem for thinking he couldn't do it, no, we're just stupid.

Okay. LOL.

Even if Sanders won, I would say "Good luck. I hope he makes America the utopia he claims he can."

But now if Trump wins its "Fuck you, you're all nuts."

Great bipartisanship, fellas.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



deepelemblues said:


> The point of the electoral college is so the federal government and the Congress don't ignore and screw over tiny states like Delaware or Vermont, or geographically large states with small populations like Wyoming.


How would they screw over those states? It should be one vote one person. the electoral college makes some states votes count more than other states. The electoral college is not needed. It just used to rig elections. Just like Gore get screwed over against Bush.




Beatles123 said:


> So in summary: If Trump becomes president and the doubters are proven wrong, it's not you that are the problem for thinking he couldn't do it, no, we're just stupid.
> 
> Okay. LOL.
> 
> Even if Sanders won, I would say "Good luck. I hope he makes America the utopia he claims he can."
> 
> But now if Trump wins its "Fuck you, you're all nuts."
> 
> Great bipartisanship, fellas.


What are you even talking about? Trump is a terrible pick for president, the problem is Cruz on the GOP was way worse and Hillary is super corrupt and unlikable. 

I hate Trump and he would be a disaster of a president but id still rather see him in than Hilary with all the bullshit and her the DNC have pulled and all the lies they keep putting out.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



> How would they screw over those states? It should be one vote one person. the electoral college makes some states votes count more than other states. The electoral college is not needed. It just used to rig elections. Just like Gore get screwed over against Bush.


By ignoring them in Congress and passing bills to benefit the big states of the time like Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York. 

It is one vote one person in each state. The winner of that state gets the state's electoral votes. Except Nebraska which has proportional allocation. Can't remember but I think that's the only state that does that.

I don't like to copy but you really don't know what you're talking about. The electoral college was not created with the idea of rigging elections and it never has been used to rig one. The popular vote winner has lost the presidency 4 times out of 57. That's 7.01%.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



deepelemblues said:


> By ignoring them in Congress and passing bills to benefit the big states of the time like Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York.
> 
> It is one vote one person in each state. The winner of that state gets the state's electoral votes. Except Nebraska which has proportional allocation. Can't remember but I think that's the only state that does that.
> 
> I don't like to copy but you really don't know what you're talking about. The electoral college was not created with the idea of rigging elections and it never has been used to rig one. The popular vote winner has lost the presidency 4 times out of 57. That's 7.01%.


The Bush election was rigged with the electoral college over Gore. You really don't have a clue what you are talking about. And the electoral college allows elections to be rigged liked we saw with Bush V Gore.

Not to mention the EC doesnt even have to vote how the states popular vote goes if they don't want to.

But don't get the facts get in the way of your opinion.

The electoral college is an outdate and broken system. The candidates only care about the 11 or 12 states with the most EC votes since those are the 11 or 12 they need the most to win the election.
Hell one of them could win just those 12 biggest states and get no votes in any other state and still win the election.

If the EC in the general was not winner take all, then it wouldn't be as bad but since they are winning take all, it makes it even more unfair.


And yes the popular vote has lost the election 4 times out of 57 and that is 4 times too many.

The electoral college system went against what the people wanted since the populate vote candidate didnt win.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> The Bush election was rigged with the electoral college over Gore. You really don't have a clue what you are talking about. And the electoral college allows elections to be rigged liked we saw with Bush V Gore.
> 
> Not to mention the EC doesnt even have to vote how the states popular vote goes if they don't want to.
> 
> But don't get the facts get in the way of your opinion.
> 
> The electoral college is an outdate and broken system. The candidates only care about the 11 or 12 states with the most EC votes since those are the 11 or 12 they need the most to win the election.
> Hell one of them could win just those 12 biggest states and get no votes in any other state and still win the election.
> 
> If the EC in the general was not winner take all, then it wouldn't be as bad but since they are winning take all, it makes it even more unfair.
> 
> 
> And yes the popular vote has lost the election 4 times out of 57 and that is 4 times too many.
> 
> The electoral college system went against what the people wanted since the populate vote candidate didnt win.


A popular vote elections can't be rigged?

Belarus just had an election where they claimed a 90% vote and intentional observers saw officials throw out vote and bring in boxes of fake votes and when they complained were basically told to fuck off and its none of their business

People in the US don't know how good they have it in elections, people bitch about "two bad choices", in most places there is no choice and never will be


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



Beatles123 said:


> So in summary: If Trump becomes president and the doubters are proven wrong, it's not you that are the problem for thinking he couldn't do it, no, we're just stupid.
> 
> Okay. LOL.
> 
> Even if Sanders won, I would say "Good luck. I hope he makes America the utopia he claims he can."
> 
> But now if Trump wins its "Fuck you, you're all nuts."
> 
> Great bipartisanship, fellas.


You tripping over there? :lol

It is just a comment that the world has gone nuts that America with its checks and balance in their democracy is willing to elect a demagogue as President. I would say the same thing if Bernie is chosen for the Democratic side.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

Bernie Sanders supporters out here thinking he can turn a ghetto like Trenton NJ into a Nordic white utopia. 

*@1:22*


----------



## Trivette

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*






:trump


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> FOUR of his business went bankrupt , I would hardly call that successful. Not to mention all this casinos that failed.
> 
> HE has wealth from his father and he would have EVER MORE if he would have saved his money and invested it instead of all this failed businesses. The only reason he is a serious threat is because the DNC has railroaded Bernie Sanders and decided to back Hillary Clinton . Its going to blow up in the DNCs face and it could give Trump the presidency .
> 
> 
> I love how people say oh the more Muslim attacks the better to prove Trumps point about how they should ban Muslims but they with the millions that die from mass shootings or even regular shootings, they ignore better gun control and would never say own lets ban guns.
> 
> Also you do know that Obamacare was a republican plan right? Its based on what Romney did in Mass.


I checked wikipedia and it says the Trump Groups is involved with over 500 subsidiaries. 4 have gone bankrupt. <1% Bankrupt Rate. 

Saying he isn't a good business man isn't really something you can support. He has had a some bad steps but if you look at what he was worth when he started getting involved in his father's business and look at what he is worth now how could you possibly say he isn't a good businessman? 

And as far as the gun part goes the Constitution says you can't ban guns. It doesn't prevent the government from preventing non-American Muslims into the United States. 



birthday_massacre said:


> How would they screw over those states? It should be one vote one person. the electoral college makes some states votes count more than other states. The electoral college is not needed. It just used to rig elections. Just like Gore get screwed over against Bush.


The Electoral College is in the Constitution. It was one of those things that we needed to create a country. You multiple states with different populations. Take a small state like Delaware. If they everything was a straight popular vote they would have no say in presidential elections or in Congress. They wouldn't have joined the Union if that were the case. The big states had to make concessions to get the little states to join. They did and that's why we have the system that we currently have. 

Times are different today obviously but that's the system we have and changing it isn't realistic.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

I've already debunked those talking points by BM which are just MSM fabrications he repeats on here over and over.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



FITZ said:


> I checked wikipedia and it says the Trump Groups is involved with over 500 subsidiaries. 4 have gone bankrupt. <1% Bankrupt Rate.
> 
> Saying he isn't a good business man isn't really something you can support. He has had a some bad steps but if you look at what he was worth when he started getting involved in his father's business and look at what he is worth now how could you possibly say he isn't a good businessman?
> 
> And as far as the gun part goes the Constitution says you can't ban guns. It doesn't prevent the government from preventing non-American Muslims into the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> The Electoral College is in the Constitution. It was one of those things that we needed to create a country. You multiple states with different populations. Take a small state like Delaware. If they everything was a straight popular vote they would have no say in presidential elections or in Congress. They wouldn't have joined the Union if that were the case. The big states had to make concessions to get the little states to join. They did and that's why we have the system that we currently have.
> 
> Times are different today obviously but that's the system we have and changing it isn't realistic.


They don't have a say in the general election even with the EC. Like I said you can just win the 12 biggest EC states and get no votes in any other state and be president.

As for Trump, those 500 subsidiaries are not his companies, he just sells his name to them and that is it. Nice try thought.

Also lets not forget his other failures like Trump Steaks, Trump Water, Trump Magazine, Trump Mortgage, Trump Airlines, and Trump Vodka. Lets not forget how he defrauded all those people with Trump University which was a huge scam.



CamillePunk said:


> I've already debunked those talking points by BM which are just MSM fabrications he repeats on here over and over.


And CP didnt debunk anything. Facts are facts, and Trump supporters love to ignore them.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

I don't know why you keep posting in here just to repeat yourself and ignore anything anyone tells you. What kind of life is that, honestly?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

"I have to say I love (insert town I'm In) I do, I used to (work/do business) here, I love this, believe me, I'm going to bring back (insert lost jobs/thing), (insert town) has all the best (insert thing), and believe me, I know I'm the only man, believe me, the only man that can do (amazing thing). I love that"


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



CamillePunk said:


> I don't know why you keep posting in here just to repeat yourself and ignore anything anyone tells you. What kind of life is that, honestly?


Your excuses don't debunk anything, people like you just can't accept the facts as much as you want lie to yourself. I just think its funny all the excuses you have to make for Trump and claim he is not a failure or that facts are not true.

You just need to accept the truth and the facts. You act like a creationist when you are told evolution is real then you claim oh you debunk evolution and I tell you that you are wrong and back up evolution, then you ask why do you keep coming here in when you ignore what people say about creationism being real.

Maybe if you have facts to back up what you say but you never do, its just excuses for Trump and that is the problem.


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

Excuses? The sole remaining Republican Presidential nominee needs no excuses.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Your excuses don't debunk anything, people like you just can't accept the facts as much as you want lie to yourself. I just think its funny all the excuses you have to make for Trump and claim he is not a failure or that facts are not true.
> 
> You just need to accept the truth and the facts. You act like a creationist when you are told evolution is real then you claim oh you debunk evolution and I tell you that you are wrong and back up evolution, then you ask why do you keep coming here in when you ignore what people say about creationism being real.
> 
> Maybe if you have facts to back up what you say but you never do, its just excuses for Trump and that is the problem.


I can't imagine how you are ever going to be a success at anything if you think failure is to be a multi-billionaire real estate tycoon, best-selling author, reality TV star, and one of two people who could become the most powerful person in the world after only being in politics for 10 months. If that's failure to you then how can anything possible be considered success? Think about the standards you're setting up for yourself. 

Liberalism really is a mental disorder which causes the mind to decay. It's staggering. Everyone sees it but you. You are an absolute joke, BM, and you will never amount to anything with the worldview you currently have.

You will never be successful if you can't even recognize success when you see it.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*


----------



## amhlilhaus

3ku1 said:


> Serious Question for you Americans. Take away his bs. His outrageous statements on Women, Race, anything lol. Do any of you actually beleive he is Qualified to be President of the United States? BEcause I See Hillary always blasting Trump. Yet they used to be friendly. So I am not sure she is any more shady then Trump is. I mean the man has run succesfull buisnesses in the past. So I don't know. He has the wealth, the power, and the connections to make it happen. It just seems people are treating him as some harmless sideshow. Well he is not anymore, he is a serious threat.


Hes a lot more qualified than a community organizer and career cuckold.

Actually, cuckold may not be right. Whats the name for a woman whos constantly cheated on


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



Truthbetold said:


> Bernie Sanders supporters out here thinking he can turn a ghetto like Trenton NJ into a Nordic white utopia.
> 
> *@1:22*


The first guy in that video is literally how 90% of Anti Trump voters are like, from my experience anyway. 

Cringe worthy stuff.


----------



## Marv95

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

None of these SJWs have provided examples of how is he homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

This twitter account. :lol Donald Trump is a DnD Dungeon Master. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/728673389699719168

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/730433993674391553

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731925325794271232

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/734037655608954881


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

Druids are OP wtf Donald.

Should've said Rogue. 

still got a good laugh


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



CamillePunk said:


> I can't imagine how you are ever going to be a success at anything if you think failure is to be a multi-billionaire real estate tycoon, best-selling author, reality TV star, and one of two people who could become the most powerful person in the world after only being in politics for 10 months. If that's failure to you then how can anything possible be considered success? Think about the standards you're setting up for yourself.
> 
> Liberalism really is a mental disorder which causes the mind to decay. It's staggering. Everyone sees it but you. You are an absolute joke, BM, and you will never amount to anything with the worldview you currently have.
> 
> You will never be successful if you can't even recognize success when you see it.


You refuse to recognize his failures outweight his successes especially when it comes to business. If it wasnt for his father giving him 10 million he would be nothing.
The only time Trump succeeds at real estate is when it sells his name to put on OTHER PEOPLES real estate the times he did it on his own where huge failures. Not to mention all the companies he had that were colossal failures that i already mentioned.

Trump is a huge failure at most of the business he has ever done. Anyone can be a reality tv star that doesn't mean anything. Just look at idiots like Jenner or the Kardashians. Trump is going to be a disaster if he is running the country. 

the only reason he is the GOP nominee is because he got all the bigots and racist of the country to vote for him.

the fact is Trump is a huge failure when it comes to running businesses. HIs being a TV star has nothing to do with him running being a failure at running businesses.

He is great at scamming people , like he has done to the americans that voted for him. If he is even president, its going to be one of the biggest disasters we have ever seen. The point I was referring to in my post was Trump has ran successful businesses in the past and I pointed out all his failed businesses.

i do like how you jumped to him being a TV star or running for president as being business. But that is what you like to do. Take something about one specific thing and then pretend it was said about everything so claim I am wrong .

Nothing I said about those failured businesses was incorrect.

I never called Trump a failure overall. I was talking about most of his businesses have been failures and I pointed out the biggest failures.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> They don't have a say in the general election even with the EC. Like I said you can just win the 12 biggest EC states and get no votes in any other state and be president.
> 
> As for Trump, those 500 subsidiaries are not his companies, he just sells his name to them and that is it. Nice try thought.
> 
> Also lets not forget his other failures like Trump Steaks, Trump Water, Trump Magazine, Trump Mortgage, Trump Airlines, and Trump Vodka. Lets not forget how he defrauded all those people with Trump University which was a huge scam.
> 
> 
> 
> And CP didnt debunk anything. Facts are facts, and Trump supporters love to ignore them.


Today you can win the 12 biggest states and win. When the Constitution was ratified there were 13 states. Creating the Senate, where every state is equal, and the electoral college did give the small states a pretty big say in government. Both as we got more states the small states lost more of their voice over time. 


And as far as Trump being a failure goes I don't understand how you can say he's a failure when he's worth billions more today than what he used to be. He obviously did something right.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



FITZ said:


> Today you can win the 12 biggest states and win. When the Constitution was ratified there were 13 states. Creating the Senate, where every state is equal, and the electoral college did give the small states a pretty big say in government. Both as we got more states the small states lost more of their voice over time.
> 
> 
> And as far as Trump being a failure goes I don't understand how you can say he's a failure when he's worth billions more today than what he used to be. He obviously did something right.


So how is the EC not outdated now if you can just win 12 states and get zero votes in all the other 38 and still win? Also back then every state was not equal since a person in a smaller states vote counted more than a single person in a a bigger state. 

Trump is a failure in most of his businesses, how is that not true? I listed a lot of his failed businesses . Trump is a genius as branding that is where he gets most of his money. 

Trump sucks at running a business but marketing himself and making money that way he is a rock star.

But being a rock star at marketing your branding isnt going to help you run the country.

That is where Trump is going to be a colossal failure and it could ruin our country.


----------



## rescue141x

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is a huge failure at most of the business he has ever done. Anyone can be a reality tv star that doesn't mean anything. Just look at idiots like Jenner or the Kardashians. Trump is going to be a disaster if he is running the country.
> 
> the only reason he is the GOP nominee is because he got all the bigots and racist of the country to vote for him.


Oh please give me a break. He got all the bigots and racist? Please tell me how Trump supporters are racist? Wanting sensible laws about illegal immigrant is not racist. Please tell me which party has been blocking roads, causing protests, being seen on video yelling "F*** TRUMP!" including kids.

I was watching the video when Bill Clinton was talking about illegal immigration and he said almost the same thing as Trump, but yet liberals are like "OMG THATS RACIST!" I bet when Clinton was saying all that, liberals are creaming their pants talking about how great Clinton was :laugh: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZXbG5gvoC0


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



rescue141x said:


> Oh please give me a break. He got all the bigots and racist? Please tell me how Trump supporters are racist? Wanting sensible laws about illegal immigrant is not racist. Please tell me which party has been blocking roads, causing protests, being seen on video yelling "F*** TRUMP!" including kids.
> 
> I was watching the video when Bill Clinton was talking about illegal immigration and he said almost the same thing as Trump, but yet liberals are like "OMG THATS RACIST!" I bet when Clinton was saying all that, liberals are creaming their pants talking about how great Clinton was :laugh:


People were calling Hillary racist when she used the term super predator but don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion.

Trump supporters BEAT UP non Trump supporters and Trump even told them to before. Trump even said he would pay for any court fees of anyone arrested. Trump promotes violence and bigotry. Just go watch all those videos online from his supports being bigots. That is what he is platform has been mostly about.

All the facts are there. Trump has made people be open about their bigotry now because he is doing it out in the open


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> So how is the EC not outdated now if you can just win 12 states and get zero votes in all the other 38 and still win? Also back then every state was not equal since a person in a smaller states vote counted more than a single person in a a bigger state.


It is outdated. But we're stuck with it because it would require a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of it.

It wasn't designed to suppress votes. It was designed to get states to agree to become the United States. Without it I don't think the states ratify the Constitution. 

And it will never change now because a Constitutional Amendment requires 2/3 of both houses. The smaller states would never agree to those changes. You would 34 states to ratify the amendment. 20 states have under 3 million residents. It's never going to change. Complaining about it is pointless because it can never change.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> the only reason he is the GOP nominee is because he got all the bigots and racist of the country to vote for him.


I'm not denying that plenty of his supporters are bigots & racists, but that doesn't mean A LOT of intelligent sane people like him too. From what I've seen online, his supporters are mostly fairly decent (very intelligent) people too and it's mostly people who hate him who tend to be pretty damn ignorant.

Also I'm a middle eastern who wants Trump to win, so it shouldn't surprise you that A LOT of people from minority groups in America would also love Trump.

Donald Trump has that Ulfric Stormcloak effect, he attracts passionate schmucks & passionate intellectuals. In the end, he's what A LOT of people want.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



Gandhi said:


> I'm not denying that plenty of his supporters are bigots & racists, but that doesn't mean A LOT of intelligent sane people like him too. From what I've seen online, his supporters are mostly fairly decent (very intelligent) people too and it's mostly people who hate him who tend to be pretty damn ignorant.
> 
> Also I'm a middle eastern who wants Trump to win, so it shouldn't surprise you that A LOT of people from minority groups in America would also love Trump.


He sure as hell hasn't encountered any racism or bigotry in THIS thread. We've all been very fair, I think.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

In new general election polls released between Thursday and today:

Rasmussen, FOX, and ABC have Trump up +5, +3, and +2 respectively.

CBS and NBC have Clinton up +6 and +3 respectively.

It won't be long before Trump is up in all of the polls.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

It is profoundly hilarious how easily Donald Trump is able to brand his various opponents, the latest and most considerable foe being "Crooked Hillary." And it always negatively affects the adversary. 

What this displays is the widespread, pervasive cognitive dissonance of millions of American voters. A cognitive dissonance that Trump is piercing with his simple, persistent branding. Hillary Clinton is as corrupt as any politician in the history of the U.S., yet it took the placement of the identifying descriptor "crooked" before her name for it to register for a significant portion of the electorate. 

If some are still scratching their heads over Trump's incredible success, it may truly be explained by the dizzying extent to which the United States of America is ruled by a merciless, self-aggrandizing criminal class. Which is merely the result of the degeneration that comes with democracy, and a highly immoral number of people. Whether Trump deserves any trust based on the branding of his opponents is a separate matter. The ease with which he performs this task describes the state of these masters of corruption.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

well BM you've convinced me to not sit out this election, i wasn't going to vote but now it's :trump all the way down

pissing people like you off is going to generate hundreds of thousands (at least, probably more like 1 million+) of votes for :trump

thanks for doing your part to encourage civic engagement


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

New poll: TRUMP HAS 11-POINT SWING OVER HILARY SINCE MARCH:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...s-hillary-clinton-11-point-swing-since-march/


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

People all over the nation that haven't really given Hillary much thought until now realize really quickly just how AWFUL she is as a candidate.

Wait until they debate. This election might end up worse than Reagan v Mondale srs.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



MrMister said:


> People all over the nation that haven't really given Hillary much thought until now realize really quickly just how AWFUL she is as a candidate.
> 
> Wait until they debate. This election might end up worse than Reagan v Mondale srs.


Were this the America of the 1980s, or, I would say, even of twelve short years ago, a Reaganesque crushing of Hillary in the election would be a _fait accompli_ considering that Trump is representing a thorough rejection of both George W. Bushism and Barack Obamanomics. The concern is that the electorate is in the process of being "fundamentally transformed" as our dear leader might put it. 

Between the American schools pumping out graduating class after graduating class of young people considering "socialism" to have no negative connotations, and the country's dramatic demographic changes, believe me, Hillary Clinton has a chance. 

Nevertheless, as @CamillePunk and I both thought this past winter, the only candidate on the Republican side of the ledger who stood a good chance of defeating Hillary is indeed Trump. And who knows? Perhaps The Donald's branding and dogged attacking of her (something she has never withstood, including by her direct political opponents, who behave with utter obeisance toward her as though she's as intelligent and wonderful as she would have people believe she is) will indeed do the trick, however. She's a terrible candidate on every single level imaginable. If she wins, it truly means that the America that existed a mere few election cycles ago is truly over with, and the Republican Party's complicity in diminishing the share of voters generally inclined to vote for their candidates in presidential general elections will have proven to be, predictably, suicidal to all of their future ostensible presidential ambitions (I say ostensible because it's fairly obvious at this point that the GOP establishment and Conservatism, Inc. as represented by variegated organs like _National Review, Commentary_ and _The Weekly Standard_ among others truly want Hillary Clinton to win). 

In myriad ways the 2016 election is a watershed "moment of truth" for the U.S.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

This election summed up in one Gif:

http://i.imgur.com/bDmXWct.gifv


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



Beatles123 said:


> This election summed up in one Gif:
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/bDmXWct.gifv


The Putin laugh at the end of the Hillary vid. :trips5


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



Beatles123 said:


> This election summed up in one Gif:
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/bDmXWct.gifv


:lmao

Simple, yet effective.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*










HMMM!

ITS ALMOST LIKE THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE THE PRESSURE OFF CLINTON... iper1


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



Beatles123 said:


> HMMM!
> 
> ITS ALMOST LIKE THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE THE PRESSURE OFF CLINTON... iper1


more like ted cruz is still positioning himself to take over the post- :trump GOP

if :trump wins, when his 4 or 8 years are done i don't see him remaining in politics

someone's gotta get to the top of the gop heap ted cruz wants that obvy


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

Ted Cruz is a snake. He's just biding his time.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



CamillePunk said:


>


BAH GAWD :trump HAS BROKEN HER IN HALF

THAT IS A HUMAN BEING GODAMMIT


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*










AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao 

:sodone

THAT DAMAGE CONTROL!


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

Fine ass Ivanka is Donald's heir apparent. She will be the 1st female president IMO.


^^sexist yes i am sorry


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*










Jobs = Votes.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

^Well if FOX says it....


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

Hey Trump supporters, still putting all your marbles on polling data?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



MrMister said:


> Fine ass Ivanka is Donald's heir apparent. She will be the 1st female president IMO.
> 
> 
> ^^sexist yes i am sorry


I've been saying this for a while, although I don't really know what her politics are to be honest. 

Guys typing the name of a source is not a clever rebuttal.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



gamegenie said:


> Hey Trump supporters, still putting all your marbles on polling data?


marbles is on :trump

yeah it is pretty funny how hillary lost her lead over trump in a month


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

Trump dose not even really need to go on offense right now

Bernie is so fucking butthurt he lost that he is basically saying that his party is full of cheats and lies

Polls have shown that the democrats are actually being hurt due to Sanders supporters protest voting and one of their own's constant attacks


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

Trump better watch his back if he cuts food stamps.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

Washington Post buries its own poll! Trump beats Hillary, but magicians at the Post make it go away

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/05...-magicians-at-the-post-make-it-go-away-343571

:book

Libs!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

Also: NEW TRUMP AD

https://www.instagram.com/p/BFwTioiGhQj/

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk

:banderas HE'S GOING IN!


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

Hillary really has behaved shamefully re: sexual assault and not just when it comes to her hubby's sexual assaults. :trump isn't gonna let her get away with it like she's some empowering feminist symbol.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



deepelemblues said:


> Hillary really has behaved shamefully re: sexual assault and not just when it comes to her hubby's sexual assaults. :trump isn't gonna let her get away with it like she's some empowering feminist symbol.


Yes because logically that argument against her makes a lot of sense.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

I don't even know what you just said. Tell me English isn't your first language. 

Why do all the liberals in this thread type in broken ass English? Is there a causation here?


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



CamillePunk said:


> I don't even know what you just said. Tell me English isn't your first language.


Je ne parle pas bien l'anglais. :curry2


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



CamillePunk said:


> Why do all the liberals in this thread type in broken ass English? Is there a causation here?


that....OR


OR

You're changing the subject to try and dodge the heat of us making fun of your candidate.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



gamegenie said:


> Yes because logically that argument against her makes a lot of sense.


She laughed about getting a 41 year old man who raped a 12 year old girl a sentence of time served (2 months) when she was a lawyer. 

She was in charge of the Clinton campaign unit tasked with handling the "bimbo eruptions," i.e. every time an accusation was laid against Bill.

She personally took part in smearing Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones. She hired private detectives to dig up dirt on the women accusing her husband.

Her husband's career and now her career - power - is more important to her than all the fucked up shit her husband did to a lot of women.



> I don't even know what you just said. Tell me English isn't your first language.
> 
> Why do all the liberals in this thread type in broken ass English? Is there a causation here?


he just be trolling like a 9 year old is all


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



deepelemblues said:


> She laughed about getting a 41 year old man who raped a 12 year old girl a sentence of time served (2 months) when she was a lawyer.
> 
> She was in charge of the Clinton campaign unit tasked with handling the "bimbo eruptions," i.e. every time an accusation was laid against Bill.
> 
> She personally took part in smearing Juanita Broaddrick and Paula Jones. She hired private detectives to dig up dirt on the women accusing her husband.
> 
> Her husband's career and now her career - power - is more important to her than all the fucked up shit her husband did to a lot of women.


Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick?









These accusations are from the 70s. They were old 20 years ago when they were put up by the right to try get Bill Clinton in the late 90s. 


You come into 2016 with 40 year old failed bait material.







My you lot are a special kind of funny.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



gamegenie said:


> Hey Trump supporters, still putting all your marbles on polling data?


:mark: Love that scene from _Return of the Jedi_! :mark: 

http://www.wrestlingforum.com/enter...ecember-18-2015-spoilers-79.html#post55893649  



Beatles123 said:


> Also: NEW TRUMP AD
> 
> https://www.instagram.com/p/BFwTioiGhQj/
> 
> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk
> 
> :banderas HE'S GOING IN!


:woo :woo


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731217083695038464
:dance :dance


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



DesolationRow said:


> :mark: Love that scene from _Return of the Jedi_! :mark:
> 
> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/enter...ecember-18-2015-spoilers-79.html#post55893649
> 
> 
> 
> :woo :woo
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/731217083695038464
> :dance :dance


Great now in the interest of fairness, please let us know all the money Trump has received for speaking engagements and all the shoddy stuff he's put his name to over the years. Oh but somehow that will be okay won't it.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Great now in the interest of fairness, please let us know all the money Trump has received for speaking engagements and all the shoddy stuff he's put his name to over the years. Oh but somehow that will be okay won't it.


Where have I said that Trump hasn't make an exorbitant amount of money from speaking fees? 

Unlike the past three presidential elections in which I could have voted for one of the Democratic Party or Republican Party crime bosses and elected to decline to vote for such a crime boss, I am going to vote for Trump but I am doing so merely because he is the best weapon the American voter has against the criminal class ruling over said American voter. He's openly admitted to bribing countless politicians and using the corrupt system to benefit him as much as possible. 

Trump will not break the system itself were he to attain power but better giving him the chance to at least discipline it rather than hand the most destructive office in the world, the presidency of the United States, to someone who has already accumulated remarkable amounts of blood on her own hands in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere and is quite possibly the single most brazenly dishonorable major American politician in the history of the U.S. Hillary Clinton represents every last imaginable sin of the _status quo_.

The main reason Trump isn't releasing his tax returns is because he's able to utilize so many loopholes that he pays virtually nothing and can even get into a lower capital gains tax bracket than I can because of the tinkering with accepting a lower salary, getting a 15% rate while I'm stuck paying at 39%. Thanks, Obama!


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Great now in the interest of fairness, please let us know all the money Trump has received for speaking engagements and all the shoddy stuff he's put his name to over the years. Oh but somehow that will be okay won't it.


:trump 's income from speaking fees is like .02% of his total income

can you name some of this shoddy stuff, he makes most of his income from high-value rental properties, golf courses and investment dividends. some small amount comes from branding, :trump cologne and all that. 

wait of course you can't point to shoddy stuff :trump allegedly sells because you're just slinging shit. :trump rents and sells high-end properties and develops golf courses, he makes a shitload of money doing so, get over it. you just can't help but whine and assume that :trump sells garbage simply because you don't like :trump



gamegenie said:


> Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These accusations are from the 70s. They were old 20 years ago when they were put up by the right to try get Bill Clinton in the late 90s.
> 
> 
> You come into 2016 with 40 year old failed bait material.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My you lot are a special kind of funny.


^thinks 'that was a long time ago' isn't a garbage response :flair4


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Great now in the interest of fairness, please let us know all the money Trump has received for speaking engagements and all the shoddy stuff he's put his name to over the years. Oh but somehow that will be okay won't it.


I had no idea you were involved with quality control for Trump. Mind PMing me so I can run some products by you to see if they're worth buying? I could use some expert advice!

@Beatles123 WP has been printing outright lies about Trump and manipulating stats, they cherry pick certain stats for a small period and then claim it represents the topic as a whole. I thought MSNBC was bad but these guys are horrible! They have the nerve to call Trump a liar about stuff but lie in order to make their statement.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



deepelemblues said:


> :trump 's income from speaking fees is like .02% of his total income
> 
> can you name some of this shoddy stuff, he makes most of his income from high-value rental properties, golf courses and investment dividends. some small amount comes from branding, :trump cologne and all that.
> 
> wait of course you can't point to shoddy stuff :trump allegedly sells because you're just slinging shit. :trump rents and sells high-end properties and develops golf courses, he makes a shitload of money doing so, get over it. you just can't help but whine and assume that :trump sells garbage simply because you don't like :trump
> 
> 
> 
> ^thinks 'that was a long time ago' isn't a garbage response :flair4


you missed the part about failed bait. :curry2 

But don't worry, this thread is going to be hoot in November when I bump the hell out of it.

Here's a preview of the celebration music I'll be playing on Hillary's election night victory ITT.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



DesolationRow said:


> Where have I said that Trump hasn't make an exorbitant amount of money from speaking fees?
> 
> Unlike the past three presidential elections in which I could have voted for one of the Democratic Party or Republican Party crime bosses and elected to decline to vote for such a crime boss, I am going to vote for Trump but I am doing so merely because he is the best weapon the American voter has against the criminal class ruling over said American voter. He's openly admitted to bribing countless politicians and using the corrupt system to benefit him as much as possible.
> 
> Trump will not break the system itself were he to attain power but better giving him the chance to at least discipline it rather than hand the most destructive office in the world, the presidency of the United States, to someone who has already accumulated remarkable amounts of blood on her own hands in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere and is quite possibly the single most brazenly dishonorable major American politician in the history of the U.S. Hillary Clinton represents every last imaginable sin of the _status quo_.
> 
> The main reason Trump isn't releasing his tax returns is because he's able to utilize so many loopholes that he pays virtually nothing and can even get into a lower capital gains tax bracket than I can because of the tinkering with accepting a lower salary, getting a 15% rate while I'm stuck paying at 39%. Thanks, Obama!


Wait you don't want to vote for someone because she's a criminal but is willing to vote for another criminal because he admitted to wrongdoing without remorse?

What makes you think Trump wouldn't create more loopholes to pay even less taxes when he openly said he try to pay as little tax as possible? The main reason Trump isn't releasing his taxes is because he would look bad in the eyes of his core base for evading to pay even less than his fair share of tax at a lower rate. 

Why are you thanking Obama for his lower tax rate when it is the Republican platform to cut tax rate on the wealthy? o.0 Maybe it is all Obama's fault for not repealing what Bush did. Right?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



> Wait you don't want to vote for someone because she's a criminal but is willing to vote for another criminal because he admitted to wrongdoing without remorse?


what criminal wrongdoing did :trump admit to



> What makes you think Trump wouldn't create more loopholes to pay even less taxes when he openly said he try to pay as little tax as possible?


what's wrong with trying to hand over as little money as possible to people who force you to give them money on threat of being imprisoned if you don't, then they waste it on bullshit?



> The main reason Trump isn't releasing his taxes is because he would look bad in the eyes of his core base for evading to pay even less than his fair share of tax at a lower rate.


:trump 's core base would correctly love him even more for paying less than his "fair share of tax" 

the phrase "fair share of tax" to :trump 's core base is like a cross is to dracula. it's a phrase with no meaning other than "hand over more money to the leviathan because it makes us pissy if you don't"


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



deepelemblues said:


> what criminal wrongdoing did :trump admit to


He boasted about paying off politicians?



> what's wrong with trying to hand over as little money as possible to people who force you to give them money on threat of being imprisoned if you don't, then they waste it on bullshit?


It is wrong when one attempts to get out of paying taxes via illegal means. But I do think he does so via legal means like most wealthy people in the world via loopholes.





> :trump 's core base would correctly love him even more for paying less than his "fair share of tax"
> 
> the phrase "fair share of tax" to :trump 's core base is like a cross is to dracula. it's a phrase with no meaning other than "hand over more money to the leviathan because it makes us pissy if you don't"


Middle class Americans would love him even more for not paying his fair share? Now I'm confused. You think they would find it appealing to discover Trump hasn't paid taxes via exploiting loopholes, the same loopholes he is campaigning to close that he has said is killing the country?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

He already says constantly he tries to pay as little as possible, and he's said that since early on in his campaign. If that was supposed to have hurt him with anyone, the damage would've already been done. He's rising.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

I believe Trump's campaign think it could potentially hurt him hence to refusal to release his tax returns. :shrug


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



FriedTofu said:


> Wait you don't want to vote for someone because she's a criminal but is willing to vote for another criminal because he admitted to wrongdoing without remorse?
> 
> What makes you think Trump wouldn't create more loopholes to pay even less taxes when he openly said he try to pay as little tax as possible? The main reason Trump isn't releasing his taxes is because he would look bad in the eyes of his core base for evading to pay even less than his fair share of tax at a lower rate.
> 
> Why are you thanking Obama for his lower tax rate when it is the Republican platform to cut tax rate on the wealthy? o.0 Maybe it is all Obama's fault for not repealing what Bush did. Right?


They are Trump supporters the are huge hypocrites,what did you expect? Trump defrauded thousands with his Trump University and they are ok with that but if that was Hillary or Bernie they would throw the book at him. Plus Trump can cheat one his taxes and they think its a shrewd business move but Hillary did it they would call her all kinds of names.


Trump is just as bad as Hillary but they ignore all the bad things about Trump and refuse to admit it. Its pretty comical.




CamillePunk said:


> He already says constantly he tries to pay as little as possible, and he's said that since early on in his campaign. If that was supposed to have hurt him with anyone, the damage would've already been done. He's rising.


Its also because Hillary is sinking because most people hate her. Trump would get destroyed by Bernie and does in the polls. Its just too bad the DNC is doing everything to rig the election to get Hillary in there so Trump has a possible shoat at beating her.

It could every well blow up in the DNCs faces.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



Miss Sally said:


> I had no idea you were involved with quality control for Trump. Mind PMing me so I can run some products by you to see if they're worth buying? I could use some expert advice!


Shoddy Trump right here. Look at the first pic he swindled old man winter himself.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...ollars-on-shoddy-vitamin-supplements-n2148317

In before cries of 'that's already been debunked' 'source is a leftist rag' etc etc


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



> He boasted about paying off politicians?


I don't blame him for playing the game and winning :draper2

Maybe he should have been a bitch and got buried instead so he could be another victim of the system which brings moral high ground but little else



> Middle class Americans would love him even more for not paying his fair share?


Why wouldn't they admire someone who succeeded at doing what they wish they could do?



> Now I'm confused.


Yes.



> You think they would find it appealing to discover Trump hasn't paid taxes via exploiting loopholes,


Yes, they find it appealing that someone successfully fucked over the government that they hate. The federal government is genuinely hated by most of the country.



> the same loopholes he is campaigning to close that he has said is killing the country?


:trump says everything is killing the country 

The loopholes he's criticized have been criticized by most if not all GOP candidates in 2016, 2012 and 2008. Probably farther back too. It's not exactly news to anyone who pays attention that lowering tax rates across the board while simplifying the tax code to eliminate loopholes and streamline the whole tax system is standard GOP boilerplate.

:trump is a master strategist, stealing your opponent's slogans and ideas to attract interest from crossover voters is so simple and so brilliant. Which of course is why both major parties have forsook it as they became more and more polarized. Too good of an idea. Too simple.

Maybe people still haven't figured it out yet but :trump is not in the business of anything but getting VOTES. You know, what they count to see who wins elections. Modern politics is all about who can be the most subtle and believable in their lies. :trump smashes this structure of deceit into pieces and pisses on what's left.

:trump cuts out the bullshit that America has grown fat and stupid on.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> CamillePunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine how you are ever going to be a success at anything if you think failure is to be a multi-billionaire real estate tycoon, best-selling author, reality TV star, and one of two people who could become the most powerful person in the world after only being in politics for 10 months. If that's failure to you then how can anything possible be considered success? Think about the standards you're setting up for yourself.
> 
> Liberalism really is a mental disorder which causes the mind to decay. It's staggering. Everyone sees it but you. You are an absolute joke, BM, and you will never amount to anything with the worldview you currently have.
> 
> You will never be successful if you can't even recognize success when you see it.
> 
> 
> 
> You refuse to recognize his failures outweight his successes especially when it comes to business. If it wasnt for his father giving him 10 million he would be nothing.
> The only time Trump succeeds at real estate is when it sells his name to put on OTHER PEOPLES real estate the times he did it on his own where huge failures. Not to mention all the companies he had that were colossal failures that i already mentioned.
> 
> Trump is a huge failure at most of the business he has ever done. Anyone can be a reality tv star that doesn't mean anything. Just look at idiots like Jenner or the Kardashians. Trump is going to be a disaster if he is running the country.
> 
> the only reason he is the GOP nominee is because he got all the bigots and racist of the country to vote for him.
> 
> the fact is Trump is a huge failure when it comes to running businesses. HIs being a TV star has nothing to do with him running being a failure at running businesses.
> 
> He is great at scamming people , like he has done to the americans that voted for him. If he is even president, its going to be one of the biggest disasters we have ever seen. The point I was referring to in my post was Trump has ran successful businesses in the past and I pointed out all his failed businesses.
> 
> i do like how you jumped to him being a TV star or running for president as being business. But that is what you like to do. Take something about one specific thing and then pretend it was said about everything so claim I am wrong .
> 
> Nothing I said about those failured businesses was incorrect.
> 
> I never called Trump a failure overall. I was talking about most of his businesses have been failures and I pointed out the biggest failures.
Click to expand...

So..... trumps only a success because his dad gave him 10 million? He took it and made it 4.5 billion. If his dad only gave him 1 million, hed have only 450 million. If his dad only gave him 100 k hed only have 45 million. If his dad only gave him 10k hed have 4.5 million. If his dad only gave him a 1000 dollars trump would have 450,000 dollars.

I bet even you have been handed a 1,000 dollars at some point. Do you have 450,000 dollars like donald would have????


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> They are Trump supporters the are huge hypocrites,what did you expect? Trump defrauded thousands with his Trump University and they are ok with that but if that was Hillary or Bernie they would throw the book at him. Plus Trump can cheat one his taxes and they think its a shrewd business move but Hillary did it they would call her all kinds of names.
> 
> 
> Trump is just as bad as Hillary but they ignore all the bad things about Trump and refuse to admit it. Its pretty comical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its also because Hillary is sinking because most people hate her. Trump would get destroyed by Bernie and does in the polls. Its just too bad the DNC is doing everything to rig the election to get Hillary in there so Trump has a possible shoat at beating her.
> 
> It could every well blow up in the DNCs faces.


Like Trump hasn't faced his share of shit from the RNC.

Both of our guys are enemies of their respective establishments. If Sanders is so much better, win.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



gamegenie said:


> you missed the part about failed bait. :curry2
> 
> But don't worry, this thread is going to be hoot in November when I bump the hell out of it.
> 
> Here's a preview of the celebration music I'll be playing on Hillary's election night victory ITT.


And if not, what will you do?


----------



## Martins

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

Dear God, have you guys actually managed to put a *positive spin* on tax evasion?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

LOL @ DNC.. Weren't we being told that the DNC wasn't as corrupt as the GOP? Yet Trump is the the guy despite Republican fuckery and the Democrats are still burying Sanders at any cost to put an actual racist at the top. Hilary is so awful and that's the Democrat choice? Of course Bernie isn't doing well making a scene about cheating, even if I'm sure he's correct. His supporters are still being asshats and starting problems, attacking people and doing a bunch of bad stuff, but oh those Republicans are such bad bad people!


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

Why is BREAKS still misspelled in the title?

Is this thread actually satire?:side:


----------



## Kabraxal

Martins said:


> Dear God, have you guys actually managed to put a *positive spin* on tax evasion?


I detest Trump but tax evasion is only ever a positive... Taxes across the board are ridiculous, with many amounting to legalises theft by the government (they tax certain incomes multiple times for christ sake). 

The only time evasion is a negative is if it is hypocritical... Say a higher tax proponent that shields themselves from that tax (ie most politicians).


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



MrMister said:


> Why is BREAKS still misspelled in the title?
> 
> Is this thread actually satire?:side:


You just now realized that this thread is satire.










President Donald Trump lul.

















There's no brakes on the Trump train because it's going to go over the cliff in November.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*

Gotta love how Trump now believes in global warming because its effecting his golf courses. 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-change-golf-course-223436

Cant wait to hear all the excuses Trump supports will make for this flip flop.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



Martins said:


> Dear God, have you guys actually managed to put a *positive spin* on tax evasion?


Anyone who isn't an idiot or a slave to the state should have a very positive view of tax evasion.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Gotta love how Trump now believes in global warming because its effecting his golf courses.
> 
> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-change-golf-course-223436
> 
> Cant wait to hear all the excuses Trump supports will make for this flip flop.


Not to be tool but to say "I believe in something because I have seen the effects first hand" is one of the best reasons to believe

"I thought global warming was over-hyped but then I saw how it effected my golf courses, which are very sensitive to weather, I now think its a problem" is fine

This is a stupid point to prove "lol Trump is dumbz", the tax evasion was a better point

pay your taxes people


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



gamegenie said:


> You just now realized that this thread is satire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Donald Trump lul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no brakes on the Trump train because it's going to go over the cliff in November.


It's not satire, my friend. I really hope for your sake you'd be willing to admit defeat with class if it transpires.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



Martins said:


> Dear God, have you guys actually managed to put a *positive spin* on tax evasion?


The ancient Greeks were right: individuals whose incomes are taxed are slaves. Only a slave could morally have his income taxed by the state. 

Anyone who escapes the fate of paying the protection racket of a derelict, destructive state such as the U.S. regime deserves kudos.

The only just arrangement considering the American predicament today would be to tax almost all of the "earnings" of the exceedingly wealthy, parasitic political class. 

Under the "Just Plan," as we shall call it, every last member of Congress and White House apparatchik who steered the country they were supposed to manage like caretakers, but, in truth, ripped off, would have to be held responsible. Throw in the military-industrial complex leeches who are at the forefront of securing no-bid, colossal contracts to their actual masters, as well as a wide array of bureaucrats who are placed in their governmental positions so that they may make the work of K Street lobbyists as easy as possible, and approximately one thousand or so people would have to do their best to pay back the trillions upon trillions of debt that they (not we, as mere citizens) owe. 

Only a system by which elected officials and their appointed goons are forced to be held responsible for the gargantuan debts that they run up would be remotely just. 

From Warren Buffett to an untold number of celebrities and of course the political class, anyone who can do so will evade as many taxes as possible. That is one of the reasons why the system is such an utter farce to bear witness to, not surprisingly. The entire corporatist system of this U.S. state is rigged; over the last nine months or so we have begun to see the massive derivatives market begin to crack and crack and crack. Between Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, these banks have nearly $200 trillion worth exposed to derivatives. Naturally they spread the risk around but just because risk is spread around does not mean the risk does not exist anymore. Put together, the largest U.S. banks collectively have approximately 250 trillion dollars of exposure to derivatives contracts, and the U.S. government actively shelters them from harm, with an amount of money that is over thirteen times the size of the U.S. national debt. 

The problem is that the entire system of taxation through the U.S. is set up with such corruption, "tax evasion" is just the dirtier way of saying "tax avoidance," which the exceedingly wealthy almost, to a person, go about performing. The tax code is a Brobdingnagian behemoth drafted by bureaucrats and accountants so as to be as incomprehensible as possible, and, effectively, have such open-endedness to it that almost anyone who ever pays taxes at all could find themselves audited or indicted. 

And of course to close the loop on this discussion we have Hillary Clinton, along with her husband, making $17.4 million a year on average, and spent, from 2007-2014, a total of $15 million, or 10.8% of their earnings on tax deductible charitable causes. Wow, they sure are benevolent. The tax savings are impressive on the part of the Clintons, too.

Dig just a little bit deeper, though, and one sees that $14.9 million of the $15.0 million donated by the Clintons to tax deductible charitable organizations... Went to Clinton-related charities, and almost all of that went, either directly or indirectly, to their money-laundering ring known as the Clinton Foundation. The same Clinton Foundation which pocketed almost all of the money raised on behalf of poor Haitians. Hillary's brother was able to secure a major gold-mining permit in Haiti, though.

Private citizens like Trump who play along and bribe all of the politicians (and, indeed, any financial or industrial or entertainment entity that is considerable is in on the practice) and "evade taxes" are the least of our problem, and while he has continued to refuse to release his tax records, his bluntness in addressing how he does everything he can to save all of the money of his that he can, and has bribed almost every prominent political figure of the past generation, are actually huge winners with tens of millions of Americans, who doubtless wish they could, like a traditional European peasant, simply pay some money to the local police and political elite so that they can be otherwise left alone and have their country protected rather than overhauled into something they can scarcely recognize.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

He's not even hiding his tax returns. He'll release them soon and once again prove people wrong only for it to be replaced by another gripe the week after.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

Can we not try to "glamorize" the eras of city states 

They crumbled due to stupid in-fighting and a complete lack of cohesion which left them nothing but prey to powerful centralized factions

Lets not pretend that if you get rid of government everyone will suddenly like and respect each other

If have a government that has no effect on it citizens is a good thing than Somalia and Haiti should be the happiest and most stable places on earth


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

haiti has never not had a government

it was that government that fucked haiti over repeatedly

somalia certainly has a government

it has at least two governments that's the problem


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

Oh god the Somalia argument. :lmao Next question is WHO WILL BUILD THE ROADS?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



CamillePunk said:


> Oh god the Somalia argument. :lmao Next question is WHO WILL BUILD THE ROADS?


WHO WILL TAKE CARE OF ME WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY SO I FEEL SPECIAL AND LOVED?


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

Jesus Christ, I have supported Trump through this thread and now that I said i favor centralized government I am stupid

Decentralized only works if everyone agrees with it, if not they all become prey to the first guy who gets organized or stays organized

Motherfuckers used to fight wars for grazing land till more powerful and more centralized groups showed them what war really was 

there was no "golden age" of city states, the powerful ones were shut-ins who only interacted with each other in times of war and as such became culturally stagnated and the open ones were a constant mess of tribes and violence and they were all crushed 

You are never going to get rid of greed


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



> there was no "golden age" of city states, the powerful ones were shut-ins who only interacted with each other in times of war and as such became culturally stagnated and the open ones were a constant mess of tribes and violence and they were all crushed


that's not really an accurate description of the city-states of greece in the ancient/classical period, or chinese city-states, or italian city-states in the renaissance, or even the city-states of the low countries in the medieval period. there was extensive trade and communication. in ancient/classical greece the only powerful city-state that could really be described as even kind of a shut-in was sparta. and if you look at the history of greek city-states in particular, the violence and wars only really ramped up when the city-states started trying to exert control over each other in attempts to form empires.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



deepelemblues said:


> that's not really an accurate description of the city-states of greece in the ancient/classical period, or chinese city-states, or italian city-states in the renaissance, or even the city-states of the low countries in the medieval period. there was extensive trade and communication. in ancient/classical greece the only powerful city-state that could really be described as even kind of a shut-in was sparta. and if you look at the history of greek city-states in particular, the violence and wars only really ramped up when the city-states started trying to exert control over each other in attempts to form empires.


The fact they preyed on each other proves the point

There was only "peace" in the way that the Cold War was peaceful, the second that one side got stronger they attacked and expanded

It was not enlighten, it was tribal warfare, the greatest historical figures of the eras were people who looked past that shit and organized the area in a centralized way 

You can't get rid of greed


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

Government is a safety net, not a candy machine or an overlord.


----------



## Super Sexy Steele

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



gamegenie said:


> You just now realized that this thread is satire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Donald Trump lul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no brakes on the Trump train because it's going to go over the cliff in November.


I can't stand Trump but even I know that guy's actually got a good shot of becoming President especially facing Hillary. It's hard for me to admit but he's going to do well in the Election.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



stevefox1200 said:


> Not to be tool but to say "I believe in something because I have seen the effects first hand" is one of the best reasons to believe
> 
> "I thought global warming was over-hyped but then I saw how it effected my golf courses, which are very sensitive to weather, I now think its a problem" is fine
> 
> This is a stupid point to prove "lol Trump is dumbz", the tax evasion was a better point
> 
> pay your taxes people



But that is not what Trump was saying. Trump was saying that global warming was a hoax by China and that scientist were paid off to claim it was real.

You have to go out of your way to not believe in global warming with all the evidence out there and all the scientist backing it (99% of them). Its just like how creationist have to go out of their way to ignore all the evidence that evolution is true.

Its not a stupid point to prove Trump is dumb or a hypocrite, its just yet another example of it and how Trump is a fraud.

The tax evasion is a stronger slam against Trump but it still doesnt take away from this global warming thing when for years Trump was saying its a bullshit hoax made by China.




PF69 said:


> I can't stand Trump but even I know that guy's actually got a good shot of becoming President especially facing Hillary. I personally think it's going to be the closest race ever in US history.


It wont be closer than Gore v Bush. 

That election was decided by a few thousand votes and because of the voter suppression in FL Bush stole the election.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

Did someone actually use the Somalia argument in favour of big government? fpalm. Good god.

Somalia was a socialist state that COLLAPSED.


----------



## virus21

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

You know, I don't care who wins. Western civilization is screwed anyway, so might as well wait for the inevitable


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



stevefox1200 said:


> The fact they preyed on each other proves the point
> 
> There was only "peace" in the way that the Cold War was peaceful, the second that one side got stronger they attacked and expanded
> 
> It was not enlighten, it was tribal warfare, the greatest historical figures of the eras were people who looked past that shit and organized the area in a centralized way
> 
> You can't get rid of greed


:trump will make city-states great again


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*










THE BANTZ! :lol


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



PF69 said:


> I can't stand Trump but even I know that guy's actually got a good shot of becoming President especially facing Hillary. It's hard for me to admit but he's going to do well in the Election.


John McCain and Sarah Palin had a good chance too.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan too. 


as so will Donald Trump and whoever is his running mate. 


I'm not doubting the Republicans chances, but come on. I expected better than this. 

A key to beating your opponent is outdoing them in their own game, and what we have with the Republicans is still MORE of the SAME.









if not worse than before.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



Beatles123 said:


>





Beatles123 said:


> THE BANTZ! :lol



LOL and?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



gamegenie said:


> LOL and?


Ha! I knew it. I knew you'd draw on that one.

Tell me. You honestly think Hilary isn't corrupted? Trump may be or may not, but every person in America KNOWS Hilary is. What are your reasons for voting?

By the way, you never told me what you'd do if she lost.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



Beatles123 said:


> Ha! I knew it. I knew you'd draw on that one.
> 
> Tell me. You honestly think Hilary isn't corrupted?* Trump may be or may not, but every person in America KNOWS Hilary is.* What are your reasons for voting?
> 
> By the way, you never told me what you'd do if she lost.


really?

Who do you think you are fooling with this statement?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



Beatles123 said:


> Ha! I knew it. I knew you'd draw on that one.
> 
> Tell me. You honestly think Hilary isn't corrupted? Trump may be or may not, but every person in America KNOWS Hilary is. What are your reasons for voting?
> 
> By the way, you never told me what you'd do if she lost.


Everyone knows Trump is corrupt , if you honestly dont think he is then you are lying to yourself.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Everyone knows Trump is corrupt , if you honestly dont think he is then you are lying to yourself.


Stop. You're a liberal and I'm a republican. That's our divide and you need to understand it.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Everyone knows Trump is corrupt , if you honestly dont think he is then you are lying to yourself.


I think he's more of a corrupter while Hilary is the type of person he makes corrupt. 

If someone is corrupt I take it as whatever their main duty is that they have something more important than that. When Hilary was a a NY Senator and then the Secretary of State I don't believe that she had the best interest of New Yorkers and then the best interest of Americans in mind when she did the things she did. With Trump I don't think that during his career he ever had a loyalty to someone other than him and his company.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

Hillary has made a career out of masquerading as being for the public interest, being a public servant, while she's lined her pockets and amassed power. She's a resentful greedy social climber.

Trump had his and his companies' interests at heart, he was a private individual and they're private companies. Trump was doing what a person in his position is supposed to do. Hillary has not done what a person in her position is supposed to do far more often than she has.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



deepelemblues said:


> Trump had his and his companies' interests at heart, he was a private individual and they're private companies. Trump was doing what a person in his position is supposed to do.


Reasonable logic telling you based on his background he will be insanely out of his depth as the highest politician in the land. He's an all singing - all dancing clown, who proves depressingly once again it's not what you say but how loud and how often you say it.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (THE TRAIN HAS NO BREAKS!)*



deepelemblues said:


> Anyone who isn't an idiot or a slave to the state should have a very positive view of tax evasion.


Privatise gains and socialise costs or be treated like an idiot then.

I guess they should support corporations that choose to evade taxes as well then.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

What a bunch of fucking morons down in New Mexico. All this is going to do is get undecided or moderate voters to consider voting or actual vote for Trump come November. I'm not going to vote for him because I do think there are legit criticisms of him but as a former liberal turned libertarian, it makes me disgusted that these entitled, misinformed, authoritarian liberals are just buying bullshit that is being force fed from second hand sources and don't do research.

This rioting shit dumb and the fact that Trump is beating Hilary nationally by a big margin is already starting to show why it is dumb.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Reasonable logic telling you based on his background he will be insanely out of his depth as the highest politician in the land. He's an all singing - all dancing clown, who proves depressingly once again it's not what you say but how loud and how often you say it.


yeah because the hillarys and john kerrys and nancy pelosis and obamas and mitch mcconnells and bushes haven't been out of their depth 

quadruple the national debt in 16 years, wars in about 7 different countries that they have fuck-all when it comes to plans to win and be done with it, every single one of those countries is still at shithole status, huge trade deficits, wages stagnant, a US ambassador assassinated, drug cartels do whatever the fuck they want on the border with mexico, china claims an entire fucking sea right up to the doorstep of a half-dozen other countries as its territory and the US does fuck-all about it, russia invades two different countries and the US does fuck-all about it, the VA is the most disgracefully, shamefully, incompetently run government health care program ever... well, maybe other than obamacare which did fuck-all to make healthcare more affordable, obamacare plans are shit plans with super high deductibles that no one can afford... the list goes on and on. 

what the fuck have any of these dipshits done to show that they've been less out of their depth than someone like :trump would be 

last i checked :trump didn't bomb libya into chaos so it can be a stronghold for ISIS and a bunch of other terrorist groups today

last i checked :trump didn't invade iraq and have an incompetent strategy for pacifying it so it couldn't become the place where ISIS was born

last i checked :trump didn't decide to bomb syria in a half-assed way that did fuck-all to truly hurt ISIS and gave russia an opportunity to embarrass the US by getting involved

last i checked :trump never spent 5 trillion dollars the government didn't have in 8 years the way bush did or 10 trillion in 8 years the way obama did

last i checked :trump wasn't the secretary of state who bragged about bombing libya - great job, the country is carved up by warlords now, most of whom want to kill westerners for derkaderkajihad - and handwaved away any responsibility for a US ambassador being assassinated there, the buck stops nowhere for hillary i guess

unless he starts a nuclear war with Russia there's literally no way :trump could be worse than these incompetents


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



yeahbaby! said:


> Reasonable logic telling you based on his background he will be insanely out of his depth as the highest politician in the land. He's an all singing - all dancing clown, who proves depressingly once again it's not what you say but how loud and how often you say it.


Reasonable logic said the same thing about him even running for president. Once again people who can't recognize competence are going to underestimate Trump and once again they'll be exposed as chatting garbage. 



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> What a bunch of fucking morons down in New Mexico. All this is going to do is get undecided or moderate voters to consider voting or actual vote for Trump come November. I'm not going to vote for him because I do think there are legit criticisms of him but as a former liberal turned libertarian, it makes me disgusted that these entitled, misinformed, authoritarian liberals are just buying bullshit that is being force fed from second hand sources and don't do research.
> 
> This rioting shit dumb and the fact that Trump is beating Hilary nationally by a big margin is already starting to show why it is dumb.


You should vote for Trump. He is far from a libertarian but he represents a major departure from the evil, bloody status quo of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama foreign policy, and we can't afford the super liberal supreme court nominees Hillary is likely to select. Trump getting elected will literally save countless lives and perhaps preserve what freedoms remain to us in this country. 

I'm an anarcho-capitalist and I am gleefully voting for Trump. I may never vote again in my life as I don't see a business-oriented non-politician candidate coming around again (unless Trump winning fundamentally changes the political landscape of this country), that is unless he ends up being a great president, in which case I may vote for him again in 2020.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



deepelemblues said:


> yeah because the hillarys and john kerrys and nancy pelosis and obamas and mitch mcconnells and bushes haven't been out of their depth
> 
> quadruple the national debt in 16 years, wars in about 7 different countries that they have fuck-all when it comes to plans to win and be done with it, every single one of those countries is still at shithole status, huge trade deficits, wages stagnant, a US ambassador assassinated, drug cartels do whatever the fuck they want on the border with mexico, china claims an entire fucking sea right up to the doorstep of a half-dozen other countries as its territory and the US does fuck-all about it, russia invades two different countries and the US does fuck-all about it, the VA is the most disgracefully, shamefully, incompetently run government health care program ever... well, maybe other than obamacare which did fuck-all to make healthcare more affordable, obamacare plans are shit plans with super high deductibles that no one can afford... the list goes on and on.
> 
> what the fuck have any of these dipshits done to show that they've been less out of their depth than someone like :trump would be
> 
> last i checked :trump didn't bomb libya into chaos so it can be a stronghold for ISIS and a bunch of other terrorist groups today
> 
> last i checked :trump didn't invade iraq and have an incompetent strategy for pacifying it so it couldn't become the place where ISIS was born
> 
> last i checked :trump didn't decide to bomb syria in a half-assed way that did fuck-all to truly hurt ISIS and gave russia an opportunity to embarrass the US by getting involved
> 
> last i checked :trump never spent 5 trillion dollars the government didn't have in 8 years the way bush did or 10 trillion in 8 years the way obama did
> 
> last i checked :trump wasn't the secretary of state who bragged about bombing libya - great job, the country is carved up by warlords now, most of whom want to kill westerners for derkaderkajihad - and handwaved away any responsibility for a US ambassador being assassinated there, the buck stops nowhere for hillary i guess
> 
> unless he starts a nuclear war with Russia there's literally no way :trump could be worse than these incompetents


Calm down blues.

Why are you comparing Drumps to all of those people when you've always acted like he's better than them by default anyway? It's a simple matter of having an inexperienced candidate being rushed into the top position, a bit like Roman Reigns except worse.

IF you wanted a tradesman to fix your toilet, you wouldn't hire an electrician who's just decided to call himself a plumber would you? A bit of an apt comparison wouldn't you agree?


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

I find it funny that the protests are over his stances on immigration are what people are protesting over and the main point that makes people mad 

Even if Hillary wins illegal immigration will still be (wait for it) ILLEGAL!!

Maybe she won't crack down on it but it will still be illegal and if you are caught you will be punished

it is illegal, it has always been illegal and always will be illegal

Back in the mid 2000s cracking down on illegal immigrates was the one issue both parties agreed with 

Its like the dems can set on the sideline and "yeah, Trump is attacking illegal immigrates, go after him!!" while whispering "ya dumb fucks" under their breath 

Illegals are the one demographic that neither party will ever support become THEY ARE NOT FUCKING CITIZENS THERE IS ZERO OBLIGATION FOR THEIR PROBLEMS TO BE HEARD

they have no rights, they have no expectations, they have NOTHING


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

I'd rather have a President who worries about America first over starting wars in the mid east, trying to provoke Russia and placating to illegals and the EU. Obama's dogs have been in the EU threatening countries to stay in. I'm sick of this America, I'm sick of people like Hilary running things. If we're going to have a bad guy as President I want the bad guy to put us first over the rest of the world.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



CamillePunk said:


> You should vote for Trump. He is far from a libertarian but he represents a major departure from the evil, bloody status quo of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama foreign policy, and we can't afford the super liberal supreme court nominees Hillary is likely to select. Trump getting elected will literally save countless lives and perhaps preserve what freedoms remain to us in this country.
> 
> I'm an anarcho-capitalist and I am gleefully voting for Trump. I may never vote again in my life as I don't see a business-oriented non-politician candidate coming around again (unless Trump winning fundamentally changes the political landscape of this country), that is unless he ends up being a great president, in which case I may vote for him again in 2020.


I'm inclined to probably go third party (like Gary Johnson for example) but I'm not a corporate media sheep. You're smart, Punk. You know this electorate is fucking retarded. As much as I detest Trump, Clinton may be just as bad if not worse. If she is elected, you can damn well bet we'll be in "war" with the likes of Syria and Iran in the near future since we're in the eleventh hour of that Pandora box being open. That and she'll ironically rollback Obamacare to the status quo because that is how her corporate donors from the medical field made the most money when the government/middleman was still a primary figure into the situation. I laugh when people want to shit on Trump but are going to vote in a trigger happy, lying crook in Hilary Clinton.

However, Punk. You know how it *really* goes with voting in this country. The "powers that be" ultimately decide who is going to be the next President, not us. Not any of us. It's just a smokescreen to add to the illusion that this country is "free".


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



FITZ said:


> I think he's more of a corrupter while Hilary is the type of person he makes corrupt.
> 
> If someone is corrupt I take it as whatever their main duty is that they have something more important than that. When Hilary was a a NY Senator and then the Secretary of State I don't believe that she had the best interest of New Yorkers and then the best interest of Americans in mind when she did the things she did. With Trump I don't think that during his career he ever had a loyalty to someone other than him and his company.



I can agree with that. 

Hillary is way more corrupt than Trump. Trump is more of a con-artist than anything else. Because like you said,Trump is just loyal to himself and will say anything and tell people what they want to hear to get what he wants even if he knows he will never follow through on this promises.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> I'm inclined to probably go third party (like Gary Johnson for example) but I'm not a corporate media sheep. You're smart, Punk. You know this electorate is fucking retarded. As much as I detest Trump, Clinton may be just as bad if not worse. If she is elected, you can damn well bet we'll be in "war" with the likes of Syria and Iran in the near future since we're in the eleventh hour of that Pandora box being open. That and she'll ironically rollback Obamacare to the status quo because that is how her corporate donors from the medical field made the most money when the government/middleman was still a primary figure into the situation. I laugh when people want to shit on Trump but are going to vote in a trigger happy, lying crook in Hilary Clinton.
> 
> However, Punk. You know how it *really* goes with voting in this country. The "powers that be" ultimately decide who is going to be the next President, not us. Not any of us. It's just a smokescreen to add to the illusion that this country is "free".


Trump isn't a globalist shill though. If anything happens it'll be Trump getting whacked or being saddled with a globalist VP like G.H.W Bush was to subdue Reagan. If Trump pcks a nationalist VP, they just might have to kill him.

@DesolationRowknows.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

Anaheim, CA Rally Livestream:


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

Stefan Molyneux just posted this page featuring his two "Untruth about Donald Trump" video as well as a wealth of information and sources where people with sincere concerns about Trump can see common criticisms and media spins addressed and challenged with facts. 

http://www.untruthaboutdonaldtrump.com/


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

Hilary announces "Plan to Disolve U.S. Boarders Within 100 Days"

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...ases-plan-dissolve-us-border-within-100-days/

Is this woman actually insane?


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

^
This dude is posting brietbart links like it's a legitimate source of straight news. :Rollins


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

Yes because Huffington Post and Daily Kos are legitimate as fuck, breh :maury


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

Yea or the Washington Post or Salon mag LOL. Yup great sources of info those ones are for sure.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

You know if you click on that unholy Breitbart link you'll find that it's full of links to Hillary Clinton's website, NBC News website, etc. 

Breitbart might be a bit unfair in its characterization of what is contained in those links, but I guess Hillary Clinton's own website isn't a legitimate source of information on Hillary Clinton's political positions. Okay, that does make a lot of sense actually.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

HuffPo hired Michelle Fields *after* video evidence came out showing her story was completely fabricated AND she ignored secret service's instructions and made physical contact with Donald Trump. 

They also post "editor's notes" at the bottom of every Trump-related article asserting as a fact that Trump is a bigot, racist, misogynist etc. and then link to their own article which tries and utterly fails at making the case.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



Beatles123 said:


> Hilary announces "Plan to Disolve U.S. Boarders Within 100 Days"
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...ases-plan-dissolve-us-border-within-100-days/
> 
> Is this woman actually insane?


That piece is an editorial.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

You pretty much have to take every source with a grain of salt really. Everyone has their audience that they're trying to appeal to. Read a little bit of everything from each side and you should be able to figure it all out.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



FITZ said:


> You pretty much have to take every source with a grain of salt really. Everyone has their audience that they're trying to appeal to. Read a little bit of everything from each side and you should be able to figure it all out.


Pretty much what I tell everyone tho some here think stuff like Huffington and Young Turks are telling us pure truth, as if God spoke into their ears and they typed it up.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

The funny thing is i never claimed the article was any "Breaking" news. It's telling that GG never even bothered to read it.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

Megyn Kelly had a very amusing segment tonight. She had four guests, two of whom posited that Trump hired the New Mexico protestors to make himself look better. They were actually serious because this tactic is the modus operandi of Roger Stone. Heaven forbid we actually hold perpetrators accountable for their actions. I'm sure Trump hired lowlifes to accost police and burn shirts adorned with the American flag. :eyeroll I do hope they stop treating violence with kid gloves.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



THE SHIV said:


> Megyn Kelly had a very amusing segment tonight. She had four guests, two of whom posited that Trump hired the New Mexico protestors to make himself look better. They were actually serious because this tactic is the modus operandi of Roger Stone. Heaven forbid we actually hold perpetrators accountable for their actions. I'm sure Trump hired lowlifes to accost police and burn shirts adorned with the American flag. :eyeroll I do hope they stop treating violence with kid gloves.


The best way to deal with these violent racist assholes is to let them have their tantrums which will make even more people support :trump

Then when :trump wins and they try their riot shit they can go to jail for real, not get arrested and then have nothing happen because of political considerations, or not get arrested at all, as we saw in Ferguson, St. Louis, Baltimore, Oakland etc. 

Another great thing :trump wants to have happen for America, no more legal consequence-free rioting.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

The arms race of "legit news source" is a dumb one

even the "super cool underground leaked paper deepweb TRUTH" site is writing stories to pander and confirm the views of its target readers

salon,bretwhoeverthefuck,info wars, they just say what their target audience wants to hear and tell them that they are "SMARTER THAN EVERYONEZ" 

The best thing is to look at multiple sources and see what they have in common

of course some are better than others and you should stay away from ones that are literally being openly funded by a governments state department (RT, Al-Jez)

also can someone tell me why the fuck people get paid for editorials, it does not require any investigation or even talent to tell people what you think?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

Trump was great on Kimmel tonight. Agreed to debate Bernie and give the proceeds to charity. Baller move that makes him look good and Hillary look awful. Who knows if it'll actually happen though.

Kimmel towed the MSM line with jokes about Trump not giving specific ideas (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions) and Trump just smiled and laughed, playing inter-dimensional space chess in his head while the jester entertained the crowd.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> Yes because Huffington Post and Daily Kos are legitimate as fuck, breh :maury


:CITO Who's posting HP and DK? No one. Try again.

Edit: and I've seen conservatives write articles on HP, show me a liberal posting on Breitbart.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

@gamegenie thoughts on Trump agreeing to debate Bernie while Hillary continues to refuse?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



gamegenie said:


> Edit: and I've seen conservatives write articles on HP, show me a liberal posting on Breitbart.


His name is Ben Shapiro :trump

________

Also:










@DesolationRow @CamillePunk


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



CamillePunk said:


> @gamegenie thoughts on Trump agreeing to debate Bernie while Hillary continues to refuse?


My thoughts are things are about to get interesting, lets hope Trump stays true to his word so this debate goes down. They only got 11 days, Bernie wants to do it before the June 7th primary.

I would like to see what impact Bernie vs Donald debate would have on the Clinton machine.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

Found this.










lol


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

:lmao Trump could continue to create erosion within Hillary Clinton's political base with a debate against Bernie Sanders. 

If conducted properly, Trump may ensure that for a significance slice of Sanders supporters, Trump is closer to numerous Sanders positions than Hillary Clinton is, while boosting Sanders's standing, and doubtless arguing on behalf of Sanders bolting the Democratic Party for a third-party run. :trump 

Trump learned how to be a better politician than all of these hacks who have been at it for many, many years (and in the majority of cases, their adult lifetimes) in only a matter of months. 

Hahaha...


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...mp-signed-off-deal-designed-to-deprive-us-of/



> Experts consulted by the Telegraph said that if the IRS were to carry out audits that concluded that the deal was equity and a disguised sale, *Mr Trump would not be held directly responsible.*
> 
> He was not a recipient of the payments from FL, and any tax liability on the $50 million would rest with Bayrock Group’s formal partners – although the tax professionals said that saying they acted on legal advice would likely to shield them from any potential criminal charges.
> 
> Mr Trump, however, could be deposed if the IRS decided to take action, according to a former tax prosecutor.
> 
> Mr Oberlander said that Mr Trump signing off on the deal also raised serious questions about his judgement and whether he was a suitable candidate for the presidency.
> 
> "I cannot yet say if Trump has any legal responsibility,” Mr Oberlander said. "But as a citizen of the US, I worry about living under a president who could be so negligent, or perhaps even wilfully blind."
> 
> Mr Oberlander and another lawyer, Richard Lerner, are now facing contempt charges brought by Sater for allegedly disseminating information revealing that he began collaborating with the FBI following his fraud conviction. Mr Sater’s lawyer claimed last week that the complaint against Bayrock amounted to “extortion”.
> 
> Whether or not the deal was legal or deprived the Treasury of funds to which it was entitled, the experts consulted by the Telegraph agreed that something was wrong – and that that much was apparent from the documents.
> 
> Jack Blum, chairman of the Tax Justice Network and a prominent financial crime and tax lawyer, said* this deal was emblematic of an industry that had made mastery of tax avoidance - at a cost for the middle income American.
> *
> "My feeling is this whole arena of real estate taxation ought to be cleaned up. Because there is no rational reason for the tax that the rest of us pay; for the rest of us to subsidise these real estate deals,” he said.
> 
> *"This is how people who are very wealthy don’t pay tax.* This is how this system can operate, relieving them of the tax burden without anybody out there in what I would call the civilian world understanding what happened."
> 
> *"If you dig through all these real estate deals of Trump’s, I’m sure you’ll see that he took advantage of it again and again.
> 
> "He is a poster child for this industry”.*


Tax evasion is good, I guess?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

It's official: BASED Trump has clinched the nomination. :trump


----------



## skarvika

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*


----------



## $id

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

so.....why do people hate trump????

please try to be unbiased.....ive seen a few interviews i feel hes fine and probably is talking about stuff we alllllllll think but dont have the balls to say


does he have a realistic chance to win the presidential election?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



$id said:


> so.....why do people hate trump????
> 
> please try to be unbiased.....ive seen a few interviews i feel hes fine and probably is talking about stuff we alllllllll think but dont have the balls to say
> 
> 
> does he have a realistic chance to win the presidential election?


People hate Trump because he's filthy rich and because the media have programmed them to believe he's racist, sexist, etc. 

He was down nearly 20 points to Clinton in head-to-head polls just a few months ago but now he's about dead even in all of the polls. Except him to pull away significantly between now and November, as Clinton's weak brand and history of corruption continues to be exposed and people start to learn more facts about Trump and what his platform really stands for.

This post wasn't unbiased at all, it just happens to be true.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

I have to say

When I play Age of Empires and build some giant fucking wall to block of my territory I call it a Donald Trump wall

If only I could find a way to make the Aztecs pay for it...


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



$id said:


> so.....why do people hate trump????
> 
> please try to be unbiased.....ive seen a few interviews i feel hes fine and probably is talking about stuff we alllllllll think but dont have the balls to say
> 
> 
> does he have a realistic chance to win the presidential election?


No one hates Trump. 

If any we (true Dems, not wishy washy independents, I'm talking the folks who got out voted for Obama, Kerry, Gore etc.) are mocking you folks that are praising Trump as some God ITT, he's pandering to you and you can't see that he does not have your interest at heart. 

just a few years ago Donald Trump was praising Hillary Clinton, saying that she would make a great President.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

It would be cool to see the Bernie/Trump debate happen. Having Hillary be the irrelevant, on the outside looking in, persona non grata suits her exceedingly well.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump was great on Kimmel tonight. Agreed to debate Bernie and give the proceeds to charity. Baller move that makes him look good and Hillary look awful. Who knows if it'll actually happen though.
> 
> Kimmel towed the MSM line with jokes about Trump not giving specific ideas (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions) and Trump just smiled and laughed, playing inter-dimensional space chess in his head while the jester entertained the crowd.


The Young Turks reached out to both Bernie and Trumps camps saying they would be willing to host a debate if both agreed to it. 

If they do debate, I could see Hillary saying oh she will debate now because she knows the debate will be 2 against her and she wont be able to defend herself. 

I could see Trump not being against Bernie too much and focusing on bashing Hillary since he wants to sway Bernie voters to his side if Hilary is the nominee.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

The Young Turks would be a horrible platform for the debate and there's zero chance Trump would agree to that, nor should he. Aside from their obvious bias, the idea here is to raise a lot of money for charity which means having the debate on a reputable (however deserving) network that will reach a large audience.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



CamillePunk said:


> The Young Turks would be a horrible platform for the debate and there's zero chance Trump would agree to that, nor should he. Aside from their obvious bias, the idea here is to raise a lot of money for charity which means having the debate on a reputable (however deserving) network that will reach a large audience.


The young turks get by far the most views of any online news organization. They get over 150 million views per month. They get more viewers than the other networks do on TV. 

And talk about biased CNN is biased toward Hillary, Fox is biased to the GOP but I guess you think that is ok right. 

And the young turks are way more reputable than CNN, Fox and MSN combined


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

CNN would be fine. They don't want Bernie or Trump.

I don't think Bernie should/would agree to doing it on Fox either.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



CamillePunk said:


> CNN would be fine. They don't want Bernie or Trump.
> 
> I don't think Bernie should/would agree to doing it on Fox either.


What they should do is agree to debate and allow them to pick one moderator each that way the network would be irreverent and it would-be the most fair way to have this debate.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

What they should do is have Bernie and Trump, give them 2 hours, no moderators, no questions, no interruptions save for commercial breaks, they can talk about whatever they want, no "you have two minutes then your opponent has 2 minutes to respond." Just two people wrangling with each other wherever the conversation takes them. Truly intelligent people would no problem with taking that opportunity to have a vigorous discussion. Either that or an actual formal debate. The current "debate" system is a joke, it's more Q&A with the moderators + argue with the moderators than it is actual debating or even just arguing between the candidates.

Also hahahahaha even Clinton shill Andrea Mitchell won't shill for her on the e-mail report that came out yesterday






She's done. And she's gonna fuck her party by refusing to bow out. :trump says thanks!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

Trump has the nom

Where are those of you who said he couldn't do it? :trump


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

Trump's Energy Policy speech, loaded with even more of those specifics that liberals claim don't exist even though his website and speeches are filled with them: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/an-america-first-energy-plan


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



DesolationRow said:


> :lmao Trump could continue to create erosion within Hillary Clinton's political base with a debate against Bernie Sanders.
> 
> If conducted properly, Trump may ensure that for a significance slice of Sanders supporters, Trump is closer to numerous Sanders positions than Hillary Clinton is, while boosting Sanders's standing, and doubtless arguing on behalf of Sanders bolting the Democratic Party for a third-party run. :trump
> 
> Trump learned how to be a better politician than all of these hacks who have been at it for many, many years (and in the majority of cases, their adult lifetimes) in only a matter of months.
> 
> Hahaha...




It's going to be fantastic! I don't expect Trump to really dig into Sanders because he's using Sander's dealing with corruption to prop him up, if anything I expect Trump to be pretty mellow and just talk about his goals. If trump gets Sanders to run as third party, it's game over for Hilary!

Divide and conquer, he's a better politician than most people doing it for years. Watching these fools dancing makes me giggle. I was worried Obama would have clout in his last days but people just want him out. Trump's taken any juice Obama has left, has demolished Hilary and will try to get Sanders to run third party.

It's ironic the Democrats thought Trump would end Republicans but it looks like he is going to split the DNC in half and watch them tear themselves apart. Hahahaha


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> The young turks get by far the most views of any online news organization. They get over 150 million views per month. They get more viewers than the other networks do on TV.
> 
> And talk about biased CNN is biased toward Hillary, Fox is biased to the GOP but I guess you think that is ok right.
> 
> And the young turks are way more reputable than CNN, Fox and MSN combined


TYT is biased towards Bernie and you have no issue with them doing the debate? How is TYT more reputable than other network when they are shills for the progressive agenda and using clickbait titles to advertise their premium content? If big networks are beholden to their corporate sponsors, are TYT beholden to Amazon?



Spoiler:  video











TYT started to grow faster by adopting FOX network's strategy of pandering to a core audience. They lost viewers like me that used to not mind their commentary in favour of much more viewers like you who like to exist in their own echo chamber.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



Beatles123 said:


> Trump has the nom
> 
> Where are those of you who said he couldn't do it? :trump


The convention hasn't happened yet, that's where all the chaos is going to errupt, when the pledge delegates turn on Donald and pledge to Paul Ryan,









It's going to be the fastest swerve served better than anything WWE would have done in years. 


You, Camille and that other Trump supportee head will be spinning ITT as you try to damage control what's going on.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

gamegenie confirmed trolling. We all know the real chaos will be at the DNC because of the rampant violence among liberals over the last year. Trump had his coronation a month ago, there will be no shenanigans.


----------



## samizayn

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

I wonder how America will change after this presidential race, even if Donald Trump does not become president.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



samizayn said:


> I wonder how America will change after this presidential race, even if Donald Trump does not become president.


If Trump is not elected I don't see any change at all happening. Hillary as prez means more of the same old same old. The only other outcome to hope for is the Rep's doing a contested convention and causing the Party to implode, forcing the apathetic voting base to wake up and come to their senses (if they can even motivate themselves to do that).


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump's Energy Policy speech, loaded with even more of those specifics that liberals claim don't exist even though his website and speeches are filled with them: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/an-america-first-energy-plan



Got up until he says he wants to bring back the coal industry (which is actually a fair bit through) and then totally lost it.

Seriously, the coal industry? 

In 2016?

That is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard, your country is totally fucked if he actually gets in.

The Coal industry is dying whatever anyone does, renewable energy will be more cost effective than it within a matter of decades and coal will be obsolete technology then. With the coal industry the question is whether it can be phased out with the least harm to the economy or will crash all of a sudden. Looks like you're picking sudden crash.


----------



## TheResurrection

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

The more liberal platform the debate is on, the better as far as Trump is concerned. If it's TYT, brilliant. How many people who are considering voting for Trump are going to watch a TYT debate? Of those how many people are going to dismiss the outcome as being nonsense? Pretty much all of them I think.

What happens if Donald Trump faces Sanders on a Liberal platform? Sanders wins the debate easily, the liberals watching are totally convinced that Sanders can slap Trump around when it comes to an election, it makes them more angry at Hillary who ran away and it makes them more likely to back Sanders to either get the nomination or run Kamikaze. Either one of those boosts the Republicans' chances.

He's operating on a whole different level to anyone else.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



TheResurrection said:


> The more liberal platform the debate is on, the better as far as Trump is concerned. If it's TYT, brilliant. How many people who are considering voting for Trump are going to watch a TYT debate? Of those how many people are going to dismiss the outcome as being nonsense? Pretty much all of them I think.
> 
> What happens if Donald Trump faces Sanders on a Liberal platform? Sanders wins the debate easily, the liberals watching are totally convinced that Sanders can slap Trump around when it comes to an election, it makes them more angry at Hillary who ran away and it makes them more likely to back Sanders to either get the nomination or run Kamikaze. Either one of those boosts the Republicans' chances.
> 
> He's operating on a whole different level to anyone else.


That's what I pointed out before, Trump's been friendly to Sanders because Sanders and Hilary at odds, if Sanders runs independent or holds up the DNC it works out better for Trump, we seen how the Bernie supporters get violent and act. This could implode the Democrats and turn people off from them due to all the insanity.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



FriedTofu said:


> TYT is biased towards Bernie and you have no issue with them doing the debate? How is TYT more reputable than other network when they are shills for the progressive agenda and using clickbait titles to advertise their premium content? If big networks are beholden to their corporate sponsors, are TYT beholden to Amazon?
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler:  video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TYT started to grow faster by adopting FOX network's strategy of pandering to a core audience. They lost viewers like me that used to not mind their commentary in favour of much more viewers like you who like to exist in their own echo chamber.


TYT are pro Sanders but they call him out on the polices of his they dont agree with. They are always saying he isnt hard enough on gun control for example. They agree more with Hillary on gun control than they do Sanders. 

As for their premium content that is how they pay for their show since they dont really have any sponsors that pay for their show, the fans of the show basically are funding the show along with Cenk. That way the sponsors can't tell them what to say and not say to like every other network does. TYT gives you call the information then lets you decide unlike the other ones who just lie about anything against anyone they dont like. 

Their premium content isnt even the main news stuff, its things like an after show and archives of older shows.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

Hillary doesn't believe the debate Trump said he will do with Bernie is true, and
Trump's campaign spokeperson said on the scale of 1-10 of that debate with Bernie happening is a '0'. 

Seems like the jokes on us for believing something crafted from the Jimmy Kimmel show would be taken serious. 

It's not happening folks, 


but there's still the possibility of a contested RNC convention :curry2


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> TYT are pro Sanders but they call him out on the polices of his they dont agree with. They are always saying he isnt hard enough on gun control for example. They agree more with Hillary on gun control than they do Sanders.
> 
> As for their premium content that is how they pay for their show since they dont really have any sponsors that pay for their show, the fans of the show basically are funding the show along with Cenk. That way the sponsors can't tell them what to say and not say to like every other network does. TYT gives you call the information then lets you decide unlike the other ones who just lie about anything against anyone they dont like.
> 
> Their premium content isnt even the main news stuff, its things like an after show and archives of older shows.


Come on, they softball Bernie on that issue. It is similar to John Oliver softball on criticism on Hilary and Obama in his comedy or FOX going light on whoever Roger Ailes decide is best for the conservative movement.

The fans of the show are funding the show, hence they have to pander to the echo chamber or they lose their revenue. They make money off of idealistic youths who think they are being presented with 'truths' over the established media when TYT is just as likely to mislead to suit their agenda.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

What do you do when you're invested in none of the candidates? You watch the fireworks. I'd be interested in a Sanders/Trump debate on an unbiased and impartial platform.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

Welp, Trump says he doesnt trust the media to handle the debate right, so he declines.

I would have liked ir, but Hilary is his main target anyway. He has nothing to gain from Sanders.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



Beatles123 said:


> Welp, Trump says he doesnt trust the media to handle the debate right, so he declines.
> 
> I would have liked ir, but Hilary is his main target anyway. He has nothing to gain from Sanders.


It would have been nice but Trump declining makes it look like Bernie isn't worth debating because he's number 2. So that makes Bernie supporters even more mad at Hilary because they feel he should be number one. 

Also these protests from idiots waving the mexican flag, calling trump a *** in spanish and saying "Fuck Trump" is hilarious, gets even more to his side. These idiots don't realize they're helping. Also where is the LGBT at on calling out people using homophobic slurs? :kermit


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> I'd be interested in a Sanders/Trump debate on an unbiased and impartial platform.


I wish Hillary would drop out the race so the world could see this.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

Not debating is probably the right move strategically, as a debate could end up highlighting the differences between Trump and Bernie, which is not what Trump wants. He's banking on a lot of Bernie voters switching over or staying home on election night, I'd wager. 

That said, I'm a little disappointed and would've liked to see the debate. It's also disappointing Trump said he wanted to do it only to later change his mind, which to me indicates uncharacteristic "handling" from inside his campaign. That is of course speculation on my part. 

Oh well, moving on.


----------



## Monster Hunter

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

Trump lied? Say it ain't so! Also, the great deal-maker couldn't negotiate a good enough deal with the networks for charity but he's going to be adept enough to deal with a foreign superpower like CHINA?


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*










The man of the people, supporting the peasants who slave away for $9/hr by advertising their products. What a true Patriot. :trump


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



Beatles123 said:


> Welp, Trump says he doesnt trust the media to handle the debate right, so he declines.
> 
> I would have liked ir, but Hilary is his main target anyway. He has nothing to gain from Sanders.


Sanders supporters wanted the debate more because Sanders going up against Trump would have Sanders gain a lot (mostly from the anti-Trump voters whether they're Hillary voters or not). Trump however didn't care, and as you said he gains nothing from this and it's highly likely the media would have perverted a lot of the news concerning the debate.

Trump vs Sanders would have been interesting, but Trump declining was the right move.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



NotGuilty said:


> The man of the people, supporting the peasants who slave away for $9/hr by advertising their products. What a true Patriot. :trump


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*

roflmao :trump plays thirsty bitches like Bernie Sanders so hard

Hey Bernie maybe we can debate for charity 

Let's do it yes

Wait a minute you're a loser sorry nope I don't have time for losers

Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha 

Then some reporter says calling Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas is offensive and the reporter says she's Native American herself

:trump 's response:



> :trump Oh, I'm sorry about that. Pocahontas? Is that what you said? Elizabeth Warren?


:trump so fucking brilliant. Gets inside the OODA loop of his opponents so fast the poor fools never have a chance.


----------



## sandyeastman

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I hope dancing will make it worth to happen.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*










Media every time it's about Trump!


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Media every time it's about Trump!


This is beautiful. roud


----------



## amhlilhaus

Monster Hunter said:


> Trump lied? Say it ain't so! Also, the great deal-maker couldn't negotiate a good enough deal with the networks for charity but he's going to be adept enough to deal with a foreign superpower like CHINA?


See? Even being linked to contact with hilary makes you start being a liar!

She must be stopped, for honestys sake


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

God it's getting ridiculous in here, how does Trump's cheesey little knob taste guys?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I can see why members of the EU don't want Trump around, the EU wants to form an EU army! Not NATO but an army controlled by the EU in Brussels, those un-elected officials wanting a force to quell any protests maybe! They're also starting shit with Russia, won't be Trump that starts WWIII but the EU and Hilary or Bernie, Bernie will just let Congress do whatever.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



Miss Sally said:


> It would have been nice but Trump declining makes it look like Bernie isn't worth debating because he's number 2. So that makes Bernie supporters even more mad at Hilary because they feel he should be number one.
> 
> Also these protests from idiots waving the mexican flag, calling trump a *** in spanish and saying "Fuck Trump" is hilarious, gets even more to his side. These idiots don't realize they're helping. Also where is the LGBT at on calling out people using homophobic slurs? :kermit


No it doesn't it just makes Trump look like a flake and that he is scared of Sanders.


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

:maury Trump chickens out of the debate against Sanders. Sad! Pathetic! Low energy! What a mess!


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Punkhead said:


> :maury Trump chickens out of the debate against Sanders. Sad! Pathetic! Low energy! What a mess!


What does Trump gain from debating Sanders?

Have the media pervert the coverage even more to try and ruin Trump's campaign? (as they've been doing for a year)

Stay butthurt that a winner wants to focus on winning and not debate a loser. :aj3


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Still, Trump chickened out of the debate :lmao


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Punkhead said:


> Still, Trump chickened out of the debate :lmao


It's not chickening out when he's basically a Goliath who doesn't care about wasting his time with a little David. :trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Gandhi said:


> What does Trump gain from debating Sanders?
> 
> Have the media pervert the coverage even more to try and ruin Trump's campaign? (as they've been doing for a year)
> 
> Stay butthurt that a winner wants to focus on winning and not debate a loser. :aj3


You mean like they have been doing 10x worse to Sanders. 

Also Sanders destroys Trump head to head by double digits. Trump is the only loser here, if he wasn't going to debate which is fine, he never should have said he would in the first place, just so he can get all that press oh Trump said he will debate Sanders, then when it comes to pick a time and a place Trump backs out. Talk about a loser.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



birthday_massacre said:


> No it doesn't it just makes Trump look like a flake and that he is scared of Sanders.


Why would he be scared of Sanders? He's losing to Hilary and the entire DNC is in chaos. Face it, Trump pretty much implied Sanders was losing so no point in debating him. I stil think it may happen eventually.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You mean like they have been doing 10x worse to Sanders.
> 
> Also Sanders destroys Trump head to head by double digits. Trump is the only loser here, if he wasn't going to debate which is fine, he never should have said he would in the first place, just so he can get all that press oh Trump said he will debate Sanders, then when it comes to pick a time and a place Trump backs out. Talk about a loser.


Sanders went up against Hillary, him being raped by the media is to be expected because of Hillary making sure she'll be the Democratic nominee. We all know how powerful Hillary is with the people above the pyramid.

How is Trump a loser? He's very close to becoming one of the most powerful men on the planet (even though he already is) and doesn't feel the need to waste his time on a loser like Sanders who not only will waste his time but will allow the media to pervert Trump's image even more. Trump has bigger fish to fry in the name of Hillary The Cunt Clinton, and the fact that he changed his mind doesn't really show him as a loser but it sure does show how butthurt Sanders supporters are that Sanders didn't leech off of Trump's spotlight.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (Washington primary today!)*



Miss Sally said:


> Why would he be scared of Sanders? He's losing to Hilary and the entire DNC is in chaos. Face it, Trump pretty much implied Sanders was losing so no point in debating him. I stil think it may happen eventually.


Only reason Sanders is losing to Hillary because of the rigging and voter suppression going on in the DNC. 

And again, Trump never should have said yes in the first place then the next day say no. Why even agree to it, if you use your line of thinking, only to a few hours later, say oh no i wont do it now. 

Its because Trump just panders to his audience to get cheers then he can just later say no or chance his view when he is not in front of a crowd.




Gandhi said:


> Sanders went up against Hillary, him being raped by the media is to be expected because of Hillary making sure she'll be the Democratic nominee. We all know how powerful Hillary is with the people above the pyramid.
> 
> How is Trump a loser? He's very close to becoming one of the most powerful men on the planet (even though he already is) and doesn't feel the need to waste his time on a loser like Sanders who not only will waste his time but will allow the media to pervert Trump's image even more. Trump has bigger fish to fry in the name of Hillary The Cunt Clinton, and the fact that he changed his mind doesn't really show him as a loser but it sure does show how butthurt Sanders supporters are that Sanders didn't leech off of Trump's spotlight.


Like i said before, why even agree to do the debate then the next day say no you are not going to do it? Just say on Kimmel, no I wont debate him.

As for Sanders not leeching off Trumps spotlight lol dont make me laugh. You just show how delusional Trump fans are.


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

And yet, the FACT remains the same - he agreed to a debate and then chickened out of it, no matter how you look at it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Punkhead said:


> And yet, the FACT remains the same - he agreed to a debate and then chickened out of it, no matter how you look at it.


At least one other person in here has common sense. Trump just never should have agreed to it, but as we know, he did it just for the cheap buzz then he was like UM oh this really is going to happen and then backs out because he knows Bernie would destroy him in a debate.


----------



## Marv95

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Or maybe he realized the BLM movement will come in and ruin the whole thing. Or maybe it's a money issue. He wanted x amount for charity and he's not getting it, so he walked out.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Punkhead said:


> And yet, the FACT remains the same - he agreed to a debate and then chickened out of it, no matter how you look at it.


Suppose I agreed to beat the ever loving shit out of you on day x and I fully am aware that I can do so.

Day x comes, but I change my mind because I realize you're a weakling who will waste my time whilst also having people vilify me in this fight and I desire to go fight someone else currently who is actually standing in my way of my goal and is actually a genuine threat and I don't wanna waste my energy.

Did I chicken out? Nah, in this case, you're just a weakling who isn't worth my time.



birthday_massacre said:


> Like i said before, why even agree to do the debate then the next day say no you are not going to do it? Just say on Kimmel, no I wont debate him.
> 
> As for Sanders not leeching off Trumps spotlight lol dont make me laugh. You just show how delusional Trump fans are.


He changed his mind because he figured it wasn't worth bothering with. He thought it was a good idea before, then realized it wasn't. It's not a big deal brah.

Also delusional? Lmao, Sanders is an insignificant old fart worldwide who alot (most even) people worldwide barely care about compared to Trump.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Gandhi said:


> Suppose I agreed to beat the ever loving shit out of you on day x and I fully am aware that I can do so.
> 
> Day x comes, but I change my mind because I realize you're a weakling who will waste my time whilst also having people vilify me in this fight and I desire to go fight someone else currently who is actually standing in my way of my goal and is actually a genuine threat and I don't wanna waste my energy.
> 
> Did I chicken out? Nah, in this case, you're just a weakling who isn't worth my time.
> 
> 
> 
> He changed his mind because he figured it wasn't worth bothering with. He thought it was a good idea before, then realized it wasn't. It's not a big deal brah.
> 
> Also delusional? Lmao, Sanders is an insignificant old fart worldwide who alot (most even) people worldwide barely care about compared to Trump.


 He agreed to it then just HOURS later the very next day thought oh wait this isnt a good idea.

So is Trump just incompetent at making split decisions then on the fly? 

Oh yeah and Sanders is really an insignificant old fart when he was a guy who had ZERO name recognition and he has won nearly 50% of the states in the primary against one of the biggest establishment names in politics, a Clinton, and she has to use voter suppression to beat him. Not to making this so called insignificant old fart destroys Trump head to head in polls. If Trump faces Sanders in the general Trump would get decimated.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> He agreed to it then just HOURS later the very next day thought oh wait this isnt a good idea.
> 
> So is Trump just incompetent at making split decisions then on the fly?
> 
> Oh yeah and Sanders is really an insignificant old fart when he was a guy who had ZERO name recognition and he has won nearly 50% of the states in the primary against one of the biggest establishment names in politics, a Clinton, and she has to use voter suppression to beat him. Not to making this so called insignificant old fart destroys Trump head to head in polls. If Trump faces Sanders in the general Trump would get decimated.


Ehh, the debate with Sanders wasn't a huge deal to Trump I'm assuming so he probably didn't give a flying fuck about going _"...nah, fuck it"_. The debate was obviously huge for Sanders, as he himself as admitted he is terrified of Trump's popularity.

Bernie lost against Hillary, the majority (and I do mean majority) of the world doesn't give a fuck about him, get over it. Trump probably has more supporters worldwide and more haters worldwide, nonetheless, Trump is a bigger name and when people hear Trump they know it's something big.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Gandhi said:


> Ehh, the debate with Sanders wasn't a huge deal to Trump I'm assuming so he probably didn't give a flying fuck about going _"...nah, fuck it"_. The debate was obviously huge for Sanders, as he himself as admitted he is terrified of Trump's popularity.
> 
> Bernie lost against Hillary, the majority (and I do mean majority) of the world doesn't give a fuck about him, get over it. Trump probably has more supporters worldwide and more haters worldwide, nonetheless, Trump is a bigger name and when people hear Trump they know it's something big.


So if he didnt think it was a big deal then why agree to it in the first place? Why say he would do it for someone gave million to charity, then have people agree to give million to charity, then say AH NAH FUCK IT.

No only is Trump a liar and a flake, he also fucked over yet another charity that would have gotten over a million dollars. 

The world hates Trump, most of the world despises him, yet you are claiming oh most of the world doesnt care about Sanders. The world doesn't have to care about him, no one in the US gives a fuck about the president or PM or anyone running for office in other countries. But the fact is MILLIONS of people give a fuck about Sanders in the US and that is where it matters.

When they hear the name Trump then know bigoted, sexist, con artist and fraud as well. And you can add scared of a "nobody" as you claim Bernie Sanders. Oh and dont forget the small hands. The only reason Trump thinks has a big one is because his hands are tiny and a mini hot dog would like giant in his tiny hands


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> So if he didnt think it was a big deal then why agree to it in the first place? Why say he would do it for someone gave million to charity, then have people agree to give million to charity, then say AH NAH FUCK IT.
> 
> No only is Trump a liar and a flake, he also fucked over yet another charity that would have gotten over a million dollars.
> 
> The world hates Trump, most of the world despises him, yet you are claiming oh most of the world doesnt care about Sanders. The world doesn't have to care about him, no one in the US gives a fuck about the president or PM or anyone running for office in other countries. But the fact is MILLIONS of people give a fuck about Sanders in the US and that is where it matters.
> 
> When they hear the name Trump then know bigoted, sexist, con artist and fraud as well. And you can add scared of a "nobody" as you claim Bernie Sanders. Oh and dont forget the small hands. The only reason Trump thinks has a big one is because his hands are tiny and a mini hot dog would like giant in his tiny hands


Read the posts above, and realize that he figured it wasn't worth it. Trump mostly has people who despise him, but it doesn't change that he has A LOT of supporters worldwide in American, Europe, and even Australia. The majority of people hate him, but A LOT (and I do mean a lot of people) love him.

Most people in the world care about Trump be it negative or positive care, with Sanders though he's almost a nobody in America and in a major nobody outside of America and the less western the country the bigger nobody he is.

I must say though, the butthurt from Bernie voters is quite delicious.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Gandhi said:


> Read the posts above, and realize that he figured it wasn't worth it. Trump mostly has people who despise him, but it doesn't change that he has A LOT of supporters worldwide in American, Europe, and even Australia. The majority of people hate him, but A LOT (and I do mean a lot of people) love him.
> 
> Most people in the world care about Trump be it negative or positive care, with Sanders though he's almost a nobody in America and in a major nobody outside of America and the less western the country the bigger nobody he is.
> 
> I must say though, the butthurt from Bernie voters is quite delicious.


And read my post you ignored when I said, Trump must be awful at making an on the spot decision. How did he change his mind just hours after saying yes? How did he not think it was worth it when he was fist asked?

Trump has the racist and bigoted people supporting him of course there are a lot of those people around the world. Those bigoted and racist think because Trump is open about his bigotry and racism they go oh they can be open about it now too and love that about him.

Trump is for simple minded people, he speaks like a 4 grader and when you listen to him speak he doest even say anything. Hell he contracts himself a lot in the same thought, which is always hilarious. 

Being more known doesnt mean you are better, and that is evident by how awful Trump is. 

the only people butt hurt are Trump fans and can't deal with Trump being such a flake and scared of a so called nobody like Sanders.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> And read my post you ignored when I said, Trump must be awful at making an on the spot decision. How did he change his mind just hours after saying yes? How did he not think it was worth it when he was fist asked?
> 
> Trump has the racist and bigoted people supporting him of course there are a lot of those people around the world. Those bigoted and racist think because Trump is open about his bigotry and racism they go oh they can be open about it now too and love that about him.
> 
> Trump is for simple minded people, he speaks like a 4 grader and when you listen to him speak he doest even say anything. Hell he contracts himself a lot in the same thought, which is always hilarious.
> 
> Being more known doesnt mean you are better, and that is evident by how awful Trump is.
> 
> the only people butt hurt are Trump fans and can't deal with Trump being such a flake and scared of a so called nobody like Sanders.


I didn't really ignore, I've responded and don't want to repeat myself to what you seem to not be able to get into your head. How did he change his mind just hours after saying yes? He just did, believe me it's easy to turn a Sanders debate down when it's a waste of time.

Trump does have racist & bigoted passionate supporters, a lot of them in fact, but that doesn't change that a lot of his supporters are not racists or bigoted. I am middle eastern and don't associate with some of the schmucks who support Trump.

Your English sucks and I honestly don't care for what you're blabbering about on the things you claim are negatives about Trump. 

Being known more means you are more relevant, it means people care about you more, which is why both of us know most people don't give a flying fuck about Sanders.

So called nobody? Lmao mate, he is a nobody compared to Trump, no need to be dishonest. Why would Trump supporters be butthurt? Trump doesn't care about Sanders, and Sanders supporters wanna cry _"Trump ignored da bernie bros!"_ all day. If anything, this is funny. :cozy


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Gandhi said:


> I didn't really ignore, I've responded and don't want to repeat myself to what you seem to not be able to get into your head. How did he change his mind just hours after saying yes? He just did, believe me it's easy to turn a Sanders debate down when it's a waste of time.
> 
> Trump does have racist & bigoted passionate supporters, a lot of them in fact, but that doesn't change that a lot of his supporters are not racists or bigoted. I am middle eastern and don't associate with some of the schmucks who support Trump.
> 
> Your English sucks and I honestly don't care for what you're blabbering about on the things you claim are negatives about Trump.
> 
> Being known more means you are more relevant, it means people care about you more, which is why both of us know most people don't give a flying fuck about Sanders.
> 
> So called nobody? Lmao mate, he is a nobody compared to Trump, no need to be dishonest. Why would Trump supporters be butthurt? Trump doesn't care about Sanders, and Sanders supporters wanna cry _"Trump ignored da bernie bros!"_ all day. If anything, this is funny. :cozy



You are still not answering the question, why didnt Trump think it was a waste of time when he was first asked? That is the question you are not answering.

And its simple, its because Trump is an idiot and can't think on the spot. Why did he say yes in the first place if he thought it was a waste of time? Did he not think it was a waste just a few hours when he said yes?

Of course you wont try to refute the things I said about Trump because the fact is you can't.

Being more famous does not mean care about you more. You think the majority of the people cared about Hitler? He was world famous.

It's just funny how Sanders is the only person fighting for the voters best interest and you have all these uniformed people voting for Trump or Hillary against their best interests. 

I just think its funny how scared Trump is and his fans are of Sanders that Trump and his supporters dont want Trump debating him. Its because you and Trump know how badly Sanders would expose Trump.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Look at how fucking THIRSTY these BernieBros are.

Like the fucking SAHARA in here.

Soooooooooo THIRSTY for :trump to elevate Sanders from a loser into someone who matters

Why would :trump elevate Sanders like that. :trump has no obligation to give a loser nobody a boost by lending some of the attention he, :trump , gets to Bernie Loser Nobody.

You're just not that important and neither is your idol, get over it. Maybe someday you will back a winner like :trump and then you won't have to be quite so pathetically THIRSTY.

Now let's wait and see BM whine and cry about how Bernie beats :trump in the polls - while :trump has given zero attention to Bernie Nobody. He destroyed Jeb Bush, he destroyed Marco Rubio, he took Ted Cruz's best shot and got the TKO, he's savaging Hillary... here's the deal BernieBros, the last thing you want is :trump to start paying attention to your loser idol. That poll lead in a hypothetical Bernie Nobody- :trump matchup would disappear very quickly after :trump aimed the full force of his ninja troll abilities at Bernie Nobody, the same as has happened to Hillary. Last month Hillary was up double digits; :trump started attacking her and today her lead is gone. Bernie Nobody wouldn't stand a chance against the full force of :trump


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

:lol of course only the libs are the ones with common sense, according to the libs. You guys are the only ones arrogant enough to call us "Delusional" when no such aggression has been made back at you. Trump, as much as I would have liked him too, has no reason, none, to debate sanders and he has no reason to let the Sanders campaign leech of of him. They already tried to call Trump a chicken BEFORE he opted out of it. Why should he go along with it?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> :lol of course only the libs are the ones with common sense, according to the libs. You guys are the only ones arrogant enough to call us "Delusional" when no such aggression has been made back at you. Trump, as much as I would have liked him too, has no reason, none, to debate sanders and he has no reason to let the Sanders campaign leech of of him. They already tried to call Trump a chicken BEFORE he opted out of it. Why should he go along with it?


because bernie and the berniebros are the most thirsty entitled people around


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump fans keep proving my point, thanks guys. You make it way too easy.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump fans keep proving my point, thanks guys. You make it way too easy.


:trump just played your loser idol and made him look like a loser and a whiny butthurt one at that 

By the way some of us aren't Trump fans, we're just fans of the bully cuck left getting rolled by a reality show clown

:trump has revealed how lacking in clothes the bully cuck left emperor is

So easy to get the whiny entitled butthurt to come out and the whole country is watching that whiny entitled butthurt BernieBro nonsense and laughing at it


----------



## NeverDrewADime

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Donald Trump is an alpha male, limp wristed liberals sit quietly in the same room as a man like Donald Trump


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump fans keep proving my point, thanks guys. You make it way too easy.


Your arrogance is the reason you will lose this election.


----------



## Cashmere

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Everytime I flipped on the news out of boredom, it's always a report where people are violent at Trump events. I wonder why that is lol.


----------



## ampix

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump is love Trumps i life


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



ampix said:


> Trump is love Trumps i life


Great first post, minus the typos

Trump is love, Trump is life!


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

There is no reason to debate a loser that isn't even going to win the nom.

Especially when the networks won't pony up the donation fee he asked for.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump had no reason to agree to a debate with Sanders anyway. It was another trolling attempt done via the media to weaken Hilary.

What's more concerning is Trump telling California there's no drought in his pandering to the farming sector of the state. Trump could be right in how the state maybe could divert more water resources towards the farming industry over environmental conservation efforts or that environmentalists are preventing water solutions like desalination, but he undermined those discussions with the nonsense of there is no drought to toll the climate change is fake party/lobbyist line.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Trump had no reason to agree to a debate with Sanders anyway. It was another trolling attempt done via the media to weaken Hilary.
> 
> What's more concerning is Trump telling California there's no drought in his pandering to the farming sector of the state. Trump could be right in how the state maybe could divert more water resources towards the farming industry over environmental conservation efforts or that environmentalists are preventing water solutions like desalination, but he undermined those discussions with the nonsense of there is no drought to toll the climate change is fake party/lobbyist line.


If water management wasn't fucked by treehuggers in that state effectively there would be no drought. Climate change is fake in the sense that there's no reason to destroy trillions of dollars of future economic activity when a warming globe is fucking great and there's zero reason to want it to stop. Unless you like starving children in Africa :draper2

:trump speaking uncomfortable truths again.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Your arrogance is the reason you will lose this election.


Its not my arrogance since I am backing the correct candidate, its the DNC that is backing one of the most hated politicians of all time with one of the highest unfavorables of all time not to mention one of the least trusted person the democratic party has ever had. The DNC fixing elections by voter supporter and their constant trashing of Sanders when he is on the right side of most of his issues is what will cause Trump to win since he is now leading Hillary in some polls.

Trump and Hillary would both make terrible presidents. I still laugh at anyone who is stupid enough to vote for Trump or Hillary when neither have the middle class or lower classes best interest in mind. 

Bernie would destroy Trump in the general, and with Hillary its now 50/50 that she can beat Trump and that number is starting to tip toward Trump winning. 




deepelemblues said:


> If water management wasn't fucked by treehuggers in that state effectively there would be no drought. Climate change is fake in the sense that there's no reason to destroy trillions of dollars of future economic activity when a warming globe is fucking great and there's zero reason to want it to stop. Unless you like starving children in Africa :draper2
> 
> :trump speaking uncomfortable truths again.


You just keep proving my point about Trump supporters. Oh yeah saving the planet for the future generations is just wasting money. And your beloved Trump now believes in climate change because its affecting his golf courses.




FriedTofu said:


> Trump had no reason to agree to a debate with Sanders anyway. It was another trolling attempt done via the media to weaken Hilary.
> 
> What's more concerning is Trump telling California there's no drought in his pandering to the farming sector of the state. Trump could be right in how the state maybe could divert more water resources towards the farming industry over environmental conservation efforts or that environmentalists are preventing water solutions like desalination, but he undermined those discussions with the nonsense of there is no drought to toll the climate change is fake party/lobbyist line.


How was it a troll attempt when Trump said he would do it? He could have easily said no and leave it at that. 

Also you do know if there is no environment there is no farms right.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its not my arrogance since I am backing the correct candidate, its the DNC that is backing one of the most hated politicians of all time with one of the highest unfavorables of all time not to mention one of the least trusted person the democratic party has ever had. The DNC fixing elections by voter supporter and their constant trashing of Sanders when he is on the right side of most of his issues is what will cause Trump to win since he is now leading Hillary in some polls.
> 
> Trump and Hillary would both make terrible presidents. I still laugh at anyone who is stupid enough to vote for Trump or Hillary when neither have the middle class or lower classes best interest in mind.
> 
> Bernie would destroy Trump in the general, and with Hillary its now 50/50 that she can beat Trump and that number is starting to tip toward Trump winning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just keep proving my point about Trump supporters. Oh yeah saving the planet for the future generations is just wasting money. And your beloved Trump now believes in climate change because its affecting his golf courses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How was it a troll attempt when Trump said he would do it? He could have easily said no and leave it at that.
> 
> Also you do know if there is no environment there is no farms right.


Uh, no he couldn't. You'd still shit on him. Why even pretend you wouldn't?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Uh, no he couldn't. You'd still shit on him. Why even pretend you wouldn't?


Who couldn't what? You mean Trump just say no? The reason why Trump is getting shit on is because he claimed he would, then he said, NAH I'm not going to now just hours later after saying he would on Kimmel.

If he didn't it wouldn't be a big deal since he has not at this point and no one was giving him shit for not. Everyone was shitting on Hillary for not debating Bernie again like she promised and how the DNC always put on the DNC debates at hours they knew most people wouldn't watch.

the focus would still be on Hillary backing out of the last debate not people shitting on Trump for never saying he would


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Who couldn't what? You mean Trump just say no? The reason why Trump is getting shit on is because he claimed he would, then he said, NAH I'm not going to now just hours later after saying he would on Kimmel.
> 
> If he didn't it wouldn't be a big deal since he has not at this point and no one was giving him shit for not. Everyone was shitting on Hillary for not debating Bernie again like she promised and how the DNC always put on the DNC debates at hours they knew most people wouldn't watch.
> 
> the focus would still be on Hillary backing out of the last debate not people shitting on Trump for never saying he would


No, C'mon man. Him saying no would have gotten the same response from you. You're kidding yourself.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> No, C'mon man. Him saying no would have gotten the same response from you. You're kidding yourself.


How could I call Trump a liar if he never said yes in the first place? Your hero is a flake and a liar. And people like you love bash Sanders yet your hero is afraid to debate him. So pathetic Trump is


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> If water management wasn't fucked by treehuggers in that state effectively there would be no drought. Climate change is fake in the sense that there's no reason to destroy trillions of dollars of future economic activity when a warming globe is fucking great and there's zero reason to want it to stop. Unless you like starving children in Africa :draper2
> 
> :trump speaking uncomfortable truths again.


I didn't know treehuggers could make the rain stop for months going on years. Water mismanagement =/= drought. :trump talking out of his ass to pander again.



birthday_massacre said:


> How was it a troll attempt when Trump said he would do it? He could have easily said no and leave it at that.
> 
> Also you do know if there is no environment there is no farms right.


It is a troll attempt because Trump had nothing to gain in a debate with Sanders.

You know that if you are environment > everything there is no urban area which most of us are living in right? Do you even know what the environmental issues here are before regurgitating progressive talking points about environment?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I didn't know treehuggers could make the rain stop for months going on years. Water mismanagement =/= drought. :trump talking out of his ass to pander again.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a troll attempt because Trump had nothing to gain in a debate with Sanders.
> 
> You know that if you are environment > everything there is no urban area which most of us are living in right? Do you even know what the environmental issues here are before regurgitating progressive talking points about environment?


Where do you think that water comes from? Not raining is what causes droughts, you need to sustain the water source. 

Its not a troll attempt since Trump AGREED TO IT then said NO. He could have just said no the first time. 

How was it a troll attempt when Trump agreed to it? 

You are a typical trump supporter. The environment has nothing to do with if you live in an urban or rural area. It has to do with the planet . You keep proving my point about Trump supporters being ignorant.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> How could I call Trump a liar if he never said yes in the first place? Your hero is a flake and a liar. And people like you love bash Sanders yet your hero is afraid to debate him. So pathetic Trump is


What? That's not what I was saying at all, and I think you know it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> What? That's not what I was saying at all, and I think you know it.


That is not what you said. The environment effects EVERYTHING, you need to preserve that before everything else. That is why climate change is such a big deal and why its a joke consecrates claim its a hoax.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Where do you think that water comes from? Not raining is what causes droughts, you need to sustain the water source.


 Huh? I'm saying Trump is telling people living under a dry spell there is no drought is stupid. The issue is water management during the drought, not the rejection of there being a drought.



> Its not a troll attempt since Trump AGREED TO IT then said NO. He could have just said no the first time.


He agreed to it to troll simpletons like you. He said no because there is nothing to gain for his campaign to do it.



> How was it a troll attempt when Trump agreed to it?


 That was the trolling. You can't be that dumb?



> *You are a typical trump supporter.* The environment has nothing to do with if you live in an urban or rural area. It has to do with the planet . You keep proving my point about Trump supporters being ignorant.


Bolded part just revealed you can't handle any discussion. I'm one of the anti-trump posters in this thread. Not everything is us against them or black and white. Stop making us anti-trump people look bad.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Huh? I'm saying Trump is telling people living under a dry spell there is no drought is stupid. The issue is water management during the drought, not the rejection of there being a drought.
> 
> He agreed to it to troll simpletons like you. He said no because there is nothing to gain for his campaign to do it.
> 
> That was the trolling. You can't be that dumb?
> 
> Bolded part just revealed you can't handle any discussion. I'm one of the anti-trump posters in this thread. Not everything is us against them or black and white. Stop making us anti-trump people look bad.


You are a typical Trump supporter when you dont even understand what environmental issues are or what that even means.

The only simpletons are people like you that support Trump. he doesnt even say anything, and he is always contradicting himself and talking out of his ass.
But people like you love that because he comes down to your level.

Trump was no trolling when he said he would do it. He was going to do it until his handles told him to take it back because they know Bernie would destroy him in a debate.

Also, if you really want to believe Trump was just trolling that is even worse. That buffoon could be the next POTUS and he can't even be serious. A president shouldn't be saying trollish things on TV. That is why Trump is the laughing stock of the whole world and why no one with half a brain takes him seriously.

Not to mention is trolling charites because he said he would do it for charity then millions are put up for the debate and charities lose out because Trump was "trolling?

that makes him an even worse person.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are a typical Trump supporter when you dont even understand what environmental issues are or what that even means.
> 
> The only simpletons are people like you that support Trump. he doesnt even say anything, and he is always contradicting himself and talking out of his ass.
> But people like you love that because he comes down to your level.
> 
> Trump was no trolling when he said he would do it. He was going to do it until his handles told him to take it back because they know Bernie would destroy him in a debate.


:lol Ask the posters around here if I'm a Trump supporter. If you only have insults to use as your discussion point, at least label me correctly as a Hilary supporter.

There are solutions to cope with the drought that weren't considered because of environmental 'concerns' such as desalination or building dams.

You aren't even saying anything except to attack the messenger just like Trump. People like you give ammunition to the Trump campaign.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> :lol Ask the posters around here if I'm a Trump supporter. If you only have insults to use as your discussion point, at least label me correctly as a Hilary supporter.
> 
> There are solutions to cope with the drought that weren't considered because of environmental 'concerns' such as desalination or building dams.
> 
> You aren't even saying anything except to attack the messenger just like Trump. People like you give ammunition to the Trump campaign.


yeah its attacking the messenger when you dont even understand what environmental issues means. And its even worse if you are a Hillary supporter when you are as clueless as a Trump supporter.

BTW thought I was quoting beetles when replying to your posts. That is why I called you a trump supporter. that is my bad. Its 3 am here lol


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah its attacking the messenger when you dont even understand what environmental issues means. And its even worse if you are a Hillary supporter when you are as clueless as a Trump supporter.


Do you know the issues concerned? By your logic nothing man-made can be done to combat adverse weather conditions.

You don't bring anything to discussions except regurgitating points without context made by others smarter than you in the progressive movement, and make the movement weaker as a result.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Do you know the issues concerned? By your logic nothing man-made can be done to combat adverse weather conditions.
> 
> You don't bring anything to discussions except regurgitating points without context made by others smarter than you in the progressive movement, and make the movement weaker as a result.


Man made things are what is ruining the environment. I bet you dont think fracking is a bad thing do you?

Hillary is pro fracking, do you think they should stop allowing fracking?

Also solar panels and windmill power are good for the environment , way better than coal. but Hillary loves coal. And panders to them over green energy. She was against the carbon tax. Not to mention she was for the keystone pipeline.


----------



## 3ku1

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Did you guys see Seth Mcfarland did not endorse Trump. He posted on Twitter how he is a dick for accepting $150k of federal funds. Intended for small businesses hurt after 9/11. I agree with that. It's not like Trump runs small buisinesses lol.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



3ku1 said:


> Did you guys see Seth Mcfarland did not endorse Trump. He posted on Twitter how he is a dick for accepting $150k of federal funds. Intended for small businesses hurt after 9/11. I agree with that. It's not like Trump runs small buisinesses lol.


maybe he though it was for people with small hands? 

I am not surprised, especially how he lied about that charity event for vets the most of the money didnt even go to them and went to the Trump fund or what ever its called

He is a con-artist. Only his fans can't see that


----------



## 3ku1

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> maybe he though it was for people with small hands?
> 
> I am not surprised, especially how he lied about that charity event for vets the most of the money didnt even go to them and went to the Trump fund or what ever its called
> 
> He is a con-artist. Only his fans can't see that


I agree, he is. But thing is, is Hillary any better? I don't know. It doesen't effect me as a kiwi. But from an impartial point of view. Trump and Hillary are both shady. I see most people support Hillary because shes not trump. And some people support Trump because well I Don't know, he tells it like it is lol? I don't know. I Don't think either are great candidates. On the surface Trump looks pretty qualified. But he is just a volitial individual.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



3ku1 said:


> I agree, he is. But thing is, is Hillary any better? I don't know. It doesen't effect me as a kiwi. But from an impartial point of view. Trump and Hillary are both shady. I see most people support Hillary because shes not trump. And some people support Trump because well I Don't know, he tells it like it is lol? I don't know. I Don't think either are great candidates. On the surface Trump looks pretty qualified. But he is just a volitial individual.


No she isn't. Like Bernie says, voting for Trump vs Hilary is voting for the lessor of two evils. At least with Sanders people are voting for him for a reason.

Most people, think most of Trumps or Hillary's polices are awful and dont agree with most of them. Most people want what Sander proposes but people claim, ohh would never get that done the GOP wouldn't allow it.

Trump does not tell it like it is. He is racist and a bigot. 

Trump is far from qualified to be president. Just listen to him talk, he speaks like a 4th grader. And he is always contradicting himself , even in the same sentences sometimes. Plus he is always talking out of his ass.

At least with Hillary, who I despise, is polished and wouldn't cause half the chaos Trump would.

Plus at least Hillary would put competent people in her cabinet even if they were bought and paid for. Trump would put all crazy people on there.

Not to mention the people Trump would nominate for the SCOTUS vs Hillary. Hillary wouldn't put libs on there but they would at least be center left. where as Trump would put all super right winged people and that would be a disaster as trump puts it.


----------



## LaMelo

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

He will save us! :jericho2


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> That is not what you said. The environment effects EVERYTHING, you need to preserve that before everything else. That is why climate change is such a big deal and why its a joke consecrates claim its a hoax.


What the HELL are you on about? Absolutely nothing between you and I has been about the environment. Have you lost your damned mind? :tommy

I said you'd shit on Trump even if he had declined, and you would have.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Man made things are what is ruining the environment. I bet you dont think fracking is a bad thing do you?
> 
> Hillary is pro fracking, do you think they should stop allowing fracking?
> 
> Also solar panels and windmill power are good for the environment , way better than coal. but Hillary loves coal. And panders to them over green energy. She was against the carbon tax. Not to mention she was for the keystone pipeline.


I think fracking is bad because I think it is dangerous to the people living in the area, not because of environmental concerns. 

Now is nuclear energy good or bad? Is land reclamation to create more land for people to live on good or bad? Is desalination good or bad to create more portable water? 

How much more energy are you using now compared to a mere 10 or 20 years ago? Does that make you a bad person against the environment?

Hilary loves coal? Why do the coal county hate her then? Carbon tax is a joke created by the rich to feel better about their activities polluting the environment. It is akin to saying speeding is bad but hey I can pay a fine so it is alright.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I think fracking is bad because I think it is dangerous to the people living in the area, not because of environmental concerns.
> 
> Now is nuclear energy good or bad? Is land reclamation to create more land for people to live on good or bad? Is desalination good or bad to create more portable water?
> 
> How much more energy are you using now compared to a mere 10 or 20 years ago? Does that make you a bad person against the environment?
> 
> Hilary loves coal? Why do the coal county hate her then? Carbon tax is a joke created by the rich to feel better about their activities polluting the environment. It is akin to saying speeding is bad but hey I can pay a fine so it is alright.


Coal was demonized and when it dropped in value a bunch of rich people bought it all up. Most of these environmental stuff is brought about for people to make money off of.

People were donating their entire cheeks and going hungry to donate to Bernie, that's insanity.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



> You just keep proving my point about Trump supporters. Oh yeah saving the planet for the future generations is just wasting money. And your beloved Trump now believes in climate change because its affecting his golf courses.


:eva you can't save the planet, especially since it doesn't need saving



> I didn't know treehuggers could make the rain stop for months going on years. Water mismanagement =/= drought. talking out of his ass to pander again.


:trump speaking truth just really upsets some people.

Maybe you don't know what the word "effectively" means. California has allowed billions and billions of gallons of freshwater, including rainwater (yes Virginia, it has in fact rained in California during the 'drought'), to drain off into the sea during this 'drought.' Water supply and price has zero connection to market reality in California. Change that, and there would be no water shortages in the state. People who aren't treehugging idiots have been pointing this out _years_ before :trump did.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I think fracking is bad because I think it is dangerous to the people living in the area, not because of environmental concerns.
> 
> Now is nuclear energy good or bad? Is land reclamation to create more land for people to live on good or bad? Is desalination good or bad to create more portable water?
> 
> How much more energy are you using now compared to a mere 10 or 20 years ago? Does that make you a bad person against the environment?
> 
> Hilary loves coal? Why do the coal county hate her then? Carbon tax is a joke created by the rich to feel better about their activities polluting the environment. It is akin to saying speeding is bad but hey I can pay a fine so it is alright.


How does it not hurt the environment when it poisons the water in the ground in that area? You dont consider that the environment ? Do you not call an oil spill in the ocean an environmental disaster ?

If you are using fossil feuds that is polluting the environment when you could be using green energy that is a bad thing. How is it not? 

they hated her because she claims she was misquoted about coal miners losing their jobs. She also said she wants to save the coal industry but of course this like many other things is her flip flopping like she has so many times. She was always super pro coal until she said one thing to piss off the coal miners during the primaries, the she claimed she was taken out of context.

Your analogy for the carbon tax to speeding is laughable. Its to try and get them to use less carbon emissions if they were getting taxed on it, without they could do it even more.
If there were no speed limits to use your analog, then everyone could be going 100 MPG on the highway and that could cause all kinds of accidents.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


>


Your meme is not even true. You really should fact check them before you post them.

Sanders has no super pacs, Its also not true that 98% of Trumps campaign is self funded.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

@DesolationRow 

@CamillePunk

So, Trump bros (And Bernie Bros, because, fuck it, bipartisanship.)

Today, I lost a very dear friend of mine. She has been, in a sense, my therepist over the years. She's trained, so I always felt I could tell her anything.... 

Naturally, we would talk depression and things but we always kept it light, i thought. we'd talk politics, she's a leftist and I a repub. She athiest and I christian, yet, she always treated me with class and seemed unbothered by our differing views...

But then today happened.

I'm on skype, and I get this wall o' text. One such passage read like this:

"_One other thing. That conversation we had last year about feminism and gaming has stayed with me. I know you like bouncing ideas off me because we each think differently, but the very fact that you were so willing to believe unsubstantiated claims about Brianna [Wu], couldn't understand why I'd feel sympathetic with her, feel so bitter about campaigns against male > female abuse, and genuinely don't seem to understand why women want equal economic power and should get it... that bothers me. It's continued to bother me. And then, more recently, you said you believe Trump is 'misunderstood'? The man's plainly evil, and if you can't see that, then frankly I can't say what I think of you for that without resorting to some pretty colourful language. 

In short, I don't see any point in continuing our friendship. It's a drain to me and I don't get anything worthwhile back, and to cap it all, I feel that you believe and support some truly evil things.

Goodbye._"

I am, quite honestly, stunned.

Never...NEVER did she give me any inkling she felt this way in all of the YEARS--yes, YEARS i've known her about my positions. I thought she, quite frankly, was one of the classiest leftests i've ever known in terms of living and letting live. I thought of her as a dear, dear friend of mine. I constantly told her, paraphrasing here, "Look, you tell me a lot of ideas that I think about and you present your arguments with class, substance. and dignity without shooting me down or stomping on me and i apreciate that. It makes me receptive to what you have to say and I learn a lot."

But...."Evil"? 

I do feel hurt by this a bit. I have ALWAYS respected her, even though there are other reasons she cited.

So, it leads me to question: Berniebros, is that how you see us supporters of Trump ITT? Supporting evil? Is that what you think, that we are savage life forms that must be excommunicated as I was here? Not to say she thinks that, but...wow, it's just--as my close friend, I thought she knew me better than that.

I urge you all to remember in this thread, politics is evil, not different beliefs. I do not hate any leftest in this thread. Actually, I respect some with anti-Trump views like @FriedTofu and @Reaper greatly. I don't think any of you knowingly support "Evil", even if I don't believe it's right in large amounts.

I feel saddened more than anything. I hope me and this person can clear things up. She's been a class act to me and to read her saying this is rather heartbreaking in all honesty.

:cry


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

The right is always on the wrong side of things.

The left believes in religion over fact, the left doest believe in the women's right to choose even in the case of rape and incest, the right doesnt believe in gay rights, the right doesn't give a shit about the middle class or the lower class, the right thinks global warming is a hoax even. 

There're tons of people on the right who disown their kids or family when that member comes out as gay. 


If you support Trump you are supporting his bigotry, racism and sexism. If you want to call that evil so be it. But calling Trump misunderstood is a joke. He isn't misunderstood at all. He is a total jackass.

sorry you lost a good friend though, its dumb that was bugging her for so long then she decided recently oh yeah she can't be your friend anymore. 

This is why you dont talk religion or politics with friends or family, because it just ends up pissing some people off when they disagree. It just causes issues and things like that to happen.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

@Beatles123

When I first told my significant other I thought Trump was misunderstood she wasn't all that happy either, though I reasoned with her and told her my reasons and she agrees that it's justified to be a supporter of Trump. She's British too and holy fuck she tells me the British media speak of Trump like he's Satan, cringe worthy stuff, so I didn't get mad when at first she wasn't too happy I liked Trump. I say this because you need to sympathize with your ex friend's ignorance. Media has been for a LONG time perverting Trump's image.

That being said I'm sorry about what happened to you, however I don't want to sound mean but you need to get over her. If anything you dodged a bullet from wasting your time hanging out with someone as ignorant as her, it'd be nice if she educated herself on Trump, but assuming she won't there's no reason for you to feel down for long over someone so ignorant. It's her loss she lost you as a friend especially when you're civil about the disagreement, move on and realize that there's plenty of people who can support you as a friend knowing you're someone who supports Trump. Your case essentially is no different than the case of a gay guy coming out to homophobes going "you're a pervert, I don't want to continue a friendship with you". See how ignorant those homophobes sound? That's your ex friend, move on man, you'll find better friends I'm sure.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Gandhi said:


> @Beatles123
> 
> When I first told my significant other I thought Trump was misunderstood she wasn't all that happy either, though I reasoned with her and told her my reasons and she agrees that it's justified to be a supporter of Trump. She's British too and holy fuck she tells me the British media speak of Trump like he's Satan, cringe worthy stuff, so I didn't get mad when at first she wasn't too happy I liked Trump. I say this because you need to sympathize with your ex friend's ignorance. Media has been for a LONG time perverting Trump's image.
> 
> That being said I'm sorry about what happened to you, however I don't want to sound mean but you need to get over her. If anything you dodged a bullet from wasting your time hanging out with someone as ignorant as her, it'd be nice if she educated herself on Trump, but assuming she won't there's no reason for you to feel down for long over someone so ignorant. It's her loss she lost you as a friend especially when you're civil about the disagreement, move on and realize that there's plenty of people who can support you as a friend knowing you're someone who supports Trump. Your case essentially is no different than the case of a gay guy coming out to homophobes going "you're a pervert, I don't want to continue a friendship with you". See how ignorant those homophobes sound? That's your ex friend, move on man, you'll find better friends I'm sure.


She wasn't ignorant, she simply had a different view on things. People can dislike people like Trump and other's views on things without being ignorant. There is good and bad with all people.

Still sounds like she kept it all inside until she couldn't take it anymore, perhaps she should've said something before it got to that point but that's easier than it sounds sometimes.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> She wasn't ignorant, she simply had a different view on things. People can dislike people like Trump and other's views on things without being ignorant. There is good and bad with all people.
> 
> Still sounds like she kept it all inside until she couldn't take it anymore, perhaps she should've said something before it got to that point but that's easier than it sounds sometimes.


When someone says Trump is evil, they're ignorant.

I'd get if someone said Trump was obnoxious, but call him a word like evil? That's ridiculous.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Gandhi said:


> When someone says Trump is evil, they're ignorant.
> 
> I'd get if someone said Trump was obnoxious, but call him a word like evil? That's ridiculous.


Yet Team Trump in here have called Hilary worse in here 100 times and no one's batted an eyelid. What's the difference?


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Marco Rubio is pledging to support Trump? :CENA

I wonder who Trump will choose as his VP in the running.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Yet Team Trump in here have called Hilary worse in here 100 times and no one's batted an eyelid. What's the difference?


Understand that _"Team Trump"_ aren't all united in their beliefs.

Hilary is a sociopath though, she shows a lot of signs of being one.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Gandhi said:


> Understand that _"Team Trump"_ aren't all united in their beliefs.
> 
> Hilary is a sociopath though, she shows a lot of signs of being one.


Before your time sport, and plenty could make the same argument about Mr Trump.


----------



## Marv95

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Newt is a favorite. Not a good favorite, but a favorite. Maybe he learned from his mistakes.

If I was Trump I'd pick Ron Paul or Jeff Sessions.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Before your time sport, and plenty could make the same argument about Mr Trump.


Both of us know how Hillary shows signs of being a sociopath.

Though I'm curious how you'd argue Trump is a sociopath, do tell.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Gandhi said:


> Both of us know how Hillary shows signs of being a sociopath.
> 
> Though I'm curious how you'd argue Trump is a sociopath, do tell.


How does Trump not show signs of being a sociopath? Trump shows zero signs of having a conscience.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> How not Trump not show signs of being a sociopath? Trump shows zero signs of having a conscience.


Prove it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> I urge you all to remember in this thread, politics is evil, not different beliefs. I do not hate any leftest in this thread. Actually, I respect some with anti-Trump views like @FriedTofu and @Reaper greatly. I don't think any of you knowingly support "Evil", even if I don't believe it's right in large amounts.


Just to be clear, I'm neither anti-Trump, nor pro-Trump. I'm left anti-authoritarian, but not libertarian. Trump's views unfortunately puts him closer to the authoritarian camp than I would like and that's about it. I am anti-government and that won't ever change. I have pretty complex views and it takes a while to get them across fully. 

Overall, he is the best candidate for presidency right now - but to me that doesn't say much because we all could do better. But that's a problem of the system as opposed to a problem with Trump. 

Also, I don't think that America is broken as much as people believe that it is. I mean, yeah it's not perfect, but overall it's a lot better than the vast majority of the world and I find candidates that make it _seem _like massive amounts of change is necessary (both Trump and Sanders do this and Obama did this as well) to be somewhat disingenuous and misleading people. Change for the sake of change with promises that it'll _cause _things to get better directly is anti-intellectualism at its worst. :shrug

BTW Beatles ... I lost my sister over feminism recently ... I'm sure we'll eventually start talking again, but we haven't spoken in a little over a month and it seems that she chose her ideology over her own brother. It's insane just how much like a cult it has become - and they have no fucking clue that they're completely brainwashed and indoctrinated to the point of giving up personal relationships. 



Gandhi said:


> Hilary is a sociopath though, she shows a lot of signs of being one.


Sociopath isn't the correct word. She's the worst kind of narcissist (people with NPD are assumed to be less worse than Sociopaths and Psychopaths and that's actually a huge misconception. Narcissists are capable of crimes that are as bad, or even worse than psychopaths) that has said and will say and has done and will continue to do whatever it takes to win.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I'm sorry about you losing your friend, @Beatles123. That is tragic. No friendship should be harmed by the circumstances of this zany circus called "politics."


----------



## 3ku1

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Gandhi said:


> Prove it.


I think Trump is all the proof you need :lol. In any case I don't think either is all that qualified. On the surface Trumps seems to be. And I actually yes call me crazy could do a good job as President. He's just not worth the risk. I think Hillary is the more safe choice.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



3ku1 said:


> I think Trump is all the proof you need :lol.


What the fuck does that mean?

You have no proof, using the _"he sucks because he's him"_ argument is inane.



3ku1 said:


> And I actually yes call me crazy could do a good job as President.


You think you could do a good job as president?

:ha

Mate, you'd be a god awful president.



3ku1 said:


> He's just not worth the risk. I think Hillary is the more safe choice.







You think THIS person is a safer choice? unk4


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Gandhi said:


> Prove it.


Its easy.

Trump university for one, ripping off all those people knowing you are conning them out of all their money. Him lying to the vets charity when he claimed the money was going to them but it was really going to his Trump fund and only a little of that money went to any vet charity. Trump saying he would commit war crimes like bringing back torture and saying we should bomb the terrorist families.

those are just a few simple examples especially the last two.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Gandhi said:


> Both of us know how Hillary shows signs of being a sociopath.
> 
> Though I'm curious how you'd argue Trump is a sociopath, do tell.


http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html



> T
> 
> his website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.
> 
> 
> Glibness and Superficial Charm
> 
> Manipulative and Conning
> They never recognize the rights of others and *see their self-serving behaviors as permissible.* *They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims. *
> 
> *Grandiose Sense of Self
> Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
> 
> Pathological Lying
> Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing *and even able to pass lie detector tests.
> 
> Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
> A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. *The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.*
> 
> Shallow Emotions
> When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. *Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises. *
> 
> Incapacity for Love
> 
> Need for Stimulation
> Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. *Promiscuity and gambling are common. *
> 
> *Callousness/Lack of Empathy
> Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them. *
> 
> *Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature *
> Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. *Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others. *
> 
> Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
> Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
> 
> Irresponsibility/Unreliability
> Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. *Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed. *
> 
> Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
> *Promiscuity*, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
> 
> Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
> Tends to move around a lot or* makes all encompassing promises for the future*, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
> 
> Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
> Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.
> 
> Other Related Qualities:
> 
> Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
> *Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
> Authoritarian
> Secretive*
> Paranoid
> Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
> Conventional appearance
> Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
> Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
> Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
> Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
> Incapable of real human attachment to another
> *Unable to feel remorse or guilt
> Extreme narcissism and grandiose*
> May state readily that their goal is to rule the world


I think the bolded are pretty much out there for all to see.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Reaper said:


> Also, I don't think that America is broken as much as people believe that it is. I mean, yeah it's not perfect, but overall it's a lot better than the vast majority of the world and I find candidates that make it _seem _like massive amounts of change is necessary (both Trump and Sanders do this and Obama did this as well) to be somewhat disingenuous and misleading people. Change for the sake of change with promises that it'll _cause _things to get better directly is anti-intellectualism at its worst. :shrug


I think this is a great point and one people need to remember. The oldest political trick in the book is to make it seem like the current day situation is terrible, it's so bad for you, you're losing your country, you're losing your rights, the sky is falling in etc - but guess what I'M THE PERSON TO FIX EVERYTHING.

I'm not saying I know what it's like in America, but it really is common political trick across a lot of countries to talk gloom and doom when you're campaigning so you can position yourself as saving the day.

The current government in Australia when in opposition before last election created a concept of the quote 'budget emergency' that apparently was in full force, constantly citing our billion dollar debt and other financial conditions and how awful this was going to be for us all. Guess where this concept went once they were in government (when they actually proved to increase the debt) - poof! Into thin air. Never mentioned again.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Guess where this concept went once they were in government (when they actually proved to increase the debt) - poof! Into thin air. Never mentioned again.


These kinds of tactics will _never_ change, no matter who comes into power. 

This is why I'm a proponent for self responsibility, self governance and philanthropy as the primary system of social welfare over government.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> *Trump saying he would commit war crimes like bringing back torture and saying we should bomb the terrorist families.*


So he's basically saying that he'll do the things that the DNP lies that they don't do?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Reaper said:


> So he's basically saying that he'll do the things that the DNP lies that they don't do?


Where is your evidence they do it?

If the ones that do, if they do, they are indeed sociopaths. What group does it doesnt change the fact that they are. 

So do you agree Trump is a sociopath then or are you going to lie to yourself and claim he is not.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Reaper said:


> So he's basically saying that he'll do the things that the DNP lies that they don't do?


Oh gosh Reaper say it aint so!? They'd never do that, democrats are anti-war, for total transparent government, it's why they bury Sanders and push Hilary!


----------



## 3ku1

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I wonder what this thread well be like when or if Trump is elected haha.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Coal was demonized and when it dropped in value a bunch of rich people bought it all up. Most of these environmental stuff is brought about for people to make money off of.
> 
> People were donating their entire cheeks and going hungry to donate to Bernie, that's insanity.


I differ with you from this in that I believe coal is rightfully being phased out for cleaner energy sources. I hate this notion that environmental stuff is brought up for someone to make money off of. This type of conspiracy theory is not constructive at all. Look at China's air condition due to coal burning, and tell me it isn't better for the world to find a cleaner alternative that is comparable in costs and reliability.




birthday_massacre said:


> How does it not hurt the environment when it poisons the water in the ground in that area? You dont consider that the environment ? Do you not call an oil spill in the ocean an environmental disaster ?
> 
> If you are using fossil feuds that is polluting the environment when you could be using green energy that is a bad thing. How is it not?
> 
> they hated her because she claims she was misquoted about coal miners losing their jobs. She also said she wants to save the coal industry but of course this like many other things is her flip flopping like she has so many times. She was always super pro coal until she said one thing to piss off the coal miners during the primaries, the she claimed she was taken out of context.
> 
> Your analogy for the carbon tax to speeding is laughable. Its to try and get them to use less carbon emissions if they were getting taxed on it, without they could do it even more.
> If there were no speed limits to use your analog, then everyone could be going 100 MPG on the highway and that could cause all kinds of accidents.


Did I say fracking could not potentially hurt the environment? I am saying I am against it because of the danger it can pose to the people, not because it is bad for the environment as there are economical benefits for the community to consider as well.

So are you saying it is ok to use more energy today compared to 10-20 years ago because it is 'green energy'?

So, are desalination, nuclear energy and land reclamation that help communities cope with environmental limitations but poses threats to the environment good or bad?

When was Hilary super pro-coal? From what I know, her stance is similar to Obama's administration in focusing on cleaner renewable energy. She wanted to help the communities dependent on coal to transition to other industries via retraining and education.

The tax to speeding analogy is simple. Rich people feel less guilty about doing bad by paying off a fine. Their 'burden' of doing bad is 'paid off' and they can go back to talking down to others doing the same things they are doing.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Oh gosh Reaper say it aint so!? They'd never do that, *democrats are anti-war, for total transparent government, it's why they bury Sanders and push Hilary*!


What are you being factious? Everyone knows that Hillary Clinton is hawkish when it comes to foreign policy.



3ku1 said:


> I wonder what this thread well be like when or if Trump is elected haha.


How could it be any different than it is now?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Where is your evidence they do it?
> 
> If the ones that do, if they do, they are indeed sociopaths. What group does it doesnt change the fact that they are.
> 
> So do you agree Trump is a sociopath then or are you going to lie to yourself and claim he is not.


Torture: 

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nistration-military-torture-army-field-manual



> Disturbingly, the latest version of the AFM mimicked the Bush administration in separating out "war on terror" prisoners as not subject to the same protections and rights as regular prisoners of war. Military authorities then added an appendix to the AFM that included techniques that could only be used on such "detainees", ie, prisoners without POW status.
> Labeled Appendix M, and propounding an additional, special "technique" called "Separation", human rights and legal group have recognized that Appendix M includes numerous abusive techniques, including use of solitary confinement, sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation.
> According to Appendix M, sleep can be limited to four hours per day for up to 30 days, and even more with approval. The same is true for use of isolation. Theoretically, sleep deprivation and solitary confinement could be extended indefinitely.


Killing families:

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/05/23/most-us-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-attack-houses/



> It reveals:
> 
> 
> Over three-fifths (61%) of all drone strikes in Pakistan targeted domestic buildings, with at least 132 houses destroyed, in more than 380 strikes.
> At least 222 civilians are estimated to be among the 1,500 or more people killed in attacks on such buildings. In the past 18 months, reports of civilian casualties in attacks on any targets have almost completely vanished, but historically almost one civilian was killed, on average, in attacks on houses.
> The CIA has consistently attacked houses have throughout the 10-year campaign in Pakistan.
> The time of an attack affects how many people – and how many civilians – are likely to die. Houses are twice as likely to be attacked at night compared with in the afternoon. Strikes that took place in the evening, when families likely to be at home and gathered together, were particularly deadly.


When they're bombing houses, don't you think they're killing the families of the militants? Support the DNP. But don't be completely blind to their tactics.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

We lost 4 American lives overseas and Hillary tried to cover it up by deleting thousands of e-mails. I have no problem voting for Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump over her. #Benghazi 

- Vic


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> We lost 4 American lives overseas and Hillary tried to cover it up by deleting thousands of e-mails. I have no problem voting for Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump over her. #Benghazi
> 
> - Vic


Just when did she try to cover up their deaths, was it before their military funeral or after the intelligence agents on the ground in Libya confirmed their deaths to the Pentagon?​ 




^ mind you this video above is 3 days after the attack. unk2


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I differ with you from this in that I believe coal is rightfully being phased out for cleaner energy sources. I hate this notion that environmental stuff is brought up for someone to make money off of. This type of conspiracy theory is not constructive at all. Look at China's air condition due to coal burning, and tell me it isn't better for the world to find a cleaner alternative that is comparable in costs and reliability.
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say fracking could not potentially hurt the environment? I am saying I am against it because of the danger it can pose to the people, not because it is bad for the environment as there are economical benefits for the community to consider as well.
> 
> So are you saying it is ok to use more energy today compared to 10-20 years ago because it is 'green energy'?
> 
> So, are desalination, nuclear energy and land reclamation that help communities cope with environmental limitations but poses threats to the environment good or bad?
> 
> When was Hilary super pro-coal? From what I know, her stance is similar to Obama's administration in focusing on cleaner renewable energy. She wanted to help the communities dependent on coal to transition to other industries via retraining and education.
> 
> The tax to speeding analogy is simple. Rich people feel less guilty about doing bad by paying off a fine. Their 'burden' of doing bad is 'paid off' and they can go back to talking down to others doing the same things they are doing.



How does fracking harm people? OH it does by first harming the environment. Also economical benefits dont mean anything if the environment is ruined and the human population dies out.

Since we use more energy today than we did 10-20 years ago and we know the methods we use today are harmful for the environment then it makes sense to use green energy.
Its pretty simple logic.

If something poses threats to the environment when a better option like green energy is available then those things are bad. The only reason right wingers don't like green energy is because they wont keep getting their bribes from bill oil companies because they wont be making billions anymore. And they dont give a fuck about the environment because they will be dead before it affects them. 

Hillary flip flops all the time about coal, it just depends on what group she is pandering to.

Of course what I said about the tax went right over your head but why am I not surprised.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Reaper said:


> Torture:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...nistration-military-torture-army-field-manual
> 
> 
> 
> Killing families:
> 
> https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/05/23/most-us-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-attack-houses/
> 
> 
> 
> When they're bombing houses, don't you think they're killing the families of the militants? Support the DNP. But don't be completely blind to their tactics.


I liked how you ignored the part where I said

If the ones that do, if they do, they are indeed sociopaths. *What group does it doesnt change the fact that they are. *

So do you agree Trump is a sociopath then or are you going to lie to yourself and claim he is not.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I liked how you ignored the part where I said
> 
> If the ones that do, if they do, they are indeed sociopaths. *What group does it doesnt change the fact that they are. *
> 
> So do you agree Trump is a sociopath then or are you going to lie to yourself and claim he is not.


What are you on about. You said that Trump wants to torture and bomb families. I said that DNP is already doing that but lying about it. You said prove it and I did. 

I don't give a fuck about whether someone is a sociopath or not because blanketly labeling someone a psychopath or sociopath doesn't make them evil. It's their behaviour that does. 
Acknowledging that trump is or is not a sociopath is a meaningless acknowledgment because it will be his behaviour as a sociopath that will determine whether he's evil or not.

Obama is not a sociopath but his neoconservative foreign policy makes him a war criminal.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Reaper said:


> What are you on about. You said that Trump wants to torture and bomb families. I said that DNP is already doing that but lying about it. You said prove it and I did.
> 
> I don't give a fuck about whether someone is a sociopath or not because blanketly labeling someone a psychopath or sociopath doesn't make them evil. It's their behaviour that does.
> Acknowledging that trump is or is not a sociopath is a meaningless acknowledgment because it will be his behaviour as a sociopath that will determine whether he's evil or not.
> 
> Obama is not a sociopath but his neoconservative foreign policy makes him a war criminal.


Someone already gave the signs of a sociopath and Trump fits that to a tee. And you say that someones behavior is what makes them evil or not.

How is someone that bombs the families of terrorist and allows torture not evil?

People call ISIS Evil and they kill peoples families and they torture, everyone calls them evil. If Trump wants to do the same thing to terrorist how is Trump not evil?
Unless you are going to say that ISIS isnt evil either.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Someone already gave the signs of a sociopath and Trump fits that to a tee. And you say that someones behavior is what makes them evil or not.
> 
> How is someone that bombs the families of terrorist and allows torture not evil?


Trump's foreign policy is more isolationist and retaliatory than interventionist and aggravatory. That alone makes him a better candidate and "less evil" or "sociopathic" than his predecessors at this point. 

We'll talk when he becomes president and continues to engage in the same kind of heinous international war crimes as the democrats have over the last 8 years. 

Remember that Obama came into office with all kinds of promises as well, but eventually made the situation even worse than the one he adopted.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Reaper said:


> Trump's foreign policy is more isolationist and retaliatory than interventionist and aggravatory. That alone makes him a better candidate and "less evil" or "sociopathic" than his predecessors at this point.
> 
> We'll talk when he becomes president and continues to engage in the same kind of heinous international war crimes as the democrats have over the last 8 years.
> 
> Remember that Obama came into office with all kinds of promises as well, but eventually made the situation even worse than the one he adopted.


I dont even like Obama and think he did a terrible job as president. He wasn't even as close to being a war criminal as Bush was but like you said what made Obama worse was he claimed he would be different but he just kept doing the same type of things as Bush did.

Trumps doesnt even really have a legit foreign policy, he just talks out of his ass.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



> How does fracking harm people? OH it does by first harming the environment. Also economical benefits dont mean anything if the environment is ruined and the human population dies out.


:eva

http://reason.com/blog/2015/10/13/fracking-does-not-contaminate-drinking-w
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/hf_es_erd_jun2015.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/43/13184.abstract

gtfo with your anti-science voodoo


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Doesn't look like the Neo-Cons are going to let Trump become President.

https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/737025756488978432


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Truthbetold said:


> Doesn't look like the Neo-Cons are going to let Trump become President.
> 
> https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/737025756488978432


They'll have to kill him first.

#JFK


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> They'll have to kill him first.
> 
> #JFK


Off with Donald Trump head? 











#ThankYouLord


----------



## TerraRising

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> They'll have to kill him first.
> 
> #JFK


JFK was assassinated by the gov for withdrawing troops in 'Nam. Unlike JFK Trump is a shill to a certain ethnic group in a certain middle east "nation".


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> They'll have to kill him first.
> 
> #JFK


No they will just run another candidate to take his votes so Hillary wins easy.

What's not to understand about why the Neo-Cons would rather Hillary win?

And why would you even bring up JFK?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



TerraRising said:


> JFK was assassinated by the gov for withdrawing troops in 'Nam. Unlike JFK Trump is a shill to a certain ethnic group in a certain middle east "nation".


ummm when JFK was assassinated the US wasn't withdrawing troops from nam


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> How does fracking harm people? OH it does by first harming the environment. Also economical benefits dont mean anything if the environment is ruined and the human population dies out.


You can spin it the other way, saving the environment don't mean anything if the human population died out due to not doing anything to cope with environmental limitations.



> Since we use more energy today than we did 10-20 years ago and we know the methods we use today are harmful for the environment then it makes sense to use green energy.
> Its pretty simple logic.


That isn't the question. I am asking you do you feel better to consume energy today because of 'clean' energy? Why are you under the assumption that I am against green energy just because I am not against a sudden stop in using traditional means of energy production?



> If something poses threats to the environment when a better option like green energy is available then those things are bad. The only reason right wingers don't like green energy is because they wont keep getting their bribes from bill oil companies because they wont be making billions anymore. And they dont give a fuck about the environment because they will be dead before it affects them.


 Or maybe because green energy production has not reach the level needed to produce energy to replace fossil fuels? You are going off a tangent again.



> Hillary flip flops all the time about coal, it just depends on what group she is pandering to.


That's like saying people can't change their minds when new information becomes available.



> Of course what I said about the tax went right over your head but why am I not surprised.


It didn't go over my head, I simply addressed why I meant with that analogy. You went off another tangent because it went over YOUR head.

How about you answer my question on whether human activities to cope with environmental limitations is good or bad first before attempting to call out others? Desalination good or bad? Land reclamation good or bad? Nuclear energy, which is probably the most efficient alternative to fossil fuels, good or bad?


----------



## TerraRising

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> ummm when JFK was assassinated the US wasn't withdrawing troops from nam


Of course they weren't. JFK was about to call a halt to 'Nam but got shot.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



TerraRising said:


> JFK was assassinated by the gov for withdrawing troops in 'Nam. Unlike JFK Trump is a shill to a certain ethnic group in a certain middle east "nation".


 Oh, what an original accusation... :side:


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



TerraRising said:


> Of course they weren't. JFK was about to call a halt to 'Nam but got shot.


ummm no that's just completely wrong

JFK was not about to call a halt to american involvement in vietnam

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vietnam.htm

the most that can be said is that JFK wanted to be in a position where south vietnam could go on its own and the US _could_ leave after the 1964 election. in 1963 there were only about 16,000 american soldiers there as "advisers" but many of them were participating in combat. if JFK won in '64 and things were going well in vietnam, he would pull out the american soldiers. he was a big believer in the domino theory and was a typical pre-vietnam cold warrior democrat, in his time of the early 60s the anti-war wing of the democratic party was nowhere near as powerful as it was at the end of the same decade or the 2000s, and kennedy was definitely not a member of it. if he thought south vietnam couldn't fight successfully without american soldiers there he was not going to pull them out.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Truthbetold said:


> Doesn't look like the Neo-Cons are going to let Trump become President.
> 
> https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/737025756488978432


Bill kristol isnt a neo con.

And a strong candidate with a real chance? To do what? Split the repub vote so hilary wins?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> Bill kristol isnt a neo con.
> 
> And a strong candidate with a real chance? To do what? Split the repub vote so hilary wins?


this is why :trump is so smart to keep going after crossover voters

republicans tried to beat obama in 2012 by winning the independent vote. well mitt romney did but he still lost to obama.

as a republican you have to get some not insignificant number of crossover democratic votes to win the presidency right now


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Okay, this is ridiculous...










How can anyone not see the media's game here?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Yes he would have, then he would have built a big beautiful wall to make gorillas great again.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

REPORT: Bill Kristol's Third Party Candidate is.........*DAVID FRENCH!*

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016...arty-candidate-national-reviews-david-french/


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> REPORT: Bill Kristol's Third Party Candidate is.........*DAVID FRENCH!*
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016...arty-candidate-national-reviews-david-french/
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Will this guy get any votes?

If Bernie loses the democratic nomination to Hillary and doesn't run independent he's a fraud.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

@AryaDark @Beatles123 @CamillePunk @Deadpool @deepelemblues @Miss Sally @yeahbaby! 

An excellent article by my friend Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com about how Hillary Clinton's agitation for "liberating" Kosovo in 1999 under the auspices of NATO led to it being a Kosovar Mafia state honeycombed with Wahhabi Islamist fighters funded by the good pals of the U.S. in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf states.

Link to the original full article, which boasts dozens of informative links within it: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/05/24/kosovo-hillary-clintons-legacy-terror/



Spoiler






> Kosovo: Hillary Clinton’s Legacy of Terror
> 
> The “liberation” of Kosovo unleashed radical Islamism in Europe
> 
> by Justin Raimondo, May 25, 2016
> 
> Kosovo is Clinton Country: a 10-foot-high statue of Bill overlooks “Bill Clinton Boulevard” in the capital city of Pristina. Hillary is also memorialized in what has become the crime capital of Europe: right off the street named for her husband is a store named “Hillary,” featuring women’s clothing modeled after the putative Democratic party nominee for President. Pantsuits figure prominently. As Vice puts it: “While former President Bill Clinton has had a boulevard named after him, it’s without a doubt that his wife’s the real star out here.” Why is that?
> 
> As Gail Sheehy pointed out in her biography of Hillary, it was Mrs. Clinton who hectored her husband into bowing to a chorus of neoconservative and liberal interventionist voices and finally giving the order to bomb the former Yugoslavia. Traveling to Kosovo when Serbs in the northern part of the country were demanding some form of local autonomy to stave off violent attacks by Kosovar ultra-nationalists, Mrs. Clinton reassured her hosts that the US would stand behind Pristina: “For me, my family and my fellow Americans this is more than a foreign policy issue, it is personal.” She then physically embraced Kosovo President and Mafia chieftain Hacim Thaci – who has since been credibly accused by the Council of Europe of stealing human organs from Serb victims and selling them on the black market.
> 
> Hillary owns Kosovo – she is not only personally responsible for its evolution from a province of the former Yugoslavia into a Mafia state, she is also the mother of the policy that made its very existence possible and which she carried into her years as Secretary of State under Barack Obama.
> 
> As the “Arab Spring” threatened to topple regimes throughout the Middle East, Mrs. Clinton decided to get on board the revolutionary choo-choo train and hitch her wagon to “moderate” Islamists who seemed like the wave of the future. She dumped Egyptian despot Hosni Mubarak, whom she had previously described as a friend of the family, and supported the Muslim Brotherhood’s bid for power. In Libya, she sided with Islamist rebels out to overthrow Moammar Ghaddafi, celebrating his gruesome death by declaring “We came, we saw, he died.” And in Syria, she plotted with Gen. David Petraeus to get around President Obama’s reluctance to step into the Syrian quagmire by arming Syrian rebels allied with al-Qaeda and other terrorist gangs.
> 
> The Clintonian legacy of enabling Islamist terrorists extends to present day Kosovo, where the New York Times has revealed an extensive network of ISIS-affiliated madrassas – indoctrination centers – funded by the Saudis, the Qataris, and the Kuwaitis. The Times reports:
> 
> “Every Friday, just yards from a statue of Bill Clinton with arm aloft in a cheery wave, hundreds of young bearded men make a show of kneeling to pray on the sidewalk outside an improvised mosque in a former furniture store.”
> 
> “The mosque is one of scores built here with Saudi government money and blamed for spreading Wahhabism” in the 17 years since the war ended with Kosovo’s independence, says the Times.
> 
> “Since then – much of that time under the watch of American officials – Saudi money and influence have transformed this once-tolerant Muslim society at the hem of Europe into a font of Islamic extremism and a pipeline for jihadists.”
> 
> Kosovo is jihadi heaven. The Times informs us that “Over the last two years, the police have identified 314 Kosovars – including two suicide bombers, 44 women and 28 children – who have gone abroad to join the Islamic State, the highest number per capita in Europe.”
> 
> The Wahabist ideology carried by radical imams is directly financed by the Saudis, the Qataris, the Kuwaitis, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman. All of these countries, by the way, are major donors to the Clinton Foundation.
> 
> Hillary Clinton’s Islamist-friendly foreign policy created a terrorist base in Kosovo, and her friends the Saudis are instrumental in setting up the conditions whereby ISIS has gained a foothold in the heart of Europe. At sprawling Camp Bondesteel, where US troops have been stationed since the “liberation,” radical imams recruited three Kosovar employees, including Lavdrim Muhaxheri, who is today a commander of the Islamic State: his claim to fame is that he was videotaped executing a Syrian by blowing him to bits with a rocket-propelled grenade. (“I did not do anything less or more than what KLA soldiers did during the war,” he declared in an interview with an Albanian newspaper.)
> 
> After ignoring the problem for years, the authorities are making a show of rounding up terrorist suspects: five were recently arrested and given long sentences, but there are hundreds more where that came from.
> 
> Kosovo today is a fulcrum of terrorism, violence, crime, and virulent nationalism. The Parliament is in chaos as Albanian ultra-nationalists demanding union with Albania shut down sessions with smoke bombs and mob action. This is the legacy of the Clintons in the Balkans: a terrorist state run by Mafia chieftains that has become the epicenter of radical Islamism in the midst of Europe.
> 
> This is “blowback” with a vengeance, and Hillary Clinton and husband Bill have their fingerprints all over this outrage: but of course the “mainstream” media isn’t holding them to account. The Times story on the rise of ISIS in Kosovo never mentions the dubious duo, and is vague when it reports on the three employees of Camp Bondesteel who wound up in Syria’s terrorist camps. Who are the other two besides Muhaxheri? Did they receive any military training? This Reuters report confirms that NATO brought Muhaxheri to Iraq, where he worked for two years at a military base.
> 
> And there’s more where he came from. As Reuters informs us:
> 
> “Thousands of Kosovars have moved on from Bondsteel to work with U.S. contractors on bases in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past decade, earning the kind of money they can only dream of in Kosovo.”
> 
> The terrorist pipeline runs from Kosovo, to Iraq and Afghanistan, and then on to Syria – where they fill the ranks of ISIS and al-Qaeda.
> 
> Could there be a more perfect illustration of how the principle of “blowback” works, and how we’re creating an army of Frankenstein monsters?
> 
> All this brings back memories of Antiwar.com’s first days: this site was born as a protest against US intervention in the former Yugoslavia. Back then we warned again and again (and again!) about the specter of Islamist extremism as the energizing ideology of the Albanian separatists, both in Kosovo and Bosnia.
> 
> We were right on target.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> this is why :trump is so smart to keep going after crossover voters
> 
> republicans tried to beat obama in 2012 by winning the independent vote. well mitt romney did but he still lost to obama.
> 
> as a republican you have to get some not insignificant number of crossover democratic votes to win the presidency right now


lol, nobody is crossing over to vote for that Con-man. Not Hillary Supporters and certainly not Bernie's rabid supporters who rather punch Trump in the face than put his name on their ballot.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Okay, this is ridiculous...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can anyone not see the media's game here?


I think you're probably the only person on the planet who would take this seriously.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @Beatles123 @CamillePunk @Deadpool @deepelemblues @Miss Sally @yeahbaby!
> 
> An excellent article by my friend Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com about how Hillary Clinton's agitation for "liberating" Kosovo in 1999 under the auspices of NATO led to it being a Kosovar Mafia state honeycombed with Wahhabi Islamist fighters funded by the good pals of the U.S. in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf states.
> 
> Link to the original full article, which boasts dozens of informative links within it: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/05/24/kosovo-hillary-clintons-legacy-terror/


Good grief is the US a hardcore Islamic country? Because we seem to help the rich Gulf States and the Saudis a lot. Heck we even let them fund public education here.. The more information comes out the more blood is on Hilary's hands and how deep we are with an enemy who terrorizes it's own people. The rich Islamic countries have kept themselves isolated and migrant free and benefited from only letting who they want in and dictating politics within America and other countries.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Good grief is the US a hardcore Islamic country? Because we seem to help the rich Gulf States and the Saudis a lot. Heck we even let them fund public education here.. The more information comes out the more blood is on Hilary's hands and how deep we are with an enemy who terrorizes t's own people. The rich Islamic countries have kept themselves isolated and migrant free and benefited from only letting who they want in and dictating politics within America and other countries.


Newsflash your alliance with fucked up Middle East regimes was going on long before Hilary came into the picture. You can't blame her for that culture.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



gamegenie said:


> lol, nobody is crossing over to vote for that Con-man. Not Hillary Supporters and certainly not Bernie's rabid supporters who rather punch Trump in the face than put his name on their ballot.


I don't know about that considering i voted for Obama twice and would feel ashamed to vote for Hillary.

Bernie supporters know she's a war hawk who called black people super predators.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Truthbetold said:


> I don't know about that considering i voted for Obama twice and would feel ashamed to vote for Hillary.
> 
> Bernie supporters know she's a war hawk who called black people super predators.


oh yeah, go look up Donald Trump and the Central Park Five.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



gamegenie said:


> oh yeah, go look up Donald Trump and the Central Park Five.


Trump is not the cops who arrested those boys and charged them he was just angry going off police info. Meanwhile the Clintons 94 crime bill actually put hundreds of thousands if not millions of black people in prison. Which is why Hillary's super predator comments are much worse because her husband backed them up with policy.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Louis Farrakhan is a joke and that woman in that video was being rude as fuck. 

How does "Superpredator" = Black People. Are you saying only "Black People" can be "Superpredators? 

Last I checked Crimes have no racial line.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



gamegenie said:


> Louis Farrakhan is a joke and that woman in that video was being rude as fuck.
> 
> How does "Superpredator" = Black People. *Are you saying* only "Black People" can be "Superpredators?
> 
> Last I checked Crimes have no racial line.


That's what Hillary said i'm not saying anything that's her opinion of black people not mine.


----------



## Joff

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

the cucks (liberals) won. sad but true.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Joff said:


> the cucks (liberals) won. sad but true.


Won what?


----------



## Joff

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Won what?


They succeeded in ruining Europe and turning places like London into londonistan


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Ah yes, very true. Europe is lost. America is the last bastion of western civilization and it too is under siege, with traitors running amok inside the gates.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

What the heck does Europe have to do with Donald Trump losing in November. 

Man you lot are grasping for straws.


----------



## Robbyfude

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Yeah Europe is so fucked that any politician can say "Ill stop the migrants" and they'll automatically win. People are fed up.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Robbyfude said:


> Yeah Europe is so fucked that any politician can say "Ill stop the migrants" and they'll automatically win. People are fed up.


Except in Austria with the 140%+ voting turnout in mail in votes.. Haha, love the voter manipulation. They didn't even try to hide it.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Ah yes, very true. Europe is lost. America is the last bastion of western civilization and it too is under siege, with traitors running amok inside the gates.


Why is Europe lost?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I'm also confused Trump is the winner so why are GOP still trying to fuck with him? The DNC is in chaos, this is the Republicans chance at the White House and instead they're trying to derail the one guy who is actually bringing in voters?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I'm also confused Trump is the winner so why are GOP still trying to fuck with him? The DNC is in chaos, this is the Republicans chance at the White House and instead they're trying to derail the one guy who is actually bringing in voters?


Because its how the establishment is. That is what they do. Trump wouldn't stand a chance if Sanders got the notation, but the DNC has railroaded him at every turn, rigged primarys to make sure Hilary gets the nomination and has a record high unfavorable on the DNC side and that is who they want to put against Trump who is now tied or ahead of Hillary in some polls.

If the GOP would work with Trump and give him a good VR as a truce they would destroy Hillary at this point since she is so hated on the DNC side.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> Miss Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also confused Trump is the winner so why are GOP still trying to fuck with him? The DNC is in chaos, this is the Republicans chance at the White House and instead they're trying to derail the one guy who is actually bringing in voters?
> 
> 
> 
> Because its how the establishment is. That is what they do. Trump wouldn't stand a chance if Sanders got the notation, but the DNC has railroaded him at every turn, rigged primarys to make sure Hilary gets the nomination and has a record high unfavorable on the DNC side and that is who they want to put against Trump who is now tied or ahead of Hillary in some polls.
> 
> If the GOP would work with Trump and give him a good VR as a truce they would destroy Hillary at this point since she is so hated on the DNC side.
Click to expand...

Youre insane, sanders is an old fool and trump would expose him for the sponge head he is


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Bill Kristol has definitely gone insane. Before he was just gotten to, but his gotten to turned into sheer insanity.



shame Europe has fallen though. thanks for the update @Joff.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> Youre insane, sanders is an old fool and trump would expose him for the sponge head he is


Typical clueless Trump supporter. Sanders would destroy Trump, Trump talk and acts like a 4 grader and has no real polices. if anyone would be exposed for the idiot they are it would be Trump. And you may want to look at the polls, Sanders decimates Trump by double digits.

You can't even give a real reason why you think Trump would beat Sanders.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Typical clueless Trump supporter. Sanders would destroy Trump, Trump talk and acts like a 4 grader and has no real polices. if anyone would be exposed for the idiot they are it would be Trump. And you may want to look at the polls, Sanders decimates Trump by double digits.
> 
> You can't even give a real reason why you think Trump would beat Sanders.


You'll always have the delusion that Bernie would've defeated Trump if only.

Have you ever figured out how Bernie Sanders would get anything done as president?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



MrMister said:


> You'll always have the delusion that Bernie would've defeated Trump if only.
> 
> Have you ever figured out how Bernie Sanders would get anything done as president?



Its not a delusional its a fact based on the numbers. But I know Trump supporters don't like looking at facts.


Because he is good at working with everyone and help getting bipartisan bills passed.

http://www.alternet.org/election-20...shing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you

and 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/

* "Bernie Sanders passed more roll call amendments in a Republican Congress than any other member."

That’s a very specific way of slicing and dicing Sanders’ effectiveness as a lawmaker, but it’s accurate. From 1995 to 2007, when Republicans controlled Congress, Sanders passed the most roll call amendments (17) out of anyone in the House of Representatives.
*


Not to mention Sanders would push for people to vote in more people that think like him into the senate at the mid term elections in two years which if they got the house to switch to democratic which would easily be possibles under Sanders and could still happen if Turmp wins, would make things even easier for him to get them through.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

It's only a fact until Sanders actually defeats Trump in an election. Since this is never going to happen, it's nothing but delusional to say Sanders would beat Trump. It's not based on anything but polls. And as we know, polls can be flawed.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



MrMister said:


> It's only a fact until Sanders actually defeats Trump in an election. Since this is never going to happen, it's nothing but delusional to say Sanders would beat Trump. It's not based on anything but polls. And as we know, polls can be flawed.



Yes polls have a margin of era but Sanders leads Trump by double digits which is way past the margin of era. You can also base it on favorable vs unfavorable ratings and Bernie also destroys Trump in that aspect. 

Trump is a clown and Sanders would expose him for being that clown in debates. That is why Trump was scared to debate Sanders and then backed out after agreeing to debate because Trumps people told him debating Sanders would only hurt him because Sanders would expose Trump for the buffoon he is.

Trump wouldn't stand chance against Sanders in the general.

There is still a chance a Sanders vs Trump match up could happen especially if Sanders wins big in the last few primaries and Trumps lead on Hilary grows in the polls, the super delegates could flip to Sanders especially if the indictment is getting closer.

The DNC can't afford to lose this election and they have to know deep down inside Hillary has a good chance at losing to Trump.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yes polls have a margin of era but Sanders leads Trump by double digits which is way past the margin of era. You can also base it on favorable vs unfavorable ratings and Bernie also destroys Trump in that aspect.
> 
> Trump is a clown and Sanders would expose him for being that clown in debates. That is why Trump was scared to debate Sanders and then backed out after agreeing to debate because Trumps people told him debating Sanders would only hurt him because Sanders would expose Trump for the buffoon he is.
> 
> Trump wouldn't stand chance against Sanders in the general.
> 
> There is still a chance a Sanders vs Trump match up could happen especially if Sanders wins big in the last few primaries and Trumps lead on Hilary grows in the polls, the super delegates could flip to Sanders especially if the indictment is getting closer.
> 
> The DNC can't afford to lose this election and they have to know deep down inside Hillary has a good chance at losing to Trump.


Its margin of ERROR

you write like a forth grader

(just a bru-haha)


----------



## TheJack

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> * "Bernie Sanders passed more roll call amendments in a Republican Congress than any other member."
> 
> That’s a very specific way of slicing and dicing Sanders’ effectiveness as a lawmaker, but it’s accurate. From 1995 to 2007, when Republicans controlled Congress, Sanders passed the most roll call amendments (17) out of anyone in the House of Representatives.
> *


"From 1995 to 2007..."
Totally not diffrent from the post 2008 congress...


I like Sanders, but hes not crushing Trump. 

Sanders destroyed Clinton during the debates (according to Sanders supporters), yet hes trailing by 3 million votes (or by 2 million votes since its rigged).

Meanwhile Trump was "destroyed" by many people IMO. Yet he won and hes the reason for the record voter turnout. 

No crushing this time, it will be a close race.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> Its margin of ERROR
> 
> you write like a forth grader
> 
> (just a bru-haha)



I already admitted before I'm a terrible speller, and I know its error, not sure why I put era. 

I really should proof read before I submit but I am too lazy . Point still stands and of course you can't refute it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



TheJack said:


> "From 1995 to 2007..."
> Totally not diffrent from the post 2008 congress...
> 
> 
> I like Sanders, but hes not crushing Trump.
> 
> Sanders destroyed Clinton during the debates (according to Sanders supporters), yet hes trailing by 3 million votes (or by 2 million votes since its rigged).
> 
> Meanwhile Trump was "destroyed" by many people IMO. Yet he won and hes the reason for the record voter turnout.
> 
> No crushing this time, it will be a close race.


Yes Sanders would crush Trump, it would not even be close. The polls show that and you can't dispute it.  He is beating him by 10 points in the polls. That is crushing him.







As for Sanders trailing by 3 million votes, you can't even go by that number since not every state has primary's there are a lot of caucus's so that skews the numbers. If those states have primaries it would be way closer than 3 million votes. Not to mention in a lot of those primaries they were closed primary's were Bernie kills it and the were not allowed to vote.

If independents were allowed to vote in every state, the number would be even closer, and Bernie could even be beating her


----------



## Sephiroth

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Dave stop keep trolling this thread, please.


----------



## TheJack

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yes Sanders would crush Trump, it would not even be close. The polls show that and you can't dispute it. He is beating him by 10 points in the polls. That is crushing him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for Sanders trailing by 3 million votes, you can't even go by that number since not every state has primary's there are a lot of caucus's so that skews the numbers. If those states have primaries it would be way closer than 3 million votes. Not to mention in a lot of those primaries they were closed primary's were Bernie kills it and the were not allowed to vote.
> 
> If independents were allowed to vote in every state, the number would be even closer, and Bernie could even be beating her



Yes, if the election was tomorrow, Sanders would win, maybe even crush Trump. Clinton was beating Trump by 10 points in March, McCain and Romney were beating Obama in June. I could go on.
Sorry, but if it isnt post 1st debate, or the convention, I dont take polls serious.

Obama had the best run you could wish for. Record voter turnout, a horrible Bush, a McCain who was meh and probably the worst VP nominee ever.
He won "only" by 7 points. That surprised me. 

So no, nobody is going to crush Trump. Beating, yes, crushing no.



Clinton won 11 open primaries (out of 15), 13/19 closed. Sanders won the causes 11 out of 16. 
I would argue that Clinton would do the same or even better in a all primary election.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Just let BM have his alt history fan fiction.


----------



## Sephiroth

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

BM is living in the other universe in Fringe that has the hotter Olivia.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

This is in many ways an election of outsiders so in that regard as well as in polling, Sanders would have a better chance of beating Trump than Hillary. Hillary is the ultimate establishment candidate and one where I believe a lot of Independents would vote Trump over Hillary. Trump is actually beating Hillary as of right now whereas Hillary was well ahead at one point.

The problem is it's unlikely Sanders will win the Democratic nomination so we'll never know if he'd beat Trump.

Either way, pretty much every Democrat/Republican nominee left was horrible from the moment Rand Paul dropped out of the race. If you are in a Republican safe state, vote Libertarian.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

The Libertarian Party nominated the New Gary Johnson and William Weld. :lol Even if Trump wasn't in this election I wouldn't be voting LP, I'd just stay home with choices like that.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

This thread triggers BM hard. :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Fascinating article by Dilbert creator Scott Adams, who has uniquely predicted much of what has occurred during this bizarre election cycle: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145309172876/the-risks-of-a-trump-presidency


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Scott Adams was on Bill Maher the other night and yeah he had some great fascinating insight into this whole Trump thing.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Fascinating article by Dilbert creator Scott Adams, who has uniquely predicted much of what has occurred during this bizarre election cycle: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145309172876/the-risks-of-a-trump-presidency


Firstly interesting idea of not being to be able to judge basically anything good or bad as we have nothing but our own imagined version to compare it to. I mean not interesting, juvenile.

I also lolled at the 'Cyborg Section'



> Clinton, on the other hand, is part human, part pharmacological grab-bag. Her personality is at least partly determined by whatever cocktail of meds and wine are in her system at any given moment. In other words, she is just like most adults. Our personalities are the product of the drugs in our system, for better or for worse.


and then:



> Trump brings with him all the risks of being Trump, but he does seem to be the same person every day. Clinton brings with her all the risks of being Clinton, plus any extra risks from a glass of wine or doctor-prescribed meds. That risk could be nearly nothing. Or not. We have no way to know.


Oh no! A glass of wine! Say it ain't so! Was she chewing gum in class as well?? I had no idea Hillary was basically Keith Richards when it comes to drug consumption.

And then this might be the coup de grace



> War Crimes
> 
> Trump famously suggested we use torture to fight terrorism. Torture is not legal. And he suggested going after the families of terrorists. That’s a war crime too.
> 
> *Did he mean any of that?*
> 
> Trump is always operating on the dimension of emotion and persuasion. He wants you – and the terrorists – to know he’s the most bad-ass player running for president. That gives him an edge in getting elected and it gives him a psychological advantage against ISIS. If you’re a potential suicide bomber, you don’t worry about President Obama killing your family. But President Trump? You’d better think this through.
> 
> Personally, I think it would be a terrible idea to torture terrorists (unless it works), and always a bad idea to target families. But saying you might do those things is effective both for winning a Republican primary and for keeping the enemy off balance.
> 
> I think I’ve mentioned that Trump says things for effect.


Lol that's what I sure want in a leader, someone who purposefully doesn't say what they mean and doesn't mean what they say.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> This is in many ways an election of outsiders so in that regard as well as in polling, Sanders would have a better chance of beating Trump than Hillary. Hillary is the ultimate establishment candidate and one where I believe a lot of Independents would vote Trump over Hillary. Trump is actually beating Hillary as of right now whereas Hillary was well ahead at one point.
> 
> The problem is it's unlikely Sanders will win the Democratic nomination so we'll never know if he'd beat Trump.
> 
> Either way, pretty much every Democrat/Republican nominee left was horrible from the moment Rand Paul dropped out of the race. If you are in a Republican safe state, vote Libertarian.


I would never have thought Hillary could stand a chance against Sanders based on both their messages.

It almost feels like a fixed fight for Hillary to easily become President.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Just let BM have his alt history fan fiction.


I just love delusional Trump fans who can't deal in facts and ignore all the evidence. The only person you are fooling is yourself and you look like an ignorant fool disagree with the facts.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Fascinating article by Dilbert creator Scott Adams, who has uniquely predicted much of what has occurred during this bizarre election cycle: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145309172876/the-risks-of-a-trump-presidency


Interesting read and really well put but you know the sad part is leftists will read it and dismiss it all. Got those blinders worn while on a one way track.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



TheJack said:


> Yes, if the election was tomorrow, Sanders would win, maybe even crush Trump. Clinton was beating Trump by 10 points in March, McCain and Romney were beating Obama in June. I could go on.
> Sorry, but if it isnt post 1st debate, or the convention, I dont take polls serious.
> 
> Obama had the best run you could wish for. Record voter turnout, a horrible Bush, a McCain who was meh and probably the worst VP nominee ever.
> He won "only" by 7 points. That surprised me.
> 
> So no, nobody is going to crush Trump. Beating, yes, crushing no.
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton won 11 open primaries (out of 15), 13/19 closed. Sanders won the causes 11 out of 16.
> I would argue that Clinton would do the same or even better in a all primary election.


Clinton won the red states, which she wont be winning in the general. 

As for Hillary beating Trump my 10 points in March the reason she has gotten worse is because of what the DNC and her have lied about Sanders and all the voter suppression that has been gone on.

Sanders still leads Trump by double digits just like he did in March. 

Trump has record high unfavorable ratings, Sanders is the only one who has positive favorable ratings.

Sanders would crush Trump in the general. All the polls back that up. And if Hilary were to drop out and it was just Trump vs Sanders that lead would grow. There are some polls that have Bernie up by 15 points.

The only poll that is close is the fox poll and we all know how bullshit fox is.





Miss Sally said:


> Interesting read and really well put but you know the sad part is leftists will read it and dismiss it all. Got those blinders worn while on a one way track.


The only sad thing is all the racist and bigots that support Trump and make excuses for him. Trump is a terrible candidate and it just shows how awful the GOP party is he came out the winner. 

Trump is a failure at business and he is a con artist. But yeah keep backing this loser. If he is ever president he is going to destroy this country.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

birthday_massacre how gotten to are you on a scale of 1-10?

post more how Sanders will beat Trump even though they will never face each other in the general election.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



MrMister said:


> birthday_massacre how gotten to are you on a scale of 1-10?
> 
> post more how Sanders will beat Trump even though they will never face each other in the general election.


Never say never with the indictment on Hillary looming, plus if Trump gets an even bigger lead on Clinton, the DNC and super delegates may switch over to Sanders. Especially if Sanders cleans up in the last few primaries and runs the table . He will have won 19 of the last 25 states. 

There is still an outside chance Sanders gets the nomination.



here are some more reasons


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I just love delusional Trump fans who can't deal in facts and ignore all the evidence. The only person you are fooling is yourself and you look like an ignorant fool disagree with the facts.


What did I disagree with? That Bernie would beat Trump in a general election? I don't think I said that. It looks extremely unlikely he will get the chance though. It seems the DNC is ready to nominate Biden if Hillary gets indicted.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Biden as president would have been great. Not that I like the guy or anything but my brother has this great picture of Biden holding my niece in a Christmas picture and that picture would be way cooler if he became president. He said she literally just ran right at the guy (she was only 3) and he just scooped her up and took the picture with them. It's a great picture. But think how good it would be that picture was with a president? 

If Biden was running and the Republican Party managed to screw Trump over that probably would have been my rationale for who I was voting for for President.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Watch Trump's speech in San Jose. Well, he's not wrong.










P.S. He also agreed that ‪Sanders‬ was robbed by the rigged Democratic nomination system.

- Vic


----------



## DOPA

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Truthbetold said:


> I would never have thought Hillary could stand a chance against Sanders based on both their messages.
> 
> It almost feels like a fixed fight for Hillary to easily become President.


Well if it were just down to popular vote and no voter suppression/super delegates then it would be a lot closer. I wouldn't go as far as Bernie winning but it would be a tighter race. Right now Bernie has to win California with something like 68% of the votes which is not impossible but a big ask.

I think it's obvious Sanders would do better against Trump than Hillary. A lot of Democratic voters themselves who are on the Sanders camp may not even vote for her if she gets elected and Independents are much more likely at this point to vote Trump than Hillary due to Hillary's unbelievable corruption and her being the establishment candidate.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Fascinating article by Dilbert creator Scott Adams, who has uniquely predicted much of what has occurred during this bizarre election cycle: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145309172876/the-risks-of-a-trump-presidency


He is basically glossing over all of the negatives of Trump by saying 'you don't know what will happen' and framed Clinton's as definite weaknesses.

For example:

The FBI Profiler Approach



> When FBI profilers are trying to figure out who perpetrated a specific type of crime, they can often narrow it down to people who have done the same sort of thing in the past. Arsonists have played with matches in their youth. Serial killers have probably been cruel to animals. Abusers have probably abused people before. Pedophiles have often been victims themselves. Patterns of this sort can be predictive, at least when viewed by experts.
> 
> *Donald Trump has about five decades of track record in business that includes no violent acts whatsoever.* Nor have we heard stories of any Trump temper tantrums in the business world that go beyond the scope of what any CEO does on a bad day. Somehow Trump built hundreds of business entities, amassed great wealth, and raised a great set of kids. And nowhere in the story is the part where he did something scary or dangerous. That sort of behavior doesn’t pop up suddenly when you’re a grandfather.


But Donald Trump's track record in business has included rampant disregard to existing rules and regulations. One could argue he has rightfully exposed the inefficient bureaucracy red-tapes, but that doesn't explain away his track record of bullying partners into bad terms. You could argue that is the mark of a great businessman or negotiator. But I would be hesitant to be a partner in his presidency after what he left his fellow stakeholders in his casinos or Trump university with.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump said the DNC was rigging against Sanders and it's pretty obvious, voter rigging has been showing up a lot, in the US, in Austria recently, we'll see how brexit and other stuff goes. The voter fraud is real and pretty soon they won't even try to cover it up.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Youre insane, sanders is an old fool and trump would expose him for the sponge head he is
> 
> 
> 
> Typical clueless Trump supporter. Sanders would destroy Trump, Trump talk and acts like a 4 grader and has no real polices. if anyone would be exposed for the idiot they are it would be Trump. And you may want to look at the polls, Sanders decimates Trump by double digits.
> 
> You can't even give a real reason why you think Trump would beat Sanders.
Click to expand...

You and your circle of blame others for sucking isnt the majority of the population. Im guessing youre too young to remember reagan.

Reagan kicked the shit out of democrats, who said he had no chance, by being charismatic, putting America first and enacting policies that kickstarted the economy.

Trump next to bernie will be like a star next to a old humorless school principle at a pta meeting. When bernie touts his ridiculous economic solutions, trump will correct him, offer alternatives and not let the moderators steer the discussion to the democrats advantage, which is what they always do, since 90% vote democrat.

Its testament to democrats failures as to the root of their ideas they only control 40% of the population when they control 90% of the people reporting news.

As for being a trump supporter, im not, really. Hes flip flopped positions, is a little over the top for a president, has no political experience and may well be a disaster.

But i said the same thing about a senator who was a community organizer and DID NOTHING in the senate. He hasnt destroyed the country, trump wouldnt either.

I think the us can not change with an elected leader. What that change would be, or how it would happen, i dont know.

But it damn sure wont come from career politicians


----------



## amhlilhaus

FITZ said:


> Biden as president would have been great. Not that I like the guy or anything but my brother has this great picture of Biden holding my niece in a Christmas picture and that picture would be way cooler if he became president. He said she literally just ran right at the guy (she was only 3) and he just scooped her up and took the picture with them. It's a great picture. But think how good it would be that picture was with a president?
> 
> If Biden was running and the Republican Party managed to screw Trump over that probably would have been my rationale for who I was voting for for President.


Solid rationale for voting for a president, cause he took a picture with your niece


----------



## Marv95

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

All Trump has to do is exploit Bernie's stupid tax plan and compare it to his own and he's good. Think the working class wants their taxes to skyrocket? Think they like getting less take home pay?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Marv95 said:


> All Trump has to do is exploit Bernie's stupid tax plan and compare it to his own and he's good. Think the working class wants their taxes to skyrocket? Think they like getting less take home pay?


Of course they do! Who doesn't like paying for protesters to go to school and not work?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> You and your circle of blame others for sucking isnt the majority of the population. Im guessing youre too young to remember reagan.
> 
> Reagan kicked the shit out of democrats, who said he had no chance, by being charismatic, putting America first and enacting policies that kickstarted the economy.
> 
> Trump next to bernie will be like a star next to a old humorless school principle at a pta meeting. When bernie touts his ridiculous economic solutions, trump will correct him, offer alternatives and not let the moderators steer the discussion to the democrats advantage, which is what they always do, since 90% vote democrat.
> 
> Its testament to democrats failures as to the root of their ideas they only control 40% of the population when they control 90% of the people reporting news.
> 
> As for being a trump supporter, im not, really. Hes flip flopped positions, is a little over the top for a president, has no political experience and may well be a disaster.
> 
> But i said the same thing about a senator who was a community organizer and DID NOTHING in the senate. He hasnt destroyed the country, trump wouldnt either.
> 
> I think the us can not change with an elected leader. What that change would be, or how it would happen, i dont know.
> 
> But it damn sure wont come from career politicians



I remember Regan perfectly. 

Trump next to Bernie would be an embarrassment for Trump. Sanders would expose Trump for the fraud he is. Bernie would destroy Trump in debates and expose Trump for the buffoon he is. That is why Trump was scared to debate Sanders after claim he would. Because Trumps people told him Sanders would expose him.

Trump doesnt know a single thing he is talking about, you can tell just by listening to him. He is always changing his view even in mid sentences. He is a joke

Sanders economic solutions are not ridiculous, if anyones its Trumps because he just talks out of his ass. Sanders would be the one correcting Trump. Its a joke if you really think Trump could correct Sanders.
It just shows how delusional you are that you would even think that.



Marv95 said:


> All Trump has to do is exploit Bernie's stupid tax plan and compare it to his own and he's good. Think the working class wants their taxes to skyrocket? Think they like getting less take home pay?



Sanders would be the one exposing Trump. Trump couldnt do shit to expose Sanders since there is nothing to expose.

Only uniformed people like you and Trump supports dont think Sanders tax plan is stupid. All of Trumps plans are stupid and he has nothing to back them up.

Trump is a joke. Its just pathetic some of you think he knows what he is talking about. But it just shows how uniformed you are.


----------



## Goku

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Is it funny to anybody else how birthday massacre is wf's version of trump, yelling insults at everybody and calling everybody stupid while being ardently against trump for the same things?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Goku said:


> Is it funny to anybody else how birthday massacre is wf's version of trump, yelling insults at everybody and calling everybody stupid while being ardently against trump for the same things?


Calling someone ignorant or uninformed isn't an insult when its true, and that is all I see from Trump supporters on this board. 

Trump's economic plan would tank the economy, I just laugh when Trump fans claim its so great then bash Sanders plan which is by far much better. 

Trump supporter are so clueless because they believe everything Trump says when its been proven time and time again how much of a liar he is and how he has no clue what he is talking about. But that is why Trump supporters love him because they can be as ignorant as him and pretend they are right when all the facts say they are wrong.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Oh man @Goku now I can't unsee it.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Make WF great again!


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/viol...ly-san-jose-protesters-hurl/story?id=39576437
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/p...y-in-San-Jose-Draws-Protesters-381728251.html
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...lash-with-trump-supporters-at-san-jose-rally/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nch-throw-eggs-Trump-supporters-San-Jose.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2002680
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/donald-trump-california-protesters/

Keep putting more votes in the :trump basket

It's not gonna be too long before these racists and BernieBros and racist BernieBros murder a :trump supporter at one of their race riots, they're already chasing and cornering lone people and punching them out, punching a pregnant woman knocking her to the ground. You can give up on :trump losing when they finally kill someone for the greater glory of La Raza.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Disgusting rioters and the media is calling them protesters. A clash between them, and some media, even the mayor are blaming Trump for inciting violence against his own supporters.

That's victim blaming. These savage illegal thugs assaulting people are just proving Trump right and will bring middle America to his side. That blonde women looked like she was about to be gang raped and murdered. Luckily there were to many cameras around to keep these animals back.

And the mayor tells the police to stand down. Don't help anyone. sick. I hope him and the entire shit ghetto illegal city is sued into the ground.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Man, you can't even go outside wearing a Donald Trump t-shirt without getting beaten up for it. Scary times we live in.

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Man, you can't even go outside wearing a Donald Trump t-shirt without getting beaten up for it. Scary times we live in.
> 
> - Vic


What's scary is what the response will be from :trump supporters if the police don't put an end to them being ganged up on and assaulted by La Raza racists and BernieBros. If the law doesn't protect people they _will_ protect themselves.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Man, you can't even go outside wearing a Donald Trump t-shirt without getting beaten up for it. Scary times we live in.
> 
> - Vic





deepelemblues said:


> What's scary is what the response will be from :trump supporters if the police don't put an end to them being ganged up on and assaulted by La Raza racists and BernieBros. If the law doesn't protect people they _will_ protect themselves.



That is ironic since Trump is the one who started all the violence at his rallies when he told his supporters if you see any protestors to beat them up or Trump saying he wishes he could punch that protestor in the mouth. Trump is the only who brought all the violence to his rallies. 

You have tons of Trump supporters beating up non Trump supporters. Its hilarious how people when a Trump supporter gets back what Trump has been breaching, oh its a big deal now. 




CenaBoy4Life said:


> Disgusting rioters and the media is calling them protesters. A clash between them, and some media, even the mayor are blaming Trump for inciting violence against his own supporters.
> 
> That's victim blaming. These savage illegal thugs assaulting people are just proving Trump right and will bring middle America to his side. That blonde women looked like she was about to be gang raped and murdered. Luckily there were to many cameras around to keep these animals back.
> 
> And the mayor tells the police to stand down. Don't help anyone. sick. I hope him and the entire shit ghetto illegal city is sued into the ground.


It's not victim since Trump is the one since day one who has been inciting violence at his rallies. But now that people are giving Trump supporters what they have been dishing up, oh lets make a huge deal about it.

Trump even told his supporters oh if you beat anyone up, he would pay for their legal fees.

Funny how violence at rallies were never this bad until Trump came along. Its because Trump incites racism, bigotry, hate, ignorance and violence. And now anti Trump people are just doing what his people have been doing all along.

Trump is certainly to blame for all of this.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> That is ironic since Trump is the one who started all the violence at his rallies when he told his supporters if you see any protestors to beat them up or Trump saying he wishes he could punch that protestor in the mouth. Trump is the only who brought all the violence to his rallies.
> 
> You have tons of Trump supporters beating up non Trump supporters. Its hilarious how people when a Trump supporter gets back what Trump has been breaching, oh its a big deal now.


examples please. one :trump supporter punched a guy in the side of the head and one :trump supporter maced a guy. that's it.

the only tons of examples are from la raza racists and berniebros.

what :trump said is that it's "very very appropriate" to fight back if someone attacks you. 



trump said:


> “very, very appropriate” because “these are people that punch, there are people that are violent people.”





> It's not victim since Trump is the one since day one who has been inciting violence at his rallies. But now that people are giving Trump supporters what they have been dishing up, oh lets make a huge deal about it.


name one time :trump supporters attacked police. you can't.

name one time :trump supporters egged someone. you can't.

name one time :trump supporters punched a pregnant woman to the ground. you can't.

name one time a mob of :trump supporters chased a single person trying to beat that person up. you can't.

name one time a mob of :trump supporters surrounded and beat on and climbed all over an anti- :trump person's car. you can't.

name one time a mob of :trump supporters surrounded and beat up people. you can't. 

all these things have been done in the past month by anti- :trump fascists. now they're trying to justify their fascist violence. of course they're dumb so they don't realize that " :trump says things that are bad so it's okay to be violent against him" also justifies violence by :trump supporters if they wish to go that route. plenty of hateful and inciting things have been said about :trump

what's good for the goose is good for the gander right? but of course you're employing a double standard and think it's okay. it's not.



> Trump even told his supporters oh if you beat anyone up, he would pay for their legal fees.


name one time :trump has paid for anyone's legal fees. you can't.



> Funny how violence at rallies were never this bad until Trump came along. Its because Trump incites racism, bigotry, hate, ignorance and violence. And now anti Trump people are just doing what his people have been doing all along.


this is a blatant lie, the violence is 95% from anti- :trump 

:trump supporter violence has happened twice

anti- :trump violence has happened dozens of times 



> Trump is certainly to blame for all of this.


spoken like a true fascist

our mob violence is okay because we're really the victims of the barely existent :trump violence

you can't justify mass violence by pointing to one or two isolated incidents of individual violence on the other side, or by lying like you are about "tons of" :trump supporters being violent (since when did "tons of" mean "two"?), or any other of your pathetic double standard excuses. 

but please don't stop, you're handing the election to :trump by showing and justifying the violent fascism that would run america if :trump loses, so thanks for that


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> examples please. one :trump supporter punched a guy in the side of the head and one :trump supporter maced a guy. that's it.
> 
> the only tons of examples are from la raza racists and berniebros.
> 
> what :trump said is that it's "very very appropriate" to fight back if someone attacks you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> name one time :trump supporters attacked police. you can't.
> 
> name one time :trump supporters egged someone. you can't.
> 
> name one time :trump supporters punched a pregnant woman to the ground. you can't.
> 
> name one time a mob of :trump supporters chased a single person trying to beat that person up. you can't.
> 
> name one time a mob of :trump supporters surrounded and beat on and climbed all over an anti- :trump person's car. you can't.
> 
> name one time a mob of :trump supporters surrounded and beat up people. you can't.
> 
> all these things have been done in the past month by anti- :trump fascists. now they're trying to justify their fascist violence. of course they're dumb so they don't realize that " :trump says things that are bad so it's okay to be violent against him" also justifies violence by :trump supporters if they wish to go that route. plenty of hateful and inciting things have been said about :trump
> 
> what's good for the goose is good for the gander right? but of course you're employing a double standard and think it's okay. it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> name one time :trump has paid for anyone's legal fees. you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> this is a blatant lie, the violence is 95% from anti- :trump
> 
> :trump supporter violence has happened twice
> 
> anti- :trump violence has happened dozens of times
> 
> 
> 
> spoken like a true fascist
> 
> our mob violence is okay because we're really the victims of the barely existent :trump violence
> 
> you can't justify mass violence by pointing to one or two isolated incidents of individual violence on the other side, or by lying like you are, or any other of your pathetic double standard excuses.
> 
> but please don't stop, you're handing the election to :trump so thanks for that




There are tons of examples of Trump supporters beating up people at this rallies. You even denying the proves you truly are a liar or just delusional. 


But here are tons of examples http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...dents_at_donald_trump_rallies_and_events.html .

I guess you are going to lie and claim at one of Trump rallies after beating up a black man, the Trump supporter said they should kill him next time

Since you can't even be honest about it, there is no point in even discussing it with you further.

But thanks once again for proving my point about Trump supporters.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Trump said the DNC was rigging against Sanders and it's pretty obvious, voter rigging has been showing up a lot, in the US, in Austria recently, we'll see how brexit and other stuff goes. The *voter fraud* is real and pretty soon they won't even try to cover it up.


Look at you planting the seed of excuse.

Don't you dare use that card when your guy comes up short in November.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



> There are tons of examples of Trump supporters beating up people at this rallies.


then it should be easy to provide those examples shouldn't it?



> You even denying the proves you truly are a liar or just delusional.


all you do is call people names, it's hilarious how easily :trump has taken up residence in your head and has made you so juvenile 



> I guess you are going to lie and claim at one of Trump rallies after beating up a black man, the Trump supporter said they should kill him next time


that's one of the two examples of :trump violence that i mentioned. the only two that have happened. 

as opposed to dozens of examples of anti- :trump mob violence



> But thanks once again for proving my point about Trump supporters.


:eva


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CenaBoy4Life said:


> Disgusting rioters and the media is calling them protesters. A clash between them, and some media, even the mayor are blaming Trump for inciting violence against his own supporters.
> 
> That's victim blaming. These savage illegal thugs assaulting people are just proving Trump right and will bring middle America to his side. That blonde women looked like she was about to be gang raped and murdered. Luckily there were to many cameras around to keep these animals back.
> 
> And the mayor tells the police to stand down. Don't help anyone. sick. I hope him and the entire shit ghetto illegal city is sued into the ground.


Violence begets violence. 

It's an expression that goes back to Biblical times.

Matthew 26:52

…51. At this, one of Jesus’ companions drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. *52. “Put your sword back in its place, Jesus said to him. “For all who draw the sword will die by the sword.  *53. Are you not aware that I can call on My Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?...



Violent behavior started from Trump rallys and his rude crude supporters beating up Protestors, and now look how developed to know protestors are beating up people!

"Get 'em out!!!" 
"Rough 'em up a bit"
"In the old days you would leave out on a stretcher"
"Give 'em a hit or two', I'll cover his legal fees". :trump

Looks like Donald Trump's chickens are coming home to roost!






Violence begets violence

Hatred begets hatred


unk2 'can't quote me' . It's in the Bible!


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Sorry, @L-DOPA, but the Libertarian Party is nothing but a hopeless mess. Could never conceive of voting for the Libertarian Party ticket of Gary Johnson and William Weld. 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/dont-know/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/04/scott-lazarowitz/bathroom-controversy/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/william-weld-rockefeller-republican/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/gary-johnsons-libertarianism/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/joe-scarborough-gary-johnson/

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/features/5574/

The concept of liberty on the part of both Gary Johnson and William Weld may be a mile-wide but it is an inch-deep. Moreover, Johnson has displayed all of the pertinent characteristics of a Social Justice Warrior himself; he merely wants to be "fiscally conservative," about it, whatever that means. Watching the exhibitionism in Orlando as the party had its wacky convention with people running around with minimal clothes on illustrated how useless the Libertarian Party has been for decades and will doubtless continue to be, only worsening in fact, like almost all political entities in the ruinous system of mass democracy do.


----------



## krai999

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*





looking back on this . Swagger had alot of potential to blow up as a star but they blew it. WWE will never create stars as long as they are in PC mode. Could you imagine Zeb Supporting Trump as an american hero.


----------



## TheResurrection

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

There is a pretty big difference between the instances of violence which nobody seems to be noticing. The violence from the Trump supporters is coming against troublemakers who turn up at rallies Mr. Trump has paid for to try and disrupt it, they aren't welcome there and violence is sometimes necessary to get rid of them.

The violence from the Anti-Trump protestors is also coming at Trump rallies because they're turning up there to disrupt and destroy Trump's campaign and intimidate his supporters.

In both scenarios Anti-Trump supporters create the problem because of their self righteous hatred for Donald Trump.

The big problem here is that the far left and internet freaks have deluded themselves into thinking that Donald Trump is in some way comparable to Adolf Hitler, therefore it's acceptable to use any means necessary to stop his campaign. The people who support Trump are actually more in touch with reality, they just want their guy to be President, they aren't going and attacking Bernie Sanders because they don't live in internet bubbles and haven't been convinced that he's the equivalent of Stalin or Chairman Mao.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I am convinced that the mayor of San Jose has, through his response and lack of a response to the attacks on Trump supporters by crazed leftist rioters ("protesters" doesn't even make sense as a label), cursed the San Jose SHARKS in these Stanley Cup Finals via bad karma. :sad: :lol

None of this surprises me. Attending quite a few Sharks games, including a bunch of playoff games this spring, walking around downtown San Jose hours before a Sharks game begins or in the hour after a Sharks game concludes, an army of tinted-windowed cars goes about the main boulevards of the city with a pair of huge Mexican flags adorning their vehicles. The idea of brandishing the Mexican flag in, say, a downtown San Jose Mexican restaurant seems to make sense. The city's very name, as with so many others in California--San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, San Diego, et. al.--speaks to the history of the once-in-the-past and yet-again-in-the-present Spanish-speaking territory. 

Yet the way these high-octane cars (nothing wrong with that, either, I love them!) went about the town seemed to suggest that these individuals were endeavoring to _intimidate_. It transcends a well-meaning nod to nationality, culture, history and lineage. For many who have "bought in," to use team sports phraseology, on behalf of the program advocated by the likes of the recently deceased Charles Truxillo, of _reconquista_ for the entire southwestern U.S., they are willing to be nothing less than the militant vanguard of their ethno-nationalist movement. 

It sure will be a brave new world in the near future as the balkanizing forces grow stronger without being checked.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



TheResurrection said:


> There is a pretty big difference between the instances of violence which nobody seems to be noticing. The violence from the Trump supporters is coming against troublemakers who turn up at rallies Mr. Trump has paid for to try and disrupt it, they aren't welcome there and violence is sometimes necessary to get rid of them.
> 
> The violence from the Anti-Trump protestors is also coming at Trump rallies because they're turning up there to disrupt and destroy Trump's campaign and intimidate his supporters.
> 
> In both scenarios Anti-Trump supporters create the problem because of their self righteous hatred for Donald Trump.
> 
> The big problem here is that the far left and internet freaks have deluded themselves into thinking that Donald Trump is in some way comparable to Adolf Hitler, therefore it's acceptable to use any means necessary to stop his campaign. The people who support Trump are actually more in touch with reality, they just want their guy to be President, they aren't going and attacking Bernie Sanders because they don't live in internet bubbles and haven't been convinced that he's the equivalent of Stalin or Chairman Mao.


Pretty much sums it up, Trump supporters didn't bother Bernie supporters and yet leftists constantly were going into Trump rallies turning off lights, swearing, making up phony accusations of police brutality etc. Leftists have assaulted animals, trump supporters, staff etc and yet somehow they claim to be the victims in all this. Not to mention the riots they've caused or the fake Trump supporters they've snuck in.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Pretty much sums it up, Trump supporters didn't bother Bernie supporters and yet leftists constantly were going into Trump rallies turning off lights, swearing, making up phony accusations of police brutality etc. Leftists have assaulted animals, trump supporters, staff etc and yet somehow they claim to be the victims in all this. Not to mention the riots they've caused or the fake Trump supporters they've snuck in.


The forces against Trump are trying to turn America and Europe into the 3rd world.

I say this as someone who voted for Obama twice because of what Bush did in Iraq.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



gamegenie said:


> Violence begets violence.
> 
> It's an expression that goes back to Biblical times.
> 
> Matthew 26:52
> 
> …51. At this, one of Jesus’ companions drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. *52. “Put your sword back in its place, Jesus said to him. “For all who draw the sword will die by the sword.  *53. Are you not aware that I can call on My Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?...
> 
> 
> 
> Violent behavior started from Trump rallys and his rude crude supporters beating up Protestors, and now look how developed to know protestors are beating up people!
> 
> "Get 'em out!!!"
> "Rough 'em up a bit"
> "In the old days you would leave out on a stretcher"
> "Give 'em a hit or two', I'll cover his legal fees". :trump
> 
> Looks like Donald Trump's chickens are coming home to roost!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Violence begets violence
> 
> Hatred begets hatred
> 
> 
> unk2 'can't quote me' . It's in the Bible!


Trump supporters are not showing up at Bernie rallies attacking people. They are not circling around looking for single people to attack when the police are not around.

These "protesters" rioting trash are assaulting people. They go to Trump rallies to curse, scream and interrupt his speech. 

Probably more paid scum by Billionaire Hillary boy Soros. Just like he did with BLM paying people to become power uses on twitter for BLM and to start chaos in the streets.

This is all Hillary and the liberal medias fault for feeding this narrative that trump is some kind of Hitler. They are going to get innocent people killed.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Isn't it funny how quick we are to infantilize people and turn them into puppets when it suits our blame-game.

Those anti- :trump protesters couldn't help it, hatred begets hatred, they're just mindless reactionaries in the basest sense. 

Terrorists aren't responsible for what they do, we made them do it. 

Racists aren't responsible for lynchings, blacks made them do it.

Anti- :trump racists waving Mexican flags and trying to Balkanize the US southwest aren't responsible for beating on cars and people, :trump made them do it.

Nobody is responsible for themselves except whoever we wish to tear down to suit our wants and egos.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> That is ironic since Trump is the one who started all the violence at his rallies when he told his supporters if you see any protestors to beat them up or Trump saying he wishes he could punch that protestor in the mouth. Trump is the only who brought all the violence to his rallies.
> 
> You have tons of Trump supporters beating up non Trump supporters. Its hilarious how people when a Trump supporter gets back what Trump has been breaching, oh its a big deal now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not victim since Trump is the one since day one who has been inciting violence at his rallies. But now that people are giving Trump supporters what they have been dishing up, oh lets make a huge deal about it.
> 
> Trump even told his supporters oh if you beat anyone up, he would pay for their legal fees.
> 
> Funny how violence at rallies were never this bad until Trump came along. Its because Trump incites racism, bigotry, hate, ignorance and violence. And now anti Trump people are just doing what his people have been doing all along.
> 
> Trump is certainly to blame for all of this.


Ur a fucking joke.

First Trump is joking during his speeches. Nobody is throwing bags of rocks at the back of their heads. Security escorts them out.

Where are Trump supporters circling down a lone SJW female and smashing eggs in her face with the look that they could turn ISIS on her at any moment??

Its not happening. And the media are the ones spreading lies and hate by making shit up. 

Trump is not sexist. He never was. Anything he says about a women he will say to a man. That is the so called equality these bitches want. Yeah hillary is slime, rosie is a pig, warren is a fake Pocahontas. 

Trump is not homophobic. He never bashed gays. He doesn't care about gay marriage at all or bathroom debates. Its a distraction to him. He says let the states handle the shit and leave the rest of the country out of it and the federal.

Trump is not racist. He is against illegals. Illegals are costing billions upon billions. They do not integrate into the society, they dont speak english, they are violent animals as seen in these videos attacking people, they demand free shit, and protection. While not attempting to come here legally. Fuck that. Gtfo go back to mexico and come back as a legal citizen properly.

The wall is needed. The border patrol says it is. Anyone with half a brain knows it is. To many people walk over, to many criminals, rapist, drugs, potential terrorist. Its to easy for them!

If good people want to come to the USA follow the fucking law.

And please explain how a wall is racist? Is Mexicos wall racist, or any of the EU walls? Or is it because white people in the USA need one. Why are white countries free range to be pillaged by "refugees" and illegals? No one cries about fucking china, south korea or japan. Or mexico, or spain, or any brazil etc etc etc being a majority of their races.

Whites are 9% of the worlds population and are being taken over in the land they have to the point where the rest of the world wants them and their way of life extinct. Yeah once that happens the entire fucking world will look like syria and 3rd world africa. have fun. There wont be a USA to run to for illegals once its destroyed and we will see the entire EU fall first in the next two decades as an example.

Nice victim blaming by the way.

I guess if the women was gang raped she deserved it because Trump was a meany at his speeches. Grow up kid.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I would just like to point out I have never negged anyone in this topic for believing different things.

Carry on.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CenaBoy4Life said:


> Trump supporters are not showing up at Bernie rallies attacking people. They are not circling around looking for single people to attack when the police are not around.
> 
> These "protesters" rioting trash are assaulting people. They go to Trump rallies to curse, scream and interrupt his speech.
> 
> Probably more paid scum by Billionaire Hillary boy Soros. Just like he did with BLM paying people to become power uses on twitter for BLM and to start chaos in the streets.
> 
> This is all Hillary and the liberal medias fault for feeding this narrative that trump is some kind of Hitler. They are going to get innocent people killed.


It's become opposite day with the left over the last few years. They blame Trump for causing division and inciting violence while Soros pay's people who would be living in the 3rd world if it wasn't for American taxpayers to cause mayhem and burn down stores in places like Baltimore.

culture gonna culture


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Man, you can't even go outside wearing a Donald Trump t-shirt without getting beaten up for it. Scary times we live in.
> 
> - Vic


Yet Trump fans dont say anything when Trump fans harass Muslims or Mexicans. 













Truthbetold said:


> The forces against Trump are trying to turn America and Europe into the 3rd world.
> 
> I say this as someone who voted for Obama twice because of what Bush did in Iraq.


Trump is trying to turn the US in Nazi Germany . Trump is a fascist, and I love how all you Trump supporters, support fascism. 



CenaBoy4Life said:


> Ur a fucking joke.
> 
> First Trump is joking during his speeches. Nobody is throwing bags of rocks at the back of their heads. Security escorts them out.
> 
> Where are Trump supporters circling down a lone SJW female and smashing eggs in her face with the look that they could turn ISIS on her at any moment??
> 
> Its not happening. And the media are the ones spreading lies and hate by making shit up.
> 
> Trump is not sexist. He never was. Anything he says about a women he will say to a man. That is the so called equality these bitches want. Yeah hillary is slime, rosie is a pig, warren is a fake Pocahontas.
> 
> Trump is not homophobic. He never bashed gays. He doesn't care about gay marriage at all or bathroom debates. Its a distraction to him. He says let the states handle the shit and leave the rest of the country out of it and the federal.
> 
> Trump is not racist. He is against illegals. Illegals are costing billions upon billions. They do not integrate into the society, they dont speak english, they are violent animals as seen in these videos attacking people, they demand free shit, and protection. While not attempting to come here legally. Fuck that. Gtfo go back to mexico and come back as a legal citizen properly.
> 
> The wall is needed. The border patrol says it is. Anyone with half a brain knows it is. To many people walk over, to many criminals, rapist, drugs, potential terrorist. Its to easy for them!
> 
> If good people want to come to the USA follow the fucking law.
> 
> And please explain how a wall is racist? Is Mexicos wall racist, or any of the EU walls? Or is it because white people in the USA need one. Why are white countries free range to be pillaged by "refugees" and illegals? No one cries about fucking china, south korea or japan. Or mexico, or spain, or any brazil etc etc etc being a majority of their races.
> 
> Whites are 9% of the worlds population and are being taken over in the land they have to the point where the rest of the world wants them and their way of life extinct. Yeah once that happens the entire fucking world will look like syria and 3rd world africa. have fun. There wont be a USA to run to for illegals once its destroyed and we will see the entire EU fall first in the next two decades as an example.
> 
> Nice victim blaming by the way.
> 
> I guess if the women was gang raped she deserved it because Trump was a meany at his speeches. Grow up kid.


The only joke are people like you. Trump is not joking, don't give me that bullshit. There is tons of violence at Trump rallies and I showed plenty of examples. But of course ignorant people like you love to lie for Trump even when the facts show the opposite of the bullshit people like you claim. 

Trump is the one who has incited all this violence since day one. These kind of violence never happened before Trump, not to this extent but oh yeah its not Trumps fault for it boiling over. 

Violence is wrong no matter what side you are on. Trump calling to be violent against protestors is 100% wrong, and protesting is a first amendment right. Those people have the right to be there, there are protestors at every event. Trump is just the one who says to kick their ass if you see any before throwing them out. 

You prove what Trump fans are such a joke 

And yes Trump is racist, sexist and a bigot, its been proven time and time again. But keep making excuses for Trump. It just keeps backing up my point about Trump supporters.

Trump supporters show how pathetic they are when they were fine with people getting beat up at Trump rallies because they were protesting the event, but now that Trump supporters are getting beat up, which is just as bad, you hypocrites start to make a big deal of it. Then you have people like deepelemblues who are the worst of the worst who even deny that Trump supporters have been violent at Trump rallies toward protestors.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> The Libertarian Party nominated the New Gary Johnson and William Weld. :lol Even if Trump wasn't in this election I wouldn't be voting LP, I'd just stay home with choices like that.





DesolationRow said:


> Sorry, @L-DOPA, but the Libertarian Party is nothing but a hopeless mess. Could never conceive of voting for the Libertarian Party ticket of Gary Johnson and William Weld.
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/dont-know/
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/04/scott-lazarowitz/bathroom-controversy/
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/william-weld-rockefeller-republican/
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/gary-johnsons-libertarianism/
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/joe-scarborough-gary-johnson/
> 
> http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/features/5574/
> 
> The concept of liberty on the part of both Gary Johnson and William Weld may be a mile-wide but it is an inch-deep. Moreover, Johnson has displayed all of the pertinent characteristics of a Social Justice Warrior himself; he merely wants to be "fiscally conservative," about it, whatever that means. Watching the exhibitionism in Orlando as the party had its wacky convention with people running around with minimal clothes on illustrated how useless the Libertarian Party has been for decades and will doubtless continue to be, only worsening in fact, like almost all political entities in the ruinous system of mass democracy do.



Since the Brexit vote has gotten closer I haven't followed the US elections as closely and focused more at home with the upcoming European Referendum so I haven't followed the US election as closely nor have I followed the Libertarian campaign at all.

Since I respect both of you and we have similar ideals I read Deso's links as well as watched the Stossel debate for the Libertarian forum (and will watch the other debates soon as well).

I hate to say it but you guys have a point. I read the articles on Johnson and the VP Weld and watched the debates and left wholly disappointed as a result. Gary's new found (?) social democratic views left me perplexed as he gave perhaps one of the worst answers I've ever heard in a debate regarding whether or not the government should force a business against it's will to produce a product because it is deemed discriminatory to refuse the service of said group. In this case it was the case of wedding cakes for homosexuals. Not only did he say he'd force business owners to do so (which is wholly unlibertarian anyway) but he actually said he'd do the same for Jews in regards to selling items to those with Nazi views. Just what in world should a racial group be forced to sell products to customers who hate them? Let alone why would a group want to buy products from a producer who dislikes them for their race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. Completely absurd.

Even his answer on the 2nd amendment was a little shaky which surprised me. I've seen Republicans answer about this issue better than Gary Johnson.

Having said that and this where we (especially CP) will probably disagree, I still think on the whole *on his own* he is a better candidate than Hillary, Bernie or Trump. Much better on many issues. Smaller government, ending the drug war, reducing spending, balanced budget amendment, term limits, skeptical of military interventionism, Abolishing Corporate and Income Tax, Abolishing the IRS, Auditing the FED etc. Have to remember these are all things that would be big positive step forward. Hillary and Bernie certainly would never advocate many of things (any in Hillary's regard) and with Trump there are many of these things that I do not believe he would be in favour of nor do I trust him in many cases.

The VP however? *Yeah no words, there's no excuse for his choice.* Reading what I have read about this guy he is pretty much the antithesis of what should be the nominee for the LP VP. His ties to the Rockefeller's and political elite are particularly disturbing.....

I have no problem saying now that I won't blame anyone who is an Independent or has Libertarian views for boycotting and just not turning up at all.

The way I look at it is that Deso is correct in his analysis of the democratic system in the US (and other western countries too for that matter) but any chance to shake up the two party system that has destroyed and ruined the country is a good thing. As unlikely as it is this is the best chance in years for that two party system to be undone to a degree. Johnson won't win, nor to be honest would I at this point be wholly supportive of his presidency but if by some luck he were to get enough of the percentage of the votes to make the electoral system include the LP in the presidential debates then it might be more of a chance for Libertarian views to be heard and gain traction.

Am I being naive? Am I wrong? Perhaps I am to both those questions but that's how I see it for now. My opinion may change as we go further down the line.

On two further points, one I actually left myself pretty impressed with John Mcafee in the debate I watched. Very articulate and thoughtful. He was on the money with most of the questions. Peterson I quite liked too but I found him rather hawkish for a Libertarian and maybe it's just me not being American but I found his constant referral to the Constitution and historical figures to be extremely pandering and forced. To say he's not genuine is maybe wrong but he certainly felt rehearsed to a degree.

The other point is the irony that Johnson in many ways is not as Libertarian as Rand is and yet Rand was criticized by purists for not being Libertarian enough :lol.

Rand although not perfect was my guy and it's become ever clearer since he dropped out that to me this race has shown what a fucking mess this election is turning out to be :lol.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yet Trump fans dont say anything when Trump fans harass Muslims or Mexicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is trying to turn the US in Nazi Germany . Trump is a fascist, and I love how all you Trump supporters, support fascism.
> 
> 
> 
> The only joke are people like you. Trump is not joking, don't give me that bullshit. There is tons of violence at Trump rallies and I showed plenty of examples. But of course ignorant people like you love to lie for Trump even when the facts show the opposite of the bullshit people like you claim.
> 
> Trump is the one who has incited all this violence since day one. These kind of violence never happened before Trump, not to this extent but oh yeah its not Trumps fault for it boiling over.
> 
> Violence is wrong no matter what side you are on. Trump calling to be violent against protestors is 100% wrong, and protesting is a first amendment right. Those people have the right to be there, there are protestors at every event. Trump is just the one who says to kick their ass if you see any before throwing them out.
> 
> You prove what Trump fans are such a joke
> 
> And yes Trump is racist, sexist and a bigot, its been proven time and time again. But keep making excuses for Trump. It just keeps backing up my point about Trump supporters.
> 
> Trump supporters show how pathetic they are when they were fine with people getting beat up at Trump rallies because they were protesting the event, but now that Trump supporters are getting beat up, which is just as bad, you hypocrites start to make a big deal of it. Then you have people like deepelemblues who are the worst of the worst who even deny that Trump supporters have been violent at Trump rallies toward protestors.


blah blah blah blah.

same old shit. Keep trying to stick labels to trump that don't fit. That's all you people can do.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Violence is wrong no matter what side you are on. Trump calling to be violent against protestors is 100% wrong, and protesting is a first amendment right. Those people have the right to be there, there are protestors at every event. Trump is just the one who says to kick their ass if you see any before throwing them out. .


Stop lying on the internet we don't believe you. Trump protesters are the ones coming to his rallies to start violence and cause 3rd world mayhem. You act like Trump supporters go to his rallies to randomly fight each other. If protesters didn't come to his rallies to cause chaos there wouldn't be any problems at all. Like others have said you don't see Trump supporters going to Hillary or Sanders rallies to bust peoples heads open with rocks or jump up and down on top of cop cars. Now stop lying please. btw I voted for Obama twice.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is trying to turn the US in Nazi Germany . Trump is a fascist, and I love how all you Trump supporters, support fascism.


Just to clarify are you implying Trump is fighting against communism so people like you don't end up dead like the other 70 million who died by mass killings under Communist regimes?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CenaBoy4Life said:


> blah blah blah blah.
> 
> same old shit. Keep trying to stick labels to trump that don't fit. That's all you people can do.



Typical Trump fan bullshit right there. Trump is all of those things, and its been proven time and time again. Its pretty laughable that anyone would even try to claim he is not. But we all know why Trump fans claim he is not those things and its because most of them think and say the things he does which would also make those people sexist, racist, bigoted etc. 




Truthbetold said:


> Stop lying on the internet we don't believe you. Trump protesters are the ones coming to his rallies to start violence and cause 3rd world mayhem. You act like Trump supporters go to his rallies to randomly fight each other. If protesters didn't come to his rallies to cause chaos there wouldn't be any problems at all. Like others have said you don't see Trump supporters going to Hillary or Sanders rallies to bust peoples heads open with rocks or jump up and down on top of cop cars. Now stop lying please. btw I voted for Obama twice.


The only one here lying is you. The protestors at Trump rallies leave peacefully until they get sucked punched by Trump supporters. 
There is tons of videos on those and they have been shown one over and over. Stop lying to yourself. You just make yourself look bad. You have zero credibly when you lie about facts that are on video.
But again Trump fans love to lie because Trump lies. You act like these things cannot easily been found online and show how the Trump protestors at his rallies were not violent but got beat up by Trump supporters.





 Oh yeah the black guy was really violent before getting sucker punched.
Then the guy who did it said oh next time we may have to kill him.


There are Trump protestors at Bernie rallies, they just got get beat up and Bernie doesnt give a shit so it never makes the news. But keep lying. 

Trump is the one who started all this violence months ago by telling his supporters to be violent. And now anti Trump people are getting violent against Trump supporters, its only going to get worse because of Trump. 

If Trump never called for violence at his rallies time and time again, this wouldn't be happening.

Trump supporters just keep showing their true colors by not admitting the truth. But why should be expect anything less. Trump supporters are just like Trump. 




Truthbetold said:


> Just to clarify are you implying Trump is fighting against communism so people like you don't end up dead like the other 70 million who died by mass killings under Communist regimes?


Trump is a fascist , he said before would want to change the libel laws so the newspapers can't talk bad about him and if they did even true, he could sue them , the said he would consider putting badges on Muslims in the country, you know like the Jews were. those are the beginnings of fascism in the US, what would be next? Who knows with Trump.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Typical Trump fan bullshit right there. Trump is all of those things, and its been proven time and time again. Its pretty laughable that anyone would even try to claim he is not. But we all know why Trump fans claim he is not those things and its because most of them think and say the things he does which would also make those people sexist, racist, bigoted etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only one here lying is you. The protestors at Trump rallies leave peacefully until they get sucked punched by Trump supporters.
> There is tons of videos on those and they have been shown one over and over. Stop lying to yourself. You just make yourself look bad. You have zero credibly when you lie about facts that are on video.
> But again Trump fans love to lie because Trump lies. You act like these things cannot easily been found online and show how the Trump protestors at his rallies were not violent but got beat up by Trump supporters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah the black guy was really violent before getting sucker punched.
> Then the guy who did it said oh next time we may have to kill him.
> 
> 
> There are Trump protestors at Bernie rallies, they just got get beat up and Bernie doesnt give a shit so it never makes the news. But keep lying.
> 
> Trump is the one who started all this violence months ago by telling his supporters to be violent. And now anti Trump people are getting violent against Trump supporters, its only going to get worse because of Trump.
> 
> If Trump never called for violence at his rallies time and time again, this wouldn't be happening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is a fascist , he said before would want to change the libel laws so the newspapers can't talk bad about him and if they did even true, he could sue them , the said he would consider putting badges on Muslims in the country, you know like the Jews were. those are the beginnings of fascism in the US, what would be next? Who knows with Trump.


A reporter suggested that. Trump was going along saying something has to be done. Not necessarily that. A watch list of sorts. 

Which probably already exist anyways.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CenaBoy4Life said:


> A reporter suggested that. Trump was going along saying something has to be done. Not necessarily that. A watch list of sorts.
> 
> Which probably already exist anyways.


The correct answer is no I wouldn't even consider something like that, but Trump said he would. which is FASCiST. And its also fascist to try to shut down the news from reporting the news if its not something Trump approves of. That is FASCIST.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The only one here lying is you. The protestors at Trump rallies leave peacefully until they get sucked punched by Trump supporters.



Funny i knew you would bring up the one incident of the old guy in the cowboy hat who elbowed the unruly protester a few months ago. Meanwhile almost every single Trump rally has non-stop protesters causing real violence and chaos leaving people bloody. Quit being intellectually dishonest...smh


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

No worries @L-DOPA , I forgot you were our resident unicorn UK libertarian. :lol

Maybe the LP ticket would provide a short-term net positive compared to Trump, but I think in the long game of liberty Trump's secure border policies will net the bigger gains, should he go through with them. You can't move toward liberty if you're importing a bunch of authoritarians.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The correct answer is no I wouldn't even consider something like that, but Trump said he would. which is FASCiST. And its also fascist to try to shut down the news from reporting the news if its not something Trump approves of. That is FASCIST.


bla bla bla fascist bla bla bla racist


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Hey guys, we still going be cool after Hillary takes a mandate win in November right? 

:curry2

I mean you all knew this was hers to win from the get go, which is why you chosen our planted Trojan to begin with. :trump


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*













> _He was released from jail the very next day. That's Black Privilege in
> America today. The cops don't want to be accused a racism so they let
> him out on bail. Welcome to the New World Order of liberal tyranny
> folks_


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*












> Figure since we're on the kick of posting Youtube videos featuring Black people, as a fellow Black, I'll join in the fun. :curry2


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Pathetic, digging up stupid youtube videos any idiot with a phone can make.

I'm sure if any anti-trumpers put any credibility in what you find from regular ham and eggers on youtube, you could post a hundred toothless ******** supporting Trump and threatening Hilary/Obama whoever.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Be a 9 year old and get ask to leave school for wearing a hat about making America great brehs...








> FRESNO, Calif. (KFSN) -- One local Trump supporter is being banned from wearing a signature Donald Trump hat to school after it began to draw tense conversations.
> 
> Logan Autry left Powers-Ginsburg Elementary School early on Thursday because school leaders said something he was wearing is causing a safety concern on campus-- his red hat.
> 
> "The vice principal came up to me and told me to take my hat off because it brings negative attention from other students. And I said no a few times and then the principal told me again and I still said no and refused," said Logan Autry.
> 
> For three days straight the third grader wore the hat to class. But each day, more and more classmates began confronting him at recess.
> 
> "I still want to keep my hat. It's not the hat that draws attention, it's just my personality that the other children do not like," said Autry.
> 
> Autry recently moved to Fresno from the foothills, he loves politics and American history.
> 
> "He knows more than I do. He knows more about this election than I know, it's kind of embarrassing. You know, like are you smarter than a third grader kinda thing. But he is just very adamant about his beliefs and his rights. He wants to be a politician that's his goal," said Angela Hoffknecht, Logan's guardian.
> 
> He already has the shirt and tie down, and practices speeches about Trump on the playground.
> 
> "I've told them his policies on illegal immigration, and our second amendment, and our first amendment and all of our amendments that need to be protected which are not going to be an amendment at all if Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders gets elected," said Autry.
> 
> Autry got his $20-- now, controversial-- hat when he skipped school to attend a Trump rally last week.
> 
> "He doesn't speak like a politician. He speaks like a normal person. He knows what this country needs."
> 
> Autry briefly met the presidential hopeful during his local stop and even got his hat autographed.
> 
> "I got to shake his hand and I felt his hair too, and it's actually real. On the TV it looks not real, but it like, has a blur but when you see it in real life it looks a lot different."
> 
> From the mouth of a nine-year-old who won't back down from upper graders, or district officials, who say they are out to protect him and everyone else on school grounds.
> 
> With school almost out Logan's family members are trying to offer him alternative hats to wear, such as one with an American flag. But, so far he has not been willing to swap out his red one.


http://abc30.com/politics/9-year-old-banned-from-making-america-great-again/1369027/


----------



## ST1TCH

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

When those opposed to Trump have no facts to place against him (because the regressive left bases all of their arguments on emotion instead of facts), they start with words like racist and fascist. 

How is the left not the racist group though, when they would prefer the world split up by race, gender, and anything else visually represented as a person. Women are a group called feminists, and they should live life by different rules from everybody else. As should blacks, and Muslims, and everyone else. We will skew the playing field to make life easier for people based on assumed difficulty in their life because of their gender and skin color. The only color the right cares about is green, if you can be a more productive member of society it doesn't matter if you're a Cis black Jew or a Trans Mexican Lollopop who identifies as a chainlink fence.

As for the fascist claims, the Hitler claims... It's not hard to find the politician who shares an insane amount of similarities with the leader of the National SOCIALIST German Workers Party. I'll give you a clue, he doesn't have one, but he does have creepy puffy purple fingers.


----------



## ST1TCH

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

That being said I am only voting for Trump if his VP is someone of my liking because I am mostly neutral on him. I've got my fingers crossed on Kasich... Regardless, he didn't get to where he is by surrounding himself with idiots, I'm sure putting together a quality team is a skill of his.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Be a Trump supporter and get chased down until America turns 3rd world and you can't run anymore brehs.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

^ Typical coward running away. He should stay and fight for his beliefs, like all the tough guys think refugees should do.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

They were just playing tackle football in the park. :curry2


----------



## King-of-the-World

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I'm going to back away slowly and not get involved in this...........................................



> *IMAGE REMOVED*
> 
> NOTE: Dick was nearly visible. Hardly an artful pic anyway. I believe our members deserve some decency. *sees sigs of nearly naked females. Realizes hypocrisy. Oh well.*
> 
> - Oda Nobunaga


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

^
Come on man.







nobody wants to see that. Now I have to wash my eyes out.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

http://drudgereport.com/flashss.html






don't ask me how the song applies because it does


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> ^ Typical coward running away. He should stay and fight for his beliefs, like all the tough guys think refugees should do.


I know you're being dumb but 1 guy versus a bunch of guys in an area where violence isn't supposed to happen, compared to 1.5 million migrants mostly young males not fighting ISIS? Geez you really should try harder!

:laugh:

Besides it's ironic that the leftists are the ones getting violent, acting ignorant and using the media to propagate lies. Here I thought leftists were all about the facts and being PC!


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



gamegenie said:


> ^
> Come on man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nobody wants to see that. Now I have to wash my eyes out.


Yeah. Pic was a no-no.


----------



## King-of-the-World

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> Yeah. Pic was a no-no.


Apologies mod. I thought it was an absolutely hilarious picture, and being an illustration would be acceptable


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



King-of-the-World said:


> Apologies mod. I thought it was an absolutely hilarious picture, and being an illustration would be acceptable


If you cropped some of the bottom (you know which part), it actually would've been acceptable. Some in this thread may not be amused, but meh.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Excerpts posted on Amazon from the forthcoming book:



> I witnessed her obscenity-laced tirades, her shifting of blame, how she berated Vince Foster until he could stand no more, how minor incidents involving blue gloves and botched invitations sent her into a tizzy. It was like watching Humphrey Bogart in The Caine Mutiny obsessing about a quart of missing strawberries–and losing sight of the world war raging about him. I saw Hillary scheming with Dick Morris to undermine White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta. FBI agents confided in me about her emerging Filegate scandal; they were just as frustrated with Hillary’s methods as we were.





> I had no animosity toward the Clintons. Out of a sense of loyalty to our First Family I even secretly disposed of sordid physical evidence that might later have been used to convict the president. The blue dress wasn’t the only evidence of his misdeeds.





> Things were stirring, and I wanted to know why.
> 
> Everyone on post that night, Secret Service agents (SAs), Secret Service Uniformed Division (UD) officers like myself, the houseman, and the ushers couldn't help but hear the First Couple arguing as sounds from their fracases traveled through the old building. Mrs. Clinton had a booming voice, and their yelling matches easily traversed the living quarters' private elevator, vents, and staircase. Many housemen eased away, but the SAs and UDs couldn't leave their posts. This was especially a big argument that ended with a _crash._ SAs were obligated to respond and found its cause, a vase on the other side of the room. The First Couple couldn't just sweep up and toss out the remains because everything in the White House is logged and recorded, befitting its role as a national landmark and veritable museum.
> 
> I peeked into the curator’s small, windowless ground-floor office across from the China Room and the Diplomatic Reception Room. It was cluttered with blueprints and history books on the every detail of the White House: fabrics, furniture, artifacts. Sure enough, there was a box containing a light blue vase smashed to bits. The rumors _were_ true!





> The President entered around nine. His arrival times fluctuated. I couldn't believe my eyes: a black eye! I was well accustomed to his allergy-prone, puffy eyes. But this was a shiner, a real, live, put a steak-on-it black eye. I was shocked.


Maybe it doesn't matter who wins, Hillary seems rather :trump -like herself. If there are more Hillary beatdowns in this book I just might have to vote for her :curry2


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



gamegenie said:


> They were just playing tackle football in the park. :curry2


I have asked you multiple times now to outline why you think Hilary is a good choice...gonna have to say you're a paid shill if you keep this up.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I think he's a volunteer shill which is kind of worse.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I think he's a volunteer shill which is kind of worse.


you can make decent money being a professional protester or paid e-warrior these days, not a bad gig


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> I have asked you multiple times now to outline why you think Hilary is a good choice...gonna have to say you're a paid shill if you keep this up.


He is clearly just posting here to bait and troll people. For the life of me I don't understand why many of you actually continue to respond to him. You just keep feeding the beast and encouraging him. :shrug


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I've reported him a few times but was threatened with a ban if I continued to do so even though he's blatantly trolling. :draper2


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

So when is the decision handed down about who the delegates are? God this process takes forever, how much is this costing you hard-working taxpayers? Because you can bet in one way or another it sure is.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I've reported him a few times but was threatened with a ban if I continued to do so even though he's blatantly trolling. :draper2


why was that?


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/trumps-jujitsu-overthrow-of-liberalism.php



> Plus, Trump has whacked the hornets’ nest by his criticism of Mexican immigration, which he feels this judge is bound to take personally. And why shouldn’t he conclude that? The left (and the domesticated right) tell us incessantly that any criticism—however fair or factual—that touches on a specific group will inevitably arouse the ire of that group. Don’t say anything negative about immigration or the Hispanics will never vote for you! Don’t say anything critical of Islamic terror or more Muslims will hate us! But when Trump uses that same logic—I’ve criticized Mexican immigration so it’s likely this judge won’t like me—he’s a villain.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*






To this into perspective, the host is a Bernie Sanders supporter and dislikes Trump with a passion. And even he (I'm not surprised because he is consistent with his beliefs) is condemning those who are attacking the Trump supporters.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> So when is the decision handed down about who the delegates are? God this process takes forever, how much is this costing you hard-working taxpayers? Because you can bet in one way or another it sure is.


The delegates are voted in on a state-by-state basis. There are still some states, several of them tomorrow, that still haven't even had their primaries/caucus.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

GOP turing on Trump for being racist now toward that judge who ruled against him on Trump U.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> The delegates are voted in on a state-by-state basis. There are still some states, several of them tomorrow, that still haven't even had their primaries/caucus.


Yeah I understand it's state by state of course, it seems like the big states are mostly over though and it's coming to a close?


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Yeah I understand it's state by state of course, it seems like the big states are mostly over though and it's coming to a close?


California and New Jersey are among those that go today, they are the largest of the ones today. After today, then the last one will be the Democratic primary for the District of Columbia on June 14. Then, off to the conventions.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Hillary rises on 6/6/16, securing the necessary number of delegates to become the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party.

How that was sorted out on the eve of the California and New Jersey primaries, I do not know. I cannot afford to spend the requisite time to ascertain how the Democrats corruptly formulate their primaries season circus; at least the Republicans, for all of their faults, were more straightforward about their villainy. The Democrats--not surprisingly--have a system that almost mimics the IRS tax code in its labyrinthine nonsense. 

Perusing over the Wikileaks diplomatic documents from Wikileaks once more, it truly does almost astonish even the most jaded reader. We Americans are ruled over by criminals, yes, but _babe_ criminals. They aren't even crafty and adult about it anymore like FDR and Nixon. Madame Clinton, for instance, reading these documents, sought to probe the anxieties as well as definitively establish the possibly chronic drug use of the Argentine President, while Putin and Medved are literally compared to Batman and Robin. 

And these are the people who rule the world. 

Terrifying.


In the meantime, I look forward to returning to this thread once these heinous episodes of Trump supporters' jaws violently clashing with peaceful protestors' fists dies down. I hope CNN is on the case, ensuring that no innocent knuckles have been bloodied in the Trump-instigated carnage.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> GOP turing on Trump for being racist now toward that judge who ruled against him on Trump U.


GOP being silly and I think the judge thing is all overblown but Bernie is officially done for, DNC nominated Clinton. :nerd:


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*






The left taking yet another 'L' while trying to hit Trump with their despicable garbage race-baiting tactics. :banderas


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump basically said the judge can't be fair to him because he is Mexican. I don't see how this is the left using race baiting tactics. If anything, it was Trump using race baiting tactics to get his supporters to throw the judge that isn't favourable towards him in his trial under the bus. Trump has precedence in doing so by aligning himself with the birther movement against Obama to gain political capital.

Those were fire fighting words from his camp in the video to claim otherwise. Come on now.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Obama is apparently very eager to formally endorse Hillary and start attacking :trump in the 'most active campaign by a lame-duck president in the election to replace him ever.'

The perfect recipe to turn around :trump 's fortunes from the past week.

The Democratic Party is run by certifiable mongs.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Hillary rises on 6/6/16, securing the necessary number of delegates to become the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party.
> 
> How that was sorted out on the eve of the California and New Jersey primaries, I do not know. I cannot afford to spend the requisite time to ascertain how the Democrats corruptly formulate their primaries season circus; at least the Republicans, for all of their faults, were more straightforward about their villainy. The Democrats--not surprisingly--have a system that almost mimics the IRS tax code in its labyrinthine nonsense.
> 
> Perusing over the Wikileaks diplomatic documents from Wikileaks once more, it truly does almost astonish even the most jaded reader. We Americans are ruled over by criminals, yes, but _babe_ criminals. They aren't even crafty and adult about it anymore like FDR and Nixon. Madame Clinton, for instance, reading these documents, sought to probe the anxieties as well as definitively establish the possibly chronic drug use of the Argentine President, while Putin and Medved are literally compared to Batman and Robin.
> 
> And these are the people who rule the world.
> 
> Terrifying.
> 
> 
> In the meantime, I look forward to returning to this thread once these heinous episodes of Trump supporters' jaws violently clashing with peaceful protestors' fists dies down. I hope CNN is on the case, ensuring that no innocent knuckles have been bloodied in the Trump-instigated carnage.



the funny thing is neither Hillary or Sanders will have the magic number of pledged delegates to get the nomination before the convention but the DNC wants to suppress the vote on tuesday so Sanders supporters wont bother to show up to vote.

(As of June, 4th, 2016)

Total Number of Delegates Available = 4763

CURRENT Score
Hillary Clinton = 1769
Bernie Sanders = 1501

Total Number of Delegates Required to Clinch the Nomination = 2383

Total Number of Delegates Remaining = 1493

Total Number of Delegates Who Vote on June 4th Through June 14th, 2016 = 930

No Candidate Can Clinch the Nomination Before June 14, 2016

Hillary Clinton Would Need 614 out of 930

Bernie Sanders Would Need 882 out of 930

Total Number of Delegates Who Vote on July 25th, 2016 = 719
(Democratic National Convention)

The Nomination Will Be Decided on July 25th, 2016





It gets even better with the corruption of the DNC and Obama for Hillary 

Obama is blocking the release of Hillary's TPP emails until after the election. 


http://www.ibtimes.com/political-ca...se-hillary-clinton-era-tpp-emails-until-after


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

:lol That is amusing, @birthday_massacre. Most amusing. :lol

Will Philadelphia live up to its billing as the City of Brotherly Love in a few weeks during the Democratic National Convention? 

Let's hope not! :mark:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> :lol That is amusing, @birthday_massacre. Most amusing. :lol
> 
> Will Philadelphia live up to its billing as the City of Brotherly Love in a few weeks during the Democratic National Convention?
> 
> Let's hope not! :mark:


The DNC is already worried about Sanders supporters protesting at the convention. I just hope the Sanders supporters are not violent. They need to do it peaceful. But even when they do like in Nevada the DNC will just claim they were violent and were throwing chairs when that never even happened.

The DNC convention is going to be very interesting.

More about the TPP emails, Trump is going to slaughter her with those and of course her wall street speeches. He will dig into her big time for hiding them and not releasing them, not to mention the email server scandal that Bernie was too stupid to get her on. Trump will get 110% against her for all of those things and more.

Its not going to be pretty for her. The DNC claimed Bernie was going to hard on her because she was a woman which is laughable, can't wait to see what will happen when Trump focus's 100% on her.

Trump will call her a liar to her face where as Bernie had too much respect to do that which is why he is going to lose.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> the funny thing is neither Hillary or Sanders will have the magic number of pledged delegates to get the nomination before the convention but the DNC wants to suppress the vote on tuesday so Sanders supporters wont bother to show up to vote.
> 
> It gets even better with the corruption of the DNC and Obama for Hillary
> 
> Obama is blocking the release of Hillary's TPP emails until after the election.
> 
> 
> http://www.ibtimes.com/political-ca...se-hillary-clinton-era-tpp-emails-until-after


Sanders campaign said yesterday that after California its job is to convince enough superdelegates to switch.

Implicitly admitting that Hillary has enough superdelegates to either win outright or deny Sanders the 2,383 needed to win.

I guess all those times you said the superdelegates shouldn't be counted were wrong, huh? The Sanders campaign was counting them... as being on Hillary's side.

And of course Obama is protecting his ally, General Secretary Bernie is no friend of Barack's.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> Sanders campaign said yesterday that after California its job is to convince enough superdelegates to switch.
> 
> Implicitly admitting that Hillary has enough superdelegates to either win outright or deny Sanders the 2,383 needed to win.
> 
> I guess all those times you said the superdelegates shouldn't be counted were wrong, huh? The Sanders campaign was counting them... as being on Hillary's side.
> 
> And of course Obama is protecting his ally, General Secretary Bernie is no friend of Barack's.


Its not wrong. The super delegates don't officially vote until the convention. Hillary had a huge super delegate lead over Obama during the primaries but they switched to Obama at the convention.

Super delegates switch all the time when it comes to officially vote. Nothing I said was wrong,. Its wrong to count them, because if all the super delegates at the convention votes for Sanders he would win the nomination.

They should not be officially counted, like they are right now claiming Hillary clinches the nomination, that is simply not true. Sanders would win if the super delegates vote for him when they officially vote.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its not wrong. The super delegates don't officially vote until the convention. Hillary had a huge super delegate lead over Obama during the primaries but they switched to Obama at the convention.
> 
> Super delegates switch all the time when it comes to officially vote. Nothing I said was wrong,. Its wrong to count them, because if all the super delegates at the convention votes for Sanders he would win the nomination.
> 
> They should not be officially counted, like they are right now claiming Hillary clinches the nomination, that is simply not true. Sanders would win if the super delegates vote for him when they officially vote.


We've finally found something you and the General Secretary and his politburo disagree on! That is not the way Bernie or his top campaign people are looking at the superdelegates and not the way they have been looking at them. They've been counting them with Hillary because they know that's who they're going to vote for unless they can persuade them to switch. If the convention were held tomorrow Hillary would comfortably win the superdelegate vote. There's no reason to deny it as if your life depends on it not being true.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> We've finally found something you and the General Secretary and his politburo disagree on! That is not the way Bernie or his top campaign people are looking at the superdelegates and not the way they have been looking at them. They've been counting them with Hillary because they know that's who they're going to vote for unless they can persuade them to switch. If the convention were held tomorrow Hillary would comfortably win the superdelegate vote. There's no reason to deny it as if your life depends on it not being true.


How do we disagree? Bernie has always said the superdelgate votes shouldn't be counted with the pledged delegates since they dont officially cast their votes until the convention?

He is campaign for their official votes. They have not voted yet, not sure how hard that is to understand. AGAIN super delegates change their minds all the time when it comes to officially voting. Im not sure why you can't understand this simple concept. They did in 2008 when they switched to Obama. 

The super delates votes don't count until they are official.

Bernie Sanders was down 60 points to Hillary when he first started and now there will be a contested convention because she wont get enough pledged delegates to win the nomination on those alone

The fact is, super delegates dont count until they officially vote and they switch all the time like in 2008.


Also not sure how me and Sanders disagree on this
Here is a quote from him


*"It is unfortunate that the media, in a rush to judgement, are ignoring the Democratic National Committee’s clear statement that it is wrong to count the votes of superdelegates before they actually vote at the convention this summer.*"

“Secretary Clinton does not have and will not have the requisite number of pledged delegates to secure the nomination. She will be dependent on superdelegates who do not vote until July 25 and who can change their minds between now and then. They include more than 400 superdelegates who endorsed Secretary Clinton 10 months before the first caucuses and primaries and long before any other candidate was in the race.

“Our job from now until the convention is to convince those superdelegates that Bernie is by far the strongest candidate against Donald Trump.”


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> Obama is apparently very eager to formally endorse Hillary and start attacking :trump in the 'most active campaign by a lame-duck president in the election to replace him ever.'
> 
> The perfect recipe to turn around :trump 's fortunes from the past week.
> 
> The Democratic Party is run by certifiable mongs.


You would have to be stuck on stupid if you think Obama campaigning on Hillary's behalf is not going to wake up us silent minority that voted in mass numbers in '08 and '12 for him to not do it again to help elect our first Black President's







wife this time to break records and be the first female President. 

:curry2


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

"This judge thing will totes be the thing that stops Trump, guys. Rubio is our guy, for reals" :lol


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



gamegenie said:


> You would have to be stuck on stupid if you think Obama campaigning on Hillary's behalf is not going to wake up us silent minority that voted in mass numbers in '08 and '12 for him to not do it again to help elect our first Black President's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wife this time to break records and be the first female President.
> 
> :curry2


Vote for the person who thinks you're a super predator that's husband passed the 94 crime bill brehs.

Alot of white people will be voting for Hillary because of her history on being tough on black crime.

Gentrification got white folks shook that soon the suburbs will be a Chief Keef video.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## ST1TCH

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I pray that Bernie Sanders gets more overall votes in the primary but still loses because of the super delegates, then we can hear all the little uneducated socialists bitch about Hilary being gifted something she never earned.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



ST1TCH said:


> I pray that Bernie Sanders gets more overall votes in the primary but still loses because of the super delegates, then we can hear all the little uneducated socialists bitch about Hilary being gifted something she never earned.


Well your little evil prayer is not going to happen. Time to wake-up, out of the fantasy land that Donald Trump has fooled you folks into thinking.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Truthbetold said:


> Vote for the person who thinks you're a super predator that's husband passed the 94 crime bill brehs.
> 
> Alot of white people will be voting for Hillary because of her history on being tough on black crime.
> 
> Gentrification got white folks shook that soon the suburbs will be a Chief Keef video.


You're confused, I can tell you have been reading too much BernieBro propaganda . 

Crime/Sin has no color line.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Bernie winning the north CA pot growing land vote.

Getting his ass whupped everywhere else in the Golden State.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Truthbetold said:


>


Clarence Mason?


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Truthbetold said:


>


Apparently this guy didn't get the memo. When Erin Burnett tells you to be offended and outraged, damnit, you WILL BE offended and outraged.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*










*#ImWithHim *

- Vic


----------



## TripleG

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

So we got crooked Hilary Clinton and loudmouth Donald Trump. 

I am just going to sit in the corner with a bowl of popcorn and enjoy the show.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Trump's African American said:


> It is astounding what is happening on Twitter.


This made me chuckle.

Not as hard as I laughed when I heard Trump say "my African American" though.

Trump's real goal of destroying the GOP has been the most well executed political ploy in US history.


----------



## Kabraxal

At least the third party will get a better look this go around... Definitely not boting for the other two dipshits.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



MrMister said:


> Trump's real goal of destroying the GOP has been the most well executed political ploy in US history.


Fuck the Neo-Cons it's been a pleasure watching Trump destroy them, i voted for Obama in 08 & 12 btw.

https://twitter.com/renegadeparty

^The Neo-Cons even made a Stop-Trump twitter.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump RIPS Hillary... From The Left







Trump is going to use all of Bernie arguments against Hillary on her as well, and he will go overboard with her being under FBI investigation for her emails as well. And Trump will probably get those GS speeches which is going to be a disaster for Hillary.

Sanders needs to go to Philly because by that time Trump could be leading Hillary by double digits.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



TripleG said:


> So we got crooked Hilary Clinton and loudmouth Donald Trump.
> 
> I am just going to sit in the corner with a bowl of popcorn and enjoy the show.


I used to think that way. Then it got bad enough I had to care.

It can happen to you.


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Let's get the Trump-Clinton show on!


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Honestly please pull back on the fake tan a bit Donald.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Even more proof of how clueless Trump is.

Pakman has it exactly write, its much worse when you actually read it end not just hear what Trump is saying and how he dodges the questions


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

https://jonathanturley.org/2016/06/...cation-lawsuits-present-problem-for-clintons/



> Laureate Education has been sued over such programs as its Walden University Online offering, which many have alleged is a scam designed to bilk students of tens of thousands of dollars for degrees. Students says that they were repeatedly delayed and given added costs as they tried to secure degrees, leaving them deeply in debt.
> 
> The respected Inside Higher Education reported that Laureate Education paid Bill Clinton an obscene $16.5 million between 2010 and 2014 to serve as an honorary chancellor for Laureate International Universities. While Bill Clinton worked as the group’s pitchman, the State Department funneled $55 million to Laureate when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. That would seem a pretty major story but virtually no mainstream media outlet has reported it while running hundreds of stories on the Trump University scandal.
> 
> There was even a class action — like the Trump University scandal. Travis et al v. Walden University LLC, was filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Maryland but dismissed in 2015. It is not clear why it was dismissed. However, the size of the contract to Clinton, the payment from State and the widespread complaints over alleged fraud should warrant a modicum of attention to the controversy. The controversy has many of the familiar complaints over fraudulent online programs that take advantage of hard working people.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Sanders has said he is going to support Hilary if he doesn't get the nod after he had a meeting with Obama

He was likely told, "You want to stay in the party? Quit being butthurt"


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> Sanders has said he is going to support Hilary if he doesn't get the nod after he had a meeting with Obama
> 
> He was likely told, "You want to stay in the party? Quit being butthurt"


obama told bernie he'd get skipped in the rotation if he didn't chill the fuck out, he's harshing choom leader's buzz


----------



## Muerte al fascismo

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Even more proof of how clueless Trump is.
> 
> Pakman has it exactly write, its much worse when you actually read it end not just hear what Trump is saying and how he dodges the questions


Why you hating?
Trump's achieved more in two years then old Bernie has managed his entire career. He can get the job done. Bernie can't beat a person that's been investigated, a shit speaker and a natural heel.

Trump took out an entire field, Bernie can't even beat one person, despite a huge warchest and big heat on establishment politics


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> obama told bernie he'd get skipped in the rotation if he didn't chill the fuck out, he's harshing choom leader's buzz


Berine's attempt to burn down his party for not getting what "he deserved" was strange

His radical supporters starting fights and dumping dirt on Hillary were basically free attack ads 

Trump attacking the GOP, I get it, he is not a politician and has no loyalty to them 

Sanders attacking the Dems, I don't get, he has represented them forever and now that they won't give him a pres run they are corrupt and evil

For as bad as Trump looks with his weird statements, Bernie looked entitled as fuck

I can see why Trump egged him on

When a republican attacks a democrat no gives a fuck but when party members attack each other people pay attention


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> Berine's attempt to burn down his party for not getting what "he deserved" was strange
> 
> His radical supporters starting fights and dumping dirt on Hillary were basically free attack ads
> 
> Trump attacking the GOP, I get it, he is not a politician and has no loyalty to them
> 
> Sanders attacking the Dems, I don't get, he has represented them forever and now that they won't give him a pres run they are corrupt and evil
> 
> For as bad as Trump looks with his weird statements, Bernie looked entitled as fuck
> 
> I can see why Trump egged him on
> 
> When a republican attacks a democrat no gives a fuck but when party members attack each other people pay attention


Why wouldn't SAndes attack the DNC when they were supporting voter suppression and would slander Sanders any time they could?
The DNC is supposed to be unbiased and were biased toward Hillary the whole time. Bernie should be pointing that out and how the system is rigged.

Trump even admits the DNC was rigged against Sanders. Its laughable how people Sanders shit for pointing out the corruption in the DNC when Trump does the same thing on the GOP and you give Trump credit. 

Trump and Sanders have both pointed out how rigged and corrupt the system is against non establishment candidates, and Trump may still get screwed over at the convention and not get the nomination.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Why wouldn't SAndes attack the DNC when they were supporting voter suppression and would slander Sanders any time they could?
> The DNC is supposed to be unbiased and were biased toward Hillary the whole time. Bernie should be pointing that out and how the system is rigged.
> 
> Trump even admits the DNC was rigged against Sanders. Its laughable how people Sanders shit for pointing out the corruption in the DNC when Trump does the same thing on the GOP and you give Trump credit.
> 
> Trump and Sanders have both pointed out how rigged and corrupt the system is against non establishment candidates, and Trump may still get screwed over at the convention and not get the nomination.



Obama just endorsed Hill.

It's not too late, Breh.

We can vanquish the witch together.

Let's be friends. :trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Obama just endorsed Hill.
> 
> It's not too late, Breh.
> 
> We can vanquish the witch together.
> 
> Let's be friends. :trump


Trump is 100x worse than Shillary. Trump as president would be a disaster. He is a clown. The US would be the laughing stock of the world if Trump was ever president.

Trump still may not even get the nomination. The GOP is trying to screw him over.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is 100x worse than Shillary. Trump as president would be a disaster. He is a clown. The US would be the laughing stock of the world if Trump was ever president.
> 
> Trump still may not even get the nomination. The GOP is trying to screw him over.


No, you see, Trump is actually for Bernie on a LOT of trade issues. Such as the TPP.

You don't have to like Trump to see Hil is a damn murderer.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Whoop, looks like Sanders is a #ShillForHill now.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/09/politics/bernie-sanders-washington/index.html

He really diserved a 3rd party run.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Whoop, looks like Sanders is a #ShillForHill now.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/09/politics/bernie-sanders-washington/index.html
> 
> He really diserved a 3rd party run.


that's the problem with marxian revolutions, everybody betrays them eventually


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

@birthday_massacre I just want you to know I love you and im here if you need to talk.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Why wouldn't SAndes attack the DNC when they were supporting voter suppression and would slander Sanders any time they could?
> The DNC is supposed to be unbiased and were biased toward Hillary the whole time. Bernie should be pointing that out and how the system is rigged.
> 
> Trump even admits the DNC was rigged against Sanders. Its laughable how people Sanders shit for pointing out the corruption in the DNC when Trump does the same thing on the GOP and you give Trump credit.
> 
> Trump and Sanders have both pointed out how rigged and corrupt the system is against non establishment candidates, and Trump may still get screwed over at the convention and not get the nomination.



Sanders is now Pro-Hilliary so what does that make him?


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is 100x worse than Shillary. Trump as president would be a disaster. He is a clown. *The US would be the laughing stock of the world if Trump was ever president.*
> 
> Trump still may not even get the nomination. The GOP is trying to screw him over.


Are you implying the world doesn't already see the US as a laughing stock?

I'm curious how you think Trump is 100x worse than Hillary.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Gandhi said:


> Are you implying the world doesn't already see the US as a laughing stock?


Teh iluminate doesn't and that's all that matters!

But seriously here we are ten years after George Bush was supposed to have destroyed America's international influence and still all of Europe and East Asia wants to crawl up America's big fat warm butthole more than ever because Russia and China so scary! Turns out public opinion really does mean fuck-all sometimes.


----------



## virus21

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> Sanders is now Pro-Hilliary so what does that make him?


A sycophant


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/740373540138979329
:lol

Let's be real, though. Hillary's going to win, as I have said quite a few times in the past.

She's the embodiment of the postmodern welfare-warfare state, she is a massive international crook (so cool that the Clintons have $110 million to their names, such great public servants), she is a bloodthirsty warmonger in the worst tradition of Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Susan Rice and herself, she fits in with the past fifty-plus years of American identity politics, the chickens of which have been coming home to roost with Obama and now Hillary and, I am sure, in the near future, one day soon, a gangster of Latin extraction, she campaigns on "fighting" (and this is true of Bernie Sanders as well) because the revolution against human nature must never stop. 

The good news is that Donald Trump has embraced his role as demagogue, and so, it will fall to the demagogue to hold Hillary Clinton's public trial, for she will never be indicted by this woefully corrupt government which rules over us.

Yet she is precisely what this iteration of "America" deserves.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

That's right, get the butthurt out early.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> That's right, get the butthurt out early.


Mass democracy predictably results in such hideous outcomes. Nothing to become emotional over.

The fact that I live in an "elective despotism" as Jefferson would have called it, which is also a quasi-fascist supranational state which rests on a permanent war footing, has been obvious for a long time. The foolishness of the overwhelming majority of the electorate will help to secure the presidency for Hillary. All of this should be known by all, long ago.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I was thinking the trial for Hilary would come up but they're only processing 500 emails a month.. a MONTH! All that man power yet they're dragging their feet. This election shows us how corrupt the Government is and it's unlikely to change.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> Sanders is now Pro-Hilliary so what does that make him?


He did not endorse her, he said he will work with her to beat Trump because he has always said Trump can never win. He is going to get Hillary to take on some of his platforms. 

But to answer your question, it makes him anti Trump.





Gandhi said:


> Are you implying the world doesn't already see the US as a laughing stock?
> 
> I'm curious how you think Trump is 100x worse than Hillary.


I have stated a million times why Trump is worst than Hillary in this thread. Go back and read my posts.




Miss Sally said:


> I was thinking the trial for Hilary would come up but they're only processing 500 emails a month.. a MONTH! All that man power yet they're dragging their feet. This election shows us how corrupt the Government is and it's unlikely to change.


Did you see the latest how Google changed their search suggestions to hide negative Hillary suggestions

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/09/video-is-google-manipulating-searches-to-be-pro-hillary/






At the end of the video the guy says there is no proof that Hillary or her people asked google to edit their suggestion results but we all know that is exactly what happened.
Its just like her people closed on those polling stations in all those states but oh yeah Hillary or her people didnt ask for it.

I know he has to say and can't accuse her of it, but Eric Schmidt who has ties to google is a huge backer of Hilary Clinton. So the connection is there


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Truthbetold said:


>


He sure is a true patriot from Samuel Johnson's view, no doubt about that.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> He sure is a true patriot from Samuel Johnson's view, no doubt about that.


Man, what's your game? You discredit anything we post. Are you even trying to be neutral?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Man, what's your game? You discredit anything we post. Are you even trying to be neutral?


No, it's his entire shtick. As much shit as BM gets and yea BM gets personal and angry, BM does try to have a conversation. This guy doesn't, think he's some self hating white aussie but even that maybe some gimmick. Just ignore his posts, his butthurt post above is about the extent of his actual input for this topic. :quite


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> No, it's his entire shtick. As much shit as BM gets and yea BM gets personal and angry, BM does try to have a conversation. This guy doesn't, think he's some self hating white aussie but even that maybe some gimmick. Just ignore his posts, his butthurt post above is about the extent of his actual input for this topic. :quite


You would get angry too if it was always like 10 vs 1 not to mention all the snide remarks I always get like from blues or beatles. Sure I should try to get not as worked up or call people ignorant, I agree i need to work on that.

But I do have fun most times when Im not being dickish debating against 10 people at once. ha


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

After all that is going on, and thinking hard about it...I have finally come to the decision that I can not and will not vote for Donald Trump. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton either. Sometimes, if people are bent on making bad choices (and both parties are clearly intent on doing just that) it's' best to get out of the way and let it happen. Maybe the United States needs to just go over the cliff so that it can start building back up. As someone who loves my country (I will not apologize for being a patriot) I hate saying it but I think that's where we are. 

Trump doesn't know when to get out of his own way when it comes to shooting off his mouth. Yes, Judge Curiel is a liberal (Obama appointee) and makes no bones about it. However, do you really need to attack his being Hispanic to make your point. Yes, you can question the impartiality of a judge without bringing his ethnic background into the matter. Anyone who disagrees with him he shoots his mouth off at. I can imagine what happens the first time a world leader says something he doesn't like. 

Not to mention he is a flip-flopper that's even worse than previous ones. You don't know where he's coming from when it comes to issues. Not to mention for years he was an unapologetic fan of the Clintons and Obama. After all, this is a race between Hillary and one of her top donors. Sad to say that what will be a watershed election in our country's history and this is what we have to work with. 

I'm sure I will catch grief on here for this, but I decided that I am not willing to compromise my conservative values anymore. I did it for McCain and Romney, and after those didn't pan out well I'm not going to do it again. The GOP rolled over for Trump because they can feel they can work with him and he will cater to their whims. They threw Cruz under the bus because they see him as a bigger threat. 

This country needs an overhaul and needs change, but the only way I see it happening is if we go completely in the shitter, not circling the drain. Both Trump and Hillary will treat the Constitution like toilet paper. I want America to be great again, but this ain't the way to do it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> After all that is going on, and thinking hard about it...I have finally come to the decision that I can not and will not vote for Donald Trump. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton either. Sometimes, if people are bent on making bad choices (and both parties are clearly intent on doing just that) it's' best to get out of the way and let it happen. Maybe the United States needs to just go over the cliff so that it can start building back up. As someone who loves my country (I will not apologize for being a patriot) I hate saying it but I think that's where we are.
> 
> Trump doesn't know when to get out of his own way when it comes to shooting off his mouth. Yes, Judge Curiel is a liberal (Obama appointee) and makes no bones about it. However, do you really need to attack his being Hispanic to make your point. Yes, you can question the impartiality of a judge without bringing his ethnic background into the matter. Anyone who disagrees with him he shoots his mouth off at. I can imagine what happens the first time a world leader says something he doesn't like.
> 
> Not to mention he is a flip-flopper that's even worse than previous ones. You don't know where he's coming from when it comes to issues. Not to mention for years he was an unapologetic fan of the Clintons and Obama. After all, this is a race between Hillary and one of her top donors. Sad to say that what will be a watershed election in our country's history and this is what we have to work with.
> 
> I'm sure I will catch grief on here for this, but I decided that I am not willing to compromise my conservative values anymore. I did it for McCain and Romney, and after those didn't pan out well I'm not going to do it again. This country needs an overhaul and needs change, but the only way I see it happening is if we go completely in the shitter, not circling the drain. Both Trump and Hillary will treat the Constitution like toilet paper.


Are you voting for Jill Stein? That is who will be getting my vote


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Man, what's your game? You discredit anything we post. Are you even trying to be neutral?


Translation: Hey man, why won't you drink this kool-aid... it's good for you. :curry2


----------



## Super Sexy Steele

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I can't stand either Hillary or Donald but I'll admit this is going to be a fun general election to watch.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Trump doesn't know when to get out of his own way when it comes to shooting off his mouth. Yes, Judge Curiel is a liberal (Obama appointee) and makes no bones about it. However, do you really need to attack his being Hispanic to make your point. Yes, you can question the impartiality of a judge without bringing his ethnic background into the matter. Anyone who disagrees with him he shoots his mouth off at. I can imagine what happens the first time a world leader says something he doesn't like.


Jude Curiel belongs to a Mexican supremacist group. Trump was right to be concerned.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> No, it's his entire shtick. As much shit as BM gets and yea BM gets personal and angry, BM does try to have a conversation. This guy doesn't, think he's some self hating white aussie but even that maybe some gimmick. Just ignore his posts, his butthurt post above is about the extent of his actual input for this topic. :quite


Guess what Mustang Sally, I can post whatever I want and you can do two things: 

1. Like it
2. Nothing

Mostly my posts in here are jovial and ridiculous because firstly it's about Donald Trump (which is self-explanatory), and I find amusing the way some of his supporters are so blindly dismissive of any criticism that may have merit, and so accepting of any support that shows barely any.

You targeting me is especially hypocritical, as IMO the leader of non-sensical, misplaced, frankly ridiculous posts with zero logic and humour is yourself! Now have a great evening and have a cup of tea darling.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I have stated a million times why Trump is worst than Hillary in this thread. Go back and read my posts.


I'm not going to go search this 347 page thread for why you think Trump is _"worst"_ than Hillary.

Now go ahead and show me how Trump is _worse_ than Hillary.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Guess what Mustang Sally, I can post whatever I want and you can do two things:
> 
> 1. Like it
> 2. Nothing
> 
> Mostly my posts in here are jovial and ridiculous because firstly it's about Donald Trump (which is self-explanatory), and I find amusing the way some of his supporters are so blindly dismissive of any criticism that may have merit, and so accepting of any support that shows barely any.
> 
> You targeting me is especially hypocritical, as IMO the leader of non-sensical, misplaced, frankly ridiculous posts with zero logic and humour is yourself! Now have a great evening and have a cup of tea darling.


I'm unsure of your point. I didn't target you, Beatles asked a question, I simply answered for him. I didn't go out of my way to saying anything about you, you even admit your posts are ridiculous which I pointed is your shtick. I have no idea of your RL which is also why I said I don't know if that is also part of your gimmick. Beats me, nothing I said about you is really false because of your posting style. I just told him to ignore you if he doesn't like what you say. None of that is mean.

I do post a lot of ridiculous things, I find it rather funny so do many others! I'm sorry you don't. Sometimes in this forum you have to be ridiculous because of the very people that post here. But leader of the silly posts? Me? Hardly! Though I should post more serious at times. It's just so much more fun to say silly things. Especially in the entertainment section. :grin2:


----------



## Kenny

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## Truthbetold

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> I'm sure I will catch grief on here for this, but I decided that I am not willing to compromise my conservative values anymore. I did it for McCain and Romney, and after those didn't pan out well I'm not going to do it again. The GOP rolled over for Trump because they can feel they can work with him and he will cater to their whims. They threw Cruz under the bus because they see him as a bigger threat.
> 
> This country needs an overhaul and needs change, but the only way I see it happening is if we go completely in the shitter, not circling the drain. Both Trump and Hillary will treat the Constitution like toilet paper. I want America to be great again, but this ain't the way to do it.


I'm going to tell you why i don't agree at all with this terrible philosophy. I assume you're saying you voted for McCain and Romney which is insane. I voted for Obama in 2008 & 2012 to get America away from the Neo-Con war machine that the GOP had become. Now Trump has come along and the American people on the right and some on the left are getting behind him because he buried the Neo-Con war machine and took the GOP nomination for doing it. So people like you not voting for him will ensure an easy win for Hillary and we know she will jump into the driver seat and lead the Neo-Con war machine back into what they do best. Think about that.






https://twitter.com/renegadeparty


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Fascinating blow-by-blow of at least the tip of the iceberg of the "Clinton Cash" element of this potentially entertaining campaign... Full article, with a bevy of links, here: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...hat-have-imperiled-hillary-clintons-campaign/



> 21 New ‘Clinton Cash’ Revelations That Have Imperiled Hillary Clinton’s Campaign
> 
> Prior to the release of the New York Times, bestselling investigative exposé Clinton Cash by Government Accountability Institute President and Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer, Hillary Clinton and her supporters claimed she was among the most vetted political figures in America—a candidate about whom everything was known.
> 
> Yet as media outlets across the ideological spectrum have confirmed and verified the book’s explosive revelations about Clinton’s tenure as Sec. of State and the influx of hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign sources into the Clinton Foundation, the nation has learned much it did not know. Subsequent reporting by national news outlets has expanded on the book’s findings using its investigative methodology.
> 
> Indeed, the dizzying flurry of resulting Hillary Clinton Foundation scandals has been difficult to keep up with. As CNN’s John King put it on Sunday, “You can’t go 20 minutes in this town, it seems, without some sort of a story about Clinton Foundation that gives you a little bit of the creeps.”
> 
> Early on, as Clinton Cash bombshells began appearing in the New York Times, Washington Post, New Yorker, Bloomberg, and elsewhere, Hillary Clinton’s campaign sought to calm nervous campaign donors by announcing the creation of a special “rapid response” War Room aimed at combating a book, an unprecedented move in the annals of modern presidential campaigning. The Clinton campaign team built a website called “The Briefing,” issued memos, and tasked an eight-person team to create videos featuring embattled Clinton spokesperson Brian Fallon as he awkwardly and unsuccessfully attempted to smear Peter Schweizer. Team Clinton’s message: all of Clinton Cash’s revelations are incorrect or merely “coincidences.”
> 
> Yet as the nation’s largest news organizations began to confirm finding after finding, the Clinton campaign did the only thing it could: it gave up in its attempts to refute the swelling avalanche of now well-established facts. Indeed, the Clinton campaign’s last video response on its “The Briefing” YouTube page is dated May 5th—Clinton Cash’s official launch date.
> 
> To date, Hillary Clinton has yet to substantively answer a single question from the mountain of Clinton Cash questions that continue to pile up with each passing day.
> 
> The result: according to Tuesday’s CNN poll, the “Clinton Cash Effect” has rendered Hillary Clinton historic new lows in her favorability with American voters.
> 
> Below we chronicle just 21 of the myriad Clinton Cash-related revelations that have emerged since the book’s publication—all of which have been confirmed and verified as accurate by national media organizations.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## Kabraxal

This election is depressing... All the non two party candidates will maybe net 15 percent of the vote at the absolute best but mostly likely 11 percent if te polling holds put for Johnson. And 85 percent of voters will choose between two fucking douchebags........ Ugh.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Gandhi said:


>


That's why he's endorsed her. He knows she will keep his policies in place and appoint his SCOTUS nominee.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Why was Truth banned? lol


----------



## DOPA

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

One thing most of us can agree on .


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

[hide][/hide]


Kabraxal said:


> This election is depressing... All the non two party candidates will maybe net 15 percent of the vote at the absolute best but mostly likely 11 percent if te polling holds put for Johnson. *And 85 percent of voters will choose between two fucking douchebags........ Ugh.*


So in what way is this different from any other election? :wink2:


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You would get angry too if it was always like 10 vs 1 not to mention all the snide remarks I always get like from blues or beatles. Sure I should try to get not as worked up or call people ignorant, I agree i need to work on that.
> 
> But I do have fun most times when Im not being dickish debating against 10 people at once. ha


My man, I have never negged you even once in our entire conversation, I don't believe. maybe a few times at most but i've always let you have your opinion.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Are you voting for Jill Stein? That is who will be getting my vote


Probably looking at Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. I lean more towards libertarian when it comes to many social issues. At this stage, we need to go back to the Constitution and a more Federalist stance. 



CamillePunk said:


> Jude Curiel belongs to a Mexican supremacist group. Trump was right to be concerned.


Yes, Curiel is a bleeding heart liberal, and you can be concerned about his potential politics. However, to target the man simply for being Hispanic is ridiculous. You can make the argument without playing that card. That's a cheap ploy that he really doesn't need to play, and at this stage he needs to be an adult and not go that route. The low hanging fruit ain't always the best. 



Truthbetold said:


> I'm going to tell you why i don't agree at all with this terrible philosophy. I assume you're saying you voted for McCain and Romney which is insane. I voted for Obama in 2008 & 2012 to get America away from the Neo-Con war machine that the GOP had become. Now Trump has come along and the American people on the right and some on the left are getting behind him because he buried the Neo-Con war machine and took the GOP nomination for doing it. So people like you not voting for him will ensure an easy win for Hillary and we know she will jump into the driver seat and lead the Neo-Con war machine back into what they do best. Think about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/renegadeparty


What makes you think Trump won't go back there? The man bounces back and forth on his views depending on the time of day or which way the wind is blowing. He'll kick out all the Muslims then he won't. He will lower taxes, then raise them. He will raise the minimum wage, then he won't. He is so inconsistent that sometimes I don't think he knows what he wants to do. 

I voted for McCain in '08 because I figured he would be better at keeping us safe. In 2012, Romney because I was concerned for Obama's policies and where they were taking us. They have taken this nation to the brink of disaster. We have allies who don't trust us, and enemies that laugh at us. We have a national debt spiralling to the point that when the economy collapses it will not be pretty. So, with the state of the country, the GOP could have nominated a true conservative who could have turned things around. Instead, we get a man who is far more liberal and unpredictable then is acceptable. 

Trust me, I have thought about it, and if it means the country has to hit rock-bottom in order for it to finally rebuild so be it. It's like a drug addict who people keep enabling time and time again. Finally, sometimes the only way you can get that person help is to let him hit the bottom. Then and only then will they find the strength to come back. I am no longer willing to compromise my beliefs just because of someone's political affiliation.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

@BruiserKC you have more faith than I do. As far as I am concerned, this country has already gone over the cliff and is falling towards its inevitable demise. I think there will be no coming back from rock bottom. That is the main reason that I would vote for Trump, since in my opinion it really doesn't matter at this point. I honestly believe that within 40-50 years the United States will cease to exist. It probably won't even make a difference who gets elected right now, but what the hell, might as well take a stab in the dark and hope that someone like Trump is able to shake everything up.

I would love to see Trump vs Sanders in the election. I honestly wouldn't care who won. I am sick of voting for the lesser of two evils. For once it would be nice to cast a vote for the greater of two monkey wrenches. Because the American Political Machine needs to have some damage done to it if this country is to have a future. I simply cannot wrap my head around the idea of people _wanting _to vote for Hillary Clinton, so that we can boldly continue our downward spiral. I guess it doesn't matter one way or another. Empires rise and then they fall. Before long it will be our turn as well.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Yes, Curiel is a bleeding heart liberal, and you can be concerned about his potential politics. However, to target the man simply for being Hispanic is ridiculous. You can make the argument without playing that card. That's a cheap ploy that he really doesn't need to play, and at this stage he needs to be an adult and not go that route. The low hanging fruit ain't always the best.


He didn't target him simply for being Hispanic though. You're just taking the MSM narrative for fact here. :draper2 I listened to the full speech where the comments were made and it wasn't a racial remark at all when listened to with context.

Nobody's going to be giving you a gold star for being hyper-sensitive to fictional racism to the point you turn your back on Trump for nonsense like this.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I am sorry, @BruiserKC, but the Constitution is not coming back like the hero in a three-act serial episode.

It's deader than the sirloin I ate a few hours ago. 

rip as *MrMister* might say...


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*






The Genius endorses Donald Trump for President!

- Vic


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Deadpool said:


> @BruiserKC you have more faith than I do. As far as I am concerned, this country has already gone over the cliff and is falling towards its inevitable demise. I think there will be no coming back from rock bottom. That is the main reason that I would vote for Trump, since in my opinion it really doesn't matter at this point. I honestly believe that within 40-50 years the United States will cease to exist. It probably won't even make a difference who gets elected right now, but what the hell, might as well take a stab in the dark and hope that someone like Trump is able to shake everything up.
> 
> I would love to see Trump vs Sanders in the election. I honestly wouldn't care who won. I am sick of voting for the lesser of two evils. For once it would be nice to cast a vote for the greater of two monkey wrenches. Because the American Political Machine needs to have some damage done to it if this country is to have a future. I simply cannot wrap my head around the idea of people _wanting _to vote for Hillary Clinton, so that we can boldly continue our downward spiral. I guess it doesn't matter one way or another. Empires rise and then they fall. Before long it will be our turn as well.


Trust me, President Sanders would be far worse. His policies would be Obama's on crack. He doesn't want just methodical change, he wants to permanently re-shape the United States and turn it into a socialist haven. Meanwhile, many of the European countries are abandoning that model because it doesn't work. 

The problem with the GOP over the years is it has basically become Democrat-lite. We've heard people like Ryan, Boehner, McConnell, Cantor, etc...for years tell us we're going to stop this agenda and they roll over time and time again. I'm amazed, TBH, that Grassley has held firm in refusing for Obama's SCOTUS nominee to even be vetted. The '12 election had no contrast, Romney was the founder of the Obamacare movement as he initiated the single-payer government-run health care system in Massachusetts. Last elections we have really seen this is the '80 and '84 elections...Reagan vs. Carter/Mondale showed two clear pictures of America and a contrast. You knew who and what you were voting for. I really don't see any differences when you really take a look at the two. 

Trust me, President Hillary Clinton scares the shit out of me. The possibility of Elizabeth Warren being one heart-beat away terrifies me even more. However, the GOP has made its bed by nominating liberals, and Trump is far more liberal than McCain and Romney put together. 



CamillePunk said:


> He didn't target him simply for being Hispanic though. You're just taking the MSM narrative for fact here. :draper2 I listened to the full speech where the comments were made and it wasn't a racial remark at all when listened to with context.
> 
> Nobody's going to be giving you a gold star for being hyper-sensitive to fictional racism to the point you turn your back on Trump for nonsense like this.


I have turned my back on Trump for the fact he bounces around on his views and direction he wants to lead the country. I look at the two people we have running and don't see any difference. This is an election between her and one of her top donors. Just a few years ago, Trump was singing the praises of Obama for the bailout and Hillary was the person to work out a nuclear deal with Iran. Somehow, I can't buy that he suddenly had his road to Damascus moment where he saw the light. 

I appreciate the fact that he will fight back, but at some point you need to take a step back and show the world that you can be presidential. Anyone that goes up against him or disagrees with him he fights back. What happens if Putin says something he doesn't like, will he start throwing out nasty tweets? So it's not the fact he is attacking this judge, he has the right to be concerned about impartiality. It's the fact he makes his point and rather than stop he pounds the matter into the ground. 

I don't want a gold star, I want the United States to find its way back from the abyss it's staring down right now. I'm just not convinced Trump is the man to do this.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

@DesolationRow


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

All I've heard for ten years is that if you're against illegal immigration Hispanics will hate you and work against you.

Trump is just taking the MSM at its word; Curiel is a Hispanic, :trump is against illegal immigration... so what is the conclusion to be drawn about Curiel, according to the MSM and Democrats? 

:trump turning the racism of the PC left against itself again. 

Not that anyone will care once :trump smacks Hillary with his pimp hand in the first debate so hard her head explodes. Bitch is gonna have a Chernobyl-level meltdown being on the same stage as the CHAMP


----------



## krai999

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

me voting for trump after bernie lost


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Okay Bruiser don't vote for Trump, tired of debunking the same MSM talking points in this thread. If he loses then you can self-congratulate while California becomes Mexico again and the tens of thousands of refugees Hillary imports start doing exactly what they've been doing in Europe, and the US invades or destabilizes yet another secular Middle Eastern regime.

I differ from Trump ideologically in many ways but I'm not so full of myself I'm gonna turn my back on the one guy who's actually willing to talk about the biggest threats to Western civilization (no BM it's not fucking global warming). We will never see a limited government approach in this country ever again if we import a bunch of authoritarians. Trump is a stopgap measure, and maybe he won't come good, but Hillary is actively for the destruction of Western civilization. The choice for me is pretty fucking easy.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

"Hillary is for the destruction of Western Civilization"











my do you sheep even listen to yourself speak, you wonder why we call you crazy. That is tinfoil hat non-sense talk. 


It's going to be end of the world towards your lives come November then when we elect our first female President.











T_*R*_HBO


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Trust me, President Sanders would be far worse. His policies would be Obama's on crack. He doesn't want just methodical change, he wants to permanently re-shape the United States and turn it into a socialist haven. Meanwhile, many of the European countries are abandoning that model because it doesn't work.


Oh, that is the funny thing though. Even in the even of Sanders winning, I don't believe for one second that he will get a damn thing accomplished. Re-shape the US in the image he wants? That will never happen. But I would like to see him try. Put it all on the fast track so people can finally see what is being done to them, instead of the slow progression into destruction the way we are doing it with the current political establishment.



CamillePunk said:


> I differ from Trump ideologically in many ways but I'm not so full of myself I'm gonna turn my back on the one guy who's actually willing to talk about the biggest threats to Western civilization (no BM it's not fucking global warming). We will never see a limited government approach in this country ever again if we import a bunch of authoritarians. Trump is a stopgap measure, and maybe he won't come good, but Hillary is actively for the destruction of Western civilization. The choice for me is pretty fucking easy.


And here we have probably the best summation that explains why I would choose to vote for Trump. Especially when you consider the alternative is having Hillary as President. To vote for anyone else I believe would be irresponsible and detrimental to the future of the country. We can't say for sure where it will go with Trump at the head, but we damn well know what will happen with Prez Clinton 2.0. More of the same old, same old.

To paraphrase a great movie villain, "This country needs an enema!". :trump will be that enema.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> @DesolationRow


Thank you for sharing, *L-DOPA*.

Naturally the pious language of preserving abstractions such as "freedom and democracy" are the smokescreen propaganda utilized by the American state. Not that the lies would make the American state's popularly delivered purpose of preserving democracy worldwide, thus making the U.S. a sort of ideologically-driven superpower state ala the Soviet Union would be a positive were they even true.

Looking forward to Donald Trump's address concerning the pervasive villainy of Hillary Clinton.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/741300721098727425


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Felt like bringing some truth to this thread




























Trump hates god?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I don't think :trump can order the US military to bomb Chicago and send frogmen to fuck Chicago up up close and personal... probably.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I never got the the whole "Hawks are cowards because they don't fight the wars they start"

Society advanced much better after we realized that having a leaders on horseback charging our enemies was a bad idea

"warrior" kinds didn't tend to last long and their societies didn't last as long as the people who kept their leader safe and, you know, leading


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*






:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Donald Trump's statement on the Islamic State terrorist attack in Orlando: 

http://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-r...-statement-regarding-tragic-terrorist-attacks



> Last night, our nation was attacked by a radical Islamic terrorist. It was the worst terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11, and the second of its kind in 6 months. My deepest sympathy and support goes out to the victims, the wounded, and their families.
> 
> In his remarks today, President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the words 'Radical Islam'. For that reason alone, he should step down. If Hillary Clinton, after this attack, still cannot say the two words 'Radical Islam' she should get out of this race for the Presidency.
> 
> If we do not get tough and smart real fast, we are not going to have a country anymore. Because our leaders are weak, I said this was going to happen – and it is only going to get worse. I am trying to save lives and prevent the next terrorist attack. We can't afford to be politically correct anymore.
> 
> The terrorist, Omar Mir Saddique Mateen, is the son of an immigrant from Afghanistan who openly published his support for the Afghanistani Taliban and even tried to run for President of Afghanistan. According to Pew, 99% of people in Afghanistan support oppressive Sharia Law.
> 
> We admit more than 100,000 lifetime migrants from the Middle East each year. Since 9/11, hundreds of migrants and their children have been implicated in terrorism in the United States.
> 
> 
> Hillary Clinton wants to dramatically increase admissions from the Middle East, bringing in many hundreds of thousands during a first term – and we will have no way to screen them, pay for them, or prevent the second generation from radicalizing.
> 
> We need to protect all Americans, of all backgrounds and all beliefs, from Radical Islamic Terrorism - which has no place in an open and tolerant society. Radical Islam advocates hate for women, gays, Jews, Christians and all Americans. I am going to be a President for all Americans, and I am going to protect and defend all Americans. We are going to make America safe again and great again for everyone.
> 
> 
> - Donald J. Trump
> 
> Tomorrow Mr. Trump will deliver a major speech to further address this terrorist attack, immigration, and national security. The speech will be delivered at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm's College. For more information please visit Donaldjtrump.com.


100% on-point in my view.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Donald Trump's statement on the Islamic State terrorist attack in Orlando:
> 
> http://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-r...-statement-regarding-tragic-terrorist-attacks
> 
> 100% on-point in my view.


Great piece. I look forward to his speech tomorrow.

One article written by Trump is more authentic than the totality of what comes out of Crooked Hillary's mouth.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Donald Trump's statement on the Islamic State terrorist attack in Orlando:
> 
> http://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-r...-statement-regarding-tragic-terrorist-attacks
> 
> 100% on-point in my view.


Pretty much everyone in the US unless you are native american is a migrant. 

This guy that did the shooting was born in the US, so that makes him american. Almost everyones relatives at one point were illegal immigrants . 

90% of all terrorist attacks in the US are by non muslims.


----------



## Headliner

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



> In his remarks today, President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the words 'Radical Islam'. For that reason alone, he should step down. If Hillary Clinton, after this attack, still cannot say the two words 'Radical Islam' she should get out of this race for the Presidency.


lmao what bullshit. Birthday_Massacre idk why you waste your time in here. Let the Trump marks and super Trump marks have their circle jerk.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I better be considered a super Trump mark.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Headliner said:


> lmao what bullshit. Birthday_Massacre idk why you waste your time in here. Let the Trump marks and super Trump marks have their circle jerk.


I dont know why I do either. Just bored sometimes I guess. After today seeing what the Trump supporters and Trump has said after the FL shooting, I think i shouldn't even bother.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I dont know why I do either. Just bored sometimes I guess. After today seeing what the Trump supporters and Trump has said after the FL shooting, I think i shouldn't even bother.












Soon. :trump


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

LOL Celebs bashing Trump on twitter and pushing anti-gun agenda but don't call out Islam extreme or not, they leave Religion out of it. Since when is one certain Religion special? I find it scary that people are so desperate to try to turn this into something it's not, it's clear religious terrorism yet people want to make it about something else. Obama scared to say radial islam is hilarious. Denying these people do these acts in the name of Religion is such a burying your head in the sand moment.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Pretty much everyone in the US unless you are native american is a migrant.


I wasn't born in any country other than the United States. I am a native American. I had ancestors who were migrants. That does not make me a migrant. I was not born in some other country and came to the United States later. 

It's batshit reality-denial to say that because someone's ancestors are a migrant they are one too. "Migrant" isn't some genetic marker that passes down through the generations.



> This guy that did the shooting was born in the US, so that makes him american. Almost everyones relatives at one point were illegal immigrants .


He rejected being an American, he was a muhajideen for the Caliphate. 

And no sorry not almost everyone's relatives at some point were illegal immigrants. Seriously where the fuck do you come up with this stuff? Most Americans' relatives were born in no other country than the United States. The number of people who have legally migrated to this country since 1776 dwarfs the number who have migrated here illegally. 



> 90% of all terrorist attacks in the US are by non muslims.


No they aren't, unless you expand the definition of terrorist attack so as to make it essentially meaningless.



Headliner said:


> lmao what bullshit. Birthday_Massacre idk why you waste your time in here. Let the Trump marks and super Trump marks have their circle jerk.


^this is a big reason why :trump is going to be the next president. The attitude you display has been festering and growing for the last 15 years, pissing more and more people off, and :trump is the blowback. It's not us who are responsible for :trump, we were just fine voting for polite losers like John McCain and Mitt Romney... should have dialed back the hubris a bit, and we still would be voting for polite losers. Now a vulgar winner is going to be the next president, because the entire smirking 'we're so smart you're so dumb we can't even with you' crowd didn't have the sense to not be the sorest of winners.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I dont know why I do either. Just bored sometimes I guess. After today seeing what the Trump supporters and Trump has said after the FL shooting, I think i shouldn't even bother.


i've treated you nice and to be honest you could have been treated a lot worse. I think that's rather rude of you.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

As for the chrysis, I have a gay friend myself and he's appald at the left's ducking of the issue.

If we are to become a secular state Islam neeeds to be held to the same standard of scrutiny Christians are today. No one religion should be favored over another.


----------



## 2Pieced

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

So what about about all the other mass shootings committed in America that had nothing to do with Islam, are they now less important because they cannot be used to push trumps agenda?

There was another Person who planned an attack that had he not been foiled could have caused loss of life on a similar scale that doesn't seem to have anything to do with Islam. Do we ignore that aswell because again it can't be used to push an agenda.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



2Pieced said:


> So what about about all the other mass shootings committed in America that had nothing to do with Islam, are they now less important because they cannot be used to push trumps agenda?
> 
> There was another Person who planned an attack that had he not been foiled could have caused loss of life on a similar scale that doesn't seem to have anything to do with Islam. Do we ignore that as well because again it can't be used to push an agenda.


the gun problem and the islam problem are two seperate issues here. your post doesn't refute the fact that this is being glossed over for that reason.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Gandhi said:


> Soon. :trump


You being a non-believer and a Donald Trump supporter goes hand and hand. 

:applause


----------



## 2Pieced

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> the gun problem and the islam problem are two seperate issues here. your post doesn't refute the fact that this is being glossed over for that reason.


There are millions of people who hate, are prejudice and discriminate for various reason in America, the majority who choose to use that hate to hurt other people are not Muslim.

The biggest issue is to stop those people having too easy the ability to commit those crimes, that is easier to do than change what is in peoples hearts.

Choosing to focus on the amount of killings driven by islam while not on others which vastly outweigh those would not make sense at all. You can curb both by focusing on them all under the umbrella of the gun problem nation wide. 

Have you seen this video, particular from 3:58 onwards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6imFvSua3Kg


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> *As for the chrysis, I have a gay friend myself and he's appald at the left's ducking of the issue.*
> 
> If we are to become a secular state Islam neeeds to be held to the same standard of scrutiny Christians are today. No one religion should be favored over another.


For pete's sake can we get over blaming the left for everything? What exactly are 'they' ducking? They're not denouncing ISIS or extremist muslims like you want them to? FFS the bodies are barely cold on this thing and everyone in here apparently knows the killer's motives and history and everything. 

The way some people spit out terms like 'leftist' it's almost is if they view it on the same level as terrorist mass killings and ISIS themselves. It's ridiculous.

And you don't think Islam is held to standards of scrutiny? They certainly are on this site for one, and many, many sections of the media and politics etc etc. Trump himself loves to hold Islam to plenty of scrutiny, what level of scrutiny would you like?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> For pete's sake can we get over blaming the left for everything? What exactly are 'they' ducking? They're not denouncing ISIS or extremist muslims like you want them to? FFS the bodies are barely cold on this thing and everyone in here apparently knows the killer's motives and history and everything.
> 
> The way some people spit out terms like 'leftist' it's almost is if they view it on the same level as terrorist mass killings and ISIS themselves. It's ridiculous.
> 
> And you don't think Islam is held to standards of scrutiny? They certainly are on this site for one, and many, many sections of the media and politics etc etc. Trump himself loves to hold Islam to plenty of scrutiny, what level of scrutiny would you like?


Oh, like you haven't blamed us for everything? You've only no-sold everything ever spoken that wasn't liberal minded in here. We're all just inferior beings to you.

You call that the same level of scrutiny when places in Britain force kids to wear hijabs in school during Ramadan? 

People are scared to offend muslims more than they are to shit on Christianity. The liberals think they need to be treated like special snowflakes. You wanna call Christianity shit, fine, but more people will defend Islam if you call it out. 

We're moving more toward Islam than perhaps any other major religion.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



gamegenie said:


> You being a non-believer and a Donald Trump supporter goes hand and hand.
> 
> :applause


Now this is just what I hate about modern Christianity. I could give less of a shit if you like Hilary but how the fuck do you know what we believe in? If I vote Trump I don't believe in god?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Oh, like you haven't blamed us for everything? You've only no-sold everything ever spoken that wasn't liberal minded in here. We're all just inferior beings to you.
> 
> You call that the same level of scrutiny when places in Britain force kids to wear hijabs in school during Ramadan?
> 
> People are scared to offend muslims more than they are to shit on Christianity. The liberals think they need to be treated like special snowflakes. You wanna call Christianity shit, fine, but more people will defend Islam if you call it out.
> 
> We're moving more toward Islam than perhaps any other major religion.


First of all, what is this 'us' business? If you don't have a mouse in your pocket, then just what are you referring to when you bring out this 'us'? What have I blamed your side for? You're really projecting with this 'inferior beings' business as well, I have no idea what you're referring to. Just because I fuck around doesn't mean I think you're beneath me. I'm no huge success in life by any measure let me tell you. What I was objecting to was the continued demonisation of 'THE LEFT' so much that the term has basically lost all meaning for me. It's now become a label with no substance, a cop out. In the past you've chastised people for putting all Trump supporters in the same basket, but you're happy to do the same with 'THE LEFT'.

Secondly, it's the first I've heard of


> places in Britain force kids to wear hijabs in school during Ramadan


 but let me go on record saying that sounds ridiculous and OTT and wrong. However if you're talking about this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-forcing-girls-young-11-wear-face-veils.html

In which an ISLAMIC SCHOOL is 'forcing' girls to wear the garb consistent with their religion, well I think it would suck personally but I really don't care and I also happen to believe in freedom of religion as I'm sure you do. I got forced to wear a uniform BTW at school and didn't like it much.

EDIT: You may be referring more to things like this, which is a different story and I don't think this girl should've been forced to wear anything, that's bullshit.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...dress-Muslim-mosque-trip--branded-truant.html

As for your third paragraph, that's your opinion and I don't happen to agree. It depends on what type and how much news you follow that will give you an idea of how much or how little scrutiny christianity/islam gets.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Obama‬'s weak foreign policy and ‪Clinton‬'s failure as Secretary of State led to ‪‎ISIS‬ gaining strength in numbers and the Orlando tragedy. The time for action is NOW!










- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Obama‬'s weak foreign policy and ‪Clinton‬'s failure as Secretary of State led to ‪‎ISIS‬ gaining strength in numbers and the Orlando tragedy. The time for action is NOW!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic


Iunno what Obama's foreign policy was, it seems like it consisted of sending unqualified diplomats to threaten nations who didn't do what the US wanted, give Iran nuke ability and piss off Israel and everyone else around it, fuck with Russia at every turn while Syria was cannibalizing itself, having the US destabilize countries already on the edge and having Hilary and her death squads committing mass genocide in Libya. Oh yea forgot the nonstop drone strikes. 

I guess this sort of stuff earns you the peace prize.

Hilary failed as Secretary of State, pretty much committed treason, fucked up benghazi, bragged about crushing gaddafi while her sanctioned death squads had their way with everyone. Her and her hubby's foundations were busy ripping off money from everyone and she has spent nearly half of everyday lying about something. 

These two are some of the biggest fucking idiots in politics.


----------



## Headliner

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> I wasn't born in any country other than the United States. I am a native American. I had ancestors who were migrants. That does not make me a migrant. I was not born in some other country and came to the United States later.
> 
> It's batshit reality-denial to say that because someone's ancestors are a migrant they are one too. "Migrant" isn't some genetic marker that passes down through the generations.
> 
> 
> 
> He rejected being an American, he was a muhajideen for the Caliphate.
> 
> And no sorry not almost everyone's relatives at some point were illegal immigrants. Seriously where the fuck do you come up with this stuff? Most Americans' relatives were born in no other country than the United States. The number of people who have legally migrated to this country since 1776 dwarfs the number who have migrated here illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> No they aren't, unless you expand the definition of terrorist attack so as to make it essentially meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> ^this is a big reason why :trump is going to be the next president. The attitude you display has been festering and growing for the last 15 years, pissing more and more people off, and :trump is the blowback. It's not us who are responsible for :trump, we were just fine voting for polite losers like John McCain and Mitt Romney... should have dialed back the hubris a bit, and we still would be voting for polite losers. Now a vulgar winner is going to be the next president, because the entire smirking 'we're so smart you're so dumb we can't even with you' crowd didn't have the sense to not be the sorest of winners.


Pretty sure I wasn't talking to you.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Now this is just what I hate about modern Christianity. I could give less of a shit if you like Hilary but how the fuck do you know what we believe in? If I vote Trump I don't believe in god?


Maybe you ought to read the other 2 hot button threads on this board, one of them created by that non-believer buddy of yours and see for yourself that you have a heathen or possibly an agnostic hanging in your crowd.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*






Great speech on terrorism today by Donald J Trump. Trump begins speaking about 16 minutes in. 

Here's the transcript: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-...-terrorism-immigration-and-national-security1


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Great speech on terrorism today by Donald J Trump. Trump begins speaking about 16 minutes in.
> 
> Here's the transcript: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-...-terrorism-immigration-and-national-security1


those are the most "presidential" remarks he's given yet this campaign

:trump growing up before our eyes awwwe


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*










- Vic


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> - Vic


Clearly you and the person who created that meme are not aware of the US death drones we have flying over the Middle East hunting down ISIS.


----------



## Headliner

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



> “He doesn’t get it or he gets it better than anybody understands—it’s one or the other and either one is unacceptable,” Trump said on Fox News. He had already called in a statement Sunday for Obama to resign from office. Trump added on Monday:
> 
> Look, we’re led by a man that either is not tough, not smart, or he’s got something else in mind. And the something else in mind—you know, people can’t believe it. People cannot, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can’t even mention the words “radical Islamic terrorism.” There’s something going on. It’s inconceivable. There’s something going on.


Clown shit:lmao:lmao :done


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Headliner said:


> Clown shit:lmao:lmao :done


Perfectly accurate statement.

Obama's main ideological foundation is 60s-70s anti-colonialist thought.

His ideology prevents him from talking openly and honestly about Islamic terrorism, even though he understands it perfectly. In anti-colonialism, movements like jihadism are responses to Western imperialism. As such, it is not ideologically orthodox to present them in an unabashed negative light. 

Of course you probably thought :trump was saying Obama is a secret Muslim who loves jihad because you are completely ignorant of the philosophies that Obama grew up with and that shaped his worldview. :eva

Again all you're demonstrating is why :trump will win: you.



Headliner said:


> Pretty sure I wasn't talking to you.


:heston

Sorry you're so aggravated over being responded to.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Headliner, I am not a Trump supporter but your being kind of butthurt for a mod

You have to have SOME type of neutrality


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

^ Unfortunately, a lot of people drink the liberal Kool-Aid thinking life is all kumbaya.



> Clearly you and the person who created that meme are not aware of the US death drones we have flying over the Middle East hunting down ISIS.


I find that hard to believe that since Obama treats his Muslim brethren better than Americans who voted for his sorry ass.

- Vic


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> ^ Unfortunately, a lot of people drink the liberal Kool-Aid thinking life is all kumbaya.
> 
> 
> 
> *I find that hard to believe* that since Obama treats his Muslim brethren better than Americans who voted for his sorry ass.
> 
> - Vic


It's true. Do you want proof?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

A temporary ban on Muslims is the solution, so why can't a temporary ban on guns be a solution as well? The ban can be lifted until America is in a position to properly and perfectly screen people owning guns. :troll


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



> It's true. Do you want proof?


BLOCKED.

- Vic


----------



## Phaedra

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I can't understand why this creature doesn't frighten more people. The ideologies he espouses are in their very nature un-american, they infringe upon liberty and freedoms that the country was set up to stand up for. He's a dangerous fascist and i worry it will be far too late before the american people who support him realise this. 

Yeah i'm from the UK but i have american family and an american father so I don't feel like i have some distant uneducated opinion on america or american politics. I do however have more european sensibilities having grown up here so obviously a lot of things that happen or are said puzzle me in a big way. 

I'm not some member of a distant liberal elite who know no more about the lives of families living on the breadline working three jobs to make ends meet than their counterparts. The political elite sneers at ordinary people no matter what side of the fence they sit on. But Donald Trump is a terrible symptom of this disenchantment and disenfranchisement. A person such as him becoming president of the free world is truly fucking terrifying and just goes to show you can represent your people as long as you have enough money to do it. Who really speaks for american people? who answers their insecurities and ignorances rather than speaks to them and enhances them? 

makes me sad. I hope this is some sort of enlightening experience for american people and they come to realise their true power and really understand who they are. Hard working and kind upholders of justice and freedom. Know yourselves.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> BLOCKED.
> 
> - Vic



BLOCKED BYPASSED.

-gamegenie


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Phaedra said:


> I can't understand why this creature doesn't frighten more people. The ideologies he espouses are in their very nature un-american, they infringe upon liberty and freedoms that the country was set up to stand up for. He's a dangerous fascist and i worry it will be far too late before the american people who support him realise this.


Feel free to be specific in which of his policies are un-American or fascist.


----------



## Phaedra

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Feel free to be specific in which of his policies are un-American or fascist.


sure watching raw rn then going to bed. there's so much, esp the controls on immigration and the de facto banning of a certain faith and his stance on women's rights. But the thing i'd be most worried about is how he got to be so 'successful', he can't just bankrupt a country liquidate its assets and move onto the next one. just saying. it's my opinion of course.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Nobody should give a fuck about what is an _"American"_ or _"European"_ or _"Arabian"_ or _"Egyptian"_ or _"Japanese"_ thing to do.

People should care about the RIGHT thing to do.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Phaedra said:


> it's my opinion of course.


Opinions are subjective which means they are neither right or wrong.

Meaning they are useless.

Nobody's opinion matters, please stick to arguing in facts.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Phaedra said:


> sure watching raw rn then going to bed. there's so much, esp the controls on immigration and the de facto banning of a certain faith and his stance on women's rights. But the thing i'd be most worried about is how he got to be so 'successful', he can't just bankrupt a country liquidate its assets and move onto the next one. just saying. it's my opinion of course.


You think Hilary is a better candidate? Just wondering. Out of them both Trump is the far better option, Hilary wants open borders which is insanity considering the cartels that are running wild on the border. It would be like saying you want open borders with Albania and England if Albania was just a hop skip and a throw away.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Phaedra said:


> sure watching raw rn then going to bed. there's so much, esp the controls on immigration and the de facto banning of a certain faith and his stance on women's rights. But the thing i'd be most worried about is how he got to be so 'successful', he can't just bankrupt a country liquidate its assets and move onto the next one. just saying. it's my opinion of course.


The president has the power to decide what kind of people we allow to immigrate into the country. The US has always controlled immigration in this way. 

If you're talking about abortion then that being a "right" is a pretty recent development in our country's history, and public opinion has never been decisively pro-choice. Definitely not something you can call "American". 

He liquidated like 4 out of 500 businesses. That's not how he got rich at all.

Also I don't think you know what fascism means if you're calling Trump a fascist. Pretty sure it's the Trump protesters who want to violently intimidate and silence people who disagree with them politically. :draper2 The Trump movement is purely democratic, unlike the anti-Trump movement, which actually is made up of fascists and fascist-enablers such as those at Salon and HuffPo who encourage the violence.


----------



## Phaedra

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> You think Hilary is a better candidate? Just wondering. Out of them both Trump is the far better option, Hilary wants open borders which is insanity considering the cartels that are running wild on the border. It would be like saying you want open borders with Albania and England if Albania was just a hop skip and a throw away.


having lived in continental europe i have no problems with open borders personally. I have nothing to fear from albanians coming here to do live and work, just as I could go and live and work in albania if I so wished. 

No I don't like Hilary, she's a member of that sneering liberal elite who know nothing about real life.

Facts are facts but I say it's my opinion because everyone forms opinions on facts. And honestly everyone could hear the same fact and form different opinions on it. So in the end when you are in that polling booth you will always go with what you feel and what you believe and you're entitled to believe what you want to believe. I also say its my opinion because i do not live in the US. 

Guys, i don't have any problems with the republican party, they talk to people and they represent views and conservative ideologies. I don't share them but they do it. There are many members of the GOP that i deeply respect, one of which was denigrated by Trump in John McCain. But how the party of Abraham Lincoln came to this pass is somewhat sad.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Oh Camille, did you know the DNC is building a wall around itself in philly? I thought Hilary was about bridges not walls! Trump supporters haven't been disrupting Bernie or Hilary.. so who do you think the walls are there to keep out? After all leftists say walls don't work like ever, so kinda weird they'd erect walls up to keep people out.


----------



## Phaedra

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> The president has the power to decide what kind of people we allow to immigrate into the country. The US has always controlled immigration in this way.
> 
> If you're talking about abortion then that being a "right" is a pretty recent development in our country's history, and public opinion has never been decisively pro-choice. Definitely not something you can call "American".
> 
> He liquidated like 4 out of 500 businesses. That's not how he got rich at all.
> 
> *Also I don't think you know what fascism means if you're calling Trump a fascist. Pretty sure it's the Trump protesters who want to violently intimidate and silence people who disagree with them politically. :draper2 The Trump movement is purely democratic, unlike the anti-Trump movement, which actually is made up of fascists and fascist-enablers such as those at Salon and HuffPo who encourage the violence.*


really? The news here has just been full of how bad tempered and vile the trump supporters behave when anyone disagrees with them. Punching someone in the face for making a silent protest at a rally. trying to silence their opponents with violence. No doubt those who support Hillary try and silence their opponents by claiming to be smarter than them, but violence. 

I understand just fine what fascism is thanks and that is what it looks like from the outside.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Phaedra said:


> really? The news here has just been full of how bad tempered and vile the trump supporters behave when anyone disagrees with them. Punching someone in the face for making a silent protest at a rally. trying to silence their opponents with violence. No doubt those who support Hillary try and silence their opponents by claiming to be smarter than them, but violence.
> 
> I understand just fine what fascism is thanks and that is what it looks like from the outside.


Wait are you saying the recent riots have been caused by Trump supporters and the violence against them isn't real?


----------



## Phaedra

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Wait are you saying the recent riots have been caused by Trump supporters and the violence against them isn't real?


Not everything gets reported over here obviously. We've kind of got our own thing going rn. I'm sorry to hear they have been riots, but there are elements in every faction, that is a fact for sure. You can't tar them all with the same brush. Yes the same can be said for those who support donald trump, it's just the stuff that was being reported was earlier this year before our brexit bullshit kicked off.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Phaedra said:


> really? The news here has just been full of how bad tempered and vile the trump supporters behave when anyone disagrees with them. Punching someone in the face for making a silent protest at a rally. trying to silence their opponents with violence. No doubt those who support Hillary try and silence their opponents by claiming to be smarter than them, but violence.
> 
> I understand just fine what fascism is thanks and that is what it looks like from the outside.


You're being misinformed by your media. George Soros, who backs Hillary Clinton, has been hiring people to disrupt Trump rallies. I don't know how much of the protesters are paid, but many have been confirmed to be paid. No Trump supporters are going around to other candidates' rallies and disrupting those. 

At some Trump rallies Trump supporters have punched protesters, but these are very few instances. Far more common are the mass riots and violence from Trump protesters. Attacking police cars, throwing punches at police, spitting on people including children, one nutter even punched a police horse in the face. They also wave Mexican flags and show signs essentially saying America was never great, America should be Mexico again, etc. Just do a youtube search to see the kind of antics these protesters get up to. There is nothing American or democratic about the anti-Trump movement. It is violent intimidation and fear-mongering, the very things they accuse Trump and his supporters of. A classic case of projection.


----------



## Phaedra

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> You're being misinformed by your media. George Soros, who backs Hillary Clinton, has been hiring people to disrupt Trump rallies. I don't know how much of the protesters are paid, but many have been confirmed to be paid. No Trump supporters are going around to other candidates' rallies and disrupting those.
> 
> At some Trump rallies Trump supporters have punched protesters, but these are very few instances. Far more common are the mass riots and violence from Trump protesters. Attacking police cars, throwing punches at police, spitting on people including children, one nutter even punched a police horse in the face. They also wave Mexican flags and show signs essentially saying America was never great, America should be Mexico again, etc. Just do a youtube search to see the kind of antics these protesters get up to. There is nothing American or democratic about the anti-Trump movement. It is violent intimidation and fear-mongering, the very things they accuse Trump and his supporters of. A classic case of projection.


All media has an agenda is all i'll say about that. More than likely i am being misinformed but in the same way there is every chance you are also being misinformed by the agendas of your news agencies. I just looked up the protesters being paid thing and it's so fucked up i don't really have any words for it. Is the Trump campaign doing the same thing however? The whole presidential campaign seems to have been very bad tempered within the democrat party and between the parties, from setting up dirty campaigns to offensive social media campaigns and meme's etc ... it's hard to see american politics being the same after it. 

I love america, i love my father and his family. I wouldn't wish ill on the country. But if i lived there it would worry me that the only people who get to represent the people are those who can afford to do so. Yes it's very true that westminster seems to be made up of privately educated members of the upper classes and yes it does worry me, cause they frankly know shit all about my life. Poverty and hardship are beyond their comprehension. For me Donald Trump is a symptom of a system that says you can represent the people as long as you have the wallet to do it.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Happy 70th Birthday to our future president and the only man able and willing to save western civilization from cucks and savages, Donald J Trump! :hb :mark:


----------



## Clique

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump ~ 2016 U.S. Elections *ALL DISCUSSION GOES HERE**

Decided to bump this thread since we know the two leading (D) and (R) candidates as the election rapidly approaches this fall. Although a lot of the talk I see is in the Trump thread. Meh, we'll see how this goes.


----------



## Legion

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Happy Birthday Mr. Donald J Trump! Next year you get to celebrate it in the White House, where you will indeed make America great again! :grin2:


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump ~ U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

A terrorist attack by a registered democrat, this might be the catalyst to get Trump elected. America and the world is fucked for at least the next 4 years.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump ~ U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If Trump wins he'll be re-elected handedly. MARK MY WORDS.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump ~ U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't disagree. The incumbent always have the advantage of getting re-elected. If Bush can get re-elected in 2004, nothing is off the table.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump ~ U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Then you should've said 8 years. :trump


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump ~ U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

At least 8 years? You mean Trump is going to go for a 3rd term? :O


----------



## Chloe

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I'm on page 53 of this thread and I intend to read the rest because I'm quite interested in the rise of The Donald. He has the all powers that be quaking from the media to both political parties in the US and I wish to see him come out on top as president and see the establishment squirm. Now, concerning the cancelled the Chicago rally (I know it was months ago but this is where I am in the thread), I think it's quite that The 'PC' and 'SJW' movement has been exposed as another hate-filled, intolerant, antagonist group that is poison to society akin to radical Islam or the Westboro Baptist Church. Had I been at said rally and had a weapon of some kind, I would have loved to put down a large number of protesters myself possibly killing them. People love to talk about ISIS and terrorism, but that shit is as close as you'll get to local terrorism. But of course, overly-sensitive pussies will defend that type of fear-mongering by falsely putting it under the umbrella of 'fighting for freedom'.

I don't if Trump can eliminate the problem, but he sure as hell is the best chance at giving the PC/SJW terrorism movement a swift kick in the nuts putting it down for the count.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump ~ U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> At least 8 years? You mean Trump is going to go for a 3rd term? :O


President for life! :sk


----------



## Chloe

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump ~ U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump should get an FDR term which considering the current state of things/where things are heading, it ain't that farfetched.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



> Not everything gets reported over here obviously.



In Germany the media bias is fucking unbearable. Trump bashing 24/7, fear mongering about Trump nuking the planet if (when) he becomes President, etc.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> In Germany the media bias is fucking unbearable. Trump bashing 24/7, fear mongering about Trump nuking the planet if (when) he becomes President, etc.


Hardly surprising. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...instream-media-completely-fake-we-all-lie-cia 

Love Germany but the media in Germany merely transmit whatever the American masters dictate. Visiting the U.K., France, Italy, Greece, et. al., one gets the impression of particular perspectives, from those countries. Sadly, not so in Germany.

Meanwhile, I suppose it is about time that the French start banning knives: http://www.politico.eu/article/isil...rder-of-french-police-officer-and-wife-media/ http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/679557/Paris-hostage-situation-officer-killed-stabbing-wife-son


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump ~ U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump supporters here are so full of themselves, much like their candidate. They need to be reminded of Isaiah 26:5.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Julian Assange said:


> She overrode the Pentagon’s reluctance to overthrow sovereign Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and that 'they predicted the post-war outcome would be what it is, which is ISIS taking over the country.


WikiLeaks is preparing to publish more e-mails Hillary Clinton sent and received while US Secretary of State.

More of Clinton's dirty laundry is about to be aired. :woo





CamillePunk said:


> You're being misinformed by your media. George Soros, who backs Hillary Clinton, has been hiring people to disrupt Trump rallies. I don't know how much of the protesters are paid, but many have been confirmed to be paid. No Trump supporters are going around to other candidates' rallies and disrupting those.
> 
> At some Trump rallies Trump supporters have punched protesters, but these are very few instances. Far more common are the mass riots and violence from Trump protesters. Attacking police cars, throwing punches at police, spitting on people including children, one nutter even punched a police horse in the face. They also wave Mexican flags and show signs essentially saying America was never great, America should be Mexico again, etc. Just do a youtube search to see the kind of antics these protesters get up to. There is nothing American or democratic about the anti-Trump movement. It is violent intimidation and fear-mongering, the very things they accuse Trump and his supporters of. A classic case of projection.


This speaks the truth!































- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Hardly surprising. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...instream-media-completely-fake-we-all-lie-cia
> 
> Love Germany but the media in Germany merely transmit whatever the American masters dictate. Visiting the U.K., France, Italy, Greece, et. al., one gets the impression of particular perspectives, from those countries. Sadly, not so in Germany.
> 
> Meanwhile, I suppose it is about time that the French start banning knives: http://www.politico.eu/article/isil...rder-of-french-police-officer-and-wife-media/ http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/679557/Paris-hostage-situation-officer-killed-stabbing-wife-son




Not surprising because the because the Germans spend more time blacking out media, hiding evidence, raiding their citizens own homes and searching the net for "cyber hate" while real crime goes on unchecked and people assault each other at political rallies. I guess the SS still lives in Germany, old habits die hard!


----------



## THE HAITCH

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Not sure if already posted-uhh.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Happy 70th Birthday to our future president and the only man able and willing to save western civilization from cucks and savages, Donald J Trump! :hb :mark:



Great new sig man!

But, surely you see the obvious incorrect grammar like, all through it? Is it intentional. Being serious here.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Great new sig man!


Thanks. (Y)


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Great new sig man!
> 
> But, surely you see the obvious incorrect grammar like, all through it? Is it intentional. Being serious here.


Did you ever see my reply to you about the serial killers thing you post about?


----------



## Chloe

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Judy Garland's Biggest Fan said:


> I fully expect it to be Hillary vs. Trump come Election time.
> 
> Not a huge fan of either, but if I do vote I'll probably vote for Hillary if only in hopes for getting a female President for the first time ever.


As if having a vagina changes anything. Cucks like you make me sick. unkout


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump ~ U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://antiwar.com/blog/2016/06/14/...fo-approved-drone-strikes-via-her-blackberry/



> Clinton Discussed Top Secret CIA Drone Info, Approved Drone Strikes, Via Her Blackberry
> 
> Peter Van Buren, June 14, 2016
> 
> Print This | Share This | Comment
> 
> 
> A new report in the Wall Street Journal reveals emails in which then-Secretary of State Clinton approved CIA drone assassinations in Pakistan from her unsecured Blackberry.
> 
> Top Secret/SAP Messages
> 
> The timing and location of these strikes are considered Top Secret/SAP [special access program], in that revealing such data could allow the targeted humans to escape, and embarrass U.S. ally Pakistan, whom many believe is tacitly allowing the United States to conduct such military operations inside its sovereign territory.
> 
> At specific issue are 22 emails that were on Clinton’s private server. These messages were not publicly released, withheld entirely. However, the broad contents were leaked to the Journal by anonymous congressional and law-enforcement officials briefed on the FBI’s investigation.
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton’s Role
> 
> Clinton’s role in approving the drone kills stems from concerns by lower State officials that the attacks’ timing and location might interfere with broader diplomatic engagement. So, from 2011 on, the State Department had a secret arrangement with the CIA, giving it a degree of say over whether or not a drone killing would take place.
> 
> Then-Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter reportedly opposed certain covert operations that occurred during especially sensitive points in the U.S.-Pakistani relationship. As he later described the process “I have a yellow card. I can say ‘no.’ That ‘no’ goes back to the CIA director. Then he has to go to Hillary. If Hillary says ‘no,’ he can still do it, but he has to explain the next day in writing why.”
> 
> Clinton allegedly objected only to “one or two” attacks out of thousands.
> 
> Clinton Says None of That is True
> 
> As regards these emails, Clinton has said “the best we can determine” is that the emails in question consisted solely of a news article about drone strikes in Pakistan. “How a New York Times public article that goes around the world could be in any way viewed as classified, or the fact that it would be sent to other people off of the New York Times site, I think, is one of the difficulties that people have in understanding what this is about.”
> 
> However, the Wall Street Journal states the e-mails were not merely forwarded news articles, but consisted of informal discussions between Clinton’s senior aides about whether to oppose upcoming CIA drone strikes in Pakistan. When a potential strike was imminent, or if it occurred during a weekend or holiday when State Department staffers were away from government computers, the covert operation was then debated openly over unsecured wireless networks that anyone with a modicum of knowledge could intercept.
> 
> As a matter of speculation, the Russian and Chinese embassies in Washington DC likely employ people with a modicum of knowledge about wireless communications.
> 
> A Matter of Personal Convenience
> 
> One official said “If a strike was imminent, it was futile to use the high side [classified communications], which no one would see for seven hours.”
> 
> There is no built-in delay in classified communications. The official is likely referring to an unwillingness by Clinton’s staff to return to the office to conduct classified business on the proper system. Since there has been no suggestion or evidence that CIA officials also used unclassified systems to discuss drone strikes, one can assume they were willing to be at the office when U.S. national security issues mattered.
> 
> During Clinton’s tenure between January 2009 and February 2013, the CIA conducted 294 drone strikes that killed 2,192 people, at least 226 of whom were civilians.
> 
> Peter Van Buren blew the whistle on State Department waste and mismanagement during Iraqi reconstruction in his first book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People. His latest book is Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent. Reprinted from the his blog with permission.


----------



## Rick Sanchez

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Willow said:


> As if having a vagina changes anything. Cucks like you make me sick. unkout


That wasn't a serious post, but I guess it went right over your head. Duh. :ghost


----------



## skypod

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Sort of feel like the presidential race should be longer now. At the end of this we're going to end up with Hillary and Trump, two people that people have extreme distaste for on either side, that is only going to get worse when more of Clintons dirty laundry is aired and the more that Trump tweets. If this had all came out the first month they were announced they could have both been scrapped and you could move onto new candidates.


Like, how hard is it to have two solid candidates on both sides that aren't either so ignorant or corrupt? 300 million Americans and these are the top two?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump has been tweeting for years. Making the race longer would not have hurt him at all.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

If people really valued the image women have in America....

.....they'd make sure America's first female president wasn't a scumbag like Hillary.


----------



## skypod

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

To be fair Hillary's faults aren't female specific, so if she was remembered as a terrible president it wouldn't be mentioned it was because she was a woman. 

Sarah Palin on the other hand was a much worse stereotype or representation of women and would've been bashed for years because of it.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

You know you've made it when you've got a Pokemon inspired by you:





































Yungoos 2016: Make Alola Great Again! :trump


----------



## Chloe

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

@birthday_massacre

Where you at breh? Your boy Colonel Sanders is done. It's on the news even in Australia. 

I can just imagine now all the little PC, SJW cucks drowning in a pool of their own tears now.

:kobelol

I'm not even American and I'm excited for Teh Donald's ascension to the throne.

:trump


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



skypod said:


> Sort of feel like the presidential race should be longer now. At the end of this we're going to end up with Hillary and Trump, two people that people have extreme distaste for on either side, that is only going to get worse when more of Clintons dirty laundry is aired and the more that Trump tweets. If this had all came out the first month they were announced they could have both been scrapped and you could move onto new candidates.
> 
> 
> Like, how hard is it to have two solid candidates on both sides that aren't either so ignorant or corrupt? 300 million Americans and these are the top two?


Pretty much anyone who even thinks for running for President these days will be viewed as the lowest form of non criminal scum you can think of. Also anyone of the 300 million people living here found a way to run for President they would have a ton of conspiracy theorists trying to figure out what their real reason and agenda for running is. That is for ANYONE.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Willow said:


> @birthday_massacre
> 
> Where you at breh? Your boy Colonel Sanders is done. It's on the news even in Australia.
> 
> I can just imagine now all the little PC, SJW cucks drowning in a pool of their own tears now.
> 
> :kobelol
> 
> I'm not even American and I'm excited for Teh Donald's ascension to the throne.
> 
> :trump


I'm pretty upset that we're not gonna FEEL THE BERN after all, I kinda liked having Larry David's brother show me the way to a better society for all. I Still gotta give the old guy credit, he made it an incredible race without the big business support and funds that The Hillster had.

I think unfortunately still for the all the little Trumpsters, Aunt Hillary is gonna win the race, the battle and the war. She just has more experience, more stateswomanship, and I know she'll be the greatest female president in the history of America.










She really is looking in tremendous condition as well.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

1 million ballots for Bernie "invalidated" in the California primary and not a peep from the media. Hmm...

- Vic


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I love you guys.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> 1 million ballots for Bernie "invalidated" in the California primary and not a peep from the media. Hmm...
> 
> - Vic


Do you have a source? Found the story on two sites but both said "(probably Bernie)".


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> You know you've made it when you've got a Pokemon inspired by you:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yungoos 2016: Make Alola Great Again! :trump


Can Pokemon be racist? Does he want to build a giant wall to keep those dirty Pokemon from Johto out?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Can Pokemon be racist? Does he want to build a giant wall to keep those dirty Pokemon from Johto out?


Anything beyond the first three or so gens can fuck off tbh :trump


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Can Pokemon be racist? Does he want to build a giant wall to keep those dirty Pokemon from Johto out?


Iunno maybe a pokemon could be racist and then when you ask how that pokemon is racist nobody has a clue. But it's racist damnit because people on teh interwebz said so!

@Vic LOL invalidated votes? Geez They're taking their lead from Austria and not even trying to hide voter fraud.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> *Can Pokemon be racist?* Does he want to build a giant wall to keep those dirty Pokemon from Johto out?


Maybe:

http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Pokémon_controversy#Racism

And you're wrong about Johto. That place is a nice, distinctly cultural region. If you wanna rag on a region for being a dirty, crime-ridden shithole, you should be talking about Orre.



Beatles123 said:


> Anything beyond the first three or so gens can fuck off tbh :trump


Unova = New York

So good job ragging on New York values, LYIN' TED II. :quite


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



skypod said:


> Like, how hard is it to have two solid candidates on both sides that aren't either so ignorant or corrupt? 300 million Americans and these are the top two?


The ruling elite in America like to keep the sheople thinking that their vote actually means something. If people would actually wake up and look around them, they would see that their "democracy" is an illusion kept in place by those in power to keep the rest of us in check. Then they would realize that the reason we are only ever given the "choice" between two different candidates (_of *their *choosing, not *ours*_) is because that is all they want us to have, so they can hold on to their power. The American people have already lost the election. They just don't realize it.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump ~ U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

President Obama and Hillary Clinton are tag-team Donald Trump. 


This is the best campaign race ever.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump ~ U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump's poll numbers are really bad right now. Some of that likely has to do with Clinton sealing up the nomination, but many of the polls are showing major disagreements with Trump on his Judge Curiel attacks and his comments on the Orlando massacre. Hell, _The Kansas City Star_ had a poll a few days ago that showed Clinton beating Trump in Kansas (not that I think that will happen - it's early). Even the last few polls out of Utah have shown that Trump is statistically tied with Clinton, and a Democrat hasn't been able to contend there since the days of Barry Goldwater! Some polls have shown that Arizona and Georgia could also be in play.

Trump's biggest problem, though, seems to be that he's not putting in the work. He's not planning on fundraising a whole lot (he recently rescinded his promise to raise $1 billion), he thinks doing cable news interviews will be enough, he thinks data is "overrated," he's ignoring certain swing states all together, he's severely understaffed, one of his only recent hires was a pollster for New York, he wants to throw money into California (where a Republican senatorial nominee wouldn't even benefit since two Democrats are competing in the general election), there doesn't seem to be a plan for volunteers in place and he's struggling to find Republicans who will hit the campaign trail for him. 

The campaign has less than $3 million on hand right now, and Trump has asked the RNC to step up and fund it. The party doesn't have the kind of money it takes to campaign for the presidency. Even if Priebus can change Trump's mind, there are reports that many Republican megadonors don't want their names attached to Trump's FEC filings because of how incendiary he is. And if Trump's not raising money or simply ignoring a certain swing state, down-ballot Republicans are pretty much on their owns against the Clinton machine, President Obama (and the power of the presidency), Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and many others (with a VP pick on the way who could be just about anybody).


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump ~ U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign is readying a $7 million (more than double what the Trump campaign has in total right now) ad buy in the usual swing states. Surprisingly, the campaign has no current plans to advertise in Pennsylvania; if Trump has a silver lining, at this point, it's the strong numbers he's getting there.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump ~ U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> President Obama and Hillary Clinton are tag-team Donald Trump.
> 
> 
> This is the best campaign race ever.


You still have provided no evidence to any question i have asked you.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump ~ U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



IronMaiden7 said:


> Trump's biggest problem, though, seems to be that he's not putting in the work. He's not planning on fundraising a whole lot (he recently rescinded his promise to raise $1 billion), he thinks doing cable news interviews will be enough, he thinks data is "overrated," he's ignoring certain swing states all together, he's severely understaffed, one of his only recent hires was a pollster for New York, he wants to throw money into California (where a Republican senatorial nominee wouldn't even benefit since two Democrats are competing in the general election), there doesn't seem to be a plan for volunteers in place and he's struggling to find Republicans who will hit the campaign trail for him.


Excellent points. It smacks of supreme arrogance of Trump, thinking he can win it any way he chooses; or worse yet it could just incompetence and inexperience.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Most people to the us were illegal immigrants?
Dafuq?


----------



## amhlilhaus

skypod said:


> To be fair Hillary's faults aren't female specific, so if she was remembered as a terrible president it wouldn't be mentioned it was because she was a woman.
> 
> Sarah Palin on the other hand was a much worse stereotype or representation of women and would've been bashed for years because of it.


How was she a worse female stereotype?

Hot?
A real mother, not one for the sake of furthering her career?
A truly strong independant woman, ran her own business, didnt ride a MANS coat tails to power?

Liberal hatchet jobs are incredible. Sarah palin is a prototypical feminist, or theoretically is.

But no, she hasnt run around for 40 years claiming she is, then doing the exact opposite

She just did it

But she doesnt claim to be one, and isnt a raging lesbian so feminists hate her


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump ~ U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Excellent points. It smacks of supreme arrogance of Trump, thinking he can win it any way he chooses; or worse yet it could just incompetence and inexperience.


Thanks.

Trump is really throwing the Republican Party into unchartered territory. It's June, sure, so there's time for the campaign to grow, but Politico just had another report last night that showed that Trump's people and the RNC are having big disagreements. No one seems to be on the same page, and the distrust on both sides is high.

Trump's staff (not including RNC officials) is so tiny that Clinton's Ohio staff is bigger than his whole national outfit right now; he doesn't seem to think there's a rush to fill positions. And since the RNC is stretching itself to the limits to fund Trump, it's not like the committee can just allocate resources to vulnerable Republicans in the House and Senate in states that aren't a part of Trump's 15-state strategy (that strategy, by the way, doesn't include Colorado; Iowa; Nevada; New Hampshire or North Carolina for reasons no one can understand). Arizona currently has one RNC official for the upcoming election, and state officials there had to fight the RNC tooth and nail to keep him. Then, there are states like Michigan: Trump promised to compete there, but a Michigan Republican official was recently quoted as saying that the campaign hadn't even contacted anyone yet, and he's been the presumptive nominee for a good while now.

Plenty of big-time Republican donors, though, have already stated that they're going to be putting a lot of money in House and Senate races (and maybe none in the presidential race), so it's not like help won't be there. It's just that these politicians will be getting less money and support than usual.

All of this comes at a time when Barack Obama's approval rating is at its highest levels since his first time in office. Some people think Trump is to blame for Obama's comeback, and there might be a kernel of truth in that, considering where the Republican Party currently is with voters. Bloomberg's latest poll had Democrats with a favorability rating of 49 percent. Republicans were a little over 30 percent, and that's a part of a downward trajectory that started right around the time Trump announced his campaign.

Again, it's early, but the Trump campaign has a lot going against it right now. Pennsylvania looks good for Trump (even PPP, a Democratic polling group, had Trump only down one percent there), but good news is a bit scarce for him at the moment. Yesterday's Wisconsin poll out of Madison showed Trump getting slaughtered there, Mormons in Utah, Nevada and Arizona don't want to vote for him, he's polling better than most Republicans do in New Jersey but Dems still have a substantial lead there, Kansas might be competitive (which isn't that farfetched considering how unpopular Sam Brownback is and how the public schools might not be starting on time this fall because of a budget fight), Clinton's numbers with conservatives have upticked slightly, etc.

It's not like it's all roses and sunshine for Clinton either. She's probably the least likable candidate that Democrats have put up since George McGovern, and there are still massive amounts of Bernie Sanders supporters who don't want anything to do with her (which should change once he endorses her, and he will eventually do so). She's prepared, though. Her staffing has been great. She decided to run on Obama's record, which turned out to be pretty smart considering his poll numbers right now. And she's closing the gaps in places like Arizona, Georgia, Kansas and Utah without a general election plan for any of those states. She's in much better shape than Trump right now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump ~ U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



IronMaiden7 said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Trump is really throwing the Republican Party into unchartered territory. It's June, sure, so there's time for the campaign to grow, but Politico just had another report last night that showed that Trump's people and the RNC are having big disagreements. No one seems to be on the same page, and the distrust on both sides is high.
> 
> Trump's staff (not including RNC officials) is so tiny that Clinton's Ohio staff is bigger than his whole national outfit right now; he doesn't seem to think there's a rush to fill positions. And since the RNC is stretching itself to the limits to fund Trump, it's not like the committee can just allocate resources to vulnerable Republicans in the House and Senate in states that aren't a part of Trump's 15-state strategy (that strategy, by the way, doesn't include Colorado; Iowa; Nevada; New Hampshire or North Carolina for reasons no one can understand). Arizona currently has one RNC official for the upcoming election, and state officials there had to fight the RNC tooth and nail to keep him. Then, there are states like Michigan: Trump promised to compete there, but a Michigan Republican official was recently quoted as saying that the campaign hadn't even contacted anyone yet, and he's been the presumptive nominee for a good while now.
> 
> Plenty of big-time Republican donors, though, have already stated that they're going to be putting a lot of money in House and Senate races (and maybe none in the presidential race), so it's not like help won't be there. It's just that these politicians will be getting less money and support than usual.
> 
> All of this comes at a time when Barack Obama's approval rating is at its highest levels since his first time in office. Some people think Trump is to blame for Obama's comeback, and there might be a kernel of truth in that, considering where the Republican Party currently is with voters. Bloomberg's latest poll had Democrats with a favorability rating of 49 percent. Republicans were a little over 30 percent, and that's a part of a downward trajectory that started right around the time Trump announced his campaign.
> 
> Again, it's early, but the Trump campaign has a lot going against it right now. Pennsylvania looks good for Trump (even PPP, a Democratic polling group, had Trump only down one percent there), but good news is a bit scarce for him at the moment. Yesterday's Wisconsin poll out of Madison showed Trump getting slaughtered there, Mormons in Utah, Nevada and Arizona don't want to vote for him, he's polling better than most Republicans do in New Jersey but Dems still have a substantial lead there, Kansas might be competitive (which isn't that farfetched considering how unpopular Sam Brownback is and how the public schools might not be starting on time this fall because of a budget fight), Clinton's numbers with conservatives have upticked slightly, etc.
> 
> It's not like it's all roses and sunshine for Clinton either. She's probably the least likable candidate that Democrats have put up since George McGovern, and there are still massive amounts of Bernie Sanders supporters who don't want anything to do with her (which should change once he endorses her, and he will eventually do so). She's prepared, though. Her staffing has been great. She decided to run on Obama's record, which turned out to be pretty smart considering his poll numbers right now. And she's closing the gaps in places like Arizona, Georgia, Kansas and Utah without a general election plan for any of those states. She's in much better shape than Trump right now.


Trumps poll numbers are declining sharp and fast especially after he made those insensitive comments after the Orlando shooting.

A new Washington Post/ABC News survey shows the share of Americans with a negative view of Trump rose sharply since last month.

Half of Americans polled by CBS News disapproved of his response to the Orlando, Fla., shootings and just one-quarter approved.

And a survey of key Midwestern battleground states shows him trailing Hillary Clinton by 9 percentage points among likely voters.


http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-polls-20160616-snap-story.html

Trump still has a chance though since Hillary is just as hated as he is and when it comes to honestly Trump narrowly beats her on that.


----------



## kariverson

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I really don't understand how is this even a debate. One one hand you have a new face, not a politician, a successful businessman, outside of the circle of corruption but with yes very strict policies that a country always needs. On the other hand you have a crooked wife of pretty much the worst US president of all time that reeks of corruption. Not to mention she's a damn woman.

This is a 3rd party view on the situation, I am not American, rather an individual of a country that has suffered from US imperialism. Yet I still find Trump to be the much better leader.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is merely holding RNC hostage similar to how he held his creditors hostage when his casinos met with debt issues. It's not even doing things his way or the high way. It is come up with ways that benefits Trump or everyone drowns together because Trump has no clue what to do to resolve the situation besides doubling down on the original path that led to the dire situation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-city.html


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



kariverson said:


> I really don't understand how is this even a debate. One one hand you have a new face, not a politician, a successful businessman, outside of the circle of corruption but with yes very strict policies that a country always needs. On the other hand you have a crooked wife of pretty much the worst US president of all time that reeks of corruption. Not to mention she's a damn woman.
> 
> This is a 3rd party view on the situation, I am not American, rather an individual of a country that has suffered from US imperialism. Yet I still find Trump to be the much better leader.


Trump is not a a successful businessman , 4 of his companies went bankrupted, he defrauded thousands of people with Trump U, not to mean all his failed business companies like Trump Streaks, Turmp water, Trump Vodka, Trump Airlines, Trump Casinos, Trump Magazine, Trump Mortgage etc etc

Not to mention Trump is a sexist, racist, and bigot who breeds hate and intolerance not to mention he is a fascist/

Trump would be the biggest disaster this country has ever seen as president. 

I guess you are sexist too with your last comment.


----------



## kariverson

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is not a a successful businessman , 4 of his companies went bankrupted, he defrauded thousands of people with Trump U, not to mean all his failed business companies like Trump Streaks, Turmp water, Trump Vodka, Trump Airlines, Trump Casinos, Trump Magazine, Trump Mortgage etc etc
> 
> Not to mention Trump is a sexist, racist, and bigot who breeds hate and intolerance not to mention he is a fascist/
> 
> Trump would be the biggest disaster this country has ever seen as president.
> 
> I guess you are sexist too with your last comment.


Well he's still a billionaire, and he's funding his campaign on his own. That seems pretty successful to me.

The rest are just random words people use to win an argument automatically. I mean "bigot" is simply the stupidest word ever conceived. But you said it first so you win? Isn't that how it goes? Seems very fascist to me.

Anyway again one is the wife of the president that bombed Yugoslavia and the other stated the US should have never bombed Yugoslavia. Who is the bad guy now?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



kariverson said:


> Well he's still a billionaire, and he's funding his campaign on his own. That seems pretty successful to me.
> 
> The rest are just random words people use to win an argument automatically. I mean "bigot" is simply the stupidest word ever conceived. But you said it first so you win? Isn't that how it goes? Seems very fascist to me.
> 
> Anyway again one is the wife of the president that bombed Yugoslavia and the other stated the US should have never bombed Yugoslavia. Who is the bad guy now?


Trump is not even close to being billionaire, he is full crap when he claims that. And Trump got most of his money from his father. There is a reason why Trump hides his tax returns because he doesnt want to people to see he is lying about how much he is really worth.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-money-net-worth-223662


Trump is also not self funding his campaign, just another lie he tells people.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump ~ U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump still has a chance though since Hillary is just as hated as he is and when it comes to honestly Trump narrowly beats her on that.


Yeah, he certainly has a shot to win, plus it's still pretty early. Honestly, if Republicans had nominated Rubio or Kasich, Clinton probably wouldn't be leading right now (despite Obama's approval ratings). One party nabbing three presidential elections in a row isn't exactly easy, especially in the post-9/11 political climate we have now.

I think Trump needs to change his strategy, though, if he's going to capitalize on Clinton's weaknesses. Using the RNC's money for Quixotic decisions to run ads in the New York and California markets is a wonderful way to waste money, but it's a lousy way for Republicans to win the White House. Trump's ignoring actual swing states because his ego tells him that he can win two of the more liberal states in the nation. His strategy also includes Wisconsin, and he's getting killed there. He'll need to adapt and switch up the states he's planning on winning, but no one has been able to talk him into it. Plus, he'll need to find the money to play defense if those Utah, Arizona, Georgia and Kansas polls keep showing him bad news.


----------



## gamegenie

Man your debate skills need brushing up.

"You said it first, you win" LOL


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This is an election of fear

Fear of terrorism

Fear of the wealthy

Fear of guns 

Fear of the economy 

Don't be a coward and vote for someone because they are telling you to panic


----------



## Chloe

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> *Trump is not a a successful businessman *, 4 of his companies went bankrupted, he defrauded thousands of people with Trump U, not to mean all his failed business companies like Trump Streaks, Turmp water, Trump Vodka, Trump Airlines, Trump Casinos, Trump Magazine, Trump Mortgage etc etc
> 
> Not to mention Trump is a *sexist, racist, and bigot* who breeds hate and intolerance not to mention he is a *fascist*/
> 
> Trump would be the biggest disaster this country has ever seen as president.
> 
> I guess you are sexist too with your last comment.


Such delusions. :kobelol

To be expected from a Bernie Sanders pawn though. Slinging mud and criticising others for slinging mud when you're pretty much reaching for the reason you're slinging mud while you yourselves are slinging mud.

Hypocrisception. :banderas

Sanders' follower have shown to be more fascist than anybody else with their acting out like spoilt little children who got 36 presents at Christmas instead of 37. No wait, they aren't like spoilt little children, they are spoilt children.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The more I think of it, the more I think that Kansas poll might not be an anomaly. Despite the 2014 conservative wave that Democrats knew was coming, they still felt pretty good about taking the Kansas governorship. It turned out that Kansans were willing to give Sam Brownback another chance. Things have only gotten worse since then, though, plus another private business is moving out of the state and the CEO didn't mince his words as to why:

http://pathfinderhi.com/kansas-isnt-home-anymore/

I mean, Democrats nabbed the Louisiana governorship last year by huge numbers because of a bad economy, so who's to say that Clinton can't benefit from Kansas' woes?

It's not like the winner of Kansas inherits a ton of electoral votes, but every vote counts on the way to 270.


----------



## V. Skybox

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Turns out the Democratic nomination was a sham from the beginning.



> Despite claims of neutrality, recently leaked emails show the Democratic National Committee was putting its thumb on the scale for Hillary Clinton for over a year.
> 
> When it was revealed that “Guccifer 2.0” (named after Romanian hacker Guccifer, who confessed to hacking into Hillary Clinton’s private email server multiple times) hacked the DNC’s servers, the main story was about leaked opposition research on Donald Trump. But on the same site Guccifer published the Trump research, “2016 GOP presidential candidates,” there were also DNC talking points suggesting the party’s central organization had been working since May of 2015 to make Hillary Clinton the nominee.
> 
> The DNC was diligently cleaning up Clinton’s record, using “specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency, and campaign finance attacks on HRC.”


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



V. Skybox said:


> Turns out the Democratic nomination was a sham from the beginning.


:lol The single most unsurprising revelation since the last time it emerged that the New England Patriots NFL team looked for every last advantage on the field of play.

Hillary Clinton and her DNC partners in crime do not play fair. Never have. Never will. Ah, well.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Willow said:


> Such delusions. :kobelol
> 
> To be expected from a Bernie Sanders pawn though. Slinging mud and criticising others for slinging mud when you're pretty much reaching for the reason you're slinging mud while you yourselves are slinging mud.
> 
> Hypocrisception. :banderas
> 
> Sanders' follower have shown to be more fascist than anybody else with their acting out like spoilt little children who got 36 presents at Christmas instead of 37. No wait, they aren't like spoilt little children, they are spoilt children.


OH gotta love the Trump fans getting all defensive when people call Trump out for what he is. 

How has Sanders supporters shown be fascist, I would love for you to show evidence of that.


----------



## Chloe

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> OH gotta love the Trump fans getting all defensive when people call Trump out for what he is.
> 
> How has Sanders supporters shown be fascist, I would love for you to show evidence of that.


It's almost respectable how much you insist that your opinion, your wrong opinion, is fact. Donald Trump's net worth? - $4.5 billion, this is real time too. Source - Forbes http://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/ who is more qualified to talk about money and business than you.

And it seems that your denial knows no bounds so it pointless to provide evidence for you. However for everybody else reading who need anymore proof that BM is just about BS, just take a look back to -

- the cancelled Donald Trump Chicago rally earlier this year, a recount by someone who was there: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3rjjlUCk84

http://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4a2bu9/what_really_happened_at_the_chicago_rally_my/

Sounds and looks like a whole bunch of Dirty Bernie supporters to me.

- the Nevada Democratic Convention evidence of which has been posted ITT already but hey, I should post it again for good measure

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/17/11680904/bernie-sanders-nevada-convention

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/en...us_573b4b8de4b0aee7b8e7dfa2?section=australia

Sounds and looks like a good ol' dose of modern Fascism.

...

Of course you'll ignore all of this and hammer the same shit like a dork like you've been doing the entire time. But for anybody who was neutral on the matter and wants to see who's in the wrong, it's Dirty Bernie and his gaggle of faux-progressive geeks.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

You guys are fucked either way


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Willow said:


> It's almost respectable how much you insist that your opinion, your wrong opinion, is fact. Donald Trump's net worth? - $4.5 billion, this is real time too. Source - Forbes http://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/ who is more qualified to talk about money and business than you.
> 
> And it seems that your denial knows no bounds so it pointless to provide evidence for you. However for everybody else reading who need anymore proof that BM is just about BS, just take a look back to -
> 
> - the cancelled Donald Trump Chicago rally earlier this year, a recount by someone who was there:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3rjjlUCk84
> 
> http://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4a2bu9/what_really_happened_at_the_chicago_rally_my/
> 
> Sounds and looks like a whole bunch of Dirty Bernie supporters to me.
> 
> - the Nevada Democratic Convention evidence of which has been posted ITT already but hey, I should post it again for good measure
> 
> http://www.vox.com/2016/5/17/11680904/bernie-sanders-nevada-convention
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/en...us_573b4b8de4b0aee7b8e7dfa2?section=australia
> 
> Sounds and looks like a good ol' dose of modern Fascism.
> 
> ...
> 
> Of course you'll ignore all of this and hammer the same shit like a dork like you've been doing the entire time. But for anybody who was neutral on the matter and wants to see who's in the wrong, it's Dirty Bernie and his gaggle of faux-progressive geeks.


Already showed how Trump is not a billionaire http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-money-net-worth-223662
And that is not my opinion.

Its also funny how Trump claims is over 10 billion but even your source claims at most its 4.5B.

Go read the politico and you will see why he is not a billionaire. But of course you won't because you dont want the truth.

Police did not tell Trump to shut down his rally.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/03...-talked-with-trump-about-shutting-down-rally/

Trump did it on his own. Nice try though the whole nonsense of it was Bernies was debunked very quickly but of course you ignored that

Also protesting isn't fascism is a constitutional right. You dont even know what fascism is and it shows.

Everything the media posted about the violence at the nevada caucus was bullshit. There was zero violence, no one threw chairs, no one was arrested, nothing.
Not like what happens at Trump rallies where the beat the shit out of anyone the disagrees with them and Trump told them he would pay for their legal fees.

Trump directed his supporters to commit acts of violence.

As for those stupid Bernie Sanders supporters that sent those nasty messages, Sanders denounced those people and said they were wrong.

I love how you haven't shown one shred of evidence of Bernie Sanders did any of this, You just point to some of his supporters that are stupid and even Sanders called them out on it.


So again show how BERNIE SANDERS is any one of those things. All you did was called out some of his supporters but didnt give any evidence of Bernie Sanders doing it. Unlike all the evidence we have against Donald Trump doing it.

But of course you can't show any evidence of Bernie doing it, because there is none.

You show how you really have no clue what you are talking about since you called Sanders a fascist . If you are going to try to pretend he is something he is not, you should at least do what everyone else does and call him communist which is also bullshit but at least you could use his socialist ideas to try to link him to communism.

You totally failed at trolling and it blew up in your face.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Already showed how Trump is not a billionaire http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-money-net-worth-223662
> And that is not my opinion.
> 
> Its also funny how Trump claims is over 10 billion but even your source claims at most its 4.5B.
> 
> Go read the politico and you will see why he is not a billionaire. But of course you won't because you dont want the truth.
> 
> Police did not tell Trump to shut down his rally.
> http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/03...-talked-with-trump-about-shutting-down-rally/
> 
> Trump did it on his own. Nice try though the whole nonsense of it was Bernies was debunked very quickly but of course you ignored that
> 
> Also protesting isn't fascism is a constitutional right. You dont even know what fascism is and it shows.
> 
> Everything the media posted about the violence at the nevada caucus was bullshit. There was zero violence, no one threw chairs, no one was arrested, nothing.
> Not like what happens at Trump rallies where the beat the shit out of anyone the disagrees with them and Trump told them he would pay for their legal fees.
> 
> Trump directed his supporters to commit acts of violence.
> 
> As for those stupid Bernie Sanders supporters that sent those nasty messages, Sanders denounced those people and said they were wrong.
> 
> I love how you haven't shown one shred of evidence of Bernie Sanders did any of this, You just point to some of his supporters that are stupid and even Sanders called them out on it.
> 
> 
> So again show how BERNIE SANDERS is any one of those things. All you did was called out some of his supporters but didnt give any evidence of Bernie Sanders doing it. Unlike all the evidence we have against Donald Trump doing it.
> 
> But of course you can't show any evidence of Bernie doing it, because there is none.
> 
> You show how you really have no clue what you are talking about since you called Sanders a fascist . If you are going to try to pretend he is something he is not, you should at least do what everyone else does and call him communist which is also bullshit but at least you could use his socialist ideas to try to link him to communism.
> 
> You totally failed at trolling and it blew up in your face.


You are the one who has no clue what fascism is

I don't even like trump do to his fear platform but the "he's next hitler" is stupid as fuck

Trumps healthcare plan alone would make him not fascist

fascism requires anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism, that is LARGE powerful government with chosen elites with a capitalist underlay 

Fascism is running a nation like you do an army with a clear hierarchy of people who chosen and trained

Not to mention what we call "fascism" has never been clearly demonstrated, Fascist Italy and Fascist German had as much in common with Stalin USSR as they did to each other 

Fascism is code for "Nationalist government we don't like"


----------



## Chloe

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Already showed how Trump is not a billionaire http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-money-net-worth-223662
> And that is not my opinion.
> 
> Its also funny how Trump claims is over 10 billion but even your source claims at most its 4.5B.
> 
> Go read the politico and you will see why he is not a billionaire. But of course you won't because you dont want the truth.
> 
> Police did not tell Trump to shut down his rally.
> http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/03...-talked-with-trump-about-shutting-down-rally/
> 
> Trump did it on his own. Nice try though the whole nonsense of it was Bernies was debunked very quickly but of course you ignored that
> 
> Also protesting isn't fascism is a constitutional right. You dont even know what fascism is and it shows.
> 
> Everything the media posted about the violence at the nevada caucus was bullshit. There was zero violence, no one threw chairs, no one was arrested, nothing.
> Not like what happens at Trump rallies where the beat the shit out of anyone the disagrees with them and Trump told them he would pay for their legal fees.
> 
> Trump directed his supporters to commit acts of violence.
> 
> As for those stupid Bernie Sanders supporters that sent those nasty messages, Sanders denounced those people and said they were wrong.
> 
> I love how you haven't shown one shred of evidence of Bernie Sanders did any of this, You just point to some of his supporters that are stupid and even Sanders called them out on it.
> 
> 
> *So again show how BERNIE SANDERS is any one of those things. All you did was called out some of his supporters but didnt give any evidence of Bernie Sanders doing it. Unlike all the evidence we have against Donald Trump doing it.*
> 
> But of course you can't show any evidence of Bernie doing it, because there is none.
> 
> You show how you really have no clue what you are talking about since you called Sanders a fascist . If you are going to try to pretend he is something he is not, you should at least do what everyone else does and call him communist which is also bullshit but at least you could use his socialist ideas to try to link him to communism.
> 
> You totally failed at trolling and it blew up in your face.


Silly BM with the strawman argument. As if it isn't transparent. I haven't directed my disdain towards Bernie, I've directed it towards his entitled, hypocritical, aggressive supporters such as yourself.

Bernie is a pandering cuck but that's what I wasn't talking about.

Show me you can have a dialogue without strawman arguments and opinion-based articles that fit your narrative and you might be worth my time.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



V. Skybox said:


> Turns out the Democratic nomination was a sham from the beginning.


Not to excuse any sham-like behaviour, but wouldn't this be par for the course for either side really? I mean to be a fly on the wall in either of the dems or repubs' bunkers, sure they're both swamps of unethical practice.


----------



## krai999

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I mean if you like where this country is right now and where it is headed then you vote hillary I mean she's not gonna bring any change. If you want change then it's Trump who you vote for. You people can take the risk with him. I'll be on auto pilot


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Willow said:


> Silly BM with the strawman argument. As if it isn't transparent. I haven't directed my disdain towards Bernie, I've directed it towards his entitled, hypocritical, aggressive supporters such as yourself.
> 
> Bernie is a pandering cuck but that's what I wasn't talking about.
> 
> Show me you can have a dialogue without strawman arguments and opinion-based articles that fit your narrative and you might be worth my time.




Nothing you showed from Sanders supporters was fascist.

How is Bernie a pandering cuck exactly? You need to show evidence of that. I dont need to disprove he isnt.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> You are the one who has no clue what fascism is
> 
> I don't even like trump do to his fear platform but the "he's next hitler" is stupid as fuck
> 
> Trumps healthcare plan alone would make him not fascist
> 
> fascism requires anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism, that is LARGE powerful government with chosen elites with a capitalist underlay
> 
> Fascism is running a nation like you do an army with a clear hierarchy of people who chosen and trained
> 
> Not to mention what we call "fascism" has never been clearly demonstrated, Fascist Italy and Fascist German had as much in common with Stalin USSR as they did to each other
> 
> Fascism is code for "Nationalist government we don't like"


you have proven time and time again you don't understand fascism.

Trump does not even have a clue about a healthcare plan. Its just OH kill Obamacare. then he just says oh we need to get rid of the lines between the states. He has no clue what he is talking about.
He doesn't about anything, he just talks out of his ass. He just says OH this will be GREAT, or I will make the BEST. or that is a MESS, I will make it BETTER but he never says how he is going to do any of that.

Trump has fascist tendencies, if you really don't see that then you prove you don't understand fascism. Him banning news papers from his events is totally fascist.
He wants to change the libel laws so he can sues news papers that is fascist, when asked if he would tag Muslims, he said he would consider it, doing so is fascist.

All those have been demonstrated but people like you just ignore it or pretend its not fascist which proves you don't understand fascism.

Trump isnt 100% fascist but he does use fascist ideas which makes him fascist. Just like with Bernie Sanders he is democratic socialist, he is still part socialist, not 100% but claiming he isn't part socialist is wrong. 




yeahbaby! said:


> Not to excuse any sham-like behaviour, but wouldn't this be par for the course for either side really? I mean to be a fly on the wall in either of the dems or repubs' bunkers, sure they're both swamps of unethical practice.


We have known that for a long time and i have been calling it out since the beginning.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

There's a push from GOP delegates to change the rules and drop Trump as the nominee:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...dcf74e-3491-11e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html

How far this goes remains to be seen, but plenty of Republicans are clearly getting worried by those recent poll numbers. Trump breaking rank on gun control probably hurt him in the eyes of some conservatives as well. Not too long ago, it looked like the Cleveland convention was going to be a pretty normal affair, but the chaos option seems to be back on.


----------



## Chloe

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Nothing you showed from Sanders supporters was fascist.
> 
> How is Bernie a pandering cuck exactly? You need to show evidence of that. I dont need to disprove he isnt.


All you have is denial. Never any legitimate retorts. Like a child whose mind has not developed yet enough to come with real rebuttals in an argument. :kobelol

No point talking to CUCK supporter like you who is most probably cuck himself.

But for anybody else who is an impartial party and wants proof here's Bernie letting a couple of uncivilised, unruly black girls kick his ass off the stage and sent him running -

[ame]http://youtu.be/aoRleNh_EEw?t=22[/ame]

This is who hipster, faggoty, entitled, college kids want as president? :kobelol

He gonna submit to some black girls but he gonna be strong when it comes to foreign relations? :kobelol

He probably lets his wife fuck a couple of black guys in front of him too. :kobelol

...

I ain't even American but this shit is hilarious. Leftists support either a lying, racist, murderous piece of shit or a weak, submissive, turn-the-other-cheek cuck. How is your choice for president not obvious right now? :done


----------



## BRITLAND

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

When usually are running mates picked and announced? Is it likely Gingrich for Trump and Warren for Clinton? Any chance that John Bolton will be Trump's running mate? Or Booker for Clinton's running mate?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Willow said:


> All you have is denial. Never any legitimate retorts. Like a child whose mind has not developed yet enough to come with real rebuttals in an argument. :kobelol
> 
> No point talking to CUCK supporter like you who is most probably cuck himself.
> 
> But for anybody else who is an impartial party and wants proof here's Bernie letting a couple of uncivilised, unruly black girls kick his ass off the stage and sent him running -
> 
> http://youtu.be/aoRleNh_EEw?t=22
> 
> This is who hipster, faggoty, entitled, college kids want as president? :kobelol
> 
> He gonna submit to some black girls but he gonna be strong when it comes to foreign relations? :kobelol
> 
> He probably lets his wife fuck a couple of black guys in front of him too. :kobelol
> 
> ...
> 
> I ain't even American but this shit is hilarious. Leftists support either a lying, racist, murderous piece of shit or a weak, submissive, turn-the-other-cheek cuck. How is your choice for president not obvious right now? :done



You have not proven anything, but hey keep it up you just keep showing your true colors.

So Bernie Sanders let those women be heard and you take issue with that? OH yeah you would rather have him do what Trump would do and have them beat up.
So typical with people like you.

And calling someone "faggoty" even shows more of your character. 

Your whole post just totally shows who you are.






IronMaiden7 said:


> There's a push from GOP delegates to change the rules and drop Trump as the nominee:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...dcf74e-3491-11e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html
> 
> How far this goes remains to be seen, but plenty of Republicans are clearly getting worried by those recent poll numbers. Trump breaking rank on gun control probably hurt him in the eyes of some conservatives as well. Not too long ago, it looked like the Cleveland convention was going to be a pretty normal affair, but the chaos option seems to be back on.


The DNC rigged the primary for Hillary with all the voter fraud and suppression, are you even surprised the GOP is now going to do something to oust Trump ? I called this months ago.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The DNC rigged the primary for Hillary with all the voter fraud and suppression, are you even surprised the GOP is now going to do something to oust Trump ? I called this months ago.


The only thing that really surprised me was how quickly so many conservatives "supported but not endorsed" Trump. They really misjudged his post-nomination bump as something that he would build upon, and then Trump repaid them by not capitalizing on it and attacking Judge Curiel.

Trump is seemingly getting the message, though. After tons of complaints that he wasn't fundraising, he went to Texas to get some money. After tons of complaints that his staff was lacking key posts in swing states, he went out and hired someone for Iowa recently. He still only has around 30 paid staff members, though, which is unprecedented. Clinton is running circles around him in that respect. No word on if he's still planning on using the RNC's money to advertise in New York and California.

Trump definitely knows that he's hurting right now. He tweeted out a poll today that showed him trailing Clinton by one point. It was the best poll he could find.


----------



## Chloe

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You have not proven anything, but hey keep it up you just keep showing your true colors.
> 
> So Bernie Sanders let those women be heard and you take issue with that? OH yeah you would rather have him do what Trump would do and have them beat up.
> So typical with people like you.
> 
> And calling someone "faggoty" even shows more of your character.
> 
> Your whole post just totally shows who you are.


A classic leftist retort. 

"Oh I don't like your personality, you're so mean". :kobelol

How often do you loan out your girl to a couple of #BlackLivesMatter dudes for the sake of the movement? Even if they yell at ya and call you a fuckin' white male? About fifty times a week? :trips8

Seriously tho, jumping up on the stage and yelling to get what you want like a child in the supermarket is not how things work. Allowing those cretins to hijack the rally encourages a submissive mindset that is absurd for an average person to have let alone a potential president of the United States. I almost feel sorry for you as you probably adopt this mindset in many aspects of your life.

But anyway, keep on cuckin' m8. :trips8


----------



## Chloe

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump does not even have a clue about a healthcare plan. Its just OH kill Obamacare. *then he just says oh we need to get rid of the lines between the states. He has no clue what he is talking about.*
> He doesn't about anything, he just talks out of his ass. He just says OH this will be GREAT, or I will make the BEST. or that is a MESS, I will make it BETTER but he never says how he is going to do any of that.


Also you're a fuckin' fool for this if you don't get what he means by removing state lines. 

Removing state lines = more health insurance companies compete because they're not restricted to one state = lowering prices so people go with their company which =

CHEAP & DECENT HEALTHCARE PLAN

You not getting the concept of monopolistic competition which is pretty much basic economics is not surprising since you have no idea about business or anything of the sort.

I might not be a biz wizz, but even I understand that shit.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The left wants the government in control of everything, of course they don't understand the benefits of competition and free enterprise.


----------



## Slicked

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Anyone but Hillary, shes the American Merkel


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Slicked said:


> Anyone but Hillary, shes the American Merkel


OK, then let's get her.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*10 Things I trust more than Hillary Clinton*:



> Mexican tap water
> Gas station sushi
> A rattlesnake with a ‘pet me’ sign
> OJ Simpson showing me his knife collection
> Bill Cosby as a bartender
> An e-mail from Nigeria
> Brian Williams’ news reports
> Prayers for peace from Al Sharpton
> An elevator ride with Ray Rice
> A prostate exam from Captain Hook


- Vic


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Theoretically, Sanders is still in this, but realistically, it's Trump vs Clinton. I never thought I would support a republican, but anything is better than Hillary Clinton. Trump isn't any good either, but it's the lesser of two evils.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Willow said:


> Also you're a fuckin' fool for this if you don't get what he means by removing state lines.
> 
> Removing state lines = more health insurance companies compete because they're not restricted to one state = lowering prices so people go with their company which =
> 
> CHEAP & DECENT HEALTHCARE PLAN
> 
> You not getting the concept of monopolistic competition which is pretty much basic economics is not surprising since you have no idea about business or anything of the sort.
> 
> I might not be a biz wizz, but even I understand that shit.


That is all Trump says but doesn't even understand it. When asked to explain it, he just said remove the lines. LOL






And sorry but "removing lines" would be a disaster for healthcare because healthcare would turn into shit and you may pay less but they wouldn't cover anything. 

You need state regulation for healthcare, something you nor Trump does not understand.

Deregulation of healthcare , which is what taking away the lines would do, would screw over everyone. Not sure how that is a good thing


----------



## TheResurrection

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> That is all Trump says but doesn't even understand it. When asked to explain it, he just said remove the lines. LOL
> 
> And sorry but "removing lines" would be a disaster for healthcare because healthcare would turn into shit and you may pay less but they wouldn't cover anything.
> 
> You need state regulation for healthcare, something you nor Trump does not understand.


Why would removing state lines be a disaster? I've no strong opinion on this either way, I still struggle to come to terms with the fact that A) you don't have UHC and B) much of the population are happy with this state of affairs. It seems like a good idea in principle to allow more competition though.


----------



## Piers

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Could someone explain to me very simply what Clinton's ideas/goals are ?

I see a lot of hate about her but as a Frenchman who doesn't pay attention to the US elections, I have no idea what she is about. I read enough about Trump though.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



TheResurrection said:


> Why would removing state lines be a disaster? I've no strong opinion on this either way, I still struggle to come to terms with the fact that A) you don't have UHC and B) much of the population are happy with this state of affairs. It seems like a good idea in principle to allow more competition though.


Because insurance companies will all just switch to the state that has the fews regulations, thus making your insurance worthless. They would just cover the bare minimum and if you got sick or injured you would be screwed. Since the insurance will be cheap, the deductions will skyrocket. 

Trumps plan would take away any regulations each state puts in place when it comes to healthcare and telling them what they must cover. 




Plus Trump wants to get rid rule where you can't deny someone with preexisting conditions for healthcare.


----------



## TheResurrection

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Because insurance companies will all just switch to the state that has the fews regulations, thus making your insurance worthless. They would just cover the bare minimum and if you got sick or injured you would be screwed. Since the insurance will be cheap, the deductions will skyrocket.
> 
> Trumps plan would take away any regulations each state puts in place when it comes to healthcare and telling them what they must cover.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plus Trump wants to get rid rule where you can't deny someone with preexisting conditions for healthcare.


Surely to God there'd be federal regulations put in place to avoid that happening?


----------



## .MCH

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I can't believe people wouldn't vote for Clinton. Yes the Clinton's are corrupt as fuck but they're damn good at running the country. Do people not remember how strong the economy was in the 90's? The Clinton's pride themselves on that economy and I can't see Hillary getting in office and ruining that reputation. Even she and Bill recognize Obama's economy isn't that great for average Americans. She just can't attack Obama because 1. he's a popular Democratic president and 2. she needs his coalition to come out and vote for her.

Give me a Clinton and their corrupt ass over a republican anytime.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



TheResurrection said:


> Surely to God there'd be federal regulations put in place to avoid that happening?


Nope, it would defer to the state. Each state now has different regulations as it is. The only difference is, all the insurance companies would go to the state with the least regulations and we would be forced to buy that shitty insurance with the least regulations and coverage.

Here is an article about the issues with selling across state lines. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/u...sell-health-insurance-across-state-lines.html


from the article

"Right now, the Affordable Care Act sets up some minimum standards for insurance plans sold everywhere, but since the Republican proposals include repealing the law, those limitations would presumably disappear."


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Nate Silver projected the share Gary Johnson would get in his best states:

Montana - 12.7%
Alaska - 12.4%
New Mexico - 11.2%
Wyoming - 10.99%
Utah - 10.2%
Idaho - 8.8%
Kansas - 8.8%
North Dakota - 8.4%
Nebraska - 8%
South Dakota - 7.9%
Indiana - 7.9%
Maine - 7.4%

We haven't seen third-party numbers likes this since Perot. Johnson could definitely play spoiler in certain states. The question is: would Johnson be allowed in the debates? I'd imagine the DNC and the RNC would do whatever they could to keep him out. Johnson's likely taking more votes from Republicans, but polls have shown that some Democrats prefer Johnson to Clinton as well.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



IronMaiden7 said:


> Nate Silver projected the share Gary Johnson would get in his best states:
> 
> Montana - 12.7%
> Alaska - 12.4%
> New Mexico - 11.2%
> Wyoming - 10.99%
> Utah - 10.2%
> Idaho - 8.8%
> Kansas - 8.8%
> North Dakota - 8.4%
> Nebraska - 8%
> South Dakota - 7.9%
> Indiana - 7.9%
> Maine - 7.4%
> 
> We haven't seen third-party numbers likes this since Perot. Johnson could definitely play spoiler in certain states. The question is: would Johnson be allowed in the debates? I'd imagine the DNC and the RNC would do whatever they could to keep him out. Johnson's likely taking more votes from Republicans, but polls have shown that some Democrats prefer Johnson to Clinton as well.



Jill Stein will also get a good chuck of votes as well. Stein and Johnson are going to making the general very interesting


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Jerichoholic62 said:


> Could someone explain to me very simply what Clinton's ideas/goals are ?
> 
> I see a lot of hate about her but as a Frenchman who doesn't pay attention to the US elections, I have no idea what she is about. I read enough about Trump though.


She wants to be president. That's really all there is to it.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump's struggles to fill the VP slot are continuing:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-vice-president-224488#ixzz4BwvZnHps

Too many Republicans think joining the Trump ticket would be a career killer. With that said, Trump did extend his search by talking to some more red-state governors. Right now, though, it looks like Chris Christie, Newt Gingrich, Jeff Sessions and Mary Fallin are the finalists. Of those names, I'd say Fallin gives him the best shot at winning. Many Republican women do not like Trump, and bringing Fallin aboard might change that for him. BridgeGate will be in the news all summer, so Christie having to answer those questions during the whole election cycle would be bad. Sessions does little for Trump; he already has Sessions' base all sewed up. Gingrich is the one guy in the 90s whose sex scandal is worse than Bill Clinton's, so that would pretty much negate Trump's attacks.

Regarding Clinton, I've been convinced that she's picking Sherrod Brown for over a year now. That opinion hasn't changed. He checks all the boxes she can't: he's way more to the left, he voted against NAFTA, he's a popular senator in one of the most important swing states in the country and has a great way of talking to people. I know many Democrats want Elizabeth Warren, but I'd say to keep her in the Senate for now; she has way more power there, especially if Dems take it over.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Those vps are fucking awful


----------



## .MCH

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



IronMaiden7 said:


> Trump's struggles to fill the VP slot are continuing:
> 
> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-vice-president-224488#ixzz4BwvZnHps
> 
> Too many Republicans think joining the Trump ticket would be a career killer. With that said, Trump did extend his search by talking to some more red-state governors. Right now, though, it looks like Chris Christie, Newt Gingrich, Jeff Sessions and Mary Fallin are the finalists. Of those names, I'd say Fallin gives him the best shot at winning. Many Republican women do not like Trump, and bringing Fallin aboard might change that for him. BridgeGate will be in the news all summer, so Christie having to answer those questions during the whole election cycle would be bad. Sessions does little for Trump; he already has Sessions' base all sewed up. Gingrich is the one guy in the 90s whose sex scandal is worse than Bill Clinton's, so that would pretty much negate Trump's attacks.
> 
> Regarding Clinton, I've been convinced that she's picking Sherrod Brown for over a year now. That opinion hasn't changed. He checks all the boxes she can't: he's way more to the left, he voted against NAFTA, he's a popular senator in one of the most important swing states in the country and has a great way of talking to people. I know many Democrats want Elizabeth Warren, but I'd say to keep her in the Senate for now; she has way more power there, especially if Dems take it over.


Warren is definitely getting it. Harry Reid and the like are pushing for it. Plus Warren is popular with millennials, a group Clinton has to win over.

I like Brown but Warren is the stronger choice. She'll overshadow Clinton but in a good way.


----------



## SimplyHere

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Warren would give Clinton some momentum with the base again, which she really could use at the moment.


----------



## Super Sexy Steele

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



IronMaiden7 said:


> Nate Silver projected the share Gary Johnson would get in his best states:
> 
> Montana - 12.7%
> Alaska - 12.4%
> New Mexico - 11.2%
> Wyoming - 10.99%
> Utah - 10.2%
> Idaho - 8.8%
> Kansas - 8.8%
> North Dakota - 8.4%
> Nebraska - 8%
> South Dakota - 7.9%
> Indiana - 7.9%
> Maine - 7.4%
> 
> We haven't seen third-party numbers likes this since Perot. Johnson could definitely play spoiler in certain states. The question is: would Johnson be allowed in the debates? I'd imagine the DNC and the RNC would do whatever they could to keep him out. Johnson's likely taking more votes from Republicans, but polls have shown that some Democrats prefer Johnson to Clinton as well.


If Johnson has about 15 percent of the national poll by a unspecified date usually around Labor Day, he can be apart of the debates with Clinton and Trump.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> She wants to be president. That's really all there is to it.


Bingo. 


Knew you sons of guns would come out with the truth afterall. 


Now tell us, why were you all in for Hillary against Obama in the '08 primaries. I remember the headlines of the Republicans in the open primaries, voting for Hillary to keep her in the run against Obama. Then there were the P.U.M.A.s and flag pin pushers. then the Joe the Plumbers.


----------



## Chloe

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> That is all Trump says but doesn't even understand it. When asked to explain it, he just said remove the lines. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And sorry but "removing lines" would be a disaster for healthcare because healthcare would turn into shit and you may pay less but they wouldn't cover anything.
> 
> You need state regulation for healthcare, something you nor Trump does not understand.
> 
> Deregulation of healthcare , which is what taking away the lines would do, would screw over everyone. Not sure how that is a good thing


Anybody who knows anything about economics knows what he means. Being berated for an explanation makes you look dumb more than anything because it is literally so simple.

And lel at you predicting a disaster. You've already proven to everyone you're uninformed on the subject. The healthcare system in your country is already a disaster and what would make it even more of a disaster is the government handing out healthcare like candy at Halloween like your cuck idol Bernie suggests which would lead to bankrupting your country. But hey, more debt is always gr8. Much better than Trump getting the US in line with countries who have the best healthcare in the world like Australia.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Willow said:


> Anybody who knows anything about economics knows what he means. Being berated for an explanation makes you look dumb more than anything because it is literally so simple.
> 
> And lel at you predicting a disaster. You've already proven to everyone you're uninformed on the subject. The healthcare system in your country is already a disaster and what would make it even more of a disaster is the government handing out healthcare like candy at Halloween like your cuck idol Bernie suggests which would lead to bankrupting your country. But hey, more debt is always gr8. Much better than Trump getting the US in line with countries who have the best healthcare in the world like Australia.


Trump could not explain what he meant, he just kept saying the same thing over and over again like he always does when he talks out of his ass.

Go google Trumps healthcare plan everyone is saying what a disaster it would be. Don't take my word for it. I even linked an article who said it would be bad. 

You want more articles

Donald Trump’s Health Care Plan Is So Bad He Might as Well Not Have One at All
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox..._is_so_bad_he_might_as_well_not_have_one.html


Trump’s Health Care Plan Is Just As Terrible As You Imagined
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-obamacare-repeal_us_56e6d019e4b0860f99d98990


Surprise! Donald Trump’s healthcare plan is bonkers: Here’s everything you need to know
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/04/sup...is_bonkers_heres_everything_you_need_to_know/



The Republican presidential candidate says his seven-point plan would provide more choice at more affordable rates, but critics say it would create chaos.
http://www.healthline.com/health-news/what-if-donald-trumps-healthcare-were-implemented


Oh yeah I am so uninformed on the subject, what I said exactly what their articles said about it.
The only person here who is uniformed is you. But keep going with your projection. 

Healthcare is not a disaster already, Obamacare isnt perfect but it is good, way better than what Trump wants.
IF Trump got his way 21 MILLION people would lose insurance.


Study: Trump healthcare plan would end coverage for 21M
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...-plan-would-cause-21m-people-to-lose-coverage


As for Bernies idea of universal single payer health care would bankrupt this country, yeah the tis funny since most other countries in the world have it and they are doing fine. But once again you shown you have no clue what you are talking about.


so how is Trumps plan to have 21 MILLION people lose coverage, coverage that will barely cover anything making people pay way more out of pocket, and also let insurance companies once again not have to cover people with pre-existing conditions be a good thing


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

An interesting look at Clinton's chances at turning Arizona (and Georgia) blue:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ffe53e-34aa-11e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html

Even with Trump firing up Latinos (and Native Americans, who are 5% of the population there) and deflating the Mormon vote, Arizona is still an uphill battle for Clinton. It'll be interesting to see how much money the campaign eventually throws into the state. She doesn't really need it, but throwing money there could, at the very least, boost some down-ballot Democrats.


----------



## Slicked

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



IronMaiden7 said:


> Trump's struggles to fill the VP slot are continuing:
> 
> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-vice-president-224488#ixzz4BwvZnHps
> 
> Too many Republicans think joining the Trump ticket would be a career killer. With that said, Trump did extend his search by talking to some more red-state governors. Right now, though, it looks like Chris Christie, Newt Gingrich, Jeff Sessions and Mary Fallin are the finalists. Of those names, I'd say Fallin gives him the best shot at winning. Many Republican women do not like Trump, and bringing Fallin aboard might change that for him. BridgeGate will be in the news all summer, so Christie having to answer those questions during the whole election cycle would be bad. Sessions does little for Trump; he already has Sessions' base all sewed up. Gingrich is the one guy in the 90s whose sex scandal is worse than Bill Clinton's, so that would pretty much negate Trump's attacks.
> 
> Regarding Clinton, I've been convinced that she's picking Sherrod Brown for over a year now. That opinion hasn't changed. He checks all the boxes she can't: he's way more to the left, he voted against NAFTA, he's a popular senator in one of the most important swing states in the country and has a great way of talking to people. I know many Democrats want Elizabeth Warren, but I'd say to keep her in the Senate for now; she has way more power there, especially if Dems take it over.


I think Ben Carson would be a good fit for Trump, hes brilliant


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Slicked said:


> I think Ben Carson would be a good fit for Trump, hes brilliant


Ben Carson was a moron when it came to politics. He may be a great brain surgeon but that doesn't mean he would be a good VP or even president. He was so stupid in those debates.

Carson would be a good choice for Trump and I said this from day one because he would be worst than Trump and the GOP would never try to impeach Trump because they would get someone worse. But if Trump picks a strong VP, the first little misstep Trump does the GOP and DNC will impeach him.


----------



## Slicked

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Ben Carson was a moron when it came to politics. He may be a great brain surgeon but that doesn't mean he would be a good VP or even president. He was so stupid in those debates.
> 
> Carson would be a good choice for Trump and I said this from day one because he would be worst than Trump and the GOP would never try to impeach Trump because they would get someone worse. But if Trump picks a strong VP, the first little misstep Trump does the GOP and DNC will impeach him.


Carson has the same views as Trump, so even if the establishment attempts to impeach him or some crazy leftist manages to assassinate Trump god forbid, we would get the same brilliant polices.


----------



## TNAComics14

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm sick of all this big government-less rights bullshit. There's only one true American choice this time around and his name is Gary Johnson.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Slicked said:


> Carson has the same views as Trump, so even if the establishment attempts to impeach him or some crazy leftist manages to assassinate Trump god forbid, we would get the same brilliant polices.


That is why I said Trump would be smart to pick him because they would be getting someone as bad or worst than Trump. So they wouldn't try to oust him.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Slicked said:


> I think Ben Carson would be a good fit for Trump, hes brilliant


Carson's popular amongst evangelicals, and he could very likely help shore up that vote for Trump who hasn't been able to inspire that crowd like other Republican nominees. 

Carson's reach likely wouldn't extend to independents, though. A Trump/Carson ticket would have no political experience, and Trump's been pretty clear he wants a VP nominee who knows the ins and outs of politics.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> Bingo.
> 
> 
> Knew you sons of guns would come out with the truth afterall.
> 
> 
> Now tell us, why were you all in for Hillary against Obama in the '08 primaries. I remember the headlines of the Republicans in the open primaries, voting for Hillary to keep her in the run against Obama. Then there were the P.U.M.A.s and flag pin pushers. then the Joe the Plumbers.


I voted for Obama in '08 and knew very little about politics or economics at the time. :lol Certainly didn't follow either party's primaries.

I also don't belong to any political party and have never voted Republican in my life. Supported (but ended up not voting) Gary Johnson in '12, can't support him this time around due to his evolving hawkish and left-leaning views. Trump is a very rare exception and it's unlikely the GOP ever fields a candidate like him again.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If there was a ever a year that NOTA could have an impact, this would be that year.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump should just pick Ivanka for his VP already. Imagine those nerds in the Senate trying to quibble with the based goddess. :drose 

Trump^2 2016. :mark:


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump should just pick Ivanka for his VP already. Imagine those nerds in the Senate trying to quibble with the based goddess. :drose
> 
> Trump^2 2016. :mark:


Which of the reported names do you like most?


----------



## American_Nightmare

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



IronMaiden7 said:


> Which of the reported names do you like most?


I'm totally unfamiliar with most of the names discussed in the article you linked. Gingrich would be a terrible pick as a neocon and establishment guy. He's also shown he's willing to backstab Trump at the first sign of MSM-concocted nonsense in order to pander to the PC crowd. 

Christie would be sub-optimal for a lot of reasons, but it wouldn't surprise me if he picked him. Which would be very worrying because I can see the military-industrial complex assassinating Trump and then we'd end up with Chris Christie as our freaking president. 

I honestly have no idea who he should pick. I don't think there's a *good* choice, and not because of his supposed alienating of many GOP politicians. I can't think of anyone who has been mentioned as someone who could be VP but doesn't want to be because of Trump's comments that I'd actually want him to pick. Rand Paul probably would've been the only guy I'd get excited over, but even that would come at the cost of having him in the senate, and I just don't think Rand is interested in the job regardless of who else is on the ticket.

I know he said he wants a guy with experience in governance but I'm starting to think he should just go with an outsider he can trust. :draper2 

Perhaps John Miller is available.


----------



## LaMelo

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Clinton has no chance!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


>


Fox is the worst, they ask a question, then they get an answer they dont like so they interrupt the person speaking.


----------



## Spanish Lariato

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It is pretty clear that Clinton would be a ludicrous president as her career has proven. She is a ruthless warmonger who showed no remorse for her actions (e.g. her cold stance at the destruction of Libya by the NATO). 
But that doesn't make Trump a suitable candidate. He belongs to the plutocracy and as its representative Donald will defend his interests. Maybe the discourse of nonalignment, of withdraw from South Korea, of betterment with the Russian bloc seems promising but at the end if the corporations want to intervene in a country to improve its benefits he would do it. Moreover, all of this will be mixed with a regressive Weltanschauung. It is clear that Trump has no interest in defending the minorities and they will suffer under his rule. Ad do not forget that Trump and his allies are full fledged anthropological climate change negationists. That could lead to fatal consequences for the world as a whole. The other thing that I see more concerning is that surely Trump will not apply the majority of the program he is spouting (the immigration measures are for the shock value more than anything for example) but a great part of its supporters have dipped in a xenophobic, sexist and racist mentality and that is where the danger stems. Most of these individuals are salaried workers that constitutes the base for the rise of some sort of proto-fascism. The increasing polarization of the USA population will lead to uncertain and dangerous situations. 
I think that the electoral system is flawed. This mandatory dichotomous choice negates democracy and gives too much sway to the factual powers. I think that with either candidate a third world war is closer.


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/743418063937220608

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/743420416295763968
http://yournewswire.com/russian-hackers-prove-election-fraud-against-bernie-sanders/


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Ok guys. :curry2 , its time to make that VP prediction.


Here's mine:

Hillary Clinton's vice President pick ought to be









Virginia Governor Tim Kaine. 


Hillary/Tim 2016

Clinton
Kaine '16


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Let's bump this with some based Trump supporters. 






And another great article from _Dilbert_ creator Scott Adams (I bought his book!), on how to "Un-hypnotize a rabid anti-Trumper": 

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/146157026376/how-to-un-hypnotize-a-rabid-anti-trumper


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

But he's a fucking white male...



Spanish Lariato said:


> It is clear that Trump has no interest in defending the minorities and they will suffer under his rule.


Explain how this is "clear".


----------



## Marv95

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> It is clear that Trump has no interest in defending the minorities and they will suffer under his rule.


8 years of Obama and crime is still out of control in many minority-dominated cities nationwide. Younger blacks can't find summer jobs due to illegal immigration while Trump has a record of putting minorities/women to work. Yet it's clear.

Sessions or Rand Paul should be his VP picks. For all we know it could be a Democrat(doubtful). No to Newt. Condi would be better than Newt despite her Bush-era "fragrance". That's how much Newt sucks.


----------



## Spanish Lariato

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Explain how this is "clear".


C'mon, you are a neo-liberal or an anarcho-capitalist (I am not sure) but you gotta give that Trump is no Ron Paul. He as conservative as it goes and his manifesto is very clear. He will defend the corporations while he is playing with striking a chord in the emotional psyche of the 30-60 range white American workers. Any mention to diversity is a reaction to the criticism of his discrimination against those and any promise linked to them is nothing but a byproduct of this counter-program. His main focus is clear. Even his slogan, “make America great again” is in no way addressed to these ethnic, cultural and LGTB minorities who can't recall a time when their individual rights were in a better state that right now. In the best case Donald Trump will not touch the current state of affairs but in the worst have in mind that he did oppose homosexual marriages, that he spouts sexist comments, that he has a shaky stance (at best) on abortion or that he shares his ignorant xenophobic remarks to everyone that is listening.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Spanish Lariato said:


> C'mon, you are a neo-liberal or an anarcho-capitalist (I am not sure) but you gotta give that Trump is no Ron Paul. He as conservative as it goes and his manifesto is very clear. He will defend the corporations while he is playing with striking a chord in the emotional psyche of the 30-60 range white American workers. Any mention to diversity is a reaction to the criticism of his discrimination against those and any promise linked to them is nothing but a byproduct of this counter-program. His main focus is clear. Even his slogan, “make America great again” is in no way addressed to these ethnic, cultural and LGTB minorities who can't recall a time when their individual rights were in a better state that right now. In the best case Donald Trump will not touch the current state of affairs but in the worst have in mind that he did oppose homosexual marriages, that he spouts sexist comments, that he has a shaky stance (at best) on abortion or that he shares his ignorant xenophobic remarks to everyone that is listening.


I'm an AnCap and have no idea what Ron Paul has to do with this discussion.

I'm glad Trump doesn't proactively talk about diversity because that would contradict the color-blind meritocracy which has defined Trump's business ventures, and is a vision for the future I believe Trump and I share. Diversity is the left's obsession, and really just a talking point to pander to minority voting blocs, which don't actually fare too well under Democratic policies. 

Rolling back rights for any of the groups you mentioned isn't a part of Trump's platform at all. As for gay marriage, Trump grew up in New York, has gay friends, has attended gay weddings, he's not against it. It's just something you have to say to have a chance as a Republican. LGBT folk should be rushing to vote for Trump over Hillary who wants to import tens of thousands of people who come from places where they would be executed for being themselves. She's also taken millions of dollars from countries like Saudi Arabia, where they throw gays off of rooftops. 

As for your view that he's sexist and xenophobic, I've debunked that nonsense too many times to count on this forum.

You've failed to make a case that minorities would "suffer" under a Trump presidency, and instead retreated into the usual baseless slanders of his character repeated as nauseum by the Hillary supporting MSM propaganda machine. Sad.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> As for Bernies idea of universal single payer health care would bankrupt this country, yeah the tis funny since most other countries in the world have it and they are doing fine. But once again you shown you have no clue what you are talking about.


Why use other countries as examples when Vermont is closer to home? The tax rate will have to way up to maintain the system Bernie is advocating, and the American public just don't have the stomach for it compared to citizens of other countries. Progressives harp on lack of political will that Vermont failed, but they still couldn't find ways to adequately fund the system that will take into account adverse changes in economic conditions beyond raising taxes even more.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Why use other countries as examples when Vermont is closer to home? The tax rate will have to way up to maintain the system Bernie is advocating, and the American public just don't have the stomach for it compared to citizens of other countries. Progressives harp on lack of political will that Vermont failed, but they still couldn't find ways to adequately fund the system that will take into account adverse changes in economic conditions beyond raising taxes even more.


The tax rate wont have to go way up, Bernie already explained how it would work, and you would pay a little more in taxes but save more on the health insurance side.

http://usuncut.com/news/bernie-sanders-healthcare-plan-would-save-the-average-american-family-1200/


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The tax rate wont have to go way up, Bernie already explained how it would work, and you would pay a little more in taxes but save more on the health insurance side.


You live in la-la land if you think Bernie's plan will self-fund itself as planned. Explain Vermont's failure to meet costs estimates? If Vermont can't meet those expectations even with one of the higher tax % per capita income in the country, what hope for the rest of the country?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> You live in la-la land if you think Bernie's plan will self-fund itself as planned. Explain Vermont's failure to meet costs estimates? If Vermont can't meet those expectations even with one of the higher tax % per capita income in the country, what hope for the rest of the country?


YUP do the typical thing you always do and ignore what the experts say and how it will work. VT is a tiny state with a tiny budget like the whole country has, apples and oranges. 

If CA and the UK can do single payer and make it work so can the US. Even if the GOVt has to pay some, who what, they can just take it from the military which is way over funded. It more than the next 10 other countries combined.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> YUP do the typical thing you always do and ignore what the experts say and how it will work. VT is a tiny state with a tiny budget like the whole country has, apples and oranges.
> 
> If CA and the UK can do single payer and make it work so can the US. Even if the GOVt has to pay some, who what, they can just take it from the military which is way over funded. It more than the next 10 other countries combined.


Who is ignoring things? Why can't one compare the failure in Vermont to how the plan may not be feasible in the US due to size, yet ignore the difference in population size in CA and the UK and cite why it can work in the US? Even so, isn't it easier to implement the system in a tiny state with less variables?

The issue isn't whether the govt has to pay, it is the taxpayer having to pay more. And history has shown a large majority of the American public do not have the stomach for higher taxes. See how now you are already jumping towards funding the system from other sources other than the one mentioned in Bernie's plan because deep down you know it just isn't economically feasible as it is presented in its current form.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Who is ignoring things? Why can't one compare the failure in Vermont to how the plan may not be feasible in the US due to size, yet ignore the difference in population size in CA and the UK and cite why it can work in the US? Even so, isn't it easier to implement the system in a tiny state with less variables?
> 
> The issue isn't whether the govt has to pay, it is the taxpayer having to pay more. And history has shown a large majority of the American public do not have the stomach for higher taxes. See how now you are already jumping towards funding the system from other sources other than the one mentioned in Bernie's plan because deep down you know it just isn't economically feasible as it is presented in its current form.


The US tax payers will pay a little more and save more on the back end when it comes to healthcare so they will be making out better. They will be saving money. I answered your question about how just the tax payers may not be able to pay all of it, so I gave you a solution if that were to happen , which there is no evidence that it would. 

It is economically feasible looking at Bernies plan by the way he has it mapped out.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The US tax payers will pay a little more and save more on the back end when it comes to healthcare so they will be making out better. They will be saving money. I answered your question about how just the tax payers may not be able to pay all of it, so I gave you a solution if that were to happen , which there is no evidence that it would.
> 
> It is economically feasible looking at Bernies plan by the way he has it mapped out.


Just take the L. Taxpayers will be saving money in the long run, but they will also need to put up a huge sum of money first. Not to mention the system requires the state to meet escalating costs as the population ages. Without a comprehensive plan to fund the system outside of the pipe dream of successful closing of corporate loopholes that will in theory generate sufficient revenue for the state, Bernie is lying about the tax increases on the middle class required to implement the system.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Just take the L. Taxpayers will be saving money in the long run, but they will also need to put up a huge sum of money first. Not to mention the system requires the state to meet escalating costs as the population ages. Without a comprehensive plan to fund the system outside of the pipe dream of successful closing of corporate loopholes that will in theory generate sufficient revenue for the state, Bernie is lying about the tax increases on the middle class required to implement the system.


They wont need to put up a huge amount of money first, their taxes will go up slightly and that is why you get your pay check, s you wont be paying a huge amount of front. Do you even understand how taxes work? You clearly dont.

Bernie is not lying about the tax insurance, it all mapped out but go ahead and keep making shit up like you always do


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> They wont need to put up a huge amount of money first, their taxes will go up slightly and that is why you get your pay check, s you wont be paying a huge amount of front. Do you even understand how taxes work? You clearly dont.
> 
> Bernie is not lying about the tax insurance, it all mapped out but go ahead and keep making shit up like you always do


What shit am I making up? I brought up Vermont, a US example of why the plan isn't feasible, yet you brought up UK and CA as examples of why it works. And claim your examples is more valid than mine?

Vermont has one of the highest tax per capita income in America and still couldn't stomach the increase in taxes that you claim will only 'go up slightly'. The huge upfront fee I am referring to is how much it costs to implement it. Taxpayers will bear the brunt of it if the corporate loophole closing don't generate enough to cover up the costs. Which you can almost bet on it happening. 92bil PER YEAR isn't going to drop from the sky.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> What shit am I making up? I brought up Vermont, a US example of why the plan isn't feasible, yet you brought up UK and CA as examples of why it works. And claim your examples is more valid than mine?
> 
> Vermont has one of the highest tax per capita income in America and still couldn't stomach the increase in taxes that you claim will only 'go up slightly'. The huge upfront fee I am referring to is how much it costs to implement it. Taxpayers will bear the brunt of it if the corporate loophole closing don't generate enough to cover up the costs. Which you can almost bet on it happening. 92bil PER YEAR isn't going to drop from the sky.


VT is one of the smallest states in the country. You need to compare a whole country not just one state. A country has way more money and people than a small state. You can't compare the two. 

But since experts like in the link i showed you explained how it would work, ill take their word for it over yours.

You probably think Trumps plan is good and would work


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> VT is one of the smallest states in the country. You need to compare a whole country not just one state. A country has way more money and people than a small state. You can't compare the two.
> 
> But since experts like in the link i showed you explained how it would work, ill take their word for it over yours.
> 
> You probably think Trumps plan is good and would work


The UK has 64m people. CA has 36m. USA has 320m. And you can compare them?

Why can't a state with the a very average medium household income be used as an example of whether the system is feasible? Would Vermont not be part of the programme if implemented and the state decides what's best for it under the system? Are you saying the bigger states are going to subsidize the smaller states in the single payer system?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> The UK has 64m people. CA has 36m. USA has 320m. And you can compare them?
> 
> Why can't a state with the a very average medium household income be used as an example of whether the system is feasible? Would Vermont not be part of the programme if implemented and the state decides what's best for it under the system? Are you saying the bigger states are going to subsidize the smaller states in the single payer system?


They are all counties so yes you can. 

Watch this to explain how it will work







There is really no need to argue over this since there is less than a 1% chance that Bernie will be president unless Hillary gets indicted.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> How was she a worse female stereotype?
> 
> Hot?
> A real mother, not one for the sake of furthering her career?
> A truly strong independant woman, ran her own business, didnt ride a MANS coat tails to power?
> 
> Liberal hatchet jobs are incredible. Sarah palin is a prototypical feminist, or theoretically is.
> 
> But no, she hasnt run around for 40 years claiming she is, then doing the exact opposite
> 
> She just did it
> 
> But she doesnt claim to be one, and isnt a raging lesbian so feminists hate her


Lol at defending Palin. No one needs to hatchet job her, she hatchet jobs herself by opening her mouth.


----------



## Spanish Lariato

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I'm an AnCap and have no idea what Ron Paul has to do with this discussion.
> 
> I'm glad Trump doesn't proactively talk about diversity because that would contradict the color-blind meritocracy which has defined Trump's business ventures, and is a vision for the future I believe Trump and I share. Diversity is the left's obsession, and really just a talking point to pander to minority voting blocs, which don't actually fare too well under Democratic policies.
> 
> Rolling back rights for any of the groups you mentioned isn't a part of Trump's platform at all. As for gay marriage, Trump grew up in New York, has gay friends, has attended gay weddings, he's not against it. It's just something you have to say to have a chance as a Republican. LGBT folk should be rushing to vote for Trump over Hillary who wants to import tens of thousands of people who come from places where they would be executed for being themselves. She's also taken millions of dollars from countries like Saudi Arabia, where they throw gays off of rooftops.
> 
> As for your view that he's sexist and xenophobic, I've debunked that nonsense too many times to count on this forum.
> 
> You've failed to make a case that minorities would "suffer" under a Trump presidency, and instead retreated into the usual baseless slanders of his character repeated as nauseum by the Hillary supporting MSM propaganda machine. Sad.


The problem with the so called meritocracy in today's conditions is that in order to be really based in merit and not in nepotism, past richness, family importance or a favorable upbringing it should be produced under the auspices of equal opportunities. You can name all the exceptions you want but that doesn't make them more than a narrow percentage of underprivileged people. It s clear that not all persons are equal but that doesn't mean that the state should not provide an apparatus that buffers the basal inequality, not produced by differences in intellect, attitude or aptitude. 
If Trump has to say that he doesn't believe in same sex marriage that speaks very low of democratic spirit, of the majority of its voters (that was one of my main points) and ultimately of him (who vanaglories in having full freedom and independence in his speech). It must be this electoral yoke that forces him to spout the rest of its tremendously populist and simple harangues.

And don't play the straw man with Hillary. I don't support her. The recent terrorist attack under the flag of fundamentalism in both Europe and America has been produced by 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants so the measures of Trump wouldn't have an effect. These events have in common a radicalization of members of the society suffering marginalization, poverty in some cases and a lack of expectations. This situation transforms these individuals (who weren't big devotees at the first time and in most cases didn't even practice the mandatory liturgy) in drones that have found solace in void promises. 

This atmosphere is caused by USA foreign policy in a great part. If I recall correctly the father of the Orlando killer was a Taliban mujahid, or, like Reagan liked to call them, a freedom fighter. We can't forget that USA has developed a commendable job in destroying the secular states in the Middle East. This process has led to a refugee crisis and the main culprits (NATO members) refuse to cooperate when countries like Lebanon presents a third of the population composed of refugees. And you mentioned Arabia Saudi. Do you really think that Trump is going to work against the interests of American entrepreneurs who are enriching themselves in the Arabian Peninsula? He is going to continue to support them and to let those monarchs sponsor the creation of madrases based in the propagation of Wahhabism.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

After a few bad weeks, the Trump campaign needed a change. That change manifested into the firing of Corey Lewandowski:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-parts-ways-with-campaign-manager-corey-lewandowski-143909821.html

Lewandowski and Paul Manafort's continued power struggle clearly added to the turmoil, and it partially explained the slowness of the hiring process for staffers.

EDIT: Also, why in the world would the campaign drop information this big on a Monday, instead of a Friday where the media wouldn't cover it as strongly? That's... really dumb, especially considering how incendiary Lewandowski has been.

Then again, maybe the Lewandowski firing was to throw shade at the NRA disagreeing with Trump twice over the last few days? Many Trump supporters would likely be pretty pissed to know that.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/elizabeth-warren-wall-street-vice-president-224489

Wall Street donors seek to block Warren VP pick
If Clinton chooses the Massachusetts senator as her running mate, donations will dry up, fundraisers warn.


NEW YORK — Big Wall Street donors have a message for Hillary Clinton: Keep Elizabeth Warren off the ticket or risk losing millions of dollars in contributions.
In a dozen interviews, major Democratic donors in the financial services industry said they saw little chance that Clinton would pick the liberal firebrand as her vice presidential nominee. These donors despise Warren’s attacks on the financial industry. But they also think her selection would be damaging to the economy. And they warned that if Clinton surprises them and taps Warren, big donations from the industry could vanish.
Story Continued Below

“If Clinton picked Warren, her whole base on Wall Street would leave her,” said one top Democratic donor who has helped raise millions for Clinton. “They would literally just say, ‘We have no qualms with you moving left, we understand all the things you’ve had to do because of Bernie Sanders, but if you are going there with Warren, we just can’t trust you, you’ve killed it.’”
Most big donors don’t want Warren on the ticket because she is the most accomplished anti-Wall Street populist in the Democratic Party. But many also think her presence would drive a potential Clinton administration too far to the left, poison relations with the private sector from the start and ultimately be damaging to the economy.
A constant theme that emerged in the interviews is that executives in the financial industry believe the first 100 days of a Clinton administration could feature potential deal making with Republicans, who are likely to maintain their majority in the House of Representatives.

The dream deal for Wall Street would be a combination of targeted infrastructure spending that appeals mostly to Democrats and corporate and international tax reform that could bring Republicans along. The fear is that Warren would make such a deal more difficult.
“Clinton is going to face a divided government unless there is a total tsunami,” said one moderate Washington Democrat with close ties to the banking industry. “What you want in a vice president is someone who can negotiate for you on the Hill, someone like Joe Biden. And that is not a Warren strength.”
All of the donors and senior Democrats interviewed for this story demanded that their names not be used both because they were not authorized to speak about the Clinton campaign’s internal deliberations and because they feared Warren’s wrath. “There is no upside to my talking to you on the record,” one big donor said. “Either I piss off the Clinton campaign or I piss off Warren, or both.”
Several donors said they did not really fear Warren going on the ticket because they do not believe Clinton has a strong relationship with the senator and would not trust Warren to be a loyal No. 2, either on the campaign or in the White House.

“First of all, they don’t particularly like each other,” said one prominent hedge fund manager who has raised millions for Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton before her. But, the manager added, “The absolute predicate for a vice presidential nominee is they have to understand they are No. 2 both during the campaign and once you take office, and I just don’t think Elizabeth Warren is that type of person.”


The distaste for Warren in the banking industry is not surprising. No American politician in recent history has done more to harness the powerful anti-Wall Street sentiment that continues to rage in the country since the financial crisis of 2008.
Warren created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that many bankers dislike, and she continues to push for far stronger regulations including breaking up the nation’s largest financial institutions into smaller, simpler pieces. This is exactly the reason that many on the left, including ardent backers of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, want to see Warren on the ticket.
“It’s very clear that Wall Street guys don’t like her because she has been a lot more effective than most in communicating an anti-Wall Street message that has been part of the Democratic Party for 80 years, since the 1930s,” said Charles Geisst, a Wall Street historian at Manhattan College. “It’s not so much that Wall Street doesn’t like her personally, most of them don’t even know her, but they don’t like anyone that espouses that particular ideology.”


A Clinton campaign spokesman declined to comment for this story. A representative of Warren did not respond to requests for comment.
Clinton earlier this month said she thinks Warren is “qualified” to be vice president. “I have the highest regard for Sen. Warren,” she said in an interview with Politico. “I think she is an incredible public servant, eminently qualified for any role. I look forward to working with her on behalf of not only the campaign and her very effective critique of [Donald] Trump, but also on the issues that she and I both care about.”
Warren has maintained the typical stance of potential vice presidents, saying she is perfectly happy in her current job. But she has some powerful backers pushing Clinton to pick her for the vice-presidential slot, including outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
People close to the Clinton campaign say that while Warren might not wind up as the vice-presidential selection, Wall Street executives are dead wrong to think that it couldn’t happen.
They say Warren is very high on the list of possible vice presidential candidates along with Sens. Tim Kaine of Virginia, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Cory Booker of New Jersey; Labor Secretary Tom Perez; Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro; and Rep. Xavier Becerra of California, among others. “We are not at the point of ruling anyone in or out,” a person close to the process said.
Picking Warren would be risky for Clinton’s fundraising operation. The presumptive Democratic nominee hopes to raise $1.5 billion for her campaign against Trump, and Wall Street has been a big source of funding for her over the years.


According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Clinton and outside groups supporting her have raised $289 million so far in the 2016 cycle. The securities and investment industry is easily Clinton’s top source of cash, donating over $28 million so far, according to the CRP.

“Things are so volatile now with all of the outside groups th
at all it can take is pissing off one billionaire on Wall Street to make it difficult,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the CRP. “And you don’t run national campaigns for as many years as Clinton has without some serious support from Wall Street, they are just too much of a heavy hitter.”
The progressive case for Warren holds that she would immediately energize the liberal base and bring Sanders voters into the fold. And Warren backers note that the senator has been an early and enthusiastic basher of Trump and shown a knack for getting under the presumptive GOP presidential nominee’s skin.
“Elizabeth Warren very effectively called out Donald Trump for cheering the Wall Street collapse because it would make him money — and that moment reminded Democrats how powerful Warren’s megaphone can be,” said Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. “Whether it’s as vice president or as co-chair of the presidential transition committee, it’s hard to imagine Hillary Clinton not wanting a very large role for Elizabeth Warren at the table.”
But more moderate Democrats in the financial services industry argue that Sanders voters will come on board anyway and that Clinton does not need to pick Warren to help her win.
“We are going to win this. Trump shouldn’t be president and he isn’t going to be president,” said one senior executive at a Wall Street bank who is close to Clinton. “Picking Warren would indicate weakness and panic for no reason and make them look like they are running scared of Trump. There will be plenty of time to galvanize the left and get them to come out. And Warren would be a nightmare to try and manage.”




Another argument against putting Warren on the ticket is that she can be just as effective a surrogate while maintaining her power base in the Senate.
“In the current era of presidential politics, social media has allowed more people to assume the role of attack dog that was traditionally left to the vice-presidential nominee,” said Jason Rosenstock, an analyst at Thorn Run Partners who covers the financial industry. “Warren has shown an excellence in the platform that would allow her to help the campaign incredibly while maintaining her growing position of power in the Senate.”
On the economic front, some moderate Democrats and financial executives worry that having Warren as vice president would poison relationships between business and the White House from the beginning of a potential Hillary Clinton administration.
These people say there is an opportunity for much better relations between business and the White House than during President Barack Obama’s tenure, as well as more effective deal making with Congress to avoid the kind of fiscal crises that damaged the economy the past six years. In addition to cutting deals on taxes and infrastructure, Wall Street worries about the return of the debt ceiling as a potentially big issue in 2016, as well as the return of sequester spending cuts.

“There is going to be a lot to deal with in the first 100 days, and I’m not sure going left and picking Warren would be particularly helpful,” said a top financial services lobbyist in Washington.
This Democrat, along with several Wall Street donors mentioned Kaine as the ideal vice-presidential pick. The Virginia Democrat comes from a key swing state, is fluent in Spanish, sits on the Armed Services Committee and is generally palatable to both progressives and more business-friendly Democrats.
“He checks every box,” the moderate Washington Democrat with close ties to the banking industry said. “You could see him step in as president, he is credible with the base of the party, and he’s also comfortable spending time with the rich people you need to raise money from.”


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

An Iraq War veteran on Trump's comments about soldiers stealing money:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e7fd68-33c6-11e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html

A few soldiers have now come out and criticized Trump after his comments, but this might be the most prolific case thus far. Trump's campaign has tried to brush these criticisms off, saying that Trump was talking about the Iraqi Army (which had been disbanded at the time). Trump said the same comments back in December, by the way.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Lol at defending Palin. No one needs to hatchet job her, she hatchet jobs herself by opening her mouth.


still more of an actual person than most politicians.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36582770

Close shave. Hate the man's presidential campaign but I don't want him assassinated ffs.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

Some of Trump's campaign expenses in May's FEC report:

Hats: $208,000
Online Advertising: $115,000
Data Management: $48,000

I can't imagine any big-time donors signing checks after looking at that minimal data management number. People who gave him big donations must be wondering if he's even trying at this point.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

So this whole campaign is kinda unraveling huh


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump fired his campaign manager, so at least he is trying to stop the bleeding. Trump's campaign's fundraising efforts have been dismal in May. Corey Lewandowski just doesn't have the connections or mentality to run a national campaign.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

The idiot's plan to take and use a police officer's gun. Somebody is going to try this shit with Hillary now.

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



IronMaiden7 said:


> Some of Trump's campaign expenses in May's FEC report:
> 
> Hats: $208,000
> Online Advertising: $115,000
> Data Management: $48,000
> 
> I can't imagine any big-time donors signing checks after looking at that minimal data management number. People who gave him big donations must be wondering if he's even trying at this point.


Trump does not even really want to win. He didnt even think he would make it this far.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



IronMaiden7 said:


> An Iraq War veteran on Trump's comments about soldiers stealing money:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e7fd68-33c6-11e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html
> 
> A few soldiers have now come out and criticized Trump after his comments, but this might be the most prolific case thus far. Trump's campaign has tried to brush these criticisms off, saying that Trump was talking about the Iraqi Army (which had been disbanded at the time). Trump said the same comments back in December, by the way.


Wow

This part:



> Nearly every week, my team and I would convoy out to a council building in a Baghdad neighborhood to take claims against U.S. forces. These could be anything from an armored vehicle running into a generator to an extended lease for a home we had commandeered. We also disbursed funds for those who had been wounded and killed by U.S. forces by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
> 
> It was draining work. Every week I would sit for hours, listening as my interpreters relayed the heartbreaking stories of mothers, fathers and widows. They showed me their scars and pictures of the piles of bricks that used to be their homes. It felt good to help those I could, and gut-wrenching to turn down those I couldn’t. I spent much of a year of my life inside an aluminum trailer, far away from my friends and family, missing holidays and birthdays, trying to block out the speaker that would blare “Incoming! Incoming!” as mortars flew into the base while I tried to sleep.


The effect that would have on you. Who the fuck does Trump think he is, when he didn't even go to war himself and doesn't know fuck all about it. Just more evidence that this maniac is not fit to be the leader of the free world.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump does not even really want to win. He didnt even think he would make it this far.


I can't wait until reporters go through that May FEC report thoroughly. The amount of Trump businesses that have received cash from the campaign is crazy. All that money he received and for what? So he can give it to his businesses and kids? Trump's not breaking any laws, but the report makes his campaign feel like a massive scam.

The funniest part?

The campaign gave $35,000 to an advertising agency in New Hampshire called Draper Sterling. "Mad Men" fans will recognize the irony in that right away. The not-so-funny part? Reporters are struggling to find an ad agency in New Hampshire called Draper Sterling. There's still a chance the campaign was dealing with a legitimate business, but, geez, that sounds fucking fishy.

Other things found out from the report:

1. The campaign is $40 million in the red, and is bringing in about $5 million a month. That's not good business sense, Donny.

2. Senior Trump aides took home $20,000 each in May, which probably explains why the campaign can only afford 30 staffers. If RNC staffers are included, it looks like Trump has 69 (probably 67 now since Trump just fired two) staffers. Clinton has 685.

3. Trump has $1.3 million cash-on-hand in May. He raised more than that, but $1.8 million had to go to convention and RNC headquarters expenses. To compare, Clinton has $42 million cash-on-hand, plus the super PAC supporting her has more than double that. To put this in further perspective, the top 50 cash-on-hand fundraisers in the House of Representatives HAVE MORE MONEY THAN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. That is mind-boggling.

4. Trump is paying himself for his time, which isn't something presidential candidates normally do.

5. Ted Cruz didn't do much campaigning in May, yet, he raised more than Trump.

6. The next FEC report comes out right in the middle of Trump's convention, so get ready for more right when Trump will be getting the most exposure.

I'm seriously not sure if Trump supporters will be defending him much longer. For a man who constantly tells us he has great business acumen, his campaign is floundering in a way completely foreign to presidential campaigns. Mitt Romney's campaign was miles ahead of his at this point in 2012. Plus, his reliance on the RNC isn't working well at all. The committee just added $2 million of debt, which is fairly normal actually, but it is still greatly struggling at fundraising (not normal at all). Look how much cash the RNC acquired in May, and then compare it to the other Mays in presidential election years since electronic filing started:

2004: $72,046,900.00
2008: $53,508,000.00
2012: $60,827,864.24
2016: $19,913,103.42

Trump is becoming toxic, and there's not a whole lot of time for him to turn things around.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

On the bright side, if Trump continues to get hammered in the polls and it looks like he has no chance of winning, the debates will be even more fun.

The Donald swinging for the fences with nothing to lose = must-see TV


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

I guess I'm the only one watching Hillary Clinton's speech. 

She got Trump by the balls. Dude getting straight raped.


----------



## Slicked

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

Hilary and her SJW friends need to burn !


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



Slicked said:


> Hilary and her SJW friends need to burn !


Hillary and her supporters need to burn? 

You Trump fans are sounding worse than Bernie Bros! :surprise:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> I guess I'm the only one watching Hillary Clinton's speech.
> 
> She got Trump by the balls. Dude getting straight raped.


Yeah until Trump tears into her for her illegal emails / possible indictment, her being bough for by wall st and them tell her who she can and can't pick for VP, her GS speeches which Trump will produce, not to mention the voter fraud her and the DNC committed to get her the nomination.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> Hillary and her supporters need to burn?
> 
> You Trump fans are sounding worse than Bernie Bros! :surprise:


She has said nothing anyone else has said. Same old shit.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah until Trump tears into her for her illegal emails / possible indictment, her being bough for by wall st and them tell her who she can and can't pick for VP, her GS speeches which Trump will produce, not to mention the voter fraud her and the DNC committed to get her the nomination.


Yes, because Trump does not live in a glass house and has a flawless background where he can not only appear more trustworthy but can throw stones without any retaliation. 

How does Wall St control the nominees choice for candidate? Did they tell Obama to pick Joe Biden?
Did they tell John Kerry pick John Edwards? That's complete bull puckey. 

If Trump even attempts which he won't because he doesn't have a clue about how to campaign in a general election, but if he were to even get to the point of trying to talk about voter fraud in the DNC primary, he will be met swift and quick rebuttal and discredited. 

I wish all that you hope to happen happens, because it's not going to help Trump, and it's only going to make the hate you have in your little heart hurt you more.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

@AryaDark @CamillePunk @L-DOPA


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

So, Draper Sterling does exist, but it, um, sounds like a scam:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-...-ad-agency-does-exist-its-just-shady-as-hell/

Naming your scam business after something that's going to attract major attention is not a bright idea.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



IronMaiden7 said:


> So, Draper Sterling does exist, but it, um, sounds like a scam:
> 
> http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-...-ad-agency-does-exist-its-just-shady-as-hell/
> 
> Naming your scam business after something that's going to attract major attention is not a bright idea.


If that's your biggest issue with Trump you'll have to try harder.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> Yes, because Trump does not live in a glass house and has a flawless background where he can not only appear more trustworthy but can throw stones without any retaliation.
> 
> How does Wall St control the nominees choice for candidate? Did they tell Obama to pick Joe Biden?
> Did they tell John Kerry pick John Edwards? That's complete bull puckey.
> 
> If Trump even attempts which he won't because he doesn't have a clue about how to campaign in a general election, but if he were to even get to the point of trying to talk about voter fraud in the DNC primary, he will be met swift and quick rebuttal and discredited.
> 
> I wish all that you hope to happen happens, because it's not going to help Trump, and it's only going to make the hate you have in your little heart hurt you more.


Hillary and Trump are both as entrust worthy and unlikeable as each other but Hillary is establishment and Trump is not. Right now in the US more and more people are turning against the establishment especially how the establishment rigged the election against Sanders with voter fraud and suppression and now the establishment and trying to make new rules to screw Trump out of the nomination. 

Its not bullshit that wall st is telling Hillary who to pick for VP, I already posted an article on it

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/elizabeth-warren-wall-street-vice-president-224489


here is another


http://fortune.com/2016/06/20/wall-street-elizabeth-warren/


Wall St told Hillary dont pick Warren because they know they can't control her with their money, said they if she choses Warren they wont give Hillary millions of dollars anymore for the general.

Tell me how its exactly bullshit?

As for the voter fraud thing being discredited , try again there is tons of proof that there was voter fraud going on. There are even lawsuits filed in court over some states.

A lot of the exist polls are way off in a lot of states by huge numbers which shows voter fraud, not to mention the faulty machines in chicago and all the states that were closed primaries that just happened to purge voters and magically move people from democratic to ind. so they couldn't vote.

You are just ignoring all the information out there. Trump wont do that and Hillary and the DNC can't hide it


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Hillary and Trump are both as entrust worthy and unlikeable as each other but Hillary is establishment and Trump is not. Right now in the US more and more people are turning against the establishment especially how the establishment rigged the election against Sanders with voter fraud and suppression and now the establishment and trying to make new rules to screw Trump out of the nomination.
> 
> Its not bullshit that wall st is telling Hillary who to pick for VP, I already posted an article on it
> 
> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/elizabeth-warren-wall-street-vice-president-224489
> 
> 
> here is another
> 
> 
> http://fortune.com/2016/06/20/wall-street-elizabeth-warren/
> 
> 
> Wall St told Hillary dont pick Warren because they know they can't control her with their money, said they if she choses Warren they wont give Hillary millions of dollars anymore for the general.
> 
> Tell me how its exactly bullshit?
> 
> As for the voter fraud thing being discredited , try again there is tons of proof that there was voter fraud going on. There are even lawsuits filed in court over some states.
> 
> A lot of the exist polls are way off in a lot of states by huge numbers which shows voter fraud, not to mention the faulty machines in chicago and all the states that were closed primaries that just happened to purge voters and magically move people from democratic to ind. so they couldn't vote.
> 
> You are just ignoring all the information out there. Trump wont do that and Hillary and the DNC can't hide it


How can you not see the forest from the trees with those fake Wall St VP threats that are designed to rattle the Democrat party. Hillary can pick anybody she wants as her VP. It may or may not be EW, I predict will be Tim Kaine. Hell she might pick Bernie. How about we wait and see instead of caring about some anonymous Wall-St insider story throwing baseless threats. 

DNC voter fraud? OK

Just because someone doesn't know the election rules and wants to file a voter file lawsuit doesn't mean there was voter fraud. 

The state I voted for Hillary went to Bernie, perhaps I should cry voter fraud like you asshats are doing.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> If that's your biggest issue with Trump you'll have to try harder.


At this point, I'm not even sure this particular incident would make the top 25 regarding issues with Trump. The May FEC report as a whole, though, is very telling. We've known for a while now that Trump's struggling to run his campaign (I've been pretty thorough in this thread about those troubles), but this report is essentially showing him either using campaign funds to pay off his businesses or shady start-ups, instead of doing the things campaigns need to do get elected. After seeing this report, what megadonors would feel confident in giving the Trump campaign money?

Biggest issue with Trump? His economic policies are pretty scary. Just "suggesting" that the U.S. should start paying 80 cents on the dollar of its debt is enough to scare markets and raise interest rates. I was watching live when he mentioned it, and my draw dropped; even most of my conservative friends were downright terrified by that opinion. His massive tax cuts for the wealthy would make Sam Brownback and Bobby Jindal's plans look like child's play; those states are in so much economic trouble right now that Kansas' schools might not open on time in the fall and Louisiana is pretty much out of money for everything (public defenders, state schools, child services, etc.). To be fair, the low price of oil has also contributed to Louisiana's woes.

Moody's Analytics delved as deep as possible into Trumps ideas recently, and showed pretty much what I was expecting:

https://www.economy.com/getlocal?q=FB345E2F-168C-43D7-8040-E8A0773C4A9D&app=download

Even the "Trump Lite" analysis (the idea that Congress likely would curb his policies) was mostly scary.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

I honestly don't want Elizabeth Warren for the vice presidency. It's a glorified position, and she's so effective in the Senate (the way she handled that Primerica president last year? Shit, that was some wizardry). Her talents shouldn't be wasted.

Then again, I could see why most Democrats would want her there. She's a great communicator, and much of the VP role consists of communicating with people. I'm probably just being selfish.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



IronMaiden7 said:


> At this point, I'm not even sure this particular incident would make the top 25 regarding issues with Trump. The May FEC report as a whole, though, is very telling. We've known for a while now that Trump's struggling to run his campaign (I've been pretty thorough in this thread about those troubles), but this report is essentially showing him either using campaign funds to pay off his businesses or shady start-ups, instead of doing the things campaigns need to do get elected. After seeing this report, what megadonors would feel confident in giving the Trump campaign money?
> 
> Biggest issue with Trump? His economic policies are pretty scary. Just "suggesting" that the U.S. should start paying 80 cents on the dollar of its debt is enough to scare markets and raise interest rates. I was watching live when he mentioned it, and my draw dropped; even most of my conservative friends were downright terrified by that opinion. His massive tax cuts for the wealthy would make Sam Brownback and Bobby Jindal's plans look like child's play; those states are in so much economic trouble right now that Kansas' schools might not open on time in the fall and Louisiana is pretty much out of money for everything (public defenders, state schools, child services, etc.). To be fair, the low price of oil has also contributed to Louisiana's woes.
> 
> Moody's Analytics delved as deep as possible into Trumps ideas recently, and showed pretty much what I was expecting:
> 
> https://www.economy.com/getlocal?q=FB345E2F-168C-43D7-8040-E8A0773C4A9D&app=download
> 
> Even the "Trump Lite" analysis (the idea that Congress likely would curb his policies) was mostly scary.


Trump will never, ever, struggle with money. In fact he can probably do more with what he has than Clinton will with her billions.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/donald-trump-accused-of-raping-13-year-old-in-federal-lawsuit/


Donald Trump accused of raping 13-year-old in federal laws


woman filed a federal lawsuit in New York on Monday alleging that presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump raped her in 1994 before threatening to harm her and her family if she talked, the Gothamist reported.

According to the woman, identified in court documents as “Jane Doe,” she met Trump at several parties in the Upper East Side thrown by billionaire investor Jeffrey Epstein in the 1990s.

READ MORE: Here are 5 bombshell revelations that show Trump’s campaign is a massive con job

The suit alleges Trump and Epstein lured the then 13-year-old and several other young women to the parties with promises of modeling careers and cash.

According to the allegations, Trump tied her to a bed and exposed himself and raped her, while ignoring her pleas to stop. The suits states Trump “responded … by violently striking Plaintiff in the face with his open hand and screaming that he would do whatever he wanted.”

“Immediately following this rape, Defendant Trump threatened me that, were I ever to reveal any of the details of Defendant Trump’s sexual and physical abuse of me, my family and I would be physically harmed if not killed,” the plaintiff alleged.

Another woman, identified in the documents as “Tiffany Doe,” supported the allegations, saying she met Epstein at the Port Authority, where he hired her to seek out and recruit other young women for his parties.

Jane Doe filed a similar suit in April in California, only to have it dismissed for improper paperwork—when the address affiliated with her name was found to be abandoned.

The woman’s new lawyer, Thomas Meagher, told the New York Daily News that the original suit was filed without the help of an attorney.

She claimed she remained silent until this year because she still felt threatened.

WATCH: RNC official goes down in flames trying to convince CNN Trump will ‘write a check’ for $100 million

Doe’s attorneys must now convince a federal judge to waive New York’s five-year statute of limitation on civil rape cases because she felt her “freedom of will” to speak was being denied by the threats of retaliation.

Regarding the original lawsuit, Trump told Radar Online: “The allegations are not only categorically false, but disgusting at the highest level and clearly framed to solicit media attention or, perhaps, are simply politically motivated. There is absolutely no merit to these allegations. Period.”


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> https://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/donald-trump-accused-of-raping-13-year-old-in-federal-lawsuit/
> 
> 
> Donald Trump accused of raping 13-year-old in federal laws
> 
> 
> woman filed a federal lawsuit in New York on Monday alleging that presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump raped her in 1994 before threatening to harm her and her family if she talked, the Gothamist reported.
> 
> According to the woman, identified in court documents as “Jane Doe,” she met Trump at several parties in the Upper East Side thrown by billionaire investor Jeffrey Epstein in the 1990s.
> 
> READ MORE: Here are 5 bombshell revelations that show Trump’s campaign is a massive con job
> 
> The suit alleges Trump and Epstein lured the then 13-year-old and several other young women to the parties with promises of modeling careers and cash.
> 
> According to the allegations, Trump tied her to a bed and exposed himself and raped her, while ignoring her pleas to stop. The suits states Trump “responded … by violently striking Plaintiff in the face with his open hand and screaming that he would do whatever he wanted.”
> 
> “Immediately following this rape, Defendant Trump threatened me that, were I ever to reveal any of the details of Defendant Trump’s sexual and physical abuse of me, my family and I would be physically harmed if not killed,” the plaintiff alleged.
> 
> Another woman, identified in the documents as “Tiffany Doe,” supported the allegations, saying she met Epstein at the Port Authority, where he hired her to seek out and recruit other young women for his parties.
> 
> Jane Doe filed a similar suit in April in California, only to have it dismissed for improper paperwork—when the address affiliated with her name was found to be abandoned.
> 
> The woman’s new lawyer, Thomas Meagher, told the New York Daily News that the original suit was filed without the help of an attorney.
> 
> She claimed she remained silent until this year because she still felt threatened.
> 
> WATCH: RNC official goes down in flames trying to convince CNN Trump will ‘write a check’ for $100 million
> 
> Doe’s attorneys must now convince a federal judge to waive New York’s five-year statute of limitation on civil rape cases because she felt her “freedom of will” to speak was being denied by the threats of retaliation.
> 
> Regarding the original lawsuit, Trump told Radar Online: “The allegations are not only categorically false, but disgusting at the highest level and clearly framed to solicit media attention or, perhaps, are simply politically motivated. There is absolutely no merit to these allegations. Period.”


So this is how desperate libs are? Cmon mang, even you should know why this is all coming out now. Its a cash-grab.


Besides, wait till you see what they dig up on Clinton before its over if you wanna talk rape.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

I'm still waiting to see that smoking gun video of Barack Obama sitting among the congregation at the Trinity United Church in Chicago to the preaching of Pastor Jeremiah Wright. 


You know the video that doesn't exist that was somehow suppose to do him in?


Fear tactics of the weak.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> So this is how desperate libs are? Cmon mang, even you should know why this is all coming out now. Its a cash-grab.
> 
> 
> Besides, wait till you see what they dig up on Clinton before its over if you wanna talk rape.


so you are saying Hillary Clinton raped someone ?


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> so you are saying Hillary Clinton raped someone ?


Hillary took my virginity


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Trump will never, ever, struggle with money. In fact he can probably do more with what he has than Clinton will with her billions.


His companies and stakeholders in this companies will struggle with money by working with him though. 

What's your reaction to reports coming out that Trump is allegedly paying off his friends and families for services rendered during the campaign with campaign donations? No laws are broken, and isn't uncommon for conglomerates to do something similar, but could the mistrust of how he is using campaign funds hindering his campaign's fundraising efforts?


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*






Can you feel, the love, tonight?


----------



## Slicked

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

If Clinton was forced to reveal those Emails I swear her popularity would be way lower than it already is.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

Trump is back on his "don't pay your debts fully" nonsense, this time telling CBS' "This Morning" that if the economy crashed, he'd offer creditors half of what was promised:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...back-the-default-talk/488270/?utm_source=feed

He is way too close to the White House to be saying nonsense like this, which I was mentioning here yesterday. Thankfully, the article makes that point:



> There are a couple of risks associated with Trump’s lack of clarity. The first is that in the financial world, idle speculation from current or would-be presidents can have actual effects on financial markets, which can cost real people real money. Trump’s low standing in the polls at the moment may mitigate any fallout, but the closer he gets to Clinton and the closer it gets to November, the greater the impact these comments could have. The second is that most U.S. voters are not financial experts, and Trump’s suggestion for restructuring, or renegotiating, or just not paying all of the nation’s debt sounds great in theory—especially when politicians of all stripes have made the debt ceiling sound like an average credit card. (Just make the minimum payment!)
> 
> Trump could help clear things up by putting out an actual plan and explaining how he intends to run the nation’s finances. But unless he commits to staving off an unprecedented default, he probably won’t satisfy economists or the markets, even if his tough talk and business savvy sounds appealing to regular people.


Trump seems to think he can just run the federal government's debt like one his businesses, which continues to be the scariest thing about him. Seriously, talk like this can really screw over the middle class.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

@IronMaiden7 if you are scared then go to church. Seriously, all your posts include fear-mongering about Trump. The country is 20 trillion dollars in debt. We can't ever pay it off mathematically. That's the reality. You want to keep kicking the can down the road to future generations who had nothing to do with it, Trump wants to deal with the problem now. I like his approach better.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Donald Trump has given his much-anticipated anti-Hillary speech, which was delayed for a week by the Orlando Islamic terrorist attack.






"Her campaign slogan is “I’m with her.” You know what my response to that is? I’m with you: the American people."

:banderas Kill shot.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

National debt is NOTHING like personal debt

China never expects the US pay off its debt and does not give a fuck about it, they just want the political connection

Debt matters when you are small nation trying to go it alone but no one gives a fuck when you are a world power

US debt is a political tool and an excuse for the US to reward its allies

A massive chunk of it is bonds that it owes itself anyways


----------



## gamegenie

V. Skybox said:


> Turns out the Democratic nomination was a sham from the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite claims of neutrality, recently leaked emails show the Democratic National Committee was putting its thumb on the scale for Hillary Clinton for over a year.
> 
> When it was revealed that ?Guccifer 2.0? (named after Romanian hacker Guccifer, who confessed to hacking into Hillary Clinton?s private email server multiple times) hacked the DNC?s servers, the main story was about leaked opposition research on Donald Trump. But on the same site Guccifer published the Trump research, ?2016 GOP presidential candidates,? there were also DNC talking points suggesting the party?s central organization had been working since May of 2015 to make Hillary Clinton the nominee.
> 
> The DNC was diligently cleaning up Clinton?s record, using ?specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency, and campaign finance attacks on HRC.?
Click to expand...

I been saying this nomination is for Hillary from the get go. Then again, I'm a lifelong Democrat.


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

Trump Vs. Clinton! 

The Shnook Vs. The Crook! 

This is going to be a three ring circus the likes of which has never been seen on an American political stage! lol.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> @IronMaiden7 if you are scared then go to church. Seriously, all your posts include fear-mongering about Trump. The country is 20 trillion dollars in debt. We can't ever pay it off mathematically. That's the reality. You want to keep kicking the can down the road to future generations who had nothing to do with it, Trump wants to deal with the problem now. I like his approach better.


I'm clearly not a Trump fan, but I don't think I've been fearmongering. In my economic post yesterday, I even brought up the unlikelihood that Trump's plans would ever be fully implemented by Congress (Rubio jumped into the Florida senatorial race today on the premise that he would fight either Trump or Clinton and keep the check and balances of government in place, for instance). Regarding my posts on his campaign, I'm pretty shocked at how unprecedented his decisions so far have been, but I merely went by the information given to us by the Trump campaign and other reports. Despite all of that, I went out of my way to use the phrase "it's still early" multiple times. And it is still early; anything can change.

Regarding his debt comments, I can only go by the man's words/opinions. Is there an economist out there who has defended Trump's debt plan? I haven't personally seen one, but would be willing to read what's out there. What I have seen is a strong mix of liberal and conservative economists who think lessening the value of the United States' debt is a really bad idea. Even during downturns, countries line up to get their hands on our securities because they know it's a safe bet. Turning a safe bet into a risky venture is a worrisome possibility, I'd say. The only time the U.S. defaulted on its debt in modern times was because of a computer error in the late 70s; the computer was down for only a couple of hours, and it cost taxpayers billions of dollars.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

if china doesn't expect the US to pay its debt, what's so wrong with :trump saying the US isn't going to pay its debt?

national debt is real... it's not a number you can ignore when you like because china doesn't expect it to be paid back


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> if china doesn't expect the US to pay its debt, what's so wrong with :trump saying the US isn't going to pay its debt?
> 
> national debt is real... it's not a number you can ignore when you like because china doesn't expect it to be paid back


Nations all over thew world line up to buy US debt because always gives you its "monthly payment"

US debt is the safest buy in the world

Saying "we aren't going to pay it" would cause everyone to cash in at once trying to get what they not only overseas but with domestic bonds

People need to quit equaling global politics with their personal bank loans

Trumps plan is great if the US wants to cash out of global politics for the next century but its the equivalent of saying "if you go to war, we MIGHT help if we feel like it"


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

*crickets*

on Donald Trumps anticipated speech of the year. 

Dude's campaign is a flop. Why don't you Republicans fess up and admit you chose the worst candidate since Bob Dole to run for your ticket.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Still waiting on Trump's tax returns. :lol


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

http://regated.com/2016/06/gay-supporters-ditching-hillary-moving-trump/

Gays know whats up. Up 7%!


----------



## Saffiemack

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I hate Trump because now I have to vote for Hilary, and I like her about as much as I like a man made out of lies and burger grease. Backing the lesser evil is still backing evil


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Saffiemack said:


> I hate Trump because now I have to vote for Hilary, and I like her about as much as I like a man made out of lies and burger grease. Backing the lesser evil is still backing evil


There is no one more evil than Hill.

LOL at @gamegenie. Bet you didn't even listen to the speech. What I don't get is you're a christian and Hill has done more to take God from this country than you can imagine.


----------



## Saffiemack

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> There is no one more evil than Hill.


But this is the choice we get? It's liking deciding between Jason Voorhees and Freddie Krueger.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> There is no one more evil than Hill.
> 
> LOL at @gamegenie. Bet you didn't even listen to the speech. What I don't get is you're a christian and Hill has done more to take God from this country than you can imagine.


What has Hillary done to take God from your country? Are you in favour of Christian fundamentalism? Wouldn't Trump's Mexican wall prevent more Evangelicals from coming into your country and take God away?

Stop falling for Trump's (and in general the conservative talk radio) cheap trick to rile people like you up by questioning other's faith to divert attention from real issues. Implying Obama is a Muslim, questioning Romney's Mormonism in Utah, and now questioning Hilary's faith. You are better than that.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> if china doesn't expect the US to pay its debt, what's so wrong with :trump saying the US isn't going to pay its debt?
> 
> national debt is real... it's not a number you can ignore when you like because china doesn't expect it to be paid back


Then other countries will stop lending you money?


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

external debt isn't even the biggest part of debt ergo it doesn't matter if china doesn't want you to pay or whatever. Internal debt (public debt) is over 70% of total debt for the US. Securities are really a non issue when the biggest problem is a state printing money to cover costs which it can never afford.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> http://regated.com/2016/06/gay-supporters-ditching-hillary-moving-trump/
> 
> Gays know whats up. Up 7%!


A whole 117 respondents. Impressive.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Then other countries will stop lending you money?


other countries will stop putting numbers on their computer screens to go along with the numbers on our computer screens? egads. 

this is all a bit to one side anyway as it isn't the principal anyone cares about it's the monthly interest payments 

:trump is betting that other countries will accept a writeoff on the principal making each monthly interest payment smaller so long as payments actually do keep getting made every month

it's the same strategy he's used time and again with his creditors, hey guys if you don't want interest payments at 50% of what they were before let's see how you like 0%! interesting to see if it will actually work on a nation-state level...


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> other countries will stop putting numbers on their computer screens to go along with the numbers on our computer screens? egads.
> 
> this is all a bit to one side anyway as it isn't the principal anyone cares about it's the monthly interest payments
> 
> :trump is betting that other countries will accept a writeoff on the principal making each monthly interest payment smaller so long as payments actually do keep getting made every month
> 
> *it's the same strategy he's used time and again with his creditors*, hey guys if you don't want interest payments at 50% of what they were before let's see how you like 0%! interesting to see if it will actually work on a nation-state level...


Yeah and he gave up part of his ownership of the 4 bankrupt casinos to his creditors for them to accept certain terms. Are you saying Trump should be willing to sell part of America's sovereignty to creditors in exchange for better rates?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



IronMaiden7 said:


> Trump is back on his "don't pay your debts fully" nonsense, this time telling CBS' "This Morning" that if the economy crashed, he'd offer creditors half of what was promised:
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...back-the-default-talk/488270/?utm_source=feed
> 
> He is way too close to the White House to be saying nonsense like this, which I was mentioning here yesterday. Thankfully, the article makes that point:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump seems to think he can just run the federal government's debt like one his businesses, which continues to be the scariest thing about him. Seriously, talk like this can really screw over the middle class.


Every time Trump opens his mouth he shows what a clueless moron he is. He doesn't know anything, like I have said before, he always talks out of his ass. 


Trump wants to start profiling Muslims . 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/19/politics/donald-trump-profiling-law-enforcement/

"I think profiling is something that we're going to have to start thinking about as a country," Trump said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "We really have to look at profiling. We have to look at it seriously. And other countries do it, and it's not the worst thing to do. I hate the concept of profiling, but we have to use common sense. We're not using common sense."



Oh yeah he isn't racist lol


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

profiling isn't racist lol. How you profile may be.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



Goku said:


> profiling isn't racist lol. How you profile may be.


What Trump is asking for is pretty much racial profiling. It's not the type of profiling police do when looking for a killing and they do not know what he or she looks like.

Trump is focusing on one group.


----------



## LaMelo

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Times have turned tough all of a sudden.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> There is no one more evil than Hill.
> 
> LOL at @gamegenie . Bet you didn't even listen to the speech. What I don't get is you're a christian and Hill has done more to take God from this country than you can imagine.


I caught all of his main lies of speech replayed on cable news. 
Please elaborate on what Hillary has done to take God from this country?

and while you're at it, also explain what Donald Trump, and any other modern non-establishment Republican has done to reverse that?

...I'm waiting.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

Finally watched :trump speech yesterday were he blistered







. That really was Trump's best anti Hillary speech so far.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

Hillary Clinton supporter hits woman with the back of his hand then his cane, and of course its not reported by any mainstream media


http://menrec.com/video-clinton-delegate-attacks-bernie-supporter-with-his-cane/

If this was a Bernie supporter or Trump doing the same thing to a women it would be all over the news for weeks.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Hillary Clinton supporter hits woman with the back of his hand then his cane, and of course its not reported by any mainstream media
> 
> 
> http://menrec.com/video-clinton-delegate-attacks-bernie-supporter-with-his-cane/
> 
> If this was a Bernie supporter or Trump doing the same thing to a women it would be all over the news for weeks.


What difference does it make if it's on the news or not. 

Should our bickering back and fourth in this thread be on the news too?


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Saffiemack said:


> But this is the choice we get? It's liking deciding between Jason Voorhees and Freddie Krueger.


This is not the choice we *get*, this is the choice we *want*. If we (the American people) were actually not content with the same old pack of liars and thieves continuing to hold public office, we would do something about it. But, as you can obviously see, we do nothing to make certain that any changes will become possible at any time. So it is plain to see that this is exactly what the vast majority of us wish for.

And that disappoints me more than anything else.


----------



## Overcomer

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Pratchett said:


> The ruling elite in America like to keep the sheople thinking that their vote actually means something. If people would actually wake up and look around them, they would see that their "democracy" is an illusion kept in place by those in power to keep the rest of us in check. Then they would realize that the reason we are only ever given the "choice" between two different candidates (_of *their *choosing, not *ours*_) is because that is all they want us to have, so they can hold on to their power. The American people have already lost the election. They just don't realize it.


I always think of that quote that goes something like "If voting really changed anything they'd make it illegal" and it's true. The entire process is pretty much one huge sham...you go to cast your vote, and it's electronic, do you really know if it went to the person you picked? Do you know if it really went anywhere?

The icing on the cake for me was in 2000 when George Bush ran against Al Gore. I was a sophomore in highschool at the time and remember it very well as the biology teacher would put on the tv everyday for a few minutes on CNN....the election was a big thing because of the whole missing votes debacle and how it got extended. In the end even though Gore had the majority of the popular vote (the people vote) he still lost as he did not have as much electoral votes. That is when I realized the whole thing was a huge pile of shit.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> What difference does it make if it's on the news or not.
> 
> Should our bickering back and fourth in this thread be on the news too?


Because every time a Bernie supporter or Trump support does something like this its a huge deal but of course since its Hillary its covered up.

You think a Hillary supporter hitting a woman is ok? If this was a Trump or Bernie supporter the news would be going on and on about it.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Because every time a Bernie supporter or Trump support does something like this its a huge deal but of course since its Hillary its covered up.
> 
> You think a Hillary supporter hitting a woman is ok? If this was a Trump or Bernie supporter the news would be going on and on about it.


This event of a Bernie supporter getting hit upside the head by a Hillary supporter is not in the news perhaps because Bernie Sanders is no longer relevant to the mainstream political news at this point.

He lost the primary, his supporters should either get off the ride or joins Martin O'Malley supporters and fall in line.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> This event of a Bernie supporter getting hit upside the head by a Hillary supporter is not in the news perhaps because Bernie Sanders is no longer relevant to the mainstream political news at this point.
> 
> He lost the primary, his supporters should either get off the ride or joins Martin O'Malley supporters and fall in line.


Of course you are ok with hitting a woman when it's a Hillary supporter doing the hitting. 

Bernie still has not lost the primary yet since the super delegates still have not cast their votes yet. Hillary still could be indicted and it's looking worse and worse for her and all the illegal things she did with her email server, even having the state dept. shut off their malware protection just so they could get her emails. Not to mention someone kept trying to hack her private email server, no one knows if they got in because she hid it.

The more those leaked emails come out, the worse she is looking.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Of course you are ok with hitting a woman when it's a Hillary supporter doing the hitting.
> 
> Bernie still has not lost the primary yet since the super delegates still have not cast their votes yet. Hillary still could be indicted and it's looking worse and worse for her and all the illegal things she did with her email server, even having the state dept. shut off their malware protection just so they could get her emails. Not to mention someone kept trying to hack her private email server, no one knows if they got in because she hid it.
> 
> The more those leaked emails come out, the worse she is looking.


You are a wrestling fan right?

Do you remember Cody Rhodes old theme song. Smoke and Mirrors. 

Play that in your head. 

Because that is all I have to say with in regard to Hillary Clinton's emails.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

Hey BM, is this the story you are crying injustice about? Looks like it got its first big news pick up, right from your favorite Bernie slanted news source TYT.

of course, it makes you and your remaining ilk of whiners look terrible. Where is there an actual cane coming across the woman's head. Oh there isn't. You made that up of course. All I see is a rude disrespectful woman saying hateful things at an elderly person. Typical BernieBro behavior. I rest my case.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*










- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> Hey BM, is this the story you are crying injustice about? Looks like it got its first big news pick up, right from your favorite Bernie slanted news source TYT.
> 
> of course, it makes you and your remaining ilk of whiners look terrible. Where is there an actual cane coming across the woman's head. Oh there isn't. You made that up of course. All I see is a rude disrespectful woman saying hateful things at an elderly person. Typical BernieBro behavior. I rest my case.


You can clearly hear her get hit with the cane , and she even said he hit her with the cane, the guy hit her twice, but keep defending a man hitting a woman. Did you even watch the video? They even said no one denied that he hit her with the cane. So what did I lie about exactly? Oh that is right, nothing. You are just ignoring a woman getting hit twice by a Hillary supporter. I also never said he hit her in the head with his cane, so stop making things up. You are the one who claimed he did when trying to defend him. It's still funny you are defending a woman getting hit by a man. But you are a Hillary Bro so I am not surprised. 




gamegenie said:


> You are a wrestling fan right?
> 
> Do you remember Cody Rhodes old theme song. Smoke and Mirrors.
> 
> Play that in your head.
> 
> Because that is all I have to say with in regard to Hillary Clinton's emails.


The emails are not smoke and mirrors, but go ahead and ignore all the evidence, it's what you do best. More and more info is leaking out every day but oh yeah it's just smoke and mirrors. 

How is the state dept. having o disable several of their security processes just to get its server to accept email from Hillarys private email address just smoke and mirrors? 

Not to mention just having that private email server was illegal, and again she had to shut it off a couple of times because someone was trying to hack it.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The emails are not smoke and mirrors, but go ahead and ignore all the evidence, it's what you do best. More and more info is leaking out every day but oh yeah it's just smoke and mirrors.
> 
> *How is the state dept. having o disable several of their security processes just to get its server to accept email from Hillarys private email address just smoke and mirrors?
> *
> Not to mention just having that private email server was illegal, and again she had to shut it off a couple of times because someone was trying to hack it.


Good question. Seems like the failure lies on the State Department for not having preventative security measures in place that would block email communication from systems outside the network.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> Good question. Seems like the failure lies on the State Department for not having preventative security measures in place that would block email communication from systems outside the network.


The security was there to block phishing and spam emails from an outside source, and since Hillary's illegal private email server was not secure that is why the state dept. could not receive her emails. So in order to do so they had to disable their security in order to get her emails which means they were open to being hacked because of Hillary


.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The security was there to block phishing and spam emails from an outside source, and since Hillary's illegal private email server was not secure that is why the state dept. could not receive her emails. So in order to do so they had to disable their security in order to get her emails which means they were open to being hacked because of Hillary
> 
> 
> .


Then the fault clearly lies in the hands of the State Department.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> Then the fault clearly lies in the hands of the State Department.


Yes and who was the head of that? Hillary Clinton.

She was secretary of state. It was all her, she was the one who told the IT team to shut off the filters so they could get her emails.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> Then the fault clearly lies in the hands of the State Department.


Oh come on, I support Hilary but the email thing is all her fault and hubris on insisting in having her own server. Don't stoop to some of the Trump and Bernie supporters on this board level of ignoring the flaws of their fellow supporters and deifying their candidate.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yes and who was the head of that? Hillary Clinton.
> 
> She was secretary of state. It was all her,* she was the one who told the IT team to shut off the filters so they could get her emails.*


BS


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



gamegenie said:


> I caught all of his main lies of speech replayed on cable news.
> Please elaborate on what Hillary has done to take God from this country?
> 
> and while you're at it, also explain what Donald Trump, and any other modern non-establishment Republican has done to reverse that?
> 
> ...I'm waiting.


First of all, don't you EVER use the good image of 90's Sonic for your evil. You know nothing of his glory and may Jaleel White, Ben Hurst and Kath Soucie have mercy on your soul. But of course you would have to know who those people are. :nerd:

Second of all, Hilary has been Sharia Law's biggest advocate for years along with the separation of church and state. Not to mention she's in favor of gender being a social construct, and you as a christian should know better.

What have we done? Just about as much as you can in a party full off neocons. We at least endorse putting out nativity scenes, prayer in schools, keeping God in our pledge and trying to put Jesus first. When was the last time you ever saw Hilary do any of that??

LOL at "Cable news" :grin2: That should automatically render your entire argument null and void. Tell me, which network was it? The Clinton News Network, who's executives just admitted they were "Too Liberal"? Or maybe it was the Faux News channel, owned by renowned globalist shill Rupert Murdoch? Perhaps MSNBC, who's own Ad breaks play liberal propaganda every two minutes? Yes, "MOVE FORWARD" indeed! :quite

You get the same babble on conservative sites too. There's hardly ever a neutral news source on either side anymore.

You'll probably say you heard Trump's own words, too, like that's all you formed your opinion with.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> BS


You really think some IT person on their own would just shut off the state dept's spam filters, which protect them from getting hacked on their own? 

It just shows how you really can't be honest about Hillary or are really just that clueless to how corrupt she is if you can't even admit this email thing is all her fault.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

@birthday_massacre is one of my biggest political opponents here but I gotta give him props for seeing through Clinton.

GG is honestly the only Hill fan i know of on this whole damn forum! :lol


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You really think some IT person on their own would just shut off the state dept's spam filters, which protect them from getting hacked on their own?


that is not how spam filters work.



birthday_massacre said:


> It just shows how you really can't be honest about Hillary or are really just that clueless to how corrupt she is if you can't even admit this email thing is all her fault.


You're the most rudest, dishonest person in this thread and the previous Donald Trump thread. I am ashamed that you identify as a Democrat.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> @birthday_massacre is one of my biggest political opponents here but I gotta give him props for seeing through Clinton.
> 
> GG is honestly the only Hill fan i know of on this whole damn forum! :lol


 all the more fun it will be when I rub in her victory win to you, your smug Repug pals, and that annoying BernieBro.


----------



## Yuffie Kisaragi

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

*Alot of things go to shit with that racist dick Trump if he wins it and Clinton is not much better. But at least she is not promoting/enabling all of this hatred and supremacy and has some actual knowledge of politics, she likley will not fuck up our foreign relations and cause other countries to hate us the way Trump would, she would not embarrass us as a country nowhere near as much as he would. The lesser of two evils is Hillary as much as I hate to give her much credit at all, I am by no means a supporter but I am also not stupid. Bernie Sanders has started a true political revolution, a shame he did not get the nom but even without presidency he has encouraged many to fight for things that actually matter to us that these 2 candidates couldn't care less about because it does not suit them and their agenda. One person will not change shit for a country the people have to work collectively to make the changes happen. But we can still be better or worse off and better off is not having a disgusting joke of a reality star douche bag representing a nation. Just a sad sad day for America when people will support a POS like that and choose to remain ignorant and oblivious to facts. The country has hit a new low if he wins it, anyone can run for president at that point. #SNOOKI2020 (If US still exists at that time)*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

Foreign relations won't be affected much imo. Even if many of them hold unfavourable views on Trump. Trump getting elected would be a blow to countries with budding democracies that's all. Chinese leaders already love Trump's campaign for showing how democracy isn't good by default as it is allowing someone of Trump's calibre being able to contest for the most powerful job in a country. Putin must be licking his chops at dealing with Trump and weakening NATO.

I think only the Arab and Muslim world will hate Trump for his rhetoric. But they already hate America anyway. Most nations will still treat Trump diplomatically because America is still America, the most powerful nation in the world.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*






These are always fun.


----------



## Marv95

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

Countries already hate us. They've hated us forever no matter who was president. Say what you want about Trump but at least he hasn't sent people over to be killed for no reason. He resonates with someone like me who
-Doesn't want his taxes jacked up to an absurd amount
-Wants National Security enforced so more criminals can't have access
-Wants the 2nd Amendment preserved as is
-Wants Obamacare abolished


Just because he has the balls to tell it like it is instead of being a PC sissy doesn't mean he's racist. Islam isn't a race. Slowing down illegal immigration when others before him have done it isn't racism. Putting this country first instead of others while being their screwed over lapdog isn't racism.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

The guy's been making huge international business deals for over 40 years and there have been no incidents. The narrative that he's some unstable guy who's gonna cause a scene with foreign leaders is totally baseless. The way I see it, with this powerful anti-globalist wave spreading across Europe, we could see a lot of European countries run by people who will have a lot in common with Trump ideologically.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> *The guy's been making huge international business deals for over 40 years and there have been no incidents.* The narrative that he's some unstable guy who's gonna cause a scene with foreign leaders is totally baseless. The way I see it, with this powerful anti-globalist wave spreading across Europe, we could see a lot of European countries run by people who will have a lot in common with Trump ideologically.


Well that's just a bald faced lie that in any language or interpretation 'there have been no incidents'. You yourself have mentioned his companies have gone bankrupt before, a small percentage, but it still happened. They are 'incidents'. There are numerous other 'incidents' that are a simple google search away.

I know you love Trump and that you think he's best for the country etc etc. That's fine. But don't come in here now and make a statement like that which paint him as some teflon guy when there is a world of evidence out there to the contrary. He's said so much stupid shit you could make a 20 volume miniseries about it, and if he does that as Pres when dealing with other countries he's really going to start some shit.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Hilary has been Sharia Law's biggest advocate for years along with the separation of church and state. Not to mention she's in favor of gender being a social construct, and you as a christian should know better.
> 
> What have we done? Just about as much as you can in a party full off neocons. We at least endorse putting out nativity scenes, prayer in schools, keeping God in our pledge and trying to put Jesus first. When was the last time you ever saw Hilary do any of that??


First of all, please explain what Clinton has ACTUALLY DONE to advocate for sharia law, other than your weird hyperbole. Also, what's wrong with the separation of church and state? The state should be for everyone, and not everyone believes in your god.

That's wonderful that you have been endorsing the nativity scene, as non-sensical as it may be; and 'putting jesus first' whatever that actually is, but maybe Hilary was busy doing things that would actually have some meaningful impact hmmm?


----------



## virus21

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> First of all, don't you EVER use the good image of 90's Sonic for your evil. You know nothing of his glory and may Jaleel White, Ben Hurst and Kath Soucie have mercy on your soul. But of course you would have to know who those people are. :nerd:


I know who they are. Enough to know that that is a image from Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog, not Sonic Satam. So joke kind of failed there


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> The guy's been making huge international business deals for over 40 years and there have been no incidents. The narrative that he's some unstable guy who's gonna cause a scene with foreign leaders is totally baseless. The way I see it, with this powerful anti-globalist wave spreading across Europe, we could see a lot of European countries run by people who will have a lot in common with Trump ideologically.


My my, the lies you tell in this thread. 

Your post would be truthful if you were describing say Warren Buffett. 
But let's just ignore all the lawsuits and failures of Donald Trump business ventures and praise him because he's a business man, and that's all that counts. 

and those campus questionnaire videos are fun when they are slanted to your favor and thus you paint a non-neutral narrative.


----------



## Marv95

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

4 Chapter 11 bankruptcies out of his 500 businesses isn't a big deal compared to the atrocities Billary has been/is involved in.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> that is not how spam filters work.
> 
> 
> You're the most rudest, dishonest person in this thread and the previous Donald Trump thread. I am ashamed that you identify as a Democrat.


Yes that is how spam filters work. Her emails were getting blocked from the state department so the spam filter was shut off so they could get her emails, which opened up the state department to being vulnerable to being hacked. People are hacked all the time from spam emails.

How I am dishonest ? You mean because I tell the truth about Hillary and Donald and people can't accept it. 

You are proven time and time again you can't admit the truth about Hillary , you are proving it right now.



gamegenie said:


> all the more fun it will be when I rub in her victory win to you, your smug Repug pals, and that annoying BernieBro.


You and yourBernieBro. thing, the whole BernieBro.thing was refuted months ago but it's the same old tactics Hillary used in 2008 against Obama when her supporters were calling them Obamaboys.

It's pretty sexist, I can't imagine what HIllary and her side would say if her female supporters were called Hillaryhoes or HIllarygirls.


This is a reason why Hillary has record high unfavourables. She is just lucky she is going against Trump who is just as hated as she is. 

You keep saying you can't wait to rub it in Bernie and Trump supporters faces when Hillary wins., well you better not hope she gets indicted because you will get it from both Trump and Bernie supporters. 

I would laugh if she got indicted then Sanders gets the nomination.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

http://endingthefed.com/donald-trump-wins-legal-battle-in-university-case.html

Trump wins. Next.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



virus21 said:


> I know who they are. Enough to know that that is a image from Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog, not Sonic Satam. So joke kind of failed there


Not really. While AOSTH was the more goofy alternative, Jaleel and Ben Hurst were still involved with Ben taking on a bigger role in the comics around that period. Kath was mentioned because, TECHNICALLY, sal was actually cannon in both series. Albeit AOSTH's Sal was pink and didn't have a speaking role.  

They are all part of what made Sonic's TV and comic presence great, so I feel it works.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yes that is how spam filters work. Her emails were getting blocked from the state department so the spam filter was shut off so they could get her emails, which opened up the state department to being vulnerable to being hacked. People are hacked all the time from spam emails.


People who are hacked from spam email are their own fault for unwittingly opening suspect looking emails and clicking on the links or attachments contained within that force them installing programs that compromise their systems, and network, the company. 

Those State Department staff shouldn't even be admins to their workstations as that's a big risk itself.

Having a spam filter system in place will route suspected emails to a Junk E-mail folder, or at best block messages sent from suspected or flagged servers. 

It seems the State Department's IT were completely inept on their own duties of how to prevent the Secretary's emails from being blocked and filtered, relying on a vendor for support to what was likely a broken 3rd party email filter system. 

Again issue looks like a matter of the State Department's IT having no policy in place. 

How easy would been for someone to set up the @ state.gov email account on Hillary's Blackberry, and boom she would have had direct access to her emails, even from her personal Blackberry since BYD is more common practice today regardless.



birthday_massacre said:


> How I am dishonest ? You mean because I tell the truth about Hillary and Donald and people can't accept it.
> 
> You are proven time and time again you can't admit the truth about Hillary , you are proving it right now.
> 
> 
> 
> You and yourBernieBro. thing, the whole BernieBro.thing was refuted months ago but it's the same old tactics Hillary used in 2008 against Obama when her supporters were calling them Obamaboys.
> 
> It's pretty sexist, I can't imagine what HIllary and her side would say if her female supporters were called Hillaryhoes or HIllarygirls.
> 
> 
> This is a reason why Hillary has record high unfavourables. She is just lucky she is going against Trump who is just as hated as she is.
> 
> You keep saying you can't wait to rub it in Bernie and Trump supporters faces when Hillary wins., well you better not hope she gets indicted because you will get it from both Trump and Bernie supporters.
> 
> I would laugh if she got indicted then Sanders gets the nomination.


You seem to forget the "BrosBeforeHoes" slogan that pushed on the internet during the '08 Primaries. 

I call you a BernieBro because kiss his ass 24/7 and pray for doom and gloom so he'd have a chance. These name callings are not why Hillary has unfavorables with her enemies. She has unfavorables because they have hate deep seeded in their hearts and they go out of their way to express their hatred of her any way they can.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> People who are hacked from spam email are their own fault for unwittingly opening suspect looking emails and clicking on the links or attachments contained within that force them installing programs that compromise their systems, and network, the company.
> 
> Those State Department staff shouldn't even be admins to their workstations as that's a big risk itself.
> 
> Having a spam filter system in place will route suspected emails to a Junk E-mail folder, or at best block messages sent from suspected or flagged servers.
> 
> It seems the State Department's IT were completely inept on their own duties of how to prevent the Secretary's emails from being blocked and filtered, relying on a vendor for support to what was likely a broken 3rd party email filter system.
> 
> Again issue looks like a matter of the State Department's IT having no policy in place.
> 
> How easy would been for someone to set up the @ state.gov email account on Hillary's Blackberry, and boom she would have had direct access to her emails, even from her personal Blackberry since BYD is more common practice today regardless.
> 
> 
> You seem to forget the "BrosBeforeHoes" slogan that pushed on the internet during the '08 Primaries.
> 
> I call you a BernieBro because kiss his ass 24/7 and pray for doom and gloom so he'd have a chance. These name callings are not why Hillary has unfavorables with her enemies. She has unfavorables because they have hate deep seeded in their hearts and they go out of their way to express their hatred of her any way they can.



Most of the people that are hacked from emails the emails don't look suspicious , they look like they are from someone they know. And in come cases you just have to open it or hover over a link to have the maleware install. 

You can't defend Hillary and the state department shutting off their email security filters that protects them from getting hacked. Hillarys emails were being flagged as spam or infected that is why they were getting blocked from the state dept. so them shutting them off could have infected the whole system if Hillarys private email server was infected. 

Hillary was sending emails from an ILLEGAL private server, seems to me the state dept email system was doing it's job.

There is no defense for what they both did. 

These name calling things Hillary does just adds to her unfavorables and it's why never Hillary exists. 

I also love how you say you call me a berniebro because I kiss his ass 24/7 yet you do the same thing with Hillary and you are even worse because you defend her on things like the email server. Does that make you a Hllaryhoe?


The reason Hillary has high unfavorables because she is a liar, she is disingenuous, she is bought and paid for by big corporations and walll st, just to name a few.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Most of the people that are hacked from emails the emails don't look suspicious , they look like they are from someone they know.* And in come cases you just have to open it or hover over a link to have the maleware install.*


That's BS. 



birthday_massacre said:


> You can't defend Hillary and the state department shutting off their email security filters that protects them from getting hacked. * Hillarys emails were being flagged as spam or infected that is why they were getting blocked from the state dept. so them shutting them off could have infected the whole system if Hillarys private email server was infected.*


again they made the decision, if indeed her personal mail server was compromised they should have not only kept the email filter enabled, they should have banned the IP of her email host. 




birthday_massacre said:


> Hillary was sending emails from an ILLEGAL private server, seems to me the state dept email system was doing it's job.


This quote doesn't make sense and doesn't show at all how the State Department's IT was doing it's job. 
How are the emails being composed from Hillary's email server "ILLEGAL". ? 



birthday_massacre said:


> There is no defense for what they both did.


You just defended the State Department's actions which I think were reprehensible. 




birthday_massacre said:


> The reason Hillary has high unfavorables because she is a liar, she is disingenuous, she is bought and paid for by big corporations and walll st, just to name a few.


I already stated her high unfavorables as such, but what you continue to ignore is how those high-unfavorables weren't so high as she had no problem beating Bernie Sanders, as her supporters (myself included) are not dumb to listen to conservative rhetoric as gospel to hate Hillary like you and your ilk do.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> That's BS.
> 
> 
> again they made the decision, if indeed her personal mail server was compromised they should have not only kept the email filter enabled, they should have banned the IP of her email host.
> 
> 
> 
> This quote doesn't make sense and doesn't show at all how the State Department's IT was doing it's job.
> How are the emails being composed from Hillary's email server "ILLEGAL". ?
> 
> 
> You just defended the State Department's actions which I think were reprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already stated her high unfavorables as such, but what you continue to ignore is how those high-unfavorables weren't so high as she had no problem beating Bernie Sanders, as her supporters (myself included) are dumb enough to listen to conservative rhetoric as gospel to hate Hillary like you and your ilk do.


Hillary had an ILLEGAL private server in her home, not sure what about that you don't understand. Not sure how that does not make sense to you. The state dept. was not doing their job by shutting off the email security features on their server. 

She only beat Bernie Sanders because of voter fraud and voter suppression and more and more is coming out about that. Not to mention not every state primary was an open primary. 

There is no conservative rhetoric when it comes to Hillary, hell she is a conservative. She is far from liberal. At best she is a moderate. She is center right. 






The only dumb people are the ones that believe anything that comes out of her mouth since she panders to the audience she is talking to.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Hillary had an ILLEGAL private server in her home, not sure what about that you don't understand. Not sure how that does not make sense to you. The state dept. was not doing their job by shutting off the email security features on their server.
> 
> She only beat Bernie Sanders because of voter fraud and voter suppression and more and more is coming out about that. Not to mention not every state primary was an open primary.
> 
> There is no conservative rhetoric when it comes to Hillary, hell she is a conservative. She is far from liberal. At best she is a moderate. She is center right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only dumb people are the ones that believe anything that comes out of her mouth since she panders to the audience she is talking to.


You still didn't explain the "ILLEGAL" part. 

Having your own email server is NOT illegal. 


and it's awfully hypocritical for a BernieBro to talk about someone pandering. That was all Bernie Sander's presidential campaign. Pandering.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> First of all, don't you EVER use the good image of 90's Sonic for your evil. You know nothing of his glory and may Jaleel White, Ben Hurst and Kath Soucie have mercy on your soul. But of course you would have to know who those people are. :nerd:
> 
> Second of all, Hilary has been Sharia Law's biggest advocate for years along with the separation of church and state. Not to mention she's in favor of gender being a social construct, and you as a christian should know better.
> 
> What have we done? Just about as much as you can in a party full off neocons. We at least endorse putting out nativity scenes, prayer in schools, keeping God in our pledge and trying to put Jesus first. When was the last time you ever saw Hilary do any of that??
> 
> LOL at "Cable news" :grin2: That should automatically render your entire argument null and void. Tell me, which network was it? The Clinton News Network, who's executives just admitted they were "Too Liberal"? Or maybe it was the Faux News channel, owned by renowned globalist shill Rupert Murdoch? Perhaps MSNBC, who's own Ad breaks play liberal propaganda every two minutes? Yes, "MOVE FORWARD" indeed! :quite
> 
> You get the same babble on conservative sites too. There's hardly ever a neutral news source on either side anymore.
> 
> You'll probably say you heard Trump's own words, too, like that's all you formed your opinion with.


Whatever you are smoking, you really need to share. I despise Hillary with every ounce of my being but never once have I heard her being an apologist and an endorser of Sharia Law. For what it's worth, she has gone out of her way to condemn how women are being treated in the Middle East and everywhere else that Sharia Law reigns supreme. It is a sad thing when I support anything Hillary has ever done. 

While I agree with the Communist News Network and the Marxist News Broadcasting Corporation, at least Fox News has given Trump a fair shake. Trump has legit arguments against a lot of the Lamestream Media, but it seems that any network that questions him he turns into an enemy. He's Obama x15 in that regard, although he'd go further and probably ban any media that won't kiss his ass. Pretty liberal move if you ask me. 

This is why people like Cal Thomas and George Will refuse to endorse Trump, and I can assure you they are conservatives who don't toe the party line. In fact, Will recently announced he's dropping his affiliation to the GOP...

https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/0...ty-george-will-goes-from-gop-to-unaffiliated/

And this is why I refuse to vote for Donald Trump, even if this means Hitlery gets in. We keep endorsing liberals like McCain and Romney, and now about to do one step further by supporting one of Hillary's top donors. I can't do it, no matter what the cost to our country. And maybe that's what it might take for this country to get back on track, for it to hit rock bottom and then we can recapture the Federalist approach.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> You still didn't explain the "ILLEGAL" part.
> 
> Having your own email server is NOT illegal.
> 
> 
> and it's awfully hypocritical for a BernieBro to talk about someone pandering. That was all Bernie Sander's presidential campaign. Pandering.


Youdo know what illegal means right? Its ILLEGAL to have a private server in her home and she had won, thus it was ILLEGAL
She would not be under FBI investigation and be possibly indicted if what she did was legal. 

she may have violated 3 laws


Violation of The 2009 Federal Records Act
Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements states that:

“Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.”

Mishandling Classified Information
Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send of store classified information on personal email.

And a Violation of the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)

I forgot you are one of those people Hillary pays to go on social media and forums to defend Hillary poorly.

How does Sanders pander exactly when he says the same thing to every group he speaks to?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

BM are you going to DISAVOW Bernie now that he is Team Hillary even though the DNC threw out all his ideas?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> BM are you going to DISAVOW Bernie now that he is Team Hillary even though the DNC threw out all his ideas?


He has not conceded the nomination yet. He also said he would vote for her over Trump. Bernie has always been against Trump. 

Bernie is still fighting for his policies. If he said he was pro wall st. then that would be reason to disavow him. but he is doing nothing of the sort.

The DNC throwing out all his ideas, is just going to blow up in the DNC and Hillarys faces.

It just shows how full of crap Hillary is that she was never for any of Bernies ideas like she claimed she was, especially the $15 an hour min wage she was pretending to be for near the end or how she would stand up to wall st. If she does not pick LIz Warren because Wall St told her they would still giving her money, then that could be the nail in her coffin and your guy Trump could win because of it. Because we know Trump will use that against her how Wall St bought her to not pick the VP she really wanted. The only way HIllary could get some of those 45% of Sanders supporters that said they wont vote for her would be to pick Liz Warren.

If she doesn't that number could grow even more.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

Don't worry Dave, our side of the wall will be open to you, but you have to come in LEGALLY. :trump


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Youdo know what illegal means right? Its ILLEGAL to have a private server in her home and she had won, thus it was ILLEGAL
> She would not be under FBI investigation and be possibly indicted if what she did was legal.
> 
> she may have violated 3 laws
> 
> 
> Violation of The 2009 Federal Records Act
> Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements states that:
> 
> “Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.”
> 
> Mishandling Classified Information
> Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send of store classified information on personal email.
> 
> And a Violation of the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)
> 
> I forgot you are one of those people Hillary pays to go on social media and forums to defend Hillary poorly.
> 
> How does Sanders pander exactly when he says the same thing to every group he speaks to?


No, go back and read what you wrote and I quoted. You said by her having a personal email server, that was ILLEGAL. 


I'm saying it's not ILLEGAL to have a personal email server.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Don't worry Dave, our side of the wall will be open to you, but you have to come in LEGALLY. :trump


Trump winning would be a disaster for the country but it would be funny to see the look on the DNC, main stream media , and Hillarys faces if Trump won. This is the first election I have ever seen where most people are voting against someone instead of for someone.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton v. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> No, go back and read what you wrote and I quoted. You said by her having a personal email server, that was ILLEGAL.
> 
> 
> I'm saying it's not ILLEGAL to have a personal email server.


It is illegal when you are using them as sectary of state for your job and sending sensitive or secure information over them. She violated a number of laws.
There is a reason why she is under FBI investigation.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump winning would be a disaster for the country but it would be funny to see the look on the DNC, main stream media , and Hillarys faces if Trump won. This is the first election I have ever seen where most people are voting against someone instead of for someone.












:trump

(I'm just fuckin' with ya.)


----------



## LaMelo

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Hopefully he turns things around!


----------



## LaMelo

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

That is funny. :xavier


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> :trump
> 
> (I'm just fuckin' with ya.)


Don't forget to mention his support of her evil Sharia Law policies right pal?


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> :trump
> 
> (I'm just fuckin' with ya.)


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

I had been patiently waiting for the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget to give its analysis on Clinton and Trump's policies. That day has finally come:

http://crfb.org/papers/promises-and-price-tags-fiscal-guide-2016-election

The gist of it? Regardless of the policies of either candidate, there's already $10 trillion that's going to be added to the debt over the next decade. Once that's considered, it's time to factor in the candidates. Under Clinton, a further $250 billion would be added to the debt over a ten-year period, bringing it to 86% of GDP by 2026. Under Trump, $11.5 trillion would be added, bringing debt to 127% of GDP by the same year.

That's pretty much where most economists have had it.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*


----------



## Slicked

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

If Hilary wins, the US will become just like Saudi Arabia, we cant allow that, she sucks the balls of Islam, that is why I am voting for Trump


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


>


Yes, because the most woman card playing, race-baiting SJW in the Dem party surely holds any water with me. unk2


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



Slicked said:


> she sucks the balls of Islam


[USER]yeahbaby![/USER] is triggered.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

Trump not winning might mean America will turn into Sweden.

muzzies aren't fun brah


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> :trump
> 
> (I'm just fuckin' with ya.)


He was asked the question would you vote for Hillary vs Trump and he said yes.

As for Jill Stein, you do understand she won't even be on like 50% of the ballots across the country. Sanders thing now is if he can't get the nomination it's to keep Trump out of the white house. 
Sadly the only person that can do that is Hillary. 

I still am voting for Stein, since MA is one of the states she will be on the ballot or I may write in Sanders but Stein has zero chance at winning since she isn't on every ballot.

Sanders is still going to keep fighting for his policies, I love how people like you act like he won't. 

Hillary and the DNC are dumb since they basically pissed all over Sanders policies when they ignored everything he stood for. Shows what a fraud Hillary is when she claimed she was for some of them like the 15 an hour min. wage. Hillary and the DNC think it's Bernies job to get his supporters to vote for Hillary but it's not and shooting down everything they stand for is not how they are going to get Sanders supporters votes. 45% of Sanders supporters said they will not vote for Hillary. it's probably climbing after what they did and ignored all the issues they care about. 

Hillary and the DNC are so arrogant but the don't see how people are fed up and that could be what gives Trump the win.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> He was asked the question would you vote for Hillary vs Trump and he said yes.
> 
> As for Jill Stein, you do understand she won't even be on like 50% of the ballots across the country. Sanders thing now is if he can't get the nomination it's to keep Trump out of the white house.
> Sadly the only person that can do that is Hillary.
> 
> I still am voting for Stein, since MA is one of the states she will be on the ballot or I may write in Sanders but Stein has zero chance at winning since she isn't on every ballot.
> 
> Sanders is still going to keep fighting for his policies, I love how people like you act like he won't.
> 
> Hillary and the DNC are dumb since they basically pissed all over Sanders policies when they ignored everything he stood for. Shows what a fraud Hillary is when she claimed she was for some of them like the 15 an hour min. wage. Hillary and the DNC think it's Bernies job to get his supporters to vote for Hillary but it's not and shooting down everything they stand for is not how they are going to get Sanders supporters votes. 45% of Sanders supporters said they will not vote for Hillary. it's probably climbing after what they did and ignored all the issues they care about.
> 
> Hillary and the DNC are so arrogant but the don't see how people are fed up and that could be what gives Trump the win.


Uh...I SAID I was just fuckin' with ya, didn't I? 0

Take it easy. If anything I'm trying to tell you NOT to Trust Hill. Neither should Sanders.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Uh...I SAID I was just fuckin' with ya, didn't I? 0
> 
> Take it easy. If anything I'm trying to tell you NOT to Trust Hill. Neither should Sanders.


Why would I trust Hillary, I have always been against her. And why wouldn't you trust Hillary?
If you are not going to trust anyone its Trump since he is a con artist.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

A $15 dollar minimum wage was adopted into the Democratic platform, more or less. What was shot down was Keith Ellison's amendment to index the minimum wage to grow with inflation:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...emocratic-platform-draft-shows-sanderss-clout

Sanders definitely got some big wins in the platform debate (Glass-Steagall, expanding Social Security, abolishing the death penalty, etc.), but he definitely didn't get everything. Strong language against TPP seemed like a pipedream, and that turned out to be true. The Dems weren't about to wholly condemn President Obama's view on the deal, especially considering that he'll be fiercely campaigning for Clinton and has rapidly growing approval numbers in a year that's supposedly about being anti-establishment (I don't adhere to that opinion, despite the rise of Trump). He didn't get single-payer, despite many Dems thinking it's an inevitability. To be fair, many Dems who strongly support the ACA received some major ammo before the platform talks:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...han-expected-before-obamacare-study-projects/

And fracking? That definitely wasn't going to happen. There's a reason Gina McCarthy is the head of the EPA, and it's her support of fracking.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



IronMaiden7 said:


> A $15 dollar minimum wage was adopted into the Democratic platform, more or less. What was shot down was Keith Ellison's amendment to index the minimum wage to grow with inflation:
> 
> http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...emocratic-platform-draft-shows-sanderss-clout
> 
> Sanders definitely got some big wins in the platform debate (Glass-Steagall, expanding Social Security, abolishing the death penalty, etc.), but he definitely didn't get everything. Strong language against TPP seemed like a pipedream, and that turned out to be true. The Dems weren't about to wholly condemn President Obama's view on the deal, especially considering that he'll be fiercely campaigning for Clinton and has rapidly growing approval numbers in a year that's supposedly about being anti-establishment (I don't adhere to that opinion, despite the rise of Trump). He didn't get single-payer, despite many Dems thinking it's an inevitability. To be fair, many Dems who strongly support the ACA received some major ammo before the platform talks:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...han-expected-before-obamacare-study-projects/
> 
> And fracking? That definitely wasn't going to happen. There's a reason Gina McCarthy is the head of the EPA, and it's her support of fracking.


Its funny how depending on what you read they spin it differently.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...rm-committee-votes-bernies-minimum-wage-hike/

Hillary Suffers Blow As DNC Platform Committee Votes Down Bernie’s Minimum Wage Hike

The Democratic National Committee’s platform committee voted down the $15 minimum wage hike that Bernie Sanders has been fighting for throughout his left-wing populist campaign.
The platform’s inability to add the minimum wage hike could dampen Clinton’s chances to unify her party. Sanders is technically still running for president ahead of Philadelphia’s Democratic convention. Sanders has not endorsed Clinton, but said Friday that he will probably vote for Clinton. It is unclear whether Sanders still has a shot to win the Democratic nomination at a contested convention.

I have not looked too much into it since it just happened a few days ago, its just weird how some spin it like he got it and some are like he did not


Also the majority of things that Sanders wanted got shot down

https://usuncut.com/politics/sanders-dnc-platform-committee-fight/

sure he may have gotten a few , well kinda what he wanted. 

The shooting down making the $15 an hour a liveable wage is huge though, because by the time the $15 is adopted it probably won't be enough.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its funny how depending on what you read they spin it differently.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...rm-committee-votes-bernies-minimum-wage-hike/
> 
> Hillary Suffers Blow As DNC Platform Committee Votes Down Bernie’s Minimum Wage Hike
> 
> The Democratic National Committee’s platform committee voted down the $15 minimum wage hike that Bernie Sanders has been fighting for throughout his left-wing populist campaign.
> The platform’s inability to add the minimum wage hike could dampen Clinton’s chances to unify her party. Sanders is technically still running for president ahead of Philadelphia’s Democratic convention. Sanders has not endorsed Clinton, but said Friday that he will probably vote for Clinton. It is unclear whether Sanders still has a shot to win the Democratic nomination at a contested convention.
> 
> I have not looked too much into it since it just happened a few days ago, its just weird how some spin it like he got it and some are like he did not
> 
> 
> Also the majority of things that Sanders wanted got shot down
> 
> https://usuncut.com/politics/sanders-dnc-platform-committee-fight/
> 
> sure he may have gotten a few , well kinda what he wanted.
> 
> The shooting down making the $15 an hour a liveable wage is huge though, because by the time the $15 is adopted it probably won't be enough.


The best answer regarding if Sanders got the minimum wage hike is: he kind of got it. The standard of living pretty much always increases, as you alluded to, so it's a victory but sort of a hollow one.

I do think that Sanders got some good wins, in the end. The death penalty, in particular, might be a big one that's a bit under the radar. There are lethal injection drug shortages throughout the country right now (Arizona, most recently), and there is bipartisan support to end it. Just last year, Nebraska Republicans banned the death penalty on religious grounds, for instance. The tide seems to be turning on this issue, and Sanders might've just pushed it further a bit.

And stronger Social Security funding was likely an important decision, especially considering that Trump has moved away from conservative doctrine on the subject. If there's one aspect that independents might like about Trump, it's his hope to strengthen SS. Dems needed to reassert their stance, just in case.

Regarding Breitbart, it could pretty much be renamed trump4prez.com, and I wouldn't notice a difference.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



IronMaiden7 said:


> The best answer regarding if Sanders got the minimum wage hike is: he kind of got it. The standard of living pretty much always increases, as you alluded to, so it's a victory but sort of a hollow one.
> 
> I do think that Sanders got some good wins, in the end. The death penalty, in particular, might be a big one that's a bit under the radar. There are lethal injection drug shortages throughout the country right now (Arizona, most recently), and there is bipartisan support to end it. Just last year, Nebraska Republicans banned the death penalty on religious grounds, for instance. The tide seems to be turning on this issue, and Sanders might've just pushed it further a bit.
> 
> And stronger Social Security funding was likely an important decision, especially considering that Trump has moved away from conservative doctrine on the subject. If there's one aspect that independents might like about Trump, it's his hope to strengthen SS. Dems needed to reassert their stance, just in case.
> 
> Regarding Breitbart, it could pretty much be renamed trump4prez.com, and I wouldn't notice a difference.


Yeah I hear ya. its all on who is doing the spinning. With the min. wage thing maybe the mass media does not want it to seem like the DNC had to cave into Bernie so they are not giving him credit which is dumb because that would help Hillary get votes.

Im sure at some point this week, ill look more into what he got and what he didn't.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Yes, because the most woman card playing, race-baiting SJW in the Dem party surely holds any water with me.


She does unk2 , and you will be crying like a baby here 5 months from now.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> She does unk2 , and you will be crying like a baby here 5 months from now.


So you're an SJW?

Also dave don't bite the hand feeding you here. :nerd:


----------



## Slicked

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

If we get bullshit like a reverse 2000 election where Trump wins the popular vote but Clinton wins anyway im gonna smash shit.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> So you're an SJW?
> 
> Also dave don't bite the hand feeding you here. :nerd:


define SJW. 

Who's dave?



Slicked said:


> If we get bullshit like a reverse 2000 election where Trump wins the popular vote but Clinton wins anyway im gonna smash shit.


Don't worry, he won't win either. You might sill smash stuff because you have anger issues.


----------



## Slicked

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> define SJW.
> 
> Who's dave?
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry, he won't win either. You might sill smash stuff because you have anger issues.


Whatever, when were living under Sharia Law in the Islamic Caliphate of America, you'll really love the fact you voted for Clinton


----------



## gamegenie

Slicked said:


> Whatever, *when were living under Sharia Law in the Islamic Caliphate of America*, you'll really love the fact you voted for Clinton


keep on stoking that fear, it adds to the amusement of this thread. 


I'm watching the replay of Elizabeth Warren speech right now on MSNBC and wow she's making fun of Donald Trump like nobodies business. :grin2:

my goodness, looks like I'll have to block our resident BernieBro.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> So you're an SJW?
> 
> Also dave don't bite the hand feeding you here. :nerd:


Don't be too butt hurt because the content of your precious thread has gone beyond your understanding so you've resorted to linking The Hillster to islamic buzzwords you don't understand lol. It must be tough poor fella now that trump has started going downhill with no real plans, no money, and no idea. :nerd:


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

Legit question to Trump fans. Trump has said he's going to build a wall on our border...and make us pay for it.....how does the genius plan on making that happen?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

Hillary Clinton faked her calendar to hide meetings with her big donors

How much more corrupt can she get. 


http://bigstory.ap.org/article/8589...ns-state-dept-calendar-missing-scores-entries


Clinton's State Dept. calendar missing scores of entries
WASHINGTON (AP) — An Associated Press review of the official calendar Hillary Clinton kept as secretary of state identified at least 75 meetings with longtime political donors, Clinton Foundation contributors and corporate and other outside interests that were not recorded or omitted the names of those she met.

The fuller details of those meetings were included in files the State Department turned over to the AP after it sued the government in federal court.

The missing entries raise new questions about how Clinton and her inner circle handled government records documenting her State Department tenure — in this case, why the official chronology of her four-year term does not closely mirror the other, more detailed records of her daily meetings.

At a time when Clinton's private email system is under scrutiny by an FBI criminal investigation, the calendar omissions reinforce concerns that she sought to eliminate the "risk of the personal being accessible" — as she wrote in an email exchange that she failed to turn over to the government but was subsequently uncovered in a top aide's inbox.

The AP found the omissions by comparing the 1,500-page calendar with separate planning schedules supplied to Clinton by aides in advance of each day's events. The names of at least 114 outsiders who met with Clinton were missing from her calendar, the records show.

No known federal laws were violated and some omissions could be blamed on Clinton's highly fluid schedule, which sometimes forced late cancellations. But only seven meetings in Clinton's planning schedules were replaced by substitute events on her official calendar. More than 60 other events listed in Clinton's planners were omitted entirely in her calendar, tersely noted or described only as "private meetings" — all without naming those who met with her.

Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill said Thursday night that the multiple discrepancies between her State Department calendar and her planning schedules "simply reflect a more detailed version in one version as compared to another, all maintained by her staff."

Merrill said that Clinton "has always made an effort to be transparent since entering public life, whether it be the release of over 30 years of tax returns, years of financial disclosure forms, or asking that 55,000 pages of work emails from her time of secretary of state be turned over to the public."

In one key omission, Clinton's State Department calendar dropped the identities of a dozen major Wall Street and business leaders who met with her during a private breakfast discussion at the New York Stock Exchange in September 2009, The meeting occurred minutes before Clinton appeared in public at the exchange to ring the market's ceremonial opening bell.

Despite the omission, Clinton's State Department planning schedules from the same day listed the names of all Clinton's breakfast guests — most of whose firms had lobbied the government and donated to her family's global charity. The event was closed to the press and merited only a brief mention in her calendar, which omitted all her guests' names — among them Blackstone Group Chairman Steven Schwarzman, PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi and then-New York Bank of Mellon CEO Robert Kelly.

Clinton's calendar also repeatedly omitted private dinners and meetings with political donors, policy sessions with groups of corporate leaders and "drop-bys" with old Clinton campaign hands and advisers. Among those whose names were omitted from her calendar were longtime adviser Sidney Blumenthal, consultant and former Clinton White House chief of staff Thomas "Mack" McLarty, former energy lobbyist Joseph Wilson and entertainment magnate and Clinton campaign bundler Haim Saban.

The AP first sought Clinton's calendar and schedules from the State Department in August 2013, but the agency would not acknowledge even that it had the material. After nearly two years of delay, the AP sued the State Department in March 2015. The department agreed in a court filing last August to turn over Clinton's calendar, and provided the documents in November. After noticing discrepancies between Clinton's calendar and some schedules, the AP pressed in court for all of Clinton's planning material. The U.S. has released about one-third of those planners to the AP, so far.

The State Department censored both sets of documents for national security and other reasons, but those changes were made after the documents were turned over to the State Department at the end of Clinton's tenure.

The documents obtained by the AP do not show who specifically logged entries in Clinton's calendar or who edited the material. Clinton's emails and other records show that she and two close aides, deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin and scheduling assistant Lona J. Valmoro, held weekly meetings and emailed almost every day about Clinton's plans. According to the recent inspector general's audit and a court declaration made last December by the State Department's acting executive secretary, Clinton's aides had access to her calendar through a government Microsoft Outlook account. Both Abedin and Valmoro were political appointees at the State Department and are now aides in her presidential campaign.

Unlike Clinton's planning schedules, which were sent to Clinton each morning, her calendar was edited after each event, the AP's review showed. Some calendar entries were accompanied by Valmoro emails — indicating she may have added those entries. Every meeting entry also included both the planned time of the event and the actual time — showing that Clinton's calendar was being used to document each meeting after it ended.

The State Department said Friday that "extensive records" from Clinton's calendars were preserved. Spokesman John Kirby said he couldn't speak in more detail about practices during Clinton's tenure because of the AP's ongoing lawsuit.

Kirby said the department was confident it was properly preserving Secretary John Kerry's calendars and other historic documents, but he noted that Kerry was not required to include details of private, non-work-related meetings. Kirby declined to specify the agency's definition of those private sessions, saying only that "there are obviously some moments of his life that have no bearing on his work as secretary of state."

Kirby would not comment on how Clinton and other former secretaries handled their calendars. Five former State Department logistics officials told the AP that some of Clinton's predecessors also omitted some private meetings from their calendars. The former officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss sensitive agency practices, said omitted meetings typically were for medical or other personal reasons as opposed to the meetings Clinton attended with political and charity donors and with corporate executives.

P.J. Crowley, a State Department spokesman for Clinton at the time, told the AP that Clinton's vision of "21st century statecraft" included exchanging views with corporate leaders and promoting public-private partnerships. "That was certainly reflected in her day-to-day schedule, her travel and her global outreach," Crowley said.

The former department officials as well as government records experts said that secretaries of state have wide latitude in keeping their schedules — despite federal laws and agency rules overseeing the archiving of calendars and warning against altering or deleting records. Omissions in Clinton's calendar could undermine the document's historical accuracy, particularly its depictions of Clinton's access to political, corporate and other influences, experts said.

"It's clear that any outside influence needs to be clearly identified in some way to at least guarantee transparency. That didn't happen," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan government reform group. "These discrepancies are striking because of her possible interest at the time in running for the presidency."

Clinton's terse calendar entry on her 2009 private breakfast on Wall Street contains no details on what she and her 12 guests discussed.

Besides Schwarzman, Nooyi and Kelly, Clinton's other guests were Fabrizio Freda, CEO of the Estee Lauder Companies Inc.; Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks Corp.; Lewis Frankfort, chairman of Coach Inc.; Ellen Kullman, then-CEO of DuPont; David M. Cote, CEO of Honeywell International Inc.; James Tisch, president of Loews Corp.; John D. Wren, CEO of Omnicom Group; then-McGraw Hill Companies chairman Harold McGraw III; and James Taiclet, chairman of the American Tower Corp. Also attending was then-NYSE CEO Duncan Niederauer, who later accompanied Clinton when she rang the stock exchange bell.

Four of the attendees — Schwarzman, Nooyi, Cote and Kullman — headed companies that later donated to Clinton's pet diplomatic project of that period, the U.S. pavilion at the 2010 Shanghai Expo.

All the firms represented except Coach lobbied the government in 2009; Blackstone, Honeywell, Omnicom and DuPont lobbied the State Department that year. Schwarzman and Frankfort have personally donated to the Clinton Foundation, and the other firms — except for American Tower and New York Bank of Mellon — also contributed to the Clinton charity.

__

Associated Press writer Bradley Klapper contributed to this report.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Second of all, Hilary has been Sharia Law's biggest advocate for years along with the separation of church and state. Not to mention she's in favor of gender being a social construct, and you as a christian should know better.


In this sentence you have put forward two propositions:

1. Hilary Clinton, supports enforcing sharia law, so supports enforcing religious laws, 

and; 

2. Hilary Clinton supports the separation of church and state, so opposes enforcing religious laws.

How can she both support and oppose enforcing religious laws at the same time?


----------



## DOPA

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

As much as I despise Hillary Clinton and her corrupt ass I can't recall her ever supporting Sharia Law....

By the way Seperation of State and Church is a good thing, fuck religious nutcases influencing politics. If Mike Huccabee had his way the US would be living under the Ten Commandments...


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> In this sentence you have put forward two propositions:
> 
> 1. Hilary Clinton, supports enforcing sharia law, so supports enforcing religious laws,
> 
> and;
> 
> 2. Hilary Clinton supports the separation of church and state, so opposes enforcing religious laws.
> 
> How can she both support and oppose enforcing religious laws at the same time?


What's ironic is Trump is less of a Christian than Hilary. Yet he hasn't questioned Christians for supporting Trump, yet other's faith is questioned for supporting Hilary.


----------



## Beatles123

nucklehead88 said:


> Legit question to Trump fans. Trump has said he's going to build a wall on our border...and make us pay for it.....how does the genius plan on making that happen?


at this point you'll just have to see. this has been talked about a million times. there are numorous ways. many of which involve mexico paying back what they owe. not to mention ending the illegal wire transfers they do on a daily basis.



yeahbaby! said:


> Don't be too butt hurt because the content of your precious thread has gone beyond your understanding so you've resorted to linking The Hillster to islamic buzzwords you don't understand lol. It must be tough poor fella now that trump has started going downhill with no real plans, no money, and no idea. :nerd:


It must be even tougher ignoring how cuckold your side is becoming. All you're doing at this point is saying "This is what will end Trump, guys!" You've never even looked at Trump objectively from day one. You're a liberal. This does not make Trump supporters inferior to you.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> In this sentence you have put forward two propositions:
> 
> 1. Hilary Clinton, supports enforcing sharia law, so supports enforcing religious laws,
> 
> and;
> 
> 2. Hilary Clinton supports the separation of church and state, so opposes enforcing religious laws.
> 
> How can she both support and oppose enforcing religious laws at the same time?


Because the ideals hurt the right wing. She makes exceptions for Islam because that is a key Dem market.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Seriously guys, You don't even have to dig on this. She would rather Christian culture perish so the right wing can lose it's base, than she would Islam. She doesn't have to say it. you can see it in her pandering.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> It must be even tougher ignoring how cuckold your side is becoming. All you're doing at this point is saying "This is what will end Trump, guys!" You've never even looked at Trump objectively from day one. You're a liberal. This does not make Trump supporters inferior to you.


The people against Trump have looked at him objectively and that is why we are against him. Even take out all his bigoted, sexist, and racist comments and just based on the issues, he is a clueless buffoon, he has no clue what he is talking about. He has zero clue how anything works when it comes to running the country, just listening to him talk, he is totally clueless.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill said Thursday night that the multiple discrepancies between her State Department calendar and her planning schedules "*simply reflect a more detailed version in one version as compared to another, all maintained by her staff.*"
> 
> Merrill said that Clinton "*has always made an effort to be transparent since entering public life, whether it be the release of over 30 years of tax returns, years of financial disclosure forms, or asking that 55,000 pages of work emails from her time of secretary of state be turned over to the public.*"


Transparency lol.

And because it came from her office, her supporters will swear it is true.

I've got to hand it to that carpetbagging bitch. She is one of the best examples of a true politician I have ever seen in my life.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The people against Trump have looked at him objectively and that is why we are against him. Even take out all his bigoted, sexist, and racist comments and just based on the issues, he is a clueless buffoon, he has no clue what he is talking about. He has zero clue how anything works when it comes to running the country, just listening to him talk, he is totally clueless.


Adhom, Dave.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*


----------



## Trivette

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Seriously guys, You don't even have to dig on this. She would rather Christian culture perish so the right wing can lose it's base, than she would Islam. She doesn't have to say it. you can see it in her pandering.


Even if this is true, still doesn't see where you get that she is advocating for Sharia Law. Religious fundamentalism support conservative right wing ideals more than liberal ideals.

If you want to see pandering, why don't you call out Trump's 'born again' Christianity as pandering to Evangelicals? No call out against 'I was part of the elites that robbed you' but it is OK now because I'm on your side now pandering against free trade? 

All politicians pander, but you drawing conclusion from Hilary's pandering to her advocating Sharia is stretching it to the limit to fit things into your already fixed views on things. You are doing exactly what liberals are doing with regards to their pet agendas.

Again, why are you questioning someone's faith for supporting Hilary and glossing over other's for supporting Trump? Shouldn't different Christians have different reasons to be against Trump for his un-Christian way of life, building walls to reduce evangelicals entry into the country from Mexico and insulting the Pope? Yet you question a Christian for supporting Hilary based on a lie that she is advocating Sharia law in America?


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

^

Beatles123 will avoid your question like the plague. Trumpies hate when you expose them, but they will just deflect with a different topic altogether in their reply.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> at this point you'll just have to see. this has been talked about a million times. there are numorous ways. many of which involve mexico paying back what they owe. not to mention ending the illegal wire transfers they do on a daily basis.


Nononono. Wrong border. He said he's building one on the Canadian border too. And making Canada pay for it. And I would like to know how he plans on making that happen. You know with the US being in debt TO Canada...and us having all the oil and water.


----------



## Slicked

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

Hillary deserves to die, power-hungry bitch !


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

@Beatles123 Nowhere to run to baby, nowhere to hide!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Even if this is true, still doesn't see where you get that she is advocating for Sharia Law. Religious fundamentalism support conservative right wing ideals more than liberal ideals.
> 
> If you want to see pandering, why don't you call out Trump's 'born again' Christianity as pandering to Evangelicals? No call out against 'I was part of the elites that robbed you' but it is OK now because I'm on your side now pandering against free trade?
> 
> All politicians pander, but you drawing conclusion from Hilary's pandering to her advocating Sharia is stretching it to the limit to fit things into your already fixed views on things. You are doing exactly what liberals are doing with regards to their pet agendas.
> 
> Again, why are you questioning someone's faith for supporting Hilary and glossing over other's for supporting Trump? Shouldn't different Christians have different reasons to be against Trump for his un-Christian way of life, building walls to reduce evangelicals entry into the country from Mexico and insulting the Pope? Yet you question a Christian for supporting Hilary based on a lie that she is advocating Sharia law in America?


Trump is not actively encouraging one faith over another via his actions. Hilary is against much of what Christians stand for and welcomes a greater audience of Muslims as a result because that is her base.

Now, I don't know what her relationship is with God personally, but her actions seem to contradict a lot of the faith. You can to a lesser extent say this about Trump as well because of his previous stances on things, but at least he is currently at least TRYING to preserve a closer adherence to the faith as opposed to secularism. I have never seen her speak out against the lack of Biblical presence as republicans have. There is nothing wrong with this if you're a Lib. Christians are not who she cares about. They are a republican base. If she called for a greater Christ presence most Dems would want her dead, and we know It's the cool thing to uplift anything damaging to anything involving western religion for Dems. So that's what she does. Further, Trump wanting to reduce ILLEGAL immigration via stronger borders is nor anti Christian at all. God gave us WISDOM, and he is the only one smart enough to see we have an issue with our security there.

In addition, While I am not Catholic nor have anything against Catholicism, Even many Catholics have renounced the current pope. Holding a position of power does not make you right. In fact to suggest being pope in of itself means one must as a Christian agree with his every idea is absurd.


@yeahbaby! Where do you think I'm running to? I have answered. You may not LIKE my answer, but I have given it.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> Nononono. Wrong border. He said he's building one on the Canadian border too. And making Canada pay for it. And I would like to know how he plans on making that happen. You know with the US being in debt TO Canada...and us having all the oil and water.


Well, you may want to pay us just so all of the USA's cancerous celebs who come to you after Trump gets elected will leave! That'd work. :trump

Hope you enjoy Miley Cyrus, Breh. :nerd:


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Well, you may want to pay us just so all of the USA's cancerous celebs who come to you after Trump gets elected will leave! That'd work. :trump
> 
> Hope you enjoy Miley Cyrus, Breh. :nerd:


Oh come on give me a serious answer. I legitimately want to know what Trump supporters think would happen with it.


----------



## LaMelo

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I feel bad for the guy!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Trump is not actively encouraging one faith over another via his actions. Hilary is against much of what Christians stand for and welcomes a greater audience of Muslims as a result because that is her base.
> 
> In addition, While I am not Catholic nor have anything against Catholicism, Even many Catholics have renounced the current pope. Holding a position of power does not make you right. In fact to suggest being pope in of itself means one must as a Christian agree with his every idea is absurd.



To your first point, muslims make up 0.9% of the American population, THEY ARE NOT A BASE.

There just aren't enough muslims to pander to for anyone to seriously believe she is trying to pander to them.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

To your second point, yes that's exactly what catholic's believe. They believe that the Pope is gods mouthpiece on earth and is infallible, cannot be wrong, to say the Pope is wrong is the basically saying you believe god is wrong to a catholic.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

I hope Trump gets elected solely based on all of the shitty celebrities that promised to leave America.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Trump is not actively encouraging one faith over another via his actions. Hilary is against much of what Christians stand for and welcomes a greater audience of Muslims as a result because that is her base.


Trump is actively encouraging Christianity over Islam. How can you say he isn't encouraging one faith over another without any sense of irony? Muslim isn't big enough to be a base in America politics. You are conflating Muslims and liberals fighting for minority rights as the same base.

Since when is having more inter faith dialogue against much of what Christians stand for? Are you a fundamentalist similar to the terrorists that believe other faiths are beneath theirs?



> Now, I don't know what her relationship is with God personally, but her actions seem to contradict a lot of the faith. You can to a lesser extent say this about Trump as well because of his previous stances on things, but at least he is currently at least TRYING to preserve a closer adherence to the faith as opposed to secularism.


How is it 'to a lesser extent' for Trump when he has done more things that contradict a lot of what Christianity stood for? Trying or pandering by claiming to be born-again? Shouldn't you be supporting Ted Cruz if you believe secularism is the enemy?



> I have never seen her speak out against the lack of Biblical presence as republicans have. There is nothing wrong with this if you're a Lib. Christians are not who she cares about. They are a republican base. If she called for a greater Christ presence most Dems would want her dead, and we know It's the cool thing to uplift anything damaging to anything involving western religion for Dems. So that's what she does.


Because she understood America has a system that believe in the separation of church and state. She'll still be sworn in with the bible no? Why would you want religion to be the be-all and end-all of judging a person when you see how corrupt theocracies fighting for political power in the middle east spawned militant radicals that has plague the world for three decades?



> Further, Trump wanting to reduce ILLEGAL immigration via stronger borders is nor anti Christian at all. God gave us WISDOM, and he is the only one smart enough to see we have an issue with our security there.


Many Evangelicals believe it is against their mission in the spreading of the word of Christ. The only wisdom he possess is being shrewd enough to manipulate people's feelings about border issues into voting for him. Use that wisdom and question why Trump default attack is questioning his opponent's alleged lack of faith. Use that wisdom and question how credible is his plan of making Mexico pay for a wall they don't want. If not, are you willing as a taxpayer to foot the bill?



> In addition, While I am not Catholic nor have anything against Catholicism, Even many Catholics have renounced the current pope. Holding a position of power does not make you right. In fact to suggest being pope in of itself means one must as a Christian agree with his every idea is absurd.


Even so, it is still un-Christian like to those who still believe in the authority of the papacy.

The papacy would be what more Christianity in government would resemble. I find it absurd as well that one person has absolute authority, but just as absurd that you insinuating that a Christian must not vote for Hilary just because.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Trump is actively encouraging Christianity over Islam. How can you say he isn't encouraging one faith over another without any sense of irony? Muslim isn't big enough to be a base in America politics. You are conflating Muslims and liberals fighting for minority rights as the same base.
> 
> Since when is having more inter faith dialogue against much of what Christians stand for? Are you a fundamentalist similar to the terrorists that believe other faiths are beneath theirs?
> 
> How is it 'to a lesser extent' for Trump when he has done more things that contradict a lot of what Christianity stood for? Trying or pandering by claiming to be born-again? Shouldn't you be supporting Ted Cruz if you believe secularism is the enemy?
> 
> Because she understood America has a system that believe in the separation of church and state. She'll still be sworn in with the bible no? Why would you want religion to be the be-all and end-all of judging a person when you see how corrupt theocracies fighting for political power in the middle east spawned militant radicals that has plague the world for three decades?
> 
> 
> 
> Many Evangelicals believe it is against their mission in the spreading of the word of Christ. The only wisdom he possess is being shrewd enough to manipulate people's feelings about border issues into voting for him. Use that wisdom and question why Trump default attack is questioning his opponent's alleged lack of faith. Use that wisdom and question how credible is his plan of making Mexico pay for a wall they don't want. If not, are you willing as a taxpayer to foot the bill?
> 
> Even so, it is still un-Christian like to those who still believe in the authority of the papacy.
> 
> The papacy would be what more Christianity in government would resemble. I find it absurd as well that one person has absolute authority, but just as absurd that you insinuating that a Christian must not vote for Hilary just because.


Not believing in a religion is fine. I just can't see why if you do, you would vote for a person who is actively pushing an agenda that phases out western religion. It's a contradiction.

And Trump IS a born again christian, by the way. He's Presbyterian and has had several discussions with faith leaders on this. Call me when Hill does that.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Not believing in a religion is fine. I just can't see why if you do, you would vote for a person who is actively pushing an agenda that phases out western religion. It's a contradiction.
> 
> And Trump IS a born again christian, by the way. He's Presbyterian and has had several discussions with faith leaders on this. Call me when Hill does that.


If you are a Christian, I don't see how you would vote for someone pandering to your demographic shamelessly by conveniently being born-again during an election run. At least Hilary's pandering using her faith has been consistent throughout the years, and her pandering seem almost more believable as she has been consistent with her faith. 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...o-we-know-about-hillary-clintons-religion-lo/

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/we-know-plenty-about-clintons-religion/

Again, just use the wisdom God gave you and question why Trump's default attack is to question his opponent's faith every time? Because he trying to deflect from his own deficiency in that department. Justify support for Trump with his anti-Muslim stance. Justify support for Trump with his nativism politics. Justify support for Trump for his wealth. I just find it absurd to justify support for Trump using religion.


----------



## Goku

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*










CP's new favourite football player


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

^ nice deflection there Goku. It's time to steer this ship back on track, on a great discussion that is going on right now.


...and now it's time to body bag Beatles123




Beatles123 said:


> Trump is not actively encouraging one faith over another via his actions. Hilary is against much of what Christians stand for and welcomes a greater audience of Muslims as a result because that is her base.
> 
> Now, I don't know what her relationship is with God personally, but her actions seem to contradict a lot of the faith. You can to a lesser extent say this about Trump as well because of his previous stances on things, but at least he is currently at least TRYING to preserve a closer adherence to the faith as opposed to secularism. I have never seen her speak out against the lack of Biblical presence as republicans have. There is nothing wrong with this if you're a Lib. Christians are not who she cares about. They are a republican base. If she called for a greater Christ presence most Dems would want her dead, and we know It's the cool thing to uplift anything damaging to anything involving western religion for Dems. So that's what she does. Further, Trump wanting to reduce ILLEGAL immigration via stronger borders is nor anti Christian at all. God gave us WISDOM, and he is the only one smart enough to see we have an issue with our security there.
> 
> In addition, While I am not Catholic nor have anything against Catholicism, Even many Catholics have renounced the current pope. Holding a position of power does not make you right. In fact to suggest being pope in of itself means one must as a Christian agree with his every idea is absurd.
> 
> 
> @yeahbaby! Where do you think I'm running to? I have answered. You may not LIKE my answer, but I have given it.


:quite my what a load of crock. Your first line is pure biased opinion. Muslims are among the smallest demographic in this country. I almost can't take you serious with this statement, because as an American you should know this. Are you a kid posting online here? (Serious), perhaps your youth and inexperience is on display here.

Donald Trump on his Christian faith:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/donald-trump-im-not-sure-if-i-ever-asked-gods-forgiveness-141706/

Hillary Clinton on her Christian faith:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/h...judgment-god-open-tolerant-respectful-155964/

Wow your second paragraph, tells me you haven't done any research on either candidates, the one you support nor the one you detest. 



> *Christians are not who she cares about. They are a republican base.*


 Seriously?







This is about as dubious of a lie as they come. But I'm not surprised to see you say this with what you have written so far. Contrary to your believe, Christians are not exclusive to the Republican party. I'm a Christian, my whole family and extended family are Christians and we are mostly all Democrats. Your Donald Trump done a good job of destroying a lot of the Christian conservative candidates in his own party who had a much stronger tie to their faith than him. Look what he's done to Jeb Bush, Jeb's brother GWB ran his campaign on the 'compassionate conservative' base appealing to Christians and today the RNC successfully pushed those Republicans to the side. Your candidate burned the bridge with the Bush family, he's not going to get the Presidential endorsement of either living Republican President. 

I've encountered many Trump supporters who don't even believe in God. I've seen some Trump supporters say they trust the Devil over Hillary Clinton. Yeah that's very Christian. 



> and we know It's the cool thing to uplift anything damaging to anything involving western religion for Dems.










again, what are you talking about. I know you think you're making a lot of sense right now, but you're sounding about as crazy as the guy you support, who I get a feeling himself he doesn't believe in God but rather he believes he IS god.



> @yeahbaby! Where do you think I'm running to? I have answered. You may not LIKE my answer, but I have given it.


yeah, you gave your answer alright. You definitely are a Donald Trump supporter.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

FiveThirtyEight has its first projection out. Nate Silver and his people have been mathematical wizards in the last two presidential elections, pretty much nailing the electoral college and which states would be close. Right now, Clinton has an 80.6% chance of winning the election. 

Silver has Arizona and North Carolina as _barely_ blue and Georgia and Missouri as _barely_ red. Surprisingly, he has Mississippi and South Carolina as two close races. In the end, I don't think Trump has much to worry about with those states. He clearly thinks the Utah talk is overrated, but does have Kansas marked as "close." It'll be interesting to see what changes in the coming months.

But, as of right now, Silver thinks Clinton nabs 353 electoral votes and Trump gets 183.7.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/


----------



## BRITLAND

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



IronMaiden7 said:


> FiveThirtyEight has its first projection out. Nate Silver and his people have been mathematical wizards in the last two presidential elections, pretty much nailing the electoral college and which states would be close. Right now, Clinton has an 80.6% chance of winning the election.
> 
> Silver has Arizona and North Carolina as _barely_ blue and Georgia and Missouri as _barely_ red. Surprisingly, he has Mississippi and South Carolina as two close races. In the end, I don't think Trump has much to worry about with those states. He clearly thinks the Utah talk is overrated, but does have Kansas marked as "close." It'll be interesting to see what changes in the coming months.
> 
> But, as of right now, Silver thinks Clinton nabs 353 electoral votes and Trump gets 183.7.
> 
> http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/


That seems about right but who knows what will happen come November. I'm almost certain the Hillary Clinton will be President as she has already been chosen by the media by the looks of it over the past year or two.

Mind you FiveThirtyEight tried predicting the last election in my country and were well off.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Wow this thread is really starting to go down hill for a Team Trump that was once so loud and boisterous, much like Trump's campaign apparently.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I have put some major thought in it and I have figured it out

There are Muslims who are good guys and Muslims who are bad guys 

We should shoot (or at least tie up) the ones who are the bad guys but not do that to the good guys

There is also the occasional Muslim who is THE guy but we will deal with this on a case by case basis


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/29/why-is-donald-trump-asking-british-mps-for-cash/

Someone in the Trump campaign made a boo-boo buying email lists trying to make up time in analytics. :lol


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump got a lot of flack from religious leaders just this week for not quickly commenting on the SCOTUS abortion ruling . SCOTUS essentially relaxed abortion law further, and religious conservatives wondered why Trump was using Twitter to discuss CNN instead of motivating them or reminding them of the importance of their faith. In general, even most Democrats were shocked to see the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party not take such an opportunity. 

Trump finally commented on the ruling this morning in an interview, saying the only way to stop things like that was to elect him president so he can nominate a Scalia replacement. Two things about that: (1.) from what I've gathered on Twitter and such, some conservatives didn't like that his first comment on the issues was "vote for me" and (2.) the ruling was 5-3, so Trump's math is wrong in this case.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



Brexit & Chill said:


> That seems about right but who knows what will happen come November. I'm almost certain the Hillary Clinton will be President as she has already been chosen by the media by the looks of it over the past year or two.
> 
> Mind you FiveThirtyEight tried predicting the last election in my country and were well off.


Yeah, Silver has written some interesting things about the difficulty of polling the United Kingdom. That might be why FiveThirtyEight didn't issue its own forecast on the referendum.

Silver has often mentioned that he thinks it's much easier to forecast the United States.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-just-pulled-ahead-clinton-141951200.html

Trump just pulled ahead of Clinton in a national poll for first time in more than a month

In a Rasmussen poll released Thursday, Trump held a 4-point lead over presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Of the 1,000 likely voters surveyed, the presumptive Republican nominee won over 43% of support, compared with Clinton's 39%.

The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points. The poll was a combined phone and online survey.

The poll is the first in which Trump has led Clinton since mid-May, when Trump held a 2-point lead in an ABC News/Washington Post poll.

The Rasmussen poll breaks a streak of 22 consecutive polls Clinton has topped Trump in.

After the Rasmussen poll, Clinton's lead in the RealClearPolitics average of several polls is now 4.9 points.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

Looks like Tim Kaine is out on a possible VP pick for Hillary. 

But Chris Christie chances as Trump's VP pick is looking more possible than ever. 

He's currently being vetted for the job. 
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/06...ming-true-chris-christie-vetted-trump-vp.html

Trump / Christie '16 .... the Dream Ticket. :curry2


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

Not big on Trump, but I'd be lying if I said he didn't have the best propaganda.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

^
nice egoistical self-centered propaganda. Will make for a good LOL on Nov 2nd.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> ^
> nice egoistical self-centered propaganda. Will make for a good LOL on Nov 2nd.


Wait...you took me serious? He didn't make it. I was joking. I do think all of the Trump memes have been hilarious, however.

Wish there was a 3rd option because I can't bring myself to vote for either.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> Wait...you took me serious? He didn't make it. I was joking. I do think all of the Trump memes have been hilarious, however.
> 
> Wish there was a 3rd option because I can't bring myself to vote for either.


of course he didn't make it. it's fan made fan service videos that pop-up every election year. 

In 2004, Jib Jab made political vids

In 2008, we had companies like Barely Political, The Humantainment, and 60 Seconds make hilarious political vids.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

http://calthomas.com/columns/trumps-conversion

Another example of pathetic pandering that Trump is doing as he sees the money is drying up and people still are trying to determine whether or not to vote for him. I understand that all politicians do this to an extent, but he has turned this into an art form. And again, Cal Thomas is far from a neo-con, he is one of the most consistent social conservative voices on the landscape today. 






Meanwhile, the NeverTrump campaign is still in high gear within the conservative ranks. 



birthday_massacre said:


> The people against Trump have looked at him objectively and that is why we are against him. Even take out all his bigoted, sexist, and racist comments and just based on the issues, he is a clueless buffoon, he has no clue what he is talking about. He has zero clue how anything works when it comes to running the country, just listening to him talk, he is totally clueless.


This...and @birthday_massacre, this is scary when you and I agree on something (even though for opposite reasons- I mean the man is a bleeding-heart liberal with most of his views you should be embracing him :grin2: JK). He talks about having the best possible people surround him, yet most within his businesses know he surrounded himself by "yes" men and women. I want someone who will be open to getting other perspectives, especially those who have a bit of experience. The GOP bashed the hell out of Obama's lack of experience, and now they're going to be nominating a candidate with even less experience. 



nucklehead88 said:


> Nononono. Wrong border. He said he's building one on the Canadian border too. And making Canada pay for it. And I would like to know how he plans on making that happen. You know with the US being in debt TO Canada...and us having all the oil and water.


That's part of his backpedaling that he has done. He is starting to do that now big time. Supposedly his Muslim comment needed clarity, when it was obvious he said we need to ban all Muslims. So, when he meant Mexico, he actually meant Canada would have to pay for the wall.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> http://calthomas.com/columns/trumps-conversion
> 
> Another example of pathetic pandering that Trump is doing as he sees the money is drying up and people still are trying to determine whether or not to vote for him. I understand that all politicians do this to an extent, but he has turned this into an art form. And again, Cal Thomas is far from a neo-con, he is one of the most consistent social conservative voices on the landscape today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, the NeverTrump campaign is still in high gear within the conservative ranks.
> 
> 
> 
> This...and @birthday_massacre, this is scary when you and I agree on something (even though for opposite reasons- I mean the man is a bleeding-heart liberal with most of his views you should be embracing him :grin2: JK). He talks about having the best possible people surround him, yet most within his businesses know he surrounded himself by "yes" men and women. I want someone who will be open to getting other perspectives, especially those who have a bit of experience. The GOP bashed the hell out of Obama's lack of experience, and now they're going to be nominating a candidate with even less experience.
> 
> 
> 
> That's part of his backpedaling that he has done. He is starting to do that now big time. Supposedly his Muslim comment needed clarity, when it was obvious he said we need to ban all Muslims. So, when he meant Mexico, he actually meant Canada would have to pay for the wall.


Well the important thing is we agree right LOL

As for the GOP bashing Obama for him being inexperienced and they will be a candidate with even less experience to be fair to the GOP, they are doing everything they can to find a loop hold so they dont have to nominate him. That being said, the GOP have always been hypocrites, so are you really surprised?

They claim they are against big GOVT yet they are the ones who are pro a huge military and are always using the govt to prevent gays from marrying, abortions, and gay/trans equal rights.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

Even more corruption by the Clintons


Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynch meet privately 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch/

Then look what happens the next day

State Department seeks 2-year-plus delay in suit for Clinton aides’ emails

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under...ton-emails-state-lawsuit-delay-request-224981

Bill needs to be jailed, as does Hillary.

They are not even trying to hide the corruption anymore. Hillary and Bill as well as the DNC think they are above the law.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



gamegenie said:


> ^ nice deflection there Goku. It's time to steer this ship back on track, on a great discussion that is going on right now.
> 
> 
> ...and now it's time to body bag Beatles123
> 
> 
> 
> :quite my what a load of crock. Your first line is pure biased opinion. Muslims are among the smallest demographic in this country. I almost can't take you serious with this statement, because as an American you should know this. Are you a kid posting online here? (Serious), perhaps your youth and inexperience is on display here.
> 
> Donald Trump on his Christian faith:
> http://www.christianpost.com/news/donald-trump-im-not-sure-if-i-ever-asked-gods-forgiveness-141706/
> 
> Hillary Clinton on her Christian faith:
> http://www.christianpost.com/news/h...judgment-god-open-tolerant-respectful-155964/
> 
> Wow your second paragraph, tells me you haven't done any research on either candidates, the one you support nor the one you detest.
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is about as dubious of a lie as they come. But I'm not surprised to see you say this with what you have written so far. Contrary to your believe, Christians are not exclusive to the Republican party. I'm a Christian, my whole family and extended family are Christians and we are mostly all Democrats. Your Donald Trump done a good job of destroying a lot of the Christian conservative candidates in his own party who had a much stronger tie to their faith than him. Look what he's done to Jeb Bush, Jeb's brother GWB ran his campaign on the 'compassionate conservative' base appealing to Christians and today the RNC successfully pushed those Republicans to the side. Your candidate burned the bridge with the Bush family, he's not going to get the Presidential endorsement of either living Republican President.
> 
> I've encountered many Trump supporters who don't even believe in God. I've seen some Trump supporters say they trust the Devil over Hillary Clinton. Yeah that's very Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, what are you talking about. I know you think you're making a lot of sense right now, but you're sounding about as crazy as the guy you support, who I get a feeling himself he doesn't believe in God but rather he believes he IS god.
> 
> yeah, you gave your answer alright. You definitely are a Donald Trump supporter.


Funny that a "Christian" wants to "Body bag" people. I want you to look at your post, the way its worded with arrogance, anecdotal evidence, links to sources you spin, and other such total BS, and I want you to understand that I am not even caring that you vote Hill. I'm caring because you think the only way to be christian is to believe what you believe. I never said that in MY statement. What I said was that it personally makes no sense to me why someone would vote Hill. You didn't even do a good job outlining that. All I got was a bunch of put downs and shame attempts.

As for pandering? You can accuse Trump of that but don't act like Hill doesn't.











We on the right are tired of this kind of stuff. If you haven't noticed, the tide in america is turning. It will be your own arrogance and pompous nature that will lose you this election, coupled with your lack of ability to disagree. For your info, im 25 and I HAVE done my research, thank you. It just hasn't lead me to an opinion that you support. That's the only problem you have with me.

And Muslims will make more of a difference in this election than any before it. Why do you think Hill talks about them so much? She needs that vote in addition to the IND vote (Which she won't get.)


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

It was nice to see :trump ahead in a poll this week,Rasmussen, but I wonder if it's an outlier or a portent of things to come?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



THE SHIV said:


> It was nice to see :trump ahead in a poll this week,Rasmussen, but I wonder if it's an outlier or a portent of things to come?


The Q poll that had him virtually tied had oversampled Dems by 10%.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Funny that a "Christian" wants to "Body bag" people.


What, you were 'body bagged' for nearly 48 hours since my post on Wednesday.











Beatles123 said:


> I want you to look at your post, the way its worded with arrogance, anecdotal evidence, links to sources you spin, and other such total BS, and I want you to understand that I am not even caring that you vote Hill.


ok.












Beatles123 said:


> I'm caring because you think the only way to be christian is to believe what you believe. I never said that in MY statement.


:What?







What?





Beatles123 said:


> What I said was that it personally makes no sense to me why someone would vote Hill. You didn't even do a good job outlining that. All I got was a bunch of put downs and shame attempts.


No need for the quarterback replay, we read what you wrote, we replied. Now is time for you to own up to it and not try to walk back your crazy talk. 




Beatles123 said:


> As for pandering? You can accuse Trump of that but don't act like Hill doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We on the right are tired of this kind of stuff. If you haven't noticed, the tide in america is turning. It will be your own arrogance and pompous nature that will lose you this election, coupled with your lack of ability to disagree. For your info, im 25 and I HAVE done my research, thank you. It just hasn't lead me to an opinion that you support. That's the only problem you have with me.


Quote me where I talked about Donald Trump pandering?







You seem really envy of Hillary Clinton, I see you're studying her everything in magazines. That's borderline obsessed. 



Beatles123 said:


> *And Muslims will make more of a difference in this election than any before it.*


Show the polling evidence that backs up your belief of that. 












Beatles123 said:


> *Why do you think Hill talks about them so much?* She needs that vote in addition to the IND vote (Which she won't get.)


Let me take a wild guess. To provide a counter-argument to the points that Donald Trump talks about when mentioning them. 
The same reasons topics concerning Muslims have been in political discourse since 9/11. 
Where have you been?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Again, nothing but put down attempts. Why? Let me go through this:

Really? was I "Body bagged" because I've spent the last two days trying to comfort a friend of mine who's struggling with the evils of Jahova's Witness-ism and haven't had time to post much politics? Do you even know how many threads I'm involved in that i get notifications for? Why does me not having time to respond to you mean I was ignoring you? I find this honestly rather rude of you to assume.

Yes, "Ok". You think I'm not serious? You think posting an emoji is a suitable counter argument? In fact, why would you even want to just shrug that off? My point was that you went so far as to post all this to prove your argument, but I don't care if you want to vote for her. Truly I don't. You can vote for her if you wish and that's your right. I just pointed out that it seems contradictory to me that you as a christian would despite the fact that NONE of Hill's policies are for the advancement and growth of a christian presence in america. You still haven't shown me any evidence of that. I don't see her fighting for that at all.

Next, you can "What" all you want. I'm not seeing any peacefulness in your posts. I only see sarcastic memes and ironic smiles, as if just laughing off my opinions are invalidating them. I've asked you time and again to show me why Hill is better for me and you, a pair of Christians that want our god to be first and foremost in our country, than anyone on the republican side. Sure, you talk up how pathetic you think they are, but they are the only ones trying to fight to make sure we actually get prayer in schools again and encouraging us to turn TO religion instead of secularism. What is your reasoning for this? Do you identify as a more progressive christian that doesn't believe god has a place in government? See, I could perfectly accept that answer. I disagree with that but if that's what it was I could accept that. All I see from you is slander and adhom however.

Like what is present in the next bit. It isn't "Crazy talk" just Because you don't agree with it. If you want proof of Muslims having an impact in this election (though maybe not as big as other groups. Certainly big enough to matter) Just look and see that they are important and big enough that Hill has to mention them constantly, just as Trump mentions Christians. The mobilization of the two will be key this year. Every year, the non-white demographic among voters gets larger and this is probably the most important election having to do with Muslims that we've had in years. One candidate wants stricter immigration laws that SPECIFICALLY concern them, and the other wants greater numbers of Muslim refugees an immigrants. These are two total contrasting ideals and if you don't think Hill sees the anger that muslims who protest trump have and wants to use that to her advantage to win, you're nuts, b there's nothing wrong with her doing that. She's trying to win. She HAS to pander to anti-Trump minorities of all kinds. Just don't act like she isn't.

You just mentioned pandering in your previous post. You said Trump was trying to gain sympathy by claiming to be Christian, and I showed you an example of Hill pandering trying to convince people she was "Like us." That image wasn't a Photoshop or just one example I cherry picked, it was from her own campaign and I could show you other examples as well. I don't understand why you can't just admit both Hill and Trump are doing this.

Now, again, you don't have to agree with me. I'm merely telling you what I think. My opinions do not make me less intelligent and CERTAINLY not less Christian than you. God is a big part of my life. I wish you and I could spend more time bonding other that then fighting over politics in all honesty. If Hill wins, I'll be pissed but give honor to Jesus and move on. I think if Trump wins you'll do the same thing.


----------



## Kostic

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

I'm from Serbia so I really don't give a shit, but Donald Trump is such a caricature. It's almost inexplicable how people actually vote for this guy and want him to be president.

Then again, you Americans made that retard Bush into a president so perhaps it isn't that surprising.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...inton_finally_about_to_meet_with_the_fbi.html

The FBI to meet with Hillary Clinton tomorrow! :woo :woo :woo

The State Department continues to distance itself as an institution away from her as well. :lol

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/01/state-department-dont-blame-us-for-hillarys-e-mail-issues/


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Even more corruption by the Clintons
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynch meet privately
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch/
> 
> Then look what happens the next day
> 
> State Department seeks 2-year-plus delay in suit for Clinton aides’ emails
> 
> http://www.politico.com/blogs/under...ton-emails-state-lawsuit-delay-request-224981
> 
> Bill needs to be jailed, as does Hillary.
> 
> They are not even trying to hide the corruption anymore. Hillary and Bill as well as the DNC think they are above the law.


Your girl Liz Warren seems to think Hillary should become the most powerful person in the world. :draper2


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

Liz Warren masquerades as a progressive anti-establishment politician yet her reasons for supporting Hillary are very suspect. It's pretty clear she's looking for the VP spot at any cost. Feels like a power grab to me but then again I'm cynical and skeptical at heart.

Agreed with @birthday_massacre that many of the GOP are Authoritarian Big Government Neo-Con's/Social Conservatives. That of course is very obvious. I honestly do not trust Trump fully when it comes to foreign policy although he has come out with some views which happen to be correct. And Hillary is a warhawk, she's practically a Neo-Con herself.

As far as the GOP trying to prevent Same Sex Marriage etc. Government has always been the problem when it comes to these issues. They insist on having social contracts such as marriage under their jurisdiction when it's none of their damn business. Why do I need government to tell me that I can marry someone? It was government that prevented same-sex marriage to begin with. Both on Democrats and Republican sides. If I had it my way I'd take the state out of marriage legislature and make it an individual issue for religious institutes and marriage registrars. It has been obvious that there has been a demand for same-sex marriage for years before it got officially "legalized" and that there are many registrars and even religious institutions (more liberal ones obviously) which would be and are still more than happy to accommodate for same-sex couples. By the same token, those with more conservative views can still practice their religion in whatever way they see fit and not have to worry about being forced to conduct same-sex marriages against their will. Win-win for everyone.

The problem is both Liberals and Conservatives in many cases can't be grown up about these issues and take a live and let live attitude. They always have to try and use government to force through their agenda. Fuck that, I want to be left alone. If I were American I wouldn't want my marriage or guns registered in Washington.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Your girl Liz Warren seems to think Hillary should become the most powerful person in the world. :draper2


I'm still not happy with Warren not backing Sanders during the primaries. Wall St said to Hillary not to choose Warren or they won't give her donor money anymore. We'll see what Hillary does. Warren would be way more useful as a SCOTUS than VP.




L-DOPA said:


> Liz Warren masquerades as a progressive anti-establishment politician yet her reasons for supporting Hillary are very suspect. It's pretty clear she's looking for the VP spot at any cost. Feels like a power grab to me but then again I'm cynical and skeptical at heart.
> 
> Agreed with @birthday_massacre that many of the GOP are Authoritarian Big Government Neo-Con's/Social Conservatives. That of course is very obvious. I honestly do not trust Trump fully when it comes to foreign policy although he has come out with some views which happen to be correct. And Hillary is a warhawk, she's practically a Neo-Con herself.
> 
> As far as the GOP trying to prevent Same Sex Marriage etc. Government has always been the problem when it comes to these issues. They insist on having social contracts such as marriage under their jurisdiction when it's none of their damn business. Why do I need government to tell me that I can marry someone? It was government that prevented same-sex marriage to begin with. Both on Democrats and Republican sides. If I had it my way I'd take the state out of marriage legislature and make it an individual issue for religious institutes and marriage registrars. It has been obvious that there has been a demand for same-sex marriage for years before it got officially "legalized" and that there are many registrars and even religious institutions (more liberal ones obviously) which would be and are still more than happy to accommodate for same-sex couples. By the same token, those with more conservative views can still practice their religion in whatever way they see fit and not have to worry about being forced to conduct same-sex marriages against their will. Win-win for everyone.
> 
> *The problem is both Liberals and Conservatives in many cases can't be grown up about these issues and take a live and let live attitude. They always have to try and use government to force through their agenda. Fuck that, I want to be left alone. If I were American I wouldn't want my marriage or guns registered in Washingto*n.


Here is the thing are they really forcing their agenda through or what they are paid to do from their big donors? People in the GOVT are supposed to do what the people want and what is best for them, but they never do, they do what they are paid to push through from wall st, NRA, Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, the Koch Bros want.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

While it used to be that Conservatives were live-and-let-live on economic but not social issues, and Liberals were live-and-let-live on social but not economic issues, it does seem in the last several years that the Liberals have abandoned all concept of living and letting live, on any issue.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

You can't be serious in pinning issues on only the liberals side. The Tea Party movement from the conservative side choose to abandoned all concept of living and letting live on any issue. That attitude is not only prevalent on the liberal side. If anything, the liberal side just took inspiration from how the conservative movement were able to advance their agenda with real policies using that same attitude the last few years.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

Warren is clearly an egomaniac with a huge lust for power. I'm sure she justifies not backing Bernie by thinking after Hillary is gone I'll be in charge of the Democratic Party and make Bernie proud but that's what they always tell themselves. If they do get power they never pick up the principles they earlier cast aside.

Almost all politicians at her level and above are egomaniacs with a huge lust for power but most of them are better at hiding it than she is. 

She's also kind of dumb, who does she think pays the bulk of the taxes in this country. "You didn't build that." Ummm, okay. Where'd the money come from then?



FriedTofu said:


> You can't be serious in pinning issues on only the liberals side. The Tea Party movement from the conservative side choose to abandoned all concept of living and letting live on any issue. That attitude is not only prevalent on the liberal side. If anything, the liberal side just took inspiration from how the conservative movement were able to advance their agenda with real policies using that same attitude the last few years.


What issues did the Tea Parties not let people live and let live on?

Gay marriage and Obamacare. On gay marriage both sides felt the other one wouldn't let them live and let live and both were right. Obamacare is pure corporatist shit and will collapse of its own weight and inefficiencies sooner or later. 

Not sure what conservative agenda has been advanced nationally since the creation of the Tea Parties, they got the Republican Party the House and Senate in 2010 and that's about it. The Tea Parties didn't put any conservatives on the Supreme Court and that is the only place at the federal level since 2009 that any conservative priorities have been advanced in even the slightest. 

They have had a big impact on the GOP cleaning the Democratic Party's clock in statewide office races from Governor on down and in state legislative elections. At the state level the conservative agenda has been forwarded while the national level has been chicanery, poltroonery and failure.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> What issues did the Tea Parties not let people live and let live on?
> 
> Gay marriage and Obamacare. On gay marriage both sides felt the other one wouldn't let them live and let live and both were right. Obamacare is pure corporatist shit and will collapse of its own weight and inefficiencies sooner or later.
> 
> Not sure what conservative agenda has been advanced nationally since the creation of the Tea Parties, they got the Republican Party the House and Senate in 2010 and that's about it. The Tea Parties didn't put any conservatives on the Supreme Court and that is the only place at the federal level since 2009 that any conservative priorities have been advanced in even the slightest.
> 
> They have had a big impact on the GOP cleaning the Democratic Party's clock in statewide office races from Governor on down and in state legislative elections. At the state level the conservative agenda has been forwarded while the national level has been chicanery, poltroonery and failure.


It isn't just gay marriage, but also gay rights. Tea Party conservative side wants to take away the basic rights of gays, using them as the bogeyman to blame for social issues. Similar to how blacks were used in the 1950s and 1960s.

What is a better solution to combat rising healthcare costs and lower coverage in America then? Obamacare is not perfect but better than free Medicaid for all that the far left wanted.

Tea party movement has managed to push back LGBT rights in certain states with bullshit fear mongering and lowering access to abortions in other states with bullshit policies hiding behind claims of women health. Tea parties would have been able to put a conservative on the Supreme Court if the president isn't a liberal. Tea party manage to convince the GOP to fall in line to name a president as a lame duck president with 11 months left in the presidency to ignore appointing a replacement judge in the Supreme Court.

Tea Party has advanced the conservative agenda at state level, and many of those states appear to be worse off because of it. That's not to say states don't get worse off when politicians with far left agenda advance their cause either. It just show that leaders that care less about partisanship won't be handcuffed by special interests to saddle their states with bullshit policies that distract from actual administration work.

The tea party might have failed to advance those agenda at the national level so far because they are still a minority, but their attitude in government has led to increased partisanship on both sides which was what the original rant was about anyway.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*

Those are all social issues which I already conceded the right is not live-and-let-live on. Thank you for your valuable contribution.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> Warren is clearly an egomaniac with a huge lust for power. I'm sure she justifies not backing Bernie by thinking after Hillary is gone I'll be in charge of the Democratic Party and make Bernie proud but that's what they always tell themselves. If they do get power they never pick up the principles they earlier cast aside.
> 
> Almost all politicians at her level and above are egomaniacs with a huge lust for power but most of them are better at hiding it than she is.
> 
> She's also kind of dumb, who does she think pays the bulk of the taxes in this country. "You didn't build that." Ummm, okay. Where'd the money come from then?
> 
> 
> 
> What issues did the Tea Parties not let people live and let live on?
> 
> Gay marriage and Obamacare. On gay marriage both sides felt the other one wouldn't let them live and let live and both were right. Obamacare is pure corporatist shit and will collapse of its own weight and inefficiencies sooner or later.
> 
> Not sure what conservative agenda has been advanced nationally since the creation of the Tea Parties, they got the Republican Party the House and Senate in 2010 and that's about it. The Tea Parties didn't put any conservatives on the Supreme Court and that is the only place at the federal level since 2009 that any conservative priorities have been advanced in even the slightest.
> 
> They have had a big impact on the GOP cleaning the Democratic Party's clock in statewide office races from Governor on down and in state legislative elections. At the state level the conservative agenda has been forwarded while the national level has been chicanery, poltroonery and failure.



How is exactly is letting gays get married not letting conservatives live exactly? The right was totally wrong on the whole gay marriage thing they have always been wrong on it. I love how they claim OMG I can't block gays from getting married since I can't live. That does not make any sense. Or what about Abortion rights, the right thinks they can tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. They are telling her how to live. 

As for Obamacare, Obamacare is a right winged healthcare plan, it was based on Romneycare in Mass and also similar to what the GOP wanted in the 90s. . The real healthcare plan of the democrats was single payer, until the democratic party moved too far to the right. Hillary was for single payer back in 2008.

I love how the right acts like Obamacare is so bad when it's very similar to what they wanted, but because Obama put it into action they had to start to be against it.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Those are all social issues which I already conceded the right is not live-and-let-live on. Thank you for your valuable contribution.


Your candidate is now riding on the wave of anti-trade populist movement. Oops I meant pro fair trade because conservatives aren't anti-trade right? 

So conservatives aren't live and let live on economic issue either now. But then again one can spin any economic issues into a social issue. :shrug

Also, obstructions to debt ceiling being raised. :shrug


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Your candidate is now riding on the wave of anti-trade populist movement. Oops I meant pro fair trade because conservatives aren't anti-trade right?
> 
> So conservatives aren't live and let live on economic issue either now. But then again one can spin any economic issues into a social issue. :shrug
> 
> Also, obstructions to debt ceiling being raised. :shrug


Yeah none of this has anything to do with the American citizen's economic freedoms, and Trump's trade views are hardly universally praised among conservatives. It's also a gross mis-characterization to say he is "anti-trade" in any way. He wants better trade deals for America, not less trade. 

Mentioning the debt ceiling is just bizarre and irrelevant. You're out of your depth as usual in trying to play the anti-Trump advocate.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

:woah @ this thread being overrun by cucks during this pre-RNC down time. 

Here's an interesting video. Gavin McInnes de-constructs Aziz Ansari's grossly inaccurate anti-Trump _New York Times_ article:






And another, which reports on how that 16 year old black Trump supporter from a week or so ago has faced serious threats and racial abuse on twitter from black leftists, including taking pictures of him at work and posting the address as well as his shift times (I guess they had time to do all this as they had no jobs to get to themselves):






(You can also find a 30-minute interview on this same channel with the teenage trump supporter and one of his friends from the original confrontation)

Black lives matter, unless those blacks dare to go off the Democratic plantation.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



> It isn't just gay marriage, but also gay rights. Tea Party conservative side wants to take away the basic rights of gays, using them as the bogeyman to blame for social issues. Similar to how blacks were used in the 1950s and 1960s.


What are the basic rights of gays and can you list some laws or bills taking them away that the "Tea Party conservative side" has passed or introduced. By basic rights I assume you mean the rights everyone has under the Constitution and judicial rulings.



> What is a better solution to combat rising healthcare costs and lower coverage in America then? Obamacare is not perfect but better than free Medicaid for all that the far left wanted.


Nope nope nope. "What is a better solution?" is not a defense of the shitshow that is Obamacare. So tired of hearing that. It's a total dodge. I don't have to have a PB & J to know a shit sandwich and call it a shit sandwich. How many more lawsuits have to be filed by health insurance companies to get more government money because the exchanges aren't getting enough enrollment, how many more state exchanges have to be folded into the federal exchange system because they can't make it, how many more health insurance companies have to pull out, how many more projections of enrollment have to be missed, how many more narrow bullshit networks have to be set up with doctors still dropping out of them all the time, and how many more plans with ridiculous deductibles have to be foisted upon the public before it is significantly reformed. Obamacare is like some company health plan mandated by the evil corporate bastard HMO in a late 90s sitcom. 



> Tea party movement has managed to push back LGBT rights in certain states with bullshit fear mongering and lowering access to abortions in other states with bullshit policies hiding behind claims of women health. Tea parties would have been able to put a conservative on the Supreme Court if the president isn't a liberal. Tea party manage to convince the GOP to fall in line to name a president as a lame duck president with 11 months left in the presidency to ignore appointing a replacement judge in the Supreme Court.


It isn't alternate reality so what the Tea Parties could have done doesn't matter as much. 

Personally I don't think you get to use whatever restroom you feel like matches your identity regardless of your genitals, if I were a transgender I wouldn't give a fuck and use the restroom that matches my junk as a simple courtesy to everyone else, so transgenders should man the fuck up :draper2 

It's such a ridiculous issue, where you piss and shit. The dignity of pissing and shitting, really it's confounding that _this_ is what has been chosen to symbolize the struggle for transgenders. 

Abortion is wrong plain and simple, doing the doublethink do-si-do for the convenience of removing a huge consequence of recreational sex. There are literally dozens of ways to prevent impregnation, many of them cheap or easy to find free, there should be no need for abortion in an industrialized country except for health reasons and nonconsensual sex. Abortion is the biggest example of decadence that Western civilization has come up with yet. 

President Obama gave up his chance to get another supreme court justice about nine tantrums ago. No Republican politician needs any Tea Party to think he's a garbage president who shouldn't get his way ever. Maybe without conservative base outrage towards the "Establishment" he would have got a vote but he never would have got a confirmation. 



> Tea Party has advanced the conservative agenda at state level, and many of those states appear to be worse off because of it. That's not to say states don't get worse off when politicians with far left agenda advance their cause either. It just show that leaders that care less about partisanship won't be handcuffed by special interests to saddle their states with bullshit policies that distract from actual administration work.


Which states? 



> The tea party might have failed to advance those agenda at the national level so far because they are still a minority, but their attitude in government has led to increased partisanship on both sides which was what the original rant was about anyway.


Conservatives were bound to lose their tempers eventually after being treated like repulsive and creepy geeks non-stop by 90% of the media, news and entertainment, and 90% of Democrat politicians from the minute Bush v. Gore was decided. :trump 's only contribution to politics would be a politics themed season of The Apprentice if it hadn't been decided circa 2002 that one of the main strategies to take down American conservatism was going to be to endlessly fearmonger about, disdain, and mock those dumb ********. After 15, 16 years of being shit on and recently voting for such political tough guys as John McCain :lol and Mitt Romney :lol while the Democrats nominated one of the slickest and most insidious American demagogues of the post-war era in Barack Obama, those dumb ******** decided to find a demagogue of their own to vote for. 

John McCain running an 'honorable campaign' while Obama savaged him like a lion vs an 8 year old :duck 

Mitt Romney trying to run a rational campaign based on an economic message while Obama lied about him and baited him and generally :trump ed him for 5 months until Mitt honorably lost :duck

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

The seeds of Obama's style of campaigning and rhetorical chicanery have grown into :trump


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Yeah none of this has anything to do with the American citizen's economic freedoms, and Trump's trade views are hardly universally praised among conservatives. It's also a gross mis-characterization to say he is "anti-trade" in any way. He wants better trade deals for America, not less trade.
> 
> Mentioning the debt ceiling is just bizarre and irrelevant. You're out of your depth as usual in trying to play the anti-Trump advocate.


The debt ceiling thing isn't irrelevant as it was conservatives not living and letting live on economic issues. It was always raised with bi-partisan support as a formality until tea party movement decide to leverage it to advance their agenda.

Just like Trump's trade issues, it isn't universally shared idea among conservatives, but it still shows it is hardly liberals that are the ones that are the majority in not budging on issues.

Maybe I might be just out of my depth just like Trump is. Wasted a month to raise funds for his campaign in May when he all be won the nomination. Had to resort to an emergency internet fund raising campaign that made his campaign look incompetent once it leaked out that their email lists asking for donations included foreign politicians on it. Wonder how much more we will see before the convention later this month to show how out of depth he is.



deepelemblues said:


> What are the basic rights of gays and can you list some laws or bills taking them away that the "Tea Party conservative side" has passed or introduced. By basic rights I assume you mean the rights everyone has under the Constitution and judicial rulings.


Maybe I should have rephrased it to LGBT rights. The bills are taking away trans' right to use the bathroom they have always used without issue. If you want to argue about basic rights under the constitution as the only rights worth discussing, I don't think there is a right to privacy in public restrooms that is used to justify the bills anyway.




> Nope nope nope. "What is a better solution?" is not a defense of the shitshow that is Obamacare. So tired of hearing that. It's a total dodge. I don't have to have a PB & J to know a shit sandwich and call it a shit sandwich. How many more lawsuits have to be filed by health insurance companies to get more government money because the exchanges aren't getting enough enrollment, how many more state exchanges have to be folded into the federal exchange system because they can't make it, how many more health insurance companies have to pull out, how many more projections of enrollment have to be missed, how many more narrow bullshit networks have to be set up with doctors still dropping out of them all the time, and how many more plans with ridiculous deductibles have to be foisted upon the public before it is significantly reformed. Obamacare is like some company health plan mandated by the evil corporate bastard HMO in a late 90s sitcom.


Who says reforms for both the healthcare system and Obamacare can't be made over time to better suit the needs of the citizens? You can't deny the situation of healthcare costs and coverage is bad even before Obamacare. What really is the difference put forward by the conservative GOP? 





> It isn't alternate reality so what the Tea Parties could have done doesn't matter as much.


Nice dodge, because it takes a president to nominate someone.



> Personally I don't think you get to use whatever restroom you feel like matches your identity regardless of your genitals, if I were a transgender I wouldn't give a fuck and use the restroom that matches my junk as a simple courtesy to everyone else, so transgenders should man the fuck up :draper2


Then why not man the fuck up and ignore a made-up issue of predators disguising as trans to gain access to female restrooms?



> It's such a ridiculous issue, where you piss and shit. The dignity of pissing and shitting, really it's confounding that _this_ is what has been chosen to symbolize the struggle for transgenders.


Yeah it is a ridiculous issue that the conservative side fought for because they lost the war on gays rights to marriage so they decided to pick on another group of people to blame for social ills. Funny how so many of the same people are caught in sexual scandals.



> Abortion is wrong plain and simple, doing the doublethink do-si-do for the convenience of removing a huge consequence of recreational sex. There are literally dozens of ways to prevent impregnation, many of them cheap or easy to find free, there should be no need for abortion in an industrialized country except for health reasons and nonconsensual sex. Abortion is the biggest example of decadence that Western civilization has come up with yet.


So the better solution is for couples (or most likely the woman) to raise a child beyond their financial means? Not all contraception is foolproof. If you think abortion is wrong, what do you think of hiding behind women's health to promote anti-abortion? One the one hand you state abortion is wrong plain and simple, on the other hand you seem to think there is a need for abortions for health reasons and nonconsensual sex. So is it wrong for rape victims to ask for an abortion?



> President Obama gave up his chance to get another supreme court justice about nine tantrums ago. No Republican politician needs any Tea Party to think he's a garbage president who shouldn't get his way ever. Maybe without conservative base outrage towards the "Establishment" he would have got a vote but he never would have got a confirmation.


What is wrong with Merrick garland as Obama's choice? You complaining about Obama throwing tantrums is ironic when that is the Tea Party's default mode which even the establishment GOP couldn't stand. By your logic the tea party is garbage and shouldn't be allowed to nominate people like Ted Cruz or Michelle Bachmann for office.





> Which states?


Kansas for one. It isn't rocket science because most Republican-run state have politicians preaching for more tax cuts but without the accompanying cut in spending like they campaigned for. Or worse, they cut spending on important infrastructural stuff like education and welfare help produce productive talent for the local economy.




> Conservatives were bound to lose their tempers eventually after being treated like repulsive and creepy geeks non-stop by 90% of the media, news and entertainment, and 90% of Democrat politicians from the minute Bush v. Gore was decided. :trump 's only contribution to politics would be a politics themed season of The Apprentice if it hadn't been decided circa 2002 that one of the main strategies to take down American conservatism was going to be to endlessly fearmonger about, disdain, and mock those dumb ********. After 15, 16 years of being shit on and recently voting for such political tough guys as John McCain :lol and Mitt Romney :lol while the Democrats nominated one of the slickest and most insidious American demagogues of the post-war era in Barack Obama, those dumb ******** decided to find a demagogue of their own to vote for.


Seems like you have a chip on your shoulder and projecting it on people that don't share your opinions. How can you not mock things like creationism and people thinking Obama is a Muslim still?



> John McCain running an 'honorable campaign' while Obama savaged him like a lion vs an 8 year old :duck
> 
> Mitt Romney trying to run a rational campaign based on an economic message while Obama lied about him and baited him and generally :trump ed him for 5 months until Mitt honorably lost :duck
> 
> Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
> 
> The seeds of Obama's style of campaigning and rhetorical chicanery have grown into :trump


McCain lost the 'honorable campaign' defence once he nominated Sarah Palin as his VP.

Mitt Romney wasn't above the lying himself. The most damaging thing to Romney's campaign wasn't even a lie told by the democrats but the 47% BS that turned people off.

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, you can trace the roots of what you are blaming Obama on to Karl Rove in Bush vs Kerry.  It has come full circle back towards the Republicans now.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Here is the thing are they really forcing their agenda through or what they are paid to do from their big donors? People in the GOVT are supposed to do what the people want and what is best for them, but they never do, they do what they are paid to push through from wall st, NRA, Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, the Koch Bros want.


I think it largely depends on the politician in question. There is of course a huge element of political favours when it comes to both parties. Corruption is large in the US political scene as a whole and I think it would be silly to have a pissing contest on which party is more corrupt because at the end of the day it really doesn't matter when politicians from both sides are in bed with Wall Street, Big Banks, Corporations and the FED.

You have someone like Mike Huccabee for example who it is clear totally buys into wanting the US to live by more "Christian values". His views on Same-Sex Marriage are very much entirely genuine. Marco Rubio however is someone that is very much controlled by big business. He's had political donations from both the Koch Brothers and Goldman Sachs, hell he even bragged about how easy it is to get money in the current political system:






Then you have a guy like Rand Paul, like him or not who has been consistent on his big principles and positions: Limited Government, Auditing the Fed, Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy, Protecting the 4th Amendment etc.

Bernie someone who I dislike has also been largely consistent on his principles and positions too. So there are genuine people amongst the sea of sellout's in Washington.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> I think it largely depends on the politician in question. There is of course a huge element of political favours when it comes to both parties. Corruption is large in the US political scene as a whole and I think it would be silly to have a pissing contest on which party is more corrupt because at the end of the day it really doesn't matter when politicians from both sides are in bed with Wall Street, Big Banks, Corporations and the FED.
> 
> You have someone like Mike Huccabee for example who it is clear totally buys into wanting the US to live by more "Christian values". His views on Same-Sex Marriage are very much entirely genuine. Marco Rubio however is someone that is very much controlled by big business. He's had political donations from both the Koch Brothers and Goldman Sachs, hell he even bragged about how easy it is to get money in the current political system:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have a guy like Rand Paul, like him or not who has been consistent on his big principles and positions: Limited Government, Auditing the Fed, Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy, Protecting the 4th Amendment etc.
> 
> Bernie someone who I dislike has also been largely consistent on his principles and positions too. So there are genuine people amongst the sea of sellout's in Washington.


Well yes very true, most politicians have different donors so they answer to different people. Huckabee is bought out by big oil, but on the GOP side he is one of the least corrupt even though he forgets about the whole separation of church and state thing. So while he doesn't really push his donors values onto people, he does his religion.





deepelemblues said:


> What are the basic rights of gays and can you list some laws or bills taking them away that the "Tea Party conservative side" has passed or introduced. By basic rights I assume you mean the rights everyone has under the Constitution and judicial rulings.


Same sex marriage, SCOTUS made a ruling and republicans still try to make laws banning it or making a law to make it legal to allow their state to not marry gays. 

Also a basic human right does not have to be in the constitution. Marriage is a basic human right.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> You can't be serious in pinning issues on only the liberals side. The Tea Party movement from the conservative side choose to abandoned all concept of living and letting live on any issue. That attitude is not only prevalent on the liberal side. If anything, the liberal side just took inspiration from how the conservative movement were able to advance their agenda with real policies using that same attitude the last few years.


The Tea Party has been hijacked by the social conservatives and Moral Majority. The original idea of the Tea Party was to get the government to rein in spending like crazy. It didn't get its start when Obama took office, but in the final days of the Dubya's administration when he bullied Congress into a bailout that really hasn't done much other than barely hold up the government budget. That bailout was the reason I dropped the R off my voting registration. Along the way, the social conservatives have latched on as they feel they are being screwed also by the government. I can see that to an extent with how the concept of separation of Church and State has been taken in a direction that was not meant to be. You can't even mention God in the public square now with someone not being offended. 



L-DOPA said:


> Liz Warren masquerades as a progressive anti-establishment politician yet her reasons for supporting Hillary are very suspect. It's pretty clear she's looking for the VP spot at any cost. Feels like a power grab to me but then again I'm cynical and skeptical at heart.
> 
> Agreed with @birthday_massacre that many of the GOP are Authoritarian Big Government Neo-Con's/Social Conservatives. That of course is very obvious. I honestly do not trust Trump fully when it comes to foreign policy although he has come out with some views which happen to be correct. And Hillary is a warhawk, she's practically a Neo-Con herself.
> 
> As far as the GOP trying to prevent Same Sex Marriage etc. Government has always been the problem when it comes to these issues. They insist on having social contracts such as marriage under their jurisdiction when it's none of their damn business. Why do I need government to tell me that I can marry someone? It was government that prevented same-sex marriage to begin with. Both on Democrats and Republican sides. If I had it my way I'd take the state out of marriage legislature and make it an individual issue for religious institutes and marriage registrars. It has been obvious that there has been a demand for same-sex marriage for years before it got officially "legalized" and that there are many registrars and even religious institutions (more liberal ones obviously) which would be and are still more than happy to accommodate for same-sex couples. By the same token, those with more conservative views can still practice their religion in whatever way they see fit and not have to worry about being forced to conduct same-sex marriages against their will. Win-win for everyone.
> 
> The problem is both Liberals and Conservatives in many cases can't be grown up about these issues and take a live and let live attitude. They always have to try and use government to force through their agenda. Fuck that, I want to be left alone. If I were American I wouldn't want my marriage or guns registered in Washington.


Liz Warren is someone who is one of those that say that what Obama has done is not enough. Many of Sanders' followers are in that camp, and are not willing to work with the status quo. At the same time, the Dem establishment is afraid of showing themselves to be leaning too far left so as not to scare the general populace. They feel that if Trump gets in, Obamacare and a lot of the progress made in the last 8 years is gone. Warren would be seen as a bone to the Sanders brigade, plus sending a message to Trump that you have to battle two women now. 

I firmly agree that the federal government needs to get out of the business of micromanaging our lives. Marriage licenses are only there for taxation purposes really, to determine whether or not you are in this or that tax bracket. This is what the 10th Amendment is for, the feds handle the big shit and the rest left up to the states. If the GOP were to embrace that stance, they might be in a better spot. As Reagan said, "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Official Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> The Tea Party has been hijacked by the social conservatives and Moral Majority. The original idea of the Tea Party was to get the government to rein in spending like crazy. It didn't get its start when Obama took office, but in the final days of the Dubya's administration when he bullied Congress into a bailout that really hasn't done much other than barely hold up the government budget. That bailout was the reason I dropped the R off my voting registration. Along the way, the social conservatives have latched on as they feel they are being screwed also by the government. I can see that to an extent with how the concept of separation of Church and State has been taken in a direction that was not meant to be. You can't even mention God in the public square now with someone not being offended.


The original form of the Tea Party that you refer to had negligible impact on the political stage though. It wasn't until Obama was elected that the movement gained a huge following. I wonder why?  That was the type of movement and their way of doing things that I was referring to.

You also can't say Santa isn't white without someone being offended either. Persecution complex runs rampant in both the far left and the far right.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*










Trump is Modok now!

- Vic


----------



## LaMelo

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

I had a friend spot the Clinton family in New York over the weekend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

Hey, hey, hey.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

Only in America can a person who committed 110 felonies, one for each classified email, 8 of which were top secret, not be indicted. Pretty ironic this comes just days after Bill Clinton meets with Lynch for their secret meeting.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

Comey did confirm Hillary's assertion that she never sent classified emails from her personal server to be untrue.

Of the 30,000 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department in 2014, Comey announced that 110 emails in 52 separate chains had been determined to contain classified information “at the time they were sent or received,” *contradicting Clinton’s claim *that she neither sent nor received information that was deemed classified at the time. Looks like








is going to need new talking points.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



EL SHIV said:


> Comey did confirm Hillary's assertion that she never sent classified emails from her personal server to be untrue.
> 
> Of the 30,000 emails Clinton turned over to the State Department in 2014, Comey announced that 110 emails in 52 separate chains had been determined to contain classified information “at the time they were sent or received,” *contradicting Clinton’s claim *that she neither sent nor received information that was deemed classified at the time. Looks like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is going to need new talking points.


She will just lie and claim well I meant i didn't know they were classified that is why I said they were not. She will make up a new lie and her supporters will eat it up


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



birthday_massacre said:


> She will just lie and claim well I meant i didn't know they were classified that is why I said they were not. She will make up a new lie and her supporters will eat it up


This just reminds me of the quote from Animal Farm that "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." I hope they revoke her security clearance, but the system does seem rigged.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

So she's guilty of everything but she's above the law so it's fine. 






http://theantimedia.org/this-man-was-charged-after-committing-same-crimes-as-hillary-clinton/


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

The BernieBro and Trumppet tears are delicious.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



gamegenie said:


> The BernieBro and Trumppet tears are delicious.


Instead of your childish posts, can you even defend the FBI not indicting her? She broke the law 110 times. How can you defend that or are you ok with all the corruption that Hillary does?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

BM please stop getting trolled.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

The Tea Parties did not start in 2008, they started after Rick Santelli's rant on CNBC on February 19, 2009.

Dunno where people got this idea that they started in 2008 after the initial bailout bill. That certainly pissed many conservatives off as the final nail in the Dubya coffin, the straw that broke the camel's back as far as their decision to vote or not to vote for McCain, but there were no Tea Party rallies or the creation of any Tea Party organizations of any kind until 2009. There were a few rallies in late January and early February 2009 that were similar in nature to Tea Party rallies but they weren't conceived or carried out as part of some larger movement. They were held in response to the proposed Obama housing bailout and proposed Obamacare law. They weren't in response to Dubya.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



deepelemblues said:


> The Tea Parties did not start in 2008, they started after Rick Santelli's rant on CNBC on February 19, 2009.
> 
> Dunno where people got this idea that they started in 2008 after the initial bailout bill. That certainly pissed many conservatives off as the final nail in the Dubya coffin, the straw that broke the camel's back as far as their decision to vote or not to vote for McCain, but there were no rallies or the creation of any Tea Party organizations of any kind until 2009.


they probably mix up the bailout bill with Obama's home owners affordability plan. That is what was the main reason the tea party formed.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

Edward Snowden should have simply changed his surname to "Clinton."

I'm not a _National Review_ite, and it should be noted that _National Review_ has been about as anti-Trump as any self-styled "conservative publication," but this article is well-reasoned and points out just how absurd the FBI's rewriting of federal law is on behalf of the person who most indelibly personifies the present postmodern welfare-warfare state, Hillary Rodham Clinton: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

Also have to love Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton saying that they would "not do it again" (have their clandestine meeting). Of course not. They only needed the one meeting.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



DesolationRow said:


> Edward Snowden should have simply changed his surname to "Clinton."
> 
> I'm not a _National Review_ite, and it should be noted that _National Review_ has been about as anti-Trump as any self-styled "conservative publication," but this article is well-reasoned and points out just how absurd the FBI's rewriting of federal law is on behalf of the person who most indelibly personifies the present postmodern welfare-warfare state, Hillary Rodham Clinton: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook
> 
> Also have to love Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton saying that they would "not do it again" (have their clandestine meeting). Of course not. They only needed the one meeting.


Well, _obviously_ they couldn't do it by e-mail.

The rule of law in this country is dead. At least until a Republican is president again. Then all these people defending Hillary will suddenly rediscover their principles the first time that Republican breaks the law.

But of course most of them think a Republican will never be president again and that a Bernie Sanders type will never win a Democratic presidential nomination, they think their fantasies of an authoritarian, corporatist, technocratic, effectively one-party state are nearly achieved. They really think they're going to be in charge basically forever and no one who wants to hold them to account will ever have the power to do it. The whole country run in the corrupt one-party shitshow style of California or DeBlasio's NYC is their dream.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

Crooked Hillary escapes the curved, hollow fangs of the Centipede's justice? Sad!


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

Sad but wholly not surprising. How convenient that Bill meets up with General Attorney Lynch just days prior to the judgement as well...

Seriously fucked up court system you guys have.

On a lighter note, I saw this on Secular Talk the other day :lmao.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## SpeedStick

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

On Hillary/FBI Day, Trump goes out of his way to defend and praise Saddam Hussein? Trump is a false-flag candidate


----------



## Natecore

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

So ole Billy skirted prison time when he committed perjury as President and now little miss Hillary gets an FBI pardon.

Something fucking stinks.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

:lol Useful idiots talking about the Saddam comments that Trump has made at EVERY RALLY for the past 8-9 months (which are that Saddam was a BAD MAN but killed terrorists and kept stability in Iraq, all of which Democrats used to say ALL THE TIME back when they were anti-war). Clear misdirection from the Clinton camp to take the spotlight off their blatantly corrupt candidate.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/videos/10157263351880725/
@DesolationRow
@CamillePunk

Bruh.....


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

I hope nobody was shocked by this. Of course Hillary can do whatever the fuck she wants.


----------



## CJ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

Guilty as fuck but she still got away with everything :bunk



L-DOPA said:


> On a lighter note, I saw this on Secular Talk the other day :lmao.


:chlol


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



EL SHIV said:


>


Great video! Not for the content, oh that's top notch campaigning which the likes we haven't seen for a nominee since the 80s. 

But it's a nice source to see a lot of butt hurt Republicans commenting the most vile racist posts you'd ever see. 

and you guys on this forum wonder why Hillary is winning and your guy who like's to say he wins is ultimately losing. 


God don't like ugly. What goes around, comes around.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*






Val Venis is *PISSED!* Spread the video!

- Vic


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

the Big Valbowski has spoken.


----------



## Freelancer

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

It couldn't be any more obvious that Hillary got let off the hook here because of who she is. Which once again demonstrates how our countries laws differ depending on who you are. That being said, is anybody really surprised here? I think it's safe to say we all saw this coming.

As a lifelong democrat, I am officially done with them after this whole mess of an election. Im not ready to get behind Trump yet, but Hillary is making George W Bush look like FDR.


----------



## Mra22

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

So I guess the Clinton's are above the law???? Bunch of bull crap, she's guilty and so is Obama this whole thing is rigged ! I really hope Trump wins in November


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

It would be one thing if they couldn't find evidence...

Yet they did.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



gamegenie said:


> Great video! Not for the content, oh that's top notch campaigning which the likes we haven't seen for a nominee since the 80s.
> 
> But it's a nice source to see a lot of butt hurt Republicans commenting the most vile racist posts you'd ever see.
> 
> and you guys on this forum wonder why Hillary is winning and your guy who like's to say he wins is ultimately losing.
> 
> 
> God don't like ugly. What goes around, comes around.


How can you be a man of God but support Hilary who is a well known liar? It's a bit silly. Obama looked so silly in that video stammering around blaming Republicans when for three years Democrats had full control of the Government when he was first elected. It goes to show you neither side really care for the people. Democrats did nothing but blame Republicans when they had a chance to do what they wanted. It's hilarious that the Democrats would want a fraud like Hilary to be President. :grin2:


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

Bernie supporters are displeased with Comey as well. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/bernie-sanders-fbi-hillary-clinton-email/index.html


----------



## WalkingInMemphis

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



Freelancer said:


> As a lifelong democrat, I am officially done with them after this whole mess of an election. Im not ready to get behind Trump yet, but Hillary is making George W Bush look like FDR.


As a lifelong democrat who was starting to lean republican, ain't no fucking way I'm voting for Trump.

I ain't the biggest Clinton fan, but I will just have to hold my nose and push the button.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> How can you be a man of God but support Hilary who is a well known liar? It's a bit silly. Obama looked so silly in that video stammering around blaming Republicans when for three years Democrats had full control of the Government when he was first elected. It goes to show you neither side really care for the people. Democrats did nothing but blame Republicans when they had a chance to do what they wanted. It's hilarious that the Democrats would want a fraud like Hilary to be President. :grin2:


"A well known liar" ,did the media create that phrase for you to spin. 

In 2008, half of you foaming at the mouth that Hillary lost, you kept pressing PUMAs to do a revolt at the convention and pray that Obama would lose so she could run in 2012. 

8 years later, Hillary is now your enemy while Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin lover is your party's choice candidate. :grin2: Don't make me laugh.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



WalkingInMemphis said:


> As a lifelong democrat who was starting to lean republican, ain't no fucking way I'm voting for Trump.
> 
> I ain't the biggest Clinton fan, but I will just have to hold my nose and push the button.


Well for you since Hillary is leaning to the right with her policies you get the best of both worlds.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

shit like this actually makes conspiracy theories seem less absurd srs.

i really am serious.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

http://observer.com/2016/07/jared-kushner-the-donald-trump-i-know/

Donald Trump's Jewish son-in-law (Ivanka's husband) Jared Kushner speaks out against the left's latest exercise in slanderous distortion in suggesting Trump is somehow anti-Semitic. Masterful deconstruction of the left's anti-reality-based media campaign against The Donald ever since his campaign began. 

This line really sums up the anti-Trump movement, "It doesn’t take a ton of courage to join a mob. It’s actually the easiest thing to do. ". :done


----------



## Blackbeard

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

Hilary Clinton is a good lass. What an inspiration for women around the world. Consummate role model and historical leader in the making.

God bless you mam roud


----------



## virus21

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> It's hilarious that the Democrats would want a fraud like Hilary to be President. :grin2:


They want an oligarchy based around the left and Obama started that, so they want Hilary to finish it


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



WalkingInMemphis said:


> As a lifelong democrat who was starting to lean republican, ain't no fucking way I'm voting for Trump.
> 
> I ain't the biggest Clinton fan, but I will just have to hold my nose and push the button.


Vote 3rd party. Why on earth would you vote Republican or Democrat with how bad both options are. ESPECIALLY Hillary.

You have more than two choices, don't let the two party dictatorship continue when they haven't brought about any good presidential candidates since literally I've been old enough to care about politics.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



L-DOPA said:


> Vote 3rd party. Why on earth would you vote Republican or Democrat with how bad both options are. ESPECIALLY Hillary.
> 
> You have more than two choices, don't let the two party dictatorship continue when they haven't brought about any good presidential candidates since literally I've been old enough to care about politics.


While it is a nice thought, voting for a third party candidate is akin to choosing not to vote at all. There is no chance in hell that a third party candidate will ever make an impact in this country. H. Ross Perot saw to that years ago. The powers that be (the Democrats and Republicans) hold everything in their hands and will do everything in their power to keep it that way. That is why they only give us the candidates that *they *want us to vote for. Not the kind that *we *want.

I think the only chance we (as voters) have to turn things around is to force NOTA on the ballots for Primary voting. I don't see any other way (short of open revolt) to put a stop to what is happening. And I don't see that ever happening, so I guess we will always have the government that we deserve, no matter who we end up voting for.

If Hillary getting away with what she did regarding the emails doesn't wake up the populace to the agenda of the political machine at large, then I shudder to think what might actually do it. I hope we find out sooner rather than later, personally.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

http://fortune.com/2016/07/06/donald-trump-raised-more-than-50-million-in-june/

50 Million.


*B-B-B-BUT H-HE'S RUNNING OUT OF MONEY, GOYS!*:nerd:


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

So some of you would rather a criminal get in than someone who might hurt your feelings with words and get the USA back to relying on itself again.

Complacency is what could have cucked the UK.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Watching Donald Trump's Ohio rally today and he said "We're gonna take our country back for our African American youth with 59% unemployment", and the crowd erupted in cheer.

This is the strangest white supremacy rally EVER.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



L-DOPA said:


> Vote 3rd party. Why on earth would you vote Republican or Democrat with how bad both options are. ESPECIALLY Hillary.
> 
> You have more than two choices, don't let the two party dictatorship continue when they haven't brought about any good presidential candidates since literally I've been old enough to care about politics.


Which third party option should people vote for? Gary Johnson, who has completely sold out to the left and the globalists, saying Hillary and Obama are great people, he would sign TPP, and has embraced the leftist tactic of calling people he disagrees with racists? No thanks. Jill Stein, who would sacrifice our economy at the altar of environmentalism? No thanks. Nobody else will even be on the ballots in most states. 

Trump is the best viable candidate since Ronald Reagan, which isn't saying a LOT, but this narrative that he's somehow especially bad compared to recent candidates is horseshit hysteria drummed up by the leftist media who have distorted his comments time and time again to brand him a racist, and by the GOP establishment who are a bunch of fake conservatives and don't want a candidate who actually represents the party's base. 

A Trump victory is not a victory for the two-party system. The GOP leaders don't even want him to win. Vote Trump or stay home, IMO. He's the best option by far, not just this election cycle, but in the last 30 years.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> :lol Useful idiots talking about the Saddam comments that Trump has made at EVERY RALLY for the past 8-9 months (which are that Saddam was a BAD MAN but killed terrorists and kept stability in Iraq, all of which Democrats used to say ALL THE TIME back when they were anti-war). Clear misdirection from the Clinton camp to take the spotlight off their blatantly corrupt candidate.


What liberal commentator thought Saddam Hussein killed terrorists? I've been reading liberal op-eds on the Iraq War since the beginning and none are coming to mind. That would be pretty foolish.

Outside of Abu Nidal, I can't think of any terrorists Hussein killed (and Nidal was his houseguest for 20 years and was only killed because Hussein was convinced he planned to topple him). Did Hussein kill and gas thousands of Shia and Kurdish men, women and children who disliked him and pretended they were terrorists? Sure, he did that quite a bit. But what evidence does anyone have that Hussein - an actual state-sponsor of terrorism - killed terrorists?

It's another wild Trump theory, which is particularly sad because U.S. service members are currently aligned with Iraqi and Peshmerga forces to fight ISIS. It's not good form for a presidential candidate to praise Hussein's "terrorist"-killing tactics when our coalition is filled with the descendants of the people Hussein butchered. Why would they fight for a President Trump when he praises the deaths of their previous generations? Heck, Trump even said Hussein's gas tactics weren't a big deal recently, a heinous act that left many children deformed.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

You're right, the killing terrorists part isn't correct.

My point is these aren't new comments by Trump, and his point about Saddam maintaining relative stability compared to the effects of US intervention is correct and not his unique viewpoint but rather one Democrats and Libertarians have talked about for a long time (and Libertarians continued to talk about it after Obama's election), and they're only being talked about right now to draw attention away from Hillary's corruption.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



CamillePunk said:


> Which third party option should people vote for? Gary Johnson, who has completely sold out to the left and the globalists, saying Hillary and Obama are great people, he would sign TPP, and has embraced the leftist tactic of calling people he disagrees with racists? No thanks. Jill Stein, who would sacrifice our economy at the altar of environmentalism? No thanks. Nobody else will even be on the ballots in most states.
> 
> Trump is the best viable candidate since Ronald Reagan, which isn't saying a LOT, but this narrative that he's somehow especially bad compared to recent candidates is horseshit hysteria drummed up by the leftist media who have distorted his comments time and time again to brand him a racist, and by the GOP establishment who are a bunch of fake conservatives and don't want a candidate who actually represents the party's base.
> 
> A Trump victory is not a victory for the two-party system. The GOP leaders don't even want him to win. Vote Trump or stay home, IMO. He's the best option by far, not just this election cycle, but in the last 30 years.


if Bernie Sanders would run 3rd party, he could win, because he would get his 12-13 million votes plus all the independents, not to mention the voters who were suppressed in the primary, and a lot of the right winged voters would dont want to vote for Trump or Hillary. 

Sanders should run 3rd party and take Jill Stein as his VP to get her votes, as well but he would never do that because he knows if he did not win, it would mean certain victory for Trump since he would take alway more democrats than republicans.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



birthday_massacre said:


> if Bernie Sanders would run 3rd party, he could win, because he would get his 12-13 million votes plus all the independents, not to mention the voters who were suppressed in the primary, and a lot of the right winged voters would dont want to vote for Trump or Hillary.
> 
> Sanders should run 3rd party and take Jill Stein as his VP to get her votes, as well but he would never do that because he knows if he did not win, it would mean certain victory for Trump since he would take alway more democrats than republicans.


Still waiting for Bernie, the champion in the fight against corruption in Washington to comment on Bill Clinton meeting with the AG and Hillary being completely exposed as a serial liar by the FBI, only to not be indicted despite her guilt being affirmed in the FBI director's statement (the definition of gross negligence is "extreme carelessness").


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



CamillePunk said:


> Which third party option should people vote for? Gary Johnson, who has completely sold out to the left and the globalists, saying Hillary and Obama are great people, *he would sign TPP*, and has embraced the leftist tactic of calling people he disagrees with racists? No thanks. Jill Stein, who would sacrifice our economy at the altar of environmentalism? No thanks. Nobody else will even be on the ballots in most states.
> 
> Trump is the best viable candidate since Ronald Reagan, which isn't saying a LOT, but this narrative that he's somehow especially bad compared to recent candidates is horseshit hysteria drummed up by the leftist media who have distorted his comments time and time again to brand him a racist, and by the GOP establishment who are a bunch of fake conservatives and don't want a candidate who actually represents the party's base.
> 
> A Trump victory is not a victory for the two-party system. The GOP leaders don't even want him to win. Vote Trump or stay home, IMO. He's the best option by far, not just this election cycle, but in the last 30 years.


If what I bolded in your quote is true then I change my stance from voting 3rd party to just staying at home.

This US election cycle is so fucked :lmao.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



birthday_massacre said:


> if Bernie Sanders would run 3rd party, he could win, because he would get his 12-13 million votes plus all the independents, not to mention the voters who were suppressed in the primary, and a lot of the right winged voters would dont want to vote for Trump or Hillary.
> 
> Sanders should run 3rd party and take Jill Stein as his VP to get her votes, as well but he would never do that because he knows if he did not win, it would mean certain victory for Trump since he would take alway more democrats than republicans.


This makes it seem like you admit that Bernie might actually not be doing right by his voter base. Be careful.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



CamillePunk said:


> Still waiting for Bernie, the champion in the fight against corruption in Washington to comment on Bill Clinton meeting with the AG and Hillary being completely exposed as a serial liar by the FBI, only to not be indicted despite her guilt being affirmed in the FBI director's statement (the definition of gross negligence is "extreme carelessness").


As are most of Bernie' supporters, next to the voter fraud and suppression that was his biggest downfall in the primary, he never called Hillary out for her lies and corruption. She was lying about him and making up stuff and he never fought back, its the one thing that pissed me off about him. He could have easily exposed her for the fraud and corrupt candidate she is but he just kept with her taking money from wall st and that was it when he could have done so much more. 

he wouldn't even bring up all her flip flopping.

He wanted to win clean when Hillary was always playing dirty. I wish he would speak out about her, especially after the whole FBI thing but he probably won't even though she and all the so called democratic. are basically talking shit about him for being a true progressive. My guess is he does not want to feel to blame if he points all on her corruption if Trump beats her in the general, even though it would not be his fault for her shadiness

If only Bernie had some shit talking in him like Trump did, he probably would have ran away with it especially if he still up to the establishment media for all their lies about him. 

Sanders and Warren both should not be siding with Clinton, I am even more pissed at Warren for not backing Bernie during the primaries.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



L-DOPA said:


> If what I bolded in your quote is true then I change my stance from voting 3rd party to just staying at home.
> 
> This US election cycle is so fucked :lmao.







Starts talking about the TPP about 6 minutes in. The influence Bill Weld has had on the ticket is clear. Gary Johnson has sold out the Libertarian Party so he can lose by slightly less votes this time around.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



CamillePunk said:


> Still waiting for Bernie, the champion in the fight against corruption in Washington to comment on Bill Clinton meeting with the AG and Hillary being completely exposed as a serial liar by the FBI, only to not be indicted despite her guilt being affirmed in the FBI director's statement (the definition of gross negligence is "extreme carelessness").


the charge of 'carelessness' of managing of her emails was said by President Obama on Hillary 3 months ago on Fox News. 




The answer was given to you floons months ago. 


Did you honestly think the President was going to let you Republicans dictate and jeopardize his hand picked successor? :curry2


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/750887289375580160


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

GameGenie....

Devil worshiping?

Don't you see how outlandish a claim that is?


----------



## Slicked

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

Luke Skywalker = Donald Trump

Darth Vader = Bernie Sanders

Emperor Palpatine = Hillary Clinton


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



Beatles123 said:


> GameGenie....
> 
> Devil worshiping?
> 
> Don't you see how outlandish a claim that is?



only someone influenced by Satan would peddle such outlandish visceral false propaganda, and I see that from mostly Trump/Bernie supporters, that twitter account posts are filth, look at it.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



Slicked said:


> Luke Skywalker = Donald Trump
> 
> Darth Vader = Bernie Sanders
> 
> Emperor Palpatine = Hillary Clinton


Bernie doesn't have the balls to be any of those three. :lol Pretty sure one of those female BLM activists still has his balls in her purse.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

Everyone knows that Hillary Clinton is Darth Vader, Bill Clinton is Emperor Palpatine and Luke Skywalker is Barack Obama. 

This was established way back in 2008 by the Youtuber The Humantainment at a time when Hillary and Obama were bitter rivals in the primaries. 

Donald Trump = Jabba the Hutt
Bernie Sanders = Yoda


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Watching Donald Trump's Ohio rally today and he said "We're gonna take our country back for our African American youth with 59% unemployment", and the crowd erupted in cheer.
> 
> This is the strangest white supremacy rally EVER.


Our plan to win them to our side by offering them conformity has been exposed.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

Trump has a tonne of super pacs.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



Beatles123 said:


> https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/videos/10157263351880725/
> @DesolationRow
> @CamillePunk
> 
> Bruh.....


:hglol @AryaDark

Thank you for sharing, *Beatles*!



KC Armstrong said:


> I hope nobody was shocked by this. Of course Hillary can do whatever the fuck she wants.


This, I quickly came to realize upon the FBI director's statements, was the most appalling aspect of the entire matter: how I was not, in any way whatsoever, surprised. This is what I expected.

It's never a fun thing to find oneself ruefully chuckling at the thought of "America, the Exceptional Nation," or the idea that America is a land ruled by laws rather than men. We like to lie to ourselves, though. "Land of the Free" in a nation which surveys everyone, and we all know it? 

Comey was pitted against an intransigent collection, a veritable rogues gallery of political actors. Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and of course the sitting president, Barack Obama. 

Let there be no mistake. The "chance" meeting on the Arizona tarmac between Lynch and Bill Clinton; the virginal campaign trip for Obama with Hillary; Hillary's job offer to Lynch... These were, among other things, constituting a cluster of points which were intended to represent an overwhelming tide of intimidation for Mr. Comey. Comey had his chance but he lost his nerve. And who can truly blame him?

He and his wife have five children. America's reputation is, yet again, pulverized under the crushing weight of yet more evidence that the government which rules over the citizenry is only cosmetically much different from banana republics. The U.S. regime does everything with such smoothness, however. It is nothing if not relatively stable. 

Comey made his choice; his family will always be safe, and that family's financial future will probably be assured. Eric Cantor received almost three-and-a-half million dollars a year when he lost his seat in Congress. Before too long, Comey will be safely "outside" the ring of power, and like so many "public servants" and "law enforcement officers" and "national security advisers" before him, he'll probably have a fine job with Goldman Sachs. 

As the Chilcott Commission in Great Britain unveils the horrors of what duplicities Tony Blair and his inner circle perpetrated to lie his country into war with Iraq, and as the U.S. regime conspicuously and steadfastly refuses to ever even broach the matter with George W. Bush's merry band of deceitful, cowardly liars, what can one say anymore? An American who expects even a modicum of justice from his government is an American fool.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*






Kyle exposing the hypocrisy of some of the left in their hatred for Trump.

















Based Julie Borowski :banderas


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Watching Donald Trump's Ohio rally today and he said "We're gonna take our country back for our African American youth with 59% unemployment", and the crowd erupted in cheer.
> 
> This is the strangest white supremacy rally EVER.


But the media says it's like this







I only trust what TV TELLS ME !!!111!!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*


----------



## WalkingInMemphis

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Watching Donald Trump's Ohio rally today and he said "We're gonna take our country back for our African American youth with 59% unemployment", and the crowd erupted in cheer.
> 
> This is the strangest white supremacy rally EVER.


Excuse me whilst I change my voter registration card to (R). :ha


----------



## Jabez Makaveli

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

God, this is the worst presidential election ever. Such terrible choices to choose from.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

There's only one terrible choice and his name is in the title of this thread.


----------



## Cliffy

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Has hilary declared war on syria yet ?

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Trump has a tonne of super pacs.


https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00023864

btw the "Committee to Restore America's Greatness" is the funniest and greatest political organization name maybe ever


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



gamegenie said:


> There's only one terrible choice and his name is in the title of this thread.


Hey! "The" is a pretty nice guy!


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



L-DOPA said:


> Kyle exposing the hypocrisy of some of the left in their hatred for Trump.


Ah the smug sense of superiority and false objectivity from Secular Talk is as ever-present as ever. Trump never said or implied that Saddam *only* or even mostly killed terrorists. Nice to see him going after the hypocrisy of the left but he's got to work on not completely strawmanning people. 

Meanwhile, Gary Johnson has joined the reactionary outcry over the latest sketchy police shooting, which is fine, but he may not be the best messenger for the cause: 

Gary Johnson Says Alton Sterling's Shooting Could Be "Murder" But the Libertarian presidential candidate fails to recall "egregious police shootings" while he was governor of New Mexico.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/07/07/gary-johnson-says-alton-sterling-murder


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



Reaper said:


>


That about sums it up.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/750942945491062784


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

Watching James Comey's testimony to the House Oversight Committee today strengthened the ostensibly plain issue of how he was intimidated into, at once, listing all of the ways by which Hillary Clinton violated federal law, but, at the last moment, as though providing the presumptive Democratic nominee with a _deus ex machina_. It's truly reminiscent of stories stemming from scant documentation of Soviet show trials, but here rather than being spectacles intended to enmesh and convict certain enemies of the ruling class, here one major member of same is kept safe from prosecution and indictment.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286849-fbi-didnt-record-clinton-interview-no-sworn-oath



> Hillary Clinton did not swear an oath to tell the truth before meeting with the FBI for three and a half hours last weekend, and the interview was not recorded, FBI Director James Comey told House lawmakers on Thursday.
> 
> The lack of a sworn oath does not remove the possibility of criminal penalties against Clinton if she lied to the FBI, though he said he had “no basis to conclude” that she was untruthful.
> 
> “Still a crime to lie to us,” Comey told the House Oversight Committee.
> 
> FBI policy is not to record interviews as part of its investigations.
> 
> Yet the revelations will nonetheless raise questions among Republicans, who have been skeptical of the FBI’s investigation and have demanded to see the transcript of the former secretary of State’s interview in downtown Washington on Saturday.
> 
> “Well, that’s a problem,” Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) told Comey when the FBI chief explained the terms of the interview.
> 
> "It's pretty clear ... that the American people would like to see what Hillary Clinton said to the FBI," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters on Wednesday, a day before Comey’s appearance before House lawmakers.
> 
> Under FBI policy — and to the dismay of civil libertarians and staunch transparency advocates — the bureau does not conduct electronic recordings of interviews.
> 
> “Under the current policy, agents may not electronically record confessions or interviews, openly or surreptitiously” except in rare circumstances, the bureau said in a 2006 memo.
> 
> The FBI did, however, complete a federal form summarizing the interview, known as an FD-302, Comey said.
> 
> Mica recommended that a copy of that summary be provided to the Oversight Committee.
> 
> Comey himself was not among the “five or six” agents who interviewed Clinton, he testified on Thursday. But he assured lawmakers that Clinton told the truth throughout the session.
> 
> "I don’t think the agents assessed she was evasive," he added.


http://www.politico.com/blogs/james...07/clinton-untrue-statements-fbi-comey-225216



> Comey challenges truthfulness of Clinton's email defenses
> 
> By Nick Gass
> 
> 07/07/16 11:10 AM EDT
> 
> Updated 07/07/16 11:38 AM EDT
> 
> FBI Director James Comey confirmed on Thursday that some of Hillary Clinton's statements and explanations about her email server to the House Benghazi Committee last October were not true, as evidenced by the bureau's investigation into whether she mishandled classified information.
> 
> During an extended exchange with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), Comey affirmed that the FBI's investigation found information marked classified on her server even after Clinton had said that she had neither sent nor received any items marked classified.
> 
> "That is not true," Comey said. "There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents."
> 
> Asked whether Clinton's testimony that she did not email "any classified material to anyone on my email" and "there is no classified material" was true, Comey responded, "No, there was classified material emailed."
> 
> "Secretary Clinton said she used one device. Was that true?" Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered, "She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state."
> 
> Gowdy then asked whether it was true that Clinton, as she said, returned all work-related emails to the State Department.
> 
> "No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned," Comey said.
> 
> "Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account. Was that true?" Gowdy asked.
> 
> "That's a harder one to answer," Comey responded. "We found traces of work-related emails in, on devices or in slack space. Whether they were deleted or whether when a server changed out something happened to them, there is no doubt that the work-related emails that were removed electronically from the email system."
> 
> Gowdy asked whether Clintons' lawyers read every one of her emails as she had said. Comey replied, "No."
> 
> "In interest of time, because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through anymore of the false statements but I am going to ask you put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements, they are used for what?" Gowdy inquired.
> 
> Comey responded, "Either for the substantive prosecution or for evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution."
> 
> "Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right? Is that right?" Gowdy asked. "Consciousness of guilt and intent. In your old job you would prove intent as you just referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record, and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and I just talked about, or certainly the failure to preserve. Would you argue all that under heading of content--intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme, when it started, when it ended and number of emails, whether they were originally classified or up-classified, you would argue all of that under the heading of intent. You would also probably under common scheme or plan argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal. Two days ago, director, you said a reasonable person in her should have known a private email is no place to send and receive classified information. You're right."
> 
> "An average person does know not to do that. This is no average person," Gowdy said. "This is a former first lady, a former United States senator, and a former secretary of state that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but he says it now. She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account. She kept these private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account."
> 
> He continued, "So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office. Thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was in fact hacked, and you don't know whether or not she was. And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent."
> 
> "You say careless but not intentionally. You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove," Gowdy continued. "Very rarely do defendants announce, 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.' It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence, or if you're Congress and you realize how difficult it is to prove specific intent, you will formulate a statute that allows for gross negligence."
> 
> Remarking that his time had expired, Gowdy said he still feared that there was no precedent for criminal prosecution for future cases similar to Clinton.
> 
> "And my real fear is this, this is what [Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)] touched upon, this double tracked justice system rightly or wrong hey perceived this country, that if you are a private in the Army and you email yourself classified information, you will be kicked out but if you are Hillary Clinton and you seek a promotion to commander-in-chief, you will not be," Gowdy concluded. "So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand, why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be."
> 
> Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/james...rue-statements-fbi-comey-225216#ixzz4DlJD8myc
> Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook


The last fifteen years have seen the U.S. government shred whatever was left of the U.S. Constitution as well as make the ordinary traveling American's life a living hell from one airport to another, authorize domestic surveillance programs and irrevocably alter how much latitude U.S. federal authorities have. All in the name of national security. 

For one fleeting moment, I suppose I appreciate the caliginously pitch black humor in all of it.


----------



## Slicked

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I dont understand why people think Trump hates African-Americans so much,he doesnt he has had business relations with several African-Americans before.


----------



## Slicked

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

Trump wasnt glorifying Saddam in any way, he acknowledged he was a horrible person before he said it, people really need to calm down on Trump, hes just a nice guy who wants to help our country.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Apologies if already posted

http://antiwar.com/blog/2016/07/07/trump-saddam-and-the-presumption-of-innocence/



> The horrifying thing about Trump’s recent remarks about Saddam Hussein is not that he expressed admiration for the late Iraqi dictator – in fact Trump called him a “bad guy” three times. What is horrifying is that Trump seemed envious that Saddam could “kill terrorists” without due process – the most important element of which is the presumption of innocence, which places the burden of proof of guilt squarely on the government’s shoulders. “He killed terrorists” Trump said of Saddam. “He did that so good. They didn’t read them the rights. They didn’t talk.” (Emphasis added.)
> 
> 
> This should concern any Trump fans who believe that criminal suspects should be protected against the state. Trump was clearly signaling that he wants the government (which of course he aspires to run) to have the power to kill people suspected of planning or having committed politically motivated violence against noncombatants. Let’s be clear: Trump wasn’t endorsing capital punishment for convicted terrorists. (I ignore here the objections to state executions.) He was praising the killing of suspected terrorists without charge or trial in which the prosecution has the burden of proof. Dictators always find due process an obstacle to efficient and decisive action against threats real and imagined. But Americans supposedly believe that the rights of the accused are more important than the state’s convenience.
> 
> The securing of due process was the result of a nearly thousand-year struggle against western tyrants. It is certainly true that due process has been badly eroded, especially since 9/11. But this is the first time I can recall a presidential candidate celebrating a dictator’s freedom from due-process constraints at a campaign rally. This certainly distinguishes Trump from his predecessors and opponents. That the throng, wearing their Make America Great Again caps, responded enthusiastically is ominous indeed.
> 
> Trump’s remarks are consistent with his earlier expressions of admiration for the “strength” of despots such as North Korea’s Kim Jung Un and the Chinese rulers who slaughtered pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square. The remarks also flesh out his promise to use water-boarding and more against terrorism suspects and his belief that the families of suspects should also be killed.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/08/us/politics/donald-trump-president.html

Would Donald Trump Quit if He Wins the Election? He Doesn’t Rule It Out

The traditional goal of a presidential nominee is to win the presidency and then serve as president.

Donald J. Trump is not a traditional candidate for president.

Presented in a recent interview with a scenario, floating around the political ether, in which the presumptive Republican nominee proves all the naysayers wrong, beats Hillary Clinton and wins the presidency, only to forgo the office as the ultimate walk-off winner, Mr. Trump flashed a mischievous smile.

“I’ll let you know how I feel about it after it happens,” he said minutes before leaving his Trump Tower office to fly to a campaign rally in New Hampshire.

It is, of course, entirely possible that Mr. Trump is playing coy to earn more news coverage. But the notion of the intensely competitive Mr. Trump’s being more interested in winning the presidency than serving as president is not exactly a foreign concept to close observers of this presidential race.

Early in the contest, his rivals, Republican operatives and many reporters questioned the seriousness of his candidacy. His knack for creating controversy out of thin air (this week’s edition: the Star of David Twitter post) and his inclination toward self-destructive comments did not instill confidence in a political culture that values on-message discipline in its candidates.

Those doubts dissipated after Mr. Trump vanquished his Republican opponents and locked up the nomination.

“I’ve actually done very well,” Mr. Trump said. “We beat 18 people, right?”

But as the race has turned toward the general election and a majority of polls have shown Mr. Trump trailing Mrs. Clinton, speculation has again crept into political conversations in Washington, New York and elsewhere that Mr. Trump will seek an exit strategy before the election to avoid a humiliating loss.

Continue reading the main story

Presidential Election 2016
The latest news and analysis of the candidates and issues shaping the presidential race.
Next Up for Donald Trump’s Running-Mate Tryouts: Chris Christie
JUL 7
Email Issue Only Hardens Political Views in Philadelphia Suburbs
JUL 7
Bernie Sanders Is Expected to Endorse Hillary Clinton Next Week
JUL 7
Peacemaking Goes Awry as Donald Trump Lashes Out at G.O.P. Senators
JUL 7
Democrats Plan Early Attacks Tying G.O.P. Candidates to Trump
JUL 7
See More »

Now he is refusing to rule out an even more dramatic departure, one that would let him avoid the grueling job of governing, return to his business and enjoy his now-permanent status as a news media celebrity.

2016 Election Polls
Get the latest national and state polls on the presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump.


Told of Mr. Trump’s noncommittal comment, Stuart Stevens, a senior adviser to Mitt Romney in 2012 who has become one of Mr. Trump’s most vocal critics, said that Mr. Trump was “a con man who is shocked his con hasn’t been called” and that he was looking for an emergency exit.

“He has no sense of how to govern,” Mr. Stevens said. “He can’t even put together a campaign.”

Even Mr. Trump’s supporters acknowledge that his past campaigns had the air of a vanity tour. That impression lingers. A recent Trump news release promising “a speech regarding the election” prompted many reporters and political fortunetellers to predict a declaration of his departure. But just the fact that a routine news release prompted paroxysms of conjecture throughout the political universe suggested that, as Mr. Trump might say, “there’s something going on.”

Mr. Trump’s campaign and his supporters dismiss the talk as the fantasizing of frightened liberals or frustrated establishment figures.

“He’s not going to pull out,” said Thomas Barrack Jr., a financier and real estate investor who is a close friend of Mr. Trump’s. He compared Mr. Trump’s candidacy to an innovative start-up company: “You never see disruption when it’s happening.”

In Mr. Trump’s case, the disruption is everywhere. Last fall, he said in television interviews that if his standing collapsed in the Republican primary polls, he could very well return to his business. In mid-June, amid an onslaught of negative news coverage, he joked to a crowd that he would consider leaving the race for $5 billion.

On the off chance he actually is planning to back out, what would happen?

Alexander Keyssar, a historian at Harvard who is working on a book about the Electoral College, said the process of succession would depend on “the precise moment at which he said, ‘Nah, never mind.’”

The party representatives who make up the Electoral College would suddenly have real power rather than a rubber stamp. If Mr. Trump bowed out after winning on Nov. 8 but before the electors met in each state to cast their ballots on Dec. 19, then the electors could have the opportunity to vote for another candidate, Professor Keyssar said.

A majority of the 538 electors would be Republicans, but they might not agree on the best alternative candidate. If no one won a majority of the electors, the contest between the top three vote-getters — one of whom would presumably be Mrs. Clinton — would go to the House of Representatives, where each state would be given one vote, while the Senate would select the vice president. House Republicans hold 33 states to the Democrats’ 14, with three evenly split. It is unclear whether the vote would take place before or after newly elected representatives were seated.

First Draft Newsletter
Subscribe for updates on the 2016 presidential race, the White House and Congress, delivered to your inbox Monday - Friday.


It is also unclear what would happen, Professor Keyssar said, if Mr. Trump bid adieu after the electoral votes were cast but before they were officially counted, per the 12th Amendment, by the president of the Senate before a joint session of Congress in January. And if Mr. Trump left after the votes were counted in Congress but before he was sworn in on Jan. 20, Professor Keyssar said the closest guidance would probably come from Section Three of the 20th Amendment: “If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the president, the president-elect shall have died, the vice president-elect shall become president.”

“Nothing like this has ever happened,” Professor Keyssar said.

And nothing like it will this year, Mr. Trump’s supporters say.

“It’s going to be too late by then,” Roger Stone, Mr. Trump’s longtime political adviser, said of the go-out-on-top theory. “If he got elected president, he’d certainly serve. I’m fairly certain about that. You think he’d resign? I don’t see that happening. There is only one star in the Donald Trump show, and that’s Donald Trump.”

Russell Verney, a former top strategist for Ross Perot, the Texas billionaire who abruptly pulled out of the 1992 election, only to re-enter and win 19 percent of the vote, said that outsider candidates were more vulnerable to questions about their resolve.

“It never would be a subject raised with Romney and others, because the presidency is the ultimate goal of their entire professional career,” said Mr. Verney, who conferred with Mr. Trump during his exploration of a presidential run in 2000, during which, he said, Mr. Trump expressed reservations about selling his casinos to fund his campaign. “Donald Trump has not worked toward being president every day of his professional career.”

Mr. Trump’s supporters point out that he has begun adopting the more traditional trappings of a presidential campaign: a fund-raising operation, policy ideas, prepared speeches.

“This is silly,” said Sean Spicer, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, which has tried hard to make the Trump campaign more professional. “He’s in it to win it.” 

But the only person who could truly put any doubts to rest seemed instead to relish the idea of keeping everyone guessing, concluding the recent conversation with a you’re-on-to-something grin and handshake across his cluttered desk.

“We’ll do plenty of stories,” Mr. Trump promised enigmatically. “O.K.?”


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

As long as Hillary stay out of the White House, I don't care if Trump puts it up for sale or puts a casino in it after he gets elected. And if he were to walk away like that after winning I would laugh my ass off.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

I'm just gonna post memes in here because there's really no point wasting any intellectual energy on this election anymore. Hillary comes into power, nothing changes because she and obama are one and the same. Trump comes into power, he tries to change a bunch of things, nothing happens because he'll be cock-blocked at every turn. 

What's the point? Might as well elect a baked potato into office.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



Pratchett said:


> As long as Hillary stay out of the White House, I don't care if Trump puts it up for sale or puts a casino in it after he gets elected. And if he were to walk away like that after winning I would laugh my ass off.


Maybe that's his secret plan all along, if he wins and refuses to take office the vice president-elect becomes the president-elect. Or if he takes office and immediately resigns same thing, his VP becomes president.

I'd laugh so hard at all the GOP Never :trump ers if he picks some strong conservative as VP, wins, then hands over the presidency to that VP :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



Reaper said:


> I'm just gonna post memes in here because there's really no point wasting any intellectual energy on this election anymore. Hillary comes into power, nothing changes because she and obama are one and the same. Trump comes into power, he tries to change a bunch of things, nothing happens because he'll be cock-blocked at every turn.
> 
> What's the point? Might as well elect a baked potato into office.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*






:lol


----------



## Slicked

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

New Anthem if Hillary gets elected !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7pbnTI1_LM


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

So, these are my choices...

...


...


It's been fun.


----------



## Slicked

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



ManiacMichaelMyers said:


> So, these are my choices...
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> It's been fun.


Why dont you just go to Canada if you dont like either Candidate ?


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



Slicked said:


> Why dont you just go to Canada if you dont like either Candidate ?


:hmm: Maybe! That does seem to be a trend nowadays.









I wonder how the characters of Sesame Street will vote...

Hey Elmo, who are you voting for? 
HILLARY! NO...TRUMP! NO..HILLARY! NO! TRUMP! 
NO...NO....NOoOoOoOoO.....


----------



## Magic

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



Slicked said:


> Why dont you just go to Canada if you dont like either Candidate ?


Hopefully Canada does something to prevent many Americans from moving over here.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

This is gonna be the craziest election ever. If Hil wins, i go back to being the political whipping boy of the left, as they attempt to erase my very existence.

But if Trump wins......


IF TRUMP WINS......

:banderas2


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



Showtime said:


> Hopefully Canada does something to prevent many Americans from moving over here.


BUILD A WALL! :lol


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



FriedTofu said:


> BUILD A WALL! :lol


No doubt the people that would want to come over to Canada if Trump wins are the worst kind of people we have. Hope they enjoy our shitty celebs. :nerd::quite


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

Beatles123, Who do you think Trump will make his VP: Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie, or Sarah Palin?


I think Hillary ought to select Chuck Hagel as her VP.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



Reaper said:


> I'm just gonna post memes in here because there's really no point wasting any intellectual energy on this election anymore. *Hillary comes into power, nothing changes because she and obama are one and the same. *Trump comes into power, he tries to change a bunch of things, nothing happens because he'll be cock-blocked at every turn.
> 
> What's the point? Might as well elect a baked potato into office.


Glad you come on board to reality.


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

My earliest assessment of this election was "The Shnook Vs. The Crook" and it pretty much lived up to that. 

Donald is a joke at this point. He just says whatever outrageous thing he wants and the media just gravitates to it and talks about it to no end, giving him exactly what he wants. 

And then Hilary....yeah...OK, I work in Cyber Security and I know that what she did was a BIG no-no and I don't work with anywhere near the level of sensitive information that the Security of State has access too. The fact that she got off just irritates me and furthers my jaded belief that politicians and celebrities are somehow above the law.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



gamegenie said:


> Glad you come on board to reality.


What do you mean by that? I'm still not supporting Hillary no matter what. Trump is still the better candidate, but I'd rather vote a baked potato into office.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



> Originally Posted by Showtime View Post
> Hopefully Canada does something to prevent many Americans from moving over here.


Thankfully (for Canada) Americans don't give a fuck about Canadians talking shit.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



gamegenie said:


> Beatles123, Who do you think Trump will make his VP: Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie, or Sarah Palin?
> 
> 
> I think Hillary ought to select Chuck Hagel as her VP.


I'd settle for Jeff Sessions. As long as whoever it is isn't a globalist shill designed to coddle Trump like GHWB was for Reagan.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



TripleG said:


> My earliest assessment of this election was "The Shnook Vs. The Crook" and it pretty much lived up to that.
> 
> Donald is a joke at this point. He just says whatever outrageous thing he wants and the media just gravitates to it and talks about it to no end, giving him exactly what he wants.
> 
> And then Hilary....yeah...OK, I work in Cyber Security and I know that what she did was a BIG no-no and I don't work with anywhere near the level of sensitive information that the Security of State has access too. The fact that she got off just irritates me and furthers my jaded belief that politicians and celebrities are somehow above the law.


Donald is a master at using the media. Branding has been a huge strength of his as well.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



Beatles123 said:


> This is gonna be the craziest election ever. If Hil wins, i go back to being the political whipping boy of the left, as they attempt to erase my very existence.
> 
> But if Trump wins......
> 
> 
> IF TRUMP WINS......
> 
> :banderas2


Hillary is center right , she is no where close to the left


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Hillary is center right , she is no where close to the left


Hillary is a classic example of just how far away Americans are from liberalism where her brand of politics is considered left. 

In most European countries, Hillary would be considered a right wing conservative especially given her foreign policy. 

That said, in most reasonable countries, she'd be behind bars and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



Reaper said:


> Hillary is a classic example of just how far away Americans are from liberalism where her brand of politics is considered left.
> 
> In most European countries, Hillary would be considered a right wing conservative especially given her foreign policy.
> 
> That said, in most reasonable countries, she'd be behind bars and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.


She is not considered left by true libs or progressives, she even admitted she was a moderate not too long ago, the only reason why she had to pretend she was left was because of Bernie Sanders. But now that she does not have to go up against him, she is moving back to the right and we saw that with how her delegates who do her bidding, put on the DNC platform, pro TPP, Pro Fracking, and anti carbon tax. 

Its pretty sad when in the so called democratic party, you have people on the left and the right. Any true lib or progressive knows Hillary is right winged and not left winged.

Hell she was not even for same-sex marriage until a few years ago.

Also well not in every country, because in the UK they have Tony Blair and he is as corrupt as Hillary.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*






Trump should just drop a mixtape instead.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*










:lmao

Brilliance.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

Is there anyone that actually wants to vote for either of these douchebags? 

On one hand you have a war criminal who is the favorite of the neocon war mongers that got us into our international mess. In a world with justice she, W Bush, Cheney and Obama would be on trial at the Hague for the war crimes they are responsible.

On the other hand you have a realty show host. 

The only sure thing regardless of which one of these zeros is elected: We Americans lose.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

:lol @L-DOPA
@Beatles123 @CamillePunk

A surprise for Trump's VP?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/751820841667600384


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



ChicagoFit said:


> Is there anyone that actually wants to vote for either of these douchebags?
> 
> On one hand you have a war criminal who is the favorite of the neocon war mongers that got us into our international mess. In a world with justice she, W Bush, Cheney and Obama would be on trial at the Hague for the war crimes they are responsible.
> 
> On the other hand you have a realty show host.
> 
> The only sure thing regardless of which one of these zeros is elected: We Americans lose.


If all you've got to say about Trump is that he's a "reality show host", then you don't seem to have much reason to think he's a bad candidate. :lol 
@DesolationRow I'm pretty indifferent to Trump's VP pick at this point. Whoever it is I'm either gonna be disappointed or not care. It won't be Rand or anyone like him so yeah, meh.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Hillary is center right , she is no where close to the left


Not to anyone actually on the right. We have NEVER liked her or Bill.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



CamillePunk said:


> If all you've got to say about Trump is that he's a "reality show host", then you don't seem to have much reason to think he's a bad candidate. [emoji38]
> 
> @DesolationRow I'm pretty indifferent to Trump's VP pick at this point. Whoever it is I'm either gonna be disappointed or not care. It won't be Rand or anyone like him so yeah, meh.


Like Clinton he's been on both sides of almost every social issue. 

They're two of the least genuine people on the planet who only "stand for" whatever they need to in order to get elected. Neither are trustworthy. 

I cannot relate to either of them politically. 

The only advantage that Trump has in my opinion is that he has not committed war crimes and he is not aligned with the radical neocon foreign policy agenda; Clinton is both. 

I believe that if the Democrats were wise they would have nominated Bernie and he would have won the presidency in a landslide bigger than Reagan in 84.

If Trump wants to win, he'll convince Tulsi Gabbard to be his running mate forming a bipartisan ticket. Her critique of Clinton's radical, illegal war supporting history and other foreign policy failures alone would result in Gabbard putting Trump over the top.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



ChicagoFit said:


> Like Clinton he's been on both sides of almost every social issue.
> 
> They're two of the least genuine people on the planet who only "stand for" whatever they need to in order to get elected. Neither are trustworthy.
> 
> I cannot relate to either of them politically.
> 
> The only advantage that Trump has in my opinion is that he has not committed war crimes and he is not aligned with the radical neocon foreign policy agenda; Clinton is both.
> 
> I believe that if the Democrats were wise they would have nominated Bernie and he would have won the presidency in a landslide bigger than Reagan in 84.
> 
> If Trump wants to win, he'll convince Tulsi Gabbard to be his running mate forming a bipartisan ticket. Her critique of Clinton's radical, illegal war supporting history and other foreign policy failures alone would result in Gabbard putting Trump over the top.


You're only crotchriding Tulsi because she criticized Hillary. 

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/28/dnc...ntons_interventionist_regime_change_policies/

She's no saint either. Salon spilled the tea on her tail too. 



> Congresswoman Gabbard herself is by no means a dove. She has twice fought in U.S. wars in Iraq — including after the U.S. carried a regime change operation against Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003.
> The Hawaii representative has also been accused of Islamophobia, and has ties to India’s anti-Muslim, Hindu nationalist BJP party.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



Beatles123 said:


> Not to anyone actually on the right. We have NEVER liked her or Bill.


Does mean she is not center right.

Most of the GOP and a lot of GOP voters dont like Trump and he is on the right.





ChicagoFit said:


> Like Clinton he's been on both sides of almost every social issue.
> 
> They're two of the least genuine people on the planet who only "stand for" whatever they need to in order to get elected. Neither are trustworthy.
> 
> I cannot relate to either of them politically.
> 
> The only advantage that Trump has in my opinion is that he has not committed war crimes and he is not aligned with the radical neocon foreign policy agenda; Clinton is both.
> 
> I believe that if the Democrats were wise they would have nominated Bernie and he would have won the presidency in a landslide bigger than Reagan in 84.
> 
> If Trump wants to win, he'll convince Tulsi Gabbard to be his running mate forming a bipartisan ticket. Her critique of Clinton's radical, illegal war supporting history and other foreign policy failures alone would result in Gabbard putting Trump over the top.


Trump said he would commit war crimes, he said he would use torture and bomb women and children of terrorist.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Does mean she is not center right.
> 
> Most of the GOP and a lot of GOP voters dont like Trump and he is on the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump said he would commit war crimes, he said he would use torture and bomb women and children of terrorist.


So in other words, Wah, my feelings!

Why do you sympathize with those people?


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

We have talked about Hillary Clinton, her corruption and the FBI director James Comey who did the "investigation" into her but does anyone want to hazard a guess who was the ONLY person in Washington who opposed him?

It wasn't Hillary (duh), it wasn't Elizabeth Warren, it wasn't even Bernie Sanders.....


http://rare.us/story/remember-when-...person-in-washington-who-opposed-james-comey/


I will gladly say for this reason and a million others that the US and the Republican supporters are absolute idiots for not getting behind Rand.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

Clinton is American centre left, globally speaking centre right, but that's not her fault, I'm sure she'd be more publicly left wing if it were more electable.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



Reaper said:


> Hillary is a classic example of just how far away Americans are from liberalism where her brand of politics is considered left.
> 
> In most European countries, Hillary would be considered a right wing conservative especially given her foreign policy.
> 
> *That said, in most reasonable countries, she'd be behind bars and we wouldn't even be having this conversation*.


Lol in most reasonable countries, the whole Americal political system would be highly illegal.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Left blog has left opinion.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



Beatles123 said:


> So in other words, Wah, my feelings!
> 
> Why do you sympathize with those people?


Your post does not even make sense. Clinton is center right based on her policies, you claimed that you and your party have never liked Bill which is irrelevant to her being center right. 
I then said that Trump is on the right and most people in the GOP don't even like him then you come back with *", Wah, my feelings!"*

And sympathize with what people?


----------



## Ygor

Some people may be shocked but Donald Trump is going to win possibly in a landslide. There is no enthusiasm behind Hillary and, despite the polls, she will find a way to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. I think people will see through her insincere pandering also realizing what a pathological liar she is.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



Ygor said:


> Some people may be shocked but Donald Trump is going to win possibly in a landslide. There is no enthusiasm behind Hillary and, despite the polls, she will find a way to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. I think people will see through her insincere pandering also realizing what a pathological liar she is.


What else do you see in that crystal ball of yours?


----------



## Ygor

gamegenie said:


> Ygor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people may be shocked but Donald Trump is going to win possibly in a landslide. There is no enthusiasm behind Hillary and, despite the polls, she will find a way to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. I think people will see through her insincere pandering also realizing what a pathological liar she is.
> 
> 
> 
> What else do you see in that crystal ball of yours?
Click to expand...

That water is wet and Saudi Arabia is a terrorist nation who was behind 9/11.


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

Clinton sucks, can't wait to see her get them perjury charges. :trump


----------



## .MCH

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Clinton is American centre left, globally speaking centre right, but that's not her fault, I'm sure she'd be more publicly left wing if it were more electable.


Hillary is as liberal as Sanders is, she just came from the era where you couldn't go too far to the left. Democrats were told they'd never win another election again. Then Clinton came in as more moderate and turned that around. Plus Hillary's healthcare proposal in the 90's cost dems the house for the first time in decades. That's likely why she's afraid to move too far to the left on issues. But the country has become far more liberal since that time (and more divided). 



Ygor said:


> Some people may be shocked but Donald Trump is going to win possibly in a landslide. There is no enthusiasm behind Hillary and, despite the polls, she will find a way to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. I think people will see through her insincere pandering also realizing what a pathological liar she is.


Yeah, that's not happening. Demographically it's impossible for it to be a landslide. If he wins, it'll be by a tiny margin. That's very unlikely though.


----------



## Ygor

.MCH said:


> Yeah, that's not happening. Demographically it's impossible for it to be a landslide. If he wins, it'll be by a tiny margin. That's very unlikely though.


It might not be a landslide but I do think Trump will win. He seems like someone who would inspire job creation and pride instead of more entitlements and government dependence. We really need to try something different in America. I also like how Trump doesn't have himself answer to the same lobbyists/special interests the establishment Republicans want him to. He might take some hard stances but overall seems somewhat moderate when you average out the sum of his parts and someone who could judge things on an issue by issue basis. He definitely seems like someone less hesitant to start another messy and expensive war like Hillary might and that will be big.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



.MCH said:


> Hillary is as liberal as Sanders is, she just came from the era where you couldn't go too far to the left. Democrats were told they'd never win another election again. Then Clinton came in as more moderate and turned that around. Plus Hillary's healthcare proposal in the 90's cost dems the house for the first time in decades. That's likely why she's afraid to move too far to the left on issues. But the country has become far more liberal since that time (and more divided).
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's not happening. Demographically it's impossible for it to be a landslide. If he wins, it'll be by a tiny margin. That's very unlikely though.


If you think Hillary is liberal, you don't know what it means to be liberal. Most of Hillary's policies are super right-winged.

And you are wrong about going too far to the left you won't win elections. That is how you win elections, especially now.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

Hillary was a centrist, in '04 and '08, she's shifted slightly left today.


----------



## luminaire

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



birthday_massacre said:


> And you are wrong about going too far to the left you won't win elections. That is how you win elections, especially now.


Tell that to Congress.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



birthday_massacre said:


> Does mean she is not center right.
> 
> Most of the GOP and a lot of GOP voters dont like Trump and he is on the right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump said he would commit war crimes, he said he would use torture and bomb women and children of terrorist.


To be clear, I am not voting for either of them. They both are war mongers who will continue our illegal actions throughout the world.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



luminaire said:


> Tell that to Congress.


Hillary has been for fracking, for the TPP, against a carbon tax, she was aginst same sex marriage until 2013, she is for money in politics, she is for the big wars, she supported the patriot act, she is pro prison for profit, she was against glass Stegall etc etc

None of those are progressive.





gamegenie said:


> Hillary was a centrist, in '04 and '08, she's shifted slightly left today.


Slight left just to get the Bernie supporters, to pay lip service to policies she will never even try to do. 

she is still a moderate at best and more center right by her actions.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*










A glimpse into the future.

- Vic


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

Sanders accomplished what he set out to do. A good number of things he was running for are part of the DNC platform now. Even though he is not the nominee, he now has the mandate and controlled a large amount of it. He represents many who felt that Obama hasn't gone far enough these last 8 years. They want not just change, but a complete overhaul of American society. It only makes sense at this point to endorse her, if he didn't he would look like a spoiled little brat. 

Some say he sold out, I say he put his stamp on the message.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



BruiserKC said:


> Sanders accomplished what he set out to do. A good number of things he was running for are part of the DNC platform now. Even though he is not the nominee, he now has the mandate and controlled a large amount of it. He represents many who felt that Obama hasn't gone far enough these last 8 years. They want not just change, but a complete overhaul of American society. It only makes sense at this point to endorse her, if he didn't he would look like a spoiled little brat.
> 
> Some say he sold out, I say he put his stamp on the message.


Exactly, the DNC has the most progressive platform they have ever put together, that is all because of Bernie Sanders.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

Please, go to the left :lol

Nothing ensures defeat more than that in American politics. 

Moving right along, Hildabeast's lead nationally and in swing states has gone the way of the dodo. 

Polls will be volatile probably all the way to November, one candidate is a corrupt fascist goon, the other is a well-intentioned buffoon named :trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



deepelemblues said:


> Please, go to the left :lol
> 
> Nothing ensures defeat more than that in American politics.
> 
> Moving right along, Hildabeast's lead nationally and in swing states has gone the way of the dodo.
> 
> Polls will be volatile probably all the way to November, one candidate is a corrupt fascist goon, the other is a well-intentioned buffoon named :trump


You do understand the country is moving to the left not the right. The US is becoming more and more progressive as the years go by , Bernie Sanders proved that with his 13 million votes. 

The rights policies are very archaic. There is a reason someone like Trump who is a joke destroyed the right. and why a nobody a year ago like Sanders almost beat Hillary Clinton, if not for all the voter fraud and suppression that went on, he would have won.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

Name a presidential candidate that has won by going to the left since LBJ in 1964.

You can't because there hasn't been one.

And before him you have to go back another 30 years to FDR in 1936. Who actually tacked to the center in 1936 but whatever.

Obama: presented himself as a centrist 2x, won 2x
Kerry: tacked a little bit to the left, lost
Gore: tacked a little bit to the left, lost 
Clinton: presented himself as a centrist 2x, won 2x
Dukakis: tacked quite a bit to the left, lost
Mondale: tacked quite a bit to the left, lost
Carter: presented himself as a centrist 1x, won 1x. Tacked a bit to the left the 2nd time, lost.
McGovern: tacked quite a bit to the left, lost
Humphrey: tacked quite a bit to the left, lost
LBJ: tacked quite a bit to the left, won
JFK: presented himself as a centrist, won
Adlai Stevenson: tacked a little bit to the left 2x, lost 2x

Need I go on?

And of course it goes without saying that the number of times since WW2 the left wing of the Democratic Party controlled Congress or had great influence on its agenda can be counted on one hand, and every single time conservative Democrats or Republicans absolutely demolished them the next Congressional elections. 2010, 1994, 1966, 1948... that's about it really. And the left wing of the Democratic Party wasn't exactly a bastion of socialism in 1992-1993. 

So please, go to the left. Go left young man!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



deepelemblues said:


> Name a presidential candidate that has won by going to the left since LBJ in 1964.
> 
> You can't because there hasn't been one.
> 
> And before him you have to go back another 30 years to FDR in 1936. Who actually tacked to the center in 1936 but whatever.
> 
> Obama: presented himself as a centrist 2x, won 2x
> Kerry: tacked a little bit to the left, lost
> Gore: tacked a little bit to the left, lost
> Clinton: presented himself as a centrist 2x, won 2x
> Dukakis: tacked quite a bit to the left, lost
> Mondale: tacked quite a bit to the left, lost
> Carter: presented himself as a centrist 1x, won 1x. Tacked a bit to the left the 2nd time, lost.
> McGovern: tacked quite a bit to the left, lost
> Humphrey: tacked quite a bit to the left, lost
> LBJ: tacked quite a bit to the left, won
> JFK: presented himself as a centrist, won
> Adlai Stevenson: tacked a little bit to the left 2x, lost 2x
> 
> Need I go on?
> 
> And of course it goes without saying that the number of times since WW2 the left wing of the Democratic Party controlled Congress or had great influence on its agenda can be counted on one hand, and every single time conservative Democrats or Republicans absolutely demolished them the next Congressional elections. 2010, 1994, 1966, 1948... that's about it really. And the left wing of the Democratic Party wasn't exactly a bastion of socialism in 1992-1993.
> 
> So please, go to the left. Go left young man!


Obama was on the left when he ran for president. He was acting as the most progressive candidate, he was way to the left of Hillary in the primary and was super left to Romney and McCain.

Clinton was also left. 

You can't even be honest here. I don't think you even know what is left and right. its laughable you call Bill Clinton and Obama center. 
Also Gore won the election but had it stolen from him in FL. Kerry was also a centrist not a lib. 

Plus the past does not even matter, we are talking about the future, and the future is leaning left and more progressive.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



> Obama was on the left when he ran for president. He was acting as the most progressive candidate, he was way to the left of Hillary in the primary and was super left to Romney and McCain.
> 
> Clinton was also left.


You are so fucking ignorant it isn't even funny anymore. Acting as "the most progressive candidate" does not mean you are acting as a progressive candidate. Being way to the left of _Hillary Clinton_ (in many ways one of the most right-wing politicians ever) and Mitt Romney and John McCain does not mean what you are saying actually is _on_ the left. 

Google "Barack Obama centrist presidential campaign" and "Bill Clinton centrist presidential campaign," this is not some World Net Daily opinion here. It is the opinion of just about every mainstream political historian / analyst / reporter in the entire country that Barack Obama and Bill Clinton both ran campaigns presenting themselves as pragmatic centrists.



> You can't even be honest here. I don't think you even know what is left and right. its laughable you call Bill Clinton and Obama center.


No it's you who can't be honest. You say Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are of the Left so they can't campaign as centrists. For someone who bitches about politicians lying you suddenly seem very against even the possibility that someone could communicate beliefs to the electorate other than what they truly do believe. 

And the reason you can't be honest is I'm in your head so bad. Let it go, let it gooooo-ooo-oh-oh, however the rest of that song goooooes...



> Also Gore won the election but had it stolen from him in FL. Kerry was also a centrist not a lib.


http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/recount/index.html

Reality hurts don't it.

Kerry also co-opted many of John Edwards' and Howard Dean's more left-wing stances during the 2004 campaign.



> Plus the past does not even matter, we are talking about the future, and the future is leaning left and more progressive.


:duck

Britain just voted to leave the EU
Immigration has right-wing nationalist parties winning elections all over Europe
The Republican Party has a stranglehold on the federal Congress and state governor's offices and legislatures
Right-wing parties are winning elections all over South America
Japan's right-wing party just won more elections in the Diet's senate chamber

The future is leaning to the right, you can recognize the mistakes of the left and progressivism that have caused this to happen or you can troll like a 14 year old because it makes you feel better watching the post-Cold War progressive dream crumbling in the face of mass migration, incompetently handled foreign threats and anemic economic policies.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



deepelemblues said:


> You are so fucking ignorant it isn't even funny anymore. Acting as "the most progressive candidate" does not mean you are acting as a progressive candidate. Being way to the left of _Hillary Clinton_ (in many ways one of the most right-wing politicians ever) and Mitt Romney and John McCain does not mean what you are saying actually is _on_ the left.
> 
> Google "Barack Obama centrist presidential campaign" and "Bill Clinton centrist presidential campaign," this is not some World Net Daily opinion here. It is the opinion of just about every mainstream political historian / analyst / reporter in the entire country that Barack Obama and Bill Clinton both ran campaigns presenting themselves as pragmatic centrists.
> 
> 
> 
> No it's you who can't be honest. You say Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are of the Left so they can't campaign as centrists. For someone who bitches about politicians lying you suddenly seem very against even the possibility that someone could communicate beliefs to the electorate other than what they truly do believe.
> 
> And the reason you can't be honest is I'm in your head so bad. Let it go, let it gooooo-ooo-oh-oh, however the rest of that song goooooes...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/recount/index.html
> 
> Reality hurts don't it.
> 
> Kerry also co-opted many of John Edwards' and Howard Dean's more left-wing stances during the 2004 campaign.
> 
> 
> 
> :duck
> 
> Britain just voted to leave the EU
> Immigration has right-wing nationalist parties winning elections all over Europe
> The Republican Party has a stranglehold on the federal Congress and state governor's offices and legislatures
> Right-wing parties are winning elections all over South America
> Japan's right-wing party just won more elections in the Diet's senate chamber
> 
> The future is leaning to the right, you can recognize the mistakes of the left and progressivism that have caused this to happen or you can troll like a 14 year old because it makes you feel better watching the post-Cold War progressive dream crumbling in the face of mass migration, incompetently handled foreign threats and anemic economic policies.



Obama acted like he was a progressive to get elected. It's laughable to even claim he did not run as a progressive, what he did once he got in was another story. But he got elected in 2008 based on being a progressive. that is why there is such a huge debate on if Obama was progressive or a moderate, because he was claiming he was a progressive then his actions as president showed differently. If he did not act like he was to get elected then everyone wouldn't give him shit for not really being a progressive.

Obama and Clinton did not campaign as centrist, they campaigned as progressive. ONce they got voted in they changed their tunes. 

Hillary claims she is a progressive but we all know she is full of shit but she wants those progressive votes because she knows she needs them to win. The US is turning progressive not conserative, you can easily see that especially with things like gay marriage and trans people being more and more accepted and more and more people wanting money out of politics.

The US is not going more toward the right its going left. 

Al gore did win the election if you counted all the votes

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/19/geo...later_we_really_did_inaugurate_the_wrong_guy/

George W. Bush vs. Al Gore, 15 years later: We really did inaugurate the wrong guy

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/06/yes-bush-v-gore-did-steal-the-election.html

*"The consortium found that “If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin.”"*


Yes the truth does hurt for you since you can never handle it


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

I find it funny how quickly you guys turn on each other

Early in the Donald Trump thread I said that I supported some of the things he said and said the media was not giving him a fair shake, I was praised

I later said that you should pay your taxes and laws are good for society, I was then made fun of for being a slave to the state

Its not just the right, I get called a gun worshiping ******* for being pro-right to bear arms and a loser cuck for supporting something farther down the same document

I say I like some things but want to change others and I am "part of the problem" 

THIS is why there is no valid middle and why only extremists win, you eat your own and honestly believe that you right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong or just trying to be contrary 

Its not a healthy way to live

There are more than just "allies or enemies" "supporters or part of the problem" and until you move past that I don't think you deserve to be heard


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*

Bookmark this thread for the Owning that's going to occur on Nov 3rd.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



gamegenie said:


> Bookmark this thread for the Owning that's going to occur on Nov 3rd.


you will have a lotto own up yo if it doesn't.

I won't, because i haven't tried to stomp anyone. if trump loses i regret nothing.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



birthday_massacre said:


> You do understand the country is moving to the left not the right. The US is becoming more and more progressive as the years go by.


 Oh by all means, feed me the cyanide pill now. You already want to destroy my people and the south, go ahead, hang me like i know you want to like every other activist wants to do.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



Beatles123 said:


> Oh by all means, feed me the cyanide pill now. You already want to destroy my people and the south, go ahead, hang me like i know you want to like every other activist wants to do.


I love how people like you claim liberal / progressive is bad.

So tell me why is liberal / progressive so bad? Being those are for equal rights, like allowing gays to be married since the right is against, of trans rights something the right is against. Now the right wants to ban porn. The conservatives want to force religion down everyones throat when the country is founded on separation of church and state, and have the bible taught in schools. Conservatives also want people to be able to discriminate against others because of their religious beliefs, like oh I'm a Christian and being gay is a sin, so I should not have to serve or hire gays. They also want to take away a womens rights to choose and end planned parenthood which helps millions of women each year. 

OH yeah the country going away from all those views that take away peoples rights and instead gives people equal rights is such a bad thing.

So why should gays and trans be discriminated against why are you aginst them having equal rights?
Why should Christians be allowed to not serve someone because they are gay?
Why should the bible be taught side by side with science in public schools when science is fact and the bible is phantasy?
Why should planned parenthood be shut down or defunded so it has to close its doors?

etc etc


----------



## TheResurrection

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



Beatles123 said:


> Oh by all means, feed me the cyanide pill now. You already want to destroy my people and the south, go ahead, hang me like i know you want to like every other activist wants to do.


In my experience the right tend to be far more in favour of the death penalty than the left.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Not too excited by the potential Pence VP pick, but what can you do?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



TheResurrection said:


> In my experience the right tend to be far more in favour of the death penalty than the left.


the right are all about projection.

They act like they are a victim because they can't force people to be taught the bible in public school or shove Christianity down your throat. Just look at the whole so-called war on Christmas. 
They act like a victim because they can't force a woman to have an unwanted child. 
They act like a victim when they can't discriminate against gays or trans people. 
They act like a victim when they are not allowed to infringe on other peoples rights.

It's all pretty comical because they claim liberals are the bad guys.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/753728269019549696


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Well there goes Trump naming my state's governor for Vice President. He's probably going to get a general now...or Newt Gingrich.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I think Mike Pence is still the favourite to be named as VP. Smart choice by Trump as an olive branch to the Christian conservative arm of the GOP who are still against him. Got to admire his team's ability and guts to push those religious freedom laws through (even though I am against them) so he can be seen as covering Trump's weakness in policies.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










- Vic


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> They act like they are a victim because they can't force people to be taught the bible in public school or shove Christianity down your throat. Just look at the whole so-called war on Christmas.
> They act like a victim because they can't force a woman to have an unwanted child.
> They act like a victim when they can't discriminate against gays or trans people.
> They act like a victim when they are not allowed to infringe on other peoples rights.
> 
> It's all pretty comical because they claim liberals are the bad guys.



You know what I find comical? Liberals, progressives and feminists who are all about tolerance and equality defending a religion which shits all over that stuff.

"Hey, everybody, let's defend the most intolerant, oppressive motherfuckers on this planet in the name of tolerance"


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> You know what I find comical? Liberals, progressives and feminists who are all about tolerance and equality defending a religion which shits all over that stuff.
> 
> "Hey, everybody, let's defend the most intolerant, oppressive motherfuckers on this planet in the name of tolerance"


What are you talking about most libs, progressives and feminist don't follow a religion. Unless you are talking about the few that do.

As for the ones that do, do they follow or agree with those parts of the bible? You can have a lib who may believe in god but does not agree with the parts in the bible that discriminate.

For example, if lib says, they are Christian and believe in god but think gays should have equal rights and be able to get married for example are they defending Christianity?


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> What are you talking about most libs, progressives and feminist don't follow a religion. Unless you are talking about the few that do.


I said defend, not follow or belong to a certain religion. I'm talking about Gloria Steinem, the ultimate feminist icon, calling Mohammed a champion of women's rights on Bill Maher's show (don't remember the exact quote, but it was something along those lines, even Bill couldn't believe it). That is just one example. If you are truly liberal or a feminist you should be fucking outraged about this religion and its treatment of women. But no, like I said, it's all about defending intolerance in the name of tolerance. Shame on all these phony hypocrites.


----------



## Stipe Tapped

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> What are you talking about most libs, progressives and feminist don't follow a religion. Unless you are talking about the few that do.
> 
> As for the ones that do, do they follow or agree with those parts of the bible? You can have a lib who may believe in god but does not agree with the parts in the bible that discriminate.
> 
> For example, if lib says, they are Christian and believe in god but think gays should have equal rights and be able to get married for example are they defending Christianity?


You can't deny there's a massive double standard on the left regarding religion.

Liberals pretend that Christianity is the most evil, hateful ideology that's ever existed. They seek out the 1% of Christians with regressive views and highlight it as an example of a nationwide epidemic, ignoring the fact that most of us Christians worship God in a way that doesn't inconvenience anyone else.

Yet the left is also the first to stand up and defend Islam. When people point out the very real problems with the ideology, they're labelled racist bigots, even though Islam contradicts many forms of progressive thinking, like LGBT or women's rights. 

A person can be a Christian and still hold some progressive values, like a belief in LGBT rights. Islam is far more regimental and strict than Christianity. Muslims are much more likely to hold outdated values incompatible with the 21st century West, yet the left seeks out the rare Christian examples and highlights them instead.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> I said defend, not follow or belong to a certain religion. I'm talking about Gloria Steinem, the ultimate feminist icon, calling Mohammed a champion of women's rights on Bill Maher's show (don't remember the exact quote, but it was something along those lines, even Bill couldn't believe it). That is just one example. If you are truly liberal or a feminist you should be fucking outraged about this religion and its treatment of women. But no, like I said, it's all about defending intolerance in the name of tolerance. Shame on all these phony hypocrites.


So because some ultimate feminist icon calls Mohammed a champion of women's rights that means that all feminist think that way or that is what feminism is about? She is not a true liberal if she thinks that. I would even say she is not a true feminist if she believes that. 

She is a hypocrite for sure but that kind of thinking is not what libs or feminism stand for.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Liberals pretend that Christianity is the most evil, hateful ideology that's ever existed. They seek out the 1% of Christians with regressive views and highlight it as an example of a nationwide epidemic, ignoring the fact that most of us Christians worship God in a way that doesn't inconvenience anyone else.



This is actually one thing I respect about Bill Maher. He will always point out, as he did to Miss Steinem, that all religions are not equally bad. He is one of very few liberals/progressives who call out Islam for exactly what it is and acknowledges that there aren't a lot of people blowing themselves up in the name of Jesus all over the world and Christians don't make their women wear beekeeper suits while treating them like property.




> So because some ultimate feminist icon calls Mohammed a champion of women's rights that means that all feminist think that way or that is what feminism is about? She is not a true liberal if she thinks that. I would even say she is not a true feminist if she believes that.
> 
> She is a hypocrite for sure but that kind of thinking is not what libs or feminism stand for.


She, as an individual, is important because so many young women treat her like she's Jesus Christ himself. All the hip young self-proclaimed feminists and feminist role models like Emma Watson for example worship this woman.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Official Discussion Thread)*



birthday_massacre said:


> I love how people like you claim liberal / progressive is bad.
> 
> So tell me why is liberal / progressive so bad? Being those are for equal rights, like allowing gays to be married since the right is against, of trans rights something the right is against. Now the right wants to ban porn. The conservatives want to force religion down everyones throat when the country is founded on separation of church and state, and have the bible taught in schools. Conservatives also want people to be able to discriminate against others because of their religious beliefs, like oh I'm a Christian and being gay is a sin, so I should not have to serve or hire gays. They also want to take away a womens rights to choose and end planned parenthood which helps millions of women each year.
> 
> OH yeah the country going away from all those views that take away peoples rights and instead gives people equal rights is such a bad thing.
> 
> So why should gays and trans be discriminated against why are you aginst them having equal rights?
> Why should Christians be allowed to not serve someone because they are gay?
> Why should the bible be taught side by side with science in public schools when science is fact and the bible is phantasy?
> Why should planned parenthood be shut down or defunded so it has to close its doors?
> 
> etc etc


Its not about that at all dave. You want to bring honest people down to elevate your own ideas. There's discrimination and the right isn't perfect but if you had a button that could blow up the south, i know you'd press it without a second thought.

The bible vs science debate doesn't even have to factor into this, nor do any of the questions you asked. Because they are all sweeping generalizations that make your side good any other side bad. Leftism isn't without its racism and oppression. its just directed at different people.

Stop thinking i am in the minority and try to build bridges instead of burning them. throw that button away.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Zydeco said:


> You can't deny there's a massive double standard on the left regarding religion.
> 
> Liberals pretend that Christianity is the most evil, hateful ideology that's ever existed. They seek out the 1% of Christians with regressive views and highlight it as an example of a nationwide epidemic, ignoring the fact that most of us Christians worship God in a way that doesn't inconvenience anyone else.
> 
> Yet the left is also the first to stand up and defend Islam. When people point out the very real problems with the ideology, they're labelled racist bigots, even though Islam contradicts many forms of progressive thinking, like LGBT or women's rights.
> 
> A person can be a Christian and still hold some progressive values, like a belief in LGBT rights. Islam is far more regimental and strict than Christianity. Muslims are much more likely to hold outdated values incompatible with the 21st century West, yet the left seeks out the rare Christian examples and highlights them instead.


Christianity is one the most evil, hateful ideology that's ever existed but that does not mean that everyone that follows Christianity is evil since most Christians don't even know what is in the bible. But that is a different story. 


Your 1% number is a lie you made it up. But putting that aside, lets say *most* (for the sake of argument) Christians worship God in a way that doesn't inconvenience anyone else.

Those are not the Christians that lib's they are talking about when they target the bigoted ones. The ones they target are the ones who try to ban gay marriage, take away rights of gays or trans people or the women's right to choose just to name the major ones.

As for libs defending Islam, they don't don't Islam, they defend Muslims, huge difference. And they say, you can follow any religion you want as long as you don't force it on other people and force them to follow your religious laws. 

And yes you are right a person can be a Christian and till hold some progressive values, like a belief in LGBT rights, and again that is not who libs are talking about when they go up against the ones that do like in congress or on fox news for example.

And sorry but in the US its total bullshit about "Muslims are much more likely to hold outdated values incompatible with the 21st century West, yet the left seeks out the rare Christian examples and highlights them instead."

No one in the US is trying to force any Islamic laws onto the US citizens like some Christians do with Christianity

You never see anyone trying to make Sharia law in the US, or forcing women to cover up, or having Islam taught in pubic schools, or any of those Islamic rules.

But you do see some Christians trying to ban gay marriage again or make laws that discriminate against gays or trans people or making laws that make it harder or ban a womens right to choose. 

that is why you see libs attacking Christianity more because Christianity is trying to force non Christians to follow their rules which in the US is against the constitution. if Islam ever tried to force its laws onto the US the libs would be rightt there fighting against it.

so please don't try to act like Christianity does not try to force its way into US citizens.





Beatles123 said:


> Its not about that at all dave. You want to bring honest people down to elevate your own ideas. There's discrimination and the right isn't perfect but if you had a button that could blow up the south, i know you'd press it without a second thought.
> 
> The bible vs science debate doesn't even have to factor into this, nor do any of the questions you asked. Because they are all sweeping generalizations that make your side good any other side bad. Leftism isn't without its racism and oppression. its just directed at different people.
> 
> Stop thinking i am in the minority and try to build bridges instead of burning them. throw that button away.


Yes my questions factor into this greatly but of course you won't answer them because it refutes everything that you claimed. 

The right is on the wrong side of a lot of issues way more than the left especially when it comes to basic human rights issues. 

You are the one who brought up this good and evil thing. And yes I am sorry but if you dont think gays and trans should have equal rights then you are on the wrong side.

so where is the racism on the left side when the left things all people , race, gender, sexual orientation should be equal.


----------



## DevastationInc

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

was hillary the prototype for eddie guerrero's lie, cheat & steal character?


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Beatles123

Im ok with Pence. Newt would have got him JFK'd



birthday_massacre said:


> Christianity is one the most evil, hateful ideology that's ever existed but that does not mean that everyone that follows Christianity is evil since most Christians don't even know what is in the bible. But that is a different story.
> 
> 
> Your 1% number is a lie you made it up. But putting that aside, lets say *most* (for the sake of argument) Christians worship God in a way that doesn't inconvenience anyone else.
> 
> Those are not the Christians that lib's they are talking about when they target the bigoted ones. The ones they target are the ones who try to ban gay marriage, take away rights of gays or trans people or the women's right to choose just to name the major ones.
> 
> As for libs defending Islam, they don't don't Islam, they defend Muslims, huge difference. And they say, you can follow any religion you want as long as you don't force it on other people and force them to follow your religious laws.
> 
> And yes you are right a person can be a Christian and till hold some progressive values, like a belief in LGBT rights, and again that is not who libs are talking about when they go up against the ones that do like in congress or on fox news for example.
> 
> And sorry but in the US its total bullshit about "Muslims are much more likely to hold outdated values incompatible with the 21st century West, yet the left seeks out the rare Christian examples and highlights them instead."
> 
> No one in the US is trying to force any Islamic laws onto the US citizens like some Christians do with Christianity
> 
> You never see anyone trying to make Sharia law in the US, or forcing women to cover up, or having Islam taught in pubic schools, or any of those Islamic rules.
> 
> But you do see some Christians trying to ban gay marriage again or make laws that discriminate against gays or trans people or making laws that make it harder or ban a womens right to choose.
> 
> that is why you see libs attacking Christianity more because Christianity is trying to force non Christians to follow their rules which in the US is against the constitution. if Islam ever tried to force its laws onto the US the libs would be rightt there fighting against it.
> 
> so please don't try to act like Christianity does not try to force its way into US citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes my questions factor into this greatly but of course you won't answer them because it refutes everything that you claimed.
> 
> The right is on the wrong side of a lot of issues way more than the left especially when it comes to basic human rights issues.
> 
> You are the one who brought up this good and evil thing. And yes I am sorry but if you dont think gays and trans should have equal rights then you are on the wrong side.
> 
> so where is the racism on the left side when the left things all people , race, gender, sexual orientation should be equal.


Stop exploitng gays to fit the argument and maybe you'd get it. You wanna know where the discrimination is? It's you not denying you'd blow up the south. Throw us all under the bus.

Your solution is basically, "BlameWhites.exe". You have no idea what my stances on gays even are.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

So, I would have preferred Sessions or Flynn but Pence is ok as long as he denounces the TPP.
@CamillePunk @DesolationRow


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

TPP is awesome, when did you become a communist?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Zydeco said:


> You can't deny there's a massive double standard on the left regarding religion.
> 
> Liberals pretend that Christianity is the most evil, hateful ideology that's ever existed. They seek out the 1% of Christians with regressive views and highlight it as an example of a nationwide epidemic, ignoring the fact that most of us Christians worship God in a way that doesn't inconvenience anyone else.
> 
> Yet the left is also the first to stand up and defend Islam. When people point out the very real problems with the ideology, they're labelled racist bigots, even though Islam contradicts many forms of progressive thinking, like LGBT or women's rights.
> 
> A person can be a Christian and still hold some progressive values, like a belief in LGBT rights. Islam is far more regimental and strict than Christianity. Muslims are much more likely to hold outdated values incompatible with the 21st century West, yet the left seeks out the rare Christian examples and highlights them instead.


Right so you're decrying THE LEFT for victimising and attacking christianity for things that apparently 1% of christians do, when you're doing the EXACT same thing to 'the left'. Nice work.


----------



## Stipe Tapped

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Right so you're decrying THE LEFT for victimising and attacking christianity for things that apparently 1% of christians do, when you're doing the EXACT same thing to 'the left'. Nice work.


1% wasn't supposed to be taken literally. There are far more liberals with an open vendetta against Christianity than there are Christians who oppress anyone else. If the topic of religion comes up with most liberals (at least in the early to mid twenties demographic) they'll spout out some unoriginal bullshit about "Zombie Jesus" and insinuate that you're an idiot for having faith in God. They might even mention the Crusades in an attempt to convince you that Christianity is just as bad as Islam.

Are you denying that it's only a very small percentage of Christians who inconvenience others? The worst offense you tend to hear about in the news is some Christian bakery not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding. If that's the extent of us awful Christians dictating your lives, it's time to grow up and get over it.

Christians aren't perfect. There are some of them who give us a bad name. The Westboro Baptist Church and people who deny their children medical care because of "faith healing" are examples. 

Anyway, I'm after going on a tangent. Your point is flawed because the Christians I'm referring to are a tiny minority while the percentage of liberals who hold double standards regarding Christianity and Islam seem to be much higher.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Zydeco said:


> Anyway, I'm after going on a tangent. Your point is flawed because the Christians I'm referring to are a tiny minority while the percentage of liberals who hold double standards regarding Christianity and Islam* seem to be* much higher.


Yeah key term there 'seem to be' doesn't equal actually is. Maybe it seems to be on this site because the majority of posters and threads in this section are dominated by people who view liberals and THE LEFT as if they are the worst scourge ever infiltrate society.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Yeah key term there 'seem to be' doesn't equal actually is. Maybe it seems to be on this site because the majority of posters and threads in this section are dominated by people who view liberals and THE LEFT as if they are the worst scourge ever infiltrate society.


The irony is many of them are Christians who by all accounts are moderate in their views on religion but support or show indifference towards the views and actions of the "1%" of Christians who gives them a bad name. But then accuse the moderate believers of Islam as the scums of the earth for basically holding the same position as them.


----------



## BigVern

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Zydeco said:


> ...ignoring the fact that most of us Christians worship God in a way that doesn't inconvenience anyone else.


Unless, of course, they are gay... trans... need an abortion... want their child to learn about evolution or safe sex in school... want to look at porn on the internet... want to do anything on a Sunday...


----------



## Stipe Tapped

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Yeah key term there 'seem to be' doesn't equal actually is. Maybe it seems to be on this site because the majority of posters and threads in this section are dominated by people who view liberals and THE LEFT as if they are the worst scourge ever infiltrate society.


You focused in on 3 words of my post rather than addressing the body of it. Also, your point makes no sense. I'm not talking about this website. I'm talking about real people who I interact with every day. Sure, it's anecdotal evidence, but you'll have to take my word for it. As far as my experiences go, most Christians are moderate in their beliefs and don't care what you do or believe. It's the other side that try to stick their noses in people's lives.



FriedTofu said:


> The irony is many of them are Christians who by all accounts are moderate in their views on religion but support or show indifference towards the views and actions of the "1%" of Christians who gives them a bad name. But then accuse the moderate believers of Islam as the scums of the earth for basically holding the same position as them.


You're referring to my point about certain bakeries refusing to provide a cake for gay weddings I assume. My defense of them has nothing to do with the fact that we're both Christian. I think their refusal to serve gay couples goes against what Jesus taught. It certainly goes against my beliefs. I'll still defend the right of the bakery to serve whoever they want and refuse whoever they want if it's their own company. Every business owner should have autonomy over the operation of their own business, even if they're going to be bigoted dickheads about it. It's not ideal, but it's far better than the alternative.

Aside from that, even if I was dismissive of the minority who are giving us a bad name, I can still criticise the moderate Muslims who are dismissive of their extremists. The Christians you're referring to don't murder thousands of innocent people for disagreeing with them. It's not a valid comparison.



BigVern said:


> Unless, of course, they are gay... trans... need an abortion... want their child to learn about evolution or safe sex in school... want to look at porn on the internet... want to do anything on a Sunday...


Once again, the vast majority of Christians don't think like that. The only things out of that list that I hold conservative views on are abortion and transsexualism, but you wouldn't know it from talking to me. Despite what you may think, most of us keep our opinions on divisive topics to ourselves. I don't really care if an individual decides to get an abortion. I just don't want to be labelled an evil misogynist for being against the idea as a whole.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Im ok with Pence. Newt would have got him JFK'd
> 
> Stop exploitng gays to fit the argument and maybe you'd get it. You wanna know where the discrimination is? It's you not denying you'd blow up the south. Throw us all under the bus.
> 
> Your solution is basically, "BlameWhites.exe". You have no idea what my stances on gays even are.


So you are going to keep dodging the question.

I am not exploiting anything. how are Christians not trying to make laws to take away Christians and trans rights or laws to discriminate against them legal?

Also love how you ignored the point about abortion and them trying to force creationism which is BS into public schools to be taught as science. 

Where is this blame whites BS coming from? It's stop having Christians trying to push their religion onto everyone else and stop trying to make laws based on Christian laws when the US has separation of church and state.




Zydeco said:


> 1% wasn't supposed to be taken literally. There are far more liberals with an open vendetta against Christianity than there are Christians who oppress anyone else. If the topic of religion comes up with most liberals (at least in the early to mid twenties demographic) they'll spout out some unoriginal bullshit about "Zombie Jesus" and insinuate that you're an idiot for having faith in God. They might even mention the Crusades in an attempt to convince you that Christianity is just as bad as Islam.
> 
> Are you denying that it's only a very small percentage of Christians who inconvenience others? The worst offense you tend to hear about in the news is some Christian bakery not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding. If that's the extent of us awful Christians dictating your lives, it's time to grow up and get over it.
> 
> Christians aren't perfect. There are some of them who give us a bad name. The Westboro Baptist Church and people who deny their children medical care because of "faith healing" are examples.
> 
> Anyway, I'm after going on a tangent. Your point is flawed because the Christians I'm referring to are a tiny minority while the percentage of liberals who hold double standards regarding Christianity and Islam seem to be much higher.


You keep saying its such a small percent of Christians who for discriminating against gays and trans, forcing creationism into schools and forcing woman to have a child that is unwanted but the thing you keep ignoring is that so called small percentage are the ones who are trying to make LAWS against abortion, gay marriage AGAIN, against trans and gays rights and to put creationism in schools.

If they were not trying to make LAWS then LIbs would not give a shit since it would not affect non-Christians
the problem is most of the people that want those things are the people in power aka law makers.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Zydeco said:


> You're referring to my point about certain bakeries refusing to provide a cake for gay weddings I assume. My defense of them has nothing to do with the fact that we're both Christian. I think their refusal to serve gay couples goes against what Jesus taught. It certainly goes against my beliefs. I'll still defend the right of the bakery to serve whoever they want and refuse whoever they want if it's their own company. Every business owner should have autonomy over the operation of their own business, even if they're going to be bigoted dickheads about it. It's not ideal, but it's far better than the alternative.
> 
> Aside from that, even if I was dismissive of the minority who are giving us a bad name, I can still criticise the moderate Muslims who are dismissive of their extremists. The Christians you're referring to don't murder thousands of innocent people for disagreeing with them. It's not a valid comparison.


That's the same mentality I was talking about, attempting to rationalise something that is done in the name of their faith that is against their beliefs to dismiss the issue at hand.

Pretty sure most moderate Muslims condemn the actions of the extremists, but some can rationalise it as defending/retaking their land.

Moderate Christians might not agree with the actions of the minority extremists in their faith, but some can rationalise it as advancing the presence of their faith in their land.

It's a valid comparison. America was this close to Ted Cruz running for President of one of the major political parties.


----------



## Stipe Tapped

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You keep saying its such a small percent of Christians who for discriminating against gays and trans, forcing creationism into schools and forcing woman to have a child that is unwanted but the thing you keep ignoring is that so called small percentage are the ones who are trying to make LAWS against abortion, gay marriage AGAIN, against trans and gays rights and to put creationism in schools.
> 
> If they were not trying to make LAWS then LIbs would not give a shit since it would not affect non-Christians
> the problem is most of the people that want those things are the people in power aka law makers.


You speak as if no liberals are trying to do the exact same thing. Neither the left nor the right consists totally of people who are happy to have their beliefs and "live and let live".

Look at the state of American universities these days. Safe spaces, consent classes and suppression of right wing viewpoints. It will have a very real impact on the next generation of professionals and academics, and I don't think it's going to be a positive one.



FriedTofu said:


> That's the same mentality I was talking about, attempting to rationalise something that is done in the name of their faith that is against their beliefs to dismiss the issue at hand.


I already said my defense of such organisations wasn't based on any religious alignment. It's purely legislative. Outside of things like health & safety and equal pay laws, the government shouldn't be able to interfere in a private business and force them to operate a certain way.

Individuals can be assholes. Companies which refuse to cater to gay people fall under that category. I never disputed that. However, legislation mandating them to do so is the beginning of a slippery slope, one that has far bigger potential consequences than a few scattered bigots.



> Pretty sure most moderate Muslims condemn the actions of the extremists


Not enough are vocal about it. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism#Western_perspectives

Read the Polls section. A frighteningly high number feel that terrorism is sometimes justified. Even in the numbers that seem relatively low. Anything above a fraction of a percent is a worrying statistic regarding something so serious.


----------



## BigVern

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Zydeco said:


> Once again, the vast majority of Christians don't think like that.


The ones you've chosen to represent the masses do. The ones who make those decisions to keep their Christian constituents happy. They are laws based on Christian ideals that affect everyone, regardless of religion. So yes, your "most of us Christians worship God in a way that doesn't inconvenience anyone else" statement is incorrect.


----------



## Delsin Rowe

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It's going to be a rough 4 years with Trump.


----------



## Stipe Tapped

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BigVern said:


> The ones you've chosen to represent the masses do. The ones who make those decisions to keep their Christian constituents happy. They are laws based on Christian ideals that affect everyone, regardless of religion. So yes, your "most of us Christians worship God in a way that doesn't inconvenience anyone else" statement is incorrect.


I haven't chosen anyone. I'm Irish. This thread relates to American politics. I don't know what the fuck you're on about.

Assuming your initial statement is true, how does that prove that most Christians inconvenience others in their worship? Legislative bodies don't comprise an entire population. Yet for some reason you still argue my point that most Christians are "live and let live" types.

It's generally people that are extremely steadfast in their core beliefs who reach these positions. It's by no means representative of the Christian demographic as a whole.


----------



## BigVern

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Zydeco said:


> I haven't chosen anyone. I'm Irish. This thread relates to American politics. I don't know what the fuck you're on about.
> 
> Assuming your initial statement is true, how does that prove that most Christians inconvenience others in their worship? Legislative bodies don't comprise an entire population. Yet for some reason you still argue my point that most Christians are "live and let live" types.
> 
> It's generally people that are extremely steadfast in their core beliefs who reach these positions. It's by no means representative of the Christian demographic as a whole.


I used "you" to mean "Christians" (which you stated you were). "You" can be both singular and plural. 

My point summed up is this: those items/freedoms/abilities are withheld from the non-religious due to the will of Christians. I'd say they definitely were "inconvenienced" by Christianity. You might say it's not the majority of Christians that think like that, I say bull, but definitely the majority in power does. The ones, by definition, voted in by the majority. You say they're "no means representative of the Christian demographic as a whole", but yes... that's kind of how "elected _*representatives*_" work in the States. Or at least how they're supposed to work. That's why I brought up constituents earlier.

If the MAJORITY of Christians in the States were pro-choice or pro gay marriage the laws wouldn't have existed to begin with...


----------



## .MCH

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm ready for Elizabeth Warren to completely tear Mike Pence and Donald Trump to shreds. It's going to be glorious watching Trump not lose to not just one women, but two. Assuming of course Hillary makes the smart decision of picking Warren as her VP.


----------



## BigVern

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



.MCH said:


> I'm ready for Elizabeth Warren to completely tear Mike Pence and Donald Trump to shreds. It's going to be glorious watching Trump not lose to not just one women, but two. Assuming of course Hillary makes the smart decision of picking Warren as her VP.


I respect a lot of Warren's ideals but damn...

I just can't believe we're living in a world now where _*presidential candidates*_ talk shit and troll each other on Twitter.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754686720004677633

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754652888752910336By 2020 we'll be checking out candidates selfies and swiping literally right or left.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Scott Adams on the Pence pick:



> The Pence Pick
> 
> You might be wondering what I think of Trump’s decision to pick Mike Pence for VP, given that Pence has disagreed with Trump on substantive policy issues in the past.
> 
> First of all, policies don’t matter in this election, or in any other election. Reason is mostly an illusion. And anyway, Pence will modify his positions to match Trump. No one cares.
> 
> Secondly, political experts say making a good choice for a VP running mate can’t help a candidate much, but a bad choice can hurt. Pence doesn’t do much to help, but he also doesn’t do much to hurt. So he’s a safe choice on that dimension. And he has plenty of government experience, as Trump says he needs. So Pence helps solve for Trump’s lack of experience. But those effects are all marginal.
> 
> What matters with Pence is how he looks in terms of contrast with Trump. The best choice for VP is someone who looks like a boring, washed-out version of the top of the ticket. You need that contrast to remind people that the top of the ticket is truly special.
> 
> Pence is an experienced politician. But you stand him next to Trump and he sort of disappears. The contrast persuades you – subconsciously – that Trump is better than an experienced politician. That’s totally irrational, and totally effective.
> 
> What’s Clinton’s biggest strength? Experience. How does Trump compare to the experienced politician on his own ticket? Better, at least in the public’s irrational way of thinking. So if Clinton and Pence are both experienced, and you prefer Trump over Pence, you somewhat automatically extend that thinking to Clinton – with all of her boring experience – and imagine her to be a weak version of Trump as well.
> 
> Replace Trump and Pence with Reagan and Bush-the-elder to see how well this contrast-based persuasion works.
> 
> And think of Obama picking Biden. It’s all the same persuasion trick. You want the VP to be the solid, uninteresting version of whoever is at the top of the ticket.
> 
> Now imagine if Trump had picked Gingrich for his VP running mate. Gingrich would make Trump look less experienced, less informed, and less intelligent by contrast. That’s a bad formula for winning. Gingrich is simply too interesting.
> 
> And after Gingrich came out in favor of testing Muslims for loyalty to Sharia law, he became the worst possible choice for Trump’s running mate. Trump is trying to move to the middle for the general election. Gingrich is running hard in the opposite direction. If Gingrich is not on the ticket, his radical-sounding ideas create an anchor that actually makes Trump look moderate by comparison. But if Gingrich had been a running mate, it would make a Trump presidency look scarier than it already is. And fear is Clinton’s best weapon against Trump. So no matter what Trump planned a week ago, Gingrich took himself out of the running with his recent comments about testing Muslims. Still, I expect Gingrich to be part of a Trump administration somehow.
> 
> No matter what you think of Pence, he was the right choice on the dimension of persuasion. And that’s the only dimension that will matter here. Trump just needs to stay boring until November to win. Pence can do that. Gingrich probably could not.


Obviously don't care much for Pence but there's very few people Trump could've picked that I would've liked. His interview with Hannity after being selected was mostly fine. He was notably unwilling to discuss the threat of Islam in Europe however, and seemed keen to maintain a narrow view of only needing to combat ISIS in the middle east itself. Well, hopefully Europe's leaders are slightly more awake than that, or they are soon replaced by people who are. 

Not sure if these anti-cop folks realize it, but they're actually helping Trump win. A significant majority of Americans support law enforcement and with Trump branding himself as the "Law and Order" candidate while Hillary and Obama pander to certain notable anti-police groups, it's clear which direction the voting public is going to go. It is an interesting case of the left-wing cultural Marxist strategy hampering its own objectives.


----------



## TheResurrection

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I worry that the Black Lives Matter movement will see Trump into power. If the Democrats support or even refuse to condemn this terrorist hate group normal people are going to support the other side.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BigVern said:


> I respect a lot of Warren's ideals but damn...
> 
> I just can't believe we're living in a world now where _*presidential candidates*_ talk shit and troll each other on Twitter.
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754686720004677633
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754652888752910336By 2020 we'll be checking out candidates selfies and swiping literally right or left.


You have to do that to beat Trump, just look at the GOP debates, once Rubio and Cruz starting fighting back against Trump the way he was fighting against them, Trump started to drop but then the donors told Rubio and Cruz to stop attacking Trump in that way, and they did then Trump destroyed them again.

You have to fight fire with fire, stand up to the bully, the more you rattle Trump the dumber things he says.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

How is Trump a bully when he only counter-attacks people who attacked him first? :lol 

Amazing how people think you can just slander someone as a racist, misogynist, attack their looks, etc. and then play the victim when you get hit back.

Anyway, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have both lost all credibility after glowingly endorsing a candidate who stands for and is in bed with everything they've claimed to be against their entire career.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



TheResurrection said:


> *I worry that the Black Lives Matter movement will see Trump into power.* If the Democrats support or even refuse to condemn this terrorist hate group normal people are going to support the other side.


If that happens then why does it have you worried? Aren't you a Trump supporter?


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

At first I was thinking Hillary should pick someone not on anyone's radar for running mate... like Chuck Hagel. 

But after Donald has selected Mike Pence, I think Hillary should pick the likely candidate, Tim Kaine.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Oh God the embarrassment Pence would serve up to Elizabeth Warren.

She is probably one of the dumbest politicians in America, seriously Sarah Palin level stupid.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> How is Trump a bully when he only counter-attacks people who attacked him first? :lol
> 
> Amazing how people think you can just slander someone as a racist, misogynist, attack their looks, etc. and then play the victim when you get hit back.
> 
> Anyway, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have both lost all credibility after glowingly endorsing a candidate who stands for and is in bed with everything they've claimed to be against their entire career.


Trump is the one who started all the personal childish bullshit first, he started way back in the GOP debates. You can't be taken seriously when you claim Trump only responds to it, the whole reason it's like this is because of Trump.

The reason why people call Trump all those things is because he made comments showing how he is all those things.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Who did Trump attack without provocation?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary still got some work to do on BernieBros:

https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/07/15/mending-fences-what-conventions-can-do-trump-and-c/

46% in that poll would rather vote for someone else or not at all or haven't made up their mind to vote for her yet
41% would vote for her
14% for :trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Who did Trump attack without provocation?


We have been over this a million times, I am not going over it again, you always play dumb after you are shown all the evidence then time goes by.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Just link me to that post then. I don't remember having this conversation before.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Delsin Rowe said:


> It's going to be a rough 4 years with Trump.


it's for the best, get it out of our system

better than electing shillary and in 4 or 8 years people being REALLY pissed off and electing a professional strongman instead of an amateur one like :trump


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> Oh God the embarrassment Pence would serve up to Elizabeth Warren.
> 
> She is probably one of the dumbest politicians in America, seriously Sarah Palin level stupid.


Elizabeth Warren is far more smarter than Sarah Palin, 

You probably think they are on the same level because they sound (in tone) just a like. 

They are both from rural areas.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> Elizabeth Warren is far more smarter than Sarah Palin,
> 
> You probably think they are on the same level because they sound (in tone) just a like.
> 
> They are both from rural areas.


i think they are on the same level because they both say incredibly stupid things incessantly

warren is a beady eyed little fellow traveler so i can understand thinking she is smarter than wide-eyed bumpkin palin but they're both dumb as a box of rocks


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't know where you draw your comparison. But there are hours upon hours of Sarah Palin in her own saying nefarious silly stupid things. 

It's got to the point that to whenever Sarah makes a public speech, there will be an SNL Tina Fey parody of it produced. 

All I seen Elizabeth Warren say is a harsh critique of Donald Trump. 

and all his response has been to her that she's crazy, he doesn't even refute her charges...which is bad.


----------



## Marv95

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The Pence pick, personally not a fan of him and his Christian/anti-gay crap. But I can understand why it was made. It's not for the moderates/alternate right nutjobs like myself and others. Trump is not getting full GOP support and he needs those types of voters who failed to show up in 2012. Pence is also an asset for Trump when dealing with Congress.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



gamegenie said:


> If that happens then why does it have you worried? Aren't you a Trump supporter?


He's not, he's like Reaper or Ghandi on this and just giving logical debate to this political atmosphere. I find it strange blacks would support Hilary over Sanders, it's really self-defeating.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> He's not, he's like Reaper or Ghandi on this and just giving logical debate to this political atmosphere. I find it strange blacks would support Hilary over Sanders, it's really self-defeating.


Strange really? Blacks have known the Clinton for decades. 

Are you really this surprised?


----------



## TheResurrection

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



gamegenie said:


> If that happens then why does it have you worried? Aren't you a Trump supporter?


No, but I sort of love the way he speaks and have found his presidential campaign to be very entertaining. I also think there's been a lot of ridiculous criticism of him and I'll always defend people in that sort of circumstance. Part of the reason I've found it entertaining is that I never thought there was much chance of him beating Clinton but recently I've reevaluated that.

As a UK citizen I also don't think Trump's ability to make tremendous deals that favour his side will be something we're likely to benefit from in our trade negotiations, I think we'd get fucked over.


----------



## LaMelo

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I saw a guy with a Trump hat in Tennessee last week. He was wearing it backwards. Does that mean something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> We have been over this a million times, I am not going over it again, you always play dumb after you are shown all the evidence then time goes by.


Oh, dave STOP. You're better than this.

"YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHAT I THINK! FUCK YOU!"


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> I don't know where you draw your comparison. But there are hours upon hours of Sarah Palin in her own saying nefarious silly stupid things.
> 
> It's got to the point that to whenever Sarah makes a public speech, there will be an SNL Tina Fey parody of it produced.
> 
> All I seen Elizabeth Warren say is a harsh critique of Donald Trump.
> 
> and all his response has been to her that she's crazy, he doesn't even refute her charges...which is bad.


He is just trolling, no one seriously believes that Palin is even close to being as smart and well spoken as Warren.

There is a reason why Liz Warren is highly respected/regarded and Palin is thought of a joke.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Was* highly respected/regarded. Now she is a Hill shill.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

what do you Trump fans think of what is going on? RNC really trying out oust Trump at the convention. What a shit show.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> what do you Trump fans think of what is going on? RNC really trying out oust Trump at the convention. What a shit show.


It's a vocal minority and not too dissimilar from what happened in 2012 with Ron Paul's supporters. Business as usual in politics. I expect a much less civil version of this at the DNC.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> It's a vocal minority and not too dissimilar from what happened in 2012 with Ron Paul's supporters. Business as usual in politics. I expect a much less civil version of this at the DNC.


OH am I thinking of those 10 states that were needed to change teh rules to screw him over?

Either way it should not happen. He should be the nominee. Its dumb they can even try to change rules during the convention.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

- Anything Warren has ever said (lied) in regards to her non-existent Native American ancestry is incredibly stupid

- Her remarks in a speech that Obama later summed up as: "You didn't build that." Quite possibly the dumbest comments ever uttered in American politics.

If a high-profile Republican politician said something so incredibly ignorant and stupid that Republican would never be able to live it down as long as they remained in public life. It would be mocked constantly and brought up a hundred million times. 

But Elizabeth Warren can stand there and literally say that wealthy individuals and large corporations "didn't build" public infrastructure or other things government does that basically everybody agrees with, *when those individuals and corporations pay 2/3 to 3/4 of the taxes in this country,* and she gets away with it. How? How can any of you sit there and be honest with yourselves and not say that she's either dumb as a stump, or a callous liar?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Colbert crashes The Repub Convention as weird guy from the Hunger Games.






God bless this man.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Not sure if posted before but this is one of the hit pieces on Trump that sums up my fear of a Trump presidency. His zero-sum world view that made him rich is also what his voters should be concerned about. If he is making a deal with you, how sure are you he isn't going to screw you over to win the deal in the future?

http://www.vox.com/a/donald-trump-books


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Sheriff David Clarke killing it at the Republican National Convention.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

America's Mayor killing it now! :mark:


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Rudy with a stemwinder of a speech.:sodone Now :trump is introducing his wife, Melania.


----------



## Saffiemack

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I'm just waiting for Boris Johnson to reveal that he and Trump are twins, and that Trump burned down their parents house when they were young. Awesome feud to come from that


----------



## Overcomer

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Melania did good. I was watching it over a live feed on facebook---a lot of people were giving her a hard time about her English, because she speaks with an accent. The funny thing is most of the replies had the sentence structure, punctuation and grammar of a 2nd grader.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Rudy. :sodone RIP to the race-baiting left.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Fox News just pissed me off. They broke away from General Michael Flynn's speech at 7:50pm PST. Ridiculous. Each night has a main speaker. You do not break away from those speeches. MSNBC is guilty of this effrontery as well. :cuss:


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Not sure if anyone seen this but hilary was trying to get young voters by having a stop at a Pokemon GO place, it was funny one of her supporters was in the back rolling his eyes at her statements. So Trump posted this..


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

"Next Evolution: Unemployed"

:heston


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

*DAMN YOU, FNC*, for forcing me to watch CNN! :cuss:


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Agreed, *SHIV*; had to migrate to CNN. :lol

@AryaDark @CamillePunk @L-DOPA @EL SHIV @Oda Nobunaga @Miss Sally @samizayn @Marv95 @Overcomer


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/755226555014676480


----------



## Overcomer

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Agreed, *SHIV*; had to migrate to CNN. :lol
> 
> @AryaDark @CamillePunk @L-DOPA @EL SHIV @Oda Nobunaga @Miss Sally @samizayn @Marv95 @Overcomer
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/755226555014676480


Should've pulled this off again


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump's entrance was amazing. I hope Hillary emulates this for her entrance.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Agreed, *SHIV*; had to migrate to CNN. [emoji38]
> 
> @AryaDark @CamillePunk @L-DOPA @EL SHIV @Oda Nobunaga @Miss Sally @samizayn @Marv95 @Overcomer
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/755226555014676480


ProTip: CSPAN broadcasts the entire convention gavel to gavel without commercials or dumb "analysts"


----------



## Marv95

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Yeah next time go to the CSPAN coverage. No commentary.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Thank you, both, gentlemen. I had actually been watching it, when I was watching it, on C-SPAN, but a friend wanted me to record parts of it later on and C-SPAN wouldn't allow me to record off of their channel tonight, so off to Fox News and then CNN I went. :lol I appreciate the tip, however!


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Not to belabor a point, but Flynn's speech only lasted 15 minutes more after Fox broke away to talk to their vacuous talking heads.* GOD BLESS C-SPAN* The "power panel" could have waited a 1/4 of an hour. :cuss:

Now Hannity has Flynn on and neglects to mention they Bobbited his speech. I expect more of the same for the rest of the convention, save for Trump's and Spence's speeches.


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Agreed, *SHIV*; had to migrate to CNN. :lol
> 
> @AryaDark @CamillePunk @L-DOPA @EL SHIV @Oda Nobunaga @Miss Sally @samizayn @Marv95 @Overcomer
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/755226555014676480


So let me get this straight, you don't honor me with being tagged but you send me a link to the post where you purposely excluded me?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Did they bring that weird old man back who talks to empty chairs?


----------



## MillionDollarChamp

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/u...mp-speech.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Melania stole Michelle Obama's speech


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



MillionDollarChamp said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/u...mp-speech.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
> 
> Melania stole Michelle Obama's speech


I would just past it off as a mere coincidence but I was also struck by the strength of your dreams phrasing. We don't hear that very often.

Damn it she was one of the few really likeable part of Trump's campaign and now this. I do not believe she wrote the speech herself even if she claims so. First the email list, now this speech writing blunder/sabotage. Seems like either the Trump campaign's staff vetting is really bad, or this is another attempt by them to create a controversy to create a media circus to keep the media attention on his campaign.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



MillionDollarChamp said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/u...mp-speech.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
> 
> Melania stole Michelle Obama's speech


Wow that is just a dumb mistake by her speech writers. It's hackneyed bullshit anyway. You can write it a thousand different ways. Why do it so close to the other one?

EDIT:

Trump campaign released this statement.










EDIT: 2

O.K. one of the writers was definitely fucking with her. They snuck a rickroll into the speech.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

:lol that rickroll line.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






He brought him back!


----------



## Genking48

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

It's pretty amazing to watch actually


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/755260215021432832


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> He brought him back!


Hail to the king baby.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

OMG what a massive blunder! What were they thinking? It was virtually a verbatim ripoff! Not that Trump supporters will care most likely but it's a bad look.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> OMG what a massive blunder! What were they thinking? It was virtually a verbatim ripoff! Not that Trump supporters will care most likely but it's a bad look.



He survived weeks of all networks calling him Hitler and/or the Grand Dragon of the Klan, so I don't think anyone will give a flying fuck about this.


----------



## 3ku1

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

It is careless and reckless if anything. Ever heard of spellcheck, or proof reading lol? Plagiarism is a no no, that they teach at an early age. The fact that such a common thing is forgotten this high up, is shocking. It's been a train wreck of a campaign lets be honest. And it's coming to its near, inevitable Plane Hitting Twin Towers end. Hillary wins in a landslide I am predicting. Not that I like Hillary, or anyone I Think being from NZ means anything. Shes just as bad, can't you stick with Obama? But shes better then Trump that is for sure. Shes the better of Two Evils.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Yeah I don't know why anyone would expect that with all the issues the country is facing THIS would register as anything important or worth talking about. :lol


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Duck Dynasty spittin some truth at the convention. :trump


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



> Hillary wins in a landslide I am predicting.


Not according to recent polls. She's ahead, but it's far from a landslide.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> He survived weeks of all networks calling him *Hitler and/or the Grand Dragon of the Klan*, so I don't think anyone will give a flying fuck about this.


Be realistic now, many are calling him a con artist/cheat, a bigot spreading hate speech, misogynist, fear monger, and yes he is skating free that would have disqualified any other person if attempted same behavior. 

But you're wrong about anyone not giving a flying *beep*. 


God sees, and we all know that He knows.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



gamegenie said:


> God sees, and we all know that He knows.



Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



3ku1 said:


> It is careless and reckless if anything. Ever heard of spellcheck, or proof reading lol? Plagiarism is a no no, that they teach at an early age. The fact that such a common thing is forgotten this high up, is shocking. It's been a train wreck of a campaign lets be honest. And it's coming to its near, inevitable Plane Hitting Twin Towers end. Hillary wins in a landslide I am predicting. Not that I like Hillary, or anyone I Think being from NZ means anything. Shes just as bad, can't you stick with Obama? But shes better then Trump that is for sure. Shes the better of Two Evils.


Obama can't run again...our Constitution limits a President to two terms. In this case, they are both evil and there is no difference. Sad to say, this is where our country is...this is the South Park election come to life where we have to vote between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. 

On a night where the theme was making America safe, if I was running things I would have had at least either General Flynn or Senator Ernst (or probably both as they are both combat veterans) speak before Melania. Actually, she would have made more sense on another night as she really doesn't offer anything in regards to national security.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This was also pretty hilarious.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Obama can't run again...our Constitution limits a President to two terms. In this case, they are both evil and there is no difference. Sad to say, this is where our country is...this is the South Park election come to life where we have to vote between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
> 
> On a night where the theme was making America safe, if I was running things I would have had at least either General Flynn or Senator Ernst (or probably both as they are both combat veterans) speak before Melania. Actually, she would have made more sense on another night as she really doesn't offer anything in regards to national security.


Bruiser, you are better than this. Seeing a lot of salt in your posts.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Obama can't run again...our Constitution limits a President to two terms. In this case, they are both evil and there is no difference. Sad to say, this is where our country is...this is the South Park election come to life where we have to vote between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.
> 
> On a night where the theme was making America safe, if I was running things I would have had at least either General Flynn or Senator Ernst (or probably both as they are both combat veterans) speak before Melania. Actually, she would have made more sense on another night as she really doesn't offer anything in regards to national security.


I say it's beyond that, this year we literally have Eric Cartman running for President, in a scenario that is all too South Park. 


But you should all know what usually happens at the end is Eric Cartman's plot eventually gets foiled.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

You guys realize Colbert doesn't even hate Trump as most of you do. He just knows the easy targets. He makes fun of Hilary too.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



gamegenie said:


> I say it's beyond that, this year we literally have Eric Cartman running for President, in a scenario that is all too South Park.
> 
> 
> But you should all know what usually happens at the end is Eric Cartman's plot eventually gets foiled.


And if Hill loses?


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> And if Hill loses?


Then it's not Southpark we are witnessing.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



gamegenie said:


> Then it's not Southpark we are witnessing.


You know, I'm not voting for Trump because I want to suddenly mace all Muslims.

Nor do I think Hillary will necessarily kill America.


You're looking at this in a manner of extremes. Contrary to what you may think, Trump is not Hitler, or Eric Cartman. If you honestly think he sits in an evil boss-type chair going "Yeeeeees, I will kill them all!" You are really pushing it.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> You know, I'm not voting for Trump because I want to suddenly mace all Muslims.
> 
> Nor do I think Hillary will necessarily kill America.
> 
> 
> You're looking at this in a manner of extremes. Contrary to what you may think, Trump is not Hitler, or Eric Cartman. If you honestly think he sits in an evil boss-type chair going "Yeeeeees, I will kill them all!" You are really pushing it.


Ironic you are accusing him of looking in a manner of extremes when you have been saying hyperbole about Hilary and Bernie throughout.

Just a few pages back you were pushing the image that Hilary is an evil boss-type person going "Yeeeeeees, I will destroy Christianity in America and replace it with Islam". Come on bro.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Ironic you are accusing him of looking in a manner of extremes when you have been saying hyperbole about Hilary and Bernie throughout.
> 
> Just a few pages back you were pushing the image that Hilary is an evil boss-type person going "Yeeeeeees, I will destroy Christianity in America and replace it with Islam". Come on bro.


no, i was saying she was appealing to that demographic. Then again, Hill IS rather Globalist so I wouldn't be surprised What she'd do if it meant money for her foundation.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> no, i was saying she was appealing to that demographic. Then again, Hill IS rather Globalist so I wouldn't be surprised What she'd do if it meant money for her foundation.


You were saying she was advocating for Sharia Law. That's laughably bad because it didn't seem like you were kidding.

At least with GG we know the Cartman joke is just a joke.

You have little credibility in asking for people to look at things from a less extreme position when you yourself seem incapable of doing so.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Colbert is great. But he is definitely bias in favour of Hilary this campaign. I'm a Hilary supporter and even I can acknowledge that.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






I want each and everyone of you to watch this video, then stop and watch it again. Then watch it one more time.

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> I want each and everyone of you to watch this video, then stop and watch it again. Then read it one more time.
> 
> - Vic


I see a shameless use of a mother's loss for political gain by a political party. Both sides do it.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> You were saying she was advocating for Sharia Law. That's laughably bad because it didn't seem like you were kidding.
> 
> At least with GG we know the Cartman joke is just a joke.
> 
> You have little credibility in asking for people to look at things from a less extreme position when you yourself seem incapable of doing so.


And as usual you fail to understand what I meant.

Hill changes with the wind. Even Dave, who is about as different from me politically as anyone on the left, acknowledges this. She is pandering to the Muslim community just as much if not more than Trump to evangelical voters. Because it's the cool thing to do on the left because they're being oh-so-attacked right now by those evil white people. Just ask them.

Hill won't SAY she supports sharia law, and in her heart she may not, I dunno, but she's a lot friendlier to it on the campaign trail than she is Christianity. Maybe what i should have said was that she supports greater Islamification in the west?

Though, again, that's only because a lot on the left are Globalists. Gotta demand those reparations because America's evil, yknow. If that wasn't what got her votes perhaps she wouldn't say it.


----------



## Marv95

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

When you want to bring in refugees who support the execution of gays and mistreatment of women you might as well support Sharia law even if you're not intending to do so.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

How is she more friendly to Sharia law than she is to Christianity? She opposes Sharia law and is Christian...

What she advocates is not being racist and generalising, which is a perfectly reasonable and moderate position and one which you've decided to pretend is supporting Sharia. And it isn't.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> How is she more friendly to Sharia law than she is to Christianity? She opposes Sharia law and is Christian...


And how do I trust her then to give God....MY god...greater presence in this country?


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> And how do I trust her then to give God....MY god...greater presence in this country?


Well how can you trust Trump?

If you actually look at the two of them objectively for a second:

Trump has had 3 wives, Hilary has stuck by her husband through thick and thin and has stayed in the one relationship and raised a child within it.

Trump supported same sex marriage for literally decades before Hilary did.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Bruiser, you are better than this. Seeing a lot of salt in your posts.


Interested in your thoughts on the possible 'stolen speech' thing mate? To me it doesn't say a lot of good things for the Trump organisation that they can't even get that right.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> And as usual you fail to understand what I meant.
> 
> Hill changes with the wind. Even Dave, who is about as different from me politically as anyone on the left, acknowledges this. She is pandering to the Muslim community just as much if not more than Trump to evangelical voters. Because it's the cool thing to do on the left because they're being oh-so-attacked right now by those evil white people. Just ask them.


The Muslim community isn't a large enough voting bloc for her to pander to in American politics. The idea is right that she is pandering. She is pandering to the left that wants to be seen as protecting minority right.



> Hill won't SAY she supports sharia law, and in her heart she may not, I dunno, but she's a lot friendlier to it on the campaign trail than she is Christianity. Maybe what i should have said was that she supports greater Islamification in the west?


You won't say you support getting rid of separation of church and state, and in your heart you may not, I dunno, but you are a lot friendlier to the idea of more Christianity in secular government than allowing freedom of religion in the country.

You seem fixed on the idea that is is Christianity against Islam when the third option of secularism that made America great.



> Though, again, that's only because a lot on the left are Globalists. Gotta demand those reparations because America's evil, yknow. If that wasn't what got her votes perhaps she wouldn't say it.


The same can be said of the right. Gotta denounce the evil lefties for promoting social ills and using faith against them. If that wasn't what get them votes, perhaps they wouldn't say it, seeing as so many of the GOP old white men have multiple affairs and divorces while still bible thumping.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> You guys realize Colbert doesn't even hate Trump as most of you do. He just knows the easy targets. He makes fun of Hilary too.


Thanks for the education on Colbert. Maybe if you weren't so defensive about Trump you could see the funny side.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> I want each and everyone of you to watch this video, then stop and watch it again. Then read it one more time.
> 
> - Vic


That's terrible and I feel sorry for her loss, and I don't judge her feelings, she can feel however she likes after losing her child. However I feel disgust and anger at the republican organisers for putting her up there, she deserves her platform if she wants it, but I don't think that should be it because I do not accept that the Repubs give two fucks about her or her loss - they are only exploiting her plight because she puts Hillary in a bad light.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

....in a curious development, the IOTWReport website finds some curious analogues between Michelle's own 2008 speech, and a book written in 1992 by African author Rob Marsh titled, "Business success in South Africa." Spot the similarities.

From book:

“...is based upon the application of certain basic truths: that integrity is all important, that your word is your bond, that if you owe a person money you pay him back, that you work hard, enjoy what you do and show a loyalty to those with whom you work and do business. He instilled in me simple, clear cut values and a will to succeed.”

Sauce: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-19/did-michelle-obama-also-borrow-her-2008-speech


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> That's terrible and I feel sorry for her loss, and I don't judge her feelings, she can feel however she likes after losing her child. However I feel disgust and anger at the republican organisers for putting her up there, she deserves her platform if she wants it, but I don't think that should be it because I do not accept that the Repubs give two fucks about her or her loss - they are only exploiting her plight because she puts Hillary in a bad light.


Right, because there's no way the man who's running trying to improve situations like this is motivated for actual reasons like this. Maybe if you weren't so defensive about the Dems you could see the honest side.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> The Muslim community isn't a large enough voting bloc for her to pander to in American politics. The idea is right that she is pandering. She is pandering to the left that wants to be seen as protecting minority right.
> 
> You won't say you support getting rid of separation of church and state, and in your heart you may not, I dunno, but you are a lot friendlier to the idea of more Christianity in secular government than allowing freedom of religion in the country.
> 
> You seem fixed on the idea that is is Christianity against Islam when the third option of secularism that made America great.
> 
> The same can be said of the right. Gotta denounce the evil lefties for promoting social ills and using faith against them. If that wasn't what get them votes, perhaps they wouldn't say it, seeing as so many of the GOP old white men have multiple affairs and divorces while still bible thumping.


Okay, so you're anti christian then. I personally believe God deserves more of a place, not less. 

As for me and other religions, I don't even hide the fact that in large part things in Christianity are fucked. Sects like Jehovah's witnesses are far more occult like than I ever dreamed of being and i want that out. I want Radical Islam out, but I can tolerate Buddhism better than almost every other major religion besides mine. 

I have said a million times that if christians were doing all these things every few months Id want them banned. Right now the problem is within Islam.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Guys please stop talking about Islam like it's just another religion. It's not. It's a political ideology with clear mandates from God about how society should be governed. That's incompatible with Western civilization and our rule of law. That's the issue, not religious belief. If you want a secular government, as I do, then you don't want to import a bunch of people who follow a political ideology that would never promote secularism if it achieved any influence.

On the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses, I actually had a few stop by about a year or two ago and preach to me about how we need God to overthrow the governments of the world and govern it himself. When I inquired why an all-knowing, all-powerful deity would require us to tell it what it needs to do, I got accused of being "difficult". :lol


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> How is she more friendly to Sharia law than she is to Christianity? She opposes Sharia law *and is Christian*...
> 
> What she advocates is not being racist and generalising, which is a perfectly reasonable and moderate position and one which you've decided to pretend is supporting Sharia. And it isn't.


Hillary Clinton is a Christian? You learn something new every day. :wow


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Right, because there's no way the man who's running trying to improve situations like this is motivated for actual reasons like this. Maybe if you weren't so defensive about the Dems you could see the honest side.


That's correct I don't believe Donald is motivated by anything than a lust for more power most likely. It has nothing to with the Dems, more about my perceptions of Trump. The way he talks says to me he likely doesn't understand things like compassion or empathy.

Honest side? Give me a break.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Guys please stop talking about Islam like it's just another religion. It's not. It's a political ideology with clear mandates from God about how society should be governed. That's incompatible with Western civilization and our rule of law. That's the issue, not religious belief. If you want a secular government, as I do, then you don't want to import a bunch of people who follow a political ideology that would never promote secularism if it achieved any influence.


You speak as if the muslims in America are all secretly working to change you to a strict muslim society though, which is not the case. Don't the overwhelming majority just want to go on with their lives and raise their families? As an American, the bastion nation of freedom, don't you have a responsibility to allow them that?


----------



## Headliner

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

lmao at the clown ass defenders on social media trying to defend or marginalize this. If Michelle Obama did this then those same people would come at her with torches and hang her. You don't blatantly plagiarize a speech, try to claim it as your own by saying you wrote it with as little help as possible when you are speaking at a NATIONAL CONVENTION on behalf of a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. No excuse. She fucked up. This retarded bird brain ass chick.:lmao 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/755255363650236417


> Trump:
> My parents impressed on me the value of that you work hard for what you want in life. That your work is your bond and you do what you say and keep your promise.That you treat people with respect. Show the values and morals in in the daily life. That is the lesson that we continue to pass on to our son. We need to pass those lessons on to the many generations to follow. Because we want our children in these nations to know that the only limit to your achievement is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.
> 
> Michelle Obama:
> And Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you're going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don't know them, and even if you don't agree with them.
> 
> And Barack and I set out to build lives guided by these values, and pass them on to the next generation. Because we want our children — and all children in this nation — to know that the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.


:done


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

^ Agreed. Team Trump has been strangely quiet on this one.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Alaska contesting the vote. :curry2


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Personally I would run a quick search of anything I would say in public on google

It takes like 10 seconds and I would expect to have my speech a few days early


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Bruiser, you are better than this. Seeing a lot of salt in your posts.





Beatles123 said:


> You know, I'm not voting for Trump because I want to suddenly mace all Muslims.
> 
> Nor do I think Hillary will necessarily kill America.
> 
> 
> You're looking at this in a manner of extremes. Contrary to what you may think, Trump is not Hitler, or Eric Cartman. If you honestly think he sits in an evil boss-type chair going "Yeeeeees, I will kill them all!" You are really pushing it.


The speech thing wasn't meant to be salty but was an observation. The whole night was to be dedicated to national security and making America safe again. Melania Trump's speech was like the Sesame Street game, "One of these things is not like the others." Her speech would have been better designed for either Wednesday or even Thursday and last night would have been better served with Senator Ernst or General Flynn speaking during that slot. 

As or the real salty part, I have decided to stand on principle. Time and again, the Republican Party has forgotten its roots and the fact it was supposed to be the party of conservatism. It was supposed to be about small government, getting back to the basics of the Constitution and what the Founding Fathers had designed. Instead, they have turned into a Democrat-lite brand. They claim to be for the people, but they keep running up our national debt, ignoring the will of the people, and refusing to adhere to what we want rather than what is best for their wallets and refusing to put America First. And they keep throwing out their non-conservative Presidential candidates, going back to Bush Senior. It's that shit that made me drop my voter registration to the GOP, right about the time Bush Junior crammed the TARP and bailout down our throats (which is when the Tea Party first really started). 

This was supposed to be different this year. We had some very solid Constitutional conservatives...Rubio, Jindahl, Perry, Cruz. Like Reagan said, the GOP needs to paint in bold colors, not pastels. You don't see that with the Dems, Obama paints with bold colors and no doubt Hillary will also. So, in the anger of the GOP, they throw their weight behind who? The most liberal Republican candidate that I can ever remember. A man who talks about suing people that say mean things about him, a man who talks about raising taxes, a man who won't do anything about entitlement reforms, and let's not forget already starting to walk back his promises. His keeping out all Muslims is now "extreme vetting", and you know the wall on the Mexican border ain't getting built. He's a blowhard who really is nothing more than a paper tiger. Personally, I don't agree with the stereotypes of all Muslims, but it's another example of he won't follow through. 

I'm tired of it. If we are going to continue to make shitty decisions, then I'm going to sit back and just let the country implode. I will vote on Election Day, but I will not vote for Hillary or Trump. I've been fooled time and again on voting for liberals because it beats the alternative. There is none this time...Trump was one of Hillary's top donors. These are two people that I would have nothing to do with. I don't agree with Obama 99% of the time, but I would sit down and have a beer with him. Hillary or Trump...I would not sit with them and break bread because they really don't give a shit about the common man and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to have their heads examined. 

If the GOP dies this time, so be it. Hopefully, when they see how bad things turn out maybe we'll turn things around and do it the right way. This is a hill I'm willing to die on.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Okay, so you're anti christian then. I personally believe God deserves more of a place, not less.
> 
> As for me and other religions, I don't even hide the fact that in large part things in Christianity are fucked. Sects like Jehovah's witnesses are far more occult like than I ever dreamed of being and i want that out. I want Radical Islam out, but I can tolerate Buddhism better than almost every other major religion besides mine.
> 
> I have said a million times that if christians were doing all these things every few months Id want them banned. Right now the problem is within Islam.


Talk about others taking extremes views, and here you are saying anyone that disagree with you to be anti-something you are in support of.

You believe God deserve more of a place, so I guess you are in support of getting rid of separation of church and state but can't say it because it sounds too radical to non-Christians. Just like 'evil' Hilary can't say she wants Sharia Law in America. Mrite? :lol

Everybody wants Radical Islam out. They are preaching about killing people to achieve a political goal. If I were to go further, I want fundamentalism Islam that is imparting Arab culture like wearing the hijab and anti-woman beliefs on non-Arab Muslims of the world out (but that would be racist to liberals) and causing cultural friction between communities that lived peacefully alongside each other for close to a century.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

FNC just lost me. At least C-SPAN shows the damn speeches.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

These "Lock her up" chants. :banderas

Thought Paul Ryan's speech was great. Great call for unity and gives the sense that House Republicans will work with Trump. Also did a great job of giving the perspective on this election that posters like @BruiserKC sorely lack, as he seems quite keen on dying on that hill of his principles even if it means taking future generations down with him as the liberals take control of the supreme court for decades.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Chris Christie dismantling and destroying Hillary. :sodone


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Christie is nuking Hillary right now. *GUILTY!!!*!


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Eh, I like the idea of what Christie is doing but these are some pretty weak things to go after her on. On one hand he attacks her for fucking up Libya by taking out Gadaffi but then turns around and criticizes her for not doing the same with Assad? He goes after her for not treating Russia like an adversary? Come on, this is not even what Trump has been about. He wants to be hands-off with Syria. He wants to get along with Russia. 

There are a million great things to go after Clinton for, he really didn't touch upon many of them tonight, and the stuff he did go after her on is really off-message for what the Trump campaign has been about. 

Disappointing from Christie. Clearly we need a better person to "prosecute" Clinton if that's what he's got.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Chris Christie's sure know how to give a great performance. The speech was great until he had to shoehorn Trump's name at the end.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Tiffany Trump is as pretty as her mom. She's doing a good job.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

As I watch the RNC this week and the DNC next week, I'm starting to really think more and more that Trump can win this thing. I have been hearing for months that Trump is sparking a "new alternative movement of the conservative wing". Notice I didn't say Republican. This election has been ALL about Trump, whether people like him or hate him. He is the story of this race, not Hilary (unless it involves e-mails, Bill Clinton, or Benghazi). I don't think anybody (even liberals) can say Clinton is beginning a movement or apart of one when she IS the status quo all of us from all political aspects want to get rid of.

People are selling Trump short here. He is defining and changing the norm of politics in his own way.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Bruiser, you are better than this. Seeing a lot of salt in your posts.





CamillePunk said:


> These "Lock her up" chants. :banderas
> 
> Thought Paul Ryan's speech was great. Great call for unity and gives the sense that House Republicans will work with Trump. Also did a great job of giving the perspective on this election that posters like @BruiserKC sorely lack, as he seems quite keen on dying on that hill of his principles even if it means taking future generations down with him as the liberals take control of the supreme court for decades.


Paul Ryan had the chance to stop Obama and his policies, but folded time and time again. He wiped away all the progress and budget cuts, plus continued to piss away the power of the purse and give in to the Dems. He will break our hearts again, and with Trump's liberal tendencies there's no guarantee that he will nominate conservatives to the SCOTUS. He's already started walking back many of his promises. And remember, just a few years ago this man was singing Hillary's and Obama's praises. He'll say anything to get elected like most other politicians, he's just louder about it. 

Ryan is only doing this to save his own rear. He is currently facing a challenge from a conservative in Wisconsin in his primary. Maybe he will think twice before trying to be a Dem-lite again.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

A+ speech by Donald Trump Jr. Just wow. Effectively went after Hillary in a way Christie failed to do. Gave a vision for the future of the country grounded in the principles of free markets and limited government. Comprehensively told the story of the Donald Trump that many of us who don't sheep the liberal media know and adore, the man who wins the affection and reverence of his blue collar employees and has raised his kids to be hard workers despite their family's massive wealth. Can't say enough about how great that entire speech was, really. Donald Trump Jr 2024 please.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

The problem with budget cuts is it is taboo to suggest cuts for the biggest spenders in the military. So the focus is always on education, which is just doubling down on failing the next generations.

You need politicians that don't have to be forced to raise funds for campaigns 80% of their time in office for anything to get done right. Or it will be half-ass efforts like Vermont for the left and Kansa for the right that made the people suffer for ideological purity battles.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Well Ben Carson's speech was mercifully short. I'm still awake, somehow. :side:


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Donald Trump Jr. was nothing short of fantastic. The Daily Show tried to accuse him of plagiarism but got torpedoed. :lol http://www.mediaite.com/online/writ...ly-shows-suggestion-trump-jr-plagiarized-him/


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Donald's son did have a good speech last night. The family, with the exception of Melania, have had experience of being in the spotlight in the past with regards to other matters so they have the chops in regards to public speaking. Christie, on the other hand, took too damn long. He could have been more effective in cutting out some of his speech and been just as effective. 



FriedTofu said:


> The problem with budget cuts is it is taboo to suggest cuts for the biggest spenders in the military. So the focus is always on education, which is just doubling down on failing the next generations.
> 
> You need politicians that don't have to be forced to raise funds for campaigns 80% of their time in office for anything to get done right. Or it will be half-ass efforts like Vermont for the left and Kansa for the right that made the people suffer for ideological purity battles.


Politicians, especially those in the House of Representatives, seem to be always about raising money because they have two-year terms. As soon as they get elected, it's on to the next election. A solution I have is something of a term limit in that you can't run for consecutive terms. This way, you aren't worried about running and can actually focus on getting work done. 

I'm for budget cuts everywhere provided they are smart about them. The US is $19 trillion in debt, and the next president needs to address that or we're heading for a crash that makes the Great Depression look like a picnic. As for education, the federal government has overreached starting with NCLB, so now we need to look at cutting out the fat and I would start with the Department of Education. Let education be handled on the state level where it would be more effective.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



> Guys please stop talking about Islam like it's just another religion. It's not. It's a political ideology with clear mandates from God about how society should be governed. That's incompatible with Western civilization and our rule of law. That's the issue, not religious belief. If you want a secular government, as I do, then you don't want to import a bunch of people who follow a political ideology that would never promote secularism if it achieved any influence.



:applause


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Every repub is hype. Love it.


----------



## blackholeson

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


>


This. Well done.


----------



## blackholeson

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Islam is no more a political ideology than Judaism, or Christianity. It's people who interpret their own beliefs. Life is nothing, but our very own perception of reality.


----------



## .MCH

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> One day this past May, Donald Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., reached out to a senior adviser to Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, who left the presidential race just a few weeks before. As a candidate, Kasich declared in March that Trump was “really not prepared to be president of the United States,” and the following month he took the highly unusual step of coordinating with his rival Senator Ted Cruz in an effort to deny Trump the nomination. But according to the Kasich adviser (who spoke only under the condition that he not be named), Donald Jr. wanted to make him an offer nonetheless: Did he have any interest in being the most powerful vice president in history?
> 
> *When Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy.*
> 
> Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?
> 
> *“Making America great again” was the casual reply.*


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/magazine/how-donald-trump-picked-his-running-mate.html

:lol Trump trolling y'all. Enjoy president Mike Pence.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



.MCH said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/magazine/how-donald-trump-picked-his-running-mate.html
> 
> :lol Trump trolling y'all. Enjoy president Mike Pence.


I don't know if that is a good deal or a horrible deal for the VP


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Anyway, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have both lost all credibility after glowingly endorsing a candidate who stands for and is in bed with everything they've claimed to be against their entire career.


I believe this is the image you were looking for:


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/755848295201722372
:sodone


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






And CNN wonders why their ratings are dropping like flies.

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> And CNN wonders why their ratings are dropping like flies.
> 
> - Vic


Its not called the Clinton News Network for nothing.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Donald's son did have a good speech last night. The family, with the exception of Melania, have had experience of being in the spotlight in the past with regards to other matters so they have the chops in regards to public speaking. Christie, on the other hand, took too damn long. He could have been more effective in cutting out some of his speech and been just as effective.
> 
> 
> 
> Politicians, especially those in the House of Representatives, seem to be always about raising money because they have two-year terms. As soon as they get elected, it's on to the next election. A solution I have is something of a term limit in that you can't run for consecutive terms. This way, you aren't worried about running and can actually focus on getting work done.
> 
> I'm for budget cuts everywhere provided they are smart about them. The US is $19 trillion in debt, and the next president needs to address that or we're heading for a crash that makes the Great Depression look like a picnic. As for education, the federal government has overreached starting with NCLB, so now we need to look at cutting out the fat and I would start with the Department of Education. Let education be handled on the state level where it would be more effective.


The problem is being 'smart' about them is merely just whoever is funding the politicians re-election the least. NCLB was good in theory in trying to allow American schools to catch up in testings to their peers in other countries. I wouldn't trust some state to handle education given how little importance they place on it. The new economy requires skills that NCLB emphasised. But the worry is the blunting of innovation with standardised testings which is the liveblood of capitalism. I rather there be reforms than completely cutting the legs of education as the first resort. If the aim is to increase efficiency in spending by cutting funding, then I wouldn't have an issue. But the it is transparent that education is seen as trivial compared to other branches of government like defence or subsidies for businesses to those who are pushing for cuts for it.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

These ads about women supporting Trump during the convention look so eerily like communist propaganda.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

:lol the awkward silence during this black woman's speech when she mentioned LGBTQ and black lives matter.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> The problem is being 'smart' about them is merely just whoever is funding the politicians re-election the least. NCLB was good in theory in trying to allow American schools to catch up in testings to their peers in other countries. I wouldn't trust some state to handle education given how little importance they place on it. The new economy requires skills that NCLB emphasised. But the worry is the blunting of innovation with standardised testings which is the liveblood of capitalism. I rather there be reforms than completely cutting the legs of education as the first resort. If the aim is to increase efficiency in spending by cutting funding, then I wouldn't have an issue. But the it is transparent that education is seen as trivial compared to other branches of government like defence or subsidies for businesses to those who are pushing for cuts for it.


All the more reason for education to be handled at the local level. I would rather have my children's education decisions made by someone here as opposed to some bureaucrat in Washington. Then again, I'm one of those parents who actually pays attention to my kids' education and follows it closely. I know, that makes me one of them helicopter parents. :smile2:

There's so much inefficient government BS that needs to be cut out. That's one of the reasons the feds are inefficient. So much red tape, so much garbage you have to go through to get something done for anything. I feel like standing before the Vogons and hoping I have the right form in triplicate signed and stamped for proper filing sometimes. The problem is now our debt is to the point the cuts are really going to hurt and then people will get pissed off for such austere measures. That's what really depresses me about this election...neither Trump nor Clinton are mentioning the outrageous national debt.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Will Cruz endorse Trump during this speech? Follow Governor Walker's lead, Lyin' Ted.


----------



## KO Bossy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I was watching the Republican Convention and had to turn it off. I was thoroughly disgusted with it and couldn't take anymore. The final straw was Governor Walker praising the late Justice Scalia, another racist, corrupt, bigoted piece of human garbage.

This whole campaign can be summed up as follows: "Hillary is evil, vote Trump." That's all I was hearing. Never anything of substance, like HOW he will lower taxes or improve foreign policy, just whipping the mob into a frenzy with LOL TRUMP IZ DA BOMB, MAKE MURICA GRATE AGIN. Mud slinging and pushing the propaganda machine.

It deeply disturbs me that there can be people this deluded in the world.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> All the more reason for education to be handled at the local level. I would rather have my children's education decisions made by someone here as opposed to some bureaucrat in Washington. Then again, I'm one of those parents who actually pays attention to my kids' education and follows it closely. I know, that makes me one of them helicopter parents. :smile2:
> 
> There's so much inefficient government BS that needs to be cut out. That's one of the reasons the feds are inefficient. So much red tape, so much garbage you have to go through to get something done for anything. I feel like standing before the Vogons and hoping I have the right form in triplicate signed and stamped for proper filing sometimes. The problem is now our debt is to the point the cuts are really going to hurt and then people will get pissed off for such austere measures. That's what really depresses me about this election...neither Trump nor Clinton are mentioning the outrageous national debt.


Governments will always be inefficient compared to private enterprises imo due to complacency and also different philosophy.

The debt is an issue, but one solution to soften the blow while reforms take place is a deathblow in America politics, raising taxes. Every election the politicians increase spending while promising to cut taxes. Doesn't take a 5th grader to know it isn't sustainable.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Cruz booed heavily after he failed to endorse Trump. So much for that pledge, eh Lyin' Ted?


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Ted Cruz. What an OG after that haha.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KO Bossy said:


> I was watching the Republican Convention and had to turn it off. I was thoroughly disgusted with it and couldn't take anymore. The final straw was Governor Walker praising the late Justice Scalia, another racist, corrupt, bigoted piece of human garbage.
> 
> This whole campaign can be summed up as follows: "Hillary is evil, vote Trump." That's all I was hearing. Never anything of substance, like HOW he will lower taxes or improve foreign policy, just whipping the mob into a frenzy with LOL TRUMP IZ DA BOMB, MAKE MURICA GRATE AGIN. Mud slinging and pushing the propaganda machine.
> 
> It deeply disturbs me that there can be people this deluded in the world.


Democrats aren't better in this regards. "Trump is evil, vote Hilary". :shrug

I guess this is how politics appeal to the generation that grew up with pro-wrestling on tv and 4chans being decision makers of today :lol


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Ted Cruz is the epitome of sore loser. No wonder his colleagues despise him.


----------



## KO Bossy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Democrats aren't better in this regards. "Trump is evil, vote Hilary". :shrug
> 
> I guess this is how politics appeal to the generation that grew up with pro-wrestling on tv and 4chans being decision makers of today :lol


It just sickens me that this is what has happened. Make America great again? Talk about practical issues and your solutions to them, don't just shit on your opponents. Its like grade school bullshit. And yes, both sides are guilty of this, but I found it particularly revolting tonight. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie...who's next on the boob brigade to make a speech? Sarah Palin? Michelle Bachmann? Rick Santorum?


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Governments will always be inefficient compared to private enterprises imo due to complacency and also different philosophy.
> 
> The debt is an issue, but one solution to soften the blow while reforms take place is a deathblow in America politics, raising taxes. Every election the politicians increase spending while promising to cut taxes. Doesn't take a 5th grader to know it isn't sustainable.


Which is why spending has to be cut as well. Reagan had the right idea...and, amazingly enough, Bill Clinton had the idea (with help from the Republican Revolution) in cutting the fat. 

BTW, great Cruz speech tonight. I was very impressed, even though there were some boos at the end because he didn't endorse Trump.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KO Bossy said:


> It just sickens me that this is what has happened. Make America great again? Talk about practical issues and your solutions to them, don't just shit on your opponents. Its like grade school bullshit. And yes, both sides are guilty of this, but I found it particularly revolting tonight. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie...who's next on the boob brigade to make a speech? Sarah Palin? Michelle Bachmann? Rick Santorum?


I agree. It is really bad but these things are more to unite the party on fluff stuff. It is great entertainment for me, much more than the WWE these days. At least nobody is talking to a chair this year. :lol


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Shout out to the gentleman at the ‪RNC‬ with the Hillary's Lies Matter‬ sign. My hat's off to you, good sir.

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Which is why spending has to be cut as well. Reagan had the right idea...and, amazingly enough, Bill Clinton had the idea (with help from the Republican Revolution) in cutting the fat.
> 
> BTW, great Cruz speech tonight. I was very impressed, even though there were some boos at the end because he didn't endorse Trump.


I think Reagan poisoned the well too much though. Cutting taxes and removing more and more regulations is not the magic pill because government need the revenue to function and regulating is part of the government's job. There needs to be a balance between the wild west mentality and the socialism mentality. Kansas and Vermont experiments should be a warning.

Even Reagan didn't tame the spending while cutting taxes and regulations. Governments after his saw excessive spending had little repercussions, and spent willfully on pet projects while cutting taxes and created such an enormous debt.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The democratic convention is going to be a bore compared to this reality show. :lol


----------



## KO Bossy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Shout out to the gentlemen at the ‪RNC‬ with the Hillary's Lies Matter‬ sign. My hat's off to you, good sir.
> 
> - Vic


While I can't be certain about the intent behind this, I'll go ahead and say this. You're right, her lies do matter. But...

















Trump lies as much as he breathes. People have simply stopped fact checking him because he lies so often and to such a high degree. And the double standards are insane. Had anyone but him promised to give money to Vets, not given it, and when caught red handed, then gave it over, they'd have been dead to rights. Yet why are people giving him a free pass?


I don't even know how much I can deal with this thread, looking at some of the other posts...Make America great again. Again. Because its not now. And if there's a reason why, its some of you. Some of you who want to repeat history and try to tank the country you love by seriously considering electing someone like Trump to run things. I'm completely gobsmacked.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Reagan cutting spending is one of the biggest myths that has ever been told. And there have been some big myths told. :lol

Most of the major deregulatory policies were begun under Carter, too.

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz is launching his 2020 presidential bid. Some of his speech was all right, but his refusal to endorse Trump leaves the wound within the Republican Party's body politic untended.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN1000ZV

:lol

There goes the my little pony defence.

:lol


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Still better than Hillary.

- Vic


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I think Reagan poisoned the well too much though. Cutting taxes and removing more and more regulations is not the magic pill because government need the revenue to function and regulating is part of the government's job. There needs to be a balance between the wild west mentality and the socialism mentality. Kansas and Vermont experiments should be a warning.
> 
> Even Reagan didn't tame the spending while cutting taxes and regulations. Governments after his saw excessive spending had little repercussions, and spent willfully on pet projects while cutting taxes and created such an enormous debt.


Partly because of a Democratic-controlled House, as the House is the one who controls the purse strings. The Dems controlled the House throughout all of Reagan's 8 years. It wasn't until Clinton was there that the budget got under control, and that took some encouraging from a Republican-controlled House led by Gingrich.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Newt equating the importance of the President of the United States to police officers? O_O

What am I hearing?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KO Bossy said:


> I was watching the Republican Convention and had to turn it off. I was thoroughly disgusted with it and couldn't take anymore. The final straw was Governor Walker praising the late Justice Scalia, another racist, corrupt, bigoted piece of human garbage.
> 
> This whole campaign can be summed up as follows: "Hillary is evil, vote Trump." That's all I was hearing. Never anything of substance, like HOW he will lower taxes or improve foreign policy, just whipping the mob into a frenzy with LOL TRUMP IZ DA BOMB, MAKE MURICA GRATE AGIN. Mud slinging and pushing the propaganda machine.
> 
> It deeply disturbs me that there can be people this deluded in the world.


Funny how they keep talking about jailing Hillary when Trump should be in jail for the whole Trump U fiasco.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Vintage Newt. :cole


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@KO Bossy, may I ask what Antonin Scalia did or said to warrant such a vicious attack? :lol


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Partly because of a Democratic-controlled House, as the House is the one who controls the purse strings. The Dems controlled the House throughout all of Reagan's 8 years. It wasn't until Clinton was there that the budget got under control, and that took some encouraging from a Republican-controlled House led by Gingrich.


I really don't think it is a partisan issue here. Neither side really believed in spending cuts because their sponsors expect something in return. All those pork barrel spending happen on both sides.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I really don't think it is a partisan issue here. Neither side really believed in spending cuts because their sponsors expect something in return. All those pork barrel spending happen on both sides.


Which is why both sides fear the Tea Party still. Even though people mock it and point fingers, it's still around. The original idea of the Tea Party (which I subscribe to) was to cut expenses and stop the government from spending money it doesn't have. The establishment feared it and still does because they believe sacred cows of spending make great cheeseburgers. The Tea Party is watching this election very closely. If Trump loses, many of the establishment folks that bailed will not be allowed to come back as I think the Tea Party completes the takeover of the GOP.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Meanwhile, Ted Cruz is launching his 2020 presidential bid. Some of his speech was all right, but his refusal to endorse Trump leaves the wound within the Republican Party's body politic untended.


Interesting strategy to launch a presidential bid by making a room of people go from cheering you to booing you off the stage as you break your word. :lol As we agreed in VMs, Ted Cruz has no political future at the national level.

Sorry @MrMister but he's all yours. :lol


----------



## KO Bossy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> @KO Bossy, may I ask what Antonin Scalia did or said to warrant such a vicious attack? :lol


Herrera v Collins:



> There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.



People v Troy Davis:



> This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.



Blatant violations of rights. "You're innocent? So? Doesn't mean we can't execute you!" "Oh, there's new evidence that could exonerate you? Doesn't mean we have to hear it, stay in jail!" Working in law myself, this greatly offends me.


Citizens United v Federal Election Commission:



> Indeed, to exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy. We should celebrate rather than condemn the addition of this speech to the public debate.


Thanks for allowing contributions to federal campaigns by corporations be infinity, essentially allowing them to buy candidates and elections.


Romer v Evans:



> The amendment prohibits special treatment of homosexuals, and nothing more.


Apparently, allowing local anti-discrimination laws to protect gays and lesbians amounts to “special treatment of homosexuals”, and they can't have that...


Comments relating to Shelby County v Holder:



> The Voting Rights Act is an “embedded” form of “racial preferment."


So apparently, having the basic right to vote is preferential racial treatment.


And perhaps what he's best known for, Bush v Gore:



> "I and my court owe no apology whatever for Bush v. Gore. We did the right thing. So there! ... get over it. It's so old by now."



That's right. He joined the per curium decision, pretty much ending the Florida recount that got Dubya elected as president, who proceeded to royally fuck things up, from the all of his deregulations and blocking of regulations on banks that helped contribute to the stoke market collapse in 2008, invading Iraq for no good reason, murdering the American economy, allegedly borrowed $1.37 trillion from the Social Security surplus to fund Iraq and tax cuts to his rich pals and never paid it back, giving the thumbs up to torturing prisoners, sent the country into even more massive debt, Harriet Miers, the Plame affair, etc, etc. 

And we're told to "Get over it." Fuck off.

That's where my anger comes from. I don't even live in America and this stuff has effected me.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

:lol Cruz still cannot shake that "reptilian alien overlord with a human being's integument" trait, for all of his efforts, either. :lol

Too bad, too, because some of his speech was excellent. The defense of the dead letter 10th Amendment of the dead letter U.S. Constitution was amusing. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

CNN's "Reality Check" needs a reality check of it's own. I know media has biased opinions but good grief are they deniers and shilling hard in Hilary's defense when she comes up in speeches.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> :lol Cruz still cannot shake that "reptilian alien overlord with a human being's integument" trait, for all of his efforts, either. :lol
> 
> Too bad, too, because some of his speech was excellent. The defense of the dead letter 10th Amendment of the dead letter U.S. Constitution was amusing. :lol


I thought it was a great speech up until he built up "the choice" only to utterly fail to mention Donald Trump. Then he continued to talk right into the camera and over the room of people jeering him in disgust, with a smile on his face. 

As I've said about Ted Cruz many times, his rhetoric is fantastic. He can talk like a true, classical limited government conservative. The type of guy I'd be very tempted to support if he had any authenticity in his personality or his actions. I've heard so many #NeverTrump Cruz supporters talk about what an egomaniac Donald Trump is. Well, this week Donald Trump invited every one of his primary competitors to come and speak at this convention with no strings attached. Ted Cruz took that offer and proceeded to spit in the face of Trump and a party that is trying to unify and prevent Hillary Clinton from ruining the future of this country with liberal supreme court justices, and made it all about himself. THAT is egomania, when you put yourself before your country and everything you publicly claim to believe in.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> CNN's "Reality Check" needs a reality check of it's own. I know media has biased opinions but good grief are they deniers and shilling hard in Hilary's defense when she comes up in speeches.


All "fact checkers" are constrained by their own biases. It's hard to find truly objective analysis.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump has commented on Cruz's speech on Twitter:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/755972015249645568


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Completely agreed, @CamillePunk. Marvelous post.

:lmao at Trump belittling "Lyin' Ted." 

Trump literally waving goodbye to him was a priceless moment. Especially with that casino owner friend standing behind him. Looked like a scene out of a film about the Mafia. :lol


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Pence did well tonight. He seemed a real salt of the earth guy, as much as one can divine such qualities from a speech.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Here's what I find funny about you guys

You guys laugh at and taunt each other over your political choices

You say that people who don't support your side are sheep and gullible

You tell people to "think for themselves" and "look at the evidence" for not agreeing with you lockstep

Any deviation from pure "what I believe" is met with scorn 

It doesn't matter where you are from

You send the message that you would not mind if the political system you believe was forced onto other because "your right and they can just get over it"

You are legit hostel to other views and perspective

It doesn't matter if you are a Trumper, Bernie Bro, UKIP or al shabaab, you want your guy in absolute power and those who don't agree with to be forced out and humiliated 

Even the "OLIGARCHY RULES ALL I HATE ALL POLITICIANS" run down and insult anyone who disagrees

You all want dictators, you want someone who can force your way of life on to everyone else

I am a fairly conservative person but I have no problem with liberals all the way to rabid communists, their life experiences have shaped their beliefs and to tell them their life taught them "wrong" is not my place 

People call Trump or Hillary Hitler but I don't see it, I see it in their followers

They want them to be Hitler, to punish those who "ruined everything" to get rid of every other ideology and allow only theirs because "its right and the best"

Hitler was just a guy, it was the people that made him 

Thank god most politicians don't listen to the people and try to find a neutral path that maintains the status quo because I've listened to the people's problems and heard their solutions and its scary as fuck


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump has commented on Cruz's speech on Twitter:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/755972015249645568


:trump with the :buried


----------



## -Ace-

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






:lol at the Bernie supporter.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Good speeches tonight...I don't see what the issue is with Cruz's speech really. Everyone pretty much knew there was going to be a non-endorsement endorsement by him. He said to vote your conscience up and down the ticket, isn't that what we are supposed to do? Besides, if they knew this was an issue, why even let him speak? After the way Trump ran Cruz's name through the dirt and insulted his wife and father, he was a far better man then I would be. I wouldn't have accepted the invitation to speak. 

Everyone will watch Trump's speech tonight though, that's for sure. I will watch as well. I can assure everyone here that might question my thoughts on the matter...I love the United States, I want this country to pull its head out of its ass and get back to where it could be. I just don't believe Donald J Trump is the man to do it. He doesn't represent what I value as a person, and I'm way past the point where I'm just going to vote for someone just because of that letter next to their name.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I was amused by the flag burning anti Trump poster who lit his arm on fire.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/07/20/cleveland-police-protests-flag/


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Ted Cruz can suck my balls. If you aren't endorsing, why even show up? SAD.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Good speeches tonight...I don't see what the issue is with Cruz's speech really. Everyone pretty much knew there was going to be a non-endorsement endorsement by him. He said to vote your conscience up and down the ticket, isn't that what we are supposed to do? Besides, if they knew this was an issue, why even let him speak? After the way Trump ran Cruz's name through the dirt and insulted his wife and father, he was a far better man then I would be. I wouldn't have accepted the invitation to speak.
> 
> Everyone will watch Trump's speech tonight though, that's for sure. I will watch as well. I can assure everyone here that might question my thoughts on the matter...I love the United States, I want this country to pull its head out of its ass and get back to where it could be. I just don't believe Donald J Trump is the man to do it. He doesn't represent what I value as a person, and I'm way past the point where I'm just going to vote for someone just because of that letter next to their name.


Of all the posters here KC, you might make me the saddest. Not because you won't vote Trump but because I can tell the media has gotten to you whether you will acknowledge it as such or not, and I can see how much you love this country. It's a shame that you have that opinion of a man who has been a patriot his entire life and would rather someone who BROKE THE LAW get in over him just because of an unproven commodity...

I respect your decision, it just breaks my heart.


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*










:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Punkhead said:


> :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao


When one lone jackass wants to make this about pride instead of beating Hill, that reaction is justified.


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










:lmao


----------



## AmWolves10

Anyone catch the Ted Cruz heel turn on the Republican party last night? that was straight up comedy haha


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

The best part of the RNC was watching that booger eating Canadian getting booed offstage. :lol



> Ted Cruz can suck my balls. If you aren't endorsing, why even show up? SAD.


Trump allowed him to speak so he can watch Cruz hang himself when he committed political suicide. Elephants have long memories. They won't forget.

- Vic


----------



## .MCH

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If Clinton picks Tim Kaine as her VP, then she deserves to lose. Did she learn nothing from Bernie? Absolute idiot. Praying someone primaries her in 4 years.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Spoiler alert. Leaked Trump speech.

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/21/122534...h-transcript-republican-nomination-transcript

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/rnc-2016-donald-trump-speech-leak-hillary-clinton-pac-225981

How can anyone trust someone to run the country when he can't even run his campaign properly?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

oh man a speech was leaked guess its time to give up on borders and lowering taxes and not starting war with Russia

Thanks for putting it all into perspective. Take it away, Hill-dog, who has never had any kind of negative incident that speaks to her competency.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

It isn't just the leaked speech. But hey if you have no substance you can only deflect.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Summed yourself up there perfectly mate.

The substance of Trump's campaign and vision for the country is precisely why I don't care at all about things like leaked speeches, plagiarized lines in fluffy meaningless first lady speeches, questionable retweets, or whatever trivial bullshit people want to focus on for the day.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

There is no substance in his campaign. He has flip flopped on many issues to pander. Leaked speeches and plagiarised lines in first lady speeches means his campaign failed to vet quality staff when he ran on a campaign that he will 'hire the best'. Questionable retweets mean he doesn't take running for president seriously.

It was seriously uncomfortable that his son's speech putting down the Clintons as the 'rich elites' that had the better choices to pander to the working class when the Trumps are friends with them and are even richer than the Clintons.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Of all the posters here KC, you might make me the saddest. Not because you won't vote Trump but because I can tell the media has gotten to you whether you will acknowledge it as such or not, and I can see how much you love this country. It's a shame that you have that opinion of a man who has been a patriot his entire life and would rather someone who BROKE THE LAW get in over him just because of an unproven commodity...
> 
> I respect your decision, it just breaks my heart.


I'm sorry that you are upset with my decision. First, let's make very clear that I am not wanting Hillary as President. Whereas I am man enough to admit I would sit down and have a beer with Obama even though I do not agree with him, Hillary is a self-serving, evil, disgusting, reprehensible See You Next Tuesday who I wouldn't want to see elected to clean bathrooms in a nursing home. That being said, this is not a decision that I came to lightly, I fully understand the consequences of Hildebeast Rodent Clinton as Creature-in-Chief. 

I have been a conservative pretty much as long as I was old enough to know what one was. I firmly believe in smaller government, more personal freedom, and getting involved just enough in the world to make sure we don't get messed with. The government needs to do just enough to handle the day-to-day business and leave the rest to us, and do it within its means like the rest of us have to do. As for our personal lives, the government needs to leave me the hell alone. I am a former Army vet and I'm glad I have served my country. However, I'm depressed at what we've become. 

I'm watching the government become more and more intrusive, treading more and more on our civil rights with every passing day. The Patriot Act, the NSA, phone records, etc. Both parties have become one in the same. George W. Bush and his economic policies brought this country almost to his knees, then he decided to bailout businesses that should have failed. Obama has done more of the same, plus take it to the next level. 

For years, this country has been on the verge of self-destruction. Folks like Boehner, Ryan, McConnell, etc...claim to be for us but then fold at every opportunity for Obama and the liberals. I applauded when the Republicans tried to shut the government down, but was disappointed when they folded. We had the chance this year to finally take the WH back, and we had conservatives galore ready to go. Perry, Cruz, Rubio (minus the Gang of Eight), Jindahl, etc. 

It's not just the fact that Donald Trump is an unknown commodity, because he certainly is not a true conservative. It's the fact that he has become the stereotype of what the media portrays conservatives like me to be. We are now all painted in the same broad brush that they have painted Trump with. We need someone who respects the Constitution, Trump talks about suing reporters that have slandered him. A president needs thick skin, Megyn Kelly asks him about his views on women (a legitimate question) and he goes off for months about how Megyn was on her period when she posed that question). What happens when a foreign leader asks him something he doesn't agree with, will he go off then? I need to know that our leader will act accordingly and with strength, not just fly off the handle and go all Kruschev and pound his shoe on the table. You want to be strong, fine, be strong but be professional about it. Of course, there are his stances on raising taxes, starting trade wars, etc. We've gone over those at great length. 

I am scared for this country, but I don't like either option that is offered to us now. To be honest, I wasn't that excited about the choices in '08 and '12 but voted for McCain and Romney. Trust me, Beatles, there are many more of us that are scared about what we are being offered this time around to the point they don't even want to vote. They don't speak up for fear of being a Trump lover and a misogynist or a RINO/Hillary lover. The difference is that I will not be silenced and I will speak out. I want this country to be better, but we are on the wrong track. 

Again, if I am wrong and he turns the country around, I will be willing to admit I was wrong. I kinda want to be wrong to an extent, but this sick feeling in my stomach tells me otherwise.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



.MCH said:


> If Clinton picks Tim Kaine as her VP, then she deserves to lose. Did she learn nothing from Bernie? Absolute idiot. Praying someone primaries her in 4 years.


If she is smart she will pick Tom Perez but she will probably go with Kaine which would just show how full of shit she is about being progressive 

it should be LIz Warren but Wall St already told her not to choose her or they will pull her millions of dollars of funding.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> A president needs thick skin, Megyn Kelly asks him about his views on women (a legitimate question) and he goes off for months about how Megyn was on her period when she posed that question).


:lmao What the fuck this never happened at all. Even if it is your opinion that the "blood coming out of her eyes, nose, wherever" meant VAGINA, which I think is silly but whatever, he certainly isn't the one who continued to talk about it. Jesus Bruiser, I don't know what media you're consuming but it has led you quite far from the real world.

It's when you repeat nonsense like this that I question the authenticity of your reasons for not supporting Donald Trump.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

lolol Trump was definitely talking about her period but I totally agree everyone else was talking about it for months, not Donald Trump.

oh yeah look it's the MSNBC JJ Abrams.

Reince Priebus is terrible. 

A Texas Republican just pretty much said it's ok to be gay. cue that Bob Dylan song about times a changin'

I just saw a Hillary commercial and it had Donald Trump making fun of the retarded guy or whatever it was. OUR CHILDREN ARE WATCHING was the tagline as well WHAT KIND OF PRESIDENT WILL THEY SEE? 

LOL


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Interesting strategy to launch a presidential bid by making a room of people go from cheering you to booing you off the stage as you break your word. :lol As we agreed in VMs, Ted Cruz has no political future at the national level.
> 
> Sorry @MrMister but he's all yours. :lol


I don't like the guy but do like a lot of what he says. It's probably not a great political move but in general I support fighting until the bitter end and losing with as little dignity as possible. I only hope that if I ever a trial and lose badly I go down kicking in screaming like Ted Cruz did.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Speaking of Ted Cruz those Trump hecklers are still making me laugh thinking about that.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

@BruiserKC were you a Ron Paul-supporter in 2008 and 2012? Because if you wanted the Constitution followed, he was your man. 

John McCain and Mitt Romney were two of the worst presidential candidates in American history, back-to-back. The GOP has lost the popular vote five of the last six presidential election cycles. Cruz, Rubio, Perry, Jindal, et. al., were in that same tired George W. Bush vein of "Conservatism, Inc." 

Because of demographic changes to the United States of America, this vision of liberty reclaiming the mantle of governance is sadly foolhardy. Hispanics, as a group, vote overwhelmingly for more expansive and bigger government, usually by around 65-75%-to-25-35%, time after time. This isn't Reagan's America anymore. (And Reagan was, in part, responsible for that with the amnesty that he signed.) By 2041, whites will be a minority, and since only whites consistently vote for smaller government, and even there the white vote is typically split around 60-70%-to-30-40%, I see no reason to believe that we are about to see some mythical rise of libertarianism in the coming years and decades. 

As Auguste Comte noted, "Demography is destiny." 

Reciting Tocqueville or the U.S. Constitution or the works of Milton Friedman or Ludwig von Mises isn't going to change these points. 

With the considerable immigration changes that came to the United States of America in 1924, cutting the number of permitted immigrants down to a mere trickle at best, millions of Italians, Irish, Jews, Poles and other ethnic groups were able to ascend toward the middle class and even represent the middle class of the 1950s and 1960s. 

With the U.S.'s present highly liberal immigration policies, however, with such a large number of people here illegally, the U.S. economy is proving to struggle in providing the lower classes much in the way of upward mobility. Not surprisingly, foolish policies such as compelling banks to hand out loans and mortgages to people who could not afford homes backfired tremendously as well, and here we are in mid-2016 and another housing bubble stands before us. 

We can't get the toothpaste back into the bottle.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> :lmao What the fuck this never happened at all. Even if it is your opinion that the "blood coming out of her eyes, nose, wherever" meant VAGINA, which I think is silly but whatever, he certainly isn't the one who continued to talk about it. Jesus Bruiser, I don't know what media you're consuming but it has led you quite far from the real world.
> 
> It's when you repeat nonsense like this that I question the authenticity of your reasons for not supporting Donald Trump.


It is exactly what he meant, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. And he kept up his war with Megyn Kelly for months. He blocks the media that doesn't agree with him from his events, he is in for a rude awakening now that it is Hillary vs. Donald. The media that he thought was mean to him will tear him to shreds. 

I'm just amazed at how suddenly I'm the bad guy, I'm the RINO, I'm the squish, because I can't support a man who clearly doesn't have the best interests of this country at heart. When many of the people on this site that for years have clearly been on the opposite of me on issues regarding politics suddenly fawn all over a guy who is not really conservative but claims to be, that tells me all I need to know. Maybe I'm the only one willing to speak up, but I'm not afraid to do so since I feel I'm doing the right thing. 



FITZ said:


> I don't like the guy but do like a lot of what he says. It's probably not a great political move but in general I support fighting until the bitter end and losing with as little dignity as possible. I only hope that if I ever a trial and lose badly I go down kicking in screaming like Ted Cruz did.


Cruz took a calculated risk here...he is hoping to do like Reagan did in '76. Reagan basically refused to endorse Ford and even wouldn't campaign for him afterwards. Reagan pissed off much of the GOP establishment for that back then, but they were at his side just a couple of years later asking him to run. If Trump wins or barely loses, Cruz's career is over. However, if Trump gets slaughtered in a landslide, Cruz wants to be painted as the guy that stood up to Trump and the hijacking of the message of conservatism. Then, he can ride in on the white horse and save the day.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Why does the year when whites will be a minority keep getting higher?


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> @BruiserKC were you a Ron Paul-supporter in 2008 and 2012? Because if you wanted the Constitution followed, he was your man.
> 
> John McCain and Mitt Romney were two of the worst presidential candidates in American history, back-to-back. The GOP has lost the popular vote five of the last six presidential election cycles. Cruz, Rubio, Perry, Jindal, et. al., were in that same tired George W. Bush vein of "Conservatism, Inc."
> 
> Because of demographic changes to the United States of America, this vision of liberty reclaiming the mantle of governance is sadly foolhardy. Hispanics, as a group, vote overwhelmingly for more expansive and bigger government, usually by around 65-75%-to-25-35%, time after time. This isn't Reagan's America anymore. (And Reagan was, in part, responsible for that with the amnesty that he signed.) By 2041, whites will be a minority, and since only whites consistently vote for smaller government, and even there the white vote is typically split around 60-70%-to-30-40%, I see no reason to believe that we are about to see some mythical rise of libertarianism in the coming years and decades.
> 
> As Auguste Comte noted, "Demography is destiny."
> 
> Reciting Tocqueville or the U.S. Constitution or the works of Milton Friedman or Ludwig von Mises isn't going to change these points.
> 
> With the considerable immigration changes that came to the United States of America in 1924, cutting the number of permitted immigrants down to a mere trickle at best, millions of Italians, Irish, Jewish, Polish and other ethnic groups were able to ascend toward the middle class and even represent the middle class of the 1950s and 1960s.
> 
> With the U.S.'s present highly liberal immigration policies, however, with such a large number of people here illegally, the U.S. economy is proving to struggle in providing the lower classes much in the way of upward mobility. Not surprisingly, foolish policies such as compelling banks to hand out loans and mortgages to people who could not afford homes backfired tremendously as well, and here we are in mid-2016 and another housing bubble stands before us.
> 
> We can't get the toothpaste back into the bottle.


I liked a lot of what Ron Paul stood for, too bad he was the type that wouldn't defend our country if attacked. I liked what his son stood for also. 

McCain and Romney were not true conservatives, the GOP kingmakers felt that they had to go to the middle in order to win so they gave us them. Hell, Romney is more like Obama then people care to admit, that's why many GOPers stayed home last time and why many people decided to stick with Obama. We haven't had a true conservative run since Reagan. Meanwhile, the same folks who cry about the GOP needing to go to the middle have no qualms about the Dems going further and further to the left.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> It is exactly what he meant, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out. And he kept up his war with Megyn Kelly for months. He blocks the media that doesn't agree with him from his events, he is in for a rude awakening now that it is Hillary vs. Donald. The media that he thought was mean to him will tear him to shreds.


If Donald Trump blocked the media that didn't agree with him there would be no media following his campaign. You're once again oversimplifying and exaggerating. I feel like you're just repeating headlines here and never actually bothered to investigate any of these stories for yourself, because the headlines fit your preconceived notions. 

Megyn Kelly is less upset about her twitter war with Donald Trump than you are. Perhaps you should get over it as well. 



> I'm just amazed at how suddenly I'm the bad guy, I'm the RINO, I'm the squish, because I can't support a man who clearly doesn't have the best interests of this country at heart.


You're not the bad guy you're just wrong about Donald Trump and are puppeting all the anti-Trump talking points from the media that desperately wants Hillary Clinton, who they know is an extremely flawed candidate and needs all the help she can get, to become president, which will irrevocably change the supreme court to a radically liberal one and all the values you claim to care about will become echoes lost in time. Perhaps this is inevitable due to the demographic issues Deso discussed above. Why not at least try the stopgap measure that is Donald Trump? There is no white horse of the constitution coming over the hill to save conservatism in the US. That guy got less than 3% in the GOP primary.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



MrMister said:


> Why does the year when whites will be a minority keep getting higher?


Blacks and Hispanics keep shooting each other while white conservative don't do abortions. :troll


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

@BruiserKC

_What?_

Ron Paul's entire foreign policy platform was saying, "You use military force _when your country is attacked_." 

Trillions have been spent, thousands of soldiers' lives have been lost, tens of thousands maimed, and for what? Does anyone think we're one iota safer today than we were on September 12, 2001? I guess the NSA gets to listen in on our phone calls and the Fourth Amendment is now a quasi-dead letter thanks to the Patriot Act, and, yes, actual terrorists have been caught by the government--in Arizona and North Carolina most recently, just in the last couple of weeks, but one thing I hope we have all learned together, if we didn't know it already, is that military force against terrorism is not only ineffective, it usually produces negative results. 

I don't have an easy fix or solution to this madness that is engulfing the Middle East in large part to the predictably misbegotten response to 9/11 and Dubya and the neocons' obsession with Iraq, or the myriad wars that Obama and Hillary have started or enlarged, but I am highly skeptical that "kicking ass" as George W. Bush said in his pre-Iraq War phone calls with Tony Blair is going to do much against Islamist terrorism. This government's foreign policy post-9/11 was akin to a child being stung by a hornet, and so he decides to stick his hand in the proverbial nest in an effort to swat at as many of the hornets as possible. Not surprisingly, the region and our security are worse off now than when the U.S. government began its mad crusade.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



MrMister said:


> Why does the year when whites will be a minority keep getting higher?


News to me if it does. For a long time it was set at 2050, then 2045, then 2042 for quite a while, and latest data suggests 2041.

Although that will probably keep coming down with stories such as this: http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-birthrate-falls-slightly-while-death-rate-rises-1464840003


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Outrageous lie about Ron Paul, @BruiserKC. Simply outrageous. I must pick my words carefully now lest I violate the TOS. Ron Paul is the president that should've been, and would've saved countless lives and actually tried to restore the freedoms we've lost. To slander him with such a ridiculous war-hungry neocon lie is just indefensible in my view. Clearly Trump isn't the candidate for you since he seems to be the only candidate from the primaries (excluding Rand Paul, who I supported but only got about 2% support) or the general who doesn't want to start World War III with Russia, and doesn't think continuing the course of nation-building and picking sides in civil wars and sponsoring select "moderate" terrorist groups is sensible.

Yeah last I heard 2050 was the year for whites becoming a minority, so 2041 is sooner, not later.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

:trump confirmed The People's Champion as per Stone Cold Fox, Ivanka. :sodone


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Ivanka called :trump *The People's Champion* a few minutes ago. Maybe he'll come out to Rock's music.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Back in the early 21st century I was hearing 2020s maybe 2030s. I could be not remembering correctly.


ok lol we're still in the early 21st century so early last decade.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Real people are hired to do real work....only for Trump to not pay them when the work is done. :troll


----------



## Ham and Egger

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Ivanka putting over her father over.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Fairly hilarious and unsurprising that the private citizens, and namely Trump's children, are giving, on average, the best speeches at this convention. :lol


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Guess I'm going to have to defend Scalia... He's said plenty of things that I don't like but a lot of these quotes below show a misunderstanding of what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. Their job is to interpret the Constitution. I'll admit it's not a perfect document but it's what we have.



> Herrera v Collins:
> 
> Quote:
> There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.


Is this a false statement? I don't think it is. The Constitution grants you the right to a fair trial. If the prosecution or police aren't hiding evidence and you get a fair trial with a decent lawyer and a jury that pays attention there isn't a Constitutional violation. 

I'm not saying we shouldn't let the person out of prison. We absolutely should. But again, the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Every state should have a law on the book that says you can get a chance to appeal if there is new evidence that you shows you were falsely convicted. But it isn't the place of the Supreme Court to make a law.



> People v Troy Davis:
> 
> Quote:
> This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.


This is the same as the last quote. If this is a true statement I don't think there is anything wrong with saying this. I hate the death penalty and think it should be banned. That being said I don't think it's Unconstitutional and any case law of stopping an execution because the guy is innocent is a recent development. Again the Constitution says you get a fair trial. You can be falsely convicted and still get a fair trial. 



> Blatant violations of rights. "You're innocent? So? Doesn't mean we can't execute you!" "Oh, there's new evidence that could exonerate you? Doesn't mean we have to hear it, stay in jail!" Working in law myself, this greatly offends me.


I don't think you're directing your anger in the right place. If we know someone is innocent they should be let out of jail. But we shouldn't have to rely on a very old document that doesn't address false convictions to do it. The Supreme Court isn't supposed to do what's right. They do what they interpret the Constitution as allowing or not allowing. 




> Citizens United v Federal Election Commission:
> 
> Quote:
> Indeed, to exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy. We should celebrate rather than condemn the addition of this speech to the public debate.


OK this is I will disagree with. We shouldn't be celebrating this case. 



> Thanks for allowing contributions to federal campaigns by corporations be infinity, essentially allowing them to buy candidates and elections.


That being said I don't disagree with the ruling. It's probably the best idea of a necessary evil that I can think of. I don't want corporations to control our government and the ruling helps them do that. But I also don't see how the First Amendment can possibly allow the government to fine a business for making commercials advocating to vote for a certain candidate. 




> Romer v Evans:
> 
> Quote:
> The amendment prohibits special treatment of homosexuals, and nothing more.
> 
> Apparently, allowing local anti-discrimination laws to protect gays and lesbians amounts to “special treatment of homosexuals”, and they can't have that...


Context. "Special treatment" means protected class. The case was about the Colorado Constitution saying that sexual orientation could not be a protected class. Being in a protected class does give you special treatment because it's harder to discriminate against you then other classes. Most classes of people that you can come up with are really easy to discriminate against. Drug users, cashiers, rapists, car owners, pedophiles, cigarette smokers, bank robbers, farmers.... There are about an infinite number of classes. A small few are protected classes and those classes do get special treatment.




> Comments relating to Shelby County v Holder:
> 
> Quote:
> The Voting Rights Act is an “embedded” form of “racial preferment."
> 
> So apparently, having the basic right to vote is preferential racial treatment.


I don't agree with this statement but he was referring to the modern day form of the voting act. He seems to think that we don't need it anymore. I don't think we really need it. I don't believe that if a state could ban black people from voting any state would actually ban black people from voting. 

But we should have that type of law in place. Because it's better to rely on the democratic process with laws that we can change instead of trying to rely on the Constitution, which isn't the easiest document to interpret.


----------



## Ham and Egger

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Donald is ROASTING Hillary right now!


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

The GOP somehow placed the blunders of Bush's legacy onto Obama's administration to their base. Stroke of genius.

Americanism. SMH


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

They both suck. 
The End.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

:trump


> Anyone who endorses violence, hatred or oppression is not welcome in our country and never ever will be.


:trump

Biggest laugh of the night for me.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



> America is one of the highest-taxed nations in the world


:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






i'm voting for donald trump. I'm voting for Donald Trump! I'M VOTING FOR DONALD TRUMP!!!

- Vic


----------



## SpeedStick

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



ManiacMichaelMyers said:


> They both suck.
> The End.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

It is fascinating to consider.

Hillary Clinton is the conservative in this race; Donald Trump has imperfectly, at times clumsily, but for the most part consistently positioned himself as the agent of sweeping change.

At the very least, this is the most _fun_ national politics in America has been in my lifetime.

Thank you, :trump 

:lol


----------



## Ygor

I'm sold! Where do I sign up, Vern?

Hillary and Bill, The Clinton Crime Family for Prison!


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

The populist Republican has spoken. :trump The change agent. The People's Champion. :sodone


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I wonder if the Clinton Cash film and subject matter will gain traction?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump is going to be like Caesar who eyed Rome and uttered the words "veni vidi vici". Has the new Emperor arrived?


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Trump is going to be like Caesar who eyed Rome and uttered the words "veni vidi vici". Has the new Emperor arrived?


I just hope hes wearing clothes.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Amazing to think that Donald Trump raised 4 kids who are able to speak comfortably and elegantly to an audience of tens of millions of people. I'd have a panic attack just contemplating doing that. :lol 

Holy fuck that Donald Trump speech was long. :done I guess it wasn't so long on paper compared to others he's given but the natural audience reaction and his ad-libbing stretched it out. Really it's all stuff those of us who have actually followed his campaign - as in watched some of his rallies and listened to or read his speeches (this obvious disqualifies people like Bruiser, FriedTofu, etc. who depend solely on liberal media headlines for their information about Trump) - have heard before. I liked how after he talked about protecting LGBT people from the homophobic ideology of radical Islam (really just Islam, but even Trump can't be THAT truthful and get away with it), and the crowd stood up in applause, he took the time to deliver an ad-libbed and genuine acknowledgement of how glad he was, presumably as a New York-raised guy with many liberal friends and sympathies, that they were receptive to that message. 

It's really been a fantastic convention. We even got to see The Young Turks' Cenk Uygur completely disgrace himself as he derangedly and violently went after Alex Jones merely for challenging him to a debate. :lol Oh that left, always projecting their faults onto others.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Trump is going to be like Caesar who eyed Rome and uttered the words "veni vidi vici". Has the new Emperor arrived?


Ceaser fought constant wars and was stabbed to death by a man who he considered a son due to favoring his mistress over the senate

not the best comparison


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Great line from Ivanka which is something I've been saying about Trump all along, that he is color-blind and gender-neutral. Defines his career as an entrepreneur and corroborates what many who know him personally have said. His vision for the future is a color-blind gender-neutral meritocracy. Obviously the identity politics-obsessed left, which really does want to regress society back to segregation when you think about some of their rhetoric, does not want that. What the hell would they talk about if race and gender were treated as the non-issues they ought to be?


----------



## Ygor

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Does that disqualifies your views on Hilary because you depend solely on conservative media headlines for your information? Come on now, that's weak. If anything, Bruiser is a conservative Republican.

Trump as an employer is color-blind and gender-neutral. As a person? He has expressed alarming views about non-white people over the years but nothing I would hold against him as overt racism. I think I've said some time ago I don't believe Trump is racist, but he is appealing to the people that are which is just as dangerous. Trump has a history of treating women as objects that is seemingly common place among powerful men of ALL colours. In case you try to spin this into an attack on white men. 

Anyone taking infowars/Alex Jones seriously is trying to disqualify other media? Come on now. I criticise TYT types as much as the Breitbart types around here. But Cenk came off much better than Jones who just seemed to be trolling instead of challenging for a debate. It was Stone who asked for the debate from the videos I saw anyway. But I have to admit these progressives seem incapable of taking a joke well.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Hannity. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> Ceaser fought constant wars and was stabbed to death by a man who he considered a son due to favoring his mistress over the senate
> 
> not the best comparison


While not being dismissively sarcastic I'm being over the top. I thought Trump's speech was good. There isn't really anyone who can compare to Julius Caesar. He's arguably one of the greatest men in history!


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/756304981356081152 :lmao @CamillePunk @L-DOPA


----------



## Cowabunga

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump... while he doesn't seem like the nicest guy ever, he's hardly Satan or the next Hitler. I think people tend to overlook how crappy the rest of the candidates are/were and just focus on Trump because he is loud and blunt.

A lot of things Trump says are mere populism, and his "racism" is a gross exaggeration. He seems to have a problem with illegal Mexicans, not with Latino Americans in general. And I never heard him badmouth Black or Asian people, per example. So sorry, but I don't buy his "racism". 

As for the "he's gonna start WW3!" yeah as if Hilary was not a big fan of warfare... what exactly would Trump do? Invade a ME country and snatch its oil like most American Presidents do? Doesn't seem like a big difference. 

If he gets elected, I doubt he'll do things many people fear he will. And even if he tired, he'd have congress veto a lot of his propositions. He won't become dictator, folks.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Cowabunga said:


> Trump... while he doesn't seem like the nicest guy ever, he's hardly Satan or the next Hitler. I think people tend to overlook how crappy the rest of the candidates are/were and just focus on Trump because he is loud and blunt.
> 
> A lot of things Trump says are mere populism, and his "racism" is a gross exaggeration. He seems to have a problem with illegal Mexicans, not with Latino Americans in general. And I never heard him badmouth Black or Asian people, per example. So sorry, but I don't buy his "racism".
> 
> As for the "he's gonna start WW3!" yeah as if Hilary was not a big fan of warfare... what exactly would Trump do? Invade a ME country and snatch its oil like most American Presidents do? Doesn't seem like a big difference.
> 
> If he gets elected, I doubt he'll do things many people fear he will. And even if he tired, he'd have congress veto a lot of his propositions. He won't become dictator, folks.


Crybaby leftists and conservatives don't like him, he's hardly anything scary. They say he will do all these terrible things as if being President meant being Supreme Overlord of the US. Obama is President yet he's hardly done anything worthwhile for the US so obviously a President isn't the ender of all things. The problem with Hilary is she's pro war and is shady, really shady. She can do much more damage than Trump, not to mention she's said racist things.. I forgot.. she was forgiven.

In leftist and conservative fantasy land they believe America will return to Leave it to Beaver type days or somehow the Government will overtax the rich to pay for their magical welfare state full of freebies without them having to work! A magical place where there is no racism yet it will always be leftist whites who take up most college spots and Government jobs.. to you know... help people and stuff! So it's hardly surprising they'd compare Trump to Hitler because their critical thinking skills are pretty terrible. They can call me when Trump gasses millions of people and America invades Mexico (LOLOLOL)


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/756304981356081152 :lmao @CamillePunk @L-DOPA


:lol The nuance is strong in that one. I'd ask what he's smoking, but that's already been fairly documented.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> @BruiserKC
> 
> _What?_
> 
> Ron Paul's entire foreign policy platform was saying, "You use military force _when your country is attacked_."
> 
> Trillions have been spent, thousands of soldiers' lives have been lost, tens of thousands maimed, and for what? Does anyone think we're one iota safer today than we were on September 12, 2001? I guess the NSA gets to listen in on our phone calls and the Fourth Amendment is now a quasi-dead letter thanks to the Patriot Act, and, yes, actual terrorists have been caught by the government--in Arizona and North Carolina most recently, just in the last couple of weeks, but one thing I hope we have all learned together, if we didn't know it already, is that military force against terrorism is not only ineffective, it usually produces negative results.
> 
> I don't have an easy fix or solution to this madness that is engulfing the Middle East in large part to the predictably misbegotten response to 9/11 and Dubya and the neocons' obsession with Iraq, or the myriad wars that Obama and Hillary have started or enlarged, but I am highly skeptical that "kicking ass" as George W. Bush said in his pre-Iraq War phone calls with Tony Blair is going to do much against Islamist terrorism. This government's foreign policy post-9/11 was akin to a child being stung by a hornet, and so he decides to stick his hand in the proverbial nest in an effort to swat at as many of the hornets as possible. Not surprisingly, the region and our security are worse off now than when the U.S. government began its mad crusade.


The problem is political correctness, plain and simple. That and not having a clear-cut strategy and an end-game to the war. If we are going to use our military, we have a strategy with a thoroughly mapped out plan, an understanding that we need to achieve victory, allow our troops to do their job with no micro-management or undercutting them, and when we're done the troops come home and let the vanquished figure out how to solve their problems. In the case of the hornet's nest, I'm not sticking my hand in there. I am going in with the clear cut intention of wiping out the nest and when I'm done to walk away. 

We don't see this now with our country...we drop a few bombs, give a few platitudes, and we think everything is just fine. People don't take seriously that we are going to act in our best interest and our enemies know our response is going to be half-ass. We are so worried about world opinion that it reached the point in Iraq and Afghanistan our troops can't even sneeze without fear of a court-martial. 

As I've said before, the military is not a toy to play with and put back on the shelf. If we're going to use it, then use it and do it right. If we had those strategies in place plus allowing the troops to do our jobs, the troops could have been home years ago. 



CamillePunk said:


> Outrageous lie about Ron Paul, @BruiserKC. Simply outrageous. I must pick my words carefully now lest I violate the TOS. Ron Paul is the president that should've been, and would've saved countless lives and actually tried to restore the freedoms we've lost. To slander him with such a ridiculous war-hungry neocon lie is just indefensible in my view. Clearly Trump isn't the candidate for you since he seems to be the only candidate from the primaries (excluding Rand Paul, who I supported but only got about 2% support) or the general who doesn't want to start World War III with Russia, and doesn't think continuing the course of nation-building and picking sides in civil wars and sponsoring select "moderate" terrorist groups is sensible.
> 
> Yeah last I heard 2050 was the year for whites becoming a minority, so 2041 is sooner, not later.


Ron Paul has quite a huge number of restrictions on when he would use the military. It is clearly known that he is an isolationist as he would withdraw from the UN and NATO. He wouldn't have called for the operation that killed Bin Laden, he would have let the courts handle it but that clearly a good idea as we know how corrupt the Pakistani court system is. These are stances that are out there and are true. I don't want to be involved everywhere, but I know we can't just sit at home and hope the world leaves us alone.

I will admit Trump gave a good speech tonight, he managed to stay on script with a little ad-libbing. In reality, we want the same thing. We don't want Hildebeast as President, I just don't know if he'll follow through on what he promises. The GOP has been faint in their lip service about conservatism, and I don't want just a stopgap. I want this country to turn around.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*










This has to be one of the funniest things I've seen, Milo is such a jerk at times but I have to admit he always makes an entrance.

@BrusierKC An isolationist policy is what America needs, the UN and NATO are corrupt and the US shouldn't be part of them, all the UN and NATO does is use our resources and to be honest we should we be the world police? The world is violent and countries are corrupt, no military intervention will stop this. Only an attitude change from the people will. You must feed your family and take care of your own house before you can do the same for others. America and American citizens should come first when it comes to the Government.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> The problem is political correctness, plain and simple. That and not having a clear-cut strategy and an end-game to the war. If we are going to use our military, we have a strategy with a thoroughly mapped out plan, an understanding that we need to achieve victory, allow our troops to do their job with no micro-management or undercutting them, and when we're done the troops come home and let the vanquished figure out how to solve their problems. In the case of the hornet's nest, I'm not sticking my hand in there. I am going in with the clear cut intention of wiping out the nest and when I'm done to walk away.
> 
> We don't see this now with our country...we drop a few bombs, give a few platitudes, and we think everything is just fine. People don't take seriously that we are going to act in our best interest and our enemies know our response is going to be half-ass. We are so worried about world opinion that it reached the point in Iraq and Afghanistan our troops can't even sneeze without fear of a court-martial.
> 
> As I've said before, the military is not a toy to play with and put back on the shelf. If we're going to use it, then use it and do it right. If we had those strategies in place plus allowing the troops to do our jobs, the troops could have been home years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Ron Paul has quite a huge number of restrictions on when he would use the military. It is clearly known that he is an isolationist as he would withdraw from the UN and NATO. He wouldn't have called for the operation that killed Bin Laden, he would have let the courts handle it but that clearly a good idea as we know how corrupt the Pakistani court system is. These are stances that are out there and are true. I don't want to be involved everywhere, but I know we can't just sit at home and hope the world leaves us alone.
> 
> I will admit Trump gave a good speech tonight, he managed to stay on script with a little ad-libbing. In reality, we want the same thing. We don't want Hildebeast as President, I just don't know if he'll follow through on what he promises. The GOP has been faint in their lip service about conservatism, and I don't want just a stopgap. I want this country to turn around.


Bruiser, Trump on hos worst day will NEVER be as bad as hill. EVER. WE CANNOT AFFORD HER BY ANY MEANS.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



MrMister said:


> Why does the year when whites will be a minority keep getting higher?





DesolationRow said:


> News to me if it does. For a long time it was set at 2050, then 2045, then 2042 for quite a while, and latest data suggests 2041.
> 
> Although that will probably keep coming down with stories such as this: http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-birthrate-falls-slightly-while-death-rate-rises-1464840003





MrMister said:


> Back in the early 21st century I was hearing 2020s maybe 2030s. I could be not remembering correctly.
> 
> 
> ok lol we're still in the early 21st century so early last decade.


Why does any of that matter? We're only ONE race, the Human race.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



EL SHIV said:


> The populist Republican has spoken. :trump The change agent. The People's Champion. :sodone



















:heston

:Rollins


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

After watching the ramblings of Trump in his speech, the longest ever I believe, and he really said nothing about how he planned to do any of it.

Its time we put on our glasses.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



gamegenie said:


> :heston
> 
> :Rollins


GG, i hope you'll be ok if Trump wins. I will be if Hill does. God saves.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



EL SHIV said:


> Ivanka called :trump *The People's Champion* a few minutes ago. Maybe he'll come out to Rock's music.


Trump, a people's champion? please...


----------



## HiddenFlaw

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

that speech not bad :bjpenn


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

LOL Hillary would pick a boring ass, safe as fuck, corporate status quo VP like Tim Kaine (which is who she IS going to pick this weekend). Granted, Trump did the same with no charisma Mike Pence but at least Trump can make up on shortcomings from Pence with his own presence and charisma. Hilary is a robotic bore. This may be the most boring ticket sincr 2004 for the Democrats.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

WikiLeaks have released leaks of over 2,000+ emails from the DNC to the Hilary campaign on Twitter. Look at their recent tweets scrolling down.

http://twitter.com/wikileaks

This is going to be a LONG election, folks.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://regated.com/2016/07/dnc-panics-get-exposed-wikileaks-lies-corruption/

WIKILEAKS WITH THE RKO TO HILLDABEAST, OUTA NOWHERE! :jr


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I need to be more consistent in checking my notifications, but, yes, @FITZ supplied a solid defense of Scalia. Supreme Court Justices are supposed to hold themselves to what the Constitution says in relation to legislation, not make decisions based on what may or may nor better society.

Meanwhile... THAT'S GOTTA BE KAINE!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/756643031286067200


----------



## SpeedStick

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










New Hillary leak: Wikileaks releases 20K DNC emails https://twitter.com/hashtag/DNCLeaks


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> WikiLeaks have released leaks of over 2,000+ emails from the DNC to the Hilary campaign on Twitter. Look at their recent tweets scrolling down.
> 
> http://twitter.com/wikileaks
> 
> This is going to be a LONG election, folks.


This just confirms what a lot of people thought, even what Trump said that the Dems and Media weren't fair to Bernie. Got to love the Democrats, you chased off your most Democratic candidate! :grin2:

[email protected] getting exposed for setting up false stuff to slander Trump, scary thing is you don't even need to lie to make up Scary stuff about Hilary!


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



SpeedStick said:


> New Hillary leak: Wikileaks releases 20K DNC emails https://twitter.com/hashtag/DNCLeaks


So corporation are extremely weak and have to be protected and you the ability to become whatever you want with dedication and skill?

Chess metaphors have and always will be terrible, even the weakest pieces are important and only bad players lose their pawns for no reason


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:suckit @Hilary, those leaks comin for you! 


Sadly I think even if she wrote about how all black people should hang and how she eats aborted babies raw, and it had pictures the Dems would still snub Bernie and she'd have most of the black and women vote still!


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

:banderas WikiLeaks exposing the obvious out of the DNC. Glorious, @WinNING DA BASED GAWD, glorious! Haha.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> :banderas WikiLeaks exposing the obvious out of the DNC. Glorious, @WinNING DA BASED GAWD, glorious! Haha.


What's funny is that if hilary crashes and burns the DNC cannot use Bernie since he bowed out and endorsed Hilary, so half of his following hates him and the other half are in rage mode now that it's true and came out that the DNC itself torpedoed his campaign, holy hell, the RNC targeted Trump but the DNC was way more ruthless with Bernie. People talk about how bad the Republicans are yet the Democrats pretty much nailed Bernie to a cross on their front lawn!


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Well, @Miss Sally, Sanders is, what, 103 years old or something? No, 74. In any event, I highly doubt we'll be seeing him run for the presidency again. 

Hardly surprising that the DNC were looking into using Sanders's "religious beliefs" against him, though. :lol


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Wasserman Schultz lied her ass off about not favoring HRC over Bernie. Wikileaks done good this time. :mckinney


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> So corporation are extremely weak and have to be protected and you the ability to become whatever you want with dedication and skill?


that's actually very accurate.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> http://regated.com/2016/07/dnc-panics-get-exposed-wikileaks-lies-corruption/
> 
> WIKILEAKS WITH THE RKO TO HILLDABEAST, OUTA NOWHERE! :jr


So what?

As if Trump campaign team didn't plan to foil Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich's run? :quite


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

@AryaDark @EL SHIV @L-DOPA

In honor of my friend @CamillePunk I thought I'd post this video, which is rather excellent indeed:


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Bush failed because he's a Bush, Robot Rubio failed because he's boring and has no charisma and Ted Cruz ruined himself. Really Trump just pulled an Ali, let them punch themselves tired on him and then he just goes onto victory.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> So what?
> 
> As if Trump campaign team didn't plan to foil Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich's run? :quite


Uh....WHAT?! Pretty sure Trump never had top officials in his party slanting narratives in the media for him. Certainly not to a level as laid out in these leakes. Even if you like hill, how can you sit there and not not condemn the DNC Establishment for what they did on her behalf?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hilary picking Kaine is reassuring to me that at least one party still believe in the politics of moderates. On the other hand, it seem to be a backwards strategy as polls have shown the pie of swing voters is shrinking and might not be worth the effort to win their votes. Even if more Americans choose to identify themselves as independents, they are more extreme in ideology to not even consider to cross party lines than ever before.

Millennials wanting their cake and eat it too.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

A move worthy of Republicans .. only this year, Republicans did no such thing, but the DNC were going to fpalm 



> Bernie Sanders supporters Friday tore into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on social media after a leaked email appeared to show a DNC official plotting to question Sanders's religion.
> The email, written by Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall and leaked by the DNC hacker Guccifer 2.0 to WikiLeaks, suggests sending a surrogate to ask an unnamed candidate whether that candidate believed in God.
> The email does not name the Vermont senator, but it talks about a man of “Jewish heritage” Marshall believes to be an atheist. It makes reference to voters in Kentucky and West Virginia, two states that were weeks away from a Democratic primary at the time."It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,” said the email, to other party officials in its entirety.
> Marshall did not respond to a request for comment. But he did tell The Intercept, which first noticed the email, “I do not recall this. I can say it would not have been Sanders. It would probably be about a surrogate.”
> The leaked email prompted swift outcry online Friday afternoon. One apparent Sanders supporter tweeted: “HRC folks called Sanders "McCarthyite" & ranted about purity while DNC plotted to smear him as godless commie Jew.”


Seriously, if anyone votes for the DNC this year, they're a traitor to liberalism or have no fucking clue what liberalism is about. Fuck this election man. 

Vote Trump.



Miss Sally said:


> Bush failed because he's a Bush, Robot Rubio failed because he's boring and has no charisma and Ted Cruz ruined himself. Really Trump just pulled an Ali, let them punch themselves tired on him and then he just goes onto victory.


Trump had already landed the knock out blows before the Republican idiots even realized they were knocked the fuck out.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Erm...have you seen ANY of the rhetoric by Republicans in any elections in the past 2 decades? Questioning someone's faith is their default first move.

Obama is still a Muslim don't you know?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> A move worthy of Republicans .. only this year, Republicans did no such thing, but the DNC were going to fpalm
> 
> Seriously, if anyone votes for the DNC this year, they're a traitor to liberalism or have no fucking clue what liberalism is about. Fuck this election man.
> 
> Vote Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump had already landed the knock out blows before the Republican idiots even realized they were knocked the fuck out.


First things first, of course that person was Sanders, they even asked him if he believed in god, which is a bullshit question since separation of church and state.
The DNC and Hillary played dirty with Sanders and its too bad he did not fight back.

As for someone who votes democrat being a traitor to liberalism. I am not voting for Clinton, but Trump is the last person I would ever vote for. He is a crazy person, and he 100x worse than Hillary.

Trump is a racist and a fascist, as well as a fraud and is corrupt. Trump is clueless on anything and he speaks like a 4th grader. I don't want either was president but i'd take Hillary before Trump. 

It will never happen but the super delegates should do their job and switch to Sanders to give him the nomination at the convention. Her and Trump are only like 3 points apart in a number of polls which falls in the margin of error. 

Sanders would wipe the floor with Trump in the general, with Hillary it could go either way. 

she probably already has the general rigged like she did in the primaries, but does anyone want to take that chance. Plus Trump unlike Sanders would not stand for it and would fight the voter fraud until the end.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Uh....WHAT?! Pretty sure Trump never had top officials in his party slanting narratives in the media for him. Certainly not to a level as laid out in these leakes. Even if you like hill, how can you sit there and not not condemn the DNC Establishment for what they did on her behalf?


Roger Ailes and Fox News have been the acting embodiment of the Republican party for the past 20 years and you're saying that they never slanted the news in favor of Trump?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

9 Leaked Emails the DNC Doesn’t Want You to See

http://usuncut.com/politics/dnc-leaks-9-emails/


0,000 new emails released by WikiLeaks on Friday show multiple examples of the Democratic National Committee coordinating with the Clinton campaign and major media figures to both build up Hillary Clinton and trash Bernie Sanders, all while claiming neutrality to the public. But the astonishingly deep level of collaboration and coordination has still gone unreported.

As of right now, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders have all ignored the growing controversy surrounding the leaked emails. But the contents of the emails are likely to stir up tension between rivaling factions of delegates at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia next week.

Here are nine of the most egregious examples of the DNC actively working with the media and the Clinton campaign to smear Sanders:

1. The DNC’s communications director was eager to point out negative angles for Sanders stories
Luis Miranda, the national communications director for the DNC, is seen in two separate email chains briefing reporters with both Politico and the Wall Street Journal. In one email thread with Politico’s Daniel Strauss, Miranda told Strauss that he would “point out… some of the issues” with Sen. Sanders’ DNC committee appointments “off the record” with Strauss to help him write his story. Strauss initially asked for Miranda to send the list of appointments over “with no fingerprints attached.”

In another email thread dated May 11 of this year, Miranda is seen briefing the Wall Street Journal’s Laura Meckler on Sanders’ committee appointments, complaining that Sanders continued to demand fair representation on the DNC’s platform committee despite DNC chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s concessions to the Sanders campaign.

2. Debbie Wasserman Schultz privately called Clinton the “presumptive nominee” while accusing Sanders of not being a Democrat
After DNC national press secretary Mark Paustenbach shared a link to a Politico article in which Bernie Sanders complained about the Democratic Party not treating him fairly, Wasserman Schultz responded curtly, questioning the Vermont senator’s Democratic credentials.

“Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do,” Wasserman Schultz said of Sanders, who has caucused with and campaigned for House and Senate Democrats for decades.

In another email dated May 1, more than a month of voting to go before the final primaries were over, Paustenbach shared an article written by Politico’s Daniel Strauss in which Bernie Sanders promises a contested convention. Wasserman Schultz’s response was simply, “So much for a traditional presumptive nominee,” in reference to Hillary Clinton.

3. DNC officials worked closely with the Hillary Clinton campaign to respond to Sanders’ money laundering allegations
After the bombshell story of the Hillary Victory Fund broke, in which the Clinton campaign was accused of funneling 99 percent of the money meant for down-ballot Democratic candidates back to her own campaign, the DNC helped the Clinton campaign do damage control in the media.

Paustenbach forwarded an email from Politico’s Ken Vogel on April 29 to Miranda and DNC CEO Amy Dacey asking detailed questions about the Hillary Victory fund. He then wrote that he had spoken with the Clinton campaign, who suggested a series of talking points to be used.

However, the collusion went deeper, with Luis Miranda shown in various emails drafting talking points to be used by the Clinton campaign in response to the Hillary Victory Fund’s money laundering allegations. In the thread dated May 4, Clinton campaign spokesman is seen badgering Miranda asking for the draft for a Medium post defending the Clinton campaign’s questionable fundraising strategies.

4. A Politico reporter agreed to allow the DNC to edit his stories
Bernie Sanders’ supporters should feel at least partially vindicated, as their suspicion of the DNC working closely with establishment media has been confirmed in at least one thread.

In one particularly damning exchange, Mark Paustenbach is seen referring to an “agreement” with Politico’s Ken Vogel to let the DNC pre-screen one of his stories before they’re sent to Vogel’s editors.

“Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn’t share it,” Paustenbach wrote to Luis Miranda. “Let me know if you see anything that’s missing and I’ll push back.”

5. DNC staff automatically dismissed interview requests from “Bernie bros”
In the wake of the Hillary Victory Fund fallout, DNC staffers were seen dismissing interview requests for Debbie Wasserman Schultz about the money laundering allegations due to the political affiliations of the interviewers themselves.

A May 4 email chain between Pablo Manriquez — the DNC’s broadcast media booker — and Luis Miranda shows the two contemplating whether or not Wasserman Schultz should do an interview with SiriusXM radio’s David Guggenheim about the Hillary Victory Fund.

“Not sure if we’re talking about the Bernie Bro’s latest accusations. If not will just say we can’t join. Lmk!” Manriquez wrote to Miranda.

“Wait, this is a shit topic. Where is Guggenheim? Is he a Bernie Bro?” Miranda asked.

“Must be a Bernie Bro,” Manriquez replied. “Per Mark [Paustenbach]’s sage, I turned him down flat (and politely) and inquired into opportunities next week to talk about something else.”

6. Wasserman Schultz demanded an apology from MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski for suggesting she resign
On May 18, after an MSNBC Morning Joe segment aired featuring Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski suggesting Wasserman Schultz “rigged” the primary for Hillary Clinton’s benefit, Wasserman Schultz wrote a furious email to Luis Miranda asking him to contact the president of MSNBC and demand an apology from Brzezinski.

“This is the LAST straw,” Wasserman Schultz wrote. “Please call Phil[…] Griffin. This is outrageous. She needs to apologize.”

Two hours later, Wasserman Schultz wrote an email to NBC News political director and Meet the Press host Chuck Todd with the subject line “Chuck, this must stop.” Miranda responded to Wasserman Schultz’s earlier email saying, “Since you already went to Chuck I’ll wait for his response.”

Later that evening, Miranda sent an email to Chuck Todd with a list of talking points about how Wasserman Schultz has remained a neutral arbiter of the primaries, and asked him to send the talking points to Scarborough and Brzezinski. Both seemed to agree that arranging a call between Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Mika Brzezinski was a bad idea.

7. DNC staffers knew Sanders would destroy Wasserman Schultz in a one-on-one segment
An April 24 email thread was particularly revealing in that Luis Miranda and Wasserman Schultz staffer Kate Yglesias Houghton felt Wasserman Schultz stumbled in an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace about the Hillary Clinton email scandal, and that the team should do their best to keep the DNC chairwoman away from any segment with Bernie Sanders.

“She can’t take Sanders on directly, it would turn into a fight,” Miranda wrote to Houghton. “[A]ny time it’s DNC Chair vs Sanders, DNC Chair is going to lose.”

8. DNC staffers seemed to know Clinton would be the nominee with nearly two months of voting left
Even before the polls closed during the April 26 primaries in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island, DNC Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer casually revealed to DNC events director Ellen Thrower that the DNC was already planning its collaboration with the Clinton campaign, even though Clinton hadn’t secured a majority of pledged delegates and there were still millions of Democrats in multiple states who hadn’t voted.

“What was the Amy [Dacey] meeting all about??” Thrower asked.

“It was basically just a general check-in meeting where she thanked us for being flexible as we wait for a nominee and said that she and [DNC National Finance Director Jordan] Kaplan are in the process of figuring out what our collaboration with Hillary’s people will look like once she gets it.”

9. The DNC may have had plants inside the Sanders campaign
As Wasserman Schultz was preparing to speak at a Democratic Party event in Alaska, Luis Miranda and Kate Houghton were attempting to learn more about a Facebook event set up by Sanders supporters in Alaska to “counter” Wasserman Schultz’ appearance. Both seemed to have the impression that Alaska Democratic Party executive director Kay Brown would be able to glean knowledge about the counter-event’s organizers and participants.

“There’s no way Kay doesn’t have someone who can get her intel. We need to push them,” Miranda wrote.

“Kay told me she has friends inside the Bernie organization there who may be able to provide some more information,” Houghton replied.

US Uncut’s multiple attempts to contact Kay Brown for this story remain unanswered as of this writing.



Tom Cahill is a writer for US Uncut based in the Pacific Northwest. He specializes in coverage of political, economic, and environmental news. You can contact him via email at [email protected].


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump is a racist and a fascist, as well as a fraud and is corrupt.


not to mention a murderer, a terrorist and secretly voldemort.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> This has to be one of the funniest things I've seen, Milo is such a jerk at times but I have to admit he always makes an entrance.
> 
> @BrusierKC An isolationist policy is what America needs, the UN and NATO are corrupt and the US shouldn't be part of them, all the UN and NATO does is use our resources and to be honest we should we be the world police? The world is violent and countries are corrupt, no military intervention will stop this. Only an attitude change from the people will. You must feed your family and take care of your own house before you can do the same for others. America and American citizens should come first when it comes to the Government.


Do we need to take a step back and not be the world's cop? Absolutely. I don't question that for a moment. Do I want to take care of my family first and take care of my own home before worrying about others? Yes. However, with Islamofascism on the rise, it is not the time to completely scurry. We do what we used to before World War II. Go in, kick ass, take names, and get out. Don't stick around to nation-build, no societies in our likeness. Get the job done and bring them home. Very easy to do, if we are willing to do this. And, don't give in to PC...give the troops every opportunity to do their job and work with them. Don't impede their progress, nothing. 



Beatles123 said:


> Bruiser, Trump on hos worst day will NEVER be as bad as hill. EVER. WE CANNOT AFFORD HER BY ANY MEANS.


You're right...I don't want Hillary and we can't afford her. Unfortunately, the direction we are heading in this country means that might mean what we get, and it's our fault. 

The short answer is...watch the South Park episode with the Canadian Donald Trump. They were spot on with that show and their analysis. Here's the long answer for more detail....

You believe that a man who would trash the First Amendment even more (opening up of libel laws and failure to address the idea of protecting the rights of Christians), would replace Obamacare with single-payer, government-run insurance (he said he would take care of everyone), skyrocket the minimum wage to ridiculous levels (he's supportive of the $15 minimum wage that would destroy jobs and businesses), refuses to discuss a national debt that is really bringing the economy to the brink of collapse, won't address entitlement reform (the economy and our infrastructure can't be sustained much longer with so many people living off of government assistance), could trigger said economic collapse with the high tariffs he proposes against China (hates free trade obviously), would continue the fine Obama tradition of abandoning our allies (leaving NATO because countries won't pay their fair share and suggesting Israel give more up to the Islamists and really doesn't want peace) while emboldening our enemies (he thinks Putin is a great guy he can work with, when Putin is one of our real enemies and has suddenly not even bothered to mention tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran), and has already started walking back his promises (the ban of all Muslims is now just extreme vetting) is what is best for this country. I am completely unwilling to compromise my beliefs for a man that is clearly a liberal and is to the left of Hillary on quite a few stances all because it is "anything but her." And, about a year ago, Hillary was swell enough for Donald and Melania to mingle with socially and politically. I just can't trust the intentions of a man who thought it was OK. 

The people of this country are angry, and rightfully so. I'm mad as hell also, I don't want to take this shit anymore. A few years ago I caught a lot of shit on this board when I screamed about the GOP giving in during the shutdown. We had the chance to stop Obama and they caved in worried about politics. People supported what they did, a year later they controlled both houses of Congress. I, like many others and yourself, don't like the direction this country is going in. I want it stopped. 

Anger can be a great thing. It can be a healthy outlet and to prevent pent up feelings from overflowing. However, the trick is...channeling that anger correctly and in a constructive fashion. At one time or another, we've all done something out of anger and later realized that there were unintended consequences. That is the moment when you come out of that anger and look around and suddenly you think to yourself, "Oh shit, what have I done?" 

You can't make huge decisions on impulse. You have to have a plan. You have to know what is going to possibly happen after your decision and be ready for all possibilities. A person getting a divorce has to figure out about living quarters, job, family, etc...so that it won't be that big of a shock to their system. Brexit voters were pissed off, the question now is do the political forces behind it have a plan for the UK to get them through? Again, going with your gut is fine, just make sure you know what you're doing. 

The American people, especially the GOP and conservatives and the disenfranchised, had plenty of options to choose from to channel that anger on all sides. Rubio, Cruz, Sanders, etc... We are stuck with a shape-shifting demon bitch and one of her top supporters and donors (and yes, Trump has willingly admitted to this so this isn't the media talking). This is not the election that is supposed to revolutionize this country, it's a recipe for disaster. It's not a question of going over the cliff...we are going there. The question is do you have a parachute. 

The main reason I cannot, in my heart of hearts, vote for Donald J Trump, is not because he is an obnoxious person who piles on people he disagrees with and doesn't know when to stop. Lord knows that makes it that much of an easier choice, but that's not the main reason. He does not believe in the same things I do when it comes to how I want this country to run. He doesn't believe in small government, less involvement in day-to-day affairs from the higher-ups, or being someone that the world can look to with respect. He loves eminent domain, it makes him money. He will abandon our allies just because he feels they aren't pulling their weight. He'll run the 1st Amendment through the paper shredder at the foot of his desk. Heaven forbid if you can't disagree with him, it's well-documented he adores "yes" people. I appreciate the fact he gets angry and is willing to show it, but it seems like he does shit out of impulse when it suits him. That's not something to do, especially if you are the leader of the Free World. 

Finally, something someone said to me the other day really hit home also. I was talking with a co-worker I manage and talked about Trump's nomination speech. He mentioned the LGBTQ stance Trump took. Then, my co-worker (who is gay, BTW, it is relevant to the next part of this story) said, "Up until that moment, I was undecided on whether to vote for this man or not. After hearing that, I decided right then and there he will not get my vote. Not one word was mentioned throughout this entire process about what we are until this moment. It is painfully obvious that this man is only doing this because he wants votes and doesn't give one shit about the LGBTQ community. We aren't a group to be pandered to, we want the same things as everyone else." Donald Trump is a caricature, a reality show, he will say whatever to get elected. Sorry, that's not enough. 

It can upset people, break their heart, whatever. Trust me, I want this country to rebound and be that great exceptional nation I know we can be once again. Never let that ever be in question. However, the path you and I want, @Beatles123, are just not the same path. I have a feeling too many people have bought into the cult of personality the Donald offers and now we have to live with the consequences. The day after Election Day, people are going to wake up and realize, "Dear God, what have we done?"


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

That wasn't the first time Trump has talked about protecting gays at all. :lmao Your friend is just as wildly misinformed as you are. Maybe rely less on South Park and actually watch some of his speeches or something.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

If there's any good that come out of this, it might lead to the marginalisation of the anti-gay section of the GOP alliance so that the party can focus on more important issues in the future.

The horror of it is another demagogue can easily hijack either major party's nomination again after seeing the success of Trump and the relative success of Sanders with the democrats. I blame the 4chan generation that I'm a part of for democracy to result in something like this. :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Tim fucking Kaine!!!!

Dude is beast on the mic right now, straight slaying Donald J Trump!!! It is over.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


>


Wasn't Obama talking about Trumps doom and gloom in the US? that shooting was in Germany.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

fpalm You can't be serious BM. He's talking about the danger of importing refugees we can't vet, just like Germany has been doing on a massive scale. There is rampant violence, rape, and the occasional terrorist attack in Germany. Trump doesn't want that here. Obama and Clinton obviously do since we already know what happens by accepting many refugees because Europe is already showing us.

EDIT: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/756653120437059584
:sodone The Democratic Party rigged their primary and now they're trying to rig the general. They have no defense for their actions.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Do we need to take a step back and not be the world's cop? Absolutely. I don't question that for a moment. Do I want to take care of my family first and take care of my own home before worrying about others? Yes. However, with Islamofascism on the rise, it is not the time to completely scurry. We do what we used to before World War II. Go in, kick ass, take names, and get out. Don't stick around to nation-build, no societies in our likeness. Get the job done and bring them home. Very easy to do, if we are willing to do this. And, don't give in to PC...give the troops every opportunity to do their job and work with them. Don't impede their progress, nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right...I don't want Hillary and we can't afford her. Unfortunately, the direction we are heading in this country means that might mean what we get, and it's our fault.
> 
> The short answer is...watch the South Park episode with the Canadian Donald Trump. They were spot on with that show and their analysis. Here's the long answer for more detail....
> 
> You believe that a man who would trash the First Amendment even more (opening up of libel laws and failure to address the idea of protecting the rights of Christians), would replace Obamacare with single-payer, government-run insurance (he said he would take care of everyone), skyrocket the minimum wage to ridiculous levels (he's supportive of the $15 minimum wage that would destroy jobs and businesses), refuses to discuss a national debt that is really bringing the economy to the brink of collapse, won't address entitlement reform (the economy and our infrastructure can't be sustained much longer with so many people living off of government assistance), could trigger said economic collapse with the high tariffs he proposes against China (hates free trade obviously), would continue the fine Obama tradition of abandoning our allies (leaving NATO because countries won't pay their fair share and suggesting Israel give more up to the Islamists and really doesn't want peace) while emboldening our enemies (he thinks Putin is a great guy he can work with, when Putin is one of our real enemies and has suddenly not even bothered to mention tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran), and has already started walking back his promises (the ban of all Muslims is now just extreme vetting) is what is best for this country. I am completely unwilling to compromise my beliefs for a man that is clearly a liberal and is to the left of Hillary on quite a few stances all because it is "anything but her." And, about a year ago, Hillary was swell enough for Donald and Melania to mingle with socially and politically. I just can't trust the intentions of a man who thought it was OK.
> 
> The people of this country are angry, and rightfully so. I'm mad as hell also, I don't want to take this shit anymore. A few years ago I caught a lot of shit on this board when I screamed about the GOP giving in during the shutdown. We had the chance to stop Obama and they caved in worried about politics. People supported what they did, a year later they controlled both houses of Congress. I, like many others and yourself, don't like the direction this country is going in. I want it stopped.
> 
> Anger can be a great thing. It can be a healthy outlet and to prevent pent up feelings from overflowing. However, the trick is...channeling that anger correctly and in a constructive fashion. At one time or another, we've all done something out of anger and later realized that there were unintended consequences. That is the moment when you come out of that anger and look around and suddenly you think to yourself, "Oh shit, what have I done?"
> 
> You can't make huge decisions on impulse. You have to have a plan. You have to know what is going to possibly happen after your decision and be ready for all possibilities. A person getting a divorce has to figure out about living quarters, job, family, etc...so that it won't be that big of a shock to their system. Brexit voters were pissed off, the question now is do the political forces behind it have a plan for the UK to get them through? Again, going with your gut is fine, just make sure you know what you're doing.
> 
> The American people, especially the GOP and conservatives and the disenfranchised, had plenty of options to choose from to channel that anger on all sides. Rubio, Cruz, Sanders, etc... We are stuck with a shape-shifting demon bitch and one of her top supporters and donors (and yes, Trump has willingly admitted to this so this isn't the media talking). This is not the election that is supposed to revolutionize this country, it's a recipe for disaster. It's not a question of going over the cliff...we are going there. The question is do you have a parachute.
> 
> The main reason I cannot, in my heart of hearts, vote for Donald J Trump, is not because he is an obnoxious person who piles on people he disagrees with and doesn't know when to stop. Lord knows that makes it that much of an easier choice, but that's not the main reason. He does not believe in the same things I do when it comes to how I want this country to run. He doesn't believe in small government, less involvement in day-to-day affairs from the higher-ups, or being someone that the world can look to with respect. He loves eminent domain, it makes him money. He will abandon our allies just because he feels they aren't pulling their weight. He'll run the 1st Amendment through the paper shredder at the foot of his desk. Heaven forbid if you can't disagree with him, it's well-documented he adores "yes" people. I appreciate the fact he gets angry and is willing to show it, but it seems like he does shit out of impulse when it suits him. That's not something to do, especially if you are the leader of the Free World.
> 
> Finally, something someone said to me the other day really hit home also. I was talking with a co-worker I manage and talked about Trump's nomination speech. He mentioned the LGBTQ stance Trump took. Then, my co-worker (who is gay, BTW, it is relevant to the next part of this story) said, "Up until that moment, I was undecided on whether to vote for this man or not. After hearing that, I decided right then and there he will not get my vote. Not one word was mentioned throughout this entire process about what we are until this moment. It is painfully obvious that this man is only doing this because he wants votes and doesn't give one shit about the LGBTQ community. We aren't a group to be pandered to, we want the same things as everyone else." Donald Trump is a caricature, a reality show, he will say whatever to get elected. Sorry, that's not enough.
> 
> It can upset people, break their heart, whatever. Trust me, I want this country to rebound and be that great exceptional nation I know we can be once again. Never let that ever be in question. However, the path you and I want, @Beatles123, are just not the same path. I have a feeling too many people have bought into the cult of personality the Donald offers and now we have to live with the consequences. The day after Election Day, people are going to wake up and realize, "Dear God, what have we done?"


There are a LOT of inaccuracies there Bruiser. A LOT.


----------



## Death Rider

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I mean Trump really does not seem like a good option listening to some of his polices BUT Hilary seems to be far far worse as someone who massively dislikes trump and some of his comments (Yes I know the media are very biased against him and pro hilary when Hilary is crook).


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> fpalm You can't be serious BM. He's talking about the danger of importing refugees we can't vet, just like Germany has been doing on a massive scale. There is rampant violence, rape, and the occasional terrorist attack in Germany. Trump doesn't want that here. Obama and Clinton obviously do since we already know what happens by accepting many refugees because Europe is already showing us.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/756653120437059584
> :sodone The Democratic Party rigged their primary and now they're trying to rig the general. They have no defense for their actions.


Here is the article http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/obama-mexico-press-conference-trump-convention/

Immigration was only part of it. And it was talking about Mexican immigrants and also violence in America. Not sure why you are coming it to refugees that cannot be vetted.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Bruiser is an old school cold war conservative (I personally lean that way as well)

Keep a close alliance of allies and try to make new ones while starving your enemies 

There is more options to international relations other than isolation vs fighting everyone

I am extremely pro NATO and favor having it grow until it has major members in every continent 

For all the terrorist shit, look at what parts of the world are actually fighting in a war

Out side of Ukraine the only conflicts involve radical extremist factions, no nations are at war and the only flair ups are in dictatorships 

That is what alliances like NATO give you, the only people who are willing to start shit are people who think that god will suddenly start shooting lighting at their enemies

The world is not teetering nor is in a bad place, the leaders who say that want you fear because they know that fearful people are easier to control and I don't think any of you are cowards


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Julian Assange gave warning last month. This is delicious! Poor Bernie, man. I had a feeling they plotted to screw him and they totally did.

- Vic


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



gamegenie said:


> Why does any of that matter? We're only ONE race, the Human race.


I doubt the DNC will be receiving that memo anytime soon. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/756885417522237441


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

LMAO this WikiLeaks #DNCLeak that is coming out two days before the DNC may be the biggest blow the DEMS may face this election year. If you're reading these emails and how blatant the Dem party conspired to derail and undercut Bernie Sanders and his supporters and still are finding yourself to support Clinton, you may as well be a cuck. There is some DAMNING evidence of collusion, media bias, alleged donation tampering, and political corruption.

The only way this gets eclipsed any better is if Bernie goes on stage next week and rescinds his support to Hillary and announces a third party run. He is able to do it. People talk about a shift within the GOP (which there definitely is) but it's just as bad, if not worse, on the Democratic party between liberals and "progressives" (regressives, really). The same reasons why I left the party years ago to eventually become a libertarian are what you are seeing now with these leaks.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> LMAO this WikiLeaks #DNCLeak that is coming out two days before the DNC may be the biggest blow the DEMS may face this election year. If you're reading these emails and how blatant the Dem party conspired to derail and undercut Bernie Sanders and his supporters and still are finding yourself to support Clinton, you may as well be a cuck. There is some DAMNING evidence of collusion, media bias, alleged donation tampering, and political corruption.
> 
> The only way this gets eclipsed any better is if Bernie goes on stage next week and rescinds his support to Hillary and announces a third party run. He is able to do it. People talk about a shift within the GOP (which there definitely is) but it's just as bad, if not worse, on the Democratic party between liberals and "progressives" (regressives, really). The same reasons why I left the party years ago to eventually become a libertarian are what you are seeing now with these leaks.


Exquisitely stated, *WINNINGBREH*!

The Republicans are often terrible on a panoply of issues, too, but the Democratic Party has continually "perfected" election fraud in the U.S. for many generations now. There were many irregularities in the Republican primaries but the Democratic ones were frequently conducted with nary a concern for the results to reflect who people voted for. DNC leadership circles almost invariably subverted Bernie Sanders's campaign. In San Diego, for instance, votes for him were simply shredded. Just as Ted Cruz stole delegates and votes from Ben Carson in Iowa's caucus, Hillary's team stole the caucus from Sanders, as some of these leaks make apparent, as if it were not already.

:lmao But the U.S. will bring "democracy" to Iraq and Crimea! :lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I would be absolutely shocked if Bernie Sanders showed even a shred of backbone and rescinded his support for Hillary. He just doesn't seem like he has it in him. He gave up his podium under threat from BLM, he refused to go after Hillary for the e-mails until very late in the game (and even then was very tepid about it), and he has endorsed Hillary after all of the dirty tricks her campaign has pulled that we already knew about. Now this comes out and he's suddenly going to act like a person with self-respect? I doubt it. Would be happily surprised to be proven wrong though.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> fpalm You can't be serious BM. He's talking about the danger of importing refugees we can't vet, just like Germany has been doing on a massive scale. There is rampant violence, rape, and the occasional terrorist attack in Germany. Trump doesn't want that here. Obama and Clinton obviously do since we already know what happens by accepting many refugees because Europe is already showing us.


While I agree with you that it's insane to allow in the USA what has happened to Europe, I just wish we'd stop creating so many refugees in the first place with our disastrous Middle East foreign policies. I'm not opposed to allowing in some women and children because of the responsibility we bear for the shit show over there but I'd also get us out the region and stop interfering with everything, so we don't end up bearing that responsibility at all. It's not our job to take care of everyone else's problems.



CamillePunk said:


> The Democratic Party rigged their primary and now they're trying to rig the general. They have no defense for their actions.





Vic Capri said:


> Julian Assange gave warning last month. This is delicious! Poor Bernie, man. I had a feeling they plotted to screw him and they totally did.
> 
> - Vic


Yep, Bernie got screwed. The nomination was outright stolen from him. And he went up on stage and endorsed Hillary anyways. Which tells me that he is either too cowardly to fight back or he is serving his intended role as a sheepdog. He claimed he wanted a revolution but falling in line behind a corrupt establishment are not the actions of a true revolutionary.

Also, I'm amused by anyone actually surprised by anything that came out on Wikileaks. Everyone who has been paying attention has known the Democratic primary was rigged right from the very start in Iowa all the way through California. The owners of the USA were never going to leave this up to chance. They wanted their puppet installed and that's what they got.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> While I agree with you that it's insane to allow in the USA what has happened to Europe, I just wish we'd stop creating so many refugees in the first place with our disastrous Middle East foreign policies. I'm not opposed to allowing in some women and children because of the responsibility we bear for the shit show over there but I'd also get us out the region and stop interfering with everything, so we don't end up bearing that responsibility at all. It's not our job to take care of everyone else's problems.


We can do both, and I think Trump is more likely to pull out of the ME than Hillary, as he's talked about not wanting to nation build or get involved in civil wars. It's not a sure thing because he's also said he wants to bomb the hell out of ISIS and get out quickly, so who knows exactly what that entails. 

As for the "women and children", the media has already proven to be lying about that narrative. As harsh as it may sound, I don't want to risk American lives by accepting children who might understandably bear ill will towards a nation that is highly complicit in the ruination of their homeland and likely the deaths of several family members. Sorry about what my government did, but I'm not going to risk American lives out of guilt.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> We can do both, and I think Trump is more likely to pull out of the ME than Hillary, as he's talked about not wanting to nation build or get involved in civil wars. It's not a sure thing because he's also said he wants to bomb the hell out of ISIS and get out quickly, so who knows exactly what that entails.


Well, we know for certain that Hillary "never met a war she didn't like" Clinton will NEVER get us out of the ME lol

The problem with Trump is that although he often takes the sane positions, he also contradicts himself constantly and has surrounded himself with people who will try to push him into more military disasters. He also wants to increase military spending, which is about the last thing our country needs to be doing.



CamillePunk said:


> As for the "women and children", the media has already proven to be lying about that narrative. As harsh as it may sound, I don't want to risk American lives by accepting children who might understandably bear ill will towards a nation that is highly complicit in the ruination of their homeland and likely the deaths of several family members. Sorry about what my government did, but I'm not going to risk American lives out of guilt.


I don't know nor care what narrative the media has been pushing. I don't watch any MSM. The only reason I have any inclination for allowing in any women and children is because of how much of this is our fault. We should share some of that burden because we helped fuck things up so badly. Now, what help we provide and how we provide is up for debate, certainly national security should be a top priority, but I don't think it's right that we completely absolve ourselves of all responsibility for a problem we played such a large role in creating.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I would be absolutely shocked if Bernie Sanders showed even a shred of backbone and rescinded his support for Hillary. He just doesn't seem like he has it in him. He gave up his podium under threat from BLM, he refused to go after Hillary for the e-mails until very late in the game (and even then was very tepid about it), and he has endorsed Hillary after all of the dirty tricks her campaign has pulled that we already knew about. Now this comes out and he's suddenly going to act like a person with self-respect? I doubt it. Would be happily surprised to be proven wrong though.


The media will bury it, you're not going to hear much of the story. Sanders pretty much lost any leverage he had when he full-throatedly supported Clinton.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

We should take responsibility by getting the hell out, not bringing direct harm upon ourselves. That's insanity.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I would be absolutely shocked if Bernie Sanders showed even a shred of backbone and rescinded his support for Hillary. He just doesn't seem like he has it in him. He gave up his podium under threat from BLM, he refused to go after Hillary for the e-mails until very late in the game (and even then was very tepid about it), and he has endorsed Hillary after all of the dirty tricks her campaign has pulled that we already knew about. Now this comes out and he's suddenly going to act like a person with self-respect? I doubt it. Would be happily surprised to be proven wrong though.


Bernie tried really hard to not "burn down" his party 

Trump didn't give a fuck if the republicans liked him or not because if he got the Nomination they had to get behind him

Bernie wanted the Democrats united and behind him and to "like him"

Bernie acted like it was already him vs Trump when he should of focused on getting to that level first


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Well he supposedly wasn't a Democrat until 2015 so that's a weird strategy for him.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> We should take responsibility by getting the hell out, not bringing direct harm upon ourselves. That's insanity.


Women and children are suffering and dying because of the actions of the USA. And you think the USA should shoulder no responsibility in helping these people? That's cold, brother. Cold.

When you help create a mess, you're supposed to help clean up that mess. Or do you not believe in personal responsibility?

There's a lot of area between allowing a free for all and offering no help whatsoever. Figuring out how to help and who to help while keeping our country safe is the difficult part. There's a big difference between allowing in a 70 year old woman or a 3 year old child and allowing in a 30 year old adult man who may or may not be a terrorist.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*










LET

THE

FLOODGATES

OPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN!


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

What's personal responsibility got to do with it? I didn't vote in these sociopaths.

If you want to help then donate to charities that help resettle them in other Middle Eastern countries where they might actually assimilate, and it's 13 times cheaper. There's no argument for bringing them here.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Women and children are suffering and dying because of the actions of the USA. And you think the USA should shoulder no responsibility in helping these people? That's cold, brother. Cold.
> 
> When you help create a mess, you're supposed to help clean up that mess. Or do you not believe in personal responsibility?
> 
> There's a lot of area between allowing a free for all and offering no help whatsoever. Figuring out how to help and who to help while keeping our country safe is the difficult part. There's a big difference between allowing in a 70 year old woman or a 3 year old child and allowing in a 30 year old adult man who may or may not be a terrorist.


We are not the babysitter of the world, Davey.


----------



## virus21

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> LET
> 
> THE
> 
> FLOODGATES
> 
> OPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN!


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> LMAO this WikiLeaks #DNCLeak that is coming out two days before the DNC may be the biggest blow the DEMS may face this election year. If you're reading these emails and how blatant the Dem party conspired to derail and undercut Bernie Sanders and his supporters and still are finding yourself to support Clinton, you may as well be a cuck. There is some DAMNING evidence of collusion, media bias, alleged donation tampering, and political corruption.
> 
> The only way this gets eclipsed any better is if Bernie goes on stage next week and rescinds his support to Hillary and announces a third party run. He is able to do it. People talk about a shift within the GOP (which there definitely is) but it's just as bad, if not worse, on the Democratic party between liberals and "progressives" (regressives, really). The same reasons why I left the party years ago to eventually become a libertarian are what you are seeing now with these leaks.


I was conservative in my young teens and then became ultra liberal from school and older college friends whom I met while at extra curricular summer school. I think I became libertarian or something close to it about 2 years ago when I realized Liberals were nuts and would never be satisfied with any victory they got, they always wanted more. They were just as oppressive as Religious nutjob Conservatives, they just pushed opposing views, I realized they were two sides to the same coin and went a different direction.

If you go back to some of the earlier posts in this thread there are people talking about how Republicans are more corrupt than Democrats yadda yadda and now it seems like the truth is all finally out and they were wrong.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

My face when the media thought the RNC would have the heated protests, physical riots, and possible stage hijacking when the DNC are about to head into it instead.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I already predicted that would be the case but let's see what happens. :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Sheesh, the email posted from the Dems (I assume) about how to corner to the Latino vote sure ain't a good look.

One would hope the political process isn't run exactly like a cynical Coca Cola advertising campaign, however when emails like that arise it's hard to come to any other conclusion. Then again it occurs to me when the whole shebang is basically bought and paid for by the highest paying corporate lobbyists you'd be living in fantasy land to expect anything else.

Is the ultimate appeal of Trump that he appears to embrace said cynical process rather than try to hide it? No matter how non-sensical the path appears?

#DepressingPoliticalProcess #WeGetWhatWeDeserve


----------



## Ygor

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The Republican Convention was pretty mellow as far as protesters. They flooded the place with cops which ended up being a successful strategy. Anyone know if Philadelphia plans on doing the same thing for the Democratic Convention? It's good to shut things down before they escalate and deny opportunity to those who want to create mayhem.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










So Hillary and the DNC dont want walls but look at this LOL.


----------



## LaMelo

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump is the answer!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

DNC response to Bernie campaign asking for Cali debate: "lol" 

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11406


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Seeing the lamestream media collectively lose their shit over this primary cycle has been nothing short of hilarious. I can only suspect the general election cycle will be exponentially more entertaining. If nothing else, it has been worth it just for this.

Just imagine the psychotic episodes that will be had on live television after Trump wins. :lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Is the MSM talking about the leaks yet? Last I checked they were still fawning over Tim Kaine. 

Somehow I doubt this will get as much media attention as Melaniagate did, where the media collectively pretended anyone thinks political candidates or their wives write their own speeches, and went on about it for 3 days.


----------



## TerraRising

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> So Hillary and the DNC dont want walls but look at this LOL.


Big difference between a temporary barrier protecting a political figure and a $20B international fence barring a bunch of short brown people from Hispanophonic Catholic countries taking meager jobs that the upper-middle class Anglo protestants won't take because of snooty classism and the urban population won't take because "uhh uhh I ain't takin' orders from no white bitch! Ain't no honky tellin' a brutha to pick fruit again, dat shit be ovah since Linco'n freed us! We waz kangz n shit dawg, #BLM cracka!"

It's a lose-lose situation.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@birthday_massacre @DesolationRow @CamillePunk

http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/



> In its recent leak of 20,000 DNC emails from January 2015 to May 2016, DNC staff discuss how to deal with Bernie Sanders’ popularity as a challenge to Clinton’s candidacy. Instead of treating Sanders as a viable candidate for the Democratic ticket, the DNC worked against him and his campaign to ensure Clinton received the nomination.
> 
> One email from DNC Deputy Communications Director Eric Walker to several DNC staffers cites two news articles showing Sanders leading in Rhode Island and the limited number of polling locations in the state: “If she outperforms this polling, the Bernie camp will go nuts and allege misconduct. They’ll probably complain regardless, actually.”
> 
> Instead of treating Sanders with impartiality, the DNC exhibits resentful disdain toward him and the thousands of disenfranchised voters he could have brought into the party.
> 
> “Wondering if there’s a good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess,” wrote DNC Deputy Communications Director Mark Paustenbach to DNC Communications Director Luis Miranda, in response to backlash over DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz shutting off the Sanders campaign’s access to voter database files.
> 
> Another chain reveals MSNBC’s Chuck Todd and DNC staff members discussing how to discredit MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski’s call for Wasserman Schultz to resign.
> 
> Most of the emails released come from seven prominent DNC staff members: senior adviser Andrew Wright, national finance director Jordon Kaplan, finance chief of staff Scott Comer, Northern California finance director Robert Stowe, finance director of data and strategic initiatives Daniel Parrish, finance director Allen Zachary and Miranda.
> 
> The release provides further evidence the DNC broke its own charter violations by favoring Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee, long before any votes were cast.
> 
> Over the past several weeks, Guccifer 2.0 released several internal memos showing DNC staff strategizing to make Clinton the presidential nominee—as early as March 2015. In June 2016, Florida-based law firm, Beck & Lee, filed a class action lawsuit against Wasserman Schultz and the DNC based on the revelations from these leaked files.
> 
> Other emails show DNC staff in damage control over allegations from the Sanders campaign, when a report—corroborated by a Politico—revealed the DNC’s joint fundraising committee with the Clinton campaign was laundering money to the Clinton campaign instead of fundraising for down-ticket Democrats. Regardless of the fundraising tactics, because both major campaigns didn’t agree to use the joint fundraising committee super-PAC with the DNC, the DNC should have recused itself from participating with just the Clinton campaign.
> 
> The Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0 leaks are the perfect end to a Democratic primary that undermined democracy at every possible opportunity while maintaining plausible deniability.
> 
> The party’s rules, including the use of super delegates—who disproportionately endorsed Clinton before the primaries began—are intended to provide the Democratic Party leverage over the election process. Throughout the primaries, decisions were made by DNC officials to help Clinton build and maintain a lead over Sanders.
> 
> More votes were cast for Clinton, but they were cast at the behest of a Democratic Party that downplayed her shortfalls to the extent that Sanders not only had to run against Clinton but also against the entire Democratic Establishment. Heading into the Democratic National Convention, voters are beginning to understand that their voices are of little concern to the leadership.


This shouldn't surprise anyone here in this thread. The DNC are corrupt to the absolute core right down to the concept of super delegates.

Any so called Democrat or Progressive after finding this out if they are principled should realistically not vote for Hillary come election time.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Sheesh, the email posted from the Dems (I assume) about how to corner to the Latino vote sure ain't a good look.
> 
> One would hope the political process isn't run exactly like a cynical Coca Cola advertising campaign, however when emails like that arise it's hard to come to any other conclusion. Then again it occurs to me when the whole shebang is basically bought and paid for by the highest paying corporate lobbyists you'd be living in fantasy land to expect anything else.
> 
> Is the ultimate appeal of Trump that he appears to embrace said cynical process rather than try to hide it? No matter how non-sensical the path appears?
> 
> #DepressingPoliticalProcess #WeGetWhatWeDeserve


Trump's appeal is that he's not a politician. He would be the first since Eisenhower with ZERO political experience prior to taking office. He would be the 5th such President in our history (Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, Herbert Hoover although he had been head of the US Food Administration and Secretary of Commerce but those aren't positions elected to, and Eisenhower). Many want to see what a businessman will do running things. 

He also is not afraid to play the game by his own rules. Rather than cower when someone takes a swing, he punches back. He's said stuff that probably would have already buried just about every other politician out there, and he's still standing.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> So Hillary and the DNC dont want walls but look at this LOL.


I mentioned this to you a few weeks ago! Back when Bernie was still running, the DNC was going to build walls to keep out Bernie supporters and oddly enough Clinton's whole build bridges thing seems a little funny because, "Walls don't work" supposedly!

Also you were totally right about the voter fraud omg did the Dems fuck over bernie worse than I thought, I'm so sorry!

Also [email protected] the leaked email talking about Hispanic voters.. boy are the Hispanics going to love that! You hear that minorities? The Democrats don't give a flying fuck about you!


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So, wonder if Wikileaks knows the meeting on the plane between Don Corleone and Jack Woltz (aka Bill Clinton and AG Lynch) wasn't just a small talk meeting about grandkids. Maybe they can show us where he left the horse's head.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> What's personal responsibility got to do with it? I didn't vote in these sociopaths.


I didn't vote in these sociopaths either but you and I are only individuals, whereas the USA is a country. The slate doesn't get wiped clean with every election. There are consequences to the actions of the USA.



CamillePunk said:


> If you want to help then donate to charities that help resettle them in other Middle Eastern countries where they might actually assimilate, and it's 13 times cheaper. There's no argument for bringing them here.


First of all, most charities are bullshit. Second of all, it wasn't charities who wrecked the region. We, the USA, shoulder that burden.

As for helping with the resettlement of refugees into other Middle Eastern countries, that is not a suggestion I oppose. That's where I think the vast majority of them should be going. The USA should be providing support to our allies to help make that happen. I disagree with the idea of USA shifting their own responsibility over this mess onto charities but I agree with you about where most of them should be relocated.

As for bringing "them" here, jesus christ, man, are you really that terrified of old women and 3 year olds? All I am suggesting is the bare minimum of bringing in those who are the weakest of all. Considering our role in destroying their homelands, I don't think that is too much to ask.



Beatles123 said:


> We are not the babysitter of the world, Davey.


Yep, which I have stated repeatedly in this thread. Had the USA played no part in fucking up the ME, I'd say fuck the ME and claim no responsibility for what happens to the people of that region. The first thing I want done is to end our involvement there, so we're not burdened with any future responsibilities.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Wasserman Schulz has been removed as a DNC speaker to try and quell the righteous anger of Bernie supporters after the leak.Those leaks just prove that Trump's and Bernie's mantra about the system being rigged was spot on.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Yep, which I have stated repeatedly in this thread. Had the USA played no part in fucking up the ME, I'd say fuck the ME and claim no responsibility for what happens to the people of that region. The first thing I want done is to end our involvement there, so we're not burdened with any future responsibilities.


The involvement shouldn't completely stop Tater, what needs to stop is NEGATIVE involvement.

What is seen as negative involvement is what should be discussed.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Is the MSM talking about the leaks yet? Last I checked they were still fawning over Tim Kaine.
> 
> Somehow I doubt this will get as much media attention as Melaniagate did, where the media collectively pretended anyone thinks political candidates or their wives write their own speeches, and went on about it for 3 days.


How do the two even equate? 

Trump's whole campaign made an ass of themselves on the national stage, that will be in recorded history FOREVER!!!!!!


How do YOU NOT FREAKING GET THAT?


Every election year we will be reminded of Melania's blunder from trying to rip off the First Lady Michelle Obama. 


Yeah the media is talking about Hillary's great pick. 

Clinton / Kaine 2016 !!!!


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Gandhi said:


> The involvement shouldn't completely stop Tater, what needs to stop is NEGATIVE involvement.
> 
> What is seen as negative involvement is what should be discussed.





Tater said:


> Yep, which I have stated repeatedly in this thread. Had the USA played no part in fucking up the ME, I'd say fuck the ME and claim no responsibility for what happens to the people of that region. The first thing I want done is to end our involvement there, so we're not burdened with any future responsibilities.



The answer lays somewhere in the middle between what both of you are driving at. You're both not completely wrong here. 

We shouldn't be nation-building, that's not our responsibility. Unfortunately, we can't just bury our heads in the sand either and not get involved period. When our troops take care of business, we let them do their jobs. Don't pin all these restrictions on them, don't tie their hands. Let them do their job, take care of business, kill the bad guys. When done, bring them home. We're not going to rebuild, you're on your own there so you can build it however way you see fit so you won't feel obligated to do it our way if you don't want it. 

We don't need to be the world's police force, but with the way the world is these days we can't not get involved either.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

We need an isolationist policy. In no way do we need to take on any refugees. None. Not a one.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Trump's appeal is that he's not a politician. He would be the first since Eisenhower with ZERO political experience prior to taking office. He would be the 5th such President in our history (Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, Herbert Hoover although he had been head of the US Food Administration and Secretary of Commerce but those aren't positions elected to, and Eisenhower). Many want to see what a businessman will do running things.
> 
> He also is not afraid to play the game by his own rules. Rather than cower when someone takes a swing, he punches back. He's said stuff that probably would have already buried just about every other politician out there, and he's still standing.


Don't forget that no matter how much you disagree with his solutions, he is the only one preaching an America-first mentality.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

And now, for your viewing pleasure...Beatles123 Productions prouudly presents:


* THE JUICIEST DNC LEAKS THUS FAR: ULTIMATE CUCKOLDRY ON A MASSIVE SCALE!*

DNC member killing horses for insurance money.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/578
DNC making fun of black womans name.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/17942
DNC telling each other, "I love you too. no ****."
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/425
DNC requesting a pull an MSNBC commentary segment.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6107
DNC controlling the narrative with time released stories.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12450
DNC conspiring to create false Trump information and release with Reuters.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7102
DNC Hillary supporters infiltrated Sanders campaign.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4776
DNC members going to complain to Morning Joe producers about his mentioning of a "rigged system."
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8806
DNC discussing their relationship with NBC/MSNBC/CNN and how to get better treatment.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13762
Super PAC paying young voters to push back online Sanders supporters. Paid shills.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz having an off the record meeting in MSNBC President Phil Griffin's office.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8867
DNC being messed with by the Washington Examiner.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5304
DNC discussing Hillary's policies as unfeasible.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/519
$200k for a private dinner with Hillary.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/17287
Offering to send interns out to fake a protest against the RNC.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13366
Faking outrage and pasting in a video later.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7102
A mole working inside of the Sanders campaign.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7793
Bringing up Sanders religion to scare the southern voters.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11508
Possible money laundering by moving money back and forth to bypass legal limits.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6230
Politico writer sending his stories to the DNC before he sends them to his editor.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808
DNC feeding CNN the questions they want to be asked in interviews.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4077
Creating a fake job ad for a Trump business to paint him as a sexist.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803
Hillary funding 2 million dollars in a cooridanted campaign in battleground states to win back the Senate.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7784
DNC is upset that their "allies" didn't send in protestors so they sent out interns.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13366
"Clinton Foundation quid-pro-quo worries are lingering, will be exploited in general."
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351
$50,000 - Lawrence Benenson.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/14700
Daily Fundraising Report for the DNC.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2875
Content & Social Strategy Discussion.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7512
Re: BuzzFeed and DNC connection.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10933
Draft linking news articles about trump to use as negative press.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7586
Fwd: State Dinner Countdown.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/1901
Some chick is angry she hasn't been given more stuff from the Obama administration...might be interesting to follow up.
Re: State Dinner Countdown.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2946
Tim O'Brien: Trump's Fixation on Inflating his Net Worth is a Cause for Concern.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4496
RE: May Fundraising Numbers.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5615
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7720
Hillary for America Raised $26.4 Million in April, Began May with More than $30 Million Cash on Hand.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13986
Re: For approval: Trump supporter graphics. https://www.wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/788
Press talking points, states Hillary is their candidate, dated May 5, 2016. More of a smoking gun than the ambiguous talk in the emails themselves.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/fileid/5254/2728
Consultant calling megyn kelly a bimbo. Has PDF attached that says the same.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6087
DNC trying to get away with violating the Hatch Act.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/20148
Democrats using interns to organize fake "protests."
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13830
RE: Action on DNC tomorrow (Immigration Raids).
https://www.wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/9736


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> A move worthy of Republicans .. only this year, Republicans did no such thing, but the DNC were going to fpalm
> 
> Seriously, if anyone votes for the DNC this year, they're a traitor to liberalism or have no fucking clue what liberalism is about. Fuck this election man.
> 
> Vote Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump had already landed the knock out blows before the Republican idiots even realized they were knocked the fuck out.


Yea! Really the Democrats may have been like this the entire time. I knew something was up when they hung bernie out to dry. I also knew something was fishy when the Democrats had full control of the Government for three years when Obama first got elected and did fuckall for anyone. Then we had lockout after lockout once blue areas turned red once the democrats did nothing. 

The DNC has shown their true colors which is why I liked this election, both the RNC dinosaurs and the DNC overlords got absolutely exposed. Except in the DNC's case Bernie bowed out.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Yea! Really the Democrats may have been like this the entire time. I knew something was up when they hung bernie out to dry. I also knew something was fishy when the Democrats had full control of the Government for three years when Obama first got elected and did fuckall for anyone. Then we had lockout after lockout once blue areas turned red once the democrats did nothing.
> 
> The DNC has shown their true colors which is why I liked this election, both the RNC dinosaurs and the DNC overlords got absolutely exposed. Except in the DNC's case Bernie bowed out.


Bernie also exposed just how dinosaurish DNP actually is as well. The Party has mostly the supporter range of 50-80 year olds who also have no fucking clue what the needs of the current generation and/or future are. The younger generation giving their support to the DNC because they've appropriated liberalism (without actually acting in any liberal ways whatsoever) is absolute endemic of their ignorance and childishness. Whatever's left over usually goes to the RNC, but Trump devastation of the RNC gives us the first true independent candidate in probably America's entire history and yet they spurn the idea because they listen to the same bullshit party that raped one of their own about Trump. 

It really boggles the mind.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I also knew something was fishy when the Democrats had full control of the Government for three years when Obama first got elected and did fuckall for anyone.


This is untrue. Obama served his corporate overlords quite admirably.



BruiserKC said:


> we can't just bury our heads in the sand either and not get involved period.


As far as I'm concerned, as long as they don't have nukes or are in some other way a direct threat to national security, I say fuck 'em. No more military involvement. No more arms shipments. No more arming and training so called moderates or rebels. None of it. If the people of the ME want to blast each other back to the Stone Age, I say we let them do it without our interference and without our weapons.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> How do the two even equate?
> 
> Trump's whole campaign made an ass of themselves on the national stage, that will be in recorded history FOREVER!!!!!!
> 
> 
> How do YOU NOT FREAKING GET THAT?
> 
> 
> Every election year we will be reminded of Melania's blunder from trying to rip off the First Lady Michelle Obama.



Hmm, what's more significant? Some ultimately meaningless speech at the RNC or #KeepThePeopleIgnorant ?


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> And now, for your viewing pleasure...Beatles123 Productions prouudly presents:
> 
> 
> * THE JUICIEST DNC LEAKS THUS FAR: ULTIMATE CUCKOLDRY ON A MASSIVE SCALE!*
> 
> DNC member killing horses for insurance money.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/578
> DNC making fun of black womans name.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/17942
> DNC telling each other, "I love you too. no ****."
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/425
> DNC requesting a pull an MSNBC commentary segment.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6107
> DNC controlling the narrative with time released stories.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12450
> DNC conspiring to create false Trump information and release with Reuters.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7102
> DNC Hillary supporters infiltrated Sanders campaign.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4776
> DNC members going to complain to Morning Joe producers about his mentioning of a "rigged system."
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8806
> DNC discussing their relationship with NBC/MSNBC/CNN and how to get better treatment.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13762
> Super PAC paying young voters to push back online Sanders supporters. Paid shills.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351
> DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz having an off the record meeting in MSNBC President Phil Griffin's office.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8867
> DNC being messed with by the Washington Examiner.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5304
> DNC discussing Hillary's policies as unfeasible.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/519
> $200k for a private dinner with Hillary.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/17287
> Offering to send interns out to fake a protest against the RNC.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13366
> Faking outrage and pasting in a video later.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7102
> A mole working inside of the Sanders campaign.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7793
> Bringing up Sanders religion to scare the southern voters.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11508
> Possible money laundering by moving money back and forth to bypass legal limits.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6230
> Politico writer sending his stories to the DNC before he sends them to his editor.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808
> DNC feeding CNN the questions they want to be asked in interviews.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4077
> Creating a fake job ad for a Trump business to paint him as a sexist.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803
> Hillary funding 2 million dollars in a cooridanted campaign in battleground states to win back the Senate.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7784
> DNC is upset that their "allies" didn't send in protestors so they sent out interns.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13366
> "Clinton Foundation quid-pro-quo worries are lingering, will be exploited in general."
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351
> $50,000 - Lawrence Benenson.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/14700
> Daily Fundraising Report for the DNC.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2875
> Content & Social Strategy Discussion.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7512
> Re: BuzzFeed and DNC connection.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10933
> Draft linking news articles about trump to use as negative press.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7586
> Fwd: State Dinner Countdown.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/1901
> Some chick is angry she hasn't been given more stuff from the Obama administration...might be interesting to follow up.
> Re: State Dinner Countdown.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2946
> Tim O'Brien: Trump's Fixation on Inflating his Net Worth is a Cause for Concern.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4496
> RE: May Fundraising Numbers.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5615
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7720
> Hillary for America Raised $26.4 Million in April, Began May with More than $30 Million Cash on Hand.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13986
> Re: For approval: Trump supporter graphics. https://www.wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/788
> Press talking points, states Hillary is their candidate, dated May 5, 2016. More of a smoking gun than the ambiguous talk in the emails themselves.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/fileid/5254/2728
> Consultant calling megyn kelly a bimbo. Has PDF attached that says the same.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6087
> DNC trying to get away with violating the Hatch Act.
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/20148
> Democrats using interns to organize fake "protests."
> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13830
> RE: Action on DNC tomorrow (Immigration Raids).
> https://www.wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/9736


So this is how you spend your day? looking at gossip websites to instigate. :hano


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> Hmm, what's more significant? Some ultimately meaningless speech at the RNC or #KeepThePeopleIgnorant ?


 The source is significant. 


I see that both are being peddled by people like you, and that's all I or anyone else need to know.


----------



## just1988

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> The source is significant.
> 
> 
> I see that both are being peddled by people like you, and that's all I or anyone else need to know.



People like me? Bernie's campaign manager said somebody must be held accountable for all the shit that has just come out. I have nothing to do with him, Bernie or his supporters. I'm just sitting back and enjoying the show.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> So this is how you spend your day? looking at gossip websites to instigate. :hano


These are actual emails from the DNC. Not Gossip. YOUR party did these things. Own them or :gtfo


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> This is untrue. Obama served his corporate overlords quite admirably.


His first act was a huge fucking corporate bailout - which eventually was a complete and utter disaster - and for no reason at all tax payers were asked to shoulder the burden of massive corporate failure. 

The market should have been allowed to decide the fate of those companies not veiled form of twisted communism (ironically communism is about distributed the wealth of the rich amongst the poor loosely speaking and he just went the other way with it).


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> His first act was a huge fucking corporate bailout - which eventually was a complete and utter disaster - and for no reason at all tax payers were asked to shoulder the burden of massive corporate failure.
> 
> The market should have been allowed to decide the fate of those companies not veiled form of twisted communism (ironically communism is about distributed the wealth of the rich amongst the poor loosely speaking and he just went the other way with it).


Kinda funny how the USA is always broke until some mega corporation or bank needs a tax break or a bailout. When that happens, our government can't seem to throw the money at them fast enough. I'm surprised they don't put a money cannon in the front door of the White House and just have all the billionaires line up on the front lawn and wait their turn. Gotta keep all those serfs out though. The White House cannon cash give away is for billionaires only.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Kinda funny how the USA is always broke until some mega corporation or bank needs a tax break or a bailout. When that happens, our government can't seem to throw the money at them fast enough. I'm surprised they don't put a money cannon in the front door of the White House and just have all the billionaires line up on the front lawn and wait their turn. Gotta keep all those serfs out though. The White House cannon cash give away is for billionaires only.


It's ironic the rich get the most help, the best tax breaks and everything cheaper.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> The younger generation giving their support to the DNC because they've appropriated liberalism (without actually acting in any liberal ways whatsoever) is absolute endemic of their ignorance and childishness.


Ain't that the damned truth. Bunch of ignorant sheep being led into economic slavery because yay! gay wedding cakes.



Miss Sally said:


> It's ironic the rich get the most help, the best tax breaks and everything cheaper.


It's how the system is designed. Republicrats have turned the USA into a corporatocracy and it's why I so strongly oppose both parties. I'd rather burn it all down than willingly throw my support behind the oligarchs who are turning us into a serf class.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I mentioned this to you a few weeks ago! Back when Bernie was still running, the DNC was going to build walls to keep out Bernie supporters and oddly enough Clinton's whole build bridges thing seems a little funny because, "Walls don't work" supposedly!
> 
> Also you were totally right about the voter fraud omg did the Dems fuck over bernie worse than I thought, I'm so sorry!
> 
> Also [email protected] the leaked email talking about Hispanic voters.. boy are the Hispanics going to love that! You hear that minorities? The Democrats don't give a flying fuck about you!


Oh its ok, at least the truth is coming out now, not that it will matter since they stole the primary from Bernie.

Here is all the voter fraud examples put in one video, it was done by Lee Camp, he can be a little annoying if you dont like his style but the info is mind boggling.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Its damn baffling to me that this country has been fighting communism since the 1950's and now even some liberals have gotten it into their head that we should try the very thing that leads to communism.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> As far as I'm concerned, as long as they don't have nukes or are in some other way a direct threat to national security, I say fuck 'em. No more military involvement. No more arms shipments. No more arming and training so called moderates or rebels. None of it. If the people of the ME want to blast each other back to the Stone Age, I say we let them do it without our interference and without our weapons.


You keep talking as if America was training moderates or just rebels. _(they knew they weren't)_

Fuck'em? Yeah, fuck even the decent forces in the middle east righto? Let the actual terrorists just kill.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Its damn baffling to me that this country has been fighting communism since the 1950's and now even some liberals have gotten it into their head that we should try the very thing that leads to communism.


Socialism does not lead to communism, and like I have said a million times the US is already part socialist.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Socialism does not lead to communism, and like I have said a million times the US is already part socialist.


Ohoho, ya, thats why bernie was endorsed by communist organizations...Because he doesn't advance, knowingly or not, their cause...right.


----------



## Marv95

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Balless Bernie. Nothing more than a Hillary lapdog from the get-go. Wonder how his supporters feel about wasting all that money on him.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Ohoho, thats why bernie was endorsed by communist organizations...Because he doesn't advance, knowingly or not, their cause...right.


The two have nothing to do with each other. Be ignorant to the facts all you want. I am done trying to educate you on the truth. You have proven you just want to stay uneducated of what is true and what is not.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The two have nothing to do with each other. Be ignorant to the facts all you want. I am done trying to educate you on the truth. You have proven you just want to stay uneducated of what is true and what is not.


Is that a surrender, Dave? You need a safe space?

Nice Adhom by the way.

"BELIEVE MY WAY OR YOU'RE STUPID."


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*IN OTHER NEWS!!!!!*

Breitbart.com will be having a *FREE* screening of the anticipated film "Clinton Cash" today from 2 to 8PM, with no password required, at this link:

http://www.breitbart.com/clinton-cash-movie/

The liberal salt will be real! :banderas2


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

(Pasting from the Election thread...)

IN OTHER NEWS!!!!!

Breitbart.com will be having a FREE screening of the anticipated film "Clinton Cash" today from 2 to 8PM, with no password required, at this link:

http://www.breitbart.com/clinton-cash-movie/

The liberal salt will be real! :banderas2


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The irony of this leaked email.












> From:[email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Date: 2016-05-05 19:30
> *Subject: The dumbest thing I've ever read: Buzzfeed: These Experts Think The DNC And RNC Are Both Horrible At Cybersecurity*
> 
> 
> The thesis: we hand out thumb drives at events, which could infect the reporters/attendees' computers. So that means that we're bad at cybersecurity. Okay.
> 
> Buzzfeed: These Experts Think The DNC And RNC Are Both Horrible At Cybersecurity<https://www.buzzfeed.com/sheerafrenkel/these-experts-think-the-dnc-and-rnc-are-both-horri?utm_term=.bce5wKLYX#.adbj13dKO>
> 
> Both the Democratic and Republican National Committees have handed out hundreds of thumb drives to reporters ahead of their national conventions, in a move cybersecurity experts call "borderline stupidity."
> posted on May 5, 2016, at 4:47 p.m.
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO - Keeping America safe from the armies of hackers at the shores, has come up a lot in the 2016 election cycle but if the Republican and Democratic National Conventions are anything to go by, whichever party wins the race for president has not studied up on their cybersecurity basics.
> 
> Reporters who registered for the Republican and Democratic National Conventions were given tote bags by convention organizers filled with instructions and logistical information. Buried inside the totes were thumb drives, also known as USB flash drives, with information on the upcoming events.
> 
> "Who does that anymore? It's just asking to get infected with any variety of malware," said Ajay Arora, CEO of VERA<https://www.vera.com/>, a cybersecurity firm. "Those thumb drives are the number one way to infect a computer... It is borderline stupidity to give them out to people, or for people to even think of using them."
> 
> Thumb drives are known within the cybersecurity world for their fundamental security weaknesses, because when someone plugs a thumb drive into their computers they are opening up their system to anything on that drive - from the best hotels to stay in during the Republican National Convention to a virus that silently uploads itself onto the hard drive. Neither the Republican or Democratic National Committees replied to a BuzzFeed News inquiry about the thumb drives.
> 
> Jason Haddix, director of technical operations at Bugcrowd<http://www.bugcrowd.com/>, a security-testing startup, said that in the past he would help private companies test their internal security by dropping random USB sticks around their building and parking lot.
> 
> "We would drop them off or even hand them out as freebies to see who would fall for it and use the thumb drives. We had them install a program where we could show the company exactly which employee was using it and how we easily we could track their computers," Haddix said. It's the kind of trick hackers might use if they were trying to infect a company's internal system, and it shows how easy it is to move malware from a thumb drive onto a computer.
> 
> Arora said it's been at least five years since he's seen a thumb drive handed out at a conference in the U.S., though he admits he normally attends cybersecurity events where "no one is dumb enough to do this anymore."
> 
> "These politicians are saying they want to decide what to encrypt, and what to regulate and give back doors to, are these same people who are turning around and saying here, take this piece of hardware which is proven to be the worst thing security wise, and put it into your computer," said Arora. "They turn around and do a 1.0 mistake, which shows just how unqualified they are being able to talk about security and cybersecurity, let alone legislate on it."
> 
> Eric Walker


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> The irony of this leaked email.


cyber security, oh yeah nice smoking gun of an email :serious:


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Next Vice President of the United States and President. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Tim Kaine.


----------



## SpeedStick

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/757260494570983425
Obama brother voting for Trump


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> cyber security, oh yeah nice smoking gun of an email :serious:


I just thought it was funny that one of the leaked emails is one of them making fun of an article saying they're bad at cyber security. Lighten up. Not every post is someone tearing down a political party. Sometimes things are just silly.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> cyber security, oh yeah nice smoking gun of an email :serious:


How can you not see the irony? They are laughing about cyber security yet their emails were HACKED and are now leaking out all over the place. If they had better cyber security they would not have been hacked.

These email leaks are a smoking gun for their lack of cyber security.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

If Trump can somehow silence the progressives, the SJW element who would have you Americans hate your own history, then I'd say he'll have done a great job. You can't simply tell people "All the founding fathers are racist, all your history is racist, and you have no culture because you're white" and not expect some blowback.

If it wasn't Trump, it would be someone else. This is a bad element of society, and it needs to be cut out and removed.


----------



## SpeedStick

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Washington Post Runs 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



SpeedStick said:


> Washington Post Runs 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours


I brought this up the day it happened. The funny thing is, Trump and Hillary fans claim oh Bernie has not been vetted but if he were he would not stand a chance against Trump, even though Bernie destroys Trump in the polls.

The deck was always stacked against Bernie with articles like this and voter fraud and suppression. The only reason Bernie lost to Hillary was because of the rigged primary. Even if he did get more of the populate vote the super delegates would have given it to Hillary based on all those leaks.

If I were Bernie, I would just make an announcement at the convention that I am running as an independent in the general and pick Liz Warren or Tom Perez as my running mate. He could even take Jill Stein. 

But he really needs to buck the system now after all these leaks.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

HAAAAAAAAAA!










https://twitter.com/MensHumor/status/757259189664178176


----------



## ForYourOwnGood

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Here's Clinton's problem, she looks like that 40-something spinster aunt who's getting flabby but still dresses like a twenty year old, and insists on getting on the dancefloor.
She has that same kind of sad desperation about her. And when she smiles, she looks as though someone took a sack of syphilitic rats and just set them loose up her blouse.

She doesn't come across as an intelligent human being. Or a human being in general.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Just like I predicted, Bernie completely rolled over even when faced with irrefutable evidence that the DNC and the media conspired against him to fix the primary for Hillary. Absolutely sad. People still think this guy could've been a good president, being so weak-willed and easily bullied into submission? Not likely.

Meanwhile the Clinton News Network is talking about Russians hacking the DNC instead of addressing the actual CONTENT of the leaks. :done


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*






The Clinton Cash vid is live. Get it now while its up! will cease at 5 PM.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I watched the Clinton thing

The visuals are pretty slick 

Info seems pretty good but there is only one guy talking so I have to dock points for that

I give it "selling 20% of the US's uranium to Russia/10"


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*










:booklel :Rollins :rusevyes :heston


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Saw something along the lines that Gary Johnson might be up on the stage with Trump/Clinton for debates. That'd be pretty cool.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Just like I predicted, Bernie completely rolled over even when faced with irrefutable evidence that the DNC and the media conspired against him to fix the primary for Hillary. Absolutely sad. People still think this guy could've been a good president, being so weak-willed and easily bullied into submission? Not likely.


Of course he rolled over. The only belief people like him have is to let others do what they want. They lack a firm moral center. Very much the kind of simpering, limp-wristed liberal which have bred like lice throughout Europe.
Attracted to stronger personalities, but individually spineless.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Wasserman Schultz out at the end of the DNC. Bernie gets his pound of flesh thanks to Wikileaks.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/728303000133963776
:banderas


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This is out now


----------



## LoneRanger1

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:bean

Like if you think Mr Bean would make a better president than Donald Trump


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Just like I predicted, Bernie completely rolled over even when faced with irrefutable evidence that the DNC and the media conspired against him to fix the primary for Hillary. Absolutely sad. People still think this guy could've been a good president, being so weak-willed and easily bullied into submission? Not likely.
> 
> Meanwhile the Clinton News Network is talking about Russians hacking the DNC instead of addressing the actual CONTENT of the leaks. :done






ForYourOwnGood said:


> Of course he rolled over. The only belief people like him have is to let others do what they want. They lack a firm moral center. Very much the kind of simpering, limp-wristed liberal which have bred like lice throughout Europe.
> Attracted to stronger personalities, but individually spineless.



OH people like you and the other conservatives keep spouting off this narrative when I have said when a number of times why Bernie had to back Clinton. None of you live in the real world and obviously have never heard of compromise.

Bernie Sanders was never in it for himself, he was always about getting his policies put into place and because of him the DNC have the most progressive platform in their history. If he did not endorse her he would not have gotten his policies put into the platform people like you and CAM Punk are such hypocrites. You guys bash Ted Cruz for not endorsing Trump and uniting the party then at the same time bash Sanders for endorsing Hilary to unite the party which is what you guys wanted Cruz to do.

Just look at this hypocrisy.



CamillePunk said:


> I thought it was a great speech up until he built up "the choice" only to utterly fail to mention Donald Trump. Then he continued to talk right into the camera and over the room of people jeering him in disgust, with a smile on his face.
> 
> As I've said about Ted Cruz many times, his rhetoric is fantastic. He can talk like a true, classical limited government conservative. The type of guy I'd be very tempted to support if he had any authenticity in his personality or his actions. I've heard so many #NeverTrump Cruz supporters talk about what an egomaniac Donald Trump is. Well, this week Donald Trump invited every one of his primary competitors to come and speak at this convention with no strings attached. *Ted Cruz took that offer and proceeded to spit in the face of Trump and a party that is trying to unify and prevent Hillary Clinton from ruining the future of this country with liberal supreme court justices, and made it all about himself. THAT is egomania, when you put yourself before your country and everything you publicly claim to believe in*.



Yeah so Sanders is endorsing Hillary so that egomaniac Trump won't win and put in bigoted conservative supreme court justices and did not make it about himself.

The fact is, if Bernie did not endorse Hillary and did what Cruz did, you guys would be saying the same thing about Sanders, oh he is a egomaniac who was always in it about himself and did not care if he destroyed the democratic party.

that is why none of you can be taken seriously.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Uh, no. Cruz pledged to endorse whoever the GOP nominee would be and the fact is there just isn't much significant difference between Cruz and Trump's policies, aside from Cruz wanting to carpet bomb the Middle East. He really had no reason not to endorse other than his own bruised ego. 

Sanders and Clinton's views prior to having to run against Bernie Sanders are worlds apart, and she is deeply embedded with and takes money from the very corporate and banking interests Sanders is supposed to be adamantly against. He also never pledged to support her as far as I recall. 

They're two very different situations.

By the way, DWS's punishment for all of this is stepping down as DNC chairperson and being given a cushy job within the Clinton campaign. :lol Neither Clinton or Obama are even acknowledging the corruption.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Should have just ran Biden

but no, had to make "waves" and have another "first"


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Uh, no. Cruz pledged to endorse whoever the GOP nominee would be and the fact is there just isn't much significant difference between Cruz and Trump's policies, aside from Cruz wanting to carpet bomb the Middle East. He really had no reason not to endorse other than his own bruised ego.
> 
> Sanders and Clinton's views prior to having to run against Bernie Sanders are worlds apart, and she is deeply embedded with and takes money from the very corporate and banking interests Sanders is supposed to be adamantly against. He also never pledged to support her as far as I recall.
> 
> They're two very different situations.
> 
> By the way, DWS's punishment for all of this is stepping down as DNC chairperson and being given a cushy job within the Clinton campaign. :lol Neither Clinton or Obama are even acknowledging the corruption.


Bernie Sanders also pledged to endorse whoever the DNC nominee would be. as long as she adopted some of his policies which she did. That is why the DNC has their most progressive platform ever.

They are not very different situations you are just being a hypocrite about it. The fact is if Bernie would have not endorsed Hillary you would have talked shit about him claiming he was only in it for himself and he did it because of his ego etc etc just like you said about Cruz. 



Also if Trump did what Cruz did you would be saying how great Trump was for standing up to Cruz and the GOP. No matter what anyone you don't like does, they can never win.






stevefox1200 said:


> Should have just ran Biden
> 
> but no, had to make "waves" and have another "first"


Biden would get crushed by Trump and he would make an awful candidate. Biden was Dan Quayle bad as VP.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> OH people like you and the other conservatives keep spouting off this narrative when I have said when a number of times why Bernie had to back Clinton. None of you live in the real world and obviously have never heard of compromise.


I'm not a Conservative. I just hate weakness, and Sanders is weak. Look what happened when those BLM idiots stormed the stage. He should have denounced their whole group then and there.
This is a man who speaks for them, who, in his younger days, fought for civil rights. And that was how he was treated? And why, because he was white, and that's all they saw.
Had he even an ounce of strength or conviction, he would have called out BLM for it, and shown them up as the miserable, bigoted scumbags they are.

People with vote for Trump just to spite that element of American society, and the liberals, like Bernie, who just wring their hands and meekly apologise for how they were born.
Fuck him.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Zero chance I ever would have talked shit about Bernie for refusing to endorse HRC. :lol That is such a bizarre statement. I don't think anyone should endorse her.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ForYourOwnGood said:


> I'm not a Conservative. I just hate weakness, and Sanders is weak. Look what happened when those BLM idiots stormed the stage. He should have denounced their whole group then and there.
> This is a man who speaks for them, who, in his younger days, fought for civil rights. And that was how he was treated? And why, because he was white, and that's all they saw.
> Had he even an ounce of strength or conviction, he would have called out BLM for it, and shown them up as the miserable, bigoted scumbags they are.
> 
> People with vote for Trump just to spite that element of American society, and the liberals, like Bernie, who just wring their hands and meekly apologise for how they were born.
> Fuck him.


You mean he showed them respect and let them talk instead of pushing them off stage? If he would have pushed them off stage you would have given him shit for that for not letting them be heard. You guys have proven no matter what Bernie does he can't win. Why would he denounce BLM? That does not even make sense. 

Yes he fault for civil rights and he also was in on a number of protests, that is why he showed respect for the protesters and let them have their say.

I also love your projection calling BLM bigoted. Only people on the right would think that.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I think the difference is that Trump won and Bernie lost

Trump and his fans talked about how the RNC was ganging up on him and trying to make him look stupid, then when he wins they look butt hurt because they can get over that they lost even thought they had the advantage

Bernie and his fans talked about how the DNC was ganging up on him and trying to make him look stupid, then when he loses he is ok with it as long as they give into some of his token ideas 

Trump beat cheaters and they got upset

Bernie lost to cheaters and then congratulated them


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> I think the difference is that Trump won and Bernie lost
> 
> Trump and his fans talked about how the RNC was ganging up on him and trying to make him look stupid, then when he wins they look butt hurt because they can get over that they lost even thought they had the advantage
> 
> Bernie and his fans talked about how the DNC was ganging up on him and trying to make him look stupid, then when he loses he is ok with it as long as they give into some of his token ideas
> 
> Trump beat cheaters and they got upset
> 
> Bernie lost to cheaters and then congratulated them


Bernie knows if Trump wins it will be a disaster, that is why he had to endorse Hillary after he got his policies put on the platform. Bernie keeps saying now that he got some of the things he wanted, his focus is on making sure Trump does not win. 

Not sure how you can fault him for that.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You mean he showed them respect and let them talk instead of pushing them off stage? If he would have pushed them off stage you would have given him shit for that for not letting them be heard. You guys have proven no matter what Bernie does he can't win. Why would he denounce BLM? That does not even make sense.
> 
> Yes he fault for civil rights and he also was in on a number of protests, that is why he showed respect for the protesters and let them have their say.
> 
> I also love your projection calling BLM bigoted. Only people on the right would think that.


What the fuck are you talking about? I'm not on the right.
And if he had pushed them off the stage, I would have cheered him. Because they didn't ask to speak with respect. No, they went up there, _THREATENED TO SHUT DOWN THE RALLY_ and treated Bernie like absolute shit. And then started lecturing the audience.

And what did Bernie do? The same as too many liberals, he acted all apologetic and sorry, as though HE had done something wrong.

Face facts. BLM is the best recruiting tool Trump has, because they are the scum of the Earth. They don't even care about the fucking white people marching and protesting right alongside them. They're fucking scum, and I'd vote for Trump _purely_ to make life more difficult for them.

And if you want to call that me being right wing? Knock yourself out. But just know it's them and their fucking behaviour that's made me that way.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The DNC can't catch a fucking break today. :lol


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/757328611884036096


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Bernie Sanders also pledged to endorse whoever the DNC nominee would be. as long as she adopted some of his policies which she did. That is why the DNC has their most progressive platform ever.
> 
> They are not very different situations you are just being a hypocrite about it. The fact is if Bernie would have not endorsed Hillary you would have talked shit about him claiming he was only in it for himself and he did it because of his ego etc etc just like you said about Cruz.
> 
> Also if Trump did what Cruz did you would be saying how great Trump was for standing up to Cruz and the GOP. No matter what anyone you don't like does, they can never win.


You can believe this if you want, but I don't see it. I think that most people here (myself included) would have applauded Bernie for standing up to Clinton and not endorsing her. I do agree with you that he gave himself little choice after conceding, but he has a chance to redeem himself now with the DNC coming up. Bernie has a chance to make something happen now that all this bullshit with Wikileaks has come out to show how he was screwed out of the nomination. If he does not, then I (and other like me) have no choice but to look at him like the coward cuckold that he appears to be. If he continues to endorse her during and after the convention, he will be showing himself not only with a yellow streak, but exposing himself as part of the problem as far as the corruption in politics today. If he really wanted change, he wouldn't bow down and take what he has from the ones in power trying to maintain the status quo.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Sanders not endorsing Clinton would have earned my respect, if he was firm on his views he wouldn't have. He rolled over and just died, that's what he did, he was seen as a cuck by the black community and just about every demographic outside of young voters. He was much better than Hilary. His followers worked themselves to the bone for him and what does he do? He endorses someone who is a liar and the opposite of him, someone worse than Trump in every way imaginable.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

My favorite part of this thus far is Hillary Clinton's people claiming that these Wikileaks are the product of an insidious Russian conspiracy. :lmao 

The neocons and Hillary will continue to peddle their anti-Putin conspiracies and claim that Trump is a sort of pro-Putin agent because he doesn't want to risk a nuclear war with Moscow over a bunch of states that aren't even paying into NATO to the degree they are contractually supposed to. :lol

I repeat: the Democratic nominee and her cadre are calling out the Republican nominee for being not only "soft on Russia" but, as I'm sure we'll see this week in Philadelphia, "pro-dictator," "pro-Putin," etcetera. 

Many sins were committed in order to contain and thwart the Soviets, but the Soviet Union, in its heyday, was committed to global totalitarian domination. The Russia of the past quarter of a century is not the Soviet Union. Would be great if American policymakers finally, begrudgingly recognized this.

Thank you for the excellent article to read, @L-DOPA!


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Bernie knows if Trump wins it will be a disaster, that is why he had to endorse Hillary after he got his policies put on the platform. Bernie keeps saying now that he got some of the things he wanted, his focus is on making sure Trump does not win.
> 
> Not sure how you can fault him for that.


I just don't think Bernie is going to get anything out of this election other than a Dem win

Those ideas that Clinton incorporated will just be attached with horrible riders that make them impossible to pass and the Clinton camp will just "Hey we tried" and move on with their ideas


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Bernie Sanders was never in it for himself, he was always about getting his policies put into place and because of him the DNC have the most progressive platform in their history. If he did not endorse her he would not have gotten his policies put into the platform





birthday_massacre said:


> Bernie Sanders also pledged to endorse whoever the DNC nominee would be. as long as she adopted some of his policies which she did. That is why the DNC has their most progressive platform ever.


The fact that you believe the platform means jack shit is adorably naive. That's how they lure the suckers into voting for them. They offer campaign platforms with pretty promises, then they get into office and serve their corporate masters like the good little puppets that they are. Anyone stupid enough to fall for platform promises should go back and watch all that hope and change Obama promised 8 years ago, then look at his actions once he got into office. The banks and the corporations got their tax breaks and bailouts and the MIC continued getting their billions, while the rest of us got sold down the river. The TPP will be the final nail in the coffin.

If you believe Hillary will be any different, I've got a bridge in New York to sell you.



Pratchett said:


> You can believe this if you want, but I don't see it. I think that most people here (myself included) would have applauded Bernie for standing up to Clinton and not endorsing her. I do agree with you that he gave himself little choice after conceding, but he has a chance to redeem himself now with the DNC coming up. Bernie has a chance to make something happen now that all this bullshit with Wikileaks has come out to show how he was screwed out of the nomination. If he does not, then I (and other like me) have no choice but to look at him like the coward cuckold that he appears to be. If he continues to endorse her during and after the convention, he will be showing himself not only with a yellow streak, but exposing himself as part of the problem as far as the corruption in politics today. If he really wanted change, he wouldn't bow down and take what he has from the ones in power trying to maintain the status quo.


Pratchett with dat truth bomb.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> My favorite part of this thus far is Hillary Clinton's people claiming that these Wikileaks are the product of an insidious Russian conspiracy. :lmao
> 
> The neocons and Hillary will continue to peddle their anti-Putin conspiracies and claim that Trump is a sort of pro-Putin agent because he doesn't want to risk a nuclear war with Moscow over a bunch of states that aren't even paying into NATO to the degree they are contractually supposed to. :lol
> 
> I repeat: the Democratic nominee and her cadre are calling out the Republican nominee for being not only "soft on Russia" but, as I'm sure we'll see this week in Philadelphia, "pro-dictator," "pro-Putin," etcetera.
> 
> Many sins were committed in order to contain and thwart the Soviets, but the Soviet Union, in its heyday, was committed to global totalitarian domination. The Russia of the past quarter of a century is not the Soviet Union. Would be great if American policymakers finally, begrudgingly recognized this.
> 
> Thank you for the excellent article to read, @L-DOPA!


The Russian government has been putting out a lot of "news" about how "oppressed and poor" the former Warsaw nations are and how "they are persecuting ethnic Russians" and "run by Nazi's" 

The Russian government has also asked their entertainment industry to only make "patriotic works" 

They are gearing up their population to hate "Fascist" western Europe and "traitor" Eastern Europe


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

At this point if Trump wins which parts of the population do you want to see him make suffer the most. minorities, middle class -poor , upper middle class someone is going to have to take it up the ass and like it so who is it?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Pratchett said:


> You can believe this if you want, but I don't see it. I think that most people here (myself included) would have applauded Bernie for standing up to Clinton and not endorsing her. I do agree with you that he gave himself little choice after conceding, but he has a chance to redeem himself now with the DNC coming up. Bernie has a chance to make something happen now that all this bullshit with Wikileaks has come out to show how he was screwed out of the nomination. If he does not, then I (and other like me) have no choice but to look at him like the coward cuckold that he appears to be. If he continues to endorse her during and after the convention, he will be showing himself not only with a yellow streak, but exposing himself as part of the problem as far as the corruption in politics today. If he really wanted change, he wouldn't bow down and take what he has from the ones in power trying to maintain the status quo.


If I were Bernie Sanders, and Im sure most on here would agree with me, I would at the DNC in my speech talk about how the DNC conspired against me and that I was running as an independent. Then say, unless you have Hillary step down and run me as the DNC nominee. He would need to do this before the super delegates vote so the could always switch to him to get Hillary out.

I have been saying for months how the DNC was rigging the primary and everyone was telling me how I was wrong and it was sour grapes, its just funny how its all coming out now and how right I was.

Trump fans should be happy because the more that comes out before the election the less Bernie supporters and independents will vote for Hillary. A lot of those votes will go to Stein or maybe even Johnson. Some may go to Trump but a non-vote for Hillary is a vote for Trump.

If the DNC had any brains they would make Sanders the nominee because this is only going to get worse. Just wait until the shit storm when Hillarys wall st speeches leak. It will happen and if Trump does have them which I bet he does or he can get them, he will wait until right before the election to drop it so there is no fail safe for the DNC.

The debates are going to be a shit show. Trump is going to destroy the DNC and Hillary in them. And like I said earlier, if they try to fix the general for Hillary and screw Trump over, Trump won't do what Bernie did, he will fight for it and take it to court.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> The Russian government has been putting out a lot of "news" about how "oppressed and poor" the former Warsaw nations are and how "they are persecuting ethnic Russians" and "run by Nazi's"
> 
> The Russian government has also asked their entertainment industry to only make "patriotic works"
> 
> They are gearing up their population to hate "Fascist" western Europe and "traitor" Eastern Europe


These are matters for those states to deal with; Estonia, for instance, has within its population a slice of 6-7% ethnic Russians who are, effectively, second-class-at-best citizens, deprived of the agency of voting, because after the Cold War ended Estonia ensured that only those who had lived there in 1940 or earlier would be full-fledged citizens, consequently leaving hundreds of thousands out. 

It's understandable that Estonia doesn't want ethnic Russians voting, and such similar situations may make sense in other former Warsaw states, but it's not like all of Russia's grievances are just made up out of the ether. 

At least Estonia is the one Baltic State that actually pays into NATO as much as they are supposed to, though with all of the military aid they receive it's a bit questionable if their contribution remains above water.

If the Russians are attempting to influence the American election, I'm not sure we can blame them, even if we should attempt to block it. The U.S. government under Obama and friends sought to influence Russia's 2012 election, and of course the U.S. disposed the democratically-elected regime of Viktor Yanukovich to install a group of men of whom a fair number actually are aligned with or even are neo-nazis. If the Russians are seeking to churn some anti-Western propaganda, the U.S. and the West have provided ample grist for the mill.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It really does feel like Russo booked this election.


----------



## ForYourOwnGood

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> It really does feel like Russo booked this election.


Nah. No one's kidnapped Bagwell's Mom and shoved her fat ass on a pole yet.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Jeff Weaver, Bernie Sanders campaign manager on CNN right now displaying the fact that Sanders is going to just take this, bend the knee once again to Hillary Clinton this week. With some lip service thrown toward the idea that "...[N]ext time, the DNC Chairperson should be more netural..." his main message is, "...And we're going to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump..."

David "Bohemian Grove" Gergen is congratulating the Bernie Sanders people for being so utterly "gracious." :lmao

Remember how scared FBI Director James Comey looked as he effectively ran down all of Hillary's "reckless" behavior with national security secrets, before finally providing her with both a prosecutor _and_ a _deus ex machina_? In spite of doubtless being guaranteed a major job at Goldman Sachs for his role in "cleansing" Hillary.

Sorry @Pratchett but it looks like Mr. Sanders won't be standing up for his own voters. 

Only :trump can do that! :lol


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Hardcore Show said:


> At this point if Trump wins which parts of the population do you want to see him make suffer the most. minorities, middle class -poor , upper middle class someone is going to have to take it up the ass and like it so who is it?


Are neo-regressive authoritarian globalists a category that can take it up the ass? Because I'd be totally fine with that. :draper2


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> If I were Bernie Sanders, and Im sure most on here would agree with me, I would at the DNC in my speech talk about how the DNC conspired against me and that I was running as an independent. Then say, unless you have Hillary step down and run me as the DNC nominee. He would need to do this before the super delegates vote so the could always switch to him to get Hillary out.
> 
> I have been saying for months how the DNC was rigging the primary and everyone was telling me how I was wrong and it was sour grapes, its just funny how its all coming out now and how right I was.
> 
> Trump fans should be happy because the more that comes out before the election the less Bernie supporters and independents will vote for Hillary. A lot of those votes will go to Stein or maybe even Johnson. Some may go to Trump but a non-vote for Hillary is a vote for Trump.
> 
> If the DNC had any brains they would make Sanders the nominee because this is only going to get worse. Just wait until the shit storm when Hillarys wall st speeches leak. It will happen and if Trump does have them which I bet he does or he can get them, he will wait until right before the election to drop it so there is no fail safe for the DNC.
> 
> The debates are going to be a shit show. Trump is going to destroy the DNC and Hillary in them. And like I said earlier, if they try to fix the general for Hillary and screw Trump over, Trump won't do what Bernie did, he will fight for it and take it to court.


That's a nice fantasy. 

The Democrat superdelegates are clearly anti-Bernie. They're never going to support him. They're in Hillary's camp not because she's the best candidate for president, but she's the best candidate to maintain the status quo ... which essentially represents them and their interests more than anyone else's in the world.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> My favorite part of this thus far is Hillary Clinton's people claiming that these Wikileaks are the product of an insidious Russian conspiracy. :lmao
> 
> The neocons and Hillary will continue to peddle their anti-Putin conspiracies and claim that Trump is a sort of pro-Putin agent because he doesn't want to risk a nuclear war with Moscow over a bunch of states that aren't even paying into NATO to the degree they are contractually supposed to. :lol
> 
> I repeat: the Democratic nominee and her cadre are calling out the Republican nominee for being not only "soft on Russia" but, as I'm sure we'll see this week in Philadelphia, "pro-dictator," "pro-Putin," etcetera.
> 
> Many sins were committed in order to contain and thwart the Soviets, but the Soviet Union, in its heyday, was committed to global totalitarian domination. The Russia of the past quarter of a century is not the Soviet Union. Would be great if American policymakers finally, begrudgingly recognized this.
> 
> Thank you for the excellent article to read, @L-DOPA!


The most laughable part is, the people are like are all like OMG the Russians are doing this to make sure Trump wins, and find it disturbing But no one is saying OMG it's disturbing how the DNC fixed the primary and were against Bernie from the start to make sure Hillary wins. And yeah lets have the DNC look into how the DNC screwed over Sanders. that will work. 

It stuff like this that makes me want Hillary to lose, only if it was not Trump on the other side. But even with him on that side and how it would be a disaster , to see the look on Hillarys and the DNCs face if Trump beat her would be priceless especially when Sanders has a much better chance at beating Trump.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Jeff Weaver, Bernie Sanders campaign manager on CNN right now displaying the fact that Sanders is going to just take this, bend the knee once again to Hillary Clinton this week. With some lip service thrown toward the idea that "...[N]ext time, the DNC Chairperson should be more netural..." his main message is, "...And we're going to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump..."
> 
> David "Bohemian Grove" Gergen is congratulating the Bernie Sanders people for being so utterly "gracious." :lmao
> 
> Remember how scared FBI Director James Comey looked as he effectively ran down all of Hillary's "reckless" behavior with national security secrets, before finally providing her with both a prosecutor _and_ a _deus ex machina_? In spite of doubtless being guaranteed a major job at Goldman Sachs for his role in "cleansing" Hillary.
> 
> Sorry @Pratchett but it looks like Mr. Sanders won't be standing up for his own voters.
> 
> Only :trump can do that! :lol


You forget that I watch pro wrestling every week though, so it is no great stretch for me to anticipate great swerves that can make for better entertainment! (of course I realize that I will likely be disappointed by the booking regardless, but one has to be able to maintain the fantasy even just a little or there is no point in watching at all :side


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*






Cool interview on Trump Force One recapping the RNC.

"Did you walk in while Ted Cruz was speaking to upstage him?"

"I would never do that. But yes."

:lmao This man.


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

He knows how to deal with the bad eggs :trump


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Food for thought.

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Food for thought.
> 
> - Vic


I like Milo, he's been correct on most of his predictions. The funniest thing right now is that this has been the most open Republican wise to others like ever, you have gays and others speaking at the RNC and Trump talking about protecting them. It's pretty crazy!

LOL Russia being a threat, Russia just wants to be left alone, America and Obama have got into some weird pissing contest with Russia while ignoring Syira. People talk about Bush and the Iraq war well one could blame Libya and the Syrian civil war on the Obama administration, not to mention he's armed and supported groups who have pretty much became ISIS. He has drone striked more people than any other President, the US is bombing the fuck out of civilians at an all time high. Where's the outrage or the anti-obama sentiment from the Celebs or young people who supposedly have their pulse on everything?


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@AryaDark @Beatles123 @CamillePunk @L-DOPA @EL SHIV @Miss Sally @Reaper @samizayn @Tater



birthday_massacre said:


> The most laughable part is, the people are like are all like OMG the Russians are doing this to make sure Trump wins, and find it disturbing But no one is saying OMG it's disturbing how the DNC fixed the primary and were against Bernie from the start to make sure Hillary wins. And yeah lets have the DNC look into how the DNC screwed over Sanders. that will work.
> 
> It stuff like this that makes me want Hillary to lose, only if it was not Trump on the other side. But even with him on that side and how it would be a disaster , to see the look on Hillarys and the DNCs face if Trump beat her would be priceless especially when Sanders has a much better chance at beating Trump.


:lol Great post! 

The Democrats are endeavoring to suggest that we all lose focus on the scandal(s) uncovered by the Wikileaks releases, and be bogged down in looking for which party or parties are responsible for the hacking in the first place. Longtime Clinton family bagman Paul Begala was on CNN continuously chirping, in effect, a few hours ago, "Granted, this is bad and the DNC do need to do some housecleaning over this, but if and/or when it is determined that a foreign power--Russia, let's say--_is that not the bigger story here?!_" :lol

The unspoken irony to this, among other points, is I doubt that the many politicians and politicos of 1990s Washington squeezed by the Clintons _vis-à-vis_ the Clintons' procuring of all of those FBI files in 1993 and 1994 could spend much time concerning themselves over how they were being blackmailed, they could only react to their predicament. :lol

The Clintons don't play fair; I highly doubt that they know how to. 



Pratchett said:


> You forget that I watch pro wrestling every week though, so it is no great stretch for me to anticipate great swerves that can make for better entertainment! (of course I realize that I will likely be disappointed by the booking regardless, but one has to be able to maintain the fantasy even just a little or there is no point in watching at all :side


:lmao All right, excellent point!

I truly would love to see nothing less than a long shot babyface turn by Bernie Sanders with him stating that he must, in good conscience, completely withdraw support for Hillary Clinton, but I fear that we will not see such a spectacle. The top of the Sanders camp's food chain have continued being sheepish, peppering their statements with a hint of resentment toward Crooked Hillary and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, et. al., but continuing to pledge their undying fealty to the queen. 

Nevertheless, perhaps this Democratic National Convention will not be so dull after all... Bernie Sanders supporters marching and chanting "LOCK HER UP!" :banderas

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/...r-up-in-philadelphia-protest-against-clinton/


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/757405649068290048
This is for everyone to keep in mind the next time a politician or politico suggests that you are crazy and spreading "conspiracy theories" when you connect the dots for yourself:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/757305338353840128


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Well yah... It was a bunch of Russians that wrote the Elders of Zion propaganda. But it was Nazis and now parts of the Muslim world that committed the actual crimes against Jews.

Unfortunately DNC followers are generally too stupid or brainwashed to recognize evil within their own because they've been programmed sheep to see evil everywhere else and see the party as the chivalry... Even now most people are defending the leaks.

Though this time they're mostly just catatonically dirtying their diapers and sucking their thumbs waiting till it magically disappears :shrug


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Dunno if this has been posted yet, but oh well:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/756573903993135104
They did everything within their power to shaft Bernie and then there's this fuckery, too.

Please die in a fire, DNC. :tripsscust


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump proven right via cold hard evidence. love it.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I read an article that some musicians didn't want Trump to use their songs, I get it because this election is pretty crazy and any bands supporting Trump openly would probably have leftists rioting at their concerts. I was surprised that the Rolling Stones said that Hilary could use one of their songs tho, I think it was "Sympathy for the Devil"? 

@lumpy, The DNC also staged fake protests lol. They also in some emails pretty much shit on minorities. I thought they were the good guys?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I read an article that some musicians didn't want Trump to use their songs, I get it because this election is pretty crazy and any bands supporting Trump openly would probably have leftists rioting at their concerts. I was surprised that the Rolling Stones said that Hilary could use one of their songs tho, I think it was "Sympathy for the Devil"?
> 
> @lumpy, The DNC also staged fake protests lol. They also in some emails pretty much shit on minorities. I thought they were the good guys?


The Stones are senile and need money for their applesauce and aspirin, hence why they're throwing the Hilldog a bone.

And knowing the DNC and how utterly out of touch they are, I wouldn't be surprised if they desperately tried to come off as hip and cool by playing this clusterfuck off as such:















[/IMG]

Because they definitely need to score those edgy yet delicate snowflakes now that Hispanics have been put on blast as being the next apple of their eye in regards to being racial pawns.


----------



## gamegenie

stevefox1200 said:


> I think the difference is that Trump won and Bernie lost
> 
> Trump and his fans talked about how the RNC was ganging up on him and trying to make him look stupid, then when he wins they look butt hurt because they can get over that they lost even thought they had the advantage
> 
> Bernie and his fans talked about how the DNC was ganging up on him and trying to make him look stupid, then when he loses he is ok with it as long as they give into some of his token ideas
> 
> Trump beat cheaters and they got upset
> 
> Bernie lost to cheaters and then congratulated them


Bernie didn't lose to cheaters, he just flat out lost. There is a difference. Our 2 million votes plus votes over Bernie's count rather you like it or not. 

But to be wallowing over this months after the primaries is over is just stupid.


You all will see in November, how wrong you all are by focusing on Hillary. 

You're going to see how Trump can be beaten and it's not just because of the Democrat frontrunner, it will be because each and everyone of us got out to vote against Donald Trump. 

Rather you are either liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat.. like Ted Cruz said, this Nov. Vote with your conscious.



DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @Beatles123 @CamillePunk @L-DOPA @EL SHIV @Miss Sally @Reaper @samizayn @Tater
> 
> 
> 
> :lol Great post!
> 
> The Democrats are endeavoring to suggest that we all lose focus on the scandal(s) uncovered by the Wikileaks releases, and be bogged down in looking for which party or parties are responsible for the hacking in the first place. Longtime Clinton family bagman Paul Begala was on CNN continuously chirping, in effect, a few hours ago, "Granted, this is bad and the DNC do need to do some housecleaning over this, but if and/or when it is determined that a foreign power--Russia, let's say--_is that not the bigger story here?!_" :lol
> 
> The unspoken irony to this, among other points, is I doubt that the many politicians and politicos of 1990s Washington squeezed by the Clintons _vis-à-vis_ the Clintons' procuring of all of those FBI files in 1993 and 1994 could spend much time concerning themselves over how they were being blackmailed, they could only react to their predicament. :lol
> 
> The Clintons don't play fair; I highly doubt that they know how to.
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao All right, excellent point!
> 
> I truly would love to see nothing less than a long shot babyface turn by Bernie Sanders with him stating that he must, in good conscience, completely withdraw support for Hillary Clinton, but I fear that we will not see such a spectacle. The top of the Sanders camp's food chain have continued being sheepish, peppering their statements with a hint of resentment toward Crooked Hillary and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, et. al., but continuing to pledge their undying fealty to the queen.
> 
> Nevertheless, perhaps this Democratic National Convention will not be so dull after all... Bernie Sanders supporters marching and chanting "LOCK HER UP!" :banderas
> 
> http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/...r-up-in-philadelphia-protest-against-clinton/
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/757405649068290048
> This is for everyone to keep in mind the next time a politician or politico suggests that you are crazy and spreading "conspiracy theories" when you connect the dots for yourself:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/757305338353840128


^








look at this sap thirsty for a DNC cataclysm to occur. 

He wants this to happen him and the rest of his crazy yolks Beetle, and Camile know their team of Trump/Pence are straight up hacks and are no match to Clinton/Kaine. 


Trump has been tweeting each day regarding Bernie Sanders and Debbie Schultz in hopes to ignite a schism in the Democrat party. 

All I can say to that is good luck. If I can see your act a mile away, what do you think others are blind. 

Mark these posts, they will be good fodder to highlight 4 months from now to showcase the desperation of bitter Republicans.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






lolRNC






It's bullshit when politicians use songs without permission, oftentimes when the bands and even the songs themselves oppose the message of said politician. The free song at the end would be much more appropriate for most of them.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> Bernie didn't lose to cheaters, he just flat out lost. There is a difference. Our 2 million votes plus votes over Bernie's count rather you like it or not.
> 
> But to be wallowing over this months after the primaries is over is just stupid.
> 
> 
> You all will see in November, how wrong you all are by focusing on Hillary.
> 
> You're going to see how Trump can be beaten and it's not just because of the Democrat frontrunner, it will be because each and everyone of us got out to vote against Donald Trump.
> 
> Rather you are either liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat.. like Ted Cruz said, this Nov. Vote with your conscious.


RIIIIGHT, so even with all you evidence you are still going to claim that. He did not flat out lose, like I have been saying for months, and everything I said is all coming true, the deck was stacked against Sanders from the start. All the voter fraud/suppression and the DNC doing everything they can behind the scenes to make sure Hillary won and you are still going to deny it?

Yes those 2 million votes count, but lets not forget all the voter fraud and suppression that took votes away from Sanders. Not to mention that number is deceiving since Sanders won a lot of caucus states and if those states were normal primaries that 2 million number would be much smaller.

It's also not stupid to still be complaining about voter fraud and corruption and how the DNC was rigging the election against anyone that was not Clinton when they are supposed to be impartial. 

Hillary has the biggest unfavorable numbers EVER for a democratic, the only reason she is not getting destroyed in the polling right now is because Trump is on the other side and has just as high if not higher unfavorables. The only difference is the DNC succeeded at screwing over Sanders to put Clinton in and the RNC failed at screwing over Trump. 45% of Sanders supporters said they would never vote for Hillary. That is 45% of Sanders 13 MILLION voters not to mention the millions whose votes did not even count or were suppressed. 

I am not sure how much more evidence Hilary supporters can ignore.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

CNN poll shows a six point bump for :trump. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll/index.html


----------



## TheGeneticFreak

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump is doing a reddit AMA on Wednesday.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald...g_donald_j_trump_the_man_the_legend/?sort=top


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

The RNC bump has put Donald Trump ahead of HRC in several polls, and he now leads her in the RCP Average if ever so slightly:


----------



## balefromwaless

I used to think Trump was just crazy bastard, but hell after seeing all these terror attacks, I agree with him on that issue.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/757637532288888832
Bet he's not used to that. :lol This is what happens when you completely sell out.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/757637532288888832
> Bet he's not used to that. :lol This is what happens when you completely sell out.


he deserves it at this point especially after the emails from yesterday.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

DO WE LOVE OUR WIKILEAKS, FOLKS?? :trump


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

@birthday_massacre @CamillePunk @DesolationRow

https://twitter.com/AngryMarkBeer/status/757631893999194113

What did she mean by this?? :regal


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
> 
> @birthday_massacre @CamillePunk @DesolationRow
> 
> https://twitter.com/AngryMarkBeer/status/757631893999194113
> 
> What did she mean by this?? :regal


Here is a better clip






"They don't know your name is put in nomination. That's their concern."﻿


Is she implying Bernie is going to ask for a roll call vote to give him the nomination?


----------



## ST1TCH

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hopefully Hillary can snag some Taco Bowl votes tonight.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> what did she say, I could not make it out
> 
> I only caught the end about ...... nomination that's for sure.
> 
> 
> Is she implying Bernie is going to ask for a roll call vote to give him the nomination?


Well see thats the thing. You can hear "They dunno--your name's being put in for nomination and that's the concern." But it sounds like she could have snuck a quieter sounding "If" in there, so then it'd be "They dunno *IF* your name will be put in for nomination.

The first makes it sound like they are planning a coup. the IF would change that tho and make Bernie seem like a quitter IMHO. :serious:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Well see thats the thing. You can hear "They dunno--your name's being put in for nomination and that's the concern." But it sounds like she could have snuck a quieter sounding "If" in there, so then it'd be "They dunno *IF* your name will be put in for nomination.
> 
> The first makes it sound like they are planning a coup. the IF would change that tho and make Bernie seem like a quitter IMHO. :serious:


True it does sound like there could be an IF is in there.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Doubt it means anything. He's endorsed her, he's not going for the nomination anymore. 

Occam's Razor says Jane Sanders is just often confused.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiGcveNDzvE

Trump ripping Wasserman a new asshole, live now.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

BOOING HILARY DURING THE PRAYER! LOOOOOOOL


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Loving the Democrat Convention right now. All that booing, all that "unity". :bryanlol :trump


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

We're really sorry, really we are. Please don't boo us.:


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

WOW @birthday_massacre, you see this maine fatass right now telling you "Ohhhh two thirds less delligates guys lol" sellouts.


----------



## AmWolves10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The Bernie Sanders marks are out in full force at the DNC


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Wow, Bernie marks. GET LOUDER! what are you doing?


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Info is slowly leaking about shady things has Wasserman Schultz to knock her off once and for all

Apparently Obama wanted her head after losing the Senate and the a chunk of the house and this email thing let her fall on her sword rather than having to fire her 

Of course they would have preferred a less public death


----------



## gamegenie

EL SHIV said:


> Loving the Democrat Convention right now. All that booing, all that "unity".


Lol this dude is dying for a catastrophe to occur. 

Buh, buh, please Bernie Bros run a revolt. ;(


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> Lol this dude is dying for a catastrophe to occur.
> 
> Buh, buh, please Bernie Bros run a revolt. ;(


They already are, are you even hearing this?


----------



## Kabraxal

These conventions proved the two parties are a joke... Glad I am not voting for either.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/757691647421538304


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Bernie is in a tricky spot

His followers are more loyal to their idea of him than the man himself

You can end up in a French Revolution situation where you get beheaded by your own people for not living up to the ideal they set you on


----------



## Bucky Barnes

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Is this streaming from anywhere?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Bucky Barnes said:


> Is this streaming from anywhere?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ePB39acAtA


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Bernie signs being taken away https://twitter.com/regated/status/757690019138117632











Also, HOLY SHIT THE BOOS AT THE PLATFORM!!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

LOL Whos this senile sounding Grandma?


----------



## Kabraxal

This is one of the worst delivered and fake speeches I gave heard... Reigns could deliver this better.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

HOLY SHIT GUYS ITS OBAMA!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Funny thing is hill doesn't even believe in gay marriage.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The funniest thing of all of this is Trump beat over 10 people fair and square to get the nomination. Hillary had to conspire just to beat one :lmao.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Gotta say as someone who was balls deep into the Obama hype and movement in 2008 (especially with the DNC), this year's DNC is pretty fucking weak (or unexciting). At least to start. The only enjoyment I have gotten out of it thus far are:

- The mainstream media spinning poorly the WikiLeaks #DNCLeak as a "Russia ploy". Holy fuck, that's pretty shit-tier.
- The protests outside the convention that clearly have eclipsed the ones in Cleveland.
- The Bernie delegates/voters/supporters hijacking this convention

What a ride so far :WOO


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The DNC in 2008 as someone who was a balls deep liberal at the time was very exciting. Even if you were a Republican or whatever, you had to look at the 2008 DNC and admit it felt fun, energetic, and intense.

This year (now as a Libertarian.....it doesn't feel genuine. It doesn't feel real at all. Everyone knows Bernie was screwed and the atmosphere at the convention right now feels fake as fuck. Bernie supporters have hijacked this convention and boy if Bernie really does go through a pro-Hillary speech tonight, maaaaaaaaaan....


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> The DNC in 2008 as someone who was a balls deep liberal at the time was very exciting. Even if you were a Republican or whatever, you had to look at the 2008 DNC and admit it felt fun, energetic, and intense.
> 
> This year (now as a Libertarian.....it doesn't feel genuine. It doesn't feel real at all. Everyone knows Bernie was screwed and the atmosphere at the convention right now feels fake as fuck. Bernie supporters have hijacked this convention and boy if Bernie really does go through a pro-Hillary speech tonight, maaaaaaaaaan....


Word. I see no enthusiasm, not near as much as the REP convention.

If Sanders goes cuck tonight, BM may cut himself. Hang in there Dave.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

LOL what was that? Bashing Trump because he hates it when dinners not ready when he gets home? How is that sexist??


Also, I can hear the boos getting muted.


----------



## Death Rider

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Not a fan of trump but the more that comes about Hilary I actually hope he wins. He may not be good imo but at least he is not corrupt as the DNC


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> LOL what was that? Bashing Trump because he hates it when dinners not ready when he gets home? How is that sexist??
> 
> 
> Also, I can hear the boos getting muted.


Probably because of this.

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11833912/donald-trump-1994-women-buildings-misogyny

And could be explained by this

http://nyti.ms/29QmvRn


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump lucked into the not for big money spin when even the big donors don't trust him enough over corrupt politicians to do a decent job during the primaries. Think about that.

Trump has no issue allowing two conmen use his name to run Trump university and has a history of paying off AGs via donations for re-elections to drop prosecutions. He isn't above Hilary in the corruption scale.

Only Sanders is the one candidate that can claim to be against big money in politics.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Sanders supporters have more backbone than Cruz's. :lol

The atmosphere seem surreal.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*Trump had ONE SHOT at getting my vote. ONE SHOT....and he failed. I'm not voting for him.


Hillary had ONE SHO...... lololololol no she fucking didn't. I'm not voting for her.*


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> The DNC in 2008 as someone who was a balls deep liberal at the time was very exciting. Even if you were a Republican or whatever, you had to look at the 2008 DNC and admit it felt fun, energetic, and intense.
> 
> This year (now as a Libertarian.....it doesn't feel genuine. It doesn't feel real at all. Everyone knows Bernie was screwed and the atmosphere at the convention right now feels fake as fuck. Bernie supporters have hijacked this convention and boy if Bernie really does go through a pro-Hillary speech tonight, maaaaaaaaaan....


_Completely_ agree with this point. 

The 2008 DNC was a major U.S. political event, for good or ill. Highly memorable. 

Tonight's show is what the celebrations of Kim Jong-un would look like in North Korea were there no direct threat of force from the state to guarantee requisite enthusiasm.

At least the overwhelming majority of Sanders supporters seem righteously furious after the revelations of Hillary's electoral praetorian guard ensuring that she have the nomination served to her on a platter.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



EL SHIV said:


> CNN poll shows a six point bump for :trump. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll/index.html


Didn't CNN trash their polls a few days ago because they were pro Trump? Lol CNN's "Reality Checkers" were making me laugh, CNN is as bad as MSM when it comes to bullshit when it involves HRC.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Telling supporters to forget about their jobs and families. :lol

DNC might just be as interesting as the RNC.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



AryaDark said:


> *Trump had ONE SHOT at getting my vote. ONE SHOT....and he failed. I'm not voting for him.
> 
> 
> Hillary had ONE SHO...... lololololol no she fucking didn't. I'm not voting for her.*


What did you want of Trump?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



AryaDark said:


> *Trump had ONE SHOT at getting my vote. ONE SHOT....and he failed. I'm not voting for him.
> 
> 
> Hillary had ONE SHO...... lololololol no she fucking didn't. I'm not voting for her.*


What was Trump's one shot and how did he fail?


Watched Gary Johnson and Bill Weld's interview with Reason today. It's sad how terrified Gary Johnson obviously is to say what he really feels because Bill Weld is breathing down his neck. The kid gloves are on in a big way re: Hillary. Bill Weld also couldn't be more unconvincing as a libertarian.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@Beatles123 and @CamillePunk @AryaDark wanted Rand Paul on the ticket... Unless she's talking about a different kind of shot here. :aryha


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

God hwkp me, this convention is more cucked than anything I've ever seen. Betamales...EVERYWHERE.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*Drow is correct. If he had picked Rand Paul as VP then I would have voted for him. As it stands I'll be doing a write-in vote for Rand Paul like I said I would from the beginning.*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> God hwkp me, this convention is more cucked than anything I've ever seen. Betamales...EVERYWHERE.


Aren't you one too? :lol


----------



## Cliffy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Cuck News Network


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Aren't you one too? :lol


Not on my worst day would I ever be as spineless as these estrogen filled dorks.

Though You could say I look like Carl The Cuck,


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



AryaDark said:


> *Drow is correct. If he had picked Rand Paul as VP then I would have voted for him. As it stands I'll be doing a write-in vote for Rand Paul like I said I would from the beginning.*


In fairness I think Rand burned that bridge on his own.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Trump lucked into the not for big money spin when even the big donors don't trust him enough over corrupt politicians to do a decent job during the primaries. Think about that.
> 
> Trump has no issue allowing two conmen use his name to run Trump university and has a history of paying off AGs via donations for re-elections to drop prosecutions. He isn't above Hilary in the corruption scale.
> 
> Only Sanders is the one candidate that can claim to be against big money in politics.


Only Trump has renounced Super Pacs.

No, whatever you found or may find are not ran or endorsed by him.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Not on my worst day would I ever be as spineless as these estrogen filled dorks.
> 
> Though You could say I look like Carl The Cuck,


Parroting alphas doesn't make you one. Using derogatory terms doesn't make you tough.

And wow, Booker's speech is more presidential than either candidate in this stupid elections so far.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Such an awful speech.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Lol. Cory Booker speaks of the moral high ground in reference to inveterate liar HRC?

Obama had a memorable convention speech in 2004. This speech was utterly forgettable. Booker is certainly no Obama.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Only Trump has renounced Super Pacs.
> 
> No, whatever you found or may find are not ran or endorsed by him.


Sanders has attacked big money too. Trump can't run Super Pacs as a candidate, but

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-super-pac-donors-225892



Come on now. There are stories that Trump failed to get the big donors until it became clear he was the frontrunner. Even then, many resisted to contribute because of his character flaws.

Not being trustworthy enough shouldn't be a quality in a president.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



EL SHIV said:


> Lol. Cory Booker speaks of the moral high ground in reference to inveterate liar HRC?
> 
> Obama had a memorable convention speech in 2004. This speech was utterly forgettable. Booker is certainly no Obama.


That's how low the bar has been set by this year's candidates.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@AryaDark 

Hillary Clinton is becoming the DNC's version of John Cena meets Roman Reigns. Every time her name is mentioned, boos rain down.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Sanders has attacked big money too. Trump can't run Super Pacs as a candidate, but
> 
> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-super-pac-donors-225892
> 
> 
> 
> Come on now. There are stories that Trump failed to get the big donors until it became clear he was the frontrunner. Even then, many resisted to contribute because of his character flaws.
> 
> Not being trustworthy enough shouldn't be a quality in a president.


>politico

First of all, they are as reputable as a tabloid but i suppose you'd say the same about Breitbart.

Trump never has wanted donations from doners. Whenever he has needed any he raises the money quickly. He raised ultra high numbers for the RNC in june.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

There's now a class action suit against the DNC for defrauding voters.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/how-to-join-dnc-class-action-lawsuit-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton/


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I would have wanted Rand too if I was American. That much is obvious.






Just some insight on what will continue if Clinton gets into power.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Parroting alphas doesn't make you one. Using derogatory terms doesn't make you tough.
> 
> And wow, Booker's speech is more presidential than either candidate in this stupid elections so far.


Not about being tough so much as it is taking pride in yourself and not being ashamed of being a male.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> @Beatles123 and @CamillePunk @AryaDark wanted Rand Paul on the ticket... Unless she's talking about a different kind of shot here. :aryha





AryaDark said:


> *Drow is correct. If he had picked Rand Paul as VP then I would have voted for him. As it stands I'll be doing a write-in vote for Rand Paul like I said I would from the beginning.*


I would've liked to have seen Rand Paul as VP simply to elevate his national recognition and possibly set up a more realistic future presidential run, but I think in terms of fighting for the constitution, he will be more effective in the Senate. You also can't really blame Trump too much for not being hot on Rand, with the way he SUICIDALLY began attacking Trump, well after this cycle's pattern of "Attack Trump -> Campaign Over" was well established, mainly out of desperation due to his own disappointing numbers.

Also, LC, don't forget to vote for Rand in his re-election campaign. :side: 

Of course, if Hillary Clinton becomes president (in which case I blame your protest write-in vote 100%), then all of this will be for moot as western civilization as we know it will be forever lost.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

"WE TRUSTED YOU" CHANTS!

HOLY FUCK!!!


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Love or hate her husband's policies, Michelle Obama can give a great speech and is likeable. She did it again tonight.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> Love or hate her husband's policies, Michelle Obama can give a great speech and is likeable. She did it again tonight.


Absolutely right. However she was inaccurate when she said Hillary Clinton "has never quit on anything in her life" which is only true if you exclude: The U.S. Senate, U.S. State Department, 1994 Health Care Reform, and all her past political positions. 

Otherwise, Mrs Obama as always delivers a home run speech.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> >politico
> 
> First of all, they are as reputable as a tabloid but i suppose you'd say the same about Breitbart.
> 
> Trump never has wanted donations from doners. Whenever he has needed any he raises the money quickly. He raised ultra high numbers for the RNC in june.


http://time.com/4373124/donald-trump-donors-super-pacs/

If you think Breitbart is reputable over politico then its on you not me.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It's such a pity she had to endure all the abuse from the right wing media because of who she married.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

She's still a globalist shill.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Warren giving a disappointing speech. Not as bad as Booker's awful pandering but man, I expected better from a future presidential candidate.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't think Warren would be a good president. Too far left in her ideals in such a public position. She would be better as a liberal supreme court justice imo.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't want to hear one peep about how "Dark" the RNC was.

If that was dark and doom, what the hell do you call this? ESPECIALLY if you're a Sanders fan.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Warren's speech was meh. I expected more. Mrs. Obama was clearly the speech of the night.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Sanders the Sellout.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Sanders just called for a ROLL CALL LMAO

The madman! Even though he is ultimately supporting Clinton and selling his soul, he knew what he was doing calling for that. Tuesday is going to be VERY interesting.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> Sanders just called for a ROLL CALL LMAO
> 
> The madman! Even though he is ultimately supporting Clinton and selling his soul, he knew what he was doing calling for that. Tuesday is going to be VERY interesting.


At least some measure of _catharsis_ may be reached.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The DNC is 'bleak' and 'dark' but at least they have proposed solutions. The RNC was all about violent crimes which statistically is consistent throughout the past 2 decades and proposed nothing to address the made-up reality.

The average American can feel the effect of income inequality and stagnant opportunities. The average American don't encounter violent criminals unless they live in less than desirable areas.

It feels like Hilary is living in the 90's. Trump is living in the 80's. And everybody is too stuck up in their partisanship to wake them up.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

damn it bernie brought up TPP.

Years of negotiation down the drain.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

That was hard to watch. Sorry you had to see that, BM. My atheist prayers are with you.


----------



## krai999

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

My god Sanders gave a beautiful speech. It's such music to my ears. Can't wait to vote for.Ugh it's Hillary nvm back to reality.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Damn...Bernie is now king Kekklestein. The knee is bent. Watse of time. 

BM, are you..........are you.....are you ok? :surprise:


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I doubt Hillary outpops Bernie. The DNC is pushing the wrong person.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Bernie totally sold out. 

Sad!


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> There's now a class action suit against the DNC for defrauding voters.
> 
> http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/how-to-join-dnc-class-action-lawsuit-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton/


If she can get away with war crimes, losing state secrets and charity fraud of all kinds, this suit will crash and burn.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Sanders gave a good speech. I may disagree or not support his policies but he gave one passionate speech for his causes and supporters.

That said, do not let the mainstream media spin dictate you. Despite a good speech from Sanders, this did NOT unite the base. Twitter is not happy that Bernie essentially "sold out" and people's post reactions aren't very fond of Clinton.

This is going to be a LONG convention for Hillary. She is the embodiment of everything WE as the people talk about going against. How can a Bernie voter switch to Hillary of all people ASTOUNDS me.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Not being trustworthy enough shouldn't be a quality in a president.


Well that leaves out Hillary as well so we are back to square one. 8*D


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I'd say Breitbart is a little above politico due to it's lack of PC. Regardless one should never take news from one source but many sources but politico is biased and kinda wonky with what they say. They're not MSM or YTY but they're Salon lite.

I guess Trump is going to the Reddit thing for him? It's funny that Hilary paid people online to attack Trump and Bernie in Reddit and other places! Also Trump is referred to as the "God Emperor" that's pretty funny!


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> Sanders gave a good speech. I may disagree or not support his policies but he gave one passionate speech for his causes and supporters.
> 
> That said, do not let the mainstream media spin dictate you. Despite a good speech from Sanders, this did NOT unite the base. Twitter is not happy that Bernie essentially "sold out" and people's post reactions aren't very fond of Clinton.
> 
> This is going to be a LONG convention for Hillary. She is the embodiment of everything WE as the people talk about going against. How can a Bernie voter switch to Hillary of all people ASTOUNDS me.


When you run a populist campaign, you risk the mob backlash.


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Michelle Obama is the truth. I don't give a fuck about anything else. That is all.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Bernie Sanders gave a good speech tonight at the DNC. I may disagree or not support his policies but he gave one passionate speech for his causes and supporters.

That said, do not let the mainstream media spin dictate you. Despite a good speech from Sanders, this did NOT unite the base. Twitter is not happy that Bernie essentially "sold out" and people's post reactions aren't very fond of Clinton.

This is going to be a LONG convention for Hillary. She is the embodiment of everything WE as the people talk about going against. How can a Bernie voter switch to Hillary of all people ASTOUNDS me. The DNC and the Democrats are so arrogant about Clinton not needing the Bernie/"progressive" (regressive) vote that Trump may win this whole thing because liberals continue to act like their shit don't stink.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I'd say Breitbart is a little above politico due to it's lack of PC. Regardless one should never take news from one source but many sources but politico is biased and kinda wonky with what they say. They're not MSM or YTY but they're Salon lite.
> 
> I guess Trump is going to the Reddit thing for him? It's funny that Hilary paid people online to attack Trump and Bernie in Reddit and other places! Also Trump is referred to as the "God Emperor" that's pretty funny!


So what other sources do all those that attack MSM take their news from?

Breitbart is about as legit as the daily show (a comedy show). They tried to claim Michelle Obama is guilty of plagiarism in a speech after Melania's plagiarism was reported. Just like how the daily show tried to make a BS claim that Trump's son plagiarised his speech.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

What do you guys think Bernie should've done? Basically 'fuck this' and just bow out refusing to participate? Run as an independent perhaps I 'spose'.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Interesting take on Trump by Michael Moore and why he think he will win the election.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...-trump-will-be-president-20160724-gqckup.html



> And if you believe Hillary Clinton is going to beat Trump with facts and smarts and logic, then you obviously missed the past year of 56 primaries and caucuses where 16 Republican candidates tried that and every kitchen sink they could throw at Trump and nothing could stop his juggernaut.
> 
> "... Who is going to have the most motivated, most inspired voters show up to vote? You know the answer to this question.
> 
> "Who's the candidate with the most rabid supporters? Whose crazed fans are going to be up at 5 AM on Election Day, kicking ass all day long, all the way until the last polling place has closed, making sure every Tom, Dick and Harry (and Bob and Joe and Billy Bob and Billy Joe and Billy Bob Joe) has cast his ballot? That's right.
> 
> "That's the high level of danger we're in. And don't fool yourself – no amount of compelling Hillary TV ads, or out-facting him in the debates or Libertarians siphoning votes away from Trump is going to stop his mojo."


It's clear that while his opponents believe he has no steak, Trump clearly has more sizzle than Hillary and this may just get him over the line?

I'M STARTING TO BELEIVE MYSELF!!! AAAAAH!


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> What do you guys think Bernie should've done? Basically 'fuck this' and just bow out refusing to participate? Run as an independent perhaps I 'spose'.


This:


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Moore, for once, is iright. The liberals' arrogance and naivety could very well possibly give Trump this election. Hillary thinks ignoring or insulting the "progressive" Bernie base is not going to be a problem. Even Bernie Sanders couldn't unite the base tonight.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> What do you guys think Bernie should've done? Basically 'fuck this' and just bow out refusing to participate? Run as an independent perhaps I 'spose'.


He mentioned before he would run independent, instead he sold out for a bag of chips and a plane. He let the DNC run him out and sets out a dangerous example that if the DNC does this, they can get away with it, people will just tow the line. He's supposed to be about principals so where are they? Hilary won't use any of his ideas, he knows this.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> He mentioned before he would run independent, instead he sold out for a bag of chips and a plane. He let the DNC run him out and sets out a dangerous example that if the DNC does this, they can get away with it, people will just tow the line. He's supposed to be about principals so where are they? Hilary won't use any of his ideas, he knows this.


Fair enough I guess. Maybe he sees stopping Trump as the worst thing so he's happy to do whatever he thinks as the best way to stop that. Meh he's a pollie I'm sure it's not his first fling with saying A and doing Z.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Fair enough I guess. Maybe he sees stopping Trump as the worst thing so he's happy to do whatever he thinks as the best way to stop that. Meh he's a pollie I'm sure it's not his first fling with saying A and doing Z.


Yea! I just thought he really meant what he said so it's disappointing, I'm sure stopping Trump is something he wants to do but he should look at Hilary, is this the Democrats he wants to be a part of? Because if Hilary wins the Democrats got away with fraud, Hilary got away with all those crimes and the Democrats will shill to big business and placate to minorities just for votes. (That Hispanic email was hilarious!) 

I feel bad for him..Bernie is like Poland in 1930's getting invaded by Stalin's forces and by Hitlers... He's fucked!


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Colbert trying so hard to avoid the easy comedy on Hilary and the democrats. :lol

Wonder can he continue with that for the next 3 days.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> *Anarchists for Donald Trump—Let the Empire Burn*
> 
> The left-contrarian arsonist crowd is larger and wider-spread than the cubicled creatures in the Clinton campaign have accounted for.
> 
> The historic opportunity of the 2016 election is one which Bernie Sanders likely will not have the courage to embrace: The burning to ashes of the corporatist Clintonite neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party.
> 
> The scenario ideally plays out with Sanders contesting the nomination all the way to the convention and then running as a third party candidate, say on the Green Party ticket, siphoning away the base that Clinton needs to win. This will hand the election to Donald Trump, and force the Democratic establishment to realize it’s doomed unless it pivots sharply to the left.
> 
> The Clintons will disappear into the toilet where they’ve always deserved to be flushed. We can then look forward to 2020 after four years of Trump and—what? Who knows. He’s truly a wild card.
> 
> I went for Sanders in the primaries, even gave several hundred dollars to his campaign. But there’s no way I’ll pull the lever for Clinton, because I know what a Clinton presidency bodes. More of the same neoliberal plundering with a friendly Democratic smile to quiet the left.
> 
> It happened under Obama: the warfare state and Wall Street reigning supreme while we all sing kumbaya because a black man has stamped his imprimatur on an intolerable status quo. It will happen again under Hillary.
> 
> What’s needed now in American politics is consternation, confusion, dissension, disorder, chaos — and crisis, with possible resolution — and a Trump presidency is the best chance for this true progress. This is a politics of arson. I’d rather see the empire burn to the ground under Trump, opening up at least the possibility of radical change, than cruise on autopilot under Clinton.
> 
> I’m not alone here. Travelling across the country, I keep meeting people who voted for Sanders in the primaries but mutter under cover of night and a few drinks that they’ll vote for Trump in November. Friends out in the wildlands of the intermountain West, hard gun-toting anarchist ******* Amy Goodman progressives, say so. Big-city journalists, too. I suspect that the left-contrarian, anti-Hillary, pro-Trump arsonist crowd is larger and wider-spread than the cubicled creatures in the Clinton campaign have accounted for.
> 
> Trump arsonist-progressives are mostly embarrassed to go on the record. An editor of a major progressive website tells me in an email that if I outed him/her as a Trump supporter, “We’d probably lose the last funders that we have!!!”
> 
> That editor continued: “Absolutely, Trump by a mile. To the extent that voting for president matters at all, it is merely to give a certain secret pleasure to the voter in the privacy of the booth. I’ll get mine by casting a transgressionary ballot for the vile Trump, the greatest repudiation of the 25-year-long horrorshow of Clintonism I can imagine.”
> 
> A Bernie supporter in Idaho writes me, “With Trump it's a flip of the coin. Heads: his primary run was brilliant hyperbolic political theater that will mellow in the general, he's right on TPP, and less hawkish than Clinton internationally. Progressives gain ground in Congress (the more important body of government anyway) in the midterms, setting a foundation. Tails: he wasn’t acting and his presidency will summon a degree of economic uncertainty and social disorder that promises gasoline onto the flickering flames that is the nascent re-emergence of a grassroots radical left awakened with Occupy and given form in the candidacy of Bernie Sanders.”
> 
> Another Bernie man tells me, “Hillary is Wall Street’s candidate. They fear Trump. Enough for me.”
> 
> My old friend Vincent Nunes of Brooklyn doesn’t give a damn what people think., which is why I can quote him by name.
> 
> “The totally logical reason for voting for him,” says Nunes, “is that he’s never been a politician and he’s not tied directly into the power and the money structure of the political system. We know Hillary is a monster. We don’t know it about Trump.”
> 
> I disagree. At this point I like to think of the two presumptive big-party candidates as floozies flouncing on the stage. The one is painted, sweetened with perfumes, dressed in finery, and denies her involvement in the unseemly business. The other is at least an honest syphilitic, track-marked degenerate whose record on television and in his business dealings make plain his fealty to Mammon.
> 
> Both are monsters. But only one has a curriculum vitae as an agent of the state. Read Diana Johnstone’s Queen of Chaos about Hillary’s blood-soaked war-mongering career in the U.S. Senate and at the State Department. Or, for domestic policy, Andrew Levine at Counterpunch, who documents that the Clintons’ “lifelong project has been to make American politics as safe as can be for Big Business and High Finance.”
> 
> This is not to discount the importance that a woman for the first time in U.S. history is clinching the nomination of a major party for the office of the presidency. It would be wonderful and something to celebrate — if that woman was a decent human being. But Clinton is not. And how sexist would it be to cease judging her for her duplicity, avarice, and bloodthirst simply because she’s a woman?
> 
> Hillary’s successful candidacy only proves that women in the established system of power politics can be as vicious and corrupt as the men with whom they vie for control.
> 
> It may be that a Trump presidency, as Andrew Sullivan predicts in New York Magazine, will usher in the end of the democracy, the death of the republic, the rise of the hard totalitarian state. Given that we are already living in what Princeton political scientist Sheldon Wolin calls a soft or inverted totalitarian system, an illiberal democracy, the transformation feared by Sullivan will be welcome, clarifying, a fresh breath of honesty, in which the trappings are tossed aside and the ugly reality is revealed. Such a revelation, as the republic degenerates into tyranny, may inspire real resistance.
> 
> Or not. It’s the risk of the wild card. TRUMP! Let the fire burn how it will.
> 
> SOURCE


The roof! The roof! The roof is on fire! We don't need no water let the mother fucker burn! Burn, mother fucker! Burn!


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@AryaDark @CamillePunk @Goku @Miss Sally



Reaper said:


>


:lol Saw that one floating around, that's great. (Y)


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/757336684811911169


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Interesting read (even though it comes from a fairly liberal site) on that many top Republicans are still divided on whether to jump on the Trump Express. Especially, IMHO, Rush Limbaugh, he clearly is hedging his bets on which side of the fence he's on. 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...s-stand-on-donald-trump-a-cheat-sheet/481449/


----------



## Cliffy

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Michelle Obama :bosque


----------



## gamegenie

WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> Sanders gave a good speech. I may disagree or not support his policies but he gave one passionate speech for his causes and supporters.
> 
> That said, do not let the mainstream media spin dictate you. Despite a good speech from Sanders, this did NOT unite the base. Twitter is not happy that Bernie essentially "sold out" and people's post reactions aren't very fond of Clinton.
> 
> This is going to be a LONG convention for Hillary. She is the embodiment of everything WE as the people talk about going against. How can a Bernie voter switch to Hillary of all people ASTOUNDS me.


man shut up, the sky didn't fall as your Rethug narks wanted. 

and now you all are damage controlling.











Beatles123 said:


> They already are, are you even hearing this?


I was in the air most of yesterday flying from El Paso to Atlanta to Columbus, only caught glimpses of the DNC at the airport, it didn't look anything out of the ordinary.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Interesting take on Trump by Michael Moore and why he think he will win the election.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...-trump-will-be-president-20160724-gqckup.html
> 
> 
> 
> It's clear that while his opponents believe he has no steak, Trump clearly has more sizzle than Hillary and this may just get him over the line?
> 
> I'M STARTING TO BELEIVE MYSELF!!! AAAAAH!


You're going to need to see a doctor for that cure. 

I don't think Trump has a chance. 

Hillary is only hurting in the white male vote and that's only by several points. 

She has key demographics, higher numbers than Obama had . 


It's been funny watching Trump try to appeal to the LGBT community, it's a clear sign that his campaign have been seeing the daunting numbers and are trying to find someone to get them up in at least one demographics. 

They know they already hurt their chances in Women, Blacks and Hispanics, well lets try for gays.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



gamegenie said:


> You're going to need to see a doctor for that cure.
> 
> I don't think Trump has a chance.
> 
> Hillary is only hurting in the white male vote and that's only by several points.
> 
> She has key demographics, higher numbers than Obama had .
> 
> 
> It's been funny watching Trump try to appeal to the LGBT community, it's a clear sign that his campaign have been seeing the daunting numbers and are trying to find someone to get them up in at least one demographics.
> 
> They know they already hurt their chances in Women, Blacks and Hispanics, well lets try for gays.


Sorry but the DNC is going to be losing Hispanic voters thanks to the emails that pretty much stated what we all knew, that the DNC don't give a shit about minorities. We'll have to see what happens but the DNC doesn't look all that great for her with all the voter rigging and all.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Sorry but the DNC is going to be losing Hispanic voters thanks to the emails that pretty much stated what we all knew, that the DNC don't give a shit about minorities. We'll have to see what happens but the DNC doesn't look all that great for her with all the voter rigging and all.


again with the damage control.

Buh, buh, those blacks and hispanics aren't voting for her, it's rigged to look that way.


----------



## lundylove

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Is there a reason there is no American Flags at the DNC


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> man shut up, the sky didn't fall as your Rethug narks wanted.
> 
> and now you all are damage controlling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was in the air most of yesterday flying from El Paso to Atlanta to Columbus, only caught glimpses of the DNC at the airport, it didn't look anything out of the ordinary.


look at your first part, then read your second...There was a LOT of dissension and there was rightfully as much. only C-SPAN had an unmuted crowd all the way through. When Bernie got up and spoke the applause was so huge he couldn't speak for a while. Then when he bowed out they all booed and bernie supporters had to be ejected, with their signs confiscated, and outside they were about ready to tare down the wall between the convention hall. Every speaker had boos. Even the PRAYER got boos, GG! The prayer! You and I both know thats fucked up so don't act like im being biased. I wouldn't have done that, but it happened. Even that lady with the last name "Fudge" yelled at the booers.

There was more protest and less overall enthusiasm than the RNC at least going by day one. That's just factual. Im not saying it will stop hill but the presence of distension was there and the way Bernie's people were pandered to and even lied to (Sanders said Hil would break up the banks) was terrible.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Democrats gave 61 speeches yesterday with zero mentions of ISIS. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/did-democrats-mention-islamic-state-convention-226202

:hmm Could it be that they consider Republicans the enemy, following Hillary's lead from one of the debates?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



gamegenie said:


> again with the damage control.
> 
> Buh, buh, those blacks and hispanics aren't voting for her, it's rigged to look that way.


You realize if Trump wins you will owe Sally an apology. I hope you are man/woman enough to honor it.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> You realize if Trump wins you will owe Sally an apology. I hope you are man/woman enough to honor it.


Hope is irrational.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










feel da bern


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










I thought walls didn't work, Democrats! :troll


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I hope when Trump and Hilary debate that Trump comes out with the fog with this song playing..







Iunno why but it would be hilarious, heck it should just be his motto for Hilary. :grin2:


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



EL SHIV said:


> Democrats gave 61 speeches yesterday with zero mentions of ISIS. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/did-democrats-mention-islamic-state-convention-226202
> 
> :hmm Could it be that they consider Republicans the enemy, following Hillary's lead from one of the debates?


How many times did they mention the near 20 trillion dollar national debt while promising to expand every government program that exists?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

No American flags at the DNC. SAD!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Gandhi said:


> Hope is irrational.


Hope can be based upon evidence, tho. Im hoping that when he/she sees the evidence GG will admit to being hasty in their adhom.

That said, do I count on it? Noooohohohoooo~ :quite0:nerd:


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Machiavelli once said look at the men around the ruler to see how competent or intelligent that ruler is. Something like that. Huge red flags for Hillary Clinton on this one.

Her incompetence most of all is why she shouldn't be president.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> How many times did they mention the near 20 trillion dollar national debt while promising to expand every government program that exists?


Trump wants to give massive tax breaks to the billionaire class while increasing military spending. He could eliminate every single government program in existence and the debt would still continue to explode. The crash is coming, regardless of who is in charge, because our entire capitalistic system is unsustainable. We're going to have to fundamentally change the way we do things or just get used to living in poverty while the top .01% hoard all the wealth. The latter is the only available outcome with the system we currently have in place.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Trump wants to give massive tax breaks to the billionaire class while increasing military spending. He could eliminate every single government program in existence and the debt would still continue to explode. The crash is coming, regardless of who is in charge, because our entire capitalistic system is unsustainable. We're going to have to fundamentally change the way we do things or just get used to living in poverty while the top .01% hoard all the wealth. The latter is the only available outcome with the system we currently have in place.


False. Trump's tax cuts are actually making Billionaire owners angry because the loopholes they use to get out of paying taxes are being closed. You will not find a tax plan more focused on small businesses than his.

Also, TRADE IMBALANCE contributes to most of our debt as well as corporate inversion.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Trump wants to give massive tax breaks to the billionaire class while increasing military spending. He could eliminate every single government program in existence and the debt would still continue to explode. The crash is coming, regardless of who is in charge, because our entire capitalistic system is unsustainable. We're going to have to fundamentally change the way we do things or just get used to living in poverty while the top .01% hoard all the wealth. The latter is the only available outcome with the system we currently have in place.


What capitalistic system? :lol


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> What capitalistic system? :lol


Maybe he means Crony Capitalism? That would at least be accurate.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@CamillePunk @DesolationRow @EL SHIV @birthday_massacre

HOLY SHIT! DNC ROLL CALL CANCELED! :lmao

SANDERS GOT UTTERLY OBLITERATED!!! FUCK!

https://regated.com/2016/07/bernie-sanders-delegates-silenced-not-given-forms-submit-alternate-vp/


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> @CamillePunk @DesolationRow @EL SHIV @birthday_massacre
> 
> HOLY SHIT! DNC ROLL CALL CANCELED! :lmao
> 
> SANDERS GOT UTTERLY OBLITERATED!!! FUCK!
> 
> https://regated.com/2016/07/bernie-sanders-delegates-silenced-not-given-forms-submit-alternate-vp/


Looks like their Kaine mutiny is over.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*















- Vic


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> - Vic


THAT ISN'T REAL. IT CAN'T BE!!!! :lmao


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

People like GG are the reason why the Dems could lose this whole election come November. The arrogance from some of them are funny yet astounding.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The media's lying in favor of Hillary is incredible. 

So Susan Sarandon was caught at the DNC convention looking bored and annoyed for the most of it. MSN turned around and blatantly reported it as her being annoyed at Bernie supporters that were anti-Hillary. 

Meanwhile on her own FB page, Sarandon has been posting nothing by anti-Hillary and pro-Bernie stuff. 

This is absolutely sickening. 

https://www.facebook.com/SusanSarandon/?fref=ts

http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/movies-and-tv/susan-sarandon-did-not-enjoy-the-dnc/vp-BBuTq0O

Just incredible dishonesty. I had no idea just how bad things have really gotten.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Remember when Trump was (once again) vilified not too long ago when he called out the press for being very dishonest? Crow tastes delicious!

Edit: Let's not forget Chuck Todd flat out lying about his involvement in the DNC Leaks.

- Vic


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

DNC happening: Berniebros rage livestream


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Sadly not surprising at all, @Reaper. Anyone even barely familiar with the particulars of the Democratic race and Susan Sarandon's statements throughout its trajectory would know that she was always fervently pro-Sanders and anti-Hillary (even making relatively pro-Trump statements when weighing Hillary versus The Donald). Mainstream media continues to distort, lie, obfuscate and inveigle.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Whilst admittedly I have always stuck by the notion that either a Trump or Clinton presidency would be disastrous a part of me really hopes Trump wins to stick it to the Democratic Party establishment.

Fuck those corporate shill assholes.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

WOOOOOOOW 
@birthday_massacre Bernie just crowned Hillary live.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Unconfirmed footage of HRC and the DNC dealing with Bernie.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> look at your first part, then read your second...There was a LOT of dissension and there was rightfully as much. only C-SPAN had an unmuted crowd all the way through. When Bernie got up and spoke the applause was so huge he couldn't speak for a while. Then when he bowed out they all booed and bernie supporters had to be ejected, with their signs confiscated, and outside they were about ready to tare down the wall between the convention hall. Every speaker had boos. Even the PRAYER got boos, GG! The prayer! You and I both know thats fucked up so don't act like im being biased. I wouldn't have done that, but it happened. Even that lady with the last name "Fudge" yelled at the booers.
> 
> There was more protest and less overall enthusiasm than the RNC at least going by day one. That's just factual. Im not saying it will stop hill but the presence of distension was there and the way Bernie's people were pandered to and even lied to (Sanders said Hil would break up the banks) was terrible.


I don't know what you're seeing, I just flipped on to CNN-HD, Bernie was on the mic and it is announced that Hillary just officially claimed the nomination, Bernie Sanders ended the Roll call to declare Hillary Clinton the Democratic nominee. 


THey are playing Pharrell's Happy right now. It looks like Unity to me in the Democratic convention. 


Looks like sad beans for you doom and gloom gang.










buh, buh, we want destruction...


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



EL SHIV said:


> :mj2










the damage control is strong in this Rethug.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> I don't know what you're seeing, I just flipped on to CNN-HD, Bernie was on the mic and it is announced that Hillary just officially claimed the nomination, Bernie Sanders ended the Roll call to declare Hillary Clinton the Democratic nominee.
> 
> 
> THey are playing Pharrell's Happy right now. It looks like Unity to me in the Democratic convention.
> 
> 
> Looks like sad beans for you doom and gloom gang.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buh, buh, we want destruction...


Uhuh.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...onvention-assaulting-female-sanders-delegate/


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> the damage control is strong in this Rethug.


Rethug? How mature of you. What an amazing post. :eyeroll


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> People like GG are the reason why the Dems could lose this whole election come November. The arrogance from some of them are funny yet astounding.


haha, arrogance, look in the mirror pal. I'm taking the dirt you, Beatles, Camille, Miss Sally and the rest dish out at Hillary and the Democrats and turning it right back in your face. 

If you can't take the heat, don't dish it out.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



gamegenie said:


> haha, arrogance, look in the mirror pal. I'm taking the dirt you, Beatles, Camille, Miss Sally and the rest dish out at Hillary and the Democrats and turning it right back in your face.
> 
> If you can't take the heat, don't dish it out.


Dirt? What dirt?? You've brought absolutely nothing but feelings to your arguments.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Yes because using CNN as a source for the DNC which has HILLARY CLINTON as it's nominee is really a non-partisan and unbiased source....:aryalol.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> Yes because using CNN as a source for the DNC which has HILLARY CLINTON as it's nominee is really a non-partisan and unbiased source....:aryalol.


I assume you'll be commenting on all the blatantly right wing website sources that Team Trump is constantly posting as well - masquerading as fact?


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> I assume you'll be commenting on all the blatantly right wing website sources that Team Trump is constantly posting as well - masquerading as fact?


Not a Trump supporter nor a Republican supporter. I have no bias other than the fact that Hillary is perhaps the single most corrupt politician in the western world. Certainly in the US currently.

I think either nominee will be terrible for the US. If you had seen any of my posts you would know this.

So you know what my answer to your question is. 

.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

The establishment democrats have essentially turned their back on their base. I may not agree with progressive politics but it's clear as day in the WikiLeaks that the DNC right from the beginning tried to undermine Bernie. Not only that Hillary didn't even throw them a bone by nominating someone of the Democrat bases's ilk like an Elizabeth Warren instead voting for a Corporatist Centre-Left VP. Hillary is actually trying to run more to the centre right in order to win the presidency.

Which is lunacy because outside the establishment republicans, not one person who is right leaning whether it be Republican, Libertarian or Independent would ever vote for Hillary.

It's going to be a very tight race.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



gamegenie said:


> You're going to need to see a doctor for that cure.
> 
> I don't think Trump has a chance.
> 
> Hillary is only hurting in the white male vote and that's only by several points.
> 
> She has key demographics, higher numbers than Obama had .
> 
> It's been funny watching Trump try to appeal to the LGBT community, it's a clear sign that his campaign have been seeing the daunting numbers and are trying to find someone to get them up in at least one demographics.
> 
> They know they already hurt their chances in Women, Blacks and Hispanics, well lets try for gays.


The point is though everyone's been saying Trump has no chance since forever and despite all the verbal diarrohea (sp?), gaffs, double speak and everything else the juggernaut appears to be rolling on. And on election day the power of Trump may just be stronger.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> Not a Trump supporter nor a Republican supporter. I have no bias other than the fact that Hillary is perhaps the single most corrupt politician in the western world. Certainly in the US currently.
> 
> I think either nominee will be terrible for the US. If you had seen any of my posts you would know this.
> 
> So you know what my answer to your question is.
> 
> .


Sorry you mistake my point. I don't remember you questioning the credibility of the fringe right wing sources Team Trump constantly posts is what I meant.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Sorry you mistake my point. I don't remember you questioning the credibility of the fringe right wing sources Team Trump constantly posts is what I meant.


To be honest I follow this thread on and off because I'm not American. So not as ingrained in the election race for obvious reasons but still interested.

I would call out someone using a blatantly biased source that is projecting lies in favour of Trump as well if I saw them doing so.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Holy fuck, what a horrible and disingenuous speech Eric Holder is giving at the DNC right now. Sheesh, get him off!


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Holy fuck, what a horrible and disingenuous speech Eric Holder is giving at the DNC right now. Sheesh, get him off!


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Worst election ever.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Sorry but the DNC is going to be losing Hispanic voters thanks to the emails that pretty much stated what we all knew, that the DNC don't give a shit about minorities. We'll have to see what happens but the DNC doesn't look all that great for her with all the voter rigging and all.


Hilary destroyed Bernie for the black vote in the primaries. You had someone that was actually getting arrested during the civil rights movement over someone who's husband did an amazing job at cutting welfare and incarcerating black people. The black vote blatantly voted against their own interest. 

I don't see why we should expect the Hispanic vote to be any difference. Most crime is committed between people of the same race. A lot of illegal immigrants commit crimes. Hispanics are getting hurt more than anyone from the criminals that come to the US from Mexico and they won't support the person that really wants to keep illegal immigrants out of the country. Meanwhile the DNC has emails that just stereotype them. They're still not going to vote for Trump.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


>


yet you give Cruz shit for not endorsing Trump. You are such a hypocrite.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

He's alive, fam! :WOO


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FITZ said:


> Hilary destroyed Bernie for the black vote in the primaries. You had someone that was actually getting arrested during the civil rights movement over someone who's husband did an amazing job at cutting welfare and incarcerating black people. The black vote blatantly voted against their own interest.
> 
> I don't see why we should expect the Hispanic vote to be any difference. Most crime is committed between people of the same race. A lot of illegal immigrants commit crimes. Hispanics are getting hurt more than anyone from the criminals that come to the US from Mexico and they won't support the person that really wants to keep illegal immigrants out of the country. Meanwhile the DNC has emails that just stereotype them. They're still not going to vote for Trump.


Agreed. Most Americans do not like to admit how accurately telltale racial breakdowns are for voting patterns.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

One of "my" two U.S. Senators, Barbara Boxer (uuuuggghhh) just said, "Hillary Clinton brought America's sagging standing back up as Secretary of State!" 

She literally just said that. 

:hglol :lmao :sodone


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> yet you give Cruz shit for not endorsing Trump. You are such a hypocrite.


We already had this argument BM, did you get a memory wipe again?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> We already had this argument BM, did you get a memory wipe again?


You are still a hypocrite no matter what excuse you use. Trump talked shit about Cruz's wife and his father. You don't think that is reason enough not to endorse him, please.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

All I have seen is Bernie is fine with people running him over to keep the peace

That's great for a senator, not for a president

If Russia ran over Poland would Bernie say "well ISIS is worse and Russia does not like them so its ok"?

Bernie is great as the guy offering "the other view" but would be horrible for the guy who makes the final decision

Jimmy Carter was a nice man who wanted everyone to have a say and for the US to "mind its own business" this meant that enemies and rivals ran him over foreign and abroad while he sent sternly worded letters asking them to stop and asking congress "are you REALLY SURE we should do that?"


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Got to admit. Seems like this convention night doesn't mean shit other than the Sanders's affirmation and Bill's speech.

I just want to say as a black man in this country, the speech from the mothers of the shot and killed black men shown in the media for the past years was a touching speech. All three of them displayed a great amount of emotion and compassion that you cannot really attack. That said, I would have loved for the "Vote for Hillary" rhetoric to not have been included at all. Shame on the DNC for that. I gave the RNC shit eight years ago for using that 9/11 propaganda video to build up McCain for his veteran status and to shame Obama as being "anti-veteran, anti-military" for political points. For the DNC to make it seem like some Republicans or Trump supporters to be anti-black people or "anti-justice" is not only pandering but almost disgusting.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Did they end up having Michael Brown's mom speak even though her son was a violent criminal thug who deserved to be shot?


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Not Michael Brown, I don't think. I think it was Sandra Bland's, Trayvon Martin's, and Jordan Gray(?)'s mothers.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Did they end up having Michael Brown's mom speak even though her son was a violent criminal thug who deserved to be shot?


Time to update your sig.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Just caught Elizabeth Banks's segment. :lol She was awful. Wow.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> Time to update your sig.


You forgot to add the flames of hell burning around her.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Holy crap! I used to think Bill Clinton was a great orator. This speech is a boring snoozefest. It's a DUD so far.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This is somewhat a disappointing speech coming from Bill Clinton so far. I get this is to humanize her (good luck) and all but sheesh, that zest and charm he had four years prior BTFO Romney is no longer there apparently.

This speech only works for people who already "like"/are voting for her.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary the change maker? :heston You can't make this nonsense up. Is she really going to be a change from Obama?


----------



## DGenerationMC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I never really watched political conventions until this year but I can't believe how much these people jerk themselves off with their ideologies, both Democrat and Republican.

I've never hated people saying positive things so much in my life. Makes me even more confused about which way to lean.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










:lmao

Frankly, Democrats should all be ashamed. I wonder if there's a full list of all the criminal scumbags who are speaking (and inexplicably being applauded) at this convention yet.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Of course, the Democrats would have a child molester speak at the DNC because they have no shame.



> One of "my" two U.S. Senators, Barbara Boxer (uuuuggghhh) just said, "Hillary Clinton brought America's sagging standing back up as Secretary of State!"


Boxer is one of the worst politicians out there. She actually got booed a few months ago in Las Vegas at a rally. :lol






- Vic


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Yeah, I still stand by what I said. That was a surprisingly disappointing speech from Bill Clinton tonight. Whether you're Democrat or Republican and agree/disagree with his beliefs and policies, Bill Clinton usually speaks well and fluently where when he speaks, people listen. Like a Reagan. Like an Obama. Tonight......wasn't one of those speeches. That first half about Hillary being "the girl" was creepy, dragging, and almost uncomfortable. Believe me, I'm not an SJW or anything but that speech was....not really good.

Michelle Obama still has had the best speech of this convention and I'm sure President Obama will be better tomorrow.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> This is somewhat a disappointing speech coming from Bill Clinton so far. I get this is to humanize her (good luck) and all but sheesh, that zest and charm he had four years prior BTFO Romney is no longer there apparently.
> 
> This speech only works for people who already "like"/are voting for her.


I've heard people say he's trying to sabotage her campaign, either out of resentment or because he doesn't want to be First Lady. :lol I'm sure it's not true, but it is funny.

Of course any speech Bill gives about Hillary being "the one" is going to be unbelievable as everyone knows he's a serial adulterer at best, and rapist at worst. Maybe you don't believe allegations of the latter, but according to Hillary all allegations of sexual assault and rape are to be believed. :draper2 Personally I'm just wondering when Bill Cosby is due up.


----------



## Natecore

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DGenerationMC said:


> I never really watched political conventions until this year but I can't believe how much these people jerk themselves off with their ideologies, both Democrat and Republican.
> 
> I've never hated people saying positive things so much in my life. Makes me even more confused about which way to lean.


You want to lean towards peace and prosperity, duh. You won't find either in the GOP and DNC.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I can't believe how bad Change Maker is as a slogan.


I'm like :brady6 and :garrett at the same time.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Why do we need change, I thought Obama made America greater than ever before?


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

"Change Maker"? :hglol

I wouldn't trust Hillary Clinton or her husband with a cash register.


----------



## DGenerationMC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Natecore said:


> You want to lean towards peace and prosperity, duh. You won't find either in the GOP and DNC.


I mean, I didn't see one likable person in either convention, on the stage or in the crowd. 

Just drones or assholes leading the drones, patting themselves on the back. Both sides claim to stand for the "right" thing, but I just see people saying what they wanna hear. 

Can't tell if all of this makes me upset, confused or depressed.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FITZ said:


> Hilary destroyed Bernie for the black vote in the primaries. You had someone that was actually getting arrested during the civil rights movement over someone who's husband did an amazing job at cutting welfare and incarcerating black people. The black vote blatantly voted against their own interest.
> 
> I don't see why we should expect the Hispanic vote to be any difference. Most crime is committed between people of the same race. A lot of illegal immigrants commit crimes. Hispanics are getting hurt more than anyone from the criminals that come to the US from Mexico and they won't support the person that really wants to keep illegal immigrants out of the country. Meanwhile the DNC has emails that just stereotype them. They're still not going to vote for Trump.


That's true. The black and hispanic vote confuses me when it comes to this thing.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

This Hispanic vote is not going to Hillary.









I'm still heavily undecided, but definitely not Hillary.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DGenerationMC said:


> I mean, I didn't see one likable person in either convention, on the stage or in the crowd.
> 
> Just drones or assholes leading the drones, patting themselves on the back. Both sides claim to stand for the "right" thing, but I just see people saying what they wanna hear.
> 
> Can't tell if all of this makes me upset, confused or depressed.


You must have never been to a church service or visited a wrestling forum before. :troll


----------



## DGenerationMC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> You must have never been to a church service or visited a wrestling forum before. :troll


I usually fall asleep in one of those places and get woken up by a bitchy usher. Always happen to drool on the program.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'll say this. If the Democrats are actually going to double down and push forward Hillary as a "change maker", she *will* lose this election to Trump. No matter your feelings of Trump, he was practically a political outside that BTFO *every* single establishment candidate in his primary while Hillary, the ultimate establishment, status quo candidate was able to squander a "progressive" alternative to Bernie Sanders. No matter what people think, the public message will be that the Republicans have a candidate that is not the norm and is essentially an outsider while the Democrats stuck with the same old, same old DC politics people are supposedly sick of with the ultimate politician in Clinton.

There is too many holes for Trump and other GOPers to go after Hillary and her past. Making her as some sort of agent of change (especially since some are disillusioned from that line being covered upon Obama in '08/'12) is just not going to work and if they even try, it'll possibly be their biggest mistake.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I'll say this. If the Democrats are actually going to double down and push forward Hillary as a "change maker", she *will* lose this election to Trump. No matter your feelings of Trump, he was practically a political outside that BTFO *every* single establishment candidate in his primary while Hillary, the ultimate establishment, status quo candidate was able to squander a "progressive" alternative to Bernie Sanders. No matter what people think, the public message will be that the Republicans have a candidate that is not the norm and is essentially an outsider while the Democrats stuck with the same old, same old DC politics people are supposedly sick of with the ultimate politician in Clinton.

There is too many holes for Trump and other GOPers to go after Hillary and her past. Making her as some sort of agent of change (especially since some are disillusioned from that line being covered upon Obama in '08/'12) is just not going to work and if they even try, it'll possibly be their biggest mistake.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> Yeah, I still stand by what I said. That was a surprisingly disappointing speech from Bill Clinton tonight. Whether you're Democrat or Republican and agree/disagree with his beliefs and policies, Bill Clinton usually speaks well and fluently where when he speaks, people listen. Like a Reagan. Like an Obama. Tonight......wasn't one of those speeches. That first half about Hillary being "the girl" was creepy, dragging, and almost uncomfortable. Believe me, I'm not an SJW or anything but that speech was....not really good.
> 
> Michelle Obama still has had the best speech of this convention and I'm sure President Obama will be better tomorrow.


I agree that Bill Clinton speech wasn't spectacular, it actually put me to sleep. But I also think the DNC knew this which is why his speech wasn't given on Monday and instead the current FLOTUS was used.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Yeah I don't agree with the democrats strategy in pushing Hilary as a change maker. She was one in the 90's and early 00's. She isn't in this decade. Trump is running as a candidate of change and the flavour of the election. It will just be an own goal if they keep pushing her as that when the other side has a more appealing candidate of that quality.

They have to show that she's human. She accomplished many things in her time in office. She has to show a toughness in how she get things done and admit there were mistakes along the way but voters can count on her to work to fix them. Contrast that with Trump walking away from the problems of his making, while enriching himself and leaving his partners pay for his excesses. Make Trump a rent-seeker businessman and not a wealth generator who will enrich the few and let the masses pay for it.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

CHANGEMAKER kada

Fucking brutal


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> :lmao
> 
> Frankly, Democrats should all be ashamed. I wonder if there's a full list of all the criminal scumbags who are speaking (and inexplicably being applauded) at this convention yet.


Lol propaganda? Exhibit A right here. Give me your source so I can laugh some more.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm getting word that 1,000+ Bernie delegates have had their credentials stripped and are banned from entering the convention for the rest of the week. 

The DNC are fucking retarded if this is legit true. Also, seemslike #DemExit was a success going by the arena being half empty when Hilary was declared the nominee.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Bill has no room to talk about anything regarding "Change" when Hill changed nothing.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Bill has no room to talk about anything regarding "Change" when Hill changed nothing.


She changed her power suit and she's looking in tremendous condition! :vince3


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> DNC happening: Berniebros rage livestream
> 
> https://youtu.be/2cd18K3TSOk


 ^^^ @birthday_massacre DUDE. I usually don't talk about your negs, but this one i'll make an exception for. Why'd you neg me for this?! It had nothing to do with you first of all. It was a march on the DNC that I was actually SUPPORTING given that they robbed Bernie and then he sold those supporters out. I was HAPPY they marched.

Im sorry but if you weren't watching it live and you negged me you are one insecure dude and I think people here should see you for what you are if thats the case. You called my friends in here cowards today, but this is about as cowardly an act as you could pull. Neg me for actual opinions, not because of your ass assuming a post meant something that it didn't!

I've been easy on you the past day because I know it sucks for you right now, but this shit is uncalled for.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> ^^^ @birthday_massacre DUDE. I usually don't talk about your negs, but this one i'll make an exception for. Why'd you neg me for this?! It had nothing to do with you first of all. It was a march on the DNC that I was actually SUPPORTING given that they robbed Bernie and then he sold those supporters out. I was HAPPY they marched.
> 
> Im sorry but if you weren't watching it live and you negged me you are one insecure dude and I think people here should see you for what you are if thats the case. You called my friends in here cowards today, but this is about as cowardly an act as you could pull. Neg me for actual opinions, not because of your ass assuming a post meant something that it didn't!
> 
> I've been easy on you the past day because I know it sucks for you right now, but this shit is uncalled for.


Because you sound childish with your Bernie Bros nonsense. Stop acting like a child with that term it makes you sound ignorant.

It would be like a Trump or Sanders supporter calling Hilary supporters Hillary Hoes. All you are doing with your Bernie Bros comment is trolling and baiting Bernie supporters. 

I was also watching all of it, I just did not bother coming to this thread.

As for calling your friends cowards, who did I call a coward?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Because you sound childish with your Bernie Bros nonsense. Stop acting like a child with that term it makes you sound ignorant.
> 
> It would be like a Trump or Sanders supporter calling Hilary supporters Hillary Hoes. All you are doing with your Bernie Bros comment is trolling and baiting Bernie supporters.
> 
> I was also watching all of it, I just did not bother coming to this thread.
> 
> As for calling your friends cowards, who did I call a coward?







FOR THE LOVE OF--it's not even my term for Christ's sake! It's your fanbase's nickname the same way we Trumpers are called Centipedes or TrumpBros. It is neither a derogatory name or a friendly name, just a name. NOR I might add did I use it in a derogatory tone. Your fanbase likes Bernie, they were unified as "Bros." and they were justifiably raging. That's why I said "Bernie Bros. Rage Stream"

Are you seriously this shallow?

also, It was either you or GameGenie that called @CamillePunk or one of the people here a coward recently. Either way, you have called ME ignorant, and yet here you are pulling this here.

Further, "Hilary Hoes" is a badass name.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> https://youtu.be/AtScXUEJ1PM
> 
> FOR THE LOVE OF--it's not even my term for Christ's sake! It's your fanbase's nickname the same way we Trumpers are called Centipedes or TrumpBros. It is neither a derogatory name or a friendly name, just a name. NOR I might add did I use it in a derogatory tone. Your fanbase likes Bernie, they were unified as "Bros." and they were justifiably raging. That's why I said "Bernie Bros. Rage Stream"
> 
> Are you seriously this shallow?
> 
> also, It was either you or GameGenie that called @CamillePunk or one of the people here a coward recently. Either way, you have called ME ignorant, and yet here you are pulling this here.
> 
> Further, "Hilary Hoes" is a badass name.


Its not the fanbases name. It's a trolling name for Bernie supporters, and you know this, yet you keep doing it because you want to troll Bernie supporters. It is a derogatory name , it was coined by the Hillary team to claim Bernie supporters were sexist which was laughable. 

Don't even try to claim you are not using it in a derogatory way. Also the only person raging here is you. 


If you are going to troll with the term, at least don't pretend it's not a derogatory name because it just makes you look worse.

I did not call anyone a coward but I did call anyone who bashed Cruz for not supporting Trump by saying he should have supported him a hypocrite when they bashed for supporting Hillary and claiming he should not have and that made him weak.

And anyone who would bash Cruz for not supporting Trump then also bash Bernie for supporting Hillary is a hypocrite since no matter what they did, they could not win.

So you think Hillary Hoes is bad ass and not a derogatory name for her female supporters?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its not the fanbases name. It's a trolling name for Bernie supporters, and you know this, yet you keep doing it because you want to troll Bernie supporters. It is a derogatory name , it was coined by the Hillary team to claim Bernie supporters were sexist which was laughable.
> 
> Don't even try to claim you are not using it in a derogatory way. Also the only person raging here is you.
> 
> 
> If you are going to troll with the term, at least don't pretend it's not a derogatory name because it just makes you look worse.
> 
> I did not call anyone a coward but I did call anyone who bashed Cruz for not supporting Trump by saying he should have supported him a hypocrite when they bashed for supporting Hillary and claiming he should not have and that made him weak.
> 
> And anyone who would bash Cruz for not supporting Trump then also bash Bernie for supporting Hillary is a hypocrite since no matter what they did, they could not win.
> 
> So you think Hillary Hoes is bad ass and not a derogatory name for her female supporters?


That is NOT the way I was using the name. This is fact. Im sorry if YOU feel that way but when I posted it i was not trolling you with it. Why the hell would I care that you negged me for it if i was? 

Also, Cruz wasn't ROBBED. Hell, YOU even said Bernie diserved to be booed for doing it.

Not if they don't chose for it to be.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I have GG on ignore and have for a while, as he is clearly a troll. Would appreciate not being dragged into any discussions with/about him. 

I already explained the different circumstances to BM with the Cruz/Sanders thing. In one ear and out the other, as usual. :lol He actually thinks I would have criticized Sander for NOT endorsing Clinton. Unbelievable.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> That is NOT the way I was using the name. This is fact. Im sorry if YOU feel that way but when I posted it i was not trolling you with it. Why the hell would I care that you negged me for it if i was?
> 
> Also, Cruz wasn't ROBBED. Hell, YOU even said Bernie diserved to be booed for doing it.
> 
> Not if they don't chose for it to be.


Your logic is so awful, that is like you calling a black person the N word and claiming oh I was not using it in a bad way, I was using it in a term of endearment way. 

Also when is calling a woman a hoe ever not a derogatory term? You can't be serious, you think calling a Clinton support a Hillary Hoe is not derogatory.

As for Cruz not being robbed, Trump was crude to Cruz's wife and his father. Trump played dirty politics wwithCruz why would Cruz back him, especially when Trump always said during the debates he would not back anyone if he lost.

And yes I said Bernie deserved to be booed for supporting Hillary, I also said that Cruz should not have supported Trump. So what is your point exactly?




CamillePunk said:


> I have GG on ignore and have for a while, as he is clearly a troll. Would appreciate not being dragged into any discussions with/about him.
> 
> I already explained the different circumstances to BM with the Cruz/Sanders thing. In one ear and out the other, as usual. :lol He actually thinks I would have criticized Sander for NOT endorsing Clinton. Unbelievable.


And I already explained to you why Cruz should not have endorsed Trump because of what he said about Cruz's wife and his father. So I guess in one ear and out the other for you.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I have GG on ignore and have for a while, as he is clearly a troll. Would appreciate not being dragged into any discussions with/about him.
> 
> I already explained the different circumstances to BM with the Cruz/Sanders thing. In one ear and out the other, as usual. :lol He actually thinks I would have criticized Sander for NOT endorsing Clinton. Unbelievable.


Sorry mang, muh bad.

I don't CARE about Sanders, but I know what I meant. I can usually put up with his ghost negs but I am NOT letting this fly. There was no attack in my using the Bernie Bro term and I refuse to let him paint me as a baiter for it.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Bernie protesters seem overwhelmingly white. :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> And I already explained to you why Cruz should not have endorsed Trump because of what he said about Cruz's wife and his father. So I guess in one ear and out the other for you.


:lol I never took issue with your view that Cruz was right not to endorse Trump, though. He also never said anything about Heidi, and only pointed out there were photos of Cruz's father with Lee Harvey Oswald, which appears to be the case.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Sorry mang, muh bad.
> 
> I don't CARE about Sanders, but I know what I meant. I can usually put up with his ghost negs but I am NOT letting this fly. There was no attack in my using the Bernie Bro term and I refuse to let him paint me as a baiter for it.


You are trolling and baiting with your Bernie Bros comments. Don't try to play all innocent, there is a reason why I don't even bother to reply to those posts when you mention Bernie Bros. You can use the term all you want but stop acting like its not a negative term for Bernie supporters.

This is my last post to you on this.





CamillePunk said:


> :lol I never took issue with your view that Cruz was right not to endorse Trump, though. He also never said anything about Heidi, and only pointed out there were photos of Cruz's father with Lee Harvey Oswald, which appears to be the case.


We all know what Trump meant when he said he would “spill the beans” on her, and he also make fun of how she looked in a bad picture of her and compared Heidi to his wife in a tweet. Trump made it personal by brining in Cruz's family.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Also, what a stupid thing to say. "You called me a Bernie Bro, thats as offensive as calling a black guy the N word!"

Do you even HEAR yourself???

No, Dave. You just wanted something to bitch about. You have no evidence except your own feelings about what you THINK I MEANT.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Also Trump did pledge to support whoever the GOP nominee would be by the second debate I believe, and never said he wouldn't any time after that that I can recall.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> We all know what Trump meant when he said he would “spill the beans” on her, and he also make fun of how she looked in a bad picture of her and compared Heidi to his wife in a tweet. Trump made it personal by brining in Cruz's family.


He said that in response to a pro-Cruz PAC tweeting a derogatory meme about his wife. It was a warning, and you'll notice the attacks on Melania stopped after that. :draper2 

The Heidi picture was a retweet and he took it down and said he shouldn't have retweeted it. 

It's so much ado about nothing. No justification for going back on the pledge at all. A fake justification for Cruz to be the slimy dishonest person everyone in politics, including in his own party, knows him to be.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump probably didn't expect to win the nomination either when he made the pledge to support others. I still stand by my theory that he ran in the primary as the first step to getting into the conservative media business as FOX demographic is getting older and there is an opportunity to invest in a competitor. His barely-there campaign throughout, even after being the presumption nominee in April suggests he didn't believe he could win.

Conspiracy theory should be popular with Trump supporters. Obama is a Muslim!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Also Trump did pledge to support whoever the GOP nominee would be by the second debate I believe, and never said he wouldn't any time after that that I can recall.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nee-cruz-kasich-refuse-to-commit-support.html

"Donald Trump said Tuesday that he would no longer honor his pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee for president, while fellow candidates Ted Cruz and John Kasich refused to say whether they would back the party's pick."

If after that he changed his mind again after say no, then yes, then no again, then I would admit you were right. But that was the last that I heard of him on that topic, but it did not really matter because shortly after that he started to run away with it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










There are now videos confirming this as well. Media tried to play it off as fake at first.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Last post on this, but I want everyone to look and see what Liberalism looks like here: Everything is offensive and I obviously used the term Bernie Bro to try and shit on BM's chest. Even though the stream was something I SUPPORTED. 

Liberalism: Telling you how evil you are the moment they who support it draw a conclusion.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


>


I saw that, none of the major news covered that. Hillary is in for a world of hurt once the debates start against Trump.

She couldn't even handle Bernie in the debates, and he was treating her with kid gloves and showed her respect. Trump will pull no punches and is going to go for the kill. I cant wait for those debates.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I saw that, none of the major news covered that. Hillary is in for a world of hurt once the debates start against Trump.


Bernie may have done more for America by potentially losing his nomination than he may have been able to by winning it imo.

The man's legacy will live on forever as the man that completely exposed the DNC for the shit stain that it is.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This has got to be one of, if not the messiest election in history, right?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Bernie may have done more for America by potentially losing his nomination than he may have been able to by winning it imo.
> 
> The man's legacy will live on forever as the man that completely exposed the DNC for the shit stain that it is.


That is why I laugh at anyone that claims his movement failed. Like I keep saying, the DNC has the most progressive platform ever, and sure they can be doing it for lip service but if that happens he will further expose how the DNC and Hillary will say anything to get votes. Also, Bernie did a huge thing with cutting the super delegates by 2/3 moving forward. That is a huge deal. Yes it was not all of them but 2/3 is a huge amount. Maybe in 4 years they will get rid of the rest.

Bernies movement is far from over, its only starting. 

EDIT

Also, the more emails that leak that show how corrupt Hillary and the DNC are the stronger his movement is going to get. If Trump was not on the other side, Hillary would get destroyed this election but since Trump has unfavorable as high as her, its 50/50 on her wins. But the more and more that come out the better shot Trump has at winning.

Plus as much shit as I give Trump for speaking like a 4 grader, it does seem to be working, especially because Hillary sounds so fake when she talks and not genuine at all. At least with Trump, he sounds genuine even if I don't agree with most of what he says.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> The man's legacy will live on forever as the man that completely exposed the DNC for the shit stain that it is.



Wait, I thought that was Putin...


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> That is why I laugh at anyone that movement failed. Like I keep saying, the DNC has the most progressive platform ever, and sure they can be doing it for lip service but if that happens he will further expose how the DNC and Hillary will say anything to get votes. Also, Bernie did a huge thing with cutting the super delegates by 2/3 moving forward. That is a huge deal. Yes it was not all of them but 2/3 is a huge amount. Maybe in 4 years they will get rid of the rest.
> 
> Bernies movement is far from over, its only starting.


I agree with this. True liberal progressive attitudes are no longer as far away as we thought. Once the baby boomer voter base finally dies out we'll see the paradigm shift towards European style liberalism.

Just also have to get the minority voter base to fucking open up their eyes as well that DNC does not actually give a fucking shit about any of them. They're simply numbers for them and that's it. Once the minority vote educates itself, American political landscape will change forever.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I agree with this. True liberal progressive attitudes are no longer as far away as we thought. Once the baby boomer voter base finally dies out we'll see the paradigm shift towards European style liberalism.


The US is getting more and more progressive, and people love to just laugh that off, but in two years with the Bernie progressive movement in full swing, that will be the real test. that is why we will be able to vote out all the corrupt positions and hopefully get in more progressives. 

And if Trump wins, then that will be needed even more. Sometimes I wonder what would be worst 4 years of Trump, then getting someone like Liz Warren or another progressive to face off against Trump or 8 years of Hillary


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I agree with this. True liberal progressive attitudes are no longer as far away as we thought. Once the baby boomer voter base finally dies out we'll see the paradigm shift towards European style liberalism.
> 
> Just also have to get the minority voter base to fucking open up their eyes as well that DNC does not actually give a fucking shit about any of them. They're simply numbers for them and that's it. Once the minority vote educates itself, American political landscape will change forever.


Not if people like me can help it.

With evolution on the left comes evolution on the right.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Listening to all the folks who say that Trump had a hand in the Russkis leaking the e-mails...that's just BS. If the Russians and Putin are sticking their nose in this election, they are hedging their bets that Trump would be easier to manipulate and control because of his lack of experience and the fact that right now Donald is singing Putin's praises. Too bad the FBI didn't pay more attention to Hillary's e-mails and her role in Benghazi, shows that the FBI has now become politicized. 



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> I'll say this. If the Democrats are actually going to double down and push forward Hillary as a "change maker", she *will* lose this election to Trump. No matter your feelings of Trump, he was practically a political outside that BTFO *every* single establishment candidate in his primary while Hillary, the ultimate establishment, status quo candidate was able to squander a "progressive" alternative to Bernie Sanders. No matter what people think, the public message will be that the Republicans have a candidate that is not the norm and is essentially an outsider while the Democrats stuck with the same old, same old DC politics people are supposedly sick of with the ultimate politician in Clinton.
> 
> There is too many holes for Trump and other GOPers to go after Hillary and her past. Making her as some sort of agent of change (especially since some are disillusioned from that line being covered upon Obama in '08/'12) is just not going to work and if they even try, it'll possibly be their biggest mistake.


 For all the policies that Obama has had a hand in implementing these last 8 years, the expectation is that HRC will take those to the next level and continue to move them forward. The current occupier of the WH went on "hope and change" and she will be expected to run with that. That is what she is going to have to do if she expects to win. 
As for the message of Trump being outside the norm, that's a no-brainer. He is clearly not anything like any candidate really ever. No government experience at all (whether involvement with the government in some role or military). He takes the concept of Romney (Romney wanted to run the country like a business) and jacks it up a notch. 

As for her past, etc...anything is fair game at this point. The GOP held back a bit against Obama, the gloves will be off and it will be no holds barred this time around. Anything said, done, mentioned, looked at...is on like Donkey Kong.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Not if pwople like me can help it.
> 
> With evolution on the left comes evolution on the right.


You don't understand the left. You only see it as a bad word and don't want to see anything else about it. Anyways I don't want to waste my time debating about left vs right with someone that sees the word left and gets triggered because it won't be much of a useful discussion.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Not if people like me can help it.
> 
> With evolution on the left comes evolution on the right.


The only way the GOP survives is by moving to the left not further to the right.

For the GOP to survive they are going to have to start supporting same-sex marriage, gay and trans rights, abortion and planned parenthood and stop trying to force Christian values onto the country.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The only way the GOP services is by moving to the left not further to the right.
> 
> For the GOP to survive they are going to have to start supporting same-sex marriage, gay and trans rights, abortion and planned parenthood and stop trying to force Christian values onto the country.


No, then we wouldn't be a two party system.

I've told you before. You cannot just expect the right to go away.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> You don't understand the left. You only see it as a bad word and don't want to see anything else about it. Anyways I don't want to waste my time debating about left vs right with someone that sees the word left and gets triggered because it won't be much of a useful discussion.


Oh, if Dems were the JFK Dems of the past I might be one.

They aren't.

Why wouldn't I see the left as anything but evil when I see people like BM do what they tried doing to me tonight?? They arent like you or GothicBohemian, @Reaper - I don't WANT the arrogance of their current party to be the norm, thank you. Show me how to get the best out of their ideal and I'd listen, but such a thing will never happen. They want it their way or no way.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> No, then we wouldn't be a two party system.
> 
> I've told you before. You cannot just expect the right to go away.


How would there still not be a two party system? You can still have a two party system even if the GOP accepted all those things, there would still be differences between the two parties. 

But if the GOP wants to survive they need to come out of the dark ages. 

Also the two party system is broken and has been for a long time. It's a joke that Gary Johnson and JIll Stein are not on every state ballot for the general. How is that democracy? They should also get to be in the debates even if they don't get to 15% in the polls. Maybe they would be there if they got as much media coverage as the major two parties.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






On a different note, how fucking cringeworthy is this shit? Holy living fuck.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Oh, if Dems were the JFK Dems of the past I might be one.
> 
> They aren't.
> 
> Why wouldn't I see the left as anything but evil when I see people like BM do what they tried doing to me tonight?? They arent like you or GothicBohemian, @Reaper. I don't WANT the arrogance of their party to be the norm, thank you.


That's the problem. BM has authoritarian tendencies in how he debates however when you actually read his views with regards to action he's not actually authoritarian or even regressive. All I swear him do today was give you a neg and you ended up kinda using it to get victim sympathy out of it....but that's just my very quickly formed judgement. I don't victim play... From anyone. Be it a SjW or antiSJW :shrug 

What you're talking about is the regressive left and that is a very real problem. Hillarys supporters are regressives there's no doubt about that. But you gotta remember that the right has its regressives as well and they don't deserve power any more than the left regressives do. Take Ben Carson for example. Ultra conservative regressive right....There's no way he's the same kind of rightist that Trump is.

Regressive left can go die as far as I'm concerned but beneath that there is a strong foundation of progressiveness within both the left and right and it's that group that needs to come together more than any other two groups in America.

You might like to look at this. Leftists aren't blind to the existence of the regressives amongst them

http://divestthis.com/2016/03/the-authentic-vs-regressive-left.html


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Oh, if Dems were the JFK Dems of the past I might be one.
> 
> They aren't.
> 
> Why wouldn't I see the left as anything but evil when I see people like BM do what they tried doing to me tonight?? They arent like you or GothicBohemian, @Reaper. I don't WANT the arrogance of their party to be the norm, thank you. Show me how to get the best out of their ideal and I'd listen, but such a thing will never happen. They want it their way or no way.


Yes the left is evil because they support same-sex marriage, gay and trans rights, as well as planned parenthood and a womans right to choose and refuse to let people on the right discriminate against those groups. The projection from the right is always amusing. OH the left won't let me not serve someone because they are gay, or won't let me prevent gays from getting married, or won't let me prevent a woman for having an abortion.

If you don't believe in same sex marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex.
If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have an abortion.
If you don't like planned parenthood, then don't use their services.
If you don't want to serve people because they are gay, then don't open a business.

Stop acting like you are being discriminated against because you are not allowed to discriminate against someone else.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> That's the problem. BM has authoritarian tendencies in how he debates however when you actually read his views with regards to action he's not actually authoritarian or even regressive. All I swear him do today was give you a neg and you ended up kinda using it to get victim sympathy out of it....but that's just my very quickly formed judgement. I don't victim play... From anyone. Be it a SjW or antiSJW :shrug
> 
> What you're talking about is the regressive left and that is a very real problem. Hillarys supporters are regressives there's no doubt about that. But you gotta remember that the right has its regressives as well and they don't deserve power any more than the left regressives do. Take Ben Carson for example. Ultra conservative regressive right....There's no way he's the same kind of rightist that Trump is.
> 
> Regressive left can go die as far as I'm concerned but beneath that there is a strong foundation of progressiveness within both the left and right and it's that group that needs to come together more than any other two groups in America.


I only feel that he is making a rash judgement based on "Muh feelings" and anecdotal evidence.

As for the left. its not that they are wrong on some things, but they act as if their way is the only way and if you don't agree you're shamed until you do so. Some of us actually remember life WITHOUT the social limitations that they have put into place and want people to be allowed to relax about these issues a bit more. Everything is PC, censored, race-bating jargin that I for one NEVER dealt with growing up. I understand evolving but they are evolving so rapidly that we are actually DE-volving.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yes the left is evil because they support same-sex marriage, gay and trans rights, as well as planned parenthood and a womans right to choose and refuse to let people on the right discriminate against those groups. The projection from the right is always amusing. OH the left won't let me not serve someone because they are gay, or won't let me prevent gays from getting married, or won't let me prevent a woman for having an abortion.
> 
> If you don't believe in same sex marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex.
> If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have an abortion.
> If you don't like planned parenthood, then don't use their services.
> If you don't want to serve people because they are gay, then don't open a business.
> 
> Stop acting like you are being discriminated against because you are not allowed to discriminate against someone else.


Case in point, @Reaper


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> I only feel that he is making a rash judgement based on "Muh feelings" and anecdotal evidence.
> 
> As for the left. its not that they are wrong on some things, but they act as if their way is the only way and if you don't agree you're shamed until you do so. Some of us actually remember life WITHOUT the social limitations that they have put into place and want people to be allowed to relax about these issues a bit more. Everything is PC, censored, race-bating jargin that I for one NEVER dealt with growing up. I understand revolving but they are evolving so rapidly that we are actually DE-volving.


That's the regressive left. The only problem is we don't know if we've finally been outnumbered by the regressive left... But those of us that recognize the regressives for what they are do try to push back when we can.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

All these over a red neg. 

BM and Beatles. Both of you are examples of regressive on the left and on the right who have no issue throwing insults at the other side but play the victim and throw a tantrum when your feelings get hurt by the other side.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Case in point, @Reaper





Beatles123 said:


> I only feel that he is making a rash judgement based on "Muh feelings" and anecdotal evidence.
> 
> *As for the left. its not that they are wrong on some things, but they act as if their way is the only way and if you don't agree you're shamed until you do so.* Some of us actually remember life WITHOUT the social limitations that they have put into place and want people to be allowed to relax about these issues a bit more. Everything is PC, censored, race-bating jargin that I for one NEVER dealt with growing up. I understand revolving but they are evolving so rapidly that we are actually DE-volving.



Like I said in my post,

You can be against same sex marriage all you want, you don't even have to be ashamed for believing that and the left won't care if you do UNTIL you try to prevent people of the same sex from getting married. 

You can be pro-choice all you want, you don't have to feel ashamed for being pro-choice and the left won't care UNTIL you try to prevent women from having abortions. 

I am not sure how many times this has to be said. You can believe in what ever you want but you cannot prevent others from doing those things you don't believe in.


You really think someone should be able to prevent people of the same gender from getting married because they don't believe gays should be allowed to marry?
You really think someone should be able to prevent women from having an abortion because they are pro-choice?

And you claim the left are the evils ones?

Stop playing the victim here. 

You can believe what ever you want, no one is stopping you or shaming you for it, that only happens when you try to prevent others from having the same rights you have.


Last point on this.

not sure what you look like but for the sake of argument lets pretend you have brown hair and brown eyes.

If the GOP said they don't think anyone with brown hair and brown eyes should be allowed to get married would you be ok with that?
What if a store said we don't serve anyone with brown hair and brown eyes would you be ok with that?
What if a place you wanted to work at said we don't hire anyone with brown hair and brown eyes would you be ok with that?

Would you call the left evil if they fought for the rights of people with brown hair and brown eyes and said that people on the right should not be allowed to discriminate against them?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> All these over a red neg.
> 
> BM and Beatles. Both of you are examples of regressive on the left and on the right who have no issue throwing insults at the other side but play the victim and throw a tantrum when your feelings get hurt by the other side.


No. If he had came to me and just said hey, could you not? I'd have been ok with it. It wasn't just this neg. Hes been doing this for months and im sick of it.

BM, so what you're saying is I can believe what i want as long as i dont try to spread it to other people, while your side gets all the attention in colleges? 

Hell, you dont even know what I believe.


----------



## Genking48

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Am I the only one that cannot wait for when the election is over, and no matter which side wins, when something fucks up there will be posts of

*"CHANGE"* or *"MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN"* followed by :chlol

God /pol/ will be amazing.

Don't know much about how American politics work but can't all the Bernie people just go and vote for a different candidate, an independent one or something or is that just pointless since they have no chance of winning?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> No. If he had came to me and just said hey, could you not? I'd have been ok with it. It wasn't just this neg. Hes been doing this for months and im sick of it.
> 
> BM, so what you're saying is I can believe what i want as long as i dont try to spread it to other people, while your side gets all the attention in colleges?
> 
> Hell, you dont even know what I believe.


I asked those in question forum, I was seeing what you would answer to each.
And I was talking about the left vs the right values, not your personal beliefs, since that is why I asked you if you agreed or not. 

Stop playing the victim and answer the questions. 



My side gets all the attention in colleges, what does that even mean?

You did not even reply to one point I made then you made up a strawman about believing what you want as long as you don't spread it to other people. Where did I ever say that?

I said you can believe what you want but you can't force others to follow what you believe. IE if you don't believe in same-sex marriage then fine don't marry someone of the same gender but you can't prevent others who are for same-sex marriage to not be able to marry someone of the same gender.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

You said that I can believe what I want so long as I dont take away that persons right. So in other words if I actually try to make my belief into the direction of the country, im wrong. but your side can march, protest and hold college lectures based on ITS Ideas all it wants?

NO. I DON'T support banning the things you listed on paper, id STILL at least hear the argument tho. the pros and cons of why its bad. Your side censors that. You want ONLY your side. All other things must be extinguished.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> You said that I can believe what I want so long as I dont take away that persons right. So in other words if I actually try to make my belief into the direction of the country, im wrong. but your side can march, protest and hold college lectures based on ITS udeas all it wants?
> 
> NO. I DON'T support banning the things you listed on paper, id STILL at least hear the argument tho. the pros and cons of why its bad. Your side censors that.


RIGHT, you can believe whatever you want as long as you don't take away someone else's basic human rights. 

YES someone is wrong if you are trying to take away someone's basic human rights that everyone else has.

What exactly is the left trying to censor can I get some examples? 

Also, what exactly are the pros of not allowing gays to be married?
What are the pros of not serving gays in your bakery. 


There is also something in the US called separation of church and state, so someone cannot push their religious beliefs onto others or make them follow someones religious laws. 

Finally, so you don't see a difference between someone marching for lets say

Blacks should be treated as equals and have the equal rights as whites
vs
blacks should be separated from whites and should not have the same rights as whites.

You are honestly going to say there is not a right and wrong between those two


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The agency to freely associate or discriminate is one of the cornerstones of what may be referred to as civilization. With the unyielding assault upon such qualities, one sees in the West today what may have at one time been called the Managerial Society as considered by James Burnham but with its ever-increasing aggressiveness and merciless consequences, the full apotheosis of what was in its mere relative infancy at the time Hilaire Belloc wrote of _The Servile State_ in 1912.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> RIGHT, you can believe whatever you want as long as you don't take away someone else's basic human rights.
> 
> YES someone is wrong if you are trying to take away someone's basic human rights that everyone else has.
> 
> What exactly is the left trying to censor can I get some examples?
> 
> Also, what exactly are the pros of not allowing gays to be married?
> What are the pros of not serving gays in your bakery.
> 
> 
> There is also something in the US called separation of church and state, so someone cannot push their religious beliefs onto others or make them follow someones religious laws.
> 
> Finally, so you don't see a difference between someone marching for lets say
> 
> Blacks should be treated as equals and have the equal rights as whites
> vs
> blacks should be separated from whites and should not have the same rights as whites.
> 
> You are honestly going to say there is not a right and wrong between those two


So before I even answer, you admit that your side is free to teach and protest and pass legislation and my side isn't - That I should just let your side decide what is and isn't right unopposed?

Why Are you allowed to interrupt speeches and im not?

Why are you allowed to say "All whites move to the back" but if we say that about blacks we're racist?

YOU WANT ONLY ONE IDEOLOGY.

No, BM, im not for the obvious racist things in your post, but im not just going to demean myself so any other belief can be upheld!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> So before I even answer, you admit that your side is free to teach and protest and pass legislation and my side isn't - That I should just let your side decide what is and isn't right unopposed?
> 
> Why Are you allowed to interrupt speeches and im not?
> 
> Why are you allowed to say "All whites move to the back" but if we say that about blacks we're racist?
> 
> YOU WANT ONLY ONE IDEOLOGY.
> 
> No, BM, im not for the obvious racist things in your post, but im not just going to demean myself so any other belief can be upheld!


Ok I am done with you. I remember now why i stopped trying to debate you because you can never answer a straight question and just make up a bunch of strawman arguments.

I never once said you are not allowed to interrupt speeches, you just made that up.
I never said you are not allowed to protest, you made that up.
I never said you are not allowed pass legislation You can as long as it's not taking away people's rights that everyone else has, IE gay marriage, serving gays, abortion, etc. 

No one ever says all white to the back. That is just another strawman made up by you. But people like you act like when blacks or a minority group get equal rights to whites that is taking away rights to whites. 

Or they act like when gays get rights like being able to get married they act like its taking away the rights of straight people who want to prevent them from getting married.

And yes you are not for the obvious racist things I mentioned but its funny how when you take those same things and apply them to gays, the right does not think of it as bigoted. And that is a huge problem. When ever you are looking at gay rights and the right trying to take them away, just swap out gay for black and see if anyone would let that stand. 

Any ways, this is my last time replying to you. 

I would appreciate you stop tagging me in your posts. Thanks.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I Did NOT make that up! I ASKED YOU. The response you gave was "Right". So I thought you were saying yes, You did think that.

Also totally love how you just flip tables and give up when I dont fucking understand you. If im not answering the question right, keep talking to me and ill get it! But no. "OMG YOU'RE LYING, IM DONE!" <-- Every militant leftest I have ever met.

You want examples of what I talked about?






Your side interrupted this man's right to assembly! WHY?






Your side ordered whites to the back of the line. WHY? You dems speak of equality and stopping hate, why did you not protest THIS????

You say we can pass legislation but Trump can't do anything or suggest anything or Oh, its RACIST! Not that yknow, we need to do it for our own safety.

The right isnt biggoted. We just dont want everything shoved down our throats. We dont have to agree to gay marriage to respect their decision to do so.

In fact, look at the gay persecution in Ireland. You know who was aiding them? CATHOLICS! But you act as if we want them slaughtered.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> No. If he had came to me and just said hey, could you not? I'd have been ok with it. It wasn't just this neg. Hes been doing this for months and im sick of it.
> 
> BM, so what you're saying is I can believe what i want as long as i dont try to spread it to other people, while your side gets all the attention in colleges?
> 
> Hell, you dont even know what I believe.


The neg triggered you. Trying to deny it after the fact and rationalising it with his past actions is disingenuous.

You keep acting just like the regressive you claims to dislike so much.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> The neg triggered you. Trying to deny it after the fact and rationalising it with his past actions is disingenuous.
> 
> You keep acting just like the regressive you claims to dislike so much.


 I see it as yet another example of his militancy, which has always pissed me off. I told him what my reasoning was and he tries to act like he knows whats on my mind. This is the arrogance of the militant left.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> I see it as yet another example of his militancy, which has always pissed me off. I told him what my reasoning was and *he tries to act like he knows whata on my mind*. This is the arrogance of the militant left.


Victim playing. That's why I said both of you are the same, except in your political positions. 

But I like you better than him because he is definitely more alpha than you because he is irritatingly more aggressive and persistent. :troll


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Victim playing. That's why I said both of you are the same, except in your political positions.
> 
> But I like you better than him because he is definitely more alpha than you because he is irritatingly more aggressive and persistent. :troll


No, not being alpha would be negging him back or blocking him, silencing his opinion.

We have had this conversation before, I am not seeking an eco-chamber. I will NOT however have him label me as trying to bait him or use an offensive term. That wasn't what was on my mind. In stead of listening, he's trying to act superior like every god damned hardcore leftest i've met.

I'm having issue with what he said and discussing it because I feel that my grievance has merit. It's pertinent to what we are discussing in that his behaviour is part of why i cannot seem to endorse the left. 

If he would have said, "Hey, can you not use that term?" I'd have been fine. There was no attempt by him to do that.

Whatever. If this is what you call victim playing i'll stop. I just don't see the fairness.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Listening to all the folks who say that Trump had a hand in the Russkis leaking the e-mails...that's just BS. If the Russians and Putin are sticking their nose in this election, they are hedging their bets that Trump would be easier to manipulate and control because of his lack of experience and the fact that right now Donald is singing Putin's praises. Too bad the FBI didn't pay more attention to Hillary's e-mails and her role in Benghazi, shows that the FBI has now become politicized.
> 
> 
> 
> For all the policies that Obama has had a hand in implementing these last 8 years, the expectation is that HRC will take those to the next level and continue to move them forward. The current occupier of the WH went on "hope and change" and she will be expected to run with that. That is what she is going to have to do if she expects to win.
> As for the message of Trump being outside the norm, that's a no-brainer. He is clearly not anything like any candidate really ever. No government experience at all (whether involvement with the government in some role or military). He takes the concept of Romney (Romney wanted to run the country like a business) and jacks it up a notch.
> 
> As for her past, etc...anything is fair game at this point. The GOP held back a bit against Obama, the gloves will be off and it will be no holds barred this time around. Anything said, done, mentioned, looked at...is on like Donkey Kong.


I don't think the Russians could control Trump, he's a businessman and while comes off silly sometimes he did manage to turn millions into Billions and pretty much defeat everyone who stood against him, so for a guy with little political experience he is sweeping the land. Let's look and Gengis Khan, nobody thought the mongols were a threat, not the Eastern Europeans, the Middle East, China or Japan and yet he schooled them all with outrageous tactics and unorthodox methods and sure cruelty. Underestimating Trump is a disaster waiting to happen. 

The only people who don't want to work with the Russians are asshole neo-cons and warmongering asshats like Hilary. Europe also wouldn't be to keen on it if the US suddenly had a very cozy relationship with Russia! Imagine would a Russian-American cooperation could do! :grin2:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> No, not being alpha would be negging him back or blocking him, silencing his opinion.
> 
> We have had this conversation before, I am not seeking an eco-chamber. I will NOT however have him label me as trying to bait him or use an offensive term. That wasn't what was on my mind. In stead of listening, he's trying to act superior like every god damned hardcore leftest i've met.
> 
> I'm having issue with what he said and discussing it because I feel that my grievance has merit. It's pertinent to what we are discussing in that his behaviour is part of why i cannot seem to endorse the left.
> 
> If he would have said, "Hey, can you not use that term?" I'd have been fine. There was no attempt by him to do that.
> 
> Whatever. If this is what you call victim playing i'll stop. I just don't see the fairness.


Since this keep going on about this, I am going to comment on this one last time . 

So you admit to having this conversation with me before about Bernie Bros being a trolling name for Bernie supporters, yet you keep using the term.

then you claim oh if I said Hey, can you not use that term?" I'd have been fine. but you just proved earlier in this thread that is not the case. 

So again, you should stop using the term Bernie Bros since its a negative trolling name for Bernie supporters. 

So are you going to stop using it and put this behind us? Yes or no.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Since this keep going on about this, I am going to comment on this one last time .
> 
> So you admit to having this conversation with me before about Bernie Bros being a trolling name for Bernie supporters, yet you keep using the term.
> 
> then you claim oh if I said Hey, can you not use that term?" I'd have been fine. but you just proved earlier in this thread that is not the case.
> 
> So again, you should stop using the term Bernie Bros since its a negative trolling name for Bernie supporters.
> 
> So are you going to stop using it and put this behind us? Yes or no.


I really don't agree with that, BM. I was not trying to offend you and i think its stupid that you are assuming my motives over one use of the term. I wish you could have just seen it as me using the damn term as a name and nothing more. I KNOW what my intentions were. 

However, in the interest of making this thread great again, I will try and remember how you feel about the name going forward and refrain, yes.

Better?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> I really don't agree with that, BM. I was not trying to offend you and i think its stupid that you are. I wish you could have just seen it as me using the damn term and nothing more. I KNOW what my intentions were.
> 
> However, in the interest of making this thread great again, I will try and remember how you feel about the name going forward, yes.
> 
> Better?


Ok great, agreed, now lets all get back to bashing Hillary and how corrupt the DNC has been.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Ok great, agreed, now lets all get back to bashing Hillary and how corrupt the DNC has been.


Deal, just try not to assume things so easy, yeah? I know this section gets heated, and i get heated and you get heated but we all should be united against hildabeast. Actually when i posted the link to that stream i was hoping you'd watch. Im sorry Bernie did this to you. Personally if I were him id have got up on that mic and filibustered until the DNC offered him as a vp alternative to vote on.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Bernie protesters seem overwhelmingly white. :lol


buh, buh, it's a rigged system to look that way.











and lol at Camille blocking me, he/she can't handle the truth clearly but rather live in their bubble of myths.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> buh, buh, it's a rigged system to look that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and lol at Camille blocking me, he/she can't handle the truth clearly but rather live in their bubble of myths.


i havent blocked you but i do pity you tbh fam


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










:lmao


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

@CamillePunk @DesolationRow @Miss Sally

*HIGH ENERGY ALERT!!!!*










WE HAVE THE BEST POLLS, DON'T WE FOLKS?! :trump


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Gandhi said:


>


fake tweet? why did you use an image and not direct link it.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Gandhi said:


> :lmao


Fake tweets FTL


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The only change Hillary has inspired in me is to change the channel. The notion that the epitome of corrupt Establishment politics represents change from Obama is laughable at best.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Donald Trump calling on the Russian hackers to find those missing e-mails. If they do, Hillary is D-O-N-E! They went missing for a reason.



> Ok great, agreed, now lets all get back to bashing Hillary and how corrupt the DNC has been


Truth hurts, doesn't it?

- Vic


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> Fake tweets FTL


Dunno, just found it online, funny nonetheless.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Donald Trump calling on the Russian hackers to find those missing e-mails. If they do, Hillary is D-O-N-E! They went missing for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Truth hurts, doesn't it?
> 
> - Vic


what do you mean truth hurts doesn't it? i have been saying for close to a year now how corrupt the DNC and Hillary was toward Sanders and people were telling me there is no corruption and its just sour grapes and now everything I said is being proven to be true. 

The more truth comes out the more I have been proven right this whole time


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/gallup-favorability-clinton-trump-226295?cmpid=sf

Gallup: Trump, Clinton have identical, low favorability ratings

---

Its only a matter of time before Hillary's unfavorable is higher than Trumps.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump tricking the Hillary campaign into an unforced error by admitting the 30,000 missing e-mails are a matter of national security. :done 4D space chess.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Was pretty funny reading all the headlines about trump wanting the Russians to get access to our countries secret. And your first thought is, "I thought the missing emails were all personal, so why are we so worried that the Russians know her past yoga schedule?"


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump tricking the Hillary campaign into an unforced error by admitting the 30,000 missing e-mails are a matter of national security. :done 4D space chess.


He set the trap and they bit. If the emails are truly private, they are innocuous and there is no espionage. The volume of their protestations indicates otherwise.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't know if he made other comments but the only thing I saw from him was "If they have the e-mails", not "They should hack us." Maybe he said something else though.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I don't know if he made other comments but the only thing I saw from him was "If they have the e-mails", not "They should hack us." Maybe he said something else though.


All I saw Trump say was he hopes Russia finds those other 30,000 emails, and if they did they would be praised or something like that.

He did not ask russians to hack the US, he just hopes they leak the rest of the 30,000 emails.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I don't know if he made other comments but the only thing I saw from him was "If they have the e-mails", not "They should hack us." Maybe he said something else though.


He did tweet that if either China or Russia had them that they should turn them over to the FBI.

This quote precipitated Hillary's espionage tweet.

* “They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted…Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you can find the 33,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”*

The Democrats are taking those words literally while Trump supporters are portraying them as sarcastic, joking remarks.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

TRUMP AMA: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4uxdbn/im_donald_j_trump_and_im_your_next_president_of/

YUUUUUGE TONIGHT! ASK YOUR QUESTIONS! :trump


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

REDDIT AMA TONIGHT: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4uxdbn/im_donald_j_trump_and_im_your_next_president_of/


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The left's odd fascination with casting Russia as a modern villain reminds me of the 2012 election when Romney and co. were slighted for doing the same exact thing. :lol I recall people bemoaning cold war era rhetoric at the time. Now it seems the Democrats are the ones who want to use Russia as a bogeyman. :lol Trump is the only one who wants to actually have friendly relations with Russia, yet people think he's the guy who's going to start World War 3. All the double-think is quite disorienting at times.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The media is dishonestly truncating Trump's quote to make it appear Trump is actively urging Russia to hack Hillary when they already most likely have it. They only are playing the highlighted portion of this quote

“They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted…*Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you can find the 33,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”* 

and ignoring where he said that they probably already have them. He isn't encouraging hacking, he said to turn them over to the FBI.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> The left's odd fascination with casting Russia as a modern villain reminds me of the 2012 election when Romney and co. were slighted for doing the same exact thing. :lol I recall people bemoaning cold war era rhetoric at the time. Now it seems the Democrats are the ones who want to use Russia as a bogeyman. :lol Trump is the only one who wants to actually have friendly relations with Russia, yet people think he's the guy who's going to start World War 3. All the double-think is quite disorienting at times.


Its the fear mongering by the DNC side. They know a huge chunk of the GOP voter base is older people like 65+ and for them Russia will always be the big bad for the US. So they are trying to fear monger them into thinking Trump is working with the Russians who they probably still fear, into not voting for Trump.




EL SHIV said:


> The media is dishonestly truncating Trump's quote to make it appear Trump is actively urging Russia to hack Hillary when they already most likely have it. They only are playing the highlighted portion of this quote
> 
> “They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted…*Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you can find the 33,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”*
> 
> and ignoring where he said that they probably already have them. He isn't encouraging hacking, he said to turn them over to the FBI.


Both sides have been doing this, but this is the only way Hillary can be Trump, beat him at his own game. Trump says worse stuff than this all the time when he lies. The DNC are just finally instead of doing it about Sanders doing it toward Trump now.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



EL SHIV said:


> The media is dishonestly truncating Trump's quote to make it appear Trump is actively urging Russia to hack Hillary when they already most likely have it. They only are playing the highlighted portion of this quote
> 
> “They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted…*Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you can find the 33,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”*
> 
> and ignoring where he said that they probably already have them. He isn't encouraging hacking, he said to turn them over to the FBI.


The media tends to do that to officials running for the highest office of the land, and don't even try to suggest for a second the righties don't do it to Hillary/Obama whoever else on the Dems. Maybe Trump might actually have to start thinking about what's coming out of his mouth.

It's a pretty stupid thing to say IMO, I dare say there's plenty of rusted on Trump supporters who aren't thrilled with Russia's reputation and would rather he shuts up about them.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/758451661903949824
*HERE. WE. GO!*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I can't believe the DNC is more entertaining than the RNC. 

:lol people defending Trump's comments. Regardless of whether your position is in this elections, it was a irresponsible thing to say. Maybe someone should suggest the Russians and Chinese to find Trump's tax records too? The press will definitely reward them mightly since they are so liberal biased. :lol


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So many dissenters in the DNC interrupting speeches. :lol


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The truth is ebola to the Democrat National Committee. Serves you right, bitches! :lol #Karma 



> TRUMP AMA: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/..._president_of/


What a shitstorm.

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I can't believe the DNC is more entertaining than the RNC.
> 
> :lol people defending Trump's comments. Regardless of whether your position is in this elections, it was a irresponsible thing to say. Maybe someone should suggest the Russians and Chinese to find Trump's tax records too? The press will definitely reward them mightly since they are so liberal biased. :lol


Yeah lets focus on what Trump said instead of all the corruption in those leaked emails.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



> Holy fuck, what a horrible and disingenuous speech Eric Holder is giving at the DNC right now. Sheesh, get him off!


The scary part is his replacement, Loretta Lynch, is a bigger crook than he is.

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah lets focus on what Trump said instead of all the corruption in those leaked emails.


What corruption?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Biden doing his America First speech. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> What corruption?


You have to be kidding me.

All the voter fraud and suppression by Hillary and the DNC, or how corruption the Clinton foundation is.

Just look at this was once example.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-leak-clinton-team-deflected-state-cash-concerns-226191

You have to go out of your way to not see all the evidence how corrupt it has been.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*









@birthday_massacre WOW. DNC turning off Bernie fans' lights. SAD!


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You have to be kidding me.
> 
> All the voter fraud and suppression by Hillary and the DNC, or how corruption the Clinton foundation is.
> 
> Just look at this was once example.
> 
> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-leak-clinton-team-deflected-state-cash-concerns-226191
> 
> You have to go out of your way to not see all the evidence how corrupt it has been.


All I see is smart politics to prevent a disruption in raising funds for a general elections.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> @birthday_massacre WOW. DNC turning off Bernie fans' lights. SAD!


Are you surprised, they cut one of his speakers yesterday as well.

They are not uniting the voters. Its going to blow up in her face


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> All I see is smart politics to prevent a disruption in raising funds for a general elections.


You want another

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670


Funneling money is illegal.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Kaine following Obama is not a good idea. Can't help but be overshadowed.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm shocked. I always thought the VP nominee went last. Guess they didn't want him overshadowed.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You want another
> 
> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670
> 
> 
> Funneling money is illegal.


It definitely look bad for her platform against big money by skirting rules for individual contributions.

Seems like a conflict between who controls the money raised. DNC or the state parties.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Watching the DNC shitshow has made me realize something. Unlike Hilldog, at least Kaine is honest: He really is boring as hell.

You could say he has...low energy. :trump


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



EL SHIV said:


> I'm shocked. I always thought the VP nominee went last. Guess they didn't want him overshadowed.


It would be like HHH going after the Taker match in two Wrestlemanias.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Oh and kudos to Terry McAuliffe for pulling a Biden and shooting the foot of one of his superiors by admitting that Hilldog would flip-flop on the TPP. He may be a corrupt and insufferable cunt, but at least he showed some semblance of worth.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Maybe the next time somebody says its a conspiracy, you should listen. 4 months before Debbie got busted:

https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/707566641471725568

- Vic


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This speech of Kaine's seems awfully similar to when Hillary rolled him out.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










- Vic


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You want another
> 
> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670
> 
> 
> Funneling money is illegal.


Bernie is an independent again.

http://heatst.com/politics/bernie-sanders-leaves-the-democratic-party/


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Kaine avoided most of those. Believe me. :troll


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



EL SHIV said:


> Bernie is an independent again.
> 
> http://heatst.com/politics/bernie-sanders-leaves-the-democratic-party/


Well that means Trump's going to be president then.

Regressives really are regressives.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/758451661903949824
> *HERE. WE. GO!*


Oh boy if ABC is doing a story on it.. how long before more major networks catch on? 

50 years of the Democrats manipulating minorities and everyone to think they're the "Good guys" down the drain.. imagine if even more stuff comes out!


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



EL SHIV said:


> This speech of Kaine's seems awfully similar to when Hillary rolled him out.


http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pre...-the-fastest-growing-demographic-713071683576

:draper2


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

How did America go from Obama to choosing between Trump and Hilary?


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Goddamn, that dude can deliver a speech.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> How did America go from Obama to choosing between Trump and Hilary?


Simple: Differences between parties have come to a head.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Watching the DNC shitshow has made me realize something. Unlike Hilldog, at least Kaine is honest: He really is boring as hell.
> 
> You could say he has...low energy. :trump


Yeah, those nursery rhymes of Trump aren't going to save him in November. 


I wonder how soon you all will turn on trump when he loses in Nov. I'm going to roll.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Simple: Differences between parties have come to a head.


Both parties are internally split, though.

Authentically, we should be looking at a race between 4+ parties in this year's election. But since it's first past the post and the two parties have a stranglehold on the system and are scared to shit that releasing their grip for a second will surrender their control to the other side, it's gonna take a sledgehammer or an insanely concerted effort amongst voters to blow the whole thing up.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So what's Wfs take on Treasonous Trump's call for Putin to rig the 'murican election?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Simple: Differences between parties have come to a head.


There were always differences between the two parties. That's not an excuse.

Feels more like anti-intellectualism on the right and the outrage mob on the left is killing any dialogue from happening rather than political differences.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> So what's Wfs take on Treasonous Trump's call for Putin to rig the 'murican election?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> Yeah, those nursery rhymes of Trump aren't going to save him in November.
> 
> 
> I wonder how soon you all will turn on trump when he loses in Nov. I'm going to roll.


Joke's on you: I don't support either candidate and made that clear back in Trump's own thread. :suckit

The only worth Trump provides is bringing the lulz by shitting on political correctness, being a superb troll and destroying a woefully out of date political party (with the last part being quite a lot more worthwhile than whatever Hilldog brings to the table).


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

When you just may vote for Gary Johnson, even if doing so will make no damn difference. :mj2


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm voting Johnson. It won't make a difference, but it's better than doing nothing and bitching later. Least I can say I tried lol


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

For peeps considering voting Johnson, which party would you normally vote for?


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> For peeps considering voting Johnson, which party would you normally vote for?


None of 'em. I don't do political parties. I consider the individuals instead of the party they represent. I may not agree with Johnson on _everything_, but he's the closest I will support right now.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> So what's Wfs take on Treasonous Trump's call for Putin to rig the 'murican election?


Misunderstanding, leftist MSM, PC Police, The Left, Leftists, PC Feminists, Terrorists, Left etc


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I've already made it known I'm voting third party this year (specifically Johnson as a Libertarian). These are the two major candidates we have here, folks.

Heard the DNC is doing MAJOR panic control tonight in shutting down dissention and different opinions. Twitter and /pol/ are shitting all over the Democrats and the DNC and you wouldn't know if you listen and believe the corporate owned mainstream media. The RNC was a shitshow in its own way but the DNC have been just as much of shit too in their own right.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/758412847068119040
:sodone SAVAGE.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/758474624967598080
DNC going to DNC. We will probably hear that it was an electrical abnormality brought on by a Russian operative seizing the controls of the arena just like all of those emails with CNN people and Chuck Todd and others at NBC were misunderstandings. :sodone


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/758497532670541824
Who can sincerely disagree with Trump's overarching point about America no longer being "Great" when you look at the protesters outside? These kids are striving so hard to be like their fathers and grandfathers, but they cannot even successfully burn an American flag without lighting themselves ablaze. SAD!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The support for Johnson in this thread is heartwarming and restores my faith in humanity :drose


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> The support for Johnson in this thread is heartwarming and restores my faith in humanity :drose


Does the opposite for me.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://twitter.com/mikedogli/status/758578450760204288

Where is your peaceful DNC now?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Does the opposite for me.


Shouldn't considering the only things that Johnson is on the left of the right is social issues which most of the progressive right already agree with anyways.

He only really differs from Trump on immigration. That's it.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Shouldn't considering the only things that Johnson is on the left of the right is social issues which most of the progressive right already agree with anyways.
> 
> He only really differs from Trump on immigration. That's it.


He's a bought out shill. I believe @CamillePunk can elaborate since he's libertarian.


----------



## gamegenie

Lumpy McRighteous said:


> gamegenie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, those nursery rhymes of Trump aren't going to save him in November.
> 
> 
> I wonder how soon you all will turn on trump when he loses in Nov. I'm going to roll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joke's on you: I don't support either candidate and made that clear back in Trump's own thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only worth Trump provides is bringing the lulz by shitting on political correctness, being a superb troll and destroying a woefully out of date political party (with the last part being quite a lot more worthwhile than whatever Hilldog brings to the table).
Click to expand...

Sure bub. I guess you consider yourself as some political manticore. :kermit:

Trump is only trolling himself and you repubes. Most of us Dems see his act a mile away.


----------



## gamegenie

Beatles123 said:


> https://twitter.com/mikedogli/status/758578450760204288
> 
> Where is your peaceful DNC now?


the peace is with wherever the contest of your random video is at. Lol


----------



## gamegenie

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/758497532670541824
WLM :costanza:


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Full Clinton Cash movie:


----------



## AmWolves10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Suppression of opinion at the DNC. That's not very Democratic.


----------



## gamegenie

AmWolves10 said:


> Suppression of opinion at the DNC. That's not very Democratic.


:yawn:


If you think defying federal authorities by crossing restricted areas is alright then these rift rafts should consider joining your party.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> :yawn:
> 
> 
> If you think defying federal authorities by crossing restricted areas is alright then these rift rafts should consider joining your party.


They have the right to be there, they are just trying to censor them. It's been going on all week with the DNC trying to censor anyone that isn't for Hillary Clinton.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Obama referred to himself 119 times during his Hillary nominating speech. I always thought there was no I in Obama.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



EL SHIV said:


> Obama referred to himself 119 times during his Hillary nominating speech. I always thought there was no I in Obama.


I want a president who's going to talk about AmerWEca!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Over/under on the number of Hillary head nods tonight? I'll go with 180.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hickenlooper telling folks to put down their Pokemon GO and go vote for Hilldog.

What a fucking geek. :chlol


----------



## McGee

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm only watching this for Katy Perry.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



McGee said:


> I'm only watching this for Katy Perry.


Is it for the "Fight Song" that's used as Hillary's campaign theme?


I also liken this song to Hillary's campaign race.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> Is it for the "Fight Song" that's used as Hillary's campaign theme?
> 
> 
> I also liken this song to Hillary's campaign race.


I'm as liberal as one can be. The best song to very accurately represent the war criminal Democrat nominee for President is this:


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I understand the intention of crowd participation in performances, but the fking voiceover telling people what to do is straight out of a communist country. :lol

Who the hell organized this shit?


----------



## McGee

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Katy's not showing enough skin. Still looks hot as hell though.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Chelsea seems a bit nervous. Not the most polished public speaker.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I think that's what made the speech more effective in trying to humanize Hilary compared to Ivanka's attempt with her father.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> I'm as liberal as one can be. The best song to very accurately represent the war criminal Democrat nominee for President is this:
> https://youtu.be/ipz-zrQoxk0


what about


----------



## McGee

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Chelsea could get it.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The quality of speechwriters for the DNC is so much better than the ones at the RNC this year.

Hilary sidestepped so many awkward issues so far in the speech. Trump looked like a fearmonger in his.


----------



## HiddenFlaw

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



McGee said:


> Chelsea could get it.


yea after a few drinks :liquor



oh shit nevermind i just got a look of her 

how you doin chelsea:Tripslick


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

For those wanting the traditional themes.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

That went... surprisingly well. :wow

Even in spite of the email scandal, I wouldn't be shocked if Hillary got a decent convention bounce coming out of this. DNC brought out the heavy hitters throughout the week to deliver great speeches on her behalf and then Hillary managed to deliver a half-decent speech to avoid squandering all the good will.

It'll be interesting to see how the polls look after the weekend.



FriedTofu said:


> I think that's what made the speech more effective in trying to humanize Hilary compared to Ivanka's attempt with her father.


I didn't watch Chelsea's speech, but the moment right after she introduced Hillary where they were both onstage together just talking 1-on-1 was a pretty cool mother-daughter moment, regardless of how we ended up here.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

http://www.newsday.com/opinion/my-m...-chance-of-beating-hillary-clinton-1.12102905

If Trump loses now it will be the biggest choke job.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> That went... surprisingly well. :wow
> 
> Even in spite of the email scandal, I wouldn't be shocked if Hillary got a decent convention bounce coming out of this. DNC brought out the heavy hitters throughout the week to deliver great speeches on her behalf and then Hillary managed to deliver a half-decent speech to avoid squandering all the good will.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see how the polls look after the weekend.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't watch Chelsea's speech, but the moment right after she introduced Hillary where they were both onstage together just talking 1-on-1 was a pretty cool mother-daughter moment, regardless of how we ended up here.


Don't get your hopes up. It's Trump's campaign to lose imo. Too many Sanders supporters are not going to vote for Hilary. It will be Bush vs Gore 2000 all over again with a much larger protest base.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Don't get your hopes up. It's Trump's campaign to lose imo. Too many Sanders supporters are not going to vote for Hilary. It will be Bush vs Gore 2000 all over again with a much larger protest base.


my prediction is that Trump is going to make McCain/Palin '08 loss look pretty light.

I don't even think Trump will win Indiana. It will likely go Blue again as it did in '08.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Heres a theme for you


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Don't get your hopes up. It's Trump's campaign to lose imo. Too many Sanders supporters are not going to vote for Hilary. It will be Bush vs Gore 2000 all over again with a much larger protest base.


If there is one thing that can be said with any certainty about this election, it's that my hopes are not "up." :lol

Anecdotally speaking, based on hearing from all the people I know who backed Bernie in the primaries, I think the #BernieOrBust campaign is largely overblown. On a broader scale, I've seen data that suggests that the percentage of Bernie voters who are flocking to Trump is lower than the percentage of Hillary supporters who jumped on the McCain wagon in '08. For what it's worth.

Also, let's not forget about how conflicted many on the R side are about the idea of voting for Trump. To say nothing of Gary Johnson's rising poll numbers.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> http://www.newsday.com/opinion/my-m...-chance-of-beating-hillary-clinton-1.12102905
> 
> If Trump loses now it will be the biggest choke job.


So Trump would be the 2016 GS Warriors if he loses? Kidding kidding! DNC doing everything it can to sidestep the controversy, if Hilary is good at one thing it's avoiding the fuzz. This is going to be an interesting next few months. I'm not sure what to grade the DNC, it came off a lot like a communist meeting at times! OBEY


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> my prediction is that Trump is going to make McCain/Palin '08 loss look pretty light.
> 
> I don't even think Trump will win Indiana. It will likely go Blue again as it did in '08.


History has shown it is very difficult for the incumbent party with two straight presidency to win a third term. And this time Hilary is a very unlikable candidate. It is only because Trump even more unlikable that is running that she is still in the race. Not sure where this optimism is coming from.



RetepAdam. said:


> If there is one thing that can be said with any certainty about this election, it's that my hopes are not "up." :lol
> 
> Anecdotally speaking, based on hearing from all the people I know who backed Bernie in the primaries, I think the #BernieOrBust campaign is largely overblown. On a broader scale, I've seen data that suggests that the percentage of Bernie voters who are flocking to Trump is lower than the percentage of Hillary supporters who jumped on the McCain wagon in '08. For what it's worth.
> 
> Also, let's not forget about how conflicted many on the R side are about the idea of voting for Trump. To say nothing of Gary Johnson's rising poll numbers.


The issue isn't Bernie voters going to Trump. It is Bernie voters staying home or voting third party. Many on the R side who are against the idea of voting Trump are even more against the idea of a Hilary presidency, while those Bernie supporters can rationale a vote for Trump as a vote against the TPP. It just doesn't look good for her unless something changes the narrative within the next 8-10 weeks.

I'm willing to bet more Cruz supporters will vote along party lines than Sanders supporters who mostly identify as independents anyway.


----------



## virus21

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> So Trump would be the 2016 GS Warriors if he loses? Kidding kidding! DNC doing everything it can to sidestep the controversy, if Hilary is good at one thing it's avoiding the fuzz. This is going to be an interesting next few months. I'm not sure what to grade the DNC, it came off a lot like a communist meeting at times! OBEY


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary Clinton rhetorically blasts Wall Street... :hglol :hglol :hglol

Hillary Clinton runs on excoriating the _Citizens United_ decision and arguing on behalf of overturning it with a Constitutional amendment... The decision, of course, overruled government censorship of a film critical of Hillary Clinton. 

Hillary Clinton talks about squeezing banks on behalf of small businesses. I recognize she's running as a Democrat, but how economically illiterate can she be? The first item on the agenda of people looking to start up new small businesses is savings. And of course with the interest rates being held down, and wages stagnating, saving has become exceedingly difficult for tens upon tens of millions of Americans. 

As a speech, it was probably the most disorganized speech of this convention, for which I do not blame Hillary Clinton.

The homage to Alexis de Tocqueville was amusing. If only it were still true.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> So Trump would be the 2016 GS Warriors if he loses? Kidding kidding! DNC doing everything it can to sidestep the controversy, if Hilary is good at one thing it's avoiding the fuzz. This is going to be an interesting next few months. I'm not sure what to grade the DNC, it came off a lot like a communist meeting at times! OBEY


The DNC has been more entertaining than the RNC for me. Couldn't have anticipated that two weeks ago.

Putin would be proud whichever candidate wins then? Communist America whichever party wins. :lol


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> So Trump would be the 2016 GS Warriors if he loses?


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> The issue isn't Bernie voters going to Trump. It is Bernie voters staying home or voting third party. Many on the R side who are against the idea of voting Trump are even more against the idea of a Hilary presidency, while those Bernie supporters can rationale a vote for Trump as a vote against the TPP. It just doesn't look good for her unless something changes the narrative within the next 8-10 weeks.
> 
> I'm willing to bet more Cruz supporters will vote along party lines than Sanders supporters who mostly identify as independents anyway.


Again, though, there isn't much evidence of a third party wave like there is on the Republican side with Gary Johnson's numbers taking off.

Is there a threat of a great number of Sanders supporters staying home? Absolutely. That's always a risk, especially when it comes to a relatively young voter base (which comprised a huge chunk of Sanders's support). My only two counters to that would be that anecdotally speaking, a yuge majority of the Sanders supporters I know have signaled their intent to bite the bullet and vote for Hillary and that this election can pretty much be boiled down to a handful of battleground states, most of which Bernie didn't fare all that well in during the primary. But every vote counts, so who knows.

Like I said, it'll be interesting to see how the polls look next week. And at the end of the day, we won't _really_ know either way until we get to November. It's all just speculation. :shrug


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> History has shown it is very difficult for the incumbent party with two straight presidency to win a third term. And this time Hilary is a very unlikable candidate. It is only because Trump even more unlikable that is running that she is still in the race. Not sure where this optimism is coming from.


My optimism is from talking to people, nobody I know except for maybe 1 co-worker I know is voting for Trump. 

Also, Mike Pence is my state's governor and he's sucked in Indiana, his governor seat was predicted to be taken by a Democrat if he ran again. 
32% of GOP vote in the primaries went for Ted Cruz. 
Ted Cruz doesn't endorse Donald Trump. 
Indiana Republicans will likely sit out or vote for Hillary. 
Obama's base in Indiana from '08 can easily be revived from a few campaign stops. 
- If Hill picks up few counties, Lake County, Marion, Hamilton, Elkhart, St. Joseph, and Posey or Allen and it's bye-bye Trump.


Now look at the state east of Indiana, Ohio. That state and it's delegates went to John Kasich who won it, John Kasich did not endorse Donald Trump. Let's go to the state west of Indiana, my birth state Illinois, that state is not going to a Republican.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Your two anecdote raised my hope of a non-Trump era slightly.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

What would you guys say is Trump's greatest strength and weakness?

I would say his greatest strength is probably his ability to manipulate through speech (not meaning manipulation in a negative way necessarily), and weakness his lack of experience in policy.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump's greatest strength is his salesmanship. His greatest weakness is his recklessness.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

On a lighter note, this is a thing?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...esence-at-the-dnc_us_579a1f6ee4b02d5d5ed49c28


----------



## virus21

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

He's greatest strength is his outsider status. Weakness is his abrasiveness


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It's crazy how 'showbiz' these conventions are with singers and celebrities weighing in. It's as if they're produced by the likes of Michael Bay. To this Aussie where politics is very vanilla and boring it's quite weird.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Trump's greatest strength is his salesmanship. His greatest weakness is his recklessness.


Oooh good one. An aggressive salesman who convinces you your old car is killing you so you NEED the one he's selling.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> On a lighter note, this is a thing?
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...esence-at-the-dnc_us_579a1f6ee4b02d5d5ed49c28


WHAT'S RADLEY BOOPER DOING IN THE IMPACT ZONE?!


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

$hillary bot malfunction


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:lmao

An omen...

https://giant.gfycat.com/OddUnitedAmericanratsnake.webm


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

My fellow Californians @CamillePunk and @EL SHIV, even at the DNC, we may still hold on to some tendrils of pride in our state of California, doubtless destined to strongly resemble Venezuela in a decade or so...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/758877493981884417

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/758853568656908293


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> It's crazy how 'showbiz' these conventions are with singers and celebrities weighing in. It's as if they're produced by the likes of Michael Bay. To this Aussie where politics is very vanilla and boring it's quite weird.



... and the media even brags about all the big celebrities the Democrats got together like it fucking matters. I'm sure millions of young, undecided voters didn't know what to do until Chloe Grace Moretz told them to vote for Hillary. This shit makes me throw up.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> $hillary bot malfunction


What is this from? :lol


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










- Vic


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

To me, the biggest weakness of Trump's is his fluctuations when it comes to his message. The other night when talking to O'Reilly, he was pressed on increasing the federal minimum wage. He first said yes, then said no, then said the fed wage should be about $10, then said it should be left up to the states. At this stage of the game, you need a consistent message and stick to it.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*











Heard conflicting stories last night...one was that the Bernie delegates were planning on walking out, they locked the doors to keep them in. Then, there was this story that wouldn't surprise me in the least...

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/wow-dnc-advertisers-actors-fill-seats-dnc-convention/

And they were only going to pay them about $50 a day...what happened to the living wage they so highly promoted for Bernie's people? 

Actually, looks like Bernie has rode off into the sunset and dropped his official affiliation with the Democratic Party and returned to his independent ways. He made the announcement at a breakfast hosted by Bloomberg Politics the night after he spoke at the DNC. He pimped unity, then sold out the people who supported him by leaving them hold the bag.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> I'm as liberal as one can be. The best song to very accurately represent the war criminal Democrat nominee for President is this:
> https://youtu.be/ipz-zrQoxk0


I think this one may be better







Look at how perfect the lyrics are for her


So you think you're going to live your life alone
in darkness and seclusion... yeah, I know
you've been out there and tried to mix with the animals
and it just left you full of humiliated confusion
but the feeling of loneliness never leaves you
it haunts you everywhere you go
and then you meet me and your whole world changes
because everything I say is everything you've ever wanted to hear
so you drop your defenses, and you drop all your fears
and you're so busy feeling good that you never
question why things are going so well
You want to know why?

'Cause I'm a liar, yeah, I'm a liar
I'll tear your mind out, I'll burn your soul
I'll turn you into me, I'll turn you into me
'Cause I'm a liar, a liar, a liar, a liar...

I'll hide behind a smile and understanding eyes
and I'll tell you things that you already know so you can say:
I really identify with you, so much...
I'll come to you like an affliction but I'll leave you like an addiction
You'll never forget me... you wanna know why?

'Cause I'm a liar, yeah, I'm a liar
I'll rip your mind out, I'll burn your soul
I'll turn you into me, I'll turn you into me
'Cause I'm a liar, a liar, liar, liar, liar liar...

I don't know why I feel the need to lie and cause you so much pain
maybe it's something inside, maybe it's something I can't explain
'cause all I do is mess you up and lie to you
I'm a liar, oh, I am a liar
but if you'll give just one more chance I swear I will never lie to you again
'cause now I see the destructive power of a lie,
that's stronger than truth
I can't believe I ever hurt you, I swear I will never lie to you again
please, just give me more chance, I'll never lie to you again, no,
I swear... I will never tell a lie, I will never tell a lie, no, no...
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ho Ho Ho Ho! Sucker! Sucker! Sucker!

I am a liar, yeah, I am a liar, yeah
I like it, I feel good, I am a liar, yeah
I lie, I lie, I lie... oh, I lie,
I'll lie again, I'll again and again...I'll keep lying, I promise.


----------



## Malakai

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Posted this in another thread, but my sentiments exactly


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> What is this from? :lol


Her DNC speech


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






*EVEN BILL IS UNIMPRESSED!*


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> - Vic


First it was fake tweets FTL, now its fake quotes.










Fact Check time, http://www.snopes.com/prince-quote-politics/

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/04/cur...ke-prince-political-quote-republican-facebook


Got ask yourself why are Rethugs making up stuff like their thin skin leader Trump.


Here is some real information about Prince:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/21/technology/prince-yeswecode/

http://www.ebony.com/entertainment-culture/prince-philanthropy-causes#axzz4FnFVWqiN

http://voiceofdetroit.net/2016/04/27/the-passing-of-a-prince-the-final-call-front-page/


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



gamegenie said:


> First it was fake tweets FTL, now its fake quotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact Check time, http://www.snopes.com/prince-quote-politics/
> 
> http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/04/cur...ke-prince-political-quote-republican-facebook
> 
> 
> Got ask yourself why are Rethugs making up stuff like their thin skin leader Trump.
> 
> 
> Here is some real information about Prince:
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/21/technology/prince-yeswecode/
> 
> http://www.ebony.com/entertainment-culture/prince-philanthropy-causes#axzz4FnFVWqiN
> 
> http://voiceofdetroit.net/2016/04/27/the-passing-of-a-prince-the-final-call-front-page/


Pretty sure that quote existed long before the Trump phenomenon.

You ask YOURself why you're trying to use it against Trump.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

His greatest strength? His honesty.

YEA. His honesty! I said it.

He brought to light corruptions and FACTS the media dared not talk about.

That is also his greatest weakness as it may lead to someone killing him.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> - Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> His greatest strength? His honesty.
> 
> YEA. His honesty! I said it.
> 
> He brought to light corruptions and FACTS the media dared not talk about.
> 
> That is also his greatest weakness as it may lead to someone killing him.


You say honesty, I say a political opportunist giving a voice to the conspiracy theorists of the country. 

You are drinking too much of the right-wing media kool-aid if you can't even bring yourself to state a real weakness in Trump.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Watched Clinton Cash, very good! Cannot be written off as Right Wing propaganda since most of the sources for it are from left leaning news sources which shill for Hilary. The Clinton Foundation sounds like a very nice Christian Charity. Makes me wonder if those other emails will show up or if Putin has had them destroyed for future deals for Russia. Some scary stuff! 

If Bernie was intimidated and threatened that maybe why he stuck to his guns on supporting Hilary.. if they assaulted this poor man and he's scared I'll feel so bad for chiding him for his supporting her.. It's sad that even if this is true Hilary supporters won't care, won't matter if she is corrupt, they'll still vote for her.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> What would you guys say is Trump's greatest strength and weakness?
> 
> I would say his greatest strength is probably his ability to manipulate through speech (not meaning manipulation in a negative way necessarily), and weakness his lack of experience in policy.


Good question!

I think his greatest strength is his ability to plain speak and has a unique personality and is un-PC. Political Correctness is something most people hate, it goes against the 1st Amendment and the fact that the people that support it don't care makes it even more unfavorable. His business dealings have made him very good at sizing up people and speaking in a way they can relate to. His free speaking style makes him feel more natural in this regard.

His greatest weakness is that while un-PC there comes a time where openly being un-PC can make you appear as an asshole than as someone who is just speaking the truth. It would be like me asking you yeahbaby to clean up a mess you made, you made the mess but asking you politely isn't a big deal, now if I tell you to "Clean up that mess you fuckin pig, what the hell is wrong with you?" it would make me seem like a complete bitch! Granted YOU made the mess but it wasn't a time to be so blatantly aggressive about it. I find that Trump sometimes has a hard time dialing this back so it can make him look jerkish even if he's speaking the truth.

Another weakness would be not having a full solid stance, I don't call it flip flopping but as a business man he probably doesn't make promises he cannot keep because the market could change tomorrow. He does have a policy and he does have things he wants to do but sometimes it sounds like double talk, to use you as an example again it would be like if I said I'd call you tomorrow when you asked me when I'd call. Whereas with the double talk if you asked the same question I reply "I'll call you soon, don't you worry, you'll be hearing from me! Calling people is something that I do." Sure I gave you an assurance I'd call you but the question is, when? So it leaves people wondering if Trump will keep his promises or if he does, when will it happen?



I also believe something that doesn't detract from him is his sometimes occasional arrogance and swagger. While people continue to hammer that women, blacks and hispanics do not like him, I question this. Many women do not mind arrogant men, while Trump is not an R&B singer, Chris Brown beat RiRi to a pulp yet women supported him, like what he does, let's be honest many women love asshole men and the alpha male type. I don't think his woman approval rating is as low as what people make it out to be. His alpha male style would be charismatic to just about everyone who likes that. Take a look at the Ghostbusters movie, it was supposedly going to be huge and women and homosexuals would support it, it bombed. The only women that really "Liked" it were from 18-29- new wave feminist age, whereas women older liked it less than men the same age. It begs the question will younger women be put off by Trump but older ones and younger women who like alpha types be more inclined to vote for him?

The black vote, he has higher reception among blacks than any other Republican before him. His swagger, OTT antics and persona I could see jiving with blacks who like that style and with blacks who are sick of the democratic nonsense. OTT is all the rage within many communities, and while he is not a hip young man, his bravado and stances could be seen as "Gangsta", he's not boring like Sanders and to be frank the blacks only support Hilary due to Bill (who wasn't good for black people oddly enough) and if Hilary looks weak and gets punked by Trump and called out and Hilary fumbles like she did during that time she lied for like 15 minutes on TV, that will cost her many votes. Nobody likes a bitch, pun not intended!

The hispanic vote, while we've seen hispanics riot and leftists pee themselves and cry and talk about how Trump is racist, the bottom line is many of those hispanics were illegal, illegals cannot vote. I'd not be surprised if come voting time if the polls around hispanic areas with large numbers of illegals aren't watched. I expect an ID vote where you have to prove you're a citizen to vote. (Which actually makes sense.) If Trump can contest that the Democrats committed fraud (since they actually did commit fraud against Bernie) we could see the Democrats taking massive loses in votes and maybe even legal issues. Any tricks the Democrats can do will be watched, they're already on thin ice with this community anyways for their admittance of regulating them to just a statistic. Being Latina, I can tell you that many legal hispanics feel like Trump does about illegals. While they may not openly say it, the voter booths will be a telling story.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The economy is not doing well despite the narrative peddled at the DNC. Why not to vote for







? 

It's the economy, stupid.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ew-a-less-than-forecast-1-2-in-second-quarter

From Bloomberg:


*



The U.S. economy expanded less than forecast in the second quarter after a weaker start to the year than previously estimated as companies slimmed down inventories and remained wary of investing amid shaky global demand.

Gross domestic product rose at a 1.2 percent annualized rate after a 0.8 percent advance the prior quarter, Commerce Department figures showed Friday in Washington. The median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 2.5 percent second-quarter increase.

The report raises the risk to the outlook at a time Federal Reserve policy makers are looking for sustained improvement. While consumers were resilient last quarter, businesses were cautious -- cutting back on investment and aggressively reducing stockpiles amid weak global markets, heightened uncertainty and the lingering drag from a stronger dollar.

“We’re just muddling through," said Joseph LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. in New York, who had forecast a 1 percent gain in second-quarter GDP. “Consumer spending looks good, but the problem is that the rest of the economy is soft. The economy remains vulnerable to downside risks. The Fed is right to be cautious."










Private fixed investment, which includes residential and business spending, dropped at a 3.2 percent pace in the second quarter, the most in seven years.

With Friday’s report, the Commerce Department also issued its annual revisions, updating the data back through 2013. The first-quarter’s reading was revised from a previously reported 1.1 percent gain.

For a story on U.S. GDP revisions, click here.

The new breakdown shows a more pronounced slowdown in the economy heading into 2016. The year-over-year growth rate cooled from 3.3 percent in last year’s first quarter to 1.9 percent in the final three months of 2015, rather than the previous downshift from 2.9 percent to 2 percent.

The easing in growth continued into the first half of this year. The year-over-year pace for the first quarter of 2016 was revised down to 1.6 percent from 2.1 percent, the revisions showed. That revised trajectory has implications for Fed officials, as they’re faced with an expansion that has been steadily losing steam.

Friday’s report also showed that in the second quarter, GDP expanded at a 1.2 percent rate from the same period a year earlier.










Economists’ second-quarter estimates for GDP, or the value of all goods and services produced, ranged from 1 percent to 3.2 percent, according to a Bloomberg survey. The growth estimate is the first of three for the quarter, with the other releases scheduled for August and September when more information becomes available.

Inventories were reduced by $8.1 billion in the second quarter, the most since third quarter of 2011 and subtracting 1.16 percentage points from the economy. At the same time, leaner inventories could set the stage for a pickup in production later this year should demand hold up.

Household consumption, which accounts for about 70 percent of the economy, grew at a 4.2 percent annualized rate, the biggest jump since the end of 2014 and adding 2.83 percentage points to growth. That followed a revised 1.6 percent increase from January through March. The Bloomberg survey median forecast for the second quarter was 4.4 percent.
Business Spending

Corporate spending on equipment, structures and intellectual property, decreased an annualized 2.2 percent after a 3.4 percent fall in the first quarter. Outlays for equipment dropped for the fourth time in the past five quarters. Spending on structures -- everything from factories to shops to oil rigs -- have increased in just one quarter since the end of 2014.

Inventories and the trade gap are two of the most volatile components in GDP calculations. To get a better sense of demand in the U.S., economists look at final sales to domestic purchasers, or GDP excluding inventories and net exports. That measure increased 2.1 percent last quarter after a 1.2 percent gain.

Also holding back economic growth in the second quarter was a decrease in residential investment, which fell at a 6.1 percent pace. That was the most since the third quarter of 2010 and marked the first decrease in two years.

Government spending also shrank last quarter, declining 0.9 percent, the most in more than two years as outlays for the military fell. States and municipalities also cut back.

The GDP report also showed price pressures remain limited. A measure of inflation, which is tied to consumer spending and strips out food and energy costs, climbed at a 1.7 percent annualized pace compared with 2.1 percent in the prior quarter.

Fed policy makers, who left interest rates unchanged this week, said risks to the U.S. outlook have “diminished” and the labor market is getting tighter, suggesting conditions are turning more favorable for an increase in borrowing costs.

Click to expand...

*


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:lmao at all the dumb Trump supporters shitting on Bernie Sanders supporters. Yeah, that's gonna make them want to vote for Trump.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Punkhead said:


> :lmao at all the dumb Trump supporters shitting on Bernie Sanders supporters. Yeah, that's gonna make them want to vote for Trump.


Many Trump supporters don't care and know that intelligent Bernie supporters will do the following:

- Not vote at all (since they like no one)
- Vote against Hillary (vote for Trump)

Intelligent Bernie supporters would never vote for Hillary, only the extremely ignorant would.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Punkhead said:


> :lmao at all the dumb Trump supporters shitting on Bernie Sanders supporters. Yeah, that's gonna make them want to vote for Trump.


Most of them were never voting for Trump anyways, most are voting for Jill Stein or writing in Bernie or not even voting at all. 

And i love that bullshit pew poll claiming 90% of Bernie supporters will vote for Hillary when other polls were at 45% just a month ago and that was before all those email leaks came out proving the corruption against Bernie Sanders and now they want us to think that 90% of Sanders supporters are voting Hillary LOL

No one I know that is a Sanders fan is voting for Hillary.


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Gandhi said:


> Many Trump supporters don't care and know that intelligent Bernie supporters will do the following:
> 
> - Not vote at all (since they like no one)
> - Vote against Hillary (vote for Trump)
> 
> Intelligent Bernie supporters would never vote for Hillary, only the extremely ignorant would.


I agree, no self-respecting Bernie supporter who cares about their future and their country would ever vote for Hillary. As sad as it is, Trump is the lesser of two evils here, but if I was American I would probably vote 3rd party and just throw my vote away or not vote at all.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Punkhead said:


> I agree, no self-respecting Bernie supporter who cares about their future and their country would ever vote for Hillary. As sad as it is, Trump is the lesser of two evils here, but if I was American I would probably vote 3rd party and just throw my vote away or not vote at all.


Why risk Hillary winning?

Surely you realize Bernie supporters voting for Trump don't like him, but just fear Hillary winning because of ignorance in America from feminists or your average Joe? You know 3rd parties won't win, and that you voting for them is just you risking Hillary win, so why not vote Trump? Bernie's fans vote Trump for a reason.


----------



## gamegenie

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Punkhead said:


> I agree, no self-respecting Bernie supporter who cares about their future and their country would ever vote for Hillary. As sad as it is, Trump is the lesser of two evils here, but if I was American I would probably vote 3rd party and just throw my vote away or not vote at all.


Thank goodness you are not American. We need one less idiot voting for Donald Trump in this country. 

Lesser of two evils my ass. Donald Trump is a damn fool. 

Look at all of his moron supporters ITT, instead of looking up facts are wasting their time taking and spreading disinformation. 

You point out their lies, they continue on spreading more lies, like leeches.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/758897042412277760
That unbiased media. :banderas


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Most of them were never voting for Trump anyways, most are voting for Jill Stein or writing in Bernie or not even voting at all.
> 
> And i love that bullshit pew poll claiming 90% of Bernie supporters will vote for Hillary when other polls were at 45% just a month ago and that was before all those email leaks came out proving the corruption against Bernie Sanders and now they want us to think that 90% of Sanders supporters are voting Hillary LOL
> 
> No one I know that is a Sanders fan is voting for Hillary.


I feel really bad for bernie, when Beatles showed me the picture I got a bit teary eyed, nobody should be assaulted or hurt for any belief they have and not Bernie, sure I didn't agree with many of his policies but hurting an old man who just wants to help people is disgusting. If it's true and can be proven I'd hope Hilary would go to jail but we both know there's no chance of that. Some black "super predator" would get the sentence! Maybe Bernie was planning to derail the convention and start up his campaign.. but looks like Hilary made sure that didn't happen.. if the DNC was willing to commit fraud and break the law to stop Bernie, beating him up and threatening him with violence sounds possible. They may have even threatened his supporters and maybe that's why he was trying to hard to clam his supporters down. 

This is starting to play out like a really scary movie.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Punkhead said:


> :lmao at all the dumb Trump supporters shitting on Bernie Sanders supporters. Yeah, that's gonna make them want to vote for Trump.


Don't need them to vote Trump, just don't vote for Hillary. 

I have far more respect for the Bernie supporters standing out in the elements pressed up against the DNC's border wall protesting a rigged system than their candidate who is in the air conditioned building kissing the ring of the devil he spent the last year telling us was owned by Wall Street and was unqualified to be president.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> This is starting to play out like a really scary movie.


The Clintons are basically a less attractive and less charismatic version of the Underwoods from House of Cards, but probably worse.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Don't need them to vote Trump, just don't vote for Hillary.
> 
> I have far more respect for the Bernie supporters standing out in the elements pressed up against the DNC's border wall protesting a rigged system than their candidate who is in the air conditioned building kissing the ring of the devil he spent the last year telling us was owned by Wall Street and was unqualified to be president.


The most ironic thing she said in her speech, "follow the money' yeah that is exactly what she will do but not in the way she claims she will. Its laughable anyone thinks she will go after wall st. especially when they told her she better not choose LIz Warren as her VP and she did not. She also had the chance to refuse their donor money for the general and do the Bernie thing $27 a a time and she said no.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Bernie is not being assaulted or physically pressured 

Professorial leg breaks would not leave marks or any type of evidence, they would threaten family or loved ones and would definitely take off rings or any type defining item

Not to mention using force on a politician is the stupidest thing you can do, you can't be at this level without some type of media connection and there is always source willing to run any story

political pressure, yes

physical pressure, stupid, sloppy and not in a million years


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Most of them were never voting for Trump anyways, most are voting for Jill Stein or writing in Bernie or not even voting at all.
> 
> And i love that bullshit pew poll claiming 90% of Bernie supporters will vote for Hillary when other polls were at 45% just a month ago and that was before all those email leaks came out proving the corruption against Bernie Sanders and now they want us to think that 90% of Sanders supporters are voting Hillary LOL
> 
> No one I know that is a Sanders fan is voting for Hillary.


Most recent poll I've seen has 54% of Bernie supporters planning on voting for Hillary in the general election, with 5% voting for Trump.

Conversely, only 46% of non-Trump voters in the Republican primary said they would vote for him in the general election, with a whopping 24% crossing over to vote for Hillary.

Just crunching the numbers real quick, if that plotted out over the actual share of primary voters each got, Hillary would be picking up about 7.1 million to Trump's 650k from Sanders, while Trump would pick up just over 7.8 million to Hillary's nearly 4.1 million from non-Trump Republicans. But those numbers are kind of meh because they wouldn't really reflect caucuses, etc. The percentages are more interesting to me.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> Most recent poll I've seen has 54% of Bernie supporters planning on voting for Hillary in the general election, with 5% voting for Trump.
> 
> Conversely, only 46% of non-Trump voters in the Republican primary said they would vote for him in the general election, with a whopping 24% crossing over to vote for Hillary.
> 
> Just crunching the numbers real quick, if that plotted out over the actual share of primary voters each got, Hillary would be picking up about 7.1 million to Trump's 650k from Sanders, while Trump would pick up just over 7.8 million to Hillary's nearly 4.1 million from non-Trump Republicans. But those numbers are kind of meh because they wouldn't really reflect caucuses, etc. The percentages are more interesting to me.


That sounds way more accurate than the 90% BS number. I can see the 45% jumping up to 54% after Hillary adopted some of Sanders policies but we ll see if that goes back down after the email leaks.

the election is probably going to be close, unless something disastrous comes out against Trump or Hillary.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> What capitalistic system?


Allow me to elaborate.

We currently live in a capitalistic system where the efforts of many go to the enrichment of few. The people who produce the wealth do not partake in the wealth.

For example: the Walton family, the owners of Wal-Mart, are worth more than the bottom 40% of America. They employee millions, they rake in billions, and yet, their employees suck billions from the taxpayers. That's corporate welfare. Hard working people like you and I are subsidizing Wal-Mart's low wages. WE have to pay welfare to their employees, so the Walton family can be billionaires. And that's bullshit.

Let's say there is a company with 10 employees and 1 owner. Let's say those employees make 50k a year and let's say the company made a million for that year. That means the 10 employees took home 500k of the profit, while the owner took home the other 500k. But hey, 50k a year ain't too shabby, so let's not complain. Let's say that the next year the company makes 2 million. Now, the employees are still making 50k a year but the owner just pulled in a cool 1.5 mil. That's where I call bullshit. The employees are the ones who worked their asses off to produce that profit. They shouldn't be making the same wages for all their hard work while all the extra profit go to the top.

Now let's talk about the minimum wage and the push to raise it to $15 an hour. Right wingers cry foul because they claim it would cost jobs. In principle, I agree with them. But, that's because I disagree with hourly wages to begin with. If you work for a business, your wages should be determined by the amount of business that is done. If you work for a successful business that makes loads of profit, you should share in that profit because you helped produce said profit. The way things work in our capitalistic society, however, has the worker class making shit while the owner class rakes in the majority of the profit. To give credit to the right wingers, yes, a mandatory minimum wage that high WOULD cost jobs. Not every business does enough business to pay their employees that much. That's still no excuse for the businesses who CAN afford to pay their employees that much to NOT do so. Wages should not be determined by an hourly wage. They should be determined by profit and how much profit that business makes. If the business makes more profit, the people who worked to provide that profit to the business should be sharing in the wealth, NOT working for poverty wages while the taxpayer gets burdened with their low wages.

If we had a different kind of economy that rewarded employees for their hard work for a successful business, then we wouldn't need the kind of government programs that provides welfare for people who make shit pay. Having a smaller government is something I happen to agree with right wingers about. However, for us to successfully do that, we need an economy that more evenly distributes the wealth that is created by the working class.

To live in a consumer based economy, the consumer needs purchasing power for that economy to function. The way things are set up now, that consumer power keeps getting weaker and weaker. Jobs are being outsourced. Student debt is rising. The vast majority of the wealth is going to the top. It's a recipe for disaster and it's not a system that is sustainable. Eventually, there won't be enough jobs and there won't be enough money and the whole fucking thing will come crashing down. It's happened before and it will happen again. Until we can create a society with a healthy economy that is long term sustainable, we'll keep going through these cycles of crashes. Those at the top don't give a fuck, because their wealth is secured. It's people like you and me that always end up suffering when the crashes happen. Who got the bailout last time? Was it us or was it them? Hint: it wasn't us.

I'm opposed to the $15 an hour bullshit because it doesn't solve the underlying capitalistic problems with how we distribute wealth to begin with. The owners of the USA treat us like a serf class. Sure, we're tossed a few extra crumbs every once in awhile but the systemic problem of the owner class is never really questioned. It's always assumed that they own us and we have to be their workers. As someone who works for his own wealth, I say fuck them. Until the masses of sheep open their eyes to how they are truly being robbed blind, this shit is going to continue. They'll just baa their way to work every day, not questioning the fact that they are actual economic slaves. That's why the "liberal class" pisses me off so much. They willingly march themselves into slavery just so long as they can force right wingers to live by their ideas of social justice.

I say fuck that shit. I'd rather burn it all to the ground than live under left-wing OR right-wing tyranny. Freedom is pretty goddamned important to me. I oppose tyranny, no matter which side it comes from; no matter what that tyranny might entail. It might be forced social justice or it might be forced economic slavery but either way, I will always fight on the side of the people against the side of the powerful.

I hope that helps clear up my position with you.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Allow me to elaborate.
> 
> We currently live in a capitalistic system where the efforts of many go to the enrichment of few. The people who produce the wealth do not partake in the wealth.
> 
> For example: the Walton family, the owners of Wal-Mart, are worth more than the bottom 40% of America. They employee millions, they rake in billions, and yet, their employees suck billions from the taxpayers. That's corporate welfare. Hard working people like you and I are subsidizing Wal-Mart's low wages. WE have to pay welfare to their employees, so the Walton family can be billionaires. And that's bullshit.
> 
> Let's say there is a company with 10 employees and 1 owner. Let's say those employees make 50k a year and let's say the company made a million for that year. That means the 10 employees took home 500k of the profit, while the owner took home the other 500k. But hey, 50k a year ain't too shabby, so let's not complain. Let's say that the next year the company makes 2 million. Now, the employees are still making 50k a year but the owner just pulled in a cool 1.5 mil. That's where I call bullshit. The employees are the ones who worked their asses off to produce that profit. They shouldn't be making the same wages for all their hard work while all the extra profit go to the top.
> 
> Now let's talk about the minimum wage and the push to raise it to $15 an hour. Right wingers cry foul because they claim it would cost jobs. In principle, I agree with them. But, that's because I disagree with hourly wages to begin with. If you work for a business, your wages should be determined by the amount of business that is done. If you work for a successful business that makes loads of profit, you should share in that profit because you helped produce said profit. The way things work in our capitalistic society, however, has the worker class making shit while the owner class rakes in the majority of the profit. To give credit to the right wingers, yes, a mandatory minimum wage that high WOULD cost jobs. Not every business does enough business to pay their employees that much. That's still no excuse for the businesses who CAN afford to pay their employees that much to NOT do so. Wages should not be determined by an hourly wage. They should be determined by profit and how much profit that business makes. If the business makes more profit, the people who worked to provide that profit to the business should be sharing in the wealth, NOT working for poverty wages while the taxpayer gets burdened with their low wages.
> 
> If we had a different kind of economy that rewarded employees for their hard work for a successful business, then we wouldn't need the kind of government programs that provides welfare for people who make shit pay. Having a smaller government is something I happen to agree with right wingers about. However, for us to successfully do that, we need an economy that more evenly distributes the wealth that is created by the working class.
> 
> To live in a consumer based economy, the consumer needs purchasing power for that economy to function. The way things are set up now, that consumer power keeps getting weaker and weaker. Jobs are being outsourced. Student debt is rising. The vast majority of the wealth is going to the top. It's a recipe for disaster and it's not a system that is sustainable. Eventually, there won't be enough jobs and there won't be enough money and the whole fucking thing will come crashing down. It's happened before and it will happen again. Until we can create a society with a healthy economy that is long term sustainable, we'll keep going through these cycles of crashes. Those at the top don't give a fuck, because their wealth is secured. It's people like you and me that always end up suffering when the crashes happen. Who got the bailout last time? Was it us or was it them? Hint: it wasn't us.
> 
> I'm opposed to the $15 an hour bullshit because it doesn't solve the underlying capitalistic problems with how we distribute wealth to begin with. The owners of the USA treat us like a serf class. Sure, we're tossed a few extra crumbs every once in awhile but the systemic problem of the owner class is never really questioned. It's always assumed that they own us and we have to be their workers. As someone who works for his own wealth, I say fuck them. Until the masses of sheep open their eyes to how they are truly being robbed blind, this shit is going to continue. They'll just baa their way to work every day, not questioning the fact that they are actual economic slaves. That's why the "liberal class" pisses me off so much. They willingly march themselves into slavery just so long as they can force right wingers to live by their ideas of social justice.
> 
> I say fuck that shit. I'd rather burn it all to the ground than live under left-wing OR right-wing tyranny. Freedom is pretty goddamned important to me. I oppose tyranny, no matter which side it comes from; no matter what that tyranny might entail. It might be forced social justice or it might be forced economic slavery but either way, I will always fight on the side of the people against the side of the powerful.
> 
> I hope that helps clear up my position with you.


That's a fucking horrible idea 

Under your system their would be no reason to work for anyone but the most successful companies, successful corporations would hire less people so they would not have to dole out more and would cap their profits to make sure what they have to pay out is low 

Your system would be far worse than what we have now and would encourage even more massive corruption and a "do well but not perfect" thought process which is already a problem

The fact that your prime solution is "burn it down and start from scratch" is the exact opposite of the goal of societal evolution and the worst thing you can do


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I've always wondered where the hell those polls come from.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> Under your system their would be no reason to work for anyone but the most successful companies


Well, first of all, I'd enforce the actual anti-trust laws that people figured out a goddamned century ago, so we don't have these mega-asshole corporations to begin with. I'm a person who believes in Mainstreet USA. Commoners can't own and operate individual businesses anymore because the free reign corporations crush them.



stevefox1200 said:


> successful corporations would hire less people so they would not have to dole out more and would cap their profits to make sure what they have to pay out is low


A: see my first response.
B: automated workforces are a different argument altogether.



stevefox1200 said:


> Your system would be far worse than what we have now and would encourage even more massive corruption and a "do well but not perfect" thought process which is already a problem.


What is your solution, in your all-infinite wisdom? Continue letting people be economic slaves while the middle class pays for their welfare?



stevefox1200 said:


> The fact that your prime solution is "burn it down and start from scratch" is the exact opposite of the goal of societal evolution and the worst thing you can do


In a perfect world, we'd not have to burn it down. In the real world, have you not been paying attention? The corporations and the oligarchs own our entire fucking government. You think they're going to give that shit up willingly? You have faith in our voting system? If so, good luck with that baaing.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

My solution is to just not have a state interfering in the economy in the first place. :draper2 No subsidies or welfare for anyone. Business owners can compete with one another in how they choose to pay their employees and the best, smartest people will go to work for the companies that reward their workers the most. There would be so many more jobs available without all these regulations that make it near impossible for small business owners to get anywhere, that we'd actually have a situation where businesses compete against each other for the best employees (meaning higher wages, accomodations, benefits, etc.) rather than the current system where workers are competing against each other for scarce employment opportunities, and thus are willing to take lower wages and less benefits. The answer, as usual, is simply to have _less_ government.

Under this system corporations (which are state constructs) would not exist. Monopolies would also be even more difficult to maintain as there'd be little stopping new businesses from propping up and specifically meeting the needs of those disenchanted with the big businesses. In our current system, those corporations just use the power of the state to make that extremely difficult.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Well, first of all, I'd enforce the actual anti-trust laws that people figured out a goddamned century ago, so we don't have these mega-asshole corporations to begin with. I'm a person who believes in Mainstreet USA. Commoners can't own and operate individual businesses anymore because the free reign corporations crush them.
> 
> 
> 
> A: see my first response.
> B: automated workforces are a different argument altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your solution, in your all-infinite wisdom? Continue letting people be economic slaves while the middle class pays for their welfare?
> 
> 
> 
> In a perfect world, we'd not have to burn it down. In the real world, have you not been paying attention? The corporations and the oligarchs own our entire fucking government. You think they're going to give that shit up willingly? You have faith in our voting system? If so, good luck with that baaing.


Remember the French revolution?

A full circle revolution where they turned on each other and reinstalled a new emperor just to end the chaos 

Just because the "people" want to do something doesn't mean it right nor will they benefit from at 

You know JFK and Lincoln, both were hated during their terms and barely got elected?

Well, Oswald and Booth are not American heroes 

its 2016, we can settle our problems without "forcing" things to be the way we want them to be


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> My solution is to just not have a state interfering in the economy in the first place. :draper2 No subsidies or welfare for anyone. Business owners can compete with one another in how they choose to pay their employees and the best, smartest people will go to work for the companies that reward their workers the most. There would be so many more jobs available without all these regulations that make it near impossible for small business owners to get anywhere, that we'd actually have a situation where businesses compete against each other for the best employees (meaning higher wages, accomodations, benefits, etc.) rather than the current system where workers are competing against each other for scarce employment opportunities, and thus are willing to take lower wages and less benefits. The answer, as usual, is simply to have _less_ government.
> 
> Under this system corporations (which are state constructs) would not exist. Monopolies would also be even more difficult to maintain as there'd be little stopping new businesses from propping up and specifically meeting the needs of those disenchanted with the big businesses. In our current system, those corporations just use the power of the state to make that extremely difficult.


C'mon, man. You're describing the late 1800s/early 1900s. You're describing the robber baron era. They had no government interference back then too. How did that work out for them?


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> C'mon, man. You're describing the late 1800s/early 1900s. You're describing the robber baron era. They had no government interference back then too. How did that work out for them?


Your solutions are to force things to be the way you think they should be and say "its for THE PEOPLE" to make it OK

That's what dictators do 

The reason we have multiple branches of government and checks and balances is because we accepted that its too much for one person to know whats right for everyone

Its like we solved this problem 300 years ago but everyone keeps wanting their damn emperor back, just a "good one" instead of a "bad one" 

If a politician I agreed with 100% became president and started using executive powers to force laws that I believed in and that would "befit THE PEOPLE" I would turn against him because he is breaking the very foundation of his position

I believe in the system, its not perfect and its abused but its takes strong willed and good people to fix it and make it better, not throwing it out every time something you don't like happens


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> You say honesty, I say a political opportunist giving a voice to the conspiracy theorists of the country.
> 
> You are drinking too much of the right-wing media kool-aid if you can't even bring yourself to state a real weakness in Trump.


See, its thinking like that that has pissed us off. You may not think it's justified because the left has been controlling the narrative all these years, but the right wing has it's own intelligence and we are tired of you pretending what we think has no merit. Trump has a weakness, i told you his weakness. you are either too small minded to understand what I mean or too arrogant to let me have that opinion one.

This is why the left is going to lose this election. Too much regression and shushing of public concern..


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> C'mon, man. You're describing the late 1800s/early 1900s. You're describing the robber baron era. They had no government interference back then too. How did that work out for them?


Can you be more specific with your criticism please?

In any case, I recommend this excerpt from a great Milton Friedman speech:


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> C'mon, man. You're describing the late 1800s/early 1900s. You're describing the robber baron era. They had no government interference back then too. How did that work out for them?


^

Whines about the circumstances that lead to the establishment of one of the richest, most free, most powerful nations the world has ever seen while promoting garbage theories that have a well-documented record of consistently abysmal failure, responsible for much of the most atrocious destruction of life and wealth that the world has ever seen.

:lmao

Not sure if srs.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Can you be more specific with your criticism please?


I know you well enough to know that you're not a fucking moron. What the fuck do you think is going to happen to the working class without protections put in place? Do you think the billionaire class is going to treat their slaves well out of the goodness of their own heart? You ain't that fucking stupid. Let's talk real solutions instead of your fantasy bullshit.

How about responding to some policy positions? Do you believe that the worker class should live on poverty wages while producing wealth for the owner class?


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> I feel really bad for bernie,


I don't.










#NoRefunds 

- Vic


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I do wish Bernie would have fought Clinton at the DNC. That would have galvanized his supporters more than "Oh well, We'll just haveta' try hahduh!"


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...ion-Fraud-Sanders-Would-Have-Won-by-Landslide

Election Justice USA Study Finds that Without Election Fraud Sanders Would Have Won by Landslide


Well, 184 is only the upper estimate considering election fraud. Not even counting in the immense MSM bias, lack of debates, DNC bias/shene....ns outside of fraud, Hillary’s huge funding thanks to corruption… It should have been a landslide for Bernie!


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

tater's gonna tate


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

How did I miss Ben Carson talking about Hillary looking up to Saul Alinsky who, according to Carson, worshiped the devil?

THINK ABOUT THAT


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Goku said:


> tater's gonna tate


and I'm just gonna shake, shake shake, shake, shake it off. I shake it off.


MrMister said:


> How did I miss Ben Carson talking about Hillary looking up to Saul Alinsky who, according to Carson, worshiped the devil?
> 
> THINK ABOUT THAT


Carson is such a nutter. It's amazing how he's able to say the craziest things and yet still be boring as hell as he does it. I was falling asleep almost immediately once he began talking, and then once he got to LUCIFER (which was like a minute or two into his speech) I just turned off the TV. Then I had to deal with blind Trump marks on Reddit defending the LUCIFER allegation and calling me a Hill shill because I found it utterly ridiculous.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> I do wish Bernie would have fought Clinton at the DNC. That would have galvanized his supporters more than "Oh well, We'll just haveta' try hahduh!"


I wish that once the DNC email chicanery was revealed that Bernie would have retracted his endorsement and joined the Green Party ticket. The convention would have been much more enjoyable to me that way.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



EL SHIV said:


> I wish that once the DNC email chicanery was revealed that Bernie would have retracted his endorsement and joined the Green Party ticket. The convention would have been much more enjoyable to me that way.


Assange said that more emails are going to come out.. looks like it's not over yet. Oh boy, could you imagine if there is emails between Lynch and the Clintons? FBI getting put on the grill sounds good!
@bm the emails expose the DNB for corruption so why isn't there an investigation? I find it ironic that the FBI and State Department says Hilary made violations but, won't go after her.. now there is more proof of corruption, how long before they can stop ignoring the obvious lawbreaking?


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:lol I just wrote a great deal about the "robber barons" and that entire generation of Americans but I lost it all when I lost power. So here it is 3:30am and I'm beginning anew.

Long story short: most of the "robber barons" didn't really rob anybody. James. J. Hill, Andrew Mellon, John D. Rockefeller and Cornelius Vanderbilt, among a host of others, were highly creative entrepreneurs who produced thousands of jobs while bringing to market only the best-quality product at competitive prices. There was another cluster of "robber barons," however, probably most well-represented by the case of Edward Collins in railroads and steamships among others. Indeed, the railroad industry was the most governmentally-subsidized part of the entire economy of the latter half of the nineteenth century, and perhaps the truest reason why the Republican Party came to be. 

It's funny; was just watching the TNT miniseries _Rough Riders_, which I recalled seeing when it first aired almost twenty years ago. Certainly, Theodore Roosevelt's courage is commendable. That said, it is hardly a coincidence that one of the first items on Theodore Roosevelt's agenda following the 1900 election was to invite J.P. Morgan to a dinner of considerable opulence. TR's second Secretary of State and good friend Elihu Root was the personal attorney for Morgan, and Root quickly appointed another close friend of TR's, and Morgan partner, Robert Bacon. Bacon would become Secretary of State before long. Vice President of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad, owned by J.P. Morgan, Paul Morton, became TR's first Secretary of the Navy. Morton's Assistant Secretary was Herbert Satterlee, son-in-law to J.P. Morgan after marrying Louisa P. Morgan. Most of Theodore Roosevelt's assaults upon monopolies were arms of directorships that were competitors of J.P. Morgan. 

TR represents the definitive quantum leap (backward) for the U.S. regime's sense of balance. He conveniently decided to break with past presidential precedent and interpret the U.S. Constitution and its 10th Amendment in a manner so that he would be able to do whatever he wanted, more or less. Rather than see the Constitution as an inherently restrictive document, as was clearly intended by those who composed and constructed it, he happily said that he looked at it as allowing anything which was not expressly forbidden by it or its amendments. In this sense, @Tater's right; philosophically speaking, for those who cherish republicanism as defined by Cicero and the taut, coexisting-but-antagonistic balance of three respective branches of government, it is a fun exercise to consider what is or what is not "constitutional" but since the Constitution is a "living document" in the inane wording of Thurgood Marshall, it is, in fact, dead. And has been for a long, long time now. 



MrMister said:


> How did I miss Ben Carson talking about Hillary looking up to Saul Alinsky who, according to Carson, worshiped the devil?
> 
> THINK ABOUT THAT





CamillePunk said:


> and I'm just gonna shake, shake shake, shake, shake it off. I shake it off.Carson is such a nutter. It's amazing how he's able to say the craziest things and yet still be boring as hell as he does it. I was falling asleep almost immediately once he began talking, and then once he got to LUCIFER (which was like a minute or two into his speech) I just turned off the TV. Then I had to deal with blind Trump marks on Reddit defending the LUCIFER allegation and calling me a Hill shill because I found it utterly ridiculous.


There are more things in heaven and Earth, *Camille*/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy...  

This is an interesting case.

Firstly, Ben Carson is perhaps the most uncharismatic person I have ever seen speak on television. Since I was busy working on a host of matters during that period of time during the RNC I was mostly just listening to speeches in the background. Yet his soft, unremarkable and monotone voice almost put me to sleep. He should be making DVDs of himself reading lullabies because that would possibly be wonderful for millions of babies and small children. 

However!

His claim about Lucifer? It isn't just smoke (from hellfire) and mirrors.

A day or two later I looked up Carson's speech online to read the transcript. Firstly, it was actually a thoroughly "okay" speech. A bit dry on the whole, but compared to the experience of hearing it from him, it may as well have been San Francisco Bay. Barack Obama produces meaningless platitudes and political cotton candy and makes it sound like some mountain consisting of high-minded ideals. Carson takes flat speeches and makes them verbal drying paint.

All right, that is more than enough on Carson's inadequacies as a speaker.

Point is, I remembered almost precisely what Carson was referring to once I read his speech online. I had read Saul Alinsky's book _Rules for Radicals_ as I started going to university, along with a number of other considerable works of the left because I wanted to learn more about how leftists seek to defeat all of their adversaries. My main takeaway from Alinsky's book, which has a sort of viciousness to it (not surprisingly), is that it serves as a follow-up to Antonio Gramsci and Gramsci's many intonations of what is now routinely called the "Gramscian Long March Through the Institutions." Alinsky truly provides a list of "rules" for "radicals"--and none other than Hillary Clinton, who met Alinsky in Chicago and Obama, would serve as two of his brightest pupils. Obama, especially, has adopted just about every last "rule" Alinsky enumerated in his book. 

Anyway, I remembered it differently from Carson. And, now, with Alinsky's book sitting right here, having just knocked a quarter of an inch of dust off of its cover, and only a couple of feet away from me, I can now confirm that Carson is, technically speaking, *wrong*. _Rules for Radicals_ is _not_ dedicated to Lucifer. "To Irene," the dedication page reads, quite innocuously.

"Phew," you're probably saying right now.

Hold on.

Carson erred in saying that the book is dedicated to the Prince of Darkness... But what if Alinsky praises Satan on a page that can only be described as an "Acknowledgement"?

Because, as I flip to the very next page, these words appear, just about precisely how I recalled them when I first sat down to read this book, _Rules for Radicals_, which many organs of the American left almost continually hail as their greatest post-World War II blueprint, which Hillary called, in the 1980s once, "my favorite book," which Obama has taught in classrooms as he droned on and on about the revolutionary act of community-organizing, this book, sitting here now, which I began reading all those years ago on a late summer evening about an hour before a concert was to begin at UC Berkeley's Greek Theatre...

*"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom--Lucifer."*

Real life, right? You can't make this sort of thing up. 

Ultimately, it's a shame that Carson said that Alinsky--who, by all measures that I can gather and judge by, was a truly warped person, mostly just a petty criminal and ideological bully--dedicated his book to Lucifer, because, were this a jury trial, I would have to declare "Not Guilty" on behalf of Alinsky. 

He did not, in fact, dedicate his most important work to the Devil. That honor goes to Irene.

Alinsky did, however, acknowledge one of his great inspirations. 



EL SHIV said:


> I wish that once the DNC email chicanery was revealed that Bernie would have retracted his endorsement and joined the Green Party ticket. The convention would have been much more enjoyable to me that way.


I have recently come to the conclusion that, were this a race between Dr. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, and I was forced to vote for one or the other, I would cast my vote for the former. Johnson's wishy-washy Republican-lite, "Hillary's a great public servant," stereotypically marijuana-obsessed, non-noninterventionist campaign honestly leaves me chilled-to-the-bone cold. 

Stein has impressed me over and over with her grasp of the issues and the personalities, her brutal attacks on the Clintons (she and Donald Trump sometimes sound indistinguishable), an American political dynasty which she rightly regards as the enemy of all which is decent and honest, and her avid invective directed toward the senseless slaughter that yawns out across the Islamic world due to the U.S.'s crazed foreign policy, from Libya to Syria to Yemen, et. al. 

Between the slightly creepy faux libertarian who sees Hillary Clinton as a "wonderful public servant" and the principled, ostensibly wholly honest, and personally kind Green Party candidate, I find myself in this peculiar position where I would have to pick the latter. The blood of the innocent for which this government ruling over us here in the U.S. is responsible is too great in its volume for me ignore. Washington, D.C.'s army of ghoulish bureaucrats, defense contractors and assorted parasites who call the shots are determined to drain us like vampires; in foreign policy, the president is effectively dictator, and I would like to believe that Stein wouldn't continue supporting civilian-targeting rebels or sanctioning reckless bombing strikes.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> I have recently come to the conclusion that, were this a race between Dr. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, and I was forced to vote for one or the other, I would cast my vote for the former. Johnson's wishy-washy Republican-lite, "Hillary's a great public servant," stereotypically marijuana-obsessed, non-noninterventionist campaign honestly leaves me chilled-to-the-bone cold.
> 
> Stein has impressed me over and over with her grasp of the issues and the personalities, her brutal attacks on the Clintons (she and Donald Trump sometimes sound indistinguishable), an American political dynasty which she rightly regards as the enemy of all which is decent and honest, and her avid invective directed toward the senseless slaughter that yawns out across the Islamic world due to the U.S.'s crazed foreign policy, from Libya to Syria to Yemen, et. al.
> 
> Between the slightly creepy faux libertarian who sees Hillary Clinton as a "wonderful public servant" and the principled, ostensibly wholly honest, and personally kind Green Party candidate, I find myself in this peculiar position where I would have to pick the latter. The blood of the innocent for which this government ruling over us here in the U.S. is responsible is too great in its volume for me ignore. Washington, D.C.'s army of ghoulish bureaucrats, defense contractors and assorted parasites who call the shots are determined to drain us like vampires; in foreign policy, the president is effectively dictator, and I would like to believe that Stein wouldn't continue supporting civilian-targeting rebels or sanctioning reckless bombing strikes.


I've been thinking a lot about Jill Stein lately too. :lol Great minds.

I'd pick Darrell Castle over either of those. :side: As would you I'm sure. 

I guess if I expected none of Jill Stein's economic policies to get through congress and just expected her to impose a non-interventionist foreign policy I'd vote for her. I agree that I trust her as being "genuine" far more than Gary Johnson, who seems to be revealing himself as quite the chameleon. Who knows what he'd do, honestly? I do trust him to end the drug war (at least toward marijuana), at least, though. :lol He's personally invested and that is indisputable.

Would Jill Stein import tens of thousands of "Syrian" refugees though? Kind of a big deal to me. I feel like that's something she'd be for but haven't looked into it. GJ would probably let a lot in too.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Loved Obama's line. Shows who are the real cucks.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Assange said that more emails are going to come out.. looks like it's not over yet. Oh boy, could you imagine if there is emails between Lynch and the Clintons? FBI getting put on the grill sounds good!
> @bm the emails expose the DNB for corruption so why isn't there an investigation? I find it ironic that the FBI and State Department says Hilary made violations but, won't go after her.. now there is more proof of corruption, how long before they can stop ignoring the obvious lawbreaking?


Its because they are all friends and her last name is Clinton.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its because they are all friends and her last name is Clinton.


I just read an article that states are now trying to overturn needing ID to vote as it's "discrimination".. Really? Voting should require you to be a citizen and to have ID, FFS you need ID when buying booze or smokes, when you win big at gambling and for just about any job you can get. In fact most places require ID/SS/Bills as proof of residence for basically anything. But for voting, for voting to choose politicians.. suddenly that's OTT? What the hell!?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I just read an article that states are now trying to overturn needing ID to vote as it's "discrimination".. Really? Voting should require you to be a citizen and to have ID, FFS you need ID when buying booze or smokes, when you win big at gambling and for just about any job you can get. In fact most places require ID/SS/Bills as proof of residence for basically anything. But for voting, for voting to choose politicians.. suddenly that's OTT? What the hell!?


It is discrimination since it's used to keep the minorities from voting. The GOP even admitted that was the reason by mistake lol

There is never that many cases of voter fraud due to someone claiming they are someone they are not supposed to be. 

When you go to vote you don't show your ID do you? I never have.


Watch this see if it sways you.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> It is discrimination since it's used to keep the minorities from voting. The GOP even admitted that was the reason by mistake lol
> 
> There is never that many cases of voter fraud due to someone claiming they are someone they are not supposed to be.
> 
> When you go to vote you don't show your ID do you? I never have.


I had to once but I think in the area there was some issue with illegals trying to vote. Wasn't sure but wasn't a big deal. The problem I see with it is that it allows non-citizens to vote, voting should be a citizen right, it's the whole point of being a damn citizen. It also allows for easier vote manipulation, kind of like those places that have 150% voter turn out? Or places where the dead suddenly can vote? Hilary already did voter fraud, this would just help her more. It seems like what is the point of being a US citizen if anyone can vote? If that's the case I don't want to have a drivers license anymore for driving and shouldn't be carded when I want booze!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I have to once but I think in the area there was some issue with illegals trying to vote. Wasn't sure but wasn't a big deal. The problem I see with it is that it allows non-citizens to vote, voting should be a citizen right, it's the whole point of being a damn citizen. It also allows for easier vote manipulation, kind of like those places that have 150% voter turn out? Or places where the dead suddenly can vote? Hilary already did voter fraud, this would just help her more. It seems like what is the point of being a US citizen if anyone can vote? If that's the case I don't want to have a drivers license anymore for driving and shouldn't be carded when I want booze!


How does it allow non-citizens to vote? There is zero evidence of that. It's not like non-citizens are on voter registration so they can vote. So you think they are pretending to be someone else?

From that video. 

From 2000-2014 there was only 31 incidents where they could not account for a vote from over 1 billion votes that were cast.

Watch the end of the vote how the republicans admit, it helps their candidate's by holding down the minority vote.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I've had to show my DL every time I've voted in GA. I think if there are gong to be Voter ID laws then voter IDs should be free and easily attainable. The problem is in some areas you have to go 30 miles or more to an office that dispenses them. Where I live the nearest one is 25 miles away. For a some people that provides a host of problems. The elderly that can't drive. People that don't have cars or driver's licenses. Some have to work and can't make it by closing time. The other problem is if you need a copy of your birth certificate. That requires money. My dad needed one for another reason and it was a bitch to go through. That might just be a local problem though. 

When it comes to voter fraud, I'm much more concerned about someone hacking the voting machines than someone trying to vote that isn't eligible or has already voted.

I look at the machines when I vote and the volunteers running the polling place. They're usually all nice middle aged or old ladies. No way they would notice anyone doing anything to the machines.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I have to once but I think in the area there was some issue with illegals trying to vote. Wasn't sure but wasn't a big deal. The problem I see with it is that it allows non-citizens to vote, voting should be a citizen right, it's the whole point of being a damn citizen. It also allows for easier vote manipulation, kind of like those places that have 150% voter turn out? Or places where the dead suddenly can vote? Hilary already did voter fraud, this would just help her more. It seems like what is the point of being a US citizen if anyone can vote? If that's the case I don't want to have a drivers license anymore for driving and shouldn't be carded when I want booze!


'

It should make sense...we have photo ID for driving, when we travel outside the country (our passport), when we show up for our first day at our new job we provide photo ID, even if we go to the casinoes, nightclubs, or anywhere else where only adults are allowed. It should not be an issue to provide a photo ID when you vote. State DOT departments offer non-driver IDs fairly inexpensively for people who just need photo ID.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

In either case I don't think anyone without some sort of local proof of citizenship should be allowed to vote. 

It's not discrimination - and it's a justifiable legal requirement that does not discriminate because if applied equally to all citizens then there's no involvement of race, class, religion or whatever. 

The "discrimination" spin on this makes no sense to me because that's all it is. A "spin" to see if they can somehow influence the results by letting non-citizens vote ... Which should be in my opinion a federal crime :shrug


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/759479059046883328

^^ Trump refuses to meet with the Kuch Bros.!

No, thats not a typo.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Loved Obama's line. Shows who are the real cucks.


Takes a Cuck to know a Cuck. Or perhaps a former Cuck who has seen the error of his ways.

Hope Bernie voters bury Clinton alive.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Yeah it's pretty clear Dems are full of shit on the voter ID thing considering how many rules and regulations they want about every other fucking thing people do in their lives. Not voting though, nah, no need for any kind of verification there!

The minorities being negatively affected aspect makes no sense to me, and that's probably because I'm not a bigot and don't have lower expectations for people based on race, ethnicity, or whatever else like the left does.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Sound familiar? I guess that makes her a racist too. Let's call a spade a spade.

- Vic


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@Reaper, extremely well said. Technically, it is discrimination, but it is just another example of how discrimination is not necessarily some inherently wicked thing.

This radio ad from 2008... :banderas






Ice Cube speaks out:


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I have like 4 different things in my wallet that I could use to validate myself

Is not having anything with your name and photo on it a massive unchecked problem for minorities?

It didn't realize that the DMV had a "race" problem


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*





































I may be the only one but Bill looks like he's either a robot or so God damned high that he has absolutely no ability left to determine the difference between reality and a dream state.


----------



## Mutant God

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If Trump is elected I wonder whos going to have more work to be done: Trump or Pence, Trump probably won't lift a finger and give all the hard work to Pence lol.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Doesn't sound remotely consistent with anything we know about Trump.


----------



## The5star_Kid

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I feel like the American people don't have much of a choice here. Trump and Clinton are essentially the same, it's just their manner of delivering ideas which is different. Trump enjoys being the pantomime villain and knows the type of people he appeals to. Hillary is very much the cerebral assassin. Both are war mongers, law breakers and looking to cause more death and destruction across Muslim lands.

Hillary has undermined almost every major policy Obama tried to push, including Obamacare. She has wholeheartedly endorsed it now, especially as she needs that ethnic vote but only after her and several other high ranking Democrat officials gutted the whole damn bill and made it nothing more than medicaid in all but name. I was talking to a former US doctor who now operates in western europes largest trauma center (the Royal London Hopsital) and he said Obamacare is now nothing more than the health aid already on offer. This is very different to the mass revolution Obama wanted, with a system closer to the universal heath care plans seen in Europe.

That's just the tip of the iceberg with regards to Hillary though. 

I feel for you yanks.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://24newsflash.com/breaking-nato-commander-stuns-media-vindicates-trump-with-1-sentence/

NATO commander agrees with Trump.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This Australian mural just might sway my vote to Clinton.








.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> *Takes a Cuck to know a Cuck.* Or perhaps a former Cuck who has seen the error of his ways.
> 
> Hope Bernie voters bury Clinton alive.


That explains a lot about Trump supporters.

:ha :ha


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> That explains a lot about Trump supporters.
> 
> :ha :ha


Laugh now, lose later.


----------



## Ygor

Not sure how to put this to words...


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

A new contender emerges.










Harambe polling at 5% in PPP's latest poll. Someone please update the thread title.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> @Reaper, extremely well said. Technically, it is discrimination, but it is just another example of how discrimination is not necessarily some inherently wicked thing.
> 
> This radio ad from 2008... :banderas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ice Cube speaks out:


What Ice Cube said is what I wrote in the Trump thread about why I feel Trump will get more of the black/woman vote than what people say he will.

@ What Obama said, funny he mentions things about Rulers because his policies and actions have been that of the kind of ruler he speaks of.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@AryaDark @CamillePunk @Reaper


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/759171840887619584
:lol


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Okay not trying to get in the muck here but I read Trumps platform on his website and do Trump supporters really find his tax and foreign policy plans to be tenable? If he takes 10 trillion dollars of revenue out of the coffers over a decade he'll obviously have to make massive spending cuts elsewhere and I'd bet my life that he wouldn't cut a single dollar from defense spending so where's that money going to come from? Education, entitlements, infrastructure, social programs? 

Once we put all that extra money in the hands of the very wealthy are we supposed to trust that they'll reinvest it in America? According to the IMF trickle down economics not only doesn't work but actually slows economic growth and this is the strategy he's banking America's future on? Am I missing something crucial here?

What about his plans to force sovereign nations to do his bidding? Even if he could force the will of the Mexican government to pay for the wall they aren't exactly rolling in dough. And doesn't China still own over a trillion dollars in U.S. debt? His foreign policy plans sound awfully antagonistic toward them. 

Please don't attack me for being a left-wing, Shilary, SJW cuck, I really want to know what his supporters think about the _real_ issues.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I just read something about the celebs who are threatening to leave the US if Trump wins. My reaction was either who or good riddance


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Okay not trying to get in the muck here but I read Trumps platform on his website and do Trump supporters really find his tax and foreign policy plans to be tenable? If he takes 10 trillion dollars of revenue out of the coffers over a decade he'll obviously have to make massive spending cuts elsewhere and I'd bet my life that he wouldn't cut a single dollar from defense spending so where's that money going to come from? Education, entitlements, infrastructure, social programs?
> 
> Once we put all that extra money in the hands of the very wealthy are we supposed to trust that they'll reinvest it in America? According to the IMF trickle down economics not only doesn't work but actually slows economic growth and this is the strategy he's banking America's future on? Am I missing something crucial here?
> 
> What about his plans to force sovereign nations to do his bidding? Even if he could force the will of the Mexican government to pay for the wall they aren't exactly rolling in dough. And doesn't China still own over a trillion dollars in U.S. debt? His foreign policy plans sound awfully antagonistic toward them.
> 
> Please don't attack me for being a left-wing, Shilary, SJW cuck, I really want to know what his supporters think about the _real_ issues.


He actually goes into detail about these things in his book, Crippled America. You can hear it for free on Audible.com

Thats the easy answer. The rest I will just start by pointing out that other nations have bled us dry. Mexico HAS more than enough money.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> He actually goes into detail about these things in his book, Crippled America. You can hear it for free on Audible.com
> 
> Thats the easy answer. The rest I will just start by pointing out that other nations have bled us dry. Mexico HAS more than enough money.


You don't honestly think that Mexico would ever pay for that wall do you?

Also like I have said before, way more illegals are leaving the country now then coming into it.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> I just read something about the celebs who are threatening to leave the US if Trump wins. My reaction was either who or good riddance


That was really the only reason I'd be okay with him winning tbh.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> He actually goes into detail about these things in his book, Crippled America. You can hear it for free on Audible.com
> 
> Thats the easy answer. The rest I will just start by pointing out that other nations have bled us dry. Mexico HAS more than enough money.



What... Trickle down economics failed miserably under Bush and basically led to the problems America is facing today in terms of massive income inequality. 

Yet you reckon it'll be fine because Mexico, basically a third world country torn to pieces by a long running civil war, have a lot of money? A domestic policy which failed in the past will work now, because Mexico is rich?

The fact that you're backing the same failed policy which got you into this mess makes you a massive cuck, you get that right? You're just voting to allow people who already super rich to get even richer while services are cut for regular people. Unless you're a billionaire you basically need to acknowledge that a vote for Trump is just allowing him and the rest of his billionare class to cuck you even more.


----------



## McGee

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I say cuck em both I'm trying to move to Canada.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> He actually goes into detail about these things in his book, Crippled America. You can hear it for free on Audible.com
> 
> Thats the easy answer. The rest I will just start by pointing out that other nations have bled us dry. Mexico HAS more than enough money.


Listening to Trump's opinions on Trump's own economic policy will bear no insight into the thoughts of his followers.

- Do you think removing $10T from the treasury over a decade will be harmful?
- Do you think he'll make cuts on gov't spending? If so, from where? Are you okay where from should there be cuts? 
- Do you trust the very wealthy to reinvest in America? Do you think it will be enough to offset the massive revenue losses?
- Do you believe trickle down economics are going to save our country? Do you think the IMF is wrong about their ineffectiveness?
- Do you believe closing tax loopholes and the overseas amnesty will actually make it revenue neutral?

These are the types of things I want to hear from Trump followers.

Edit: Does this comment by Moody's Analytics concern you? If not, why so?



> Four basic conclusions regarding the impact of Mr. Trump’s economic proposals can be reached," the Moody’s team wrote. "One, they will result in a less global U.S. economy; two, they will lead to larger government deficits and more debt; three, they will largely benefit very high-income households; and four, they will result in a weaker U.S. economy, with fewer jobs and higher unemployment."


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Im not the best for giving detailed answers as for as the sciences of it all, that is more @DesolationRow and @CamillePunk's bag. I'll try to answer what I can though.

but first:
@Alkomesh2 - I can't Acknowledge what is objectively not true. Again, Mexico has bled us dry. In fact they're literally ROLLING in money from all of our manufacturing being taken over to them. Factor in trade deficits and all the illegal money wiring that goes on and you're swimming in money that can easily pay us over time for the wall. As I have told people many times, simply asking them for a check isn't even the goal. It's making them pay what they naturally already owe us. Further, Trump's economic policies do not benefit the billionaire class. They eliminate the loopholes which allow for tax exploitation and exemption, actually. Under his tax plan the middle class pays less than the richer families as well.

Carrying on from that, Chris, corporate inversion is also largely responsible for the debt. trillions of dollars are off shore because of businesses in search of less red tape imposed on them in places like Ireland, for example. The way things are set up now, we don't see a dime of it. Republicans AND dems agree this is a problem. Under Trump they would have less of an incentive to move and more to stay.

Now you ask about cutting GOVT spending, I can tell you that one department he would cut is the EPA, which I fully endorse as it has done nothing but suck revenue for years. There are other such departments as well and I can look them up for you if you wish. So yes, I think he will and am happy with where he'll cut from.

Do I trust the very wealthy? Well, that would imply that wealth determines the good or bad nature of a person by default. If it were Hilary, who's bottom line is to line the pockets of her own foundation with money from foreign businesses. I'd say no. You could also say the same is true for Trump, since he makes deals with foreign countries, but he has acknowledged he would take a hit from it and claims to want to put America first. His actions in the past have displayed this to be fact and I would rather be duped by being wrong than voting for someone i KNOW will not change anything. Trump at least offers the chance that he will. There is no such chance with Clinton.

Trickle Down? Yes I do in fact. Loved me some Reagan. Was tempered by the shill that was GHWB. I am of the opinion his vision never was fully implemented and was largely stifled in the end.

As stated, yes I do. It's alarming when you see the numbers we lose due to not only class tax loopholes but even in trade with China, Who's tax alone is so big we can barely move our own product.

If none of my answers are fleshed out enough for you, do take these points up with the people I mentioned. They are far more well versed than I. :quite:grin2:


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If Mexico is "rolling in money" why the fuck did two mayors get killed last week? You'd think if the Mexican government had any money the first thing they'd do with it is protect their own lives right?

The idea that Mexico has a tonne of money is nonsense. 

Here are the stats in case you were interested http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Mexico/United-States/Economy 

Mexico has budget revenue of $266.90 billion, the US has budget revenue of $2.45 trillion, nearly 10 times higher. The US is literally just off 10 times richer than Mexico. These rivers of cash you've been told the Mexicans have been hoarding don't exist. America's problems are internal and structural and the very people causing the problem have managed to trick you into thinking that a third world country, which Mexico is btw, have all your money.

Btw going by Trumps own website https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform he says "All other Americans will get a simpler tax code with four brackets – 0%, 10%, 20% and 25% – instead of the current seven." Currently the highest tax bracket is 37%, he is telling you it's about simplicity, but the actual effect is going to be to cut the rate of tax paid by the top income earners from 37% to 25% which is massive. Trump is rich and he'll rule for the rich if you pay any attention to what he says he'll do it should be be obvious that that is the case.

Also from Trump's own website is this gem of a policy, "No business of any size, from a Fortune 500 to a mom and pop shop to a freelancer living job to job, will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes." Currently mom and pop stores only pay 15% but huge corporations pay up to 35%. This is again a massive tax cut to the highest end of town. And it's from his own site. How can you support this stuff?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Only meaningful cuts would have to be on social security and Medicare.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Reuters Poll changed after Trump takes lead: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...s-back-rigging-polls-to-show-clinton-winning/

Trump tops Clinton in TV ratings for convention speeches: ‘We beat her’: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/29/trump-tops-clinton-tv-ratings-convention-speeches/

Hillary Goes to Pennsylvania to Talk Manufacturing – Tells Coal Workers to Find Other Work (VIDEO): http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...facturing-tells-coal-workers-find-work-video/


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

We can save those things if we stop being other nation's whipping boy.

We BETTER too, unless you want people like myself to actually die.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> We can save those things if we stop being other nation's whipping boy.
> 
> We BETTER too, unless you want people like myself to actually die.


You really need to stop falling for Trumps fear mongering. The US is no ones whipping boy,not sure why you think that. The US pretty much owns the rest of the world, they are the most powerful country in the world.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You really need to stop falling for Trumps fear mongering. The US is no ones whipping boy,not sure why you think that. The US pretty much owns the rest of the world, they are the most powerful country in the world.


Right, which is why we are literally letting every other nation suckle our teat like an old fat sow. We are involved in too much and I dunno how you don't see that. It's been that way LONG before Trump came along and I have always been against it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Right, which is why we are literally letting every other nation suckle our teat like an old fat sow. We are involved in too much and I dunno how you don't see that. It's been that way LONG before Trump came along and I have always been against it.


You need to stop listening to Trumps BS. The US is the most powerful country in the world for a reason. 

How are you going to die exactly?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You need to stop listening to Trumps BS. The US is the most powerful country in the world for a reason.
> 
> How are you going to die exactly?


Not for the reasons you and others on the left may think, respectfully.

I have cerebral palsy. I NEED those things. Ending them would be, pardom the pun, a crippling blow to me. Although reform is desperately needed as its barely enough as it is.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

In other news:






"*HE DOESN'T FIT THE NARRATIVE! SHUT HIM OFF, SHUT HIM OFF!*" :lmao


----------



## virus21

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Reuters Poll changed after Trump takes lead: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...s-back-rigging-polls-to-show-clinton-winning/
> 
> Trump tops Clinton in TV ratings for convention speeches: ‘We beat her’: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/29/trump-tops-clinton-tv-ratings-convention-speeches/
> 
> Hillary Goes to Pennsylvania to Talk Manufacturing – Tells Coal Workers to Find Other Work (VIDEO): http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...facturing-tells-coal-workers-find-work-video/


:quite


----------



## Donny Muraco

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Even though he talked with mega zionist billionaire Sheldon Adelstein, the Jews are 100% with Hillary , even the neo-cons! 
I loved the non-zionist Bernie Sanders but as we saw with leaked emails he was screwed.

The Zionist Bankers have so much dirt on Hillary that she will be their best president ever. I was shocked when Obama released Jonathon Pollard, the most damaging spy ever in US history! They must know about Obamas birth cert.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Not for the reasons you and others on the left may think, respectfully.
> 
> I have cerebral palsy. I NEED those things. Ending them would be, pardom the pun, a crippling blow to me. Although reform is desperately needed as its barely enough as it is.


Trump and the GOP are the one whos wants to end them. The left is the one who is trying to get better healthcare, the right wants to end it. You don't even know what you are talking about with this. 

Healthcare is fine how it is, I got laid off from my job a while back and have free healthcare through the state, I had a major surgery and they paid for everything 100%. Under Trump and the GOP I would have gone break paying off that surgery.

If healthcare is your major concern you should not being voting for the GOP they are trying to give you the worst healthcare you can get at the highest prices.\

You show how uninformed you are on these things, I mean FFS you make fun of Sanders every chance you get but he wanted universal single payer healthcare which would you helped you big time and you shit on the guy and back a loser like Trump who wants to take away your healthcare and make it worse

If you are going to die from someone's healthcare plan, it will be under the GOP not the democrats.

Under Trumps plan you could be rejected for insurance because you have a pre existing condition. Under the democrats that would never happen.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump and the GOP are the one whos wants to end them. The left is the one who is trying to get better healthcare, the right wants to end it. You don't even know what you are talking about with this.
> 
> Healthcare is fine how it is, I got laid off from my job a while back and have free healthcare through the state, I had a major surgery and they paid for everything 100%. Under Trump and the GOP I would have gone break paying off that surgery.
> 
> If healthcare is your major concern you should not being voting for the GOP they are trying to give you the worst healthcare you can get at the highest prices.\
> 
> You show how uninformed you are on these things, I mean FFS you make fun of Sanders every chance you get but he wanted universal single payer healthcare which would you helped you big time and you shit on the guy and back a loser like Trump who wants to take away your healthcare and make it worse
> 
> If you are going to die from someone's healthcare plan, it will be under the GOP not the democrats.
> 
> Under Trumps plan you could be rejected for insurance because you have a pre existing condition. Under the democrats that would never happen.


Trump's position is that healthcare can be saved, choose your own doctor, eliminate state lines, encourage competition, health vouchers, and let people have coverage if they absolutely must have an operation. "We will not let people die in the streets because of an inability to pay."

Obama, on the other hand, made it so I actually lost my doctor. I had one of the WORST doctor experiences because of Democrat ran healthcare fucking with my coverage.

Sanders's entire healthcre plan was a pipedream and still is. It would fall apart faster than Obamacare if it were implemented.

Trump's plan is the ONLY plan that would benefit me. I know this for a stone cold fact.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Trump's position is that healthcare can be saved, choose your own doctor, eliminate state lines, encourage competition, health vouchers, and let people have coverage if they absolutely must have an operation. "We will not let people die in the streets because of an inability to pay."
> 
> Obama, on the other hand, made it so I actually lost my doctor. I had one of the WORST doctor experiences because of Democrat ran healthcare fucking with my coverage.
> 
> Sanders's entire healthcre plan was a pipedream and still is. It would fall apart faster than Obamacare if it were implemented.
> 
> Trump's plan is the ONLY plan that would benefit me. I know this for a stone cold fact.


You already can choose your own doctor.
And the whole state lines things would make it WORSE not better, that is what people like you don't get. All that would do is case every insurance company to go to the state with the least regulations and then everyone would have shit insurance that would not cover anything.

What state do you live in, do you live in one of the states that refused to implement Obamacare? Because if you live in one of those states that is the GOPs fault not Obamacares fault. 

Sanders healthcare plan was not a pipedream, it once against shows how uninformed you are on these issues. 

Trump's plan would not benefit you, you would be worse off than you are now as would every other American.

Like I said under Trumps plan they would let insurance companies DQ you for having a preexisting condition WHICH YOU DO, yet you think you would be better off under Trump?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

BM, I say respectfully YOU are uninformed. I was told that as a result of Obamacare I could no longer see my own doctor for a lousy gat damned recommendation for disabled accommodation for my GED testing. As a result my Doc ended up being an underqualified doofus that had no business BEING a doctor. 

Actually if you wanna know the truth about it Medicade under Obamacare here in NC (I lived in Florida when the situation i described happened, and Florida, at least when I was there, adopted it) is even MORE ridiculous. You know im not even covered for physical therapy? Im allowed 3 visits PER YEAR before I have to pay out of pocket for any other visits, which is INSANE. Im furious just talking about it! and SS?? NO. Don't even. I'm not even getting hardly anything from it and i only get it if I agree to spend only so much of it on certain things.

Do you deal with any of these things?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> BM, I say respectfully YOU are uninformed. I was told that as a result of Obamacare I could no longer see my own doctor for a lousy gat damned recommendation for disabled accommodation for my GED testing. As a result my Doc ended up being an underqualified doofus that had no business BEING a doctor.
> 
> Actually if you wanna know the truth about it Medicade under Obamacare here in NC (I lived in Florida when the situation i described happened, and Florida, at least when I was there, adopted it) is even MORE ridiculous. You know im not even covered for physical therapy? Im allowed 3 visits PER YEAR before I have to pay out of pocket for any other visits, which is INSANE. Im furious just talking about it! and SS?? NO. Don't even. I'm not even getting hardly anything from it and i only get it if I agree to spend only so much of it on certain things.
> 
> Do you deal with any of these things?



So you lived in FL one one of the states that rejected Obamacare extension, if they would have accepted it, you would have been covered but your stupid GOP governors in your state rejected it, so blame them not Obama. 

FL keeps objecting obamacare extensions .So again don't blame Obamacare for this blame the GOP for rejecting it. NC is another who rejected Obamacare as well. So ONE AGAIN BLAME THE GOP GOVERNERS FOR THAT.

If your state accepted Obamacare you would be way better off. You also know the GOP want to cut SS right? I bet you don't ven know that.

I have medical issues but i don't deal with that shit because in MA the accepted Obamacare and it works. 

And what you are experiencing is going to only get worse with Trump as president if he "takes away the state lines" because all the insurance companies will flock to a shit state with shit covered like FL or NC where they don't cover anything and then everyone will get shit insurance. 

If you lived in MA you would have everything covered. The only people to blame are the ones in your states congress. Dont blame Obamacare.

And under Trump it would be 100x worse. the only people that ever complain about Obamacare ar the ones in the red states and I wonder why that is.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> So you lived in FL one one of the states that rejected Obamacare extension, if they would have accepted it, you would have been covered but your stupid GOP governors in your state rejected it, so blame them not Obama.
> 
> FL keeps objecting obamacare extensions .So again don't blame Obamacare for this blame the GOP for rejecting it. NC is another who rejected Obamacare as well. So ONE AGAIN BLAME THE GOP GOVERNERS FOR THAT.
> 
> If your state accepted Obamacare you would be way better off. You also know the GOP want to cut SS right? I bet you don't ven know that.
> 
> I have medical issues but i don't deal with that shit because in MA the accepted Obamacare and it works.
> 
> And what you are experiencing is going to only get worse with Trump as president if he "takes away the state lines" because all the insurance companies will flock to a shit state with shit covered like FL or NC where they don't cover anything and then everyone will get shit insurance.
> 
> If you lived in MA you would have everything covered. The only people to blame are the ones in your states congress. Dont blame Obamacare.
> 
> And under Trump it would be 100x worse. the only people that ever complain about Obamacare ar the ones in the red states and I wonder why that is.


I can only tell you what I have been told by every doctor I've went to. FL and NC.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> I can only tell you what I have been told by every doctor I've went to. FL and NC.


I told you why, its because you are in red states that rejected Obamacare and those state insurance suck. It would be 100x worse under Trump for everyone and like I said, you would be lucky to even be covered under Trump because he would allow insurance companies to reject people with preexisting conditions. Good luck with that

Btw NC is ranked 37th in the country for insurance

https://www.healthinsurance.org/north-carolina/

whats the name of your insurance? What did you pick?.

Also MA my state is 3rd best in the US for healthcare because of how much they implemented Obamacare, they went in full swing because it was based on Romneycare which our state already had.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I told you why, its because you are in red states that rejected Obamacare and those state insurance suck. It would be 100x worse under Trump for everyone and like I said, you would be lucky to even be covered under Trump because he would allow insurance companies to reject people with preexisting conditions. Good luck with that
> 
> Btw NC is ranked 37th in the country for insurance
> 
> https://www.healthinsurance.org/north-carolina/
> 
> whats the name of your insurance? What did you pick?.
> 
> Also MA my state is 3rd best in the US for healthcare because of how much they implemented Obamacare, they went in full swing because it was based on Romneycare which our state already had.


I only qualify for medicade, and its bull. So 37th ranked can suck my balls.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> I only qualify for medicade, and its bull. So 37th ranked can suck my balls.


Thats why its so bad for you, because FL and NC rejected the Medicaid Obamacare expansion. If you lived in MA you would be much better off. Your congress is what is fucking you over.


btw did you ever think about doing a gofundme and tell your story to help pay for some of your bills. Just an idea.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Thats why its so bad for you, because FL and NC rejected the Medicaid Obamacare expansion. If you lived in MA you would be much better off. Your congress is what is fucking you over.


Pfft, If he expanded it i wouldn't afford WHAT I HAVE.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Pfft, If he expanded it i wouldn't afford WHAT I HAVE.


If those states expanded it you would have it better.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Donny Muraco said:


> Even though he talked with mega zionist billionaire Sheldon Adelstein, the Jews are 100% with Hillary , even the neo-cons!
> I loved the non-zionist Bernie Sanders but as we saw with leaked emails he was screwed.
> 
> The Zionist Bankers have so much dirt on Hillary that she will be their best president ever. I was shocked when Obama released Jonathon Pollard, the most damaging spy ever in US history! They must know about Obamas birth cert.


This ignorant idea that the Jews control everything in the world is just asinine to the nth degree. Considering how anti-Semitic the lamestream media, the United Nations, and our current presidential administration is, that shoots your idea down.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










:hmm:


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> If those states expanded it you would have it better.


Right, if i was loaded. http://www.inquisitr.com/2926703/chelsea-clinton-admits-that-obamacare-is-way-too-expensive-video/


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> If those states expanded it you would have it better.


Not true for his case since he qualifies for Medicaid under disabilities too. The expansion helps increased coverage for lower-income adults which would increase the pool of people using limited funding.

Though under Trump's proposed block grant plan Medicaid programs will likely be smaller, so he could still end up with an unsatisfactory experience. It will probably come down to what the state view as more important. His care or kids dental needs. :shrug


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Not true for his case since he qualifies for Medicaid under disabilities too. The expansion helps increased coverage for lower-income adults which would increase the pool of people using limited funding.
> 
> Though under Trump's proposed block grant plan Medicaid programs will likely be smaller, so he could still end up with an unsatisfactory experience. It will probably come down to what the state view as more important. His care or kids dental needs. :shrug


Under Trump he would have it worse off, so him voting for Trump is just going to make things worse for him.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Under Trump he would have it worse off, so him voting for Trump is just going to make things worse for him.


To be more correct, under Republican's plans. Trump is a wildcard.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So Doland Trump saw the parents of the Muslim soldiers speech and decided that the best course of action was to insult the mother. Classy motherfucker, that one.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/us/politics/khizr-khan-ghazala-donald-trump-muslim-soldier.html?_r=0

So @Beatles123, how much more is Doland allowed to say before you admit he's going too far with what he says? Even his advisers don't know how to do damage control of him insulting the family members of dead soldiers.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> So Doland Trump saw the parents of the Muslim soldiers speech and decided that the best course of action was to insult the mother. Classy motherfucker, that one.


You misunderstand he was misquoted by the liberal media and later clarified what he meant.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> So Doland Trump saw the parents of the Muslim soldiers speech and decided that the best course of action was to insult the mother. Classy motherfucker, that one.





yeahbaby! said:


> You misunderstand he was misquoted by the liberal media and later clarified what he meant.


What was the insult?


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> You misunderstand he was misquoted by the liberal media and later clarified what he meant.


Ah I see. So he was misquoted when he said "maybe she wasn't allowed to speak" as seen in this video right here http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/mother-of-slain-american-muslim-soldier-pens-powerful-rebuke-after-donald-trump-insult/news-story/d2cc766fee7ff3179dba02a2045714cf. How do you misquote someone when theres a video of him being an idiot and saying it? I like the part where he says he's sacrificed a lot, then just says a jumble of words as an example.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

​


nucklehead88 said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/us/politics/khizr-khan-ghazala-donald-trump-muslim-soldier.html?_r=0
> 
> So @Beatles123, how much more is Doland allowed to say before you admit he's going too far with what he says? Even his advisers don't know how to do damage control of him insulting the family members of dead soldiers.


Wow, that really is low. Trump apparently just knows nothing apart from attack and undermine whenever he is threatened, no matter who it is.

It seems this man has an ego so large that he cannot stop himself from going as far as he feels he needs to to defend himself.

I mean even if you forget the ethics or morals of this situation and look at it simply from a diplomatic stance (considering you are running for Prez), why not just say something like 'My deepest sympathies for them as they have made the ultimate sacrifice losing a child' etc etc, and leave it at that?

Like a dog chasing a car, he doesn't know when to stop.


----------



## notfairtoflair

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> You misunderstand he was misquoted by the liberal media and later clarified what he meant.


Nothing was misquoted by the media. That orange, cow-faced douchefart turned it around on the man's wife all because "she had nothing to say." As if his wife, wife #4 or 5, whichever order she came in, ever has anything to say either. Unless she's plagiarizing one of Michelle Obama's speeches. 

And Donald's always having to clarify shit, but not because "the liberal media" misquotes him, it's because he does not think before he speaks.

I bet FOX News and his supporters get exhausted defending this windbag and making excuses for him; always having to explain his diarrhea of the mouth nonsense.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So Khan says all manner of awful and untrue things about Trump, Trump wonders why his wife didn't speak, calls their son a hero, and says the father is probably a nice guy but shouldn't have lied about him. Then Khan comes out and says even more terrible things about Trump (black soul, no empathy, etc.) and somehow Trump is the bad guy. :lol None of this is to mention the fact that their son died in a war Hillary voted for and Trump was publicly against. Oh dear. :lol You guys are hopeless if you are buying into that narrative.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






nucklehead88 said:


> Ah I see. So he was misquoted when he said "maybe she wasn't allowed to speak" as seen in this video right here http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/mother-of-slain-american-muslim-soldier-pens-powerful-rebuke-after-donald-trump-insult/news-story/d2cc766fee7ff3179dba02a2045714cf. How do you misquote someone when theres a video of him being an idiot and saying it? I like the part where he says he's sacrificed a lot, then just says a jumble of words as an example.


Was being facetious (sp?) dude


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> So Khan says all manner of awful and untrue things about Trump, Trump wonders why his wife didn't speak, calls their son a hero, and says the father is probably a nice guy but shouldn't have lied about him. Then Khan comes out and says even more terrible things about Trump (black soul, no empathy, etc.) and somehow Trump is the bad guy. :lol None of this is to mention the fact that their son died in a war Hillary voted for and Trump was publicly against. Oh dear. :lol You guys are hopeless if you are buying into that narrative.


Well lets see. Trump does have a black soul...no empathy...promotes hatred and racial profiling...has no idea what he's doing....has never held a political office in his life...has had to file bankruptcy 4 times...and is endorsed by Kim Jong Un. And some of you guys have actually drank this guys kool-aid that he's going to "fix" your country. I legitimately want to know if you think wrestling and magic tricks are real too. Because to get roped in and fooled by this joke and actually believe you should vote for him....jesus. I want to know how a rational human being gets talked into believing this. 



yeahbaby! said:


> Was being facetious (sp?) dude


Yea I figured that out after your reply in the other thread lol


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> Well lets see. Trump does have a black soul...no empathy...promotes hatred and racial profiling...has no idea what he's doing....has never held a political office in his life...has had to file bankruptcy 4 times...and is endorsed by Kim Jong Un. And some of you guys have actually drank this guys kool-aid that he's going to "fix" your country. I legitimately want to know if you think wrestling and magic tricks are real too. Because to get roped in and fooled by this joke and actually believe you should vote for him....jesus. I want to know how a rational human being gets talked into believing this.


So you have no response whatsoever to what I said. :lol Completely unable to back up your previous post so you deflect with all this other bullshit.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I think I got yer answer right here.

https://globalriskinfo.com/2016/07/31/an-open-letter-to-khizr-khan/


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> I think I got yer answer right here.
> 
> https://globalriskinfo.com/2016/07/31/an-open-letter-to-khizr-khan/


What a piece of shit this guy, couldn't resist putting in this little shot at the end.



> As you continue to make the media circuit and bask in the glow of affection cast upon you by a party that has little regard for your son’s own sacrifice, and veterans in general, I would ask you to consider your comments and your position more closely.


This couple who have lost their son aren't basking in anything. Unless this guy has had his own children killed he should shut the fuck up like Trump should've.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/759947832015003648
Heisenberg ain't got a thing on HRC when it comes to shamelessly lying.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/us/politics/khizr-khan-ghazala-donald-trump-muslim-soldier.html?_r=0
> 
> So @Beatles123, how much more is Doland allowed to say before you admit he's going too far with what he says? Even his advisers don't know how to do damage control of him insulting the family members of dead soldiers.


:lmao Ooo. New york times!

If you think that's bad, you won't like the debates. He might say a few mean words. :nerd:


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> :hmm:


Pretty much sums up the entire media coverage. Of course that doesn't matter to some of our very vocal anti-trumpers in here spouting off their constant silly rhetoric. I have to admit they have dedication. :nerd:


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Heisenberg ain't got a thing on HRC when it comes to shamelessly lying.


The liberal media would lead the sheep off the cliff edge if they could.

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Already brought the hammer of truth upon that fake outrage in the Clinton v Trump thread. With this post I'd like to debunk Mr Khan's *actual* insults of Trump, where he said he had a "black soul" (lol could you imagine the racism allegations if Trump said this of anyone) and "no empathy". These are extremely simple points to debunk, as the fine folks at /r/The_Donald have compiled a helpful list of many reports of the great deeds Trump has done, the vast majority of which he never announced or talked about publicly, as is his inclination:



> 1: http://www.snopes.com/trump-flies-sick-boy/ - Trump flies sick child to hospital
> 2: http://m.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-election-493995/200-stranded-marines-needed-a-plane-14727522/ - Trump flies 200 stranded Marines home, link is self-explanatory.
> 3: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/donald-trump-quietly-helped-marine-whom-obama-ignored/ - Remember that Marine that Mexico held captive? Trump helped him too.
> 4: http://articles.philly.com/1991-11-20/news/25769814_1_donald-trump-marla-maples-big-bat - Trump intervenes in a mugging/assault, stopping a basketball American from beating a man with a bat
> 5: http://www.buffalonews.com/city-reg...mp-check-headed-for-rachael-ray-show-20131107 - http://www.buffalonews.com/city-reg...tudent-riders-a-lesson-in-compassion-20131029 - Bus driver prevents a suicide, Trump rewards him for it
> 6: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/02/nyregion/follow-up-on-the-news-surviving-tragedy-on-the-farm.html - Trump saves old lady's farm from bankers
> 7: http://spectator.org/64643_when-trump-fought-racists/ - Trump stands up for black rights
> 8: https://www.accesshollywood.com/art...on-family-up-for-free-in-chicago-hotel-66176/ - Trump shelters black celebrity, provides a free security team for her after her family is murdered
> 9: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/...-limo-broke-down-what-he-did-next-is-amazing/ - Couple helps Trump after his limo breaks down, he pays their mortgage off in return
> 10: http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/8/donald-the-benevolent-trump-saves-ed-mcmahon-s-home - Trump saves Ed McMahon's house, lets him keep living in it
> 11: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/09/o...s-at-18-his-struggle-helped-pierce-myths.html - child dies of AIDS, Trump visits his family
> 12: http://articles.philly.com/1986-11-01/news/26094092_1_ice-rink-donald-trump-trump-time - Trump takes over failing city project, finishes it ahead of schedule and under budget
> 13: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/30/politics/trump-miss-wisconsin-emotional-moment/ - Trump helps terminally ill woman
> 14: https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=R_MDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3429,3369895&hl=en - Trump forces city to allow him to fly huge American flag, cuts deal that helps veterans in the process
> Updated with new ammo!
> 15: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...ump-offers-job-to-woman-at-dc-news-conference - Link is self-explanatory, Trump offers woman job at press conference. (Thanks /u/nonestumptrump )
> 16: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U20DMF9qe3s - Trump helps girl with bone disease (Thanks /u/ratcw73 and /u/Xenu_RulerofUniverse )
> 17: http://archive.is/VAr7u - 93 page list of Trump's donations over 5 years (Thanks /u/Trumpple )
> 18: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYXygIcIJ6I - Trump interviewed at Ground Zero of 9/11, brings 200+ of his own workers to aid in search and rescue efforts


:clap Tremendous legacy of generosity and kindness by a truly great man.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Already brought the hammer of truth upon that fake outrage in the Clinton v Trump thread. With this post I'd like to debunk Mr Khan's *actual* insults of Trump, where he said he had a "black soul" (lol could you imagine the racism allegations if Trump said this of anyone) and "no empathy". These are extremely simple points to debunk, as the fine folks at /r/The_Donald have compiled a helpful list of many reports of the great deeds Trump has done, the vast majority of which he never announced or talked about publicly, as is his inclination:
> 
> :clap Tremendous legacy of generosity and kindness by a truly great man.


Oh come on now, we all know they won't care. They're too busy saying Trump is mean and tried to play on people's feelings by bringing out some of those speakers he did, yet praise Khan. They also seem to ignore Hilary's fraud and outright lying, just recently lying AGAIN. Yet somehow Trump is worse, I'm beginning to think they have nothing else.

It's like they would get more upset over Trump running over someone's foot with his car but Hilary plows through a children's crosswalk killing 10 people but somehow Trump is worse.

I liked how they called the RNC "dark" yet all the DNC did was have controversy, Bernie supporters making their displeasure known, Trump blaming for everything, including the hacks (Hahaha!) and shilling out nonsense. The Democrats live in fantasy land. I don't know if they're delusional or just plain stupid.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Oh come on now, we all know they won't care. They're too busy saying Trump is mean and tried to play on people's feelings by bringing out some of those speakers he did, yet praise Khan. They also seem to ignore Hilary's fraud and outright lying, just recently lying AGAIN. Yet somehow Trump is worse, I'm beginning to think they have nothing else.
> 
> It's like they would get more upset over Trump running over someone's foot with his car but Hilary plows through a children's crosswalk killing 10 people but somehow Trump is worse.
> 
> I liked how they called the RNC "dark" yet all the DNC did was have controversy, Bernie supporters making their displeasure known, Trump blaming for everything, including the hacks (Hahaha!) and shilling out nonsense. The Democrats live in fantasy land. I don't know if they're delusional or just plain stupid.


Hold on Sally, we're talking about Trump's reaction to this guy's criticism of him. We're not talking about Hillary or the dems right now. This is the Trump thread, right now we're talking Trump. I don't think you need to be a Anti-Trumper or pro Hilary or anyone to think that Trump's reaction was completely OTT, non statesmen-like and completely disrespectful to a couple who were obviously still dealing with the worst possible thing you have as parents.

Why can't the guy have enough sense or even compassion to say to himself "This guy has lost his son in battle, I should really just let it go, because you know I'D BE KIND OF ANNOYED AT STUFF IS IVANKA TURNED UP DEAD".


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*






Instead of clarifying his immigration policies that would have addressed the issue raised by Khan's speech, Trump choose to attack their faith by implying his wife wasn't allowed to say anything. Then pivot it into terrorism. When asked about sacrificing nothing, his first reaction is to ask 'did Hilary's people write that?' and needed a prompt to say what sacrifices he felt he made. Even then, he couldn't bring himself to acknowledge his sacrifices are minor compare to the one the parents of soldiers who died in the line of duty. Trumps views being an employer and philanthropy as sacrifices instead of a desire to do good.

There is being non-PC, and there is being thin-skined narcissist that felt the need to attack anyone that criticised him.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



> There is being non-PC, and there is being thin-skined narcissist that felt the need to attack anyone that criticised him.



He has been that way throughout the entire campaign, yet somehow every time he makes another "outrageous" comment Hillary supporters think this time it will surely be his downfall.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Hold on Sally, we're talking about Trump's reaction to this guy's criticism of him. We're not talking about Hillary or the dems right now. This is the Trump thread, right now we're talking Trump. I don't think you need to be a Anti-Trumper or pro Hilary or anyone to think that Trump's reaction was completely OTT, non statesmen-like and completely disrespectful to a couple who were obviously still dealing with the worst possible thing you have as parents.
> 
> Why can't the guy have enough sense or even compassion to say to himself "This guy has lost his son in battle, I should really just let it go, because you know I'D BE KIND OF ANNOYED AT STUFF IS IVANKA TURNED UP DEAD".


I did cover this in my answer to your strength/weakness question a page or so back. I agree his statements can be OTT, he really has a hard time picking and choosing his battles on this. There's a time to be anti-PC and a time to give a firm answer yet not say anything to mean. Tho Trump is allowed to explain/defend himself. After all the Benghazi Mother was trashed by the Democrats and Hilary in a way yet that seems acceptable.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Why can't the guy have enough sense or even compassion to say to himself "This guy has lost his son in battle, I should really just let it go, because you know I'D BE KIND OF ANNOYED AT STUFF IS IVANKA TURNED UP DEAD".


Oh stop. The guy got up and spoke at the DNC and chose to attack the Republican nominee, a guy who had NOTHING to do with what happened to his son, in support of a candidate who voted for that war and wants America engaged in even more conflicts where more soldiers will die. 

He entered himself into the political arena and the fact his son died in war doesn't give him immunity when he goes and just outright attacks people. And by the way, Trump didn't even attack the guy. He said he looked like a nice guy but was vicious in his attacks on Trump (which he was) and had no right to lie about him. What the hell is wrong with that? Why is everyone allowed to insult Trump but Trump isn't allowed to ever defend himself? 



FriedTofu said:


> Instead of clarifying his immigration policies that would have addressed the issue raised by Khan's speech, Trump choose to attack their faith by implying his wife wasn't allowed to say anything. Then pivot it into terrorism. When asked about sacrificing nothing, his first reaction is to ask 'did Hilary's people write that?' and needed a prompt to say what sacrifices he felt he made. Even then, he couldn't bring himself to acknowledge his sacrifices are minor compare to the one the parents of soldiers who died in the line of duty. Trumps views being an employer and philanthropy as sacrifices instead of a desire to do good.
> 
> There is being non-PC, and there is being thin-skined narcissist that felt the need to attack anyone that criticised him.


I like how you assume the "maybe she wasn't allowed to speak" is an attack on their faith. :lol Maybe he just meant the DNC didn't allow her to speak? Quite the slip there by you. Anyway, calling that "an attack" is laughably absurd and reeks of fake pearl-clutching which is pretty much every post you and yeahbaby! have made in this thread. Nobody believes either of you actually care. 

Their son died fighting terrorists so I have no idea what could possibly be wrong with discussing terrorism in that context. The interesting thing about whether or not Hillary's team wrote that is WHAT HAS HILLARY SACRIFICED? Why is it Donald Trump alone who has to come up with things he sacrificed? What an irrelevant, meaningless line of discussion, not to mention blatantly partisan.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> He has been that way throughout the entire campaign, yet somehow every time he makes another "outrageous" comment Hillary supporters think this time it will surely be his downfall.


That's why it's been so crazy. In any normal elections, he would have been gone long before the end of the primaries. It's the same with Sanders on the Democratic side.



CamillePunk said:


> I like how you assume the "maybe she wasn't allowed to speak" is an attack on their faith. :lol Maybe he just meant the DNC didn't allow her to speak? Quite the slip there by you. Anyway, calling that "an attack" is laughably absurd and reeks of fake pearl-clutching which is pretty much every post you and yeahbaby! have made in this thread. Nobody believes either of you actually care.
> 
> Their son died fighting terrorists so I have no idea what could possibly be wrong with discussing terrorism in that context. The interesting thing about whether or not Hillary's team wrote that is WHAT HAS HILLARY SACRIFICED? Why is it Donald Trump alone who has to come up with things he sacrificed? What an irrelevant, meaningless line of discussion, not to mention blatantly partisan.


If you wan to be disingenuous about the intention of Trump questioning why she wasn't allowed to speak, then what's the point in replying here? Quite the spin attempt by you to deflect from the bigotry Trump incites with every slip of the tongue. Even if one is to assume Trump was pointing the finger at the DNC for not allowing her to speak, it still meant Trump cannot help but attack the person rather than the issue.

Because the issue the Khans raised was about his immigration position, not terrorism. Why bring up Hilary when Trump is asked the question? Trump has been questioning other's faith and loyalty to America for years to score political points. Surely he can answer this simple question without issue.

Maybe Trump can sacrifice his tax returns to placate his critics.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






:lol


----------



## SpeedStick

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Crowd chants "USA," "no more wars," "lies" interrupt Panetta's DNC speech


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/759947832015003648
> Heisenberg ain't got a thing on HRC when it comes to shamelessly lying.


Yea ol Hil is the liar :shockedpunk

Doland J Drumpf: "I'll tell you what I don't like," Trump said. "It's against two NFL games. I got a letter from the NFL saying, 'This is ridiculous.'"

NFL: We didn't send you shit.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nfl-denies-sending-donald-trump-letter-over-presidential-debates/


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Also this


> As usual, Hillary & the Dems are trying to rig the debates so 2 are up against major NFL games. Same as last time w/ Bernie. Unacceptable!
> 
> — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 30, 2016


The debates were scheduled 18 months ago. Moron.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> Also this
> 
> 
> The debates were scheduled 18 months ago. Moron.


You realize he can't hear you here, right?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://investmentwatchblog.com/the...law-and-bring-muslims-into-the-united-states/


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Yuppers just seen that Khan has ties to the Saudis and is part of the Clinton Foundation, got to say that is interesting if true. I hope Wikileaks gets more emails and stuff out. I'm going to have a good laugh!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

UH OH

https://twitter.com/hashtag/CanYouHearUsNow?src=tren

WATCH OUT, FELLAS! WE OFFENDED THE MOST OPPRESSED GROUP OF WOMAN ON THE PLANET BECAUSE WE SAID THE SHOULDN'T BE OPPRESSED! :trump


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> https://investmentwatchblog.com/the...law-and-bring-muslims-into-the-united-states/


Lmao what a biased joke of a website that is. Did you write that yourself Beatles? If not then Donald has you believing anything. SMH anyone who isn't brainwashed by the Trump propaganda can see what kind of bias is shown there.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> Lmao what a biased joke of a website that is. Did you write that yourself Beatles? If not then Donald has you believing anything. SMH anyone who isn't brainwashed by the Trump propaganda can see what kind of bias is shown there.


Sticks and stones, pal! See you in November. :trump


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Yeah, because to western muslim feminist cunts the only freedom that matters is their personal freedom. Who cares if hundreds of muslim women are beaten, raped or murdered in muslim countries around the world and don't have the choice to NOT wear the hijab or niqab if they don't want to. 

It's all about western muslim cunts. Fuck the other muslim bitches. Who cares about them? Most of these cunts won't even be allowed to wear the jeans and t-shirts they wear in the west in the majority of Muslim countries.

My own aunt is now a western feminist advocate of the hijab. One of these days, I'm going to remind her that for the first several months of her marriage, her own in-laws forced her to wear the niqab. She almost got a divorce because her husband was a conservative muslim. Sure over time that man got brainwashed and changed his mind. But how easily do these women forget their own oppression because it's more important to them to be able to tell westerners to mind their own fucking business instead of admitting that the hijab and niqab represent a real problem for other muslim women.

Muslims are really their own worst enemy. They must really hate each other.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I did cover this in my answer to your strength/weakness question a page or so back. I agree his statements can be OTT, he really has a hard time picking and choosing his battles on this. There's a time to be anti-PC and a time to give a firm answer yet not say anything to mean. Tho Trump is allowed to explain/defend himself. *After all the Benghazi Mother was trashed by the Democrats and Hilary in a way yet that seems acceptable*.


How was the Benghazi mother trashed by Hilary? Found this on fair and balanced news:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...mom-takes-back-seat-to-trump-khan-debate.html



> But Clinton said during a Sunday interview on “Fox News Sunday” that Smith must not have correctly remembered their conversation during the 2012 ceremony.
> 
> “As other members of families who lost loved ones have said, that’s not what they heard,” Clinton said. “I don’t hold any ill feeling for someone who in that moment may not fully recall everything that was or wasn’t said.”
> 
> Clinton’s response is nothing new. During a March Democratic debate, Clinton said of Smith, “I can’t imagine the grief she has about losing her son. But she’s wrong. She’s absolutely wrong.”


See how she's actually communicating with some tact instead of being a bull in a china shop?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> https://investmentwatchblog.com/the...law-and-bring-muslims-into-the-united-states/





> The Muslim Who Attacked Donald Trump Is A Muslim Brotherhood Agent Who Wants To Advance Sharia Law And Bring Muslims Into The United States


OMG and you have the gall to ridicule other people's sources. 

Never take a step back, never admit responsibility, always attack the man not the ball, it's the Trump way right?

Honestly Trump could make you a shit sandwich and you'd gladly eat it down thanking him.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Ironically, this came from a Bernie source.

- Vic


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> OMG and you have the gall to ridicule other people's sources.
> 
> Never take a step back, never admit responsibility, always attack the man not the ball, it's the Trump way right?
> 
> Honestly Trump could make you a shit sandwich and you'd gladly eat it down thanking him.


Just as trump could make you a sandwich and you'd call it shit, right buddy?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Just as trump could mke you a sandwich and you'd call i shit, right buddy?


wut?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> OMG and you have the gall to ridicule other people's sources.
> 
> Never take a step back, never admit responsibility, always attack the man not the ball, it's the Trump way right?
> 
> Honestly Trump could make you a shit sandwich and you'd gladly eat it down thanking him.


OPEC and OIC are deeply inter-connected with several over-lapping member states. 

This man may not be anyone, or anything important --- however, OPEC as well as OIC both have supremacist agendas that sought to make Muslim countries both military as well as economic power houses and wanted to control the entire oil of that region in order to exert their power over the rest of the world that was dependent on their resources. 

It was fairly common knowledge in the 70's-80's in Pakistan that as a member of OIC, Bhutto - the then leader of Pakistan created the concept of the "Islamic bomb" which was a call to all muslim nations (especially those that controlled oil resources) to arm themselves. It was then Pakistan fully committed itself to developing its nuclear bomb. 

Now again, this man may not be anyone, or anything important - but I wouldn't fault someone for thinking that he may be, or may have been a power player at some point. If nothing else, he's part of the same generation that was proud to be muslims, believed in muslim supremacy and played a part in helping foster islamism as it exists in its extreme form today.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> https://investmentwatchblog.com/the...law-and-bring-muslims-into-the-united-states/


More Roger Stone propaganda bullshit. It just shows hows easily Trump supporters are fooled.


----------



## .MCH

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I wonder if Trump is too afraid to debate Clinton? She would wipe the floor with him. :lol

Ready for the media to start questioning Trump on foreign policy and forcing him to be substantive as well. It's going to be fun watching Sarah Palin 2.0.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> More Roger Stone propaganda bullshit. It just shows hows easily Trump supporters are fooled.


He cited this guy's research projects for OPEC ... do you guys know what OPEC is .. and what its relationship with OIC is? 

As I've pointed out that it could mean absolutely nothing and not at all what he's saying that it could mean ... however, how is someone whose focused so much of his intellectual capacity on Shariah, Quran and OPEC not have some muslim supremacist attitudes? Knowing what I know of Pakistanis - most of them normally don't go into studies of a religious nature in an official capacity until and unless they hold some sort of supremacist attitudes to begin with.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> I wonder if Trump is too afraid to debate Clinton? She would wipe the floor with him.


Bullshit! If he wanted to OWN her right of the bat, all he has to say is


> I should be debating with Bernie Sanders on this stage right now.


- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> He cited this guy's research projects for OPEC ... do you guys know what OPEC is .. and what its relationship with OIC is?
> 
> As I've pointed out that it could mean absolutely nothing and not at all what he's saying that it could mean ... however, how is someone whose focused so much of his intellectual capacity on Shariah, Quran and OPEC not have some muslim supremacist attitudes? Knowing what I know of Pakistanis - most of them normally don't go into studies of a religious nature in an official capacity until and unless they hold some sort of supremacist attitudes to begin with.


Show evidence of him actually having any of those things instead of just conjecture and assumptions.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Show evidence of him actually having any of those things instead of just conjecture and assumptions.


You don't always have to take the exact opposite view just for the heck of it. Because ultimately when the evidence points towards a reasonable conjecture then you make that conjecture. Then again if you knew the history of OPEC and Pakistan in the 70s and 80s you wouldn't immediately dismiss what I say as conjecture either. 

Also I've repeatedly said that none of this could be true (as in this guy could be a nobody) but don't blindly dismiss something without thinking about it and researching the historical context of what's been pointed out. 

It's the same as saying that most southerns held racist views towards blacks during the days of slave ownership. Just as most Pakistani Muslims held supremacist views in the 70s and 80s.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> OPEC and OIC are deeply inter-connected with several over-lapping member states.
> 
> This man may not be anyone, or anything important --- however, OPEC as well as OIC both have supremacist agendas that sought to make Muslim countries both military as well as economic power houses and wanted to control the entire oil of that region in order to exert their power over the rest of the world that was dependent on their resources.
> 
> It was fairly common knowledge in the 70's-80's in Pakistan that as a member of OIC, Bhutto - the then leader of Pakistan created the concept of the "Islamic bomb" which was a call to all muslim nations (especially those that controlled oil resources) to arm themselves. It was then Pakistan fully committed itself to developing its nuclear bomb.
> 
> Now again, this man may not be anyone, or anything important - but I wouldn't fault someone for thinking that he may be, or may have been a power player at some point. If nothing else, he's part of the same generation that was proud to be muslims, believed in muslim supremacy and played a part in helping foster islamism as it exists in its extreme form today.


Doesn't change the fact his son is a fallen US soldier the memory of which Trump was happy to trample all over. So much that key Repubs have come out and blasted Trump for.



Reaper said:


> He cited this guy's research projects for OPEC ... do you guys know what OPEC is .. and what its relationship with OIC is?
> 
> As I've pointed out that it could mean absolutely nothing and not at all what he's saying that it could mean ... however, how is someone whose focused so much of his intellectual capacity on Shariah, Quran and OPEC not have some muslim supremacist attitudes? Knowing what I know of Pakistanis - most of them normally don't go into studies of a religious nature in an official capacity until and unless they hold some sort of supremacist attitudes to begin with.


Attitudes are attitudes and do not necessarily cause behaviour. We all have our good/bad/extreme attitudes towards different areas that we don't bring out into the open for obvious reasons.

This is not the story anyway, the story is Trump's incendiary reaction to the slightest criticism over and over again.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump didn't trample anyone's memory. He said he was a hero. GTFO. 

The Khans chose to politicize their son's death in support of a candidate who is partly responsible for it. It's nonsensical.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I am more opened minded on both canidates than most of the people on here but with from a view in the middle Trump is looking awful lately

He said he has faith that Putin would not move troops in to Ukraine, expect they already have, in fact that they made a nation that only only they and anti-US dictators recognize 

I think Trump's "Russia is cool yo" kind of has its blinder on a bit too tight


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

A twice divorced philandering billionaire draft dodger who badly leveraged himself into multiple bankruptcies is the moral working class true patriot who will rescue the country from its debt problems.

Couldn't have made it up even in third work democracies.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Paul Manafort has business ties in Ukraine. Probably got the pro-Russian interests stuff from him.


----------



## .MCH

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Bullshit! If he wanted to OWN her right of the bat, all he say is
> 
> - Vic


He was too afraid to debate Bernie as well. :lol

Trumpsters need to admit the man is a fraud.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> A twice divorced philandering billionaire draft dodger who badly leveraged himself into multiple bankruptcies is the moral working class true patriot who will rescue the country from its debt problems.
> 
> Couldn't have made it up even in third work democracies.


But But But.... not as bad as Shillary the wall street war criminal leftist!


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hey a question to the "former Muslims on here"

I just found out that fundamentalist Muslims believe that only Muslims should be allowed to read the Koran

If that's the case how can they expect people to convert or do they just assume that someone will dedicate their lives to following the rules in book they never read?


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> Hey a question to the "former Muslims on here"
> 
> I just found out that fundamentalist Muslims believe that only Muslims should be allowed to read the Koran
> 
> If that's the case how can they expect people to convert or do they just assume that someone will dedicate their lives to following the rules in book they never read?


Well Trump has half a country believing in him on the basis of "Trust me, It'll be great. I'll make America great again"


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Well Trump has half a country believing in him on the basis of "Trust me, It'll be great. I'll make America great again"



... while voters of the "smart party" blindly believe Barney Frank when he tells Bill Maher that he and Hillary get paid by Wall Street because their opinions are so interesting. At the end of the day everyone has a little bit of Fox Mulder in him/her. They all WANT TO BELIEVE their man/woman is not in the game to fuck them over.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> Hey a question to the "former Muslims on here"
> 
> I just found out that fundamentalist Muslims believe that only Muslims should be allowed to read the Koran
> 
> If that's the case how can they expect people to convert or do they just assume that someone will dedicate their lives to following the rules in book they never read?


It is like Obamacare was when they had to pass it to see what's in it. Convert, then read apparently?


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> He has been that way throughout the entire campaign, yet somehow every time he makes another "outrageous" comment Hillary supporters think this time it will surely be his downfall.


But, his margin for error is diminishing rapidly. When you have military families on both sides of the aisle coming out en masse and condemning what you said, you know you stepped in it. As a former Army vet myself, I was disturbed a bit. Yes, Khan and his wife were trotted out there for political purposes, wouldn't surprise me if this was calculated by the Clinton camp knowing full well Trump would lash out. However, going after parents of a Gold Star winner, while maybe technically is fair game, is not a good idea. This was like telling people that he preferred war heroes that weren't captured. He could have said I am sorry for your loss, your son was a hero, but that I find it unfortunate that it was the policies of the person that you support that led to this. Yes, the media would have still been looking for your head because they are against him, but that would have been a better way to handle it then lashing out. 

The truth is that with the state of the economy and where this country has been going the last 8 years, normally the Republican candidate would have a really good chance of winning the election. However, it's time to get real here...Donald Trump might just be pissing away something that should be a done deal. 

At this stage, it's time to change the tone of the message. The message is clearly resonating with people, otherwise he wouldn't have gotten this far. So, don't change the message at this point, but he needs to find a way to smooth the edges. I know this goes against the grain of who Trump is, but if he doesn't play the game at this point it is not out of the realm of possibility to see him lose. This is no longer a case of being one voice among 17 screaming to be heard which was the case at the beginning of the campaign. He is now the standard-bearer of the Republican party, and the comments he makes now reflect on all of them, whether he wants them to or not. The media, that originally thought Trump's story was a novelty and easy work for them to let him throw out some quotes and their story was done for them, have now fully turned on him and have shown they are willing to destroy him. Jokes about Russia finding Hillary's e-mails=treason. He hates the military by ripping on the family of a fallen soldier. Are these true statements...obviously not and I speak as someone that is clearly not a Trump fan, but this is how this works. 

The folks that are working on his campaign need to find someone to sit down with him and have a come to Jesus moment with him. People are watching, and there are a lot of undecided voters this time around, plus a lot of the supposedly NeverTrumpers that might secretly be looking for a way to consider voting for him as the alternative is probably unacceptable. The schtick of keeping it real will only take you so far. It's time to step up and be a leader now and start acting somewhat presidential. I appreciate the honesty myself and the fact he will fight back, but I also expect the leader of this nation to have a firm hand and I want them to be steady in the job. This is very important considering the challenges we face at home and internationally. 

Otherwise, the real possibility is we may be hearing, "Madam President."


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Bruiser surely you have something better to do than concern trolling this thread. He didn't "go after" the Khans at all.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Bruiser surely you have something better to do than concern trolling this thread. He didn't "go after" the Khans at all.


Except for the whole implying they were radical muslims who don't allow women to speak. Except for that you're totally right. 

Most sane people would call that "going after" someone.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Doesn't change the fact his son is a fallen US soldier the memory of which Trump was happy to trample all over. So much that key Repubs have come out and blasted Trump for.
> 
> 
> 
> Attitudes are attitudes and do not necessarily cause behaviour. We all have our good/bad/extreme attitudes towards different areas that we don't bring out into the open for obvious reasons.
> 
> This is not the story anyway, the story is Trump's incendiary reaction to the slightest criticism over and over again.


He did no such thing though. 

And yeah, racial attitudes are in a way influencing his behaviour. He's using his minority status to cry oppression, lie about it and support a candidate that will send more sons like his to their deaths. 

It makes no logical sense whatsoever when you really think about it. 

I have idiot muslim hillary supporters on my facebook as well and they all say the exact same things. And when I ask them why the fuck are you supporting someone that wants MORE war in the middle east the fuckers have no response at all. They simply ignore the question and then go back to posting bullshit about supporting hillary. 

They're mind numbingly dumb at this point and if I was Trump, I'd actually say a lot worse to this man and other idiot muslims like him than he has. Muslims should actually be supporting someone who IS anti war. They should actually support someone that is anti-immigration from terrorist countries because as they love to claim, "America is killing their muslim brothers and sisters and terrorists victimize more mulisms than anyone else" .. therefore making america safe from terrorists and pulling out of the war is ENTIRELY in Muslim's favor. But they're not smart enough to understand it at all. Trump is actually their IDEAL fucking candidate because he's giving them EXACTLY what they want. Yet, they're not smart enough to even understand that.

As for the whole hijab comment is concerned. Read up on how brainwashing and conditioning works. If you beat a bitch all her life and ring a bell at the same time, the bitch will cower at merely the sound of the bell. That's how the hijab works. If you tell a woman all her life that if she doesn't wear one that she's going to go to hell, then of course at some point she's gonna go "well, wearing one isn't so bad, I'll choose to wear it". It's indoctrinated brainwashed bullshit and no woman is actually freely choosing the hijab. They're choosing to not go to "hell". That's conditioning. It's not a choice.



stevefox1200 said:


> Hey a question to the "former Muslims on here"
> 
> I just found out that fundamentalist Muslims believe that only Muslims should be allowed to read the Koran
> 
> If that's the case how can they expect people to convert or do they just assume that someone will dedicate their lives to following the rules in book they never read?


I've only ever heard of people claiming that Muslims who read translations of the Quran and not the Arabic don't fully understand it therefore they're not "real" muslims (seems like everyone has an opinion on who a real muslim is). It's arab ethnocentrism from arab supremacists who don't acknowledge anyone except the earliest Arab converts as true muslims and consider everyone else not true muslims. Similar concept as Jews vs Gentiles. However, this idea that non-muslims shouldn't read the Quran is new to me. This is the first I'm hearing it personally. Because amongst liberal and moderates it's the main way for them to convert other muslims and there's a popular story about Umar's (2nd caliph) conversion based on simply reading verses from the quran. So at least the moderates and liberals vehemently believe that the best way to convert someone to islam or "bring them back" to Islam is by simply reading the magical words of the Quran. Quran verses is also one of the tools ISIS use to convert terrorists to their cause - because making someone read verses from the quran is a fundamental method of conversion.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






http://www.thegotparty.com/


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Lyanna Mormont > everyone on the ticket.

She gets my vote.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Why is anyone even disputing Trump 'going after' the Khans? It is straight out of the textbook of one of his mentors Roy Cohn. Something Trump has displayed since even before this election with his adopting the birther movement as his entry into the GOP party.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The Hillary mural was changed.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/760235998353559552


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Khan should be blaming Hilary for the war she supported, Trump didn't support it. If Khan is using his son's death to boost Hilary and has actual stakes in the Clinton foundation.. that would be the lowest of the low.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> You don't always have to take the exact opposite view just for the heck of it. Because ultimately when the evidence points towards a reasonable conjecture then you make that conjecture. Then again if you knew the history of OPEC and Pakistan in the 70s and 80s you wouldn't immediately dismiss what I say as conjecture either.
> 
> Also I've repeatedly said that none of this could be true (as in this guy could be a nobody) but don't blindly dismiss something without thinking about it and researching the historical context of what's been pointed out.
> 
> It's the same as saying that most southerns held racist views towards blacks during the days of slave ownership. Just as most Pakistani Muslims held supremacist views in the 70s and 80s.


How am I taking the opposite side just for the heck fo it? What was posted about Khan was total bullshit. So I called out that bullshit. 

I see you still have posted ZERO EVIDENCE about Khan. Its laughable that anyone even listens to 90% of what Trump says, he talks out of his ass and lies. NONE OF IT IS TRUE about Khan based on zero evidence to back up what Trump said was true. 

Even Roger Stone who I said was full of shit and a liar, is trying to take back what he said.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/roge...an-is-affiliated-with-the-muslim-brotherhood/

Its also not the same thing as saying that most southerns held racist views towards blacks during the days of slave ownership. Just as most Pakistani Muslims held supremacist views in the 70s and 80s.

that is not what they were saying, they were saying KHAN was one of those people that is a huge difference.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Khan should be blaming Hilary for the war she supported, Trump didn't support it. If Khan is using his son's death to boost Hilary and has actual stakes in the Clinton foundation.. that would be the lowest of the low.


Trump did support the war, he only claimed he was not for it after it happened when it was a disaster On Howard Stern he asked Trump if he thinks they should go to war and Trump said, yeah I guess so.

that means Trump supported the war. He was not always strongly against the war.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @MissSally; @birthday_massacre @Reaper @Beatles123 @yeahbaby!

Some rather interesting updates and articles for you coming up to the election and in US politics in general.

Firstly let's address something which hasn't been brought up in the mainstream media and is sure to rustle some Trump supporter feathers.

http://www.msn.com/en-sg/news/world...lawsuit-filed-against-donald-trump/ar-AAi4gRO



> You’d think an accusation of child rape levelled at one of the most powerful men in the Western world would be front page news, and yet reports of a federal lawsuit filed against Donald Trump, which claims he and another man sexually assaulted a 13-year-old girl, have hardly made a sound.
> While the billionaire US presidential hopeful has denied any wrongdoing — his lawyers have described the reports as “categorically untrue, completely fabricated and politically motivated” — that doesn’t mean they aren’t potentially credible and it certainly doesn’t render them not newsworthy.
> 
> An anonymous “Jane Doe” alleges that Trump raped her in 1994 while she was being held as a sex slave in an apartment belonging to Jeffrey Epstein, a well-known American financier and convicted sex offender.
> 
> He is a man who Trump is known to have a relationship with and whom he once described as a “terrific guy” who “likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”
> 
> The woman claims Trump "initiated sexual contact" with her on four occasions while she was 13, according to her victim statement.
> 
> She described the fourth as a "savage sexual attack" after which he threatened that she and her family would be "physically harmed if not killed."
> 
> There is also a witness to the assault — which is extremely rare — who corroborates the story.
> 
> A "Tiffany Doe" who worked as Epstein's "party planner" from 1991-2000 and says part of her job was "to get attractive adolescent women to attend these parties."
> 
> "I personally witnessed the Plaintiff being forced to perform various sexual acts with Donald J. Trump and Mr. Epstein. Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein were advised that she was 13 years old.
> 
> "I personally witnessed four sexual encounters that the Plaintiff was forced to have with Mr. Trump during this period, including the fourth of these encounters where Mr. Trump forcibly raped her despite her pleas to stop."
> 
> Arguably, it is very much in the public interest for news organisations to report that the man seeking to lead the free world is accused of having sex with an underage girl multiple times and, on one occasion, allegedly doing so violently and without her consent — even if the allegations are later proven not to be true.
> 
> The Huffington Post is one of the few places a balanced analysis of the case's viability can be found.
> 
> As legal analyst for NBC News Lisa Bloom writes: "If the Bill Cosby case has taught us anything, it is to not disregard rape cases against famous men."
> 
> "In covering a story, a media outlet is not finding guilt. It is simply reporting the news that a lawsuit has been filed against Mr. Trump, and ideally putting the complaint in context."
> 
> The context she provides is one of Trump's overt misogyny and sexualisation of women.
> 
> She points to his sexist commentary about journalist Megyn Kelly, his decades of unapologetic objectification of women and two previous sexual assault claims made against him (though later dismissed), including an accusation of rape by his first wife Ivana Trump.
> 
> Being a misogynist does not automatically make someone a rapist. But when a known misogynist who is running to be President of the United States is accused of raping an underage girl, it certainly warrants investigation.
> 
> "We live in a world where wealthy, powerful men often use and abuse women and girls," Bloom says.
> 
> "While these allegations may shock some, as a lawyer who represents women in sexual abuse cases every day, I can tell you that sadly, they are common, as is an accuser’s desire to remain anonymous, and her terror in coming forward."


I'm not going to make a judgement call on this report as of yet. It could very well be slander and complete and utter nonsense but it's certainly something to not take lightly or sweep under the carpet. The media have for the entire campaign tried to smear Trump but at the same time he has said some pretty outlandish things. We will see if anything comes of it, if the mainstream media aren't reporting this then I very much doubt it.

On another note:

7 Insane quotes from Hillary Clinton: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/top-7-most-insane-hillary-clinton-quotes/



> Hillary, why do you make this so easy? She may be aloof. She may be cruel. She may be the biggest hypocrite known to mankind. But nonetheless, I’m going to vote for her because she’s a woman and I think that’s super cool.
> 
> 1. “If I didn’t kick his ass every day, he wouldn’t be worth anything.”
> 
> Of course First Lady Hillary was saying this about Bill. Poor guy had his ass kicked so much, it’s no wonder why he needed so many ladies to kiss it afterwards.
> 
> 2. “We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
> 
> Top that with Clinton’s recent quote about her campaign goal of “shuffling the deck,” when speaking in reference to income inequality, and it looks like we’ve got ourself a real-life Marxist. Oh goodie.
> 
> 3. “Where is the G*damn f**king flag! I want the G*damn f**king flag up every morning at f**king sunrise.”
> 
> This quote was published by former white house staff to the Clinton family in the book titled, “Inside the White House” by Ronald Kessler, p.244. Hillary yelled this at her staff at the Arkansas Governor’s mansion on Labor Day 1991. At least she’s patriotic…?
> 
> 4. “Who is going to find out? These women are trash. Nobody’s going to believe them.” —Hillary Rodham Clinton
> 
> Recently, Monica Lewinsky spoke out against Hillary’s treatment after her husband’s affair had been revealed. “Hillary Clinton wanted it on record that she was lashing out at her husband’s mistress. She may have faulted her husband for being inappropriate, but I find her impulse to blame the Woman – not only me, but herself – troubling.”
> 
> The champion of women’s rights seems to be hypocritically defamatory of Bill’s “other women,” despite the context.
> 
> 5. “If you want to remain on this detail, get your f**king ass over here and grab those bags!”
> 
> This quote is taken from the book “The First Partner (page 259),” a biography of Mrs. Clinton. The context states that Hillary said this to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.
> 
> 6. “There are rich people everywhere, and yet they don’t contribute to the growth of their countries.”
> 
> Because Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, the Koch brothers, Steve Forbes and friends haven’t contributed an ounce of pure innovation, job growth, or economic stimulation. And even if they had, they probably would have done so while smoking their Cuban cigars in a hot tub sipping on nice scotch, and that’s just infuriating.
> 
> 7. “It is so great to be here. You know, I was worried I wouldn’t make it. I was pinned down by sniper fire.”
> 
> In 2008, Hillary Clinton pulled what would come to be known as a “Brain Williams” and fibbed a dramatic description of her arrival in Bosnia 12 prior, recounting a landing under sniper fire. Video and photos later proved that she landed safely without any threats.
> 
> In regards to the incident, Clinton responded by saying, “I say a lot of things — millions of words a day — so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement,” she said.
> 
> Millions of words a day, folks.


To be unbiased, whilst I hate number 2 on the list Hillary is not a marxist, she's a corporatist sellout which on principle is even worse (though arguably the results are still better? Fucking lesser of two evils...). Number 6 if you include dictators in Africa and the Middle East you can sympathize with this quote and the quote itself is not specific to the US at least not in the way framed on this article. So that gets a pass. The rest are hideous, particularly 1 and 4. More evidence of a horrible horrible woman.

The most interesting piece of news I found though is something I'm sure Deso will sink his teeth into. This is FED news and it includes none other than *Alan Greenspan.*

http://schiffgold.com/videos/greenspan-us-economic-future-discounted-gold-standard-answer/



> The former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan appeared on Bloomberg last week to discuss the state of the US economy. He noted some economic indicators like bond yield spreads, rising entitlement costs, and stagflation, which are sending the US economy over the tipping point. What worries Greenspan the most is an environment of uncertainty that’s taken hold.
> For example, *Greenspan noted the spread between the 5 and 30-year treasury bonds is at its “widest level in American history.”*
> 
> Greenspan believes the bond spread is a symptom of faithlessness in the economy, which discounts the “far distant future.” He continues:
> 
> “As you move out on that spread, what you do is you create a definite bias towards producing and purchasing only those capital assets with short life expectancies. So what we’re seeing now is software is doing well; non-residential building isn’t doing well at all.”
> In short, no one wants to bet on a long-term prospect. What’s valued is a quick turnaround. There’s no faith in the future. At the heart of this is the Fed’s failed monetary policy of low interest rates and quantitative easing. Printing more money (i.e. causing inflation) to stimulate the economy comes at a cost. In this case, the cost is under speculation in the future and less long term strategy.
> 
> Peter Schiff predicted such a bond crisis in The Little Book of Bull Moves:
> “As inflation gets worse, financial assets denominated in the failing currency and the income they throw off become progressively less valuable. Ironically, in times this dire, cash and bonds, which are the time-honored safe havens during stock market crashes, become the worst assets to hold when the dollar is crashing. Bonds, which are really cash payments that are deferred, pay less and less in the current market.”
> 
> The situation is forcing investors and countries into a buying frenzy of gold. Unlike the dollar, it’s immune to the government’s fiat currency. It can’t be manipulated and artificially increased. Gold is the epitome of a steady, predictable, and faithful investment, and has been for thousands of years.
> 
> *In June, Greenspan called for a return to the gold standard as a way to return to certainty:*
> “If we went back on the gold standard and we adhered to the actual structure of the gold standard as it existed prior to 1913, we’d be fine. Remember that the period 1870 to 1913 was one of the most aggressive periods economically that we’ve had in the United States, and that was a golden period of the gold standard. I’m known as a gold bug and everyone laughs at me, but why do central banks own gold now?”
> 
> That fact still doesn’t sway some economists and dovish Fed members who continue to throw bad money after good, continually hinting at a rate hike, only to deliver broken promises. Fiscal stimulus is promoted at the expense of the US investor, whose faith in the system is waning. Greenspan paints the realistic, yet dreary, reality about investing in such a monetary milieu.
> “The solution to that is to basically remove the uncertainty, which is engendering the extraordinary discounting of the far distant future … If you’re a corporate executive right now, you don’t have any clue as to what the corporate tax rate is going to be twenty years from now. For an investment you make that, say, lasts thirty years, the present value of the income you’re expected to receive … is so heavily discounted in today’s environment that the present value is … close to zero.”


When you read this and put this into context what I said several months ago is 100% true especially now with the candidates in the running: It really doesn't matter who get's into power, the real gamechanger is not an election that happens every 4 years but the eventual crash of the bond's market which is getting shakier each month. I don't trust Trump to make the right economic moves for the US's long term future. I certainly would never trust Hillary or Bernie and Stein is even further left than Bernie which automatically makes her horrible in this area. And Gary Johnson? Who fucking knows now if he'll put the countries best interest at heart with his VP pick and endorsement of the TPP.

In any event, this is very interesting news and times.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Except for the whole implying they were radical muslims who don't allow women to speak. Except for that you're totally right.
> 
> Most sane people would call that "going after" someone.


:lol Keep up that troll game Alko.






Trump interviewed on Hannity about the Khan situation. I know you guys don't actually listen to Trump speak and just let the media tell you what he's said with their edits and their lack of context.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

A lot of that is nonsense Beatles. Please have higher standards of empiricism when defending Trump. You keep making us look bad with stuff like this. Sorry to say it but it was past time.

@L-DOPA I read an article on Snopes about that allegation where they said the woman in question has never been located or identified.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Ill post this here too


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


>


when are you going to learn those Trump memes are always bullshit.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I was raped by the author of this MSN article. And I have a friend that can corraborate my story. As a rape victim, I have a right to have all my accusations believed without question.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> @L-DOPA I read an article on Snopes about that allegation where they said the woman in question has never been located or identified.


Could you possibly send the article on this thread so I can read it?



Reaper said:


> I was raped by the author of this MSN article. And I have a friend that can corraborate my story. As a rape victim, I have a right to have all my accusations believed without question.


Never said the story was true, just that it brings up some questions.

Totally get what you are saying though.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> when are you going to learn those Trump memes are always bullshit.


When are you going to learn resprct for Southerners?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> Could you possibly send the article on this thread so I can read it?
> 
> 
> 
> Never said the story was true, just that it brings up some questions.
> 
> Totally get what you are saying though.


It shouldn't bring up any questions at all. It should be dismissed without prejudice.

This whole "you must believe a rape victim" bullshit is the newest crap feminists have invented and it's all over the interwebs right now. People are finally beginning to realize that false accusations should not be taken seriously at all.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

WELL LOOKIE HERE!

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/01/khizr-khan-has-previously-written-extensively-on-sharia-law/

Sharia Law can blow me and so can Khan.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> It shouldn't bring up any questions at all. It should be dismissed without prejudice.
> 
> This whole "you must believe a rape victim" bullshit is the newest crap feminists have invented and it's all over the interwebs right now. People are finally beginning to realize that false accusations should not be taken seriously at all.


The problem with the false accusations is the fact when an actual real rape victim tries to prosecute her rapist there is the knock on effect of people possibly not believing her.

This is why I hate the 3rd wave radical feminist bullshit that has been spewed across social media. Stuff like we live in a rape culture and the horrible 1 in 5 women at college get raped statistic which has proven to be a lie over and over again. It takes away from legitimate rape victims who have been traumatized because of what they have been through and even worse is the fact they may not even be believed.

As I said this story may be bullshit and I'm sure CP will provide me the article link detailing the other side of the story.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> WELL LOOKIE HERE!
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/01/khizr-khan-has-previously-written-extensively-on-sharia-law/
> 
> Sharia Law can blow me and so can Khan.


Don't you know, all YOUR sources are crap, all MY conjecture is crap. 

Only the tolerant people have a right to form an opinion about Khan. 

I don't even know why my experience with other Pakistanis is dismissed so easily on this site though ... I mean, the only people in Pakistan that write extensively about shariah law and research the quran and then publish papers are supremacists ... but what do I know .. I'm only a Pakistani :shrug 

Muslim supremacists don't all just have beards you know ... They can be highly educated, well dressed people who can pass off as perfectly liberal - and still hold very archaic views.

I probably should clarify though. A muslim supremacist isn't necessarily a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer either btw. It's just someone that believes that their culture, religion and beliefs are superior to everyone else's. It ultimately shows up in their interactions with actual marginalized people or in areas of their and their children's lives where they can exercise their power.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> Could you possibly send the article on this thread so I can read it?


http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

This isn't "the other side of the story", it's just less partisan than "HE'S A _KNOWN MISOGYNIST_ SO THIS COULD BE TRUE".


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> When are you going to learn resprct for Southerners?


What does pointing out how those Trump memes are bullshit, have to do with respecting southern? You don't even make any sense.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/
> 
> This isn't "the other side of the story", it's just less partisan than "HE'S A _KNOWN MISOGYNIST_ SO THIS COULD BE TRUE".


Thanks for the link, I read the article and did some further digging. The story is looking more and more sketchy as I look into it.

This article should interest you: http://jezebel.com/the-source-pushing-the-trump-rape-lawsuits-may-not-be-w-1783270283


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> Thanks for the link, I read the article and did some further digging. The story is looking more and more sketchy as I look into it.
> 
> This article should interest you: http://jezebel.com/the-source-pushing-the-trump-rape-lawsuits-may-not-be-w-1783270283


:lol Wow. Thanks for the link. 

Clinton has gotten her post-DNC bump in the polls, as I expected she would. 

Amazing to see people suggest that Trump complaining about the debate schedule (being head-to-head with NFL games) is due to him wanting to somehow avoid the debates. His whole point is he wants more people to see the debates, and he said himself back in May he wanted more than the typical 3 presidential debates because he thinks they'll be very good for him, which I agree with. Hillary and her DNC were the ones who wanted as few debates as possible during the primary, and scheduled them at bizarre dates and times so as few people would see them as possible.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Yeah that argument against Trump is bullshit. Look how many Republican debates there were compared to the DNC and that alone suggests the opposite to be true. The DNC wanted as few debates as possible so that there was little chance Hillary could be opposed as the nominee. And even then Sanders gave her a run for her money. Trump did all but one of the debates and even then he's had more debates leading up to the election than Hillary has :lol.

If anything I believe Hillary and the DNC want the debates to be head to head with the NFL so fewer people watch.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> What does pointing out how those Trump memes are bullshit, have to do with respecting southern? You don't even make any sense.


:lmao are yall seeing this? Cause I am.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> :lmao are yall seeing this? Cause I am.


Can you explain it to me because I have no idea what you're talking about right now.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Bruiser surely you have something better to do than concern trolling this thread. He didn't "go after" the Khans at all.


I am far from trolling...I'm stating the truth here. Don't argue that it was probably a ploy by the Clintons to set him up, but he took the bait. There's a way to do it properly and he bombed. This idea that I'm trolling is ridiculous. I had been looking for some reason to vote for him as Hillary is not an option, but he keeps stepping on landmines. This is all his doing if he loses the election, and I saw this coming a mile away. 

Just because I'm not drinking the Trump Kool-Aid doesn't make me a troll.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> Yeah that argument against Trump is bullshit. Look how many Republican debates there were compared to the DNC and that alone suggests the opposite to be true. The DNC wanted as few debates as possible so that there was little chance Hillary could be opposed as the nominee. And even then Sanders gave her a run for her money. Trump did all but one of the debates and even then he's had more debates leading up to the election than Hillary has :lol.
> 
> If anything I believe Hillary and the DNC want the debates to be head to head with the NFL so fewer people watch.


I don't like Trump or Hillary but if anyone is scared to debate it's Hillary. She ducked Bernie every chance she got, and Trump does not give two fucks. Sure he said he would debate Bernie then said he was not going to but Trump would not have had anything to tear into Sanders for.

He is a shit load of stuff he can tear into Hillary for, I think he will destroy her in a debate. Hillary has Trump beat on policy, but Trump will crush her on corruption when he points out all of it. And Trump goes for the throat, he is not like Bernie who was super nice and did not want to call Hillary out for her corruption like with the emails or fight for the voter fraud.

Trump is going to bring all of that up and be a dick about it, Hillary won't know how to handle it.

Just look at how rattled she got when Bernie said, it was his turn to take and she freaked out about it.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> I am far from trolling...I'm stating the truth here. Don't argue that it was probably a ploy by the Clintons to set him up, but he took the bait. There's a way to do it properly and he bombed. This idea that I'm trolling is ridiculous. I had been looking for some reason to vote for him as Hillary is not an option, but he keeps stepping on landmines. This is all his doing if he loses the election, and I saw this coming a mile away.
> 
> Just because I'm not drinking the Trump Kool-Aid doesn't make me a troll.


Except, Trump is being proven right.

Im sorry that Cruz or your granddaddy's Republican candidate would have turned and ran, but Trump is 100% right and he knows it. There is no REASON to back down.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Can you explain it to me because I have no idea what you're talking about right now.


Na, not going to feed him anymore. He did exactly as I expected. I'll PM you tho.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> I am far from trolling...I'm stating the truth here. Don't argue that it was probably a ploy by the Clintons to set him up, but he took the bait. There's a way to do it properly and he bombed. This idea that I'm trolling is ridiculous. I had been looking for some reason to vote for him as Hillary is not an option, but he keeps stepping on landmines. This is all his doing if he loses the election, and I saw this coming a mile away.
> 
> Just because I'm not drinking the Trump Kool-Aid doesn't make me a troll.


I actually think he was very generous towards Khan, saying he looked like a nice person. He sure didn't seem like a nice or even decent person to me. Their son died 12 years ago in a war that HILLARY CLINTON supported, and he's up there stumping for her and hurling insults at Trump who had nothing to do with it, to help influence an election for someone who will no doubt put even more soldiers in harms way. I would not have viewed him at all as someone who should be tip-toed around (except strategically, knowing how the media would spin it). 

What Trump said doesn't bother me at all. Everyone knows the role of women in Islam and how they're treated, so if that is even what he meant with the "wasn't allowed to speak" suggestion, so what? Because their son died in a horrible and shameful invasion by our country we have to treat the family as beyond reproach for the rest of our lives? No thanks. Give it to me straight every time. Dad was talking shit, and got off extremely easy, because of how much Trump respects the military and their families. 

You are concern trolling because you've already made it clear you won't support Trump for some frankly ridiculous reasons that I've already gone through, and you continue to puppet the MSM's talking points while feigning objectivity. I debunk and expose what you're doing, and you just deflect and play the victim. Enough already. I expect that from leftists, not you. Be better.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Na, not going to feed him anymore. He did exactly as I expected. I'll PM you tho.


The only person trolling here is you. You are just embarrassed because two people told you that your Trump meme was bullshit, one of which is a Trump supporter. 

It's also funny nobody knows what you are talking about and you admit you refuse to put it in open chat because nothing I said about your Trump meme shows disrespect for southerners.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> WELL LOOKIE HERE!
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/01/khizr-khan-has-previously-written-extensively-on-sharia-law/
> 
> Sharia Law can blow me and so can Khan.


Firstly what is so damning about this article? Ok so he's written about the Quran and Sharia Law etc etc I'm sure he's not the first to do so. As far as I could tell he wasn't insisting on it in America so what's the problem? If there's something I'm missing please let me know.

Obviously Sharia law is barbaric and has no place in any modern society, however as a proud American surely you must also support freedom of religion?

Besides, the armed forces had no problem accepting his son did they?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Dad was talking shit, and got off extremely easy, because of how much Trump respects the military and their families.


Jesus Christ, just wanted to quote this for extreme spinnery.



Also, if the MSM are so big and bad and biased against Trump, then why isn't his alleged rape story of a minor all over the news as the number one story? Honest question. Whether or not it's true shouldn't matter because we all know the leftist MSM will do anything to try and bring down Trump.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump on endorsing Paul Ryan in his primary for re-relection to his house seat: "I'm not quite there yet." 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...hn-mccain-re-election-endorsements?CMP=twt_gu

:sodone :sodone :sodone


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Na, not going to feed him anymore. He did exactly as I expected. I'll PM you tho.


Are you implying Trump memes are part of your Southern identity? I disagree with him A LOT but he rightly called out the memes as not to be taken seriously.

It's not like anyone was using New York values level of speech here.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Again with the 'war isn't Trump's fault!' defence when the main issue raised during Khan's speech was about Trump's immigration rhetoric and how it would affect people like his family, not on who is to blame for the death of his son.

Complaining about MSM, look at how much coverage was given to Melania Trump's deleted website and Khizr Khan's website on the supposedly more trustworthy conservative media.

One is potentially the next first lady while another is a private citizen. If you want to call bullshit, call it on all sides.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Except, Trump is being proven right.
> 
> Im sorry that Cruz or your granddaddy's Republican candidate would have turned and ran, but Trump is 100% right and he knows it. There is no REASON to back down.





CamillePunk said:


> I actually think he was very generous towards Khan, saying he looked like a nice person. He sure didn't seem like a nice or even decent person to me. Their son died 12 years ago in a war that HILLARY CLINTON supported, and he's up there stumping for her and hurling insults at Trump who had nothing to do with it, to help influence an election for someone who will no doubt put even more soldiers in harms way. I would not have viewed him at all as someone who should be tip-toed around (except strategically, knowing how the media would spin it).
> 
> What Trump said doesn't bother me at all. Everyone knows the role of women in Islam and how they're treated, so if that is even what he meant with the "wasn't allowed to speak" suggestion, so what? Because their son died in a horrible and shameful invasion by our country we have to treat the family as beyond reproach for the rest of our lives? No thanks. Give it to me straight every time. Dad was talking shit, and got off extremely easy, because of how much Trump respects the military and their families.
> 
> You are concern trolling because you've already made it clear you won't support Trump for some frankly ridiculous reasons that I've already gone through, and you continue to puppet the MSM's talking points while feigning objectivity. I debunk and expose what you're doing, and you just deflect and play the victim. Enough already. I expect that from leftists, not you. Be better.


Alright, gentlemen...want you to pay attention here. Although this story refers to The Hill...this was found courtesy of Newsmax (which BTW is a little further to the right than FNC). 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
GOP To Trump: Stop 'Taking the Bait,' Focus on 'Real Issues'*

By Cathy Burke 

Advisers worried that Donald Trump is veering off topic to "take the bait every time" from critics are urging the GOP nominee to get back on track and focus on the issues that have resonated with voters, The Hill reports.

"Hopefully, Donald Trump will soon recognize that if you take the bait every time, you’ll never have a chance to discuss the real issues,” retired pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson, a former GOP presidential candidate who's now advising Trump, tells The Hill.

“We have the upper hand on the economy, education... and a whole host of things, there is no dearth of substantial issues to talk about. There is no reason to engage with those who are trying to make this about something else."


“The message is penetrating," he adds. "It’s soaking through. He’s marinating in it."

Trump has been under heavy fire for his contentious attacks on the Muslim parents of fallen Army Capt. Humayun Khan.

"The only lasting damage he did this week was the opportunity cost where he wasn’t talking about what he was supposed to be talking about every single day," Barry Bennett, Carson’s former campaign manager who's also advised the Trump campaign, tells The Hill.

GOP pollster Frank Luntz says the last two weeks have shown Trump "at his best and his worst."

"Trump is at his best when he is attacking the system. He is at his worst when he is attacking specific people," Luntz tells The Hill. "If he wants to win this election, he will go back to attacking the system, and he will leave individual people alone.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you have people telling you that there is a problem, whether you care to admit or not you have a problem. You have people coming out and saying Donald Trump is losing the narrative right now when he needs to focus on the issues. Plus, there are some angry soldiers, veterans, and their families. And these aren't like many of the Sanders supporters who got Berned. These people actually vote, approximately 95% of them will go to the ballot box. Those aren't a group of people you want to piss off, especially after we've dealt with two anti-military presidents in a row. I'm one of those. I served my country and it was 100% my choice. In a very contentious race, you need every vote imaginable. That's not a narrative from the lamestream media, that's the truth. 

Again, this is not about running scared or turning the other cheek...there is a way to handle a situation like that with class and not come across looking like a complete douche. Ted Cruz handled Trayvon Martin's mom with kid gloves when she spoke to Congress, no one accused him of running. George W. Bush handled Cindy Sheehan perfectly, even though she has gotten carried away since then. Trump could have handled the situation in that fashion. Let Khan stay angry if he wants to, that's fine. Trump would end up looking like and sounding like a leader. He would be applauded for his aplomb, not condemned. Instead, this story has legs because he just has to get the last word. 

I don't think either one of you are grasping the concept (or choose not to) that it's time for Trump to start being and acting like a true leader. We don't expect warm and fuzzy, that's obviously not his style and he would come across as fake as Pamela Anderson's boobs if he did. But, the people of this country that want to vote for him expect someone that when the chips are down to have a steady hand, an assuring voice, and seem like he's in complete control of the situation. The current occupier of the Oval Office is clearly not that person. If Trump would stop picking fights with everyone, he might be able to do that. Again, it's the truth, whether you like it or not. 

The biggest reason I have against Trump is the fact...get this because you won't hear this in the MSM...HE'S NOT A CONSERVATIVE! He is a liberal through and through. I know that some of you have just basically jumped on the Trump bandwagon because it's the cool, hip, thing to do. However, I've been a conservative my whole life not because it is cool, because there are times I'm accused of being anything but. I believe in the Constitution, I believe in the Bill of Rights, and I believe in the freedoms that the Founding Fathers and God gave us. I spoke out about it when I was younger, I spoke about it when I first came to this forum and let everyone know my political views, and 20 years from now when Trump-a-mania has passed I will still tout the same stance. There are people who may think I'm full of shit, but they know where I stand and I'm not just going to hop onto something like the latest fad. You aren't supposed to wear being a Trumpamaniac like a model wears the latest fall wear from Paris on the catwalk. It may not be popular, but I know what I speak is the right thing and I'm willing to fight for it. I have been thinking for a while I live in Bizarro World, but that day has come as I'm accused of being like the liberals. I make the two of you look like bleeding heart liberals I'm sure with where I really stand compared to your views.

You want to talk about sacrifices (Trump brought this up). Right now in my home state, we have a senator that has put his prestigious political career and reputation on the line. He has stuck his finger in the dike and is hoping for Trump to win in November so that we might possibly get a conservative Supreme Court nominee to keep the Constitution from becoming a memory. There are millions of people who want to give Trump a chance, they are wanting to but are concerned about the way he acts. Contrary to what you have had your head filled with, we all want the same thing. We want a better nation, a stronger nation. We want America to be an example for the world to follow. But unless Trump pulls his head out of his ass and starts showing some conservative bonafides and starts acting like a true leader, that's going to be a memory. 

I know I'm telling the truth here, whether you agree or not. Regardless of what I feel about Trump, I'm not going to blow smoke up anyone's ass and will tell it as I see it. Maybe it fits your narrative, maybe it doesn't. It is time for Trump to be that business leader that we have seen. Puffing out your chest and thumping your fist on the table only takes you so far. Trump has that chance to make history, provided he is up to the task. If he can show me that, as well as start showing he is willing to live up to the Constitution and show those bonafides, I would re-consider my stance on voting for him. I don't expect perfection, McCain and Romney weren't perfect but showed enough. Trump needs to show me he has any at all.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Except, Trump is being proven right.
> 
> Im sorry that Cruz or your granddaddy's Republican candidate would have turned and ran, but Trump is 100% right and he knows it. There is no REASON to back down.


What has Trump been proven right about?

Almost everything he says is a lie and the newcasters are even pointing it out to his face when he is wrong.

Trump is wrong 99% of the time, because he talks out of his ass, he does not have a clue what he is talking about

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fact-check-donald-trump-gets-a-lot-wrong-on-ukraine/


Fact-check: Donald Trump gets a lot wrong on Ukraine
46 Comments 84 Shares Tweet Stumble Email
WASHINGTON -- Donald Trump is trying to claw back a string of inaccurate comments about Ukraine, but he's yet to get it right.

Over the weekend, Trump asserted in an ABC interview that Russia would not enter Ukraine, not seeming to know Russian troops were already there. He suggested the 2014 annexation of Crimea didn't count because the peninsula's people preferred being part of Russia, which was Russian President Vladimir Putin's stated reason for taking it.

Prodded by his interviewer, the Republican presidential candidate modified his statement afterward.

"Already in Crimea!" Trump tweeted Monday, referring to Russian forces. "That's what I said!"

The attempted clarifications left much unclarified.

Here's how Trump's comments comport with the facts:

___

TRUMP on Putin: "He's not going into Ukraine, OK. Just so you understand: He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right?"

THE FACTS: Putin did go into Ukraine. After Ukrainian protesters chased Viktor Yanukovych, their Russian-backed leader, from power in February 2014, Russian troops stationed at a base in Crimea seized strategic locations on the peninsula and replaced the local government with pro-Kremlin politicians. Russia annexed the territory after a widely discredited referendum a month later.

Moscow didn't stop there, according to the central government in Kiev and its Western backers, sending troops and military equipment to help separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine. They say Russia continues to train rebels and direct low-level attacks against Ukrainian forces on the front line.

Russia acknowledges it has some military officials in Ukraine, but says no regular troops are there.

In his tweets Monday, Trump sought to explain himself: "When I said in an interview that Putin is 'not going into Ukraine, you can mark it down,' I am saying if I am President."

___

TRUMP: "You know, the people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were. And you have to look at that, also."

THE FACTS: Trump is right that many Crimeans, being ethnically Russian, felt close to Moscow. But that is only part of the story.

The March 2014 referendum that officially showed 95 percent of Crimeans wanting to join Russia faced an avalanche of criticism.

It occurred as thousands of Russian troops were controlling Crimea. There were charges that people voted at gunpoint. No respected international election monitors supervised the balloting. Crimea's large Muslim Tatar minority, whose families were forcibly relocated to Central Asia during Soviet times, defiantly opposed joining Russia. Many ethnic Ukrainians stayed at home. And the world community almost universally panned the annexation.

___

TRUMP: "As far as the Ukraine is concerned, it's a mess. And that's under the Obama's administration, with his strong ties to NATO. So with all of these strong ties to NATO, Ukraine is a mess."

THE FACTS: Ukraine is not a NATO country and is not covered under the alliance's basic premise that "an attack against one ally is considered as an attack against all allies," so Trump's implication that NATO somehow failed Ukraine is incorrect.

Ukraine has never been part of the 28-member organization.

And although NATO has mobilized for campaigns in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Libya, the self-described defensive alliance has never engaged in military action against Russia.

It probably would never do so unless a NATO member -- such as Poland or one of the Baltic states -- were faced with Russian aggression.

___

TRUMP: "If we can have a good relationship with Russia and if Russia would help us get rid of ISIS ... that would be a positive thing, not a negative thing."

THE FACTS: Hawks in both parties have attacked Trump for suggesting closer U.S.-Russian coordination against the Islamic State. Much of the criticism has been unfair.

Trump's suggested approach is in line with the current strategy of the Obama administration. And Republican and Democratic administrations have a long history of counterterrorism cooperation with Russia, even during times of strained relations.

Former President George W. Bush worked with Putin to fight al-Qaida and other extremist groups after 9/11. As secretary of state, Clinton took partial credit for Russia opening up a northern corridor for U.S. troops and materiel to reach Afghanistan.

Trump also has been accused of having a hand in the Republican Party platform's omission of pushing for lethal aid to Ukraine, a long held GOP position. The current platform calls for "appropriate assistance" to Ukraine.

President Barack Obama, too, has opposed providing offensive weaponry to Ukraine.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Alright, gentlemen...want you to pay attention here. Although this story refers to The Hill...this was found courtesy of Newsmax (which BTW is a little further to the right than FNC).
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *
> GOP To Trump: Stop 'Taking the Bait,' Focus on 'Real Issues'*
> 
> By Cathy Burke
> 
> Advisers worried that Donald Trump is veering off topic to "take the bait every time" from critics are urging the GOP nominee to get back on track and focus on the issues that have resonated with voters, The Hill reports.
> 
> "Hopefully, Donald Trump will soon recognize that if you take the bait every time, you’ll never have a chance to discuss the real issues,” retired pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson, a former GOP presidential candidate who's now advising Trump, tells The Hill.
> 
> “We have the upper hand on the economy, education... and a whole host of things, there is no dearth of substantial issues to talk about. There is no reason to engage with those who are trying to make this about something else."
> 
> 
> “The message is penetrating," he adds. "It’s soaking through. He’s marinating in it."
> 
> Trump has been under heavy fire for his contentious attacks on the Muslim parents of fallen Army Capt. Humayun Khan.
> 
> "The only lasting damage he did this week was the opportunity cost where he wasn’t talking about what he was supposed to be talking about every single day," Barry Bennett, Carson’s former campaign manager who's also advised the Trump campaign, tells The Hill.
> 
> GOP pollster Frank Luntz says the last two weeks have shown Trump "at his best and his worst."
> 
> "Trump is at his best when he is attacking the system. He is at his worst when he is attacking specific people," Luntz tells The Hill. "If he wants to win this election, he will go back to attacking the system, and he will leave individual people alone.”
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> When you have people telling you that there is a problem, whether you care to admit or not you have a problem. You have people coming out and saying Donald Trump is losing the narrative right now when he needs to focus on the issues. Plus, there are some angry soldiers, veterans, and their families. And these aren't like many of the Sanders supporters who got Berned. These people actually vote, approximately 95% of them will go to the ballot box. Those aren't a group of people you want to piss off, especially after we've dealt with two anti-military presidents in a row. I'm one of those. I served my country and it was 100% my choice. In a very contentious race, you need every vote imaginable. That's not a narrative from the lamestream media, that's the truth.
> 
> Again, this is not about running scared or turning the other cheek...there is a way to handle a situation like that with class and not come across looking like a complete douche. Ted Cruz handled Trayvon Martin's mom with kid gloves when she spoke to Congress, no one accused him of running. George W. Bush handled Cindy Sheehan perfectly, even though she has gotten carried away since then. Trump could have handled the situation in that fashion. Let Khan stay angry if he wants to, that's fine. Trump would end up looking like and sounding like a leader. He would be applauded for his aplomb, not condemned. Instead, this story has legs because he just has to get the last word.
> 
> I don't think either one of you are grasping the concept (or choose not to) that it's time for Trump to start being and acting like a true leader. We don't expect warm and fuzzy, that's obviously not his style and he would come across as fake as Pamela Anderson's boobs if he did. But, the people of this country that want to vote for him expect someone that when the chips are down to have a steady hand, an assuring voice, and seem like he's in complete control of the situation. The current occupier of the Oval Office is clearly not that person. If Trump would stop picking fights with everyone, he might be able to do that. Again, it's the truth, whether you like it or not.
> 
> The biggest reason I have against Trump is the fact...get this because you won't hear this in the MSM...HE'S NOT A CONSERVATIVE! He is a liberal through and through. I know that some of you have just basically jumped on the Trump bandwagon because it's the cool, hip, thing to do. However, I've been a conservative my whole life not because it is cool, because there are times I'm accused of being anything but. I believe in the Constitution, I believe in the Bill of Rights, and I believe in the freedoms that the Founding Fathers and God gave us. I spoke out about it when I was younger, I spoke about it when I first came to this forum and let everyone know my political views, and 20 years from now when Trump-a-mania has passed I will still tout the same stance. There are people who may think I'm full of shit, but they know where I stand and I'm not just going to hop onto something like the latest fad. You aren't supposed to wear being a Trumpamaniac like a model wears the latest fall wear from Paris on the catwalk. It may not be popular, but I know what I speak is the right thing and I'm willing to fight for it. I have been thinking for a while I live in Bizarro World, but that day has come as I'm accused of being like the liberals. I make the two of you look like bleeding heart liberals I'm sure with where I really stand compared to your views.
> 
> You want to talk about sacrifices (Trump brought this up). Right now in my home state, we have a senator that has put his prestigious political career and reputation on the line. He has stuck his finger in the dike and is hoping for Trump to win in November so that we might possibly get a conservative Supreme Court nominee to keep the Constitution from becoming a memory. There are millions of people who want to give Trump a chance, they are wanting to but are concerned about the way he acts. Contrary to what you have had your head filled with, we all want the same thing. We want a better nation, a stronger nation. We want America to be an example for the world to follow. But unless Trump pulls his head out of his ass and starts showing some conservative bonafides and starts acting like a true leader, that's going to be a memory.
> 
> I know I'm telling the truth here, whether you agree or not. Regardless of what I feel about Trump, I'm not going to blow smoke up anyone's ass and will tell it as I see it. Maybe it fits your narrative, maybe it doesn't. It is time for Trump to be that business leader that we have seen. Puffing out your chest and thumping your fist on the table only takes you so far. Trump has that chance to make history, provided he is up to the task. If he can show me that, as well as start showing he is willing to live up to the Constitution and show those bonafides, I would re-consider my stance on voting for him. I don't expect perfection, McCain and Romney weren't perfect but showed enough. Trump needs to show me he has any at all.


To me hes showed that already :shrug


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> To me hes showed that already :shrug


Just saying, "I'm a conservative" doesn't make it so. There are a lot of people here that could say that and it means nothing. Just because Trump says it doesn't make it. Besides, in the past I've shown multiple reasons why he's a liberal on many of his stances. Trust me, there are many other Americans like me who are seeing the same thing I do, and we don't get our news from the Marxist News Broadcasting Company or the Communist News Network. Many of us truly question his devotion to conservative stances.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Are you implying Trump memes are part of your Southern identity? I disagree with him A LOT but he rightly called out the memes as not to be taken seriously.
> 
> It's not like anyone was using New York values level of speech here.


His behavior about anything pro trump is as bad as his views on southern people. I'll learn to see it his way when he changes HIS view, thank you. What he accuses me of is no worse than his own radical jargon.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Just saying, "I'm a conservative" doesn't make it so. There are a lot of people here that could say that and it means nothing. Just because Trump says it doesn't make it. Besides, in the past I've shown multiple reasons why he's a liberal on many of his stances. Trust me, there are many other Americans like me who are seeing the same thing I do, and we don't get our news from the Marxist News Broadcasting Company or the Communist News Network. Many of us truly question his devotion to conservative stances.


Which conservatism, Ted Cruz conservatism? Sorry but a lot of this play nice mentality is why the Dems win.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> His behavior about anything pro trump is as bad as his views on southern people. I'll learn to see it his way when he changes HIS view, thank you. What he accuses me of is no worse than his own radical jargon.


Not much different from your views about anything Hilary or liberals. :shrug

He called you out on the memes, don't hide behind feelings are hurt to avoid the issue like those 'filthy leftists'.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> His behavior about anything pro trump is as bad as his views on southern people. I'll learn to see it his way when he changes HIS view, thank you. What he accuses me of is no worse than his own radical jargon.


I told you to stop believing those BS Trump memes because they are not true. And you took it personally. If you are going to post something that is not true, I am going to call you out on it. It's not a slight against you.

I am just informing you, you should not believe those Trump memes because they are rarely ever true.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Which conservatism, Ted Cruz conservatism? Sorry but a lot of this play nice mentality is why the Dems win.


I think what Bruiser is after is an actual explanation of your response based on the valid points he raised, not just that he's proven himself to you. His own words have shown that he was wrong on several stances in that post and you've just basically chosen to ignore them and challenge nothing.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/02/nsa-has-clintons-deleted-emails-whistleblower-claims.html

HERE WE GO, KIDS!!!


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Which conservatism, Ted Cruz conservatism? Sorry but a lot of this play nice mentality is why the Dems win.


No, the reason the Dems have won is because the GOP keeps buying into this narrative that you have to move to the middle and include everyone and just have one big tent of happiness and GOPism everywhere. The most conservative Republican that has been the GOP Presidential candidate over the last 40 years was Reagan. He talked about a Republican party that painted in bold colors and not pastels. Last time I checked, the GOP has been trying to paint with pastels and the Dems are using the bold colors. 

Plus, the GOP has failed to stick to its core message. They've lost the conservative values that made them the party of limited government. George W Bush talked about limited government, yet government overreached went into overdrive on his watch plus spending money like crazy while trying to finance two conflicts. Romney introduced the concept of UHC to the country with his implementation of it in Taxachusetts. Paul Ryan has rolled over time and again for the Dems with regards to the budget. That's why they've been losing. 

The conservative concept is, limited government, spending within its budget, using the military for defense purposes and not nation-building, and the rights of the people are tantamount and take priority above all else. The GOP lost sight of that, big time. That's how the Tea Party came to be, and that's why you have the anger right now that is facing the GOP establishment. 

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz is anything but nice. This is a man who went against McConnell and called the Senate Majority Leader a liar on the floor. Former president Jimmy Carter said he'd prefer Trump to Ted Cruz because he's more "malleable" and able to make deals. That's because Cruz showed he is consistent and can't be bought. If the GOP leadership aren't fans of Trump, they hate Cruz even more. Just because Ted Cruz didn't raise his voice with his non-endorsement of Trump doesn't mean he's nice.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

@BruiserKC 

So yeah, I never said Trump shouldn't stop taking the bait, or that he shouldn't be talking about more important things. What I disputed was your assertion that he "went after" the Khans, or that there was anything disturbing about the CONTENT of what he said. If you want to talk campaign strategy, then I agree he should've just avoided the topic, which is something I'd say about a lot of the messes he finds himself in with the media. I don't think these squabbles help him at all, and have never said that they do. I'm sure they hurt him to a degree. So the first half of your post really boils down to a strawman, in my view. 

I'm not convinced you actually care about his campaign strategy either, as you have repeated many blatantly false MSM talking points about Trump as if they were true in the past. Hard to take you seriously now when you pretend to care about Trump's electability. You've already proven to be all too quick to jump on any anti-Trump narrative while clearly being unequipped with the facts. 

Trump isn't a "true conservative", he's a populist with a lot of conservative positions and a few liberal positions. I don't think I've disputed that on here, because I don't care about "true conservatism". I'm an anarcho-capitalist, no serious political candidate will ever line up anywhere close to my views. I'm voting Trump to slow down immigration from the third world, stymy the globalist agenda, lower taxes, lessen regulation, have a less interventionist foreign policy, and maybe have supreme court justices that aren't left-wing activists, as I ultimately view the goals of the left to be the downfall of western civilization as we know it. I don't know how much of this Trump will accomplish, or what other things he'll do that I won't like, but I know Hillary has pledged to do the exact opposite. That's good enough for me to support Trump. The fact he's entertaining as hell and is one of the few people in politics with the balls to stand firm against the media and political correctness is an aesthetic bonus.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/02/nsa-has-clintons-deleted-emails-whistleblower-claims.html
> 
> HERE WE GO, KIDS!!!


Oooh I love a good whistleblower!

This is an interesting quandary though:



> Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Napolitano said on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday that any such database could be problematic for FBI Director James Comey, since accessing it “would be revealing that the NSA does in fact have everyone’s emails, which a lot of us believe.”


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> @BruiserKC
> 
> So yeah, I never said Trump shouldn't stop taking the bait, or that he shouldn't be talking about more important things. What I disputed was your assertion that he "went after" the Khans, or that there was anything disturbing about the CONTENT of what he said. If you want to talk campaign strategy, then I agree he should've just avoided the topic, which is something I'd say about a lot of the messes he finds himself in with the media. I don't think these squabbles help him at all, and have never said that they do. I'm sure they hurt him to a degree. So the first half of your post really boils down to a strawman, in my view.
> 
> I'm not convinced you actually care about his campaign strategy either, as you have repeated many blatantly false MSM talking points about Trump as if they were true in the past. Hard to take you seriously now when you pretend to care about Trump's electability. You've already proven to be all too quick to jump on any anti-Trump narrative while clearly being unequipped with the facts.
> 
> Trump isn't a "true conservative", he's a populist with a lot of conservative positions and a few liberal positions. I don't think I've disputed that on here, because I don't care about "true conservatism". I'm an anarcho-capitalist, no serious political candidate will ever line up anywhere close to my views. I'm voting Trump to slow down immigration from the third world, stymy the globalist agenda, lower taxes, lessen regulation, have a less interventionist foreign policy, and maybe have supreme court justices that aren't left-wing activists, as I ultimately view the goals of the left to be the downfall of western civilization as we know it. I don't know how much of this Trump will accomplish, or what other things he'll do that I won't like, but I know Hillary has pledged to do the exact opposite. That's good enough for me to support Trump. The fact he's entertaining as hell and is one of the few people in politics with the balls to stand firm against the media and political correctness is an aesthetic bonus.


The facts are there, you just choose to ignore it because you're blinded to the idea of Trump. Many of us want to know where he truly stands, he changes his position like I change socks on quite a few things. HRC, as evil and demonic as she is, we know where she stands. Trump is a liberal with many liberal views and almost no conservative views, many of which I have laid out here in the past. A man who endorses the re-authorization of the Patriot Act, is for eminent domain (for his own personal benefit), is willing to open up the 1st Amendment to allow reporters to be sued, etc...doesn't truly believe in the Constitution. The GOP has lied to us all over the years, I'm not willing to be taken again by someone who claims to be a conservative and isn't. 

You and I agree the left wants to finish the transformation of this country, but we had the chance multiple times to not be at this point and the GOP folded every single time. I need to know that the man to stop this is truly dedicated to the cause and is willing to do what it takes to stop it. I really don't think Trump is that person based on his history. Again, the chances were there over the years to end this slide. If this is the last chance we have, I need to know that he will be a leader and willing to do what it takes before I will even consider voting for him. Again, he doesn't have to change the message, the message works. But, the tone needs to be changed up. Being a leader isn't just stomping around, being a leader is taking charge and instilling the trust for others to follow. I don't give a shit about entertainment, that only carries me so far.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Khizr Khan deleted his law firm's website. Maybe you should think twice before talking shit about a Presidential nominee in front of a nationwide audience?

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*






Trump's sacrifice to earn a purple heart.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

1.) It was the soldier's choice to give it to him.

2.) It's a joke. Not a dick. Don't take it so hard!

- Vic


----------



## .MCH

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary's landslide this November is going to be beautiful.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Khizr Khan deleted his law firm's website. Maybe you should think twice before talking shit about a Presidential nominee in front of a nationwide audience?
> 
> - Vic


Why did he delete it?


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The liberal media will tell you it was because he got tired of getting hate mail, but IMO the move is significant, as he used his website to financially benefit from unfettered pay-to-play Muslim migration into America.

- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> The liberal media will tell you it was because he got tired of getting hate mail, but IMO the move is significant, as *he used his website to financially benefit from unfettered pay-to-play Muslim migration into America.*
> 
> - Vic


Sounds like good ol American opportunity capitalism to me! Almost worthy of Donald himself.

However considering some of the hate speech I've seen directed towards the guy, I wouldn't be surprised if it really did factor in him shutting down. It may have been affecting his family who knows?


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*







Hillary plans to fu** over hard working Americans. I'll give her credit though. At least, she was honest for a change!

- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

BABYGATE: TRUMP THREATENS NOISY BABY AND MOTHER TO LEAVE TRUMP RALLY

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-03/donald-trump-asks-crying-baby-to-leave-rally/7685036


THIS JUST IN! The baby has ISIS/Sharia Law/Leftist ties and is a member of the Democratic Party. Mother 'good friend' of Hillary.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

The media really has become a parody of itself. :lol


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump displays many flashes of unalloyed promise, but, no matter how truly right he may--or may not--be in one kerfuffle after another, he needs to learn to sidestep some of these landmines the Democrats, media and his fellow Republicans, for that matter, want him to step on... Instead, he repeatedly performs a belly flop on them. :lol 

The Democratic Party bosses are seasoned politicos. Ruthless. They know how to fracture the oppositional forces. (Republicans have been awful at this in presidential races since cynically and successfully--politically speaking--exploiting homosexual marriage in states like Ohio in 2004.) This Khantroversy was designed not only to simply make Trump look as bad as possible, it was pushed with the idea of it driving a considerable wedge within the Republican ranks. It's true; _National Review_, for instance, has always editorially loathed Trump and his movement, but the Democrats are providing Trump with one chance after another to further alienate some _NR_ readers (merely using them as an example) and he seems willing to oblige. 

Khan asking, "Have you even read the Constitution?" was a genius political stroke. As was using a "Gold Star Family" in the first place. If there are two things outside of Israel and "the free market" that movement "True Conservatives" as they are fashionably calling themselves love to genuflect before in hallowed reverence, it is the vague abstract concept of the U.S. Constitution as it purportedly exists in 2016 and the U.S. military. 

Let us make no mistake. The media, while largely aiming to weaken Trump, enjoy what he has meant for their ratings, but Trump and his forces cannot compare in the all-important money and organizational departments that the Democrats have cornered the markets on, and if the Republicans fail to cooperate with one another as the final weeks of summer elapse, this could turn remarkably ugly for not only Trump's presidential bid but for the GOP control of the Senate, which would almost surely be lost with such rampant dissension and disunity. A vicious cycle could occur among both anti-Trump and pro-Trump Republicans, especially depending on the outcomes to the primary races in Wisconsin and Arizona for Paul Ryan and John McCain respectively. 

On top of the sense of unity that was engendered by Bernie Sanders endorsing Hillary and Hillary's adoption of items like "free college tuition" as well as the media's marginalization of protesters and spurned Bernie fans, in sharp contrast to the ensuing inter-Republican bitterness concerning Trump's war of words with the Khans, Hillary's ground game is still only preparing to be launched in the key battleground states. Once it gets rolling in about five weeks, places like Ohio and North Carolina will see themselves covered as though by sweeping Panzer divisions. 

Trump's presently losing the handle on the message. Someone in his camp needs to grab him by the ears and tell him to just shut the hell up about several specific things, and go back to focusing on the last eight miserable years in the U.S. because somehow, with media fully assisting, he's obfuscating his own strongest points. :lol


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

May I ask how the crying baby and purple heart incidents are landmines created by the Dems or the media and not Trump shooting his own foot?

Nobody in Trump's camp could have anticipated how Trump's reactions to those two incidents would be perceived negatively. I'm pretty sure the purple heart thing was a publicity stunt organised by Trump's campaign that somehow Trump manage to turn it into a negative by being perceived as trivialising the award. Trump have the right to ask the mother of the crying baby to get out, but his follow up after saying to get the baby out showed how he views his supporters. As clueless people that don't understand.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk @MissSally; @birthday_massacre @Reaper @Beatles123 @yeahbaby!
> 
> The most interesting piece of news I found though is something I'm sure Deso will sink his teeth into. This is FED news and it includes none other than *Alan Greenspan.*
> 
> http://schiffgold.com/videos/greenspan-us-economic-future-discounted-gold-standard-answer/
> 
> 
> 
> When you read this and put this into context what I said several months ago is 100% true especially now with the candidates in the running: It really doesn't matter who get's into power, the real gamechanger is not an election that happens every 4 years but the eventual crash of the bond's market which is getting shakier each month. I don't trust Trump to make the right economic moves for the US's long term future. I certainly would never trust Hillary or Bernie and Stein is even further left than Bernie which automatically makes her horrible in this area. And Gary Johnson? Who fucking knows now if he'll put the countries best interest at heart with his VP pick and endorsement of the TPP.
> 
> In any event, this is very interesting news and times.


Fantastic, *L-DOPA*, fantastic. :clap 

I've been mulling over the creation of a thread concerning this. 

Alan Greenspan is an interesting cat. Some of his early writings are phenomenal. Of course he "sold out" and was one of the chief architects of several different bubbles, but he is nevertheless intelligent and his point about bringing the gold standard back seems prescient considering where the bonds markets are going, and how problematic that plus the derivatives bubble are, all by themselves. 

We are presently seeing what is occurring in Japan as the Bank of Japan enjoys nearly no faith anymore and now Japanese government bond markets are collapsing due to somewhat crazed policies. The 10Y JGB yields mushroomed from about -30bps to approximately 0bps in only a few short days, which is by far the biggest crash in prices in almost four years now. It's a day of reckoning--a small one, in the grand scheme of things, perhaps, but a day of reckoning nonetheless--that is creating waves throughout the entire global developed bond market. Bund yield spiking, as well as the blowout of British, Danish and Swiss bonds, all in only a few short days. 

Since the Bank of Japan's bond-purchasing plot proved to be less aggressive than what most investors went in looking for and hoping for, and the Japanese economy approved 13.5 trillion yen in fiscal measures, the market has taken a drubbing.

Japan's ostensible stability is at this point only a charade. As markets determine that the present situation is untenable, something wicked this way will come for the world's third-greatest economy.

The matter at hand with the bond markets, which Greenspan rightly points to, is becoming exacerbated by the myriad warning signs emanating from Europe, and most crucially Deutsche bank, the E.U.'s most critical bank. With Deutsche's stock price in free fall, year to year, nearly 65% since the beginning of the summer of 2015, Deutsche will be closing almost 200 branches and eliminating over 3,000 jobs in the next couple of months. When George Soros argued that the E.U. is well on its way to the grave, he pointed to Deutsche among other signs of ill health. The Italians are speaking of creating a "public backstop" for their banks' many toxic loans. Since the E.U. regulations forbid a 2008 U.S.-style theft--er, I mean, "bailout"--from occurring, the Italians and others are looking at potential "bail-ins" and millions of people could see their IRAs and savings looted in order to keep these banks afloat. Mario Draghi, who used to be the governor of the Bank of Italy and is now the chief of the European Central Bank. Many underlings are working on behalf of his wishes to construct this "public backstop" in the near future. 

This is all without touching the derivatives bubble. Warren Buffet has correctly assessed the derivatives as "financial weapons of mass destruction." The derivatives bubble is, to put it as mildly as possible, simply catastrophic in its potential consequences. This is one of the reasons why Deutsche bank or other titans of finance sinking would leave earth-scarring ramifications as the derivatives bubble, popped with the demise of a major bank, the derivatives would be liquidated. 

In any event, the hour is late and I must soon retire. Thank you for sharing, once again, *L-DOPA*!


----------



## Cliffy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Think trump has blown it personally

The last week has been appaling for him


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vince's Massive Bulge said:


> Think trump has blown it personally
> 
> The last week has been appaling for him


It hasn't been the best but Obama is begging people not to support Trump, if Trump wasn't still a threat to the Democrats Obama wouldn't be whining as much as he has been. It probably because Hilary lied on TV again just the other day and if it's true the FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation then he may have a heads up about it. There is also wikileaks prepping to drop a huge amount of Clinton/DNC info.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The RNC and their Harry Potter-themed chairman Reince Priebus are pissed at Don Juan because he's not endorsing McCain and Ryan in their bids for re-election, despite Trump's noted beefs with both guys. :lol

Surely these dumbfucks should've known by now that The Donald is a wildcard that you can't just shuffle into your deck of cards. Plus, he isn't legally or contractually bound to support anyone, so he is can certainly tell them to eat shit now that he's locked up the nomination.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vince's Massive Bulge said:


> Think trump has blown it personally
> 
> The last week has been appaling for him


none of this matters. People are putting out feelers right now. Let the debates get underway. The subsequent swings will be a lot more telling.

Hillary winning would see a super extreme version of the current environment pop up 4 years down the line imo. The change has already happened. People are willing to fight against anything they don't like, literally even.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So Pence just announced that he fully backs Ryan after Trump denounced him...

What a shitshow. Trump has had a really bad week, maybe he should just shut up for a while.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> So Pence just announced that he fully backs Ryan after Trump denounced him...
> 
> What a shitshow. Trump has had a really bad week, maybe he should just shut up for a while.


Said people after Iowa...


In other news:


----------



## Phaedra

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I want this election to just go away. 

People fed up with Trump's populist ideology and hijacking the party of lincoln, and people just not sure they can trust Hilary Clinton, well watch the town hall Libertarian thing tonight on CNN. Hear out your third party.


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/760790261370753025
So apparently some months ago according to this video, an international foreign policy expect went to advise Trump, and Trump asked three times in a one hour session why can't we use nuclear weapons if we have them.

So, because it's MSNBC you'll get your normal silly gooses who will attempt to discredit this. 

Anyway, Trump gonna be in office like


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

That's horrifying if true.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Navy SEAL Who Killed Bin Laden: Khizr Khan “Worked for Clintons, Part of Clinton Machine”:

https://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/...-worked-for-clintons-part-of-clinton-machine/


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Headliner said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/760790261370753025
> So apparently some months ago according to this video, an international foreign policy expect went to advise Trump, and Trump asked three times in a one hour session why can't we use nuclear weapons if we have them.
> 
> So, because it's MSNBC you'll get your normal silly gooses who will attempt to discredit this.
> 
> Anyway, Trump gonna be in office like


He said he wouldn't take it off the table, not that he would.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.independentsentinel.com/...tions-from-firm-that-does-business-with-isis/



> The leaks from Wikileaks need to be measured in light of their source but the leaks are legitimate emails that no one is denying. A new leak revives the once-buried scandal of Iraqgate which ties the Clintons to Saddam Hussein through a French company. That wasn’t the highlight of the revelation. The highlight was that Hillary takes donations from that same French cement company called LaFarge and they are in turn doing business with Isis.
> 
> The bottom line is that the woman, who did not safeguard her emails and was probably hacked by bad actors, takes money from anyone, even companies that do business with Isis and the late Saddam Hussein.
> 
> The leak from the far-left Wikileaks about Iraqgate follows and she did indeed hold the position and this was a “scandal” of sorts:
> 
> Via Wikileaks and The Canary
> 
> Hillary held positions on the corporate board of directors of Lafarge (1990–92). La Farge is a regular donor to the Clinton Foundation. She did legal work for the firm in the 1980s. During her connection to Lafarge, the firm was implicated in facilitating a CIA-backed covert arms export network to Saddam Hussein..
> 
> Under her tenure, Lafarge’s Ohio subsidiary was caught burning hazardous waste to fuel cement plants. Clinton defended the decision at the time.
> 
> Then just before her husband, Bill Clinton, was elected president in 1992, Lafarge was fined $1.8 million by the Environmental Protection Agency for these pollution violations. Hillary Clinton had left the board of Lafarge in spring, just after her husband won the Democrat nomination. A year later, under Bill’s presidency, the Clinton administration reduced Lafarge’s EPA fine to less than $600,000.
> 
> In the late 1980s, according to an archived investigative report in the American Spectator, Hillary Clinton was connected to Lafarge when the firm was involved in facilitating CIA support for Saddam Hussein’s secret weapons programme.
> 
> The American Spectator report from November 1996 cited sources confirming that Hillary Clinton did legal work for Lafarge in the late 1980s before she became a director. The report also claimed that Lafarge’s US subsidiary: provided key services for the covert arms export network that supplied Saddam Hussein.
> 
> To prevent exposure of that secret supply line, and collateral damage to Hillary Clinton – who joined Lafarge board in 1990, just as the arms pipeline was being shut down… the Justice Department was told to bury the investigation… But investigators from other US government agencies who worked on the case say they were ‘waved off’ whenever they got too close to exposing the direct involvement of the intelligence community in the arms export scheme.
> 
> Lafarge remains close to the Clintons to this day.
> 
> In 2013, Lafarge’s Executive Vice President for Operations, Eric Olson, was a ‘featured attendee’ at the Clinton Global Initiative’s annual meeting.
> 
> The following comes from Global Research and The Canary and elaborates on the current situation with Isis:
> 
> According to investigative reports by the Syrian opposition website Zaman al-Wasl and Le Monde, Lafarge operated a cement works in Jalabiya, which came under Islamic State group control in 2013. Emails obtained by both sources show that the company arranged deals with the IS group to ensure continued production and circulation of its cement. Headquarters knew about the deal, they reported.
> 
> Le Monde also reported last month that Lafarge paid taxes and bought licences from the group’s oil traders, and Zaman Al-Wasl reported in February that the company regularly bought the jihadist group’s oil.
> 
> Lafarge is back in the news because Paris is now doing business with the company, paying Lafarge to supply the sand for its popular “Paris Plage” pop-up beaches on the banks of the Seine. Parisians have already launched a petition with almost 40,000 signatures to demand the city boycott the cement company once and for all.
> 
> The company is a regular donor to the Clinton Foundation – the firm’s up to $100,000 donation was listed in its annual donor list for 2015. Lafarge is also listed again as a donor to the Clinton Foundation for the first quarter of 2016.


This is hardly surprising but it's still interesting and horrible news at the same time. Assange said the next leak regarding Clinton will be much worse so I'm awaiting on that.


----------



## Phaedra

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> http://www.independentsentinel.com/...tions-from-firm-that-does-business-with-isis/
> 
> 
> 
> This is hardly surprising but it's still interesting and horrible news at the same time. Assange said the next leak regarding Clinton will be much worse so I'm awaiting on that.


Did assange not intimate that he not only has more damning things on clinton but that he has more on everyone that could throw the presidential election wide open or something? I don't pay good enough attention to what the guys says tbh, too busy. 

i'd be worried about voting for hillary though, got to admit. though I wouldn't be as worried as if i would vote for trump.


----------



## Cliffy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump has lost

It's over


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vince's Massive Bulge said:


> Trump has lost
> 
> It's over


Said increasingly nervous man.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Headliner said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/760790261370753025
> So apparently some months ago according to this video, an international foreign policy expect went to advise Trump, and Trump asked three times in a one hour session why can't we use nuclear weapons if we have them.
> 
> So, because it's MSNBC you'll get your normal silly gooses who will attempt to discredit this.
> 
> Anyway, Trump gonna be in office like


MSNBC or not, it's entirely unsourced, unverfied, and unvalidated hearsay.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I can't even think of a time during this election cycle when Trump has made a point of being hawkish, or expressing an inclination toward using WMDs of any kind. In fact, it's been quite the opposite, particularly relative to the usual hawkishness of his peers (e.g. Cruz who regularly spoke of carpet/saturation bombing). His tone with regard to Russia has also been much less hawkish than others, including Clinton. He's spoken out against military adventurism, and nation building, and the like. He's made it a point to present himself as being relatively anti-war in general. So, this "nuclear madman" narrative doesn't even seem to be very cohesive, even if we were to blindly assume there's any truth to it.

It's also rather difficult to ignore the flagrant tone of fearmongering this represents.

I'm not even a Trump supporter, but honestly, you people who mean to oppose him really need to up your game (and it's not like there aren't plenty of valid objections to be made that don't rely on conjuring up scare tactics dependent on blind faith of narrative-driven hearsay) because this kinda of 'attack' is nothing short of laughable, and simply reeks of desperation.


----------



## tboneangle

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm excit d to have a WWE HALL OF FAMER as out next POTUS.


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> MSNBC or not, it's entirely unsourced, unverfied, and unvalidated hearsay.
> 
> That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I can't even think of a time during this election cycle when Trump has made a point of being hawkish, or expressing an inclination toward using WMDs of any kind. In fact, it's been quite the opposite, particularly relative to the usual hawkishness of his peers (e.g. Cruz who regularly spoke of carpet/saturation bombing). His tone with regard to Russia has also been much less hawkish than others, including Clinton. He's spoken out against military adventurism, and nation building, and the like. He's made it a point to present himself as being relatively anti-war in general. So, this "nuclear madman" narrative doesn't even seem to be very cohesive, even if we were to blindly assume there's any truth to it.
> 
> It's also rather difficult to ignore the flagrant tone of fearmongering this represents.
> 
> I'm not even a Trump supporter, but honestly, you people who mean to oppose him really need to up your game (and it's not like there aren't plenty of valid objections to be made that don't rely on conjuring up scare tactics dependent on blind faith of narrative-driven hearsay) because this kinda of 'attack' is nothing short of laughable, and simply reeks of desperation.


I believe it based on how he acts toward regular people in this country. He comes off as not level headed some times and those type of people tend to do irrational things.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Are we supposed to take these people seriously? fpalm


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






This video should be called "How Trump made everyone look like Dopes"

I'm not even voting for the guy and I realize how he's run a far more brilliant campaign than anyone else in this election.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> *MSNBC or not, it's entirely unsourced, unverfied, and unvalidated hearsay.
> 
> That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> I agree with your sentiment here, however the problem is people tend to only use these principles when they're analysing evidence that puts someone they like in a bad light. We all look for flaws in articles and evidence when it's against our candidate, and not so much when it's against our opponent.
> 
> I'm certainly not immune to this but it's worth remembering I think and reminding yourself if you want call yourself truly informed and objective then direct your full analytic skills to both sides.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/02/ally...-the-staff-is-suicidal-hes-mailing-it-in.html

Ally of Trump staffer Paul Manafort: The staff is 'suicidal,' he's mailing it in


Donald Trump's behavior in recent days, from criticizing the parents of a fallen American soldier to declining to endorse House Speaker Paul Ryan, has strained the nerves of his campaign staff as he falls behind in the polls.

I exchanged messages Tuesday evening with a longtime ally of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, whom I asked about who was calling the shots in the campaign. The response indicated that Manafort, a veteran of Republican politics brought in this spring for the transition from primaries to the general election, has lost control over his candidate.

"Manafort not challenging (Trump) anymore," Manafort's ally wrote. "Mailing it in. Staff suicidal."



After I tweeted those remarks, Trump campaign spokesman Jason Miller wrote to me, "The idea that Paul Manafort's mailing it in is completely erroneous. Our campaign just finished up our strongest month of fundraising to date, we're adding talented and experienced staffers on a daily basis, and Mr. Trump's turning out bigger, more enthusiastic crowds than Hillary Clinton ever could.


Miller also sent a tweet quoting a conservative writer who called me "unabashedly liberal and very biased against conservatives." Miller tweeted a critical article about my role as moderator in last fall's CNBC debate, in which I asked Trump if he were running "a comic-book version" of a presidential campaign.

Strains between candidates and their staffs are commonplace in stressful moments of presidential campaigns. But Trump's campaign is unusual for the candidate's singular control over its daily message, which thwarts attempts at traditional discipline.

Trump's freewheeling style won him the Republican nomination over a crowded field of rivals. But the general election environment, and target audience, is far different.

The bombastic billionaire appeared to recognize that by jettisoning his first campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, now a commentator on CNN. Manafort's experience in national politics had reassured Republican veterans that a fall Trump campaign would more closely resemble the norms of recent presidential campaigns

Yet the recent Republican convention, marred by controversy and a high-profile speech in which primary rival Ted Cruz declined to endorse the nominee, was not up to recent Republican standards. And Trump's extended skirmishing with the parents of fallen U.S. soldier Capt. Humayun Khan, among other controversies, has caused increasing numbers of Republicans to criticize the party's candidate.

On Wednesday, Manafort told Fox News everything was good with the campaign.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


>



To be fair he is following Hitlers game plan EXACTLY so far. Hitler is the closest historical analogy for a political outsider sweeping to power on the basis of racial hatred and scapegoating ethnic minorities. 

People aren't saying that what Trump's doing is somehow morally equivalent to what Hitler did, they're just pointing out at this point that they're doing the exact same thing. 

I don't see how you can say that's unfair. 


Also on an unrelated note:


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> racial hatred and scapegoating ethnic minorities.


... sounds like one of Hillary's "mentors"...


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> ... sounds like one of Hillary's "mentors"...


Because taking advice from someone who did something even though you don't do it yourself (assuming its true, I actually have no idea what you're referring to tbh) is so much worse than actually doing it right?


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Because taking advice from someone who did something even though you don't do it yourself (assuming its true, I actually have no idea what you're referring to tbh) is so much worse than actually doing it right?


Right. I'm sure the lefty media wouldn't have made a big deal out of it if Trump had called a KKK member like Robert Byrd his mentor and talked about what a wonderful person he was.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> Right. I'm sure the lefty media wouldn't have made a big deal out of it if Trump had called a KKK member like Robert Byrd his mentor and talked about what a wonderful person he was.


Yeah ok, didn't realise she'd done that, it was in a memorial video released right after he died, but still disgusting and I'm totally happy to condemn that.

It's interesting reading the snopes article on it http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/ 

Apparently the NAACP did the exact same thing, putting out a memorial statement just after he died.

"The NAACP is saddened by the passing of United States Senator Robert Byrd. Byrd, the longest serving member of congress was first elected to the U.S. House from [West Virginia] in 1952 and was elected Senator in 1958. Byrd passed away this morning at the age of 92.

"Senator Byrd reflects the transformative power of this nation," stated NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. "Senator Byrd went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country.

"Senator Byrd came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda, doing well on the NAACP Annual Civil Rights Report Card. He stood with us on many issues of crucial importance to our members from the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the historic health care legislation of 2010 and his support for the Hate Crimes Prevention legislation," stated Hilary O. Shelton, Director of the NAACP Washington Bureau and Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy. "Senator Byrd was a master of the Senate Rules, and helped strategize passage of legislation that helped millions of Americans. He will be sorely missed.""

Don't get me wrong, still not happy about it and think it's the wrong thing for her to have done.

Still, completing someone with a racist past is a lot better than being racist and stirring up racial hatred in the present day.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Yeah ok, didn't realise she'd done that, it was in a memorial video released right after he died, but still disgusting and I'm totally happy to condemn that.
> 
> It's interesting reading the snopes article on it http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/
> 
> Apparently the NAACP did the exact same thing, putting out a memorial statement just after he died.
> 
> "The NAACP is saddened by the passing of United States Senator Robert Byrd. Byrd, the longest serving member of congress was first elected to the U.S. House from [West Virginia] in 1952 and was elected Senator in 1958. Byrd passed away this morning at the age of 92.
> 
> "Senator Byrd reflects the transformative power of this nation," stated NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous. "Senator Byrd went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country.
> 
> "Senator Byrd came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda, doing well on the NAACP Annual Civil Rights Report Card. He stood with us on many issues of crucial importance to our members from the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, the historic health care legislation of 2010 and his support for the Hate Crimes Prevention legislation," stated Hilary O. Shelton, Director of the NAACP Washington Bureau and Senior Vice President for Advocacy and Policy. "Senator Byrd was a master of the Senate Rules, and helped strategize passage of legislation that helped millions of Americans. He will be sorely missed.""
> 
> Don't get me wrong, still not happy about it and think it's the wrong thing for her to have done.
> 
> Still, completing someone with a racist past is a lot better than being racist and stirring up racial hatred in the present day.


Oh, it wasn't just when he died...


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Don't get me wrong, still not happy about it and think it's the wrong thing for her to have done.
> 
> Still, completing someone with a racist past is a lot better than being racist and stirring up racial hatred in the present day.



Give it up, bro. At the end of the day they're both despicable human beings no matter how badly you want to try to spin it.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Oh, it wasn't just when he died...



Dude read the Snopes article, pretty sure the picture on the right is fake, if he'd randomly gotten back in KKK stuff it would have been a major deal, so either fake or not even him and the pic of the left isn't from when the comments were made and were from a time long after he'd renounced his racist past. 

Anyway moving on from that ridiculousness, snopes is actually really good for this, I've already found at least one thing bad about Trump that I've discovered isn't true on it so I'm pretty sure it isn't biased.

Turns out the stuff about his bankruptcies isn't quite what I'd thought it was http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/01/donald-trumps-bankruptcies/ more about his corporations going through the bankruptcy process and a dodgy business tactic than him personally declaring bankrupt. 

Anyway I'm just going through the tags to see anything interesting, but it seems like goods stuff.

Edit: 



> Give it up, bro. At the end of the day they're both despicable human beings no matter how badly you want to try to spin it.


Lesser of two evils mate, lesser of two evils.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Dude read the Snopes article, pretty sure the picture on the right is fake, if he'd randomly gotten back in KKK stuff it would have been a major deal, so either fake or not even him and the pic of the left isn't from when the comments were made and were from a time long after he'd renounced his racist past.
> 
> Anyway moving on from that ridiculousness, snopes is actually really good for this, I've already found at least one thing bad about Trump that I've discovered isn't true on it so I'm pretty sure it isn't biased.
> 
> Turns out the stuff about his bankruptcies isn't quite what I'd thought it was http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/01/donald-trumps-bankruptcies/ more about his corporations going through the bankruptcy process and a dodgy business tactic than him personally declaring bankrupt.
> 
> Anyway I'm just going through the tags to see anything interesting, but it seems like goods stuff.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> 
> 
> Lesser of two evils mate, lesser of two evils.


The pic on the right was just a piic from his past. The point remains Hill was in bed with him while he was alive, not just after death.

Also:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/6756/book-hillary-called-disabled-children-ree-tards-hank-berrien

I have video proof showing statements from eyewitnesses if you wanna look at that too.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@KC Well that sure seems totally fair and unbiased in anyway haha


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*I don't think Trump has a chance. I've come to the conclusion that he doesn't even want to win this and never did.*


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



AryaDark said:


> *I don't think Trump has a chance. I've come to the conclusion that he doesn't even want to win this and never did.*


At first I dismissed those conspiracy theories about the Bill phone call and Trump being there to make sure Hillary gets in, but it's starting to make a lot of sense to me. 



> Donald Trump Got a Call From Bill Clinton Before He Announced His Candidacy
> 
> 
> Tanya Basu @mstanyabasu
> Aug. 5, 2015
> 
> An aide to Bill Clinton confirmed the phone call occurred in late May.
> 
> 
> 
> Former President Bill Clinton privately called Donald Trump in late May when the real estate mogul was on the verge of announcing his 2016 bid for the presidency, the Washington Post reported, citing four Trump confidants and one Hillary Clinton campaign associate—all wishing to remain anonymous.
> 
> Bill Clinton’s personal office confirmed that the call occurred, telling the New York Times “that Mr. Trump reached out to President Clinton a few times.”
> 
> “President Clinton returned his call in late May,” the aide told the Times. “And, that while we don’t make it a practice to discuss the president’s private conversations, we can tell you that the presidential race was not discussed.”
> 
> The four Trump sources, however, told the Post that Trump was candid about the run.
> 
> The Clinton/Trump connection is one with some history. Trump has donated $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons were guests at Trump’s third wedding in 2005 to current wife Melania Knauss. Clinton also is a member of one of Trump’s golf courses.
> 
> Neither the Trump campaign nor the Clinton campaign responded to requests for comment.
> 
> http://time.com/3986747/donald-trump-bill-clinton-phone-call/


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> The pic on the right was just a piic from his past. The point remains Hill was in bed with him while he was alive, not just after death.
> 
> Also:
> 
> http://www.dailywire.com/news/6756/book-hillary-called-disabled-children-ree-tards-hank-berrien
> 
> I have video proof showing statements from eyewitnesses if you wanna look at that too.


Yes, when he was alive, long, ie literally more than 50 years, half a century, after he'd renounced his racist past. Trump is currently racist, how is that not worse? How is praising someone who was once racist but hadn't been for a long time worse than actually being currently racist and stirring up racial hatred?

Also that link is just a bunch of unfounded allegations, if we're going on that level then you have to acknowledge that Trump is accused of raping a 13 year old girl, which is worse, at least I think so.




AryaDark said:


> *I don't think Trump has a chance. I've come to the conclusion that he doesn't even want to win this and never did.*


This is literally what I've been saying from day 1, it's a trick to get publicity so he can sell the Trump brand for more, charge more to appear on the next season of the Apprentice etc etc 

It's been obvious since he said he'd build a wall and make mexico pay for it.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Yes, when he was alive, long, ie literally more than 50 years, half a century, after he'd renounced his racist past. Trump is currently racist, how is that not worse? How is praising someone who was once racist but hadn't been for a long time worse than actually being currently racist and stirring up racial hatred?
> 
> Also that link is just a bunch of unfounded allegations, if we're going on that level then you have to acknowledge that Trump is accused of raping a 13 year old girl, which is worse, at least I think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is literally what I've been saying from day 1, it's a trick to get publicity so he can sell the Trump brand for more, charge more to appear on the next season of the Apprentice etc etc
> 
> It's been obvious since he said he'd build a wall and make mexico pay for it.


And then what will your excuse be when he wins? "I don't understand, why are there so many racists?" 0


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> And then what will your excuse be when he wins? "I don't understand, why are there so many racists?" 0


1. He might win, I've never said he stands no chance I always said he stood a chance long before he started winning the primaries. 
2. Him winning doesn't mean he wanted to or it was his plan initially.
3. I've always believed there were that many racist/poorly educated people in america, I lived there for four months and I met some of the smartest most educated people and I met a mass of people who congratulated me on my ability to speak English after learning I was from Australia, hence point 1.
4. That's how Hitler won an election fair and square.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> And then what will your excuse be when he wins? "I don't understand, why are there so many racists?" 0


Trump is not going to win now, he is saying more and more crazy shit, and a lot of people are turning against him, go read the article I posted. No one wants his finger on the nukes. HIllary is starting to pull further and further ahead now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Oh, it wasn't just when he died...


Still not fact checking i see

http://www.snopes.com/robert-byrd-kkk-photo/

*A photograph purportedly showing former Senator Robert Byrd in Klan robes has been digitally manipulated.*

A photograph purportedly showing former Senator Robert Byrd wearing Ku Klux Klan robes has been circulating online for several years, but the image is demonstrably fake.
*
While Byrd was a member of the infamous hate group in his younger years, he left the organization in the 1940s:*

*"I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."*

Byrd became a high profile politician and was the longest serving Senator at the time of his death in 2010. 

This image first appeared online when it was posted to the web site Strange Cosmos in June 2004. While the web site did not specifically state that the *image had been doctore*d, Strange Cosmos is a joke web site that prides itself on its politically incorrect content:

Occasionally, you will come across a Picture, Joke or Article a bit risqu? and maybe even Politically Incorrect. DEAL WITH IT ! This is an Entertainment site. No matter what we post here ? it is going to offend or irritate someone. Handle it. Our intent is not to offend anyone.

*The above-displayed image is a composite of at least two different photographs. While the source image for the body is unknown, the image of Byrd's face was taken from an official U.S. Senate portrait:
*
719px-Robert_Byrd_official_portrait

*While the manipulated image of Robert Byrd in Klan garb originated in 2004, the image saw a resurgence in popularity during the 2016 presidential elections. This image was frequently attached to an image of Byrd kissing Hillary Clinton on the cheek, insinuating that Clinton had a relationship with the senator while he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



AryaDark said:


> *I don't think Trump has a chance. I've come to the conclusion that he doesn't even want to win this and never did.*


There's this theory that I had that is better illustrated here:

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/a-pretty-good-theory-of-donald-trump-1784784647

Overpromise voters on everything to get a significant base of viewers, say ridiculous stuff to lose the election bid, then set up conservative media juggernaut with his new base to compete with FOX for the lucrative conservative media business that only has one big player.

He just didn't count on...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/opinion/how-the-stupid-party-created-donald-trump.html


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If you're like me and can't get enough of this stuff, here are some more dumbass Hillary voters (and this time the source is extra liberal)


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> If you're like me and can't get enough of this stuff, here are some more dumbass Hillary voters (and this time the source is extra liberal)


Hilarious. I hope afterwards they told those people that those quotes were by Trump.


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Punkhead said:


>


In Puerto Rico we would never let anyone like those 2 in public office not even the PTA. Trump would bankrupt our banks and Hilary would rent out our beautiful beaches to Saudi Businessman. I feel bad for everyone of my homies off the island knowing 1 of those jokes is their next President.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/08/04/gary-johnson-endorses-blacklivesmatter/



> If there was any doubt, Gov. Gary Johnson is working harder at winning over former Bernie Sanders supporters than Ron and Rand Paul supporters. For whatever reason, he’s taken on several left-wing positions from bashing religious freedom to now supporting Black Lives Matter.
> At the CNN Libertarian Party Town Hall on Wednesday, Johnson praised the efforts of Black Lives Matter and endorsed the organization.
> Speaking to a Black Lives Matter protestor and registered Democrat who was shot in the leg during a march, Johnson said, “What it has done for me is that my head has been in the sand on this,” Johnson said. “I think that we’ve all had our heads in the sand and lets wake up. Discrimination does exist, has existed, and for me personally, um, slap, slap, wake up.”
> The Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee Bill Weld focused less on the Black Lives Matter movement and more on the stats of black youth unemployment, calling it a national emergency.
> “(Young black men) are four times as likely to be incarcerated if they have intersection with law enforcement as white people are, their educational opportunities are not there, we have to get them into education and concentrate the power of the government to make sure there are jobs available for them,” Weld said. “When there’s a national emergency the government has to respond, libertarian or no libertarian.”
> 
> Read more at http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/08/04/gary-johnson-endorses-blacklivesmatter/#WPe62yZbIAB6stYL.99


The more I learn the further I'm distancing myself from this new Gary Johnson.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://inquir.io/2016/08/05/donald-trump-leading-new-polls/


----------



## Cliffy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

genuinely stunned that kimmel segment made the air, given how biased the networks in the states are


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/melania-trump-immigration-donald-226648

Trumps wife may be an illegal


Nude photographs published this week are raising fresh questions about the accuracy of a key aspect of Melania Trump’s biography: her immigration status when she first came to the United States to work as a model.
The racy photos of the would-be first lady, published in the New York Post on Sunday and Monday, inadvertently highlight inconsistencies in the various accounts she has provided over the years. And, immigration experts say, there’s even a slim chance that any years-old misrepresentations to immigration authorities could pose legal problems for her today.
Story Continued Below
While Trump and her husband, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, have said she came to the United States legally, her own statements suggest she first came to the country on a short-term visa that would not have authorized her to work as a model. Trump has also said she came to New York in 1996, but the nude photo shoot places her in the United States in 1995, as does a biography published in February by Slovenian journalists.
The inconsistencies come on top of reports by CBS News and GQ Magazine that Trump falsely claimed to have obtained a college degree in Slovenia but could be more politically damaging because her husband has made opposition to illegal immigration the foundation of his presidential run.
Representatives of the Trump campaign and the Trump Organization did not address detailed questions about the timing and circumstances of Melania Trump’s arrival in the country, but campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks responded to the emailed questions by stating, “Melania followed all applicable laws and is now a proud citizen of the United States.”
In a statement issued hours after POLITICO published this report, Trump reiterated on Thursday that she had been “at all times in compliance with the immigration laws of this country.” But her statement conspicuously avoids addressing multiple reports and photographs that place her in the United States and working as a model in 1995, as well as her multiple past statements that she would return every few months to Europe to renew her visa. (Other news outlets, including Bloomberg View, have also noted the inconsistencies in her account.)
Melania Trump issued a statement following POLITICO's reporting that avoided the questions raised in the story.
Melania Trump statement on immigration status dodges key points
By BEN SCHRECKINGER
Although she may be a proud citizen, Trump’s own statements suggest she may not have followed all applicable laws, immigration experts say.
In a January profile in Harper’s Bazaar, Trump said she would return home from New York to renew her visa every few months. “It never crossed my mind to stay here without papers. That is just the person you are,” she said. “You follow the rules. You follow the law. Every few months you need to fly back to Europe and stamp your visa. After a few visas, I applied for a green card and got it in 2001.”
In a February interview with Mika Brzezinski of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Trump repeated that characterization of her early years in the United States. “I never thought to stay here without papers. I had visa. I travel every few months back to the country to Slovenia to stamp the visa. I came back. I applied for the green card. I applied for the citizenship later on.”
The Trump campaign and Trump Organization representatives did not address questions about the type of visa Trump first used to enter the country, but it has been widely reported that she came here on an H-1B work visa. Writer Mickey Rapkin, who interviewed Melania for a May profile in the luxury lifestyle magazine DuJour, said she confirmed as much to him. “When I interviewed Melania, I mentioned that she’d come to New York on that H-1B visa, and she nodded in agreement,” Rapkin wrote in an email to POLITICO.
Trump’s tale of returning to Europe for periodic visa renewals is inconsistent with her holding an H-1B visa at all times she was living in New York — even if it was the lesser-known H-1B visa specifically designed for models — said multiple immigration attorneys and experts. An H-1B visa can be valid for three years and can be extended up to six years — sometimes longer — and would not require renewals in Europe every few months. If, as she has said, Trump came to New York in 1996 and obtained a green card in 2001, she likely would not have had to return to Europe even once to renew an H-1B.
Instead, Trump’s description of her periodic renewals in Europe are more consistent with someone traveling on a B-1 Temporary Business Visitor or B-2 Tourist Visa, which typically last only up to six months and do not permit employment.
If someone were to enter the United States on one of those visas with the intention of working, it could constitute visa fraud, according to Andrew Greenfield, a partner at the Washington office of Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, a firm that specializes in immigration law.
“It's quintessential,” he said. “If you enter the United States with the intention of working without authorization and you present yourself to a border agent at an airport or a seaport or a manned border and request a visa, even if there is not a Q&A — knowing that you are coming to work — you are implicitly, if not explicitly, manifesting that you intend to comply with the parameters of the visa classification for which you sought entry and were granted entry."
160802_paul_ryan_getty_1160.jpg
CONGRESS
Trump acolytes campaign to defeat Ryan
By KENNETH P. VOGEL and RACHAEL BADE
“There are quirky exceptions to people on a B-1 visa who are able to work — certain domestic servants who are entering the country to accompany their employers who are in the country temporarily,” added Greenfield. “But I can’t imagine that would apply to models.”
“If Melania was traveling to the U.S. on a B-1 business visa, there is a potential problem,” said a Washington-based partner of a major national immigration law firm. “She would not have been authorized to work in the U.S. while on a B-1 visa. In fact, if a customs agent encounters someone entering the U.S. on a B-1 visa and they know that the individual intends to work for a U.S. employer, the individual will usually be denied admission. In order to avoid being sent back to Slovenia, she may have had to lie about the purpose of her trip.”
Visa fraud would call into question a green card application and subsequent citizenship application, said immigration lawyers — thus raising questions about Melania Trump’s legal status, even today, despite her marriage to a U.S. citizen.
Violations of U.S. visa law are hardly unusual, particularly in the modeling industry. It was a common practice in the 1990s in New York for less scrupulous agencies to bring in foreign models to work illegally on temporary business and tourist visas, according to Sara Ziff, founder of the Model Alliance, a group that advocates improved labor standards for fashion models.
The timing of Trump’s arrival in New York remains hazy, and representatives of the Trump campaign and Trump Organization did not address questions about that timing. In a previously unpublished portion of an April interview conducted for a profile in GQ, Trump told POLITICO’s Julia Ioffe that she lived with Matthew Atanian, her first known roommate in New York, only for a few weeks. “I was busy and I was traveling a lot. And then after that, after a month of two, I found my own place,” Trump said.
But in an interview for the same profile, Atanian told Ioffe that they shared the apartment for a period that spanned 1995 to 1996, and Atanian told POLITICO this week that he and Trump shared the apartment for a total of a year to a year and a half. He said he recalled Trump leaving the country to travel home for holidays during that period.
Trump has said she came to New York in 1996, but multiple reports indicate she first started doing work there in 1995. Her personal website was taken down last month in the wake of reports that its biography section falsely credited her with earning a college degree. (Trump tweeted that the website was taken down “because it does not accurately reflect my current business and professional interests.”) An archived snapshot of that bio page describes Trump as “settling in New York in 1996,” and she told Brzezinski in January, “I came to New York 1996.”
But according to “Melania Trump: The Inside Story,” a biography published in February by two Slovenian authors — journalist Bojan Požar and publicist Igor Omerza — Trump “began moving to New York in 1995.” The book also states that Trump first met a close friend, the model Edit Molnar, “in New York in the middle of 1995.”
“In 1995 she started coming to the USA according to the jobs she was getting at fashion agencies,” wrote Požar in an email to POLITICO. “We don’t know the exact dates of those before she officially settled in New York but her visits prior to that were temporary business opportunities that she had as a model.” Požar said he learned of these first jobs in America from two fashion agents, one in Italy and the other in Vienna, and that such trips abroad were common for Eastern European models but not “technically” legal.
Požar’s timing is consistent with the New York Post’s report. The nude photos were taken in New York in 1995 for the January 1996 issue of France’s now-defunct Max Magazine, according to the tabloid.
Alé de Basseville, the photographer who shot the photos, told POLITICO that the shoot took place in a private studio near Manhattan’s Union Square. He declined to name the owner of the studio and said that he encountered Trump through Metropolitan Models, a Paris-based agency with a New York office that was then representing Trump.
To carry out the 1995 New York photo shoot legally, Trump would have required a working visa, likely an H-1B, even if she were not yet living in the United States, as her native Slovenia was not part of the State Department’s visa waiver program until 1997.
Paolo Zampolli, an Italian businessman who was then a partner in Metropolitan and is credited with sponsoring Trump’s entry into the United States and introducing her to her future husband, said that he did not recall that particular shoot or the exact timing of Trump’s first arrival in New York.
Donald Trump listens at an event announcing Trump University in 2005.
Judge won't release Trump U. deposition videos
By JOSH GERSTEIN
Zampolli said the models he worked with would have entered the country on either an H-1B or an O-1, a visa for foreigners who possess “extraordinary ability.” O-1 visas are frequently given to star scientists, athletes and entertainers, but because Melania Knauss (her maiden name) was an obscure model who mostly posed for advertisements and catalogs in the mid-’90s, it is highly unlikely she qualified for an O-1, which comes with an initial stay period of up to three years, said immigration attorneys. An O-1 visa would also not have required her to leave the country periodically.
Zampolli said he first met Trump in Milan and that models he worked for moved across international borders legally. “Every model we represented, we did a visa,” he said. “It’s just part of the rules.”
Even Melania’s use of the H-1B program would stand in contrast to her husband’s position today. Trump, who has made his opposition to illegal immigration the centerpiece of his campaign, has also vowed to crack down on the use of H1-B visas as president. In March, he said he would “end forever the use of the H-1B as a cheap labor program, and institute an absolute requirement to hire American workers first for every visa and immigration program. No exceptions.”
Julia Ioffe contributed to this report


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/melania-trump-immigration-donald-226648#ixzz4GPOGA22z 
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> https://inquir.io/2016/08/05/donald-trump-leading-new-polls/


Interesting, it says Trump won 4/6 polls, but if you actually follow the link they provide it shows Hilary actually won all 6 lol


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Interesting, it says Trump won 4/6 polls, but if you actually follow the link they provide it shows Hilary actually won all 6 lol


They take all the polls and "adjust" them based on their "system". They say they're making it fair since they claim all the polls are weighted too much for the democrats.



> For clarification, LongRoom conducts their polls a bit differently than traditional polling places, they compensate for the over sampling of Democrats and Republicans and use accurate representations of area demographics to skew the results in a more unbiased manner.


This is the site for "LongRoom Unbiased"

https://www.longroom.com/

Yeah, real unbiased.

I'm sure Fox News is weighting dems too much too since their latest poll has HC at 49% and DT at 39%.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> They take all the polls and "adjust" them based on their "system". They say their making it fair since they claim all the polls are weighted to much for the democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the site for "LongRoom Unbiased"
> 
> https://www.longroom.com/
> 
> Yeah, real unbiased.
> 
> I'm sure Fox News is weighting dems too much too since their latest poll has HC at 49% and DT at 39%.


its no secret that Dems get oversampled.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't trust polls after Brexit. Many people could just feel uncomfortable admitting supporting a candidate for bigotry to someone else. But there's nothing else to rely on unless they feed them truth serum or something.
@Beatles123 How do you explain FOX's polls?


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> its no secret that Dems get oversampled.


O.K., but you don't see something a little funny about just changing the numbers on everyone's polls to make it so your candidate is now ahead?

EDIT: Karl Rove tried this in 2012. "Unskewing" the polls so Romney was leading going into November. Then election night he had a meltdown on Fox News when it turned out the "skewed" polls were in fact correct.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

“I’m telling you, November 8th, we’d better be careful, because that election is going to be rigged,” the provocative billionaire told Fox News. “And I hope the Republicans are watching closely, or it’s going to be taken away from us.”
http://www.news.com.au/finance/work...n/news-story/c9247ad827a6e533d70a466e61a78960

He's already setting his PR stance up for a loss.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump has a huge following in the conspiracy theorists world. So with 3 months to go in the campaign which one of these theories is the most likely?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-guide-to-the-conspiracy-theories-about-donald-trump/

*He has no intention of becoming president*
*He cut a deal with the Clintons*
*Donald Trump is working for Putin's Kremlin*
*Trump might be looking to drop out*

Are these closer to the truth than Obama is a Muslim?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Been trolling all the muslms on my facebook today that are bitching about the latest Trump nuclear controversy. 

Deeply satisfying to see them over-react and get their panties in a twist over my suggestion that perhaps that's what needs to be done given how bad things are in the middle east.

:draper2


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

its kinda sad how gullible people are and how they just believe anything news anchor spew out, not taking in account that a lot of these pundits either have ties with democratic party, work for a Hilary super pac, plus the anchors who are so obviously democrats...so many people in my life really believe trump is out to depart anyone who isn't white. even though there citizens are legal residents.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> They take all the polls and "adjust" them based on their "system". They say they're making it fair since they claim all the polls are weighted too much for the democrats.


I would love to hear how people "correct" for this.

If you overweight a sub-sample, to correct for it you would need to know the exact representation, then create weighting factors to fix the mistake. You would also need to know how Democrats republicans and independents are Cross voting. If you know all that data at that level the polling stop being at random so it's almost useless to do so because you already can predcit the outcome without polling....

I also would love to know, if these polls are really skewed, how people like Nate Silver can predict with almost exact precision the results in two elections in a row combining the polling?.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The Clinton campaign has officially stopped advertising in Colorado; the team is pretty sure the state is comfortably blue now. The campaign is also scaling back its Virginia advertising for similar reasons, but isn't quite ready to stop spending cash there completely.

Where that money is diverted to is yet to be determined, but I'd imagine it will be heading to Arizona, Georgia, Missouri and possibly Utah. Recent polls either have Clinton leading or close to it in those four states without an advertising campaign, and it'd be smart of Democrats to use the excess cash to try to expand the map (and possibly gain a few House seats). I'd throw Indiana in the mix too simply because the governorship and a Senate seat are up, but Evan Bayh has $10 million stockpiled and doesn't need the help.

Trump, meanwhile, was in Maine today, campaigning for that one electoral vote the state portions out separately. Maybe he'll get it, but Clinton could easily cancel that out by nabbing one of the separate electoral votes that Nebraska portions out (she's going for the Omaha vote, which Obama won in 2008 but lost in 2012).

Mathematically speaking, Clinton has a lot of pathways to victory. Trump, on the other hand, has to be about perfect. He needs Florida badly, but his Latino support there is dragging way behind Bush, McCain and Romney; Bush would not have won Florida in 2004 without his massive Latino support, and Trump doesn't even have half of the support he had.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> its no secret that Dems get oversampled.


stop making excuses why Trump is getting his ass kicked in polls by Hillary.

She is pulling further and further ahead of Trump as each day goes by because of all the crazy shit Trump has said, especially about how he would nuke countries at a moment's notice. 

I love how Trump fans need to adjust legit polls and pretend Trump is ahead.

The reason Trump is losing ground is because Gary Johnson is taking votes away from him.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This is one of ISIS' propaganda videos. I find it infinitely fascinating, it's worth the watch tbh




(Note. I'm not promoting ISIS, I just find propaganda videos fascinating)


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> stop making excuses why Trump is getting his ass kicked in polls by Hillary.
> 
> She is pulling further and further ahead of Trump as each day goes by because of all the crazy shit Trump has said, especially about how he would nuke countries at a moment's notice.
> 
> I love how Trump fans need to adjust legit polls and pretend Trump is ahead.
> 
> The reason Trump is losing ground is because Gary Johnson is taking votes away from him.


I am in no way saying he isnt down.

its also common that polls get mis-sampled.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*The only poll that is going to matter is the poll in November. Until then it's all speculation...and I'm speculating the election isn't going to even be close. :draper2*


----------



## .MCH

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> its no secret that Dems get oversampled.


No they're not. Polling has been pretty accurate over the years. Only time I can think of it being very off was the Michigan Democratic primary this year but that was due to the screwed up Michigan primary from 2008 and they didn't really have an accurate way of polling because of it. 

If anything, these polls are probably more conservative towards Clinton. It's going to be a landslide this November. I don't think Trump and his supporters are fully prepared for it. :lol He will feel the wrath of moderate women voters who will not vote for a legit nutjob.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Nate Silver has Hillary at around 80% to win this thing. If this has already been mentioned I am sorry.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*The GoP should probably just disband after this and start a new party because Trump has sabotaged them.





 *


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> Nate Silver has Hillary at around 80% to win this thing. If this has already been mentioned I am sorry.


I love the metodology Silver has created but that seem like a number out of his ass.

He is unable to know this yet, unless we can see a clear tendency in polls which is impossible yet because numbers could be skewed thanks to the exposition of both conventions. Clinton has an edge because demos are in his favor and some states could swing based in the miscomunications between Trump and the GOP.

About polling, it normally assume that the people polled is selected at random but in a general determined proportion by state, to be representative, so if the quota of population is reached and really selected at random, the proportion of democrats and republicans which are selected is meaningless. Actually the "oversampling" is probably a real representation of current demos across party simpathies. Again, if you oversampled intentionally one party, the polling is useless because you're not being representative of population, there is almost no way to correct a mistake of that level unless you know the proportions of both parties by state and yada yada, which at that point assumes that every proportion votes for their party candidate and then polling is useless.


Even if that is the case, USA is not that difficult to poll. Public opinion research show that normally, this campaigns fight over just 2% of the population, this is the percentage of people who usually are swing or undecided voters, the rest ally with their party (even before the candidate is nominated) or are independents who decide based on campaign and ideas. In this escenary oversampling would have to be gigantic to have real effects on polling....


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



AryaDark said:


> *The GoP should probably just disband after this and start a new party because Trump has sabotaged them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


:lol

Beyond Trump, though, as I have noted since before the primaries began, demographics have been working against the Republican Party continuing to exist as a national party for a while now. Reagan's amnesty plus several decades of mass immigration, primarily from the developing world, and academia representing a sturdy predictive quality (non-college educated in Pennsylvania seem to be liking Trump more than any Republican nominee since the 1980s, but he's being annihilated with suburbanites and college degree-holders), etcetera, and as I suggested back in January, the odds are the Republicans are never going to win the presidency again. 

Certainly, at the very least, in ten years most of America will be as California is today: a virtual one-party state. There's a reason why Democrats get "oversampled" in almost all polls--there are far more of them than their GOP counterparts.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> Nate Silver has Hillary at around 80% to win this thing. If this has already been mentioned I am sorry.


*I have Hillary at 99 percent to win this thing. I'm giving Trump a 1 percent chance because it is possible that Hillary simply dies before the election even happens... and even then she'd probably win. *


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/melania-trump-immigration-donald-226648
> 
> Trumps wife may be an illegal


Yeah, and Obama could be a Muslim. 

Interesting that the democrat sympathizers (not particularly you) are turning into the republicans of this election year.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump supporters atm









Even Karl "Meltdown" Rove just wrote an article saying that Trump has lost it unless smartens up, shuts up, and starts acting like a normal human being. It's nice to see that common sense seems to be prevailing in the U.S.. I was legit scared you guys were going to actually elect that psychopath.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Yeah, and Obama could be a Muslim.
> 
> Interesting that the democrat sympathizers (not particularly you) are turning into the republicans of this election year.


Obama can be Muslim all he wants. Freedom of religion is (apparently) still a thing in the U.S..


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> It's nice to see that common sense seems to be prevailing in the U.S.. I was legit scared you guys were going to actually elect that psychopath.


Nope. America's going to elect the other psychopath.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> Obama can be Muslim all he wants. Freedom of religion is (apparently) still a thing in the U.S..


Way to miss the point. 

Did you miss it intentionally, or you really didn't get what I said and why I said it?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> Nate Silver has Hillary at around 80% to win this thing. If this has already been mentioned I am sorry.


Nate Silver also said Trump wouldn't win a single primary. 



nucklehead88 said:


> Even Karl "Meltdown" Rove just wrote an article saying that Trump has lost it unless smartens up, shuts up, and starts acting like a normal human being. It's nice to see that common sense seems to be prevailing in the U.S.. I was legit scared you guys were going to actually elect that psychopath.


"Even Karl Rove"? :lol Rove's been against Trump this entire election cycle. According to him Trump was going to bow out a year ago and "isn't a serious candidate".


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






I fucking love PJW 
:duck


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Beyond Trump, though, as I have noted since before the primaries began, demographics have been working against the Republican Party continuing to exist as a national party for a while now. Reagan's amnesty plus several decades of mass immigration, primarily from the developing world, and academia representing a sturdy predictive quality (non-college educated in Pennsylvania seem to be liking Trump more than any Republican nominee since the 1980s, but he's being annihilated with suburbanites and college degree-holders), etcetera, and as I suggested back in January, the odds are the Republicans are never going to win the presidency again.


It's almost as if the party full of cookie cutter crusty old rich guys didn't want to change with the times.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Yeah, and Obama could be a Muslim.
> 
> Interesting that the democrat sympathizers (not particularly you) are turning into the republicans of this election year.


I think the equivalent example of this would be asking for Obama's birth certificate. No harm will be done if Melania can produce evidence she had a H-1B visa when working in America in the 90's.

A democrat equivalent to the Muslim thing would be asking if Melania is a communist because of her father.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Boy it's a dirty business isn't it, imagine the teams of Dem and Repub moles just digging into every orifice for dirt on the candidates and their families. *shudder


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> A democrat equivalent to the Muslim thing would be asking if Melania is a communist because of her father.



Obama actually said shit like "The future shall not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam". That's something I'd expect to hear from some radical imam, not from POTUS.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It is no holds barred when you involve lawyers and the PIs they hire. Things just get amplified for high profile people.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Yeah, and Obama could be a Muslim.
> 
> Interesting that the democrat sympathizers (not particularly you) are turning into the republicans of this election year.


There is zero evidence that Obama is a Muslim or not from the US but that Trumps wife because of her green card back in the day really may not be legal. she just needs to clear it up and it could all be over but if she is really an illegal, Trump is screwed.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> Obama actually said shit like "The future shall not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam". That's something I'd expect to hear from some radical imam, not from POTUS.







http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obamafuture.asp

Yeah a speech to condemn hate speech showed Obama is Muslim.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> There is zero evidence that Obama is a Muslim or not from the US but that Trumps wife because of her green card back in the day really may not be legal. she just needs to clear it up and it could all be over but if she is really an illegal, Trump is screwed.


I'm talking about the talking points and the tactics being employed. 

The republican argument was that Obama needs to prove his citizenship through his birth certificate. How is this different from democrats now pushing the narrative about Mrs. Trump's legal status. 

That's my point. Stop ignoring the core point here that the tactics are the same that are being employed by the democrats when they used to whine endlessly about this exact same tactic when it was employed by the republicans against Obama. 

Cheap politics. But it's only bad if the repubs do it. Fair game if the dems do it. It's hypocritical. In fact, I'd say worse because at least the repubs were attacking the candidate, not his wife who's not even running for anything.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I'm talking about the talking points and the tactics being employed.
> 
> The republican argument was that Obama needs to prove his citizenship through his birth certificate. How is this different from democrats now pushing the narrative about Mrs. Trump's legal status.
> 
> That's my point. Stop ignoring the core point here that the tactics are the same that are being employed by the democrats when they used to whine endlessly about this exact same tactic when it was employed by the republicans against Obama.
> 
> Cheap politics. But it's only bad if the repubs do it. Fair game if the dems do it. It's hypocritical. In fact, I'd say worse because at least the repubs were attacking the candidate, not his wife who's not even running for anything.


Because there is zero evidence Obama was not from the US, no one thought Melania was an illegal until the pictures came out and she spoke about how she was a model back then and spoke about how she had the wrong visa that would not allow her to work. 

How can you not see the difference? The only one missing the core point here is you, its apples and oranges. Now if Obama said something like oh when I grew up in Keyna THEN it would be proper to ask for his birth certificate


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Because there is zero evidence Obama was not from the US, no one thought Melania was an illegal until the pictures came out and she spoke about how she was a model back then and spoke about how she had the wrong visa that would not allow her to work.
> 
> How can you not see the difference? The only one missing the core point here is you, its apples and oranges. Now if Obama said something like oh when I grew up in Keyna THEN it would be proper to ask for his birth certificate


How do people go from "I had the wrong visa that did not allow me to work" to "She's likely currently still illegal". 

It's a bullshit leap from one thing to something entirely different. 

I'm surprised you're so hell bent on attaching yourself to this line of thinking as well. 

I was in immigration limbo for 6 months right after my marriage where I stayed in the States in a way where it wasn't legal and it wasn't illegal. 

Does saying that in any way at all mean that I'm _currently _illegal?


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Yeah a speech to condemn hate speech showed Obama is Muslim.


It's the way he said it, the exact words he chose. I'm not saying it definitively proves anything, but I certainly have my suspicions. Just my opinion, though.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> How do people go from "I had the wrong visa that did not allow me to work" to "She's likely currently still illegal".
> 
> It's a bullshit leap from one thing to something entirely different.
> 
> I'm surprised you're so hell bent on attaching yourself to this line of thinking as well.
> 
> I was in immigration limbo for 6 months right after my marriage where I stayed in the States in a way where it wasn't legal and it wasn't illegal.
> 
> Does saying that in any way at all mean that I'm _currently _illegal?


That is not how it works. If she illegally worked in the US on the wrong type of visa, it does not matter if she because a US citizen after the fact, she would have committed fraud, and that would bring into question her US citizenship even now.

Did you even read the article?


“There are quirky exceptions to people on a B-1 visa who are able to work — certain domestic servants who are entering the country to accompany their employers who are in the country temporarily,” added Greenfield. “But I can’t imagine that would apply to models.”

“If Melania was traveling to the U.S. on a B-1 business visa, there is a potential problem,” said a Washington-based partner of a major national immigration law firm. “She would not have been authorized to work in the U.S. while on a B-1 visa. In fact, if a customs agent encounters someone entering the U.S. on a B-1 visa and they know that the individual intends to work for a U.S. employer, the individual will usually be denied admission. In order to avoid being sent back to Slovenia, she may have had to lie about the purpose of her trip.”
*
Visa fraud would call into question a green card application and subsequent citizenship application, said immigration lawyers — thus raising questions about Melania Trump’s legal status, even today, despite her marriage to a U.S. citizen*



-------------

So tell me again how its not easy to claim she could not be legal right now?

And I dont give a shit to be honest but since Trump is so hell back against illegals and doing it the legal way his own wife may not have done it the correct way so using his logic if she didnt she should be deported right

I am just using Trumps own logic against him.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I think the better phrasing would be she is a legal citizen but risk losing that status if fraud is proven. :shrug But it would be a waste of resources on something that doesn't really matter unless you believe Trump's rhetoric about immigration.

Just potentially damaging to Trump's rhetoric on immigration if one of his family member gamed the system he claim is bad for the country. But he has survived far worse things in the campaign and this is the least of his worries.

Still waiting on the tax returns. lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I think the better phrasing would be she is a legal citizen but risk losing that status if fraud is proven. :shrug But it would be a waste of resources on something that doesn't really matter unless you believe Trump's rhetoric about immigration.
> 
> Just potentially damaging to Trump's rhetoric on immigration if one of his family member gamed the system he claim is bad for the country. But he has survived far worse things in the campaign and this is the least of his worries.
> 
> Still waiting on the tax returns. lol


that is probably a better way of wording it and I dont think it would not be a big deal if it was anyone other than Trumps wife but it is because of Trumps stances on illegals.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump does much better when he stays on message. It's as simple as that. When he is out there talking about the economy, about keeping the United States safe, etc....people are on board with that and it works. He needs to focus on Hillary now saying she will raise taxes on the middle class rather than on her being the devil (which is true). Don't play the game the way the liberal media has him playing it, stay on message.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I just chanced upon this saying one cannot cancel recurring donation to the Trump campaign easily. This seem dubious to me so could so any Trump supporters verify if this is true?

https://mic.com/articles/150640/don...op-recurring-payments-credit-cards#.qjA0GbGK7


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Obama being a black boy being raised by a white marxist and her retarded corrupt ideological friends is worse than him being an illegal or a muslim. For crying out loud most of his political experience is him as a community organizer! Tho asking for his certificate isn't a big deal, would have asked the same of Ted Cruz since there was rumors of him etc. 

Also using Melania's pics is pretty lulzy, I get it but ignoring the email scandal and all this damaging stuff coming out but oh boy, these pics are huge issues!


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Stay on message and let Hilary flop every time. I don't get it, the Democrats basically didn't shoot themselves in the foot with their corruption and fraud but pretty much blew up their foot when it came out how they really felt about Hispanics. 

Had Trump not bothered with Khan the problem would have solved itself as there is so much controversy surrounding Khan and his motives at this moment. 

Trump had a big chance with the democrats in disarray that I don't get why he bothers dealing with their attacks when they fizzle out because they're so ill prepared and thought out. Really all Trump has to do is let the media tire itself out attacking him and people will see the media is biased and would make him look better.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

All other politicians kiss babies. Trump drop kicks them out of his venues.:mark:


----------



## Bret Hart

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

What are the pros and cons of each candidate if they were to get elected? 
@birthday_massacre @DesolationRow


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Bret Hart said:


> What are the pros and cons of each candidate if they were to get elected?
> 
> @birthday_massacre @DesolationRow


Whom ever wins we all lose.

Hillary is the devil we know, Trump is the devil we don't know.

We know what we will get will Hillary, pretty much the same as Obama. 

Trump is a wildcard and who knows what we will get, that is the scary and dangerous thing.


----------



## Bret Hart

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Whom ever wins we all lose.
> 
> Hillary is the devil we know, Trump is the devil we don't know.
> 
> We know what we will get will Hillary, pretty much the same as Obama.
> 
> Trump is a wildcard and who knows what we will get, that is the scary and dangerous thing.


How did these two get the nominations to run for President in the first place if both options suck?

Are majority of the Americans not bright?


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Bret Hart said:


> Are majority of the Americans not bright?


Thats the sad truth yes


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Bret Hart said:


> Are majority of the Americans not bright?


If you're going to imagine yourself to be the intellectual superior of an entire population of hundreds of millions of diverse people, you may want to put even the slightest bit of effort into conjuring up a more sophisticated analysis than "Americans dumb."


----------



## Bret Hart

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Thats the sad truth yes


Ah, damn. :/


Sincere said:


> If you're going to imagine yourself to be the intellectual superior of an entire population of hundreds of millions of diverse people, you may want to put even the slightest bit of effort into conjuring up a more sophisticated analysis than "Americans dumb."


:trips4


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Bret Hart said:


> How did these two get the nominations to run for President in the first place if both options suck?
> 
> *Are majority of the Americans not bright?*


Yup. What's even more depressing is that problem is further exacerbated by the disgusting amount of influence that Super PACs (Political Action Committees) have. And we also can't forget how much of a clusterfuck the electoral college is.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Bret Hart said:


> How did these two get the nominations to run for President in the first place if both options suck?
> 
> Are majority of the Americans not bright?


The majority of the WORLD is not bright. This isn't unique to Americans. What failed them is the checks in place in the system to prevent such things from occurring.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> All other politicians kiss babies. Trump drop kicks them out of his venues.:mark:


:mark:

Seriously, watching that, that was truly funny. 



Bret Hart said:


> What are the pros and cons of each candidate if they were to get elected?
> 
> @birthday_massacre @DesolationRow


If Hillary wins, she will spearhead a new omnibus spending spree bill on top of the one that is already baked in the fiscal cake. The present signs of recession will continue to spring forth and multiply until it is commonly accepted that the U.S. is in a recession once again. GDP will stay flat until it drops even further. 

Hillary will nominate someone who is considered a "moderate" for the Supreme Court's present vacancy, but whose opinions will always align with the leftmost members of the court. When Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires she will nominate someone who is deemed "liberal" because it's Ginsburg's old seat. 

The U.S. Supreme Court will strike down _Citizens United_. Federal regulations of elections will be implemented. Rather than take money out of politics, though, only more money flies through the system. Slush funds multiply within the new system. Regulations are placed on the Internet by the federal government, which works in concert with social media institutions like Facebook and twitter to police "hate speech." The IRS goes back to auditing right-wing groups willy-nilly. 

The Federal Reserve holds down interest rates as low as possible. The vast majority of people who attempt to save find it nearly impossible to do so as the cost of living waxes. 

"Comprehensive immigration reform" occurs, amnestying millions. Lip service will be paid to border patrol and stopping illegal aliens from entering the country. Another ten thousand or more refugees will be permitted into the U.S. in 2017, with more on the way. The demographic shift of the U.S. continues to eventuate. 

With Obamacare's co-ops dying one by one, Hillary takes up the mantle of Obama to expand the "public care portion" of Obamacare. A system not unlike Great Britain's is adopted. Healthcare is rationed but everyone is insured. 

The assault weapons ban is reinstituted. Crime goes up. More mass shootings occur.

As the Russians and Assad's forces defeat one ISIS stronghold after another in Syria, Hillary seeks to take out Assad's regime at the behest of the Israelis and Saudis. A dangerous ground war occurs in Syria as the U.S. becomes further involved, threatening to pit the U.S. and Russia on a collision course. 

If Trump wins, he will spearhead a new omnibus spending spree bill on top of the one that is already baked in the fiscal cake. The present signs of recession will continue to spring forth and multiply until it is commonly accepted that the U.S. is in a recession once again. GDP will stay flat until it drops even further. 

Trump will nominate someone who is considered a "conservative" for the Supreme Court's present vacancy, but whose opinions will almost always align with the leftmost members of the court. When Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires Democrats will demand that a "moderate" be placed in her seat because it would change the court too radically otherwise. The "moderate" will invariably align with the leftmost members of the court. 

The U.S. Supreme Court will strike down _Citizens United_. Federal regulations of elections will be implemented. Rather than take money out of politics, though, only more money flies through the system. Slush funds multiply within the new system. Regulations are placed on the Internet by the federal government, which works in concert with social media institutions like Facebook and twitter to police "hate speech." The IRS goes back to auditing right-wing groups willy-nilly. 

The Federal Reserve holds down interest rates as low as possible. The vast majority of people who attempt to save find it nearly impossible to do so as the cost of living waxes. 

Trump declares that a grand immigration reform compromise will occur. "Comprehensive immigration reform" is passed and authorized, with Trump echoing Ronald Reagan's declaration that this will be a one-time deal as Trump's fellow Republicans and Democrats have sworn that increased border security and future deportations of illegal aliens will take place, but as with Reagan's amnesty the last part never happens. Trump's "Wall" never materializes, whether it be actually or metaphorically. The demographic shift of the U.S. continues to eventuate. 

With Obamacare's co-ops dying one by one, Trump attempts to dismantle the entire system and simplify it. However, the Congress, beholden to insurance companies, do not want the gravy train to conclude anytime soon. The _status quo_ prevails until a future date. 

As the Russians and Assad's forces defeat one ISIS stronghold after another in Syria, Trump is misled by a group of State Department and Pentagon war hawks into the conflagration. Perhaps a "Gulf of Tonkin" sort of false flag operation is carried out by the CIA to force Trump's hand, threatening an all-out ground war with the Russians. 

Two roads. Roughly the same destination.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Bret Hart said:


> How did these two get the nominations to run for President in the first place if both options suck?
> 
> Are majority of the Americans not bright?


We Americans have no say in who initially runs for President. It is decided for us by the two main political parties, who give us a selection of hacks to "choose" from in the Primaries. Even if we find that *none *of those candidates are suitable to elect, well, that is just too bad because that is all we are going to get. So then after the dog and pony show of the Primaries gives us our two candidates (because face the facts, no third or fourth party candidate is ever going to be seriously considered), we are finally left with the illusion of choice between the horrible and the terrible. And so just like we do every other time, we collectively hold our noses and vote anyway, hoping for the best.

So I would say that maybe the problem isn't that we aren't so bright, but perhaps the problem is that we are just lazy and not willing to put forth the effort it would take to force the parties to give us candidates worth voting for. And that is assuming they would even let us at this point, which I doubt. They would fight and obfuscate much harder to hold on to the power they have accumulated for themselves over the years. Changes need to be made to the process, but that is not going to happen. And so this November we are going to follow the plan that has been laid out for us and "make history", which is clearly more important (to those in power) than choosing who is fit to lead our country.

Putting it that way, perhaps by and large we really are that stupid. :hmm:


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Rand Paul was worth voting for and he only got 2% in the primary. :draper2
@DesolationRow Jesus Christ that was dark, and most unsettling is that it seems extremely likely.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/08/05/ajc-poll-hillary-clinton-has-slim-lead-over-donald-trump-in-georgia/



> *AJC poll: Hillary Clinton has slim lead over Donald Trump in Georgia*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrat Hillary Clinton has built a slim lead over Donald Trump in Georgia after one of the worst weeks of the Republican’s campaign, and the Libertarian presidential ticket cracked double-digits, according to a new Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll.
> 
> The poll released Friday shows Clinton at 44 percent and Trump at 40 percent in a head-to-head matchup, within the poll’s margin of error. It is the latest showing a close race between the two candidates in Georgia, a state that has voted for the GOP nominee since 1996.
> 
> In a four-way race, Clinton led Trump 41-38, followed by Libertarian Gary Johnson with 11 percent and Green Party candidate Jill Stein with 2 percent. When including which candidates voters “lean” toward, Clinton led Trump 43-39, and Johnson netted 12 percent.
> 
> poll4The findings come after both conventions ended and a particularly rough patch for Trump, who engaged in a war of words with the family of a slain Muslim U.S. soldier and infuriated many Republicans when he refused to endorse two of the party’s top elected officials.
> 
> Friday’s survey marks a change from the last AJC poll, commissioned in May, which gave Trump a 45-41 lead over Clinton. It also shows the former secretary of state besting Trump among independents, an influential Georgia voting bloc that typically votes Republican.
> 
> Both Trump and Clinton had the exact same unfavorability rating – 58 percent – among Georgia voters. And a majority of Trump’s backers said they see their decision as a vote against Clinton rather than a vote for the New York businessman.
> 
> Johnson barely surpassed 1 percent of Georgia’s vote in the 2012 campaign, when he was also the Libertarian nominee for president. But he could be poised to do far better this year by tailoring his pitch to voters disillusioned by both Trump and Clinton, and the poll has him netting about one-fifth of support from Georgia independents.
> 
> Georgia still isn’t directly in Clinton’s crosshairs, and her campaign has yet to declare Georgia a battleground state. But a common strain from the Democratic and Republican conventions was that Georgia has the chance to turn blue for the first time since Bill Clinton’s 1992 win over President George H.W. Bush.
> 
> The poll was conducted by ABT SRBI between Aug. 1-4 and included 847 registered voters. The margin of error was about 4.3 percentage points.
> 
> The AJC will publish several more stories and blog posts about the poll throughout the next few days, so stay tuned.


Speaking as someone from Georgia, this is insane. Georgia hasn't voted a democrat for president since Clinton in '96. Atlanta is part of the explanation for it, but not all.

If Georgia goes blue I don't know what that means for the GOP long term. It's been specualted that with demographic changes in the area Georgia might go purple or blue in the 2020s, but this is quite a jump on it if it bears out.

Pus, the senate race here has been getting tighter and the (R) incumbent now has a 6 point lead, down from 12 points in May. If those voters show up for HC then there may be a senate change too.

Of course polls don't mean much until the debates start, but still for a Dem to take the lead at any point is a shock.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/08/05/ajc-poll-hillary-clinton-has-slim-lead-over-donald-trump-in-georgia/
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as someone from Georgia, this is insane. Georgia hasn't voted a democrat for president since Clinton in '96. Atlanta is part of the explanation for it, but not all.
> 
> If Georgia goes blue I don't know what that means for the GOP long term. It's been specualted that with demographic changes in the area Georgia might go purple or blue in the 2020s, but this is quite a jump on it if it bears out.
> 
> Pus, the senate race here has been getting tighter and the (R) incumbent now has a 6 point lead, down from 12 points in May. If those voters show up for HC then their may be a senate change too.
> 
> Of course polls don't mean much until the debates start, but still for a Dem to take the lead at any point is a shock.


You could say the same about the polls that have trump ahead in NH and PA.

All of this doom talk is hilarious. Khan's story overshadowed the DNC disaster and made people forget.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This is a slamdunk victory for any competent Republican nominee. Economy is sluggish. Hilary and the DNC mired in controversies. Two term democratic presidency which means voters are more open to voting Republican. GOP conservatism resonate with American born minorities that are of age to vote.

But the GOP nominated someone so unlikable to so many people that it turned from a referendum on DNC policies into a referendum about whether Trump is fit to be president.

I still think Trump is favourites based on Sanders regressive base not voting out of spite. But the polls thus far are really surprising.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> You could say the same about the polls that have trump ahead in NH and PA.
> 
> All of this doom talk is hilarious. Khan's story overshadowed the DNC disaster and made people forget.


Which NH, PA polls? The ones I've seen have her ahead.



FriedTofu said:


> This is a slamdunk victory for any competent Republican nominee. Economy is sluggish. Hilary and the DNC mired in controversies. Two term democratic presidency which means voters are more open to voting Republican. GOP conservatism resonate with American born minorities that are of age to vote.
> 
> But the GOP nominated someone so unlikable to so many people that it turned from a referendum on DNC policies into a referendum about whether Trump is fit to be president.
> 
> I still think Trump is favourites based on Sanders regressive base not voting out of spite. But the polls thus far are really surprising.


It's an interesting point. By all rights HC should be dead in the water right now. I mean repeatedly she and the DNC have handed the GOP ammo to take her down and yet... 

Strange election season.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> Which NH, PA polls? The ones I've seen have her ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> It's an interesting point. By all rights HC should be dead in the water right now. I mean repeatedly she and the DNC have handed the GOP ammo to take her down and yet...
> 
> Strange election season.


To be fair the polls are a few days old. just proof polls fluctuate.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Where the hell do these polls come from? Where do people sign up to take these? I've always wondered this...lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/08/05/poll-johnson-winning-23-millennials-trump-falls-4th-place/


Poll: Johnson winning 23% of millennials, Trump falls to 4th place
Read more at http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/08...ls-trump-falls-4th-place/#wwZEiTxGPbyUCYVC.99

According to the poll, voters under 30 support:

Hillary Clinton 41%

Gary Johnson 23%

Jill Stein 16%

Trump 9%


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/pol...Y/Complete data for the McClatchy-Marist Poll


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Go onto Google and type in "When is the next election" and/or "When is the next election day".










This is real. lol

Google's always shown bias, but this may be a bit much.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> Where the hell do these polls come from? Where do people sign up to take these? I've always wondered this...lol


The most normal and less expensive procedure is telephonic polling. If you stablish a quota of polling you could draw a number at random and then do several combinations until you reach a determined n of phone numbers, which include an accepted proportion of non respondent persons.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


>


Any update to the list with regards to the Iran tape?


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://trumporjesus.com/ 

Taken from an uber right wing source lol

Also how did Trump not eject a baby? I don't understand how you can watch the footage of him ejecting a crying baby and then somehow come to the conclusion he didn't?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngWiQ25cZU0 - happens at 1:40 of this video. 

And I don't necessarily think asking a crying baby to move during a speach is that horrible a thing to do, but I don't understand how anyone can believe that he didn't do it....


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Or you could do a quick google search and see what the people who were there are saying about what happened: 

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/08/02/no-donald-trump-did-not-eject-a-baby.html

http://twitchy.com/loriz-3139/2016/...-about-your-donald-trump-baby-booting-claims/

http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=31967 (statement from the mother herself)


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Or you could do a quick google search and see what the people who were there are saying about what happened:
> 
> https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/08/02/no-donald-trump-did-not-eject-a-baby.html
> 
> http://twitchy.com/loriz-3139/2016/...-about-your-donald-trump-baby-booting-claims/
> 
> http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=31967 (statement from the mother herself)


Ok I'll give you that one haha


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So, to the Trumpamaniacs that are running wild out here @Beatles123 @CamillePunk ... your thoughts on Trump's endorsing Paul Ryan, John McCain, and Kelly Ayotte. Honestly, I don't know what to make of it. He did the exact same thing with Ryan that Ryan did to him, wording right down to the moment when he "endorsed" him. I put that word in quotes because it looked to me like Trump was clearly reading the script in front of him. It was almost like watching a nervous kid reading a book report before the whole class... except did Trump really believe what he was doing, especially considering just a week ago he is pimping Ryan's primary opponent pretty hard. Reminds me of when a celebrity reads an apology their publicist puts in front of them and their heart really isn't in it. It struck me as a non-endorsement endorsement. 

Meanwhile, over at Newsmax and WorldNetDaily, you have people losing their minds that are saying they are dumping Trump now because he endorsed them. You would think Trump swore his allegiance to Allah the way they are carrying on.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't think I've seen a less enthusiastic endorsement in my life. :lol The fact is that Paul Ryan was certain to win his primary so not endorsing him could only hurt Trump. 

I doubt anyone would seriously stop supporting Trump over that. They may say that but the fact is if you're on the Trump train by this point, there's just about nothing non-catastrophic that could take you off of it. :lol And perhaps the same can be said for people who aren't supporting him suddenly becoming supporters. I think the likelihood of Trump winning will be determined by how many closet Trump supporters there are. I don't think it's something we'll see coming in the polls. This is a very unique election, largely due to the media's never-before-seen level of bias and activism against one of the candidates, and the amount of social stigma placed on people for supporting a candidate.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm sure somebody told him, "Read this word-for-word...do not ad lib...do not change one word, don't add a comma where they ain't one...etc." His eyes never left the page. 

Ryan might have the safest seat of the three. McCain and Ayotte most likely will win their primaries but both face serious challenges in the fall. A recent poll shows Ayotte is trailing by 10 points to NH Governor Maggie Hassan who will most likely be her opponent in November. McCain's opponent will be Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick, and McCain lately is hurting big time with the Hispanic voting bloc in Arizona who is angry with him over talk of the wall (even though McCain faces anger for being part of the Gang of Eight amnesty bunch).


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://trumpgenerator.com/ 

On serious note, refusing to endorse McCain and Ryan straight up was weird and spiteful, hurt him more than it hurt them considering its ultimately him who will lose if the Republican party can't unite.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So over 2,200 people got banned from Trumps ask me anything reddit interview LOL

Talk about being a fascist. Anyone not super pro Trump was banned from it so he could not be asked any real questions. What a joke Trump is


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> *Kasich: Trump Jr. called aide to float VP offer*
> 
> (CNN)Ohio Gov. John Kasich still isn't ready to support Donald Trump for president -- but he confirmed that one of his aides was contacted about possibly joining the real estate mogul's ticket as his vice president.
> 
> Kasich told CNN's Jake Tapper that he didn't receive a call himself. But he said one of his aides confirmed to him a New York Times report last month saying *Donald Trump Jr. tried to entice Kasich with a position as the most powerful vice president in history -- putting him in charge of all domestic and foreign policy -- was accurate.*
> 
> "That's what one of them has told me, yes," Kasich told Tapper in an interview aired Sunday on "State of the Union."
> 
> The Trump campaign has previously denied the details of the Times' report. When it was published late last month, Trump campaign spokesman Jason Miller told CNN "it's completely ridiculous" and that an offer was never made. Trump Jr. also denied making such an offer.
> 
> The Ohio governor, however, told Tapper he was never interested in serving as vice president.
> 
> "I never considered it ... I'd be the worst vice president. I have too many opinions," said Kasich, the last Republican challenger left standing amid ahead of Trump's nomination.


If that's true then one has to assume that it's the same offer Mike Pence got. So if the VP would be handling domestic and foreign policy, what would the President be doing?

From a previous New York Times article on this subject. An alleged exchange between Kasich's adviser and Trump Jr.



> When Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy.
> 
> Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?
> 
> “Making America great again” was the casual reply.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...hical-rules-by-taking-money-from-Algeria.html


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> If that's true then one has to assume that it's the same offer Mike Pence got. So if the VP would be handling domestic and foreign policy, what would the President be doing?
> 
> From a previous New York Times article on this subject. An alleged exchange between Kasich's adviser and Trump Jr.


This is old news and just as ridiculous now as it was then.


birthday_massacre said:


> So over 2,200 people got banned from Trumps ask me anything reddit interview LOL
> 
> Talk about being a fascist. Anyone not super pro Trump was banned from it so he could not be asked any real questions. What a joke Trump is


You know the Trump campaign has zero control over that subreddit, right? :lol It was trolls who were being banned. Multiple people on Twitter including ANONYMOUS were directing people to troll the AMA.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> So over 2,200 people got banned from Trumps ask me anything reddit interview LOL
> 
> Talk about being a fascist. Anyone not super pro Trump was banned from it so he could not be asked any real questions. What a joke Trump is


No seriously man you have no idea how many spammers there were.


_______











Hillary's adjusted polls are unbiased because the mainstream media puts them in the news :^)


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> This is old news and just as ridiculous now as it was then.You know the Trump campaign has zero control over that subreddit, right? :lol It was trolls who were being banned. Multiple people on Twitter including ANONYMOUS were directing people to troll the AMA.





Beatles123 said:


> No seriously man you have no idea how many spammers there were.




Oh please. Trump told them do. He bans newspapers from his rallies. You can't be that naive


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Nah it's a strictly pro-Trump subreddit and they have a policy against posting anything negative about Trump. It's been that way since it started a year ago. I know you'll still claim Trump is moderating reddit threads because your confirmation bias has you that deluded, but I figure rational people might appreciate some background info.

The mods were also bragging about how many trolls they banned (and the 2230 figure comes from the mod team itself) immediately after the AMA ended.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Nah it's a strictly pro-Trump subreddit and they have a policy against posting anything negative about Trump. It's been that way since it started a year ago. I know you'll still claim Trump is moderating reddit threads because your confirmation bias has you that deluded, but I figure rational people might appreciate some background info.
> 
> The mods were also bragging about how many trolls they banned (and the 2230 figure comes from the mod team itself) immediately after the AMA ended.


We all see how Trump handles any negative criticism. You really think he wanted any real questions during that AMA?


----------



## Marv95

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

That AMA was heavily downvoted by brigaters/trolls and although it was the most active thread in reddit it failed to reach Top 5 in r/all. CTR shills from Billary's camp have invaded and it's pretty much anti-Trump everywhere on that already liberal site except for The Donald. 

As far as polls go, these are what you should pay attention to:
http://axiomstrategies.com/abc/ random counties in swing states that could/has determined the election
https://www.longroom.com/polls/ looks sloppy but their model appears accurate. Look under their methodology section below.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

No need to walk me through your confirmation bias.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Oh please. Trump told them do. He bans newspapers from his rallies. You can't be that naive


Now THIS is bait. Obviously you haven't even SEEN how many trolls R/The_Donald gets. Reddit mods even censor their posts from R/all.

Stop it.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> This is old news and just as ridiculous now as it was then.


I know it's an old rumor that was attributed to unnamed sources. I posted it because now it's a story since an actual public figure is confirming it. Now Kasich may be lying, but this does take it from the status of an unattributed rumor up to a story of he said/he said.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Is there the possibility that Trump and the Bushes can kiss and make up? Courtesy of the Communist News Network

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Report: George P. Bush urges Republicans to back Trump*
By David Mark, CNN
Updated 10:04 PM ET, Sun August 7, 2016

Jeb Bush is resolutely #NeverTrump but his son, George P. Bush, no longer is.

George P. Bush, the Texas land commissioner, is breaking with his father, a former Donald Trump Republican primary rival, to back the GOP nominee. George P. Bush's move comes after a nasty Republican primary battle in which Trump repeatedly mocked Jeb Bush, a former Florida governor, as "low energy," among other insults.

The Texas Tribune reported Sunday that at a Saturday gathering of Texas Republican activists Bush said it was time to unite behind Trump in his fall campaign against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

"From Team Bush, it's a bitter pill to swallow, but you know what? You get back up and you help the man that won, and you make sure that we stop Hillary Clinton," Bush said, according to video made by an audience member.

CNN has reached out to George P. Bush for comment.

George P. Bush, first elected in 2014, has until now been a Trump holdout. He's been far from the only Bush family member to refrain from backing Trump. Former Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush -- George P. Bush's grandfather and uncle, respectively -- both skipped the Republican convention in Cleveland last month.

Jeb Bush has been vehement in his opposition to Trump, saying he won't vote for the nominee in November. In July, Jeb Bush predicted that Donald Trump's supporters will feel "betrayed" when his campaign promises fail to become reality. "There isn't going to be a wall built," Bush said in an MSNBC interview. "And Mexico's not going to pay for it. And there's not going to be a ban on Muslims."

Trump hasn't forgiven or forgotten his primary tussles with Jeb Bush. In June, the then-presumptive Republican nominee accused -- without substantiation -- his former rival of leading an effort among GOP delegates to block him from securing the nomination in Cleveland.

"By the way, Jeb is working on the movement, just so you understand. I love competition like that. I love it," Trump said during a campaign rally in Las Vegas.

A longtime Jeb Bush adviser, Sally Bradshaw, last week said she had become an independent, adding if the presidential race in Florida is close, she'll vote for Hillary Clinton.

George P. Bush, 40, is the fourth straight generation of his family in elected office. The lawyer and father of two struck out on familiar family political turf in Texas, rather than Florida where he was raised.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turns out this might be legit...apparently this is the video that was uploaded.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I feel like this election will be decided by how many of the NeverTrump and Bernieorbust people are willing to change their minds.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

"We are in a competition with the world, and I want America to win." :done I've been mulling over in my head lately about how people seem to want to avoid the reality that countries are all economic competitors with one another. Then Trump comes out and says exactly what I've been thinking needs to be said. :lol Amazing. 

Of course, r-selective competition-adverse liberals will likely try to spin this as a somehow sinister or dangerous thing to say, but it scored big points with me.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Trump's Economic policy presser.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So, as usual in the Muslim blogosphere and especially amongst the Pakistanis, the outrage against Trump's comments about Khizar Khan and family (and whatever he said about nuclear bombing) is far, far, far greater than their outrage and grief over the deaths of 70 Pakistanis at the hands of Taliban in Quetta. 

With priorities like that, it's no wonder muslims are the single greatest victims of the terrorrists in their own countries :draper2 

And my daily meme for this thread:


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> (and whatever he said about nuclear bombing)


That was a vintage "unnamed sources" report that happened to fit the preexisting media narrative completely. Just like the supposed Trump campaign chaos, or the idea that he wants the VP to do his job for him because he doesn't really want to be president.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> That was a vintage "unnamed sources" report that happened to fit the preexisting media narrative completely. Just like the supposed Trump campaign chaos, or the idea that he wants the VP to do his job for him because he doesn't really want to be president.


So my gut was right ... I tried to tell them that it was most likely inaccurate, but apparently, there's now videos of his words taken out of context and compiled together or something .. My brother sent me some rebuttal videos in response and I didn't bother looking at them because I just wanted out of that debate knowing that this is what they do ...


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Interesting to see Evan McMullin running an independent campaign for #NeverTrumpers . He won't be able to get on the ballots for most states without help, though, because many of the deadlines have sailed. He already got help in Arkansas where the Better for American Party has offered its spot to him, but we'll see how far that goes.

The deadline to get on the ballot in Utah isn't until next week, I think. That's the big one where McMullin can definitely play spoiler. He's a Mormon who graduated from BYU. The results of the state will be must-watch if McMullin gets on the ballot.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

In other news, Clinton's poll bump doesn't seem to be dissipating. A new Monmouth poll had her up ten, plus we now have a second poll where she's leading in Georgia. FiveThirtyEight has pondered Clinton taking South Carolina if the double digit lead keeps up. I'm not sure I buy that, but Obama did get 44% of the vote there in 2012 (and 45% in Georgia), so it wasn't a total blowout. Eh, we'll see.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@Reaper I find your recurring theme here of how Muslims in America are quicker to side with the individual whose policies have led to the violent deaths of tens of thousands of Muslims in disparate countries (and whose hypothetical election almost assuredly promises more of the same) over the person who's simply said some politically incorrect things and has argued for a pause on immigration from "terrorism-compromised" countries (granted, it was more explicitly religion-based, which would not fly for a variety of reasons) and has made statements about torture and the like. Now, I don't want to see the U.S. employ torture, but the fact of the matter is under Obama and Hillary and friends, the U.S. has been using torture--sending prisoners to lands wherein the torture is simply "outsourced." 

Practically every remark on Trump's part about ISIS has stressed how much he wants to conclude this war in as speedily a fashion as possible, then direct as many resources as possible to helping the U.S. itself out after the waste of trillions in the Middle East under Bush II and Obama. 

Now, there is a fairly vital "Muslims For Trump" group, but it's nevertheless curious to me that so many Muslims in America would rather have Hillary. As a citizen and candidate, Trump could give a two-hour speech about wanting to use medieval torture devices like the rack and treat ISIS members to disembowelment while setting them on fire and he still wouldn't have been instrumental in destroying the regimes of Saddam Hussein, Colonel Gaddafi, or aiding the Saudis in bombing the Houthi rebels, or armed Islamists in Syria. As a thread I created some six months ago or so pointed out, the emails of Hillary's that were revealed around New Year's proved that she and Sidney Blumenthal knew about, and supported, murderous death squads in Libya during the fallout of that "regime change" operation. 

The U.S. in general is a media-driven empire that excuses actual mass slaughter of civilians, and waging of wars, but if you say something that ruffles a few feathers out there and doesn't subscribe to the safe, politically correct view of certain things, watch out. :lol Misplaced priorities in the extreme.

On another note, it is fairly evident at this point that the neoconservatives are behind Evan McMullin, and are pushing him as a candidate to siphon off votes from Trump in a few states such as Arkansas and Utah. How successful this operation will be is difficult to say for now, but considering Trump's problems with Mormon voters it could conceivably leave an impact.

Hillary Clinton ostensibly has Virginia locked up at this point, and she's pulling well ahead in Pennsylvania and North Carolina judging by most of the polls emanating from those states now. The latest poll from Georgia has Hillary up by 4%. In the national poll (which is far less important but still an okay indicator) Hillary is up by 10. Also, approximately 80-85% of Bernie Sanders voters are already stating that they will vote for Hillary, with the others mostly migrating to Jill Stein's camp.

It needs to be stressed, the last two weeks for Trump were so bad not because he got hammered in the polls with independents and Democrats, but because conservative Republicans winced at certain elements of repetitious news cycles and a considerable slice of them peeled off of the Trump train. The silver lining in all of this is that it is these voters who are most easily persuadable to come back into the fold and vote for Trump if only to block Hillary. 

Also, by my own calculations, Texas will probably be a swing state in four years. Trump's lead over Hillary in the Lone Star State is in single digits. I predict that the next Democratic National Convention emanates from a Texas city. Democrats would be shortsighted to not make that happen. 

For decades those within "Conservatism, Inc." who made the point that, if present demographic trends continued, the Republican Party would cease to be a national party were shouted down as "racist" and "xenophobic" by Republicans and neocon rags.

Well... As Lord Byron wrote, 



> Of all the horrid, hideous notes of woe, Sadder than owl-songs or the midnight blast; Is that portentous phrase, "I told you so."


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I got into a huge argument with one of my muslim uncles in Canada over Trump on my facebook. You've seen my walls of text arguments I'm sure ... well, I replicated that process for the first time on my facebook lol ... 

After writing about 2000 words and at least 5 posts about how Trump is evil and bad and criminal etc etc (basically repeating all of the media talking points word for word), he eventually admitted that he hasn't and I quote "read his platform and policies so don't know much about them". Apparently, he did know everything till I started pointing out how little he actually knew. 

Of course, that didn't make him change his mind or his position. Literally the day after that he re-posted the pro-Khizar post that inspired me to make my own post in this thread and has been completely silent on the Quetta bombing. 

BTW, it might interest you to know that the ground reality of the American supply chain in Pakistan (the stuff they don't want you to know) is vulnerable and extremely poorly guarded - to the point where they're _still _falling into the hands of the terrorists. Pakistan has had to dedicate its military and sacrifice its soldiers to cover for the sheer incompetence of the American military fpalm This is shit that they don't want Americans to know .. and we Pakistanis only know this because of our personal contacts and the stories we get from within our own military contacts. 

My point is that the military operations abroad are half-assed and don't have a concentrated backing from the home-base. Basically, America is at war, but the politicians want nothing to do with it except using its positives for their personal political gains. It's not a unified effort that it needs to be. It's only a method of gaining support and therefore the boys over there have had to deal with the incompetence of their leaders and hence not even remotely as effective as they could be if America was actually serious about the wars and not just using the boys as pawns in their political gains. This is why you get the weapons falling into enemy hands. This is why you make these terrible mistakes in picking bombing targets. It's a huge mess and it's because the politicians back home are not at all serious about actually galvanizing the effort.


----------



## Cliffy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

i think it's over lads unfortunately trump nuked himself rising to that khan bs

hilary and her seizures are a lock it seems


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Fascinating, @Reaper, quite fascinating indeed.

Reports out of Afghanistan this weekend proved that ISIS and the Taliban both have, as in Iraq and Syria, picked up inordinate amounts of American weaponry and supplies. :lol 

It's almost like the U.S. regime wants this to drag on forever, in perpetuity...

:hmm: :side: :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/08/politics/evan-mcmullin-conservative-trump-clinton/
Anti-Trump conservatives recruit candidate for WH bid


Washington (CNN)Conservative Republicans have recruited a former CIA staffer and top House GOP aide to launch an independent White House bid -- and he could cause problems for Donald Trump in a key state if he gets on the ballot.

Evan McMullin opened his bid for the White House Monday morning, announcing on his website: "It's never too late to do the right thing. And if we work together, there's nothing we can't achieve.".
"Evan has spent his entire career in service to our nation and today he's continuing on that path as a candidate for president -- he is running first and foremost out of a deep love for this country, and because he understands the true brand of American leadership that is required to be Commander-in-Chief," McMullin's campaign wrote in a message to supporters.
McMullin, who had been the policy director for the House Republican Conference, is a longshot for the White House at best -- facing high hurdles in the form of ballot access deadlines that have already passed in many states -- but will offer anti-Trump conservatives an alternative to Trump and Clinton.
McMullin's presence could be felt most in Utah, where anti-Trump conservatives rallied behind Ted Cruz in the primaries and McMullin has one week to make the ballot. Cruz beat Trump 69%-14% in Utah after Mitt Romney urged Republicans in the Mormon-heavy state to fight Trump.
McMullin is a graduate of Brigham Young University, the university owned and operated by the Mormon church, according to his LinkedIn profile.
Utah, which is typically a reliably red state in presidential contests, has emerged as a possible toss-up. If McMullin were to draw enough conservatives from Trump, he could possibly throw the state to Hillary Clinton.
McMullin worked for 11 years in the CIA, three years as an investment banker with Goldman Sachs, and as a top staffer on the Hill since 2013, according to his LinkedIn profile.
An aide to the Conference said Monday morning that McMullin is no longer an employee of the Conference.
Anti-Trump Republicans, led by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, stumbled in earlier efforts to recruit someone to run and some of Trump's most vocal opponents, like Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, have ruled themselves out of running.
McMullin on Monday afternoon sought to differentiate himself from both nominees.
"Hillary Clinton is a corrupt career politician who has recklessly handled classified information in an attempt to avoid accountability and put American lives at risk including those of my former colleagues," McMullin wrote on his campaign site.
And of the Republican nominee, McMullin wrote: "Donald Trump appeals to the worst fears of Americans at a time we need unity, not division. Republicans are deeply divided by a man who is perilously close to gaining the most powerful position in the world, and many rightly see him as a real threat to our Republic."
CNN's Manu Raju contributed to this report


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The American military was never trained to fight wars in mountainous terrains ... The local militaries were ---- which Americans decimated hence creating their own demise at the hands of the local terrorists that galvanized their efforts only because the local afghan and iraqi militaries were decimated and now being re-trained by a military that itself is incompetent in fighting wars in those regions. It's a self-created disaster. 

The reason why Pakistan succeeded where Iraq and Afghanistan absolutely failed was because we've always been a military-first nation that's been at war since creation and our soldiers have one of the most rigorous training regimens in the world where they're trained to fight wars in the harsh mountainous regions. Oh and of course, little known fact ... Pakistan has sub-divisions based on ethnicity within their military. This should interest you greatly that I think in 2005 or 2006 Musharraf sent a contingent of Pushto-speaking soldiers to fight the Taliban in the north. That regiment laid down their arms and said that they won't fight their own brothers. Interestingly, they then sent a full regiment of Punjabi soldiers, which then completely destroyed the Taliban of that region. Since then the military has been using ethnic differences as a major strategic advantage. 

American boys are trained in plains and flats and all have the *same* level of training with little to no expertise in harsher climates and harsher terrain. Hence their repeated failures. Of course, most American soldiers only ever became soldiers because it was pitched to them as a career option, and never really told what it actually means to be a soldier. That makes a huge difference when it comes to real fighting. If the boys are recruited with the lie of receiving a comfortable life, they're not as willing to sacrifice for the country ... Of course, not all of them are unwilling fighters, but enough are. :shrug


----------



## GOON

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I officially endorse Donald J. Trump.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BAD NEWS GOON said:


> I officially endorse Donald J. Trump.


:sodone The train has just left the station.


----------



## GOON

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

G-d I can't believe that there was a time when I supported Rand "Randlet" Paul.

Time to build the Wall, brother.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BAD NEWS GOON said:


> G-d I can't believe that there was a time when I supported Rand "Randlet" Paul.
> 
> Time to build the Wall, brother.


Good to finally see you back, up and running, Brother. :trump :clap

Now we just need *Redead* back. Probably taken out by a drone strike. :mj2

:lmao at your location being "Refugee Camp"... :done


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Do you guys honestly still think the wall is going to happen?


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

No.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Do you guys honestly still think the wall is going to happen?


The "wall" already exists. Have you seen the border pics? 

IMO, even though Trump means a literal wall and that people think it's a literal wall as well ... given that the vast majority of the border is already fenced and walled in the key locations, it's more of a metaphorical wall at this point than anything else.

It's just amusement to me to see people make such a big deal about something that already exists.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

So Mexico is going to pay for a metaphorical wall with metaphorical money? How many times have critics of the wall plans say it was more symbolic than effective and be put into place that we know nothing and the wall will be MORE effective than the current fences? Now the wall is only for show and you don't really need to build a wall? Flip-flop much like :trump?

I honestly like Trump's plan to reduce corporate taxes to discourage companies moving overseas, maybe attracting bigger investment by foreign companies already in the US. But that doesn't seem to be what the electorate wants and could be a hardsell.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> The American military was never trained to fight wars in mountainous terrains ... The local militaries were ---- which Americans decimated hence creating their own demise at the hands of the local terrorists that galvanized their efforts only because the local afghan and iraqi militaries were decimated and now being re-trained by a military that itself is incompetent in fighting wars in those regions. It's a self-created disaster.
> 
> The reason why Pakistan succeeded where Iraq and Afghanistan absolutely failed was because we've always been a military-first nation that's been at war since creation and our soldiers have one of the most rigorous training regimens in the world where they're trained to fight wars in the harsh mountainous regions. Oh and of course, little known fact ... Pakistan has sub-divisions based on ethnicity within their military. This should interest you greatly that I think in 2005 or 2006 Musharraf sent a contingent of Pushto-speaking soldiers to fight the Taliban in the north. That regiment laid down their arms and said that they won't fight their own brothers. Interestingly, they then sent a full regiment of Punjabi soldiers, which then completely destroyed the Taliban of that region. Since then the military has been using ethnic differences as a major strategic advantage.
> 
> American boys are trained in plains and flats and all have the *same* level of training with little to no expertise in harsher climates and harsher terrain. Hence their repeated failures. Of course, most American soldiers only ever became soldiers because it was pitched to them as a career option, and never really told what it actually means to be a soldier. That makes a huge difference when it comes to real fighting. If the boys are recruited with the lie of receiving a comfortable life, they're not as willing to sacrifice for the country ... Of course, not all of them are unwilling fighters, but enough are. :shrug



This is very true if it wasn't for technological superiority against the US enemies it would have been a lot worse. Vietnam was a good example of this, without the strength of used mechanized units and air strikes having only so much effect the US troops suffer huge loses to the VC, these small, malnurished men were devastating to the US forces who didn't know how to jungle fight. 

Using ethnic units isn't a new thing, the Roman empire and other kingdoms used this tactic, brothers are less willing to fight against brothers and certain ethnic groups and Religions will fight harder and have higher morale against other ones they hate. It's just strategy. One that's been used for centuries. The US forces all train the same and all rely on equipment to have success. Not to mention the US military training has been getting softer.. weaker requirements for female soldiers because they're female, going easy on new recruits, going with this whacky diversity plan. It's not really a surprise that US forces have a hard time dealing with enemies where they're not overwhelming control.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Do you guys honestly still think the wall is going to happen?


There's already a wall but it's undermanned and not very well maintained, really there needs to be more fences put up where people trafficing are coming through but with more security and the Boarder Patrol doing their jobs it would make it pretty secure. But no I don't believe there is going to be a 300 foot wall put up, I think what Trump is saying is that the current wall will be upgraded, the boarder more secure and possibly better ways for immigrants to come in legally which has been needing overhaul for a while.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Tech advancement and WWII success (though it's usually thought of as a US success kind of wrongfully when it was more a Russian success) has actually been the bane of the American military since. 

Their most recent success in Iraq came against an enemy that did not have the resources to put up a fight. 

Drone attacks don't work in Afghanistan and Pakistan. All they do is pick off 2-3 militants along with just as many civilians. 

It's very telling that the only major success of the US military has been the successful operation to kill Osama Bin Laden. 

Meanwhile ignoring that the Pakistani military has been responsible for killing multiple leaders of other terrorist factions as well as multple leaders of the Pakistani chapter of Al-Qaeda since then. 

From what I've noticed, American war is more glory than nitty gritty. I however feel more sorry for the boys on account of the fact that they've been killed and put into situations where they've been ambushed completely unprepared. Now thankfully this war hasn't been as bad as the Vietnam War at least because there wasn't a forced draft that sent boys literally off the streets to go get themselves killed ... but at the same time, many of the boys that did fight and ended up dying signed up thinking that they'll never have to see war in the first place. Because when the American military recruited the boys back in the 90's and early 2000's, they neglected to tell the boys that this was an active warring military. They told the poor souls that they'll be "set for life in careers that mean something". No other military that I know of that frequently goes to war recruits their men with that kind of a message. 

Anyways, I can rant about this for hours. I've seen the conditions of the US soldiers with my own eyes and here living in the south I have a lot of exposure to vets that have returned. My wife works at a company that's veteran friendly in terms of their hiring practices so I've seen the survivors with my own eyes and it's not pretty. Most of them are now living in poverty nursing major mental and physical health issues ... I've seen veterans begging on the streets .. and I've seen veterans without legs in wheel-chairs holding up empty tin cans so that you can put some change in them. 

As bad as totaled cars that are tossed in a dump ... It's the saddest thing in the world to me ... And yet here we are. Fucking democrats are perfectly ok with putting a fucking neoconservative war monger in power just because they hate the fact that Trump said some things that made their panties ride up their butts ... 

FFS what kind of sick minded person thinks that a man that is falsely accused of saying racist things is worse than a woman who will likely cause the deaths of thousands of more boys and leave thousands others mutilated, crippled and incapable of living normal lives?


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump was winning in the polls because people are tired of the mainstream media distorting things. Honest journalism is dead.








Romney was a douche to many, but doing stuff like this was ridiculous:






The liberal media is a freaking joke!

- Vic


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



> Do you guys honestly still think the wall is going to happen?


Depends if the GOP is in full control of Congress.



> The "wall" already exists. Have you seen the border pics?


That wall sucks. Illegals climb over it like its nothing.

- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> There's already a wall but it's undermanned and not very well maintained, really there needs to be more fences put up where people trafficing are coming through but with more security and the Boarder Patrol doing their jobs it would make it pretty secure. But no I don't believe there is going to be a 300 foot wall put up, *I think what Trump is saying is that the current wall will be upgraded, the boarder more secure and possibly better ways for immigrants to come in legally which has been needing overhaul for a while*.


Come on, one of Trump's early biggest platforms was that he was going to BUILD A WALL. Not upgrade anything etc etc, he was going to build it and Mexico was going to pay for it. Don't obfuscate it now because Trump's in trouble.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> FFS what kind of sick minded person thinks that a man that is falsely accused of saying racist things is worse than a woman who will likely cause the deaths of thousands of more boys and leave thousands others mutilated, crippled and incapable of living normal lives?


Not defending Hillary since I don't know a thing about her, but do you honestly think Trump wouldn't continue sending off US men and women to be killed in far off lands? I'd call that pretty naïve if you did.

Or if/when Trump does it, I'm sure Team Trump (not labelling you specifically here) could spin it as him not being responsible for any death at all, simply defending America's freedom and making it great again.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Not defending Hillary since I don't know a thing about her, but do you honestly think Trump wouldn't continue sending off US men and women to be killed in far off lands? I'd call that pretty naïve if you did.
> 
> Or if/when Trump does it, I'm sure Team Trump (not labelling you specifically here) could spin it as him not being responsible for any death at all, simply defending America's freedom and making it great again.


You're missing my point a little. 

Sure Trump could go back on his word but that has nothing to do with democrats calling him all sorts of things and making assumptions about someone who has no prior record while continuing to support a well known neoconservative and not even bringing it up while vilifying her opponent. 

Someone in here even defended the Hitler comparison knowing full well that the last and only person who has ever come close to doing something similar to Hitler was a Democrat.

It's the height of hypocrisy. And you know I'm very sensitive to noticing that.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Some dude named Evan McMullin is calling Trump inhuman. To be honest, I'm actually okay with Don Juan being inhuman, considering Black Bolt has done a fine job keeping his own fellow Inhumans safe by blocking out nosy intruders.

:trump


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'd rather vote for the guy SAYING he's not going to be interventionist than the woman who has actually been interventionist and not to mention downright brutal and callous about it. Maybe Trump will go back on his positions and be a total fraudulent interventionist scumbag, and maybe he won't. I already know Hillary will be, though.


----------



## .MCH

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

There are people who still support Trump in here? :lol

Today he basically told us he wants to go back to the George W. Bush economic plan. I really wish I could be so ignorant as to actually support that. 

But he stands no chance in winning anyways. Not only does he have no path to 270, he's having a hard time keeping some states red. What a loser. :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> You're missing my point a little.
> 
> Sure Trump could go back on his word but that has nothing to do with democrats calling him all sorts of things and making assumptions about someone who has no prior record while continuing to support a well known neoconservative and not even bringing it up while vilifying her opponent.
> 
> Someone in here even defended the Hitler comparison knowing full well that the last and only person who has ever come close to doing something similar to Hitler was a Democrat.
> 
> It's the height of hypocrisy. And you know I'm very sensitive to noticing that.


Well of course the dems aren't going to bring up any possible negative connotations of Hillary, why would they?

Also you bring up a good point on Trump: 'No prior record'. Personally I'd be antsy about a guy with 'no prior record' when it comes to politics with his finger on the button.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> There are people who still support Trump in here?
> 
> Today he basically told us he wants to go back to the George W. Bush economic plan. I really wish I could be so ignorant as to actually support that.
> 
> But he stands no chance in winning anyways. Not only does he have no path to 270, he's having a hard time keeping some states red.


The media will keep talking out of their asses and the states will vote who they normally vote for. All that matters is Trump winning Florida and Ohio.

- Vic


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This alone is reason enough to vote:

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/trump-economic-plan/


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Come on, one of Trump's early biggest platforms was that he was going to BUILD A WALL. Not upgrade anything etc etc, he was going to build it and Mexico was going to pay for it. Don't obfuscate it now because Trump's in trouble.


Hes not IN trouble. Honestly, the media is who's melting down.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Couple of serious questions on his economic plan...to me this is one of THE biggest issues regarding this election is the shakiness right now of the economy. Amidst all the talk about Trump being batshit and Lyin' Shillary has been lost the idea that our national debt is almost $20 trillion and climbing. Not to mention the Labor Department is cooking the books in regards to unemployment, we're not at just under 5 percent. 

I do appreciate he is trying to simplify the tax code from 7 to 3 brackets. (Yes, Trumpamaniacs, I am giving Drumpf some credit). Although his highest bracket is now 33% where it was previously going to be 25, not much to quibble about as the current highest bracket is 39.6. 

The child-care tax credits...how will those work when it comes to the tens of millions that don't pay taxes because they don't make enough income. We already have child-care spending accounts allowed by the federal tax codes and are allowed to put money aside as well as a $1000 dependent-care tax credit per child. It's not that big a deal to me anymore as my kids are old enough that we don't send them to daycare but for many parents that is a major concern. For example...a study done by care.com says 54% of working parents spends at least 10% of their income on child care. About 20% say by that same study they put at least one-fourth of their working income towards child-care. For some families, that is a huge chunk of change. 

Now, the biggest thing that is being ignored. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has come out on record and stated that Trump's economic plan could add at least $1 trillion a year to the national debt. The tax cuts can only work if you're cutting spending to go with it. Where's the spending cuts going to come from? We are flat broke and we can not continue to sustain where we are at. I understand putting more money into our pockets, I'm always for that. But a lot of his programs, fairly ambitious ones, are going to cost money. For example, the wall. I'm for illegal immigration reform, but we all know that Mexico isn't literally paying for that wall. We're not building the wall and sending an invoice to Mexico City saying pay or call for arrangements. If we don't address the national debt on our own it will be done for us.


----------



## terrydude

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

explain to me how the middle class. say making about 150,000 a year is not going to get thrown into a higher tax bracket under Trumps tax plan that shrinks the brackets from 7 to 3.? by widening the brackets the middle class gets the shaft.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Well of course the dems aren't going to bring up any possible negative connotations of Hillary, why would they?
> 
> Also you bring up a good point on Trump: 'No prior record'. Personally I'd be antsy about a guy with 'no prior record' when it comes to politics with his finger on the button.


Someone deemed incompetent on the basis of inexperience is still better than a neoconservative criminal.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...claim-hes-too-dangerous-for-normal-rules.html

Ironic. Fox is just as guilty.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I'd rather vote for the guy SAYING he's not going to be interventionist than the woman who has actually been interventionist and not to mention downright brutal and callous about it. Maybe Trump will go back on his positions and be a total fraudulent interventionist scumbag, and maybe he won't. I already know Hillary will be, though.


Yet Trump is going to be an interventionist by banning Muslims, trying to take down ISIS and forcing Mexico to pay for building a wall. I can't believe anyone believes a thing Trump says. He is always talking out of both sides of his mouth.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The Clinton campaign is on its way to Arizona and Georgia:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...2-5e2e-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78_story.html?dkdk

Now, we know for sure where that Colorado/Virginia money is going. We got a poll today showing Trump only up two points in Missouri, so maybe the campaign makes its way there too.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Pretty shitty of Hillary to have the Orlando shooter's father front and center at her rally.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yet Trump is going to be an interventionist by banning Muslims, trying to take down ISIS and forcing Mexico to pay for building a wall. I can't believe anyone believes a thing Trump says. He is always talking out of both sides of his mouth.


Words don't mean whatever you want them to mean.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

[quote=Cipher;61812594]Pretty shitty of Hillary to have the Orlando shooter's father front and center at her rally.[/quote]

Hillary has locked up the fathers' of terrorists vote.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Pretty shitty of Hillary to have the Orlando shooter's father front and center at her rally.


Is anybody really surprised? She'll do and say anything to get a vote.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



EL SHIV said:


> Cipher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty shitty of Hillary to have the Orlando shooter's father front and center at her rally.
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary has locked up the fathers' of terrorists vote.
Click to expand...

Commentator of Pro-taliban and anti-american rhetoric on a TV channel is a democrat. Not surprised at all.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Democrats leaked a second internal poll of the Indiana Senate/Gov. races. Evan Bayh is up 58-32. In the first poll, he was up 54-33. John Gregg is up 46-39. 

Indiana could very well be on its way to having a Democratic governor and two blue Senators.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump following up an excellent economic policy speech by joking about Hillary getting taken out if she wins. :maisie3 :maisie2


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump campaign response



> TRUMP CAMPAIGN STATEMENT ON DISHONEST MEDIA
> 
> “It’s called the power of unification – 2nd Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power. And this year, they will be voting in record numbers, and it won’t be for Hillary Clinton, it will be for Donald Trump.” - Jason Miller, Senior Communications Advisor


That's not what he meant and they know it. He said “By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks, though the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day."

How would gun owners come together to vote after she's elected and chooses her nominee and why would it be a horrible day?

Now it was just a dumb, off the cuff statement. He doesn't really want her assassinated, but the campaign's defense is weak. He really needs to work on keeping some thoughts inside.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@AryaDark and @Tater were right all along.

The Hillary Clinton campaign commits the unforced error of having Omar Mateen's dad right behind her at a Florida rally and Donald Trump swoops down to make sure that the DNC-assisting media focus on what will be termed his invitation to Second Amendment supporters to "take care of" Hillary should she win. :lmao :aryalol :sodone

So... he _was_ a Clinton operative all along, wasn't he...? The Clintons have pulled off quite a few remarkable heists and crimes in their day but this is may be their masterpiece. This is _Mission: Impossible_ squared. :faint: :done


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Yeah I've seen a lot of Trump supporters try to spin this in all sorts of ridiculous ways. He should've just came out and said it was an off the cuff joke and in bad taste, and denounced any kind of violence (although I do think the American people should violently overthrow the government if they try and disarm them, it's not something you say when you're running for president). Instead the campaign is going to try and sell the most unbelievable interpretation.

@DesolationRow pls don't joke about the Clinton operative theory, some people are gullible enough to believe that horseshit. :lol


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

WAKE UP, @CamillePunk! WAKE UP, SHEEPLE! :lol


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Jeb Bush was the more likely candidate to be the ringer for Hillary, if you ask me. :lol


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/762978048056692737
Is that really real? 

Is this election real life?


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

And now Bernie just bought a half a million dollar house. He owns more than one house btw

DAMN THAT ONE PERCENT!


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/762978048056692737
> Is that really real?
> 
> Is this election real life?


Can't imagine why he'd be for disarming American citizens and importing swaths of "Syrians".


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> And now Bernie just bought a half a million dollar house. He owns more than one house btw
> 
> DAMN THAT ONE PERCENT!


A $600,000 lakefront chalet, no less. :lol
@AryaDark @Reaper


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763124408760147968


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*Trump has the tact and the compartmentalization abilities of a woman on her period that just burned her forehead on a curling iron. *


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



AryaDark said:


> *Trump has the tact and the compartmentalization abilities of a woman on her period that just burned her forehead on a curling iron. *


:sodone You know how to get me, with the (sun-)burned forehead.  :lol


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> Pretty shitty of Hillary to have the Orlando shooter's father front and center at her rally.





Cipher said:


> Hillary has locked up the fathers' of terrorists vote.


Please tell me you guys are trolling. No way in hell that Hillary herself would approve of having this guy front and center on TV. It's far more plausible that Trump's people would try to set this up. I think they set a lot of shit up. Actually I know they set a lot of shit up. This is just another one but now it's showing up in Hillary's crowd.



DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/762978048056692737
> Is that really real?
> 
> Is this election real life?


It reeks of bullshit to me.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Words don't mean whatever you want them to mean.


So tell me if Trump claims he is not going to interfere in other countries businesses yet says he will bomb ISIS in other countries, how is that not Trump being an interventionist?

And look at this GEM from Trump.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ts-that-hillary-clinton-or-the-supreme-court/

Donald Trump 'hints that Hillary Clinton could be shot' by gun rights supporters


Nick Allen, washington Harriet Alexander, new york 
9 AUGUST 2016 • 10:00PM
Donald Trump sparked a new furor on Tuesday after he appeared to suggest Hillary Clinton could be assassinated by disgruntled gun owners.

Mr Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, made an apparent joke about his Democratic rival being shot.

A spokeswoman for the US Secret Service said it was "aware of Mr Trump's comments".

The billionaire was making an unscripted speech in North Carolina about the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right of Americans to bear arms.

He said that right would be adversely affected by liberal judges appointed to the US Supreme Court if Mrs Clinton reaches the White House.

Mr Trump then said: "Hillary wants to essentially abolish the Second Amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks.

"Although the Second Amendment people maybe there is, I don't know...

"But I'll tell you what, that will be a horrible day."

Barack Obama says Donald Trump 'woefully unprepared' to be presidentPlay! 01:32
A man sitting behind Mr Trump in the audience reacted with open-mouthed shock at the remark.

The Clinton campaign responded quickly, saying they understood Mr Trump's comment as one which would encourage violence against their candidate.

Robby Mook, Mrs Clinton's campaign manager, said: "This is simple, what Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be the President of the United States should not suggest violence in any way."

In a statement Priorities USA, a fundraising group backing Mrs Clinton, added: "Donald Trump just suggested that someone shoot Hillary Clinton. THIS IS NOT OK."

Jason Miller, Mr Trump's senior communications adviser, denied Mr Trump had been suggesting his opponent be shot.

He said the Republican nominee was talking about the lobbying and voting power of "Second Amendment people".

Mr Miller said: "It’s called the power of unification. Second Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified which gives them great political power.

"This year they will be voting in record numbers, and it won’t be for Hillary Clinton, it will be for Donald Trump."

Kayleigh McEnany, a prominent supporter of Mr Trump, added: "I think he was referring to the fact the the National Rifle Association is the most powerful lobbying group in the United States, and if anyone can stop a very anti-Second Amendment agenda it's the NRA."

But Michael Hayden, former Director of the CIA and NSA, said: "If someone else had said that outside the hall he'd be in the back of a police wagon now with the Secret Service quesioning him.

"When I heard that for the first time that was more than a speed bump, it was a very arresting comment."

Mr Trump has repeatedly accused Mrs Clinton of seeking to abolish gun rights and being a "gun grabber".

She wants to impose stricter limits on gun sales to stop weapons falling into the hands of criminals, terrorists, and mentally unstable people.

However, she has fiercely denied that she wants to abolish the Second Amendment.

Chris Murphy, a Democratic Senator from Connecticut, where 20 children and six adults died in the Sandy Hook school massacre in 2012, condemned Mr Trump


He said: "Was Donald Trump suggesting his supporters shoot Hillary? Shoot her Supreme Court nominee? Who knows. It's all so disgusting and embarrassing and sad.

"This isn't play. Unstable people with powerful guns and an unhinged hatred for Hillary are listening to you Donald Trump."

In a statement the NRA said Mr Trump was "right".

A spokesman said: "If Hillary Clinton gets to pick her judges there's nothing we can do. But there is something we will do on election day. Show up and vote."


---


yeah telling the 2nd ammendment people to basically kill Hillary. Trump needs to go


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










USAID budget is $36 billion annually. 

There are 360 million people in America with 

4-10% of them living in poverty. 

There are over 6 million homeless americans. 

There are over 400,000 children in America who don't have families. 

In 2012, over 80 million americans denied themselves healthcare because they could not afford it. 

Do the math people. Just 400,000,000 (the amount of money given away to Iran for a few prisoners) is enough to feed, clothe and provide homes for Americans for at least 75% of their lifetime (it comes to a little over a million dollars each). 

And yet the US government throws away 36 billion dollars in development projects around the world which really only ends up fleecing the pockets of other corrupt politicians. 

Keep the money at home. Let the people have a chunk of the money that's being stolen from them and being given away to non-citizens.

But "socialism" is more evil than giving it away to other countries because "reasons".
_
BTW, when I talk about keeping the money at home, I'm basically referring to keeping it in a way where either the people and corporates aren't taxed to the point where the government has the 36 billion to throw away in the first place. _


----------



## SpeedStick

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> 3 tied to DNC leaks DEAD, Clinton body count continues
> 
> http://townhall.com/columnists/rach...ee-with-ties-to-dnc-mysteriously-die-n2203000


The Obama's, Bush's and Clintons have bodies. This sh*t ain't a game!


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

A few months ago, I said that as long as Trump wasn't seen as a threat, the media would go along and give him coverage because it makes their job easy. Again, while I'm not a fan of Trump, he needs to get back on message and follow the advice of this Fox News column. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Mr. Trump: The media is no longer your friend*
By Liz Peek Published August 08, 2016 FoxNews.com

Dear Mr. Trump,

Apparently you didn’t get the memo – the one that told you the difference between competing in the primaries and running in the general election. Here’s the bottom line: you are now facing off against Hillary Clinton, and the media is no longer in your corner.

If you’re wondering why The New York Times ran a piece about the Khan family a full 10 days after the Gold Star father spoke out against you at the Democratic convention, even though there is no breaking news on that damaging fracas, it is because they do not want you to win. If you’re marveling at how quickly the explosive leaks about the DNC sabotaging Bernie Sanders’ campaign vanished from headlines – here it is: you are on the wrong side of the progressive press.

For months, as you duked it out against sixteen other candidates hoping to be the GOP nominee, the liberal media cheered you on. That wasn’t because they like you or approve of your message. No, they gave you enormous free air time and press because you drove ratings and spiced up what would otherwise have been a dreary march to a conventional convention. (Think Jeb Bush, non-lethal drone.)

And, they did not take you seriously; they thought you a boorish clown doubling down on reality TV. They imagined that if some unimaginable shifting of tectonic plates made you the nominee, Hillary Clinton would crush you.

Today, the liberal establishment is wary, and so the entire firepower of the mainstream media is arrayed against you. Everything you say (like your wisecrack about Russia revealing Hillary’s deleted emails) will be taken out of context and spun. Stories about GOP defections and hypotheticals about you dropping out of the race will grab headlines. The New York Times will run gratuitous stories like the recent one quoting hateful things said by people attending your rallies. There are no names, of course, no real proof that these things were said. They don’t have to supply meat; their readers will blindly consume the sauce. They won’t question why this vacuous story was published or whether the vile “kill the pigs” chants of Black Lives Matter will receive equal treatment.

The media will faithfully echo Democrat messaging – like Hillary’s line that “(You are) not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes.” This refrain will be driven home through stories like the one in Politico concluding that a president “would be free to launch a civilization-ending nuclear war on his own any time he chose.” As though you might do that in a fit of pique.

Not only will you not be treated fairly, but the media will pull out all stops to celebrate President Obama, knowing that unpopular Hillary Clinton’s best shot at winning the Oval Office is to convince voters they want “four more years.” Puff pieces that show Obama thoughtful and so disciplined that his evening snack consists of seven – only seven – almonds (New York Times) will buff his image, and by comparison spotlight just how sloppy you are.

The media will generously help Obama turn out black voters, some of whom are rightly disappointed in the past eight years. They will highlight targeted measures like Obama’s record pardoning of 214 convicts. The headlines will gloss over the reality that more than 50 of those commutations were for people convicted for firearms-related offenses, in addition to their drug crimes. Obama argues that those pardoned are part of the huge number unjustly locked up for minor drug-related offenses -- those “young people who made mistakes that aren’t that different from the mistakes I made.” This narrative is false. More than 90 percent of U.S. inmates are in state prisons; 95 percent of those locked up for “non-violent” crime have long rap sheets, averaging more than 9 prior arrests. Less than 4 percent of state-held prisoners are in jail for drug possession – and most of those have pleaded down from trafficking or are repeat offenders. Less than 1 percent of those convicted for drug-related crimes in federal courts in 2014 were locked up for possession, and generally that was the result of a plea deal.

The liberal press will extol good news about the economy, and bury the bad. The robust July jobs number got great play; near-recession level growth is ignored. They will play down the disintegration of ObamaCare, and the fraudulent Iran deal. The cash for hostages story? It will be gone within a week.

What to do Mr. Trump? Will you continue to bawl about a fixed election or whine about how people are treating you unfairly? If so, you’re doomed, and Hillary Clinton – arguably the most corrupt candidate to ever run for president, will soon occupy the Oval Office. All because you could not control yourself and could not out-think the Clinton machine.

It’s not over, but time runs short. Here is what you have to do:

1) Stay on message. Talk ONLY about law and order, job creation, illegal immigration and ISIS. That’s it. All other topics are off the table.

2) Get data points on each topic and know your facts.

3) Stop responding to ad hominem attacks. People like John Allen are looking at your campaign and deciding Hillary will win. They want to be part of that victory. Don’t take it personally.

4) Keep reminding voters of just how dishonest Hillary Clinton is. Use facts.

You can do this, Mr. Trump. Millions hope you will. Welcome to the big time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anything he says, like his allegedly telling all gun owners to take a shot at Hillary (a completely BS statement the media has twisted out of proportion), will be used against him. If this man has a chance at winning, as much as many appreciate his keeping it real, someone needs to shake him like a rag doll and let him know that comments like these will become fodder for weeks.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Don't disagree with those prescriptions at all but the idea the media was Trump's "friend" during the primaries is pretty deluded. They twisted his words and generated controversy where there was none plenty during the primaries. But yes they have certainly stepped up their game now that it's Trump vs Hillary, and he has been making it unnecessarily easy for them.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It's obvious that the media is 100% biased this time around. But the thing that is going to make Trump a real competitor is that he _really _doesn't give a fuck. I think if it was enough to win him the primaries, changing his style now is only going to hurt him further. 

I actually think that the press that trying to get Trump to tone down may actually be part of the sabotage because Trump's support comes from people who are well aware of the biases and are with Trump _because _of them.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> USAID budget is $36 billion annually.
> 
> There are 360 million people in America with
> 
> 4-10% of them living in poverty.
> 
> There are over 6 million homeless americans.
> 
> There are over 400,000 children in America who don't have families.
> 
> In 2012, over 80 million americans denied themselves healthcare because they could not afford it.
> 
> Do the math people. Just 400,000,000 (the amount of money given away to Iran for a few prisoners) is enough to feed, clothe and provide homes for Americans for at least 75% of their lifetime (it comes to a little over a million dollars each).
> 
> And yet the US government throws away 36 billion dollars in development projects around the world which really only ends up fleecing the pockets of other corrupt politicians.
> 
> Keep the money at home. Let the people have a chunk of the money that's being stolen from them and being given away to non-citizens.
> 
> But "socialism" is more evil than giving it away to other countries because "reasons".
> _
> BTW, when I talk about keeping the money at home, I'm basically referring to keeping it in a way where either the people and corporates aren't taxed to the point where the government has the 36 billion to throw away in the first place. _


That $400 million was Iran's money.

http://fortune.com/2016/08/05/money-america-iran/


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



IronMaiden7 said:


> That $400 million was Iran's money.
> 
> http://fortune.com/2016/08/05/money-america-iran/


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/9/what-does-america-owe-iran/ 



> *ANALYSIS/OPINION:*
> An unmarked cargo plane filled with $400 million in cash lands in Tehran. Four American hostages held by Iran’s rulers are set free. These revelations have sparked two controversies.
> First: Did the Obama administration pay ransom to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism? White House spokesmen insist that’s not what happened, there was no quid-pro-quo; Iranian officials say that’s precisely what went down. Who is more credible? More importantly, whom do you think prospective hostage-takers around the world believe?
> Second: Did this payment violate American law? Justice Department officials objected to the payment. Former federal terrorism prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy argues that the transaction involved the commission of several “felony law violations.” Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey opines that while the transaction was not “right,” it wasn’t illegal.
> The roots of this affair run deep. In early 1979, the Shah of Iran, as part of an arrangement to purchase jet fighters, deposited $400 million into a Pentagon account. Soon after, he was overthrown in the Islamic Revolution. As White House spokesman Josh Earnest phrased it: “Once the revolution took place, obviously that equipment was not transferred, but we also didn’t return Iran’s money, either.”
> Return the money to whom, Mr. Earnest? At what point does the property of a government that has been toppled become the rightful possession of those who have done the toppling? International law is murky on this matter (as, truth be told, it is on many matters).
> One thing we can say with reasonable certitude: Had envoys representing Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini reached out to President Carter, he would have done whatever was in his power to establish amicable relations.
> Sponsored Content
> 
> Recommended by
> 
> 
> But that didn’t happen. You know what did: On Nov. 4, 1979, loyal followers of the supreme leader seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took 52 diplomats hostage. They would be held and, in many cases, tortured for 444 days. That such conduct violates international law — indeed, that it constitutes an act of war — is not a matter for lawyerly debate. The hostages would be released on Jan. 20, 1981, the day of Ronald Reagan’s inauguration.
> Iran’s rulers have never apologized — much less compensated their victims. The Weekly Standard’s Lee Smith reports that President Bill Clinton considered using the $400 million to pay victims of Iranian terrorism who had won judgments against Iran in U.S. courts. In the end, however, he left it to American taxpayers to pick up the check. President George W. Bush could have reimbursed the Treasury using frozen Iranian funds. He did not.
> There matters lay until, in January of this year, President Obama boasted that thanks to “strong American diplomacy” the United States and Iran “are now settling a long-standing Iranian government claim against the United States government and Iran will be returned its own funds, including appropriate interest, but much less than the amount that Iran sought.”
> Note that the president neglected to mention claims against Iran. And shouldn’t there be some controversy over the notion of “appropriate interest” — which is how the $400 million “owed” to Iran rose to the $1.7 billion that is being paid?
> Since the money in question was not loaned to the United States by Iran’s current regime, why should the assumption be that the U.S. invested it for the benefit of Iran’s current regime? As part of this hostage deal, the U.S. also freed seven Iranians charged or convicted of crimes and dropped extradition requests for 14 others. How much is that worth? Why does that not count as “interest”?
> Surely, justice would have been better served had the Shah’s funds been distributed to the many victims of the Islamic Republic — the diplomats who were illegally imprisoned, to be sure, but also the families of those murdered on Iran’s orders, for example in Beirut in 1983, at the Khobar Towers in 1996 and, more recently, in Iraq by Shia militias armed and instructed by Tehran.
> Also: Thousands of innocent Iranians were put to death by the leaders of the Islamic Revolution. Tens of thousands were forced to flee the country, their businesses, homes, lands and bank accounts stolen by the regime. Why have these victims been forgotten?
> Here’s part of the reason: President Carter, during his final days in office, negotiated the Algiers Accord, agreeing that, in exchange for the release of the hostages, Iran’s new rulers would be granted immunity from criminal or civil penalties.
> Congress did not approve the Algiers Accord, which was not a treaty but only an executive agreement. President Reagan could have revoked it, pointing out that his predecessor had negotiated it with a knife at his throat — or, more precisely, with knives at the throats of the hostages. But Mr. Reagan did not do that.
> Instead, in 1981, pursuant to the Algiers Accord, the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal was set up in The Hague. This international arbitration mechanism has further entrenched the perverse notion of a moral equivalence between the United States and the Islamic republic.
> It has led to Mr. Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry attempting to satisfy Iran’s “claims” against the United States against the backdrop of the Iran deal, another executive agreement. Mr. Obama considers that deal vital to his legacy. By contrast, Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, has made plain that he’s more than willing to walk away from the deal — and will, should the river of American concessions not continue to flow.
> So last week’s hostages-for-cash story turns out to be only one chapter in a long and sad saga. It should give rise to additional controversies, starting with this: Why are Iran’s negotiators so consistently more skillful than America’s?


Plus, gotta love that most of you posters in this thread just ignore the overall point of the post to cherry-pick the one thing you think you can argue. Argue the whole point. The context, intent of the overall post. Don't just pick a single point and give input that's hardly relevant to what was said in the post you quote.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/9/what-does-america-owe-iran/
> 
> Plus, gotta love that most of you posters in this thread just ignore the overall point of the post to cherry-pick the one thing you think you can argue. Argue the whole point. The context, intent of the overall post. Don't just pick a single point and give input that's hardly relevant to what was said in the post you quote.


That's pretty much how all the Hill shills in this thread operate. :lol Most of the time I don't bother responding anymore.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763112662142164992
Huma Abedin being Hillary's shadow who she refers to as her "second daughter", a Muslim woman born in Michigan but raised in Saudi Arabia from age 2 to 18.


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/9/what-does-america-owe-iran/
> 
> Plus, gotta love that most of you posters in this thread just ignore the overall point of the post to cherry-pick the one thing you think you can argue. Argue the whole point. The context, intent of the overall post. Don't just pick a single point and give input that's hardly relevant to what was said in the post you quote.


I merely added context. That $400 million is, in fact, Iran's money. Your post made it seem like you were unaware. I also meant to add that there's no evidence that the $400 million was given to Iran for the prisoners, but got sidetracked:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-fact-check-trump-off-clinton-iran-payment-180458387--election.html

From the fact check:



> THE FACTS: There is no concrete evidence that the cash payment was, in fact, a ransom.
> 
> Critics of the Iran deal, including many senior Republican lawmakers, maintain that the $400 million settlement was a ransom for the release of four private American citizens jailed in Tehran and freed a day after the Iran deal was implemented. Some Iranian officials have suggested the same thing. The Obama administration has flatly denied it has ever paid ransoms, including in this case.
> 
> The timing of the prisoner release and the arrival of the payment has given weight to GOP claims. U.S. officials acknowledge that progress in the nuclear negotiations contributed to progress on the settlement of the claim as well as progress in talks on the release of the Americans.


Many prominent conservative writers (Noah Rothman being one that comes to mind) have criticized the use of the word "ransom" because they believe the evidence isn't there. I agree. Conservatives could certainly complain about the $400 million, but calling it a ransom hurts their credibility.

Regarding the rest of your post, I'm always going to be behind strengthening the economic standpoints of people in lower economic rungs. But I don't think using Iranian money is the way to do it.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Julian Assange needs to stay inside and in undisclosed locations for the rest of his life, in all likelihood.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



IronMaiden7 said:


> I merely added context. That $400 million is, in fact, Iran's money. Your post made it seem like you were unaware. I also meant to add that there's no evidence that the $400 million was given to Iran for the prisoners, but got sidetracked:
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-fact-check-trump-off-clinton-iran-payment-180458387--election.html
> 
> From the fact check:
> 
> 
> 
> Many prominent conservative writers (Noah Rothman being one that comes to mind) have criticized the use of the word "ransom" because they believe the evidence isn't there. I agree. Conservatives could certainly complain about the $400 million, but calling it a ransom hurts their credibility.
> 
> Regarding the rest of your post, I'm always going to be behind strengthening the economic standpoints of people in lower economic rungs. But I don't think using Iranian money is the way to do it.


Don't quote me if you're going to just use my post as an excuse for a personal sounding board because it's clear you didn't read the article I posted. None of what you said addresses the article. 

If you want your own soap box then don't quote me. 

Again you ignored the 36 billion USAID to keep talking about the so-called 'Iranian' money. I suppose the complex morality of the situation where giving something that belongs to someone else is more important than the intentions of the regime is something we shouldn't think about as Americans. It was that consideration that kept us from 'returning' the money all those years.

Think about it this way. If someone gives you money for something that you haven't completed the transaction. Then their grandson comes to you asking for the money back but you know that that grandson is going to use the money to buy a gun and shoot a bunch of people do you give him the money? Does the grandson still have the ability to stake a claim to that money? Is your moral obligation to return the money more compelling than your moral obligation to prevent the misuse of that money?

That's why I don't like talking to a lot of people on this site. Once the leaders say or do something it becomes the best anf most unquestionable decision in the world. Almost blasphemy to have a counter view.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> Trump campaign response
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what he meant and they know it. He said “By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks, though the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know. *But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day.*"
> 
> How would gun owners come together to vote after she's elected and chooses her nominee and why would it be a horrible day?
> 
> Now it was just a dumb, off the cuff statement. He doesn't really want her assassinated, but the campaign's defense is weak. He really needs to work on keeping some thoughts inside.


what Trump actually said



Donald J. Trump said:


> But I tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if Hillary gets to put her judges in, right now we're tied.


it changes quite a bit if you use trump's actual words and don't just put a period where you want.


oh and yeah major fucking blunder no matter what he meant. all that matters is the perception the media is hammering home. if your words can be construed to imply assassination...holy shit.

mistakes were made.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Oh boy why can't get Trump get a break, the big bad media is attacking him again and twisting his words. It's as if we need a big network run by a global tycoon that counters all the left bias!


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Judge for yourself if he was joking about assasination or voting power of the 2nd Amendment people. :shrug

The red shirted guy at the back's reaction says it all. :lol


----------



## IronMaiden7

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Don't quote me if you're going to just use my post as an excuse for a personal sounding board because it's clear you didn't read the article I posted. None of what you said addresses the article.
> 
> If you want your own soap box then don't quote me.
> 
> Again you ignored the 36 billion USAID to keep talking about the so-called 'Iranian' money. I suppose the complex morality of the situation where giving something that belongs to someone else is more important than the intentions of the regime is something we shouldn't think about as Americans. It was that consideration that kept us from 'returning' the money all those years.
> 
> Think about it this way. If someone gives you money for something that you haven't completed the transaction. Then their grandson comes to you asking for the money back but you know that that grandson is going to use the money to buy a gun and shoot a bunch of people do you give him the money? Does the grandson still have the ability to stake a claim to that money? Is your moral obligation to return the money more compelling than your moral obligation to prevent the misuse of that money?
> 
> That's why I don't like talking to a lot of people on this site. Once the leaders say or do something it becomes the best anf most unquestionable decision in the world. Almost blasphemy to have a counter view.


A few things:

1. I did read the op-ed. To an extent, I responded to it. The opinion writer clearly thinks that the $400 million was a ransom. No evidence points to that as of now. Regarding the use of sanctions/frozen assets, I'll just restate what I said before: I don't think we should be using them to pay for our bills. Sanctions brought Iran to the table in the first place. I have my own misgivings about the deal, but I'll always pick sanctions over war (not saying war is your opinion, obviously).

2. My second comment was mostly responding to your first post. You said the $400 million was "the amount of money given away to Iran for a few prisoners." Again, there's no proof of that.

3. I'm not sure what you mean by "That's why I don't like talking to a lot of people on this site. Once the leaders say or do something it becomes the best anf most unquestionable decision in the world. Almost blasphemy to have a counter view." Firstly, I believe you should always questions leaders; I don't recall ever saying otherwise on this site. Secondly, I spend more time reading counter views than anything because that's how you both learn and strengthen your own argument. Thirdly, I'm not really sure where your anger comes from; I re-read my post to see if I said anything mean, and I'm not seeing anything in particular. We're just talking here. Apologies, if I made you angry; certainly wasn't the intent.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

nitpick away.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary Clinton commits criminal negligence by mishandling classified information, tried to cover up Benghazi, and steals the election from Bernie. Slap on the wrist. No big deal. Get a free pass!

Donald Trump cracks jokes and talks a lot of sh**. Worst person *EVER!*


Glad to see some people got their priorities straight around here.










- Vic


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> what Trump actually said
> 
> 
> 
> it changes quite a bit if you use trump's actual words and don't just put a period where you want.
> 
> 
> oh and yeah major fucking blunder no matter what he meant. all that matters is the perception the media is hammering home. if your words can be construed to imply assassination...holy shit.
> 
> mistakes were made.


That was the complete quote from the videos I saw. Didn't know there was more to it.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Can someone explain why Katrina Pierson went on national television and implied that Trump's quote actually _was_ an insinuation that "Second Amendment people" might try to assassinate Hillary Clinton?

Because hoo boy... if there's one story where you want your entire camp to stay on the same message, I'd have to imagine this would be on the short list.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Don't disagree with those prescriptions at all but the idea the media was Trump's "friend" during the primaries is pretty deluded. They twisted his words and generated controversy where there was none plenty during the primaries. But yes they have certainly stepped up their game now that it's Trump vs Hillary, and he has been making it unnecessarily easy for them.


Liz Peek points that out...he provided an easy job for journalists through the primaries and that's why the media liked him. He's the person you can put a recorder in front of and sit back. You have your work done for you within 20 minutes.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> Can someone explain why Katrina Pierson went on national television and implied that Trump's quote actually _was_ an insinuation that "Second Amendment people" might try to assassinate Hillary Clinton?
> 
> Because hoo boy... if there's one story where you want your entire camp to stay on the same message, I'd have to imagine this would be on the short list.


Trump only hires the best people. Like when he hired those people to run Trump university.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> nitpick away.


It's not nitpicking lol. Nitpicking is getting on his case for having a slip up and saying "shit" instead of "ship". 


Second thing, if all the media keep bashing him....maybe it's not the media being biased....it's him actually sucking this much and the only people who dont think so are Fox News. Who will suck and Republican dick they can find.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ManiacMichaelMyers said:


> Please tell me you guys are trolling. No way in hell that Hillary herself would approve of having this guy front and center on TV. It's far more plausible that Trump's people would try to set this up. I think they set a lot of shit up. Actually I know they set a lot of shit up. This is just another one but now it's showing up in Hillary's crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> It reeks of bullshit to me.


YOU KNOW THEY SET UP STUFF? 

Please show us your proof! Wikileaks has shown us that the DNC fucked over Bernie and consider Hispanics to be "Taco Bowl Voters" and that Huma, Hilary's pet has access to her email. We also know from the FBI Hilary did have sensitive information emails. I'm really interested to see your proof, are you working for Wikileaks? Please step forward, be a whistle blower!

Or could it be that Hilary and her staff seen a Middle Eastern looking person and thought "Hey this will look good for the cameras!" without realizing who the hell he was? After all mistakes never happen, nope! 

@FriedTofu Maybe Trump should hire some of those DNC staffers because they did a bang up job doing their work, well that's if he can hire them before they end up dead!


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> YOU KNOW THEY SET UP STUFF?
> 
> Please show us your proof! Wikileaks has shown us that the DNC fucked over Bernie and consider Hispanics to be "Taco Bowl Voters" and that Huma, Hilary's pet has access to her email. We also know from the FBI Hilary did have sensitive information emails. I'm really interested to see your proof, are you working for Wikileaks? Please step forward, be a whistle blower!
> 
> Or could it be that Hilary and her staff seen a Middle Eastern looking person and thought "Hey this will look good for the cameras!" without realizing who the hell he was? After all mistakes never happen, nope!


I wasn't even talking about any of these other things you discussed, wasn't addressing you, and no I don't work for Wikileaks and had no idea what it even was until a few days ago. I'm not overly political I'm just talking about the fact that Trump's people likely set up plants to appear at their and other conventions/speeches and yes, Hillary's people missed this one spectacularly. I said "I know" because I have a strong feeling that it's true based on the outrageousness of events we've seen. 

I mean Trump's idiot staff had very Caucasian looking persons holding "Latinos Para Trump" and "Hispanics Para Trump" signs which if they were actually Hispanics or Latinos wouldn't be holding a sign with such butchering of the Spanish language. So there's one point that supports my suspicions of Trump using plants. That and that group, while it does exist in a very small capacity, acknowledged they didn't print the signs or know who did. 
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/288820-convention-bungles-hispanics-for-trump-sign
















_Totally legit, right?_

Of course, both parties manipulate the background of who appears on TV behind the candidate for diversity, but in this case I don't think Hillary was doing the manipulating and her people just royally dropped the ball by not recognizing who the guy was right away. 

My comments weren't even directed at YOU though, they were directed at anyone who thinks that Hillary herself would orchestrate that uncomfortable situation (having that specific guy behind her) unto herself while trying to make points based on guns. That theory makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. So would you to care to argue that point, that Hillary is behind something that makes herself look bad?

There's this too.
https://mediamatters.org/video/2016/07/27/fox-new-s-macdonald-falsely-claims-leaked-dnc-taco-bowl-engagement-email-was-slam-latino-voters/211946



FriedTofu said:


> Judge for yourself if he was joking about assasination or voting power of the 2nd Amendment people. :shrug
> 
> The red shirted guy at the back's reaction says it all. :lol


A lot of his phrases have had very offensive double meanings and implications but can also be taken in a more standard way. This is done on purpose of course to appeal to his hardcore supporters who know what he "really means" as well as your more casual people that want to believe there's no way he meant the other meaning. It also provides him an easy out if confronted. There's no way to prove either way his initial meaning but since the implications are made, the more hardcore, hate filled followers will take those implied meanings to heart. 

So yeah, there's probably some fuck wit sitting there with his gun that's ready to blow away Hillary because he believes "Master Trump" instructed him to do so if Hillary becomes President.


----------



## Phaedra

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Dan Rather Statement, so touching and astute, esp the lincoln bit for me. 



> No trying-to-be objective and fair journalist, no citizen who cares about the country and its future can ignore what Donald Trump said today. When he suggested that "The Second Amendment People" can stop Hillary Clinton he crossed a line with dangerous potential. By any objective analysis, this is a new low and unprecedented in the history of American presidential politics. This is no longer about policy, civility, decency or even temperament. This is a direct threat of violence against a political rival. It is not just against the norms of American politics, it raises a serious question of whether it is against the law. If any other citizen had said this about a Presidential candidate, would the Secret Service be investigating?
> 
> Candidate Trump will undoubtably issue an explanation; some of his surrogates are already engaged in trying to gloss it over, but once the words are out there they cannot be taken back. That is what inciting violence means.
> To anyone who still pretends this is a normal election of Republican against Democrat, history is watching. And I suspect its verdict will be harsh. Many have tried to do a side-shuffle and issue statements saying they strongly disagree with his rhetoric but still support the candidate. That is becoming woefully insufficient. The rhetoric is the candidate.
> 
> This cannot be treated as just another outrageous moment in the campaign. We will see whether major newscasts explain how grave and unprecedented this is and whether the headlines in tomorrow's newspapers do it justice. We will soon know whether anyone who has publicly supported Trump explains how they can continue to do.
> We are a democratic republic governed by the rule of law. We are an honest, fair and decent people. In trying to come to terms with today's discouraging development the best I can do is to summon our greatest political poet Abraham Lincoln for perspective:
> 
> *"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."*
> 
> Lincoln used these stirring words to end his First Inaugural Address. It was the eve of the Civil War and sadly his call for sanity, cohesion and peace was met with horrific violence that almost left our precious Union asunder. We cannot let that happen again.
> 
> 
> Dan Rather


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The DNC staffers withstood an insurgency against their deeply unpopular nominee in the primaries, raised a lot of money for their campaign, and is now kicking their their general election opponent's butt in the polls even with the leaked email scandal hovering over her head. And the general election opponent had a 2 months lead in wrapping up his party's nomination earlier that he wasted by doing nothing.

Compare to Trump surrogates like Pierson or Hughes who seem more at home on the MLM circuit of Trump Network or Trump institute I think DNC staffers are an upgrade. Oh wait, Trump university's inspiration came from MLM scammers like the Milins who are probably 'small business owners' that Trump wants to help.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



















^Hillary joking about her chances hinging on Obama's assassination.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Dan Rather Statement, so touching and astute, esp the lincoln bit for me.


You mean the fossil who was forced to quit his job after lying about President Bush's National Guard service? Hilarious!

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

BTW, when was the last time a 2nd ammendment person was involved in a political assassination? So even if it was an incitement to violence .. say it was .. it means nothing because a gun advocate and gun owner doesn't get motivated to kill .. Just as no one was motivated to assassinate Obama when Hillary implied that he "could" be. 

The idea that they could be is classic left ignorance, bias and agenda pushing in order to make it seem like gun advocates are violent nutters even when statistics show that there are more responsible gun owners than not ... It's not even nit-picking at this point, it's intentional candidate bashing because that's the entire democrat campaign at this point. 

But this is the same left that ignores the rabid violence amongst their voter base because their entire campaign is based on getting those votes. So don't mind it when I don't listen to the lefties anymore.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> The DNC staffers withstood an insurgency against their deeply unpopular nominee in the primaries, raised a lot of money for their campaign, and is now kicking their their general election opponent's butt in the polls even with the leaked email scandal hovering over her head. And the general election opponent had a 2 months lead in wrapping up his party's nomination earlier that he wasted by doing nothing.
> 
> Compare to Trump surrogates like Pierson or Hughes who seem more at home on the MLM circuit of Trump Network or Trump institute I think DNC staffers are an upgrade. Oh wait, Trump university's inspiration came from MLM scammers like the Milins who are probably 'small business owners' that Trump wants to help.


The DNC sabotaged Bernie from the get go, possibly even committed voter fraud. There was nothing clever about what they did, it was outright disgusting. They raised money? You mean people paid Hilary for favors like they did when she was secretary of state? You mean the rich backers who were going to back Hilary no matter what the people wanted? If that's what you call raising money then I guess that's what they did.

You mean the polls that keep flip flopping all over the place depending which website or news you watch? The same ones shown by media outlets who hide the fact Hilary lied about the emails yet again? The ones that are playing off the DNC leaks and downplaying the fact the Democrats view Hispanics as taco bowl voters? I guess those would be good sources of information.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> The DNC sabotaged Bernie from the get go, possibly even committed voter fraud. There was nothing clever about what they did, it was outright disgusting. They raised money? You mean people paid Hilary for favors like they did when she was secretary of state? You mean the rich backers who were going to back Hilary no matter what the people wanted? If that's what you call raising money then I guess that's what they did.
> 
> You mean the polls that keep flip flopping all over the place depending which website or news you watch? The same ones shown by media outlets who hide the fact Hilary lied about the emails yet again? The ones that are playing off the DNC leaks and downplaying the fact the Democrats view Hispanics as taco bowl voters? I guess those would be good sources of information.


Aww .. you didn't mention the fact that she short-circuited ... which is basically code for her losing track of her lies :kobelol


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> The DNC sabotaged Bernie from the get go, possibly even committed voter fraud. There was nothing clever about what they did, it was outright disgusting. They raised money? You mean people paid Hilary for favors like they did when she was secretary of state? You mean the rich backers who were going to back Hilary no matter what the people wanted? If that's what you call raising money then I guess that's what they did.


It means the party mechanic worked to nominate their preferred nominee compared to the incompetence of the Republicans who allowed Trump with a barebone campaign to win the nomination. Better the rich pay for something than a billionaire begging for money from the poor people to fund his campaign at the last possible minute.

And outsourced to a company that made cancelling harder than standard practice.
http://www.snopes.com/impossible-to-cancel-recurring-trump-donations/



> You mean the polls that keep flip flopping all over the place depending which website or news you watch? The same ones shown by media outlets who hide the fact Hilary lied about the emails yet again? The ones that are playing off the DNC leaks and downplaying the fact the Democrats view Hispanics as taco bowl voters? I guess those would be good sources of information.


Polls have been fairly consistent since after the two conventions. Even Fox is giving Hilary a large lead at the moment, and they sure aren't downplaying the leaks or are friendly towards the DNC.

What other sources of information is saying the polls are different? Are they more reputable than all the polls done by these media outlets? The same outlets have showed Trump leading throughout the primaries, but now is not trustworthy?


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> That was the complete quote from the videos I saw. Didn't know there was more to it.


That's what I was thinking. I've seen that a lot.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*Julian Assange speaking at the Green Party National Convention. Minus the technical difficulties at the start it's pretty damn good. I fucking love that dude.







EDIT: fixed audio version






*


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump continues to make an ass out of himself. More emails show the corruption of Clinton. And now Assange implying another name added to the list of mysteriously dead people that got in the way of the Clintons........ This election is so fucking disgusting with having a lying peice of a shit and a fucking selfish blowhard and people actually circling the wagons around both. 

What. The. Fuck.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Kabraxal said:


> Trump continues to make an ass out of himself. More emails show the corruption of Clinton. And now Assange implying another name added to the list of mysteriously dead people that got in the way of the Clintons........ This election is so fucking disgusting with having a lying peice of a shit and a fucking selfish blowhard and people actually circling the wagons around both.
> 
> What. The. Fuck.


It pisses me off even more that Bernie Sanders did not fight back against the voter fraud and suppression against him and decided to back Hillary.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/08/10/poll-trump-outperforms-romney-mccain-hispanics/

Trump out performing Romney and mccain with hispanics


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Whos H gonna whack out next to get to the top


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This whole thing is ludicrous. It's obvious to me he meant that there was enough second amendment people that cared about gun control enough not to vote for her.

Christ, people. Even I wouldn't say that of Hill if she said that and you can bet the media wouldn't either.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

By the way, Johnson's a cuck.

http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/08/04/gary-johnson-endorses-blacklivesmatter/


----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> By the way, Johnson's a cuck.
> 
> http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/08/04/gary-johnson-endorses-blacklivesmatter/


First Gary Johnson was an open borders cuck and now this.

Fucking libertarians. They've gone from Ron Paul to edgy leftists.

All of the good libertarians became nationalists tbh. Only cucks like Gary Johnson remain.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Kabraxal said:


> Trump continues to make an ass out of himself. More emails show the corruption of Clinton. And now Assange implying another name added to the list of mysteriously dead people that got in the way of the Clintons........ This election is so fucking disgusting with having a lying peice of a shit and a fucking selfish blowhard and people actually circling the wagons around both.
> 
> What. The. Fuck.


I'll take an ass over a crook any day. Shame that's what it's come to but Americans have themselves to blame. If the stakes weren't so high this election (with the migrant crisis and the SCOTUS picks) I'd be sitting it out.


----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> If the stakes weren't so high this election (with the migrant crisis and the SCOTUS picks) I'd be sitting it out.


Same, although I would add that the illegals and the anchor babies have got to go. They didn't vote conservative after Reagan initially gave them amnesty in the 1980s so future conservatives cucking to them isn't a solution. Hillary's Supreme Court ruling Hillary's amnesty constitutional will doom any prospects of this nation returning to any of the founding principles.

I'd be worried about the 2nd Amendment as well, but we'll be disarmed along with the #NeverTrump cucks so at least I can laugh at them when we're both relocated to a FEMA CAMP all the while telling them that I told them so.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I'll take an ass over a crook any day. Shame that's what it's come to but Americans have themselves to blame. If the stakes weren't so high this election (with the migrant crisis and the SCOTUS picks) I'd be sitting it out.


He's no better than Hillary. Holy fuck this is the douche that used eminent domain and throws his weight around just to get what he wants, fuck everyone else. 

Sorry, but I'll stick to my principles and write in giant meteor come election day.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Well .. considering that some of the largest and most dangerous ghettos continue to exist in blue states and cities ... I'd say that the dems are actually already in a very twisted and exaggerated way involved in allowing these concentration camp like ghettos to exist :draper2. Maybe that's what they want. Who knows. 
I don't really see them doing anything to end the ghetto crisis at all ... And aren't there slum lords within the democratic party too?


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Thank you for the video(s) of Mr. Assange, @AryaDark.  Will watch that later tonight! :dancingpenguin


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763381068296691712 :lol


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

How comes this thread has been unstuck?

Not that it bothers me too greatly am just curious.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> How comes this thread has been unstuck?
> 
> Not that it bothers me too greatly am just curious.


it's just boring unless trump is leading or close


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






I was like this







then I was like this









- Vic


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Saw this on Youtube. Make your own conclusions


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Saw this on Youtube. Make your own conclusions


I saw this too.

Paul Joseph Watson is usually brilliant and there are some legitimate questions around Hillary's health but I think even he went a little too far with some of the possible claims.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> How comes this thread has been unstuck?
> 
> Not that it bothers me too greatly am just curious.


Restructuring of the forums (well, removal of a section), as several stickied threads were moved to this section from a now defunct section. Too many stickies would stifle regular threads, so this one was unstickied as it's not as "general" as the other ones.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> Restructuring of the forums (well, removal of a section), as several stickied threads were moved to this section from a now defunct section. Too many stickies would stifle regular threads, so this one was unstickied as it's not as "general" as the other ones.


That's fair enough considering this thread will be meaningless after November.

Thanks for answering my question .


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

It's funny how CNN has outMSNBC'd MSNBC at this point. It's like every top of the hour, there is a anti-Trump story. Could be their last ditch effort to stay somewhat relevant since their ratings are in the shitter.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> I saw this too.
> 
> Paul Joseph Watson is usually brilliant and there are some legitimate questions around Hillary's health but I think even he went a little too far with some of the possible claims.


TBH, I think it's more like that there's something wrong with Bill rather than Hillary. 

Then again, it could just be the fact that her programming is malfunctioning. She did admit to short circuiting :shrug


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary is having trouble thinking because liberalism is a mental disorder.

- Vic


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Hillary is having trouble thinking because liberalism is a mental disorder.
> 
> - Vic


If "liberalism" is defined by Hillary war mongering Wall Street puppet Clinton and her masses of sheeple followers, then I'd say it's fair to classify that as a mental disorder. I'd also say the term liberalism has lost all meaning because that's the exact opposite of what it's supposed to be about. If you call yourself a liberal but you support someone who stands for everything you oppose on the major issues like the economy and foreign policy and only uses left wing social issues for political expedience to sucker you into voting for her so she can march you into economic slavery and death, it might be time to get that mental disorder checked out.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Come on, one of Trump's early biggest platforms was that he was going to BUILD A WALL. Not upgrade anything etc etc, he was going to build it and Mexico was going to pay for it. Don't obfuscate it now because Trump's in trouble.


Well yes there are lots of open parts along the border that need a wall, so he'd have to build a wall over those parts wouldn't he? He's talked about building a wall and securing the border and ensuring border patrol has what they need. I'd say that covers his building the wall talk. He also talked about a door, which meant new immigration policies, so there's that too. Not sure why people keep mentioning the wall but leaving out that part.

I'm not sure what you mean by Trump's in trouble? I'm not aware he's in trouble and what's that have to do with what you asked? You asked a question and I've done my best to answer it to the best of my knowledge and without being overly biased, like I have with every serious question you post. I'm unsure why you'd not simply reply with the same courtesy.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Well yes there are lots of open parts along the border that need a wall, so he'd have to build a wall over those parts wouldn't he? He's talked about building a wall and securing the border and ensuring border patrol has what they need. I'd say that covers his building the wall talk. He also talked about a door, which meant new immigration policies, so there's that too. Not sure why people keep mentioning the wall but leaving out that part.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by Trump's in trouble? I'm not aware he's in trouble and what's that have to do with what you asked? You asked a question and I've done my best to answer it to the best of my knowledge and without being overly biased, like I have with every serious question you post. I'm unsure why you'd not simply reply with the same courtesy.


I'm just a bit perplexed at the language being used now that we're a bit closer to the line, it's an interest of mine and it says a lot about psychology.

Earlier in the lead up it seemed like the type of language was:

_'Trump will build a wall so GREAT, you're not going to believe how great it's going to be!' There's no doubt a wall WILL be built _

It was all so 'tell it like it is' that Trump and his supporters loved.

And now after I asked the simple question of 'Is the wall still going to happen?' the language is not so confident, it seems to have shifted a little to the like of:

_'Well..... let me clarify, it's not actually a whole wall, per se, you see there already is a wall there, it's just parts that need upgrading and fixing.'_

It's like those clips of Trump promising the world on the platform in rallies shouting out loud, then later in one on one interviews 'clarifying' his points which tend to change the overall message (IMO).

Anyway maybe I'm just seeing things, carry on.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

illegals don't go over the border on the parts where there actually is a wall or fence

there's hundreds of miles overall where there's nothing, the rio grande or good old desert with no boundary or markings whatsoever


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> illegals don't go over the border on the parts where there actually is a wall or fence
> 
> there's hundreds of miles overall where there's nothing, the rio grande or good old desert with no boundary or markings whatsoever


Thanks for the info, but this has nothing to do with my point or Trump's bravado-laden wall rhetoric.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Hillary is having trouble thinking because liberalism is a mental disorder.
> 
> - Vic


Fuckinlol. So most of the free world in todays society has a mental disorder and Republitards are the ones who have it right? Smfh. Conservatism is on the fast track out of modern society and thank god for that. Once you folks in the States start figuring out that Conservatism is for simple minds and is out of date, the better off you'll be.

Here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

Give that a nice read. It explains why people with a higher intellect are drawn to Liberalism. Theres a lot of big words though so take it slow.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Your username suits you well!

- Vic


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Your username suits you well!
> 
> - Vic


Grade A response :applause. 




:bryanlol


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...-dumps-cnn-secret-service-trump-warning-clam/

Go to hell, CNN.


----------



## p3otw

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> BTW, when was the last time a 2nd ammendment person was involved in a political assassination? So even if it was an incitement to violence .. say it was .. it means nothing because a gun advocate and gun owner doesn't get motivated to kill .. Just as no one was motivated to assassinate Obama when Hillary implied that he "could" be.
> 
> The idea that they could be is classic left ignorance, bias and agenda pushing in order to make it seem like gun advocates are violent nutters even when statistics show that there are more responsible gun owners than not ... It's not even nit-picking at this point, it's intentional candidate bashing because that's the entire democrat campaign at this point.
> 
> But this is the same left that ignores the rabid violence amongst their voter base because their entire campaign is based on getting those votes. So don't mind it when I don't listen to the lefties anymore.


rabid violence :lmao: you white supremacists on this site really do have a warped perception of reality.


----------



## p3otw

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...-dumps-cnn-secret-service-trump-warning-clam/
> 
> Go to hell, CNN.


Imagine thinking breitbart is a credible news source.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



p3otw said:


> rabid violence :lmao: you white supremacists on this site really do have a warped perception of reality.


Yeah... Because black on black and Hispanic on Hispanic violence both of which occur at higher rates than white on white violence is a myth...

And they're both a part of the democrat voter base.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> Fuckinlol. So most of the free world in todays society has a mental disorder and Republitards are the ones who have it right? Smfh. Conservatism is on the fast track out of modern society and thank god for that. Once you folks in the States start figuring out that Conservatism is for simple minds and is out of date, the better off you'll be.
> 
> Here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...y-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives
> 
> Give that a nice read. It explains why people with a higher intellect are drawn to Liberalism. Theres a lot of big words though so take it slow.


Except at this point the conservative right is more progressive than the regressive left.


----------



## p3otw

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Yeah... Because black on black and Hispanic on Hispanic violence both of which occur at higher rates than white on white violence is a myth...
> 
> And they're both a part of the democrat voter base.


The violence is a byproduct of poverty which is a result of systemic racism. But this obviously isn't a real concern of yours, only when it's convenient for your agenda.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



p3otw said:


> The violence is a byproduct of poverty which is a result of systemic racism. But this obviously isn't a concern of yours.


Neither is it a concern of the Democrats. That's why much of this poverty related violence exists in blue state ghettos.


----------



## p3otw

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Neither is it a concern of the Democrats. That's why much of this poverty related violence exists in blue state ghettos.


Those blue-state ghettos are in inner-cities so your point isn't exactly profound. But you are right, it isn't a concern for either party.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



p3otw said:


> Those blue-state ghettos are in inner-cities so your point isn't exactly profound. But you are right, it isn't a concern for either party.


Did you just claim that ending ghetto violence isn't a concern of either party? What does it being a part if an inner city have anything to do with this? Are innercities void of governmental control or influence?

So you'll basically absolve the government of its responsibility just because i was able to prove a point about the lack of effectiveness of the Democratic party. 

Especially when it's one of the major platforms of the democrat party to alleviate inner city poverty and end the violence.. 

And you're claiming that I have an agenda.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Except at this point the conservative right is more progressive than the regressive left.


I legit loled at this. 

I didn't realise opposing rights for LGBTI people, cutting social services and lowering taxes for the rich and corporations was considered progressive now haha


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> I legit loled at this.
> 
> I didn't realise opposing rights for LGBTI people, cutting social services and lowering taxes for the rich and corporations was considered progressive now haha


Cutting social services and lowering taxes for the rich is progressive, not regressive. Nice job on being blindly convinced of the reverse by the way. 

Giving a man a fish that's stolen from someone else isn't progressive. I don't even know how liberals were able to brand stealing from one person and giving it to another as progressive ... It was pretty smart that they were able to do that though. 

You want more jobs and a growing economy? Give the rich man a tax break. You want to destroy an entire industry? Keep raising taxes and encouraging the rich to take his money elsewhere. 

No idea how taxation is considered progressive though, but from what I've seen it only makes the economy stagnate or regress. 

As for social progressiveness. Good job :clap While the left may have helped give gays the right to marry. Congratulations on a small achievement. I guess you guys do deserve to be able to say you were able to do *something*.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Cutting social services and lowering taxes for the rich is progressive, not regressive. Nice job on being blindly convinced of the reverse by the way.
> 
> Giving a man a fish that's stolen from someone else isn't progressive. I don't even know how liberals were able to brand stealing from one person and giving it to another as progressive ... It was pretty smart that they were able to do that though.
> 
> You want more jobs and a growing economy? Give the rich man a tax break. You want to destroy an entire industry? Keep raising taxes and encouraging the rich to take his money elsewhere.
> 
> No idea how taxation is considered progressive though, but from what I've seen it only makes the economy stagnate or regress.
> 
> As for social progressiveness. Good job :clap While the left may have helped give gays the right to marry. Congratulations on a small achievement. I guess you guys do deserve to be able to say you were able to do *something*.


Look I guess you're right, Bush's tax cuts for the rich worked perfectly, why would anybody question a policy with such a strong track record of success?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Look I guess you're right, Bush's tax cuts for the rich worked perfectly, why would anybody question a policy with such a strong track record of success?


Sucks that the middle-class were able to keep more of their money too ... which is why the democrats decided to extend the Bush era tax cuts. 

God damned tax cuts. Hate the fact that people get to keep more of their money! Give it to the government because we know that the government spends it wisely ! 

:kobelol


----------



## p3otw

Reaper said:


> p3otw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those blue-state ghettos are in inner-cities so your point isn't exactly profound. But you are right, it isn't a concern for either party.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just claim that ending ghetto violence isn't a concern of either party? What does it being a part if an inner city have anything to do with this? Are innercities void of governmental control or influence?
> 
> So you'll basically absolve the government of its responsibility just because i was able to prove a point about the lack of effectiveness of the Democratic party.
> 
> Especially when it's one of the major platforms of the democrat party to alleviate inner city poverty and end the violence..
> 
> And you're claiming that I have an agenda.
Click to expand...

You seem to be under the impression that I'm a democrat when that couldn't be further from the truth. I'm not absolving the government of anything, alleviating poverty in inner cities is not a priority for either party. That has become abundantly clear. I'm not absolving the Dems of anything, I just wanted to point out the blatant hypocrisy I've become accustomed to seeing from trump supporters. You guys love to bring up the violence in minority communities like it's a real concern of yours whenever it can be used in an argument against liberals or BLM.

And the violence is higher in inner-city ghettos because they are typically more impoverished and segregated.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Sucks that the middle-class were able to keep more of their money too ... which is why the democrats decided to extend the Bush era tax cuts.
> 
> God damned tax cuts. Hate the fact that people get to keep more of their money! Give it to the government because we know that the government spends it wisely !
> 
> :kobelol


The Democrats kept the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and got rid of them for the top tax brackets putting them back where they were pre Bush actually.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



p3otw said:


> You seem to be under the impression that I'm a democrat when that couldn't be further from the truth. I'm not absolving the government of anything, alleviating poverty in inner cities is not a priority for either party. That has become abundantly clear. I'm not absolving the Dems of anything, I just wanted to point out the blatant hypocrisy I've become accustomed to seeing from trump supporters. You guys love to bring up the violence in minority communities like it's a real concern of yours whenever it can be used in an argument against liberals or BLM.
> 
> And the violence is higher in inner-city ghettos because they are typically more impoverished and segregated.


Alleviating poverty, increased taxes for the rich and redistribution of wealth are one of the core campaign platforms of the democratic party and most of that message is directed at the poverty-stricken ghetto communities. It's not a republican/conservative platform so you're right in making that claim about the republicans and therefore not hypocritical to bring it up, but when you make that claim about the democrats then you're just plain wrong. Bernie's _entire _campaign was about redistribution of wealth. And so is a lot of Hillary's. Obama spoke on length about this subject as well. 

Now you're absolutely right that in reality after the elections are won, the Democrats don't give a fuck about the ghettos ... but when it comes to campaign promises and attracting the voter base, they direct it to the poor attract the votes from the ghetto more than the republicans do - and then once they gain power, they don't give a fuck. We're right back where we started.

You wanna know the main reason for the existence of ghettos and extreme violence within them? The great American Drug war. Of course, the fact that african americans and hispanics tend to segregate themselves in small communities together also has something to do with them staying poor. The african americans that manage to escape the ghettos have to work harder because imo the ghetto culture is designed to hold people down and not help them succeed. This really isn't racist attitude. I hold the same opinion of white trailer parks ... The only reason why I don't bring the white trailer parks and ******* communities up is because even though they have a rampant drug culture as well, it's not associated with extreme violence. Maybe I might be wrong and my view may be colored, but the facts are that ghettos have more of a violence epidemic than white trailer parks. Even the african americans acknowledge this. 

My only point was that the democrats make it seem like they care about this black on black violence and want to do something about it by making campaign promises about redistribution of wealth that make it seem like they're talking to people in the ghettos when in reality they're just straight out lying. In the end, what this does is get that entire group to vote for a party that also doesn't give a fuck about them. 



Alkomesh2 said:


> The Democrats kept the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and got rid of them for the top tax brackets putting them back where they were pre Bush actually.


Yeah .. and his medical insurance mandate doesn't impact the middle-class at all, right? 

Obama and his administration has raised taxes on the middle class with stealth taxation like the medical insurance scam which penalizes people for not buying health insurance and wanting to pay out of pocket ... 

Stealth taxes on the middle class are still taxes on the middle class. 

The idea that democrats whose entire government is based on tax and spend not levying taxes wherever they can is just ludicrous. They do stuff in a way that people don't fully recognize or understand that it's been done. It took me a while to understand some of these taxes myself.

http://www.atr.org/obama-obamacare-raise-taxes-things-a7883


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



p3otw said:


> Imagine thinking breitbart is a credible news source.


To be fair it was using Reuters as a source, just adding their usual spin to be provocative.

It boils down to how credible are the sources that CNN or Reuters use on the story if the story isn't made up.

I could imagine some informal talk between lower ranking staffers telling the law and order candidate nominee's people to avoid such inflammatory remarks and CNN running with it as big deal when it really is just SS people complaining about the added burden.

Or Secret Service attempting to remain impartial and not confirming talks have taken place to avoid influencing the elections. They did tweet about being aware about the comments.

Or CNN really made it up.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump has basically come out and called Obama the "founder of the ISIS" ... which is something of a mass claim amongst the Muslim blogosphere. The idea that Obama's foreign policies in the middle east created the power vacuum that allowed ISIS to form and usurp so much power is one of the major talking points of a lot of muslims - especially the ones that claim that Islam has nothing to do with the ISIS, but that American policies do (I personally think it's a bit of both actually and a lot of other factors too) is pervasive amongst a very large majority of muslims. In fact, I can't think of a single time I didn't come across a muslim that didn't blame the current US foreign policy for the creation of ISIS. 

Now I'm very curious to see the response from the muslim blogosphere about these comments. 

Will this encourage them to start considering Trump as one of them because he believes the same thing they do, or will they continue to hate him?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Do the Muslim blogosphere also think ISIS is honouring Obama too?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Looks like CNN in their effort to attack Trump made up a story the Secret Service talked to him about his "threat" which never happened. CNN getting to that MSN level now. 
@Reaper It's funny how many of the Muslim community despise Obama and think he's willingly helping ISIS. Well I can see their point, 1 billion to ISIS via cash and gear and supplies. But it doesn't surprise me, Obama sent weapons to the "good cartels" to fight the "bad cartels" with his Fast and Furious scheme. Obama has so many scandals yet nobody talks about them.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://usapoliticsnow.com/hillary-c...ulian-assange-dead-man-cant-leak-stuff-video/


> *Hillary Clinton strategist says “kill” Julian Assange, because “a dead man can’t leak stuff”*
> 
> CNN Host says the way to deal with Julian Assange is to “Illegally shoot the son of a bitch.” Democratic strategist, CNN Host, former Fox News Host, and Hillary Clinton supporter Bob Beckel…
> has figured out how to deal with the Julian Assange thorn, that is in Clinton’s side.
> Julian Assange’s latest revelation that has Bob Beckel calling for his assassination…the DNC email hack (that the Clinton machine cleverly diverted into a Putin-Trump imaginary bromance) was most likely leaked, not by Russians, but by 27 year old Democratic staffer Seth Rich, who was mysteriously (and conveniently) murdered right after the DNC leak.
> Here is what Bob Beckel said…


http://thefreethoughtproject.com/illegally-clinton-assange-assassinate/



> Hillary Clinton strategist Bob Beckel appeared on on Fox calling for the assassination of Julian Assange — a blatant urge for violence against the Wikileaks founder in direct contradiction of every possible natural and government law.
> Wikileaks, of course, has published several damning caches of documents showing Clinton in none-too-favorable light — including emails from her controversially-employed private server as well as communications from the DNC which proved her campaign colluded with mainstream media.
> *“I mean, a dead man can’t leak stuff,”* Beckel chillingly noted of Assange. _“The guy’s a traitor, a treasonist, and … and he has broken every law in the United States. The guy ought to be — and I’m not for the death penalty — so, if I’m not for the death penalty, _*there’s only one way to do it, illegally shoot the son of a bitch.”*


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*"I'm not for the death penalty so we should just illegally shoot the son of a bitch" :sodone*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

B-b-b-but Reaper.. Trump is the bad person here not Hilary or the DNC.. Oh I get it, Assange should be killed because he incited violent rhetoric by exposing the corruption and fraud within the DNC.. kay! Totally justified in killing him now! 

Three people tied to this have died in weird circumstances .. yup everyone nothing weird going on at all!


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@Reaper @CamillePunk @DesolationRow @MissSally;

There is a common misconception that the tax cuts we're the main problem with why the economy crashed in 2008. I see this time and time again from left wing commentators who continuously call for more deficit spending and for the Federal Reserve to continue to print more money....without realizing that quantitative easing i.e printing money above what the market rate is is what partly caused the economic crash to begin with.

It is exactly what is happening now in the US despite taxes going up on the whole. The Democrats continue to spend more under Obama trying to push through the widely debunked Keynesian theory of spending your way out of a recession. Any person who has properly studied the New Deal in the 30's for example will tell you that Roosevelt's policies actually prolonged the Great Depression and it was only when the US entered WW2 and profited from arms sales that the economy started to recover. This was several years after the first new deal was put forward in 1933.

The problem has and always has been deficit spending. Whether this spending has been done to give further incentive to the private market or to fund the public sector it has always ended up in one or two general outcomes: 

1) The economy goes through a massive boom and bust cycle where a false artificial boom period based not on fundamental substainable growth but on false credit eventually gives way and collapses. When this happens it is investors and stock brokers who often are told or realize that the market is in a period of recession. Often the market is actually already in recession and people don't know it until they start to lose confidence. This often leads into a chain reaction of events which leads to the market crashing. Often it is one or more shaky market that has had an artificial boom period or at least has an artificial bubble due to Central Bank lending, borrowing and spending that collapses which sends shockwaves to the rest of the economy and it is the ordinary joe that suffers for it. Particularly for those who have invested in the particular market that has collapsed. A big example of this is the sub mortage crisis in 2008 where people who had borrowed credit from private banks who had that credit lent from the Federal Reserve could not pay back that bad credit due to the collapse and the fact that the sector was not booming based on actual fundamental growth but an artificial bubble and therefore had to declare bankruptcy or had to be made redundant. Another example is the dot com crisis in 2000.

2) In the case of the public sector, the economy essentially slows down and eventually becomes stagnant seizing any form of fundamental growth due to the shrinking of the productive part of the economy (the private sector) in favour of the unproductive part (public sector). This happened in the UK during the 70's which lead to the winter of discontent in 1979. Thankfully for all her faults Margaret Thatcher got into power and sorted that mess out. In more of a severe case this is partly what happened in Venezuela too. The biggest proponents of these type of policies are hard leftists and socialists who have idea about the consequences of their economic policies and are instead stuck in such political theory and dogma that they fail to see the faults of their own economic and political systems.

Tax cuts on their own weren't the problem in the bush years, it was also the increased spending through the Central Bank to increase incentive in the private sector which again built up an artificial boom which eventually had to burst. In order to have major tax cuts you also need to have major spending cuts to subside that. This is why balancing the budget and not having deficit spending is so key. The Classical Liberals of the 19th Century knew this which is why in the period of no Central Banks and low taxation (hell some years had no income tax at all!) the biggest downturn in economic growth happened for a year at most. There was no years of endless hardship and economic depression. Why? Because there was no Central Banks encouraging quantitative easing and having a debt ridden economy.

As with everything economic wise, everything is in the detail. Unfortunately many leftists are too lazy to look into the detail and instead buy the propaganda.

And as far as what is more "progressive" these days...

The common argument from the left that they are is because of their fight for equal rights for homosexuals, women and now transgender people. And whilst certainly there is a big case for that there is in no way a monopoly from the left on this. Many Libertarians also promote the same thing and go further stating that government cannot and should not dictate how people should live and shouldn't be able to legislate marriage for example. Something which stopped homosexuals getting equal opportunity on marrying to begin with for example which again the left stupidly cannot see.

It also depends on which country you are from. For example the Conservative government in the UK was the one who legalized marriage in 2013. In fact 50% of gay people surveyed said they were going to vote Conservative in the general election which happened last year which shocked and horrified the left.

The ones that are trying to curb free speech, free thought and expression in favour of a narrow dogmatic view of the world comes from the radical left. It comes from the SJW's, the radical feminists and the Regressive Left in general. It used to be the Social Conservative Right that were the biggest enemies. Once it was the radical right that for example were against video gaming, now it comes from the Social Justice Warriors and Third Wave Feminism in the form of Gamergate. That's just one example. Now we see these hypocritical people on the one hand complain about Homosexuals not having cakes baked for them for their wedding yet on the other remaining silent on the Orlando shooting, remaining silent on the fact 11 Islamic countries have in law that they can murder someone for being gay. Yet they deflect the problem away from radical Islamists at every turn because they don't want to appear "racist". 

The same people who promote tolerance for Homosexuals and Transgender people at the same time publicly shame and condemn Milo Yiannopoulous and Caitlyn Jenner as horrible people simply because they are Conservative. These are the people who need "safe spaces" from people who have a different opinion from them. Who want to censor Conservatives, Libertarians and even other Liberals who don't believe in their narrow minded garbage world view which has been fed to them by radical post-modern lecturers. The war for freedom, liberty and ideas used to be against the state and there still is a war against it. But there is now a bigger war and it is a cultural war, something I've realized recently.

And who are the people who standing up for the principles of liberty, freedom of speech, ideas and expression. That all speech regardless if it is racist or offensive should be allowed, that the true meaning of the first amendent is protect unpopular speech, not popular speech and that the best way to counter act disagreements and even vile opinions is not to censor them but to show that they are wrong through discussion and argument? *Conservatives*, *Libertarians* and *Cultural Libertarians.*

*Cultural Libertarianism* in particular is the new counter-culture. It is no longer cool to be a leftist because it's the mainstream and because of the types of people now associated with it. That is why many people who call themselves liberals are distancing themselves from the radical anti-freedom and anti-free speech radicals of their own movement. When you have people like Bill Maher, Chris Rock and Christina Hoff Sommers (who is actually a feminist!) who are liberals themselves but absolutely despise what the modern left has become then you know there is a problem.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I wish I had the depth of knowledge as well as patience to construct such well reasoned and argued posts. 

My short-coming is that at this point I'm more instinctive and intuitive, but rational at the same time. Like for example, connecting the dots I can see with ease that we are actually seeing another shift between the left and right where the left just seems to have become more conservative than the right (there's a radical left that wants to censor speech, they want to get rid of porn, they're against prostitution, they want creative control over media, they want people to think the same thoughts as them). It's just that they're pushing forward a lot of the same things the hard right used to be push, but their reasoning for it is different and masks the actual act as progressive ... 

I actually don't see the left as socially progressive anymore. I see them as a group that chooses the people whose rights they want to fight for at the expense of someone else's rights. I see this the most as an ex-muslim where being an atheist that's anti-radical Islam, I get as much abuse from social progressives as the homosexuals get from Westboro. Instead of listening to and reading my viewpoint rationally, I get hit with Islamophobe and bigot consistently. Just in this thread, the only thing I brought up was that democrats don't do anything about the ghetto problem in the states because that's part of their voter base and they want to keep them in poverty so that they can promise them emancipation in their campaigns ... and I got called a white supremacist for that. This is a wholly extreme conservative approach. A woman walking up on a stage, grabbing a mic from a speaker and threatening to punch him because she doesn't want to hear what he has to say isn't social progress, but regression --- however, they spin it in a way where the speaker is pre-emptively labeled a [insert slur here] which I personally don't see as being that much different from how extreme conservatives use words like **** etc etc.

Anyways, there are a lot of other examples where I see that the left and the right have switched sides, but it's still in the process of happening (hasn't happened completely yet). I expect the radical left to become the next brand of social conservatives actually because for them not all people are equal. They falsely believe amongst themselves that they consider all people equal, but their actions suggest otherwise. 

For them only those people who believe the same things they do are equal. Everyone else is a racist, misogynistic, islamophobe, bigot. I really don't see how they can call themselves progressive when all they want to do is force their ideas as the supreme ideas and only ideas worthy of having. In fact, I'm going to go so far as to say that ultimately the radical left wants thought control and not just speech control which is the worst form of dystopia you can imagine.


----------



## Neuron

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> The guy’s a traitor, a *treasonist*, and … and he has broken every law in the United States.


An Australian national committing treason against America. Top kek.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't know how many credible leftist out there blame the 2008 crisis on tax cuts. Most blame it on deregulation of banks that allow for risky subprime mortgages to be repackaged into low-risk securities that burnt investors who took advantage of the access to more credit due to quantitative easing policies at the time. The tax cuts didn't help reduce deficits would be a more rationale complaint instead of blaming it for the 2008 crisis.

Deficit spending is an issue, so either raise taxes to increase government revenue, or cut spending. But austerity measures have a human and political price that is difficult to sell to the electorate. The solution in America advance by the GOP is essentially to cut social security and Medicare to fund the tax cuts on the wealthy and corporations. Hardly an easy sell to those who need them when the alternative is to trust the markets and invest in low-risk securities, which could be like the ones that caused the 2008 subprime crisis.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



p3otw said:


> The violence is a byproduct of poverty which is a result of systemic racism. But this obviously isn't a real concern of yours, only when it's convenient for your agenda.


No it isn't.

Poverty doesn't cause crime, and poverty is not caused by racism, systemic or otherwise.

Come on this is stuff that was studied and disproved decades ago.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Cutting social services and lowering taxes for the rich is progressive, not regressive. Nice job on being blindly convinced of the reverse by the way.
> 
> Giving a man a fish that's stolen from someone else isn't progressive. I don't even know how liberals were able to brand stealing from one person and giving it to another as progressive ... It was pretty smart that they were able to do that though.


You're right... and you're wrong. Yes, giving a man a fish that's stolen from someone else isn't progressive. However, in this circumstance, the man with all the fish stole the fish from the fishermen who caught them in the first place.

The working class produces all the wealth and the owner class takes all the wealth, leaving the working class in poverty. That's how the system is designed. Democrats like it that way, so they can buy votes with welfare. Ooh, scary Republicans are gonna take away your welfare check, so vote for us!

Of course, Republicans don't give a fuck about the poor either. They just sell poverty to their voters with the idea of freedom. Both parties are two sides of the same coin. Regardless of who is "in charge", the owner class always gets taken care of first and the rest of us are expected to live off whatever crumbs fall off the table.

If you want fairness in taxes, self-reliance from the population and a small government with no welfare programs, then the system needs to be designed so that the people who actually do the work and produce the wealth keep more of it to begin with, instead of allowing the vast majority of it to be sucked up to the top. 

That'll never happen under the leadership of the Republicrats, which is why both parties need to be demolished.



Reaper said:


> You want more jobs and a growing economy? Give the rich man a tax break. You want to destroy an entire industry? Keep raising taxes and encouraging the rich to take his money elsewhere.
> 
> No idea how taxation is considered progressive though, but from what I've seen it only makes the economy stagnate or regress.


Now you're just factually incorrect. It's 4 decades of trickle down economics fuckery that has led to the shit we're in now. Ask Kansas how those Brownback policies are working out for them. 

Under the current system, when you give the rich man a tax break, he hoards the wealth in offshore tax havens. It sure as hell doesn't go back into the economy. Economics 101: in a consumer based economy, the consumer has to have spending power for the economy to function. The idea that rich people create jobs is retarded. It's the working class who creates jobs. When the working class has disposable income, they spend that money at businesses. When those businesses have more business, they hire more employees to keep up with the business. Then more people are employed and more workers having spending power, who then go out and spend their money on the economy. And so on and so forth.

When all the money goes to the owner class, it's a dead end. That money stays in their pockets instead of going back into the economy. They have no incentive to hire more workers when no one is showing up to purchase their wares.



L-DOPA said:


> The ones that are trying to curb free speech, free thought and expression in favour of a narrow dogmatic view of the world comes from the radical left. It comes from the SJW's, the radical feminists and the Regressive Left in general.





Reaper said:


> I actually don't see the left as socially progressive anymore. I see them as a group that chooses the people whose rights they want to fight for at the expense of someone else's rights.


Carlin had this figured out a long time ago. It's only gotten much worse since.

"Political correctness is America's newest form of intolerance. And it's especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules. I'm not sure that's the way to fight discrimination. I'm not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech."






Anyone who considers themselves to be PC or a SJW can fuck right off in their safe spaces.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So the DoJ is now refusing to investigate the Clinton Foundation despite even more of its shadiness coming to light just in the last few days. When pressed for comment, Hillary responded while keeping in line with her plan to appeal to millenials:


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> ...Carlin had this figured out a long time ago. It's only gotten much worse since.
> 
> "Political correctness is America's newest form of intolerance. And it's especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules. I'm not sure that's the way to fight discrimination. I'm not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who considers themselves to be PC or a SJW can fuck right off in their safe spaces.


Really liked this Carlin interview clip about PC.


----------



## p3otw

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> No it isn't.
> 
> Poverty doesn't cause crime, and poverty is not caused by racism, systemic or otherwise.
> 
> Come on this is stuff that was studied and disproved decades ago.


if you don't think crime is directly related to poverty and that the poverty in the African American community is not a result of systemic racism then there's really no point in discussing anything with you. It's always amusing seeing the mental gymnastics white people go through to try to tell themselves systemic racism isn't still an issue.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



p3otw said:


> if you don't think crime is directly related to poverty and that the poverty in the African American community is not a result of systemic racism then there's really no point in discussing anything with you. It's always amusing seeing the mental gymnastics white people go through to try to tell themselves systemic racism isn't still an issue.


Apparently white people only hate black people ... and that too only SOME black people, but not the black people that make 100s of millions of dollars when they work hard to achieve success and excellence ... and people like me that come from Asia happen to end up with the highest income in America ... about $17,000 more than other americans. And weren't Japs once thrown into internment camps for which they only received a measly 20k ... which is less than a year's worth of money. But they still managed to pull themselves out of that horrible situation and become one of the strongest income earners in America as a whole. 

That white privilege and racism really benefiting asians for some reason ... 

Or maybe, there's no racism at all, and there's just a culture of blaming someone else for your problems in some racial communities which doesn't exist in other racial communities.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I just thought of something interesting

Here in the US the mainstream media is lambasted for being partisan and taking sides, even the hint that they are taking backdoor money for positive coverage is enough to get scorn

Yet in many places outside of the US the major news station is literally openly state funded

Look at the lead "alternative" news source RT, it is literally openly being funded by the Russian government yet in many places it is treated as legit news source as any other 

I am not saying one side is better or worse but growing up in a place where you expect a hands off government and propaganda to at least be voluntary and subtle sure gives you different expectations


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



p3otw said:


> if you don't think crime is directly related to poverty and that the poverty in the African American community is not a result of systemic racism then there's really no point in discussing anything with you. It's always amusing seeing the mental gymnastics white people go through to try to tell themselves systemic racism isn't still an issue.


Criminologists have extensively studied crime for three generations. Greed causes crime. Not need. There aren't too many actual Jean Valjeans out there.

Poverty in the African-American community is caused by political stagnation and incompetence. Racist white Republicans don't rule major cities and black communities in the south, where most black generational poverty exists. Democrats, usually black Democrats, do. 

If systemic racism were still a dominating factor in African-American poverty, the black middle class would be much smaller as would the number of wealthy blacks. 

The problem is much more that an elite of blacks and whites within the Democratic Party, which owns black politics, have failed mightily at providing a responsive and honest political structure to govern blacks. It isn't the fault of Republicans and white racists that capital investment doesn't come to the ghetto or fails there. It isn't the fault of Republicans and white racists that the K-12 education provided to blacks is generally godawful. Blacks and whites and Latinos and all kinds of other ethnicities too who are definitely not racist have controlled the power and purse strings over such things for decades, through the Democratic Party. Yet blacks are still worse off economically and educationally. 

Those people who are in charge of things have done very well for themselves, though. The Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons and Stephanie Rawlings-Blakes and Antonio Villaraigosas and Jim Clyburns and Donna Edwardses and Keith Ellisons and Elijah Cummingses and Barack and Michelle Obamas and Bill de Blasios and Melissa Mark-Viveritos and Marilyn Mosbys and yes the Hillary Clintons too. Funny how that always happens no matter how the peasants, be they white, black, or purple, fare.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm sure if they just keep monolithically voting Democrat things will eventually turn around. It's only been 50 years or so.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> Really liked this Carlin interview clip about PC.


You can listen to his material going back decades concerning liberals, conservatives and all things politics and it is all still extremely relevant today. There are things he recognized right away that some people still haven't figured out 20 years later. He truly was a man ahead of his time.



Tater said:


> You're right... and you're wrong.


In unrelated news, I've had this song stuck in my head for hours now since posting the above. I blame you, @Reaper


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Lol. I'm on my phone right now I'll check it out when I get home.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



p3otw said:


> if you don't think crime is directly related to poverty and that the poverty in the African American community is not a result of systemic racism then there's really no point in discussing anything with you.


Chalking a problem like this up to something as nebulous and arbitrary as "systemic racism," or worse, _only_ "systemic racism" is either intellectually dishonest, or intellectually lazy as fuck. Similarly, you'll hear no one worth a damn claim the "system" is sexist even though the male vs. female disparity in criminality absolutely dwarfs any racial disparities there may be. Why? Because doing so would be fucking retarded, and would be immediately dismissed as such, because there are other, actually valid explanations as to why this disparity exists without having to resort to some conspiratorial fantasy about "systemic sexism." 

If there is racism one wishes to combat, regurgitating slogans like "systemic racism" doesn't do anything to solve it, because you're not identifying any actual racism--you're not identifying any instances of racism, you're just saying "everything is racist because reasons." Identify racism, identify racists, then combat those specific problems if fighting racism is your goal. Crying "the world is racist" or "society is racist" or "the institution is racist" accomplishes approximately nothing, and doesn't even seem to have any intellectual or theoretical value of any kind since it ultimately amounts to little more than a conspiracy theory. If fighting black criminality is your goal, then I suggest you take off your blinders and stop nonsensically laying the blame at the feet of what, despite its imperfections, continues to arguably be one of the richest, freest, and most diverse large-scale societies to ever exist on this earth, as if it was none of these things.

"Black people are disproportionately impoverished, and poverty raises the probability of criminality, therefore racism" isn't a valid or meaningful analysis worthy of wiping my ass. But good luck identifying any actual problems and finding any legitimate solutions to those problems by blaming ****** the Boogeyman for black criminality. You'll need it.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

http://usapoliticsnow.com/breaking-...e-directly-engaged-hillary-clintons-campaign/

Was there any doubt?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://usapoliticsnow.com/breaking-...e-directly-engaged-hillary-clintons-campaign/


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> "Black people are disproportionately impoverished, and poverty raises the probability of criminality, therefore racism" isn't a valid or meaningful analysis worthy of wiping my ass. But good luck identifying any actual problems and finding any legitimate solutions to those problems by blaming ****** the Boogeyman for black criminality. You'll need it.


I don't actually blame the people who believe in the "systematic [insert racism or sexism here]" crap. 

They really, really, really work hard to indoctrinate young minds with those ideas as they go through school, college and university. You open up Facebook, search on Google and Bing and you primarily get the same ideology constantly repeated in pretty much every single article talking about these subjects. The indoctrination of school and college age children into this ideological spectrum mirrors that of religion very closely minus the god ... However, when you really think about it, in feminism you have this "satan" that's the evil patriarchy and the "original sin" of a man being born with a penis with the penis becoming an object of oppression in and of itself. Essentially feminism is very close to a religious ideology ... and I'm beginning to see similar religious overtones in other forms of "systematic oppression" ideas. Essentially, the evil is invisible and ever-changing - and there is always this evil oppressor and we have to accept this on faith without having to rationalize it. 

I actually had to work harder to fight this brainwashing than I did to even fight my muslim brainwashing ... I was literally arguing the same points a few months ago on this site and I slowly understood the holes in the systematic oppression argument ... The main hole being there is absolutely no real evidence for systematic oppression at all .. It's a mixture of assertions combined with forced facts trying to led substance to the ideology where that substance is hollow at its core. My arguments were weak. What I considered fact-based knowledge was based on incomplete information. I was wrong .. and eventually I changed my opinion as I learnt more. 

Being an optimist, I have the same expectations from others. Some are probably never going to listen, but as long as there's people present to give the other side in a reasonable manner, there's hope for people to become better informed.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Like him or not, when Donald Trump talks, people listen.

- Vic


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> So the DoJ is now refusing to investigate the Clinton Foundation despite even more of its shadiness coming to light just in the last few days. When pressed for comment, Hillary responded while keeping in line with her plan to appeal to millenials:


Because we have the most corrupt Administration since Ulysses Grant.

- Vic


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> http://usapoliticsnow.com/breaking-...e-directly-engaged-hillary-clintons-campaign/


Google being yet another tentacle of the Clinton machine isn't exactly breaking news. That's been known for awhile now.


----------



## Marv95

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

At the end of the day it's 2016. We as blacks have no one to blame but ourselves for our behavior. We have minds of our own. We have no one to blame but ourselves for the conditions of the Detroits, Baltimores, Newarks(my former backyard, 973 rep), Oaklands, Chicagos of this country keep voting Democrat for decades in our cities and where has it gotten us? Blaming ****** hasn't cut it nor is it going to. Time to look in the mirror for once.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The funny thing is, there is a legitimate claim surrounding holding African American's down due to Nixon starting the war on drugs as way to politically target hippies and black people as they were Nixon's biggest opponents and threats. The war on drugs itself has helped cause a complete imbalance in terms of drug arrests and prosecutions with ethnic minorities getting arrested and incarcerated 3 to 5 times more than middle class Caucasians. There is a case to make that they are being disproportionately incarcerated in that regard. Having said that, poor white working class people are also victims of the fraud and criminalization of victimless crimes like the war on drugs as well.

But with 50% of young African Americans out of the work force, one must look to some of the reasons why that is and with felonies for the longest time up until recently essentially disqualifying anyone with a drug conviction from attaining any sort of employment as well disproportionate sentences and having your voting right taken away from you I think it's safe to say the war on drugs has played a key role overall in terms of not only African Americans in poverty but other ethnic groups including whites who are suffering.

Now THAT is a legitimate case to be made.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> The funny thing is, there is a legitimate claim surrounding holding African American's down due to Nixon starting the war on drugs as way to politically target hippies and black people as they were Nixon's biggest opponents and threats. The war on drugs itself has helped cause a complete imbalance in terms of drug arrests and prosecutions with ethnic minorities getting arrested and incarcerated 3 to 5 times more than middle class Caucasians. There is a case to make that they are being disproportionately incarcerated in that regard. Having said that, poor white working class people are also victims of the fraud and criminalization of victimless crimes like the war on drugs as well.
> 
> But with 50% of young African Americans out of the work force, one must look to some of the reasons why that is and with felonies for the longest time up until recently essentially disqualifying anyone with a drug conviction from attaining any sort of employment as well disproportionate sentences and having your voting right taken away from you I think it's safe to say the war on drugs has played a key role overall in terms of not only African Americans in poverty but other ethnic groups including whites who are suffering.
> 
> Now THAT is a legitimate case to be made.


The war on drugs has led to the death of millions and ruined the lives of many millions more. It is an abject failure that lives on because people in positions of power make a lot of money by keeping it going. That's true of many destructive US policies that still exist purely for profit driven motives. They don't give a fuck about who suffers and dies as long as they can continue fattening their wallets.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Marv95 said:


> At the end of the day it's 2016. We as blacks have no one to blame but ourselves for our behavior. We have minds of our own. We have no one to blame but ourselves for the conditions of the Detroits, Baltimores, Newarks(my former backyard, 973 rep), Oaklands, Chicagos of this country keep voting Democrat for decades in our cities and where has it gotten us? Blaming ****** hasn't cut it nor is it going to. Time to look in the mirror for once.


I would love to advance my knowledge on this subject because I have little, but since you're here and willing to talk, I'd like to pick at your brain a little. 

Is it true that a lot of African Americans can actually afford to leave the ghettos for relatively better neighborhoods but they don't do so intentionally because they believe that the benefits of the ghetto community outweighs the relative loneliness of non-black communities? That question's been bothering me ever since I came to America and actually saw a couple of southern ghettos (they're not that bad, but still pretty bad) with my own eyes. 

As an immigrant, I would actually prefer to pay a couple of 100 bucks extra than to live in a bad community ... So this is the one thing that I don't understand at all ... why do black people stay in ghettos when other options exist for them?



Tater said:


> The war on drugs has led to the death of millions and ruined the lives of many millions more. It is an abject failure that lives on because people in positions of power make a lot of money by keeping it going. That's true of many destructive US policies that still exist purely for profit driven motives. They don't give a fuck about who suffers and dies as long as they can continue fattening their wallets.


From what I've heard, the police tend to benefit the most because don't they get to keep drug money as well as get huge funds?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This Bob Beckel guy asking for Assange's murder no surprise sounds like an absolute fuckwit. It never ceases to surprise me how many of these 'political pundits' make a very comfy living on CNN or FOX shouting as loud as they can the most outrageous things they can think of, things you can tell they've done as little as research as possible on.

Taking a look at this character's wiki for second:



> Beckel was the campaign manager for Walter Mondale's 1984 presidential campaign.[17] During that campaign he became known as the man who effectively wrapped the Wendy's slogan "Where's the beef?" around Gary Hart,[11][10] Mondale's opponent for the Democratic nomination.


Where's the beef. What a fucking genius.

Ofcourse to keep a healthy media personality in the political newstainment arena, you need a consistent selection of bonehead things to say:



> In August 2012, Beckel referred to Jewish Americans who had participated in a Mitt Romney fundraiser in Israel as "a bunch of diamond merchants we don't know the names of."[29]
> 
> In November 2012, Beckel concluded, while commentating on the San Francisco public nudity ban live on Fox News, that most nudists were, as children, "probably gang-banged, I don't know!" and then proceeded to laugh about his comment and saying, "they were probably sexually assaulted, I don't know!"[13][30]
> 
> In February 2013, Beckel made the statement that rapes on campus do not really happen and asserted that victims of date rape are not going to "take a gun out and shoot [their] date."[13][31]
> 
> In July 2014, during a discussion on The Five about who poses a threat to the U.S., he stated, "The Chinese are the single biggest threat to the national security of the U.S. They have been, they will be and they can wait, they're very patient. Do you know what we just did? As usual, we bring them over here and we teach a bunch of Chinamen–er, Chinese people–how to do computers and then they go back to China and hack into us."[33]


I mean jesus, I know guys like this are a dime a dozen but was there a point where apparent rampant ignorance and anti-intellectualism just took over? And now he's calling for murder?


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I do not have the time to create a post of any significance considering the wide-ranging matters discussed here--though I tried to link to the Bob Beckel story yesterday vis-à-vis Justin Raimondo's twitter line, hahaha--but just wanted to thank the likes of @L-DOPA, @Reaper, @yeahbaby! and @Sincere, among others, for the wonderful posts to read!

Really enjoy seeing this thread go to these places of discussion.

And I still have your PM to read, @Tater! Apologies.

:hglol Assange being a traitor to America. I mean, when you're a global empire, I guess so! :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Like him or not, when Donald Trump talks, people listen.
> 
> - Vic


and then think to themselves, wtf did he just say? Similar to a Sid Vicious promo.


----------



## Marv95

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I would love to advance my knowledge on this subject because I have little, but since you're here and willing to talk, I'd like to pick at your brain a little.
> 
> *Is it true that a lot of African Americans can actually afford to leave the ghettos for relatively better neighborhoods but they don't do so intentionally because they believe that the benefits of the ghetto community outweighs the relative loneliness of non-black communities? *That question's been bothering me ever since I came to America and actually saw a couple of southern ghettos (they're not that bad, but still pretty bad) with my own eyes.
> 
> As an immigrant, I would actually prefer to pay a couple of 100 bucks extra than to live in a bad community ... *So this is the one thing that I don't understand at all ... why do black people stay in ghettos when other options exist for them?*


Complacency...laziness mostly. I mean, many folks _are_ stuck on welfare/HUD therefore they are "stuck" in their hoods. However welfare-to-work and unemployment programs _do_ exist and there are counselors to assist you with resume building, training, transportation, etc. "The jobs ain't out there man; why bother?!" They are, just not in your city. You're just too lazy to get off your butt and search. The ones that are better off who aren't in the game are possibly stuck with this reverse racism mentality and are afraid to move(though many don't have that mentality, fortunately). Or as you said, the "benefits" of the ghetto: corner stores, mass transit, fast food joints, etc(though each of those things exist in better hoods even if they are slightly expensive).


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

You guys realize that things like institutional racism don't have to be malicious or conscious behaviour right? It's thoughts and behaviour we do without overtly thinking about it half the time that have consequences like this. I'm studying social psychology at the moment and this particular thing has been very well studied over and over. (Please I'm begging someone to counter that the studies were somehow leftist )

To me, denying the existence of institutional racism is almost akin to denying racism has ever existed. When you have a long history of stuff going on which favours the ingroup over the outgroup, that system doesn't go away over night. No offence but I prefer to follow the experts on this first rather than the WF massif.

Just my 2c.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*










Except A LOT of people are actually in attendance for Trump unlike Clinton, who got caught Photoshopping her crowd:










- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

People who promote things like vaccines cause autism or MBTI or Jungian personality theory also consider themselves experts. In fact some of this crap has also made its way into schools. Modern Feminist theory (which gave a rise to third wave feminism) most of which has been debunked by people was also put out by 'experts'. It's been acknowledged by a lot of well educated critics that the main thing missing in the social sciences in universities is critique of the theories being taught. Critique that you have to put yourself outside of the university student mindset in order to truly appreciate - or even gain access to. I've been through the same system and I know exactly how that system is used to propagate certain ideas over others without adequate or even in some cases any critique at all. I call it systematic indoctrination and to deny its existence in universities at this point is something I fully expect students to do because if they're not exposed to something, they're not even aware of its existence (that is criticism of the ideas being taught). 

At this point we're literally at a stage where we need to really examine things and ideas at such a core level that the effort requires not only learning new ideas that debunk those experts but also unlearn the misinformation passed around in schools. 

Anyways I don't actually mind putting in the effort to scrutinize your social psychology studies. I'm a sociology major myself (regret it because it was nothing but politically motivated indoctrination into Canada's social welfare statism) I'm up to the task. And given what I've seen of people who post on this site - especially in these threads - there are a lot of very well educated people on here. Some more than even I am, and I have a masters in business. 

Underestimating their knowledge on account of still being a student is not the kind of condescension their knowledge deserves. 

Just my 2 cents :draper2


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> People who promote things like vaccines cause autism or MBTI or Jungian personality theory also consider themselves experts. In fact some of this crap has also made its way into schools. Modern Feminist theory (which gave a rise to third wave feminism) most of which has been debunked by people was also put out by 'experts'.
> 
> At this point we're literally at a stage where we need to really examine things and ideas at such a core level that the effort requires not only learning new ideas that debunk those experts but also unlearn the misinformation passed around in schools.
> 
> Anyways I don't actually mind putting in the effort to scrutinize your social psychology studies. I'm a sociology major myself (regret it because it was nothing but politically motivated indoctrination into Canada's social welfare statism) I'm up to the task.
> 
> Just my 2 cents :draper2


A bit of weird opening there from you, equating people who've done studies on things like institutional racism, prejudice, stereotypes etc with nutjob anti-vaxxers. Does that mean everyone who's part of the academic world should be treated with such disdain?

I agree we need to examine and re-examine things and theories, after all isn't that what scientific method is about? 

But forgive me if I don't ask you to scrutinize my studies, since you have a very obvious bias-bee in your bonnet about this whole thing and your clear lack of objectivity would not fly as a valid study, as you must know being a sociology major. 

You've clearly made your mind up and I doubt all the counter evidence in the world would change it even though a lot of the studies would've been done with much, much more knowledge and background in the field as yourself.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> A bit of weird opening there from you, equating people who've done studies on things like institutional racism, prejudice, stereotypes etc with nutjob anti-vaxxers. Does that mean everyone who's part of the academic world should be treated with such disdain?


Yes and Why not? Do you really think that I lack exposure to the academic world to the point where I can allow someone to pretend that everything that's taught in academia is beyond reproach ... that the intelligentsia is unquestionable on account of claimed authority? 



> But forgive me if I don't ask you to scrutinize my studies, since you have a very obvious bias-bee in your bonnet about this whole thing and your clear lack of objectivity would not fly as a valid study, as you must know being a sociology major.


You're calling me biased when I've repeatedly made it clear on this forum that I have changed my stances on issues based on an increase in my knowledge?



> You've clearly made your mind up and I doubt all the counter evidence in the world would change it even though a lot of the studies would've been done with much, much more knowledge and background in the field as yourself.


Again, bullshit because I started with being a Muslim and now I'm an ex-muslim. I started with being a pro-feminist and now I'm an anti-feminist. I started with accepting everything I was taught about institutional racism, and then I changed my mind. 

But again, feel free to paint someone that has repeatedly changed his stance based on updating his knowledge throughout his life. 

I'm still going to be nice enough to you to ask you to bring out the studies so that we can critique them. If you agree with the scientific method, then why are you unwilling to partake in it when it comes to your social psych studies? I'm actually inviting you to change my mind. I just had @Tater call me wrong about something in this thread and after his explanation I accepted what he had to say because he clearly knew more on the subject than I did ... Like are you being serious right now?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The DOJ won't investigate the Clinton Foundation despite the fact that emails and suspicions have come up about the donations to this charity? The people of Haiti would really like an answer about the clinton Foundation I'm sure. But the DoJ also said it couldn't possibly process Hilary's emails before the election, yet Wikileaks has processed, organized and read several thousand emails from the DNC and organized them and pointed out evidence of corruption, fraud and collusion among themselves to fuck over Bernie. Not to mention emails simplifying Hispanics as statistics and referring to them as "Taco bow voters".

So the DoJ with nearly unlimited resources who is supposed to investigate this sort of thing cannot/will not do their job but people at Wikileaks can? The DoJ is supposed to keep the Government clean but it seems like they'd rather play favorites and pick and choose who gets brought to justice. It's safe to say the country is in trouble when the Politicians can intimidate the Justice System and in turn the Justice System deems certain Politicians above the law or even investigation.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

^ Because I have actual work to do other than squabble back and forth with you about this and I've already wasted too much time on this forum. Now good day sir.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Marv95 said:


> At the end of the day it's 2016. We as blacks have no one to blame but ourselves for our behavior. We have minds of our own. We have no one to blame but ourselves for the conditions of the Detroits, Baltimores, Newarks(my former backyard, 973 rep), Oaklands, Chicagos of this country keep voting Democrat for decades in our cities and where has it gotten us? Blaming ****** hasn't cut it nor is it going to. Time to look in the mirror for once.


I'm all for encouraging bootstrapping and whatnot.

But looking at it from the other side of the glass, they've still been doing you dirty, and it's plenty fucked up.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> ^ Because I have actual work to do other than squabble back and forth with you about this and I've already wasted too much time on this forum. Now good day sir.


I see ... being condescending isn't a waste of time, but putting in the effort to actually have a meaningful conversation when invited to do so is. 

Ok.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I see ... being condescending isn't a waste of time, but putting in the effort to actually have a meaningful conversation when invited to do so is.
> 
> Ok.


I think you're overestimating your abilities or appeal when you say meaningful 

I'm not going to spend forever linking my e-text, and the dozens of studies involved that would take forever, so you can pretend to be more of an authority than actual doctors and career academic specialists.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> I think you're overestimating your abilities or appeal when you say meaningful
> 
> I'm not going to spend forever linking my e-text, and the dozens of studies involved that would take forever, so you can pretend to be more of an authority than actual doctors and career academic specialists.


Since you're leaving, why don't you read this before you go: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

I'm sure your professors love you though. So at least there's that :draper2


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Since you're leaving, why don't you read this before you go:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
> 
> I'm sure your professors love you though. So at least there's that :draper2


Nice link, good idea to keep in mind.

They should have a caveat at the bottom that says "As a general rule, it's acceptable to put more stock in the outcome of numerous peer-reviewed studies than individual opinions on a wrestling forum".


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Nice link, good idea to keep in mind.
> 
> They should have a caveat at the bottom that says "As a general rule, it's acceptable to put more stock in the outcome of numerous peer-reviewed studies than individual opinions on a wrestling forum".


Well, as a former sociologist, I can tell you with a certain amount of surety that peer-review in social science means something completely different than it does in hard science. In hard sciences peer-review is about replicating the experiment in order to see if the same result can be achieved. Social sciences peer review essentially means quote-mining from earlier "research", pasting it into a new paper, adding some more thoughts, and calling it a new research paper. Social Science research has a serious problem with empirical data and proving theories. It's the very nature of a social science. So if you claim that there's peer-reviewed research, I think it's only fair to make sure people don't get confused by what that actually means. 

Also, here's some criticism from a Sociologist .. an expert if you will. It's not me saying this stuff, so I suppose you should be able to assimilate it. 




> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00089.x/abstract
> 
> *The Neglected Social Psychology of Institutional Racism*
> 
> 
> 
> Theories of institutional racism and institutionalized discrimination have been remarkably influential in the understanding of continuing racial inequality and contemporary race relations. These theories and related claims have also been criticized as being improperly conceptualized, employing circular reasoning, neglecting nonracial dimensions of inequality, failing to specify causal mechanisms, and employing questionable inferences and attributions. These issues can be illuminated by critically reviewing how theories of institutional racism and institutionalized discrimination handle issues of social psychology. Issues of social psychology are often treated only minimally or implicitly, and often dismissively. This neglect is the root of many concerns about theories of institutional racism and institutionalized discrimination. Increased attention to and employment of scholarship in social psychology can contribute greatly to an understanding of contemporary racial inequality and race relations that advances both academic interests and practical interests in the evaluation and reform of the institutional practices that perpetuate racial inequality.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Well, as a former sociologist, I can tell you with a certain amount of surety that peer-review in social science means something completely different than it does in hard science. In hard sciences peer-review is about replicating the experiment in order to see if the same result can be achieved. Social sciences peer review essentially means quote-mining from earlier "research", pasting it into a new paper, adding some more thoughts, and calling it a new research paper. Social Science research has a serious problem with empirical data and proving theories. It's the very nature of a social science. So if you claim that there's peer-reviewed research, I think it's only fair to make sure people don't get confused by what that actually means.
> 
> Also, here's some criticism from a Sociologist .. an expert if you will. It's not me saying this stuff, so I suppose you should be able to assimilate it.


Firstly about peer review, I don't get your explanation. My understanding is peer review means that your study or paper or report is being reviewed by your peers to assess it's validity. I think what you're talking about is either a literature review or simply a new lab report / study etc. None the less I take your point, I've only really done a few subjects into the sociology / social psychology area at this point and so far I don't share the same bad taste at this point. 

That's some great criticism by your source, it shows more study is needed and they don't seem to actually deny the existence of institutional racism itself, more the need to tighten up the process in investigating the area. 

When did you do your study? Perhaps there's a chance that since then the information is a bit more reliable, who knows? The point remains however that you don't really know what I'm studying so perhaps don't be so quick to dismiss it. 

It seems you think the whole area is a crock of shit basically?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Firstly about peer review, I don't get your explanation. My understanding is peer review means that your study or paper or report is being reviewed by your peers to assess it's validity. I think what you're talking about is either a literature review or simply a new lab report / study etc. None the less I take your point, I've only really done a few subjects into the sociology / social psychology area at this point and so far I don't share the same bad taste at this point.
> 
> That's some great criticism by your source, it shows more study is needed and they don't seem to actually deny the existence of institutional racism itself, more the need to tighten up the process in investigating the area.
> 
> When did you do your study? Perhaps there's a chance that since then the information is a bit more reliable, who knows? The point remains however that you don't really know what I'm studying so perhaps don't be so quick to dismiss it. It seems you think the whole are is a crock of shit basically?


I'm talking about the core difference between a hard science peer-review vs a social science peer review. One of the biggest pitfalls (and it's really damaging) of a social science peer-review is that they're far more prone to becoming self-referential to the point of never actually proving what is essentially an assertion and de-evolving into an echo chamber of ideas. In hard science, an experiment is basically something that's replicable. E.G. If I was to take a feather and a bowling ball and drop it in a vacuum, the feather and the bowling ball will reach the ground at the same time ... If someone else was to conduct the same experiment in the same conditions, they would achieve the exact same result ... and if they don't, then you'd have three possible outcomes. Either my conclusion was wrong, my methodology was wrong or the other experimenters methodology was wrong. We see this in hard science all the time. This is why if you remember I once brought up the 2+2=4 example ... That's a hard science. It's a fact. It cannot be refuted. In hard science, introduction of errors is possible, but through peer-review one can reach factual conclusions. This is why "theories" like evolution, gravity, laws of motion etc are considered factual. They are essentially irrefutable - and repeated experiments yield the same results. 

Unfortunately, the problem with peer-reviewed social science is that since experiments and data gathering is subject to far greater errors - and by and large studies are non-repeatable, the "scientists" have over time resorted to analytical review of theories and trying to advance them through self-scrutiny and reasoning. This leads to circular reasoning and eventual development of the echo chamber I talked about earlier. 

Now I won't claim that it's all complete and utter hogwash. A lot of times people are able to within reason make claims that from a logical standpoint are hard to refute. Unfortunately, this cannot be said about theories like institutional racism and a lot of other social science assertions. We have to recognize that they are essentially assertions with reasoned arguments, but acknowledge that they may suffer from the pitfalls of assumptions that the original premise were true. Unfortunately however, in many cases, the original premises in and of themselves are largely left unproven but assumed to be fact, and therefore pollute the "advancement" that occurs afterwards. 

Can I claim that everything ever put forth is complete hogwash? Not really. But the thing I can assert is that ideas like institutional racism aren't dogmatic and don't have to be assumed to be true. They haven't proven to be true. They've been asserted as possible and probable, but social scientists need to find a way to convert them into actual fact - which they haven't been able to - which is why there is so much contention over those ideas. A lot of what is said can be refuted through logic alone and that's their greatest weakness.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I'm talking about the core difference between a hard science peer-review vs a social science peer review. One of the biggest pitfalls (and it's really damaging) of a social science peer-review is that they're far more prone to becoming self-referential to the point of never actually proving what is essentially an assertion and de-evolving into an echo chamber of ideas. In hard science, an experiment is basically something that's replicable. E.G. If I was to take a feather and a bowling ball and drop it in a vacuum, the feather and the bowling ball will reach the ground at the same time ... If someone else was to conduct the same experiment in the same conditions, they would achieve the exact same result ... and if they don't, then you'd have three possible outcomes. Either my conclusion was wrong, my methodology was wrong or the other experimenters methodology was wrong. We see this in hard science all the time. This is why if you remember I once brought up the 2+2=4 example ... That's a hard science. It's a fact. It cannot be refuted. In hard science, introduction of errors is possible, but through peer-review one can reach factual conclusions. This is why "theories" like evolution, gravity, laws of motion etc are considered factual. They are essentially irrefutable - and repeated experiments yield the same results.
> 
> Unfortunately, the problem with peer-reviewed social science is that since experiments and data gathering is subject to far greater errors - and by and large studies are non-repeatable, the "scientists" have over time resorted to analytical review of theories and trying to advance them through self-scrutiny and reasoning. This leads to circular reasoning and eventual development of the echo chamber I talked about earlier.
> 
> Now I won't claim that it's all complete and utter hogwash. A lot of times people are able to within reason make claims that from a logical standpoint are hard to refute. Unfortunately, this cannot be said about theories like institutional racism and a lot of other social science assertions. We have to recognize that they are essentially assertions with reasoned arguments, but acknowledge that they may suffer from the pitfalls of assumptions that the original premise were true. Unfortunately however, in many cases, the original premises in and of themselves are largely left unproven but assumed to be fact, and therefore pollute the "advancement" that occurs afterwards.
> 
> Can I claim that everything ever put forth is complete hogwash? Not really. But the thing I can assert is that ideas like institutional racism aren't dogmatic and don't have to be assumed to be true. They haven't proven to be true. They've been asserted as possible and probable, but social scientists need to find a way to convert them into actual fact - which they haven't been able to - which is why there is so much contention over those ideas. A lot of what is said can be refuted through logic alone and that's their greatest weakness.


It's ok you don't need to explain to me basic scientific processes, I'm aware of hypothesis/aims/theories/experiments/review/facts etc etc thanks  - What I meant was is you're using the phrase 'peer review' incorrectly, but who cares.

I take your point, ofcourse the process is going to be much more difficult when you're talking tangible things vs culture/society etc etc, but I don't think that means you can just throw out all the work done in the past, and there's plenty of it, or write most of them off as being flawed. In fact flawed research is essential so next time you improve and get closer to an accepted theory, and there's plenty of that in hard science as well.

In any case, if I think about the possible concept of 'Institutional Racism' in the simplest broken down terms like this:

1. Racism exists IMO, and people can have racist attitudes may affect their behaviour
2. People create culture together through behaviour etc
3. People create what we call 'institutions' and thus create culture within said institutions
4. Large, social groups of people with possible racist attitudes may 'infuse' said attitudes into the institutional culture.
5. Thus, institutional racism (more subtle than overt)

Anyway let's pull the pin on this thing soon or start a bloody psychology thread.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

LMAO so Assange is a "traitor and criminal" for doing what the average person SHOULD be doing in questioning and exposing a government that is bought and paid for by financial institutions, wall street equities, media giants, and military powers (domestic and foreign)?

:LOL


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Two new Gary Johnson/Bill Weld ads about to hit TV in the coming days:


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'll be honest.

A Johnson Weld sounds extremely painful.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

You don't feel the Johnson?


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> From what I've heard, the police tend to benefit the most because don't they get to keep drug money as well as get huge funds?


For example:



> *Police and Prison Guard Groups Fight Marijuana Legalization in California*
> 
> Roughly half of the money raised to oppose a ballot measure to legalize recreational marijuana in California is coming from police and prison guard groups, terrified that they might lose the revenue streams to which they have become so deeply addicted.
> 
> Drug war money has become a notable source of funding for law enforcement interests. Huge government grants and asset-seizure windfalls benefit police departments, while the constant supply of prisoners keeps the prison business booming.
> 
> Continue reading...





DesolationRow said:


> And I still have your PM to read, @Tater! Apologies.l


No worries. I'm interested to hear your thoughts when you get around to it.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763879577433153536

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763531951827357696

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763491037218078720

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763479841114947584

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763912513264037888

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763855342488866816

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763839080308150272

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763507071689949184
:sodone


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

That's fucking brilliant, especially because I've been Netflix binging Futurama the past month. Trump has definitely got some Zap Bran....n qualities to him. I'd say a little Nixon's head too.

ETA: lol @ Bran....n being censored.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hundreds of thoughts flying through the mind like fireflies whirring about over the running creek from this thread, but for now, an update:

Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney of the Southern District of New York, he who succeeded in twisting JPMorgan Chase's arm in forfeiting via settlement $1.7 billion following JP Morgan Chase's knowingly failed to alert authorities about the rampant fraud of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, the largest forfeiture ever demanded from a bank in American history, is reportedly launching a corruption probe that will thoroughly investigate the Clintons' money-laundering ring known as the Clinton Foundation.

This would join multiple FBI investigations which are still underway and focused on rooting out what has truly been occurring with the Clinton Foundation. 

It is still early enough in the newest episode of _Keeping Up With the Clintons_ to believe that this week the authorities truly will get 'em before the inevitable _deus ex machina_ appears in the final segment to keep their criminal enterprises afloat for the following week's sure-to-be-riveting installment.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

To be a bit more serious, institutional racism is massively a thing all over the world.

Best example in America is redlining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

Basically back in the day, and not that long ago, would be living memory for some, African American people weren't able to buy homes in certain suburbs as banks wouldn't provide them mortgages to do so. 

Now those suburbs were the nicer suburbs, so African American people were never able to buy homes in the nicer suburbs. 

Hence they now live in less nice suburbs as they've inherited houses in less nice suburbs, which is the actual cause of much of the crime the community experiences.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Hundreds of thoughts flying through the mind like fireflies whirring about over the running creek from this thread, but for now, an update:
> 
> Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney of the Southern District of New York, he who succeeded in twisting JPMorgan Chase's arm in forfeiting via settlement $1.7 billion following JP Morgan Chase's knowingly failed to alert authorities about the rampant fraud of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, the largest forfeiture ever demanded from a bank in American history, is reportedly launching a corruption probe that will thoroughly investigate the Clintons' money-laundering ring known as the Clinton Foundation.
> 
> This would join multiple FBI investigations which are still underway and focused on rooting out what has truly been occurring with the Clinton Foundation.
> 
> It is still early enough in the newest episode of _Keeping Up With the Clintons_ to believe that this week the authorities truly will get 'em before the inevitable _deus ex machina_ appears in the final segment to keep their criminal enterprises afloat for the following week's sure-to-be-riveting installment.


Did you see the video of the DoJ completely ignoring and dodging questions that people were asking them about if they felt there was any wrong doing with the Clinton emails and Foundation stuff? It was pretty funny! Just outright refusing to answer.. this is our.. Justice System.. impartial.. :frown2:


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Admit it...even you Sanders fans love that picture.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Admit it...even you Sanders fans love that picture.


Maybe not. He recently lost his dozens of fans over his $600,000 summer home. :kobelol

It's funnier because he basically created the backlash against himself.

BTW, I personally feel him and his wife who are highly successful people deserve to spend their money how they wish --- but it has been amusing to see his own supporters turn on him because of the things he has himself said.



Miss Sally said:


> Did you see the video of the DoJ completely ignoring and dodging questions that people were asking them about if they felt there was any wrong doing with the Clinton emails and Foundation stuff? It was pretty funny! Just outright refusing to answer.. this is our.. Justice System.. impartial.. :frown2:


Genuine question as someone with limited knowledge on the subject. How can the legal system be impartial when the supreme court justices are hand-picked by the POTUS?

If you want true impartiality, then you'd have a system where the governing body has absolutely nothing to do with the people in legislation at all, right?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Maybe not. He recently lost his dozens of fans over his $600,000 summer home. :kobelol
> 
> It's funnier because he basically created the backlash against himself.
> 
> BTW, I personally feel him and his wife who are highly successful people deserve to spend their money how they wish --- but it has been amusing to see his own supporters turn on him because of the things he has himself said.
> 
> 
> 
> Genuine question as someone with limited knowledge on the subject. How can the legal system be impartial when the supreme court justices are hand-picked by the POTUS?
> 
> If you want true impartiality, then you'd have a system where the governing body has absolutely nothing to do with the people in legislation at all, right?



The DoJ and the FBI are supposed to be our fail safe from a corrupt system of politicians and judges. They're meant to watch the watchers.. but now they bow to the watchers.. what makes it even scarier is that Hilary isn't even in office or won the election but they won't touch her.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> The DoJ and the FBI are supposed to be our fail safe from a corrupt system of politicians and judges. They're meant to watch the watchers.. but now they bow to the watchers.. what makes it even scarier is that Hilary isn't even in office or won the election but they won't touch her.


The longer I stay here, the more I realize just how broken the American political system is. In pretty much every other country I've lived in the government is easily deposible and fears it which in itself is the greatest control you can have. Once the fear of impeachment is taken out of the equation as I've noticed that it has been since Bill Clinton, then those in power have no need to care about anyone but themselves. Even the corrupt if they fear someone or something will rule with a benevolent hand. 

I think the reason why the people here get away with what they do get away with is because ultimately even the average to poor americans are just happy enough to not really be bothered. 

On a sliding scale of corruption, I'd say that American governments have created a perception that things are better than they really are :shrug That's my read anyways. 

I'd like to see an American revolution against the 2-party system at least but apparently even in the worst election year of all time people are still left with no real choice ... 

Revolutions can't happen till the people realize that a revolution is a choice in and of itself.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> The longer I stay here, the more I realize just how broken the American political system is. In pretty much every other country I've lived in the government is easily deposible. I think the reason why the people here get away with what they do get away with is because ultimately even the average to poor americans are just happy enough to not really be bothered.
> 
> On a sliding scale of corruption, I'd say that American governments have created a perception that things are better than they really are :shrug That's my read anyways.
> 
> I'd like to see an American revolution against the 2-party system at least but apparently even in the worst election year of all time people are still left with no real choice ...
> 
> Revolutions can't happen till the people realize that a revolution is a choice in and of itself.




Well the issues are people are afraid of losing their jobs over speaking out, not to blame this on SJW's but companies now will fire you for speaking out on somethings that may make them "look bad" so basically they want ton control your behavior in several ways so people will never stand up to the politicians.

People are at a point in history (Even poor people) where they are exposed to overwhelming amounts of stimuli and entertainment, this dulls critical thinking and as long as the good times and shows keep going most people won't care.

The overindulgence in handouts, freebies and welfare. People are happy to stay at home never working, never aspiring, just breeding and ensuring that the cycle never ends. They vote for whomever gives them the greatest gifts, never realizing that those gifts are essentially keeping them from becoming better people or having better lives.

Chasing material things, this could go with no wanting to lose your job but really the media wants people to chase material things, to live beyond their means to make you debt slaves, large debt = if you lose your jobs or don't work enough it goes bye bye. They're too busy burning themselves out to care.

Pandering to people, Colleges now pander to the lowest common denominator. Quotas, legacies and moronic teachers have ensured that colleges don't take in the brightest people but people who won't give a shit or can be easily manipulated. You're an Asian with a 4.0 GPA and come from a poor family? To fucking bad, someone with a 3.0 GPA who happens to fit the quota they want got your spot at one of the top Unis. Take a look at Yale and some of the top schools now days.. it's sad. 

Purposeful racial division, Obama has made race relations worse than it has been in years. This is great for corrupt politics, simply say "racism" and anyone's logical argument is now invalid, claim your political opposition is racist and they lose a bunch of votes. Claim you'll help minorities but really fuck them over (LOL Bill Clinton) and still get the votes. While Americans tear each other apart, hurl insults and names and watching each other, trying to police free speech.. Nobody is watching what the Politicians do. 

So even if a lot of people realize this, how many will act? 20-30 years ago if the scandals that came out of the DNC and with Hilary came out it would be done an over with, she'd be buried career wise and the DNC would have to rebuild from the bottom up, not to mention lose a huge part of their voter base. Now? Nobody gives a shit because it's "me me me me me! At least we're not them! It's better to be corrupt such and such over joining another side!" kind of thinking.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/12/donald-trump-obama-isis-founder-sarcasm

Flip flopper.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/11/trump-clinton-mental-stamina-florida-rally

Is Trump healthy enough to run?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> So even if a lot of people realize this, how many will act? 20-30 years ago if the scandals that came out of the DNC and with Hilary came out it would be done an over with, she'd be buried career wise and the DNC would have to rebuild from the bottom up, not to mention lose a huge part of their voter base. Now? Nobody gives a shit because it's "me me me me me! At least we're not them! It's better to be corrupt such and such over joining another side!" kind of thinking.


The problem is in the 2-party system itself. People don't want to even accept the possibility of a 3rd option. The indoctrination starts young. Someone I know is only a democrat because their grandparents were ... It's almost like voting is a matter of family tradition more than it's a matter of policies. The vast majority of American families have been voting the same as a whole for decades. Switching parties is seen as taboo. Same goes for the GOP. The entire nation is split in a binary and there's just no consideration beyond that. If people could think beyond 2 parties, there's no way either Trump or Hillary would be the top candidates right now - at all. 

This is something I saw amongst the poorest working class in pakistan that vote specifically for their feudal lord because their feudal lord has helped them cultivate the land and therefore kept them fed literally. 

Essentially, congress seems to be made up of similar "feudal" lords ... who may or may not be land owners, but are usually the richest, most successful people. Success in and of itself is seen as a barometer for political success ... but there's a difference. The values that one needs to succeed materially aren't the same values one needs to run a government or society. That's where the real failure of the American voter base lies imo. I actually am beginning to see the American system as just a modernization of the ancient feudal system :shrug

I mean we even have sons, and brothers and wives running for the head of state position and nothing can be or has been done to stop that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/the-age-of-neofeudalism_b_2566546.html

I hate huffpost now, but this article from 2013 when they were still _somewhat _credible is pretty well thought out. It has socialist undertones which I don't agree with, but I can't argue with the assertion that our presidency is starting to look more and more like a monarchy of sorts. I don't necessarily blame corporatism to the extent that most people who think this do, but there are definitely certain elements of corporate influence that create the imbalances which is undeniable. 

The main reason why I like Trump at this point (though that faith is sinking as well) is because he's breaking the 2-party system. Even though he's running on the GOP platform, he can't even speak their language and that to me makes him the most interesting choice. Almost the real revolutionary that even Bernie wasn't.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://nbcpoll.com/nbc-poll-donald-trump-media-trust/










So much for the media bias impacting candidate perception. Currently at 89%.

Interestingly, on the presidential poll itself, they have a picture up of Clinton leading 47 to 43% over Trump ... but after voting myself, it was something like 40% Trump, 13% Clinton and 47% Other.


----------



## Marv95

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/12/donald-trump-obama-isis-founder-sarcasm
> 
> Flip flopper.


He's not flip flopping. You think Trump believes Obama was _literally_ the founder of ISIS? He's talking about Obama pulling out of Iraq which lead to it.



> I don’t care. He was the founder. His, *t**he way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay?*





> I mean, with his bad policies, that’s why ISIS came about... If he would have done things properly, you wouldn’t have had ISIS.





> But they wouldn’t talk about your language, and they do talk about my language, right?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It's also not just Trump's claim btw. There's actually a pretty vocal group within the left as well as democrats that feel the same way. 

It's not that they think that Trump is bullshitting .. It's just that they are trying to make it into a bigger deal because Trump was the one that said it. 

Plenty of democrats have gone on record stating that Obama had a hand in creating the ISIS. Democrats that voted against the War have stuck to their guns that it destabilized the region. The thing is that there are neo-cons in the democrats, and there's anti-war proponents in the mix as well. They're both at odds with one another, and the creation of ISIS has been hotly debated. It's not something that Trump just cooked up out of thin air.. It was actually imo one of his strongest statements yet. :draper2

If nothing else, these comments have exposed the bias of the entire muslim blogosphere which is completely silent on these comments because most of them believe exactly that Obama created the ISIS. It's been interesting to try to poke a response out of Muslims after these comments, but most seem to have been silenced.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Marv95 said:


> He's not flip flopping. You think Trump believes Obama was _literally_ the founder of ISIS? He's talking about Obama pulling out of Iraq which lead to it.


He reiterate the claim even when the softball conservative interviewer tried to guide him to focus on Obama's policies. Trump has praised the likes of the national enquirer and infowars who peddles this sort of opinions. Why would I not believe he actually believe these things?



Reaper said:


> It's also not just Trump's claim btw. There's actually a pretty vocal group within the left as well as democrats that feel the same way.
> 
> It's not that they think that Trump is bullshitting .. It's just that they are trying to make it into a bigger deal because Trump was the one that said it.
> 
> Plenty of democrats have gone on record stating that Obama had a hand in creating the ISIS. Democrats that voted against the War have stuck to their guns that it destabilized the region. The thing is that there are neo-cons in the democrats, and there's anti-war proponents in the mix as well. They're both at odds with one another, and the creation of ISIS has been hotly debated. It's not something that Trump just cooked up out of thin air.. It was actually imo one of his strongest statements yet. :draper2
> 
> If nothing else, these comments have exposed the bias of the entire muslim blogosphere which is completely silent on these comments because most of them believe exactly that Obama created the ISIS. It's been interesting to try to poke a response out of Muslims after these comments, but most seem to have been silenced.


You two might have a point if he didn't double down on his claims in two media appearances after the first use of those words in a rally. Only to backtrack now using sarcasm as an excuse which is clearly fire fighting by the GOP.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-doubles-down-on-claim-that-obama-founded-isis/



> "He was the founder of ISIS, absolutely," Trump said in a phone interview with CNBC.
> 
> Trump first made the claim on Wednesday night at a rally in Sunrise, Florida.
> 
> "In fact, in many respects, you know they honor President Obama," Trump said. "ISIS is honoring President Obama. He is the founder of ISIS. He is the founder of ISIS, okay? He's the founder! He founded ISIS! And I would say the co-founder would be 'Crooked Hillary Clinton.'"
> 
> At the rally, Trump also "awarded" a "Most Valuable Player" award, similar to ones handed out in all the major sports leagues, to Obama and the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Soon after the CNBC interview, Trump refused to back down on Hugh Hewitt's radio show. Hewitt initially attempted to get Trump to tone down his comments. "I know what you meant, you meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace," Hewitt said.
> 
> Trump wasn't having it: "No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton."
> 
> Hewitt responded, "But he's not sympathetic to them. He hates them. He's trying to kill them."
> 
> Trump was undeterred.
> 
> "I don't care. He was the founder. His -- the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay?"
> 
> And then later, in typical Trump style, he added: "No, it's no mistake. Everyone's liking it. I think they're liking it. I give him the most valuable player award. And I give it to him, and I give it to, I gave the co-founder to Hillary. I don't know if you heard that."
> 
> After Hewitt's interview, Trump took the stage in front of the National Association of Home Builders in Miami and again repeated the claim


There is a difference between stating failed policies as allowing ISIS to grow and saying ISIS is honouring Obama and Obama is the founder of ISIS. Trump is bullshitting to grab headlines, only to flip flop on his BS when the media does their job to correct him, to build the narrative that media is picking on him.

Everyone is focusing on defending his claim of Obama being the founder of ISIS and not criticising the other claim that ISIS is honouring Obama? Do the Muslim blogosphere think ISIS is honouring Obama?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> claim that ISIS is honouring Obama? Do the Muslim blogosphere think ISIS is honouring Obama?


http://conservativetribune.com/isis-thanks-obama-weapons/

He's absolutely not wrong about ISIS honoring Obama. 



















http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ory-in-ramadi-thanks-obama-for-spoils-of-war/

You really need to step up your google game ... It's really one-sided as of right now.

Now I agree that his backtracking is flawed in that he actually didn't need to backtrack. It was a strong statement and he could have stuck by it. It wouldn't have affected his numbers much because this is a debateable issue that he could have argued in favor of. CNN spent several years doing the same when they continued to blame Bush for it ... and now I agree that Bush's Iraq War led to this entire fiasco, it was also under Obama and Hillary's eventual mismanagement that ISIS in its current form rose to power. It may have been formed of splinter groups with origins before Obama and Hillary, but ISIS itself formed during their administration and there's several groups in there that Obama directly helped --- as has always been one of the covert policies of the US to help splinter groups fight proxy wars on their behalf. This has gone on since the Carter administration. So ultimately, the rise of Islamist extremism can actually be linked all the way back to Carter - who was also a democrat. 

Bush at least led wars directly ... They may have been misguided ... but democrats have essentially made things worse with their covert proxy wars and misguided selection of "freedom fighters" that turned terrorist.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump shouldn't have backtracked that claim. He wasn't wrong. :draper2 Obama and Hillary sent weapons to the Syrian opposition which they knew included Al Qaeda to isolate Assad's regime. Out of that, we got ISIS. Quibbling over what constitutes "founding" the group seems trivial compared to the important questions that whole fiasco raises about our foreign policy and the enduring role of the military-industrial complex.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Anyone trying to say Obama had no hand in creating ISIS is a moron and should forever never get involved in political discussion. The US spent 500 million training and working/arming people who then turned around and formed the Islamic State. The US then gave 500 million dollars worth of weapons to fight Assad and to Syrian rebels who now have mostly joined up with ISIS. ISIS has captured US equipment, trucks, weapons from various places. So 100% absolutely did Obama have a hand in this.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Laying all the blame for ISIS at Obama's feet is just as retarded as saying none of it is his fault. Neocons gonna neocon. The disaster in the Middle East is a result of decades of neocon foreign policy. Things weren't exactly humming along smoothly over their before the current administration rose to power. The blame for this is shared equally by the Republicrats who created this mess while serving their masters in the military industrial complex.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the neocons founded ISIS. (No, not literally, but their policies led to its birth.) Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and friends took ISIS and hooked it up an unyielding hose of water and "Miracle-Gro." 

The Islamic State was the socio-politically inevitable backlash to the Shia cleansing of the Sunnis, which the U.S. had backed in 2003 and 2004. Anyone who knew anything about the populations of Iraq should have foreseen its rise. Come late 2006, however, not only did the Islamic State exist (as it had been founded in 2005), but to one degree or another it was supported by the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia and others, all of whom were concerned about the (again, inevitable) consequence of the Iraq War, namely the rise of Shia Iran. Thus came the "Redirection" written about as early as the winter of 2007 throughout the region as the U.S. liberally supported Salafist fighters and Wahhabi insurgents. 

Naturally, the U.S.'s "War on Terror" created untold numbers of terrorists and took what was already a highly volatile region and turned it into a raging inferno. This is the neo-Jacobin "creative destruction" such neocon luminaries (and lunatics) as Michael Ledeen perpetually write about in their weekly op-eds. We are seeing the fruits of it. Obama and his friends have been no better, of course. Right now the Obama administration is kicking around plans to "retake Mosul" in October. 

One of my favorite exchanges in modern/postmodern political dialogue would have to be the one attributed to Margaret Thatcher and Enoch Powell just before the British fought the war against the Argentines for the Falklands in 1982. Mrs. Thatcher argued that the war against the Argentines was for "Western values." Powell was terse: "We do not fight for values," he said. "I would fight for this country even if it had a Communist government." "Nonsense, Enoch," Mrs. Thatcher snapped. "If I send British troops abroad, it will be to defend our values." Powell would not budge. "No, Prime Minister," he said. "Values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed."

What we see in the Middle East today is the product of a "values"-oriented foreign policy. Purported "conservatives" speak in the language of Robespierre and chirp about the benefits of "creative destruction" (not only physical but in their occasional hosannas to marketism, sort of the materialistic flipside of Marxism). Supposed "liberals" cheer the sodomizing and savage slaughter of heads of state they wish to see eliminated, and are responsible for the present "routine" ghastliness found in the charred bodies of Syrian children and the merciless destruction and starvation of hundreds of thousands of Yemeni children. Were nations to be judged by the actions of their government, we Americans surely deserve to be destroyed. Fortunately, patriots will fight to defend their home and hearth, even if the government is Communist, Fascist, democratic or a mélange of the aforementioned.


----------



## Cliffy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

those polls jesus

trump is going to get massacred in a landslide


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vince's Massive Bulge said:


> those polls jesus
> 
> trump is going to get massacred in a landslide


*Yeah that was quite obvious a few weeks ago. Trump never wanted to win this... the GoP look like fools and carney Trump is simply laughing. *


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vince's Massive Bulge said:


> those polls jesus
> 
> trump is going to get massacred in a landslide


While it is still early and it remains within the realm of conceivable possibilities that Julian Assange or someone else may impact the election, or the debates turn this thing around for Donald Trump, all you have to know is Arizona and Georgia are both 50/50 coin tosses based on just about every poll from those states. 

Trump is still trying to have his ground game campaign office opened in Hamilton County, Ohio! @Pratchett 

He is presently leading Hillary, based on the aggregate of polls, by a mere 5.0% or so in Texas. He's going to win Texas but this marks the beginning of the end of the GOP as a party with national political aspirations. 

Seen a fair number of pro-Trump people point to his rallies versus Hillary's. It's true. He has the "true believers" on his side. He has the deeper support.

Hillary enjoys tacit support among millions of Democrats who do not care to attend her rallies, however. As long as they are sufficiently motivated to vote on election day, her "soft" support will crush his rabid support. 

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo


----------



## Cliffy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

hopefully they have a party makeover move towards the center and nominate somebody sane next time around

clinton for more than 1 term might just be the end of civilization


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vince's Massive Bulge said:


> hopefully they have a party makeover move towards the center and nominate somebody sane next time around
> 
> clinton for more than 1 term might just be the end of civilization


If Hillary Clinton succeeds in implementing "comprehensive immigration reform" after being elected, and with the present demographical trajectory of the U.S. already well set into motion dating back decades, it doesn't much matter who the Republican Party nominates in 2020.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> If Hillary Clinton succeeds in implementing "comprehensive immigration reform" after being elected, and with the present demographical trajectory of the U.S. already well set into motion dating back decades, it doesn't much matter who the Republican Party nominates in 2020.


Which is quite sad considering how the Democrats actually view their non-white voters. It seems that outrage can be soothed with placating and the potential to receive "free" stuff.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Minorities + women + idiot college students are majority Hillary voters and Hillary is giving them the America they really want. 

I actually won't blame them. They're voting for exactly what they want. Its just that they're unaware that what they're voting for is actually harmful for them.

If you offer a sick man poison and say that it is medicine, he'll still gladly take it.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



AryaDark said:


> *Yeah that was quite obvious a few weeks ago. Trump never wanted to win this... the GoP look like fools and carney Trump is simply laughing. *


 ERR, I think the media has you hooked.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Pretty sure LC is trolling. You'd have to be delusional to think Trump is a ringer. That would be the worst con in the history of cons. Trump is much smarter than that.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Minorities + women + idiot college students are majority Hillary voters and Hillary is giving them the America they really want.
> 
> I actually won't blame them. They're voting for exactly what they want. Its just that they're unaware that what they're voting for is actually harmful for them.


When you say "they're voting for exactly what they want", it means they are voting for the illusion presented to them by the MSM. The reason they're unaware that what they're voting for is actually harmful for them is because they are either too stupid or too brainwashed by propaganda to know any better. These idiots didn't learn their lesson when they voted for Obama's hope and change agenda and only ended up with more neocon foreign policy and neoliberal economic policy. Now they're being herded into doing it all over again while the USA continues to crumble from within.

The biggest problem with the American voting public is a combination of pure ignorance and stupidity. Far too many only tune in during election season, so all they see is the bullshit propaganda in full swing. Most of them don't pay attention to what these oligarchic puppets do once actually elected into office. They just go back to their droning lives until the next election comes around.



Reaper said:


> If you offer a sick man poison and say that it is medicine, he'll still gladly take it.


Anyone stupid enough to vote for Hillary will gladly take it. Me, I want to know what the fuck I'm ingesting first.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> ERR, I think the media has you hooked.
> 
> https://youtu.be/DeHsXU6twFg


*Media? Nah I don't even watch that crap.

As for Trump being a ringer... I don't necessarily believe that. Well not at all actually but I am convinced Trump was and is in this for the laughs alone and never really wanted to win. He just wanted to make a mockery out of it like the carney he is and he's done a fine damn job of that.*


----------



## Marv95

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Yes people are stupid to vote for Billary. The MSM has a big part in it. BUT, Trump should share some blame himself.

He should be blowing her out in spite of the MSM. She's _garbage_. But the USC poll has him down by 1 when it was him up by 7 not too long ago. Why, not just because of his controversial words that can be misinterpreted and spun by the media, but because of grassroots. Or lack thereof. Where are the field offices? Where are the ads? Get a ground game going. You only got <3 months to go yet there have been Billary tv ads all over but no Trump ads. Get folks on the streets knocking on doors; get them to register and get them to vote. If the monster vote does exist then _go after it_. 

When you're struggling in Red states you have a problem. No more gaffes. Time to focus on the message and start spending your money wisely. He _can_ win but he's gotta start shaping up. Rallies aren't enough. Twitter and Facebook aren't enough.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



AryaDark said:


> *Media? Nah I don't even watch that crap.
> 
> As for Trump being a ringer... I don't necessarily believe that. Well not at all actually but I am convinced Trump was and is in this for the laughs alone and never really wanted to win. He just wanted to make a mockery out of it like the carney he is and he's done a fine damn job of that.*


Nah. If you'd have read any of his books you would know he's been pushing for a presedent that would imput his policy for years. This has always been on his mind.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Yeah that was quite obvious a few weeks ago. Trump never wanted to win this... the GoP look like fools and carney Trump is simply laughing.


It's a fun conspiracy, but Trump is not the kind of guy who would willingly take a dive.





>


:lol That's too funny! My stomach's dying over here.

- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Marv95 said:


> When you're struggling in Red states you have a problem. No more gaffes. Time to focus on the message and start spending your money wisely. He _can_ win but he's gotta start shaping up. Rallies aren't enough. Twitter and Facebook aren't enough.


The no-more gaffes thing I don't think he's capable of. His ego appears to be so giant he can't stop himself saying whatever pops into his mind at the time, and all he knows is the louder and more outrageous the better. The Obama-Isis thing is just the latest, by next week there'll be three more. He didn't even have the sense to try and clarify when some wet-lettuce-leaf conservative radio host lead him through like a parent steadying a blindfolded child so they can hit the piñata.

I don't think him just consistently screaming about how awful America is and how he's going to fix every thing is going to cut it.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> http://conservativetribune.com/isis-thanks-obama-weapons/
> 
> He's absolutely not wrong about ISIS honoring Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ory-in-ramadi-thanks-obama-for-spoils-of-war/
> 
> You really need to step up your google game ... It's really one-sided as of right now.
> 
> Now I agree that his backtracking is flawed in that he actually didn't need to backtrack. It was a strong statement and he could have stuck by it. It wouldn't have affected his numbers much because this is a debateable issue that he could have argued in favor of. CNN spent several years doing the same when they continued to blame Bush for it ... and now I agree that Bush's Iraq War led to this entire fiasco, it was also under Obama and Hillary's eventual mismanagement that ISIS in its current form rose to power. It may have been formed of splinter groups with origins before Obama and Hillary, but ISIS itself formed during their administration and there's several groups in there that Obama directly helped --- as has always been one of the covert policies of the US to help splinter groups fight proxy wars on their behalf. This has gone on since the Carter administration. So ultimately, the rise of Islamist extremism can actually be linked all the way back to Carter - who was also a democrat.
> 
> Bush at least led wars directly ... They may have been misguided ... but democrats have essentially made things worse with their covert proxy wars and misguided selection of "freedom fighters" that turned terrorist.


That is examples of honouring Obama? Give me a fing break. Those were goading the US and Obama after a victory. That's like Seth Rollins thanking Reigns after a victory and citing that as an example of Rollins honouring Reigns. How desperate do you have to be to cite that as an example to prove a point?

Tell me to step up my google game, cite deeply conservative sources with little to no journalistic ethics. :lol If nothing else, this elections has shown how dangerous these conservative echo chambers can be, poisoning the minds of so many people into thinking a certain way that no amount of fact checking or dialogue can shake their resolve.

Trump losing isn't make the situation go away. Again criticising Obama's policies is valid, labelling him as founder and saying ISIS is honouring him just take away from that valid criticism. Obama deserves all the blame for taking the threat of ISIS lightly. Obama also had to follow the withdrawal of troops from Iraq signed by Bush, face a country and military that is fatigued from two wars and years of occupation and had no appetite for another when the Arab spring happened. Obama was following Reagan's policy in intervening to protect America interest without using American troops, so if you want to extend blame all the way to Carter, blame Reagan for ISIS as well. Give me a fing break trying to shift blame to non-conservative ideology.



AryaDark said:


> *Yeah that was quite obvious a few weeks ago. Trump never wanted to win this... the GoP look like fools and carney Trump is simply laughing. *


I have a feeling Trump is tanking the election because he doesn't want to have his tax returns released. If he gets elected, he will be pressured even more to release them, very much similar to his birther movement that made Obama release his birth certificate. If he loses, this will go away.

As for reasons why Trump don't want his tax returns released, it could as innocent as not wanting to show he paid little to no tax like most real estate developers or allowing his business partners and opponents from using those figures against his interests, or something more sinister like he has been misrepresenting his wealth that he use to sell his brand. None are good for him.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

They have no journalistic ethics because they're conservative? LOL!


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*I just find it hard to believe he actually wants to win this with the way he acts and the things he says and the people in the GoP he deliberately pisses off. 

I think Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate Hillary Clinton can run against for President of the United states and win. I'm sure that's a coincidence *total shoot btw*. She probably gets blown out by any other Republican candidate.*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> They have no journalistic ethics because they're conservative? LOL!


They have no journalistic ethics because they don't practice them, not because they are conservative.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*btw here's the second part of the video Tater posted and a really good watch. He also thinks that Trump is purposefully trying to destroy the GoP.... not because he's trying to help the Clintons but because he simply hates the GoP.





*


----------



## Death Rider

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It would explain some of the things Trump comes out with if he is trying to lose on purpose...


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://usapoliticsnow.com/hillary-suffers-parkinsons-disease-according-anesthesiologist/

Rather interesting, to be honest.



Vic Capri said:


> Because we have the most corrupt Administration since Ulysses Grant.
> 
> - Vic


Warren G. Harding would be proud of this clusterfuck of corruption as well. :ugh


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



AryaDark said:


> *I just find it hard to believe he actually wants to win this with the way he acts and the things he says and the people in the GoP he deliberately pisses off.
> 
> I think Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate Hillary Clinton can run against for President of the United states and win. I'm sure that's a coincidence *total shoot btw*. She probably gets blown out by any other Republican candidate.*


I think she could have potentially beaten Ted Cruz.

But yeah, she likely loses to just about anyone else.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



AryaDark said:


> *I just find it hard to believe he actually wants to win this with the way he acts and the things he says and the people in the GoP he deliberately pisses off.
> 
> I think Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate Hillary Clinton can run against for President of the United states and win. I'm sure that's a coincidence *total shoot btw*.*












8*D

But in all seriousness, since the Muslim ban comment, it's been pretty obvious that Don Juan hasn't been doing this out of genuine interest of being the President, but rather for shits and giggles in the form of:

- Further exposing the ass backwards-ness of the overwhelming majority of the Republican Party, thus speeding up the destruction of their reputation and relevancy (which I'm totally fine with :trump)

- Giving Hilldog the rub so THE GIRLHOOD DREAM CAN COME TRUE, since she's too much of a shit for brains to actually win it on her own despite this year's field of Republican candidates (except for Rand Paul) being utter trash


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't get where people think any other Republican except maybe Ted Cruz would destroy Hillary.

Remember that Mitt Romney was effectively portrayed as a secretly racist misogynist eater of the poor. Mitt fucking Romney, about the most milquetoast man you can find in politics. 

It doesn't matter who the Republican is, if he's running for president he is portrayed as a mixture of Hitler, Bull Connor, a founding member of the He-Man Woman Hater's Club, and Ebenezer Scrooge pre-Christmas Eve.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm surprised Trump hasn't used the anti-hispanic email and other DNC fuckery to paint the Democrats as liars, tie the Democrats to the dishonest media, especially with Sanders supporters and you completely muddle Hilary's whole message. Turnabout is fair play, do what the Dems have done all these years, they're vulnerable. At least that would be my strategy.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I'm surprised Trump hasn't used the anti-hispanic email and other DNC fuckery to paint the Democrats as liars, tie the Democrats to the dishonest media, especially with Sanders supporters and you completely muddle Hilary's whole message. Turnabout is fair play, do what the Dems have done all these years, they're vulnerable. At least that would be my strategy.


It just shows Trump has no idea what he's doing. He just shouts slogans, he apparently can't execute any kind of plan with detail.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> It just shows Trump has no idea what he's doing. He just shouts slogans, he apparently can't execute any kind of plan with detail.


Right...

Ask Megyn Kelly what she thinks of Trump releasing that job interview tape a while back.

Underestimate Trump at your own peril.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Right...
> 
> Ask Megyn Kelly what she thinks of Trump releasing that job interview tape a while back.
> 
> Underestimate Trump at your own peril.


I have no idea what you're referring to about Megyn Kelly and I don't really care, but I would make the point attacking a television show host and attacking your political opponent when you're running for pres are two entirely different things - one is extremely important and one isn't. 

Why don't you address Miss Sally's perfectly valid point specifically? Trump has had huge Hillary weak points handed to him on a platter and has failed to capitalise, simple as that. Maybe just once you could admit a shortcoming on his part like some other Team Trumpsers here have had the humility to do so.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Rand Paul calls for Hillary to be indicted due to lying to Congress back in 2013 about her knowledge regarding a Libyan weapons shipment. He also outlines quite a few of the crooked dealings of the Clintons in this interview. Amazing she is currently running for president as the Democratic Party's nominee. Goes to show how corrupt our government truly is, and how certain individuals are simply above the law.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> I have no idea what you're referring to about Megyn Kelly and I don't really care, but I would make the point attacking a television show host and attacking your political opponent when you're running for pres are two entirely different things - one is extremely important and one isn't.
> 
> Why don't you address Miss Sally's perfectly valid point specifically? Trump has had huge Hillary weak points handed to him on a platter and has failed to capitalise, simple as that. Maybe just once you could admit a shortcoming on his part like some other Team Trumpsers here have had the humility to do so.


I think hes capitalized fine and the margin he's behind isnt as wide as the media spins it. This is not to say he cant do better. He needs to stop falling for the media's bait and stay on message.


----------



## p3otw

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Apparently white people only hate black people ... and that too only SOME black people, but not the black people that make 100s of millions of dollars when they work hard to achieve success and excellence ... and people like me that come from Asia happen to end up with the highest income in America ... about $17,000 more than other americans. And weren't Japs once thrown into internment camps for which they only received a measly 20k ... which is less than a year's worth of money. But they still managed to pull themselves out of that horrible situation and become one of the strongest income earners in America as a whole.
> 
> That white privilege and racism really benefiting asians for some reason ...
> 
> Or maybe, there's no racism at all, and there's just a culture of blaming someone else for your problems in some racial communities which doesn't exist in other racial communities.


You're either being disingenuous or you have a very elementary understanding of things. Throughout history, whenever black people tried to economically mobilize or as you white supremacists like to say "pull themselves up from their own bootstraps", white people were there to put an end to it. Whether it was convict leasing immediately after the abolishing of slavery, The black wallstreet bombings that saw 600 successful black business destroyed because white people couldn't stomach seeing black business thriving, or the redlining/housing discrimination epidemic.

And I love how you bring up Asian immigrants. For starters, the academic/professional realities of Asians as a group are actually much more varied.The high school drop-out rate among Southeast Asian Americans in particular is alarming, with 40% of Hmong, 38% of Laotian, and 35% of Cambodian populations in America not completing high school at all (In Philadelphia the number of Cambodian students who do not finish high school is around 70 percent). Likewise, only 14% of Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders hold even a bachelor’s degree, which pales in comparison to the 49 percent of the Asian American population with at least a four-year college degree. Also, certain ethnic groups have recently had problems with the police and even turned to street justice as a possible solution. So while people like you try to exalt Asians as the model minority (in an effort to divert from the racist infrastructure that America is built upon) you're actually doing them a disservice and ignoring the problems that plague certain Asian communities.

Secondly, you're mentioning people that made a conscious decision to migrate to this country. African immigrants also experience much more success than African Americans. The African Community is fractured and that can be attributed to the fact that they were brought here like cattle and have never received the resources to recover. Not to mention the fact that they didn't even receive their basic civil rights until fifty plus years ago. You would think some empathy would be at play but I've learned not to expect that from this forum.

You said it yourself. The Japanese still received reparations for four years of mistreatment. Yes it wasn't much but it was still something and enough for some to pool the money to practice group economics. Jews received reparations for the holocaust. Black people have not received a dime for hundreds of years of slavery, Jim Crow, convict leasing, black wallstreet bombings, the war on drugs, redlining, block-busting, housing discrimination and the rest of the this country's transgressions.



Sincere said:


> Chalking a problem like this up to something as nebulous and arbitrary as "systemic racism," or worse, _only_ "systemic racism" is either intellectually dishonest, or intellectually lazy as fuck. Similarly, you'll hear no one worth a damn claim the "system" is sexist even though the male vs. female disparity in criminality absolutely dwarfs any racial disparities there may be. Why? Because doing so would be fucking retarded, and would be immediately dismissed as such, because there are other, actually valid explanations as to why this disparity exists without having to resort to some conspiratorial fantasy about "systemic sexism."
> 
> If there is racism one wishes to combat, regurgitating slogans like "systemic racism" doesn't do anything to solve it, because you're not identifying any actual racism--you're not identifying any instances of racism, you're just saying "everything is racist because reasons." Identify racism, identify racists, then combat those specific problems if fighting racism is your goal. Crying "the world is racist" or "society is racist" or "the institution is racist" accomplishes approximately nothing, and doesn't even seem to have any intellectual or theoretical value of any kind since it ultimately amounts to little more than a conspiracy theory. If fighting black criminality is your goal, then I suggest you take off your blinders and stop nonsensically laying the blame at the feet of what, despite its imperfections, continues to arguably be one of the richest, freest, and most diverse large-scale societies to ever exist on this earth, as if it was none of these things.
> 
> "Black people are disproportionately impoverished, and poverty raises the probability of criminality, therefore racism" isn't a valid or meaningful analysis worthy of wiping my ass. But good luck identifying any actual problems and finding any legitimate solutions to those problems by blaming ****** the Boogeyman for black criminality. You'll need it.


The onus isn't on me to teach you what systemic racism is. It actually isn't very difficult to comprehend but for whatever reason you conservatives can't seem to get a grasp on it. But I do understand that willful ignorance is a way for white people to ignore reality. Anyways, educate yourself on the damage convict leasing, jim crow, redlining, housing discrimination, mass incarceration/the war on drugs has done on the black community if you really are this dense.



CamillePunk said:


> I'm sure if they just keep monolithically voting Democrat things will eventually turn around. It's only been 50 years or so.


Yeah voting for the party that thinks black people are prone to criminality is the answer.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Calls me disingenuous.... Doesn't know the difference between Asians and South Americans :kobelol

The problem with posts like yours is that it's just a ton of stats that simply assume a connection to racism and mo evidence. 

I call it making excuses. The reality is that people like you are actually more racist in that you infantalize minorities and create excuses for the ones that fail because you ignore the ones that don't fail. You don't even bother acknowledging their existence because they destroy your narrative. Those hundreds of thousands of blacks weren't given special treatment when they decided to actually work hard and not blame the system. They succeeded and some of them have amassed more wealth by themselves than millions of Americans will see in their lifetime.

Stop making elaborate excuses for the lazy failures in our society and let them find success through having a hard work ethic. Now I'm sure there are a few people that fail despite working hard. That happens everywhere. However this is a problem that plagues Mexican migrants and African Americans more than every race. It's not racist to claim that there is a problem there where most people don't know how to succeed in life.

There is a problem of incarceration that does lead to breakdown of the African American family but that is as much evidence of racism as it is evidence of a rampant drug and petty crime culture in African American ghettos. 

Whites do drugs. They don't kill each other over it half as much as blacks and Mexicans do. It's not racist to point it out. But it's also not evidence of white led racism when blacks and Mexicans do that.

Don't bring up the slavery and Jim crow bullshit because it happened over 50 years ago. About the same time when Germany was completely destroyed by a massive war and mass extermination post war. And yet look at those germans. They created one of the greatest economies on earth. There's plenty of countries that didn't exist when Jim Crow ended and so many of them have great economies now. In fact Germans were loathed across the world. Probably faced harsher sanctions and perception amongst western nations than blacks were facing at the same time in America while they were being emancipated and yet it was nothing but an extreme hard work ethic that revived one of the most reviled people on earth. 

To keep blaming slavery and Jim Crow segregation for the current genrrations failures is incredibly silly at this point because this is the 2nd generation that hasn't been affected by it at all. That's more than enough time for a people to succeed as a group. Interesting you bring up the practice of group economics amongst other cultures. Its true they do do that.... What's stopping blacks from doing the same thing? And don't say racism because that's the wrong answer.

In fact I'm going to say that the institutional racism narrative is actually creating a generation of young people that have become nihilistic in their career aspirations. If someone has to send in more resumes than someone else on account of their name.... I changed my name when I came here. Didn't lose any of my heritage or culture because it's just a name. My heritage and culture us intact in how I live at home. I don't need my culture and heritage in the public sphere. Change that name or send in more resumes. The fact is that if you're willing to blame racism for not attempting to work harder than someone else for a job in a shrinking job market you're already a worse candidate than someone else. There's a heck of a lot more. But I'll end it here. Infantalization of minorities is creating a generation of babies who can't grow up and face reality anymore because their reality is being warped by narratives that are more mythical than real.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> I think hes capitalized fine and the margin he's behind isnt as wide as the media spins it. This is not to say he cant do better. He needs to stop falling for the media's bait and stay on message.


http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ebsite-saying-polls-are-skewed-against-trump/

At least the 'spin' isn't as bad as the site you cited as 'real' polls results.



> “LongRoom claims to “unbias” the polls using “actual state voter registration data from the Secretary of State or Election Division of each state.” The website contends that almost every public poll is biased in favor of Clinton.* Think about what that means: The website is saying that a large number of professional pollsters who make their living trying to provide accurate information — and have a good record of doing so — are all deliberately biasing the polls and aren’t correcting for it.* Like many conspiracy theories, that seems implausible.
> 
> I’d also point out that election offices from different states collect different data. Some states don’t have party registration; other states don’t collect data on a person’s race; some states collect data on neither. There are some companies that try to fill in missing data for each state, though it costs a lot to get that data. Isn’t it more plausible the people who get paid to know what they are doing are right, while some anonymous website on the internet with unclear methodology is wrong?”


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The speed in which Trumpamaniacs turn on anyone just never ceases to amaze me. 

Earlier this week, Iowa congressman Steve King (who many liberals absolutely loathe and has a 79% Liberty score per Conservative Review) was at the Political Soapbox at the Iowa State Fair. He talked for an hour about how Hillary Clinton is the wrong choice for this country as well as other issues. Then, he made the comment, "I could work with a President Clinton." That soundbite right there as what the Lamestream Media has taken and run with. Around work, several people that are Trump supporters have just blasted King, they call him a RINO and a traitor and needs to be kicked out, etc. 

Folks...Steve King is not a liberal...he is a very solid conservative and always has been. The people that support Trump have become so knee-jerk that they are willing to toss anyone off the boat. I understand they want people that are loyal to them, but alienating people that they are going to need in November won't help him.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



AryaDark said:


> *I just find it hard to believe he actually wants to win this with the way he acts and the things he says and the people in the GoP he deliberately pisses off.
> 
> I think Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate Hillary Clinton can run against for President of the United states and win. I'm sure that's a coincidence *total shoot btw*. She probably gets blown out by any other Republican candidate.*


I wouldn't say "any" other Republican candidate. She wouldn't have lost to the Zodiac killer lol

The theory that Trump is a ringer for Clinton is entirely possible. I'm not saying he is but it's not something I would put past the Clintons. Politics is full of backroom deals that the public will never find out about. The Clintons know how hated she is by the voting public and the only way she would have any shot at winning is to run against someone like Trump. Had the Republicans nominated someone even halfway decent, she would have never stood a chance. She wouldn't even have won the primaries without the DNC rigging it for her. Trump is old friends with the Clintons, who attended his wedding, and that phone call with Bill two weeks before he announced that he was running looks awful suspicious. We'll probably never know if Trump and the Clintons conspired or not but even if they didn't, the effective outcome is still the same. The most unelectable politician in America found someone to run against that is even more unelectable. The owners of the USA have a history of getting what they want and what they want is their puppet Hillary in the White House. We'll never know the full extent of just how corrupt all of this is.

What I find slightly amusing about the whole thing is the fact that the Democrats have become so shitty, they've made a lot of people forget that the Republicans were this shitty before them. The two controlling parties in the USA are in a contest to out shitty each other. If there wasn't so much death and suffering caused by it, that would be goddamned hilarious.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Saw that video elsewhere, @CamillePunk! :mark: RAND. TRUMP. THE MEGA-POWERS! :mark: :lol

Mostly unrelated, but Guccifer 2.0 hacked most House Democrats and dumped their personal cell phone numbers and private email addresses. Information gleaned from a cyber-attack perpetrated by Guccifer 2.0 on the DCCC. 

Meanwhile...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/764141969526317056

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/764147461736714240

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/764148507091492864

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/764156342181302273

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/764157185538404353
:hglol 

Have more respect for the lowly methheads who from time to time attempt to steal copper from @AryaDark's land than the Clintons. :aryha


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> It just shows Trump has no idea what he's doing. He just shouts slogans, he apparently can't execute any kind of plan with detail.


I have to agree with you, wasting time with Khan was dumb, Khan ended up burying himself. I mean the DNC is struggling bad, Trump doesn't even need to steal voters, just demoralize them to the point that they won't go to the polls or cannibalize each other. Use the emails to slam people who calls him a racist etc. I mean in terms of the DNC.. they're like a fat, poor kid with a gay dad and a hooker mom who peed on himself in front of the whole class. There really is no more of a lower hanging fruit than that.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



p3otw said:


> The onus isn't on me to teach you what systemic racism is. It actually isn't very difficult to comprehend but for whatever reason you conservatives can't seem to get a grasp on it. But I do understand that willful ignorance is a way for white people to ignore reality. Anyways, educate yourself on the damage convict leasing, jim crow, redlining, housing discrimination, mass incarceration/the war on drugs has done on the black community if you really are this dense.


I'm not asking you to teach me anything, and I doubt there's much of anything you would be capable of teaching me on this subject, anyway, quite frankly. Evidently your reading comprehension is as pitiful as your ability to construct a logically sound argument.

On the other hand, at least you're actually making an attempt--albeit, a rather poor one--to identify actual policies, and cases that you think are racist, so that's an improvement. Unfortunately, you haven't done anything to establish how any of them constitute proof of "systemic racism," let alone how any of them are individually racist today. Several of them aren't even relevant (and haven't been for decades), and/or are redundant--you probably thought saying the same thing in two different ways would make your vague little list more compelling, somehow, I suppose.

You can call me dense all you like, but that doesn't make anything you're talking about more valid, logically sound, or intelligent. My post had nothing to do with denying that blacks have had a difficult history. It's also rather hilarious that you seem to be attacking conservatives in this context, too. As if it wasn't the Democrats behind many of the historical policies that specifically targeted blacks. :lmao

I'm still waiting for you to present an actual, relevant, valid argument, or evidence of any kind to support your conspiracy theory about ****** the Boogeyman and "systemic racism." But if this is the best you can muster when your position is challenged, I imagine I'm going to be waiting for a very long time.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump needs to get a new spokesperson. Seems like every time I see her on tv she says something dumb.

2:16


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I'm surprised Trump hasn't used the anti-hispanic email and other DNC fuckery to paint the Democrats as liars, tie the Democrats to the dishonest media, especially with Sanders supporters and you completely muddle Hilary's whole message. Turnabout is fair play, do what the Dems have done all these years, they're vulnerable. At least that would be my strategy.


The dems haven't looked this vulnerable since Obama's first campaign. 

That said, republicans aren't losing because democrats are good. They're losing because even with how absolutely terrible the dems are this year, the GOP is still worse (not in terms of their platform, but in terms of how to adequately speak to the americans and that includes Trump's communication as well). 

I mean, if for example during Obama's years the dems were at 50 and repubs were at 45, now the dems are at 30 and the repubs have sunk to 25 :draper2And I will admit that Trump's demeanor (not his message) has a lot to do with this.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I would be utterly depressed with this election if I was American I'm not going to lie :lmao.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Am american. Can confirm.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://linkis.com/observer.com/2016/08/XzmXr

Thats because they want you to be.

America is infected with Globalist shills.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I was more depressed in 2012 when I had zero interest in either major party candidate. Trump is a far superior candidate than McCain or Romney.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I was more depressed in 2012 when I had zero interest in either major party candidate. Trump is a far superior candidate than McCain or Romney.


No he's know, its not even close especially when it comes to Romney. Trump is a walking disaster and he speaks like a 4th grader. He can't even keep a coherent thought when speaking. 

Romney did a great job when he was governor of MA he put us into a surplus. Trump is a terrible business and he defrauds almost everyone he deals with. He never says anything of substance and just says ignorant things then when he gets shit for them, he back peddles claiming oh that is not what I meant, or I as being sarcastic or any number of other excuses

Trump is easily the worst person to run for president (nominee) in our life time.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Well that post was max ironing. :lol


----------



## Hencheman_21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So Trump is already laying the ground work for why he does not win the election...cheating. Because of course his ego can not accept any other reason he would not win. You know like, just off the top of my head, people do not want him for president. I am actually hoping we see a repeat of the 2000 election. Trump ends up with more votes but Clinton wins due to the electoral college. Man would Trump lose his shit then.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@DesolationRow 






In the first several minutes of this video, Mike Cernovich tells of a group assault he and fellow Trump supporters endured from Clinton supporters after a Trump rally in West Hollywood.

The rest is pretty interesting too.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The books and movies made about this election are going to be really entertaining. Can't wait to see what comes out when the insiders on both sides start spilling their guts. 2012 didn't really have any fall out like that, but 2008 was lousy with it.


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Hencheman_21 said:


> So Trump is already laying the ground work for why he does not win the election...*cheating*...


Not so far fetched when you consider that the #DNCLeaks revealed that the Democratic Primary was rigged from the start. Or the revelation that the DNC and Clinton Foundation were/are blatantly manipulating mass media...or that the Clinton Foundation were offering top State Department jobs to high profile donors...sure sounds like *cheating* from here...

Anyone who has taken the time to read through the #DNCLeaks can see for themselves, straight from the horses' mouth, that the Democratic Party has no interest in what #WeThePeople want, and will do whatever it takes to put Hillary in power; even if that means subverting the entire election process. Sanders didn't have a snowball's chance from jump.

Biggest story of our generation (a primary election being outright manipulated) and yet it's buried faster than you can put together a Trump/Pepe the Frog meme.


----------



## Hencheman_21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Fringe said:


> Not so far fetched when you consider that the #DNCLeaks revealed that the Democratic Primary was rigged from the start. Or the revelation that the DNC and Clinton Foundation were/are blatantly manipulating mass media...or that the Clinton Foundation were offering top State Department jobs to high profile donors...sure sounds like *cheating* from here...
> 
> Anyone who has taken the time to read through the #DNCLeaks can see for themselves, straight from the horses' mouth, that the Democratic Party has no interest in what #WeThePeople want, and will do whatever it takes to put Hillary in power; even if that means subverting the entire election process. Sanders didn't have a snowball's chance from jump.
> 
> Biggest story of our generation (a primary election being outright manipulated) and yet it's buried faster than you can put together a Trump/Pepe the Frog meme.


Trump keeps throwing that word around but it was not rigged. Unless proof comes out that votes were not counted you can not use the word rigged. The DNC did try and influence the outcome. Just like the RNC tried to influence the outcome of their primary. It only makes sense they will try and get the person they think has the best chance to win to do so. Yes they are supposed to be neutral but we know that is not going to happen. Both parties try and influence the outcome. However at the end of the day it is still decided by the people who vote in the primaries.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Hencheman_21 said:


> Trump keeps throwing that word around but it was not rigged. Unless proof comes out that votes were not counted you can not use the word rigged. The DNC did try and influence the outcome. Just like the RNC tried to influence the outcome of their primary. It only makes sense they will try and get the person they think has the best chance to win to do so. Yes they are supposed to be neutral but we know that is not going to happen. Both parties try and influence the outcome. However at the end of the day it is still decided by the people who vote in the primaries.


She cheated in the primaries, she'll cheat now.


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I am okay with, but not happy about, where this seems to be heading.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Alimony lol


----------



## Death Rider

Tater said:


> Laying all the blame for ISIS at Obama's feet is just as retarded as saying none of it is his fault. Neocons gonna neocon. The disaster in the Middle East is a result of decades of neocon foreign policy. Things weren't exactly humming along smoothly over their before the current administration rose to power. The blame for this is shared equally by the Republicrats who created this mess while serving their masters in the military industrial complex.


This. Saying he founded it is just silly. Now did he do things that caused them to grow? Yes obama made mistakes that caused the rise of ISIS. If trump had said that i would have agreed.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Hencheman_21 said:


> Trump keeps throwing that word around but it was not rigged. Unless proof comes out that votes were not counted you can not use the word rigged. The DNC did try and influence the outcome. Just like the RNC tried to influence the outcome of their primary. It only makes sense they will try and get the person they think has the best chance to win to do so. Yes they are supposed to be neutral but we know that is not going to happen. Both parties try and influence the outcome. However at the end of the day it is still decided by the people who vote in the primaries.


I think more people need to figure out how the electoral college works.

Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Bush won the electoral vote.


----------



## DevastationInc

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

first lady bill..............bwhahahaahahahahaaa


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Hencheman_21 said:


> Trump keeps throwing that word around but it was not rigged. Unless proof comes out that votes were not counted you can not use the word rigged. The DNC did try and influence the outcome. Just like the RNC tried to influence the outcome of their primary. It only makes sense they will try and get the person they think has the best chance to win to do so. Yes they are supposed to be neutral but we know that is not going to happen. Both parties try and influence the outcome. However at the end of the day it is still decided by the people who vote in the primaries.


How much more "proof" do you need? :lol

It's all there in black and white. Someone obviously hasn't spent the time to read the material in the #DNCLeaks .


----------



## .MCH

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> The books and movies made about this election are going to be really entertaining. Can't wait to see what comes out when the insiders on both sides start spilling their guts. 2012 didn't really have any fall out like that, but 2008 was lousy with it.


I need another "Game Change". The 2012 one was boring but the 2008 book is a great read. 

And Clinton did not cheat in the primaries. She got 4 million more votes. Exit polls showed people liked both candidates but voted for Clinton because they thought she was more electable. Bernie didn't win because his campaign was not set up to be a winning campaign. His team didn't even realize he stood a chance to win until January, and it was too late by then.


----------



## Hencheman_21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> She cheated in the primaries, she'll cheat now.


How did she cheat? Do you have any proof or are you just repeating what you hear on Fauxnews and Trump's rhetoric?



Fringe said:


> How much more "proof" do you need? :lol
> 
> It's all there in black and white. Someone obviously hasn't spent the time to read the material in the #DNCLeaks .


I do not know. I guess I am looking for ACTUAL proof. You know throwing out votes or making them up. Simply having people in the party talk about how they want to focus on one candidate over another is NOT rigging the primaries. It is INFLUENCING them. Much how the GOP tried to influence their primaries. The GOP is just mad because it seems that maybe the Dem's were successful at it while they failed. 

Well since it seems you have you can point to me this "proof" that they "rigged" the primaries. So go ahead, point me to where it is.


----------



## .MCH

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The DNC emails were from late April/May. Bernie was mathematically eliminated by then. At that point, everything Bernie was doing and saying was hurting Hillary for November. Plus he wasn't actually a democrat and was basically holding the party hostage. I supported Bernie in the primaries but I also understand why the DNC was weary of him. Bernie is a socialist. That virtually makes him unelectable. He only would have won this year because of Trump. The only real controversy from the emails was the "Jewish" thing, but aside from that, it was a non story. 

Imagine the emails the RNC were sending out about Trump. :lol


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Hencheman_21 said:


> How did she cheat? Do you have any proof or are you just repeating what you hear on Fauxnews and Trump's rhetoric?


lol I don't watch _ANY_ MSM media outlets. Especially after the revelations enclosed in the #DNCLeaks that the DNC was actively manipulating the media. Another detail you obviously missed from not spending any time reading the documents. But have fun with #MuhStrawman though.

Done wasting my time with someone who is obviously so committed to regurgitating the Hillary narrative.


----------



## Hencheman_21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Fringe said:


> lol I don't watch _ANY_ MSM media outlets. Especially after the revelations enclosed in the #DNCLeaks that the DNC was actively manipulating the media. Another detail you obviously missed from not spending any time reading the documents. But have fun with #MuhStrawman though.
> 
> Done wasting my time with someone who is obviously so committed to regurgitating the Hillary narrative.


Well this just proves all I need to know. You have problems with reading as the statement I made you quoted was not to you. So basically you just see a few key words in stories and come up with your own conclusions. 

Once again manipulating the media is INFLUENCING an outcome NOT rigging it. Just like how the GOP tried to influence the outcome of their primary by having guys that were clearly losing to Trump simply so they could siphon off delegates to keep Trump from having enough for an automatic nomination. That way the nomination would go to the convention and they could hopefully get someone other than Trump. It did not work as Trump was getting too many delegates and was going to win it anyways. Not that is not rigging the primary but influencing it just like manipulating the media. So yea, I guess we can end this discussion since you can not seem to understand the difference.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Actually Henchmen has a point. 

They did absolutely nothing to rig the popular vote. What happened was that the delegates and superdelegates all sided with their preferred candidate because that's who they wanted and that's where Bernie really lost the election. That's my understanding of it. 

Also, influencing the popular vote which also happened isn't the same as poll rigging ... I don't think evidence of poll rigging exists. Plus, I don't think that the popular vote means anything in the primaries either anyways. Isn't it just an illusion where ultimately the delegates and superdelegates still have the final say. Am I wrong? 

At this point, my understanding is that there was no illegal way in which the dems ended up selecting Hillary. There was stuff that crossed ethical boundaries (which to me alone is enough to disqualify democrats as a decent ruling party), but I don't think there was anything outright illegal. 

Dems never wanted Bernie to run on their behalf. Not all dems voted Bernie. Hillary had and still has enough support to win the presidential nomination. She's a heartless neo-con criminal ... and may have engaged in a lot of criminal stuff in order to get where she is right now, but unfortunately the whole process of the primaries was clean. Unethical, but legal. 

She's still the worst candidate the dems have ever put out though. Worst. Not even close to being anywhere near a decent human being.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> The books and movies made about this election are going to be really entertaining. Can't wait to see what comes out when the insiders on both sides start spilling their guts. 2012 didn't really have any fall out like that, but 2008 was lousy with it.


This is probably the most interesting thing I've seen on that end so far: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ign-primary-joe-biden-elizabeth-warren-214023


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Unethical, but legal.


The mantra of today's Democratic party. I say this as someone who voted "D" down the card for 20+ years. I can no longer support a party who would go to such lengths to undermine the will of the people. I've met dozens of Bernie supporters, but not once have I talked to anyone who actually supports Hillary. I wonder why?


As for Henchman's response, it still sounds an awful lot like "The RNC did it too!" sulking, instead of acknowledging that the actions were indeed, unethical. The people spoke for Trump as well in the primaries, it makes it no less unethical that the RNC may have attempted to undermine his momentum. It's disturbing any way you try to justify or gloss over their actions. To read what is in the #DNCLeaks should at the least, give any rational US Citizen pause; the rules have changed, and it's bedtime for democracy, folks.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

^ People getting worked up about rigging the popular vote need to just stop ... Or maybe I'm wrong about how the system works. As far as I've learnt the overly complicated system of the US, there is hardly any actual people influence over policies here except at the city and municipal level. Like absolutely minimal control. The higher you go, the less control normal people have and that control transfers over the larger and larger special interest and lobby groups. 

Also, one of the biggest failures in assuming that democracy in and of itself means anything anyways is the assumption that selecting from a pool of carefully selected individuals at the highest level results in any kind of local population control. It means jack shit. 

Sure, I'm not going to go and say that you shouldn't vote ... Every man likes to believe that he has the ability to control his own destiny .. But to believe that democracy the way it's implemented in the states gives him that ability is folly of the highest degree :draper2 

To assume that someone should act ethically when they're in politics is part and parcel of one of the biggest problems with democracy. Why should they? Isn't morality individualistic and isn't individualism one of the corner stones of western society? Why do people assume that just because someone is in politics and running for positions that control people's lives just automatically means that they can't be criminals? To me, this assumption that politics should have all these shoulds that conform to the popular expectation is laughable. Always has been. 

Guess, I'm settling back into my fuck the government, govern yourself mentality once again. No matter how hard I try to support the idea of government, I always come back to fuck the government ... create your own destiny mindset. It's just who I am :draper2


----------



## .MCH

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Actually Henchmen has a point.
> 
> They did absolutely nothing to rig the popular vote. What happened was that the delegates and superdelegates all sided with their preferred candidate because that's who they wanted and that's where Bernie really lost the election. That's my understanding of it.
> 
> Also, influencing the popular vote which also happened isn't the same as poll rigging ... I don't think evidence of poll rigging exists. Plus, I don't think that the popular vote means anything in the primaries either anyways. Isn't it just an illusion where ultimately the delegates and superdelegates still have the final say. Am I wrong?
> 
> At this point, my understanding is that there was no illegal way in which the dems ended up selecting Hillary. There was stuff that crossed ethical boundaries (which to me alone is enough to disqualify democrats as a decent ruling party), but I don't think there was anything outright illegal.
> 
> Dems never wanted Bernie to run on their behalf. Not all dems voted Bernie. Hillary had and still has enough support to win the presidential nomination. She's a heartless neo-con criminal ... and may have engaged in a lot of criminal stuff in order to get where she is right now, but unfortunately the whole process of the primaries was clean. Unethical, but legal.
> 
> She's still the worst candidate the dems have ever put out though. Worst. Not even close to being anywhere near a decent human being.


From an article I read, she pretty much cleared the way for herself (hence the small field of candidates). The person she was worried about the most was Elizabeth Warren (who has to regret not running because it would have been a rout for her - she was the best of both worlds when it comes to Clinton and Sanders).

Democrats are lucky Trump is the nominee because the biggest story this election cycle would be Hillary's emails. If Trump wasn't the nominee, this would be an easy republican victory (unfortunately). Hillary is one of the most unelectable candidates and I pray she doesn't run again in four years for the sake of democrats keeping the White House. She has way too much baggage.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> This is probably the most interesting thing I've seen on that end so far: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ign-primary-joe-biden-elizabeth-warren-214023



Fascinating article, most interesting part is the allegation that the "Obama is a Muslim" lie was originally started by Hilary. 




Fringe said:


> The mantra of today's Democratic party. I say this as someone who voted "D" down the card for 20+ years. I can no longer support a party who would go to such lengths to undermine the will of the people. I've met dozens of Bernie supporters, but not once have I talked to anyone who actually supports Hillary. I wonder why?


Because you hang out with people who live in your geographical area and who are generally of your age and social/economic class, who unsurprisingly have very similar political beliefs to you. "Everyone I know is voting for x" is almost always nonsense, people in different places and in different circumstances vote very differently, hence whey some states are considered "red states" and some "blue states". Someone in a red state may well have had everyone they knew vote for Romney in 2012 but that doesn't mean the vote was rigged in Obama's favour. 



Fringe said:


> As for Henchman's response, it still sounds an awful lot like "The RNC did it too!" sulking, instead of acknowledging that the actions were indeed, unethical. The people spoke for Trump as well in the primaries, it makes it no less unethical that the RNC may have attempted to undermine his momentum. It's disturbing any way you try to justify or gloss over their actions. To read what is in the #DNCLeaks should at the least, give any rational US Citizen pause; the rules have changed, and it's bedtime for democracy, folks.


Nothing's changed, like seriously, things have always been like this man, people and organisations have tried to influence democracy for as long as its existed. You should read about some the stuff 1600s parliamentarians got up to. Also some of the stuff that went on in the early 20th century in terms of dead people voting etc.


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Because you hang out with people who live in your geographical area and who are generally of your age and social/economic class, who unsurprisingly have very similar political beliefs to you.


Nice assumptions you make there, but you couldn't be more wrong. Even just here on WF, I talk to people from all over the world with all sorts of opinions. At work and Uni, I engage with people from all walks of life. Some of them couldn't be more different. Thanks for the projection, though. But for the sake of argument, how many Hillary supporters are in this thread? Not many I can see. Will you all please stand up and tell us why she's fit to be president? 





> Nothing's changed, like seriously, things have always been like this man, people and organisations have tried to influence democracy for as long as its existed. You should read about some the stuff 1600s parliamentarians got up to. Also some of the stuff that went on in the early 20th century in terms of dead people voting etc.


Another one of those "It's always been done this way" types, I see. Still doesn't make it right. And that it's being done so out in the open, and accepted by so many tells you that democracy will go out with a yawn rather than a bang. Good night, indeed.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So uh....

http://soros.dcleaks.com/

I always did hate Soros. He's what Dems and Cruzbots think Trump is.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Fringe said:


> Nice assumptions you make there, but you couldn't be more wrong. Even just here on WF, I talk to people from all over the world with all sorts of opinions. At work and Uni, I engage with people from all walks of life. Some of them couldn't be more different. Thanks for the projection, though. But for the sake of argument, how many Hillary supporters are in this thread? Not many I can see. Will you all please stand up and tell us why she's fit to be president?


If everyone you know voted a certain way in a election and that side lost it's not an assumption that you're stuck in an echo chamber it's a fact backed up by evidence. 

The idea that WF is a demographic melting pot is a joke, its at least 80% men between 15-30. 



Fringe said:


> Another one of those "It's always been done this way" types, I see. Still doesn't make it right. And that it's being done so out in the open, and accepted by so many tells you that democracy will go out with a yawn rather than a bang. Good night, indeed.


Democracy isn't dead, your candidate lost, harden up and deal with it.


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> If everyone you know voted a certain way in a election and that side lost it's not an assumption that you're stuck in an echo chamber it's a fact backed up by evidence.
> 
> The idea that WF is a demographic melting pot is a joke, its at least 80% men between 15-30.
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy isn't dead, your candidate lost, harden up and deal with it.


"Echo chamber" lol. Again, you know nothing about me or who I work with. Your post is nothing but more assumptions and empty platitudes. Bernie was never "my" candidate. At any rate, it's hilarious how you suggest that anyone just "harden up" and accept that the primary election was blatantly manipulated. Yep, I'll harden up alright as the U.S slides into third-world status. Nothing more to say to someone being so willfully obtuse.


----------



## chrislatimer2004

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump as president would be a DISASTER . I am no fine of Clinton but trump is a risk to global security.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://rare.us/story/hillary-clinto...i&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Influencer



> Once it became inescapably clear that Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee, Democrats immediately saw an opportunity: If you’re usually a GOP voter who doesn’t like Trump, vote for Hillary Clinton, they said.
> 
> She probably is closer to your views on some key issues, especially if you’re a Republican of the neoconservative variety. And even if you don’t like Clinton much at all, the argument goes, at least she’s the devil you know: A normal politician with a long career in the public eye whose presidency will be fairly predictable. With Trump, anything could happen—the unknowns are just too many.
> 
> Since then, #NeverTrump Republicans have struggled to explain why this proposal is just so difficult for them to accept, and why that difficulty stems from something deeper than mere partisanship.
> 
> Last week, for instance, conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat sent out a series of tweets in which he attempted that explanation by asking Democrats to imagine what it would be like if the shoe were on the other foot.
> 
> “That is, imagine a ‘Trump of the left’ as the Democratic nominee,” he said. “Some amalgam of Sharpton, Jeffrey Epstein, Jill Stein? Yes, hard to come up w/analogue, but try: Imagine a clearly unfit Dem nominee.”
> 
> “Okay. You don’t want to support them. But the Republican nominee is … Rick Santorum.”
> 
> Douthat ran through the whole scenario before concluding that “in their quest to woo conservatives into a popular front, liberals just need to recognize the scale of the ‘ask.'”
> 
> Predictably, his analogy got pushback from the left.
> 
> A Vox piece argued the comparison fails because no hypothetical Democratic Trump would be a bigot, and that’s a failure on a different level than basic ignorance, incompetence, and tactlessness.
> 
> A Daily Beast article said a Trump of the left is impossible, because the idea that the Democratic Party would nominate someone that unpalatable to most Americans “is totally insane.”
> 
> A more reasonable approach came from Slate, imagining an election in which Sean Penn was the Democratic Trump, and empathizing with the right’s horror of Clinton. But just scroll down to the comments and reader reaction overwhelmingly takes the Daily Beast approach. As the top comment among 4,000 puts it, “This article is like asking ‘If a rooster is sitting on a roof facing east with a downward slope of 60 degrees and lays an egg, which way will it roll?’ The answer is that roosters don’t lay eggs.”
> 
> So it’s hard for Democrats to imagine their own party going truly haywire. Fine. Maybe the left really wouldn’t nominate Sean Penn (or another Trump analogue—my personal pick would be Bill Maher: a left-wing media personality whose views on Islam give his fellow progressives almost as much consternation as Trump does, and whose mocking antipathy toward all religion would easily spark accusations of bigotry in a general election).
> 
> That’s where I think this new version of the argument is so useful. It’s penned by my colleague at The Week, Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, and instead of focusing on whether Democrats might hypothetically find themselves in the position of #NeverTrump Republicans, it focuses on clarifying why supporting Clinton is still such a non-starter for many on the right:
> 
> Hillary Clinton is to the right what Dick Cheney is to the left… Before you claim that the comparison isn’t apt, really think about Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney. Both have been in politics forever. Cheney was White House chief of staff under Gerald Ford, and like Clinton, he has been in and around the White House in some capacity for more than 20 years. In those years, both have racked up their fair share of scandals. Both Cheney and Clinton are hawks, who got into the president’s head to push an ill-conceived foreign adventure in the Arab world.
> 
> If you’re ever a bit puzzled why conservatives fixate so much on Clinton’s family foundation, which rakes in money from giant corporations for reasons that still aren’t clear, think back on the left’s exasperation over Cheney’s ties to Halliburton. The left surmised that helping the oil industry was part of Cheney’s rationale for pushing the war in Iraq. Well, Hillary Clinton pushed her friend Sidney Blumenthal’s business ventures in post-war Libya.
> 
> If you ever wonder why conservatives are so apoplectic over Hillary’s email server, think back to the Plame affair, when Dick Cheney allegedly outed a CIA agent as retribution for political criticism. With Hillary, conservatives see the same pushing of political advantage at the expense of the law and of national security.
> 
> If you’re ever unsure why conservatives are so hysterical over Benghazi, think back to the countless times when it was alleged that Cheney covered up important information about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> 
> As Gobry concludes, in Clinton the right sees what the left sees in Cheney: an “almost preternatural refusal of having sunlight shone on one’s affairs” which with one small piece of evidence after another produces an insistent feeling that underneath the normal, predictable exterior is “a cold, calculating brain looking out only for its own interest, one that would do anything to benefit itself so long as it could get away with it.”
> 
> This comparison is valuable for the left, because more than any hypothetical in which some crazy celebrity wins the Democratic primary, it’s entirely conceivable. And, yes, as both Gobry and that Vox piece point out, the Clinton-Santorum analogy is strained. The Clinton-Cheney analogy is not.
> 
> But it’s also valuable for the right, and specifically elements of the GOP establishment who have yet to recognize the error of Bush-Cheney Republicanism. That untrustworthiness, that recklessness, that selfishness, that corruption you see in Clinton? A lot of Americans—not just hardline Democrats—saw the same thing in the last administration, and particularly in Dick Cheney.
> 
> Both sides are correct—and maybe this absurd election can help each understand what the other rightly sees.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Both sides are correct—and maybe this absurd election can help each understand what the other rightly sees.


Highly unlikely imo. In terms of foreign and even domestic policy, Hillary's term isn't going to be any better than Obama's term, whose term wasn't that much better than Bush's term ... whose term wasn't that much better than Clinton's terms. 

The thing is that the disintegration of American foreign and domestic policy is happening at such a slow pace since the late 70's that it's a frog in boiling water situation. (I know scientifically that analogy is a bust, but since it creates a fitting image in people's minds, I still use it). What today's politicians do is mask failure and over-exaggerate "success" even where there is no success but only failure. Obamacare is the best example of this where people who actually can't buy insurance are forced to buy it at much higher rates with fewer benefits in order to avoid the mandated tax which essentially is worded in such a way that it makes people feel like they're criminals. I've gotten a couple of notices about not getting health insurance and they use words like "penalty" and "fine" in the official language. Then they spin it as "more americans are insured than ever before". Obviously, if you literally take people's money away for nothing, they're going to rationalize spending extra in order to lose the money for nothing. It has nothing to do with the program providing people any benefit but them wanting to avoid being fined. 

There's more. Social welfare creates a culture of willful joblessness but is spun as "look how many people we've clothed and fed". Unemployment rates don't even consider people who've simply given up looking for jobs and is spun as "look at this decrease in unemployment". The house market is the worst it's ever been. America, a culture that was defined by the fact that everyone could get a job after a college education that would pay for a house, car and support a 4 family home, is now becoming a culture "live with your parents as long as possible because now your post-college salary won't get you shit". Where now people need dual incomes just to be comfortable (this is entirely blameable on feminism's crazy idea that women _should _work creating a situation where employers no longer feel the need to pay a man (or woman) enough to be able to support a family. The expectation is that both men and women must work .. it's not longer a choice, but literally a matter of life and death. A huge cultural shift that no politician is even talking about. 

America isn't the America it used to be .. and both parties, their policies (foreign and domestic) have created this society. And if people aren't seeing that already, then they won't after Hillary gets done robbing americans just like the presidents before her.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Welfare had created a population boom of willfully lazy, uneducated buffoons who have the usefulness of dog shit layered on a cheese cake. You get people coming to america not to work but to get paid not to work, look at the crisis Europe is dealing with. People trying to reach places with the best benefits. These people are leeches who blood suck off the people who work and pay taxes. I still don't understand why people keep pushing for more welfare and more handouts yet don't want the people who are receiving said stuff to live where they do. "Helping people and diversity is good.. just not in my neighborhood and not with my money!" should be the Social Program motto of the Democrats.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar..._eight_women_to_his_economic_team_131485.html

Even more special interests.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So Wikileaks just dropped two Atom bombs.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/20280

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7720



> "Can we set up a time for a very brief call to go over our process for handling donations from donors who have given us pay to play letters? Want to make sure we have a robust process in place to make sure that donations that come in from those donors, in any form, get put into the operating account."


Also...

CLINTON STRATEGIST CALLS FOR ASSASSINATIONS:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/763380671796678656/video/1

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/illegally-clinton-assange-assassinate/

*EDIT:*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










The media obviously isn't reporting the whole exchange I think so I can't confirm how much of this is true.


----------



## Cliffy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

that's awesome

fuck barry


----------



## Hencheman_21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Welfare had created a population boom of willfully lazy, uneducated buffoons who have the usefulness of dog shit layered on a cheese cake. You get people coming to america not to work but to get paid not to work, look at the crisis Europe is dealing with. People trying to reach places with the best benefits. These people are leeches who blood suck off the people who work and pay taxes. I still don't understand why people keep pushing for more welfare and more handouts yet don't want the people who are receiving said stuff to live where they do. "Helping people and diversity is good.. just not in my neighborhood and not with my money!" should be the Social Program motto of the Democrats.


You are talking about the American dream. You have a small portion of people on welfare that are trying to live the lives of a small portion of the most wealthy. Sit back, let others work hard and reap the benefits of that hard work. I mean hard working people like you and me work and pay taxes to benefit certain lazy people on welfare. Also to benefit greedy corporations via tax cuts/breaks.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/764909726278836225


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Welfare had created a population boom of willfully lazy, uneducated buffoons who have the usefulness of dog shit layered on a cheese cake. You get people coming to america not to work but to get paid not to work, look at the crisis Europe is dealing with. People trying to reach places with the best benefits. These people are leeches who blood suck off the people who work and pay taxes. I still don't understand why people keep pushing for more welfare and more handouts yet don't want the people who are receiving said stuff to live where they do.


Australia has much more welfare than America and a higher GDP per capita as does Norway, but seeing as they're basically vikings I don't know if they count. 

And totally fair on your last point, people are hypocritical af.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I was trying to understand why social welfare is such a huge failure in America (and hasn't been as much of a failure elsewhere) and this is what I came up with: 

Here's an explanation of how I think liberal social welfare works and why it fails in America. 

Phelps has 25 medals. The people complain that he has too many medals and there are people who have no medals. So they form a government. The government institutes a medal tax on Phelps. Now he has to give away 15 of his medals. The government keeps 5 of those medals for their own people. Then gives 5 medals to government organizations like army, police, and fire departments. Of the remaining 5 medals, they give 5 to the State government. The state government keeps 3 for it's own people and 1 for its agencies. In the end 1 person gets the medal and the government says that it works. 

If you wouldn't take away Phelps medals, then why would you take away a rich man's wealth? He earned it as much as Phelps earned his medals. Asking for redistribution of wealth only results in the redistribution of wealth to the government. It does not make its way down to people. It's better for the economy for capitalists to keep their money and for people to keep trying to find jobs or start businesses. 

The government is an unnecessary burden on the economy ... hence what we need is private enterprise handing distribution and not governments because governments have more chances of becoming corrupt than private enterprise.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I was trying to understand why social welfare is such a huge failure in America (and hasn't been as much of a failure elsewhere) and this is what I came up with:
> 
> Here's an explanation of how I think liberal social welfare works and why it fails in America.
> 
> Phelps has 25 medals. The people complain that he has too many medals and there are people who have no medals. So they form a government. The government institutes a medal tax on Phelps. Now he has to give away 15 of his medals. The government keeps 5 of those medals for their own people. Then gives 5 medals to government organizations like army, police, and fire departments. Of the remaining 5 medals, they give 5 to the State government. The state government keeps 3 for it's own people and 1 for its agencies. In the end 1 person gets the medal and the government says that it works.
> 
> If you wouldn't take away Phelps medals, then why would you take away a rich man's wealth? He earned it as much as Phelps earned his medals. Asking for redistribution of wealth only results in the redistribution of wealth to the government. It does not make its way down to people. It's better for the economy for capitalists to keep their money and for people to keep trying to find jobs or start businesses.
> 
> The government is an unnecessary burden on the economy ... hence what we need is private enterprise handing distribution and not governments because governments have more chances of becoming corrupt than private enterprise.


What about inheritance though?

In reality the vast majority of people who are very wealthy started their lives off very wealthy and didn't actually earn being where they are.

And how would you build roads, manage the judicial system etc?

Fact is you can't have markets without a government, as otherwise people would just steal from each other, hence no trading, hence no markets.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> I love the Phelps analogy, except it falls down when you keep inheritance in mind. In reality the vast majority of people who are very wealthy started their lives off very wealthy and didn't actually earn being where they are.


I agree ... but that still really doesn't mean that their wealth should be taken away from them and redistributed to the poor, right? 

Personally, I think that the kids that are raised wealthy usually (not always) tend to be better with wealth than people who end up with money they didn't earn. The culture of having money in one's family usually works out better than where families hit it rich without working hard. That's why you have more examples of rags to riches to rags than you have examples of riches to rags on their own. 

My main issue with social welfare is that it does absolutely nothing to teach someone the value of money. Do kids who are born wealthy learn that value? Yes, because their family overall has a culture of hard work and most of those kids are trained right from the start how to work. Most rich kids actually end up in competitor or other businesses in order to teach them how to run their family business. 

Take Steph and Shane for example. Both rich kids who didn't have to do anything at all remain rich and yet they still chose to work hard. As a whole there are more hard working rich kids than not - so asking them to part with their money is just as wrong imo. 

Then again, I think that I would rather promote charity and philanthropy through private enterprise like crowdfunding than social welfare because it's then a matter of choice and the money is not being stolen from you in the form of taxes to be appropriated against your will.



Alkomesh2 said:


> What about inheritance though?
> 
> In reality the vast majority of people who are very wealthy started their lives off very wealthy and didn't actually earn being where they are.
> 
> And how would you build roads, manage the judicial system etc?
> 
> Fact is you can't have markets without a government, as otherwise people would just steal from each other, hence no trading, hence no markets.


Since you added more questions ... At the end of the day, who makes roads, bridges, light poles and generates electricity? Private enterprise. All the government does is essentially handle the contracts and the money. Local communities can set up small-ish companies that can perform the same actions. I mean, at the end of the day on the city/county level that is exactly what is actually happening ... All the government is really doing is taking your money to handle the contracts and payments. And even there by and large the government isn't even doing that anymore. They're basically taking the money, outsourcing contract handling to a private company, which then outsources the jobs to other private contractors. 

They're acting very much like a private enterprise, except that it's keeping a bigger chunk of the money than a private contractor would :shrug In fact, the government since it's manage to take so much money from everyone they don't give a damn about the actual money being spent ... The reason why private contractors do anything and everything they can to get a government contract is because they can over-charge and the government will pay. The government is a middle man you don't need if you decide to get things done. And they're not that hard to do. Private enterprise and not the government are building the roads, infrastructure etc. The government outsources everything to private contractors anyways.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't believe the rich are obligated to spread their wealth around, regardless of whether they're the first generation who worked hard for said wealth or the generations after who inherited it. Speaking generally, if I work hard for my money and leave my children my wealth upon my death, no one has any right to take it away from them. I didn't just work hard for myself, but for my family and my family's future. If they squander it long after I'm dead, it's not my problem as I'm gone, but no one has the right to take it from them. Only they should have the power to do with it what they will, for good or ill.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The medal analogy I would give is government giving out bronze medals but special interests complaining it isn't good enough because it is not gold medals and everything is stuck in gridlock. So the policies that worked in the past are not updated to the challenges in the new economy.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I agree ... but that still really doesn't mean that their wealth should be taken away from them and redistributed to the poor, right?
> 
> Personally, I think that the kids that are raised wealthy usually (not always) tend to be better with wealth than people who end up with money they didn't earn. The culture of having money in one's family usually works out better than where families hit it rich without working hard. That's why you have more examples of rags to riches to rags than you have examples of riches to rags on their own.
> 
> My main issue with social welfare is that it does absolutely nothing to teach someone the value of money. Do kids who are born wealthy learn that value? Yes, because their family overall has a culture of hard work and most of those kids are trained right from the start how to work. Most rich kids actually end up in competitor or other businesses in order to teach them how to run their family business.
> 
> Take Steph and Shane for example. Both rich kids who didn't have to do anything at all remain rich and yet they still chose to work hard. As a whole there are more hard working rich kids than not - so asking them to part with their money is just as wrong imo.
> 
> Then again, I think that I would rather promote charity and philanthropy through private enterprise like crowdfunding than social welfare because it's then a matter of choice and the money is not being stolen from you in the form of taxes to be appropriated against your will.
> 
> Since you added more questions ... At the end of the day, who makes roads, bridges, light poles and generates electricity? Private enterprise. All the government does is essentially handle the contracts and the money. Local communities can set up small-ish companies that can perform the same actions. I mean, at the end of the day on the city/county level that is exactly what is actually happening ... All the government is really doing is taking your money to handle the contracts and payments. And even there by and large the government isn't even doing that anymore. They're basically taking the money, outsourcing contract handling to a private company, which then outsources the jobs to other private contractors.
> 
> They're acting very much like a private enterprise, except that it's keeping a bigger chunk of the money than a private contractor would :shrug In fact, the government since it's manage to take so much money from everyone they don't give a damn about the actual money being spent ... The reason why private contractors do anything and everything they can to get a government contract is because they can over-charge and the government will pay. The government is a middle man you don't need if you decide to get things done. And they're not that hard to do. Private enterprise and not the government are building the roads, infrastructure etc. The government outsources everything to private contractors anyways.


Yeah sorry about the change I embarrassingly misread your post haha 

The thing about rich kids managing money better, may be true, but its fundamentally immoral that some people have as much wealth as they do when others are homeless and have no way to make it out of that predicament. 

If you don't have access to certain basic services, like a shower for instance, its nearly impossible to get work. 

I think ideologically its immoral that some people can afford banquets and others starve simply based on who their parents were, and pragmatically capitalism can't really work unless everyone has somewhat of an even starting base, how are the best going to get ahead if all the opportunities are taken by morons from wealthy families?

The idea that rich people are genetically superior and deserving of all they inherit and the power that comes with it is feudalism not capitalism, and its sadly what America is regressing into under the violently regressive fiscal policies of the American right. 

As for things getting built, the problem is there is no profit in those things. Unless you want to live in a world where all roads are toll roads, where you can get murdered because you couldn't afford the package with your local police corporation to cover serious bodily harm, you need a government.

The police will never be a profit generating exercise and it will always be necessary, and you just can't have it without a government. Maybe you want some weird corpratist system over democracy for running that government, but it'd still be a government.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> The thing about rich kids managing money better, maybe true, but its fundamentally immoral that some people have as much wealth as they do when others are homeless and have no way to make it out of that predicament.


I don't think that morality has anything to do with it. Just as a poor man's son doesn't choose to be born poor, a rich man's son doesn't choose to be born rich. I don't even see how morality enters the picture. 



> If you don't have access to certain basic services, like a shower for instance, its nearly impossible to get work.


There's plenty of such services all over every single city in America that helps poor and homeless get ready for job interviews. Most of them are privately funded and some are government subsidized. They for some reason have an extremely poor turnout despite having decent success rates in terms of placement. 



> I think ideologically its immoral that some people can afford banquets and others starve simply based on who their parents where, and pragmatically capitalism can't really work unless everyone has somewhat of an even starting base, how are the best going to get ahead if all the opportunities are taken by morons from wealthy families?


I don't think morality even enters the picture when it comes to rich vs poor. I'd like to understand how and why you think that it does though. 

As for the rich taking away the opportunities from the poor are concerned ... what does that have anything to do with the government and income redistribution? The fact is that even if you make sure everyone is equally provided for, not everyone is equally hard working nor equally capable of managing that money well. This thing happens even in families. I don't think morality has anything to do with this at all. 



> The idea that rich people are genetically superior and deserving of all they inherit and the power that comes with it is feudalism not capitalism, and its sadly what America is regressing into under the violently regressive fiscal policies of the American right.


No one said that they're genetically superior and I don't think anyone actually believes that. I do think that the rich have a culture that promotes an environment where their kids know more about money and therefore make better choices and choices. Is that always true? Nope. But it's more true than false. More rich kids tend to make better choices than poor kids who become rich and then don't know how to keep that money ... This is why so many athletes (both black and white) declare bankruptcy just years after or even into their careers. 



> As for things getting builty, the problem is there is no profit in those things. Unless you want to live in a world where all roads are toll roads, where you can get murdered because you couldn't afford the package with your local police corporation to cover serious bodily harm, you need a government.


Pretty much all highways in America are already tolled - at least they are in my state. I think we pay about $5-7 bucks just to get from my city to Orlando one way and the same back. I know I pass at least 5 tolls every time and they're all $1.25 each. 



> The police will never be a profit generating exercise and it will always be necessary, and you just can't have it without a government. Maybe you want some weird corpratist system over democracy for running that government, but it'd still be a government.


If the police cannot make a profit, then how do you explain the continued existence of thousands of private security companies?

I think that the fear of not having a government anymore is kind of like the fear of leaving your mother's nest. Before you leave you don't know how you're going to cope with the big bad world ... but over time everyone realizes that their mom's embrace isn't the only way to keep yourself safe and your mom's cooking isn't the only way to get food. 
People have become so used to being babied and infantalized by a nanny state to the point that they've started undermining their own ability to organize and create :draper2
We pay for everything anyways ... it's just that we pre-pay and lose control over where our money is going.

When you think about the fact that US spends $36 billion annually on foreign aid and helping build other countries, you kinda wonder just how much we're being over-taxed to allow this country to develop others and neglect their own.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> The government is an unnecessary burden on the economy ... hence what we need is private enterprise handing distribution and not governments because governments have more chances of becoming corrupt than private enterprise.


You're kidding, right? 

The United States government is corrupt BECAUSE it is owned by the private enterprises. Mega-corporations and the billionaires who own them have bought our politicians and that's the number one reason our government sucks so hard; because it only serves the interests of the billionaires and their corporations instead of serving the public interests. Saying you want to get rid of government interference only cuts out the middle man. It does nothing to solve the problem of the USA being a corporatocracy. The only thing getting rid of government rules on the economy accomplishes is direct control of the corporations over us instead of the corporations having to go through the hassle of buying off the government so they can control us. Either way, we're economic slaves to the corporations.

The role of the government should not be to give welfare to the population. The role of the government should be to lay out the rules for society to live by, so people can go out and earn their own way in life.

I've seen a lot of bitching about welfare in this thread and in principle, I agree. I do NOT think we should be living in a society where poor people leach off the taxpayer dime. We should NOT be taxing the rich exorbitantly and redistributing that wealth to people on welfare. The problem is, the people who bitch about this sort of thing never address the real issue and that's how we distribute wealth to begin with.

If you work hard and do everything right, then you should not be living in poverty. That's what the American Dream is supposed to be all about. Yet, increasingly so, the people who do all the work and create all the wealth are left getting fucked over while those at the top suck up all the wealth. We shouldn't be talking about redistribution of wealth. We should be talking about how that wealth is distributed from the bottom up. A CEO of a company that profits billions should not be making hundreds of times what his or her employees make while the employees struggle to make ends meet. Without those workers generating the wealth, that CEO wouldn't be making shit. 

I googled "ratio of CEO pay to average worker" and these are some of the graphs that came up.





































There's many graphs that you're welcome to take a look at in the google search but the two things that should be noticed here is that the CEO to average worker pay ratio in the USA is much higher than in other countries and those levels have exploded over the past 50 years.

I believe that if you work for a successful corporation and that corporation produces a lot of wealth, then everyone who works for that corporation should share in the produced wealth. It shouldn't be the way things are now, when those at the top get most the wealth while those who do all the work get the least of the wealth.

If that change is made in how wealth is distributed at the mega corporations, it has a big effect on the rest of the economy too. The employees of the mega corporations have spending power and they take that money out into the rest of the economy. That means all the smaller businesses flourish as well because the worker class has money to spend at their businesses. More people are employed and more money is circulating throughout the economy. Our economy is shitty now because the worker class does not have the spending power required for a robust economy.

Or, we can continue letting the billionaire class suck up all the wealth and the rest of us can just get used to living in poverty. If we don't overhaul our economy and how we distribute wealth to to those who produce said wealth, that's where we're headed.

Anyone who thinks they deserve to be given handouts for being an American citizen can fuck off. ALL of my ideas revolve around rewarding those who work hard to earn their place in society.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@Tater ... that is a very good post, and I agree that capitalists are also corrupt ... but I don't think they cause the government to become corrupt necessarily. I think that the main reason why the corporations and government got into bed is because the government was able to usurp too much power (especially military and police power) and therefore it just made things easier for the capitalist to use that control for their own benefit. And I bet this started happening after the South lost the civil war to the North. 

Infrastructure development is the most beneficial to corporates - which is why before the governments got so big, pretty much the entire burden of responsibility of infrastructure development fell on the shoulders of the industrialist. The capitalist built the schools, he built the roads, he built the railway lines etc etc. The main reason why the government is always keen to develop and maintain infrastructure (and largely nothing else) is because the capitalist machine cannot function without it. When it comes to other things, the government typically does a terrible job. The fact that corrupt corporations exist does not mean that we should continue to have a government as well. If the government and corporates are in cohoots as you claim (and in many cases they are), then having a government is essentially pointless when it comes to curtailing capitalist greed. The industrialist still takes responsibility for infrastructure development in countries and communities around the world that don't have governments. They do it in African communities. They do it in Pakistani communities ... because ultamately a healthy population and solid infrastructure for a capitalist is always more beneficial than a place that doesn't have it. With or without governments, the capitalist will put money in social development because it requires the human capital to a) continue to function and b) continue to feed its coffers. This is why the entire university structure is mostly a private enterprise and fairly successful as well. 

In the end, ultimately for me it still boils down to how unnecessary the government seems to me. I think there's a solid case to be made for self-governance without a government


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> @Tater ... that is a very good post, and I agree that capitalists are also corrupt ... but I don't think they cause the government to become corrupt necessarily. I think that the main reason why the corporations and government got into bed is because the government was able to usurp too much power (especially military and police power) and therefore it just made things easier for the capitalist to use that control for their own benefit. And I bet this started happening after the South lost the civil war to the North.
> 
> Infrastructure development is the most beneficial to corporates - which is why before the governments got so big, pretty much the entire burden of responsibility of infrastructure development fell on the shoulders of the industrialist. The capitalist built the schools, he built the roads, he built the railway lines etc etc. The main reason why the government is always keen to develop and maintain infrastructure (and largely nothing else) is because the capitalist machine cannot function without it. When it comes to other things, the government typically does a terrible job. The fact that corrupt corporations exist does not mean that we should continue to have a government as well. If the government and corporates are in cohoots as you claim (and in many cases they are), then having a government is essentially pointless when it comes to curtailing capitalist greed. The industrialist still takes responsibility for infrastructure development in countries and communities around the world that don't have governments. They do it in African communities. They do it in Pakistani communities ... because ultamately a healthy population and solid infrastructure for a capitalist is always more beneficial than a place that doesn't have it. With or without governments, the capitalist will put money in social development because it requires the human capital to a) continue to function and b) continue to feed its coffers. This is why the entire university structure is mostly a private enterprise and fairly successful as well.
> 
> In the end, ultimately for me it still boils down to how unnecessary the government seems to me. I think there's a solid case to be made for self-governance without a government


You make a lot of valid points but the one area where I would disagree...

"I think that the main reason why the corporations and government got into bed is because the government was able to usurp too much power"

It's the corporations who bought out the government, so they could have all the control; not the other way around. Our government is supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people, and that could not be further from the truth of what we actually have. The reality is a government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.

Government in and of itself is not a bad thing. It's a corrupt government that is owned by the corporations to serve the interests of the elite that is the problem. 

When you say the government does a terrible job, that only applies to most of us. As far as the billionaires are concerned, the government is doing a fantastic job, because they are richer than ever. Things are working out GREAT for them. It's everyone else who is left with the short end of the stick.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Personal opinion is that the rich should not have their wealth taken from them by any means, it's corrupt and disgusting. That being said there needs to be accountability for CEO's making so much money, wall street fraud and the rich staying rich because it seems the richer you are, the more freebies you get. Paying fair taxes is also something that needs to be enforced.

If they really want to help poor people then the taxes we pay now should go to better schools, more Police and better outreach programs in poor areas, not wasting millions of dollars giving money to fuckhead terrorist supporting countries who hate the US. Not spending astronomical amounts of money on the Military and other asinine projects which are just money drains.

Invest in Science, better Police, Schools and offering after school programs and jobs will be better than any amount of handouts!


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Personal opinion is that the rich should not have their wealth taken from them by any means, it's corrupt and disgusting. That being said there needs to be accountability for CEO's making so much money, wall street fraud and the rich staying rich because it seems the richer you are, the more freebies you get. Paying fair taxes is also something that needs to be enforced.


I've never understood why conservatives don't agree with me more often on this topic. What you said here is my entire point. I have no interest in taking the wealth from people who have earned it. What I want is a more equitable distribution of wealth in the first place, based on who produced that wealth, so we aren't ever in a position where anyone needs more than they earn. Achieve that first and no one has a right to bitch about taxes being fair because those at the bottom are allowed to earn enough to take care of themselves.



Miss Sally said:


> If they really want to help poor people than the taxes we pay now should got to better schools, more Police and better outreach programs in poor areas, not wasting millions of dollars giving money to fuckhead terrorist supporting countries who hate the US. Not spending astronomical amounts of money on the Military and other asinine projects which are just money drains.
> 
> Invest in Science, better Police, Schools and offering after school programs and jobs will be better than any amount of handouts!


Exactamundo.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> I've never understood why conservatives don't agree with me more often on this topic. What you said here is my entire point. I have no interest in taking the wealth from people who have earned it. What I want is a more equitable distribution of wealth in the first place, based on who produced that wealth, so we aren't ever in a position where anyone needs more than they earn. Achieve that first and no one has a right to bitch about taxes being fair because those at the bottom are allowed to earn enough to take care of themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactamundo.



Beats me really, if you want smaller Government and to ensure people invest in businesses both big and small and paying taxes then you need to make sure that CEOs and stock holders don't turn their company into their own personal fiefdom which extorts all it's wealth from the people that work for them. It never works and it always leads to shady actions which makes the business fail and leaves people out of work. Proper taxing would also something they should be supporting. I don't like regulating business but there should be a cap on what CEOs make and to ensure that freedom doesn't lead with companies nose diving into the ground by corrupt administration.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Beats me really, if you want smaller Government and to ensure people invest in businesses both big and small and paying taxes then you need to make sure that CEOs and stock holders don't turn their company into their own personal fiefdom which extorts all it's wealth from the people that work for them. It never works and it always leads to shady actions which makes the business fail and leaves people out of work. Proper taxing would also something they should be supporting. I don't like regulating business but there should be a cap on what CEOs make and to ensure that freedom doesn't lead with companies nose diving into the ground by corrupt administration.


Well, that's the thing. Without government regulation, the corporations would happily turn us all into economic slaves. They don't give a fuck about you or I. They only care about their bottom line. That's why the corporations bought our government, so they could maximize their profits without things like pesky worker rights getting in their way.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Well, that's the thing. Without government regulation, the corporations would happily turn us all into economic slaves. They don't give a fuck about you or I. They only care about their bottom line. That's why the corporations bought our government, so they could maximize their profits without things like pesky worker rights getting in their way.


I don't believe in overly regulating, red tape and that sort of nonsense leads to stagnation and pointless waste. I also do not believe in affirmative action nor quotas, companies should be able to pick and choose who they wish to hire and based on what merit. If I can pick and choose whom I let into my home or bed than companies should be able to hire who they want. 

I do believe in very, very VERY stiff punishment for people who purposely ruin a company or do shady things. Freedom is a good thing but there should also be punishment for negligence or fleecing your own company/workers and people. I guess it would be like this, I would want children to color and draw as they want, some will be good, some will be bad works of art but if I find kids drawing pictures of dickbutts or drawing bad things about another child, well they're gonna be in some serious trouble! Same with business, do what you think will work but abuse that freedom and you're fucked!


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I don't believe in overly regulating, red tape and that sort of nonsense leads to stagnation and pointless waste. I also do not believe in affirmative action nor quotas, companies should be able to pick and choose who they wish to hire and based on what merit. If I can pick and choose whom I let into my home or bed than companies should be able to hire who they want.


It's not the mega corporations that have to deal with over regulation and red tape. They pretty much do whatever the fuck they want. The problem with over regulation is fucking over small businesses. It's by design to retain the power of those in power.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@DesolationRow @L-DOPA @Reaper @Fringe @Beatles123 @Miss Sally

Trump policy speech regarding ISIS and Radical Islam: 

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Radical_Islam_Speech.pdf

Really good stuff. Don't agree with everything but it certainly blows away the delusional Obama-Clinton non-reality that everything is fine and there's nothing wrong with importing tens or even hundreds of thousands of people with radically different cultural values. We are truly in our late Roman Empire stage of civilization where two paths appear before us: cuckold ourselves with our heads planted firmly in the sand while the barbarians walk over us and take everything that we have, or stand firm and assert our borders and the strength and superiority of our cultural values and institutions. I know which path I prefer.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Well, that's the thing. Without government regulation, the corporations would happily turn us all into economic slaves. They don't give a fuck about you or I. They only care about their bottom line. That's why the corporations bought our government, so they could maximize their profits without things like pesky worker rights getting in their way.


How would these companies continue to exist as highly profitable enterprises if the disposable income of the general mass of consumers disappears? Why for example would the automotive industry want people to be economic slaves? Economic slaves don't buy cars every few years. Economic slaves don't get credit cards. They sure as hell don't get loans from the bank. 

The main difference all throughout history between the rich and the poor is the amount of stuff the rich and the poor can buy. Casting an economic system that has greatly increased the amount of stuff the poor can buy as a system that tends towards and consciously wants 'economic slavery' is, well, nuts. Here's the real dirty little secret: Wall Street and Big Business in general give zero fucks about what you do with your lives as long as you have the money to buy their products. That's it! They want you to buy their shit. If you don't have the money to do that and not many other people do either, they're going to be just as unhappy about it as you. They can't make money if the middle class is miniscule. 

Slavery also tends to decrease in profits the longer the institution continuously exists; it is not a viable long-term economic model. Any kind of slavery.

It is the purpose of a business to sell things. Not to give a fuck about people in general the way we expect elected officials to. We have enough busybodies telling us what to do, my God it would be terrible if most businesses got in on that game. The ones that already do are bad enough.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm on page 7 and loving it :drose 

I'll add in more of my thoughts in this post later. So far, I've seen nothing to cry foul about at all.

Ok, I've read through all of this ... and it seems like he's toned down a lot ... Maybe even too much for my liking .. There's a disconnect now between what's on paper and what's been said. I don't consider it flip flopping like some might and I won't berate Trump for it. I can totally understand why he would want to take a less radical approach now that he's falling behind ... but in my opinion, him starting to take a more moderate and less provocative approach may start working against him. 

That said, at still least he addresses the issue of Radical Islam with the fervour it needs to be talked about. It's the exact reverse of the muslim pandering that has gone on in the west and is still fairly consistent in action even if it's not as heavy handed as it first came across. He's still on the right side in terms of where he should be with regards to the ISIS and radical Islam threat - and his approach seems more likely to quell the terrorism as opposed to making it worse. So far I've seen nothing from Hillary that inspires any confidence at all that she has any interest of the world at all. At least with Trump you can see genuine concern - and that in and of itself is far better than anything I've seen from the dems and even GOP in years. This is why I keep calling Trump our true independent candidate :shrug I may be wrong, but this does not sound like the typical GOP platform and definitely doesn't sound anything like the dem platform.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> You're kidding, right?
> 
> The United States government is corrupt BECAUSE it is owned by the private enterprises. Mega-corporations and the billionaires who own them have bought our politicians and that's the number one reason our government sucks so hard; because it only serves the interests of the billionaires and their corporations instead of serving the public interests. Saying you want to get rid of government interference only cuts out the middle man. It does nothing to solve the problem of the USA being a corporatocracy. *The only thing getting rid of government rules on the economy accomplishes is direct control of the corporations over us instead of the corporations having to go through the hassle of buying off the government so they can control us. Either way, we're economic slaves to the corporations.*


I cannot disagree more with the part I have bolded and this is where I think progressives and the left seem to not understand the corporation/government relationship (this is going to be rather long post so I apologize :lol.)

There is nothing inherently wrong with corporations, but modern capitalism is largely a history of corporations behaving badly. Modern capitalism – NOT the free market – is a system where the power elite are able to extract wealth from the masses and concentrate it into the hands of the few. They do this, not through the extraction of Marx’s “surplus value”, but through creating artificial scarcities and rents through the power of the state.

Put simply, the state is the enforcement mechanism for economic privilege. For those who would like a more economically equal world, it is the state that should be the focus of attention. Leftists who support things like welfare and the minimum wage believe they are helping win some battles on behalf of the working man, but a far better solution would be attack the system of state-enforced economic privilege itself.

Far and away the largest driver of massive corporations and wealth inequality is the institution of central banking. Indeed, central banking and artificially low interest rates are a major tenet of modern progressive views on monetary policy, despite their professed intention to reduce inequality.

The Federal Reserve creates money from nothing, and those who get to use that money first benefit. The increase in money supply will decrease the value of money, or increase the price of other goods. But this only happens over time as the money moves through the economy. So if the government gets to use this money first – generally to support the military industrial complex, big banks, auto companies, and other favored business interests – they get extra (free) money without having to pay higher prices. Everyone else who gets access to that money later ends up needing to pay higher prices, and is essentially robbed of the value of their savings. This process is largely ignored by the left.

But this isn’t the only way monopoly central banking hurts the poor and enables giant corporations and those who are already wealthy to rake in record profits. The central bank is tasked with setting interest rates, and there is an inherent tendency to keep interest rates low in order to foster investment (and to concentrate wealth). In fact, progressives are very adamant about keeping interest rates low. But lowering the interest rate makes savings less attractive and encourages investors to seek higher yields, which pushes up the price of securities, particularly stocks (and housing, and other assets). Of course, it is the wealthy who overwhelming own these assets, and thus they are the beneficiaries of these “progressive” policies. Money printing leads to inflation and lowers the reward for saving, hurting everyone else in the economy who isn’t heavily exposed to these securities.

Central banking doesn’t just make rich individuals richer, it also leads to massive corporate profits, in particular relative to wage rates. As I said earlier, preferred corporations (banks, hedge funds, weapons manufacturers, etc.) are the first recipients of the expanded credit. Moreover, credit expansion and lower interest rates tend to foster increased capital expenditure for longer term increases in production rather than immediate expenditure on labour. As such, the returns to capital will tend to be higher than that of labour. There are many other negative effects of monopoly central banking, but I want to restrict my arguments to a very basic overview of how it worsens inequality and improves the corporate bottom line. In this respect, progressives are consistent advocates for the most egregious of economic injustices.

There is also the legal concept of “corporate personhood,” which means that corporations have many of the same legal rights and responsibilities that an individual would. A major aspect of this is that it allows corporations themselves to sue or be sued – that is, the corporation is considered an entity apart from those individuals who comprise it.

In and of itself, the concept of corporate personhood is not immoral. Corporations, as groups of individuals, should be entitled to the same kinds of freedoms that individuals have. The immorality stems from treating corporations as persons with respect to limited liability. The corporate entity itself is liable for damages they may cause, but the owners or shareholders are not held responsible.

That means that corporate owners can do immoral things without so much regard for the consequences, because they will not be considered personally responsible. This is the main reason a business incorporates itself as this allows investors to hire managers who have a legal mandate to pursue profits – but it lets them keep their distance from the way the profits are pursued. This makes a significant difference; imagine how business would change if stockholders knew that they would be liable for the actions of their managers? In other words, if an investment in a company would mean risking the stockholders’ own assets, the way business is done could change radically. Very few people would give limited liability to human beings and their direct actions. Most people are aware that having real consequences for your actions helps prevent you from engaging in undesirable or bad actions. Corporate personhood thus subsidizes bad behavior. 

In a world where there wasn’t limited liability for shareholders of corporations, the structure of capital would be radically different. That’s not to say that similarly structured organizations couldn’t arise out of a network of legitimate contractual relationships, but I would expect it to be the exception rather than the rule. If shareholders were held individually liable, then buying a share of stock in a company becomes a much more risky and harrowing ordeal. Before doing so, one would want to thoroughly research the company as well as the other shareholders in order to determine how risky such a move might be. Perhaps the free market would supply some kind of insurance for these decisions, thus smoothing over some of those transaction costs. Either way, modern limited liability acts as a subsidy to shareholders by either reducing risk or essentially paying for their insurance policy.

Another problem is many people don't seem to understand that government regulation of the economy actually helps big corporations rather than punishes them. I can't believe the amount of people who don't seem to get this and believe government regulation acts as a counter-balance to corporate power. It does the exact opposite. This is why I often talk about my opposition to big government. FA Hayek wrote in "Road to Serfdom" and predicted nearly 100 years ago that markets would become dominated by large corporations the bigger that government became. The bigger the government the more large corporations and the fewer small businesses. He explains why central planning leads to this sort of market, and he did it before hardly any corporations even existed.

The problem is that big government loves big corporations. Big government is all about controlling the economy, controlling the people, and controlling the means of production. In this market, with a few big corporations they only have to arm twist, make back room deals with them, enact special regulations, etc.. to achieve their central planning and control. If the market was made up of many smaller independent businesses it would be almost impossible for them to exert so much control over the marketplace.

Throughout history, every expansion in government is funded and supported by some segment of big business. This is because larger, established firms always have an interest in crushing smaller, upstart competitors. Under a free market system, market share is never secure. But regulations create barriers to entry, which reduces that competition and leads to an increase in the size and relative power of the large, entrenched interests. Sure, they need to pay the costs that come with the regulations, but they can afford to do so much more easily than smaller competitors – and as yet nonexistent potential competitors.

You can see this at every level of government. The most obvious contemporary example at a local level is how taxi cartels are desperately trying to hold on to market share by lobbying their cities to ban Uber. Similarly, professional licensing requirements turn certain professions practically into guilds; the restricted supply of doctors significantly increases the cost of health care, for instance, but vastly increases their salaries.

But it is also (and especially) true at the highest levels of government and industry. Take the pharmaceutical industry, for example. The FDA regulates which drugs are allowed to be sold in the US, and requires expensive testing and a lengthy, multi-year process before a drug can go to market. Existing pharmaceutical companies, while they don’t like to pay for these tests, can certainly afford to do so. But smaller firms generally can’t take the risk. They may need to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars and several years’ effort, and still get their drug rejected. Most won’t even try and that's how you end up with big pharma.

Competition is the bane of big business. Laws such as the Federal Trade Commission Act’s “unfair competition” provisions made illegal things like “predatory pricing,” price wars, and “dumping.” Normally, it is difficult for oligopolies to form, because there is a strong incentive to cheat and undercut your competitors, seizing more market share. But this law prohibited selling goods for less than production costs, and thus made it possible for more stable oligopolies to form.

The incentives are clearly there for big business to use the state to enforce monopoly or oligopoly upon their industry and extract unwarranted profits. But there are a couple of further problems with the big business-big government relationship. One of them is regulatory capture. The basic logic behind this concept is that while the general public is largely ignorant of the regulator’s activities, those in the regulated industries are well-informed, and pressure regulators for favorable regulation. Furthermore, information about regulated industries is largely under the control of those in the industry, and personal connections between regulators and the regulated also influence regulatory outcomes. The result is that regulatory agencies act as agents for those they regulate, not the general public. An example was revealed by whistleblower Carmen Segarra, who secretly recorded tapes showing that Goldman Sachs got to ignore the regulations that they were supposed to abide by. And you can be sure that smaller companies would never have gotten away with this kind of thing.

Finally, we come to the most direct and obvious way that the state is used to plunder the people for the benefit of large corporations: corporate subsidies. The US Federal government spends $100 billion per year on direct corporate subsidies. This is where most of us would agree. There are a number of examples:

* Much of the military-industrial complex amounts to a corporate subsidy. Never mind the fact that the industry itself would be just a fraction of its current size if it weren’t for the state in general. There are specific aspects that count as corporate subsidy: namely, foreign military aid. Every year, the US gives billions of dollars to foreign countries so that they can use that money in order to buy weapons from US manufacturers.

* The massive government bailouts in 2008 were a corporate subsidy. This includes hundreds of billions of dollars going to giant entities such as Bear Stearns, AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. And then the TARP bailed out all of Wall Street, and later General Motors and Chrysler. I can assure you, the little guy will never be “too big to fail.”

* Federal land is often leased out to billionaires and large corporations, who have no incentive to treat the land responsibly due to a lack of private property rights. This includes things like leasing land for grazing, logging, and drilling for oil. These companies need not be concerned for the environment, because their contracts run out within a couple years – might as well suck the land dry of as many profitable resources as possible! A far better solution for the environment would be for conservation organizations to buy up swaths of land that they want to protect and then not sell it to these corporations.

* The Export-Import Bank provides loans to foreign countries so that they can purchase American-made goods. This is a major corporate subsidy, but the primary benefactor is a single giant corporation: Boeing. The Ex-Im Bank spent $20.5 billion dollars of taxpayer money in fiscal year 2014, 40% of which ended up going back to Boeing. And in a typical case of regulatory capture, the Ex-Im Bank reached out to Boeing to seek their approval on regulatory rules they were writing.

I could go on.

There are a million more assorted ways the state protects unnaturally big business, such as creating a student loan bubble that forces many into debt slavery, and military interventions abroad at the behest of major corporations (such as United Fruit Company in 1950s Guatemala and Halliburton in Iraq).

The fact is, without the enforcement arm of the state, the economic structure of production would be wildly different, perhaps even unrecognizable.

I'm sure we can agree to disagree however .




CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @L-DOPA @Reaper @Fringe @Beatles123 @Miss Sally
> 
> Trump policy speech regarding ISIS and Radical Islam:
> 
> https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Radical_Islam_Speech.pdf
> 
> Really good stuff. Don't agree with everything but it certainly blows away the delusional Obama-Clinton non-reality that everything is fine and there's nothing wrong with importing tens or even hundreds of thousands of people with radically different cultural values. We are truly in our late Roman Empire stage of civilization where two paths appear before us: cuckold ourselves with our heads planted
> strength and superiority of our cultural values and institutions. I know which path I prefer.


Incredible how refreshing it is to have a foreign policy which is actually not based on being nation state builders or a global empire. I don't agree with every approach but you are right in that it certainly is much better than what Clinton has to offer.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> We are truly in our late Roman Empire stage of civilization where two paths appear before us: cuckold ourselves with our heads planted firmly in the sand while the barbarians walk over us and take everything that we have, or stand firm and assert our borders and the strength and superiority of our cultural values and institutions. I know which path I prefer.


Well Europe is certainly almost there. If current trends continue, I could see Europe have a slight resemblance to how it was in the 6th century


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I'm on page 7 and loving it :drose
> 
> I'll add in more of my thoughts in this post later. So far, I've seen nothing to cry foul about at all.
> 
> Ok, I've read through all of this ... and it seems like he's toned down a lot ... Maybe even too much for my liking .. There's a disconnect now between what's on paper and what's been said. I don't consider it flip flopping like some might and I won't berate Trump for it. I can totally understand why he would want to take a less radical approach now that he's falling behind ... but in my opinion, him starting to take a more moderate and less provocative approach may start working against him.
> 
> That said, at still least he addresses the issue of Radical Islam with the fervour it needs to be talked about. It's the exact reverse of the muslim pandering that has gone on in the west and is still fairly consistent in action even if it's not as heavy handed as it first came across. He's still on the right side in terms of where he should be with regards to the ISIS and radical Islam threat - and his approach seems more likely to quell the terrorism as opposed to making it worse. So far I've seen nothing from Hillary that inspires any confidence at all that she has any interest of the world at all. At least with Trump you can see genuine concern - and that in and of itself is far better than anything I've seen from the dems and even GOP in years. This is why I keep calling Trump our true independent candidate :shrug I may be wrong, but this does not sound like the typical GOP platform and definitely doesn't sound anything like the dem platform.


The tone that Trump is taking with his speech (after reading it) is exactly what he needs to start doing if he wants to win and convince people that aren't on board (like myself, yes, I am looking at what he is standing for and willing to do so if I like what I see) to vote for him. 

The bottom line is this...Trump can tap into the anger of Americans and he does a very good job of that. However, at some point, you need to start acting and being a leader and Presidential. Being angry works only to a certain point. Now, we need to see Trump be a leader and show the American people that he is capable of being a steady hand. With all we have in this country going on and around the world, many people want to look at the President and feel confident they have a solid grip on the situation. I know, as a manager, that I can stomp around and try to fire up the troops, but the people that work for me want to know that I am in control and they can be confident in the fact I will do what's in their best interests. 

It's not being weak, it's called being a leader. He can soften the edges a little bit and still deliver a strong message. Look at Reagan, many accused him of being a war-crazed cowboy who would lead to the world getting nuked. The difference was, he was able to talk to the people in a way that people identified with. He exuded confidence, that's what we need and really want. Yes, the country is in a shit state right now, but we want our leader to lead us through.

Donald Trump has shown he's the angry American who wants what is best. Now, it's time to see Donald Trump the leader. That's what he has to do if he wants to win.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So what do you think Bruiser. Enough to start swaying you a little?


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> So what do you think Bruiser. Enough to start swaying you a little?


I'm starting to look very closely at his speeches and policies. Hillary Clinton is obviously not an option, at the same time I want to start seeing some conservative bonafides in Trump. No, I don't expect perfection, Cruz or Rand Paul would have been as close to that and they're obviously not here. I need to know that he is serious about defending the Constitution, etc. If he can convince me, I am willing to vote for him on Election Day. McCain and Romney weren't perfect, but showed me enough I was willing to vote for them. 

I do appreciate his talking about no more nation-building, we don't need to be the world's cop and re-build everyone in our likeness.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> How would these companies continue to exist as highly profitable enterprises if the disposable income of the general mass of consumers disappears?


Seems logical to me. However, greed tends to lead these people to go after short term profit at the expense of long term sustainability.



L-DOPA said:


> I cannot disagree more with the part I have bolded and this is where I think progressives and the left seem to not understand the corporation/government relationship (this is going to be rather long post so I apologize :lol.)
> 
> There is nothing inherently wrong with corporations, but modern capitalism is largely a history of corporations behaving badly.
> 
> The fact is, without the enforcement arm of the state, the economic structure of production would be wildly different, perhaps even unrecognizable.
> 
> I'm sure we can agree to disagree however .


We don't entirely disagree. A lot of what you said is similar to the points I have been making in this thread. I do not deny that the corporations use the state to control the markets and maintain their power. Where we disagree is that you somehow think that getting rid of the government would magically solve all these problems. 

You say there is nothing inherently wrong with corporations but the same can be said about government too. The problem isn't government in and of itself. The problem is how our government is being used. Right now the corporations use the state to kill off competition but if you get rid of government, they'd just use strongman tactics to accomplish the same goals.

No rules and regulations isn't any better than the rules and regulations we have now. I agree with nearly every point you made about how the corporations are using the state but you still need the state to make the changes needed to stop that sort of fuckery.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Wouldn't Mike Pence fail the immigration vetting if he is anti-gay people? :troll

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...ump-s-disjointed-foreign-policy-pitch-n631311

A liberal source but I think this addresses the key concerns non-fans have on Trump. 


> The result is that the only thing we know about Trump is that he's good at criticizing decisions by other presidents in hindsight. Unfortunately, this is not a very useful skill for the person tasked with making the decisions in the first place.
> 
> "He's best when he's making forceful retrospective critiques," Colin Dueck, a professor at George Mason University who's researched the history of Republican foreign policy, said when asked to describe Trump's worldview. "But when you ask him what specifically are you proposing going forward, he doesn't have a coherent proposal."
> 
> As Colin Powell famously cautioned George W. Bush ahead of the Iraq War, "you break it, you own it." The consequences of military action -- or inaction, in some of these cases -- are irreversible.


Not sure if this speech help to alleviate those concerns.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Wouldn't Mike Pence fail the immigration vetting if he is anti-gay people? :troll


There's a big difference in tolerating the people who can have bigoted opinions that are already in america and importing bigots from other parts of the world when you can actually prevent it. 

You tackle the problems that already exist at home .. you don't exacerbate them by importing more when you can legally prevent it. 

You can't legally prevent citizens from procreating, but you can prevent immigrants from coming in and making it worse with their toxic ideologies.

Do I agree with Trump's choice of VP. No. But at the same time, the American VP is as useless as a vestigial organ so it doesn't really matter what kind of BS views he holds. At least we know for a fact that he's not gonna go shoot up a gay bar.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> There's a big difference in tolerating the people who can have bigoted opinions that are already in america and importing bigots from other parts of the world when you can actually prevent it.
> 
> You tackle the problems that already exist at home .. you don't exacerbate them by importing more when you can legally prevent it.
> 
> You can't legally prevent citizens from procreating, but you can prevent immigrants from coming in and making it worse with their toxic ideologies.
> 
> Do I agree with Trump's choice of VP. No. But at the same time, the American VP is as useless as a vestigial organ so it doesn't really matter what kind of BS views he holds. At least we know for a fact that he's not gonna go shoot up a gay bar.


Just stating the people supporting him will fail his vetting too. Even you agree with me on that.

I do agree you tackle problems at home first, but his policies sounds a lot like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Wouldn't your parents be banned from going to America if Trump's policies is implemented?


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> We don't entirely disagree. A lot of what you said is similar to the points I have been making in this thread. I do not deny that the corporations use the state to control the markets and maintain their power. Where we disagree is that you somehow think that getting rid of the government would magically solve all these problems.
> 
> You say there is nothing inherently wrong with corporations but the same can be said about government too. The problem isn't government in and of itself. The problem is how our government is being used. Right now the corporations use the state to kill off competition but if you get rid of government, they'd just use strongman tactics to accomplish the same goals.
> 
> No rules and regulations isn't any better than the rules and regulations we have now. I agree with nearly every point you made about how the corporations are using the state but you still need the state to make the changes needed to stop that sort of fuckery.


To make things clear and precise, I don't believe government is inherently evil either, I do think government is ultimately in many case very wasteful and inefficient and in many cases I believe government to be almost a necessary evil if you will. I certainly don't believe in anarchy or that getting rid of government is the answer. I am not an anarcho-capitalist.

The problem with the argument of using the state to make changes in the way of adding more government law and regulation is the fact it is in many cases government institutions and law that is allowing big corporations to have a huge amount of power and money at the expense of everyone else. For all the big banking and lobbyists involved the FED is still essentially a government institution that is used as a tool for public policy. Money used to be a meaningful unit of account to convey accurate price signals which is now being used as an instrument for government policy. The FED was around well before the big corporations of today and has been around for over 100 years with many other versions such as the Bank of America before that. Yet the Federal Reserve plays a huge role as I explained earlier in driving up income inequality and enriching other big banks, corporations and military contractors. Corporations didn't lobby for the Federal Reserve to have a monopoly over monetary and fiscal policy yet government uses the Central Bank to help subsidize corporations anyway. Why? Because big governments benefit from helping big business through the Central Bank.

To give you an example of what I mean, one of the key arguments about the EU from Europhiles has always been that having 26 nations pull all of their resources together is a potential effective counter measure to big corporate power. They argue that more governmental reform is the answer to cancel out big corporations seizing more economic and political power. The problem is none of the EU bureaucrats want reform, they benefit from having a big European government and Central Bank because it allows more remote back door deals such as TPP to form. The problem is, using government to try make changes to what the problem is often is either not possible like in this case or often adds another layer on top to make the situation that much worse. To quote one of my favourite politicians Daniel Hannan: *"Surely the answer to bring power closer to the people"*

Changing things from the inside I think is the answer but we might have very different solutions. You can't really hope to use and rely government to make the changes but you can take away and remove the laws, regulations and most importantly institutions which allows the government/corporation relationship to foster to begin with.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Just stating the people supporting him will fail his vetting too. Even you agree with me on that.
> 
> I do agree you tackle problems at home first, but his policies sounds a lot like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Wouldn't your parents be banned from going to America if Trump's policies is implemented?


What the fuck are you talking about? My parents aren't radical extremists. How dare you imply that they wouldn't get through the vetting process. 

First of all they're Canadians ... And secondly, how dare you imply that their values are incompatible with western values. They were the ones that raised me. 

fpalm


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> What the fuck are you talking about? My parents aren't radical extremists. How dare you imply that they wouldn't get through the vetting process.
> 
> First of all they're Canadians ... And secondly, how dare you imply that their values are incompatible with western values. They were the ones that raised me.
> 
> fpalm





> As soon as I take office, I will ask the State Department and the
> Department of Homeland Security to identify a list of regions where
> adequate screening cannot take place. We will stop processing visas
> from those areas until such time as it is deemed safe to resume based
> on new circumstances or new procedures.


I thought they were first generation immigrants due to your childhood being spent in Pakistan. My apologies if I was mistaken.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> To make things clear and precise, I don't believe government is inherently evil either, I do think government is ultimately in many case very wasteful and inefficient and in many cases I believe government to be almost a necessary evil if you will. I certainly don't believe in anarchy or that getting rid of government is the answer. I am not an anarcho-capitalist.
> 
> The problem with the argument of using the state to make changes if you in the way of adding more government law and regulation is the fact it is in many cases government institutions and law that is allowing big corporations to have a huge amount of power and money at the expense of everyone else. For all the big banking and lobbyists involved the FED is still essentially a government institution that is used as a tool for public policy. Money used to be a meaningful unit of account to convey accurate price signals which is now being used as an instrument for government policy. The FED was around well before the big corporations of today and has been around for over 100 years with many other versions such as the Bank of America before that. Yet the Federal Reserve plays a huge role as I explained earlier in driving up income inequality and enriching other big banks, corporations and military contractors. Corporations didn't lobby for the Federal Reserve to have a monopoly over monetary and fiscal policy yet government uses the Central Bank to help subsidize corporations anyway. Why? Because big governments benefit from helping big business through the Central Bank.
> 
> To give you an example of what I mean, one of the key arguments about the EU from Europhiles has always been that having 26 nations pull all of their resources together is a potential effective counter measure to big corporate power. They argue that more governmental reform is the answer to cancel out big corporations seizing more economic and political power. The problem is none of the EU bureaucrats want reform, they benefit from having a big European government and Central Bank because it allows more remote back door deals such as TPP to form. The problem is, using government to try make changes to what the problem is often is either not possible like in this case or often adds another layer on top to make the situation that much worse. To quote one of my favourite politicians Daniel Hannan: *"Surely the answer to bring power closer to the people"*
> 
> Changing things from the inside I think is the answer but we might have very different solutions. You can't really hope to use and rely government to make the changes but you can take away and remove the laws, regulations and most importantly institutions which allows the government/corporation relationship to foster to begin with.


My argument is a less is more approach. We don't need more regulations. We just need the right kinds of regulations. I've always advocated for a smaller government that puts the power back into the hands of the people. It's my opinion that the government should establish the groundwork for how the system works but then take a hands off approach and let the people take it from there.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I thought they were first generation immigrants due to your childhood being spent in Pakistan. My apologies if I was mistaken.


I'm a rare tri-national and my parents are dual nationals. They've been in and out of Canada since the late 70's. We're a strange family in that my father had no quips traveling the world for his career and opportunities and I'm sort of the same. 

This doesn't effect us personally and it doesn't effect Pakistanis because Pakistanis are currently the allies he's talking about. Pakistan/America have a military alliance that Trump would need once he gets into power .. I'm pretty sure it won't end up being applied to Pakistan either - even though he mentioned pakistan in a poor light. 

Even if Trump pulls out of Afghanistan, he would still need Pakistan for the safe exit of his troops because there are no safe passages to leave through Afghanistan and they need Pakistan's infrastructure and ports to haul out of Afghanistan. The thing about Pakistan is that its government is really good at making deals ... meaning that even if Trump wants to put Pakistanis on the no-visa list, they'll find a way to work something out. I'm not concerned.

I shouldn't have snapped. My apologies as well.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> My argument is a less is more approach. We don't need more regulations. We just need the right kinds of regulations. I've always advocated for a smaller government that puts the power back into the hands of the people. It's my opinion that the government should establish the groundwork for how the system works but then take a hands off approach and let the people take it from there.


We are kind of similar then I guess. I wouldn't say all regulations are bad, there are some which are necessary. Milton Friedman always saw government as the umpire which set the rules of the game but did not overstep it's boundaries and just made sure those rules were enforced properly. That's something I also advocate for somewhat.

In any event it's been an interesting discussion :lol .


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @L-DOPA @Reaper @Fringe @Beatles123 @Miss Sally
> 
> Trump policy speech regarding ISIS and Radical Islam:
> 
> https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Radical_Islam_Speech.pdf
> 
> Really good stuff. Don't agree with everything but it certainly blows away the delusional Obama-Clinton non-reality that everything is fine and there's nothing wrong with importing tens or even hundreds of thousands of people with radically different cultural values. We are truly in our late Roman Empire stage of civilization where two paths appear before us: cuckold ourselves with our heads planted firmly in the sand while the barbarians walk over us and take everything that we have, or stand firm and assert our borders and the strength and superiority of our cultural values and institutions. I know which path I prefer.


We're near the point where Western Rome essentially fell. I've posted about this before and those that don't know well...

When Western Rome was in the last stages of decline from corruption, weak Emperors and laziness the Empire had given up on assimilation of outsiders, assimilation was the key to Roman success for many centuries. All had a place, all could worship as they wanted, keep part of their culture but Roman language/culture and customs reigned supreme, Roman law was the only law. This allowed them to absorb ideologies and peoples who would otherwise kill each other. 

During the later periods it went to integration, Rome tolerated more of the outside ways, languages and customs. This was the beginning of decline, integration sounds good on paper but doesn't work in an established culture or Empire. The hostilities between Romans and barbarians grew as Barbarians were rejecting Roman culture more and more, they also were refusing to assimilate or even learn the language. It got so bad that segregation was all over the Empire and even in the Army, there were entire Barbarian units with their own armor, commanders and training. This would have made Caesar spin in his grave at the sight of this abomination. It was the cohesion and assimilation of peoples that made Rome work but instead Rome had turned into a multicultural nightmare with everyone looking out for themselves and trying to get what they could.

A man rose up a Roman who fashioned himself to be like Caesar to change things back, of course he was nothing like Caesar or Gaius Marius or Titus or any of the greats. He was just a man tired of seeing Rome lose itself, he tried to change the Empire through politics and within the military, it was slowly working but the Barbarians did not like this, they liked their own units and liked how things were and a war broke out between the two groups. The Barbarians won in the end, the man had the right idea but he just wasn't strong enough to pull it off. Rome had lost it's way, not long after the the entire Empire fell apart.

The fall of the Empire saw Europe go hundreds of years behind in tech and learning, allowing Islam to rule supreme and take over where the Roman Empire had weakened. During the heydays of the Empire people had clean running water, toilets, baths etc. After that most of these luxuries were lost. 

We're at that time now, Trump is that man fighting to set things right. He's not George Washington or any of the great founders but his heart is in the right place. If he loses and someone as corrupt like Hilary wins with her hateful and corrupt Democrats getting free reign you may as well kiss America goodbye. Rights will be taken away and big business will rule even more supreme. You can say I'm being silly but history has shown us what will happen and we'd be fools to ignore the similarities. People love to think that this sort of thing won't happen but tell that to the peoples of any great Empire when they were on the decline, it feels sudden but it's not. It's been happening for years, we're at the point of being in the middle, too close to the front to see the future that awaits us and too far from the back to look ahead at anymore warning signs.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I'm a rare tri-national and my parents are dual nationals. They've been in and out of Canada since the late 70's. We're a strange family in that my father had no quips traveling the world for his career and opportunities and I'm sort of the same.
> 
> This doesn't effect us personally and it doesn't effect Pakistanis because Pakistanis are currently the allies he's talking about. Pakistan/America have a military alliance that Trump would need once he gets into power .. I'm pretty sure it won't end up being applied to Pakistan either - even though he mentioned pakistan in a poor light.
> 
> Even if Trump pulls out of Afghanistan, he would still need Pakistan for the safe exit of his troops because there are no safe passages to leave through Afghanistan and they need Pakistan's infrastructure and ports to haul out of Afghanistan. The thing about Pakistan is that its government is really good at making deals ... meaning that even if Trump wants to put Pakistanis on the no-visa list, they'll find a way to work something out. I'm not concerned.
> 
> I shouldn't have snapped. My apologies as well.


Trump has already Pakistan part of the nations that support terrorism though. Trump has labelled allies like Pakistan and the Philippines as terrorist nations, so far as saying people with roots there need to be vetted even if they are citizens. I am sure his policies will extend to allied countries to satisfy his most rabid supporters if elected. America needs its allies as you mentioned, but Trump doesn't seem to give two hoot about disrespecting them so far. I would be concerned if I were you.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump's campaign dodged a huge bullet today where the liberal media was fully prepared to accuse him of the Imam murder even before finding out who the perpetrator was. Apparently turned out to be yet another minority on minority crime. 

I really wish that we never live to see the day when white people are a minority in this country ... It would be the end of america as a first world country. I mean, so many parts of it have already descended into third world chaos ...



FriedTofu said:


> Trump has already Pakistan part of the nations that support terrorism though. Trump has labelled allies like Pakistan and the Philippines as terrorist nations, so far as saying people with roots there need to be vetted even if they are citizens. I am sure his policies will extend to allied countries to satisfy his most rabid supporters if elected. America needs its allies as you mentioned, but Trump doesn't seem to give two hoot about disrespecting them so far. I would be concerned if I were you.


I don't know what exactly he's said about Pakistan, but if he's made statements about them harboring terrorists and being a haven for islamist terrorism, then he's not wrong. Even most Pakistanis believe that about other Pakistanis and it's the truth. If he bans Pakistanis from come to the States, I wouldn't be too upset. I mean, some of my personal friends would be inconvenienced and I'd hate it if they can't visit (though they'd probably get their visas), but given the things some of them say about America, I would actually prefer that they don't come here :shrug 

BTW, the left media is over-exaggerating Trump's muslim ban because they taking advantage of people's ignorance of the current vetting process. America still denies 1 out of every 5-7 visa applicants based on different criteria. 

Here are some things I've seen with my own eyes happen to Pakistanis over the last 15 years: 

- You can't come to America if you are a single woman with children. 
- Men with beards are encouraged to shave their beards before the visa interviews. Even old men over the age of 80. 
- Married women are told to leave their children behind with grandparents if they need to visit america for some reason
- Men without jobs are denied visas. They actually ask you to bring an affidavit to the visa interview from your employer
- People with prior criminal records of any kind are automatically ineligible 
- Health reasons including mental health issues. 

It's all there in the INA. Also, the immigration official conducting the visa interview is empowered to deny for any suspicions whatsover. 

The thing is that Trump kinda played right into the hands of his opponents with his "muslim ban" ... Unfortunately, had he chosen his words carefully then, all he needed to do was actually remind people of the existing INA ineligibilities and simply talk about strengthening them. Which is what he's basically doing now.

America has one of the strongest entry vetting processes in the world and they're very dedicated to it. This is why compared to Europe we're still very much a safe haven.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> We are kind of similar then I guess. I wouldn't say all regulations are bad, there are some which are necessary. Milton Friedman always saw government as the umpire which set the rules of the game but did not overstep it's boundaries and just made sure those rules were enforced properly. That's something I also advocate for somewhat.
> 
> In any event it's been an interesting discussion :lol .


Sports is a good analogy. The umps aren't there to tell you how to play the game. They're there to make sure you don't break the rules and make sure the rules are fair for the people playing the game. That's all I want out government as well. Establish the rules so everyone has a fair chance but then get out of the way and let us make our own way through life. If you don't break the rules, they have no reason to interfere. Same thing as speed limits. If you don't go over the speed limit, you don't get pulled over and given a ticket.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> We're at that time now, Trump is that man fighting to set things right. He's not George Washington or any of the great founders but his heart is in the right place. If he loses and someone as corrupt like Hilary wins with her hateful and corrupt Democrats getting free reign you may as well kiss America goodbye. Rights will be taken away and big business will rule even more supreme. You can say I'm being silly but history has shown us what will happen and we'd be fools to ignore the similarities. People love to think that this sort of thing won't happen but tell that to the peoples of any great Empire when they were on the decline, it feels sudden but it's not. It's been happening for years, we're at the point of being in the middle, too close to the front to see the future that awaits us and too far from the back to look ahead at anymore warning signs.


Good Lord. The sky isn't going to fall in no matter if Hillary or Trump gets in. There's a world of checks and balances that stop them from doing whatever they want, the chances are your life will pretty much go on the same as it always has. 

You'll still be more likely to be killed in a car accident or by someone in your own family than any refugee or some other evil thing that Hillary will apparently cook up.


----------



## SpeedStick

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

George Soros files leaked. Schemes from the NWO...






http://observer.com/2016/08/dc-leak-exposes-top-clinton-donor-george-soros-manipulating-elections/

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/08/15/...-liberal-billionaire-george-soros-for-advice/

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/13/soros-groups-get-hacked-hundreds-of-documents-leaked/

https://www.rt.com/usa/355919-soros-hacked-files-released/

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-14/george-soros-hacked-over-2500-internal-docs-released-online

Documents of manipulating European elections: http://linkis.com/sli.mg/a/Dvev5


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> Changing things from the inside I think is the answer but we might have very different solutions.


What makes you confident and faithful in this? If you look at the history of the American State as a whole, you see an ever expanding State that has been immune to virtually all attempts to halt its expansion, let alone reverse it. Even in cases where the State has been ostensibly countered (e.g. slavery, civil rights, etc.), the State always manages to make lemonade out of lemons for itself (e.g. war on poverty, war on drugs, etc.). And outside of those individual instances of being able to win one over on the State, if you look at the aggregate, it has enjoyed steady growth in size and scope nevertheless.

In point of fact, the government in America started out exceedingly small--scarcely even recognizable as much of a government at all. The issue, of course, was that the wealth and prosperity generated within the relatively free market would create such a juicy pool of potentially taxable income, that the growth of the State from near non-existent to what we have today was ultimately an inevitability. So, I'm not sure I really buy into the idea that maintaining some arbitrarily small State, even if it could be reverted back to such a thing which still seems very unlikely, is even within the realm of possibility. I suspect this is, perhaps, part of what Jefferson meant by cyclical rebellion, as I imagine he realized the State that was established would inevitably and perpetually proceed to grow in any and every way it possibly can.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> What makes you confident and faithful in this? If you look at the history of the American State as a whole, you see an ever expanding State that has been immune to virtually all attempts to halt its expansion, let alone reverse it. Even in cases where the State has been ostensibly countered (e.g. slavery, civil rights, etc.), the State always manages to make lemonade out of lemons for itself (e.g. war on poverty, war on drugs, etc.). And outside of those individual instances of being able to win one over on the State, if you look at the aggregate, it has enjoyed steady growth in size and scope nevertheless.
> 
> In point of fact, the government in America started out exceedingly small--scarcely even recognizable as much of a government at all. The issue, of course, was that the wealth and prosperity generated within the relatively free market would create such a juicy pool of potentially taxable income, that the growth of the State from near non-existent to what we have today was ultimately an inevitability. So, I'm not sure I really buy into the idea that maintaining some arbitrarily small State, even if it could be reverted back to such a thing which still seems very unlikely, is even within the realm of possibility. I suspect this is, perhaps, part of what Jefferson meant by cyclical rebellion, as I imagine he realized the State that was established would inevitably and perpetually proceed to grow in any and every way it possibly can.


You make some very good points. In all honesty, I stand by what I said about it being the answer but that doesn't mean I'm supremely confident that is going to happen any time soon. History has suggested the opposite but outside of states possibly seceding like Texas (which for one I don't know how serious Texas would be in pushing for that and for two the federal government would use every trick it possibly could to stop that from happening), I don't see what other solutions there could be besides solutions that either a) inevitably sends individuals and communities in a direction away from the US or b) leads to possible violence.

Besides too many people are comfortable with the status quo. Many people THINK they are going against the establishment without realizing they support it :lol.


----------



## Marv95

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Ok, I've read through all of this ... and it seems like he's toned down a lot ... Maybe even too much for my liking .. There's a disconnect now between what's on paper and what's been said. I don't consider it flip flopping like some might and I won't berate Trump for it. I can totally understand why he would want to take a less radical approach now that he's falling behind ... but in my opinion, him starting to take a more moderate and less provocative approach may start working against him.


I'd agree if this were still the primaries. But now this is the GE; he needs to appeal to the masses(and he knows this) and his rah rah "fuck fear drink beer" approach won't work. The public knows his policies are more logical and flat out better than Billary's. But they are turned off by his demeanor and unfiltered mouth, hence the trailing(though his internal polling might suggest otherwise; I mean why are he and Pence campaigning in deep blue states?). He won't lose support by becoming more sophisticated; in fact he'll gain more and dispel the notion that he's just a rich retard.

If we get this side of Trump more often, especially during the debates, his odds of winning would jump.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://sli.mg/a/XdAxbu

So SOROS did fund BLM.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.mandatory.com/2016/08/12/hearing-donald-trump-quotes-in-the-voice-of-zapp-brannigan-from/

Trump quotes...as read by Zapp Brannigan


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> http://www.mandatory.com/2016/08/12/hearing-donald-trump-quotes-in-the-voice-of-zapp-brannigan-from/
> 
> Trump quotes...as read by Zapp Brannigan


Posted 4-5 pages back.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Posted 4-5 pages back.


Was it? Ah my bad. Carry on.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/15/12480950/breitbart-poll-bias-clinton-winning-trump



> Conservative outlet Breitbart News, which has earned a reputation as one of the most pro–Donald Trump sources in existence, has been dissatisfied with poll after poll that shows the Republican nominee losing to Hillary Clinton. So it commissioned its own poll — only to find that Clinton is in fact beating Trump. By 5 points.
> 
> The Breitbart/Gravis poll published Sunday found Clinton leading Trump 42 to 37 percent in a four-way contest with Green Party candidate Jill Stein (3 percent) and Libertarian Gary Johnson (9 percent).


:booklel



Reaper said:


> I don't know what exactly he's said about Pakistan, but if he's made statements about them harboring terrorists and being a haven for islamist terrorism, then he's not wrong. Even most Pakistanis believe that about other Pakistanis and it's the truth. If he bans Pakistanis from come to the States, I wouldn't be too upset. I mean, some of my personal friends would be inconvenienced and I'd hate it if they can't visit (though they'd probably get their visas), but given the things some of them say about America, I would actually prefer that they don't come here :shrug
> 
> BTW, the left media is over-exaggerating Trump's muslim ban because they taking advantage of people's ignorance of the current vetting process. America still denies 1 out of every 5-7 visa applicants based on different criteria.
> 
> Here are some things I've seen with my own eyes happen to Pakistanis over the last 15 years:
> 
> - You can't come to America if you are a single woman with children.
> - Men with beards are encouraged to shave their beards before the visa interviews. Even old men over the age of 80.
> - Married women are told to leave their children behind with grandparents if they need to visit america for some reason
> - Men without jobs are denied visas. They actually ask you to bring an affidavit to the visa interview from your employer
> - People with prior criminal records of any kind are automatically ineligible
> - Health reasons including mental health issues.
> 
> It's all there in the INA. Also, the immigration official conducting the visa interview is empowered to deny for any suspicions whatsover.
> 
> The thing is that Trump kinda played right into the hands of his opponents with his "muslim ban" ... Unfortunately, had he chosen his words carefully then, all he needed to do was actually remind people of the existing INA ineligibilities and simply talk about strengthening them. Which is what he's basically doing now.
> 
> America has one of the strongest entry vetting processes in the world and they're very dedicated to it. This is why compared to Europe we're still very much a safe haven.


What makes you think Trump's policy will differentiate you from your friends from Pakistan? :O

Careful now, you are making the case for the other side by saying the vetting is already stringent. His base don't want to hear the things you just stated or will claim you made them up. They just see Muslim immigrant is bad, or immigrants from ____ countries like Pakistan is bad etc.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

To people talking about Trump 's tone making him a better candidate... I'm really curious why tone matters so much when the content and the message hasn't changed dramatically just because the tone has changed?



FriedTofu said:


> What makes you think Trump's policy will differentiate you from your friends from Pakistan? :O
> 
> Careful now, you are making the case for the other side by saying the vetting is already stringent. His base don't want to hear the things you just stated or will claim you made them up. They just see Muslim immigrant is bad, or immigrants from ____ countries like Pakistan is bad etc.


What are you talking about? I'm an atheist american immigrant whose already got his immigration and I'm immune from the immigration policies and directives of any future government. It's written into law. So unless they go out of their way to change that immunization, there's nothing to be concerned about if you're already a vetted immigrant. I don't even know why don't at least google something before making a comment about it. None of this stuff impacts me. 

Stop trying to come up with shit that you have no clue about. 

And no, the INA was created in 1952 ... It has nothing to do with either administration in the sense that that was a time when the US wasn't as bipartisan as it is now and therefore there wasn't much opposition to actually getting important things done.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> To people talking about Trump 's tone making him a better candidate... I'm really curious why tone matters so much when the content and the message hasn't changed dramatically just because the tone has changed?


The expression goes, "It's not what you say, but how you say it." Who are you more likely to listen to when they deliver a message? Someone who calmly and with a steady disposition, or the person who goes all Nikita Khruschev and pounds their shoe on the table? Speaking for myself, I'm going to tune out the person who is throwing a tantrum. 

Again, Trump has a message that can resonate with the American people. Our economy is shaky, we have terrorists knocking on our doorstep (or blowing up that door). People are genuinely concerned. They want the person in charge of this country to have a steady hand. Unlike other countries, we don't want that stark raving mad leader. 

Here's a couple of examples...Reagan addressing the Challenger disaster. 






Bush's speaking to the country after 9/11






Notice the tone...measured, yet strong. They were to show that our leaders were aware of what was going on and that they were going to lead us through.. 

Trump is capable of doing this, it's time for him to show us that he can be a leader. We need to know that if the shit hits the fan that someone is going to have a steady hand at the helm. You can soften the tone of the message, yet still deliver the message that you are the person to run this country for the next four years.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I don't think that morality has anything to do with it. Just as a poor man's son doesn't choose to be born poor, a rich man's son doesn't choose to be born rich. I don't even see how morality enters the picture.


Totally agree, its not the people who are immoral, its the system/society which is immoral. 

If a society such a wealth disparity that some people are dying for lack of food/house etc and other people have multiple huge homes and gold plated jets then that society is immoral. 

That doesn't make the people in it bad people, I in no way mean to suggest that people who were born rich should feel guilty or are bad people or immoral in anyway and I don't think so.

But the fact is the moral argument against income inequality is far from the only one. 

It's also really bad for the economy. 

People who are richer spend a lesser proportion of their income than people who are poorer. 

Give someone on 100k a year a 20% bonus, do you really think they're gonna spend all that extra 20k? And by comparison, take someone on 40k a year, how much of the extra $8k do you think they'll spend? 

Increasing the income share of the rich damages the economy as it takes money out of circulation. Increasing the income share of the poor is positive for the economy as they are consumers and they consume things at a higher rate of their income than richer people do, so less money gets taken out of the economy, and more keeps circulating, creating increased wealth for everybody.

The last American experienced extreme income inequality the way it's heading too now the great depression happened. 

"During the 1920s, the rich got richer, and the poor got poorer. Between 1920 and 1929, the income of the wealthiest 1 percent of the population rose by 75%, compared with a 9% increase for the rest of Americans as a whole."
https://us-history-the-great-depression.wikispaces.com/Unequal+Distribution+of+Income 

And is quite widely regarded as the cause. 



> There's plenty of such services all over every single city in America that helps poor and homeless get ready for job interviews. Most of them are privately funded and some are government subsidized. They for some reason have an extremely poor turnout despite having decent success rates in terms of placement.


That's good to hear, it's important that it is available everywhere and only the government can actually ensure that. It's too important for the health of a society to leave it to charity. 

And a healthy society is a productive society. 



> I don't think morality even enters the picture when it comes to rich vs poor. I'd like to understand how and why you think that it does though.


Hope you feel what I've said above addresses this, happy to elaborate further. Though again I don't feel it's actually that important a point. I think you can totally disagree with me on this and still agree with me on the hard nosed economic perspective.



> As for the rich taking away the opportunities from the poor are concerned ... what does that have anything to do with the government and income redistribution? The fact is that even if you make sure everyone is equally provided for, not everyone is equally hard working nor equally capable of managing that money well. This thing happens even in families. I don't think morality has anything to do with this at all.


The point is that without a government providing free education then some people would just never have a chance, and a basis of the capitalist system is that everyone has a chance, and the best should always rise to the top. 

But if some people can never get an education, they can never rise to the top, and we no longer have the most efficient system we could, which is the whole point of capitalism, to create wealth efficiently. 



> No one said that they're genetically superior and I don't think anyone actually believes that. I do think that the rich have a culture that promotes an environment where their kids know more about money and therefore make better choices and choices. Is that always true? Nope. But it's more true than false. More rich kids tend to make better choices than poor kids who become rich and then don't know how to keep that money ... This is why so many athletes (both black and white) declare bankruptcy just years after or even into their careers.


I'm ok with some inheritance, but I think you need to be careful that wealth doesn't become too entrenched and that class systems don't develop. 



> Pretty much all highways in America are already tolled - at least they are in my state. I think we pay about $5-7 bucks just to get from my city to Orlando one way and the same back. I know I pass at least 5 tolls every time and they're all $1.25 each.


Yeah, but imagine literally every road needing that?



> If the police cannot make a profit, then how do you explain the continued existence of thousands of private security companies?


Not that everyone could afford... Like if you're cool with 30% of the population having access to police protection then yeah that's an option.. That seems a bit far to me though.



> I think that the fear of not having a government anymore is kind of like the fear of leaving your mother's nest. Before you leave you don't know how you're going to cope with the big bad world ... but over time everyone realizes that their mom's embrace isn't the only way to keep yourself safe and your mom's cooking isn't the only way to get food.
> People have become so used to being babied and infantalized by a nanny state to the point that they've started undermining their own ability to organize and create :draper2
> We pay for everything anyways ... it's just that we pre-pay and lose control over where our money is going.


Nah dude, I have a degree in medieval history, I've read about the last time there were no governments, do you know what happened? 

Random warlords declared themselves rulers and there was chaos and bloodshed for over a millenia. 

The problem with anarchy is that people suck, and in the absense of power, a "power vacuum" if you will, soon or later someone or something will step in. 



> When you think about the fact that US spends $36 billion annually on foreign aid and helping build other countries, you kinda wonder just how much we're being over-taxed to allow this country to develop others and neglect their own.


Then you remember the US annual budge is $3.8 trillion and $36 billion is a ridiculous amount to complain about, not to mention that money is totally worth it for the soft power it brings.



Miss Sally said:


> We're near the point where Western Rome essentially fell. I've posted about this before and those that don't know well...
> 
> When Western Rome was in the last stages of decline from corruption, weak Emperors and laziness the Empire had given up on assimilation of outsiders, assimilation was the key to Roman success for many centuries. All had a place, all could worship as they wanted, keep part of their culture but Roman language/culture and customs reigned supreme, Roman law was the only law. This allowed them to absorb ideologies and peoples who would otherwise kill each other.
> 
> During the later periods it went to integration, Rome tolerated more of the outside ways, languages and customs. This was the beginning of decline, integration sounds good on paper but doesn't work in an established culture or Empire. The hostilities between Romans and barbarians grew as Barbarians were rejecting Roman culture more and more, they also were refusing to assimilate or even learn the language. It got so bad that segregation was all over the Empire and even in the Army, there were entire Barbarian units with their own armor, commanders and training. This would have made Caesar spin in his grave at the sight of this abomination. It was the cohesion and assimilation of peoples that made Rome work but instead Rome had turned into a multicultural nightmare with everyone looking out for themselves and trying to get what they could.
> 
> A man rose up a Roman who fashioned himself to be like Caesar to change things back, of course he was nothing like Caesar or Gaius Marius or Titus or any of the greats. He was just a man tired of seeing Rome lose itself, he tried to change the Empire through politics and within the military, it was slowly working but the Barbarians did not like this, they liked their own units and liked how things were and a war broke out between the two groups. The Barbarians won in the end, the man had the right idea but he just wasn't strong enough to pull it off. Rome had lost it's way, not long after the the entire Empire fell apart.


The problem isn't that they stopped assimilating people, the problem was that they converted to Christianity became pacifists and weak and stopped serving in the military. You talk about there being some barbarian units, but you forget, there was a long time with basically no roman units, just barbarian units, as the Romans, now christianised refused to fight themselves. 

But yeah, Basically all America needs to not do its abandon its military and hire a bunch of other countries to fight for them and they'll be fine. 

What Rome did was incredibly stupid and was brought on by religious nutjobs. 



Reaper said:


> To people talking about Trump 's tone making him a better candidate... I'm really curious why tone matters so much when the content and the message hasn't changed dramatically just because the tone has changed?


Because tone is his greatest weakness. He doesn't sound presidential and that is gonna cost him a lot of votes.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@Alkomesh - I'll get back to you at a later point. I can see a lot of marxist and social welfare ideologies coming through your post .. Now while I may not be able to address the comments about economics as well as someone actually well-versed in the subject, I do have issues with some things that I need time to think about before I address them. 

@BruiserKC . Personally, I actually prefer the provocative tone because that's the language of the anti-SJW, anti-left "rebellion" that's going on in colleges and amongst young people at the moment. I've always been at the cusp of the two different generations so while I can see your point of view with regards to why he needs to tone it down, I can also see why his voice resonates with people like me who've recently abandoned the left. The right has some interesting times ahead. I mean, it might not be as palatable to the old right in terms of how conversations are had, but the jist of the ideologies remains close to the right. 

I personally think that this is the youngest the right has ever been and pretty much anyone that doesn't agree with the extreme radical left is moving over towards the right and that includes a lot of younger more "passionate" people who don't mind the harsh tones as much.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> @Alkomesh - I'll get back to you at a later point. I can see a lot of marxist and social welfare ideologies coming through your post .. Now while I may not be able to address the comments about economics as well as someone actually well-versed in the subject, I do have issues with some things that I need time to think about before I address them.


Go ahead, I took my time haha

Though I think you'll find marxists don't believe in the market at all and all my arguments are centered around making the market as efficient and productive as possible.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> @BruiserKC . Personally, I actually prefer the provocative tone because that's the language of the anti-SJW, anti-left "rebellion" that's going on in colleges and amongst young people at the moment. I've always been at the cusp of the two different generations so while I can see your point of view with regards to why he needs to tone it down, I can also see why his voice resonates with people like me who've recently abandoned the left. The right has some interesting times ahead. I mean, it might not be as palatable to the old right in terms of how conversations are had, but the jist of the ideologies remains close to the right.
> 
> I personally think that this is the youngest the right has ever been and pretty much anyone that doesn't agree with the extreme radical left is moving over towards the right and that includes a lot of younger more "passionate" people who don't mind the harsh tones as much.


You can still convey the message with a tone that says, "I'm a leader. I am one you can trust and can follow." It has nothing to do with being anti-SJW or being politically correct. It's called getting people to listen to you and pay attention to what you say. If you get the chance, Youtube some of Reagan's speeches, some of Ted Cruz's, Kennedy, FDR, etc. Especially Cruz, I know that name sends chills up some of your spines, but when Cruz talks, he conveys a very strong message. The message can be very provocative, especially when he has called Senator Mcconnell a liar on the floor of the Senate. Trump can do the same thing with his messages, he can be every bit as effective. It's not changing the message, it is tweaking the delivery.


----------



## Genking48

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> You can still convey the message with a tone that says, "I'm a leader. I am one you can trust and can follow." It has nothing to do with being anti-SJW or being politically correct. It's called getting people to listen to you and pay attention to what you say. If you get the chance, Youtube some of Reagan's speeches, some of Ted Cruz's, Kennedy, FDR, etc. Especially Cruz, I know that name sends chills up some of your spines, but when Cruz talks, he conveys a very strong message. The message can be very provocative, especially when he has called Senator Mcconnell a liar on the floor of the Senate. Trump can do the same thing with his messages, he can be every bit as effective. It's not changing the message, it is tweaking the delivery.


I'd agree with this, Trump (and many others, let's not pretend Trump is the only one that comes off as untrustworthy) comes off as having a lack of respect, for their peers and for their voters, I'm not American so I don't have the oppotunity to vote, but it seems strange to me that why should I vote for someone that does not seem to respect me? If the American politicians acted a little more respectful to people, being it their peers, the voters or to people in the opposite camp I'd be way more inclined to actually listen to what they are saying and try and get their message.



> Respect. Now that we made everything real clear with ourselves tonight, it's obvious to me that all you wrestling fans coast to coast, you don't respect me. Well the fact is, I don't respect you. You don't deserve it. So from here on in, the American wrestling fans coast to coast can KISS MY ASS!!


Sat with that Bret Hart quote in my head ever since I read this :bret


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Speaking of media bias and special interests.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...-k-bannon-appointed-ceo-trump-campaign-shake/

:booklel


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-skewers-trump-and-the-wacky-conventions.html



> *That focus group where you test the campaign ads and proposals to Trump fans [one features an electric fence on the Mexican border that shocks all Mexicans who are wearing government-issued necklaces if they attempt to cross over, which all of the focus group’s participants roundly endorse]—how did you find those people? How’d that happen?*
> 
> That’s real! We employed a real focus group with real Trump supporters. Every aspect of it. That was the one where everything was completely straight except the actual product analyzed. That’s the piece that I assume people will talk about. I’m not sure what people will say about it.


Not sure which is worse, cult like peer pressure to not be seen as anti-Trump, or just simple ignorance.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Tuesday in West Bend, WI at a campaign rally, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said, “We reject the bigotry of Hillary Clinton.”

Trump said, “We reject bigotry of Hillary Clinton which panders to and talks down to communities of color and sees them only as votes —that’s all they care about — not as individual human beings worthy of a better future. They have taken advantage. She doesn’t care at all about hurting people of this country or the suffering she has caused them, and she meaning she and her party officials. There has been tremendous suffering because of what they have brought. The African-American community has been taken for granted for decades by the Democratic Party and look how they’re doing.”


I seen this and this is exactly what I was talking about before, use the email scandals and the Democrats own failed policies against them. If people in Milwaukee are upset about things well they shouldn't be, don't think milwaukee has had a republican in charge for a long time. Lots of the places having the worst troubles are ran by democrats, use it!


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Speaking of media bias and special interests.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...-k-bannon-appointed-ceo-trump-campaign-shake/
> 
> :booklel




What's the issue? Brietbart has exposed a lot of stuff that CNN and other media sources were putting out that wasn't true. It doesn't seem like a bad idea. It's not like CNN, NBC, MSM, NY Times, Washington Post and several large media outlets aren't shilling out to Hilary, they admittedly do it. So Trump has one source of media helping him while Hilary has 90% of the other media on her side. 


:draper2


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Speaking of media bias and special interests.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...-k-bannon-appointed-ceo-trump-campaign-shake/
> 
> :booklel


Difference is that Brietbart is unapologetically right wing unlike other media outlets that pretend to be impartial but only support leftits.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> What's the issue? Brietbart has exposed a lot of stuff that CNN and other media sources were putting out that wasn't true. It doesn't seem like a bad idea. It's not like CNN, NBC, MSM, NY Times, Washington Post and several large media outlets aren't shilling out to Hilary, they admittedly do it. So Trump has one source of media helping him while Hilary has 90% of the other media on her side.
> 
> 
> :draper2


Disagreeing with your candidate doesn't mean shilling out to Hilary. Tell me again how the polls are MSM bias when Brietbart's own polls show Clinton in the lead? If you don't see an issue in this corrupting the message of bias and special interests then you are just as delusional as echo chamber of the comments section of Brietbart.

Was CNN, NBC, NY Times as blatant as shilling out for Hilary as Brietbart was for Trump even before this arrangement? After having hedge fund billionaires in his economic team and now this, what happened to the fight against special interests? Trump is as bad as Hilary in co-opting Sander's message. Both deserve to be called out on that.



Reaper said:


> Difference is that Brietbart is unapologetically right wing unlike other media outlets that pretend to be impartial but only support leftits.


Red herring. Well at least you admit Breitbart as not being credible as a news source with its partiality.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Disagreeing with your candidate doesn't mean shilling out to Hilary. Tell me again how the polls are MSM bias when Brietbart's own polls show Clinton in the lead? If you don't see an issue in this corrupting the message of bias and special interests then you are just as delusional as echo chamber of the comments section of Brietbart.
> 
> Was CNN, NBC, NY Times as blatant as shilling out for Hilary as Brietbart was for Trump even before this arrangement? After having hedge fund billionaires in his economic team and now this, what happened to the fight against special interests? Trump is as bad as Hilary in co-opting Sander's message. Both deserve to be called out on that.
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring. Well at least you admit Breitbart as not being credible as a news source with its partiality.


They were shilling for Hilary before it even became Hilary/Trump, they were burying Sanders ever chance they got. Not to mention CNN has been caught a few times cooking up stories. You bring up polls, well someone here linked a poll from NBC I believe that was sponsored by the Clintons, so pretty sure that's biased. 

Speaking of Echo Chambers you live in your own personal one, I'm sorry but you do. There isn't any really credible news sources right now, they all have bias and this election has proven that several times over.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Red herring. Well at least you admit Breitbart as not being credible as a news source with its partiality.


You don't have to agree with their opinion or their ideologies, but their political leaning has nothing to do with their credibility. Credibility is actually an issue when an outlet claims that they're impartial and don't have a political leaning, but then actually have one. 

It's more credible to outright claim that you have a certain political leaning because then people going in aren't being fooled by fake impartiality. Far more media outlets claim to be impartial and left wing and those are the ones without credibility. How the fuck is something lacking in credibility when they outright claim to have a specific political leaning. 

Sometimes you really have no clue what you're talking about. You just have to spout words and have a response to everything. 

fpalm


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> They were shilling for Hilary before it even became Hilary/Trump, they were burying Sanders ever chance they got. Not to mention CNN has been caught a few times cooking up stories. You bring up polls, well someone here linked a poll from NBC I believe that was sponsored by the Clintons, so pretty sure that's biased.
> 
> Speaking of Echo Chambers you live in your own personal one, I'm sorry but you do. There isn't any really credible news sources right now, they all have bias and this election has proven that several times over.


I don't see an issue in burying Sanders as he is also a demagogue. Look how far he managed to push Hilary to the left in this campaign. Breitbart has not been caught cooking up stories? Pretty sure the doubt over the health of Hilary is not backed by credible evidence. 

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-health-doctor-490836

What about questions about Trump's health? :troll

I don't deny I have my own echo chamber, but I believe I attempt to engage with people outside of them. :shrug This anti-intellectual movement to discredit any news sources that don't share your world view is going to destroy your democracy.



Reaper said:


> You don't have to agree with their opinion or their ideologies, *but their political leaning has nothing to do with their credibility.* Credibility is actually an issue when an outlet claims that they're impartial and don't have a political leaning, but then actually have one.
> 
> It's more credible to outright claim that you have a certain political leaning because then people going in aren't being fooled by fake impartiality. Far more media outlets claim to be impartial and left wing and those are the ones without credibility. How the fuck is something lacking in credibility when they outright claim to have a specific political leaning.
> 
> Sometimes you really have no clue what you're talking about. You just have to spout words and have a response to everything.
> 
> fpalm


http://heatst.com/biz/breitbart-med...-for-trump-over-paul-ryans-wisconsin-primary/

How credible. :lol

Even if you want to argue them not fooling readers with fake impartiality as being more credible, they went from selling themselves as Huffington Post of the right to the lapdog of a political candidate this elections. They lack credibility because they make up stories to fit their narrative which is driven by their political leaning. 

Stop drinking the kool-aid.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> http://heatst.com/biz/breitbart-med...-for-trump-over-paul-ryans-wisconsin-primary/
> 
> How credible. :lol
> 
> Even if you want to argue them not fooling readers with fake impartiality as being more credible, they went from selling themselves as Huffington Post of the right to the lapdog of a political candidate this elections. They lack credibility because they make up stories to fit their narrative which is driven by their political leaning.
> 
> Stop drinking the kool-aid.


Honestly speaking. Anyone that thought that Breitbart wasn't absolultey openly in Trump's corner this election, was the one that was completely delusional about what Breitbart actually is ... 

FFS, Milo who is one of Breitbart's most famous writers went on a half a year long support Trump campaign funded by Breitbart ... His speeches while under the attack of leftist mobs got security provided by Breitbart. 

Basically, what I'm saying is that if you or anyone thought that Breitbart is supposed to be this impartial news outlet when they're not, then you're the one with the problem. 

The point you're not willing to even understand (or are willfully ignoring) is that the left media _pretends _that they're not openly supportive of a specific candidate, but then do so anyways. I actually respect the media that has openly come out and claimed that they hate Trump and written stories about why Trump should be hated betraying their bias more openly than others. 

But then the majority is too cowardly to even do that and that's where the real problem lies. I'm talking about NYT, CNN, MSNBC amongst others here. They pretend that they're the beacon of impartiality. Most others do not. The ones that don't are the respectable ones.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Honestly speaking. Anyone that thought that Breitbart wasn't absolultey openly in Trump's corner this election, was the one that was completely delusional about what Breitbart actually is ...
> 
> FFS, Milo who is one of Breitbart's most famous writers went on a half a year long support Trump campaign funded by Breitbart ... His speeches while under the attack of leftist mobs got security provided by Breitbart.
> 
> Basically, what I'm saying is that if you or anyone thought that Breitbart is supposed to be this impartial news outlet when they're not, then you're the one with the problem.
> 
> The point you're not willing to even understand (or are willfully ignoring) is that the left media pretends that they're not openly supportive of a specific candidate, but then do so anyways. I actually respect the media that has openly come out and claimed that they hate Trump and written stories about why Trump should be hated betraying their bias more openly than others.
> 
> But then the majority is too cowardly to even do that and that's where the real problem lies. I'm talking about NYT, CNN, MSNBC amongst others here. They pretend that they're the beacon of impartiality. Most others do not. The ones that don't are the respectable ones.


My point was Breitbart wasn't credible because of its impartiality. You then went off a tangent in saying their lack of impartiality doesn't mean it isn't credible. How can a news media be credible if it is openly rooting for one candidate?

You want your news to be teamTrump vs teamHilary to be deem respectable or credible ? Give me a break. 

Maybe practice what you preach when you have no clue about what you are talking about.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> My point was Breitbart wasn't credible because of its impartiality. You then went off a tangent in saying their lack of impartiality doesn't mean it isn't credible. How can a news media be credible if it is openly rooting for one candidate?
> 
> You want your news to be #teamTrump vs #teamHilary ? Give me a break.
> 
> Maybe practice what you preach when you have no clue about what you are talking about.


_Openly _supporting a candidate _is _credible ... And they've done that for a year or more. 

And yes, your point was exactly that partiality in and of itself = lack of credibility. That's exactly all you said in response to my post and now you're adding to that -- which is fine as long as you're brave enough to acknowledge that now you're changing what you originally said. 

I want my news to be #teamTrumpalltheway #thisiswhytrumpsucks #teamhillaryalltheway #thisiswhyhillarysucks ... And given that I am smart enough to KNOW which media supports which candidate, it's MY job to find the news that's relevant to me in order to flesh out my knowledge to the max. If someone is dumb enough in this day and age to get all their news from one outlet, then they're the idiots and I have no sympathy for them at all --- They're dumb af and irrelevant to my existence. 

If people aren't smart enough to do that and need to be spoonfed, then they deserve the shitty leaders they get and I'll make my peace with it.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> _Openly _supporting a candidate _is _credible ... And they've done that for a year or more.
> 
> And yes, your point was exactly that partiality in and of itself = lack of credibility. That's exactly all you said in response to my post and now you're adding to that -- which is fine as long as you're brave enough to acknowledge that now you're changing what you originally said.
> 
> I want my news to be #teamTrumpalltheway #thisiswhytrumpsucks #teamhillaryalltheway #thisiswhyhillarysucks ... And given that I am smart enough to KNOW which media supports which candidate, it's MY job to find the news that's relevant to me in order to flesh out my knowledge to the max. If someone is dumb enough in this day and age to get all their news from one outlet, then they're the idiots and I have no sympathy for them at all --- They're dumb af and irrelevant to my existence.
> 
> If people aren't smart enough to do that and need to be spoonfed, then they deserve the shitty leaders they get and I'll make my peace with it.


So publishing outright lies and misinformation to fit their agenda somehow make a news media more credible than media that try to present news in an unbiased way? You dug a hole you can't climb out of by claiming the lack of impartiality has nothing to do with their credibility. What did I change from that? You tried to changed it to media that show their partisanship openly is more credible instantly, without considering how many of them spread easily debunked misinformation?

Wow, you want your news to be as biased as possible to feed your own ego.

So are you saying Trump supporters are dumb af and irrelevant because they only get their news from Breitbart or Fox too?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> So publishing outright lies and misinformation to fit their agenda somehow make a news media more credible than media that try to present news in an unbiased way? You dug a hole you can't climb out of by claiming the lack of impartiality has nothing to do with their credibility. What did I change from that? You tried to changed it to media that show their partisanship openly is more credible instantly, without considering how many of them spread easily debunked misinformation?
> 
> Wow, you want your news to be as biased as possible to feed your own ego.
> 
> So are you saying Trump supporters are dumb af and irrelevant because they only get their news from Breitbart or Fox too?


You lack reading comprehension skills. I never said that publishing misinformation is more credible than media that try to present their news in an unbiased way. *

I said that partial media that is openly partial is more credible than media that pretends that it's impartial. Holy shit, it's like you can't even read man. Breitbart never claimed impartiality. And I even said that this applies equally to left or right that openly claim partiality. But at the same time, it's the left that claims impartiality when it's not. 

And again, partiality does not mean it's misinformation or non-credible in and of itself as you keep trying to force. But I've come to expect twisted logic from you so this is nothing new at all. *

Yeah, the Trump supporters that _only_ get their news from right-wing outlets _are _dumb as fuck. Anyone reading only 1 type of news and that's only right wing or left wing news is dumb as fuck in my opinion. I already said that in my previous post. You really think I wouldn't stand by my statement just because I'm a Trump supporter and that I would stick up for other Trump supporters even if I think some of them are dumb af. 

I'm sorry, that's typically what most leftists do. I don't.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@Reaper I gotta tell ya, buddy... corporate propaganda spewing MSM =/= left wing media. You're correct that they're garbage but you're wrong in your belief that they are anything resembling leftist. No true leftist news organization would ever suck up to a war mongering corporate shill like Hillary Clinton.



FriedTofu said:


> Look how far he managed to push Hilary to the left in this campaign.


It would be utterly fucking hilarious if it weren't so sad that anyone is enough of a sucker to fall for Hillary's empty campaign rhetoric.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> @Reaper I gotta tell ya, buddy... corporate propaganda spewing MSM =/= left wing media. You're correct that they're garbage but you're wrong in your belief that they are anything resembling leftist. No true leftist news organization would ever suck up to a war mongering corporate shill like Hillary Clinton.


C'mon man... Don't bring up the no true leftist argument in this ... That's kinda depressing. 

I think what you're looking to defend are classic liberals ... Most of the modern left now is regressive now having given into cultural marxism and socialist ideologies. 

The classic left ... or the left that's somewhat closer to the middle has found themselves having more in common with the right than the left in this election.


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

to be fair, both political parties are to blame in that regard^^^^


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*so we're suppose to believe that someone with no charisma like hillary is going to win?*

first of I just want to point out im in my 20's and this is the first time I am interested in politics, also first time I can vote in an election. I have some conservative values, I believe and only respect the traditional/biblical view marriage (man and woman), think abortion is evil, though I don't agree with their stance on always going to war somewhere, and other stuff that's not important to this post. 

Trump was the candidate I was drawn to from the beginning, I was pulling for him, and wouldn't have mind if cruz or carson won to be honest too. Trump was bold, funny, entertaining, mean, harsh, and a fighter. Those debates were some of the greatest verbal battles I've seen in my short time on this earth, and I find myself drawn to politics in a way I never was before. I wanted to see trump win the whole thing, and he is almost there, with the msm, political class, and Hillary the only things standing in his way. But to be honest im not gonna vote for him in novemeber. His views on certain social things wont allow me to do that, but there is no way I can believe that he is trailing so badly in certain state polls because......Hillary Clinton has no FUCKING CHARISMA, her voice is so shrilling when she shouts, her smile is so fake, that over the top head nodding she does when she's "listening" to someone is so overdone. She makes marco Rubio looks human. She's been a politican/ in this world for 20 plus years and she still cant lie,like a pro. And im suppose to believe trump is losing ground/ and isn't gonna win. Hogwash. if he loses, this election was brought, pure and simple. 
what im basing this charisma/chance of winning presidency is base on the last 8 election cycle. Obama is a liar, he's not a Christian, and he think he's the smartest son of bitch that walk this planet, and surrounds himself with people who thinks like him (Johnathan Gruber/ ben Rhodes....) but he is charismatic. I don't like this man, but even I will catch myself laughing at his jokes, nodding along to what he is saying and enjoying his speeches before I come to my senses. He's really good. and there was no doubt he was gonna win against McCain, and mitt Romney. Bush for all his perceived faults, was a charming guy, im basing this on videos I've seen of him on YouTube, I was personally to young to care about politics then. and though bush lost the popular vote to gore, it was still a really close race in terms of numbers and I would give bush the edge personality wise.
Basically, I just don't see how trump loses this...naturally. Yes the msm brainwashes people but Hillary CLinton is fake and they can't make her real. that's why they spend their time attacking trump.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> to be fair, both political parties are to blame in that regard^^^^


I agree. I post memes in this and the other thread mostly because they're fun and after some heavy handed discussions, I think it's nice to have some mild humor to fall back on - not because I believe everything the meme says as it is.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Breitbart?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Well it'd not like MSM has the balls to report stories that actually prove the evils of itself.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> You don't have to agree with their opinion or their ideologies, but their political leaning has nothing to do with their credibility. Credibility is actually an issue when an outlet claims that they're impartial and don't have a political leaning, but then actually have one.
> 
> It's more credible to outright claim that you have a certain political leaning because then people going in aren't being fooled by fake impartiality. Far more media outlets claim to be impartial and left wing and those are the ones without credibility. *How the fuck is something lacking in credibility when they outright claim to have a specific political leaning.*
> 
> Sometimes you really have no clue what you're talking about. You just have to spout words and have a response to everything.
> 
> fpalm


I think you might be confusing credibility with bias transparency here.

Disclosing one's political leanings doesn't make anybody more credible. The only thing that matters with regards to credibility is how factual their actual reporting is. The inherent biases are going to exist, whether they are openly flaunted or not. So, for a _news_ organization, the only thing that should matter with regards to credibility is accuracy.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> I think you might be confusing credibility with bias transparency here.
> 
> Disclosing one's political leanings doesn't make anybody more credible. The only thing that matters with regards to credibility is how factual their actual reporting is. The inherent biases are going to exist, whether they are openly flaunted or not. So, for a _news_ organization, the only thing that should matter with regards to credibility is accuracy.


Why does that have to be just that one thing you mention? In a climate where there's media that pretends that it is unbiased, but then repeatedly gets caught distorting facts, I actually think that a media outlet that's open about its bias is more credible than them. I actually don't think that credibility is based on one factor and one factor alone but the thing is that an open political leaning gives readers a fair warning in and of itself about what they're about to consume given that most people are smart enough to know that certain political leanings lead to specific views and reporting styles already. I don't assume that readers are ignorant ... but unfortunately, when it comes to left media that claims itself to be unbiased does have a stronger net negative impact on its readers - hence less credible. 

I mean, whenever I've read anything from Breitbart, I have not once gotten the impression that it's anything but a site that's supportive of Trump this election or doesn't have a political leaning.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The argument about bias in the media is utterly stupid. All media outlets are biased in some form or another. It's just some of the mainstream media like the BBC in my country claim to be unbiased when it's clear they aren't and have an agenda on certain topics. Breitbart being a conservative outlet of course in most cases are going to be biased in favour of the Republican nominee in the same way CNN are biased towards the Democratic nominee. Difference is Breitbart is more open about it and that is certainly in my eyes more respectable.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Why does that have to be just that one thing you mention?


Because (to me) all that matters with regards to actual news reporting is accuracy.

Adrian Wojnarowski is a hack columnist who wears his disdain for guys like LeBron James and Coach K on his sleeve.

He's also the most credible reporter on NBA news because he is consistently and unfailingly accurate. You can be biased but still be a beacon of credibility when it comes to reporting the news. Nobody's asking for robots. Just that the stories be true.



> In a climate where there's media that pretends that it is unbiased, but then repeatedly gets caught distorting facts, I actually think that a media outlet that's open about its bias is more credible than them.


You'd have an argument if Breitbart didn't distort the facts or publish falsehoods in its own right.

Like I said, transparency or a lack thereof should have no actual bearing on credibility. The bias exists on both sides. If you know that the bias exists, why does its non-disclosure bother you? If you can recognize one publication for historically having X amount of bias and another for having Y, you should have a good sense of where the real truth probably lies.

Besides, there are plenty of people who are aware of the liberal lean that WaPo and The NY Times have. Just as there are many who read Breitbart and think "This is the way it actually is!"



> I actually don't think that credibility is based on one factor and one factor alone but the thing is that an open political leaning gives readers a fair warning in and of itself about what they're about to consume given that most people are smart enough to know that certain political leanings lead to specific views and reporting styles already.


That's fair. But again, I would suggest that tone shouldn't change credibility. If Albert Einstein had a high-pitched whiny voice, it wouldn't make him less credible on the subject of theoretical physics. Ja feel?



> I don't assume that readers are ignorant ... but unfortunately, when it comes to left media that claims itself to be unbiased does have a stronger net negative impact on its readers - hence less credible.


Disagree. See above.



> I mean, whenever I've read anything from Breitbart, I have not once gotten the impression that it's anything but a site that's supportive of Trump this election or doesn't have a political leaning.


Just as every time someone links me to something from Slate, I'm able to recognize the inherent biases of the source, view the story through that lens and evaluate it accordingly.

Here, let's reframe things a bit: Given that the former openly displays its biases and the latter does not, would you say that Breitbart is a more credible news source than The Wall Street Journal?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Is this Breitbart guy giving up his position on the board as he's now Trump's campaign manager? Apologies if this was in the article.

I would think if he's not then you've got a clear problem, and another unstatesmen-like blunder from Trump.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So are the right wing nuts going to acknowledge that MSM have actual valid sources when they reported that the Trump campaign was in crisis mode a few weeks ago and not just 'MSM BIAS BOOOO', given the upheaval this late in the campaign?



Tater said:


> It would be utterly fucking hilarious if it weren't so sad that anyone is enough of a sucker to fall for Hillary's empty campaign rhetoric.


I'm saying he pushed her into adopting his rhetoric to get nominated. I am fully expecting her to sign the TPP because it is more than a trade deal.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> C'mon man... Don't bring up the no true leftist argument in this ... That's kinda depressing.
> 
> I think what you're looking to defend are classic liberals ... Most of the modern left now is regressive now having given into cultural marxism and socialist ideologies.
> 
> The classic left ... or the left that's somewhat closer to the middle has found themselves having more in common with the right than the left in this election.


What's depressing is the fact that you've bought into the propaganda that there is a leftist point of view in the MSM. You're confusing corporate media and leftist media. If I hand you a turd and call it a candy bar, it doesn't make it taste any less like shit.

This "modern left" you refer to is despised by leftists every bit as much as they despise right wing nut jobs. MSM propaganda has convinced mass swaths of the American voting public that the Democrats are the party of the left and Republicans are the party of the right. Leftists view Democrats as a center right party and Republicans as off the charts with their lunacy. Even the great Bernie Sanders himself is considered barely left of center.

The MSM is owned by the same people who own our politicians and they exist to spew out corporate propaganda and protect the Establishment at all costs. If you'd like to see what actual leftist media looks like, here is an example:



> August 12, 2016
> Finally: the Eruption of the Clinton Foundation Scandal
> 
> by Gary Leupp
> 
> Email
> 
> “It’s getting really hard to know where any lines were drawn.”
> 
> -CNN
> 
> I confess I’d been looking forward to this. My son, following the Judicial Watch website, has been saying for months that the big email scandal will involve the State Department-Clinton Foundation ties and Hillary’s use of her office to acquire contributions from Saudi and other donors. As someone opposed to World War III (beginning in Syria and/or Ukraine), I was hoping that they (and he) were right.
> 
> It might not be all that immediately clear to many why this is another big deal. After all, it follows Hillary’s ongoing private server email scandal, involving not just issues of the Secretary’s “judgment” and so-called “national security” but also revealing details about Clinton’s key role in the bloody destruction of Libya and her hawkish views in all circumstances.
> 
> CNN commentators assure us that the FBI investigation “went nowhere” because the FBI decided she’d committed no crime. (Just move on, folks; this was political all along.)
> 
> These new revelations come just after the scandal of the DNC rigging the primaries for Hillary, revealed by email leaks (from an unknown source) provided through Wikileaks. The content of these has been avoided like the plague by mainstream media, which is in Hillary’s camp and is generally protecting her. The focus instead is on alleged Russian efforts to influence the U.S. election, and the imagined Putin-Trump “bromance.” Respectable news agencies have been announcing, as fact, the idea that Wikileaks got the emails from Russia; and that Moscow is trying to swing the election towards Trump (because he’ll accept an invasion of Estonia, wreck NATO etc.). It’s (or it should be) obvious bullshit, an effort to change the subject while exploiting the McCarthyite paranoid sentiments of the most backward.
> 
> The headlines are so far cautious. “Emails renew questions about Clinton Foundation and State Department Overlap.” “Newly released Clinton emails shed light on relationship between State Dept. and Clinton Foundation.” They are not (yet) shrieking, “Sheik bought State Dept. favors from Clinton Foundation donation” but we shall see.
> 
> What do the emails show so far? Two examples have been highlighted by the conservative Judicial Watch, which requested the email transcripts through the FOIA. In the first, in 2009, Gilbert Chagoury, a Lebanese-born billionaire who has given the foundation up to five million dollars and used its assistance to build a project in Nigeria, and is one of the foundation’s top donors, contacted Doug Band, head of the foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative, asking to be put in touch with a high ranking State Department official connected to Lebanon.
> 
> Band emailed Hillary’s top aide Huma Abedin and advisor Cheryl Mills, expressing a need. He writes: “We need Gilbert Chagoury to speak to the substance person re Lebanon. As you know, he’s a key guy there and to us and is loved in Lebanon. Very imp.”
> 
> A key guy to us. To the Clinton Foundation? The U.S.A.? Abedin did not ask that question before responding, “It’s jeff feltman. I’m sure he knows him. I’ll talk to jeff.” Feltman had been U.S. ambassador to Lebanon from July 2004 to January 2008 but was apparently still seen as the go-to guy. So Hillary’s chief aide took it upon herself to contact the former ambassador to tell him Chagoury (whom she might mention is a major contributor to the Clintons) needed to talk with him.
> 
> Nothing illegal there, they will say. Why shouldn’t the State Department arrange contact between a billionaire Lebanese Clinton donor, loved in Lebanon, and the ex-ambassador, if it contributes to regional stability or U.S. national security? And the hard-core Hillary supporters will nod their heads, and maybe point out that Feltman has denied any “meeting.” (Maybe Huma just passed on his address and they chatted online.)
> 
> (CNN I notice is showing a video of Bill Clinton with Chagoury in Nigeria, inaugurating a multi-billion dollar waterfront development on the coastline established “under the umbrella of the Clinton Global Initiative.”)
> 
> The other instance of “overlap” central to the discussion so far is a request of Band to Abedin and Mills for “a favor.” Someone who had recently been on a Clinton Foundation trip to Haiti wanted a State Department job. He indicated that it was “important to take care of” this person. Abedin, apparently without questioning Band about why this person was important, got right back to him: “We all have him on our radar. Personnel has been sending him options.” So the head of the Clinton Foundation could snap his fingers, again stressing how “important” his demand was, and Hillary aides Huma and Cheryl paid by your tax dollars would snap into action.
> 
> A CNN report deplores “the intermingling of emails between State and Clinton Foundation and others, giving the overall effect that it’s getting really hard to know where any lines were drawn.”
> 
> Maybe nothing illegal here. But there is an ongoing FBI investigation, no longer about Hillary’s multiple phones and private server, nor about the content of the communications (revealing her hawkish savagery), but about the routine trade-off of foundation connections for political rewards.
> 
> Those transactions are mere corruption, not war crimes. But the U.S. mass media never targets politicians for their bloodiness, and they love the conventional corruption scandal. So let there be more leaks that will absorb the attention of the talking heads! Let’s see clearer pay-for-play evidence! And let’s see more details about how the DNC midwifed Hillary’s nomination, actively sabotaging a supposedly democratic process.
> 
> Let the American people see how thoroughly rotten both candidates are, and how thoroughly rotten the system that barfed them up.
> 
> Bernie in a fair process would be the Democratic nominee now. Clinton didn’t so much steal the election as buy it in advance, arranging the details through lackey Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Trump would not be the Republican nominee but for the editorial decisions of cable news producers to—from the very inception of his campaign—announce BREAKING NEWS and cover his nearly identical rants every time he held a rally.
> 
> This gratuitous coverage obviated the need for any (other) Trump advertising. Even as the anchors, commentators and other talking heads ridiculed, denounced and appeared puzzled about the Trump phenomenon, the networks made the viewers imbibe his vapid rants. They hooked the most reactionary elements of the population on this blowhard billionaire nut case.
> 
> In the Democrats’ case, Wall Street and Wasserman Schultz controlled the primaries. In the Republican case, the corporate news media (for its immediate profit motives) advertised a total dick who happened to be a billionaire and represent the One Percent every bit as much as Hillary.
> 
> So they’re now in our faces, day after day. Hideous people with their news-anchor supporters, and cable commentators so ready to dismiss serious issues, put the very best face on their candidate, and change the subject to attack the other candidate. In the end it comes down to: We have a two-party system. The parties made their choices. So you HAVE to choose one.
> 
> Julian Assange described the U.S. presidential race as a choice between cholera and gonorrhea. Why should the people of this great country of 310,000,000 people—many with great creativity, integrity and intelligence—be assigned this sick choice of Clinton or Trump by the One Percent that controls everything?
> 
> Why should any Bernie supporter so debase himself or herself as to say, “Okay, I know the primaries were fixed and that Bernie could not win because the cards were stacked against him. And despite the fact that I put passion and effort into an anti-Wall Street campaign, now I’ll support the Wall Street candidate, who’s also a liar, who’s going to flip-flop again on TPP and bomb Syria to produce regime change, and provoke Russia in Syria and Ukraine—because well anyway she’s better than Trump, and we all have to vote, don’t we”?
> 
> But why should anybody have to hold their nose while they vote? The whole process has been exposed as never before as a farce. Why participate at all in something so corrupt? Do you want to vote just to vote, to publicly display the fact that you believe in the system itself, like the North Koreans who routinely go to the polls patriotically to vote for the options available? (As you may know, in some elections in the DPRK you can vote for a candidate of the Workers’ Party of Korea, Chondoist Chogu Party, Korean Social Democratic Party or independent. There is the manicured appearance of multiparty democracy—just like here. And no doubt some people feel good after the voting, knowing they’ve done their civic duty in a system they believe in. But what if you’ve woken up and don’t believe in the system anymore?)
> 
> Why not think bigger, and beyond? Either Clinton or Trump will likely take office in January, as the most unpopular newly elected president of all time. Either will have been brought to power by a manifestly anti-democratic, corrupt process that, more than in past years, is well exposed this time. Either will be vulnerable to mass upheaval, in the wake of Mexico wall construction or the announcement of a Syrian no-fly zone. Appalled by the election choices and result, the majority could maybe consider targeting the rigged system itself.
> 
> Just a suggestion. Massive demonstrations in Washington on Inaugural Day by people who have come to reject its legitimacy itself, knowing that it’s run by the One Percent to whom black lives don’t matter, drone warfare is cool and global warming is a hoax. Posters and banners with the curt, easy-to-understand and undeniably true popular slogan: THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS RIGGED!
> 
> Imagine a huge rally Jan. 20 demanding its overthrow, or at least the immediate resignation of the system’s illegitimate new executive, even if we don’t know what comes next. Imagine the admiration that would invite throughout the world, the hope it would inspire should the people of this country rise up to challenge not just a war, policy or person but the corrupt (capitalist and imperialist) system under which we live.
> 
> ***
> 
> Now I read that the FBI, directed by James Comey (who recommended no charges for Clinton for her private cell phone use but left open the prospect of recommending criminal charges against Clinton for abusing her office to profit the Clinton Foundation) in fact has recommended charges against Hillary.
> 
> But the Department of Justice headed by Clinton loyalist Loretta Lynch rejected the recommendation. Because—don’t you see?—Hillary has to be the next president. To stop Trump, at all costs! And to stop Putin, that aggressive Putin. And to keep together the “Clinton Coalition.”
> 
> Good job, Loretta! But regardless of your effort, Hillary’s Pinocchio nose grows longer by the day, while the whole system is exposed as a cancer requiring the most aggressive treatment.
> 
> SOURCE


Calling anything MSM "leftist" is a personal pet peeve of mine because they do not represent the views of the left and most people don't know any better because all they ever see is corporate propaganda bullshit. The left opposes the military industrial complex and the American war machine. The left opposes letting Wall Street and the big banks fuck over the working class, then steal their taxpayer money in bailouts when they get in trouble. The left opposes global American Imperialism. The left opposes corporatocracy and their raping the planet of resources while destroying the environment. The left opposes the corrupt rule of the 1% who views the 99% as nothing more than a serf class. Just because Hillary Clinton uses socially liberal policies for political expediency to sucker the dumbass sheep into voting for her does not make her a leftist. Basically, she stands for everything that the left opposes and the MSM is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Clinton political machine. 

Sorry but I get a little bit irritated by the idea that the MSM is anything even remotely related to leftist when nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Is this Breitbart guy giving up his position on the board as he's now Trump's campaign manager? Apologies if this was in the article.
> 
> I would think if he's not then you've got a clear problem, and another unstatesmen-like blunder from Trump.


I believe he resigned from Breitbart to work for Trump.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

To be more precise, he took a leave of absence until Nov 8. 

Oh what happened to not being in the pockets of special interests?

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...mp-s-new-team-brings-deep-ties-to-major-donor

Or smaller government to reduce red tape?

http://fortune.com/2016/08/17/donald-trump-campaign-team/


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Seems logical to me. However, greed tends to lead these people to go after short term profit at the expense of long term sustainability.


I'm not suggesting that long-term sustainability is an inevitability but at some point you gotta acknowledge that since the advent of industrial capitalism with corporations in the mid-late 19th century basically everything has gotten better for everyone everywhere (outside of like North Korea and Zimbabwe). And that that hasn't stopped with the shift to post-industrial capitalism with corporations. The other shoe is always about to drop and yeah there was the Great Depression but capitalism with corporations recovered from that and went on to incredible new heights and not just for the rich. It has a ~150 year record that is unmatched. Corporations may (and do) do wrong but they gotta be doing something right and doing more right than wrong or things would not be the way they are. And not in a good way.

As to media bias of course they're biased and biased to the left. It's self-evident. And of course they want to preserve their sinecures in the power structure. These are not mutually exclusive positions. The left is not just Occupiers. Bitter hostility to capitalism and corporations and whatever 'the elite' or 'the plutocracy' means today is not the mark of the One True Left.


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

how much you guys want to bet that if Hillary is selected as president, she'd declare war with Russia in 2017 , 2018 at the least.


----------



## Café de René

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Joe Biden's visit to Serbia turns into pro-Trump rally.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/michael-cohen-donald-trump-says-who-meme/

Says who?

https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkacz...-cnn-pits-trump-supporters-from-the-street-ag



> Donald Trump Jr. on Tuesday accused CNN of picking supporters of his father “from the street” and pitting them against liberal professionals on its panels.
> Appearing on Sean Hannity’s radio program, Trump Jr. said CNN has “a panel of 8 professional, liberal but professional, people on a panel, and they find like one Trump supporter from the street, who has no real political knowledge, and they just happen to be supporter, and they put that person up against 8 people who do this for a living and try to make it seem like that’s a fair fight.
> “I mean, it’s so ridiculous I can’t even watch it anymore.”
> Among CNN’s paid pundits advocating for Trump are former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, former Reagan staffer Jeffrey Lord, radio host Scottie Nell Hughes, and lawyer Kayleigh McEnany.


Way to throw your own people under the bus. Trumps showing their true colours. More entitled than leftist liberals. :lol


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> I'm not suggesting that long-term sustainability is an inevitability but at some point you gotta acknowledge that since the advent of industrial capitalism with corporations in the mid-late 19th century basically everything has gotten better for everyone everywhere (outside of like North Korea and Zimbabwe). And that that hasn't stopped with the shift to post-industrial capitalism with corporations. The other shoe is always about to drop and yeah there was the Great Depression but capitalism with corporations recovered from that and went on to incredible new heights and not just for the rich. It has a ~150 year record that is unmatched. Corporations may (and do) do wrong but they gotta be doing something right and doing more right than wrong or things would not be the way they are. And not in a good way.


All the lessons of the Great Depression have been forgotten by the modern USA. Things were trending up for about 3 decades post Great Depression but since around the mid-70s, things have been trending right back to where the USA was in the 1920s when it all crashed. Hell, people didn't even learn their lesson from the most recent crash in 07-08 because none of the causes of that crash have been fixed. No, things aren't continually getting better at this stage. Things are continually getting worse. Poverty and income inequality levels are on the rise and the big banks and Wall Street are still out of control. The next crash is inevitable, regardless of which side of the duopoly is in charge.



deepelemblues said:


> As to media bias of course they're biased and biased to the left. It's self-evident. And of course they want to preserve their sinecures in the power structure. These are not mutually exclusive positions. The left is not just Occupiers. Bitter hostility to capitalism and corporations and whatever 'the elite' or 'the plutocracy' means today is not the mark of the One True Left.


Again, and I cannot repeat this enough, the media has a pro-CORPORATE bias, NOT a pro-LEFT bias. Seeing as how the left is anti-corporatocracy and the MSM spews out corporate propaganda, saying the MSM has a pro-left bias is somewhat retarded. 



ecclesiastes10 said:


> how much you guys want to bet that if Hillary is selected as president, she'd declare war with Russia in 2017 , 2018 at the least.


She'll find a way to provoke Russia in Syria and/or Eastern Europe, then claim the USA did nothing wrong and this is all Russia's fault. That's how neocons operate.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

What's with the idea that Democrats are more into invading places than Republicans??

Vietnam, Iraq 1, Afghanistan and Iraq 2, all Republicans. In fact every invasion by America since 1950 has been done by a Republican, yet somehow you're all convinced Democrats are the warmongers?


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

In terms of US politics, there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to foreign policy. The mainstream politicians of both parties are in favour of nation building and intervention in countries they feel they can benefit from whether it be through resources or profiteering. Of course the military industrial complex which Eisenhower warned about has a strangle hold on US politics and has therefore influenced politicians on both sides to be more hawkish. Is it little wonder why some Neo-Con's in the Republican party are backing Hillary Clinton? She and Obama are the exact same as Bush and Cheney when it comes to foreign policy. In fact if you look at the major wars (nevermind just interventionism in general) they are 2 for 2: Iraq and Afghanistan for the Republicans and Libya and Syria for the Democrats.

The difference is Clinton and Obama have continued the legacy of the Bush years and kept up operations in Afghanistan. They have intervened in no less than six countries since Obama took office. All the while putting country further into debt, an issue only the likes of Rand Paul is serious about.

The non-interventionists are the politicians that on the fringes of both the Democratic and Republican parties who are anti-establishment. The progressive left and the libertarian right. It's little wonder Ron Paul got massive grass roots support in 2012 and Bernie had the same in 2016.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> In terms of US politics, there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to foreign policy. The mainstream politicians of both parties are in favour of nation building and intervention in countries they feel they can benefit from whether it be through resources or profiteering. Of course the military industrial complex which Eisenhower warned about has a strangle hold on US politics and has therefore influenced politicians on both sides to be more hawkish. Is it little wonder why some Neo-Con's in the Republican party are backing Hillary Clinton? She and Obama are the exact same as Bush and Cheney when it comes to foreign policy. In fact if you look at the major wars (nevermind just interventionism in general) they are 2 for 2: Iraq and Afghanistan for the Republicans and Libya and Syria for the Democrats.


American troops didn't go into either Libya or Syria, what utter nonsense.

To equate what Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan to what Obama has done in Syria and Libya is actually insane.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> American troops didn't go into either Libya or Syria, what utter nonsense.
> 
> To equate what Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan to what Obama has done in Syria and Libya is actually insane.


How is it insane? Obama's administration has conducted airstrikes and drone strikes on a regular basis, it's funded "moderate groups" in Syria which turned out to be Islamic radicals, offshoots of Al Qaeda. They have in one way or another helped strengthen, fund and arm ISIS in the middle east. Let's take away the fact that ground troops are not involved: how is that not the same type of interventionist bullshit that happened under the Republicans?

Bush actively pushed for the invasion of Iraq, firstly on the basis of them doing 9/11 and then that they have weapons of mass destruction. Both instances were false. Obama intervened in two countries that were in the middle of a civil war, firstly with the start of the Arab spring and the Libyan civil war and the Syrian War. In Libya's instance, they toppled Gaddafi. In Syria's instance, they tried to topple Assad on the basis of him using chemical weapons on his own people by arming the Syrian rebels. At the time evidence had not even came out whether or not this had happened. Instead it helped further strengthen ISIS's position. In both cases they've left Libya and Syria worse off than what they were, millions of people displaced from their homes, Hundreds of thousands killed, entire cities and regions destroyed, both countries massively destabilized and in a state of perpetual war.

Now think back to the consequences of Bush's war in Iraq, the consequences were more or less the same, cities and regions destroyed, hundreds of thousands of civilians killed and displaced and a civil war between off sects of Sunni and Shiite muslims. The west's intervention in Libya and Syria which helped allow ISIS to rise up in the vacuum is what has directly helped cause the refugee crisis in Europe which directly effects countries such as my own. The damage is irrefutable and you have the nerve to say the comparison is insane? Are you kidding me?

The *only* reason why ground troops were not used was because public opinion was overwhelmingly against having their sons and daughters going back into another war in the middle east with nothing to show for it. The only real difference is Obama used more covert operations for his military interventionism. It does not make things any less worse and in fact Obama intervened or kept up US presence in more countries abroad then Bush did during his time in office. The scale of the damage, destabilization and failure of US interventionism is on the exact same scale and in some cases worse than the Republican years.

Even other Liberals and Democrat supporters recognize this, so it really does show your bias if you cannot recognize this yourself. I'm sorry if I sound harsh but it's true.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> How is it insane? Obama's administration has conducted airstrikes and drone strikes on a regular basis, it's funded "moderate groups" in Syria which turned out to be Islamic radicals, offshoots of Al Qaeda. They have in one way or another helped strengthen, fund and arm ISIS in the middle east. Let's take away the fact that ground troops are not involved: how is that not the same type of interventionist bullshit that happened under the Republicans?
> 
> Bush actively pushed for the invasion of Iraq, firstly on the basis of them doing 9/11 and then that they have weapons of mass destruction. Both instances were false. Obama intervened in two countries that were in the middle of a civil war, firstly with the start of the Arab spring and the Libyan civil war and the Syrian War. In Libya's instance, they toppled Gaddafi. In Syria's instance, they tried to topple Assad on the basis of him using chemical weapons on his own people by arming the Syrian rebels. At the time evidence had not even came out whether or not this had happened. Instead it helped further strengthen ISIS's position. In both cases they've left Libya and Syria worse off than what they were, millions of people displaced from their homes, Hundreds of thousands killed, entire cities and regions destroyed, both countries massively destabilized and in a state of perpetual war.
> 
> Now think back to the consequences of Bush's war in Iraq, the consequences were more or less the same, cities and regions destroyed, hundreds of thousands of civilians killed and displaced and a civil war between off sects of Sunni and Shiite muslims. The west's intervention in Libya and Syria which helped allow ISIS to rise up in the vacuum is what has directly helped cause the refugee crisis in Europe which directly effects countries such as my own. The damage is irrefutable and you have the nerve to say the comparison is insane? Are you kidding me?
> 
> The *only* reason why ground troops were not used was because public opinion was overwhelmingly against having their sons and daughters going back into another war in the middle east with nothing to show for it. The only real difference is Obama used more covert operations for his military interventionism. It does not make things any less worse and in fact Obama intervened or kept up US presence in more countries abroad then Bush did during his time in office. The scale of the damage, destabilization and failure of US interventionism is on the exact same scale and in some cases worse than the Republican years.
> 
> Even other Liberals and Democrat supporters recognize this, so it really does show your bias if you cannot recognize this yourself. I'm sorry if I sound harsh but it's true.



1. The Wars in Syria and Libya were already ongoing before any US involvement, Iraq and Afghanistan were at peace when America invaded out of the blue and STARTED the war.
2. The level of involvement is so much less as to be incomparable. 


If believing there is a difference between invading countries at peace and backing sides through funds in an already existence civil war is left wing bias then I guess I'm full of left wing bias.

Also I think you'll find a lot of the right agree with me that there are major differences. That's the whole cause of Obama started Isis thing, the belief that he was so much less militant than Bush that it allowed Isis to come into existence.

Here's an article where Dick Cheney shows his massive left wing bias http://www.politico.com/story/2014/...bama-weak-fox-sean-hannity-afghanistan-107205

And here is your beloved peace loving candidate outlining his plan for hugs and kisses around the middle east


----------



## Littbarski

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> how much you guys want to bet that if Hillary is selected as president, she'd declare war with Russia in 2017 , 2018 at the least.


Nobody is declaring war on Russia.

This is zero benefit to starting World War 3.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> 1. The Wars in Syria and Libya were already ongoing before any US involvement, Iraq and Afghanistan were at peace when America invaded out of the blue and STARTED the war.
> 2. The level of involvement is so much less as to be incomparable.
> 
> 
> If believing there is a difference between invading countries at peace and backing sides through funds in an already existence civil war is left wing bias then I guess I'm full of left wing bias.
> 
> Also I think you'll find a lot of the right agree with me that there are major differences. That's the whole cause of Obama started Isis thing, the belief that he was so much less militant than Bush that it allowed Isis to come into existence.
> 
> Here's an article where Dick Cheney shows his massive left wing bias http://www.politico.com/story/2014/...bama-weak-fox-sean-hannity-afghanistan-107205



1. All the wars listed at some point or another we're justified on the grounds of the country being under a brutal regime which needed changing. Whether it be the Taliban in Afghanistan or a dictator like Assad, Saddam or Gaddafi. In fact, one of the main reasons from the very beginning on three of the four wars were just that. The only difference being Iraq in which the reasons changed over time to fit an agenda. The argument you are using really boils down to you trying to argue what type of war is justifiable. So in your world, simply because there was no civil war going on in Iraq or Afghanistan that means automatically what the Republicans did was worse? In conflicts which have caused so much civil unrest, destabilization, have helped strengthened terrorism, caused the displacement of millions from their homes and have killed hundreds of thousands people that's a really fucked up line of thinking. Because not only are the results are exactly the same and but intervening in a civil war in which the US had absolutely nothing to do with has actually made things worse not better in those said regions. In either event, the US and the west has destabilized the region further. Whether or not they were already in a civil war does not justify one intervention more than the other. Comparing Republican interventionism to Democrat interventionism is stupid in this regard because the amount of the damage done on both sides has had the same consequences and results. You should be pushing for non-interventionism, not stupidly arguing who is worse when both sides have fucked up on a massive scale.

2. Using a Neo-Conservative to prove your point is laughable, especially considering the fact that I have already pointed out the similarities between Republicans and Democrats on this issue. Yes, there are politicians who want to invade more than what we already have. The point is not how much intervention is wanted between individual politicians but that their ideology is the same. That is why many Neo-Conservatives will be voting for Hillary Clinton instead of Trump in this election because they know Hillary will more likely push for what they want which is further intervention in the middle east. Whether that be through funding, airstrikes, drone strikes or troops on the ground makes zero difference. Especially when warfare on the whole is rapidly changing to more technological based warfare instead of using man power. Clinton wants to continue to fund and do drone strikes on both sides of the war all the while continue to escalate tensions with Russia not only over Syria but also the Ukraine and the Crimea. This is something interventionists from both parties support. As I have said, the only difference is the extent and that is down to individual politicians. Whilst Cheney and McCain for example believe Obama is not doing enough, other Republicans such as Rand Paul and Justin Amash think both Bush and Obama have done way too much. There is nuance here, believe it or not. Especially when you consider Obama, Biden, Scultz and Clinton are much bigger hawks than Rand Paul has ever dreamed of.

Trump on the other hand has had said he has no interest in toppling Assad and has contradicted himself numerous times about how much he is willing to intervene in the middle east as a whole. So no one knows what Trump would do if he gets into power and so is not a safe bet for the Neo-Con wing of the Republican party. Clinton is, this is why Lindsey Graham for example has stated numerous times he would never vote Trump. He's voting Hillary.

That alone should show that Neo-Conservatism is not an ideology that is not linked to one party or the Republican party in this case. It is an ideology that is linked to both which has done irrefutable damage to the middle east whilst stripping liberty at home and adding trillions in debt. Obama has tripled the debt since taking office and a large part of that is based on overseas military spending. You may argue "Oh but it's less than Bush!". Who honestly gives a fuck when the results are the same. The argument is meaningless at this stage.

If you are against foreign wars and interventionism you should criticize the war hawks from both parties, not attack one and then blindly make excuses for the other in the name of party loyalty.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> What's with the idea that Democrats are more into invading places than Republicans??
> 
> Vietnam, Iraq 1, Afghanistan and Iraq 2, all Republicans. In fact every invasion by America since 1950 has been done by a Republican, yet somehow you're all convinced Democrats are the warmongers?


Democrats often try to re-write history and blame the republicans anyway


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@L-DOPA

:applause


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@L-DOPA Great post! I don't know why you bother, the so called "Objective Political Observers" here are not worth debating with for the most part, their fence sitting and claim to just want to discuss Politics is pretty laughable. They sound just like the NeoCons you pointed out, bringing out excuses and clearly making it known they have zero interest in keeping on any topic as they try to change it anytime something is brought up about Trump that puts him in a good light or puts the Democrats or Hilary in a bad light. If there was a Hilary thread they'd be form a Phalanx in the name of "trying to prevent echo chambers from Trump supporters" while showing they're only interested in their own echo chamber of ideals.

Your posts and Drow's posts are welcome reading, of course you're not the only two posting great replies and facts. I don't want to leave anyone out!


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> What's with the idea that Democrats are more into invading places than Republicans??
> 
> Vietnam, Iraq 1, Afghanistan and Iraq 2, all Republicans. In fact every invasion by America since 1950 has been done by a Republican, yet somehow you're all convinced Democrats are the warmongers?


Vietnam was invaded by Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson. Or John F. Kennedy, also a Democrat. With bipartisan congressional approval.

American troops entered Korea during the presidency of Harry S Truman. A Democrat. With bipartisan congressional approval.

Iraq 1 votes:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/senate-joint-resolution/2/all-info
https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/house-joint-resolution/77/all-info

Iraq 2 votes:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-joint-resolution/114/all-info

In fact every invasion by America since 1950 has been a bipartisan invasion. Each party had the votes to stop them but neither party did. 

Except Libya because Barack Obama decided the War Powers Act didn't apply to him in that particular situation, _because._ So there was no Congressional vote authorizing the American involvement in the bombing and invasion of Libya.

And yes American soldiers were on the ground in Libya, same as in Syria.


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Littbarski said:


> Nobody is declaring war on Russia.
> 
> This is zero benefit to starting World War 3.


Putin would disagree
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PgSX-WD96Q





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMMpQ-xeuZU


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

lets also not forget that under Obama, the u.s now has bases in Africa, prob to make sure china doesn't make off with all the resources over there by themselves, also with regards to trump I really think his bark is worse than his bite, he says hell bomb the shit out of isis, because that's what people want to hear, and believe that's all it takes, but he's not stupid , you don't become a billionaire by being stupid. he'll take a more nuance approach, I don't believe he likes war like Hillary( I think, she think she has to be hawkish cuz she is a woman, in a field dominated by man here at home, and world wide), and I wouldn't really take stock in how he says thing because he talks down to people to get his message across. I do think he wants to put America first , and not really focus on foreign affairs as much, and instead focus on Americans, leave the world to itself, which is kind of smart, just be strong enough to protect our country and portray enough strength that our interest aren't to be interfered with.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@DesolationRow @L-DOPA @Reaper @Pratchett @AryaDark @Fringe @Beatles123 @Miss Sally @deepelemblues

Dr. Drew is "gravely concerned" about Hillary's healthcare: 






Brain-damaged Hill-dog on outdated medication with her fingers on the nuclear button. @Gandhi finna get his "no more humans" wish.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I was on this page for less than a month and it was gone. Apparently, saying anything negative about Islam will get you banned from facebook now - especially of you're "alt-right" or have non-typical non-coformist political views: 



> http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/facebook-occupy-democrats-logic/
> 
> Not too long ago, rumors soared across the internet that social media giants like Facebook and Twitter were beginning to target and censor users not only based on hate speech, criminal behavior, or harassment, but rather unorthodox political views and right-leaning beliefs. Such is the case with conservative/libertarian political pundits *Liberty Memes, Milo Yiannopoulos, *and now fan-favorite *Occupy Democrats Logic *on Facebook. As the name suggests, Occupy Democrats Logic focused on debunking and refuting content from *Occupy Democrats*, a left-wing page notorious for their inaccurate statements.​ Before getting shut down, ODL boasted 100k likes and got an average of thousands of likes, comments, and shares per post. But like any successful internet blog, there were opponents trying to shut it down. After no doubt dozens (if not hundreds) of reports and several warnings from Facebook, ODL found itself on the wrong side of Zuckerberg’s ban hammer.​ What post was so egregious that it warranted a ban? Apparently, this post criticizing the left’s double standard on religion:
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Upon logging into Facebook, this message was displayed for the crew at ODL. Only a few days later, the page was permanently removed.​ Greg, owner and founder of ODL, contacted _TLR_ to help raise awareness of his page’s disappearance. In the statement Greg gave, he recommended people like his new back-up page. He, and his fellow admins Tommy and Beni are grateful for those who followed him and liked the backup.​ Greg believes his post doesn’t violate any of the terms and conditions. Upon examination of the community guidelines, it appears he is correct. Of course, there are those including some in the liberty movement who believe Facebook should be able to run its site the way it wants to.​ The issue is not one of freedom of speech _per se_, but rather, proper application of a policy. When creating a page on, you agree to follow and respect community guidelines. While these guidelines are subject to change, Facebook and many other social media platforms notify their users once the guidelines have changed. Facebook’s community guidelines do not state they will censor you for your political opinions, rather, they will remove posts that are harassing, illegal, and unethical. Because Facebook and ODL had an agreement and ODL was removed despite not violating said agreement, is Facebook really within its right to censor the page?​ The removal of ODL has sparked outrage on several prominent political pages, including *Being Classically Liberal *and *Unbiased America*.​ You can like ODL’s back-up page here.​


When Twitter bans Milo and FB bans alt-right meme pages, then please don't come back to me with bullshit about how the left isn't all regressive and that there's a corporate conspiracy which has nothing to do with the actual left .. It's the ideology that's cancerous and leads to quelling of speech as well as terming everything they don't like as offensive and not worth existing. That's modern leftist ideology, not right ideology - and especially not alt-right. Just because there are a handful of decent leftists left does not mean that the left values are not corrupted as a whole - what it means is that those leftists have been pushed to the right without them even realizing it. 

The funny thing is that the alt-right is actually more business friendly, therefore the idea that they would be in bed with Hillary and not an existing BUSINESSMAN who would be more keen to watch out for business interests just reeks of conspiracy theory to me. At the end of the day, Hillary's policies will still not be as business friendly as the GOP's - because that's the ENTIRE democratic platform - to tax and spend plain and simple. To borrow on futures and debt creation. Being business friendly is one of the biggest criticisms of the GOP, isn't it - that they don't tax businesses enough and give them breaks? Since when did that become a thing with democrats? 

And yeah, the idea that leftists are anti-war is an out-dated one. Not after 8 years of Obama's administration. I would say that would be classic liberals and not modern liberals. Modern/regressive left is more authoritarian and more ok with wars than any other groups of leftists in the past. If you see the battlegrounds that exist on colleges as created by the left, you simply cannot ignore the fact that modern leftists are militant, authoritarian and regressive while sincerely believing that they're progressive. This "real" left is now such a small and silent minority that I don't think it even matters anymore. In the end, the minority anti-war leftist will still vote for neo-con Hillary who is a war monger because it's so deathly afraid of Trump and switching sides, that it might as well considered just as regressive as the rest of the regressive left.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

A new Trump ad staring everyone's 3rd favorite RAW announcer


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Dat 4:3 aspect ratio. Wouldn't be surprised if someone actually gets rickrolled by this. 

:banderas

Edit: Deez Nuts, Harambe and Jill Stein polling together. In fact Deez Nuts is ahead of Jill in Texas :kobelol 

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...tied-with-harambe-trailing-deez-nutz-in-texas


> Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein is tied with Harambe, the gorilla killed in a Cincinnati zoo in May, in a new poll of Texas voters.
> Public Policy Polling (PPP) released the survey on Tuesday, which showed only 2 percent of voters would vote for Stein — the same percentage that support Harambe, who was shot at the Cincinnati zoo after a 3-year-old boy fell into his enclosure.
> This is the second time PPP has polled support for the dead gorilla, who has lost support over the last few weeks. At the end of July, PPP tweeted the results of a poll that had Stein at 2 percent support and Harambe at 5 percent.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I was on this page for less than a month and it was gone. Apparently, saying anything negative about Islam will get you banned from facebook now - especially of you're "alt-right" or have non-typical non-coformist political views:


Allow this leftist to point out that all religion is retarded and anyone who defends Islam while simultaneously criticizing Christianity is a dumbass.

:red



Reaper said:


> When Twitter bans Milo and FB bans alt-right meme pages, then please don't come back to me with bullshit about how the left isn't all regressive and that there's a corporate conspiracy which has nothing to do with the actual left .. It's the ideology that's cancerous and leads to quelling of speech as well as terming everything they don't like as offensive and not worth existing. That's modern leftist ideology, not right ideology - and especially not alt-right. Just because there are a handful of decent leftists left does not mean that the left values are not corrupted as a whole - what it means is that those leftists have been pushed to the right without them even realizing it.
> 
> The funny thing is that the alt-right is actually more business friendly, therefore the idea that they would be in bed with Hillary and not an existing BUSINESSMAN who would be more keen to watch out for business interests just reeks of conspiracy theory to me. At the end of the day, Hillary's policies will still not be as business friendly as the GOP's - because that's the ENTIRE democratic platform - to tax and spend plain and simple. To borrow on futures and debt creation. Being business friendly is one of the biggest criticisms of the GOP, isn't it - that they don't tax businesses enough and give them breaks? Since when did that become a thing with democrats?
> 
> And yeah, the idea that leftists are anti-war is an out-dated one. Not after 8 years of Obama's administration. I would say that would be classic liberals and not modern liberals. Modern/regressive left is more authoritarian and more ok with wars than any other groups of leftists in the past. If you see the battlegrounds that exist on colleges as created by the left, you simply cannot ignore the fact that modern leftists are militant, authoritarian and regressive while sincerely believing that they're progressive. This "real" left is now such a small and silent minority that I don't think it even matters anymore. In the end, the minority anti-war leftist will still vote for neo-con Hillary" who is a war monger because it's so deathly afraid of Trump and switching sides, that it might as well considered just as regressive as the rest of the regressive left.


My issue with all of this is the definition of terms. Words have meanings. If someone calls themselves something but their words and actions do not fit with the definition of that label, they need to be called something else or we should get rid of all political labels because they have lost all meaning.

Believe me, and I've told you this before, these people you are railing against piss me off every bit as much as they do you. My problem is calling people leftists who do not uphold leftist values. For example, being anti-war has always been a leftist value. Now you have people who parade around as being leftists but they aren't anti-war and support a war monger who whores out the USA to the MIC. So... how the fuck are they leftists again if they do not stand up for anti-war values? I could call myself a Coupe deVille but that doesn't make me a Cadillac.

Left values cannot be corrupted as a whole because a value cannot be corrupted. A value is simply a value. The values remain the same. The people have become corrupted. As someone who has actual principles and stands up for his values, I have a big fucking problem with people calling themselves leftist when they do not live up to leftist values.

"This "real" left is now such a small and silent minority that I don't think it even matters anymore."

We're still out there, we're still very vocal and there's more of us than you realize. We just don't get much in the way of mainstream media coverage because it's not in the interests of corporate propaganda outlets to give air time to anti-corporatocracy views. 

"In the end, the minority anti-war leftist will still vote for neo-con Hillary"

No, they will not, because if they do, and I cannot stress this enough, *they are not leftists, because leftists do not support war mongers.* The moment you start supporting a war monger, the label of leftist no longer applies to you. 

"At the end of the day, Hillary's policies will still not be as business friendly as the GOP's"

I'm not going to argue economics at this time but I will point out that Big Money is backing Hillary in this election. Whether or not her policies will be more business friendly is up for debate but there is no arguing the fact that she has the backing of Wall Street.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @L-DOPA @Reaper @Pratchett @AryaDark @Fringe @Beatles123 @Miss Sally @deepelemblues
> 
> Dr. Drew is "gravely concerned" about Hillary's healthcare:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain-damaged Hill-dog on outdated medication with her fingers on the nuclear button. @Gandhi finna get his "no more humans" wish.


no more sentient life*

I'd like it if nobody got killed tbh.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Um, we're all happy to take the word of media personality, 'Celebrity Rehab' Dr Drew as gospel that Hill is too sick to take office? I'm surprised he had time to study her after dealing with old super models, 80's hair band members and former child stars.

Please Team Trump, tell me with a straight face you wouldn't be all over the credibility of, say, Dr Fucking Oz if he said the same of Trump.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Nobody's taking anybody's word and that's not what Dr Drew even said. As relevant and on-point with your commentary as always.


----------



## wwe_onkore

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Nobody's taking anybody's word and that's not what Dr Drew even said. As relevant and on-point with your commentary as always.


Exactly.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*Trump is getting MOPPED in the polls: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/latest-polls-reinforce-republicans-sense-dread

Shoutouts to Republicans for picking the dumbest possible candidate for two straight terms.*


----------



## Jabez Makaveli

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

America is still fucked either way. I don't want to give Trump the chance because he has had companies failed three times. I cringe at what would happen if he got his hands on the United States budget, especially with the national debt being 19 trillion dollars. At the same time, I do wonder what would happen if Trump did manage to at least decrease the amount greatly. I do like his idea of getting out illegal immigrants. However, I also wonder if there are innocent people within those illegal immigrants that had to escape something. They'd have to take that screwed up immigrant test. I took a mock test of it and I didn't know majority of the answers. To be honest, I think the only people that would pass that shit in a fair way are terrorists. I don't give a fuck about Hilary Clinton either.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






I'm scared.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

NBC Polls showing that Hillary is leading is like Dr. Wakefield saying that Vaccines cause Autism :kobelol 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/08/13/app-maker---trump-win-election/88640044/

Apparently this person's APP is suggesting that Trump will win by a landslide. 

And the 30 people I know say that they will all vote for Trump therefore Trump is leading Hillary by 100% 

:kobelol 

I do admit that there is one thing the twisted poll results do and that is create panic and hysteria making people re-consider. "Hey, if 65% of the people are shoving a dynamite stick up their ass, maybe I should do it too" ... That's yet another inherent flaw of democracy that will never go away. 

I suppose from that point of view, the early polls actually matter or make a difference, but here's hoping that most people still on the fence won't be stupid enough to be swayed by the majority that want to shove dynamite up their asses :draper2


----------



## TheMenace

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I'm saying he pushed her into adopting his rhetoric to get nominated. I am fully expecting her to sign the TPP because it is more than a trade deal.


The TPP is a big, fat, wet, juicy middle finger to the 99%.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I'm saying he pushed her into adopting his rhetoric to get nominated. I am fully expecting her to sign the TPP because it is more than a trade deal.





TheMenace said:


> The TPP is a big, fat, wet, juicy middle finger to the 99%.


I fully expect the TPP to be passed by Congress and signed into law by Obama by the end of the year. Then Hillary will say there is nothing she can do about it because it's already law.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> NBC Polls showing that Hillary is leading is like Dr. Wakefield saying that Vaccines cause Autism :kobelol


But they're not 'NBC polls' as far as I can tell, the one they mention by name is "Quinnipiac poll" and that doesn't appear to be run by NBC.

Can you show that Quinnipac and others that show Trump losing are bullshit?


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Found this recently, just HAD to share it. Lol'd.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Gandhi said:


> Found this recently, just HAD to share it. Lol'd.


Well considering there is evidence that Hilary herself might be mentally ill, it seems to make sense.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> But they're not 'NBC polls' as far as I can tell, the one they mention by name is "Quinnipiac poll" and that doesn't appear to be run by NBC.
> 
> Can you show that Quinnipac and others that show Trump losing are bullshit?


I'll do the actual research for you: 

Alabama which votes Red hasn't been polled yet. Why? 
Alaska = Trump with a 6% lead
Arizona = Trump with a 2% lead 
Arkansans = Trump up by 11%

... Do I need to do more? I just did the first 4 on the list ... There's other states where Trump is winning huge ... It's hardly enough to declare victory though. 

Now I know that the swing states matter the most ... but I hate to break it to you son, but the media presents the news however it wants. 

I can pick these 3 states and go ... OMG LOOK! TRUMP IS WINNING! YEAY!! 

But that's not how elections work. 

Here's the site: http://www.270towin.com/states/

Do your own research. At the end of the day, you wanna worry most about Swing States. You also have to keep in mind that people who haven't yet made up their minds will pick a side. The polls and their reporting at this time is probably pointless and really naive to declare "victory". Posts about whose winning right now are useless.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I'll do the actual research for you:
> 
> Alabama which votes Red hasn't been polled yet. Why?
> Alaska = Trump with a 6% lead
> Arizona = Trump with a 2% lead
> Arkansans = Trump up by 11%
> 
> ... Do I need to do more? I just did the first 4 on the list ... There's other states where Trump is winning huge ... It's hardly enough to declare victory though.
> 
> Now I know that the swing states matter the most ... but I hate to break it to you son, but the media presents the news however it wants.
> 
> I can pick these 3 states and go ... OMG LOOK! TRUMP IS WINNING! YEAY!!
> 
> But that's not how elections work.
> 
> Here's the site: http://www.270towin.com/states/
> 
> Do your own research. At the end of the day, you wanna worry most about Swing States. You also have to keep in mind that people who haven't yet made up their minds will pick a side. The polls and their reporting at this time is probably pointless and really naive to declare "victory". Posts about whose winning right now are useless.


I mean...

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus

It's fine if you want to say "The national numbers don't matter. All that matters is what happens on a state-by-state basis." But the state-level numbers don't look good for Trump right now either.

He's getting beat by a pretty comfortable margin in several critical swing states and is on the verge of legitimately putting a couple of solid red states like Arizona and South Carolina in play, which is pretty crazy to even think about.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



TheMenace said:


> The TPP is a big, fat, wet, juicy middle finger to the 99%.


It is more of a middle finger to the governments than the 99%.



Tater said:


> I fully expect the TPP to be passed by Congress and signed into law by Obama by the end of the year. Then Hillary will say there is nothing she can do about it because it's already law.


Yeah I expect TPP to pass as well as it is years of negotiation. It is part of America's strategy to contain China, and more than just a trade deal. Whether it is a sound strategy or not is up for debate, but TPP is more than just a trade deal that demagogues like Trump and Sanders is saying to score political points.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> I mean...
> 
> http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus
> 
> It's fine if you want to say "The national numbers don't matter. All that matters is what happens on a state-by-state basis." But the state-level numbers don't look good for Trump right now either.
> 
> He's getting beat by a pretty comfortable margin in most of the critical swing states and is on the verge of legitimately putting a couple of solid red states like Arizona and South Carolina in play, which is pretty crazy to even think about.


Again, it's too soon because people are noticing a change in Trump's demeanour as well as his campaign messages are actually getting stronger. I think that the republicans that had completely written him off are going to start listening and despite my own personal preference, Trump toning it down seems to be showing that it's working for him. There is a sort of new buzz within conservatives that he's started giving his best speeches .. His Florida run has been deemed relatively strong and he seems to be getting serious. 

It's been more than a week since his last gaffe and therefore that's another reason why I think that the timing of the current polls may be showing more of a skew than we'll see over the next three months. 

As I've already pointed out though, what I'm concerned about isn't Trump losing ground because of things he'll himself do or his platform (which is actually fairly strong surprisingly), but the fence-sitters and late-decision-makers simply looking at the polls and hopping off onto the "wrong" side (from my perspective). 

Also, the race may not be as uneven as even the current swing state polls show. When you do click on the link, don't just look at the first result, but look at the rest of the pie charts. You'd be surprised - as I was. For example, for Florida, one poll is showing a 9% difference meanwhile 1 poll is showing a 1% difference. There are always sampling errors to account for that can happen hence more data is always better.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Doesn't matter anyway, only a matter of time before Trump's next shit sandwich for the electorate. He'll step in it again and again, he can't help it. Then the polls will slip even further.
@Reaper Come on, I don't want to start a war with you but lol at actually saying the polls are skewed because of Trump's latest gaffe being a week old. He's had gaffe after gaffe on a regular basis, and in the beginning that probably helped him, but I think people now are getting tired of his shtick.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

You should read before commenting. 

And no Trump hasn't had gaffe after gaffe lol. He's only had one major political disaster which turned more than just the usual democrat puppets and that was his unnecessary exchange with the Muslim. 

Also what I said was that his biggest and most recent gaffe is reflecting in the polls. That is not an excuse. It's an acknowledgment of something he did wrong.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

^Ok mate whatever you say, god bless.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

You forget

Calling Obama founder of ISIS
Trolling Paul Ryan by appearing to support Ryan's primary opponent who had no shot at winning.
Mistaking the video of hostages being released as video of ransom being paid.
2nd amendment joke about Hilary.


And just today tweeted people will be calling him Mr Brexit whatever the hell that mean.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> You forget
> 
> Calling Obama founder of ISIS
> Trolling Paul Ryan by appearing to support Ryan's primary opponent who had no shot at winning.
> Mistaking the video of hostages being released as video of ransom being paid.
> 2nd amendment joke about Hilary.
> 
> 
> And just today tweeted people will be calling him Mr Brexit whatever the hell that mean.


Obama is one of the founders of ISIS, do I have to keep pointing out that 1 billion worth of equipment and weapons has fallen into ISIS hands from Obama's fuckery? No Obama isn't the only one responsible, Hilary and several Republicans are too but Obama has made it even worse.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Obama is one of the founders of ISIS, do I have to keep pointing out that 1 billion worth of equipment and weapons has fallen into ISIS hands from Obama's fuckery? No Obama isn't the only one responsible, Hilary and several Republicans are too but Obama has made it even worse.


These two in particular don't read at all and somehow feel like they're giving valued input. 

I explicitly said that "political gaffe that turned non-democrats away from Trump" ... Obviously, the people who are already anti-trump consider even his hair a political gaffe and a reason to not vote for him. 

The only blunder that Trump has made so far that actually made him lose some ground with conservatives was his crap-fest with the muslim guy. 

The fact that Trump needs to do now is recoup and appeal to the core GOP follower. He already has a strong following, he just needs to make it stronger and talk directly to the most ardent GOP follower and get those on his side. 

He's made a decent attempt at trying to talk to the minorities, but that's not going to work. Most of the minority vote is too far gone and incapable of thinking for themselves to realize the truth of Trump's words directed at them.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Obama is one of the founders of ISIS, do I have to keep pointing out that 1 billion worth of equipment and weapons has fallen into ISIS hands from Obama's fuckery? No Obama isn't the only one responsible, Hilary and several Republicans are too but Obama has made it even worse.


No he is not. Not even Bush is a founder of ISIS. You could argue their policies allowed the situation for ISIS to survive to evolve into what it is today, but that is disregarding things that were beyond their control, or overstepping their boundaries.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/donald-trump-2016-isis-founder-obama-214172

Trump is being irresponsible by continuing to pander towards the conspiracy theorists and giving such absurd thinking mainstream exposure.



Reaper said:


> These two in particular don't read at all and somehow feel like they're giving valued input.
> 
> I explicitly said that "political gaffe that turned non-democrats away from Trump" ... Obviously, the people who are already anti-trump consider even his hair a political gaffe and a reason to not vote for him.
> 
> The only blunder that Trump has made so far that actually made him lose some ground with conservatives was his crap-fest with the muslim guy.
> 
> The fact that Trump needs to do now is recoup and appeal to the core GOP follower. He already has a strong following, he just needs to make it stronger and talk directly to the most ardent GOP follower and get those on his side.
> 
> He's made a decent attempt at trying to talk to the minorities, but that's not going to work. Most of the minority vote is too far gone and incapable of thinking for themselves to realize the truth of Trump's words directed at them.


Sorry those gaffs I mentioned turned away Republicans more than independents or democrats. You are lying to yourself if you think appearing even MORE clueless towards foreign relations didn't turn away Hawks in the Republican camp. Or butting head with Paul Ryan who is seen by his supporters as compromising a lot for the sake of party unity didn't turn away Republican voters.


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> You forget
> 
> Calling Obama founder of ISIS
> Trolling Paul Ryan by appearing to support Ryan's primary opponent who had no shot at winning.
> Mistaking the video of hostages being released as video of ransom being paid.
> 2nd amendment joke about Hilary.
> 
> 
> And just today tweeted people will be calling him Mr Brexit whatever the hell that mean.


Didn't Hilary do the same thing with Obama though when asked about how far she was going into the race? He didn't literally mean Obama the founder of ISIS. You know this, I know this, and even CNN knows this. 

There are so many things to pick on Trump for (as somebody who is voting for Trump), but why bring these things up? 

For those saying GOP could have won with anybody but Trump, it may be true but it would not have been some landslide. The media would have been all over Rubio, Carson, Cruz, Kasich. It wouldn't have mattered who got this nomination. The only news station that may have been nicer is FOX.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump was right about the ransom though. :draper2 It's been confirmed now. Obama lied yet again and yet again the media went to bat for him for as long as they could.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Smarkout said:


> Didn't Hilary do the same thing with Obama though when asked about how far she was going into the race? *He didn't literally mean Obama the founder of ISIS. You know this, I know this, and even CNN knows this.
> *


Does a big group of his supporters know this?



> There are so many things to pick on Trump for (as somebody who is voting for Trump), but why bring these things up?


Because some supporters try to paint these as non-issues when it reveal how unfit for presidency Trump has been. Trump campaign is attacking Hilary over made up health concerns. Hilary's team just need to use Trump's own words. All the gaffes also suck up media oxygen that could be used to attack Hilary over new developments over her emails and the pay for play Clinton foundation allegations.



> For those saying GOP could have won with anybody but Trump, it may be true but it would not have been some landslide. The media would have been all over Rubio, Carson, Cruz, Kasich. It wouldn't have mattered who got this nomination. The only news station that may have been nicer is FOX.


Sluggish economy. Hilary historic unlikeability second only to Trump. It wouldn't be a landslide but it would be an easy victory.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> *I explicitly said that "political gaffe that turned non-democrats away from Trump" ...* Obviously, the people who are already anti-trump consider even his hair a political gaffe and a reason to not vote for him.


Uh.. no you didn't, your quote was:



> It's been more than a week since his last gaffe and therefore that's another reason why I think that the timing of the current polls may be showing more of a skew than we'll see over the next three months.


When you use quotation marks: "" , it means you are citing a direct literal quote word for word. You can't go back now and pretend you said something different, as much as you may want to. 

So.... perhaps it's you who needs to read his own words a bit more (or atleast brush up on grammar)? How ironic, seems like something Trump himself would need to do on a regular basis. 

Anyway no big deal, let's make WF great again.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump was right about the ransom though. :draper2 It's been confirmed now. Obama lied yet again and yet again the media went to bat for him for as long as they could.


I worry about Trump's vision and mental health mistaking a tape of hostages being released on TELEVISION as a TOP SECRET tape of people taking the ransom off the plane.

Can we get a medical report on Trump?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Uh.. no you didn't, your quote was:
> 
> 
> 
> When you use quotation marks: "" , it means you are citing a direct literal quote word for word. You can't go back now and pretend you said something different, as much as you may want to.
> 
> So.... perhaps it's you who needs to read his own words a bit more (or atleast brush up on grammar)? How ironic, seems like something Trump himself would need to do on a regular basis.
> 
> Anyway no big deal, let's make WF great again.





> *
> And no Trump hasn't had gaffe after gaffe lol. He's only had one major political disaster which turned more than just the usual democrat puppets and that was his unnecessary exchange with the Muslim. *


Yeah .. apparently someone else said that not me. I hope in time you realize that "winning" an internet argument is less important than actually reading the discussions.

Then again, I don't fault you, you've been brainwashed and trained this election cycle to jump on words to the point where context no longer matters. Quote-mining is a classic leftist technique.


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Does a big group of his supporters know this?
> 
> Because some supporters try to paint these as non-issues when it reveal how unfit for presidency Trump has been. Trump campaign is attacking Hilary over made up health concerns. Hilary's team just need to use Trump's own words. *All the gaffes also suck up media oxygen that could be used to attack Hilary over new developments over her emails and the pay for play Clinton foundation allegations.*
> 
> 
> 
> Sluggish economy. Hilary historic unlikeability second only to Trump. It wouldn't be a landslide but it would be an easy victory.



I keep hearing how Trump is not fit to become president and how he has no experience. What has Hilary accomplished? She complains and complains... Yet guess who had the White House the past 8 years? What did Obama do before he became president? 

The media would never truly bring these things up. We are talking about the same media that had Melania Trump all over the news for plagiarizing because they wanted to ignore the great speeches that night. We are talking about the same media that never made a big deal of Obama doing the same thing right?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> All the gaffes also suck up media oxygen that could be used to attack Hilary over new developments over her emails and the pay for play Clinton foundation allegations.


Exactly. There are so many skeletons in her closet that it would be impossible for the media to ignore if only Trump had the sense to attack the weak spots and stay on message instead of bumbling from one embarrassment to another. Even the evil LEFTIST media couldn't ignore it I declare!

Instead Trump just gives them stupid soundbite after soundbite and continues to defeat himself. Whoops.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Yeah .. apparently someone else said that not me. I hope in time you realize that "winning" an internet argument is less important than actually reading the discussions.
> 
> Then again, I don't fault you, you've been brainwashed and trained this election cycle to jump on words to the point where context no longer matters. Quote-mining is a classic leftist technique.


Oh I see I'm sorry my bad, I didn't notice the "clarification" of your original statement which was changed to suit your argument once someone challenged you. Normally people say what they mean the first time, they don't need to change the goal posts once they get exposed. There's someone else with that technique, but I can't quite place who.....?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Smarkout said:


> I keep hearing how Trump is not fit to become president and how he has no experience. What has Hilary accomplished? She complains and complains... Yet guess who had the White House the past 8 years? What did Obama do before he became president?
> 
> The media would never truly bring these things up. We are talking about the same media that had Melania Trump all over the news for plagiarizing because they wanted to ignore the great speeches that night. We are talking about the same media that never made a big deal of Obama doing the same thing right?


Hilary has been a senator and secretary of state. Obama was senator before he became president.

Trump being unfit for president isn't purely tied to his inexperience. It is more to how Trump is unable to resist responding to slights on him.

What great speeches that night? It was precisely because of the lack of substance that the media latch on to the controversy to feed the news cycle. The media did attempt to make a big deal over Obama's alleged plagiarism in 2008 so much so that Deval Patrick came to Obama's defence.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/20/barack-obama-vs-deval-patrick/

Plagiarism sank Biden's presidential bid way back in 88. I don't know where you get the impression that they got off lightly. Heck, Melania got off lightly for the offence as she was the spouse of the candidate, and it would be unseemly to overly criticise her for being part of the election that she didn't choose to participate in. Also, it was a big deal because of who she plagiarised from. Melania's speech was widely applauded among conservatives, but then she was using the words of the first lady who is a democrat that they have criticised over the years, exposing their hypocrisy.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Oh I see I'm sorry my bad, I didn't notice the "clarification" of your original statement which was changed to suit your argument once someone challenged you. Normally people say what they mean the first time, they don't need to change the goal posts once they get exposed. There's someone else with that technique, but I can't quite place who.....?


The only one being intellectually dishonest here is you where you picked one line (as leftists usually do) and ignored everything else that was posted. Just because I didn't specify in my first post and then specified later isn't changing goal posts. That's actually not how that works btw because what you did was pick one line and made my entire argument about that one line while ignoring everything else that was said in that post and subsequent posts. This is a distraction tactic used to detract from the original argument which was about the poll results. The point I made about Trump's gaffe showing up in the poll results doesn't mean that it's "skewed" in the negative sense. It meant that it was a fuck up that showed up in the results as it should. However, the fact that you focused on that one point instead of the overall post suggests that you were specifically digging for something you could refute because you didn't want to spend the time doing the research that I asked you to do on the polling results. 

I disagreed with @Tater on Hillary rigging the polls, he sent me a long PM - I took 3 days to read through it and then changed my mind. The problem with you is that you want to involve yourself in these discussions and prove that you have points we should listen to, but then you get lazy (like you did the last time when we discussed social psychology) and try to pick 1 or 2 points to prove your point and then stubbornly stick to your guns. 

Let's see all the other points you ignored:

1. Acknowledgement that Trump actually did fuck up leading to the results was never put out as an excuse 
2. The fact that multiple results from multiple polls show different results with some results far closer than the poll result NBC chose to post. The key point here is in recognizing that empirical data gets stronger as we look at multiple polls and not just form our opinion based on 1. 
3. That there are about 3 months left in the elections and Trump has enough time to make his way back
4. There has been a change in his demeanour (slight) and that he is starting to speak directly to the older conservatives in the tone they like

But, again, for you the entire depth of my post was that 1 line. Please tell me again how I'm the one being a poor debater here. Maybe I'm giving you too much credit here in thinking that you might actually discuss things seriously instead of just picking at one or two easy points to say "Haha! Look. I won. Trump Sucks!"


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Hilary has been a senator and secretary of state. Obama was senator before he became president.
> 
> _Trump being unfit for president isn't purely tied to his inexperience. It is more to how Trump is unable to resist responding to slights on him.
> _
> What great speeches that night? It was precisely because of the lack of substance that the media latch on to the controversy to feed the news cycle. The media did attempt to make a big deal over Obama's alleged plagiarism in 2008 so much so that Deval Patrick came to Obama's defence.
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/20/barack-obama-vs-deval-patrick/
> 
> Plagiarism sank Biden's presidential bid way back in 88. I don't know where you get the impression that they got off lightly. Heck, Melania got off lightly for the offence as she was the spouse of the candidate, and it would be unseemly to overly criticise her for being part of the election that she didn't choose to participate in.


Melania is not running for anything. It's not like Trump is going to have her try to create a new healthcare plan or anything. Why should we care about her doing it? I don't care that Obama did it. It is just embarrassing but he was an actual candidate. 

Pretty sure Rudy Giuliani had his speech that night if I am not mistaken. Pat Smith also had her speech? I thought they were both very good but obviously ignored. Sounds like you don't really believe in the media bias. I am curious to your thought process on that?

If that is your beliefs on the bolded then I can't say you are wrong. That's your opinion. Some people love that about him and some people hate it. 

My points about Hilary and Obama were "what have they done specifically before becoming president?" Yeah, I am pretty much counting she is going to win at this point. I'm interested to see what you say about what they have accomplished compared to Trump?


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Do people actually believe this Hillary health stuff or is it a meme I missed out on


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> The only one being intellectually dishonest here is you where you picked one line (as leftists usually do) and ignored everything else that was posted. Just because I didn't specify in my first post and then specified later isn't changing goal posts. That's actually not how that works btw because what you did was pick one line and made my entire argument about that one line while ignoring everything else that was said in that post and subsequent posts. This is a distraction tactic used to detract from the original argument which was about the poll results. The point I made about Trump's gaffe showing up in the poll results doesn't mean that it's "skewed" in the negative sense. It meant that it was a fuck up that showed up in the results as it should. However, the fact that you focused on that one point instead of the overall post suggests that you were specifically digging for something you could refute because you didn't want to spend the time doing the research that I asked you to do on the polling results.
> 
> I disagreed with @Tater on Hillary rigging the polls, he sent me a long PM - I took 3 days to read through it and then changed my mind. The problem with you is that you want to involve yourself in these discussions and prove that you have points we should listen to, but then you get lazy (like you did the last time when we discussed social psychology) and try to pick 1 or 2 points to prove your point and then stubbornly stick to your guns.
> 
> Let's see all the other points you ignored:
> 
> 1. Acknowledgement that Trump actually did fuck up leading to the results was never put out as an excuse
> 2. The fact that multiple results from multiple polls show different results with some results far closer than the poll result NBC chose to post. The key point here is in recognizing that empirical data gets stronger as we look at multiple polls and not just form our opinion based on 1.
> 3. That there are about 3 months left in the elections and Trump has enough time to make his way back
> 4. There has been a change in his demeanour (slight) and that he is starting to speak directly to the older conservatives in the tone they like
> 
> But, again, for you the entire depth of my post was that 1 line. Please tell me again how I'm the one being a poor debater here. Maybe I'm giving you too much credit here in thinking that you might actually discuss things seriously instead of just picking at one or two easy points to say "Haha! Look. I won. Trump Sucks!"


Wow thanks for going to so much trouble for me. I feel like we're getting closer now and maybe you're starting to like me, most people do once they get to know me. Happy to discuss seriously when required.

On the subject of polls, I look forward to your future analysis if Trump is able to pull ahead again


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Smarkout said:


> Melania is not running for anything. It's not like Trump is going to have her try to create a new healthcare plan or anything. Why should we care about her doing it? I don't care that Obama did it. It is just embarrassing but he was an actual candidate.
> 
> Pretty sure Rudy Giuliani had his speech that night if I am not mistaken. Pat Smith also had her speech? I thought they were both very good but obviously ignored. Sounds like you don't really believe in the media bias. I am curious to your thought process on that?
> 
> If that is your beliefs on the bolded then I can't say you are wrong. That's your opinion. Some people love that about him and some people hate it.
> 
> My points about Hilary and Obama were "what have they done specifically before becoming president?" Yeah, I am pretty much counting she is going to win at this point. I'm interested to see what you say about what they have accomplished compared to Trump?


You care about Melania's speech because she was one of the headliners of the first day of the convention. Plagiarism is a serious offence for those in academics, and it is more than embarrassing. It reflects either laziness or lack of integrity. In this case, it reflects the inability of Trump's campaign to use a simple anti-plagiarism programme to check the speech at a high profile event.

Rudy's speech was solid but wasn't good. Pat Smith's speech was a mother's grief being used as a political weapon. It was blatant exploitation.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/08/pat-s...rump-hillary-clinton-humayun-video-watch-lie/ 

I believe there is media bias, just not in them being malicious like they do in the likes of FOX or MSNBC or online only networks like Breitbart or TYT. Speaking of Pat Smith's speech,



> The lifelong Republican who wrote the powerful speech delivered by the mother of one of the Benghazi victims says he won’t vote for Donald Trump this fall and could end up voting for Hillary Clinton.
> Richard Cross, a former staff member for Maryland Republicans such as former Gov. Bob Ehrlich and former Rep. Helen Bentley, wrote in a Baltimore Sun op-ed that he penned the scathing remarks delivered by Patricia Smith, whose son Sean was killed in the 2012 Benghazi attack. Smith, delivering Cross’ speech, asked the Cleveland crowd "If Hillary Clinton can't give us the truth, why should we give her the presidency?"
> Story Continued Below
> Despite what he wrote in Smith’s speech about Clinton, Cross said he “may yet have to vote for her because of the epic deficiencies of my own party's nominee.” The GOP speechwriter said the deal-breaker on Trump was his proposal to ban Muslims from entering the U.S., a plan the Manhattan billionaire has modified in recent weeks in favor of a ban on immigrants from certain countries.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/richard-cross-benghazi-speechwriter-vote-227131#ixzz4HkmJvthg 


You asked what have they accomplished, and I listed their time in office. If you want specifics, just use wikipedia? :shrug 
Trump is running with no experience in government OR military that is seen as a plus for people running for public office, let alone the top job. Trump has overleveraged on most of his higher profile deals, only to say he can't meet the agreed upon deal after work started, and renegotiated better terms for himself after trapping his partners into choosing between losing everything or getting 70cents on the dollar. And so on and so on.

Google his recent deal with the old post office lease to see he hasn't changed much at all.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> 1The argument you are using really boils down to you trying to argue what type of war is justifiable. So in your world, simply because there was no civil war going on in Iraq or Afghanistan that means automatically what the Republicans did was worse?



YES.

Starting a war is worse than getting involved in an already existent war to try to end is sooner, which is what Obama did.

I'm sorry you can't see that.

Bush was responsible for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he started them.

Obama isn't responsible for Libya or Syria, he didn't start them.

Also there is a much lesser degree of involvement, spec ops and bombing runs just isn't the same as actually invading and occupying a country.

Also for the record I don't think Afghanistan was really that terrible, but Iraq was insane while Afghanistan was still going on. Having the international coalition Bush did for Afghanistan gave it a greater degree of legitimacy in terms of international law as well, as did the Taliban's refusal to hand over Osama Bin Laden which gave the US a proper causus belli, where as Iraq was far more questionable, no real international coalition (I'm sorry but Britain and Australia don't count, we'll always be there it's a given, but we don't add the international legitimacy needed for a proper invasion), and no real causus belli.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/766026548193353728


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Suck it, narrative.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

^ Dude ... that looks pretty badly photoshopped.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






:eyeroll2


----------



## krtgolfing

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Gandhi said:


> :eyeroll2


Doesn't bother me. Victimizing someone pretty much always generates sympathy in their favor. Plus this kind of mockery of political leaders is literally the pinnacle of the 1st amendment. It actually makes me proud when shit like this happens and there's no blowback other than public opinion. 

As long as Hillary supporters keep acting out this way, I think it's good for Trump :draper2


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Doesn't bother me. Victimizing someone pretty much always generates sympathy in their favor. Plus this kind of mockery of political leaders is literally the pinnacle of the 1st amendment. It actually makes me proud when shit like this happens and there's no blowback other than public opinion.
> 
> As long as Hillary supporters keep acting out this way, I think it's good for Trump :draper2


Obeezy and Hilldog not going to see the flood victims, if Bush was in power right now and he didn't leave his vacation he'd be murdered in the media. Trump is going down there though, honestly he should ask his supporters to raise money for the victims of the flooding and volunteer to help. If he starts a narrative of his supporters helping and raising money for people while being attacked by "leftists" it would just make Hilldog look even worse and like a copycat if she started doing the same.

It's funny that supposedly Hilary is going to win in a landslide yet the media and the Clinton campaign is running scared and we have the same few posters reminding us over and over how Trump will lose badly, if that is the case why continue to bash him endlessly and remind everyone if the outcome is certain? Who are they trying to convince themselves or others?


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Is this true? If it is, it's quite impressive.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So Manafort resigned today. I think this is good for the campaign as his ties with Russia is a huge negative for Trump's attempt at presenting himself as being strong on national defence.

But Manafort's resignation is a good time to bring back classic Katrina Pierson's effort on CNN just a couple of days ago! 






Enjoy!


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*Most Immigrants Back Trump on Ideological Test, Poll Shows*

https://morningconsult.com/2016/08/18/american-immigrants-back-trump-ideological-test-poll-shows/

I'm not surprised, sincerely a soon to be immigrant.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Obeezy and Hilldog not going to see the flood victims, if Bush was in power right now and he didn't leave his vacation he'd be murdered in the media. Trump is going down there though, honestly he should ask his supporters to raise money for the victims of the flooding and volunteer to help. If he starts a narrative of his supporters helping and raising money for people while being attacked by "leftists" it would just make Hilldog look even worse and like a copycat if she started doing the same.
> 
> It's funny that supposedly Hilary is going to win in a landslide yet the media and the Clinton campaign is running scared and we have the same few posters reminding us over and over how Trump will lose badly, if that is the case why continue to bash him endlessly and remind everyone if the outcome is certain? Who are they trying to convince themselves or others?


I would imagine others, given the "SAYS WHO?" mentality that a large portion of Trump's base seems to embody. Assuming Trump loses by a comfortable margin in November (and a lot can change between now and then, but right now, that would seem to be a _reasonably_ safe assumption), a lot of people are going to be in disbelief and fall back on conspiracy theories about how the election must have been stolen because there's _no way_ Trump could have lost. You can see the foundations of it being built now. And it's... probably not great for the health of our political process. Not in the "Let's blow up the system!" way. More so in the "Let's blow up the Capitol!" way.

I mean, I'm sure there's a bit of wariness that Hillary could still somehow fuck this up because as much as she's up, she has proven herself incredibly capable of fucking up her own campaign in the past. Fortunately for her, she's facing a man who can't resist making this election about him rather than about her, so it would probably take something gargantuan at this point. Not that there won't be narratives woven in the coming month or two about Trump being on the comeback trail because "Holy shit, this is a rout" gets old as far as stories go. But I'd imagine that any efforts to convince people that she's up big fall more along the lines of people reaching out to Trump supporters who refuse to believe polls, data, etc. to say "Hey... you know, this is kind of how it is right now."

FWIW, Trump going to Louisiana is a smart move. Makes the Democrats' optics look worse. Doubt it'll be enough to swing much of anything, but it's a rare step in the right direction for his campaign.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> I would imagine others, given the "SAYS WHO?" mentality that a large portion of Trump's base seems to embody. Assuming Trump loses by a comfortable margin in November (and a lot can change between now and then, but right now, that would seem to be a _reasonably_ safe assumption), a lot of people are going to be in disbelief and fall back on conspiracy theories about how the election must have been stolen because there's _no way_ Trump could have lost. You can see the foundations of it being built now. And it's... probably not great for the health of our political process. Not in the "Let's blow up the system!" way. More so in the "Let's blow up the Capitol!" way.
> 
> I mean, I'm sure there's a bit of wariness that Hillary could still somehow fuck this up because as much as she's up, she has proven herself incredibly capable of fucking up her own campaign in the past. Fortunately for her, she's facing a man who can't resist making this election about him rather than about her, so it would probably take something gargantuan at this point. Not that there won't be narratives woven in the coming month or two about Trump being on the comeback trail because "Holy shit, this is a rout" gets old as far as stories go. But I'd imagine that any efforts to convince people that she's up big fall more along the lines of people reaching out to Trump supporters who refuse to believe polls, data, etc. to say "Hey... you know, this is kind of how it is right now."
> 
> FWIW, Trump going to Louisiana is a smart move. Makes the Democrats' optics look worse. Doubt it'll be enough to swing much of anything, but it's a rare step in the right direction for his campaign.


Completely agree, one thing me and yeahbaby have agreed on is Trump mismanaging his campaign when it comes to dealing with Hilary, the khan incident being one of those times as Khan buried himself. Had Trump ignored him it would have been egg on the DNC's face instead of Trump dealing with it. Hilary is an extremely low hanging fruit, all Trump has to do is pluck it, harp on how the Democrats view Hispanics, about Hilary's comments about blacks in the past. I mean how damaging would this sound?

"The Democrats reduce their Hispanic voters to mere stats and some joke about them being taco bowl voters, well this doesn't surprise me since their candidate called blacks super predators that need to be brought to heel." 

The best part is it's true and regardless of if Hilary apologized for it, the Hispanic debacle brings into question the sincerity and the overall view the Democrats have of non-whites in general. Heck he could use Hilary's speech against her in campaign ads, even if he doesn't get anymore of those votes, it would make the Democrats turn on each other even further and create distrust with their voter bloc they pander to.

Trump would do best making the campaign about his policies and how bad Hilary is over making it about himself, he'll get free air time no matter what but he should hammer that wedge that's already in place. Any resorting counter attack will just come off as desperation from a political party in turmoil after being exposed.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Suck it, narrative.


Lol I'm such a dumbass I was looking at this pic thinking 'Trump... Pencil?' He's advertising Trump pencils or something? To be fair it was only about a minute before I realised.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Completely agree, one thing me and yeahbaby have agreed on is Trump mismanaging his campaign when it comes to dealing with Hilary, the khan incident being one of those times as Khan buried himself. Had Trump ignored him it would have been egg on the DNC's face instead of Trump dealing with it. Hilary is an extremely low hanging fruit, all Trump has to do is pluck it, harp on how the Democrats view Hispanics, about Hilary's comments about blacks in the past. I mean how damaging would this sound?
> 
> "The Democrats reduce their Hispanic voters to mere stats and some joke about them being taco bowl voters, well this doesn't surprise me since their candidate called blacks super predators that need to be brought to heel."
> 
> The best part is it's true and regardless of if Hilary apologized for it, the Hispanic debacle brings into question the sincerity and the overall view the Democrats have of non-whites in general. Heck he could use Hilary's speech against her in campaign ads, even if he doesn't get anymore of those votes, it would make the Democrats turn on each other even further and create distrust with their voter bloc they pander to.
> 
> Trump would do best making the campaign about his policies and how bad Hilary is over making it about himself, he'll get free air time no matter what but he should hammer that wedge that's already in place. Any resorting counter attack will just come off as desperation from a political party in turmoil after being exposed.


Two problems with this.

1. It'd probably be hard for Trump specifically to get any traction on the Hispanics-as-a-demographic email when he's fired off insanely tone-deaf tweets like this:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/728297587418247168
That's where having some of the more mainstream Republicans or even just a good attack dog VP candidate would have come in handy, but he's alienated almost all of the former group and Pence is fairly worthless.

2. If Trump had much in the way of policy to speak of, this would be the right strategy. But he's been intentionally vague to the point of hilarity. So, his version of "on message" would probably best be attacking Hillary on the specifics of her policies and then retreating to the vagueries of his own. I'm not sure if that kind of hit-and-run would fly in the debates, but it's probably the strongest option for lack of any actual specifics of his own.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/accord...lp-her-wow-her-husband-on-their-wedding-night



> *The naked Trump statue promotes body-shaming and stoops down to his level*
> 
> There is a naked Donald Trump statue traveling around the United States and many liberals think it’s hilarious. I admit when I first heard about it, I cracked a smile. “Donald Trump is finally getting a taste of his own medicine!” But then I thought how awful Donald Trump’s medicine can be and that no one, even Donald Trump, should be victimized by it.
> The statue portrays Trump in an extremely unattractive fashion. The naked Trump statue is overweight and has a small penis with no balls. That’s right, the creator of the statue actually removed his testicles and there is a sign next to the statue that reads “The Emperor has No Balls.”
> Liberals were quick to attack Trump for making fun of other people’s appearance or when he bragged about his penis size during a debate. But how is this any better? Are we not stooping down to his level? We cannot say we are against body-shaming, but then go ahead and body-shame people we don’t like. That is entirely hypocritical. Can you imagine the outrage if someone created a similar statue of Hillary Clinton?
> Included in the body-shaming is some toxic hyper-masculinity as well. Making fun of penis size is juvenile and perpetuates the idea that men are somehow “less manly” depending on the size of their genitals. It would benefit all of us to move past these outdated and harmful gender roles.
> Look, I understand that Trump is monster who constantly says terrible things. I understand it is tempting to attack him in any way that we can. However, by body-shaming him, we are perpetuating the toxic ideas that we say we are against. Trump’s own words provides us with plenty to attack him with each day. We can do better than resorting to his own type of immature behavior.


At least Patheos admits that the Trump statue is body-shaming ... even though it doesn't realize that most Trump supporters actually don't give a fuck about whether it's body shaming or not. That's a typical regressive left argument so at this point it's akin to them policing themselves - which is fine by me. More of that does need to happen - on both sides. 

I mean, I do see people pointing it out and sharing it amongst themselves, but other than using this to continue to poke fun at the regressive left, I personally haven't come across much "anger" ... Not the kind of anger and rage that you see on the regressive left. Interestingly, something similar did happen with Hillary where first she ended up half naked on a wall in Australia, and then got covered up in a niqab ... At that point I also didn't see much of an outrage from the left either. 

The one thing I've noticed here is that both sides are literally just standing in their corners shouting about what the other side would say or says. I take a personal lesson from this that for a few short weeks I've done this too when usually I'm more neutral. :shrug


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/accord...lp-her-wow-her-husband-on-their-wedding-night
> 
> At least Patheos admits that the Trump statue is body-shaming ... even though it doesn't realize that most Trump supporters actually don't give a fuck about whether it's body shaming or not. That's a typical regressive left argument so at this point it's akin to them policing themselves - which is fine by me. More of that does need to happen - on both sides.
> 
> I mean, I do see people pointing it out and sharing it amongst themselves, but other than using this to continue to poke fun at the regressive left, I personally haven't come across much "anger" ... Not the kind of anger and rage that you see on the regressive left. Interestingly, something similar did happen with Hillary where first she ended up half naked on a wall in Australia, and then got covered up in a niqab ... At that point I also didn't see much of an outrage from the left either.
> 
> The one thing I've noticed here is that both sides are literally just standing in their corners shouting about what the other side would say or says. I take a personal lesson from this that for a few short weeks I've done this too when usually I'm more neutral. :shrug


One cannot claim moral superiority when doing the same thing someone else is accused of. Of course to the regressive left they can do whatever they want, they're above such notions as fairness and morality if it means they must face an enemy of such things! What's funny is most Trump supporters do not care about this yet the regressive left acts like giddy children over it, makes me question their overall mindset when the equivalent of a fart joke makes them howl with laughter and feel better about themselves.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

^In all fairness though, this time around across the board the left media has actually slammed the artists that created the effigies. So, I'm going to acknowledge it and give them a round of applause :clap 

This doesn't actually mean that I agree with the core concept of body-shaming ... But they do deserve credit for being consistent just this one - even if it's essentially still them being stuck in their echo chamber.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Oh that naked statue was dumb and unnecessary.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

In before Trump put the statues out to get liberals in-fighting over whether or not to come to his defense. 4D Space Chess.

This post is not serious for those of you who don't pick up on that sort of thing.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Talk is cheap. Actions speak volumes. Trump went to Louisiana acting like The President (who was too busy playing golf) should be.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










I have to admit, I laughed. 

http://freebeacon.com/issues/hillary-clinton-chelsea-first-one-zika-serious-problem/



> *Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that her daughter Chelsea was “the first one” to say the Zika virus was a serious health issue* and that Chelsea’s advice prompted her to send aides on a “fact-finding mission” to Puerto Rico to learn more about it.
> The Democratic presidential nominee added she did not know about Zika until Chelsea, who had been “following the data,” warned her about its dangers to pregnant women.
> “I first learned about Zika last December,” Clinton said in Miami. “My daughter, who has a PhD in public health, was also pregnant at the same time, and she’s the first one who said this is a serious problem, following the data from Brazil and South America, and she said we need to get ahead of this disease, because it’s particularly dangerous for pregnant women and their children.”
> “That’s why, after hearing this from my daughter, I sent two of my close aides on a fact-finding mission to Puerto Rico, where more cases had developed, and as we know, the government there is under so much financial pressure,” Clinton added. “How are they going to deal with the challenge of Zika? I wanted to learn more and figure out what we could to help Puerto Rico and what we could do more generally across our country.”
> Zika, a virus acquired through mosquito bites that pregnant women can pass along to their babies and give birth defects, has no cure at this point. Clinton’s tour of a health center in Miami on Tuesday mainly focused on attempts to contain Zika and raise awareness about how to avoid it. The outbreak around Miami has affected more than 20 people, with four more cases announced this week.







Not as much as I laughed at this though. First Al Gore invents the internet ... now this. 

Apparently, Hillary just made it clear how her government actually functions. Also gives me bad vibes that perhaps Obama never really was in power. It would explain the fact that his policies and Hillary's policies seemed so similar despite being so different in 2012. 

This also explains why there's so much fear-mongering around Zika now. Her daughter got superstitious. Hillary really showing her age assuming that her daughter didn't pick up her info from the internet in the first place :kobelol 

PS. I come from a country where microsyphaly does actually exist in good numbers, but not by that much despite not having much precaution. It's just not a very common disease.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I have to admit, I laughed.
> 
> http://freebeacon.com/issues/hillary-clinton-chelsea-first-one-zika-serious-problem/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not as much as I laughed at this though. First Al Gore invents the internet ... now this.
> 
> Apparently, Hillary just made it clear how her government actually functions. Also gives me bad vibes that perhaps Obama never really was in power. It would explain the fact that his policies and Hillary's policies seemed so similar despite being so different in 2012.
> 
> This also explains why there's so much fear-mongering around Zika now. Her daughter got superstitious. Hillary really showing her age assuming that her daughter didn't pick up her info from the internet in the first place :kobelol
> 
> PS. I come from a country where microsyphaly does actually exist in good numbers, but not by that much despite not having much precaution. It's just not a very common disease.


I feel bad for Al Gore that people are still trotting out the "He said he created the Internet" meme in 2016, but I still find it pretty amusing myself, so it is what it is. :side:

Fun Fact: The dude who wrote the article that you linked is one of my friends. He was the sports editor of The Vanderbilt Hustler my sophomore year when I first started writing for them.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> I feel bad for Al Gore that people are still trotting out the "He said he created the Internet" meme in 2016, but I still find it pretty amusing myself, so it is what it is. :side:
> 
> Fun Fact: The dude who wrote the article that you linked is one of my friends. He was the sports editor of The Vanderbilt Hustler my sophomore year when I first started writing for them.


Be proud of him then, because for this particular story, he's the #1 result on Bing (though it's obviously due to what I search for, but still).


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Talk is cheap. Actions speak volumes. Trump went to Louisiana acting like The President (who was too busy playing golf) should be.
> 
> - Vic


Playing golf was about half of what Obama did as president, you know when he wasn't pandering to cameras. It kind of reminds me of this in a way


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Talk is cheap. Actions speak volumes. Trump went to Louisiana acting like The President (who was too busy playing golf) should be.
> 
> - Vic





virus21 said:


> Playing golf was about half of what Obama did as president, you know when he wasn't pandering to cameras. It kind of reminds me of this in a way


Considering that Obama ripped Bush (and rightfully so) for being disconnected and not showing up right away to be there for Katrina victims shows the hypocrisy of this President. It's more important to be on the back nine and eating lobster then helping the people you are supposed to lead. Rather pathetic...and the idea of not interfering with first responders is BS. President Clinton showed up here in Iowa right as the floods of '93 knocked out the water works here and he helped with talking to people and unloading beer trucks filled with water meant for the people here. He cut his European tour short to address Dallas shootings but can't pull away from the 19th hole for this? 

I will applaud Trump for showing up and helping, he might actually start getting the hint that it's important to be on message and show you are willing to help out.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



















:sodone


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Considering that Obama ripped Bush (and rightfully so) for being disconnected and not showing up right away to be there for Katrina victims shows the hypocrisy of this President. It's more important to be on the back nine and eating lobster then helping the people you are supposed to lead. Rather pathetic...and the idea of not interfering with first responders is BS. President Clinton showed up here in Iowa right as the floods of '93 knocked out the water works here and he helped with talking to people and unloading beer trucks filled with water meant for the people here. He cut his European tour short to address Dallas shootings but can't pull away from the 19th hole for this?
> 
> I will applaud Trump for showing up and helping, he might actually start getting the hint that it's important to be on message and show you are willing to help out.


Obama is worse at scandals than Bush ever was, the Fast and furious debacle which seen Cartels armed with US weapons, the ATF having several millions of dollars of cash and products going missing, the IRS scandal, playing golf while a flood goes on, giving ISIS 1 billion dollars worth of supplies and weapons, the Iran deal, putting people who helped raise money for his campaign with no experience as Diplomats, using said Diplomats to intimidate EU nations into taking in refugees, him further fanning the flames of hatred with Treyvon and Brown, the clock kid whom he invited to the white house after it was made known the kid was pulling a prank and was not a case of Islamophobia.

I mean it's possible the school textbooks teaching revisioned history of Islam could be added maybe but there is probably more than this. At this point he could get caught fucking Checkers the dog and people would give him a pass.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> What's with the idea that Democrats are more into invading places than Republicans??
> 
> Vietnam, Iraq 1, Afghanistan and Iraq 2, all Republicans. In fact every invasion by America since 1950 has been done by a Republican, yet somehow you're all convinced Democrats are the warmongers?


About that...



> *Hillary and the War Party*
> 
> by Carl Boggs
> 
> You haven’t heard much from the Democrats lately about foreign policy or global agendas – indeed virtually nothing at the Philadelphia convention and little worthy of mention along the campaign trail. Hillary Clinton’s many liberal (and sadly, progressive) supporters routinely steer away from anything related to foreign policy, talk, talk, talking instead about the candidate’s “experience”, with obligatory nods toward her enlightened social programs. There is only the ritual demonization of that fearsome dictator, Vladimir Putin, reputedly on the verge of invading some hapless European country. Even Bernie Sanders’ sorry endorsement of his erstwhile enemy, not long ago denounced as a tool of Wall Street, had nothing to say about global issues. But no one should be fooled: a Clinton presidency, which seems more likely by the day, can be expected to stoke a resurgent U.S. imperialism, bringing new cycles of militarism and war. The silence is illusory: Clintonites, now as before, are truly obsessed with international politics.
> 
> A triumphant Hillary, more “rational” and “savvy” than the looney and unpredictable Donald Trump, could well have a freer path to emboldened superpower moves not only in Europe but the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Pacific. While the candidate has not revealed much lately, she is on record as vowing to “stand up” to Russia and China, face off against Russian “aggression”, escalate the war on terror, and militarily annihilate Iran the moment it steps out of line (or is determined by “U.S. intelligence” to have stepped out of line) in its nuclear agreement with global powers. Under Clinton, the Democrats might well be better positioned to recharge their historical legacy as War Party. One of the great political myths (and there are many) is that American liberals are inclined toward a less belligerent foreign policy than Republicans, are less militaristic and more favorable toward “diplomacy”. References to Woodrow Wilson in World War I and Mexico, Harry Truman in Korea, JFK and LBJ in Indochina, Bill Clinton in the Balkans, and of course Barack Obama in Afghanistan (eight years of futile warfare), Libya (also “Hillary’s War”), and scattered operations across the Middle East and North Africa should be enough to dispel such nonsense. (As for FDR and World War II, I have written extensively that the Pearl Harbor attacks were deliberately provoked by U.S. actions in the Pacific – but that is a more complicated story.)
> 
> In something of a political twist, the “deranged” Trump candidacy – with its almost daily flow of bizarre utterances and proposals – actually serves Clinton’s neoliberal/neocon mission nicely, providing a foil to her outwardly more sane persona. Trump, of course, is far too irrational, too narcissistic, too unstable to assume the role of Commander-in-Chief. Who knows what might happen once his shaky hands get near the “nuclear trigger”? Worse yet, here is a bona fide challenger for the White House who has reportedly cozied up to that imperialist dictator, that great enemy of national sovereignty, Putin! No need for any discussion or debate here. It follows that Hillary will be more reliable (even if more “untrustworthy”), more in command – clearly the best option to manage imperial affairs. Why else would all those neocons and Republican super-hawks be so happy to sign on to the Clintonite project. The alliance of Hillary and foreign-policy hard-liners has, however, scarcely dampened the enthusiasm of her phalanx of liberal and progressive boosters, who endlessly talk, talk, talk about her amazing “pragmatism”, her ability to “get things done”. (That she can “get things done” in the realm of foreign policy is beyond question.)
> 
> A new Clinton presidency can be expected to further boost the U.S./NATO drive to strangle and isolate Russia, which means aggravated “crises” in Ukraine and worrisome encounters with a rival military power in a region saturated with (tactical, “usable”) nuclear weapons. Regime change in Syria? Hillary has indeed strongly pushed for that self-defeating act of war, combined with an illegal and provocative no-fly zone — having learned nothing from the extreme chaos and violence she did so much to unleash in Libya as Secretary of State. There are currently no visible signs she would exit the protracted and criminal war in Afghanistan, a rich source of blowback (alongside Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Israel). Increased aerial bombardments against ISIS in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and elsewhere? More deployments of American troops on the ground? Such ventures, with potentially others on the horizon, amount to elaborate recipes for more blowback, followed by more anti-terror hysteria, followed by more interventions. Uncompromising economic, diplomatic, and military support of Israeli atrocities in Palestine? Aggressive pursuit of the seriously mistaken “Asian Pivot”, strategy, a revitalized effort to subvert Chinese economic and military power – one of Clinton’s own special crusades? No wonder the Paul Wolfowitzes and Robert Kagans are delighted to join the Hillary camp.
> 
> No wonder, too, that billionaire super-hawk Haim Saban has pledged to spend whatever is needed to get the Clintons back into the White House, convinced her presidency will do anything to maintain Palestinian colonial subjugation. Meeting with Saban in July, Hillary again promised to “oppose any effort to delegitimate Israel, including at the United Nations or through the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement.” She backs legislative efforts begun in several states to silence and blacklist people working on behalf of Palestinian rights. For this her celebrated “pragmatism” could work quite effectively.
> 
> Democratic elites say little publicly about these and other imperial priorities, preferring familiar homilies such as “bringing jobs back” (not going to happen) and “healing the country” (not going to happen). Silence appears to function exquisitely in a political culture where open and vigorous debate on foreign-policy is largely taboo and elite discourse rarely surpasses the level of banal platitudes. And Hillary’s worshipful liberal and progressive backers routinely follow the script (or non-script) while fear-mongering about how a Trump presidency will destroy the country (now that the Sanders threat has vanished).
> 
> Amidst the turmoil Trump has oddly surfaced to the left of Clinton on several key global issues: cooperating instead of fighting with the Russians, keeping alive a sharp criticism of the Iraq war and the sustained regional chaos and blowback it generated, ramping down enthusiasm for more wars in the Middle East, junking “free trade” agreements, willingness to rethink the outmoded NATO alliance. If Trump, however haphazardly, manages to grasp the historical dynamics of blowback, the Clinton camp remains either indifferent or clueless, still ready for new armed ventures – cynically marketed, as in the Balkans, Iraq, and Libya, on the moral imperative of defeating some unspeakable evil, usually a “new Hitler” waging a “new genocide”. Who needs to be reminded that Hillary’s domestic promises, such as they are, will become null and void once urgent global “crises” take precedence? The Pentagon, after all, always comes first.
> 
> Trump is of course no great bargain, a combative warrior looking to slay dragons lurking about in a dark, menacing world – something of a high-level Rambo figure – and this he happily and repeatedly advertises. Like the mythic Rambo, he is also an uncontrollable maverick, eccentric, prone to hare-brained “solutions” — much to the dismay of even Republican officialdom. And he is emphatically and unapologetically Islamophobic. At the other extreme, Clinton emerges in the media as the most “rational” and “even-tempered” of candidates, ideally suited to carry out the necessary imperial agendas. A tiresome mainstream narrative is that Hillary is “one of the best prepared and most knowledgeable candidates ever to seek the presidency.” And she is smart, very smart – whatever her flaws. All the better to follow in the long history of Democrats proficient at showing the world who is boss. The media, for its part, adores these Democrats, another reason Trump appears to have diminished chances of winning. Further, the well-funded and tightly-organized Clinton machine can count on somewhat large majorities of women, blacks, and Hispanics, not only for the march to the White House but, more ominously, to go along with the War Party’s imperial spectacle of the day. Most anything – war, regime change, bombing raids, drone strikes, treaty violations, JFK-style “standoffs” – can escape political scrutiny if carried out by “humanitarian”, peace-loving Democrats. Bill Clinton’s war to fight “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” in the Balkans, cover for just another U.S./NATO geopolitical maneuver, constitutes the perfect template here.
> 
> There is a special logic to the Clintonites’ explosive mixture of neoliberalism and militarism. They, like all corporate Democrats, are fully aligned with some of the most powerful interests in the world: Wall Street, the war economy, fossil fuels, Big Pharma, the Israel Lobby. They also have intimate ties to reactionary global forces – the neofascist regime in Ukraine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, other Gulf states. Against this corporatist and imperialist backdrop, the “deluded” and “unhinged” Trump becomes far too unreliable for entrance to the Oval Office; he could too easily bungle the job of managing U.S. global supremacy. In March 121 members of the Republican “national security community”, including the warmongers Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan, and Brent Scowcroft, signed a public letter condemning Trump for not being sufficiently dedicated to American (also Israeli?) interests. Trump compounded his predicament by stubbornly refusing to pay homage to the “experts” – the same foreign-policy geniuses who helped orchestrate the Iraq debacle. A more recent (and more urgent) letter with roughly the same message has made its way into the public sphere. Predictably, Trump’s “unreliability” to oversee American global objectives has been an ongoing motif at CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal.
> 
> Returning to the political carneval that was the Democratic convention, amidst all the non-stop flag-waving and shouts of “USA!” Hillary made what she thought would be an inspiring reference to Jackie Kennedy, speaking on the eve of her husband’s (1961) ascent to the White House. Jackie was reported as saying “that what worried President Kennedy during that very dangerous time was that a war might be started – not by men with self-control and restraint, but by little men, the ones moved by fear and pride.” We can surmise that JFK was one of those “big men” governed by “restraint”. History shows, however, that Jackie’s esteemed husband was architect of probably the worst episode of international barbarism in U.S. history – the Vietnam War, with its unfathomable death and destruction – coming at a time of the Big Man’s botched CIA-led invasion of Cuba and followed closely by the Cuban Missile Crisis, where the Big Man’s “restraint” brought the world frighteningly close to nuclear catastrophe. As for “fear” and “pride” – nothing permeates JFK’s biography of that period more than those two psychological obsessions.
> 
> Could it be that Hillary Clinton, however unwittingly, was at this epic moment – her breakthrough nomination – revealing nothing so much as her own deeply-imperialist mind-set?
> 
> SOURCE


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

An example of the world turning upside down...this article 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/democrats-conservative-party/496670/

Although, it makes sense that the Dems are trying to hold serve. They know that Trump getting into office could mean all of Obama's legacy is wiped out. At the same time, many of the voters for HRC don't want to be just content with the way things are now. They want to push the country further to the left.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://bgr.com/2016/08/19/donald-tr...ter-is-the-funniest-thing-weve-seen-all-week/


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/766448255106514944
:lol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










I don't know about you, but people have twisted things in their head to the point where they'd rather NOT help than be told that they're going to be "Exploiting" the people they help. 

I'd rather people help and exploit than not help at all and pretend that it's because of some sort of higher moral ground. 

You don't get to claim higher moral ground over someone that's doing the leg-work irregardless of intentions because at least that person is on the ground. 

You're just complaining about him being on the ground and that doesn't make you look better at all ... You're exploiting the situation in your favor more to pretend moral superiority while doing nothing.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






If you support Donald Trump like I do, get ready to fight! This is what politics has come down to due to a bunch of savages!

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Yeah. I heard about that. Decided not to post it in here because it will get the following responses:

- Trump and his followers are getting violently attacked because of the hostile environment created by Trump
- These are just extremists and they don't actually hold leftist ideologies because the real left is pacifist. Therefore we must make sure that we don't call them leftists, but that we call them the regressive left ... like we can't call muslim terrorists muslims, but we have to call them radical muslims
- Bunch of sarcastic comments about how both candidates are evil and that this is the worst fucking election in America's history and we're all doomed
- Another bunch of comments about how nothing is actually going to change so it doesn't matter, therefore might as well vote for the more "Experienced" politician because Trump has a bunch of failed businesses therefore it's better to vote for a criminal than it is to vote for a businessman who doesn't have political experience. 

*shrug*


----------



## .MCH

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Talk is cheap. Actions speak volumes. Trump went to Louisiana acting like The President (who was too busy playing golf) should be.
> 
> - Vic


Oh please. Obama couldn't go to LA because 1. he would have gotten in the way with his Secret Service detail having to clear everything everywhere he went and 2. they need money, not photo ops and play doh. 

Plus he spent a total of 49 seconds handing out goods. It was nothing more than a political move on his part.


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*Very good watch for all races.





*


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



.MCH said:


> Oh please. Obama couldn't go to LA because 1. he would have gotten in the way with his Secret Service detail having to clear everything everywhere he went and 2. they need money, not photo ops and play doh.


Its not about what the Governor wants. Its about what the people want. Obama should've been there. Hilarious how the hypocrite was bashing Bush for doing the same thing 11 years ago. 

At least, Trump showed up to help. Where was Hillary?

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Yeah. I heard about that. Decided not to post it in here because it will get the following responses:
> 
> - Trump and his followers are getting violently attacked because of the hostile environment created by Trump
> - These are just extremists and they don't actually hold leftist ideologies because the real left is pacifist. Therefore we must make sure that we don't call them leftists, but that we call them the regressive left ... like we can't call muslim terrorists muslims, but we have to call them radical muslims
> - Bunch of sarcastic comments about how both candidates are evil and that this is the worst fucking election in America's history and we're all doomed
> - Another bunch of comments about how nothing is actually going to change so it doesn't matter, therefore might as well vote for the more "Experienced" politician because Trump has a bunch of failed businesses therefore it's better to vote for a criminal than it is to vote for a businessman who doesn't have political experience.
> 
> *shrug*


Of course, the same rhetoric given by our resident "Political Observers" oh I forgot, "Unbiased", they're just here to give us the facts! The facts, this is quite funny because facts posted by Trump supporters are ignored, instead we get unfunny memes in response. We get told how awful Trump is and that he's evil by these people yet why? They claim he's going to lose so what's posting in here matter? You bring up Hilary and then they say they don't know much about Hilary or bring up that she's not that bad, this is quite silly as many Trump supporters come from all over the spectrum because Hilary is a threat. 

Ignorance is not a defense nor a valid reason to ignore political discuss yet that's all these people bring. I've just come to the point I ignore certain people and their posts because it's the same thing all the time, there is no discussion, just fence sitting nonsense and pants on head type responses.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Why am I not surprised the HillShill is a soccor mom looking bitch?

For that matter, if you pause you can see the Hill logo on the form.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-debt.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share



> The Trump Organization: Donald Trump's Companies Owe at Least $650 Million in Debt, Report Says
> A New York Times investigative report attempted to map out Trump's business empire and its web of assets, partnerships, loans and debts. The campaign had reported his businesses owed $315 million. And partnerships that Trump has a stake in owe an additional $2 billion to a group of lenders.





> Among the lenders: the Bank of China, one of the largest banks in a country that Mr. Trump has railed against as an economic foe of the United States, and Goldman Sachs, a financial institution he has said controls Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, after it paid her $675,000 in speaking fees.


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Donalds been lying again. Hilary doesn't even need to beat him. He's doing it himself.


----------



## LaMelo

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I will be glad when this is over!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Washington Post said:


> *FBI uncovers 15,000 more documents in Clinton email probe*
> 
> The FBI’s year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server uncovered 15,000 more documents from her time as secretary of state that were not previously disclosed by her attorneys. The State Department is expected to discuss when and how it will release the emails Monday morning in federal court.
> 
> The total — confirmed by the Justice Department — was disclosed by a conservative legal group after the State Department said last week that it would hand over the emails. The number to be released is nearly 50 percent more than the 30,000-plus that Clinton’s lawyers deemed work-related and returned to the department in December 2014.
> 
> Lawyers for the State Department and Judicial Watch, the legal group, said in an Aug. 12 court filing that they intended to negotiate a plan for the release, part of a civil public records lawsuit before U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of Washington.
> 
> 
> “It looks like the State Department is trying to slow-roll the release of the records,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in an interview Monday morning. “They’ve had them for at least a month, and we still don’t know when we’re going to get them.”
> 
> According to Fitton, lawyers for the government said they plan to set a rolling release schedule in October, weeks before November’s general election.
> 
> A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on pending litigation. A State Department spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
> 
> Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit in May 2015 after disclosures that Clinton had exclusively used a personal email server while secretary from 2009 to 2013. Judicial Watch had sought all emails sent or received by Clinton at the State Department in a request made under the federal Freedom of Information Act, which covers the release of public records.
> 
> Monday’s hearing comes seven weeks after the Justice Department on July 7 closed a criminal investigation without charges into the handling of classified material in Clinton’s email setup, which FBI Director James B. Comey called “extremely careless.”
> 
> The FBI on Aug. 5 completed transferring all of what Comey said were tens of thousands of previously undisclosed work-related Clinton emails that the FBI found in its investigation for the State Department to review and make public. Government lawyers until now have given no details about how many emails the FBI found or when the full set would be released. It is unclear how many of the 15,000 or so documents might be attachments, duplicates or exempt from release for legal reasons.
> 
> Government lawyers disclosed last week that the FBI turned over six computer discs of information: one including emails and attachments that were sent directly to or from Clinton, or to or from her at some point in an email chain, and not previously turned over by her lawyers; a second with classified documents; another with emails returned by Clinton; and three containing materials from other individuals retrieved by the FBI.
> 
> The roughly 15,000 documents at issue now come from the first disc, Fitton said.
> 
> In announcing the FBI’s findings July 5, Comey said investigators found no evidence that the emails it found “were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.” Like many users, Clinton periodically deleted emails or they were purged when devices were changed.
> 
> Clinton’s lawyers also may have deleted some of the emails as “personal,” Comey said, noting their review relied on header information and search terms, not a line-by-line reading as the FBI conducted.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/fbi-uncovered-at-least-14900-more-documents-in-clinton-email-investigation/2016/08/22/36745578-6643-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html

She forgot to delete them.

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

See when Hillary said those 30000+ emails she deleted weren't work related she meant they weren't work related to legal work activities. 

Arranging bribes to be funneled through the Clinton Foundation, arranging favors for those paying the bribes, now that is work, but that is personal, private, illegal Clinton work, and get your big noses out of it with your silly official government investigations please kthx.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> the real left is pacifist.


Sounds like some no true Scotsman, but anyway, since when? Leftist movements, regimes, policies, and politics have a well documented history of violence. Even the positions they take that they imagine to be anti-violence are, in reality, necessarily require violence.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> Sounds like some no true Scotsman, but anyway, since when? Leftist movements, regimes, policies, and politics have a well documented history of violence. Even the positions they take that they imagine to be anti-violence are, in reality, necessarily require violence.


Pfft. You completely missed the sarcasm in my post :damn


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Same mother fucking reporter too. 
They're not even bothered anymore. :wow


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

White is the color for coming out? And for telling the world you've arrived? _White?_ 

Those are new ones.

I think I'm getting a whiff of black homophobia and self-hating black white supremacy. There needs to be a safe space where I can denigrate this woman as a homophobe cis-race traitor and plot how to destroy her life via Facebook and Twitter and there needs to be one _now._


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Pfft. You completely missed the sarcasm in my post :damn


My bad


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> My bad


No worries. Happens to all of us.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> No worries. Happens to all of us.


I blame the left for how easily Poe's law can be applied to it so often.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://theconservativetreehouse.co...ng-poll-data-then-lying-about-it/#more-120488

#PollsAreRealLOL


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> https://theconservativetreehouse.co...ng-poll-data-then-lying-about-it/#more-120488
> 
> #PollsAreRealLOL


If you knew statistics you could see that he indeed weigthed by age and sex in the same picture "showing him lying". In fact, for example, no weighted data in age is 48% for people 18-49 and 52% for 50+ while unweighted is 43% for 18-49 and 57% for 50+. 

Also, the process of wieght isn't correctly defined in the article and you can't create a weight factor for only one variable because you re arranging the entire data set based in an expansion factor that affect ALL variables. This factor is normally created trying to define how representative a person in your data (the 402 cases) is of the number population you're trying to studie (Ohio in this case).

Even if there was no difference between the Raw data and the weigthed data, that could be because the expansion factor don't affect all the data uniformely and maybe the representation in some variables is more accurate than in others and the 402 cases sampling could be reflecting pretty well the demos of Ohio. The fact that the change in age is of just 4% seems to support this 

Is more easy to read the actual PDF and the process of weighted data instead of just believing one source

On these same subject, i really found troubling the fact that some people is promoting ignorance in a field like statistics just because they don't like the results of polling.....the distrust promoted in these fields is what result with stupidity like "flat earthers" or "creationism"


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-god-christianity-evangelicals-492385

Interesting read for those of you who are evangelicals or even just Christians who choose to support Trump due to faith. Of course one can choose to support Trump due to economic or policies, but those of you who choose to use faith as a reason to support him, shame on you.



> By endorsing him, evangelists are creating the image that what matters to them is political influence, not the word of God.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'd like to congratulate Hillary for her job creation before even entering office. Think of all the people hired to sort through her thousands upon thousands of emails.




Regarding Trump's questionable relationship with God, it seems pretty clear he don't give a damn about the heavenly father, but as with anyone even remotely running for high office in America, you better damn act like you're Christian or you're usually outta there. The majority of politicians are dishonest about that IMO but Trump's pretty bad with it.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The US's obsession with the president believing in god or being Christian has always disturbed me. The country was founded upon separation of church and state so why does anyone give a fuck what religion the president is or whether he or she believes in god? Religion isn't supposed to have any bearing on the policies put forward.

Then again, those policies are fucked regardless of who wins the white house seat anyway so I guess none of that really matters :lol.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The whole power and control that the conservative religious right is grossly over-exaggerated in America now. They're either clumped together in smallish communities or spread so far apart that they can't organize to create power blocs. Sure there are influential christians and ministries that may exert a little influence now and then, but nothing to the point of keeping America within the grips of religious dogmatism. There are far worse groups than the religious ones in America. At worst the christian groups in America want to deny gays the right to marry. What else are they trying to do? Teach children creationism? Wanting to pray publicly? Wooo ... I'm shoo shcared of people being exposed to religion ... I'm not that kind of a crazy atheist. I went to a catholic school as a child .. Christianity is not a dangerous religion anymore. It's not like they're trying to bring back old testament laws and stone people, own slaves, or sell their daughters. 

The evangelical right is already an aging population that's likely at most a 20-25% minority at this point. They're slowly losing their foothold on politics and also on Americans as a whole. Athiesm and Agnosticism is growing and the religious are lapsing and becoming less conservative and more tolerant. The landscape of America is changing. People who don't live here don't understand this obviously. Or people who live up in the extreme north who are constantly fed overly sensationalized stories about how oppressive religion is down south are the only ones that think that religion actually has a hold in the majority of American politics. At most it's like that annoying drunk uncle that gets loud at a party and everyone's learned to ignore him. 

The constitution is a good enough check to keep evangelical religion of any kind becoming a forced part of our lives here. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...p-takes-a-donald-trump-quotes-out-of-context/

Anyways, this is pretty interesting. It makes you wonder just how badly he's been quote-mined in the media and in fact, makes me more sympathetic towards his worst statements even. 



> *Pro-Clinton group takes a Donald Trump quote out of context*
> 
> 
> 
> _“You have to be wealthy in order to be great, I’m sorry to say it.”_
> *— Donald Trump, quoted in a new ad by Priorities USA *
> With the wealth of outrageous Trump statements available to opposition researchers, why would a pro-Hillary Clinton group push the envelope by taking a quote out of context?
> Beats us. But we’ve caught Priorities USA playing this game before.
> *The Facts*
> 
> This is actually a clever ad, showing individuals who might be affected personally by Trump’s language watching his remarks as they are played on the television. One quote *—* his mocking of a disabled reporter *—* is viewed by a person in a wheelchair. Trump certainly said this, and we have written extensively on this case before.
> Another quote concerns Trump’s assertion that he didn’t think Sen. John McCain was a war hero because he had been captured. This scene features an elderly man wearing a veterans cap. The ad, which will run in the battleground states of North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and Iowa, ends with the words: “Donald Trump: Unfit to be President.”
> But two of the quotes require a little more context and explanation._*“Putting a wife to work is a very dangerous thing … and I don’t want to sound too much like a chauvinist.”*_​Trump made this statement in 1994 during an interview with ABC News, after saying he had made a mistake by allowing his first wife, Ivana Trump, to take a management role at one of his casinos. Here’s the context in which he made this statement. The ad melds two separate parts of an interview, in which he talks about the employment of Ivana and also his second wife, Marla Maples.“I think that putting a wife to work is a very dangerous thing,” Trump said. “If you’re in business for yourself, I really think it’s a bad idea to put your wife working for you. I think it’s a really bad idea. I think that was the single greatest cause of what happened to my marriage with Ivana.”
> He said that after he noticed a change in her demeanor while she was working for him, that changed his feelings toward her.
> “Ivana would get angry at somebody over the telephone, all of a sudden, who was at the casino, and she’d start shouting. And I’d say, ‘I don’t want my wife shouting at somebody like that, I really don’t want that,’ ” Trump said.
> “And a softness disappeared,” he continued. “There was a great softness to Ivana, and she still has that softness, but during this period of time, she became an executive, not a wife.”​Trump also expressed mixed feelings about allowing Maples to take a job. “I have days where I think it’s great,” he said. “And then I have days where, if I come home — and I don’t want to sound too much like a chauvinist — but when I come home and dinner’s not ready, I go through the roof.”
> The section about Maples fits more clearly with the narrative of the ad, as the section about Ivana Trump is more about having a wife work for her husband._*“You have to be wealthy in order to be great, I’m sorry to say it.”*_​When the ad shows Trump saying this, a workman working in a cramped space looks up sadly. Perhaps he would not be so sad if he knew the full context of Trump’s statement.
> During a May 26 appearance in North Dakota, on the day he secured enough delegates to clinch the Republican nomination, Trump focused on energy policy and crime rates, and how he would make the United States great again. At one point he said:“There’s one more thing we have to do to make America wealthy again. And you have to be wealthy in order to be great, I’m sorry to say it.”​As can be seen, this attack ad takes Trump’s statement out of context. He’s talking about making the country wealthy – not an individual’s wealth. One could argue that Trump is too focused on associating wealth with greatness, but listening to the rest of his speech, it’s clear that he was talking about increasing incomes for all Americans.
> “All we’re doing is showing real people reacting to some of the dangerous and divisive statements Donald Trump has made,” said Priorities USA Action spokesman Justin Barasky. “You are assigning context.”
> *The Pinocchio Test*
> 
> Once again, we are puzzled why this pro-Clinton group feels the need to push the envelope with Trump’s rhetoric. Two of the quotes are quite damning, but are rendered accurately. The quote about a wife working is missing some context but the essence of Trump’s attitude is captured. But the quote about how you need to be wealthy in order to be great is simply devoid of context
> At worst, Trump’s comments in North Dakota were a bit of a gaffe, much like Clinton’s ill-advised comments on putting coal miners out of jobs while she was pitching her plan to revitalize coal communities.
> Context is important *—* and quotes from politicians shouldn’t be used if a snippet leaves a different impression than the reality.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










:lol

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

For sure the conservative religious right who are mostly white is losing their influence on the national level, the rise of Trump is evidence of that. But to say their influence is grossly over-exaggerated at this point in time is jumping the gun. Many still vote in very similar manner and have very similar positions in many social issues. Also, many minorities in America are very religious that share similar positions on social issues like homosexuality and abortions, which could help extend their influence if either side decide to reach out to the other in the future.

You also kind of gloss over another important issue for this voting bloc in abortion rights, which they have done quite well in recent years by getting states to pass laws that makes it harder for women to get abortions.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> For sure the conservative religious right who are mostly white is losing their influence on the national level, the rise of Trump is evidence of that. But to say their influence is grossly over-exaggerated at this point in time is jumping the gun. Many still vote in very similar manner and have very similar positions in many social issues. Also, many minorities in America are very religious that share similar positions on social issues like homosexuality and abortions, which could help extend their influence if either side decide to reach out to the other in the future.
> 
> You also kind of gloss over another important issue for this voting bloc in abortion rights, which they have done quite well in recent years by getting states to pass laws that makes it harder for women to get abortions.


How I see you right now: 










OMG. It's "harder" for women to get abortions ... So much oppression ... These damned christians are just downright evil. OMG. 

They share similar positions on social issues like homosexuality .... what positions? Other than opposing marriage (which they lost) how else do christians oppress gays? They refuse to bake them cakes for their weddings. SO MUCH OPPRESSION .. ERR MUH GERD! Those evil, evil christians won't bake me a wedding cake and I don't want to go to someone else because my poor fee fees are hurt and they should be punished for hurting my wee wee fee fees:hogan 

There are over 300,000 different churches all over the States - each run by a seperate minister. Now there are some 1200 mega-churches, but most of those also do not share the same ideologies. 

If you think that they're all a hive mind that votes together and has the same feelings on social issues, then you're just reaching ...reaching ... reaching ... Lolol.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> How I see you right now:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG. It's "harder" for women to get abortions ... So much oppression ... These damned christians are just downright evil. OMG.
> 
> They share similar positions on social issues like homosexuality .... what positions? Other than opposing marriage (which they lost) how else do christians oppress gays? They refuse to bake them cakes for their weddings. SO MUCH OPPRESSION .. ERR MUH GERD! Those evil, evil christians won't bake me a wedding cake and I don't want to go to someone else because my poor fee fees are hurt and they should be punished for hurting my wee wee fee fees:hogan
> 
> There are over 300,000 different churches all over the States - each run by a seperate minister. Now there are some 1200 mega-churches, but most of those also do not share the same ideologies.
> 
> If you think that they're all a hive mind that votes together and has the same feelings on social issues, then you're just reaching ...reaching ... reaching ... Lolol.


Dude, that gif apply to you more than me by trying to paint me similar to the nuts you associate with by supporting Trump. 

They tried to shut down planned parenthood, made ridiculous requirements for clinics to meet to conduct abortions in the name of 'women's health'. Not sure how that isn't making it harder for women in those states to get abortions than before?

They think homosexuality is a sin. :shrug Some even have camps to 'cure' homosexuality, but that's the extreme fringes.

You are being disingenuous in this discussion just because I challenged your opinion. I said many in the conservative right share similar positions, not having a hive mind. And that they vote in a similar pattern over the years, overwhelmingly republican. What I was saying they can extend their influence in the political sphere if they reach out to Hispanics and Blacks who often exhibit similar positions on social issues over the years but is not reflected in their voting.

The one group of people who could be said to have a hive mind are Trump supporters. How else can so many be convinced about something as silly as a pillow in different pictures being evidence of Hilary's poor health?


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










I love these jokes on the NSA :lmao.

BASED JULIE BOROWSKI :mark:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*










Shouldn't matter which party you support because this is still pretty damned funny.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.kmov.com/story/32807204/12-year-old-running-trump-campaign-office-in-colorado



> WHEAT RIDGE, CO (KDVR/CNN) - Donald Trump's campaign has some young blood among its leadership.
> 
> And by young, that means 12 years old.
> 
> In one of the most important counties in swing state Colorado, Donald Trump is relying on 12-year-old Weston Imer, who runs the Jefferson County operation for the Trump campaign.
> 
> Jefferson County is one of the most populous counties in Colorado and is part of the Denver metro area.
> 
> Imer is in charge of the operation where volunteers will gather and help get out the vote, and while sitting behind a desk may not be the coolest thing to do, he hopes to use the position to inspire others.
> 
> "Get involved," Imer said. "That's what I'm going to say. Get involved. Kids need to be educated."
> 
> Imer's mother, Laurel Imer, is the official field coordinator on paper, but she wants to give her son most of the responsibility and help show other parents - Democrat or Republican - how to get their kids involved.
> 
> "You have a responsibility to your children to teach them," Laurel Imer said.
> 
> School starts for Weston Imer in September, and he hopes to lead the field office until then, recruiting friends and making Trump - who he has met - proud.
> 
> He might even one day launch a campaign of his own.
> 
> "Watch for me - 2040," Imer said. "And Barron Trump, if you are watching, in 2040 I'll take you as my running mate."
> 
> The Constitution requires the president and vice president to be 35 years old. Imer would first be eligible in the 2040 election, but Barron Trump, Donald Trump's 10-year-old son, would be a few months too young.







I this kid was familiar from somewhere before. Starts at 2:08. :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

He kinda looks like Trump. Maybe Trump is his father in some kind of 'Star Wars' way.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






When O'Reilly keep hitting you with softballs and you can't hit even one, then you should know you're fucked. In the meantime Hillary is probably in her bed resting and letting Trump deflect every shit history that come about her, she doesn't even need to show her face anymore.

This election cycle is like the biggest joke ever


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> *Trump’s Connections to Wall Street, Soros, Blackwater and the CFR*
> 
> by Steven MacMillan
> 
> Out of all the individuals in the political sphere today, no one stirs controversy and divides opinion more than Donald Trump. For months now, Trump’s flamboyant personality and demagogic rhetoric has dominated the media landscape, turning the presidential race into the biggest entertainment event of the year. Hailed as the saviour of America by some, and as a train wreck waiting to happen by others; Trump still remains somewhat of an enigma.
> 
> There is no doubt that his straight-talking style has resonated with many Americans who are tired of career politicians more concerned with political correctness than confronting real issues. Many Americans are also encouraged by some of Trump’s stances on certain issues – including his comments on improving relations with Russia, and his seeming opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – yet his constant flip-flopping on issues makes it impossible to decipher what his actual policies will be if elected.
> 
> Trump’s chances are emboldened by the fact that his major competitor in the race is so hated by every thinking person in the world, that many Americans may support Trump purely as the lesser of two evils. With Hillary at the helm, the American people know exactly what they are going to get: more war, more corruption and more policies that will only benefit special interests.
> 
> *Trump: The Anti-Establishment Candidate?*
> 
> Trump supporters are often very vocal in their belief that the real estate magnate is an anti-establishment outsider. In many of his speeches and comments, Trump plays up to this (probably carefully constructed) persona. Judging by the nature of people advising the presidential candidate however, Trump’s anti-establishment populism looks anything but genuine.
> 
> In addition to the establishment heavyweights Trump has already met with – including the former US Secretary of State and member of the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Henry Kissinger, and the former Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and current head of the CFR, Richard Hass – Trump’s official advisory teams on both foreign and economic policy reveal some troublesome connections to the neocons, Wall Street, Soros and the CFR.
> 
> *A Foreign Policy Ran by Blackwater and the Neocons*
> 
> Trump’s official foreign policy team includes a minimum of two neocons, with Joseph E. Schmitz the clear winner of the award for the worst foreign policy adviser in Trump’s selection. Schmitz, a lawyer by trade, is the former Inspector General of the Department of Defense in addition to being a former executive at none other than Blackwater Worldwide. Blackwater, which rebranded itself as Academi in 2011 due to its atrocious reputation (similar to what Jabhat Al-Nusra just done), is the notorious military contractor that has been involved in various controversies.
> 
> It is probably most infamous for the horrific incident in 2007, when Blackwater guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians and injured a further 20 after opening fire at a traffic junction in Baghdad. Other Blackwater enterprises include making a fortune of pretending to fight the booming opium trade in Afghanistan (which so ‘curiously’ skyrocketed following the US-led invasion of the country in 2001), in addition to fighting alongside the Western-backed terrorists in Syria who are trying to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> Schmitz is also connected to the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a neocon think tank whose publications fuel the anti-Islamic hysteria that is so prevalent in the US today. As Professor Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research has documented, CSP is an organization that has received funding by corporate powers who are promoting Islamophobia in America. CSP is also reportedly financed by numerous giants of the military-industrial complex, including Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.
> 
> *Economic Advisers Connected to Wall Street, Soros and the CFR*
> 
> At the beginning of August, Trump officially announced his economic advisory council. Considering that Trump has criticised Hillary Clinton for her overt Wall Street connections, you would think that Trump would pick a council devoid of any Wall Street titans. Well think again; Trump’s economic team is largely comprised of bankers, hedge fund managers and Wall Street insiders, who do not in any way represent the interests of the average American voter.
> 
> Steven Mnuchin, Trump’s National Finance Chairman and a major economic adviser, could not be more in bed with Wall Street and the establishment. Mnuchin is a former partner at Goldman Sachs, spending a total of 17 years at the financial powerhouse, according to Bloomberg. In addition to working for Goldman for close to two decades, Mnuchin also worked at Soros Fund Management, a firm founded by the billionaire and regime change extraordinaire, George Soros.
> 
> Another prominent economic adviser to Trump is John Paulson, the billionaire and hedge fund manager who founded Paulson & Co in 1994. Paulson, who formerly worked at Bear Stearns, is famous for shorting the housing market in the run up to the financial crisis of 2007-08, earning approximately $4 billion from the trade. The billionaire is also a member of the CFR, in addition to previously backing Mitt Romney in his failed 2012 presidential bid.
> 
> In addition to Mnuchin and Paulson, Trump’s economic advisers include Stephen Feinberg, the CEO of the private investment firm, Cerberus Capital Management; Stephen Calk, the founder of the Federal Savings Bank who has previously worked for Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp and Bank of America; and Wilbur Ross, the billionaire who spent 25 years running Rothschild Inc’s bankruptcy practice. Trump has also reshuffled his campaign team recently, appointing Stephen Bannon, a former investment banker at Goldman Sachs, as his new campaign CEO.
> 
> It is clear that Clinton is the pick of the establishment, which explains the largely negative coverage of Trump in the mainstream media. But considering the nature of the advisers surrounding Trump, the establishment has pulled its usual trick of ensuring that it controls both major candidates in the presidential race.
> 
> SOURCE


"A man is known by the company he keeps."

I'm just going to leave this here for anyone who is still harboring any illusions about Trump being anti-establishment. If you believe that, you're every bit the sucker that liberals were for believing Obama would be different and create change. Even if Hillary's campaign implodes and Trump gets elected, it's still going to be the same people running DC that has created the giant clusterfuck that it is today. That's how the establishment works. Heads, they win. Tails, you lose.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*










Couldn't verify the veracity of this but if it's true then it makes perfect sense. More CEOs are Clinton's donors than ever.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm just going to give the heads up now to all the Trumpamaniacs here, making sure there's no ambiguity. 

As we have been going along, I have been reviewing and looking at Trump's positions. I understand that there is some adjustments that will be made on stances of the candidates, but there is one that he is leaning towards that, if he follows through on, will guarantee he will not get my vote in November and this time the decision will be a permanent one. 

Through the time I've been on WF, I have made clear that I embrace people to come to the United States to make a better life for themselves. We're still obviously not as bad off as people think, many from around the world come to the States to do just that. However, under NO circumstances...today, tomorrow, or ever...will I EVER agree to amnesty for illegals. I'm not anti-immigration, but I am anti-illegal immigration. There is a difference.

Illegal immigration is a hot-button topic this year, more so than in many years. We need to secure the borders, that is a must. However, the idea of just giving a free pass to those here illegally doesn't set well with me. If you sneak in here, you are breaking the law. You need to be sent to the back of the line at the very least, or sent home. Case in point, if you try to sneak illegally into Mexico...they send you back. No questions asked. 

Perhaps mass deportation of all illegals is not realistic (I think it can be done if willing to do so), but we have screamed about amnesty never being an option either. In recent days (and I understand the lamestream media can take things out of context so will take it with a grain of salt), Trump is hinting at softening his stance on illegal immigration. Talking about letting them stay if they pay back taxes, etc. To me, and to many others, that is a form of amnesty. There ain't any amount of lipstick you can put on that pig to make it to be anything else. One of Trump's big sticking points is that there would be no amnesty and we're going to send the illegals back. Many have latched onto his campaign in the hopes that we will have illegal immigration reform and no amnesty. 

This is one stance you can't back down from, Mr. Trump. This is one you will lose votes on and won't gain anything by it. Anything less than what I mentioned will be considered amnesty. To me, that is an absolute deal-breaker and just not permitted. If he goes down that road, I can safely say I will not vote for him in November and this time my decision will be etched in stone.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It's a masterful stroke of persuasion, really. By polling audiences he creates the illusion that it's his supporters driving the policy shift, and exposes the hypocrisy and false moral high ground of the left as they attack him for...moving in exactly the direction they've claimed to want him to move in. They also look like downright fools for attacking him for actually caring about what the people want when it comes to crafting his policy decisions, like you would expect in a democratic government. It's a dual strike. Let's see how effective a move it turns out to be. 

Now this does mean "losing" the non-existent support of people like @BruiserKC who have been against him all along, but I think that's a risk you have to be willing to take.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I despise Ann Coulter, so this was pretty phenomenal.



> Ann Coulter’s new book is called “In Trump We Trust,” but the conservative pundit might already be regretting that title.
> 
> “There’s nothing Trump can do that won’t be forgiven,” she wrote in her book. “Except change his immigration policies.”
> 
> Trump did just that on Wednesday night with a plan to offer legal status to undocumented immigrants, an announcement that came the very same night Coulter held her book launch party.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768604546734096385
:lmao


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Through the time I've been on WF, I have made clear that I embrace people to come to the United States to make a better life for themselves. We're still obviously not as bad off as people think, many from around the world come to the States to do just that. However, under NO circumstances...today, tomorrow, or ever...will I EVER agree to amnesty for illegals. *I'm not anti-immigration, but I am anti-illegal immigration. There is a difference.*


This is one of those positions I've never really understood. Not yours, Bruiser. I agree with your position. What confuses me is the position of people who want to give amnesty to those who have entered the country illegally. If we don't have citizens and borders within where those citizens live, then we don't even have a country. If we don't have a country, what is the point of any of this?

I've always thought the "battle" against illegal immigration has used stupid tactics. Trump's idea of building a giant wall is retarded. People will still find a way to enter the country illegally. As far as that goes, most illegal immigrants enter the country in other ways that are not hopping across the border. One of my ideas for fighting back against illegal immigration, if the USA is actually serious about doing something about it, is not to go after the illegal immigrants but to go after the people who employee them. For example, let's say a business gets caught employing illegal immigrants. The first time they get caught, 10k fine per worker. Second time, 20k fine per worker. 3rd time, mandatory prison time. If the employers were putting their own asses on the line, you would see the hiring of illegal immigrants end real quick like. As it is now, if a handful of the illegal workers get caught and deported, the businesses just hire more and go about their day. If there are no jobs for the illegal immigrants though, they're going to be a helluva lot less interested in being here.

But, since the owners of the country love that cheap labor, I find it hard to believe that they would get serious about ending illegal immigration. Even if they did, they'd just create more trade deals to outsource more jobs to cheap labor in foreign countries.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So Hills latest attack is vote for her, or be racist?

BAHAHAHA! Nring it on, witch! I've been called worse in threads just like these alone.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Reaper said:


> Couldn't verify the veracity of this but if it's true then it makes perfect sense. More CEOs are Clinton's donors than ever.


Makes sense. Her father is current U.S. senator and former governor of West VA, Joe Manchin (D). When he was governor he got his friend that was President of WVU to falsify her college record so she qualified for an MBA. President and some others had to resign after it came out when she was made CEO of Mylan, Inc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_University_M.B.A._controversy


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


>


The presidential election always comes down to this point, one way or another. And it's always mind-numbing.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> It's a masterful stroke of persuasion, really. By polling audiences he creates the illusion that it's his supporters driving the policy shift, and exposes the hypocrisy and false moral high ground of the left as they attack him for...moving in exactly the direction they've claimed to want him to move in. They also look like downright fools for attacking him for actually caring about what the people want when it comes to crafting his policy decisions, like you would expect in a democratic government. It's a dual strike. Let's see how effective a move it turns out to be.
> 
> Now this does mean "losing" the non-existent support of people like @BruiserKC who have been against him all along, but I think that's a risk you have to be willing to take.


I've come from the one side of the fence to on the fence...that's a huge step for me. However, he will run the risk of losing a substantial amount of support from his base who are tired of the attempts of the government to force amnesty down our throats. They voted for him because they believe that he will find a solution to the immigration issue. Anything that looks like, walks like, and sounds like that duck we will name A.Mnesty will not sit well with them. Plus, there's those who don't believe him anyway and don't think that it means anything. 



Tater said:


> This is one of those positions I've never really understood. Not yours, Bruiser. I agree with your position. What confuses me is the position of people who want to give amnesty to those who have entered the country illegally. If we don't have citizens and borders within where those citizens live, then we don't even have a country. If we don't have a country, what is the point of any of this?
> 
> I've always thought the "battle" against illegal immigration has used stupid tactics. Trump's idea of building a giant wall is retarded. People will still find a way to enter the country illegally. As far as that goes, most illegal immigrants enter the country in other ways that are not hopping across the border. One of my ideas for fighting back against illegal immigration, if the USA is actually serious about doing something about it, is not to go after the illegal immigrants but to go after the people who employee them. For example, let's say a business gets caught employing illegal immigrants. The first time they get caught, 10k fine per worker. Second time, 20k fine per worker. 3rd time, mandatory prison time. If the employers were putting their own asses on the line, you would see the hiring of illegal immigrants end real quick like. As it is now, if a handful of the illegal workers get caught and deported, the businesses just hire more and go about their day. If there are no jobs for the illegal immigrants though, they're going to be a helluva lot less interested in being here.
> 
> But, since the owners of the country love that cheap labor, I find it hard to believe that they would get serious about ending illegal immigration. Even if they did, they'd just create more trade deals to outsource more jobs to cheap labor in foreign countries.


That has been an idea floated around, and actually something that could be done if they gave the proper financing for the E-verify program that could make sure everyone they hire is here legally. Give that program the chance to do its work and you can solve that problem. 

It's not just the idea of cheap labor, it's that people are afraid of really dealing with the issue. If we truly wanted to, we could round up all the illegals and deport them. Would take some work, but it could be done. However, we don't want to take the time to do so. The problem also with the illegal immigration fight is that those against amnesty and illegals coming here don't spell out very clearly what they are asking for and why. They get drowned out by those accusing them of being racist, etc. Making the distinction is important, it's not just about "They're illegal, get them the fuck outta here! 
'MURRICA!"


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Sounds like a pretty big flip flop by Trump, the antithesis of the wall policy almost. Maybe he can build a big underground tube that sucks the illegals back across the border.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The wall would be a total waste of money anyways. Seriously, unless you build that thing 60 feet deep and make it out of impenetrable material, it ain't gonna keep anyone out.

Aren't more coming by the water these days anyways?


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> The wall would be a total waste of money anyways. Seriously, unless you build that thing 60 feet deep and make it out of impenetrable material, it ain't gonna keep anyone out.
> 
> Aren't more coming by the water these days anyways?


Nirvana fallacy.

Apply this same reasoning where your front door, and locks on it are concerned, then re-evaluate.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The reason why the mainstream media keeps showing those poll numbers is to discourage people from voting. Fucking vote anyway!



> The wall would be a total waste of money anyways. Seriously, unless you build that thing 60 feet deep and make it out of impenetrable material, it ain't gonna keep anyone out.
> 
> Aren't more coming by the water these days anyways?


Same reason why the people are armed. #Deterrent



> I despise Ann Coulter, so this was pretty phenomenal.


Ann Coulter: Professional Troll 

- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Same reason why the people are armed. #Deterrent
> 
> - Vic


What do you mean, the wall is more of a deterrent than being functionally effective as a structure for keeping people out?


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I have always scoffed at the "extreme leftest run da collages" claim but I have found out something very off

During the late 60s and early 70s there were a variety of pseudo "revolutionaries" most of which were extreme leftest populist types

I say pseudo because most of them did more petty crime, robbery, and random kidnapping than any real "revolution"

A few got some headlines, mainly in California where they got into major shoot outs with police and did minor bombings 

Most were either locked up after killing people or simply got lost as society moved on and the former kids who made up their low ranks now had house payments and take care of their kids

Now these "New left" groups largely rotted in prison under old style Dems and Republicans till Bill Clinton entered office

Bill had been a college kid in the 70s and had some sympathies for these guys so many who had not already been released were let out 

While some have admitted that they were angry stupid kids approaching their problems in the wrong ways many of them still believe that their bombings, gunsfights, and kidnappings were right as long as it only kills rich people and cops, openly still support open and armed resistance, and view themselves as political prisoners and their crimes as "large scale vandalism"(setting off small bombs at police stations and the military buildings) 

A majority of these "Kill for the cause" types became college professors or high ranking social rights activists in things like the modern gay rights movement, environmental movements, and anti war movements

Obama got into a minor scandal after meeting with one of the notorious "weathermen" who killed several police and security guards during a bombing spree to protest the Vietnam war (using bombs to protest bombs, hipster irony) 

Another member became a political professor at a major college and when it was pointed out that they had a domestic terrorist teaching a political class the school defended itself by saying "hey the kids say her class is really good" 

Imagine if the Uni-bomber survived and got a book tour and ran an activist group because a backer was sympathetic to his cause

only its really happening


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> Nirvana fallacy.
> 
> Apply this same reasoning where your front door, and locks on it are concerned, then re-evaluate.


There's a difference between "Well, it isn't absolutely perfect!" and "It would cost a stupid amount of money and probably wouldn't be all that effective."

Besides, I thought any and all attempts to curb illegality could be hand-waved by saying "They're criminals. If they really want to find a way to get past that wall, they're gonna get past that wall." :cudi



Vic Capri said:


> Ann Coulter: Professional Troll


Yeah. At a certain point, though, what's the real difference between a mask you wear every day and your actual face?

Much like Skip Bayless, she may not personally believe the nonsense that she spews, but she's at least responsible for it.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> There's a difference between "Well, it isn't absolutely perfect!" and "It would cost a stupid amount of money and probably wouldn't be all that effective."
> 
> Besides, I thought any and all attempts to curb illegality could be hand-waved by saying "They're criminals. If they really want to find a way to get past that wall, they're gonna get past that wall." :cudi


First, I wasn't taking a position for or against building a wall--though I will admit that the idea of a wall at least seems worthy of debate--I was simply pointing out that the argument that the person was making against it wasn't very well reasoned. And in point of fact, their argument was insisting on what appears to be nigh perfection--e.g. 60 feet deep, impenetrable material, total waste of money, etc.

I'm not sure how anyone is presuming to be able to measure how effective, or ineffective, such a wall would be considering it doesn't and hasn't existed. Or is this merely arbitrary assertion that is supposed to be accepted as objective truth? Because it would seem to me, at least on the face of things, that a wall would certainly be more effective than no wall where the task of making it more difficult to cross a border is concerned. It may not be able to stop everyone, and I'm sure there will be many attempts to bypass and defeat it, but it will almost certainly make those attempts more difficult and less successful than if there was no wall, and thus it will make securing the border it is on more efficient and effective for those tasked with securing that border.

Similarly, my front door and the locks on it will not be enough to stop any attempt to break into my home. A few well placed kicks or a few minutes with a portable drill will inevitably defeat every standard front door lock. But it's purpose is not just to prevent people from breaking in, it is also to make it more difficult to break in should they try, as opposed to encountering no resistance at all, thereby subtracting from their probability of success.

As for cost-benefit analysis, well that's a much deeper subject that has largely been glossed over in discussions about this, as far as I can tell--most only seem interested in determining how expensive the wall will be to build, in order to dismiss it or discredit Trump, but I can't say I see much accounting for potential benefits or savings in these determinations. It seems fairly obvious to me that there is almost certainly a debate to be had there, regardless of how one feels about a wall, or Trump, if they are in fact truly interested in a proper cost-benefit analysis. It's not as if the illegal immigration that a wall may otherwise mitigate against does not carry with it no cost, after all. Obviously a wall will come with a monetary cost, but even if we assume that taxpayers will front the entirety of the bill... even then I don't see how the suggestion of a wall can or should necessarily be dismissed out of hand on those grounds alone without giving any consideration to the benefits/savings, monetary and otherwise, that a wall might be able to provide when the costs of illegal immigration are taken into account.

"A wall will cost money, therefore we shouldn't do it," isn't a very compelling or profound argument to me.

I will say that it's rather... curious to me that the left, in particular, has decided to attack the idea of a wall on the grounds of taxpayer cost lately, given the left's love affair with redistribution of wealth in every other instance. 

I'm not entirely certain what your second point is supposed to be alluding to. I can only hope it's not a self-imploding conflation of apples and oranges.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> I'm not entirely certain what your second point is supposed to be alluding to. I can only hope it's not a self-imploding conflation of apples and oranges.


Stick around for the gun control debates sometime, where this argument...



> Similarly, my front door and the locks on it will not be enough to stop any attempt to break into my home. A few well placed kicks or a few minutes with a portable drill will inevitably defeat every standard front door lock. But it's purpose is not just to prevent people from breaking in, it is also to make it more difficult to break in should they try, as opposed to encountering no resistance at all, thereby subtracting from their probability of success.


...is met with "Why even bother having a front door? If a criminal really wants to get into your house, he's going to find a way!"


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






:sodone


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> "A wall will cost money, therefore we shouldn't do it," isn't a very compelling or profound argument to me.
> 
> I will say that it's rather... curious to me that the left, in particular, has decided to attack the idea of a wall on the grounds of taxpayer cost lately, given the left's love affair with redistribution of wealth in every other instance.


There _has_ been a massive redistribution of wealth over the past 4 decades but it's been from the middle class to the top .01%. Republicans don't want to fix this problem because it's their policies (that Democrats have been complicit with) that caused this problem. Democrats don't want to fix this problem because they want everyone to stay poor, so they can put them all on welfare and buy their votes that way. The working class who produces all the wealth should not be living in poverty while the owner class sucks up all the wealth. Neither should those living in poverty be suckling at the taxpayer's teet. The solution is not redistribution. The solution is more equitable distribution from the start. People need the ability to support themselves and that's going to take a massive overhaul of the system, which is something neither party is interested in doing.

As far as the wall goes, saying we shouldn't have any kind of wall is just as stupid as saying we should build some ridiculously massive wall that costs billions of dollars without addressing the other ways illegal immigration is happening. If you want to take out a hornet's nest, you don't run around trying to kill the hornets one at a time. You go after the nest itself. Meaning, it would be more effective to eliminate the reasons illegal immigrants have to want to be here than it would be to try to keep them all out or deport them once they get here.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

He hasn't backed off. He'll still push for it being built and you're retarded if you don't think he will.

He said just tonight, "They all have to leave."


Can we talk more on Hill shitting herself with fear over a cartoon Frog?


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> There _has_ been a massive redistribution of wealth over the past 4 decades but it's been from the middle class to the top .01%. Republicans don't want to fix this problem because it's their policies (that Democrats have been complicit with) that caused this problem. Democrats don't want to fix this problem because they want everyone to stay poor, so they can put them all on welfare and buy their votes that way. The working class who produces all the wealth should not be living in poverty while the owner class sucks up all the wealth. Neither should those living in poverty be suckling at the taxpayer's teet. The solution is not redistribution. The solution is more equitable distribution from the start. People need the ability to support themselves and that's going to take a massive overhaul of the system, which is something neither party is interested in doing.
> 
> As far as the wall goes, saying we shouldn't have any kind of wall is just as stupid as saying we should build some ridiculously massive wall that costs billions of dollars without addressing the other ways illegal immigration is happening. If you want to take out a hornet's nest, you don't run around trying to kill the hornets one at a time. You go after the nest itself. Meaning, *it would be more effective to eliminate the reasons illegal immigrants have to want to be here* than it would be to try to keep them all out or deport them once they get here.


:nowords



Beatles123 said:


> He hasn't backed off. He'll still push for it being built and you're retarded if you don't think he will.
> 
> He said just tonight, "They all have to leave."
> 
> 
> Can we talk more on Hill shitting herself with fear over a cartoon Frog?


Yeah, that definitely seems like a better use of time than talking about Trump waffling on one of the core issues of his entire platform. :lol


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> :nowords


Did you want to dispute my point? As I've already pointed out earlier, if you go after the employers and make it impossible for illegal immigrants to find work, they have a lot less reason to be here.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> :nowords
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that definitely seems like a better use of time than talking about Trump waffling on one of the core issues of his entire platform. :lol


It is when she tried to marginalize an entire voter base, or did you not watch the speech.

AS i said, Trump has not whiffed. At least no bigger than Hill has today, but of coyrse, why would you talk about that? :nerd:0


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> He hasn't backed off. He'll still push for it being built and you're retarded if you don't think he will.
> 
> He said just tonight, "They all have to leave."
> 
> 
> Can we talk more on Hill shitting herself with fear over a cartoon Frog?


Who's going to pay for the wall? 'MEXICO!'

fpalm


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Did you want to dispute my point? As I've already pointed out earlier, *if you go after the employers and make it impossible for illegal immigrants to find work, they have a lot less reason to be here.*


No, that part's fine.

It was just the way that you phrased it that made it sound like we should just intentionally tank America so that nobody wants to move here anymore. :lol


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> Stick around for the gun control debates sometime, where this argument...
> 
> 
> 
> ...is met with "Why even bother having a front door? If a criminal really wants to get into your house, he's going to find a way!"


As I feared... 

Perhaps you can more thoroughly explain the point you're attempting to make here, because you seem to be operating from a number of undisclosed premises that you haven't yet established in order to apply this discussion to the issue of 'gun control.'

If you'd like to discuss 'gun control,' that's fine, but I'm not sure how conflating that issue with the issue of a border wall is very useful in either discussion.



Tater said:


> There _has_ been a massive redistribution of wealth over the past 4 decades but it's been from the middle class to the top .01%. Republicans don't want to fix this problem because it's their policies (that Democrats have been complicit with) that caused this problem. Democrats don't want to fix this problem because they want everyone to stay poor, so they can put them all on welfare and buy their votes that way. The working class who produces all the wealth should not be living in poverty while the owner class sucks up all the wealth. Neither should those living in poverty be suckling at the taxpayer's teet. The solution is not redistribution. The solution is more equitable distribution from the start. People need the ability to support themselves and that's going to take a massive overhaul of the system, which is something neither party is interested in doing.
> 
> As far as the wall goes, saying we shouldn't have any kind of wall is just as stupid as saying we should build some ridiculously massive wall that costs billions of dollars without addressing the other ways illegal immigration is happening. If you want to take out a hornet's nest, you don't run around trying to kill the hornets one at a time. You go after the nest itself. Meaning, it would be more effective to eliminate the reasons illegal immigrants have to want to be here than it would be to try to keep them all out or deport them once they get here.


I think there are a number of issues that contribute to wealth disparities that exist, and I don't think they are at all limited to partisan agendas, though those certainly can compound the issue in different ways. But that's really a separate issue from the jab I was taking at the left's objection to building a wall on the grounds of monetary cost.

I do agree that illegal immigration is a symptom, and a wall is certainly a response to, or treatment for that symptom that doesn't necessarily get to the root cause(s). OTOH, I think getting a wall built is much more practically possible than successfully grappling with those root causes in this current culture and political system, and environment; or if there is a likely path to overcoming those root causes, it isn't obvious to me. It's worth mentioning that the argument of the right tends to be that more effectively securing borders (such as with a wall) is a prerequisite to successfully grappling with those root causes--whether that's true or not, and whether that's truly their intention or not is another matter, I suppose.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> As I feared...
> 
> Perhaps you can more thoroughly explain the point you're attempting to make here, because you seem to be operating from a number of undisclosed premises that you haven't yet established in order to apply this discussion to the issue of 'gun control.'
> 
> If you'd like to discuss 'gun control,' that's fine, but I'm not sure how conflating that issue with the issue of a border wall is very useful in either discussion.


A more thorough explanation would be overkill since my original post was intended more as a hit-and-run joke highlighting the hypocrisy among people who talk out of one side of their mouth on one issue and the other side on another, but if you really want to do this...

The point I was making was that it's interesting that when it comes to illegal immigration, the door analogy comes into play, highlighting the notion that an attempt at deterrence is better than leaving the door wide open, so to speak. But when it comes to the topic of gun control, that same analogy has often been met with derisive claims that "Criminals won't listen to the laws anyway! That's why they're criminals!" ignoring the fact that the goal would be to create as high a barrier for entry as possible (sound familiar?) in order to deter prospective violent offenders or at least force them to jump through hoops, increasing the likelihood that they will get caught before they are able to commit a crime.

I actually would _not_ like to discuss gun control, given that it's been done to death and is never productive. I'm content to just sit in the back of the classroom and crack wise when I see some overlap in argument. I appreciate the offer, though.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> A more thorough explanation would be overkill since my original post was intended more as a hit-and-run joke highlighting the hypocrisy among people who talk out of one side of their mouth on one issue and the other side on another, but if you really want to do this...
> 
> The point I was making was that it's interesting that when it comes to illegal immigration, the door analogy comes into play, highlighting the notion that an attempt at deterrence is better than leaving the door wide open, so to speak. But when it comes to the topic of gun control, that same analogy has often been met with derisive claims that "Criminals won't listen to the laws anyway! That's why they're criminals!" ignoring the fact that the goal would be to create as high a barrier for entry as possible (sound familiar?) in order to deter prospective violent offenders or at least force them to jump through hoops, increasing the likelihood that they will get caught before they are able to commit a crime.
> 
> I actually would _not_ like to discuss gun control, given that it's been done to death and is never productive. I'm content to just sit in the back of the classroom and crack wise when I see some overlap in argument. I appreciate the offer, though.


Yeah, I think anyone that thinks that ideological screening would work has never cheated on a test before. American immigration is already a very stringent process. I kinda feel sorry for the people who keep talking about it out of ignorance without ever having gone through the process themselves. I was just screened in April 2015 and it wasn't a walk in the park. The Canadian one OTOH was. They just handed me a piece of people, no interview. Americans asked me 200 questions, verbal and written. They took pictures of my wife and I together. They took affidavits from family and friends. They wanted to see not just wedding pictures (like the canadians do), but an entire history of the relationship from the time we met till we applied for immigration, to online gifts, to telephone bills, to chat transcripts, to private emails. By the end of it, we went through a 1 hour long interview and submitted a 200 page document. 

Europe and Canada may have a leniency problem. America doesn't. 

I also find it very interesting that the argument against Muslim immigration is essentially a re-worded poisoned M&M argument which the alt-right hates when it's made about white men by SJWs.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Looks like the people running Hillary's campaign aren't that smart, either. That was one of the most ridiculous speeches I've ever heard. She basically shot a live national commercial for Alex Jones and Breitbart. Un-fucking-believable.

Meanwhile, still waiting for Julian to save us all...



> Assange: I will not reveal the exact date but I can promise you this, I Will Bring Hillary Down Before The Debate Stage On September 26th.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> Looks like the people running Hillary's campaign aren't that smart, either. That was one of the most ridiculous speeches I've ever heard. She basically shot a live national commercial for Alex Jones and Breitbart. Un-fucking-believable.
> 
> Meanwhile, still waiting for Julian to save us all...


I think what they're going for is in their mind this "expose" of the alt-right will work in their favor. And to an extent it is. The fence-sitters are shifting towards the left based on what I'm seeing amongst the moderates.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I think what they're going for is in their mind this "expose" of the alt-right will work in their favor. And to an extent it is. The fence-sitters are shifting towards the left based on what I'm seeing amongst the moderates.



All the shit she's been busy denying (or almost all of it, including the #Hillary'sHealth thing) came directly from Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson. They got to her to the point where she's doing ridiculous skits on Jimmy Kimmel in a desperate attempt to debunk that story. At that point, what you DON'T DO is give them a big shoutout on a national stage. That inevitably leads to people googling all the stuff she doesn't want to be a part of the conversation. That is flat out stupid, don't care what anyone says.

... and I seriously hope that calling everyone who disagrees with you racists while making up your own little conspiracy theories about Putin running the "Alt Right" will not work. If it does you can no longer claim that the Democrats are the smart party.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> All the shit she's been busy denying (or almost all of it, including the #Hillary'sHealth thing) came directly from Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson. They got to her to the point where she's doing ridiculous skits on Jimmy Kimmel in a desperate attempt to debunk that story. At that point, what you DON'T DO is give them a big shoutout on a national stage. That inevitably leads to people googling all the stuff she doesn't want to be a part of the conversation. That is flat out stupid, don't care what anyone says.
> 
> ... and I seriously hope that calling everyone who disagrees with you racists while making up your own little conspiracy theories about Putin running the "Alt Right" will not work. If it does you can no longer claim that the Democrats are the smart party.


Well, Clinton knows that on her own merits she's already lost the election. So her attempt is to now make sure that Trump looks as bad as possible even if it is a massive lie. The thing is, she knows that fence sitters leaning left don't do actual research nor put in the effort and rely on people telling them what to think so they'll take her word for it. 

BTW, the media is already hard at work and since Google, Bing, Yahoo and Facebook are all democratic supporters, the only results you're getting about the alt-right and its supporters are now negative. There's nothing positive on the internet already and has been pushed back. At most you can get their actual views on their own sites, but they too are slowly being pushed back.

It's an amazing strategy and from the point of view of a propaganda analyst, it's amazing to see how quickly they coined the term for their "enemy" and within a matter of a day associated them with racist across the board.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It is the same strategy as reaching out to moderate Muslims that they have a responsibility to fight radical Islam. It is a message to moderate conservatives that they have the responsibility to fight off the radical fringes that make up the alt-right.

It sure gave the movement extra exposure by mainstreaming it but it also exposes the degree of vitriol the movement uses against their critics online. No need to depend on search engine results to feel negative about the movement. A look at their comments section will be enough.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

^ And the vitoral and hatred on leftist sites isn't just as bad? 

The double-standard is so obvious in your posts that sometimes I don't even know what gave you the idea that you're some sort of impartial commentator on these elections. 

Now I'm not defending the alt-right. In fact, I actually dislike the fact that they use mostly the same arguments that the leftists do unironically without self-awareness for minorities that the extreme left uses about white people as a whole. For example they hate the poisoned M&M argument when it's made about white males, and yet frequently use the exact same argument to support Trump's muslim ban. 

They both have different targets, and there's very little to differentiate between them except their chosen targets.

The thing is that Hillary relies on the fringe extremist left as much if not more than Trump is relying on the extremist right. The difference is that the left media dominates the mainstream sources of information therefore she gets to claim that a fringe group has taken over the republican party while people blatantly remain ignorant of the exact same type of fringe group taking over the democratic party.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

You are deflecting again. What double-standard have I shown? Did I defend the extremists on the left around here? I have been criticizing the likes of BLM and Bernie supporters all this time while doing the same on the alt-right. 

Hey if Trump is going to expose the movement on the left that peddle class-warfare rhetoric, I'll post in support of it too. But Trump is running with the same populists appeal of that so he can't outright say so.

Take a look at the comments section of all these conservative alt-right, then take a look at the comment sections of the 'leftist sites' and tell me there isn't a huge difference in attempts at trying to have a decent discussion. You can't go 5 comments without Shillary sucks lulz from the alt-right, even when they post on leftist sites.

It seems like you are reaching to find something to justify you identifying with this movement everytime you post here even though you yourself admit the movement is just as bad as the leftist extremists.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






I fucking love this guy.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Sounds like the Neo-con really fucking wants another cold war with Russia.

Or she's prepping the americans for a move against Russia in the middle east. 

Either way, the neo-con is literally sowing the seeds of some sort of a move against russia. If Hillary's voters can't see it right now, then they deserve the leader they'll get. This isn't just a deflection, this is the same kind of bullshit spun by Bush to hoodwink Americans into the Iraq War. You demonize a group with lies and propaganda to the point where the idiot majority accepts your action no matter how dangerous or wrong it is. It's the oldest tactic in the neo-con's playbook. 

Another bit of irony where HER enemy is Russia, but somehow we're supposed to accept that she's not being bigoted against a group that has NOTHING to do with anything that's happening locally and somehow that makes her better than Trump. 
Really smart though. I don't blame the idiots that support her. It's not easy to break through all that rhetoric to realize that it's really the same bullshit she's accusing her opponent of. :shrug


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

First of all, I did like what Trump did say to clear up his stance...if you want to be here legally, you have to leave and come back. That's the way to handle it...you want to be here legally, go to the back of the line behind those that are already on the path legally. They need to address the INS issue, that agency is a mess. They need to make the process more efficient so that those are here legally can get citizenship in a timely manner. One less incentive for folks to jump the fence and cut in line. The INS needs a complete overhaul. 

As for Russia...let's face it, folks. Contrary to what Trump thinks and what other prominent members of this site once might have said, Russia is not our friend. Putin wants to re-instate the old Soviet Union in any way possible, and American involvement with NATO in the Ukraine and neighboring nations is getting in the way. You're not going to see a re-set in relations no matter who gets in, we seriously have to pay attention to them.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It isn't bigotry against Russia. fpalm. It is just that Russian interests and American interests do not align in that region for the past decade. Neo-cons were simply not being passive with pushing America's interests at the expense of Russian interests, but Putin has not exactly been an innocent bystander with provocative moves as well. There are no permanent allies, just common interests. Trump is just seen as a chump who Putin think he can manipulate to help advance Russian interests ahead of American ones in the Baltic region.



> You demonize a group with lies and propaganda to the point where the idiot majority accepts your action no matter how dangerous or wrong it is. It's the oldest tactic in the neo-con's playbook.


You say this without irony in deflecting criticisms on the alt-right. :lol


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Sounds like the Neo-con really fucking wants another cold war with Russia.


Just remember, Trump is the dangerous one who is gonna start World War 3, not the candidate demonizing the Russians every fucking day of the week.

:duck


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> As for Russia...let's face it, folks. Contrary to what Trump thinks and what other prominent members of this site once might have said, Russia is not our friend. Putin wants to re-instate the old Soviet Union in any way possible, and American involvement with NATO in the Ukraine and neighboring nations is getting in the way. You're not going to see a re-set in relations no matter who gets in, we seriously have to pay attention to them.


While I agree with this, it doesn't mean that Hillary's rhetoric about how the alt-right is being installed by Putin and that the DNC leaks were a russian conspiracy are any less bullshit conspiracies than some of the ones Trump and his followers believe. The fact is that I don't care whether Russia is our friend or our enemy. If anything, the last few years have indicated to me that in a war against extremism at this point Russia and America can co-exist peacefully with nothing more than a little posturing - which is fine. However, her inflammatory rhetoric especially conspiracy theory lies isn't doing anyone any favors at all.



FriedTofu said:


> It isn't bigotry against Russia. fpalm. It is just that Russian interests and American interests do not align in that region for the past decade. Neo-cons were simply not being passive with pushing America's interests at the expense of Russian interests, but Putin has not exactly been an innocent bystander with provocative moves as well. There are no permanent allies, just common interests. Trump is just seen as a chump who Putin think he can manipulate to help advance Russian interests ahead of American ones in the Baltic region.
> 
> You say this without irony in deflecting criticisms on the alt-right. :lol


You should probably just stop responding to what I say because time and time again all you prove is that you lack the basic skills to understand simple english. 

Calling out a candidate for telling lies about Putin isn't anywhere near saying that she's being bigoted against Russian .. How the fuck do you even make that leap in logic. 

Also, I haven't deflected criticism against the alt-right at all. In fact, I criticized their bullshit in my posts. Saying that the extreme left engages in the same tactics isn't a deflection when it's simply a statement of fact. It's not even a subjective opinion because it's been proven time and time again. 

Interestingly, I actually seem to get along better with people who actually read my posts without getting their panties in a twist because they have better comprehension skills.

If you think that I'm alt-right and a typical Trump supporter, then you've not been paying attention and are basically pigeon-holing - which is again your problem, not mine.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Another bit of irony where HER enemy is Russia, but somehow *we're supposed to accept that she's not being bigoted against a group that has NOTHING to do with anything that's happening locally *and somehow that makes her better than Trump.


Go dig yourself a bigger hole trying to paint me as someone who made a leap of logic. 

You can't even remember what you typed.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> No, that part's fine.
> 
> It was just the way that you phrased it that made it sound like we should just intentionally tank America so that nobody wants to move here anymore. :lol


LOL oops. But hey, with the way things are going, America is already being tanked. It might be a self correcting problem.

Wow, that made me sad just typing it.



Reaper said:


> Yeah, I think anyone that thinks that ideological screening would work has never cheated on a test before. American immigration is already a very stringent process. I kinda feel sorry for the people who keep talking about it out of ignorance without ever having gone through the process themselves. I was just screened in April 2015 and it wasn't a walk in the park. The Canadian one OTOH was. They just handed me *a piece of people*, no interview.


I know Canadians are weird but damn. :lol

Sorry buddy, I had to do it.



Reaper said:


> The thing is that Hillary relies on the fringe extremist left as much if not more than Trump is relying on the extremist right. The difference is that the left media dominates the mainstream sources of information therefore she gets to claim that a fringe group has taken over the republican party while people blatantly remain ignorant of the exact same type of fringe group taking over the democratic party.


One of these days I'm going to break you of this misguided notion about Hillary and the Clinton machine corporate propaganda arm known as the mainstream media being leftist. Hillary's entire campaign has basically been one big fuck you to those on the left, so when you say things like "Hillary relies on the fringe extremist left" and "the left media dominates the mainstream sources of information", you are just factually incorrect.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> A more thorough explanation would be overkill since my original post was intended more as a hit-and-run joke highlighting the hypocrisy among people who talk out of one side of their mouth on one issue and the other side on another, but if you really want to do this...
> 
> The point I was making was that it's interesting that when it comes to illegal immigration, the door analogy comes into play, highlighting the notion that an attempt at deterrence is better than leaving the door wide open, so to speak. But when it comes to the topic of gun control, that same analogy has often been met with derisive claims that "Criminals won't listen to the laws anyway! That's why they're criminals!" ignoring the fact that the goal would be to create as high a barrier for entry as possible (sound familiar?) in order to deter prospective violent offenders or at least force them to jump through hoops, increasing the likelihood that they will get caught before they are able to commit a crime.
> 
> I actually would _not_ like to discuss gun control, given that it's been done to death and is never productive. I'm content to just sit in the back of the classroom and crack wise when I see some overlap in argument. I appreciate the offer, though.


Fair enough. FWIW, I don't think the two issues are exactly analogous in that way when you get down into them, but I catch your meaning.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> I fucking love this guy.


I've been linking this guys videos for months. Honestly one of my favourite political commentators.

BASED PAUL JOSEPH WATSON :bow


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary's distaste of Russia is the only thing I agree with her on

I see myself as a conservative but Hillary is the only one who is even talking about global politics 

Trumps "let them be, they are cool" could let a lot of potential allies get run over 

Many people thought South Korea was a waste of time and resources until the 80s when they became one of the most strategic and powerful economic regions in the area as well as one of the US's closest allies while still maintaining a unique culture and not becoming ZOMG AN IMPERIALIST PUPPET 

Now imagine a Republic of Vietnam, a number of south American nations, a goddamn nationalist China with the same power and the same support

The US lets its allies slip through its fingers and uses brutal dictators so they "don't have to get involved" and so people don't end up throwing a hissy fit 

Places that have a NATO backed government with no "hands off" bullshit have done very well but the places that were just given a bucket of guns or ignored turned out horrible

People bitch about being "The world police" but it was going really well into the US started half assing it


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Pretty damn ironic that now Mr Enemy of The State Julian Assange seems to be the right's only hope of toppling Hilldog.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> I've been linking this guys videos for months. Honestly* one of my favourite political commentators.
> *
> BASED PAUL JOSEPH WATSON :bow


Why if i could ask?

I mean, seeing his videos he's and editor for Infowars, belives in conspiracy shit like cultural marxism, his last videos include impressive analysis like "Will Julian Assange be assasinated" and a tirade of Hillary's health and push stupidity like poll bias and so on....

Like seriously, i don't care if you're right or left wing as far as you are coherent and say coherent reasonable shit but guys like this are absolutely bollocks



stevefox1200 said:


> People bitch about being "The world police" but it was going really well into the US started half assing it


if by "well" you mean to you and NATO yeah, probably. But i suppose that also means fuck everyone else no?


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Why if i could ask?
> 
> I mean, seeing his videos he's and editor for Infowars, belives in conspiracy shit like cultural marxism, his last videos include impressive analysis like "Will Julian Assange be assasinated" and a tirade of Hillary's health and push stupidity like poll bias and so on....
> 
> Like seriously, i don't care if you're right or left wing as far as you are coherent and say coherent reasonable shit but guys like this are absolutely bollocks
> 
> 
> 
> if by "well" you mean to you and NATO yeah, probably. But i suppose that also means fuck everyone else no?


NATO turned many nations from borderline tribal regions into international powerhouses that not only gave them international pull but also allowed them to join the most powerful alliance in history which pacified the region of all threats expect for extremists who would fight anyway 

After the cold war a fuck ton of Warsaw pact members even joined NATO because they saw it would give them legit support unlike Russia which treated its allies like human shields and conscript machines 

As for the third world, many of them neutral solely due to extreme nationalism or because they were being led by someone who feared outside influence would threaten their power and all of which ended up weak due to their isolationism

Its not until US tried to do things both ways, proxy wars to please hawks and deniability to please doves, that it all fell apart 

You don't see many nations that regret supporting NATO but you do for Warsaw and neutral factions


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> NATO turned many nations from borderline tribal regions into international powerhouses that not only gave them international pull but also allowed them to join the most powerful alliance in history which pacified the region of all threats expect for extremists who would fight anyway
> 
> After the cold war a fuck ton of Warsaw pact members even joined NATO because they saw it would give them legit support unlike Russia which treated its allies like human shields and conscript machines
> 
> As for the third world, many of them neutral solely due to extreme nationalism or because they were being led by someone who feared outside influence would threaten their power and all of which ended up weak due to their isolationism
> 
> *Its not until US tried to do things both ways, proxy wars to please hawks and deniability to please doves, that it all fell apart *
> 
> You don't see many nations that regret supporting NATO but you do for Warsaw and neutral factions



Come on.

Nato fucked shit in every neutral place that they thinked will be convenient for geopolitical gain even if that mean support or creation of dictatorships left and right: Operation Condor in Latin America? only in the 70's they throw governments in Chile, Argentina, and Brazil without talking about most of center America.

Not only that, you had shit like operation Gladio in several places of Europe in fucking ally countries.

How has NATO helped to resolve conflicts and problems that they helped to create after the cold war like Sarajevo?

The difference between now and then is that now America is starting to feel years and years of intervisionist politics across the world. NATO has been highly inefficient in terms of foreign affairs just like ONU and basically every multi-country organization


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Ever seen some of his other videos? lol


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Come on.
> 
> Nato fucked shit in every neutral place that they thinked will be convenient for geopolitical gain even if that mean support or creation of dictatorships left and right: Operation Condor in Latin America? only in the 70's they throw governments in Chile, Argentina, and Brazil without talking about most of center America.
> 
> Not only that, you had shit like operation Gladio in several places of Europe in fucking ally countries.
> 
> How has NATO helped to resolve conflicts and problems that they helped to create after the cold war like Sarajevo?
> 
> The difference between now and then is that now America is starting to feel years and years of intervisionist politics across the world. NATO has been highly inefficient in terms of foreign affairs just like ONU and basically every multi-country organization


Thats my point

NATO got super lazy and just started giving guns to anyone who asked without any real direct oversight, its early actions were far more "heavy handed" but they were done with a clear goal

NATO tried to take short cuts in South America and handled it poorly 

Yugoslavia was going to blow up no matter what happened, it was only held together through force 

Most of the new nations in the area are pro NATO except the jhaidists who hate any non Muslim and the Serbs who have been dodging genocide charges

All attempts to settle the issues in the former Yugoslavia are blocked by Russia in the UN because if Serbia gets charged Russia can also be charged for arming them early during the split


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Maybe NATO was more "heavy handled" at the begining but if an organization that has 60 year have just 10 years of good functioning then we have a real bad problem. And then this "heavy handed" politics included comercial agreement with some mafias on Cuba, which in part prepared the field for the communists to take over among other things.... Let's face it, NATO not only handled bad Latin America, also handled bad Africa and the Middle east, there is countless examples: Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, the constant vetting of USA on resolutions against Israel in the defense counceil, etc.

Yugoslavia was going to blow up, but NATO didn't want to touch the zone with a stick until the pressure from the international community was to heavy to let it keep up, the fact that the initial reaction in Sarajevo was "let open the airports and nothing more" while you have snipers killing people close to them it's like the biggest joke ever. 

Yeah, most nations in those places are NATO allies, but they're because is the most convenient position to have generally in Europe. Nato hasn't failed just because they backed shit or have created obscure intelligence operations, but because they only act under those intelligence operations and the real policies they have advocated are just paper messures reduced to absurd levels of bureaucracy


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-domestic-violence-trump-campaign-ceo

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump

It is astonishing how fast either side manage to dig up dirt on someone who enters the political scenes. Although I think Bannon is committing tax fraud and not voter fraud that they are trying to paint him as so they can say he was being hypocritical on voter fraud.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Maybe NATO was more "heavy handled" at the begining but if an organization that has 60 year have just 10 years of good functioning then we have a real bad problem. And then this "heavy handed" politics included comercial agreement with some mafias on Cuba, which in part prepared the field for the communists to take over among other things.... Let's face it, NATO not only handled bad Latin America, also handled bad Africa and the Middle east, there is countless examples: Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, the constant vetting of USA on resolutions against Israel in the defense counceil, etc.
> 
> Yugoslavia was going to blow up, but NATO didn't want to touch the zone with a stick until the pressure from the international community was to heavy to let it keep up, the fact that the initial reaction in Sarajevo was "let open the airports and nothing more" while you have snipers killing people close to them it's like the biggest joke ever.
> 
> Yeah, most nations in those places are NATO allies, but they're because is the most convenient position to have generally in Europe. Nato hasn't failed just because they backed shit or have created obscure intelligence operations, but because they only act under those intelligence operations and the real policies they have advocated are just paper messures reduced to absurd levels of bureaucracy


I am fine to agree to disagree

I believe in the "mission", the "idea" and I find its successes to be some of the best in the world, especially compared to its competition 

You see the flaws, the mistakes and the poor planning, its always a problem and leaders will always make mistakes

I think its a lack of guidance and poor planning, you feel its a flawed system to begin with

I feel that NATO has "lost its balls" it is so afraid of bad press that its lets its supporters get attacked so they won't have to deal with anti-war protests

In my mind an alliance is the most important thing a nation can have and it needs to maintained at all cost, I think that NATO is the best chance to create an alliance that is so strong and encompasses so much of the world that the only people who would even dare to declare would be the radical extremists who think God will strike down their foes and "presidents for life" 

Its the closest we can come to world peace


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-domestic-violence-trump-campaign-ceo
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/26/steve-bannon-florida-registered-vote-donald-trump
> 
> It is astonishing how fast either side manage to dig up dirt on someone who enters the political scenes. Although I think Bannon is committing tax fraud and not voter fraud that they are trying to paint him as so they can say he was being hypocritical on voter fraud.


This guy sounds like a disaster, didn't Trump's people do a check on him before giving him the jerb?


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/769212896333135875
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

I'm not sure I've ever heard a more facepalm worthy prepared 'presidential' speech in my life.

I feel like this election is straight out of a SNL skit, or something.

Maybe we just shouldn't have a president at all, if this is what it has come to. :draper2

#VacateTheWH2016


----------



## SpeedStick

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Dr. Drew's show cancelled just days after questioning Hillary's health

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/25/media/dr-drew-hln-canceled/


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/769212896333135875
> :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> I'm not sure I've ever heard a more facepalm worthy prepared 'presidential' speech in my life.
> 
> I feel like this election is straight out of a SNL skit, or something.
> 
> Maybe we just shouldn't have a president at all, if this is what it has come to. :draper2
> 
> #VacateTheWH2016


Maybe you should listen to Trump's RNC speech? With no editing required. 

Well one of the candidate is more comedian than politician. :shrug


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Maybe you should listen to Trump's RNC speech? With no editing required.


I have. :draper2


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Why if i could ask?
> 
> I mean, seeing his videos he's and editor for Infowars, belives in conspiracy shit like cultural marxism, his last videos include impressive analysis like "Will Julian Assange be assasinated" and a tirade of Hillary's health and push stupidity like poll bias and so on....
> 
> Like seriously, i don't care if you're right or left wing as far as you are coherent and say coherent reasonable shit but guys like this are absolutely bollocks.


1). He's hardly the first person to question Hillary's health, there's been questions about it for years. Even mainstream media are covering this, though many such as CNN have obviously been deflecting it because they are pro-clinton. Dr Drew recently questioned her health and his show got cancelled. Is he a conspiracy theorist too? To put things into perspective, people are calling him a conspiracy theorist yet the Democratic president for the US just claimed a couple of days ago that Breitbart and Infowars are in connection with Vladimir Putin. At the very least if you are objective you would say both sides are as bad as each other.

By the way when it was first brought up in this thread I said that even I think he's stretching his questions too far. Yes, if you watch the video it is more asking questions rather than putting out claims. I don't believe she has a health problem but her recent behaviour has been weird to the say the least.

2) He's a straight talker and doesn't hold punches. He's brilliant at picking apart people's arguments and exposing people's hypocrisy. Particularly the regressive left. Do I agree with everything he has to say? Of course not, I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time but I appreciate him calling out bullshit when he see's it.

3) It's Infowars...of course there is the odd story which is conspiratorial, I tend to ignore those because yes they are crazy. But the vast majority of his videos are about real talking points and have great arguments and information. To put things into perspective, I think Alex Jones is a nutcase. He does cover American/European politics well and shares/evaluates information that the mainstream media will conveniently not cover, particularly on the middle east. But he isn't the only form of alternative media that does this. When he goes into conspiracy theory mode I just shut off and not take him seriously, because the majority of it is laughable.

The majority of PJW's content is on political and cultural issues. He's covered recently the following: Islam, The European Migrant Crisis, The terror attacks in Germany and France, political correctness, Transgender issues (with a Trans person I'd add), Black Lives Matter, Hillary's corruption (is that a conspiracy too?), Brexit, The Orlando shooting, The Dallas shooting, Social Justice Warriors, Feminism and Saudi Arabia. All over the last few months.

My guess is you saw a couple of the titles and thought: this guy is a nutcase. Fair enough, but I've watched a number of his videos and he brings up a variety of great points. It's okay if you disagree with them but if you are going to pick on Infowars there are way easier targets :lol.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> 1). He's hardly the first person to question Hillary's health, there's been questions about it for years. Even mainstream media are covering this, though many such as CNN have obviously been deflecting it because they are pro-clinton. Dr Drew recently questioned her health and his show got cancelled. Is he a conspiracy theorist too? To put things into perspective, people are calling him a conspiracy theorist yet the Democratic president for the US just claimed a couple of days ago that Breitbart and Infowars are in connection with Vladimir Putin. At the very least if you are objective you would say both sides are as bad as each other.


Yeah, but al those videos and theories come to light when Hillary is destroying Trump on the polls and wasn't discussed for the last 6 months or year, like seriously? Let's be real. If you're a political commentator at least you should be responsable of the comment you put up if we apply this standard to the so bad "mainstream media" i don't see why we shouldn't applied to every other form of media.

And i don't see why bring CNN or anything else, yes they are equally bad, i don't see the point in deflecting talking about "your media is equally bad" i'm talking about the fact that "one of the better political commentators around" is pushing stupid conspirations and saying crazy things just because that seems to be an alternative to "traditional media". 

Media in general cannot be trusted just by face, the real information come from the combination of different sources with different points of views, just like when you wrote investigation and mix differents concepts to tackle a single issue or concept, including sources that chalenge your point of view, and put them in discussion. At the same time, this procsss help to discriminate between sources, there are times when a stupid source can say something right? yes, obviously, but there is also a responsability in what and how you say things that are informing people. If you, for example, are commenting political issues and you believe in cutural marxism the most probable thing is you haven't read a page of Marx in your life.



L-DOPA said:


> By the way when it was first brought up in this thread I said that even I think he's stretching his questions too far. Yes, if you watch the video it is more asking questions rather than putting out claims. I don't believe she has a health problem but her recent behaviour has been weird to the say the least.


Yeah, her behaviour has been weird, but this is aso the most cringeworthy campaign ever is not that strange when you have a competitor that is self destroying himself.

And that question would be acceptable if it wasnt a guidance to "Hillary is sick, he's unable to be president, let's elect Trump" 



L-DOPA said:


> 2) He's a straight talker and doesn't hold punches. He's brilliant at picking apart people's arguments and exposing people's hypocrisy. *Particularly the regressive left.* Do I agree with everything he has to say? Of course not, I don't agree with anyone 100% of the time but I appreciate him calling out bullshit when he see's it.


So we should promote "them vs us" thinking? That's the thing. I mean is not ike he's piking apart anyone else arguments than the so called "regressive left". I tend to find this promotion of polarization certainly worrysome and the fact that people criticize other sources like The Young Turks which do the same and are competely cancerous even if they also get it right at times, but at the same time promotes this or Stefan Molyneux is absolutely ridiculous.

For the record, If those "regressive" are so stupid like some people think they're then there isn't a big rethorical merit in beat them up isn't?


L-DOPA said:


> 3) It's Infowars...of course there is the odd story which is conspiratorial, I tend to ignore those because yes they are crazy. But the vast majority of his videos are about real talking points and have great arguments and information. To put things into perspective, I think Alex Jones is a nutcase. He does cover American/European politics well and shares/evaluates information that the mainstream media will conveniently not cover, particularly on the middle east. But he isn't the only form of alternative media that does this. When he goes into conspiracy theory mode I just shut off and not take him seriously, because the majority of it is laughable.


Again, if the test to say that a media source is good is "things that the mainstream media conveniently not cover" we are in real danger.

Personally i don't think we should worry about "what's the information" so much as "how is being informed" and that's the point we should been concerned at, if we settle for everything that confirms what we now is not being said even when what's not being said is ridiculous, well, yeah bollocks. On the other hand, even when something you now in not true is said in a compelling way, you are pushed to create good counter arguments....



L-DOPA said:


> The majority of PJW's content is on political and cultural issues. He's covered recently the following: Islam, The European Migrant Crisis, The terror attacks in Germany and France, political correctness, Transgender issues (with a Trans person I'd add), Black Lives Matter, Hillary's corruption *(is that a conspiracy too?)*, Brexit, The Orlando shooting, The Dallas shooting, Social Justice Warriors, Feminism and Saudi Arabia. All over the last few months.


See, this implication is funny. Are you saying that because i think Hilary's health concerns are a conspiracy i'm sort of supporting Hillary? or that i think he's a tiny little honest person?

By the way, those are the issues that all informative media covers, so i don't see your point in bringing that up



L-DOPA said:


> My guess is you saw a couple of the titles and thought: this guy is a nutcase. Fair enough, but I've watched a number of his videos and he brings up a variety of great points. It's okay if you disagree with them but if you are going to pick on Infowars there are way easier targets :lol.


I actually saw 2 other videos ("The truth about modern art" and "the truth about popular music") in one of my research fields to see if i was being harsh and yeah, he's and idiot, sorry. One video starts with Duchamp's fountain ignoring completely his purposse and i have to stop when he talked about Matisse, in the other he bring some dubious points about pop music that i could maybe agree with until he completely debiate from his original point: Market destroy music, to say that there is a sort of obscure domination conspiracy in music by comparing it with the "amazing variety of options in Cinema and TV" (LOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLL) 

I picked on him because you called it one of your favorite political commentators and i searched to see if it was really good


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't know how Hill-dog didn't burst into flames when she said "race-baiting". :lol That's been the entire anti-Trump campaign.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> What Ice Cube said is what I wrote in the Trump thread about why I feel Trump will get more of the black/woman vote than what people say he will.


Counterpoint: 

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/769612952609579008
:notrump

(I do believe he's polling better than one would expect with women, though.)


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I don't know how Hill-dog didn't burst into flames when she said "race-baiting". :lol That's been the entire anti-Trump campaign.


I wonder the same about Trump every other time Trump says anything.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/769571710924263424


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Typical liberal getting more upset at the guy addressing the problem and proposing solutions than the problem itself. :lol You can really tell which parent was in control in some people's households.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Typical Trump supporter who can't defend Trump's rhetoric and resort to projecting their own insecurities onto their critics. :lol

What happened to all the claim during the primaries that Trump will only hire the best people or he will broaden the GOP base, therefore he is a better nominee? His campaign now is basically Ted Cruz's primary platform with Ted Cruz's people. :lol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Reaper said:


>


And yet you're voting for the really rich dude who inherited his money who's economic plan is cut taxes to the rich and corporations?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> And yet you're voting for the really rich dude who inherited his money who's economic plan is cut taxes to the rich and corporations?


Maybe he don't mind giving billions to criminals so long as they don't rule over their lives?


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Good to see Facebook came through on not being political bias by firing their editorial staff.



> Counterpoint:


This coming from the same guy who was saying good things about Trump 4 months ago! #WhichIceCube

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> And yet you're voting for the really rich dude who inherited his money who's economic plan is cut taxes to the rich and corporations?


And Hillary is 100% the same so what's your point? When one of the woman's donors is a CEO that just raised the price of Epi-Pen to $600, that's really all that one should need to know who's going to be worse when it comes to corporate favors. But you don't care. You only care to shit on Trump and brainwashed to not even look at anything that makes hillary either the same or worse. It seems like certain brains are only wired to accept a limited amount of one-sided information :shrug 

If you'd been actually reading my posts, you'd realize that saying that Trump is the better candidate isn't the same as saying I'm voting for him. And I still contend that compared to Hillary he is the less evil of the two - even still. 

And if you'd reaallly been paying attention you'd see that I've been criticizing the alt-right in recent days and considering that Trump is now pretty much completely aligned with the alt-right then that means I'm not that interested in him. Plus I've always advocated self-governance. I'm not waivering from that position. 

You know, there's a difference between me and most of the other people in this thread. I'm willing to change my mind. Don't hate sounding arrogant, but that makes me a better future citizen of America than the idiots that don't even bother looking at both sides and just eat up a one-sided narrative. 

Nice try. :kobelol


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






:duck


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Reaper said:


> And Hillary is 100% the same so what's your point? When one of the woman's donors is a CEO that just raised the price of Epi-Pen to $600, that's really all that one should need to know who's going to be worse when it comes to corporate favors. But you don't care. You only care to shit on Trump and brainwashed to not even look at anything that makes hillary either the same or worse. It seems like certain brains are only wired to accept a limited amount of one-sided information :shrug
> 
> If you'd been actually reading my posts, you'd realize that saying that Trump is the better candidate isn't the same as saying I'm voting for him. And I still contend that compared to Hillary he is the less evil of the two - even still.
> 
> And if you'd reaallly been paying attention you'd see that I've been criticizing the alt-right in recent days and considering that Trump is now pretty much completely aligned with the alt-right then that means I'm not that interested in him. Plus I've always advocated self-governance. I'm not waivering from that position.
> 
> You know, there's a difference between me and most of the other people in this thread. I'm willing to change my mind. Don't hate sounding arrogant, but that makes me a better future citizen of America than the idiots that don't even bother looking at both sides and just eat up a one-sided narrative.
> 
> Nice try. :kobelol


The people you're referring to don't need to see both sides and have admitted for the most part they know nothing of Hilary, they're not even American. They're here giving their two cents on something they know next to nothing about and spouting off their words from the back of their echo chambers. I'd just ignore them, if they were interested in Political discussion they'd be discussing both sides but they're not.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> The people you're referring to don't need to see both sides and have admitted for the most part they know nothing of Hilary, they're not even American. They're here giving their two cents on something they know next to nothing about and spouting off their words from the back of their echo chambers. I'd just ignore them, if they were interested in Political discussion they'd be discussing both sides but they're not.


I swear, some of these people act like if they didn't support Hillary it would be the end of the world if Trump got in because after all a man who does not have a record of any kind of criminal activity or encouragement of war is worse than a neocon who's _personally _responsible for helping things get worse in Libya and then Syria and has had some of the biggest scandals in America's history before even being elected. 

What really scares me is the support Hillary has despite how dangerous she really is. A neocon is worse than a "racist". I think that some people don't even realize how bad a neocon really is for the world and Americans as a whole. 

Even now, I'd contend that I'd prefer an "inexperienced", "ignorant", "racist" "Islamophobe" over a neocon as the American president. It's because I unlike some people actually know what a neocon is - and by all means a neocon is worse despite being someone who doesn't say offensive things.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Reaper said:


> I swear, some of these people act like if they didn't support Hillary it would be the end of the world if Trump got in because after all a man who does not have a record of any kind of criminal activity or encouragement of war is worse than a neocon who's _personally _responsible for helping things get worse in Libya and then Syria and has had some of the biggest scandals in America's history before even being elected.
> 
> What really scares me is the support Hillary has despite how dangerous she really is. A neocon is worse than a "racist". I think that some people don't even realize how bad a neocon really is for the world and Americans as a whole.
> 
> Even now, I'd contend that I'd prefer an "inexperienced", "ignorant", "racist" "Islamophobe" over a neocon as the American president. It's because I unlike some people actually know what a neocon is - and by all means a neocon is worse despite being someone who doesn't say offensive things.


Of course, fear comes from the unknown and despite there is nothing to really justify those fears they still let it influence them. What we have here are people who are bandwagon fans because they think Hilary may win and that they should support the team against that evil Trump. Because of this their ability to weigh the pros and cons are compromised. 10 years ago if Hilary ran for President against Mccain or even that mormon guy she would have lost with all this coming out. 20+ years the Democrats would have been shamed outright for putting a known criminal in office. What does this say of politics as a whole? It's rather scary that we have a criminal who could be president and people are supporting her. It's insanity.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Typical Trump supporter who can't defend Trump's rhetoric and resort to projecting their own insecurities onto their critics. :lol
> 
> What happened to all the claim during the primaries that Trump will only hire the best people or he will broaden the GOP base, therefore he is a better nominee? His campaign now is basically Ted Cruz's primary platform with Ted Cruz's people. :lol


Have you noticed that when you bring up points like this, Trump supporters don't even acknowledge it? I've seen many times when a poster (myself included) will present a fact or point about Donald Trump that is completely insane or is irrefutable in showing a negative about him, they will refuse to even address it. I posted an article a week or so ago about who Donald is in debt to, which includes the Bank of China, and they just skipped right past it and kept on posting their memes about Hillary. It's fucking hilarious.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> Have you noticed that when you bring up points like this, Trump supporters don't even acknowledge it? I've seen many times when a poster (myself included) will present a fact or point about Donald Trump that is completely insane or is irrefutable in showing a negative about him, they will refuse to even address it. I posted an article a week or so ago about who Donald is in debt to, which includes the Bank of China, and they just skipped right past it and kept on posting their memes about Hillary. It's fucking hilarious.


How does Trump being in debt make him a worse candidate than Hillary?

That said, I don't think you understand how businesses work. There is such a thing as an optimum debt/equity ratio. Every single business in the world has a debt/equity ratio. And I'm not surprised that with the number of business Trump is involved in his debt is sky high. But it's not the kind of debt that normal people have who don't have the equity / capital to counter it. It's called hedging :kobelol. Only poor folk have more debt than equity. $500 million debt for a man with a $4.5 billion net worth is like owing someone $5 bucks when you have $45. 

But keep drinking the kool-aid. 

People ignore certain comments not because they're irrefutable, but because they're just not worth commenting on.

Another bit of education. The US economy debt is different from Trump's debt and can't be compared. The Dems have been borrowing on future taxes and Hillary won't stop that. Borrowing on futures is not what put Trump in debt, but following the basic economics of hedging. If he was to liquidate everything, he can pay off his debt about 9 times over. In order to incur debt as a capitalist, banks need collateral and that means that your equity makes your loans manageable. He's a better financial planner with that kind of net worth to debt ratio than the dems can even dream of being.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I swear, some of these people act like if they didn't support Hillary it would be the end of the world if Trump got in because after all a man who does not have a record of any kind of criminal activity or encouragement of war is worse than a neocon who's _personally _responsible for helping things get worse in Libya and then Syria and has had some of the biggest scandals in America's history before even being elected.
> 
> What really scares me is the support Hillary has despite how dangerous she really is. A neocon is worse than a "racist". I think that some people don't even realize how bad a neocon really is for the world and Americans as a whole.
> 
> Even now, I'd contend that I'd prefer an "inexperienced", "ignorant", "racist" "Islamophobe" over a neocon as the American president. It's because I unlike some people actually know what a neocon is - and by all means a neocon is worse despite being someone who doesn't say offensive things.


You understand how bad it is to have a neocon as President. That's the good part. Where you err is buying Trump's rhetoric (especially considering how many times he has flip flopped on issues) and acting like he exists in some kind of bubble. Trump has surrounded himself with the same neocons and establishment cronies that have fucked up the USA so badly to begin with. It'd be foolish to believe he's going to get into office and not be influenced by these people. Regardless of who wins the election, the establishment is still going to be running things. That's the sad reality of American politics.



nucklehead88 said:


> Have you noticed that when you bring up points like this, Trump supporters don't even acknowledge it? I've seen many times when a poster (myself included) will present a fact or point about Donald Trump that is completely insane or is irrefutable in showing a negative about him, they will refuse to even address it. I posted an article a week or so ago about who Donald is in debt to, which includes the Bank of China, and they just skipped right past it and kept on posting their memes about Hillary. It's fucking hilarious.


I've noticed this as well; like when I posted the article detailing the people Trump has hired onto his campaign being a bunch of neocons and establishment cronies, the same people he claims to be against. Trump supporters conveniently ignore those facts and only focus on how evil Hillary is, just like Hillary supporters ignore how evil she is and only focus on the buffoon running against her. Me, I have no problem ripping either one of them to shreds. They're both evil in their own way. It's a pick your poison situation.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

^There's a difference between being a neocon president and being a non-interventionalist who has interventionalists in your ear. 

If the president himself/herself is a neocon, then foreign policy doesn't even get debated and rolled out without counter as we're currently seeing with Obama. War action after war action is being taken with no national debate whatsoever and this is by far the worst foreign mess America has ever been in since the Vietnam War. 

With Trump at least there's more of a possibility of a change because he himself isn't a necon. It still makes him the better candidate. There is a better chance of having a national conversation on the issues than it does with Hillary. 

My entire reason to support trump is that he's the better candidate. It's not that he's amazing and he's going to make America great again. I just keep saying he's the better candidate. If hillary is a 1 on a 1-10 scale, then Trump is a 1.25. Doesn't make him a great president, just a better potential one than Hillary considering that we already know what Hillary is going to do.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> ^There's a difference between being a neocon president and being a non-interventionalist who has interventionalists in your ear.


You don't really have any firm evidence to back up that belief. Just for starters, a non-interventionalist wouldn't hire neocons to begin with. Mainly, the biggest problem with buying anything Trump says on this topic is his constant flip flopping. Let us not forget, he's the guy who said he would kill women and children. "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families." He's also the guy who said the Geneva Conventions are the problem and that he would torture people even if it didn't work. Are those the words of someone you can say with confidence has a sane foreign policy in mind?

Half the time, Trump says sane things about foreign policy but the other half of the time what he says is batshit crazy. Hillary is a known commodity, so we know absolutely for certain that she is a hawk, but nothing about Trump should give you any modicum of confidence that he wouldn't be.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Let's not bring flip floping into this because that's something fairly even. And objectively speaking someone that could become a neoconservative is actually better than someone that absolutely is one without any doubt. 

Basically what you're saying is that Hillary is better in the sense that she is definitely bad but that Trump is as bad because he could be as bad. 

Hillary doesn't need to say that she will kill the terrorists and their families because it is an action her democrat government has already repeatedly committed. Just look into the history of Obamas drone strikes in Pakistan and the civilian death count. They bomb homes. 

So if you say that shes a known commodity in that regard then that is the very reason why anyone shouldn't vote democrats this year at all.

The Republicans war in Iraq was completely bullshit but the Democrats ran it worse. So yes that makes the dems the worse choice over someone that may or may not follow their actions. Someone with a history of poor performance is not better than someone who could have worse performance... It's simple logic.

Yes the Republicans are in the grip of neoconservatives but so are the Democrats. However we have evidence throughout the primaries that Trump did not toe the party line. Therefore there is more likelihood of him continuing to not toe it after he gets elected. Finally, my core point is that with Trump there's a much better chance of him engaging in a debate over foreign intervention even with his own staffers because at least there's some splitting there ... Whereas with the dems you know that it's a united front from the top to the bottom including with the corrupt element and therefore very unlikely that anything will change for the positive. 

This isn't even about letting dem muzzies into america anymore. This is about the GOP engaging in something the democrats won't even talk about anymore and just do. When was the last time in 8 years that the America public was even made aware of their governments' actions in the middle east without the lies of humanitarianism?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Reaper said:


> Let's not bring flip floping into this because that's something fairly even. And objectively speaking someone that could become a neoconservative is actually better than someone that absolutely is one without any doubt.
> 
> Basically what you're saying is that Hillary is better in the sense that she is definitely bad but that Trump is as bad because he could be as bad.
> 
> Hillary doesn't need to say that she will kill the terrorists and their families because it is an action her democrat government has already repeatedly committed. Just look into the history of Obamas drone strikes in Pakistan and the civilian death count. They bomb homes.
> 
> So if you say that shes a known commodity in that regard then that is the very reason why anyone shouldn't vote democrats this year at all.
> 
> The Republicans war in Iraq was completely bullshit but the Democrats ran it worse. So yes that makes the dems the worse choice over someone that may or may not follow their actions. Someone with a history of poor performance is not better than someone who could have worse performance... It's simple logic.
> 
> Yes the Republicans are in the grip of neoconservatives but so are the Democrats. However we have evidence throughout the primaries that Trump did not toe the party line. Therefore there is more likelihood of him continuing to not toe it after he gets elected.


What this sounds like when people talk about "Hilary is evil but Trump could be worse!" sounds like you're going to get butt fucked by two people one has full blown AIDS, papers to prove it, witnesses to testify the person has AIDS by own admission and several Doctors verifying it. The second person is a wild card but people say.. "Well.. he might have.. SUPER AIDS!" Oh God! Not Super AIDS! Yet nobody can say what super AIDS is because it's all just speculative nonsense at this point.

The moral of the story is, people will take the known AIDS guy because the other guy could have some theoretical super version of AIDS even though nobody has any idea what it is, it's just so scary! Why do people still sound like they're kids afraid of the monster in the closet when the ice cream man is a pedo? One is very real and the other is possibly a fantasy. Priorities people!


----------



## Tater

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Reaper said:


> Let's not bring flip floping into this because that's something fairly even. And objectively speaking someone that could become a neoconservative is actually better than someone that absolutely is one without any doubt.
> 
> Basically what you're saying is that Hillary is better in the sense that she is definitely bad but that Trump is as bad because he could be as bad.


I'm disappointed that I even have to explain this to you. *Attacking Trump does not equate to defending Hillary.* I am on the record many times in this thread saying I am opposed to both Democrats and Republicans.

Your entire argument is bullshit, BTW. I presented you with solid evidence that Trump is full of shit about being a non-interventionist and you tried to deflect it back to Hillary. At no point did I ever say that Hillary is better. That's all in your head. I've even stated before that I consider Trump to be the lesser of two evils but my reasons are entirely different than yours. That's a conversation for a different reply.



Reaper said:


> This is about the GOP engaging in something the democrats won't even talk about anymore and just do.


:evans

Sorry but that statement was goddamned hilarious. You think the GOP is interested in being non-interventionist? You're too smart to be that naive. Why do you think all the neocons in the GOP are backing Hillary? It's because they know how much of a hawk she is. BTW, when I said that Hillary is a proven commodity, I was *NOT* making the devil you know vs the devil you don't argument. It was just a simple statement of fact and I was in no way implying that she's better than Trump because of that.

The only, *only* thing I was pointing out to you with my comments is that you have no reason to confidently believe Trump would be non-interventionist, based on his comments and the people he has surrounded himself with. If you're looking for someone to argue that Hillary is the lesser evil than Trump, you've come to the wrong place. I'm not that guy.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Tater, you're taking what I'm saying out of context. Especially the second quote. I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that. When I said that this is about the GOP engaging in something the Dems won't even do anymore is about them being forced to debate amongst themselves over a possible split in their party led by a potentially non-interventionalist president as opposed to the dems who are united in their foreign invasions and arming groups that claim to support them one day and then start butchering each other and civilians once they've been armed.

The thing is that they're not the same amount of evil. They're close. But one side at the moment is slightly less neocon than the other at the moment and that's a difference worth considering.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm sorry Reaper but I have to mostly agree with @Tater on this one.

Hillary is the known threat, everyone in this thread knows how dangerous she is when it comes to foreign policy. When it comes to Libya and Syria, she is one of the lead campaigners for intervention. She's taken money from Saudi Arabia who continues to fund terrorist groups across the world, she's been linked with French Industrial giant Lafrage who have been exposed to sponsoring ISIS for war profit and continue's to support funding both sides of the war. Nobody except for a couple of Democrat loyalists are denying how dangerous Hillary is. I've gone on record saying that she is the most dangerous candidate for president.

But Trump is questionable himself, you say the contradictions and flip flops should not be taken into account but it is the flip flopping which makes one wonder what exactly Trump will do when he is in office. The argument about the difference between an interventionist and surrounding yourself with interventionists is also a rather weak one. You would not catch someone like Ron Paul or Rand Paul with these Neo-Con's as advisors. For all his recent flaws, you would not see Gary Johnson with these type of advisors either (unless he changes his stance on this too...). I couldn't even imagine Bernie Sanders, someone whose policies I think would be utterly destructive economically for the US surrounding himself with the type of politicians Trump has on foreign policy. Same could be said for Jill Stein.

In many cases it's not just about what you say your positions are but the type of people you surround yourself with. Foreign policy is without a doubt in my mind the biggest example of this. Remember in 2008 Obama presented himself as rather non-interventionist, he condemned the Iraq war and vowed to pull troops out within a set time period. Nearly 8 years later, we still see US troops in Iraq today and we have seen the US increase their intervention exponentially. Obama happened to surround himself with Neo-Con's whilst in office, one of which was Hillary Clinton.

When you put these into account and the times in which Trump has come out with very interventionist policies as well as sane non-interventionism, it puts a giant question mark over what Trump's actual foreign policy would be. Now having said that, we did see in this thread not too long ago an account of Trump's foreign policy on paper and whilst it was hardly perfect it certainly was much better than what we have been accustomed to over the last decade. If this is the direction Trump does go in then whilst I won't be nearly 100% satisfied I will mark it down as a much needed improvement.

Until then, there are too many question marks to be pro-Trump on foreign policy, way too many. Especially when the majority of the GOP are warhawks themselves.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Tater, you're taking what I'm saying out of context. Especially the second quote. I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that.


You mean like when you thought I was saying "Hillary is better in the sense that she is definitely bad but that Trump is as bad because he could be as bad" when that's not what I said? :lol



Reaper said:


> When I said that this is about the GOP engaging in something the Dems won't even do anymore is about them being forced to debate amongst themselves over a possible split in their party led by a potentially non-interventionalist president as opposed to the dems who are united in their foreign invasions and arming groups that claim to support them one day and then start butchering each other and civilians once they've been armed.


You're giving the GOP way too much credit here. Just because Trump is a lunatic who says sane things on foreign policy half the time doesn't change the fact that the GOP establishment is still inhabited mainly by neocons. These are the same people who criticize Obama for not being hawkish enough. The idea that they would all of sudden start having a conversation about *not* being neocons just because Trump is their candidate is beyond laughable.

Hey man, I'm right there with you in being against the Democrats for all the same reasons that you are. I'm just trying to remind you to not look at Trump and the Republicans with rose colored glasses just because Democrats are evil. It's the same thing I tell idiot Hillbots who spend all their time focusing on how evil Trump is while ignoring how evil their own candidate is.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Dopa... Sounds like a case of fool me once fool me twice skepticism. I suppose that's fair. All valid points. Prior to Obama none of the democrat neoconservatives were as badly exposed as they are now. We've learnt a lot in the last 8 years.

Tater, I agree with your points however I'm not convinced that that makes the evils equal. I still think that the GOP has earned another shot on account of the unknowable alone at this point because even though our two party system is horribly crippled, it is the least we can do is that we change from one set of ideologies to another even if most of them overlap. Is that the best way to make a decision? Probably not. But with so little to choose from you have to resort to some tactics like these to make somewhat of an informed decision.


----------



## Tater

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Reaper said:


> Tater, I agree with your points however I'm not convinced that that makes the evils equal. I still think that the GOP has earned another shot on account of the unknowable alone at this point because even though our two party system is horribly crippled, it is the least we can do is that we change from one set of ideologies to another even if most of them overlap. Is that the best way to make a decision? Probably not. But with so little to choose from you have to resort to some tactics like these to make somewhat of an informed decision.


I don't necessarily consider Hillary/Dems and Trump/GOP to be equal evils. I consider them to be different kinds of evil. One side is worse in some ways and so is the other. Personally, I don't think it's going to be possible to solve what's wrong with the USA until both parties are overthrown and their corpses are nothing more than a pile of smoldering ashes. But that's just me.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Tater said:


> I don't necessarily consider Hillary/Dems and Trump/GOP to be equal evils. I consider them to be different kinds of evil. One side is worse in some ways and so is the other. Personally, I don't think it's going to be possible to solve what's wrong with the USA until both parties are overthrown and their corpses are nothing more than a pile of smoldering ashes. But that's just me.


The funny thing is, one of the main reasons why Milo Yiannopolous supports Trump is he hopes a Trump presidency will mark the end of the GOP and help the US go in a direction where the two main parties are split up so that the two party system is ended.






It's somewhere in this video, it's an interesting watch regardless as Milo has a rather unique take on what the main focus of this election cycle has been.


----------



## Tater

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> The funny thing is, one of the main reasons why Milo Yiannopolous supports Trump is he hopes a Trump presidency will mark the end of the GOP and help the US go in a direction where the two main parties are split up so that the two party system is ended.


HA! I don't really know shit about Milo Yeoundflfgicous other than he got banned from Twitter but that is one of the reasons why I'd rather see Trump elected than Hillary. GOP, Dems, it doesn't matter to me which one is destroyed first as long as both are destroyed in the end. If for no other reason, there's a better chance at breaking up the establishment with Trump in the WH because of the revolt he will inspire against him. Hillary in the WH will only pacify her sheep who should be out in the streets protesting while the establishment even further locks in it's control over the USA. A Trump presidency would remind everyone just how shitty GOP policies are while simultaneously showing a rejection of corporatist Dems. We're in a repeating cycle now. The GOP takes over and fucks things up, which makes the Dems look good, who then take over and fuck things up even worse, which makes the GOP look better, who then take over and royally fuck things up... and so on and so forth. The cycle must be broken.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> The funny thing is, one of the main reasons why Milo Yiannopolous supports Trump is he hopes a Trump presidency will mark the end of the GOP and help the US go in a direction where the two main parties are split up so that the two party system is ended.
> 
> It's somewhere in this video, it's an interesting watch regardless as Milo has a rather unique take on what the main focus of this election cycle has been.


Personally, I think that Milo and Brietbart in general is probably the worst thing that has happened to Trump's campaign. There's a lot of extreme views in the alt-right and even though some of it is what America needs right now, there is still the risk of the alt-right becoming an authoritarian cult. 

Here I'll agree that there is too much of any unknown involved in the Trump campaign and this is where my support ends. If he continues to remain aligned with the fringe alt-right as he is right now, it's definitely a cause for concern. Even though as a movement, the alt-right isn't a white supremacist movement, it has some ideological components in place to become it ... Even if it is not it right now.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> Have you noticed that when you bring up points like this, Trump supporters don't even acknowledge it? I've seen many times when a poster (myself included) will present a fact or point about Donald Trump that is completely insane or is irrefutable in showing a negative about him, they will refuse to even address it. I posted an article a week or so ago about who Donald is in debt to, which includes the Bank of China, and they just skipped right past it and kept on posting their memes about Hillary. It's fucking hilarious.


And there he goes again ignoring the point of who Trump is in debt to and goes on and on about how much the debt is and how you don't understand debt. No wonder CNN can't get better surrogates of Trump on air.

Trump is basically greenmailing the GOP at this point.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> The funny thing is, one of the main reasons why Milo Yiannopolous supports Trump is he hopes a Trump presidency will mark the end of the GOP and help the US go in a direction where the two main parties are split up so that the two party system is ended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's somewhere in this video, it's an interesting watch regardless as Milo has a rather unique take on what the main focus of this election cycle has been.


Considering the damage wikileaks has done and we're bound to see more stuff come out, it could spell the doom of both parties. People were banking on the idea that the GOP would blow itself up which would lead to Democrats running everything but now with the email leaks and the Democrats intentions known, next election cycle we may not see the support from nonwhites and other groups for the Democrats, especially with what they did to Sanders.

People are starting to realize that both parties are being ran by very dangerous people and we need a viable third option.

@Reaper I don't see the Alt-Right being a supremacist sort of thing, is it possible it could turn into one? Well anything is possible but I don't think there is anything wrong with some Nationalism, reforms on immigration and proper vetting and putting our citizens or American culture first. We cannot be a nation of divided people, we need a commonality.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> @Reaper I don't see the Alt-Right being a supremacist sort of thing, is it possible it could turn into one? Well anything is possible but I don't think there is anything wrong with some Nationalism, reforms on immigration and proper vetting and putting our citizens or American culture first. We cannot be a nation of divided people, we need a commonality.


We have to keep in mind though that supremacy doesn't have to necessitate suppression or oppression of minorities. I'm not talking about the kind of white supremacy where people wear hoods and burn crosses in black folks front yards, I'm talking about the kind of attitudes that implies innateness when talking about race and success and race and failure. 

There are already people who are taking this to the extreme and Trump's connection with this group is a cause for concern. 

One can be for immigration control, nationalism without bringing _race _into the discussion at all. I'm also ok with people countering the bullshit that white people are attacked for, but at the same time, I'm vary of groups that imply a connection between race and success or race and failure and race and beliefs, or even religion and attitudes without examining each and every individual case.

If you want to have a discussion on merit, that's fair. If you want to assume that white people are more likely to have more in common with the kind of things America needs based on their whiteness alone then you're crossing the line into supremacist thinking which I've noticed is currently heavily _implied _within the alt-right. The last thing we need more of in America are the kind of white liberals that have turned Europe into a mess for example (and that's just one example). The discussion lacks nuance in the alt-right is all I'm trying to say.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Got a chuckle out of this


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

A crook vs a demagogue what a shitty election. Sad that no one is playing attention to Gary Johnson.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Reaper said:


> We have to keep in mind though that supremacy doesn't have to necessitate suppression or oppression of minorities. I'm not talking about the kind of white supremacy where people wear hoods and burn crosses in black folks front yards, I'm talking about the kind of attitudes that implies innateness when talking about race and success and race and failure.
> 
> There are already people who are taking this to the extreme and Trump's connection with this group is a cause for concern.
> 
> One can be for immigration control, nationalism without bringing _race _into the discussion at all. I'm also ok with people countering the bullshit that white people are attacked for, but at the same time, I'm vary of groups that imply a connection between race and success or race and failure and race and beliefs, or even religion and attitudes without examining each and every individual case.
> 
> If you want to have a discussion on merit, that's fair. If you want to assume that white people are more likely to have more in common with the kind of things America needs based on their whiteness alone then you're crossing the line into supremacist thinking which I've noticed is currently heavily _implied _within the alt-right. The last thing we need more of in America are the kind of white liberals that have turned Europe into a mess for example (and that's just one example). The discussion lacks nuance in the alt-right is all I'm trying to say.


The concept of one society is in and of itself not a bad thing. Once upon a time, the concept of America as a melting pot was a positive. People that came to this country wanted to be Americans, wanted to embrace whatever this country offered them. While they were encouraged to hold on to their customs and traditions, they were also willing to welcome with open arms new traditions. Where once we had a melting pot, today it's more of a salad bowl. It's a challenge to balance.

The alt-right (although the term is more a creation of the lamestream media) really represents groups that don't necessarily go along with the so-called conservative mainstream of the Republican Party. In reality, the mainstream of the GOP is far from conservative and this is the continuation of a struggle for control of the conservative movement. As a Tea Party advocate, some would call me a member of the so-called alt-right although I am not a racist. Unfortunately, there are some advocates who take this to the extreme and just throw shit out there to see if it sticks.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> The concept of one society is in and of itself not a bad thing. Once upon a time, the concept of America as a melting pot was a positive. People that came to this country wanted to be Americans, wanted to embrace whatever this country offered them. While they were encouraged to hold on to their customs and traditions, they were also willing to welcome with open arms new traditions. Where once we had a melting pot, today it's more of a salad bowl. It's a challenge to balance.
> 
> The alt-right (although the term is more a creation of the lamestream media) really represents groups that don't necessarily go along with the so-called conservative mainstream of the Republican Party. In reality, the mainstream of the GOP is far from conservative and this is the continuation of a struggle for control of the conservative movement. As a Tea Party advocate, some would call me a member of the so-called alt-right although I am not a racist. Unfortunately, there are some advocates who take this to the extreme and just throw shit out there to see if it sticks.


Just one correction. The term alt-right wasn't coined by the mainstream media and it didn't come into existence recently. It's been around since as early as 2008 well before the mainstream even caught on to it. The movement while having certain elements in common with certain conservatives does intentionally use provocative language and ideas to appeal to a certain segment that is "more conservative" than traditional conservatives. 

I have no beef with progressive conservatism which I've recently learnt is fairly close to classical liberalism. However, having immersed myself into the alt-right in recent months becoming a bit of a provocateur myself in order to test how their ideology holds up in practice, I've realized that at its core alt-right conservatism is very hollow factually beneath all the provocative and very emotional rhetoric. Is it absolutely demonic in nature and something dangerous as the democrats are painting it to be? I don't think so. There is no violence or incitement to violence at its core which makes is safer than the worst ideologies, but it's just not the greatest set of ideas and will eventually bring Trump down because of that. 

I don't think that the republican party has a problem with its core fundamentals and ideologies. What they have a problem with is communicating that to people beyond their own supporters. Where democrats win is by using the fringe extreme lefts rhetoric to appeal to the masses while straight up lying about their intentions. Republicans don't necessarily lie as much from what I can tell and perhaps that is part of their undoing. 

Trump may or may not even be alt-right himself, but he personally speaks their language - hence was able to rip the party to shreds through the tactics of the dems. However, that alone does not have enough steam to over-throw a party that has mastered the art of the lies to win the popular vote.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Stephen90 said:


> A crook vs a demagogue what a shitty election. Sad that no one is playing attention to Gary Johnson.


I'm not sure which one is supposed to be Hillary because Hillary is both of those things.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is basically an anime hero that's trapped in a deadly games style story. He has to obey the rules of the game to win, even if it means he has to stoop to the level of the monsters he's facing. That doesn't mean he's a bad bish, that just means he's doing what it takes to survive.

What a hero. :mj2


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

That speech Hillary gave seriously has me terrified of her becoming president.

I'm bloody serious I am _terrified_ of her becoming president. This isn't funny anymore.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Gandhi said:


> That speech Hillary gave seriously has me terrified of her becoming president.
> 
> I'm bloody serious I am _terrified_ of her becoming president. This isn't funny anymore.


Her track record guarantees that as President: 
(1) The US will engage in more illegal wars and illegal military actions 
(2) As a result, there will be more terror attacks here in the US 
(3) Abroad, countless innocent civilians will be needlessly killed via illegal US wars and good men and women of the US military will be killed fighting in wars that they are ordered to fight (because if they refuse, they'll be incarcerated) 

You should be scared because her proven track record guarantees these things will occur. 

I'm not a fan of the other guy. But she's Bush 2.0 on steroids. Scary.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> Her track record guarantees that as President:
> (1) The US will engage in more illegal wars and illegal military actions
> (2) As a result, there will be more terror attacks here in the US
> (3) Abroad, countless innocent civilians will be needlessly killed via illegal US wars and good men and women of the US military will be killed fighting in wars that they are ordered to fight (because if they refuse, they'll be incarcerated)


Not defending her specifically but can't you pretty much say the same of all the US presidents of the modern era? Maybe not the terror attacks thing but wars and military actions, innocents killed etc.

When was the last time the military industrial complex wasn't in far off lands engaging the enemy and blowing innocent bystanders to kingdom come?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Not defending her specifically but can't you pretty much say the same of all the US presidents of the modern era? Maybe not the terror attacks thing but wars and military actions, innocents killed etc.
> 
> When was the last time the military industrial complex wasn't in far off lands engaging the enemy and blowing innocent bystanders to kingdom come?


Australia is almost right up there with Americans btw. They were there in WWI, then they were there in the Korean War. Did you know there was Aussie involvement in The Vietnam War as well? Guess what. They're there in Afghanistan and Iraq as well ... 

I hate the superior morality complex of some of you people who think that it's just the _American _Military Complex. 

I think this needs to be changed to "_First World _Military Complex". It's not like America will drop a bomb on their allies heads if they decide not to enter their wars with them. But no, they go in willingly because they too rely on its profits. 

It's so arrogant that it's not even funny. It's not just American imperialism at play here. 

And let's not even talk about countries like Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan etc etc that have been in a perpetual state of war since time immemorial that is one of the causes of the global instability in the first place.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

There are right wing nationalists in every country. First world, third world whatever level of development the state is in. 

America military complex just gets bigger attention because America spends the most on military than the rest of the world's other military powers combined.

Trump is threatening journalists just for disagreeing with him, is overly litigious against his critics in his business dealing, and has shown remarkable pettiness during this campagin with his trolling of Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan of his own party. Not sure how he is seen as someone that is less likely to engage in secret wars or illegal military actions than Hilary Clinton at this point. He even advocated for torture against military laws of America. Just look at his tweets over perceived slights.

This myth that Hilary is more dangerous than Trump with regards to starting wars need to be stopped.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> democrats win is by using the fringe extreme lefts rhetoric to appeal to the masses while straight up lying about their intentions.


This is a factually incorrect statement. C'mon, man. We've been over this. You've really gotta stop believing the corporate propaganda narrative of what the left is because the left hates Hillary, who herself is center right at best. 

As far as the masses go, they're just too stupid and/or brainwashed to know any better. That rhetoric you are referring to resembles the fringe extreme left about as much as a rotting corpse resembles a bag of Doritos. 

You're not wrong about them lying about their intentions though. They are 100% full of shit.



Reaper said:


> Republicans don't necessarily lie as much from what I can tell and perhaps that is part of their undoing.


:ha

No... just, no...



Reaper said:


> Australia is almost right up there with Americans btw. They were there in WWI, then they were there in the Korean War. Did you know there was Aussie involvement in The Vietnam War as well? Guess what. They're there in Afghanistan and Iraq as well ...
> 
> I hate the superior morality complex of some of you people who think that it's just the _American _Military Complex.
> 
> I think this needs to be changed to "_First World _Military Complex". It's not like America will drop a bomb on their allies heads if they decide not to enter their wars with them. But no, they go in willingly because they too rely on its profits.
> 
> It's so arrogant that it's not even funny. It's not just American imperialism at play here.
> 
> And let's not even talk about countries like Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan etc etc that have been in a perpetual state of war since time immemorial that is one of the causes of the global instability in the first place.


While it's true that there are American allies involved in the military industrial complex, it's fair to say that the USA is leading the charge and creating the bulk of the problems. A lot of the problems coming out of other countries being involved is simply them being caught up in the wake up American Imperialism. I mean, we're not exactly the kind of country that takes too kindly to other countries opposing our plans for global domination.


----------



## Dobbizzle

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Firstly to those villifying "the left" you might want to actually see where both Obama and Hilary actually sit on the political spectrum before you use them to demonise "lefties." I'll give you a hand. And for those who (like most rational beings I know) find both Trump and Hillary to be disgraceful human beings a little something for you too...


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Donald Trump accepted the invitation to visit Mexico to meet with their president on Wednesday just less than a day before his big immigration speech. :lol Is this real life?


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Ron Paul in the authoritarian right section :lmao.

I'm sorry but using political compass to prove your point is terrible, they are very inaccurate when it comes to certain politicians and where they are politically.

Here's the accurate truth about Obama and Hillary: In American politics they are seen as centre-left, in Europe they are seen as centre-right. That's because America more than anywhere is a pretty right wing country to begin with. Compare that to here in the UK where we are pretty much centrists so a party like UKIP are seen as far right where in the states they would just be right wing.

As far as Johnson is concerned, I think he is the best candidate but there is a lot to be desired. He is for the TPP which automatically puts him at odds with myself, he is also way more liberal than libertarian on social issues. Instead of taking the live and let live approach he wishes to force bakers for example to bake cakes for homosexual weddings and was once quoted that if jews were asked the same question to do the same thing for Nazi's his answer would be the same. I always saw Johnson as the sane libertarian option BEFORE this election cycle, now there are question marks.

Not to mention the background of his VP Weld...who also happens to be a strict gun control advocate. If I was American and had a gun to my head, I would evidently vote for him but I'm not American. So I don't have to endorse him.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Just one correction. The term alt-right wasn't coined by the mainstream media and it didn't come into existence recently. It's been around since as early as 2008 well before the mainstream even caught on to it. The movement while having certain elements in common with certain conservatives does intentionally use provocative language and ideas to appeal to a certain segment that is "more conservative" than traditional conservatives.
> 
> I have no beef with progressive conservatism which I've recently learnt is fairly close to classical liberalism. However, having immersed myself into the alt-right in recent months becoming a bit of a provocateur myself in order to test how their ideology holds up in practice, I've realized that at its core alt-right conservatism is very hollow factually beneath all the provocative and very emotional rhetoric. Is it absolutely demonic in nature and something dangerous as the democrats are painting it to be? I don't think so. There is no violence or incitement to violence at its core which makes is safer than the worst ideologies, but it's just not the greatest set of ideas and will eventually bring Trump down because of that.
> 
> I don't think that the republican party has a problem with its core fundamentals and ideologies. What they have a problem with is communicating that to people beyond their own supporters. Where democrats win is by using the fringe extreme lefts rhetoric to appeal to the masses while straight up lying about their intentions. Republicans don't necessarily lie as much from what I can tell and perhaps that is part of their undoing.
> 
> Trump may or may not even be alt-right himself, but he personally speaks their language - hence was able to rip the party to shreds through the tactics of the dems. However, that alone does not have enough steam to over-throw a party that has mastered the art of the lies to win the popular vote.


The foundation for the so-called alt-right was not laid by the actions of President Obama, but by the actions and policies of President George W. Bush. Under his watch people saw the Great Recession, the Patriot Act and the bullying of the Congress into passing TARP. As I've said here, it led me to quit my membership in the Republican Party with the final straw being the bailout. The Tea Party got its start here, as they became angry with Washington getting away from the idea of limited government and living within our means. Yes, the snowball really got going with Obama and his socialist tendencies/policies, but the start was in the final days of the Dub administration. 

The GOP has a major ideology problem, its leadership isn't holding true to those beliefs they proclaim. They talk about limited government, etc...they're helping with the expansion of it. They said they were not going to let Obama have anything, yet keep rolling over and giving him everything. The GOP has almost become like the Democrats anymore, which doesn't sit well with many of us. One doesn't know what they stand for, as we continue to have groups fighting to be the carrier of the message. This is what led to Trump-a-mania, where the voters are angry as hell and have shown their anger by nominating a man who is not a politician. The alt-right now sees the chance to unseat the GOP establishment by latching onto him. A Trump victory means major upheaval within the GOP and its leadership. 

That being said...



Goku said:


> Trump is basically an anime hero that's trapped in a deadly games style story. He has to obey the rules of the game to win, even if it means he has to stoop to the level of the monsters he's facing. That doesn't mean he's a bad bish, that just means he's doing what it takes to survive.
> 
> What a hero. :mj2


He is smart to start portraying himself as a leader. The anger has worked, but to win the general election he needs to be able to show that he is a calm, poised man that we expect the President to be. As I've said here before, the bluster can only carry you so far. Americans want to see that when the shit hits the fan that they have someone cool, calm, and collected at the controls. 

At the same time, Trump has to be very careful here. Many people have ran to him because he is not a politician and not playing the game like it is normally supposed to be played. They don't want him to play by their rules, and any move towards that has to be very carefully not seen as becoming establishment. It's a very careful tightrope he has to walk.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Oh and I'd like to add that Weld supports the PATRIOT ACT and the 2003 Iraq war so any sane person who feels the Libertarian ticket this time around is the perfect fit need to look into the details.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Not defending her specifically but can't you pretty much say the same of all the US presidents of the modern era? Maybe not the terror attacks thing but wars and military actions, innocents killed etc.
> 
> When was the last time the military industrial complex wasn't in far off lands engaging the enemy and blowing innocent bystanders to kingdom come?


Well... Myself and others did not expect Obama to illegally use the military in such a reprehensible manner; President Peace Prize has killed more innocent civilians with robot drones than anyone in history, covertly intervened in far too many conflicts and kept the status quo (and restarted the Cold War) and at home prosecuted more journalists than all other Presidents combined. Didn't expect him to be another war criminal like Bush and Cheney but that's what he turned out to be. :-(


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> This is a factually incorrect statement. C'mon, man. We've been over this. You've really gotta stop believing the corporate propaganda narrative of what the left is because the left hates Hillary, who herself is center right at best.


It's hard to talk to someone who denies the existence of a group. Saying that the fringe left is a thing doesn't mean that "the real left" isn't or doesn't exist. If you read what I said and take it in context, you'd see that I said that they use the extreme left's propaganda in their rhetoric to try to appeal to the left in its entirety. It doesn't mean that all leftists are fools or are made fools of, but a great deal are and they do vote for the dems. 

This isn't the same as saying that the dems themselves are on the left. In fact, I'd say they are right authoritarian more than they are even center or left. 



> No... just, no...


:eyeroll



> While it's true that there are American allies involved in the military industrial complex, it's fair to say that the USA is leading the charge and creating the bulk of the problems. A lot of the problems coming out of other countries being involved is simply them being caught up in the wake up American Imperialism. I mean, we're not exactly the kind of country that takes too kindly to other countries opposing our plans for global domination.


But at the same time, let's encourage people whose own countries do get involved in wars and do bomb innocents to stop maintaining their annoying and ill-informed holier than thou attitude. 

If a bully punches a kid, and other fucking bullies join in to punch the kid; the kid that started it isn't any more or less guilty of the assault than his buddies.

And let's also stop ignoring the existence of the war machines that aren't the US and its allies and are completely and independently pieces of shits themselves.

Let's talk about good old fucking Trudeau and his bullshit about not being involved in Syria .. His bullshit charm and "oh we're not going to be involved" and yet, now he's the Number 2 supplier of arms in the Middle East and the world doesn't even know. 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ter-to-middle-east-data-show/article30459788/



> *Canada now the second biggest arms exporter to Middle East, data show *
> 
> Canada has soared in global rankings to become the second biggest arms dealer to the Middle East on the strength of its massive sale of combat vehicles to Saudi Arabia, new figures show.
> It’s a first for Canada, according to IHS Jane’s, the defence industry publisher that tracks military spending. Canada was previously the sixth-largest weapons vendor to Mideast countries. The United States is No. 1.
> 
> 
> Canada has also vaulted to sixth overall among all arms-exporting countries, based on rankings released by Jane’s this week. This means only five countries are currently selling more weapons and military equipment.
> IHS Jane’s analyst Ben Moores said he suspects Canada has never ranked so highly among all arms-exporting countries and that it certainly hasn’t held that position in the past 15 years.
> The Trudeau government, asked whether it took pride in Canada’s expanded role as a weapons seller and would feature this achievement in trade promotion materials, referred the questions to a department of Global Affairs bureaucrat. The civil servant instead said Ottawa hopes to toughen screening of weapons sold to foreigners.
> “The government of Canada remains firmly committed to introducing more transparency and rigour in export controls,” spokeswoman Rachna Mishra said.
> The Trudeau government gave the green light for the $15-billion sale of fighting vehicles to proceed to Saudi Arabia, a country regularly ranked by watchdog Freedom House as among the “worst of the worst” on human rights.
> The Liberal decision to issue export permits, in April, was made despite an internal Global Affairs report warning of worrisome developments in human rights and analyses from watchdogs such as Amnesty International, which said human rights in Saudi Arabia have “steadily deteriorated” in the previous 12 months.
> _*Related: The secret Saudi memo: Dissecting how the document contradicts what Ottawa has said *_
> These Jane’s arms-sales rankings emerge as relations grow more strained between Saudi Arabia and the United States, the biggest source of arms for the Mideast. Presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton linked Saudi Arabia and its neighbours to extremism in the aftermath of Sunday’s mass shooting in Orlando, calling on these Mideast countries to stop their citizens from funding extremism. Riyadh is still angry at Washington’s nuclear pact with Iran and officials in April threatened to sell off $750-billion in U.S. government bonds if Congress allowed Americans to sue Saudi officials over terrorism.
> Saudi Arabia’s Interior Ministry confirmed Monday that Omar Mateen, who killed 49 people in Orlando, travelled to the desert kingdom in 2011 and 2012 on an Islamic pilgrimage. Officials say there is no evidence Mr. Mateen made contract with extremists during his two trips to Saudi Arabia.
> The Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
> Cesar Jaramillo, executive director of Project Ploughshares, a disarmament group in Waterloo, Ont., that is an agency of the Canadian Council of Churches and tracks arms shipments, said Canadians should be worried that their country is now the second-largest arms exporter to “the most volatile region in the world” today.
> “This ranking comes days after Canada addressed the UN Security Council and highlighted the importance of protecting civilians in conflict zones … it is civilians who are often most at risk as a result of arms dealings, in particular to regions engulfed in conflict and notorious for their poor human rights records,” Mr. Jaramillo said.
> Adam Taylor, a former Harper government staffer, said Canada should be pleased with its ascension through the ranks of arms suppliers – or indeed any expansion of international trade.
> “Canada should be proud that in a fiercely competitive global context Canada is competing and winning against the best in the world in the defence sector,” said Mr. Taylor, a trade consultant at Ensight in Ottawa.
> “All of our closest political allies are our fiercest economic competitors. Those governments support their businesses’ pursuits of global opportunities and so should Canada’s.”
> Peggy Mason, an opponent of the Saudi arms deal, who once served as Canada’s United Nations ambassador for disarmament, said it’s hard to justify Canadian weapons exports to any Mideast country.
> “It has been a bedrock principle of Canadian export control policy … that Canadian arms exports would not contravene international law including UN arms embargoes, would not contribute to gross human rights abuses and would not undermine international peace and security,” Ms. Mason said.
> “It is hard to identify even one country in the Middle East to which Canada could export military equipment without potentially violating one or more of these principles. It is therefore an extremely sad day to read in Jane’s Defence Weekly that Canada has catapulted to No. 2 arms exporter to the Middle East.”


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> It's hard to talk to someone who denies the existence of a group. Saying that the fringe left is a thing doesn't mean that "the real left" isn't or doesn't exist. If you read what I said and take it in context, you'd see that I said that they use the extreme left's propaganda in their rhetoric to try to appeal to the left in its entirety. It doesn't mean that all leftists are fools or are made fools of, but a great deal are and they do vote for the dems.
> 
> This isn't the same as saying that the dems themselves are on the left. In fact, I'd say they are right authoritarian more than they are even center or left.
> 
> :eyeroll
> 
> But at the same time, let's encourage people whose own countries do get involved in wars and do bomb innocents to stop maintaining their annoying and ill-informed holier than thou attitude.
> 
> If a bully punches a kid, and other fucking bullies join in to punch the kid; the kid that started it isn't any more or less guilty of the assault than his buddies.
> 
> And let's also stop ignoring the existence of the war machines that aren't the US and its allies and are completely and independently pieces of shits themselves.


I find European nations that complain about the American Military or american actions are laughable. They're right with the US bombing people and selling weapons and making money off the wars. They then have the nerve to call themselves peaceful while they pump out weapons. Whenever Europe speaks why listen? They're part of the problem along with the Aussies. They love to get their hands on that blood money! 

I guess it's only ironic that the posters that seem to be posting really silly stuff themselves are nonamerican, they take after their nations of feigning outrage and moral superiority. 

Also LOL at the notion Hilary being more dangerous than Trump is a myth, I've heard it all now, a known criminal who's escaped justice, has been involved with shady business which has lead to the deaths of several Americans and countless innocents is somehow not more dangerous than the man who's yet to do any of this. I wasn't aware that the term "potential" meant absolute certainty and that that certainty was great than anything previous beforehand. I mean wow, even Religious people say less dumb of things.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I find European nations that complain about the American Military or american actions are laughable. They're right with the US bombing people and selling weapons and making money off the wars. They then have the nerve to call themselves peaceful while they pump out weapons. Whenever Europe speaks why listen? They're part of the problem along with the Aussies. They love to get their hands on that blood money!


You know. I just assumed without knowing that Trudeau is probably still very heavily involved in the Middle East after all his song and dance about pulling out his fighter jets. I did one quick google search. And boom .. here's the fucking evidence that Canada is arming the middle east without anyone paying much attention to it --- and not just arming them, but the second biggest exporter .. That should shock anyone. The new government had the ability to end this sale. I remember reading the details but now I forget but they still went through with it. 

But free healthcare guysss! Our cabinet is 50% female! Look at us! Our National Anthem will become more egalitarian! Look at this sikh fighter pilot. Just look at him! We're the pinnacle of multi-cultural humanism! 

Bullshit. Canada has blood on its hands or will have blood on its hands as a result of this. It just wears gloves to hide it like all the rest.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> Here's the accurate truth about Obama and Hillary: In American politics they are seen as centre-left, in Europe they are seen as centre-right. That's because America more than anywhere is a pretty right wing country to begin with.


It should be noted that when you say America is a pretty right wing country to begin with, it's the government that you're talking about. If you look at the opinion polls, a majority of the people actually want left wing policies. Obviously, we don't get them though, because the government doesn't give a fuck about what the people want.



Reaper said:


> It's hard to talk to someone who denies the existence of a group. Saying that the fringe left is a thing doesn't mean that "the real left" isn't or doesn't exist. If you read what I said and take it in context, you'd see that I said that they use the extreme left's propaganda in their rhetoric to try to appeal to the left in its entirety. It doesn't mean that all leftists are fools or are made fools of, but a great deal are and they do vote for the dems.


You're not hearing what I'm saying. What I'm telling you is that this rhetoric you think is far left, _isn't far left_. It's barely even left of center. I'm someone with an ideology that is pretty far left and I'm telling you that this bullshit rhetoric that you're told is far left comes nowhere even close to my views. You'll never hear Dems using far left rhetoric. They don't want people to know it even exists because they might find out they like it. They want the masses to believe this barely left of center rhetoric is "extreme left". The last thing they'd ever want is people opposing corporatocracy and questioning capitalism itself, which is something those of us on the left do regularly. 

You're right when you say that the Dems are pretending to be more left wing than they really are and lying their asses off to steal votes that way. Where you're wrong is in the belief that their rhetoric is far left. Not even their lies go that far.



Reaper said:


> This isn't the same as saying that the dems themselves are on the left. In fact, I'd say they are right authoritarian more than they are even center or left.


I cannot argue this point. Dems are most definitely right wing authoritarian.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> You're not hearing what I'm saying. What I'm telling you is that this rhetoric you think is far left, _isn't far left_. It's barely even left of center. I'm someone with an ideology that is pretty far left and I'm telling you that this bullshit rhetoric that you're told is far left comes nowhere even close to my views. You'll never hear Dems using far left rhetoric. They don't want people to know it even exists because they might find out they like it. They want the masses to believe this barely left of center rhetoric is "extreme left". The last thing they'd ever want is people opposing corporatocracy and questioning capitalism itself, which is something those of us on the left do regularly.


But their rhetoric isn't. That's all I'm saying. 



> You're right when you say that the Dems are pretending to be more left wing than they really are and lying their asses off to steal votes that way. Where you're wrong is in the belief that their rhetoric is far left. Not even their lies go that far.


Extreme left wing rhetoric #1 : Obama and Hillary both support Feminism. While they can pretend that they're working for the interests of the second wave feminists which were for self-empowerment, this today speaks directly to the extreme third wave feminist movement. 

Extreme left wing rhetoric #2 : Obama has continuously spoken in favor of BLM which is again a fair idea to toss out that "hey, blacks deserve better lives", but he doesn't address the problems with the BLM movement. He doesn't directly endorses it. However, whenever he claims that police on black shooting is a problem without acknowledging the roots of the problem and implying that it has a racial element, he's speaking directly to the extreme BLM nuts. 

Extreme left wing rhetoric #3 : "Not all muslims are like that" rhetoric the minute an act of terror happens. At one stage he says that "not all muslims are like that" making sure us "idiot" americans know the difference, meanwhile ignores to acknowledge the difference between radical islam and non-radical islam for years .. and then comes out and claims that it's unnecessary. Yeah you doof. It's just as unnecessary as the first distinction you make. But, saying "not all muslims are like that" is pandering to the far left that is willfully unaware of the distinction and wants to pretend that Islam isn't even a threat at all. Haven't you heard those fucking liberals that come out and say that "Islam is the pinnacle of female emancipation. That Mohammad is the first real feminist" ... Yeah, that's the extreme left. And making one distinction and not the other panders to that crowd. 

Affordable Care Act even though it's a scam to fleece insurance pockets and earn money through mandated tax was absolutely sold verbally as a far left socialist policy. I don't even know how someone can deny that. 



> I cannot argue this point. Dems are most definitely right wing authoritarian.


Yes, I will admit that most of their actions have nothing to do with their rhetoric but some of their rhetoric is absolutely designed to pander to the extreme left.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@Reaper

I've clearly been going about this the wrong way. We're not even close to being on the same page. So, I'm going to try a different approach and do my best to explain exactly what I'm talking about when I refer to the left.

Just for starters, I don't consider the authoritarian left to be leftist at all because I consider authoritarianism to be a right wing tactic. But, call it what you will, because I'm not interested in arguing semantics. What I am is opposed to any kind of authoritarianism, whether it is considered to come from the right or the left.

The left I am talking about and the political philosophy that lines up with my beliefs is libertarian socialism/left libertarianism. 

The full page is a long read, which I highly recommend, but here a few excerpts.

*Libertarian Socialism*

_Libertarian socialism (sometimes dubbed socialist libertarianism, or left-libertarianism) is a group of anti-authoritarian political philosophies inside the socialist movement that rejects socialism as centralized state ownership and control of the economy, as well as the state itself. It criticizes wage labour relationships within the workplace. Instead, it emphasizes workers' self-management of the workplace and decentralized structures of political organization. It asserts that a society based on freedom and justice can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite. Libertarian socialists advocate for decentralized structures based on direct democracy and federal or confederal associations such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils. All of this is generally done within a general call for libertarian and voluntary human relationships through the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of human life.

Libertarian socialists are anti-capitalist, and can thus be distinguished from right-wing libertarians. Whereas capitalist (and right-libertarian) principles concentrate economic power in the hands of those who own the most capital, libertarian socialism aims to distribute power more widely amongst members of society. A key difference between libertarian socialism and capitalist libertarianism is that advocates of the former generally believe that one's degree of freedom is affected by one's economic and social status, whereas advocates of the latter focus on freedom of choice within a capitalist framework. This is sometimes characterized as a desire to maximize "free creativity" in a society in preference to "free enterprise."

Within anarchism there emerged a critique of wage slavery which refers to a situation perceived as quasi-voluntary slavery, where a person's livelihood depends on wages, especially when the dependence is total and immediate. It is a negatively connoted term used to draw an analogy between slavery and wage labor by focusing on similarities between owning and renting a person. The term wage slavery has been used to criticize economic exploitation and social stratification, with the former seen primarily as unequal bargaining power between labor and capital (particularly when workers are paid comparatively low wages, e.g. in sweatshops), and the latter as a lack of workers' self-management, fulfilling job choices and leisure in an economy. Libertarian socialists believe that valuing freedom, society works towards a system in which individuals have the power to decide economic issues along with political issues. Libertarian socialists seek to replace unjustified authority with direct democracy, voluntary federation, and popular autonomy in all aspects of life, including physical communities and economic enterprises.

Libertarian socialists generally regard concentrations of power as sources of oppression that must be continually challenged and justified. Most libertarian socialists believe that when power is exercised, as exemplified by the economic, social, or physical dominance of one individual over another, the burden of proof is always on the authoritarian to justify their action as legitimate when taken against its effect of narrowing the scope of human freedom.[60] Libertarian socialists typically oppose rigid and stratified structures of authority, be they political, economic, or social.

Libertarian socialists have been strong advocates and activists of civil liberties that provide an individual specific rights such as the freedom in issues of love and sex and of thought and conscience (freethought). In this activism they have clashed with state and religious institutions which have limited such rights.

Libertarian socialists have traditionally been skeptical of and opposed to organized religion. Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or other dogmas.

Libertarian socialism has its roots in both classical liberalism and socialism, though it is often in conflict with liberalism (especially neoliberalism and right-libertarianism) and authoritarian State socialism simultaneously. _

More reading: *Left-libertarianism*

There are a lot of different schools of thought in that realm of the political spectrum and I obviously do not agree with all of them but the excerpts above are some of the main points that line up with my own political beliefs. I am strongly opposed to anything authoritarianism. I am opposed to centralized power and ownership. I am in favor of power and wealth being in the hands of the people, instead of concentrated into the hands of the few. I am anti-capitalist. I am opposed to imperialism. I am opposed to organized religion. I am in favor of all things science and evidence based. I am opposed to any laws that restrict individual liberties and you already know how important freedom is to me.

My views are ones that would be considered far left. So, when you say that Democrats are using far left rhetoric to appeal to far leftists, that sounds absurd to someone like me. You'll never hear Democrats uttering words anywhere close to how far left I am on the spectrum. They don't want the brainwashed masses questioning capitalism and centralized power. What you're thinking about as the "far left" is nothing more than the bullshit propaganda they present to you as the far left but is nothing even close to the views of an actual far leftist.

As far as the authoritarian left goes, I despise them and oppose them every bit as much as you do. Their views may be called "left" by some but they have absolutely nothing in common with my own.

Now do you understand why it sounds so ridiculous to me when you say that Democrats are using far left rhetoric?


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Have any of you heard of the horse shoe theory?

Its says that political extremists have more in common with people on the opposite political spectrum than people in the middle

A radical fascist and radical communist are extremely similar as long as you don't ask them about money

As man who is flat in the middle I have both sides venting to me that I am a "Sheep" and how stupid I am and to be honest they both look and sound the same to me (and its not just American politics)

I will take a wishy washy centralist over someone who actually thinks they are morally right any day


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Liberals, left liberals and extreme left liberals; and Libertarians aren't the same group of people. I know libertarians and for the most part I have little to no issue with them ... but when I'm talking about far left liberals, I'm talking about the socialist/social equalist/big government/tax-friendly/tax the rich to feed the poor group that makes up a big chunk of the democratic vote ... The SJW's are far left liberal whether you want them to be or not. It doesn't change the fact that they are and they are all going to vote Hillary ... blindly.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Can't Hillary put this zombie :trump down

Down 10+ points and he's done! Over. Now a week later he's within the margin of error in half the polls again and trending up in the others that still show Hillary with a 5+ point lead.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@Tater @Reaper

Authoritarianism is not defined by left or right wing but by the imposition of authority at the expense of personal liberty. That has come from both the right and left wing. Stalin for example you would find hard to argue is right wing in the slightest because of the USSR's belief in planned economics. They reject capitalism and any market based economics which is very much a right wing ideology. At the same time, Pinochet who ruled Chile was a military dictator who had neo-liberal economic policies, believed largely in a market based economy and whose economic advisers were directly influenced by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics. Both regimes however imposed strict top down authority of the state which took away the individuals personal liberty.

This is why big government Democrats and RINO's are also largely authoritarians. Of course not to the absolute extremes of the two regimes I have mentioned but their love for the PATRIOT ACT, on warrantless spying of the American people and giving up other civil liberties for the sake of security is not unlike the policies used by the Gestapo in Nazi Germany for example. If you put the Nuremberg laws and the PATRIOT ACT side by side you will see stark similarities between them in terms of erosion of personal liberty and the imposition from a top down state.

Those who believe in liberty and freedom and are the antithesis of authoritarianism by definition are those who advocate limited/small government. Those being Libertarians like myself and Constitutional Conservatives. Then of course you have the extreme end of the scale in anarchism and that is a whole other debate as far as Authoritarianism vs Libertarianism. 

The point is, authoritarianism is not defined by whether you hold left or right wing views but by how much you are willing to impose your authority and world view at the expense of other people's personal liberty. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@L-DOPA ... Tater and I are having a back and forth over what the far left liberal is. I think it's the SJW (I should've realized that anarchists are also far left and that was an oversight on my part) and now that Tater's clarified that he was talking about the libertarian left as the "Real left" it makes sense why we were having a disagreement. I can see why he was taking issue with my criticism of the far left because we weren't even thinking of the same group of people at all 

I don't think there is a real left - and with time the distinctions are getting increasingly blurred. I suppose when I say far left, you guys should just assume SJW (or social justice advocates in general) and those are always going to vote democrat.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> @L-DOPA ... Tater and I are having a back and forth over what the far left liberal is. I think it's the SJW and now that Tater's clarified that he was talking about the libertarian left as the "Real left" it makes sense why we were having a disagreement. I can see why he was taking issue with my criticism of the far left because we weren't even thinking of the same group of people at all


The far left is such an umbrella term in the same way that the far right is. There are many different groups within what would be deemed as the "far left" as it were. Culturally speaking, I would definitely put SJW's in the far or radical left for sure but then you also have socialists of both the authoritarian and libertarian kind who could also be described as this. Anarchists, Communists etc. Hell even Fascism is left wing at least in economic terms and has much more in common with socialism economically as it advocates for top-down collectivism. Though there could be a debate for days on whether fascism is left or right wing.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> Those who believe in liberty and freedom and are the antithesis of authoritarianism by definition are those who advocate* limited/small government*. Those being Libertarians like myself and Constitutional Conservatives. Then of course you have the extreme end of the scale in anarchism and that is a whole other debate as far as Authoritarianism vs Libertarianism.


Not necessarily.

Any kind of oligarchy is authoritarian and not every oligarchy runs through big government. First years of the parlamentary England is a great example of this, Seeing that you talked about Chile, liberal Chilean policies from 1891 to 1925 are another great example of this. America today is another example, when you have a Donor class, which in reality is the one taking decisions, size of the government doesn't matter that much in reality.


Also, let's agree that "libertarian" is a co-opted term and has been for the last 20 or so years.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Not necessarily.
> 
> Any kind of oligarchy is authoritarian and not every oligarchy runs through big government. First years of the parlamentary England is a great example of this, Seeing that you talked about Chile, liberal Chilean policies from 1891 to 1925 are another great example of this. America today is another example, when you have a Donor class, which in reality is the one taking decisions, size of the government doesn't matter that much in reality.
> 
> 
> Also, let's agree that "libertarian" is a co-opted term and has been for the last 20 or so years.


Yeah you are absolutely spot on with your analysis. I should have used the argument I made more as an example of those who are against authoritarianism rather than what is the standard or the norm.

You are correct about the donor class too, I could argue about whether or not the size of government has any bearing on their influence but that is besides the point.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump saying he will make a task force to deport dangerous illegal criminals who have evaded justice, then says he should deport Hillary. Lmao


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I can see tomorrow's news cycle now

"BREAKING: Trump calls for Deportation of Hillary Clinton"

:lmao


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Liberals, left liberals and extreme left liberals; and Libertarians aren't the same group of people. I know libertarians and for the most part I have little to no issue with them ... but when I'm talking about far left liberals, I'm talking about the socialist/social equalist/big government/tax-friendly/tax the rich to feed the poor group that makes up a big chunk of the democratic vote ... The SJW's are far left liberal whether you want them to be or not. *It doesn't change the fact that they are and they are all going to vote Hillary ... blindly.*


Yup. And fuck those people. I don't think we're in any disagreement over that point.

Also, one of the points that I have repeated often in this thread is that I am opposed to a "tax the rich, feed the poor" philosophy. What I am in favor of is not allowing extreme wealth concentration to begin with.



Reaper said:


> @L-DOPA ... Tater and I are having a back and forth over what the far left liberal is. I think it's the SJW (I should've realized that anarchists are also far left and that was an oversight on my part) and now that Tater's clarified that he was talking about the libertarian left as the "Real left" it makes sense why we were having a disagreement. I can see why he was taking issue with my criticism of the far left because we weren't even thinking of the same group of people at all
> 
> I don't think there is a real left - and with time the distinctions are getting increasingly blurred. I suppose when I say far left, you guys should just assume SJW (or social justice advocates in general) and those are always going to vote democrat.


SJW's are retarded. They're just as bad as religious assholes who try to impose their ideology onto the population. History is full of examples of religion forcing itself onto society and a lot of people have been oppressed because of it. Then you have the SJWs come along and claim they are standing up for the oppressed but what they really want to do is oppress the oppressors. That doesn't solve the problem of oppression. It only changes who is being oppressed. All of them can fuck off as far as I am concerned.

Where I have issue with you is when you call SJWs "far left liberals". A liberal value, as I understand the meaning of the term, is standing up for the oppressed. If you then become the oppressor, you are no longer upholding liberal values. That's what leads to a lot of people like you hating liberals. What I contend is the people you are pissed off at are not liberal at all but authoritarian.

The political compass is divided into 4 sections.










This is how I view the political compass.










Now, I suppose we could continue to argue over what the far left is but then we'd just be arguing semantics. I'm content knowing you now understand what I mean when I talk about the true left.

In a lot of ways, I consider right wing libertarians to be more leftist than I do left wing authoritarians. The problem with right wing libertarians and Republican philosophy in general is when they try to bullshit people into believing government is the problem and they claim they want a small government because it's government interference that is hurting the economy, they are basically full of shit because their goal is replacing government control with corporate control. That's an out of the frying pan and into the fire situation. It only replaces one form of authoritarian control with another.

The political compass website has a test. I took it and this is where I landed on the graph.










Yeah, that seems pretty accurate. I'm pretty far left but I'm not the extreme fringe left because I've seen people who are even further left than I am.

You should take the test too. It only takes a couple of minutes. I'd be very interested in seeing where you land on the graph. https://www.politicalcompass.org/test


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Been a while since I done one of these










Yep, about right.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Both sides this year have blind loyalty, to an even greater degree than normal. Folks blindly voting for Hillary and blindly voting for Trump. I can't remember an election where it has been this crazy. Makes me feel really out of place as I still want to look at the issues and vote on merit rather than who a person is.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










So Hitler, then...?


----------



## Genking48

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Looks about what I expected, pretty centered, but leaning towards the left.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Weird I thought I would be centralist more towards authoritarian side instead of the other way around.

I'm Gandhi?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Figured as much. 5 years ago, I was squarely left libertarian on this same test. My views certainly have changed especially on corporations. I used to consider them the enemies of the world, but then I realized just why that is. It's not because they're innately evil or that their objectives are innately evil, but it's mainly because ultimately the strong government that developed organically which now they prop up have created a symbiotic relationship which is extremely unhealthy for free market capitalism. And once I realized that there is nothing inherently wrong or immoral about income equality and that it exists primarily as a result of choice and ability (but yes, there is some element of luck here as well but that shouldn't be used to justify stealing money from one group to give to another without their free will).


> Where I have issue with you is when you call SJWs "far left liberals". A liberal value, as I understand the meaning of the term, is standing up for the oppressed. If you then become the oppressor, you are no longer upholding liberal values. That's what leads to a lot of people like you hating liberals. What I contend is the people you are pissed off at are not liberal at all but authoritarian.


 @Tater my friend you can't toss out a group of people that identifies themselves as the left just because you don't like what they're doing as leftists ... Sure you can disagree with what they're doing and the fact that they're authoritarian, but there is such a thing as the authoritarian left and they're on the extreme end of that. Obviously as a left libertarian you're going to have huge issues with the left authoritarian group .. My own wife just started realizing that she no longer has anything in common with the authoritarian camp and she's throwing her support behind Gary Johnson this year for that reason *shrug* .. but doesn't change the fact that far left authoritarianism isn't a thing. That's exactly the very definition of pretty much all core SJW beliefs - including left-wing fascism.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Figured as much. 5 years ago, I was squarely left libertarian on this same test. My views certainly have changed especially on corporations. I used to consider them the enemies of the world, but then I realized just why that is. It's not because they're innately evil or that their objectives are innately evil, but it's mainly because ultimately the strong government that developed organically which now they prop up have created a symbiotic relationship which is extremely unhealthy for free market capitalism. And once I realized that there is nothing inherently wrong or immoral about income equality and that it exists primarily as a result of choice and ability (but yes, there is some element of luck here as well but that shouldn't be used to justify stealing money from one group to give to another without their free will).
> 
> @Tater my friend you can't toss out a group of people that identifies themselves as the left just because you don't like what they're doing as leftists ... Sure you can disagree with what they're doing and the fact that they're authoritarian, but there is such a thing as the authoritarian left and they're on the extreme end of that. Obviously as a left libertarian you're going to have huge issues with the left authoritarian group .. My own wife just started realizing that she no longer has anything in common with the authoritarian camp and she's throwing her support behind Gary Johnson this year for that reason *shrug* .. but doesn't change the fact that far left authoritarianism isn't a thing. That's exactly the very definition of pretty much all core SJW beliefs - including left-wing fascism.


I'm confused as to why people still think The Nazi Social party, Communist Russia and China are right wing. They all spawn from left wing ideology and censorship is part many extreme leftwing ideals. Suppression of Religion, free speech and gun control are pretty common with this sort of thinking. Also you're correct Reaper, regardless of if Democrats aren't leftists, they consider themselves to be leftists, along with SJWs and the other ilk. The Democratic party itself claims this.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*Your Political Compass*

_Economic Left/Right: -3.13 
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87_










I can't remember if this was different before, done this test many times.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










I'm about where I expected to be. Some of my views have changed and I'm a bit more Laissez-faire economically, if not still mistrustful of certain economic "entities" as I will call 'em.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I'm confused as to why people still think The Nazi Social party, Communist Russia and China are right wing. They all spawn from left wing ideology and censorship is part many extreme leftwing ideals. Suppression of Religion, free speech and gun control are pretty common with this sort of thinking. Also you're correct Reaper, regardless of if Democrats aren't leftists, they consider themselves to be leftists, along with SJWs and the other ilk. The Democratic party itself claims this.


I think Tater pretty much answered that himself. He doesn't like to believe that an oppressive force can be "left" at all. It's not something I say is wrong in and of itself, I think it's more a matter of incredulity at the idea that someone with a similar desire for social freedom and liberties would attract and devolve into extreme fascism and totalitarianism. The "left" while having an element of pacifism has always attracted large groups as well that demand their group's liberty at the expense of the perceived oppressive group without realizing it or being able to equate their own actions as innately wrong .. The idea of social liberty has always posited some other group as its enemy and from that standpoint it's social liberation ---- without acknowledging the expense at which it's achieved. 

The French Revolution for example is heralded in the west for the fact that it "liberated" the average francophone from the evil autocrats ... but then they went about it in one of the most horrifying displays of human savagery to date through a genocidal cleanse ... That idea of "liberation of the masses" is extremely left wing (and that's what we consistently hear today as well from the left), but then that group went on to become as bad if not even worse than the autocrats through their savagery. This is how I interpreted the French Revolution when one of my professors was trying to glorify it in the classroom and I just sat there incredulous at the idea that chopping off your perceived enemies heads is something worth celebrating.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










no idea. Perhaps I confused the graph.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Economic Left-Right...3.5
Authoritarian/Libertarianism -2.67 

About where I was a few years ago...really haven't changed all that much.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Iunno, it's what I got thou.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> So Hitler, then...?


inb4 a left authoritarian comes out and makes some snide remark about it's obvious since you support Donald Hitler! 

:kobelol


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> And once I realized that there is nothing inherently wrong or immoral about income equality and that it exists primarily as a result of choice and ability (but yes, there is some element of luck here as well but that shouldn't be used to justify stealing money from one group to give to another without their free will).


Once it dawns on you that it's the owner class who is stealing the wealth from the working class that produces said wealth, you and I will be much closer to the same page.



Reaper said:


> @Tater my friend you can't toss out a group of people that identifies themselves as the left just because you don't like what they're doing as leftists ... Sure you can disagree with what they're doing and the fact that they're authoritarian, but there is such a thing as the authoritarian left and they're on the extreme end of that. Obviously as a left libertarian you're going to have huge issues with the left authoritarian group .. My own wife just started realizing that she no longer has anything in common with the authoritarian camp and she's throwing her support behind Gary Johnson this year for that reason *shrug* .. but doesn't change the fact that far left authoritarianism isn't a thing. That's exactly the very definition of pretty much all core SJW beliefs - including left-wing fascism.


I think maybe my main problem is how left and right is defined to begin with when the 4 corners are all so drastically different. Maybe we should start calling it north, south, east and west so I'll stop bitching about it so much.



Miss Sally said:


> I'm confused as to why people still think The Nazi Social party, Communist Russia and China are right wing. They all spawn from left wing ideology and censorship is part many extreme leftwing ideals. Suppression of Religion, free speech and gun control are pretty common with this sort of thinking. Also you're correct Reaper, regardless of if Democrats aren't leftists, they consider themselves to be leftists, along with SJWs and the other ilk. The Democratic party itself claims this.


If I identify as a Lamborghini, does that make me a car?

Actions speak louder than words and the actions of the Democrats are the actions of a right wing authoritarian party.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Once it dawns on you that it's the owner class who is stealing the wealth from the working class that produces said wealth, you and I will be much closer to the same page.


That's delving into the arena of Marxist thinking (and I'm not just throwing this out to call you fugging commie) I don't want to get into with you. 

I used to think the same way before I realized that unfortunately we have to keep in mind the very things that are stopping the working class for producing for themselves is in fact self-imposed barriers as well as barriers that the government has put in place. Things like needing degrees, licenses, government fees, taxes etc are some of the barriers that people ultimately did to themselves as a result of making their government larger and larger ... 

That said, through the internet age we are seeing the rise of the working class going into business for themselves more and more and we need to keep encouraging that. Governments are doing their best to get in the way of this (Uber vs Taxi lobby for example) and until and unless we strip down the government itself, the corporate lobby itself won't be strong enough to stop competition. The government is just as evil as some of the corporations and to stop them you have to reduce the governments' role and power first.

Epi-Pen is the ultimate example of government and corporate corruption, but you know how you destroy that? By encouraging competitors ... So many people before this shit happened didn't even KNOW that competitors existed and that they can get $10 replacements for this. That is also a corporation that makes that. The thing is that not all corporations are evil. Competition and reduction of government interference is the best way to keep them honest.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> The government is just as evil as some of the corporations and to stop them you have to reduce the governments' role and power first.


The government is evil _because_ of the corporations that own it. Our entire system is built on capitalist greed that values profit more than people. If you only strip the government of power but do nothing about the power of the corporations then we're still owned by the corporations the same way we are now. Rather than using the government as their strongmen, the corporations will just hire goons instead.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> The government is evil _because_ of the corporations that own it. Our entire system is built on capitalist greed that values profit more than people. If you only strip the government of power but do nothing about the power of the corporations then we're still owned by the corporations the same way we are now. Rather than using the government as their strongmen, the corporations will just hire goons instead.


This is where our left and right attitudes differ. It's ok that capitalist greed values profit more than people. I personally see nothing wrong with that :shrug 

What I want is more deregulation so that more people can become successful and develop the spirit of entrepreneurship. Basically become capitalists themselves thereby introducing enough competition into the market that corporate greed has no choice but to establish a fair equilibrium that sustains the society. 

The thing is, that capitalist greed is also directly tied into innovation and technology therefore if you suppress the capitalist greed through whatever means (and I don't think that suppressing human greed which is an innate quality can be suppressed anyways), you do that at the cost of human advancement. I don't think that everyone deserves to have an equal amount of wealth simply by virtue of being born human - not when some have done more to deserve it than others. J.K. Rowling versus the writer that never starts writing a book but lives on welfare instead - for example. No way in HELL do those two deserve even remotely the same kind of wealth or the same kind of lifestyle. One has done far less than the other. If you read into the histories of some of the wealthiest in America you'll start seeing the kinds of hard work those original pioneers put into it and it's ok if their children to this day benefit from it. I would want the same for my entire progeny till the end of time if I ever struck it big (I know I won't) ... Why shouldn't they? There's no reason at all to deny them or their children their wealth. 

You need to establish a hybrid between encouraging "greed" and discouraging disparity but to punish the capitalist for his greed is imo unfair.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Bleh still somewhat moderated for myself :lmao



Beatles123 said:


>


So now, all of a sudden you believe in Polls? :lmao



BruiserKC said:


> Both sides this year have blind loyalty, to an even greater degree than normal. Folks blindly voting for Hillary and blindly voting for Trump. I can't remember an election where it has been this crazy. Makes me feel really out of place as I still want to look at the issues and vote on merit rather than who a person is.


I think this responds to particular phenomena, the raising of Trump has give voice to a more extreme ideologues in the right who were silent in pass cycles.

But still the voter for both sides don't act like the increasing process of polarization that america has been experiencing this last 15 years. In fact the electoral maps is more centrist than in the past 4 elections

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...e-states-from-mcgovern-to-trump-in-one-chart/

This is explained, i think, for the high levels of rejections both candidates have (which is the bigger in American history), so this "blind loyalty" is an answer to 2 things:

1- The level of animosity and distrust towards Hillary and Trump is so big, supporters have to get louder to defend them
2- A big majority of people dislike them so much that they dont care about this election, so the only people left discussing are this rabid voters of both camps



Reaper said:


> I used to consider them the enemies of the world, but then I realized just why that is. It's not because they're innately evil or that their objectives are innately evil, but it's mainly because ultimately the strong government that developed organically which now they prop up have created a symbiotic relationship which is extremely unhealthy for free market capitalism.


There is nothing inherently bad with coporations. But there never has been a free market and never will be... Not even in his inception capitalism was free, in fact, capitalism was born under particular legislation of the England government.

Also there is a natural symbiosis between corporations/capitalism and the state as you said but this symbiotic relations hasn't been created by big government an has been there since the begining 



Reaper said:


> And once I realized that there is nothing inherently wrong or immoral about income equality and that it exists primarily as a result of choice and ability (but yes, there is some element of luck here as well but that shouldn't be used to justify stealing money from one group to give to another without their free will).


If this was true, there will be no correlation between income inequality and social mobility.



Miss Sally said:


> I'm confused as to why people still think *The Nazi Social party*, Communist Russia and China are right wing. They all spawn from left wing ideology and censorship is part many extreme leftwing ideals. Suppression of Religion, free speech and gun control are pretty common with this sort of thinking. Also you're correct Reaper, regardless of if Democrats aren't leftists, they consider themselves to be leftists, along with SJWs and the other ilk. The Democratic party itself claims this.



Ahh???

Hitler says in Mein Kempf that the name of the party and all the simbols they appropiated from the left are destined to atract workers and sindicates to them to quote "destroy them and then and supress the left"

And there are several things wrong with what you said anyways. Censorship, supression of religion and gun control aren't the domain of one political spectrum.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> The government is evil _because_ of the corporations that own it. Our entire system is built on capitalist greed that values profit more than people. If you only strip the government of power but do nothing about the power of the corporations then we're still owned by the corporations the same way we are now. Rather than using the government as their strongmen, the corporations will just hire goons instead.


Corporations as we know them today only exist because of State power, and law--they are children of the State and a central component of its ecosystem of special interests. They literally could not exist otherwise. Without State power and protection in their pocket, these corporations that are dependent upon it would almost certainly fail rather spectacularly. Why do you think they spend so much money to retain that State power and protection year after year? It isn't because they want to, it isn't because they "own" us, it's because they are dependent upon it, it is because their continued existence demands it. The market economy is a volatile place for businesses without State power on their side to keep the waters calmer, and more exclusive. 

I'm honestly not sure how you've managed to dream up a scenario where, absent the power of the monopolization of the legal use of force, big bad corporations are just going to suddenly turn into militant mafia syndicates. Perhaps a few outliers would attempt to do this, somehow--I won't rule it out entirely, but you seem to be under the impression that this would somehow be widespread and normal, and that simply doesn't seem to make much sense. 

Also, there is no such thing as "capitalist greed." I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. Greed is greed is greed. Capitalists do not have a monopoly on greed, nor do they have their own special brand of greed. 

People who get hung up on economic branding and the right-left identity paradigm always seem to miss the point. It isn't about socialism vs capitalism. It's about statism vs. anti-statism; coercion vs liberty.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> If this was true, there will be no correlation between income inequality and social mobility.


Eh. It's harder if you're poor, but it can be done. All entrepreneurs were poor once and there are some rich people who are poor now. Look at what happens to new money. There's mobility on both sides. Of course it's going to be harder to scale up or down depending on where you start ... But free market capitalism is still the best chance someone has for upward mobility. There's no other better process that allows it. 

Now I do disagree with the idea that hard work always results in success because it clearly doesn't. However, that doesn't mean that we allow people to sit on their asses and do nothing for their food and shelter either which would be where the social welfare proponents go wrong because then they create a culture of rewarding "failure".


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I took that about a week ago and saved the result.








No idea how that happened but I answered it honestly.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> I think this responds to particular phenomena, the raising of Trump has give voice to a more extreme ideologues in the right who were silent in pass cycles.
> 
> But still the voter for both sides don't act like the increasing process of polarization that america has been experiencing this last 15 years. In fact the electoral maps is more centrist than in the past 4 elections
> 
> http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...e-states-from-mcgovern-to-trump-in-one-chart/
> 
> This is explained, i think, for the high levels of rejections both candidates have (which is the bigger in American history), so this "blind loyalty" is an answer to 2 things:
> 
> 1- The level of animosity and distrust towards Hillary and Trump is so big, supporters have to get louder to defend them
> 2- A big majority of people dislike them so much that they dont care about this election, so the only people left discussing are this rabid voters of both camps
> .


Those leads to those of us who aren't sold on either getting shouted down. We're traitors, un-American, we are Hillary/Trump supporters (the opposite of who is yelling at you is voting for), etc. I've been even called liberal by some people when I am far from. :smile2:

In some cases, I think it's come to a sense of panic. There is a lady I work with, she's an evangelical Christian. She is one of the 10-15 million that sat at home in '12 rather than vote for Romney. Granted, Romney wasn't perfect but had enough conservative bonafides I tolerated voting for him. She said at the time she couldn't vote for him strictly because she didn't see him as a Christian (followers of the LDS movement are seen as cultists in the yes of some born-agains, as a Catholic I have been accused of being cultist by some of those groups as well). For that reason, since he wasn't her perfect ideal, she sat home and Obama got to push through more. Now, she supports Trump whole-heartedly, even though he has almost nothing in common with him. Prominent Christian spokespeople like James Dobson, John Hagee, and Jim Bakker are doing all sorts of mental gymnastics trying to justify why their flocks need to vote for him. (I know we might disagree politically, but this is the point I'm trying to make here). For some of us, there was a chance to stop Obama's policies, and some sat home. Now, the panic has set in and the alternative to HRC is now someone who I myself have almost NOTHING in common with. Hillary Clinton getting elected will transform the country, if not permanently at least for the next generation or so. That's what the Trump folks want to stop. 

Meanwhile, on the other side of the spectrum, the Dems are in the driver's seat supposedly. Over the last 8 years, they have managed to get a lot of what they have wanted. However, they realize that with the status of our nation and the anger that has grown they realize that putting a Republican in the White House and keeping control of both houses of Congress means many of Obama's accomplishments could be wiped out. Obama despises the Clintons, but he realizes that HRC getting in is the only way now to save his legacy from being a President who transformed the United States instead of just being a historical footnote. Plus, they have a mulligan on getting her into the WH, which will pretty much be Hillary's last shot. 

This is the most pivotal election in the history of this nation...all the more reason why we should be looking at the issues and making sure we know what we're voting for. Yet, we have massive panic in the streets and emotion.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> People who get hung up on economic branding and the right-left identity paradigm always seem to miss the point. It isn't about socialism vs capitalism. It's about statism vs. anti-statism; coercion vs liberty.


Private property is already a form of statism....



Reaper said:


> Eh. It's harder if you're poor, but it can be done. All entrepreneurs were poor once and there are some rich people who are poor now. Look at what happens to new money. There's mobility on both sides. Of course it's going to be harder to scale up or down depending on where you start ... But free market capitalism is still the best chance someone has for upward mobility. There's no other better process that allows it.


Those situations however are just anecdotal if the probability of them is reduced.

The reality is, is more easy to get rich if you transform yourself in an entrepreneur, workers have less odds to moblity. To be an entrepeneur you need to have savings, and for that you need more than just "surviving wages".

And this is harder the more technology advance, not because technology replace labor work only, but because techonology advancement or progress require higher levels of specialization, which aren't met unless you get the proper education, education attainment require times and money and the cycle repeat itself.

Also, the argument about mobility and capitalism is ridicule, social mobility is a feature of capitalism, therefore is the best option for it by default. Is the same when somewaht says "but countries are richer where capitalism works", yeah, because profit is a feature of capitalism....


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Private property is already a form of statism....
> 
> 
> 
> Those situations however are just anecdotal if the probability of them is reduced.
> 
> The reality is, is more easy to get rich if you transform yourself in an entrepreneur, workers have less odds to moblity. To be an entrepeneur you need to have savings, and for that you need more than just "surviving wages".
> 
> And this is harder the more technology advance, not because technology replace labor work only, but because techonology advancement or progress require higher levels of specialization, which aren't met unless you get the proper education, education attainment require times and money and the cycle repeat itself.
> 
> Also, the argument about mobility and capitalism is ridicule, social mobility is a feature of capitalism, therefore is the best option for it by default. Is the same when somewaht says "but countries are richer where capitalism works", yeah, because profit is a feature of capitalism....


Well yeah... And where there is no capitalism there's still income inequality and lower standards of living for some because the pie is smaller but it still has to have some sort of a capitalist system anyways because things have intrinsic value. 

It's only a ridiculous argument if you assume that people have an innate right to any wealth in the first place. I don't think they do. 

Acknowledging income inequality exists within a capitalist system doesn't necessitate that capitalism caused it. Or that it even is a problem that needs fixing. Income inequality has existed in every system man has ever developed and that is because certain things have innate value. You can't get away from that no matter what you do.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Ahh???
> 
> Hitler says in Mein Kempf that the name of the party and all the simbols they appropiated from the left are destined to atract workers and sindicates to them to quote "destroy them and then and supress the left"
> 
> And there are several things wrong with what you said anyways. Censorship, supression of religion and gun control aren't the domain of one political spectrum.


Of course those are not but Censorship, suppression of Religion and Gun Control are some of the biggest flags of the left, it's not limited to any one spectrum by any means but I'm referring to Leftists with what I said, which is why I didn't say anywhere that this only applies to the Left.

@Tater It doesn't matter that they're not left, they're considered Left because they call themselves Left and they do adhere to some Leftist ideology from the moderate and extreme side. People really need to start realizing the Democrats are just one side to the same coin of neocon Republicans. People are noticing this now thanks to the fuckery of Bernie. I think if you're a Leftist or Right wing you've realize this election cycle that neither party has your best interest at heart. At least Trump isn't Cruz or that fuckhead Romney. We need three parties one Left, one Right and one Moderate/Libertarian.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Well yeah... And where there is no capitalism there's still income inequality and lower standards of living for some because the pie is smaller but it still has to have some sort of a capitalist system anyways because things have intrinsic value.
> 
> It's only a ridiculous argument if you assume that people have an innate right to any wealth in the first place. I don't think they do.
> 
> Acknowledging income inequality exists within a capitalist system doesn't necessitate that capitalism caused it. Or that it even is a problem that needs fixing. Income inequality has existed in every system man has ever developed and that is because certain things have innate value. You can't get away from that no matter what you do.


Mobility isn't the same as income inequality, i think we started saying this no?. Intrinsic value isn't the same as exchange value.

People have the right to a wealth equal to the value of their work (we agree on this no?), which means that income inequality for example should be stable over time. Unless of course there is 2 scenaries:

1- Decreasing of labour work value and/or increase of specialization/service work value
2- There are more people doing labor work over time than entrepeunership/getting education

I don't know which of those 2 escenaries you preffer as 1 would lead to a moment where there is no one doing labour and in two there would be a point in which we increasingly approach a dicatorial/oligarchy or whatever....

Everyone has different possestions but that is not the same as private ownership....


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Private property is already a form of statism....


I don't think you know what statism is.

:maisie3


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> This is where our left and right attitudes differ. It's ok that capitalist greed values profit more than people. I personally see nothing wrong with that :shrug


You don't care that millions are suffering in poverty so that a handful of people can hoard the wealth. Yeah, it's pretty safe that say that our attitudes on this topic differ quite drastically.



Reaper said:


> What I want is more deregulation so that more people can become successful and develop the spirit of entrepreneurship. Basically become capitalists themselves thereby introducing enough competition into the market that corporate greed has no choice but to establish a fair equilibrium that sustains the society.


I say this with all due respect but you have no clue what you're talking about on this particular topic. What you think is going to happen isn't what happens when everything is deregulated. It's a right wing fantasy with no empirical evidence to back it up.

As for the rest below, I don't have the time or the patience right now to explain just how backasswards you have all of this. I know you're a man of science who believes in things that can be proven. You've just been given a lot of bad information, my friend.



Reaper said:


> The thing is, that capitalist greed is also directly tied into innovation and technology therefore if you suppress the capitalist greed through whatever means (and I don't think that suppressing human greed which is an innate quality can be suppressed anyways), you do that at the cost of human advancement. I don't think that everyone deserves to have an equal amount of wealth simply by virtue of being born human - not when some have done more to deserve it than others. J.K. Rowling versus the writer that never starts writing a book but lives on welfare instead - for example. No way in HELL do those two deserve even remotely the same kind of wealth or the same kind of lifestyle. One has done far less than the other. If you read into the histories of some of the wealthiest in America you'll start seeing the kinds of hard work those original pioneers put into it and it's ok if their children to this day benefit from it. I would want the same for my entire progeny till the end of time if I ever struck it big (I know I won't) ... Why shouldn't they? There's no reason at all to deny them or their children their wealth.
> 
> You need to establish a hybrid between encouraging "greed" and discouraging disparity but to punish the capitalist for his greed is imo unfair.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Mobility isn't the same as income inequality, i think we started saying this no?. Intrinsic value isn't the same as exchange value.


Lack of upward mobility is tied into income inequality ... My side says that that people have the best chances to move upwards depending on their choices and therefore increasing their wealth. Your side says that people may or may not have that opportunity and their choices are not necessarily going to let that happen. I think at this point it really depends on what you focus on. In either scenario the solutions have some overlap. The issue is with how each of us feels about that, no? Intrinsic value is built into exchange value and while in some cases a capitalist can influence exchange value, my point is that that happens largely as a result of government interference and protectionism. It's not organic in the sense that if you let the relationship between buyer and seller happen without interference, the difference between intrinsic value and exchange value diminishes. 

Take the man who bought the No Man's Sky game before release for $1300. The buy was willing to pay the price the seller established. The game's actual worth was $59 just a few days later. If the sellers continued to try to sell that game for $1300, they'd find a handful of buyers, but then overtime the cost of production of that game may not be covered because there wouldn't be enough buyers at that price - so the market basically pulls the price back down. Now we're living in a market where there are games available for free, 99 cents all the way upto $150 because it's a highly competitive market. With little to now government protectionism and slowly, I'm noticing that the increased competition is also bringing down the price of AAA industry whose price has been stuck at $59 for more than a decade but now they're willing to start marking down certain titles. 

There's lot that goes into establishing the price of something and where there's less competition and more protectionism, you see more price gouging. Take the American pharma industry for example. It's a completely broken mess and it's not because of capitalism itself - but because of protectionism and regulation that allows it to be that way. 



> People have the right to a wealth equal to the value of their work (we agree on this no?), which means that income inequality for example should be stable over time. Unless of course there is 2 scenaries:But then how do you determine that value? Physical labour, or mental labor? Specialization or drudge work. Only a fool would say that a coal miner works less hard than a CEO, but is the value of his labor equal to that of a CEO? Now I'm not arguing in favor of CEO's that raise their salaries at the cost of the overall health of their companies because plenty of CEO's have done that. That is again however, not an issue with capitalism but rather power and self-interest.
> 
> 1- Decreasing of labour work value and/or increase of specialization/service work value
> 2- There are more people doing labor work over time than entrepeunership/getting education
> 
> I don't know which of those 2 escenaries you preffer as 1 would lead to a moment where there is no one doing labour and in two there would be a point in which we increasingly approach a dicatorial/oligarchy or whatever....
> 
> Everyone has different possestions but that is not the same as private ownership....


Market forces also determine the value of the labor and pretty much the same rules that apply to free market capitalism also apply to the labor market. Here I'm torn between whether to have or not to have a minimum wage law. What I do support interestingly is unionization (not the kind of labor unions you see today that are backed by government protectionism but rather the kind of unionization we saw in early british industralization).

And we're already seeing more entrepreneurship in the internet era than we've seen a hundred years prior to that. People who would be highly eloquent waiters or waitresses in the pre-internet market are now earning thousands a month simply by putting their face on instragram or youtube. There's more opportunity ... and why? Because it's still one of the most deregulated forms of capitalism in the world.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> @Tater It doesn't matter that they're not left, they're considered Left because they call themselves Left and they do adhere to some Leftist ideology from the moderate and extreme side.


It doesn't matter only in the sense that the voting public is largely populated by a bunch of dumbasses who believe them when they claim to be left wing. It still matters to those with intelligence.



Miss Sally said:


> People really need to start realizing the Democrats are just one side to the same coin of neocon Republicans.


Ain't that the damned truth.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> I don't think you know what statism is.
> 
> :maisie3


If a state is a monopoly of violence, as defined by Hobbes, and private property is the right to exclude to valuable things as defined in law. Yeah, i know what both of those things are, i would use Locke original definition but is pretty outdated as no one today own the land/products of his work. .

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1492&context=nlr

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...overnments/links/577cd78608ae355e74f2c06a.pdf

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/illlr90&div=43&id=&page=

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8306.93109

http://jcr.sagepub.com/content/46/5/599.short

Just a look at the first page of Google scholar after typing "monopoly of violence and private property"


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> You don't care that millions are suffering in poverty so that a handful of people can hoard the wealth. Yeah, it's pretty safe that say that our attitudes on this topic differ quite drastically.


If you care about millions languishing in poverty while a small elite controls the means of production and the natural resources of the nation, you should be a wild-eyed zealot for capitalist greed. Nothing has been more successful at smashing inequality than capitalist greed. It was the capitalist greed of lords and their serf farmers that ended feudalism; it was the capitalist greed of the titans of late 19th century industry that built the infrastructure and production in Western countries that made goods (especially food) plentiful and easily transported and thus cheap; basically every material and economic advance of the common man over the last 200 years (and most of them over the last ~500) is directly attributable to capitalist greed, usually because conditions were created that allowed for the capitalist greed _of_ the common man to finally have an outlet. Free farmers owning their own land to sell what they grew or raised by and for themselves produced more food and thus more taxes than serfdom, that's why feudalism ended. The examples are endless.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> The government is evil _because_ of the corporations that own it. Our entire system is built on capitalist greed that values profit more than people. If you only strip the government of power but do nothing about the power of the corporations then we're still owned by the corporations the same way we are now. Rather than using the government as their strongmen, the corporations will just hire goons instead.


Drago, is that you?


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> If a state is a monopoly of violence, as defined by Hobbes, and private property is the right to exclude to valuable things as defined in law. Yeah, i know what both of those things are, i would use Locke original definition but is pretty outdated as no one today own the land/products of his work. .
> 
> http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1492&context=nlr
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/profil...overnments/links/577cd78608ae355e74f2c06a.pdf
> 
> http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/illlr90&div=43&id=&page=
> 
> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-8306.93109
> 
> http://jcr.sagepub.com/content/46/5/599.short
> 
> Just a look at the first page of Google scholar after typing "monopoly of violence and private property"


Like I said, I don't think you know what statism is, since you seem confused about what a state (or State) is, not to mention it also seems that you don't even have a good understanding of what property is, either, if you think property can be defined as a State.

Property is not a monopoly on violence, neither is a State _merely_ a monopoly on violence. The former is simply inaccurate and largely inappropriate, if not entirely nonsensical, and the latter is insufficient, incomplete, and imprecise.

A State is a compulsory, centralized political apparatus that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate (or legal) use of force within a geographical region. If you don't understand how what is broadly known as property (let alone a whole other conversation related to property and property rights) does not fit that, then you either have an inaccurate knowledge of statism, or an inaccurate knowledge of property (and more precisely property rights), or both. 

What's more, I'm not even sure what you hoped to contribute by randomly throwing that assertion into the conversation while quoting me. Even if your assertion were true, which it is clearly not, what is your point? You never bothered to build upon that assertion. You just hung it out there with no elaboration.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> Property is not a monopoly on violence, neither is a State _merely_ a monopoly on violence. The former is simply inaccurate and largely inappropriate, if not entirely nonsensical, and the latter is insufficient, incomplete, and imprecise.


An State can be reduced as a monopoly of violence, or force which is the same, as the political power to operate as an apparatus come from this monopoly



Sincere said:


> A State is a compulsory, centralized political apparatus that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate (or legal) use of force within a geographical region. If you don't understand how what is broadly known as property (let alone a whole other conversation related to property and property rights) does not fit that, then you either have an inaccurate knowledge of statism, or an inaccurate knowledge of property (and more precisely property rights), or both.


The definition you're using, the Weber one, is derived from Hobbes understanding of the State as a Leviathan mixed with the contractual theory of power and can be reduced at what i said because even if the political apparatus is elected by us, the Sate retain his power from the coercion that uses on us. What you're arguing at this point is merely semantics.

Property rights are also not the same as private property or private ownership. Even Locke recognize this





Sincere said:


> What's more, I'm not even sure what you hoped to contribute by randomly throwing that assertion into the conversation while quoting me. Even if your assertion were true, which it is clearly not, what is your point? You never bothered to build upon that assertion. You just hung it out there with no elaboration.


What i'm saying, is that private property lead to Statism as people who own land can regulate at his pleasure over it, therefore a society of only private property lead to mini states based on the ownership of land where there are people who own land and people who doesn't. It's not that difficult to follow

I'm quoting you because your idea of Statism vs anti-statism is a false dichotomy just like capitalism vs socialism seems to be to you


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> T J.K. Rowling versus the writer that never starts writing a book but lives on welfare instead - for example.


Brah...


J.K. Rowling wrote Harry Potter while living on welfare.....

This is a commonly known fact.

"Living in a cramped apartment with her daughter, jobless and penniless, Rowling fell into a deep depression and admits she even considered suicide. She was forced to rely on state benefits and spent much of her time writing “Harry Potter” in cafés with Jessica sleeping in the pram next to her."
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-rags-to-riches-story-of-jk-rowling-2015-5 

Imagine a world where she had to work for all the money she needed to live on and never had any time to write?

And btw this is not an example that the American welfare system works, it doesn't, J.K. Rowling is British and was on the British welfare system which is much more generous.

Had she been American after the system was gutted by Bill Clinton, the one thing you will get me to rag on the Democrats for, Harry Potter never would have been created.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

^ Expelliarmus Welfarius!


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Private property is not a form of statism, but it does by nature use force to exert authority, albeit private authority.

One could argue private authority is more morally defensible than the authority of a state.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Goku said:


> Private property is not a form of statism, but it does by nature use force to exert authority, albeit private authority.
> 
> One could argue private authority is more morally defensible than the authority of a state.


Well, yes, in fact one of the links i put in the previous post was about the formation of private governments across the world who go unnoticed because is a reality we don't want to acknowledge today.

I don't think that there is a more morally defensible aspect of private authority than the one by the state, which was also the point and hence the comparison, but then we enter in the territory of morally discussion and it become a much more complex issue


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Well, yes, in fact one of the links i put in the previous post was about the formation of private governments across the world who go unnoticed because is a reality we don't want to acknowledge today.
> 
> I don't think that there is a more morally defensible aspect of private authority than the one by the state, which was also the point and hence the comparison, but then we enter in the territory of morally discussion and it become a much more complex issue


in the current set-up, even private authority has to answer to state authority eventually. In the absence of state authority, how well private authority can function by itself is a concept that probably won't be solved based on any evidence as we're simply arguing hypotheticals.

It's just a thought to entertain.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Brah...
> 
> 
> J.K. Rowling wrote Harry Potter while living on welfare.....
> 
> This is a commonly known fact.
> 
> "Living in a cramped apartment with her daughter, jobless and penniless, Rowling fell into a deep depression and admits she even considered suicide. She was forced to rely on state benefits and spent much of her time writing “Harry Potter” in cafés with Jessica sleeping in the pram next to her."
> http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-rags-to-riches-story-of-jk-rowling-2015-5
> 
> Imagine a world where she had to work for all the money she needed to live on and never had any time to write?
> 
> And btw this is not an example that the American welfare system works, it doesn't, J.K. Rowling is British and was on the British welfare system which is much more generous.
> 
> Had she been American after the system was gutted by Bill Clinton, the one thing you will get me to rag on the Democrats for, Harry Potter never would have been created.


Brah... If welfare had anything to do with it everyone on welfare would achieve something. If she didn't have the drive, skill and motivation she would've jist been another drain on the economy like millions of people on welfare around the world.

I'm not anti welfare btw. I'm anti state enforced welfare where essentially people are forced to pay charity against their will. I'm pro charity as long as I have a personal choice. E.G. In Pakistan I didn't pay taxes for a while (just an odd situation), but instead I helped 3 poor children I thought were gifted. All 3 went on to become successful. One of them even managed to open up his own barber shop and all I did was buy him a chair and tools. 

Have you seen the amount of fantastic projects crowd funding has achieved? If welfare alone encouraged people to be better and do better this world would be a different place. By and large welfare encourages laziness and hence needs to be abolished and replaced with a culture of philanthropy.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Brah... If welfare had anything to do with it everyone on welfare would achieve something. If she didn't have the drive, skill and motivation she would've jist been another drain on the economy like millions of people on welfare around the world.
> 
> I'm not anti welfare btw. I'm anti state enforced welfare where essentially people are forced to pay charity against their will. I'm pro charity as long as I have a personal choice. E.G. In Pakistan I didn't pay taxes for a while (just an odd situation), but instead I helped 3 poor children I thought were gifted. All 3 went on to become successful. One of them even managed to open up his own barber shop and all I did was buy him a chair and tools.
> 
> Have you seen the amount of fantastic projects crowd funding has achieved? If welfare alone encouraged people to be better and do better this world would be a different place. By and large welfare encourages laziness and hence needs to be abolished and replaced with a culture of philanthropy.


We're gonna have to agree to disagree on welfare I think.

I just don't think those things should be left to the goodwill of others, I think they're fundamentally important both to society and the economy and something that important shouldn't be left to chance.

But I understand your perspective. I don't think it's crazy or anything, but I'll never agree.

I mean I was on welfare in Australia for a bit before I managed to score my first job, and it was a massive hassle, you have to apply for 20 jobs every week just to keep it, and you have to have constant meetings with people to discuss your job seeking efforts, basically every two weeks I had to make a massive trek to see someone, and it was barely any money, you could survive, but you weren't really comfortable, its nothing compared to minimum wage, at least not here, though our minimum wage is way higher than America's ($13.38US compared to$7.25).

Anyway the point is welfare needn't necessarily be a problem like that.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> We're gonna have to agree to disagree on welfare I think.
> 
> I just don't think those things should be left to the goodwill of others, I think they're fundamentally important both to society and the economy and something that important shouldn't be left to chance.
> 
> But I understand your perspective. I don't think it's crazy or anything, but I'll never agree.
> 
> I mean I was on welfare in Australia for a bit before I managed to score my first job, and it was a massive hassle, you have to apply for 20 jobs every week just to keep it, and you have to have constant meetings with people to discuss your job seeking efforts, basically every two weeks I had to make a massive trek to see someone, and it was barely any money, you could survive, but you weren't really comfortable, its nothing compared to minimum wage, at least not here, though I minimum wage is way higher than America's ($13.38US compared to$7.25).
> 
> Anyway the point is welfare needn't necessarily be a problem like that.


If you can find a way to institute social welfare without mandated tax under the threat of incarceration so be it. 

Did you know that Chruches in America which cost upwards of 71 billion or more in taxes in the states on donations that they are also not held accountable for at all either and are exempt from taxes meanwhile an average joe will be sent to jail for not paying a few grand? Fuck this shit. Fuck the government and fuck mandated taxes when they're built on a hypocritical system. 

Fuck Australia too because they have a similar system with regards to churches. 

If people can be conned into giving money to the so-called representative of an imaginary sky fairy, then they can be encouraged to give charity as well. You want social welfare. Get the fucking churches and religious institutions to empty their coffers. Not people who actually work hard for their money and contribute something positive to the world through their innovation and entrepreneurship.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> If you can find a way to institute social welfare without mandated tax under the threat of incarceration so be it.
> 
> Did you know that Chruches in America which cost upwards of 71 billion or more in taxes in the states on donations that they are also not held accountable for at all either and are exempt from taxes meanwhile an average joe will be sent to jail for not paying a few grand? Fuck this shit. Fuck the government and fuck mandated taxes when they're built on a hypocritical system.
> 
> Fuck Australia too because they have a similar system with regards to churches.
> 
> If people can be conned into giving money to the so-called representative of an imaginary sky fairy, then they can be encouraged to give charity as well. You want social welfare. Get the fucking churches and religious institutions to empty their coffers. Not people who actually work hard for their money and contribute something positive to the world through their innovation and entrepreneurship.



I too am outraged by religious institutions not paying tax.

Also I don't support tax under threat of incarceration.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> I too am outraged by religious institutions not paying tax.
> 
> Also I don't support tax under threat of incarceration.


^That's what the tax system is in America. Tax Evasion is a felony with a 2-5 year prison sentence. 

It's funny how religious institutions amass more wealth now simply on donations alone than they ever did in the past when people used to revolt and make changes to limit their power.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> If people can be conned into giving money to the so-called representative of an *imaginary sky fairy*, then they can be encouraged to give charity as well. You want social welfare. Get the fucking churches and religious institutions to empty their coffers.


Sometimes, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Other times... nail on the head, buddy. Nail on the head.

:applause


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

We interrupt this debate on the welfare state to bring to you the moderators of this year's presidential debates...courtesy of Politico. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Commission names moderators for presidential debates*
*By HADAS GOLD 09/02/16 09:29 AM EDT*


NBC's Lester Holt, ABC's Martha Raddatz, CNN's Anderson Cooper, Fox News' Chris Wallace and CBS' Elaine Quijano will moderate presidential and vice presidential debates this fall, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced on Friday.

Holt, anchor of NBC's "Nightly News,” will moderate the first debate at Hofstra University in New York on Sept. 26, which will be a traditional debate divided into six segments of 15 minutes each on major topics to be determined by Holt.

Quijano, an anchor on CBS' live streaming service CBSN, will moderate the vice presidential debate on Oct. 4 at Longwood University in Virginia, which will be a traditional debate as well — divided into nine timed segments of 10 minutes each.

Raddatz, ABC's Chief Global Correspondent and co-anchor of "This Week,” along with CNN anchor Cooper, will moderate a town-meeting style debate on Oct. 9 at Washington University in St. Louis. There, the questions will be posed directly by citizen participants made up of uncommitted voters based on topics "of broad public interest as reflected in social media and other sources." 
 
Wallace, host of "Fox News Sunday,” will become the first Fox News host to moderate a general election debate since the network's founding. He will host the final presidential debate on Oct. 19 at the University of Nevada Las Vegas. The format of the final debate will be the same as the first.

"The CPD has a simple mission, to ensure that presidential debates help the public learn about the positions of the leading candidate for president and vice-president," CPD co-chairs Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry said. "These format will allow an in-depth exploration of the major topics in this year's election." 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We now return you to our debate, already in progress.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> ^That's what the tax system is in America. Tax Evasion is a felony with a 2-5 year prison sentence.
> 
> It's funny how religious institutions amass more wealth now simply on donations alone than they ever did in the past when people used to revolt and make changes to limit their power.


Same here, I'm ok with that though, incarceration for lying to the gov about how much you earn is different to incarceration for owing a debt to the gov, which I would oppose. 

Tax evasion is cheating the rest of the population. 

And totally, as L Ron Hubbard used to say, the real money is in religion.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> "The CPD has a simple mission, to ensure that presidential debates help the public learn about the positions of the leading candidate for president and vice-president," CPD co-chairs Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry said. "These format will allow an in-depth exploration of the major topics in this year's election."
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Through the lenses of the two major parties that control the CPD, anyway. :mj


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

No Megyn Kelly. No buys :draper2


Alkomesh2 said:


> Same here, I'm ok with that though, incarceration for lying to the gov about how much you earn is different to incarceration for owing a debt to the gov, which I would oppose.
> 
> Tax evasion is cheating the rest of the population.
> 
> And totally, as L Ron Hubbard used to say, the real money is in religion.


Real money is only in religion because people would rather tax poor farmers than a motherfucking sky fairy.

If you really want to end religion's influence from this world. Tax it. Let's see how long it lasts.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So Hillary didn't know that C stood for classified in her emails? Perhaps this should be her new theme.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Sure she did. It was an alphabetizing system. She was so sure about it, she didn't bother asking why only the C was the only letter ever to show up.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump supporters who view Trump as the candidate against money in politics, how do you feel about his campaign hiring David Bossie as deputy campaign manager?


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://www.minds.com/blog/view/607686044069933066


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/771874124884905984
:done

http://www.mediaite.com/election-20...told-the-fbi-she-couldnt-remember-something/?

:done :done


----------



## SpeedStick

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Wikileaks Has Info That Sanders Only Endorsed Hillary Out Of Fear For His Life

http://usuncut.news/2016/08/31/wikileaks-founder-just-revealed-why-sanders-really-dropped-out/


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary threatening to start World War 3 over unproven Russia hacks. :done Where's the main stream press at on this? 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/771753080752930816


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



SpeedStick said:


> Wikileaks Has Info That Sanders Only Endorsed Hillary Out Of Fear For His Life
> 
> http://usuncut.news/2016/08/31/wikileaks-founder-just-revealed-why-sanders-really-dropped-out/


BM posted a picture of Bernie that showed him have a cut and bruise on his face at the DMC. I was thinking that this was the case, no SS agents for him and even if there were the Clintons have ways to get around them seeing how Bill met with the FBI director during the investigation. Bernie was probably threatened, hasn't there been 3 deaths linked to the DMC email leaks now?


Unrelated there should be taxes on Religion, no person's paycheck should be taxed to pay for someone who doesn't work. If you want to tax me, fine but let me choose where that money goes, I'll pay for schools and roads but not to welfare or helping illegals and lazy people. Fuck that.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Hillary threatening to start World War 3 over unproven Russia hacks. :done Where's the main stream press at on this?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/771753080752930816


Excuse me while I laughed at this desperate straw clutching at media bias while showcasing their own. :lol

Tell me what would be the appropriate action if another nation launches a state sanctioned cyber attack on America? Did she not mention political and economic responses in addition to a military response?

One nominee refuse to take nukes off the table when asked about military action. Another gave a legitimate course of action about national security. :lol

Maybe the alt-right is just projecting what they see in their Trump onto everyone else's words.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> http://www.mediaite.com/election-20...told-the-fbi-she-couldnt-remember-something/?
> 
> :done :done





> Clinton could not recall...


 ad infinitum 

:chan

So, at this point, my question is: where is the court-ordered psychological evaluation to determine if she's legally competent? Would also be interested in seeing some neurological records, complete with MRI.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



SpeedStick said:


> Wikileaks Has Info That Sanders Only Endorsed Hillary Out Of Fear For His Life
> 
> http://usuncut.news/2016/08/31/wikileaks-founder-just-revealed-why-sanders-really-dropped-out/


I don't think we're living in a society where if someone running for control of government makes an open threat on someone's life and it's obvious that that person would actually not be able to find protection. 

America may have had its liberties curtailed by the oligarchy, but the idea that one candidate can physically threaten another and actually get away with it is absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.mediaite.com/online/mill...-trump-children-gets-instant-twitter-mockery/

How tone deaf is the campaign? -_-


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Bernie is not being threatened

He is old as fuck and two or three phone calls would annihilate the Democrat party if it came out 

Hilary is not going to start World War 3, there is no reason to do so, no benefit and nothing to gain

"Experts" have been saying WW3 is starting soon since 1946

I know you guys do not like Hilary but don't pretend she is a mentally challenge hell spawn, she knows what she is doing, its if agree or not 

I hate this stupid ass "If you don't agree with me you are either so stupid that you can not see that I am right or are disagreeing to be EVIL!!!!" that the current voter has

I respect the politicians more because at least they know how to shape that hatred to their benefit instead of trying to start "DA INTERNET RVOLUTIONZOMG"


----------



## Well Well Well

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump winning would be great just for the sight of hundreds of thousands of soft American cucks bawling their eyes out the next day. Like the lefties and Brexit


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> https://www.minds.com/blog/view/607686044069933066


This is a fantastic piece, especially pointing out the brainwashing there is with the "third-party" moniker which essentially suggests that there are only 2 real legitimate parties to choose from.

Amazing how much foresight John Adams had on the damage a two party system would have on the US, two parties whose mainstream ideology and politicians are two sides of the same coin.

The Green Party and Libertarian candidates this time around may not be great in my opinion but the points still very much stand.





CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/771874124884905984
> :done
> 
> http://www.mediaite.com/election-20...told-the-fbi-she-couldnt-remember-something/?
> 
> :done :done


Unbelievable. The look on the reporters face is priceless :lmao. Media types on the left are trying so desperately to protect Hillary and yet are finding it more and more difficult to do so.

Peter Schiff made a fantastic point saying that back in the day Richard Nixon had resigned over much less than what Hillary has been found out to be doing BEFORE the election. Yet the bar has been lowered so much that they are allowing Hillary to get away with it. If that doesn't show that the entire establishment is on the side of Clinton then I don't know what does.

Baring in mind I feel as though Nixon might be the worst president in US history (Watergate, Bretton Woods, The War on Drugs etc.) and I'm agreeing with Schiff. That is pretty fucking scary.



SpeedStick said:


> Wikileaks Has Info That Sanders Only Endorsed Hillary Out Of Fear For His Life
> 
> http://usuncut.news/2016/08/31/wikileaks-founder-just-revealed-why-sanders-really-dropped-out/


I don't buy the Sanders was threatened with his life story, especially considering he could turn it over to any media outlet and the story would be shifted within hours. Especially with the rise of alternative media, the story could be put out and millions of people could see what is happening without even sharing it amongst their friends and family. Unless Sanders is that out of touch and illeterate with technology.

What I'm more interested in is the email leaks which tie Hillary even further with funding of Islamic State and the information on the Clinton Foundation. I really hope it's as damaging as what he claims it is.



CamillePunk said:


> Hillary threatening to start World War 3 over unproven Russia hacks. :done Where's the main stream press at on this?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/771753080752930816


Someone in this thread asked what is Hillary supposed to do in this type of situation and whilst he may be right to a certain extent (though I don't see how war is the first option, too many neo-con's have this shoot first, ask questions later polcy. Whatever happened to military action being a last resort?!) what we have seen and heard from Hillary in the past as well as what we see in this video scares the hell out of me.

This is the same woman who believes the wikileaks of her email scandal was a Russian Spy attack (Assange and Wikileaks are Russian now? :lol.) and on a national speech claimed that Breitbart and the Alt-Right are being funded and created by Vladimir Putin with no evidence to back it up :done.

Not to mention she was the main advocate for the wars in Libya and Syria, bragged about taking Gaddafi's life and in the last election cycle blatantly threatened war with Iran. Are people really that naive that a war hawk with that much history wouldn't threaten war with Russia? Even if she wouldn't go through with it and there is a good chance she wouldn't, it unnecessarily escalates tensions with Russia at a time where relations with Russia are at the worst they have been since the height of the Cold War.

At a time where the US needs a leader that is strong but also has good calm judgement we get Hillary Clinton as the democratic nominee. Says everything really.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

People seem to find it hard to believe that Sanders is just another politician who will sacrifice his principles to play team sports. Considering his entire campaign was based on promising a bunch of free stuff he knew would never materialize (to an even greater degree than every politician does this), I don't find it so hard to believe. People kept calling him the Left's Ron Paul, and he proved himself to be much, much less than that.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Been absent from this thread for a good long while as I would like to still respond to a conversation from almost a month ago between @L-DOPA and @Tater about big business/big government along with so many other issues raised here, but for right now the more pressing matter is the point of whether Hillary Clinton is simply an iniquitous, pathological liar or if the conspiracy theories of her deteriorating health are, in fact, based on the very real points of her being unable to perform her job, as is her defense concerning the mildly warm water in which she finds presently finds herself.

One thing about the Clintons, for all of their slickness, for all of their graft, corruption, everything... They're honestly not particularly convincing liars, for lying all the time (which is what they do, let's all be honest with one another here, at least). 

How cliched, for instance, is it that every major "dump" of Hillary emails takes place on the Friday before an American holiday weekend? :lmao This is almost too hilarious to even be angry about anymore. First "dump": May 22, 2015, 296 of Hillary's emails are released. December 31, 2015, the eighth batch with many goodies concerning Hillary's knowledge of the roaming death squads of Libya following Qaddafi's ouster, with 3,079 emails released. July 2, 2016, once again, as the FBI sits down with Hillary--probably to get their stories matching, as Hillary's husband ensures that Loretta Lynch does what she is supposed to do. And now, again, on September 2, 2016. :lmao 

Let us please not forget the inconvenient point that Loretta Lynch played a pivotal role in delivering the sweetheart deal to HSBC bank in 2012. HSBC bank was caught laundering money for some of the biggest and most violent drug cartels. Lynch was the U.S. attorney from New York who slapped HSBC bank with a fine that equaled approximately 35 business days' worth of profits for HSBC bank, with no one going to jail. James Comey was a member of the board of HSBC bank when the money laundering for cartels was taking place. To their credit, I suppose, the one thing the Clintons always know about the people investigating them is what they may be able to use against them if necessary. 

Hillary says she cannot remember giving staff direction to create a private email account; she cannot remember who had access to her Blackberry account; she cannot remember the process for deleting her emails; she cannot remember the State Department ever giving her training in how email policy was conducted; anyone but Huma Abedin being offered a private email account on the server; receiving no fewer than three dozen updates from Bryan Pagliano on the updates to her server; an October 13, 2012 email concerning policy in Egypt with her friend Sidney Blumenthal; Jacob Sullivan using private email; ever receiving a message that her email storage was almost full; every last briefing she received after sustaining her concussion, the severity of which allowed her to only work for four hours a day as she herself admitted years ago; any and all details of State Department protocol for confirming classified information in media reports; being read out of her clearance; any further access to her private email account from her State Department tenure after she switched to her HRCoffice.com account. 

She did not know what the "(C)" meant at the beginning of paragraphs which indicated that what followed was classified information. :lmao She did not consider that information pertaining to drone strikes in Pakistan among other locations were among the myriad instances of "classified information." Hillary told FBI agents two months ago that she thought the classified "(C)" markings were simply a way to put paragraphs in alphabetical order. This does not strain credulity--it shatters it. Either Hillary is profoundly incompetent, or a pitiful liar and fount of brazen obfuscation. 

Meanwhile, of the 154 people who communicated with Hillary via phone, or in a personal meeting during her first two years as Secretary of State, no fewer than 85 of them made contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Taken together, those contributions totaled a little more than $156 million. 40 of the 85 delivered at least $100,000 to the Clintons' foundation. 20 of those whom Hillary met with or phoned provided the Clintons with $1 million or more. A Bangladeshi economist who had been under investigation by his government for several years before, finally, being strong-armed to leave his very own bank, and one of the richest Ukrainian oligarchs, a steel magnate who had shipped oil pipe to Tehran, Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions were among the considerable forces meeting Hillary. 

Why any of this surprises anyone is the most outstanding surprise of all. Bill Clinton used one of his final presidential pardons on January 20, 2001, to pardon the extraordinarily unscrupulous financier and fugitive from justice Marc Rich. Rich's wife had just so happened to have contributed $450,000 to the Clinton Library. Obviously a coincidence. 

The one thing you cannot find in these emails thus far? Any references to yoga, which Hillary said was one of the major subjects of these emails. No fewer than 2,000--and probably at least 2,100--of the emails qualify as being "classified information." Hillary told us that there was no classified information in the emails many months ago, however. Was she lying? 

Hillary's primary confidante and closest aide at the State Department, Huma Abedin, contacted Doug Band at the Clinton Foundation many times as these leaked emails reveal. This has engendered yet another fascinating point of investigation. 

Does Hillary know what she is doing? Or, as she claimed to FBI agents, did her concussion leave a lasting legacy of an inability to remember the details of almost any question hurled toward her? 

Should she become president, a special prosecutor will likely be seeking the answers to those questions, atop all of the answers Madame Clinton refuses to provide in the first place. It's a Clinton White House tradition, after all.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Can always trust BASED @DesolationRow for a great, articulate post with facts :banderas.

Considering I was ignorant of Bill Clinton's corruption until this election cycle (I've known about Hillary's for a fair few years), am I forgiven considering I'm not American and am just an interested British bystander? :lol.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

 Thank you for the kind words, @L-DOPA.

Now, that said, I see you appear to be looking for a pardon.

Better get things in motion through a private message; you're going to need to pay up. :mj


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Thank you for the kind words, @L-DOPA.
> 
> Now, that said, I see you appear to be looking for a pardon.
> 
> Better get things in motion through a private message; you're going to need to pay up. :mj


God dammit you caught me out! :lmao.

How dare you try and get money out of me sir, I find that very deplorable and criminal :mj


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> God dammit you caught me out! :lmao.
> 
> How dare you try and get money out of me sir, I find that very deplorable and criminal :mj


LOL...American way, though. 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/03/politics/donald-trump-black-voters-detroit/index.html

Yes, I know it's from the Communist News Network, but this was a good move on Trump's part. Rather than just sitting down with the minister for an interview and calling it good, he sat and listened to the congregation and sounded very presidential in speaking to them. 

This is the type of thing he needs to do if he wants to convert voters to him. Some say he's softening, this is called being a leader.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump campaign is in a great place right now. Trump is mostly avoiding landmines of controversy while making bold steps in outreach to minorities and foreign leaders. He's acting like he's already the president, which is great. Meanwhile Hillary has been re-cast as the one sitting on the sidelines hurling personal attacks while being neck-deep in scandals, reacting to Trump's moves rather than making her own. The polls have also been trending Trump's way, and I think they'll continue to if they keep this strategy up. He should've been doing this a lot longer than he has (this should've been his approach the moment Ted Cruz dropped out) though, so hopefully it's not too late in the game.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://theconservativetreehouse.co...e-bishop-jackson-remarks-to-trump-in-detroit/


so why did this happen?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-staff-idUSKCN1181CV

Trump ain't going to pay the America people.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/03/politics/mark-burns-donald-trump-interview/

Oops. Only hire the best people.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't know why, but I got a chuckle out of this





If anything, its less negative than most ads


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-staff-idUSKCN1181CV
> 
> Trump ain't going to pay the America people.
> 
> http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/03/politics/mark-burns-donald-trump-interview/
> 
> Oops. Only hire the best people.


You post a Reuters article after what they pulled today? :sleep


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> I don't know why, but I got a chuckle out of this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anything, its less negative than most ads


This is actually adorable.

Omegle (yes that odd chatting site) has been promoting him on their front page for months, lmao.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> You post a Reuters article after what they pulled today? :sleep


What was wrong with the article? Or are Reuters only credible with their polling?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> What was wrong with the article? Or are Reuters only credible with their polling?


At this point nearly all polling is doctored, but if you call Breitbart in Trump's corner you cannot tell me that by Reuters isn't in Hilldabeasts by the same token. Not after the stunt they pulled.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Oooh!

So...THIS just happened: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8egbiIsQBGid1JLQ0xWbUFTUTQ/edit


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump's support is slowly but surely going up in Florida. 

Recently, the local county sheriff who is pretty universally beloved came out in full support of him and Trump's Campaign also opened up a Trump campaign office.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If Trump can get working class Blacks and Hispanics on his side then he has a very good chance of winning. Working class Blacks/Hispanics aren't BLM or the idiot illegals attacking Trump supporters. They're not all one hive mind like the media loves to portray them as. Unite the working class and he'll have done something Obama pretty much destroyed and that was unity. If he does this the Democrats are fucking doomed, especially with the emails. 

I'm hoping if this is done then next election cycle we can possibly get a working class/libertarian lite third party. Let the Republicans and Democrats flounder! 

We need another party, one that says working people shouldn't have to pay for someone who doesn't work!

Think we can get any of the Hilary lurkers to respond to Drow's post?


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> *At this point nearly all polling is doctored*, but if you call Breitbart in Trump's corner you cannot tell me that by Reuters isn't in Hilldabeasts by the same token. Not after the stunt they pulled.


Here we go again....

How?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> At this point nearly all polling is doctored, but if you call Breitbart in Trump's corner you cannot tell me that by Reuters isn't in Hilldabeasts by the same token. Not after the stunt they pulled.


Are you telling me polls showing the race is tightening is doctored? You can question their methodology for not being accurate but doctored? :lol

Didn't you cite Reuters a while back for anti-Hilary lulz? How many times can you cite Breitbart by the same token with regards to Trump? 

I'm not a diehard Hillary supporter like you are for Trump. I'm choosing the lesser of two evils here. Much like I prefer Trump over Ted Cruz in the primaries. I've said during or after the DNC that this is Trump's to lose as Hillary has not given non-supporters a reason to vote for her. And anti-Hillary democrats have largely tuned out thus far. Anti-Trump Republicans on the other hand are desperately searching for an excuse to vote for him. This very thread is a reflection on that.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Are you telling me polls showing the race is tightening is doctored? You can question their methodology for not being accurate but doctored? :lol
> 
> Didn't you cite Reuters a while back for anti-Hilary lulz? How many times can you cite Breitbart by the same token with regards to Trump?
> 
> I'm not a diehard Hillary supporter like you are for Trump. I'm choosing the lesser of two evils here. Much like I prefer Trump over Ted Cruz in the primaries. I've said during or after the DNC that this is Trump's to lose as Hillary has not given non-supporters a reason to vote for her. And anti-Hillary democrats have largely tuned out thus far. Anti-Trump Republicans on the other hand are desperately searching for an excuse to vote for him. This very thread is a reflection on that.


Perhaps I did, but they recently have outed themselves as Hill plants after they outright changed their polling data when Trump was ahead. At this point even pro-Trump polls aren't to be trusted too much. If anything the only poll I go by is right now the LA times one. Yes it has Trump ahead at this point, but it's been largely up and down over the last few ones released. It's been pretty fluid.

As for Breitbart, you need to re-evaluate what I said: If you call Breitbart in Trump's corner you must do the same with Reuters for hill after what they pulled and how they're lying about what happened. When I link to BB, you can see what their source is. Again, you can argue that the same goes with Reuters but if you aren't going to cut BB any slack despite that, why should you for them?

Or have you not kept up with what the media are doing?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> If Trump can get working class Blacks and Hispanics on his side then he has a very good chance of winning. Working class Blacks/Hispanics aren't BLM or the idiot illegals attacking Trump supporters. They're not all one hive mind like the media loves to portray them as. Unite the working class and he'll have done something Obama pretty much destroyed and that was unity. If he does this the Democrats are fucking doomed, especially with the emails.
> 
> I'm hoping if this is done then next election cycle we can possibly get a working class/libertarian lite third party. Let the Republicans and Democrats flounder!
> 
> We need another party, one that says working people shouldn't have to pay for someone who doesn't work!
> 
> Think we can get any of the Hilary lurkers to respond to Drow's post?


I think the working class is the one that's actually willing to pay for someone else. Historically the working class has donated more of their earnings as a percentagr and that holds up today as well.

Trump doesn't need to even divide his campaign along racial lines at all. Stop talking about it. Don't ignore the issues of each segment of your population but just stop dividing it along racial lines.

Unfortunately even if he does want to stop talking about race at this point the Brietbart group is going to find a way to sneak it in because they're obsessed.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Even Hispanics surrogates for Trump resigned after his speech in Arizona, he's not getting Hispanic vote if his strongest policy is a wall and deportations, even Obama is unpopular among hispanics thanks to his immigrations policies. Among Blacks the history isn't much different he's polling between 0% and 2% currently (if you do the confidence interval it must be little bit better).

If you play demos, Romney got 6% among african americans and 27% among hispanics (http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/), Given that is pretty obvious Trump is going to do much worse among Latinos than Romney and Romney still lost, if he wants to compensate the latinos effect with Blacks (and given that a republican needs at least 15% among african americans to win) i suppose he needs at worst something like 20% of support in that demo, which is almost a statistical miracle with two months of campaign to not say impossible.

Even worse, the biggest turnout this two past elections has been among Black women voters, both key demos in which Trumps is severely underperfoming.

I'm impressed that Trump isn't reaching asians given that they're the second raising demo behind hispanics in America, specially with his immigration policies, he could build there a solid support that compensate for his negatives with other minorities. And yet he's hasn't done anything and as a result his image with this group is also poor. Same with women

At this rate, even when polling is regressing to normal levels, Trumps is facing an scenery where could even be that debates don't matter



Beatles123 said:


> Perhaps I did, but they recently have outed themselves as Hill plants after they outright changed their polling data when Trump was ahead. At this point even pro-Trump polls aren't to be trusted too much.* If anything the only poll I go by is right now the LA times one. Yes it has Trump ahead at this point, but it's been largely up and down over the last few ones released. It's been pretty fluid.*


How is that a sign of more accurate polling?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Perhaps I did, but they recently have outed themselves as Hill plants after they outright changed their polling data when Trump was ahead. At this point even pro-Trump polls aren't to be trusted too much. If anything the only poll I go by is right now the LA times one. Yes it has Trump ahead at this point, but it's been largely up and down over the last few ones released. It's been pretty fluid.
> 
> As for Breitbart, you need to re-evaluate what I said: If you call Breitbart in Trump's corner you must do the same with Reuters for hill after what they pulled and how they're lying about what happened. When I link to BB, you can see what their source is. Again, you can argue that the same goes with Reuters but if you aren't going to cut BB any slack despite that, why should you for them?
> 
> Or have you not kept up with what the media are doing?


Of course the only poll that matters for you is the one that has Trump ahead. Thank god i dont post in this thread anymore, I see nothing has changed in here .

Polls are all meaningless at this point that are polling nationally, the only polls that matter are the polls in the battle ground states.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Perhaps I did, but they recently have outed themselves as Hill plants after they outright changed their polling data when Trump was ahead. At this point even pro-Trump polls aren't to be trusted too much. If anything the only poll I go by is right now the LA times one. Yes it has Trump ahead at this point, but it's been largely up and down over the last few ones released. It's been pretty fluid.
> 
> As for Breitbart, you need to re-evaluate what I said: If you call Breitbart in Trump's corner you must do the same with Reuters for hill after what they pulled and how they're lying about what happened. When I link to BB, you can see what their source is. Again, you can argue that the same goes with Reuters but if you aren't going to cut BB any slack despite that, why should you for them?
> 
> Or have you not kept up with what the media are doing?


I only remember them changing their polling method by excluding 'neither' as an option after Trump made a 17 point difference within a few weeks with no significant event other than the RNC a while back. Don't remember anything about changing of data.

You go by LA times poll implying you trust their polls. Is it because it favours Trump or because you believe their methodology is more sound? 

Why is the polls being up and down a sign that the poll is better?

Because Reuters is more reputable than Breitbart at this point? How many reputable media cite BB's report? How many reuters reports does BB cite?

Or have you been stuck in your echo chamber to not realize you are being duped by Fox 2.0?


----------



## WWE Fan5363

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Michael Moore says that Trump gonna win and he always guessed right about elections, so it's offical Trump is the new president.


http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump has zero chance at winning. Its not even going to be close.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump has a chance to win if Hillary's reputation keep getting worse and democrats don't go to the polls.

Here's why Trump will more likely start a conflict than Hillary.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/04/sheena-monnin-donald-trump-miss-usa-lawsuit

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/09...an-party-trashing-arizona-sen-jeff-flake.html

Disagree with Trump and he will make your life a living hell just because he can. For all the talk about Hillary not doing press conferences as a campaign strategy, Trump has banned almost every outlet that is critical of him from attending his.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump has zero chance at winning. Its not even going to be close.


tbf, I've been saying that since the day he announced his candidacy.


----------



## KingCannabis

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I think this will be the only post I make in this thread...

http://sputniknews.com/us/20160905/1044962300/hillary-press-fundraising-billionaires.html


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

You know that unpopular kid who gets extremely excited if he gets picked second last instead of last?

Well that's kind of what Gary Johnson sounds like right now.


----------



## virus21

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Reaper said:


> You know that unpopular kid who gets extremely excited if he gets picked second last instead of last?
> 
> Well that's kind of what Gary Johnson sounds like right now.


Hey, a third candidate getting any attention is cause to brag


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump has zero chance at winning. Its not even going to be close.


I reckon it's still too early to call tbh, though it's still looking like Hilary will win



Miss Sally said:


> If Trump can get working class Blacks and Hispanics on his side then he has a very good chance of winning. Working class Blacks/Hispanics aren't BLM or the idiot illegals attacking Trump supporters. They're not all one hive mind like the media loves to portray them as. Unite the working class and he'll have done something Obama pretty much destroyed and that was unity.



Yes. 

Unite the workers.

For the candidate who's economic policy (from his own website) is to lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15% for the largest corporations and lower the top tax rate for wealthy individuals

He's going to unite the workers behind that policy platform.

Because what every worker really wants is for their employer to be given a tax break. 

Goodluck.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Double posted by accident, soz


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Unite the workers.
> 
> For the candidate who's economic policy (from his own website) is to lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15% for the largest corporations and lower the top tax rate for wealthy individuals
> 
> He's going to unite the workers behind that policy platform.
> 
> Because what every worker really wants is for their employer to be given a tax break.
> 
> Goodluck.


That's a perfectly logical argument. You're forgetting something though. Namely, dumbass people without the intelligence to know or care about policy positions. There are still people out there who haven't figured out yet that trickle down economics is a scam. Crazy, I know. But they exist. And in large numbers.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> I reckon it's still too early to call tbh, though it's still looking like Hilary will win
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Unite the workers.
> 
> For the candidate who's economic policy (from his own website) is to lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15% for the largest corporations and lower the top tax rate for wealthy individuals
> 
> He's going to unite the workers behind that policy platform.
> 
> Because what every worker really wants is for their employer to be given a tax break.
> 
> Goodluck.



Yes but that's who he needs to unite under him to win. He's never going to get entire demographics voting for him, he's been talking about bringing jobs to people so he should stick with that. That's what his ticket is to victory, among avoiding unneeded drama and stupid shit. 

As for Hispanics, there are major differences between legal immigrated Hispanics, American born Hispanics and Illegal Hispanics, they're not all one hive mind. They also aren't going to be loud about if they'll vote or not or for who, we'll have to wait to see when the polls open. Many Hispanics wants a good immigration plan, nobody who came here after waiting years is going to really be on board with people just waltzing in with no vetting. The Democrats have pretty much torpedoed the Hispanic voters and Trump doesn't need all their votes, he just needs some to vote for him and many to avoid voting all together, which could easily happen.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

edit: meh, never mind.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Yes, because apparently if you're non-white, then you don't care about corruption and a criminal becoming the president of the united states ...

That said, this guy is actually a spot on representation of non-white thinking because if you look at the map of the world, some of the worst shitholes on earth are run by what would be considered minorities in the USA :shrug


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Yes, because apparently if you're non-white, then you don't care about corruption and a criminal becoming the president of the united states ...
> 
> That said, this guy is actually a spot on representation of non-white thinking because if you look at the map of the world, some of the worst shitholes on earth are run by what would be considered minorities in the USA :shrug


Who is this guy and why should we care about what he says? Also funny how he is supporting a woman that sees minorities as nothing more voting quotas.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Yes.
> 
> Unite the workers.
> 
> For the candidate who's economic policy (from his own website) is to lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15% for the largest corporations and lower the top tax rate for wealthy individuals
> 
> He's going to unite the workers behind that policy platform.
> 
> Because what every worker really wants is for their employer to be given a tax break.
> 
> Goodluck.


I'd say what every worker needs is a good, stable job that pays well. Good jobs come from successful businesses setting up shop in an area and hiring people. Stability comes from those business being able to remain adequately profitable where they setup shop--i.e. maximizing gains and minimizing losses. Thus, businesses are more likely to set up shop in a given area that offers a relatively competitive tax and regulatory environment. 

Or as the Tax Foundation puts it...


> The corporate income tax rate is one of many aspects of what makes a country’s tax code and economy attractive for investment. However, as the rest of the world’s economies mature and their tax rates on corporate income continue to decline, the United States risks losing its competitive edge due to its exceptionally high corporate income tax rate.


So, yes, corporate tax rate is a rather significant factor in the discussion. Especially when you take into account mutlinational earnings and the issue of repatriation. That's why it comes up rather persistently in discussions about the economy, particularly this year/cycle, given the dramatic rise in multinational offshore holdings (i.e. trillions of dollars not being reinvested due, in large part, to the financial hit they'd take if they did) that has taken place between 2008 and 2013.

I'm not sure why you seem to default to a position that finds a reduction of the corporate tax rates unreasonable, given that...



> The United States has the third highest general top marginal corporate income tax rate in the world at 39 percent, which is the same as Puerto Rico and is exceeded only by Chad and the United Arab Emirates.





> The worldwide average top corporate income tax rate (accounting for 173 countries and tax jurisdictions) is 22.9 percent, 29.8 percent weighted by GDP.





> The United States, with a combined top marginal tax rate of 39 percent (consisting of the federal tax rate of 35 percent plus the average tax rate among the states), has the third highest corporate income tax rate in the world, along with Puerto Rico. In contrast, the average across all 173 countries is 22.9 percent, or 29.8 percent weighted by gross domestic product.












I suspect most workers are more concerned with either finding good, stable employment, or their own tax rates (i.e. how much money they're losing out of every pay check), rather than sitting around and having fits about whether or not the corporate tax rate might be competitively lowered. 

This is not to say that Trump's particular proposals or numbers are ideal, or not, but it is certainly a discussion that needs to take place, and something certainly does need to be done regarding corporate tax rates. To suggest otherwise under the premise of being "pro-worker" is rather absurd. 

Generally speaking, workers and consumers will be the first ones to bear the brunt of losses a business is made to sustain, particularly when it comes to tax and regulatory burdens. The cost is passed on. The results tend to come in the form of increased prices and/or lower quality goods/services, stagnant wages, fewer benefits, and fewer jobs.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://gma.yahoo.com/major-virginia-newspaper-endorses-gary-johnson-president-020255456--abc-news-topstories.html
Hmmmm...


----------



## -Ace-

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> I'd say what every worker needs is a good, stable job that pays well. Good jobs come from successful businesses setting up shop in an area and hiring people. Stability comes from those business being able to remain adequately profitable where they setup shop--i.e. maximizing gains and minimizing losses. Thus, businesses are more likely to set up shop in a given area that offers a relatively competitive tax and regulatory environment.
> 
> Or as the Tax Foundation puts it...
> 
> 
> So, yes, corporate tax rate is a rather significant factor in the discussion. Especially when you take into account mutlinational earnings and the issue of repatriation. That's why it comes up rather persistently in discussions about the economy, particularly this year/cycle, given the dramatic rise in multinational offshore holdings (i.e. trillions of dollars not being reinvested due, in large part, to the financial hit they'd take if they did) that has taken place between 2008 and 2013.
> 
> I'm not sure why you seem to default to a position that finds a reduction of the corporate tax rates unreasonable, given that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect most workers are more concerned with either finding good, stable employment, or their own tax rates (i.e. how much money they're losing out of every pay check), rather than sitting around and having fits about whether or not the corporate tax rate might be competitively lowered.
> 
> This is not to say that Trump's particular proposals or numbers are ideal, or not, but it is certainly a discussion that needs to take place, and something certainly does need to be done regarding corporate tax rates. To suggest otherwise under the premise of being "pro-worker" is rather absurd.
> 
> Generally speaking, workers and consumers will be the first ones to bear the brunt of losses a business is made to sustain, particularly when it comes to tax and regulatory burdens. The cost is passed on. The results tend to come in the form of increased prices and/or lower quality goods/services, stagnant wages, fewer benefits, and fewer jobs.


Benefit of lower taxes is businesses get higher profits without having to cut jobs, not moving factories overseas and getting foreign companies to build here. Thank you for pointing this out, was going to earlier but my point was to simply get people who are 100% likely to vote to vote for you.


----------



## Ygor

Hillary doesn't look too healthy here. I wonder if she'll cough up a lung live on TV at the debates.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Choking on all them lies, no doubt.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Hillary doesn't look too healthy here. I wonder if she'll cough up a lung live on TV at the debates.



Stop with all these conspiracy theories. That woman is in perfectly good health...

:duck


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

New CNN poll has :trump up 2 points. Where are all the people saying a month ago that Hillary was going to win in a landslide and Trump was throwing the election on purpose? :mj

Starting to look like Hill-dog won't even make it to election day.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> I'd say what every worker needs is a good, stable job that pays well. Good jobs come from successful businesses setting up shop in an area and hiring people. Stability comes from those business being able to remain adequately profitable where they setup shop--i.e. maximizing gains and minimizing losses. Thus, businesses are more likely to set up shop in a given area that offers a relatively competitive tax and regulatory environment.
> 
> Or as the Tax Foundation puts it...
> 
> "The corporate income tax rate is one of many aspects of what makes a country’s tax code and economy attractive for investment. However, as the rest of the world’s economies mature and their tax rates on corporate income continue to decline, the United States risks losing its competitive edge due to its exceptionally high corporate income tax rate."
> 
> 
> So, yes, corporate tax rate is a rather significant factor in the discussion. Especially when you take into account mutlinational earnings and the issue of repatriation. That's why it comes up rather persistently in discussions about the economy, particularly this year/cycle, given the dramatic rise in multinational offshore holdings (i.e. trillions of dollars not being reinvested due, in large part, to the financial hit they'd take if they did) that has taken place between 2008 and 2013.
> 
> I'm not sure why you seem to default to a position that finds a reduction of the corporate tax rates unreasonable, given that...
> 
> "The United States has the third highest general top marginal corporate income tax rate in the world at 39 percent, which is the same as Puerto Rico and is exceeded only by Chad and the United Arab Emirates."
> 
> "The worldwide average top corporate income tax rate (accounting for 173 countries and tax jurisdictions) is 22.9 percent, 29.8 percent weighted by GDP."
> 
> "The United States, with a combined top marginal tax rate of 39 percent (consisting of the federal tax rate of 35 percent plus the average tax rate among the states), has the third highest corporate income tax rate in the world, along with Puerto Rico. In contrast, the average across all 173 countries is 22.9 percent, or 29.8 percent weighted by gross domestic product."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect most workers are more concerned with either finding good, stable employment, or their own tax rates (i.e. how much money they're losing out of every pay check), rather than sitting around and having fits about whether or not the corporate tax rate might be competitively lowered.
> 
> This is not to say that Trump's particular proposals or numbers are ideal, or not, but it is certainly a discussion that needs to take place, and something certainly does need to be done regarding corporate tax rates. To suggest otherwise under the premise of being "pro-worker" is rather absurd.
> 
> Generally speaking, workers and consumers will be the first ones to bear the brunt of losses a business is made to sustain, particularly when it comes to tax and regulatory burdens. The cost is passed on. The results tend to come in the form of increased prices and/or lower quality goods/services, stagnant wages, fewer benefits, and fewer jobs.


To be fair there is an argument to be made for cutting the corporate tax rate to an extent, and you've made it very well, even Obama has called for a reduction from 35% to 28%, and both McCain and Romney went to their respective elections calling for a reduction to 25%. But cutting it to 15% is radical af and goes far beyond a cut those arguments can justify, and no such arguments can be made for the cut to the top tax rate for individuals. Under both Reagan (who undid his) and Bush it was shown that tax cuts to the rich don't help grow the economy.

Trumps election will lead to workers being worse off comparative to their bosses, even more so than they already are.

Also income inequality is bad, there's a reason Bush's tax cuts hurt the economy, and Trump's will do the same.

Also lowering the corporate tax rate to match other countries is a mistake, as always happens, every other country will just lower their's again even further to restore the status quo and the only winners are the corporations.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

COPD?


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










CNN finally admitting Trump is in the lead. Are we in the Twilight Zone?

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> CNN finally admitting Trump is in the lead. Are we in the Twilight Zone?
> 
> - Vic


I see a John Cena redemption storyline in this somehow.

Also, them acknowledging the existence of the other two candidates :wow 

Maybe they realized that their credibility is shot the longer they align themselves with Hillary and trying to murky the waters by throwing in a few objective stories to sway public opinion. They have to stay in business after all.


----------



## Freelancer

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump has a lot better chance of winning than people think. 

There is one strange thing I noticed about this election. I live about an hour outside of Pittsburgh in a more rural area. Typically you see about a 50/50 split in the amount of political signs that you see in peoples yards. This election is totally different. There are Trump signs everywhere. I've honestly seen 2 Clinton signs, that's it. Not that it means anything, but I've never seen anything like that before.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

WOW!

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> New CNN poll has :trump up 2 points. Where are all the people saying a month ago that Hillary was going to win in a landslide and Trump was throwing the election on purpose? :mj
> 
> Starting to look like Hill-dog won't even make it to election day.


Trump was throwing the election on purpose until the Mercers got involved. :shrug

Better question is why are the polls not rigged now that Trump is in the lead according to some people?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump has zero chance at winning. Its not even going to be close.


Now you're fucked.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Freelancer said:


> Trump has a lot better chance of winning than people think.
> 
> There is one strange thing I noticed about this election. I live about an hour outside of Pittsburgh in a more rural area. Typically you see about a 50/50 split in the amount of political signs that you see in peoples yards. This election is totally different. There are Trump signs everywhere. I've honestly seen 2 Clinton signs, that's it. Not that it means anything, but I've never seen anything like that before.


Speaking of signs 






Skip to 1:28

:kobelol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






:kobelol :kobelol :kobelol


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> CNN finally admitting Trump is in the lead. Are we in the Twilight Zone?
> 
> - Vic












Interesting, but not too surprising when you think about it.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> :kobelol :kobelol :kobelol


He lost me a while ago, actually. Now I'm not sure I will vote in general (just may only vote at the local and state level). :shrug


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> Interesting, but not too surprising when you think about it.


That can't be real ... where's their ticker?


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The one thing I like about elections is we get tons of people who tiptoe around "we should murder the elite and give power back to the people!!" and then quickly add the "I'm not a communist" disclaimer

The political version of "I'm not a racist but..."


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> That can't be real ... where's their ticker?


It's real, and again, not all that surprising that Hillary is crushing it among single women while Trump is crushing it among married women.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/_poli...-vs-clinton-presidential-polls-election-2016/

He's also leading among independents with 49% to Clinton's 29%.

Hilariously, and entirely inexplicably, Clinton is beating him on foreign policy, and slightly on immigration. :chan

That makes absolutely no sense to me.

Meanwhile, Trump leads when it comes to economy and terrorism--IIRC these are the two leading issues in importance, generally.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> It's real, and again, not all that surprising that Hillary is crushing it among single women while Trump is crushing it among married women.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/_poli...-vs-clinton-presidential-polls-election-2016/
> 
> He's also leading among independents with 49% to Clinton's 29%.
> 
> Hilariously, and entirely inexplicably, Clinton is beating him on foreign policy, and slightly on immigration. :chan
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense to me.
> 
> Meanwhile, Trump leads when it comes to economy and terrorism--IIRC these are the two leading issues in importance, generally.


Seems like a classic uninformed replublican/democrat divide. Voters split on these issues even if their candidate is the exact opposite of what they want because they're programmed to believe that if they're a democrat or a republican then that means their candidates and party share their values.

My wife who was a pretty hardcore democrat has given up on her party this election because she actually read what it stands for now. I'm pretty sure the average person does not.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It kind of blows when you can't really decide (or don't want to decide) on a candidate to vote for while everyone else is throwing in their lot with someone even if that candidate doesn't necessarily line up with their views.

You feel kind of left out. :mj2


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> It kind of blows when you can't really decide (or don't want to decide) on a candidate to vote for while everyone else is throwing in their lot with someone even if that candidate doesn't necessarily line up with their views.
> 
> You feel kind of left out. :mj2


No you are being rational here. Clinton is epitome of an insider, absolutely corrupt and a pathological liar. Trump is insane and authoritarian (sorry Trump supporters, he is). Johnson has fallen completely off the wagon and is a shell of his former self and Stein like Bernie is horrendous when it comes to economic issues.

There are no real great candidates.

As far as the CNN polling goes @Sincere I'm not too surprised at the immigration polling as Trump's views comes across too extreme to many. Foreign policy though is a big what the fuck, I have absolutely no idea what sane rational normal person would feel like Clinton's foreign policy is anywhere near good or preferable.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> It kind of blows when you can't really decide (or don't want to decide) on a candidate to vote for while everyone else is throwing in their lot with someone even if that candidate doesn't necessarily line up with their views.
> 
> You feel kind of left out. :mj2


Just become a single issue voter, you will have so much more free time


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> It kind of blows when you can't really decide (or don't want to decide) on a candidate to vote for while everyone else is throwing in their lot with someone even if that candidate doesn't necessarily line up with their views.
> 
> You feel kind of left out. :mj2


You feel left out ... I'm a legal immigrant and I can't vote .. at least not legally :kobelol


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> You feel left out ... I'm a legal immigrant and I can't vote .. at least not legally :kobelol


You want me to cast the vote for you in your stead? :mj


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm British and in the UK....

I'm kinda irrelevant but I'm interested anyway :lol.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> You want me to cast the vote for you in your stead? :mj


You socialist. You're giving your vote away for free. You disgust me. 

:tripsscust


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> You socialist. You're giving your vote away for free. You disgust me.
> 
> :tripsscust


:hmm: You're right. I'm forgetting my capitalism for this venture.

I'll happily charge you for it, then. :subban


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Paul Joseph Watson with a brutal, thorough take-down of Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson (who more and more has adopted anti-libertarian policy positions): 






Knew about much of this already but had never seen that clip of him FLIPPING OUT like a triggered SJW over an interviewer using the term "illegal immigrant". :done

I'm also not too sure about PJW's contention that Gary is "taking away" votes from Trump. He seems to line up far more with this current incarnation of Hillary Clinton, to me. We'll see what happens once people realize he's not going to be in the debates, and as Gary himself has said, if he doesn't get into the debates then he has no chance of winning.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I'm also not too sure about PJW's contention that Gary is "taking away" votes from Trump. He seems to line up far more with this current incarnation of Hillary Clinton, to me. We'll see what happens once people realize he's not going to be in the debates, and as Gary himself has said, if he doesn't get into the debates then he has no chance of winning.


From what I understand about the recent comparative 4-way vs. 2-way polling that has been done, it seems like GJ, and to a lesser extent JS, are taking votes heavily from Clinton. They both lose some of their total percentages in 4-way polling, but Clinton tends to lose a lot more than Trump does, from what I've seen.

For instance:


















This was the story of the primary for Trump, too. The more people that were on the ballot, the better his results tended to be, IIRC. The size of the field of primary candidates from the GOP, and how several of them kept hanging on for dear life till the bitter end ultimately helped him clean up in the primary race.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Now you're fucked.


How am I fucked exactly?

Also doesn't Trump and his supporters claim all polls are rigged. So I guess this poll is rigged too right? Guess you cant count it


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:chan










I'm not sure I even want to know...


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Paul Joseph Watson with a brutal, thorough take-down of Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson (who more and more has adopted anti-libertarian policy positions):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knew about much of this already but had never seen that clip of him FLIPPING OUT like a triggered SJW over an interviewer using the term "illegal immigrant". :done
> 
> I'm also not too sure about PJW's contention that Gary is "taking away" votes from Trump. He seems to line up far more with this current incarnation of Hillary Clinton, to me. We'll see what happens once people realize he's not going to be in the debates, and as Gary himself has said, if he doesn't get into the debates then he has no chance of winning.


It's actually depressing what Gary Johnson has turned into. To think that I used to admire him and thought he was a sane libertarian politician albeit a bit more moderate than say Ron Paul was or what Austin Peterson is. But I thought at one point the guy seemed like someone I could get behind in an election if say Rand Paul didn't get the traction needed. I'm getting proven wrong seemingly at every turn.

Unbelievable destruction but then again can you expect any less from Paul Joseph Watson?

If you look down at the comment section, even Dave Rubin has voiced his displeasure. If you don't know he runs a YT channel called the Rubin Report and is heavily against the SJW culture. He was originally going to vote for Johnson, I'm sure he is having 2nd thoughts now.

PJW's final comments could not be anymore accurate: There's never been a set of major candidates who are so unpopular in American history. If there was ever a year for a proper Libertarian politician to gain major sway and traction for the political philosophy that I largely adhere to, this would be it. Instead we get someone who I would now say is not even a libertarian.

This is such a huge missed opportunity in my opinion.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Yeah, Johnson has been disappointing.

Literally no idea who I'm going to vote for now...


----------



## TheMenace

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> Yeah, Johnson has been disappointing.
> 
> Literally no idea who I'm going to vote for now...


I'd be curious to know what the Libertarian party would be polling at now if Ron Paul was still its candidate.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> :chan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I even want to know...


What the hell?


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



TheMenace said:


> I'd be curious to know what the Libertarian party would be polling at now if Ron Paul was still its candidate.


The Neo-Confederate thing isn't something he'd be able to stray away from tbh


----------



## TheMenace

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> What the hell?


Proof that she's a shapeshifting lizard!!!


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> The Neo-Confederate thing isn't something he'd be able to stray away from tbh


Where actual libertarianism is concerned, Johnson isn't even fit to shine Ron Paul's shoes.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> How am I fucked exactly?
> 
> Also doesn't Trump and his supporters claim all polls are rigged. So I guess this poll is rigged too right? Guess you cant count it


Because you just made the biggest mistake anyone in this whole election regardless of their candidate could ever make...

You spoke in absolutes.

Now you have to own it if or when Trump wins.

Has this election taught you NOTHING? weren't you a staunch Bernie supporter who claimed he was fighting for you like he had the hopes and dreams of little tiny kittens supporting him? Absolutely sure that he was going to usher in the will of the common man?

Don't do this to yourself.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> What the hell?


Looks like she's ejecting phlegm she collected in her mouth into the glass.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Looks like she's ejecting phlegm she collected in her mouth into the glass.


Ok, now I am grossed out. And that doesn't seem to indicate good health.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Could it be cough drops?

Cab't get a good look but the objects look round.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Ok, now I am grossed out. And that doesn't seem to indicate good health.


Probably just a temporary cold or bronchitis that'll be gone soon. Nothing life threatening or anything like that.

I had that once as result of chain-smoking. And I would have fits that would cause me to vomit as well. Went away after a few weeks of treatment. 

However it can happen to non smokers too.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Temporary? Reports of her coughing fits have been around since at least march. This is the worst one seen on camera.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Sweenz said:


> Temporary? Reports of her coughing fits have been around since at least march. This is the worst one seen on camera.


Interesting. Mine lasted about 8 months but 6 of those were untreated. 

Could be anything really. Am just putting out a possibility.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> New CNN poll has :trump up 2 points. Where are all the people saying a month ago that Hillary was going to win in a landslide and Trump was throwing the election on purpose? :mj
> 
> Starting to look like Hill-dog won't even make it to election day.



http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Keep in mind this is a Conservative model compared to some that have Hillary odds over 95%, but i trust Silver's Model thanks to the fact that over the two last national elections he has been wrong in just one State, that means, 99 of 100 predictions.

If i want to predict the real result of the election i would follow this, because is a model based on the combinations of polls (meaning a prediction based on the sample distribution) and rate the weights of polls based in their quality and history of correct predictions, instead of just one poll

This could easily keep turning, Trump has raised his odd between 15% and 20% (at the beginning of August the odds were 82% vs 18%), still right now he is likely loosing in a landslide


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
> 
> Keep in mind this is a Conservative model compared to some that have Hillary odds over 95%, but i trust Silver Model thanks to the fact that over the two last national elections he has been wrong in just one State, that means, 99 of 100 predictions.
> 
> If i want to predict the real result of the election i would follow this, because is a model based on the combinations of polls (meaning a prediction based on the samle distribution) and rate the weights of polls based in their quality and history of correct predictions, instead of just one poll
> 
> This could easily keep turning, Trump has raised his odd between 15% and 20% (at the beginning of August the odds were 82% vs 12%), still right now he is likely loosing in a landslide


Silver has been staunchly anti trump, however. Even admitting that his own bias got in the way of his polls and reporting.

Now, he could be 100% right and yes, things are fluid, but this is why I can't trust any poll. (Even the CNN one)


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Because you just made the biggest mistake anyone in this whole election regardless of their candidate could ever make...
> 
> You spoke in absolutes.
> 
> Now you have to own it if or when Trump wins.
> 
> Has this election taught you NOTHING? weren't you a staunch Bernie supporter who claimed he was fighting for you like he had the hopes and dreams of little tiny kittens supporting him? Absolutely sure that he was going to usher in the will of the common man?
> 
> Don't do this to yourself.



Trump has zero chance to win, mark my words.

Trump will not win. 

And Bernie did push the DNC to the left, he had a huge impact on their platform, dont act like he did not.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> Where actual libertarianism is concerned, Johnson isn't even fit to shine Ron Paul's shoes.


Of course, but it doesn't matter, because the his Neo-Confederate ties would always come back to haunt him on a larger platform.

Was so disappointed to learn about that.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> How am I fucked exactly?
> 
> Also doesn't Trump and his supporters claim all polls are rigged. So I guess this poll is rigged too right? Guess you cant count it


I don't think I've ever claimed that the polls are rigged. I do think there's a lot of "closet Trump" voters that aren't going to show up in the polls though. 



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump has zero chance to win, mark my words.


You were saying the exact opposite a couple months ago. What happened? He's polling about the same now as he was then. Meanwhile this Hillary health issue seems to be only getting worse.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump has zero chance to win, mark my words.
> 
> Trump will not win.
> 
> And Bernie did push the DNC to the left, he had a huge impact on their platform, dont act like he did not.


On paper yes the DNC has been pushed to the left but you can't be naive to think Hillary would come anywhere close to implementing what Bernie has pushed for.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> On paper yes the DNC has been pushed to the left but you can't be naive to think Hillary would come anywhere close to implementing what Bernie has pushed for.


I can't think of a single Bernie issue that is even a talking point for the current DNC. 

Bernie basically made the socialist / welfare statist fringe that has always existed amongst the democrats more visible. That's it. He didn't do jack shit in terms of changing the party itself. It's basically a new delusion bernie supporters have created in order to justify staying rooted to the DNC.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I can't think of a single Bernie issue that is even a talking point for the current DNC.
> 
> Bernie basically made the socialist / welfare statist fringe that has always existed amongst the democrats more visible. That's it. He didn't do jack shit in terms of changing the party itself. It's basically a new delusion bernie supporters have created in order to justify staying rooted to the DNC.


Bernie garnering a lot of support did force Hillary to flip on the TPP and say she's now against it as well as advocate for a public option on healthcare as a middle ground to single payer. But again there is no way she actually for those policies let alone would she attempt to implement them.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Silver has been staunchly anti trump, however. Even admitting that his own bias got in the way of his polls and reporting.
> 
> Now, he could be 100% right and yes, things are fluid, but this is why I can't trust any poll. (Even the CNN one)


Statistics aren't bias.

When you combine samples you're not doing polling, you are getting the mean's population based on the mean of all the sampling therefore your prediction it's almost completely accurate. Sorry to infomr you, that's how statistics work. What Silver does is particularly similar to what you do to predict sport winners, and is also why betting is particularly accurate in predictions. USA is an easy case to apply this model because you only need to predict accurate state numbers, not national ones, meaning you need to explain less variance

Like i said before, the fact that this is probably the most conservative (meaning the less likely to give a bigger difference between both candidates) model, yet you still claim bias is particularly rare

Maybe, jusy maybe, you could research the Metolodogy used http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ethirtyeights-2016-general-election-forecast/

The rating of pollsters http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

Or the tips given to read correctly separated polls http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/13-tips-for-reading-general-election-polls-like-a-pro/

I encourage everyone to read stuff like this if you want to play predictions games or to understand why doing more tha just one poll matters


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> You were saying the exact opposite a couple months ago. What happened? He's polling about the same now as he was then. Meanwhile this Hillary health issue *seems to be only getting worse*.


Along with her unfavorables, polling results, and the miasma of scandal perpetually enveloping her.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump has zero chance to win, mark my words.
> 
> Trump will not win.
> 
> And Bernie did push the DNC to the left, he had a huge impact on their platform, dont act like he did not.


And you responded exactly how I knew you would.

Dig that hole, Davey! 0 Don't let me stop you!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> Bernie garnering a lot of support did force Hillary to flip on the TPP and say she's now against it as well as advocate for a public option on healthcare as a middle ground to single payer. But again there is no way she actually for those policies let alone would she attempt to implement them.


Thnx for giving me another excuse to post this :kobelol


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Thnx for giving me another excuse to post this :kobelol


There has never been a more accurate description of her character :banderas.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> There has never been a more accurate description of her character :banderas.


I could think of a few choice words to add for greater accuracy.


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump has zero chance to win, mark my words.
> 
> Trump will not win.


Keep whistlin' past the graveyard, kiddo.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I must admit I'm impressed Trump appears to have been gaffe-free for a while now, he proved me wrong on that.

Still if he does become President I fear for his obligatory visits to school classrooms to read children's books if any of the children have special needs. I don't think he'd be able to resist chopping them down if his track record is any indication.
















stevefox1200 said:


> The one thing I like about elections is we get tons of people who tiptoe around "we should murder the elite and give power back to the people!!" and then quickly add the "I'm not a communist" disclaimer
> 
> The political version of "I'm not a racist but..."


I completely agree, another I've also noticed is the tons of people bleating about "Cut corporate tax! Cut social security and foreign aid!" yet when challenged say "Oh but I'm not rightist no no no no! I don't identify with either side I take each issue and examine it objectively."


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> The one thing I like about elections is we get tons of people who tiptoe around "we should murder the elite and give power back to the people!!" and then quickly add the "I'm not a communist" disclaimer
> 
> The political version of "I'm not a racist but..."


Many of them wants their voice to be heard but not the responsibility of doing the job. Those that want the responsibility, wants only their voice to be heard.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Looking that stupid and orange voluntarily should DQ him on stupidity alone. Clearly he cant make basic human choices. Sane humans don't go to spray on tan places and say "gimmie the carrot look"


----------



## TheMenace

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump has zero chance to win, mark my words.
> 
> Trump will not win.
> 
> And Bernie did push the DNC *campaign rhetoric* to the left, he had a huge impact on their *empty promises*, dont act like he did not.


Fixed.

Let's face it, Hillary is not going to budge the DNC one bit once she's president.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> My wife who was a pretty hardcore democrat has given up on her party this election because she actually read what it stands for now. I'm pretty sure the average person does not.


Your wife is a wise person for giving up on the Democrats. What's not wise is when the average person turns to the Republicans because they realized the Democrats are terrible. That's just trading one pile of shit for another.



L-DOPA said:


> Clinton is epitome of an insider, absolutely corrupt and a pathological liar. Trump is insane and authoritarian









birthday_massacre said:


> And Bernie did push the DNC to the left, he had a huge impact on their platform, dont act like he did not.


:HA



L-DOPA said:


> Bernie garnering a lot of support did force Hillary to flip on the TPP and say she's now against it as well as advocate for a public option on healthcare as a middle ground to single payer. But again there is *no way she actually for those policies let alone would she attempt to implement them*.


It's sad that anyone believes Hillary would push for anything even remotely progressive if elected.



> *Clinton Wants to Keep the Republican Majority in Congress*
> *Hillary is going to need help passing her neo-liberal agenda*
> By Michael Sainato • 08/29/16 8:30am
> 
> Hillary Clinton’s speech last week about the alt right was the latest attempt by her campaign to win the right-wing establishment over—and away from her competitor Donald Trump. By distancing Trump from the Republican leadership, she can preserve the GOP majority in Congress and use them during her presidency to pass neo-liberal legislation. Having already solidified support from the Democratic Establishment, Clinton is using that “D” next to her name as a Trojan horse to push forth the elitist and corporate interests held by her vast network of wealthy donors from both parties.
> 
> In her speech, Clinton referred to former Sen. Bob Dole, former president George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain, noting, “We need that kind of leadership again.” She added that she was honored to receive support from Republicans. While Clinton is aligning herself with the right, Clinton supporters in the media are also highlighting these ties in their defenses of her.
> 
> “Most Americans not named Bush or Clinton don’t spend much time thinking about the plight of impoverished people with AIDS in developing countries whose lives depend on access to wildly expensive drugs,” wrote Mark Joseph Stern in Slate. The piece was a lousy attempt to ignore the profound ethics violations and corruption allegations over how the Clinton Foundation raises money.
> 
> On August 24, Politico published an article claiming Clinton is teaming up with Speaker of the House Paul Ryan to combat poverty. This is an attempt to suggest Ryan prefers Clinton over Trump, reflecting a campaign strategy even corrupt Democratic National Committee (DNC) staff warned Clinton against in an email released by WikiLeaks. The email reveals that the Clinton campaign intended to portray Ryan as at odds with Trump in May, but DNC staff resisted, believing it would hurt the Democratic Party’s other candidates running for Congress around the country.
> 
> “Asking state Parties to praise House Republicans like Ryan would be damaging for the Party down ballot,” former DNC communications director Luis Miranda wrote to former DNC CEO Amy Dacey on May  16, at which point Ryan had yet to endorse Trump. “We would basically have to throw out our entire frame that the GOP made Trump through years of divisive and ugly politics. We would have to say that Republicans are reasonable and that the good ones will shun Trump. It just doesn’t work from the Party side.”
> 
> Now with a comfortable lead over Trump, Clinton’s campaign is employing this tactic to welcome defectors from the Republican Party, despite the repercussions it could have for the rest of the Democrats. The DNC’s recent fundraising efforts attest to this shift to focus the resources of the Democratic Party entirely on Clinton.
> 
> Thanks to a campaign finance loophole, wealthy donors who maxed out their contributions to the Clinton campaign and DNC directly are funneling money to the DNC and Clinton campaign through state parties. A recent Bloomberg article noted, “on average, 83 percent of the money that was sent from the state committees to the DNC in July originated with a donor who had already given the maximum $33,400 to the national party.”
> 
> Under the pretenses of courting Republicans for the sole purpose of soliciting their wealthy donors to stop Trump, Clinton’s campaign has pushed for money from former Bush and Romney donors, despite the clash between these donors, their interests, and the platform of the Democratic Party.
> 
> In early August, the Clinton campaign even launched the Republicans for Hillary effort. Instead of using Trump’s unfavorable ratings against the Republican Party, Clinton is embracing its establishment who don’t like their party’s candidate. This shift should be concerning to Democrats, as it is indicative of the fact that Clinton plans to relive the neo-liberal disasters of the first Clinton Administration.
> 
> Bill Clinton pushed through destructive welfare reform, catalyzed mass incarceration, deregulated the financial industry, and passed NAFTA under the banner of the Democratic Party. A Republican majority in Congress not only will provide President Hillary Clinton with a scapegoat for any flip-flopping or broken campaign promises in office, but will provide her with the support of the establishment in both parties to continue promoting the interests of corporate giants over the public interest—just as she did at the State Department.
> 
> SOURCE


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> I completely agree, another I've also noticed is the tons of people bleating about "Cut corporate tax! Cut social security and foreign aid!" yet when challenged say "Oh but I'm not rightist no no no no! I don't identify with either side I take each issue and examine it objectively."


To be honest what I hate more is the lack of intellectual consistency and hypocrisy. Many Republican supporters will state about cutting social security, medicare, medicaid etc. and then in the same breath say we should increase military spending.

Motherfucker, military spending takes up the largest chunk of the US Budget. I understand wanting a strong national defence but the US spends TRILLIONS on foreign wars and leaves countries in a worse state than what they already were. If you are going to advocate for fiscal conservatism (which is what I believe to be) then you can't say to increase the military budget. That is literally the opposite of being a fiscal conservative. That is one of the areas I would cut most drastically. That is one of the few areas I actually agree with Jill Stein believe it or not.

I will happily admit I'm in the cut everything camp because US spending has gone way out of control. One look at Obama's track record year by year on deficit spending will make your eyes widen significantly. You can't keep going on like this.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> To be honest what I hate more is the lack of intellectual consistency and hypocrisy. Many Republican supporters will state about cutting social security, medicare, medicaid etc. and then in the same breath say we should increase military spending.


These are the same mother fuckers who constantly whine about poor people on welfare but never once complain about the hundreds of billions of dollars handed out in corporate welfare to the richest corporations in the USA.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

America has an income problem not an expenditure problem they need to tax more and more effectively enforce current tax law basically. If companies/people actually paid the tax they were supposed to there probably wouldn't be a problem. 

Also Bernie massively pushed the DNC's policy platform to the left, now American parties don't bind so changing the party platform doesn't mean the same thing as it does in either Britain or Australia, but still it's not nothing. 

A lot of it is stuff I entirely support but I think anyone is kidding if they think it's politically realistic in the current climate. You just need to look at how right wing Obamacare is compared to the healthcare system in literally every other first world nation and at how much flack it got for being too "socialist". http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/oreilly-obamacare-pure-socialism 

A Sander's presidency would have been the saddest most pathetic thing ever, he would not have been able to pass a single piece of legislation as the Republicans grandstanded against him worse than they did Obama even and he wouldn't have had the support from the Democrats Obama had.

Hilary isn't gonna try to do much but she'll actually do it, where as Sanders never would have got a single thing done at all ever, hence Hilary would actually get a lot more done.

On the plus side that is highly likely what will happen to Trump if he gets elected. Will be hilarious to watch too.

[USER]@tater[/USER] I think the idea that Hilary actively wants a hostile congress is a little far fetched, I mean... to be incredibly cynical for a second, as if a democratic controlled congress wouldn't have enough neocons in it anyway? Why would she need a republican congress to have neocons? It just doesn't add up. She's doing the stuff mentioned in that article to appeal to republican voters not the republican establishment.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Silver has been staunchly anti trump, however. *Even admitting that his own bias got in the way of his polls and reporting.*
> 
> Now, he could be 100% right and yes, things are fluid, but this is why I can't trust any poll. (Even the CNN one)


FiveThirtyEight doesn't conduct their own polls.

Silver admitted that his personal prognostications about the shape of the race were off, but that doesn't mean the numbers were. IIRC, the only states FiveThirtyEight missed on in the Republican primary were Iowa and Oklahoma, both of which their model had Trump winning but instead went to Cruz.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> These are the same mother fuckers who constantly whine about poor people on welfare but never once complain about the hundreds of billions of dollars handed out in corporate welfare to the richest corporations in the USA.


That too. I always question people who say they are for free market capitalism when they deliberately overlook the amount of welfare spending given to big corporations who don't need it (Hint: They don't believe in the free market in the slightest). For example, I do believe that government welfare programs indeed should be cut because from the evidence I've seen it does not help lift people out of poverty. But those who argue we should cut the social programs because we can't afford it and in the same breath say nothing about corporate welfare and want a bigger military budget when the US already spends more than the next 10 countries combined just flat out make themselves look stupid.

In the tradition sense, these people aren't even Conservatives to me. Neo-Con policy sure but you wouldn't catch Paleo-Conservatives or actual Constitutionalists making the same arguments. I remember when Rand Paul called out Marco Rubio on the very same principle when Marco kept stressing we need to "rebuild our military." With what fucking money?

I would go further and say if you are advocating for spending cuts, you need to prioritize cuts in places that are overtly either damaging or useless. Military spending is a big one, Corporate Welfare, abolishing the NSA, abolishing the TSA, cutting back on the absolutely stupidly bloated departments in National Security (essentially the majority of the department of homeland security) as a few examples. Those things are either wasteful or damaging and which the majority of people I think would agree on. But damn we need someone with consistency and the balls to do it.

Hell, just cutting back on the stupid things Congress spends money on would be a start. Did you know that hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars are spent on things such as studying whether Japanese quail are more sexually promiscuous under cocaine? Or spending over a billion dollars on a cricket league in Afghanistan and only about 1 in 50 people in the country have television. Or hiring college students to study what we would most likely to eat if we inhabited Mars. This is your taxpayer money and borrowed/printed money going towards dozens if not hundreds of examples like this.

The US borrows money from China to send to China....it borrows money from China to send to Pakistan. It's absolutely ridiculous. 



Alkomesh2 said:


> America has an income problem not an expenditure problem they need to tax more and more effectively enforce current tax law basically. If companies/people actually paid the tax they were supposed to there probably wouldn't be a problem.


Unfortunately the problem isn't as cut and dry as that. Take for example what I mentioned about Obama's deficit record. In the year 2012, the deficit was $1.1 Trillion, if 100% of the income over $1 Million were taxed that year the US government would have only raised $616 Billion. If that's the revenue of 100% taxation then 40-45% would be well short. Even 50% of the income which is what historically in the past the US has taxed wealthy individuals wouldn't nearly match up to the deficit of that year. 

There is also the practical side of things: taxes discourage wealth creation. The $616 billion example I've demonstrated above is absurd. Rich people wouldn’t work if government takes all their earnings. Money earned belongs to those who earn it, not to government. Lower taxes are not a handout in the same way corporate welfare is a handout. Corporate Welfare redistributes tax revenue to the top 1%, lower taxes means people get to keep more of the money they created. Now of course with the crony capitalist system it isn't as simple as that but on principle that is what should happen.

An example of this happening on the state level is Maryland: Maryland created a special “tax on the rich” that legislators said would bring in $106 million. Instead, the state lost $257 million. A net 31,000 residents left the state between 2007 and 2010, the tenure of a "millionaire's tax" pushed through by Gov. Martin O'Malley (Remember him?). The tax, which expired in 2010, in imposed a rate of 6.25 percent on incomes of more than $1 million a year. In total, Maryland has added 24 new taxes or fees in those years. Florida, which had no income-tax, was a large recipient of Maryland's exiled wealthy.

Now you think about that and then think about the American companies which have moved business overseas due to high corporation tax. Does that sound familiar? The moral of the story isn't that raising taxes in general isn't a practical move in certain circumstances but that in spite of the intention of bringing in more revenue it doesn't always work. In many cases it has the complete opposite effect.

What I found most interesting about what you said is "tax more effectively". If by that you mean reforming the completely bloated and bureaucratic tax code you guys have then I absolutely agree. The federal tax code is an astonishing 187 times longer it was a century ago according to Wolters Kluwer, CCH, which has analyzed it since 1913. Amazingly, in the first 26 years of the federal income tax, the tax code only grew from 400 to 504 pages. This study was found out this year so it's very recent. Even through President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, the tax code was well under 1,000 pages. Changes during World War II made the length of the tax code balloon to 8,200 pages. Most of the growth in the tax code came in the past 30 years, growing from 26,300 pages in 1984 to nearly three times that length today.

The consequences are obvious, when you have a tax code that is that long and bureaucratic it means it is open to more loopholes and deductions. The reality is the rich, the ones who want to avoid tax altogether do so because the progressive tax system and the bloated IRS tax code has allowed them to do so. They hire tax lawyers and accountants to go through and shred it to pieces in order to pay little to no tax. All the while many decide to hide their money in offshore accounts to avoid their income being scrutinized by tax law at all. This isn't a problem unique to the US either, the UK my country has the biggest most bureaucratic tax code in the entire world and we have the same problems with the rich paying little to no tax and their funds being hidden in offshore accounts.

Raising tax in general isn't the answer, if the US were to simplify the tax code and were to instead instil a lower flat tax across the board it is more likely that the big corporations will pay the money in full mainly due to the loopholes not being available to exploit. Furthermore, lowering the tax rate encourages businesses to remain in the US and to not set up shop elsewhere or put their funds in a foreign hedge fund. I can say with almost certainty more money would be in the treasury than currently stood right now.

The biggest point however is the first one, even if you were able to tax 100% of the income of the top 1% which is impossible you would not balance the budget with current spending levels. You need to both cut spending and encourage growth in the private sector.

I want to reply to your bit about Obamacare as well because you are absolutely correct about that in terms of the socialist argument but I'm supposed to be meeting friends and I'm already going to risk running late :lol.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






:kobelol

The last time I saw similar bullshit was in Canada in 2011 where they went through a phase where they would censor people who wore palestinian scarves. 

Now whatever someone's political affiliation, view or opinion .. You don't get to censor them. Period.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> :kobelol
> 
> The last time I saw similar bullshit was in Canada in 2011 where they went through a phase where they would censor people who wore palestinian scarves.
> 
> Now whatever someone's political affiliation, view or opinion .. You don't get to censor them. Period.


Its their network, they can do whatever they want on it.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Stop tax shaming businessmen!


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> Its their network, they can do whatever they want on it.


You realize that they claim to be unbiased right? So how can they be unbiased if they censor things that are Trump? Not to mention some of their journalists are handling the debates as moderators, what kind of example does that set?


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I can't stand to look at any images or videos of that vile bitch but I watched one of her rallies, for a brief moment, and it sounded like there was 10 people there and no doubt she paid for those 10 people. All this talk about her health deteriorating; God I hope so. The only thing she's choking on is the lies which she's regurgitating.

I read some source that said the NY Times (we all know who they support) showed a poll giving Killary an 88% chance of winning the election. Who are they kidding :leo


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37292570

A pothead, a conman, a corrupt politician, and now add a vandal to the list of presidential candidates of 2016.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> You realize that they claim to be unbiased right? So how can they be unbiased if they censor things that are Trump? Not to mention some of their journalists are handling the debates as moderators, what kind of example does that set?


Fox News claims to be unbiased too. Whats your point?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

^^ That's a weak response man. We share similar views in this thread but we don't want CNN to be on the same level as Fox News. Look at what happened to MSNBC.


----------



## Vic Capri

Ed Graves said:


> We don't care if the guy swears...or how many times he's been married...or who he voted for, or what his income tax return shows. We want the problems fixed.
> 
> Yes he's an egomaniac, but we don't care. We know he's not a racist, or bad to women, or all the other things the liberal media is trying to label him with. We know he's raised a family, and that says a lot about him.
> 
> The country is a mess because politicians suck, the Republican Party is two faced & gutless, and radical Muslims are openly trying to hurt this country and make the civilized world adjust to them. We want it all fixed!
> 
> We don't care that Trump is crude, we don't care that he has changed positions, we don't care that he fights with Megan Kelly, Rosie O'Donnell, and so many of the elected establishment.
> 
> We don't care that Rubio, Cruz, Ryan, the Bush's, and so many other top old and new Republicans refuse to endorse him for their own selfish reasons, and we know what they are.
> 
> We don't care that he tried some businesses that didn't work out..This country is weak, bankrupt, our enemies are getting stronger, we are being invaded by illegals, we are becoming a nation of victims, where every Tom, Dick and Harry is a special group with special rights to a point where we don't even recognize the country we were born and raised in, AND WE JUST WANT IT FIXED!
> 
> And TRUMP is the only guy who seems to understand what the people want. We're sick of politicians, sick of the Democratic and Republican Party. We're angry about the Iran deal, the budget, treatment of Israel, military weakness, lobbyists, special interests, overpaid politicians with their self serving bills and back room deals, trade deals, loss of jobs, manipulated economic numbers, businesses fleeing, and even the phoney pay for play Clinton Foundation.
> 
> Americans are no longer going to be fooled, and the movement is out to change the direction we're taking. Trump may not be a saint, but he doesn't have lobbyist money holding him, he doesn't have political correctness restraining him, and all you know is that he has been successful in the past, a good negotiator, he has built a lot of things, he's flexible, and he's also not a politician.
> 
> And he says he'll fix it. And we believe him because he is too much of an egotist to be proven wrong or looked at and called a liar.Public service has become elected greed. This may be our only chance to have a non-politician, despite his flaws, try and correct the mess, at least for 4 years. We must take the shot, because the consequences of putting Hillary Clinton in office are frightening. There is a tidal wave happening, and its going to overcome much of what's happened to this country. TRUMP 2016


- Vic


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So Hill just said she wasn't wearing an earpiece...


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> And he says he'll fix it. And we believe him because he is too much of an egotist to be proven wrong or looked at and called a liar.


:lol :lol :lol

Sound a lot like Trump supporters want a dictator over a president.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

And I knew it was coming...Hillary went there...aka what I call the Daisy Ad part II. 

For those not familiar with that term...the 1964 presidential election saw President Lyndon Johnson's crew put out a notorious TV ad that only played a couple of times. It portrayed a little girl playing in a field and counting the petals she is pullling off a daisy. Then, the countdown begins...here's the ad just to explain what it entails and what Johnson said about his opponent Barry Goldwater. 






This campaign is even going to get uglier.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> And I knew it was coming...Hillary went there...aka what I call the Daisy Ad part II.
> 
> For those not familiar with that term...the 1964 presidential election saw President Lyndon Johnson's crew put out a notorious TV ad that only played a couple of times. It portrayed a little girl playing in a field and counting the petals she is pullling off a daisy. Then, the countdown begins...here's the ad just to explain what it entails and what Johnson said about his opponent Barry Goldwater.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This campaign is even going to get uglier.


People already know Trump's big on the military, but in a time where Obama is dismantling it, I don't think such an attack can hurt Trump. That said, she can tout his inexperience over hers, but to a lot that means more of the status quo.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> Unfortunately the problem isn't as cut and dry as that. Take for example what I mentioned about Obama's deficit record. In the year 2012, the deficit was $1.1 Trillion, if 100% of the income over $1 Million were taxed that year the US government would have only raised $616 Billion. If that's the revenue of 100% taxation then 40-45% would be well short. Even 50% of the income which is what historically in the past the US has taxed wealthy individuals wouldn't nearly match up to the deficit of that year.


The problem with this is that you wouldn't and shouldn't be trying to get rid of the deficit in a single year, it's built up over decades and any realistic solution is going to take decades to implement. 



> There is also the practical side of things: taxes discourage wealth creation. The $616 billion example I've demonstrated above is absurd. Rich people wouldn’t work if government takes all their earnings. Money earned belongs to those who earn it, not to government. Lower taxes are not a handout in the same way corporate welfare is a handout. Corporate Welfare redistributes tax revenue to the top 1%, lower taxes means people get to keep more of the money they created. Now of course with the crony capitalist system it isn't as simple as that but on principle that is what should happen.


Economists tend to agree that taxes have to be between 60-90% on the top bracket before they start effecting wealth creation. Of course economics isn't a hard science and there are a lot of disagreements, and I personally find the 90% figure hard to believe, though there are economists who swear by it. But statistically it has been shown that cutting the top tax bracket won't increase wealth creation (see Bush and Reagan's tax cuts) so logically speaking why would raising the top tax bracket lower wealth creation?

And when you say corporate wealth-fare what do you mean exactly? Is it stuff like the government actually pays for most of Walmart's staff? 



> An example of this happening on the state level is Maryland: Maryland created a special “tax on the rich” that legislators said would bring in $106 million. Instead, the state lost $257 million. A net 31,000 residents left the state between 2007 and 2010, the tenure of a "millionaire's tax" pushed through by Gov. Martin O'Malley (Remember him?). The tax, which expired in 2010, in imposed a rate of 6.25 percent on incomes of more than $1 million a year. In total, Maryland has added 24 new taxes or fees in those years. Florida, which had no income-tax, was a large recipient of Maryland's exiled wealthy.


Much easier to leave a state than it is a country. People aren't going to leave the US in droves over an increase in the top tax rate. The US is an awesome place and the low tax rate for the rich isn't why people live there. And the sort of people that do just park their money offshore anyway so you ain't gonna lose anything.



> Now you think about that and then think about the American companies which have moved business overseas due to high corporation tax. Does that sound familiar? The moral of the story isn't that raising taxes in general isn't a practical move in certain circumstances but that in spite of the intention of bringing in more revenue it doesn't always work. In many cases it has the complete opposite effect.


Ever heard of the race to the bottom? Following your logic only leads to countries cutting their corporate tax rates over and over again in a futile attempt at competition, the only winners being corporations. You have identified a major problem though, the only way around it I see is international tax treaties. Corporation tax in particular should be set at a global level to avoid these issues. Or at least a set group of western nations with the rule you have to have an office in on of those nations to be able to run a business in any of them.



> What I found most interesting about what you said is "tax more effectively". If by that you mean reforming the completely bloated and bureaucratic tax code you guys have then I absolutely agree. The federal tax code is an astonishing 187 times longer it was a century ago according to Wolters Kluwer, CCH, which has analyzed it since 1913. Amazingly, in the first 26 years of the federal income tax, the tax code only grew from 400 to 504 pages. This study was found out this year so it's very recent. Even through President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, the tax code was well under 1,000 pages. Changes during World War II made the length of the tax code balloon to 8,200 pages. Most of the growth in the tax code came in the past 30 years, growing from 26,300 pages in 1984 to nearly three times that length today.
> 
> 
> The consequences are obvious, when you have a tax code that is that long and bureaucratic it means it is open to more loopholes and deductions. The reality is the rich, the ones who want to avoid tax altogether do so because the progressive tax system and the bloated IRS tax code has allowed them to do so. They hire tax lawyers and accountants to go through and shred it to pieces in order to pay little to no tax. All the while many decide to hide their money in offshore accounts to avoid their income being scrutinized by tax law at all. This isn't a problem unique to the US either, the UK my country has the biggest most bureaucratic tax code in the entire world and we have the same problems with the rich paying little to no tax and their funds being hidden in offshore accounts.


Totally agree.



> Raising tax in general isn't the answer, if the US were to simplify the tax code and were to instead instil a lower flat tax across the board it is more likely that the big corporations will pay the money in full mainly due to the loopholes not being available to exploit. Furthermore, lowering the tax rate encourages businesses to remain in the US and to not set up shop elsewhere or put their funds in a foreign hedge fund. I can say with almost certainty more money would be in the treasury than currently stood right now.


Flat taxes are a terrible idea! Basically impossible to set it at rate that doesn't completely screw over people on the lower end while leaving people on the higher end actually paying anything meaningful or enough to keep basic services and infrastructure running.



> The biggest point however is the first one, even if you were able to tax 100% of the income of the top 1% which is impossible you would not balance the budget with current spending levels. You need to both cut spending and encourage growth in the private sector.


Agreed.



> I want to reply to your bit about Obamacare as well because you are absolutely correct about that in terms of the socialist argument but I'm supposed to be meeting friends and I'm already going to risk running late :lol.


Hope you had fun!


Also on a unrelated note how does wf feel about the pacifist hero Trump's call to increase military budget and have the military submit a plan to defeat Isis within 30 days? 

http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-elec...nd-a-plan-to-defeat-isis-20160907-grbd47.html


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I strongly disliked Gary Johnson's attitude and pseudo-philosophy before strongly disliking Gary Johnson's attitude and pseudo-philosophy was cool. :mj 


Fantastic posts by @L-DOPA abound! 

@AryaDark @CamillePunk @CJ @Tater @Reaper @Miss Sally @Oda Nobunaga @Sincere @BruiserKC @KC Armstrong @SpeedStick

Should this be proven to be true, this is nothing short of being appalling, repulsive, unethical and completely unsurprising: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/09/06/menendez-clinton-benghazi-hearing/



> ‘We Wired It’: Sen. Bob Menendez Accused Of Staging Question During Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Hearings
> September 6, 2016 6:53 PM
> 
> BURLINGTON COUNTY, N.J. (CBSNewYork) — Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., is under fire again as he is accused of playing a staged role during Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi hearings.
> 
> CBS2’s Christine Sloan reported conservative group Citizens United said new emails it just obtained suggest that question was staged.
> 
> COMPLETE CAMPAIGN 2016 COVERAGE
> 
> The first question Menendez – the acting chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee then – asked Clinton was, “Can you give us your insights on the decision making process regarding the location of the mission and as part of that can you also in your response – and you touched upon it in your opening statement – what actions were you and your staff taking on the night of Sept. 11 and the 12?”
> 
> Citizens United claims an email between a senior aide to the Democratic presidential nominee and Chelsea Clinton reveal that the question was staged.
> 
> The email reads, “We wired it that Menendez would provide an opportunity to address two topics we needed to debunk (her actions/whereabouts on 9/11 and these emails from Chris Stevens about moving locations).
> 
> Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed during the attack on the American embassy.
> 
> “In my 24 years in Congress and the last 11 in the Senate and as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I don’t let my questions be wired by anyone,” Menendez said.
> 
> Menendez denied the allegation from Citizens United.
> 
> “That’s absolutely not true. First of all, the chairman always asks the first questions. Secondly, the questions that I asked were not prepared with anyone, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that some of the questions you asked were some of the most pressing questions people had about Secretary Clinton’s role, her whereabouts, her knowledge and what not as it related to Benghazi,” the New Jersey senator stated.
> 
> CBS2’s Sloan reached out to the Clinton campaign for a response, but have yet to receive one.
> 
> The family members of two people killed in the Benghazi attack have filed a federal lawsuit against Clinton, claiming she was responsible because she was secretary of state at the time.


That the Clinton inner sanctum would "wire" the hearings and feed Congress questions is hardly surprising, and based on the revealed emails it would appear that is precisely what occurred, but the act remains repugnant nonetheless. Menendez's numerous past corruption scandals may truly be dwarfed by this in some moral sense.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

why are people so eager to hand their money off to the mafia so they can treat their friends to a free meal?

Imagine there was zero tax for everyone, how would things be then?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I would imagine places would be run by warlords who would impose their own form of taxation with even less accountability than what little we have now.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I said imagine zero tax, not describe the situation as it is.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I just said it would be more of the same with even less accountability.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Good post DROW!

Also Hilary getting desperate with those ads. Considering Hilary is a warhawk and her actions and support for the wars in Iraq and the Libyan debacle one would question how Hilary can use fear mongering of a world war when several of her scandals include deaths of Americans, Middle Eastern folks and genocide within Libya. 

The Democrats claiming that they're anywhere near anti war is a laugh riot considering most of them supported the wars. Obama was even given the peace prize but has killed more people in drone strikes than any other President, has done dubious things within the Mid East which has seen nations collapse and has given over 1 billion dollars in aid to ISIS and other terrorist organizations. Not to mention furthering the military and economic capabilities of Iran which is a terrorist state and essentially paying ransom for Americans to Iran.

While Trump is pro military, I must reflect on who has been the one to have a helping hand in destabilize nations, brag about it and then shrug off any wrong doing. It certainly wasn't Trump.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> (K.R.) The Washington Post published the first 50-state poll this week, and it showed that third party candidates are not only performing well, but could also play spoiler this fall. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are pulling in upwards of 20% of the national vote, and enough to make a difference in several important states. And it appears the question of who they would hurt more has been answered.
> Hillary Clinton polls an average of 7.1% lower in each state when Johnson and Stein are included in the survey, while Trump polls just 5.9% lower. That means third party candidates are hurting Hillary more than Trump to the tune of a 1.2% swing per state. That might not seem like much, but it's enough to swing several very important states away from Hillary.
> Specifically, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas all flip away from Hillary and toward Trump when third party candidates were included in the poll. That's an 89 electoral vote swing. And while the overall poll results still favor her, the real story here is that it's Clinton, and not Trump, who should be worried about the third party insurrection this year, especially as the polls continue to tighten.
> SOURCE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/2016-electi…/50-state-poll/


Makes sense. Trump's voter base already has a lot of the third party voters built in. If you're an independent, you're less likely to vote for Hillary than you are for someone else at this point and Trump isn't an established career politician either. Independents view that normally as a bad thing if you are a career politicians.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> So Hill just said she wasn't wearing an earpiece...


Looks like an earpiece to me. Even Nixon is covering his face.

- Vic


----------



## Warlock

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Debunked already.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Looks like an earpiece to me. Even Nixon is covering his face.
> 
> - Vic












Sounds like she's been using one for years.

I wonder what the minimum "donation" is to get a direct line to it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

^^Just to add to that in-case someone tries to claim that the email a fake email: 

Link: 

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/14039

Personally, I don't have an issue with a candidate using an earpiece. Being able to speak on the fly to me isn't the most necessary skill in a president. In fact, I'd actually go as far as saying that this is a good idea and perhaps others should do it as well.

I can see why her opponents would be upset because they feel she has an unfair advantage ... To me however, if every candidate was prepared, consistent and educated, they wouldn't need a voice in their head. Yes, this means that Clinton may be at par with other candidates without a voice in her head, but when you have Candidates looking like goofs all over the place, of course they're going to whine more about unfair advantage than make their game better :shrug


----------



## AJ_Styles_P1

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm glad I'm not an American but if I was I sure as hell wouldn't vote for Hilary.

A vote for her is a vote for continued corruption and no potential for bigger picture improvement IMO.

Although as a Canadian we have Trudeau, who does nothing he promised and nothing in general besides catering to the PC interests and apologizing to people for things that happened a century+ ago.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



AJ_Styles_P1 said:


> Although as a Canadian we have Trudeau, who does nothing he promised and nothing in general besides catering to the PC interests and apologizing to people for things that happened a century+ ago.


Trump or Hillary, you guys are still kinda worse off than us.

I mean, we have to deal with SJW's only on the internet and college campuses for the most part. You guys pretty much are the very embodiment of SJW culture now that your entire government is composed of them. 

Good Luck in the future. I don't know what Canada can accomplish with a horrible government like Trudeau's. So far I've been trying to keep track, but apparently he's done nothing of note at all.
I just went onto the Star Website, and after 4 random news about stuff no one cares about, they're covering the American election. Media only does that when it wnts to distract people from the shit their own country is in by pretending that "at least we're not _them_" :kobelol


----------



## GothicBohemian

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



AJ_Styles_P1 said:


> I'm glad I'm not an American but if I was I sure as hell wouldn't vote for Hilary.
> 
> A vote for her is a vote for continued corruption and no potential for bigger picture improvement IMO.
> 
> *Although as a Canadian we have Trudeau, who does nothing he promised and nothing in general besides catering to the PC interests and apologizing to people for things that happened a century+ ago.*


Do you mean the aboriginal issues, such as the long overdue inquiry into missing indigenous women and girls? That's kind of a big deal to some of us. 

It would be nice if the current government was more proactive on other parts of their platform but they have moved toward legalizing marijuana in small steps and have also kept their word on fast-tracking approval for Syrian refugees. It's better than nothing.

Importantly, most Canadians, and the world in general, don't hate Trudeau. He's being warmly received, not snubbed or insulted. Given the alternative, I'll take that; it's not like I expect the PM to do much more than hang out at economic summits or occasionally speak at national events. I wish he'd take a few less selfies though. 

Anyway ... back to US politics. I'm surprised there are still folks enthusiastic about voting for either Trump or Clinton.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



GothicBohemian said:


> Do you mean the aboriginal issues, such as the long overdue inquiry into missing indigenous women and girls? That's kind of a big deal to some of us.


Since you're here, I'm going to trap you with a question because I like picking at certain brains. I'm sure the mods will let us get away with a couple of posts on Canada :shrug 

Do you think he's done a satisfactory job (taking the time into consideration) since he got into power on that particular front?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I can't wait for President Tim Kaine.

Over under on Hillary lasting a year if she wins? I feel like a stiff breeze could shatter her into a million tiny pieces. She has a handler whose sole job is to bring her back to reality when she goes off into la-la land physically or mentally. The guy dresses like he's secret service but he is not a member of the secret service. What does it matter anyway right?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> *Correction of the day: the New York Times’s Aleppo fail*
> 
> 
> 
> After Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee, didn’t know what ‘Aleppo’ was in an interview, hacks at the New York Times thought the gaffe would provide great material for a story. Alas, said hacks failed to do their research before writing it.
> In correcting Johnson, the article claimed that the Syrian city is the de facto capital of the Islamic State. However, this is actually Raqqa — cue a correction stating that Aleppo was the Syrian capital but not the capital of Islamic State. Alas, this too proved problematic as the Syrian capital is Damascus — not Aleppo:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr S suspects hacks at the paper should check their facts in future.


http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/correction-day-3/

So NYT decides to to a credibility assassination piece on Gary Johnson and ends up destroying their own credibility in the process. These elections are fucking amazing. 

:kobelol 

:sodone


----------



## GothicBohemian

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Since you're here, I'm going to trap you with a question because I like picking at certain brains. I'm sure the mods will let us get away with a couple of posts on Canada :shrug
> 
> Do you think he's done a satisfactory job (taking the time into consideration) since he got into power on that particular front?


Satisfactory. Not exceptional, not even very good. Middle-of-the-curve satisfactory fits. Considering the dissatisfaction throughout most of the country (Alberta somewhat excepted) with what we'd had most of us were willing to settle for anything short of trainwreck disaster. Now if there isn't progress in the coming year to 18 months, then people will start getting antsy. 

I'd be more specific about failure vs progress but I'm on my way out for the evening.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










:done


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Gary Johnson is a Grade-A r-tard. He reminds you why most local Libertarian Party meetings are held at Denny's.

I wish I had the weed he's smoking.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> So Hill just said she wasn't wearing an earpiece...


She wasnt

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-secret-earpiece/


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> She wasnt
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-secret-earpiece/


Fair enough.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Remarkable that Trump is promising more spending for everyone while giving vague responses to how they will be funded and democrats are seen as the irresponsible deficit spenders.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://bients.com/julian-assange-confirms-sanders-threatened/

Assange claims Sanders was threatened.


----------



## AJ_Styles_P1

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Trump or Hillary, you guys are still kinda worse off than us.
> 
> I mean, we have to deal with SJW's only on the internet and college campuses for the most part. You guys pretty much are the very embodiment of SJW culture now that your entire government is composed of them.
> 
> Good Luck in the future. I don't know what Canada can accomplish with a horrible government like Trudeau's. So far I've been trying to keep track, but apparently he's done nothing of note at all.
> I just went onto the Star Website, and after 4 random news about stuff no one cares about, they're covering the American election. Media only does that when it wnts to distract people from the shit their own country is in by pretending that "at least we're not _them_" :kobelol


Yeah definitely fair, he atleast makes us look good. But that's about it so far, he's pretty much done nothing, and with a majority government too. He's definitely the perfect leader for this pussified PC era we are in.

I think Trump could potentially do good though I'll say that, not that I think he's a good candidate necessarily but he's the lesser of 2 evils right now I think.

If he's willing to tell the entire world he's going to build a wall between the US & Mexico and still be 100% confident that he can win in doing so, then I think Hilary would be the one I'm more concerned as it pertains to who is/will be more straight-forward with some of there stuff. Obviously anyone will lie about some things but still.




GothicBohemian said:


> *Do you mean the aboriginal issues, such as the long overdue inquiry into missing indigenous women and girls? That's kind of a big deal to some of us.
> *
> It would be nice if the current government was more proactive on other parts of their platform but they have moved toward legalizing marijuana in small steps and have also kept their word on fast-tracking approval for Syrian refugees. It's better than nothing.
> 
> Importantly, most Canadians, and the world in general, don't hate Trudeau. He's being warmly received, not snubbed or insulted. Given the alternative, I'll take that; it's not like I expect the PM to do much more than hang out at economic summits or occasionally speak at national events. I wish he'd take a few less selfies though.
> 
> Anyway ... back to US politics. I'm surprised there are still folks enthusiastic about voting for either Trump or Clinton.


No I don't mean that, not that at all actually. I mean bullshit like these types of bullshit:












> *Justin TrudeauVerified account
> ‏@JustinTrudeau
> 
> I was proud to vote for @Mauril_Belanger's bill to make O Canada gender neutral. It passed second reading tonight and now goes to committee.*


htt
ps://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/738167824468692992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

I will give u that though, its a good thing that he is trying the strengthen our relationships with other countries. I'll give him that.

But some things u brought up are things I have issues with. (Legalizing Weed & The Refugees)

First off, its good that we are helping people in need, don't take this the wrong way, but these people come to our country and they have it better than people who's families have been here all their lives. People in need I mean, Canadians. 

And like I said that's fine that we are helping, but we shouldn't be slighting Canadians to do it, we will be giving our country to them in the long run. 

That may sound ridiculous, but do some research and look at Europe right now, I'll even given some examples look at Belgium & Sweden. 

And not only is that a big part of my problem, the other thing is (if you do any research) alot of the "Syrian refugees" going to different countries around the world, aren't people in need, and alot of them aren't even from Syria. Alot of them are able bodied males from different countries not Syria.


Lastly.. I'm sorry but there is no excuse for Trudeau to not have legalized Marijunana yet, or atleast it should be clearly on the horizon. He's had 1 year with a majority government.

Rather than wasting time and effort on the stupid gender neutral anthem change, and some of the other stupid shit. (Which I would bet less than 5% of the country even gives a fuck about, actually correction, Id probably bet that less than 20% of the LGBT community even cares)

Because whether you are pro-weed or u think its the devil, its not really deniable that legalizing it would be a positive for our country. Especially if they industrialized hemp.

And its a joke that all those dispensaries in Toronto were raded by the Police, and the other bullshit that went down with that. Especially because (consider this), the leader of your country is pro-weed decriminalization and legalization, and then this happens in the biggest, most important city in your country. I feel for the harmless people who had that shit happen to them and their businesses, hopefully they are able to recover.

That and also *logically* how can u promote an equal society (which this guy does) when you have cigarettes, you have alcohol (both proven to be worse for u then weed), you've changed the lyrics of the national anthem to promote equality, your apologizing to everyone about everything, and you haven.t legalized weed?

If we are keeping everyone happy what about the people who smoke not just for medical reasons, and there are more weed smokers in this country than there are "gender neutral" people. 

I don't actually think the majority of Canadians like him anymore, I've seen alot of people who I know were pro-Trudeau or who addmitted to voting for him that have turned on him.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

^That's because people have no idea that feminist and SJWs have the most fucked up priorities in the world. 

Trudeau is both of those things and his cabinet is full of those kinds of people. 

I'm a a Canadian with a Canadian educational background. Their worship of social welfare statism is problematic in that the indoctrination starts early and they bring it on heavy. Everything from anti corporatism to government supported monopolies to non sustainable social welfare programs exist in Canada and even though it may seem balanced right now it really isn't. There's already been a oil industry crash. Calgary's boom couldn't be sustained. Edmonton isn't booming anymore. Vancouver's housing market is in a slump. Retailers are closing shop. 

Canadian universities are also some of the most feminist and SJW friendly universities in the world and Canadian economics is filled with anti-freemarket capitalists. 

Canada's future is going to be dependent on people recognizing that social welfare statism is a bubble that is going to burst and when it does Canada doesn't have the economic backbone to protect itself from the fallout therefore the people need to start working towards changing things wholesale. 

Tbh their social welfare only really works because it comes at a high cost of living which has stunted population growth. Canadians have literally given up having babies in order to maintain their social welfare state. The only ones having babies are opportunistic migrants who at the same time come with attitudes where for them nation building is less of a priority than taking whatever they can from a nation that's already built and moving on again if things get tough for them. 

Trudeau meanwhile is not the leader his father was. He's an aristocrat but not all aristocrats are good leaders.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> http://bients.com/julian-assange-confirms-sanders-threatened/
> 
> Assange claims Sanders was threatened.


Dude...... John Pilger is like.......



Fuck....



The Gloria Steinem of Australia.

If you're relying on his support.....

Like I'm a left wing Australian and I hate John Pilger because he is radical left.

If you were aware of 1/10 of things he supported you'd be outraged.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






So many truth bombs in one video. Based Dave Rubin.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



AJ_Styles_P1 said:


> Lastly.. I'm sorry but there is no excuse for Trudeau to not have legalized Marijunana yet, or atleast it should be clearly on the horizon. He's had 1 year with a majority government.
> 
> Rather than wasting time and effort on the stupid gender neutral anthem change, and some of the other stupid shit. (Which I would bet less than 5% of the country even gives a fuck about, actually correction, Id probably bet that less than 20% of the LGBT community even cares)
> 
> Because whether you are pro-weed or u think its the devil, its not really deniable that legalizing it would be a positive for our country. Especially if they industrialized hemp.
> 
> And its a joke that all those dispensaries in Toronto were raded by the Police, and the other bullshit that went down with that. Especially because (consider this), the leader of your country is pro-weed decriminalization and legalization, and then this happens in the biggest, most important city in your country. I feel for the harmless people who had that shit happen to them and their businesses, hopefully they are able to recover.
> 
> That and also *logically* how can u promote an equal society (which this guy does) when you have cigarettes, you have alcohol (both proven to be worse for u then weed), you've changed the lyrics of the national anthem to promote equality, your apologizing to everyone about everything, and you haven.t legalized weed?
> 
> If we are keeping everyone happy what about the people who smoke not just for medical reasons, and there are more weed smokers in this country than there are "gender neutral" people.
> 
> I don't actually think the majority of Canadians like him anymore, I've seen alot of people who I know were pro-Trudeau or who addmitted to voting for him that have turned on him.


Isn't Marijuana Legalisation a province level issue not a federal level issue in Canada?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

MSM bashing on the questions being "too tough" for Hilary, guess asking about her very real scandals is not going to be tolerated. Facts? Who needs facts! We need softball questions for her!

Honestly why is it even journalists doing these things when the media has split itself up into factions?


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

didn't know Canada was that bad...and that picture of trudeau in that orange hankerceif bowing his head and u know this dude is prob an atheist is pathetic.


----------



## GothicBohemian

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



AJ_Styles_P1 said:


> First off, its good that we are helping people in need, don't take this the wrong way, but these people come to our country and* they have it better than people who's families have been here all their lives. People in need I mean, Canadians*.


No they don't. They are provided with the same income as a family on social assistance, which is not a living wage. They receive the same subsidized housing, heating and prescription drug benefits as well. Of those, only the White Card is terrific - it has no co-pay, making it better than the average insurance policy. The difference is that they are guaranteed these benefits only for the first year. After that, they have to get back in line with everyone else who struggles to find work.

And they do struggle; most have little to no English or French. The average new immigrant from a non-traditional country of origin for Canada (ie. not from UK, France, US, India, China and a few select others) needs five or more years to find meaningful work. Most never get to use their credentials, including advanced diplomas, because Canada doesn't even recognize most foreign issued driver's licenses let alone medical degrees. 

I live below poverty level and I work. Unlike a refugee, I'm fluent in both official languages and am not responsible for supporting anyone but myself. I can only imagine the challenge of leaving what I know behind to come to a country with drastically different social and economic norms, where my experience and education are meaningless, my employment potential low, my children behind on their education and out of sync with the local culture and then having to find ways to clothe, feed and shelter my family while trying to learn a whole new way of living, all the while wondering who might be looking at me with resentment or even hatred. 



AJ_Styles_P1 said:


> And like I said that's fine that we are helping, but we shouldn't be slighting Canadians to do it, ...


Canada has a massive social safety net for citizens. There are government programs available to help most everyone but they do come with obligations a lot of the most desperate refuse to abide with. I could, if I were willing to closely supervised and forced to live in a neighbourhood I would not choose, access help paying for food and health care - two cost I find overwhelming on my minimum wage salary. I'm not willing to have the government that deep into my life, and I'm poor as a result of my own choices, so I choose to get by as best I can. I'm resourceful, I don't need help, but for those who do the help is there and not being taken by refugees. 

The one instance where Canadians are falling behind is aboriginal communities. The reserves are a mess and most Canadians don't care about the First Nations. There's an article on CBC right now equating the native situation with the Bus Plunge phenomenon, a term referring to western nations tuning out tragic situations in developing or distant countries because they aren't relate-able. Work needs doing to repair aboriginal pride and upgrade living conditions BUT the current state is not all the fault of 'everyone else'. The aboriginal population has contributed to the mess and we know this, or most of us do, and it's going to take effort from everyone to bring Canadian standards of living to the descendants of the original Canadians. 




AJ_Styles_P1 said:


> ... we will be giving our country to them in the long run.That may sound ridiculous, but do some research and look at Europe right now, I'll even given some examples look at Belgium & Sweden.
> 
> And not only is that a big part of my problem, the other thing is (if you do any research) alot of the "Syrian refugees" going to different countries around the world, aren't people in need, and alot of them aren't even from Syria. Alot of them are able bodied males from different countries not Syria.


The Syrian refugees are hand-picked. We're too far away for them to rush the borders so we have the luxury of choosing which ones we want. Of course there's no guarantee none will bring problems but that applies to all immigrants and refugees, not to mention folks born here who no one has any control over. I live in a city with one of the fastest rising crime rates in Canada. Who's committing those crimes? Locals. Many generation Canadians, mainly poor people with drug or alcohol addictions. They're holding up stores at gunpoint because they want money. We can't get rid of these people because they're Canadians. We're stuck with them and they are far from conforming to Canadian cultural norms and ethics. Honestly, I'd rather my government provide low-interest loans to refugees looking to start small business than toss more SA checks at lifelong deadbeats and criminals just because the latter happen to have Canadian birth certificates.




AJ_Styles_P1 said:


> Lastly.. I'm sorry but there is no excuse for Trudeau to not have legalized Marijunana yet, or atleast it should be clearly on the horizon. He's had 1 year with a majority government.
> 
> Rather than wasting time and effort on the stupid gender neutral anthem change, and some of the other stupid shit. (Which I would bet less than 5% of the country even gives a fuck about, actually correction, Id probably bet that less than 20% of the LGBT community even cares)


It's much easier to change anthem lyrics than legalize marijuana. Like you said, no one cares much about gender neutral lyrics - though the overwhelming majority of Canadians support gender neutral bathrooms and gender identity being protected in the Charter of Rights according to recent polls - so it's an easily won battle but legalizing prohibited substances faces major challenges from all sorts of directions. The police are fighting it, as you pointed out, and making life difficult for medical marijuana dispensaries in several provinces. It's actually harder to legislate something like this in Canada than in the US; while states are able to make their own choices on the issue, Canadian provinces have to come to a workable agreement on a national law. I think a lot of people had unrealistic expectations of the time frame involved. 

FWIW, I'm pro legalization and would love to see faster progress. 



AJ_Styles_P1 said:


> I don't actually think the majority of Canadians like him anymore, I've seen alot of people who I know were pro-Trudeau or who addmitted to voting for him that have turned on him.


Well, that may be but his popularity hit a 12 month high in august and, were an election held today, the national Liberal Party (not to be confused with the provincial Liberal Parties as the two are not always in sync and a province often will vote one way nationally and another provincially) would win a majority. However, I wouldn't rule out a future surge from the now-dropping NDP or even the Green Party. The Conservatives will eventually rebound too but they have a deep hole to climb out of and are now being, perhaps unfairly, perhaps fairly, labelled as too chummy with the far-right. 

Oh, and both Hilary and Donald are still unlikable. Trudeau may be a selfie-taking PC warrior but at least he's not dangerously close to taking charge of a huge military and economic powerhouse nation. He's just hanging out here in Canada, eating Kraft Dinner, drinking Tim's, enjoying his semi-legal weed and taking his shirt off to photobomb beachgoers.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



GothicBohemian said:


> Oh, and both Hilary and Donald are still unlikable. Trudeau may be a selfie-taking PC warrior but at least he's not dangerously close to taking charge of a huge military and economic powerhouse nation. He's just hanging out here in Canada, eating Kraft Dinner, drinking Tim's, enjoying his semi-legal weed and taking his shirt off to photobomb beachgoers.


Great overall post. I think being removed from Canada for so long has had me a little jaded about the situation there. 

I just have one thing to add though. Trudeau's foreign policy isn't as benign as is being assumed. His government is too far left to fully recognize the dangers of poorly vetted multi-culturalism. So far Canadian multi-culturalism has worked to an extent but it was because it was based on professional discrimination which is an organic limiter of overly diverging values. 

I'm not convinced that the current government will uphold the same high standards as they have done in the past to ensure only people who can assimilate get into Canada. You're right that Canada is naturally protected by physical barriers, but at the same time, they need erect sociological and cultural barriers as well - and keep a very close check on poverty levels. The main factor in crime is poverty and cultural homogeneity and both need to be actively fought against.


----------



## GothicBohemian

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@Reaper

How do you keep people out in a global economy where skilled workers travel across borders? It isn't even a refugee issue; international mobility means people with differing, often opposing, beliefs are going to find themselves sharing space in the workplace and in the community. Some will assimilate, some won't and others, immigrant and domestic, will embrace radicalized ideologies based on how they feel about assimilation. We're witnessing the ugly adjustment period of a changing global society and a lot of people are going to be unhappy for least the short term. 

Short of closing themselves off North Korea style I can't see how any G20 level country can escape multiculturalism in the coming decades. Even notoriously xenophobic Japan are going to have to face this reality, sooner or later, else be left behind when it comes to international influence. We don't live in a world dominated by 'western values' or 'old traditions' anymore. China has arrived and they won't be the only powerful nation from outside the old club of Europe and America.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



GothicBohemian said:


> @Reaper
> 
> How do you keep people out in a global economy where skilled workers travel across borders? It isn't even a refugee issue; international mobility means people with differing, often opposing, beliefs are going to find themselves sharing space in the workplace and in the community. Some will assimilate, some won't and others, immigrant and domestic, will embrace radicalized ideologies based on how they feel about assimilation. We're witnessing the ugly adjustment period of a changing global society and a lot of people are going to be unhappy for least the short term.
> 
> Short of closing themselves off North Korea style I can't see how any G20 level country can escape multiculturalism in the coming decades. Even notoriously xenophobic Japan are going to have to face this reality, sooner or later, else be left behind when it comes to international influence. We don't live in a world dominated by 'western values' or 'old traditions' anymore. China has arrived and they won't be the only powerful nation from outside the old club of Europe and America.


Ever notice how the people in the USA who most criticize whiny SJW college students for wanting safe spaces are the ones who want the biggest safe space of all?

I find that interesting.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Ever notice how the people in the USA who most criticize whiny SJW college students for wanting safe spaces are the ones who want the biggest safe space of all?
> 
> I find that interesting.


Generally, one group seems to want safe spaces from "whiteness," while the other seems to want safety from violent criminality and terrorism.

Not exactly the same thing. :shrug


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



GothicBohemian said:


> @Reaper
> 
> How do you keep people out in a global economy where skilled workers travel across borders? It isn't even a refugee issue; international mobility means people with differing, often opposing, beliefs are going to find themselves sharing space in the workplace and in the community. Some will assimilate, some won't and others, immigrant and domestic, will embrace radicalized ideologies based on how they feel about assimilation. We're witnessing the ugly adjustment period of a changing global society and a lot of people are going to be unhappy for least the short term.
> 
> Short of closing themselves off North Korea style I can't see how any G20 level country can escape multiculturalism in the coming decades. Even notoriously xenophobic Japan are going to have to face this reality, sooner or later, else be left behind when it comes to international influence. We don't live in a world dominated by 'western values' or 'old traditions' anymore. China has arrived and they won't be the only powerful nation from outside the old club of Europe and America.


It's simple. You don't keep _people _out blanketly ... You find ways to keep certain ideologies and ideologues out. 

No idea why it has to be black and white when it can be a vetting process. The idea that everyone must be treated equally or fairly no longer applies because not all people have the same values, or share the same ideologies. 

The problem is in lack of foresight. The ultimate question is, are western values inherently better? In certain things they are. When it comes to women's rights, animal rights, children's rights western values have progressed beyond those of places in some other parts of the world. Do other cultures have certain values that are better .. certainly. However, multi-culturalism is about ensuring progress and not regress - while Canada has stagnated for various reasons, Europe has regressed as a result of their open borders. Massively so. People think that we exaggerate about the rape gangs, the closed off communities, the no-go-zones within European cities, the burying of decades of child abuse cases etc etc. 

A lot of European countries are not what they used to be and the difference is worth bemoaning. The causes of which are squarely on extreme far left ideologies and lax immigration/movement laws. 

All I'm saying is that Canada runs the risk of doing the same and they need to keep vetting people as they are. 

If Canada keeps a few ideologues out, it won't have any negative impact on their international standing or economy. It's rational conservatism. 



Tater said:


> Ever notice how the people in the USA who most criticize whiny SJW college students for wanting safe spaces are the ones who want the biggest safe space of all?
> 
> I find that interesting.


So are you saying that just because certain safe spaces are opposed on ideological grounds and have been shown to have a more net negative impact than a positive one (i.e. college safe space) that means that no one should ever argue in favor of safety at all? 

:aries2


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> So are you saying that just because certain safe spaces are opposed on ideological grounds and have been shown to have a more net negative impact than a positive one (i.e. college safe space) that means that no one should ever argue in favor of safety at all?
> 
> :aries2


I'm saying everything and I'm saying nothing at all. 

ositivity


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't think anyone is advocating complete shutdown of immigration but if anyone is against something as common sense as vetting than you're a fool. We vet for everything nowadays, jobs vet you, you vet places to eat, neighborhoods too move to, babysitters etc. So why not people moving into your country? Would you let anyone with a sad story into your house? Or would you question them? 

If nations are having a problem with birthrates and filling jobs, perhaps they should offer incentives to their own citizens rather than bringing in cheap labor and taxing the citizens which ends up in the end helping nobody.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

RE: Canada/Trudeau Discussion



> *Trudeau’s Embrace by Unifor Leaders: a Step Backwards for Canadian Labour*
> September 9, 2016
> by James Napier
> 
> Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau received four standing ovations during his short address to the Unifor Convention in Ottawa August 24. Why would Canada’s largest private-sector union give such a warm reception to the leader of the corporate-owned Liberal Party of Canada? Unifor was created 3 years ago through the merger of the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) and the Communications, Energy and Paper Workers (CEP), although the CAW was the dominant partner.
> 
> Jerry Dias, Unifor National President, began his introduction of Trudeau with a denunciation of the previous Stephen Harper government “that I honestly believe did not like Canadians”. Dias said he was “enthused” to welcome Trudeau because when he met with him, Trudeau “talked about the importance of the labour movement … if we wanted a strong economy”. Dias asked the delegates “The first week after being sworn in – did he go meet with the business community? Did he go meet with the chambers of commerce, the banks, the oil companies? No no – he came right to the CLC headquarters right here in Ottawa and met with Hassan, myself and the other labour leaders.” Hassan Yussuff is the head of the Canadian Labour Congress, and was on the Unifor staff for many years. Yussuff spoke later in the Convention and heaped more praise on Trudeau: “Everything that the new government has done since they’ve been elected is to undo the ten years of damage that that bastard [Harper] did to this country… It is nice to have a government in this Ottawa that they’re not attacking workers anymore”. It is odd that Canada’s business leaders have not noticed that the Prime Minister is favouring labour over them.
> 
> Unifor is practicing “lesser evil’ politics to an extreme that is unusual for the Canadian labour movement. In fact, the Canadian Labour Congress was a founding partner in the creation of the New Democratic Party in 1961. The Canadian labour movement has historically championed the NDP as a party of labour, an alternative to the pro-capitalist Liberal and Conservative parties. The founding leader of the NDP, Tommy Douglas, is well known for his dramatization of the story of Mouseland, whose moral is that the mice must see through the charade of choosing between black cats and white cats to be their rulers. “Presently there came along one little mouse who had an idea… He said to the other mice. ‘Look fellows why do we keep electing a government made up of cats, why don’t we elect a government made up of mice?’ Oh, they said, he’s a Bolshevik. So they put him in jail.” Well Tommy, these Unifor/CLC ‘mice’ have decided they are better off being ruled by the white cats after all. And so we were treated to the unsettling sight of Jerry Dias staring deeply into the eyes of Justin Trudeau.
> 
> What are the implications of the Jerry/Justin bromance for Unifor, for the Canadian Labour movement and for the prospects of progressive political change in Canada? Here are six ways that turning the Unifor Convention into a Justin Trudeau photo op has been a step backwards:
> 
> 1) Canadian Union of Postal Workers
> 
> The Unifor Convention was an opportunity to put the struggle of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers front and centre. But that might have been embarrassing to Trudeau who has been in power almost a year and has done nothing to curb the rabid-dog management at Canada Post.
> 
> The CUPW waged a courageous battle against Canada Post and this week achieved a remarkable victory – forcing Canada Post to maintain defined-benefit pensions for the next generation of workers. The issue was still in doubt during the Unifor Convention, and is critically important to many Unifor members who are under pressure from employers to eliminate defined-benefit pensions, or who have already been forced to do so for newer workers. Defined-benefit pensions have been cut in half for new hires at Ford and Chrysler for the last four years, and have been eliminated at CAMI Automotive (which is owned by GM) and replaced with riskier defined contribution pensions. Some 500 workers at GM Oshawa hired over the last ten years are classified as temporary (Supplementary Workforce Employees, or SWEs) and get no pensions at all.
> 
> The Convention could have had a feature speaker from the CUPW to highlight their struggle, and build solidarity for a labour movement battle for decent pensions for all workers. Instead, the heroic battle by postal workers barely got a mention.
> 
> 2) The Trans-Pacific Partnership and CETA (European Trade Pact)
> 
> The TPP is a “trade” agreement designed to benefit corporate interests, weaken the ability of governments to put limits on corporate domination, and to support and expand the US sphere of influence in the Asia-Pacific region. Despite the fact that Unifor has been waging a public campaign against ratification of the TPP, the Unifor leaders couldn’t bring themselves to directly challenge Trudeau on the issue during his visit.
> 
> In fact, the Trudeau government’s position on international trade deals is basically identical to that of former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper – support whatever the US asks it to do. In 2013, when Harper announced a trade and investment pact with the European Union (CETA), Trudeau congratulated him and promised that his Liberals would support the deal in principle. According to Linda McQuaig, “CETA will undermine Canadian democracy, handing foreign corporations a powerful lever for pressuring our governments to, for instance, abandon environmental, health or financial regulations, while leaving Canadian taxpayers potentially on the hook to pay billions of dollars in compensation to some of the wealthiest interests on earth.” Trudeau is scheduled to sign CETA in October in Brussels. Yet instead of focusing attacks on the Trudeau government for continuing to promote these deals, Unifor leaders were praising him for being different from Harper.
> 
> 3) Syria
> 
> Advocating that workers should support Trudeau and his government, makes it impossible to promote an independent working-class view of world affairs. At the Unifor Convention delegates showed strong support for Syrian refugees, including families that are being supported by Unifor. But nobody at the Convention pointed out that the Canadian government has helped to create those very refugees by providing military and financial support to the US so-called “Global Coalition”. True solidarity with the victims of the humanitarian crisis in Syria and the millions of refugees from the fighting would mean opposing Canadian government support for the US illegal efforts at regime change.
> 
> 4) Saudi Monarchs and Israel
> 
> Treating Trudeau like a celebrity also makes it virtually impossible to critically examine other areas where his government has followed in the footsteps of Stephen Harper in supporting right-wing, undemocratic governments that are creating instability and war. Trudeau has continued to support the regime in Saudi Arabia and provide them with billions of dollars’ worth of weaponry which is being used to kill civilians in Yemen. And of course, Trudeau continues to be a staunch defender of Israel, with his party voting en masse for a Conservative motion to “condemn the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement”. BDS is an attempt to use peaceful tactics to pressure Israel to end its illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, and accord equal rights to Palestinians in Israel.
> 
> 5) Labour Party or ‘Strategic Voting’?
> 
> The most serious problem with supporting the Liberal Party is that it undermines independent labour politics. Labour leaders concluded more than a century ago that capitalist parties would never act on behalf of workers. The working class needs its own party. As long as the labour movement was aligned with the NDP this idea was alive, whatever the shortcomings of the NDP. But when labour leaders argue that it doesn’t matter who gets in as long as the biggest evil is defeated, we stop building a party that will really represent workers.
> 
> The CAW began promoting “strategic voting” in Canada some 20 years ago, and this has been toxic to labour politics. Now Trudeau can be invited to be the star guest of the Unifor Convention, and there is no discussion of the class interests that the Bay Street Liberals represent.
> 
> 6) Lack of Democracy in the Union
> 
> In order to have a successful showcase for the Liberal Prime Minister, the Convention was stage-managed to limit dissenting voices. The Convention was turned into a spectator event. The time filled with videos and guest speakers, and the delegates became an audience.
> 
> As a result many resolutions were pushed to the end, and many of them were not discussed at all because time ran out. That means the remaining resolutions were referred to the National Executive Board, which suits those leaders who don’t want the delegates to make the decisions.
> 
> Another indication of the sham democracy of the Unifor Convention was the selection of the top officers. Every position was acclaimed. There were no opposition candidates or opposition program. Despite talk of diversity, the top two positions in the union, National President and National Secretary Treasurer, were occupied again by two older white males.
> 
> SOURCE


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










God dammit Julie Borowski with your funny shirt choices :lmao.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> *Gary Johnson Vows to Get Tough on East Korea*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—In an appearance Friday on CNN, Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Presidential nominee, promised that as President he would get tough on East Korea.
> 
> “This behavior is unacceptable,” he said. “The East Koreans are making us look like idiots.”
> 
> While stressing that he remained, for the most part, an isolationist, he said, “I will do everything in my power as President to support our allies in West Korea.”
> 
> He also blasted the Obama Administration for its “lack of transparency” in conducting foreign policy. “I think it’s unconscionable that I just found out about these countries today,” he said.
> 
> SOURCE


:tysonlol


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> :tysonlol


This is almost an Onion article.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> MSM bashing on the questions being "too tough" for Hilary, guess asking about her very real scandals is not going to be tolerated. Facts? Who needs facts! We need softball questions for her!
> 
> Honestly why is it even journalists doing these things when the media has split itself up into factions?


Aside from biased commentary, the root of their complaint is Trump is judged on a lower grading curve than Hillary. Trump not looking like a complete idiot suddenly means he is looking presidential. That's how low the bar has been set for him. It is similar to James Dobson saying Trump is a 'baby Christian' BS to justify endorsing him even when Trump's life and values conflict so much with what they profess to value.

Some has said that is more due to Trump's way of conversation that allows him to slither away really answering the tough questions than no tough questions being asked of Trump. And I tend to agree with that. If Hillary or Jeb Bush said something similar to what Trump said about having a secret plan to destroy ISIS without answering, they will be grilled harder by the questioner and look awkward repeating the lie. But Trump has a way of just saying nothing with word salad and sneaking in a strawman attack on someone his supporters hate to digress from the main question that makes you feel like a the question has been answered.


----------



## AJ_Styles_P1

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



GothicBohemian said:


> The Syrian refugees are hand-picked. We're too far away for them to rush the borders so we have the luxury of choosing which ones we want.


Good response GB.

First On the marijuana topic:

Fair points on the unfair timeline. You make a great point, One thing I will say though in fairness to those who would have liked faster progress. Its that, when u hear and see the propaganda alot, (both before & after the election) about it. Then that right there is the government keeping it fresh in our minds, if they didn't do that alot of people wouldn't have as much a problem with the issue, but I do understand why they do that so its all good. I'm just saying though in fairness. (And I do still see propaganda on it alot)

I still think the raid in Toronto was an absolute joke though, and to expand on why that is (to go along with what I said in my last post) the Toronto government is also liberal.

The police went in and took over $300,000 from these people right (in the form of both weed products and money). Then the other thing is I see the Trudeau propaganda all the time on facebook, the sponsored posts about "legalizing, regulating, and keeping out of the hands of criminals" then here u have them acting as the criminals with that crap going down. 

I'm not sure what the poverty line is in BC, but I also work a full time job and I also make below a livable wage in Metro Vancouver which is where I work and live. (I'm in my early 20's and right now I can't envision ever owning a house in this province) So I didn't mean to try to come off an insensitive to the refugees, I share your sympathy, but I also sympathize with the harmless people who's business and income were unjustly stolen by the system.

Onto the refugee thing quickly, can u please provide a source that states they are handpicked, I don't trust this government and have never thought that was the case.

And also I could be wrong but didn't Trudeau/The Liberals rush to get a approval for bunch of refugees to come to Canada fairly quickly after he was elected? 

I doubt the screening process was "hand picked". And also it might not mean much but Trudeau's extreme sensitivity to every sole on the planet (not that there is anything wrong with that), leads me to think otherwise but if u have proof I'm happy to become informed.

Personally I kind of agree with what Reaper said, I didn't mean to come across as insensitive to these people, his post is how I feel also on it.

I just don't really trust Trudeau and the Government with this, or even with the marijuana legalization (I doubt what they come up with will be what it should be). And I was originally going vote for Trudeau too but I just generally don't think they have their heads in the right places regarding some things, but thats just my opinion.


----------



## AJ_Styles_P1

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

And sorry to the Mods of the website and ppl annoyed with me posting full on about Canadian politics in a US election thread.

Its just as the stereotype goes we are very nice people apparently, and I haven't had an opportunity to have a real decent conversation about Canadian politics since last years election and there's been some prevalent things to share opinions about.

I'll try not to continue with massive posts about it, and get a bit more on topic with what this thread is about, my apologies if it bothered anyone. I just wanted to be clear that I'm not trying to purposely hijack the thread.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Aside from biased commentary, the root of their complaint is Trump is judged on a lower grading curve than Hillary. Trump not looking like a complete idiot suddenly means he is looking presidential. That's how low the bar has been set for him. It is similar to James Dobson saying Trump is a 'baby Christian' BS to justify endorsing him even when Trump's life and values conflict so much with what they profess to value.
> 
> Some has said that is more due to Trump's way of conversation that allows him to slither away really answering the tough questions than no tough questions being asked of Trump. And I tend to agree with that. If Hillary or Jeb Bush said something similar to what Trump said about having a secret plan to destroy ISIS without answering, they will be grilled harder by the questioner and look awkward repeating the lie. But Trump has a way of just saying nothing with word salad and sneaking in a strawman attack on someone his supporters hate to digress from the main question that makes you feel like a the question has been answered.


I agree and disagree, Hilary has lied and slithered her way out of questions asked by people during this election. Of course it wasn't on a forum like it was last night but the point remains that Hilary tends to "short circuit" during tough questions. I think this is why the MSM who support her and her fans don't want these type of questions because now people are paying attention and she doesn't have the luxury of having anything that can hurt her done before a Holiday weekend.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I agree and disagree, Hilary has lied and slithered her way out of questions asked by people during this election. Of course it wasn't on a forum like it was last night but the point remains that Hilary tends to "short circuit" during tough questions. I think this is why the MSM who support her and her fans don't want these type of questions because now people are paying attention and she doesn't have the luxury of having anything that can hurt her done before a Holiday weekend.


Yes, and she has been rightfully called out for her evasion of the question. Trump on the other hand, says even more lies that reporters forget to hold him accountable for the initial evasion and help to make it seem like he has answered the original question. Too many times.

Imagine if Hillary has said her plans to combat ISIS is 'a secret plan' and refuse to say anything about it. Wouldn't you say she's not answering the question? But Trump manage to say that, add in attacks on the Obama administration to distract and somehow 'answered' the question about what is the plan or does he really have a plan.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Ever notice how the people in the USA who most criticize whiny SJW college students for wanting safe spaces are the ones who want the biggest safe space of all?
> 
> I find that interesting.


That's quite a false equivalency you got there.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> That's quite a false equivalency you got there.


Fuck L Ron Hubbard and
Fuck all his clones
Fuck all those gun-toting
Hip gangster wannabes

Learn to swim

Fuck retro anything
Fuck your tattoos
Fuck all you junkies and
Fuck your short memory

Learn to swim

Fuck smiley glad-hands
With hidden agendas
Fuck these dysfunctional,
Insecure actresses

Learn to swim

'Cause I'm praying for rain
And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way
I wanna watch it all go down
Mom please flush it all away
I wanna see it go right in and down
I wanna watch it go right in
Watch you flush it all away

Time to bring it down again
Don't just call me pessimist
Try and read between the lines

I can't imagine why you wouldn't
Welcome any change, my friend

I wanna see it come down,
Burn it down
Suck it down
Flush it down


----------



## AJ_Styles_P1

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Yes, and she has been rightfully called out for her evasion of the question. Trump on the other hand, says even more lies that reporters forget to hold him accountable for the initial evasion and help to make it seem like he has answered the original question. Too many times.
> 
> Imagine if Hillary has said her plans to combat ISIS is 'a secret plan' and refuse to say anything about it. Wouldn't you say she's not answering the question? But Trump manage to say that, add in *attacks on the Obama administration* to distract and somehow 'answered' the question about what is the plan or does he really have a plan.


If u watch the conventions (the better source to gain information from, TV interviews on major American networks are garbage IMO) he's brought up some facts that are good points. And u can get a better idea about some of his plans, u just have to be smart like with any politician and make up your own logical conclusions based on what they say and how they say it, to try to get an idea of their intentions with regards to different things.

But whether u like Trump or not, I can't understand a vote for Hilary, America will just tread water at best in my opinion. (more likely continue trending downwards). She's proven corrupt and a vote for her is a vote for continued corruption.

If someone is a Hilary supporter who complains about any other president/politician being corrupt, then I think they need to take a step back and re-evaluate, to say it nicely. LOL


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This is related, but not really related, but FB sidebar where they show trending topics was actually becoming my first source for political news because it was just right there. So basically, the alt-right whiny bitches instead of making my life easy ended up making my life hard because instead of being exposed to news that I could further research on, discuss and learn more about ... I get NO FUCKING NEWS, because obviously the things people are generally interested in have NOTHING to do with politics. 

This is the shit that's trending right now in politics: 



> Matt Lauer
> 77K people talking about this
> Trump on Larry King
> 14K people talking about this
> Gary Johnson
> 360K people talking about this
> Dustin Moskovitz
> 14K people talking about this
> Louie Gohmert
> 4.9K people talking about this
> Humans of New York
> 14K people talking about this
> Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
> 9.2K people talking about this
> Johnson Amendment
> 1K people talking about this
> Shannon Sharpe
> 28K people talking about this
> Richard Petty
> 11K people talking about this


At least when it was people, you'd get an actual headline, some content, a little hook ... And then you could go and informed. What the fuck is this shit? :kobelol 

Victim culture is cancer. It ruins things for everyone.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



AJ_Styles_P1 said:


> If u watch the conventions (the better source to gain information from, TV interviews on major American networks are garbage IMO) he's brought up some facts that are good points. And u can get a better idea about some of his plans, u just have to be smart like with any politician and make up your own logical conclusions based on what they say and how they say it, to try to get an idea of their intentions with regards to different things.
> 
> But whether u like Trump or not, I can't understand a vote for Hilary, America will just tread water at best in my opinion. (more likely continue trending downwards). She's proven corrupt and a vote for her is a vote for continued corruption.
> 
> If someone is a Hilary supporter who complains about any other president/politician being corrupt, then I think they need to take a step back and re-evaluate, to say it nicely. LOL


My point wasn't that the points he brought up wasn't made for good discussions. My point was he avoided answering the question of whether his 'secret plans even exist' or as pointed out, whether his 'secret plan' really is just asking other people what their plans are. 

Trump has been all bluster for months on now and it finally caught up to him a few weeks back. If you dig even deeper, his policies were mostly copied from other GOP presidential candidates while attempting to present it as his own. It is not a coincidence that his campaign has become more polished and his polls rebounded since the Mercers started really taking over because Trump wasn't doing anything about the substance part of actually running for president.

Similar to your point about Hillary and corruption, I don't see how a Trump supporter can say a vote for Trump isn't also a vote for continued corruption when he has bragged during the primaries in participating in it. Is being in public office going to suddenly his view on how to get things done? Come on.

edit to add on: Trump has been incompetent in his corruption dealings as well, seeing as how he used his non-profit to pay it and even tried to pay the bribe to a charity that sounds like a Pam Bondi PAC. And this is the guy that is campaigning that he will fix the issue because he knows how these things work.

Also, his campaign recently hired the person responsible for increasing even more money into politics.

A vote for Trump might just bring corruption to a higher level as he seem intent on adding even more loopholes to evade taxes. Does his supporters really think he will close tax loopholes that allowed him to pay little to no tax for decades?


----------



## mihapiha

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> *https://www.donaldjtrump.com/*
> *https://www.hillaryclinton.com/*
> 
> _Election Day:_ *November 8, 2016*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the media narrative is full of shit.
> 
> Because we need strong borders
> 
> Because we are 19 trillion dollars in debt.
> 
> Because our country makes terrible deals that benefit our enemies more than us.
> 
> Because we don't take care of our vets.
> 
> Because being "Conservative" has failed us.
> 
> Because politicians are bought and paid for.
> 
> Because our military is shrinking.
> 
> Because we as Americans cannot afford to be anymore PC.
> 
> Because we deserve BETTER than Hillary Clinton and a geriatric cultural Marxist!
> 
> I am voting for Donald J. Trump, the modern day Andrew Jackson!
> 
> He is defying all conventional wisdom right now. The media are quite literally afraid of him. Regardless of whether you love or hate the man, realize he is changing the political game forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is NOT an ironic thread. I believe there is discussion to be had on the real truth behind the Trump phenomenon. If you are concerned about policy, share here. If you think he's just a reality TV star, so be it. let us have an honest dialog and hopefully, the negative aura around him will fade as well as the overhype and we can weigh both sides.
> 
> I want to start by pointing out that Trump is also the only one calling out the demons in his own party. Democrats should resonate with this.
> 
> Latest polls show Trump leading in SC:
> 
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html
> 
> Is Trump REALLY a flip-flopper?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll add more interesting stuff as I find it


It is really hard to find Trump supporters over here in Central Europe. He's considered the butt of a joke most of the time, so I will take advantage of this opportunity and hope we can have an honest and fair discussion in terms of policies he is supporting.

I did highlight some of the issues you mentioned and I want to discuss those topics first if you don't mind.

Over here you'd here a lot of his (stupid) idea of building a wall, because such a project would blow money and not change the fact that over 90% of illegal immigrants come to the US using a plane and don't leave when their visa expires. 

The government's debt is indeed $19.5 trillion however most of it is created by military expenses and healthcare costs, due to the US's privatized system. Because both equally deserve to be addressed and that would make this post endless to provide the evidence to my point, I would just like to point out a few statistics. 

The US spends nearly $600 billion annually on defense, which is over 50% of all federal spending excluding Medicate, Medicare and Social Security. The cost for Medicate and Social Security you see on your paycheck anyhow, so let's look at the rest:










France, a country which really has a proper terrorist problem, and a country which invests heavily into the military by European standards, spends $51 billion. More than one third of the entire planet's military spending is done in the US. Basically the US spends as much as the next 8 countries combined. The biggest air force in the world is the US air-force, the second biggest is the US navy. So unless the US navy declares war on the US air-force you really shouldn't worry about investing billions into the military. Basically the US military budget could be cut in half and you'd still have the biggest military and budget by a mile. 

This would incidentally also free up the budget to help vets and tons of other services which are now neglected.

This also brings me to my question: Why is the "shrinking" military budget a problem for the US?
Would your freedom be in danger if the US spend only as much as the next 5 countries combined?

In terms of health care I already had a discussion going which points out the cost of the American system. If you wish to read thru it you're welcome: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?p=1065724612#post1065724612


----------



## SpeedStick

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

 Imperialist vs Feminist


----------



## Sincere

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



mihapiha said:


> The government's debt is indeed $19.5 trillion however most of it is created by military expenses and healthcare costs, due to the US's privatized system. Because both equally deserve to be addressed and that would make this post endless to provide the evidence to my point, I would just like to point out a few statistics.
> 
> The US spends nearly $600 billion annually on defense, which is over 50% of all federal spending excluding Medicate, Medicare and Social Security. The cost for Medicate and Social Security you see on your paycheck anyhow, so let's look at the rest:


This is only discretionary spending. Discretionary spending only accounts for about 1/3 of the annual budget. The other 2/3s is mandatory spending, where there is no allocation for military/defense. The rest is interest on the debt.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



SpeedStick said:


> Imperialist vs Feminist


Demogogue


----------



## mihapiha

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Sincere said:


> This is only discretionary spending. Discretionary spending only accounts for about 1/3 of the annual budget. The other 2/3s is mandatory spending, where there is no allocation for military/defense. The rest is interest on the debt.


Was there a point to your input? Because I did mention that I didn't look at all of the federal spending, but rather looked at the spending outside of Medicate, Medicare and Social Security. Granted I didn't mention interest cost, but I thought I'd focus on the part of taxes you see on your paycheck other than health care and Social security that is. 

One can even argue that the cost for veterans benefits are sort of in the bag for defense spending. America has a different attitude in terms of military compared to us here. Austria has a mandatory military service, hence most male Austrians would qualify as "veterans", however, when Austrians say "veterans" they tend to mean people who have been on the front line in some war zone, not people who've served in the Austrian military but were never deployed. But I'm getting off topic.

Is there a reason you feel that me focusing on the huge defense budget was unfair, by pointing out what chunk of your paycheck is going towards this?

I did link to the health care debate, because I think that's way too complex to address in one topic, but I wanna link to this one video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M


----------



## Sincere

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



mihapiha said:


> Was there a point to your input?


Relevant data is relevant. :shrug


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-basket-of-deplorables/

Hillary's 47% moment. fpalm


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-basket-of-deplorables/
> 
> Hillary's 47% moment. fpalm


My exact same first thought. 

Also, Kaine was a shocker of a pick for VP, especially compared to Pence who actually addressed some of Trump's weaknesses. 

Clinton is making way too many unforced errors.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I doubt it'll matter much. The left's narrative was already that Trump is a big ol' racist (which is categorically false) so it stands to reason that anyone supporting him would also be considered racist by the left. 

That said, Basket of Deplorables is a cool name. Sounds like a Pixar movie about the most adorable biker gang ever. Maybe it'll hurt her a little bit but I don't see it as a defining moment. Maybe I'm wrong. We'll see.

Trump is playing it fucking brilliantly though. "Worst mistake of the political season" is fantastic branding and obviously an attempt at "wiping clean" his record of gaffes, comparatively. Then he comes out and says he respects Hillary's supporters. :done People still think this guy is stupid. So off base.


----------



## AJ_Styles_P1

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

That's one thing you can give Trump, he is changing politics. This will open the door for more businessmen to run, which I think is a good thing, the current system is long over due for change.

I've already hear a rumour that Kevin O'Leary (many of u probably don't know who is he, very sucessful businessman in Canada, who is apart of a business-type show now aswell called Dragons Den) is going to run for Prime Minister of Canada next election.

I think its good, our countries are so far in debt, having people who knows what it takes to achieve success starting to run is a positive change to the political landscape rather than traditional dishonest scum politicians. Especially for America.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I doubt it'll matter much. The left's narrative was already that Trump is a big ol' racist (which is categorically false) so it stands to reason that anyone supporting him would also be considered racist by the left.
> 
> That said, Basket of Deplorables is a cool name. Sounds like a Pixar movie about the most adorable biker gang ever. Maybe it'll hurt her a little bit but I don't see it as a defining moment. Maybe I'm wrong. We'll see.
> 
> Trump is playing it fucking brilliantly though. "Worst mistake of the political season" is fantastic branding and obviously an attempt at "wiping clean" his record of gaffes, comparatively. Then he comes out and says he respects Hillary's supporters. :done People still think this guy is stupid. So off base.


Won't matter to die hard leftists or Hilary supporters but it will matter to independents and others who haven't picked a side. It's a pretty bad blunder on her part, attacking Trump is one thing but attacking his voters is an attack on voting all together.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Evidently $hillary had some kind of episode at a 9/11 ceremony and had to be evacuated.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/774965031943438336

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/774970468017266689

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/774975543032807429
Edit: Video of $hillary being held up, nearly collapsing, dragged into her van

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/775006572153929728

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/774993814025011200
:chan


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This election is a joke.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Different angle of the faint or whatever it was.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/775000466304315393
Can't help thinking about this from Doctor Who






The thing is her health may be fine and this is an isolated incident, but perception is all that matters and this will be replayed over and over on news channels and campaign commercials.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> The thing is her health may be fine and this is an isolated incident, but perception is all that matters and this will be replayed over and over on news channels and campaign commercials.


Nah, this is just the latest in a history of reports about collapsing, fainting, having trouble walking, etc. 









On top of the history of awkward coughing fits and the numerous other reports of health related issues.

Illary gonna ill.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Turns out that Hillary's "logo" or whatever one wishes to call it looking conspicuously like an arrow directing the reader to a hospital makes all of the sense in the world.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Her advisors told her to be more like Bernie and she thought they meant Weekend at Bernie's.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

One must imagine just how much this woman must utterly despise the very fiber of Barack Obama's being.

Any Democratic nominee who was not caught on videotape murdering people with an axe would have defeated John McCain in 2008 after eight calamitous years of George "Mental Midget" W. Bush being instrumental in the beginning of the decline of the empire over which he and the cadre of neoconservatives misruled and the pressing down of the financial accelerator toward the bankrupting of his country. Hillary must have been able to taste the presidency. And Obama shows up and takes it all away from her. Now she's a pathetic, bloodthirsty old woman whose policies brought destruction, mayhem and slaughter to several different countries' populations, and she may be the next Woodrow Wilson, incapacitated within her White House cocoon, her spouse having to run the show for her behind the scenes.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Well, so much for hillary's health being a conspiracy theory. 

I think she's ill and has been for a while, but not gravely ill or dying. I'm beginning to think that she's doing this to herself believing that her presence is more important than getting treated or being hospitalized. 

I also think that her and her office are hiding this not just from the public but from the party itself. I wouldn't put it past her. 

It's ridiculous - but this is _exactly _what you'd expect from Hillary.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> Different angle of the faint or whatever it was.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/775000466304315393


This has got to be the fatal blow. That looks AWFUL.

Is it true that the temperature was only in the 70s and they're saying she overheated?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> This has got to be the fatal blow. That looks AWFUL.
> 
> Is it true that the temperature was only in the 70s and they're saying she overheated?


Low 80's. But from the looks of it, it seems cloudy as well.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> The thing is her health may be fine and this is an isolated incident, but perception is all that matters and this will be replayed over and over on news channels and campaign commercials.


You have more faith than I do. I have yet to see anything on the news, and I don't expect to see anything today either. What I do expect is for this to be downplayed and spun. I'll believe this actually affects her run for President when I see it happening.

Although I am in favor of anything that keeps Hillary out of the White House... still I am not going to get my hopes up.


----------



## downnice

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Well if her health is failing then at least we will get a short presidential reign if she is elected

Every time that insane lunatic Trump Talks, or that crooked murderer Clinton talk I just want to......


----------



## SonOfAnarchy91

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

America is officially screwed lol


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Her doctor put out that she has da pneumonia


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> Her doctor put out that she has da pneumonia


Heh. I was close with bronchitis. 

What I know of pneumonia, it's usually a result of untreated illness and can be fatal.

High AF :kobelol


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



downnice said:


> Well if her health is failing then at least we will get a short presidential reign if she is elected


...and then we get... Kaine... fpalm

At least he isn't Hillary, I guess...? :shrug


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> ...and then we get... Kaine... fpalm
> 
> At least he isn't Hillary, I guess...? :shrug


To bad it isn't this Kane


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> To bad it isn't this Kane












This Kane is best Kane


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> To bad it isn't this Kane





Sincere said:


> This Kane is best Kane


YYYYEAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> This Kane is best Kane


You dare deny the Messiah?!


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Justifying the conspiracy theories because Hillary is diagnosed with pneumonia is straight out of right wing nuts rationalising their own crazy spin. Tell me again if having pillows on chairs is a sign of the disease? 

But these last few days have been real bad for Hillary. Her 47% speech and now this health incident is going to energise Trump's base and maybe sway some reluctant Republicans to go out and vote Trump.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Justifying the conspiracy theories because Hillary is diagnosed with pneumonia is straight out of right wing nuts rationalising their own crazy spin. Tell me again if having pillows on chairs is a sign of the disease?
> 
> But these last few days have been real bad for Hillary. Her 47% speech and now this health incident is going to energise Trump's base and maybe sway some reluctant Republicans to go out and vote Trump.


I don't get and never will understand this fierce religious defending of Hilary Clinton, it's as if people view her as a God that she's infallible and anything negative about her is some "conspiracy" or lies made up by the right to make her look bad. Her health concerns are legitimate,she had a concussion after she *fainted* and fell. She also had a blood clot in her ear because of that. I truly don't understand how people can ignore that. This isn't about wanting Hilary to lose, this is something that shouldn't be swept under the rug because you're pro Hilary and regard anyone who calls into question her health as a "right wing nut".


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> I don't get and never will understand this fierce religious defending of Hilary Clinton, it's as if people view her as a God that she's infallible and anything negative about her is some "conspiracy" or lies made up by the right to make her look bad. Her health concerns are legitimate,she had a concussion after she *fainted* and fell. She also had a blood clot in her ear because of that. I truly don't understand how people can ignore that. This isn't about wanting Hilary to lose, this is something that shouldn't be swept under the rug because you're pro Hilary and regard anyone who calls into question her health as a "right wing nut".


This wasn't a fierce 'religious' defending of Hillary Clinton, but more of an attack of the alt-right people justifying their conspiracy theories because something turns out to fit their narrative. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Don't gloss over the fact that first it was faking a concussion to escape Bengazi hearings, which is now used as a legitimate claim about her health. You want fierce religious defending of a candidate, look at Trump supporters who treat him as the second coming.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> This wasn't a fierce 'religious' defending of Hillary Clinton, but more of an attack of the alt-right people justifying their conspiracy theories because something turns out to fit their narrative. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
> 
> Don't gloss over the fact that first it was faking a concussion to escape Bengazi hearings, which is now used as a legitimate claim about her health. You want fierce religious defending of a candidate, look at Trump supporters who treat him as the second coming.


Are you saying there's no way she has an illness that she could be hiding?

*EDIT:*

Ok, what the hell is this at about 32 secs?






Im not going "LOL Conspiracy here but....huh? :surprise


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

OK...Trumpamaniacs who are on this thread...I have a serious question for you. I don't necessarily have to have an answer right away. I really want you folks (you know who you are) to think about this very carefully, as this is a legitimate question that I am hoping you can answer me honestly. 

Let me get out of the way first that there is the chance that I will vote for Trump in November. I like the change of tone I've seen in recent weeks, and I think he understands how serious this job is. I have also told you HRC can never be an option and Gary Johnson screwed up big time with his "Where's Aleppo" comment. That being said...

You all know that I take my interest in politics very seriously. I vote in every election, from local school boards all the way up to the national elections. I follow the issues, study them carefully, and make what I feel is the best possible decision based on what I believe and what I think is right. I pay attention year round, not just in the months leading up to an election. 

There's more to this though than just voting and sharing my Constitutional conservative viewpoints here at Wrestlingforum.  I am in contact via e-mail and phone on occasion with the staff of my leaders. If it is a city issue, I e-mail my local rep to the City Council. I have no problem with busting off a phone call or e-mail to my Congressperson or Senators if I feel passionately about something. It's not just going to the ballot box every so often...having political skin in the game means staying on top of the situation and holding our leadership accountable. You don't have to do it every minute of every day, but make sure you are aware of the political landscape. 

On November 9, the process of voting for our next President will be over. However, that's when the real work begins. For many Trump supporters, this is the first time ever or in a long time that they are involved in the political process. There is something about the Donald that got them off their butts and into the fight. Many of them are ready to vote for this man. If the Donald gets elected and takes the oath, are you prepared to make sure that he is expected to follow through on the promises of the election? Will you make sure that you reach out to your Congresspeople and Senators and tell them that you expect their support in carrying out what is needed to reverse America's decline? Keep in mind, many of us don't want the decline just slowed down. We want it stopped. You ain't done just because you vote on November 8. 

However, one thing that Hillary missed when it came to her "basket of deplorables" comments that many believe. A good number of people, including those with skin in the political game, believe that if Hillary somehow gets elected that many Trump supporters will take their ball and go home. They will feel that the whole movement was in vain, that the election is rigged, whatever. That will be the time to stay involved as well, to reach out to your leadership that under no circumstances do you want, period, for Hillary Clinton to complete what Obama has started. That is the time to hold your leaders' feet to the fire and say, "This is the red line we refuse to allow you to cross." Let them know that you will vote them out if they refuse to comply. Let them know you are going to stick around and make their lives hell if they don't fulfill the will of the people. 

Regardless of what happens on November 8 and who I vote for...I will be fighting the fight again come November 9 and beyond. If Trump is elected, I will expect him to follow through on what he promises. If HRC is elected, I will dig in and fight like hell to let my leadership know I want nothing of hers to be accomplished under any circumstances. No matter what happens, are the Trump fans willing to stick around and fight or will they ride off into the sunset?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Are you saying there's no way she has an illness that she could be hiding?


I would put it as her shrugging it off as nothing serious as long as she can still work to continue her campaign, which wouldn't be the wisest move considering her age.

I'm sure most of us can relate to simply popping an aspirin and getting back to work even if unwell.


----------



## Shining_Wizard1979

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Honestly, _I_ passed out from this crap going around the last couple of months, and I was inside, in air conditioning, sitting in a chair doing paperwork. Never happened to me before. If it was because of pneumonia, I wouldn't be concerned about it at all.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hilary doesn't have blood on her hands, she bathes in blood! Whatever sickness she may have is totally deserved as she is, in my opinion, the most evil person walking this earth. One of her mentors is Madeleine Albright, another war criminal.

How anyone can possibly vote for her or even defend her baffles me. What I would do to see Hilary in an orange jumpsuit :mark:


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> OK...Trumpamaniacs who are on this thread...I have a serious question for you. I don't necessarily have to have an answer right away. I really want you folks (you know who you are) to think about this very carefully, as this is a legitimate question that I am hoping you can answer me honestly.
> 
> Let me get out of the way first that there is the chance that I will vote for Trump in November. I like the change of tone I've seen in recent weeks, and I think he understands how serious this job is. I have also told you HRC can never be an option and Gary Johnson screwed up big time with his "Where's Aleppo" comment. That being said...
> 
> You all know that I take my interest in politics very seriously. I vote in every election, from local school boards all the way up to the national elections. I follow the issues, study them carefully, and make what I feel is the best possible decision based on what I believe and what I think is right. I pay attention year round, not just in the months leading up to an election.
> 
> There's more to this though than just voting and sharing my Constitutional conservative viewpoints here at Wrestlingforum.  I am in contact via e-mail and phone on occasion with the staff of my leaders. If it is a city issue, I e-mail my local rep to the City Council. I have no problem with busting off a phone call or e-mail to my Congressperson or Senators if I feel passionately about something. It's not just going to the ballot box every so often...having political skin in the game means staying on top of the situation and holding our leadership accountable. You don't have to do it every minute of every day, but make sure you are aware of the political landscape.
> 
> On November 9, the process of voting for our next President will be over. However, that's when the real work begins. For many Trump supporters, this is the first time ever or in a long time that they are involved in the political process. There is something about the Donald that got them off their butts and into the fight. Many of them are ready to vote for this man. If the Donald gets elected and takes the oath, are you prepared to make sure that he is expected to follow through on the promises of the election? Will you make sure that you reach out to your Congresspeople and Senators and tell them that you expect their support in carrying out what is needed to reverse America's decline? Keep in mind, many of us don't want the decline just slowed down. We want it stopped. You ain't done just because you vote on November 8.
> 
> However, one thing that Hillary missed when it came to her "basket of deplorables" comments that many believe. A good number of people, including those with skin in the political game, believe that if Hillary somehow gets elected that many Trump supporters will take their ball and go home. They will feel that the whole movement was in vain, that the election is rigged, whatever. That will be the time to stay involved as well, to reach out to your leadership that under no circumstances do you want, period, for Hillary Clinton to complete what Obama has started. That is the time to hold your leaders' feet to the fire and say, "This is the red line we refuse to allow you to cross." Let them know that you will vote them out if they refuse to comply. Let them know you are going to stick around and make their lives hell if they don't fulfill the will of the people.
> 
> Regardless of what happens on November 8 and who I vote for...I will be fighting the fight again come November 9 and beyond. If Trump is elected, I will expect him to follow through on what he promises. If HRC is elected, I will dig in and fight like hell to let my leadership know I want nothing of hers to be accomplished under any circumstances. No matter what happens, are the Trump fans willing to stick around and fight or will they ride off into the sunset?


If hill wins i honestly don't see how an (R) gets elected ever again until we have a cultural shift.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The left will try anything and everything, won't they! So desperate
http://usuncut.com/politics/trump-twin-towers/


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> If hill wins i honestly don't see how an (R) gets elected ever again until we have a cultural shift.


Honestly, it might not be a bad thing for the GOP to either undergo a transformation or die off altogether if they are unwilling to follow through on what they have said they are going to do. This is why the phenomenon of Donald Trump came along, the GOP has time and again failed to keep its promises. They are not the party of limited government and adherence to the Constitution they claim to be. For examples of this in US history...study the rise and demise of the Whig Party. From its ashes came the party of Lincoln. 

What I'm saying is that maybe this could be the cultural shift. We've watched this going on for years, the GOP has said they would stop this but refused to do so. That has what brought out many people, they see where we're heading and now we are getting close enough to see the abyss. However, many are sure that a Trump loss means that many of those who have supported him will go home. I'm going to fight regardless...if the Republic goes down, I will make damn sure it won't go without a vicious fight..


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Interestingly enough, there hasn't been two different Democrats/Republicans elected back to back since like the 40's. It's always rotated. The only exception is Reagan/Bush.


----------



## Oakue

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> If hill wins i honestly don't see how an (R) gets elected ever again until we have a cultural shift.


We've already had the cultural shift that will prevent an (R) from winning many elections in our lives. They're called Millennials. There are more of them than there were Baby Boomers and will be the majority voting demographic by the next election, 2020. They are to the left on most issues. The Millennials desire a more government based intervention into the economy than any other demographic in American history. This is something both sides of the political aisle are going to have to come to grips with, because it won't be long until Millennials are in charge of everything. From business to banking to politics to courts. Just as the Baby Boomers ushered in Reagan and a period of right-wing political dominance during the 30-40 year period of their prime, the Millennials are about to do the exact opposite. And the electoral college system all but wraps it up for Republicans. Texas is going to turn blue at some point because of changing demographics. When this happens it's over for the rest of our lives for a Republican Presidency.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Regardless of what happens on November 8 and who I vote for...I will be fighting the fight again come November 9 and beyond. If Trump is elected, I will expect him to follow through on what he promises. If HRC is elected, I will dig in and fight like hell to let my leadership know I want nothing of hers to be accomplished under any circumstances. No matter what happens, are the Trump fans willing to stick around and fight or will they ride off into the sunset?


Personally, I think it's far more prudent to get involved in city, county and state politics than federal politics. Now I know that the major decisions get made up there, but ultimately what effects _me _the most are the things the local government wants to get done. 

My interest on the federal level ends to the extent I can use my verbal abilities to influence people's mindset one way or another and ultimately that's where that begins and where that ends because of the limited power at my disposal. I am an average man with various interests and am not rooted into the community. My wife is more connected, but she's passive. We discuss local government politics, and people involved and then she goes and places her vote. 

At the national level, there isn't much one can do when the GOP refuses to let go of some of their most ridiculously small-minded attitudes towards core social issues that will continue to push them into a decline. It has already seen them lost 2 elections in a row, and they will lose 2 more if they don't let go of their BS pandering of the religious right (which is not the same as the right itself, but rather the right-wing version of religious attitudes) and their most backward social ideologies. The ones that get democrats the votes simply by lying about it. Not saying that people don't have a right to those ideologies, but to have them as an integral part of their platforms is no longer helping them, but hurting them in a nation that is slowly headed towards a non-religious majority. Whether people want to admit it or not, or see it or not, GOP's close association with christianity is hurting them far more than anyone's willing to admit. This to me has been the final straw in deciding not to support the GOP - and I may not till they reform their religious attitudes further. 

This is another reason why I've gotten fed up with the alt-right as well because while they call themselves the beacons of reason, they have more of a soft-spot for christianity than they should (just as the extreme left does with regards to their soft spot for islam). Now of course, Islam and Christianity are not equal, but the point is that no religion should be a part of the american political spectrum - period. It's in the constitution. Ultimately, what most everyone on the right forgets is that one of the core ruling ideologies of this country is that the church and the state should be separate and that means only a person who is capable of upholding that difference become the leader. Now I don't know about you and other conservatives, but when people come out openly as bible thumpers, they to me have already betrayed the constitution because now you can't trust whether they are capable of ruling the state without involving religion in some way. I soured on Trump because of Pence and the alt-right and it's hard to look back at it again. 

My family's support is going towards Gary Johnson for the time being and that's only because of a process of elimination at this point and nothing else. 

TBH, as much as we might want it, it's not like America is ready for an internal revolution or a revolution is even realistic given the kind of police state dystopia the feds have created. The State governments do what they can to keep their power limited, but at this point the country is heading towards a 16 year democrat run.


----------



## Ygor

There are a lot of secrets kept and lies passed around about Hillary's health condition by her campaign. I wonder just how unhealthy she really is and if she'll get worse on the way to the Election. Being President, of course, is a very stressful job that ages people who get voted into the position. I wonder if she's physically fit for the job.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> "She had follow-up testing in 2013, which revealed complete resolution of the effects of the concussion as well as total dissolution of the thrombosis. Mrs. Clinton also tested negative for all clotting disorders," Bardack writes.
> But as a precaution, Clinton remains on daily blood thinners, something her husband previously revealed.* Clinton takes Coumadin, the brand name for the blood thinner warfarin.* She also takes Armour Thyroid for her hypothyroidism, antihistamines and Vitamin B12.
> Clinton has no known drug allergies, does not smoke, use tobacco products or illicit drugs and drinks occasionally, according to Bardack, who also details her exercise regime: yoga, swimming, walking and weight training.
> Clinton is up to date on health tests, including a colonoscopy and a few other tests not often seen in a presidential candidate's health disclosure: gynecologic exam, mammogram and breast ultrasound.
> She received her most recent physical exam on March 21, 2015, according to the the statement. Her blood pressure was 100/65. Her heart rate was 72 and her EKG was normal. *Her total cholesterol was 195, with an LDL ("bad cholesterol") of 118, and an*
> *HDL ("good cholesterol") of 64 and triglycerides of 69.*
> "She is in excellent physical condition and fit to serve as President of the United States," Bardack's letter concludes.
> _This story has been updated._


Coumadin (warfarin) is an anticoagulant (blood thinner). Warfarin reduces the formation of blood clots. Coumadin is used to treat or prevent blood clots in veins or arteries, which can reduce the risk of stroke, heart attack, or other serious conditions.

Warfarin is used to prevent blood clots from forming or growing larger in your blood and blood vessels. It is prescribed for people with certain types of irregular heartbeat, people with prosthetic (replacement or mechanical) heart valves, and people who have suffered a heart attack. Warfarin is also used to treat or prevent venous thrombosis (swelling and blood clot in a vein) and pulmonary embolism (a blood clot in the lung). Warfarin is in a class of medications called anticoagulants ('blood thinners'). It works by decreasing the clotting ability of the blood.

Warfarin is best suited for anticoagulation (clot formation inhibition) in areas of slowly running blood (such as in veins and the pooled blood behind artificial and natural valves) and in blood pooled in dysfunctional cardiac atria. Thus, common clinical indications for warfarin use are atrial fibrillation, the presence of artificial heart valves, deep venous thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism (where the embolized clots first form in veins). Warfarin is also used in antiphospholipid syndrome. It has been used occasionally after heart attacks (myocardial infarctions), but is far less effective at preventing new thromboses in coronary arteries. Prevention of clotting in arteries is usually undertaken with antiplatelet drugs, which act by a different mechanism from warfarin (which normally has no effect on platelet function).

So until and unless Clinton is taking Coumadin recreationally, she has heart disease which is the most likely reason for its prescription amongst people are age. My dad's been on blood thinners for close to 24 years since he had his heart bypass. Pneumonia and heart disease also happen to go together. My dad's been hospitalized thrice for pneumonia - once bad enough that we were told that he might not recover. 

That said, my dad's 70 and he's still working full-time. However, the pressures of being a president of a country are different from running a company.

With a normal BP and normal Cholesterol, what other reason could there be for her to be on a blood thinner - in case I'm missing something here? If her body has a predisposition to creating clots, then that's also a symptom of another disease ... as well as the potential for a heart attack? So no matter how you look at it, Hillary not the picture of perfect health. I'm sure that none of it is extremely serious, but the fact that they're trying to hide something - again - is just sad at this point.


----------



## Cole Phelps

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

i'd rather obama than hilary......can we keep just him in power ? just admit that the systems failed and needs an overhaul ? and while we fix it obama stays on office


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So Hillary apparently has pneumonia? That shit is no joke. I knew someone who was just 21 and they died from it.


----------



## Ygor




----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> If hill wins i honestly don't see how an (R) gets elected ever again until we have a cultural shift.


I'd go even farther (and edgier) and say that the only way a conservative wins post-2016 is if the projected demographics of the future deviate from current estimations. Whites are the only ones who tend to vote majority conservative (and even then it's never something wacky like 70%+ GOP) whilst other groups more or less vote as a bloc. 

And if a conservative miraculously wins in, say, 2024 and beyond, it's a safe bet that they'll be such a shell of their former selves that the likes of Mitt Romney will be seen on par with Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.

The fact that "conservatives" aren't 100% lining up behind Trump and volunteering for his deportation force just shows how suicidal their mindsets are. They'd rather stick by their principles as they watch the West die as opposed to putting up a fight.

If y'all haven't read the Flight 93 article, I highly recommend doing so.



BruiserKC said:


> If the Donald gets elected and takes the oath, are you prepared to make sure that he is expected to follow through on the promises of the election? Will you make sure that you reach out to your Congresspeople and Senators and tell them that you expect their support in carrying out what is needed to reverse America's decline? Keep in mind, many of us don't want the decline just slowed down. We want it stopped. You ain't done just because you vote on November 8.


I would by lying if I said that I had faith in my elected representatives. Trump ascending to power would be a complete breakdown of the current system that has betrayed the American people, or at the very least a glitch. Why else is the entirety of the left and right (treasonous neoconservatives) uniting against him? Because they stand to lose whilst the American people, for the first time in decades, gain.

Tbh I'd just write Trump and tell him to abuse the system that the left has created. Use it against them to appoint people he wants to positions and to ignore Congress. The country is on the verge of being permanently lost (at least as we recognize it, freedoms and all) and therefore I would have zero qualms with Trump going full strong-man. It's a necessary evil at this point.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Conservatives can win if they stop pandering to the southern white who overemphasise on religion and segregation compared to the rest of the country. The changing demographic might hurt with first generation immigrants but their children would have grown up in the American system and have different life experiences.


----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Conservatives can win if they stop pandering to the southern white who overemphasise on religion and segregation compared to the rest of the country. The changing demographic might hurt with first generation immigrants but their children would have grown up in the American system and have different life experiences.


Actually, certain studies have found that second generation immigrants tend to keep their strong sense of ethnic identity along with voting for left-wingers.

Conservatives can still win with an overwhelming majority of the white vote so it's useless to pander/grovel to other minority groups that will, more often than not, never vote for you. You might get the odd 10-20%, but otherwise it's a waste of time. Reagan gave illegal Hispanics amnesty during his second term and they still didn't vote conservative. What else do conservatives need to give Hispanics that doesn't include another blanket amnesty that betrays current citizens?

It's why the Democrats have all but given up on directly courting white voters.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



GOON said:


> Actually, certain studies have found that second generation immigrants tend to keep their strong sense of ethnic identity along with voting for left-wingers.
> 
> Conservatives can still win with an overwhelming majority of the white vote so it's useless to pander/grovel to other minority groups that will, more often than not, never vote for you. You might get the odd 10-20%, but otherwise it's a waste of time. Reagan gave illegal Hispanics amnesty during his second term and they still didn't vote conservative. What else do conservatives need to give Hispanics that doesn't include another blanket amnesty that betrays current citizens?
> 
> It's why the Democrats have all but given up on directly courting white voters.


Give them the respect of being seen as an equal citizen for a start. Look at the rhetoric from conservative think tanks on issues minorities face or even white people face and you can see how difficult it is to get minorities to vote Republican.

There is nothing wrong with second generation immigrants keeping a strong sense of ethnic identity. It's not like embracing their ethnic heritage is making them less likely to celebrate the 4th of July. The only issue is right wingers not trusting people that grew up in America due to their skin colour which cause them to vote the other party by default.

Oakue brought up the real demographic change that will hurt the conservative movement within the GOP for years to come if they don't change their approach. Millennials that grew up with more government intervention than before and has seen other countries didn't collapse in a more extreme form of such a system in Europe for decades and want a more robust security net for more people.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Ygor said:


> There are a lot of secrets kept and lies passed around about Hillary's health condition by her campaign. I wonder just how unhealthy she really is and if she'll get worse on the way to the Election. Being President, of course, is a very stressful job that ages people who get voted into the position. I wonder if she's physically fit for the job.


No, but she just wants to win.

If she dies as first female president, she will be happy.

Whatever happens, a long time from now, an honest history will be written about these times, and a future generation will be shocked that such a corrupt, incompetent liar got so far, and the machine that helped.

Republicans and conservatives are dead. The only thing you can do as a conservative is get your life in order. Get rid of your debt, get healthy. Learn to live without stuff. The coming progressive utopia, where foreigners and people of color form their power base and demand free shit in return means the govt will have to lower expectations 'the new normal' but those people are used to it. Dark days are ahead. Mark my words, in the 30th year of their rule, a future progressive president will decry the ghosts of conservatives as why their promised land of milk and honey hasnt materialized, and their brain dead supporters will cheer, and keep voting for them.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

TBH, I'll tell you guys what I told my wife yesterday .... Growing up in a corrupt country we repeatedly bemoaned our leaders and representatives ... and for the longest time it seemed ok to blame some invisible but corrupt over-arching monster or machine in charge of making the country what it is. 

Ultimately however, the thing is that in a country like America that has never had a military coup, a dictator, or an individual that was made head of state outside of the popular choice - and this goes all the way down to the heads at the city level - what does it say about the people that have tacitly supported the situation that has recently developed. 

Yes, we can trust people to do good and to be good ... but where are the people's controls when they're not? Really .. nowhere. 

Career politicians are in power because we have a system that enables it. Churches continue to amass incredible amount of wealth because people still go every fucking week and let them steal their hard earned money. Government officials get away with wrong-doing because despite their wrong-doing people still elect them. Governments continue to send young boys to war because once they get these boys into the military (through brainwashing in the first place), they re-wire the soldier's brain to stay loyal to the rules and the system. The parents are supporting the war machine by allowing their sons to continue to enlist. Why do corrupt business continue to exist? Because people still want their products at whatever prices they charge them. Why is the health system and insurance system still broken in America. Because the people do nothing about it. 

The fact of the matter is, we have corruption in the society only because we have the masses supporting and enabling it and not doing anything to stop it. America has fewer checks and balances to stop corruption than people like to believe.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

That's because most people just want to get on with their lives instead of bitching about which ideology is the best direction for the country.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> TBH, I'll tell you guys what I told my wife yesterday .... Growing up in a corrupt country we repeatedly bemoaned our leaders and representatives ... and for the longest time it seemed ok to blame some invisible but corrupt over-arching monster or machine in charge of making the country what it is.
> 
> Ultimately however, the thing is that in a country like America that has never had a military coup, a dictator, or an individual that was made head of state outside of the popular choice - and this goes all the way down to the heads at the city level - what does it say about the people that have tacitly supported the situation that has recently developed.
> 
> Yes, we can trust people to do good and to be good ... but where are the people's controls when they're not? Really .. nowhere.
> 
> Career politicians are in power because we have a system that enables it. Churches continue to amass incredible amount of wealth because people still go every fucking week and let them steal their hard earned money. Government officials get away with wrong-doing because despite their wrong-doing people still elect them. Governments continue to send young boys to war because once they get these boys into the military (through brainwashing in the first place), they re-wire the soldier's brain to stay loyal to the rules and the system. The parents are supporting the war machine by allowing their sons to continue to enlist. Why do corrupt business continue to exist? Because people still want their products at whatever prices they charge them. Why is the health system and insurance system still broken in America. Because the people do nothing about it.
> 
> The fact of the matter is, we have corruption in the society only because we have the masses supporting and enabling it and not doing anything to stop it. America has fewer checks and balances to stop corruption than people like to believe.


If it were up to extreme Right or Left there would be zero checks and balances. Weiner was I believe on Bill Mahr a few years ago saying if there was no Republicans the country would run better which is odd because Democrats had full control of everything for three years when Obama was first elected. I don't want hard left or right to control the country, bad enough we get taxed a bunch and even worse Leftists want the tax payers to pay for everyone and everything while not lifting a finger themselves or Rightwingers wanting churches to get more breaks and more privileges.

Religion gets to amass wealth tax free and certain Religions get away with anything, looking at you Islam. It's insane the separation of church and state is something people fight against.

At this rate the next President will get elected by simply promising free stuff and fleecing the tax payers who aren't rich enough to have loop holes or move out of the country so they can pander to their deplorable and lazy demographic of morally and intellectually bankrupt voters.


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://gfycat.com/AgonizingWavyKite

https://zippy.gfycat.com/AgonizingWavyKite.webm

:lmao


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










*#HackingHillary*

- Vic


----------



## Death Rider

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So if hilary gets elected and dies who becomes President? And are they as crocked as Hilary?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Paul Joseph Watson is looking like the most on the pulse person in the news as far as Hillary Clinton goes.

Even I thought the questions surrounding Hillary's health was reaching but even the Daily Mail in the UK reported on this incident and that is about as mainstream as it gets.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Punkhead said:


> https://gfycat.com/AgonizingWavyKite
> 
> https://zippy.gfycat.com/AgonizingWavyKite.webm
> 
> :lmao


What's amazing and perhaps most telling about this is how completely non-bothered everyone involved is. Look at the guy who comes up on her right and helps nudge her into the van. He looks like he does this every day.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Reaper said:


>


Oh that Washington Post, what a bunch of silly billies! :nerd:


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



GOON said:


> I'd go even farther (and edgier) and say that the only way a conservative wins post-2016 is if the projected demographics of the future deviate from current estimations. Whites are the only ones who tend to vote majority conservative (and even then it's never something wacky like 70%+ GOP) whilst other groups more or less vote as a bloc.
> 
> And if a conservative miraculously wins in, say, 2024 and beyond, it's a safe bet that they'll be such a shell of their former selves that the likes of Mitt Romney will be seen on par with Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.
> 
> The fact that "conservatives" aren't 100% lining up behind Trump and volunteering for his deportation force just shows how suicidal their mindsets are. They'd rather stick by their principles as they watch the West die as opposed to putting up a fight.
> 
> If y'all haven't read the Flight 93 article, I highly recommend doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> I would by lying if I said that I had faith in my elected representatives. Trump ascending to power would be a complete breakdown of the current system that has betrayed the American people, or at the very least a glitch. Why else is the entirety of the left and right (treasonous neoconservatives) uniting against him? Because they stand to lose whilst the American people, for the first time in decades, gain.
> 
> Tbh I'd just write Trump and tell him to abuse the system that the left has created. Use it against them to appoint people he wants to positions and to ignore Congress. The country is on the verge of being permanently lost (at least as we recognize it, freedoms and all) and therefore I would have zero qualms with Trump going full strong-man. It's a necessary evil at this point.


This is all accurate, @BruiserKC. Racial demographics plus the rise of the millennials spells certain national electoral doom for the Republican Party post-2016. When Donald Trump says that if he loses, no other Republican presidential nominee will ever win, he is not being hyperbolic. It is an honest assessment. 

When redistricting occurs with the 2020 Census, that will be that. Game over for the Republican Party, not just in the federal executive realm but in the federal legislative one as well. The U.S. will follow the California model, in which the Republican Party fundamentally exists as a nominal entity with no hope of ever attaining even barely significant power. 

The "Flight 93" piece is the single best essay on this entire election season. 

Betting sites in Great Britain still have Hillary Clinton favored to win the election by three-to-one odds. The fact of the matter is, Trump is approximately twenty years too late. The fruits of corporatist free trade de-industrialization were becoming obvious by the late 1990s for the "forgotten America"; what neoconservative interventionism would produce was clear as daylight by the mid-2000s; that mass immigration, particularly from Latin America, Africa and Asia, along with the U.S.'s own educational system (remember: Ronald Reagan campaigned on dynamiting the U.S. Department of Education--somehow he never got around to it, just like he never got around to playing a part in even remotely reducing the size and scope of government... when the domestic "Reagan Revolution" held up 2% decreases _in the rate of federal spending growth_ as some sort of realization of a singular small-government triumph, conservatives should have known that they had been had) would render the GOP as a national party practically obsolete. Trump came far too late, when the frog was writhing in agony, long after it had believed the pot into which it had been placed to be killed and cooked was a soothing hot tub. The U.S. presently confronts Iran in the Persian Gulf and Russia in the Baltic Sea while U.S. military aviation is experiencing a major crisis. Meanwhile, the world is figuring out that buying 10-year U.S. treasuries is no longer profitable. Data from the past several weeks has confirmed that the Fed's Treasury custody account was correct in indicating that foreign demand for U.S. government bonds has not only fallen, sharply, but there has been exceedingly aggressive selling. In the past year foreign central banks have sold a massive $342 billion in U.S. Treasures. A great reason for this is due to foreign central banks simply running out of money as this slow-motion global economic reckoning continues to unfold, stemming from perspicuous and unsustainable policies. Another is that the demand for U.S. debt is slowing down dramatically, which is a worrisome sign, and another reason why the U.S. Federal Reserve will seek yet another issuing of "quantitative easing." For other nations the petrodollar system is helping out enormously, as the low oil prices keep knocking demand for U.S. debt lower. 



CamillePunk said:


> What's amazing and perhaps most telling about this is how completely non-bothered everyone involved is. Look at the guy who comes up on her right and helps nudge her into the van. He looks like he does this every day.


Picked up on this immediately as well. This is just another part of their day.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> This is all accurate, @BruiserKC. Racial demographics plus the rise of the millennials spells certain national electoral doom for the Republican Party post-2016. When Donald Trump says that if he loses, no other Republican presidential nominee will ever win, he is not being hyperbolic. It is an honest assessment.
> 
> When redistricting occurs with the 2020 Census, that will be that. Game over for the Republican Party, not just in the federal executive realm but in the federal legislative one as well. The U.S. will follow the California model, in which the Republican Party fundamentally exists as a nominal entity with no hope of ever attaining even barely significant power.
> 
> The "Flight 93" piece is the single best essay on this entire election season.
> 
> Betting sites in Great Britain still have Hillary Clinton favored to win the election by three-to-one odds. The fact of the matter is, Trump is approximately twenty years too late. The fruits of corporatist free trade de-industrialization were becoming obvious by the late 1990s for the "forgotten America"; what neoconservative interventionism would produce was clear as daylight by the mid-2000s; that mass immigration, particularly from Latin America, Africa and Asia, along with the U.S.'s own educational system (remember: Ronald Reagan campaigned on dynamiting the U.S. Department of Education--somehow he never got around to it, just like he never got around to playing a part in even remotely reducing the size and scope of government... when the domestic "Reagan Revolution" held up 2% decreases _in the rate of federal spending growth_ as some sort of realization of a singular small-government triumph, conservatives should have known that they had been had) would render the GOP as a national party practically obsolete. Trump came far too late, when the frog was writhing in agony, long after it had believed the pot into which it had been placed to be killed and cooked was a soothing hot tub. The U.S. presently confronts Iran in the Persian Gulf and Russia in the Baltic Sea while U.S. military aviation is experiencing a major crisis. Meanwhile, the world is figuring out that buying 10-year U.S. treasuries is no longer profitable. Data from the past several weeks has confirmed that the Fed's Treasury custody account was correct in indicating that foreign demand for U.S. government bonds has not only fallen, sharply, but there has been exceedingly aggressive selling. In the past year foreign central banks have sold a massive $342 billion in U.S. Treasures. A great reason for this is due to foreign central banks simply running out of money as this slow-motion global economic reckoning continues to unfold, stemming from perspicuous and unsustainable policies. Another is that the demand for U.S. debt is slowing down dramatically, which is a worrisome sign, and another reason why the U.S. Federal Reserve will seek yet another issuing of "quantitative easing." For other nations the petrodollar system is helping out enormously, as the low oil prices keep knocking demand for U.S. debt lower.
> 
> 
> 
> Picked up on this immediately as well. This is just another part of their day.




I don't know if it will be fully be dead as many young people, myself included find the Liberal ideology of handing out stuff for free to be awful. I was for it until I had to start paying taxes and had responsibility, no more do I wish to pay for anyone else or see my tax money spent on idiotic programs that end up benefiting nobody. The problem I see is that many millennials didn't go to College to earn useful degrees, instead they'll be living at home, working terrible jobs blaming the "man" for their issues and thus wanting handouts. They should realize their own lack of foresight and support of inane programs is the biggest cause for this mess.

I see for the furthermost future that millennials will continue the trend of moronic Democratic programs which will help with nothing other than to waste money, we'll see millennials getting jobs and into power which will end up seeing other millennials jobless and unable to keep up once mommy and daddy's money runs out. I think it will be the next Generation who will change things up after all the children of the hippie era did. I'm just wondering if it will be too late by then, will the US economy be that busted and will politicians continue to flood the US with people who they can placate with beads and trinkets and keep change from happening until everything of value is sucked up by the elitists and those in power who will live like kings?

We may very well end up living in an almost feudalistic nation, one where you cannot question who is in charge nor will you have any rights except those in charge give to you with only the wealthy and the politicians having any rights.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.theonion.com/article/pneumonia-virus-terrified-after-remembering-what-c-53927



> Pneumonia Virus Terrified After Remembering What Clintons Capable Of
> 
> WASHINGTON—Expressing regret over its reckless decision to infect the Democratic presidential nominee, the virus causing Hillary Clinton’s pneumonia was reportedly terrified Monday after remembering what the Clintons were capable of. “Oh shit, what the hell was I thinking—you don’t get on the wrong side of these people,” said the infectious agent, which became increasingly worried while recalling just how far the Clintons were willing to go to get what they wanted, as well as what often happened to those who dared to cross the powerful politicians. “Everybody knows you never mess with the Clintons. These people won’t hesitate to absolutely crush you, and they have the money and connections to do it. I knew I should’ve just stayed clear. I’m so fucked.” At press time, the horrified virus was reportedly planning to avoid the Clintons’ wrath by taking its own life.


:lmao Holy fuck this slayed me.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*











:lmao SAVAGE.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> This is all accurate, @BruiserKC. Racial demographics plus the rise of the millennials spells certain national electoral doom for the Republican Party post-2016. When Donald Trump says that if he loses, no other Republican presidential nominee will ever win, he is not being hyperbolic. It is an honest assessment.
> 
> When redistricting occurs with the 2020 Census, that will be that. Game over for the Republican Party, not just in the federal executive realm but in the federal legislative one as well. The U.S. will follow the California model, in which the Republican Party fundamentally exists as a nominal entity with no hope of ever attaining even barely significant power.
> 
> The "Flight 93" piece is the single best essay on this entire election season.
> 
> Betting sites in Great Britain still have Hillary Clinton favored to win the election by three-to-one odds. The fact of the matter is, T*rump is approximately twenty years too late.* The fruits of corporatist free trade de-industrialization were becoming obvious by the late 1990s for the "forgotten America"; what neoconservative interventionism would produce was clear as daylight by the mid-2000s; that mass immigration, particularly from Latin America, Africa and Asia, along with the U.S.'s own educational system (remember: Ronald Reagan campaigned on dynamiting the U.S. Department of Education--somehow he never got around to it, just like he never got around to playing a part in even remotely reducing the size and scope of government... when the domestic "Reagan Revolution" held up 2% decreases _in the rate of federal spending growth_ as some sort of realization of a singular small-government triumph, conservatives should have known that they had been had) would render the GOP as a national party practically obsolete. Trump came far too late, when the frog was writhing in agony, long after it had believed the pot into which it had been placed to be killed and cooked was a soothing hot tub. The U.S. presently confronts Iran in the Persian Gulf and Russia in the Baltic Sea while U.S. military aviation is experiencing a major crisis. Meanwhile, the world is figuring out that buying 10-year U.S. treasuries is no longer profitable. Data from the past several weeks has confirmed that the Fed's Treasury custody account was correct in indicating that foreign demand for U.S. government bonds has not only fallen, sharply, but there has been exceedingly aggressive selling. In the past year foreign central banks have sold a massive $342 billion in U.S. Treasures. A great reason for this is due to foreign central banks simply running out of money as this slow-motion global economic reckoning continues to unfold, stemming from perspicuous and unsustainable policies. Another is that the demand for U.S. debt is slowing down dramatically, which is a worrisome sign, and another reason why the U.S. Federal Reserve will seek yet another issuing of "quantitative easing." For other nations the petrodollar system is helping out enormously, as the low oil prices keep knocking demand for U.S. debt lower.
> 
> 
> 
> Picked up on this immediately as well. This is just another part of their day.


I don't know how you can see Trump and believe he is the antithesis to all those ills when he was very much part of the excesses of the 80's and 90's. The only way one can view Trump as a solution is to view him as an instrument of destruction like that apocalyptic worldview of that flight 93 article. It is basically the 76ers mentality of blowing things up to build a winning team, risking the whole pie that feeds the other 29 teams as well as your own for your own selfish interests.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I don't know if it will be fully be dead as many young people, myself included find the Liberal ideology of handing out stuff for free to be awful. I was for it until I had to start paying taxes and had responsibility, no more do I wish to pay for anyone else or see my tax money spent on idiotic programs that end up benefiting nobody. The problem I see is that many millennials didn't go to College to earn useful degrees, instead they'll be living at home, working terrible jobs blaming the "man" for their issues and thus wanting handouts. They should realize their own lack of foresight and support of inane programs is the biggest cause for this mess.
> 
> I see for the furthermost future that millennials will continue the trend of moronic Democratic programs which will help with nothing other than to waste money, we'll see millennials getting jobs and into power which will end up seeing other millennials jobless and unable to keep up once mommy and daddy's money runs out. I think it will be the next Generation who will change things up after all the children of the hippie era did. I'm just wondering if it will be too late by then, will the US economy be that busted and will politicians continue to flood the US with people who they can placate with beads and trinkets and keep change from happening until everything of value is sucked up by the elitists and those in power who will live like kings?
> 
> We may very well end up living in an almost feudalistic nation, one where you cannot question who is in charge nor will you have any rights except those in charge give to you with only the wealthy and the politicians having any rights.


Doubtless, some millennials will peel off of the orthodoxies of the Democratic Party. We have already seen this develop to some degree as they find out that even the freest of free lunches from government do not come with no strings attached. Ultimately, for at least a while, anyway, it seems like those millennials shifting away from the Democrats seem to make up a group that is large enough to leave an imprint on the makeup of a presidential race, but probably nowhere near what it would take to create an electoral counterattack.

It will be interesting to watch unfold, however.



FriedTofu said:


> I don't know how you can see Trump and believe he is the antithesis to all those ills when he was very much part of the excesses of the 80's and 90's. The only way one can view Trump as a solution is to view him as an instrument of destruction like that apocalyptic worldview of that flight 93 article. It is basically the 76ers mentality of blowing things up to build a winning team, risking the whole pie that feeds the other 29 teams as well as your own for your own selfish interests.


Firstly, when I say, "Trump is twenty years too late," I don't necessarily mean Trump personally, or particularly. Just someone who would voice these (especially, as the Flight 93 article points out, these three issues together) and who would have the name recognition to go anywhere with it. Trump was a part of the corrupt system himself for many years as he himself enjoys admitting almost any chance he gets.

As for the "apocalyptic worldview of that flight 93 article," let us take a look at Madame Clinton's recent statement to Israeli television:

Half of Trump's supporters, according to the former Secretary of State, are


> “the deplorables, the racists, and the haters, and the people who … think somehow he’s going to restore an America that no longer exists. So, just eliminate them from your thinking…”


So just eliminate them from your thinking! Doesn't sound politically apocalyptic at all. 

When Hillary runs under the banner, "Stronger Together," she doesn't mean the whole country. And this is more devastatingly clear than Mitt Romney's "47%" comment, which, taken at face value, was merely a flawed but nevertheless hard-hitting, uncompromising look at the takers vs. makers breakdown of the electorate. 

Hillary's right that Trump cannot restore an America that no longer exists. That battle is already over. Demographics will continue to irrevocably alter the U.S. Automation is coming soon, so those manufacturing jobs, even if they do return, won't be around for too much longer in any event. So, again. Too late.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@AryaDark @CamillePunk @Fringe @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @Pratchett @SpeedStick

Just watched a few minutes of CNN's interview with Hillary Clinton from earlier today via telephone. 

When asked how many times she has experienced "dizzy spells" like the one yesterday morning, her response was stunning:

"I... can't recall..."

:sodone


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Maybe she's got a pill popping problem and that's why she gets all stumbly. Still, better then Psycho-Trump in my book.


----------



## obby

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/

Hilary is taking shots at Pepe now. Is there length to which she will not go? :no:


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*I'm voting GREEN PARTY fellers.*


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @CamillePunk @Fringe @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @Pratchett @SpeedStick
> 
> Just watched a few minutes of CNN's interview with Hillary Clinton from earlier today via telephone.
> 
> When asked how many times she has experienced "dizzy spells" like the one yesterday morning, her response was stunning:
> 
> "I... can't recall..."
> 
> :sodone


:lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Firstly, when I say, "Trump is twenty years too late," I don't necessarily mean Trump personally, or particularly. Just someone who would voice these (especially, as the Flight 93 article points out, these three issues together) and who would have the name recognition to go anywhere with it. Trump was a part of the corrupt system himself for many years as he himself enjoys admitting almost any chance he gets.
> 
> As for the "apocalyptic worldview of that flight 93 article," let us take a look at Madame Clinton's recent statement to Israeli television:
> 
> Half of Trump's supporters, according to the former Secretary of State, are
> 
> So just eliminate them from your thinking! Doesn't sound politically apocalyptic at all.
> 
> When Hillary runs under the banner, "Stronger Together," she doesn't mean the whole country. And this is more devastatingly clear than Mitt Romney's "47%" comment, which, taken at face value, was merely a flawed but nevertheless hard-hitting, uncompromising look at the takers vs. makers breakdown of the electorate.
> 
> Hillary's right that Trump cannot restore an America that no longer exists. That battle is already over. Demographics will continue to irrevocably alter the U.S. Automation is coming soon, so those manufacturing jobs, even if they do return, won't be around for too much longer in any event. So, again. Too late.


Romney's takers vs makers comments would be a valid breakdown of fixing a long term issue of social security if it wasn't the fact that they were running on a ticket cutting future benefits from those who is going to earn it to give to those who don't need it but want to take more. 

Hillary's comments were wrong, but was it not also a politically incorrect breakdown of who make up a significant portion of those behind Trump's rise? Many of Trump's supporters still believe in birther claims about Obama, or question his faith. Many of his supporters believe in white supremacy. On the same token, Trump is running under the banner of making America great again, implying America is not great anymore. Can anyone agree when was America last great? Don't Trump supporters see the hypocrisy of bitching about being offended with a non-PC remark while bitching about PC culture ruining everything?

Trump cannot restore an America that no longer exists, because his America never existed in the first place, not that progress have denied its revival.

Also, automation was already taking away manufacturing jobs since the 80's. It isn't coming soon but already existed for decades and it the a big reason for the decline in manufacturing jobs. The big coming issue is automation are now even taking away service jobs that fuelled job growth for the past 2 decades replacing those lost manufacturing jobs. That is what is really fuelling the anxiety of jobs losses more than loss of manufacturing jobs.


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

if anyone votes for that zombie ill be shock. either this country is full of really delusional people or just people are really uninformed


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Romney's takers vs makers comments would be a valid breakdown of fixing a long term issue of social security if it wasn't the fact that they were running on a ticket cutting future benefits from those who is going to earn it to give to those who don't need it but want to take more.
> 
> Hillary's comments were wrong, but was it not also a politically incorrect breakdown of who make up a significant portion of those behind Trump's rise? Many of Trump's supporters still believe in birther claims about Obama, or question his faith. Many of his supporters believe in white supremacy. On the same token, Trump is running under the banner of making America great again, implying America is not great anymore. Can anyone agree when was America last great? Don't Trump supporters see the hypocrisy of bitching about being offended with a non-PC remark while bitching about PC culture ruining everything?
> 
> Trump cannot restore an America that no longer exists, because his America never existed in the first place, not that progress have denied its revival.
> 
> Also, automation was already taking away manufacturing jobs since the 80's. It isn't coming soon but already existed for decades and it the a big reason for the decline in manufacturing jobs. The big coming issue is automation are now even taking away service jobs that fuelled job growth for the past 2 decades replacing those lost manufacturing jobs. That is what is really fuelling the anxiety of jobs losses more than loss of manufacturing jobs.



Obama is not a Christian..as a Christian I can tell u that, he mocks JESUS, and totally stands against GOD views on marriage, the two genders and the SUPREMITY OF JESUS...also How can America be great if people really think a man can be a woman and vice versa. we are lost as a country and will continue to sink.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> Obama is not a Christian..as a Christian I can tell u that, he mocks JESUS, and totally stands against GOD views on marriage, the two genders and the SUPREMITY OF JESUS...also How can America be great if people really think a man can be a woman and vice versa. we are lost as a country and will continue to sink.


I pity you for still believing in this.


----------



## Raven

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Fun fact, America is a continent, not a country.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



GOON said:


> If y'all haven't read the Flight 93 article, I highly recommend doing so.





DesolationRow said:


> The "Flight 93" piece is the single best essay on this entire election season.


The Flight 93 article is mostly delusional ranting with a few good points mixed in. Whoever wrote it is clearly not grounded in reality. Anyone who thinks "A Hillary presidency will be pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda" is a fucking moron who doesn't understand political terms and definitions. Any time an actual progressive left politician comes along and questions the war machine or DC's fealty to the oligarchs, the Democrats use every dirty trick in the book to either get rid of them or turn them into sheepdogs like Bernie and Liz. Then the same moron who wrote the essay turns around and says "On trade, globalization, and war, Trump is to the left (conventionally understood) not only of his own party, but of his Democratic opponent." Yeah, no shit, because Hillary and the Democrats are not a left wing party and they haven't been for nearly 4 decades. Not that anyone should believe Trump will follow through on his rhetoric, based on his party and all the neo/neos he has hired for his campaign, but his rhetoric is certainly left of Hillary's. If Hillary actually had a "Progressive-left agenda" like the author claims, then Trump's rhetoric wouldn't sound to the left of hers on anything. This dumbass debunked his entire claim of Hillary being leftist without even realizing it.

The fact is, there is no left wing politics in DC anymore. There's only far right and further right. It's the past 40 years of right wing policies that have fucked things up so badly. And don't give me this shit about being socially liberal meaning you're left wing. That's just Democrats using socially liberal politics to sucker their sheep into voting for right wing economic and foreign policy.

I'm just as much opposed to Hillary as any other sane individual but this nonsense about her being a leftist needs to stop. Leftists like me hate her even more than conservatives do. And that's saying a lot.



FriedTofu said:


> The only way one can view Trump as a solution is to view him as an instrument of destruction


This is my position. The owners of the USA have locked in their control to an extent that it will never be returned to we the people without burning the whole establishment to the ground first. They certainly aren't going to give up that power willingly. There's a better chance of that destruction happening under Trump than under Hillary.



FriedTofu said:


> Also, automation was already taking away manufacturing jobs since the 80's. It isn't coming soon but already existed for decades and it the a big reason for the decline in manufacturing jobs. The big coming issue is automation are now even taking away service jobs that fuelled job growth for the past 2 decades replacing those lost manufacturing jobs. That is what is really fuelling the anxiety of jobs losses more than loss of manufacturing jobs.


This topic is the one that everyone needs to be talking about but hardly anyone is, especially not politicians or the MSM.



> *New study shows nearly half of US jobs at risk of computerisation*
> 
> A new study titled: “The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?,” by Dr Michael A. Osborne from Oxford University’s Department of Engineering Science and Dr Carl Benedikt Frey of the Oxford Martin School, estimates that 47 percent of jobs in the US are “at risk” of being automated in the next 20 years.
> 
> Their research found that jobs in transportation, logistics, as well as office and administrative support, are at “high risk” of automation. More surprisingly, occupations within the service industry are also highly susceptible, despite recent job growth in this sector.
> 
> Michael A. OsborneDr Osborne said: “We identified several key bottlenecks currently preventing occupations being automated. As big data helps to overcome these obstacles, a great number of jobs will be put at risk”.
> 
> The study examined over 700 detailed occupation types, noting the types of tasks workers perform and the skills required. By weighting these factors, as well as the engineering obstacles currently preventing computerisation, the researchers assessed the degree to which these occupations may be automated in the coming decades.
> 
> “Our findings imply that as technology races ahead, low-skilled workers will move to tasks that are not susceptible to computerisation — i.e., tasks that required creative and social intelligence,” the paper states. “For workers to win the race, however, they will have to acquire creative and social skills.”
> 
> Dr Frey highlighted that the United Kingdom is expected to face a similar challenge to the US. He said: “While our analysis was based on detailed datasets relating to US occupations, the implications are likely to extend to employment in the UK and other developed countries”.
> 
> Full version of the paper: http://www.futuretech.ox.ac.uk/news...ly-half-us-jobs-could-be-risk-computerisation


It's not speculation anymore. It's a reality that is already happening. In 20 years from now, unless we make major changes to how we do things, half of our population is going to be unemployed. Fast food restaurants will be full automated. All the driving jobs will be driverless vehicles. A factory that once had a thousand employees will only need a handful of people to make sure the machines keep running. How we deal with new technology doing all the work for us will be the defining moment of the next few decades. Technology isn't going to regress and those jobs ain't coming back. This idea that everyone has to work 40 or more hours a week to earn their way through life will become unsustainable when there simply aren't enough jobs to go around anymore. It's a problem that's going to have to be dealt with, whether some people like it or not. 

That is, of course, assuming we stop the neocons from blowing up the planet first. If we don't do that, automation will be a moot point.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

In the future fast food restaurants might even be phased out as vending machines take over. :lol


----------



## henrymark

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> Obama is not a Christian..as a Christian I can tell u that, he mocks JESUS, and totally stands against GOD views on marriage, the two genders and the SUPREMITY OF JESUS...also How can America be great if people really think a man can be a woman and vice versa. we are lost as a country and will continue to sink.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> Obama is not a Christian..as a Christian I can tell u that, he mocks JESUS, and totally stands against GOD views on marriage, the two genders and the SUPREMITY OF JESUS...also How can America be great if people really think a man can be a woman and vice versa. we are lost as a country and will continue to sink.


:HA



FriedTofu said:


> In the future fast food restaurants might even be phased out as vending machines take over. :lol


Fast food vending machines already exist. The fast food restaurants themselves will basically be giant walk-in vending machines.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I don't know if it will be fully be dead as many young people, myself included find the Liberal ideology of handing out stuff for free to be awful. I was for it until I had to start paying taxes and had responsibility, no more do I wish to pay for anyone else or see my tax money spent on idiotic programs that end up benefiting nobody. The problem I see is that many millennials didn't go to College to earn useful degrees, instead they'll be living at home, working terrible jobs blaming the "man" for their issues and thus wanting handouts. They should realize their own lack of foresight and support of inane programs is the biggest cause for this mess.
> 
> I see for the furthermost future that millennials will continue the trend of moronic Democratic programs which will help with nothing other than to waste money, we'll see millennials getting jobs and into power which will end up seeing other millennials jobless and unable to keep up once mommy and daddy's money runs out. I think it will be the next Generation who will change things up after all the children of the hippie era did. I'm just wondering if it will be too late by then, will the US economy be that busted and will politicians continue to flood the US with people who they can placate with beads and trinkets and keep change from happening until everything of value is sucked up by the elitists and those in power who will live like kings?
> 
> We may very well end up living in an almost feudalistic nation, one where you cannot question who is in charge nor will you have any rights except those in charge give to you with only the wealthy and the politicians having any rights.


Like the expression goes that is attributed to Thomas Jefferson (although not found in his writings)...""If your government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have."

This is what will save the conservative movement...as younger people grow up many of them traditionally start thinking differently. The idea of everyone getting everything they need changes when you see what it's like to actually earn for a living. I don't need the government to tell me how to live my life, they need to take care of the basics and let me deal with the rest. I have no problem with helping people that truly need the assistance. At the same time, I've worked my ass off for everything that I have in my life and I have a serious problem with those that sponge off the rest of us. Down the road, we pay for it...that's what we're seeing now with all these free programs, they are not totally free as somebody has to foot the bill. 



GOON said:


> I'd go even farther (and edgier) and say that the only way a conservative wins post-2016 is if the projected demographics of the future deviate from current estimations. Whites are the only ones who tend to vote majority conservative (and even then it's never something wacky like 70%+ GOP) whilst other groups more or less vote as a bloc.
> 
> And if a conservative miraculously wins in, say, 2024 and beyond, it's a safe bet that they'll be such a shell of their former selves that the likes of Mitt Romney will be seen on par with Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.
> 
> The fact that "conservatives" aren't 100% lining up behind Trump and volunteering for his deportation force just shows how suicidal their mindsets are. They'd rather stick by their principles as they watch the West die as opposed to putting up a fight.
> 
> If y'all haven't read the Flight 93 article, I highly recommend doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> I would by lying if I said that I had faith in my elected representatives. Trump ascending to power would be a complete breakdown of the current system that has betrayed the American people, or at the very least a glitch.  Why else is the entirety of the left and right (treasonous neoconservatives) uniting against him? Because they stand to lose whilst the American people, for the first time in decades, gain.
> 
> Tbh I'd just write Trump and tell him to abuse the system that the left has created. Use it against them to appoint people he wants to positions and to ignore Congress. The country is on the verge of being permanently lost (at least as we recognize it, freedoms and all) and therefore I would have zero qualms with Trump going full strong-man. It's a necessary evil at this point.


I've thought about those who see Trump as that counter...I think this is the absolutely worst thing that could be done. Just completely disregarding the Constitution just because Obama and his cronies have (and sadly, Bush before that), would destroy what we have worked to create. Many of them don't want liberals to legislate from the bench, but would have no objection with conservative judges doing the same thing. It's one thing to fight back politically using the same smear tactics the liberals have perfected, but to use those tactics to govern would be fatal. 



Reaper said:


> Personally, I think it's far more prudent to get involved in city, county and state politics than federal politics. Now I know that the major decisions get made up there, but ultimately what effects _me _the most are the things the local government wants to get done.
> 
> My interest on the federal level ends to the extent I can use my verbal abilities to influence people's mindset one way or another and ultimately that's where that begins and where that ends because of the limited power at my disposal. I am an average man with various interests and am not rooted into the community. My wife is more connected, but she's passive. We discuss local government politics, and people involved and then she goes and places her vote.
> 
> At the national level, there isn't much one can do when the GOP refuses to let go of some of their most ridiculously small-minded attitudes towards core social issues that will continue to push them into a decline. It has already seen them lost 2 elections in a row, and they will lose 2 more if they don't let go of their BS pandering of the religious right (which is not the same as the right itself, but rather the right-wing version of religious attitudes) and their most backward social ideologies. The ones that get democrats the votes simply by lying about it. Not saying that people don't have a right to those ideologies, but to have them as an integral part of their platforms is no longer helping them, but hurting them in a nation that is slowly headed towards a non-religious majority. Whether people want to admit it or not, or see it or not, GOP's close association with christianity is hurting them far more than anyone's willing to admit. This to me has been the final straw in deciding not to support the GOP - and I may not till they reform their religious attitudes further.
> 
> This is another reason why I've gotten fed up with the alt-right as well because while they call themselves the beacons of reason, they have more of a soft-spot for christianity than they should (just as the extreme left does with regards to their soft spot for islam). Now of course, Islam and Christianity are not equal, but the point is that no religion should be a part of the american political spectrum - period. It's in the constitution. Ultimately, what most everyone on the right forgets is that one of the core ruling ideologies of this country is that the church and the state should be separate and that means only a person who is capable of upholding that difference become the leader. Now I don't know about you and other conservatives, but when people come out openly as bible thumpers, they to me have already betrayed the constitution because now you can't trust whether they are capable of ruling the state without involving religion in some way. I soured on Trump because of Pence and the alt-right and it's hard to look back at it again.
> 
> My family's support is going towards Gary Johnson for the time being and that's only because of a process of elimination at this point and nothing else.
> 
> TBH, as much as we might want it, it's not like America is ready for an internal revolution or a revolution is even realistic given the kind of police state dystopia the feds have created. The State governments do what they can to keep their power limited, but at this point the country is heading towards a 16 year democrat run.


Gary Johnson became out of the question the moment he said, "Where's Aleppo?" 

Many of the social conservatives are flocking towards Trump because Christianity (and faith in general) is under attack in this country. Not to the extent of Christians being slaughtered like you see in the ME, but the fact that any mention of God is being completely swept away. You can't talk about God in the public square without someone being offended. Granted, I'm not full-on social con (I have no issue with gay marriage, etc), but I have a major problem with being told that I can't mention my faith in public without someone being offended. And I'm not one of those who preaches and tries to convert. 

You can believe (or not believe) whatever you want...but I want the right to be able to practice my faith without being told I can't. People can mock it if they want, that's their right. But, when you tell me I can't practice it...I have a problem with that and will tell you to your face it won't happen.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> I want the right to be able to practice my faith without being told I can't. People can mock it if they want, that's their right. But, when you tell me I can't practice it...I have a problem with that and will tell you to your face it won't happen.


The problem isn't freedom of religion. The problem is certain Christians (not all) who use the government to force the rest of society to live by their interpretation of the laws of Christianity. It's the Ted Cruzes and Rick Santorums of the world who want to turn the USA into a Christian sharia theocracy. Those people can fuck right off. Sadly, there are far too many Christians in the USA who struggle with the concept of separation of church and state. As a full blown gnostic atheist and a big believer in freedom, I'll defend a Christian's or any other theist's right to practice their religion freely just as strongly as I'll attack the ones who try to force it on other people.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Fast food vending machines already exist. The fast food restaurants themselves will basically be giant walk-in vending machines.


At basically all supermarkets in Australia people checking things out have been replaced by machines and now at MacDonalds you can order using a row of giant screens at the front instead of ordering from a person.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Like the expression goes that is attributed to Thomas Jefferson (although not found in his writings)...""If your government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have."
> 
> This is what will save the conservative movement...as younger people grow up many of them traditionally start thinking differently. The idea of everyone getting everything they need changes when you see what it's like to actually earn for a living. I don't need the government to tell me how to live my life, they need to take care of the basics and let me deal with the rest. I have no problem with helping people that truly need the assistance. At the same time, I've worked my ass off for everything that I have in my life and I have a serious problem with those that sponge off the rest of us. Down the road, we pay for it...that's what we're seeing now with all these free programs, they are not totally free as somebody has to foot the bill.
> 
> 
> 
> I've thought about those who see Trump as that counter...I think this is the absolutely worst thing that could be done. Just completely disregarding the Constitution just because Obama and his cronies have (and sadly, Bush before that), would destroy what we have worked to create. Many of them don't want liberals to legislate from the bench, but would have no objection with conservative judges doing the same thing. It's one thing to fight back politically using the same smear tactics the liberals have perfected, but to use those tactics to govern would be fatal.
> 
> 
> 
> Gary Johnson became out of the question the moment he said, "Where's Aleppo?"
> 
> Many of the social conservatives are flocking towards Trump because Christianity (and faith in general) is under attack in this country. Not to the extent of Christians being slaughtered like you see in the ME, but the fact that any mention of God is being completely swept away. You can't talk about God in the public square without someone being offended. Granted, I'm not full-on social con (I have no issue with gay marriage, etc), but I have a major problem with being told that I can't mention my faith in public without someone being offended. And I'm not one of those who preaches and tries to convert.
> 
> You can believe (or not believe) whatever you want...but I want the right to be able to practice my faith without being told I can't. People can mock it if they want, that's their right. But, when you tell me I can't practice it...I have a problem with that and will tell you to your face it won't happen.


This really has nothing to do with what I said though. 

I said that a president can believe whatever they want to believe but they cannot be allowed to let their religious beliefs influence their decisions when they're head of state. And as long as the right has troubles with separating their beliefs from how they run the state I have problems with the right.

You wouldn't want a Muslim president to come in and say In Allah we Trust would you?

Christianity is not under attack. Christianity is being told that you're not the only religion in this country so you should respect that and also that you are obligated to ensure that your influence is not overtly impacting how the government functions or approaches it's decisions.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> This really has nothing to do with what I said though.
> 
> I said that a president can believe whatever they want to believe but they cannot be allowed to let their religious beliefs influence their decisions when they're head of state. And as long as the right has troubles with separating their beliefs from how they run the state I have problems with the right.
> 
> You wouldn't want a Muslim president to come in and say In Allah we Trust would you?
> 
> Christianity is not under attack. Christianity is being told that you're not the only religion in this country so you should respect that and also that you are obligated to ensure that your influence is not overtly impacting how the government functions or approaches it's decisions.


There's no shame in wanting the nation as a whole to start coming together and rediscovering God. No, I wouldn't want Allah in his place. I want us to remember the God that supposedly gave us this land so he may heal it. That's all.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> There's no shame in wanting the nation as a whole to start coming together and rediscovering God. No, I wouldn't want Allah in his place. I want us to remember the God that supposedly gave us this land so he may heal it. That's all.


Why wouldn't you want Allah in his place?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Getting off this divisive issue for now...in other news:

*CLINTON ATTACKS PEPE THE FROG:*

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/

I'm sorry, but ANYONE who uses 4Chan knows Pepe is used for any cause the individual wants. Good OR evil.

Look, here he is as a fan of The Tampa Bay Buccaneers!










He's no more inherently Nazu than anything is inherently evil.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Why wouldn't you want Allah in his place?


Believe me, i know where you're going with it and we don't need to hash anything out.. I just have a strong belief that that's the way it ought to be just as they believe the opposite. It's why this gulf can never truly be crossed.

Back to my earlier post tho, will this help or hurt her?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Nelieve me, i know where you're going with it. I just have a strong belief that that's the way it ought to be just as they believe the opposite. It's why this gulf can never truly be crossed.
> 
> Back to my earlier post tho, will this help or hurt her?


I'm glad you decided that this discussion is not worth having. This is exactly why to end divisiveness we need to keep religion out of politics. And that was the whole point of the constitutional amendment. 

Personal belief is perfectly fine. Imposing personal belief on others is not. Heck, I'm even ok with some of the other stuff most atheists are not ok with (like the pledge of allegiance but then giving people the choice not to parrot the word "god" if they don't want to. Pro-choice all the way). 

But that's where it ends. I have fewer problems with Trump trumpeting religion than it would seem, but I have a problem with the alt-right's allegiance to christianity and Mike Pence who is a religious conservative. The alt-right abandons reason when it comes to religion because they seemingly prop up christianity as the counter to growing apologism to Islam and ignore that the counter isn't just christianity, but rather agnosticism and atheism is a part of the same opposing force. However, they have and want to exclude atheism and agnosticism from their establishment and hence why I see them as more detrimental than some others. The counter to Islamism isn't propping up another religion, but rather holding on to the secular values that America has always prided itself in. 

All I can say about your other post is that it's a horrifying reach and reeks of SJW-ism. I've already stated that the SJW influence in left-wing politics is beyond horrendous and is part of the reasons why European countries are in the mess that they're in. The conversation in the states is keeping it somewhat under control, but it is one of my greater concerns with the Clinton administration and has been with Obama's administration. Democrats are just as aligned with the SJW's as Trump is with the alt-right and neither really know that giving both these groups too much power is detrimental to the future health of the country.

It helps her btw. The group that's voting for her is pro Internet censorship and will see this has Hillary being on top of the evil bullying and racist nature of the Internet.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> There's no shame in wanting the nation as a whole to start coming together and rediscovering God. No, I wouldn't want Allah in his place. I want us to remember the God that supposedly gave us this land so he may heal it. That's all.


What does wanting America to start rediscovering God even mean in the current context? Does it mean a move towards theocracy like Saudi Arabia and Iran? Or something similar to the Vatican?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Believe me, i know where you're going with it and we don't need to hash anything out.. I just have a strong belief that that's the way it ought to be just as they believe the opposite. It's why this gulf can never truly be crossed.


True American patriots would believe in freedom above all else, that's what the soldiers die for isn't it? to keep society free. that includes freedom of religion, therefore a potential muslim President shouldn't matter should it?

True freedom really means putting up with a whole bunch of stuff you don't like because in return you get to do what you want, within reason of course.

Otherwise, you're no different from the leftists who apparently want to shut down and deny all counter opinion and ideology.



> You can't talk about God in the public square without someone being offended. Granted, I'm not full-on social con (I have no issue with gay marriage, etc), but I have a major problem with being told that I can't mention my faith in public without someone being offended. And I'm not one of those who preaches and tries to convert.
> 
> You can believe (or not believe) whatever you want...but I want the right to be able to practice my faith without being told I can't. People can mock it if they want, that's their right. But, when you tell me I can't practice it...I have a problem with that and will tell you to your face it won't happen.


People can say their offended until they'e blue in the face, but is that stopping you expressing your faith? Are you being prevented somehow? Just do it anyway.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Hillary's comments were wrong, but was it not also a politically incorrect breakdown of who make up a significant portion of those behind Trump's rise? Many of Trump's supporters still believe in birther claims about Obama, or question his faith. Many of his supporters believe in white supremacy. On the same token, Trump is running under the banner of making America great again, implying America is not great anymore. Can anyone agree when was America last great? Don't Trump supporters see the hypocrisy of bitching about being offended with a non-PC remark while bitching about PC culture ruining everything?


Many? Where is your proof that there is "many"? By this token I guess Hilary's supporters are all racists, they support a Candidate who said black men are super predators who need to be brought to heel, under Bill blacks suffered greatly, Hilary also idolizes the founder of Planned Parenthood who was a racist and another of her idols was once a grand Cyclops of the Klan. The email scandals revealed racist rhetoric to describe some minority voters, it also cannot be an isolated thing because who would send things like that unless comfortable? So the DNC has racist tendencies by this revelation. Funny enough this is all documented, there isn't any guessing needed!

There is a difference between what anti-PC are complaining about and what Hilary said, you're not stupid so I don't understand why you're trying to act like you cannot tell the difference. It's quite simple, most anti-PC don't like the idea of safe spaces, shutting down debates and ideas by claiming the topics, stats or facts are racist or offensive. They don't want to see art, media and ideals shut down based on feelings or thought policing. This isn't the same as claiming an entire bloc of people who come from many Ethnicities and Religions and even Political backgrounds as racists and them needing to be "eliminated". Attack Trump all you want but you cannot attack voters in such a way considering many people are voting for different reasons.

Some people are voting for Hilary just because she's a woman or because they only vote Democrat, some maybe voting for her now after finding out the Democrats really don't care about minorities. So if Trump was to come out and call Hilary voters racists, bigots, sexists and violent, you'd be there to defend it right? Considering no Trump supporters have rioted or attacked Hilary/Democrats in the way they were attacked by "leftists". 

Here's the thing Hilary and her cohorts cannot claim to try and be PC then say slanderous things. It doesn't work that way, that makes them and her hypocrites and thus never really believed in what they say. If a Preacher claims homosexuality is wrong but then goes balls deep in any man he can find, does he really feel homosexuality is wrong? Does that make him a good candidate on why it's terrible? If someone who believes in being PC makes anti-PC remarks can they really claim it's what they stand for? Or is do as I say not as i do the new political mantra for the "Left"?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Many? Where is your proof that there is "many"? By this token I guess Hilary's supporters are all racists, they support a Candidate who said black men are super predators who need to be brought to heel, under Bill blacks suffered greatly, Hilary also idolizes the founder of Planned Parenthood who was a racist and another of her idols was once a grand Cyclops of the Klan. The email scandals revealed racist rhetoric to describe some minority voters, it also cannot be an isolated thing because who would send things like that unless comfortable? So the DNC has racist tendencies by this revelation. Funny enough this is all documented, there isn't any guessing needed!


http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-advisor-carl-paladino-theres-no-doubt-that-obama-is-a-muslim/

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_51016.pdf


:shrug




> There is a difference between what anti-PC are complaining about and what Hilary said, you're not stupid so I don't understand why you're trying to act like you cannot tell the difference. It's quite simple, most anti-PC don't like the idea of safe spaces, shutting down debates and ideas by claiming the topics, stats or facts are racist or offensive. They don't want to see art, media and ideals shut down based on feelings or thought policing. This isn't the same as claiming an entire bloc of people who come from many Ethnicities and Religions and even Political backgrounds as racists and them needing to be "eliminated". Attack Trump all you want but you cannot attack voters in such a way considering many people are voting for different reasons.


Yet they are doing the same of shutting down this topic of discussion of nativism and racism being a rallying call for Trump supporters by feigning outrage at being called names. Have you attended a Trump rally or watch videos of them chanting really awful stuff about different ethnicity and religion? And when others call them out on it they feign outrage and say they aren't racists. Hell, these supporters were there even before Trump when Obama was campaigning in the last two elections. But McCain and Romney don't encourage them like Trump does during Q&As or rallies.



> Some people are voting for Hilary just because she's a woman or because they only vote Democrat, some maybe voting for her now after finding out the Democrats really don't care about minorities. So if Trump was to come out and call Hilary voters racists, bigots, sexists and violent, you'd be there to defend it right? Considering no Trump supporters have rioted or attacked Hilary/Democrats in the way they were attacked by "leftists".


What is the point you are trying to make here? Some people are voting for Trump because he's a celebrity or because they only vote Republican too. Partisanship support happens for nominees from both major party. Am I defending Hillary for saying it? I am saying what she said isn't that far off from reality but it was also wrong. So why would I defend Trump if he said something like that?

I've echoed claims about BLM being hijacked into being a racist movement here so don't attempt to pigeon hole me into some crazy leftist who will defend everything she says, unlike many Trump surrogates on television who have to perform mental gymnastics everytime Trump opened his mouth the last few months.



> Here's the thing Hilary and her cohorts cannot claim to try and be PC then say slanderous things. It doesn't work that way, that makes them and her hypocrites and thus never really believed in what they say. If a Preacher claims homosexuality is wrong but then goes balls deep in any man he can find, does he really feel homosexuality is wrong? Does that make him a good candidate on why it's terrible? If someone who believes in being PC makes anti-PC remarks can they really claim it's what they stand for? Or is do as I say not as i do the new political mantra for the "Left"?


Here's the thing, you can't be claiming for disliking safe spaces and then cry foul when someone said something that is not to your liking. Trump cites white supremacists memes in his tweets and use those as the basis of his gross generalisation, while Hillary's gaffe was based on looking at Trump's tweets over the past year and polls like the one I cited above. Yet Trump supporters defend his lack of tactfulness for a year as being authentic but now is saying Hillary is so bad for not being careful with her words. Hypocritical much?

If a Trump supporter claim having safe spaces that shuts down discussion is wrong, but then shuts down discussion of Trump's appeal during this election cycle because of feigned offence, does that really mean he/she really claim to want to encourage discussion? Or are they just as thin skin as Trump who can dish it out but can't take criticism back and really just want safe spaces for their own views?


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Firstly just wanted to say that @Reaper's post from the other day about caring more about local governance over federal governance was just about perfect. Unfortunately Marin County, California has many hilarious problems, as does California the state, but the thought is what counts in this matter.



AryaDark said:


> *I'm voting GREEN PARTY fellers.*


Jill Stein is the one ostensibly principled and strict desirer of peace among the candidates enjoying even 1% in the race. For that reason and that reason alone I would vote for her over Gary "I Actually Smoked Aleppo Fifteen Minutes Ago, More of a Downer Strain, Really, Heh, Heh--Uh.. What?" Johnson. One thing is for certain--"libertarianism's" moment has passed with the Johnson-Weld ticket. 



FriedTofu said:


> Trump cannot restore an America that no longer exists, because his America never existed in the first place, not that progress have denied its revival.
> 
> Also, automation was already taking away manufacturing jobs since the 80's. It isn't coming soon but already existed for decades and it the a big reason for the decline in manufacturing jobs. The big coming issue is automation are now even taking away service jobs that fuelled job growth for the past 2 decades replacing those lost manufacturing jobs. That is what is really fuelling the anxiety of jobs losses more than loss of manufacturing jobs.


Yes, what I mean with my previous post was that greater advancements in automation for manufacturing are presently underway and more manufacturing jobs will be lost as a consequence of that within these next five years. Obviously as you and *Tater* noted, automation is reaching the service industry, and soon most service jobs will be gone as well, with automation yawning out. 



Tater said:


> The Flight 93 article is mostly delusional ranting with a few good points mixed in. Whoever wrote it is clearly not grounded in reality. Anyone who thinks "A Hillary presidency will be pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda" is a fucking moron who doesn't understand political terms and definitions. Any time an actual progressive left politician comes along and questions the war machine or DC's fealty to the oligarchs, the Democrats use every dirty trick in the book to either get rid of them or turn them into sheepdogs like Bernie and Liz. Then the same moron who wrote the essay turns around and says "On trade, globalization, and war, Trump is to the left (conventionally understood) not only of his own party, but of his Democratic opponent." Yeah, no shit, because Hillary and the Democrats are not a left wing party and they haven't been for nearly 4 decades. Not that anyone should believe Trump will follow through on his rhetoric, based on his party and all the neo/neos he has hired for his campaign, but his rhetoric is certainly left of Hillary's. If Hillary actually had a "Progressive-left agenda" like the author claims, then Trump's rhetoric wouldn't sound to the left of hers on anything. This dumbass debunked his entire claim of Hillary being leftist without even realizing it.
> 
> The fact is, there is no left wing politics in DC anymore. There's only far right and further right. It's the past 40 years of right wing policies that have fucked things up so badly. And don't give me this shit about being socially liberal meaning you're left wing. That's just Democrats using socially liberal politics to sucker their sheep into voting for right wing economic and foreign policy.
> 
> I'm just as much opposed to Hillary as any other sane individual but this nonsense about her being a leftist needs to stop. Leftists like me hate her even more than conservatives do. And that's saying a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> This is my position. The owners of the USA have locked in their control to an extent that it will never be returned to we the people without burning the whole establishment to the ground first. They certainly aren't going to give up that power willingly. There's a better chance of that destruction happening under Trump than under Hillary.


These discussions often yield a greater and more thorough reckoning of just how useless these "left" and "right" labels are. Once hosted an academic seminar on the absurdities of American political terms like "liberal" and "conservative," and how misappropriated the words have been for decades and decades now. Here within the same thread is someone like *BruiserKC* complaining about the Republican Party's unfaithfulness toward conservative principles and you descrying the Democratic Party's right-wing corporatism. Are either of you wrong? Based on the Republicans' steadfast inability and unwillingness to even begin to find a speck of a tendril of a knuckle hair of the bloated, gargantuan federal Leviathan to actually cut, and the Democrats' jubilation at the prospect of passing a corporatist-fascistic Troubled Asset Relief Program, no, of course neither of you are. Although, and again, here come those pesky definitions again: "conservatives" as they had been known for centuries would have first concerned themselves with the maintenance of the aristocracy (oh, if only the U.S. still had a natural one!) rather than concern themselves too greatly about trimming the fat of the state (though even the most blasé "conservatives" of bygone regimes would have blushed and blanched upon seeing the waste, corruption and utter lavishness of the present U.S. federal regime) under the tortured logic of the TARP bill "saving capitalism" as both Republicans and Democrats insisted it would, a fairly unscrupulous "liberal" in the sense it had been known throughout the nineteenth century would have, while having contorted his own classical liberal principles if it meant the preservation of what he deemed to be "the free market."

In that sense, William F. Buckley, Jr., who was constantly teasing his political adversaries, was correct: he was "the real liberal," placing capitalism above almost all other considerations.

Unfortunately what I have discovered in my limited time on this planet is that most people who dare be politically aware are insincere. The overwhelming majority of whom we call "conservatives" today possess this awful trait, too, but perhaps due to growing up where I have, most of my personal experiences with unprincipled political forces have been on what is largely referred to as "the left." Most of political parlance is flimflam man-worthy obfuscation and doubletalk, of course. Yet it must count for something that while I have met and corresponded with at least a fair number of people who would call themselves "conservative" or "libertarian," and find that they actually did indeed wore upon their being genuine principle and steadfast virtue as honorable figures. This being in just everyday life, academia, elsewhere. Principled and honorable "liberals" or "leftists" if you will have always been even more difficult to find than their "right-wing" counterparts. For every Ralph Nader--with whom I had the pleasure of meeting and conversing at great length during his 2004 presidential campaign and, as I knew long before I ever met him, whose politics are frankly a bit more difficult to pin down than most realize in that way that recalls Eugene Debs or the late principled and always-fun-to-read "leftist" writer Alexander Cockburn--or Dennis Kucinich, there seem to exist an overwhelming army of pretenders, hucksters and grifters emanating from what is, again, generally referred to as the American left. Any supposed "right-winger" who has championed the Bush family or Paul Ryan or any number of sinister characters has nothing to talk about, but this has been irritating. I read counterpunch and other websites quite often because while I will frequently disagree with the philosophical conclusions of genuine "leftists" they tend to be far more interesting and eclectic than their tyrannical Social Justice Warrior counterparts or Democratic Party apparatchiks. One columnist there recently posted a list of ten things which make him feel ashamed of the U.S. and while I would quibble with the wording due to some respect for what is an almost dead letter in the U.S. Constitution's 10th Amendment, and disagree with a couple points, I largely concurred with the majority of his assessments. Genuine "leftists" may, in their own, often inchoate way, long for the sense of _thymos_, as per Plato, the way a far-right traditionalist may. The pathways to achieving such a polity differ starkly but just as there is a shocking degree of overlap between the managerial hydra heads of the two major political parties, certain commonalities may be found among the far-flung "fringes" of pontification. 

It is with respect that I weigh your principled leftism.

What the "Flight 93" article was saying, albeit in a slightly clumsy way, was that for anyone even remotely interested in dialing down the federal beast, or keeping at least parts of the society they knew and cherished, for a viable national opposition to continue to exist against the Democrats, it is now or never. The writer is unmistakably a middle-ranking (or higher) soldier in the so-called "Conservative Movement" and as such his only viable political party, at a national level, is the Republican Party. One could easily ponder just what worth the GOP has for someone who prides himself on being such a stalwart "conservative" as this writer is, but no matter. He correctly sees the oncoming demise of his party as a truly national force in the imminent future and, understandably, he is distraught. It is one thing to lose the national party; it is another thing to notice that it is en route to receding beneath the waves and to survey the connective tissue pertaining to that sinking ship. Demography--time--is against it. Vastly more important than the fate of the Republican Party is the fate of society. A solid article from the _Boston Globe_ points out the demographic transition that is occurring throughout enormous sections of the U.S.: http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...ity-georgia/PpBh8303fUVlfkYUDgQeuN/story.html As the article states,


> A generation ago, this Atlanta suburb was 95 percent white and rural with one little African-American neighborhood that was known as “colored town.’’ But after a tidal wave of Hispanic and Asian immigrants who were attracted to Norcross by cheap housing and proximity to a booming job market, white people now make up less than 20 percent of the population in Norcross and surrounding neighborhoods. It’s a shift so rapid that many of the longtime residents feel utterly disconnected from the place where they raised their children.
> 
> “It’s not that much anger, but you don’t feel comfortable knowing that all this is around you,” said Billy Weathers, 79, who has lived in the area for his whole life and doesn’t speak a lick of Spanish.
> 
> Many say they feel isolated in their own hometown, pushed to change their ways, to assimilate to the new arrivals instead of the other way around. They resent the shift, even knowing it’s nobody’s fault, really. And they have mostly kept their feelings to themselves. Who, they wonder, would listen to folks like us, anyway?


And, again:


> His slogan, “Make America Great Again,” appeals to people here who don’t talk much to their newer neighbors anymore, not out of malice but because they often don’t even share a common language. When Trump talks about building a wall between the United States and Mexico, these largely white, Republicans nod in agreement.
> 
> “There used to be a place where we could go out to eat to get southern cooking,” said Billy’s wife, JoAnn Weathers, 79. “Well there’s no more southerners left here. . . . They came from other countries and completely changed our lives.”


It should be noted that when I am asked by someone, "Why bother studying the classics?" my retort is simple: "So as to not become a barbarian." For, of course, the word "barbarian" is a Greek word that originally referred to someone who did not speak Greek. It was not a term of derision, _necessarily_; just a note, as it were, of difference. 

Once upon a time, the aristocracies which oversaw the commons believed that they had to preserve the society into which they had been born for their own posterity. Corruption, vice, all sorts of malfeasance existed, yes, but, on the whole, these aristocracies largely succeeded. The war usually called World War I saw an end to many of these aristocracies, to many of the old orders and rich houses, as though violently completing the overarching metamorphosis from the medieval order through the Enlightenment to what Friedrich Nietzsche saw unfurling, the birth of what would become the postmodern democratic state.

Today's version of what passes for the aristocracy in the West has been undermining societal cohesion for decades. Every single day the French police and intelligence services have to stop another terrorist attack. Somewhere around 70% of all prisoners in French prisons are Muslims, most North Africans. Approximately 50% of all California state prisoners are illegal aliens. Every year, like clockwork, approximately half of all murders in the U.S. are committed by a fraction of the 6% of the population making up black males. Every single day the U.S. permits more aliens to infiltrate its territory. One Border Patrol report from a few weeks ago stated that approximately 80% of all illegal aliens caught at the border are simply released, with no medical checking up, no background check to see if the individual alien has committed violent crimes in Mexico or El Salvador or Nigeria. Twenty-two U.S. military veterans take their own life each day. Heroin addiction, and fatal overdoses stemming from same, have each reached unprecedented heights. According to a dozen different studies over the past two years, children between five and ten years old are experiencing approximately as much sunshine as a federal prisoner, per day. In the wake of the housing bubble popping, black poverty has increased by almost 100%. Cases of leprosy and tuberculosis are spreading in U.S. public schools in Southern California and parts of the Chicago and New York City area due to unchecked immigration. The disparity between the richest and the poorest is increasing year by year, with a smaller and small number representing the "median." These are the tea leaves suggesting that social cohesion is on the road to gradually collapsing. 

What inevitably occurs with less and less social cohesion is each "group" looking out for its own interest. Patriotism dwindles. The regime's call for the people to continue to bend the knee and follow their duty as citizens finally goes unheard. For decades "black pride" has been important, as has all manner of celebration of Mestizo accomplishments and history. All well and good, we may say. Yet do these masters of the universe believe that whites, as their numbers decrease, will never contend that reveling in their past, their achievements, the societies that they once knew or, as the years roll on, merely heard of from their forebears? 

And as an increasingly vocal segment of purported "conservatives" are recognizing, capitalism, unto itself, is no guarantor of a society worth conserving. The "Flight 93" writer does not come out and say it, precisely, but a "free market" fatigue seems to be settling in for many surveyors of American decline. To put it more crisply and--dare I pat myself on the back too liberally--eruditely, it is one thing to read Adam Smith's _An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations_ and almost perfectly concur with Smith's point that capitalism is the best means by which people may attain the good life, and another thing to read Smith's _The Theory of Moral Sentiments_ and find it rather appalling as philosophy. Too many "marketists," like Marxists, become devoted to Smith's doughy, troubled efforts to philosophically buttress his arguments, and tend to parrot points from same with almost no thinking committed to their enterprise. Sheer, unfettered capitalism may indeed play a prominent role in reducing people into atomized individuals, a kind of insular, alone Travis Bickle character attempting to navigate his way through a sea of disconnected, disinterested strangers. How much of civilization has already been lost to that which is most efficient, most streamlined, least costly, etcetera? 

In that vein, the degree to which automation overtakes the service industry will be yet another realm that finds greater and greater displacement of human interaction. The world as we know it may within a generation resemble a mash-up of Woody Allen's _Sleeper_ and Ridley Scott's adaptation of Philip K. Dick's _Blade Runner_. 

It is also funny that I happened to speak with a futurist yesterday about how driverless cars will be coming probably sooner than most realize, as has been abundantly clear for many years now. As the capitalists behind McDonald's noted, with the $15 federal minimum wage coming before long, your Big Mac and fries will be served by Ronnie the Robot quite soon.

The most arresting potential beacon for populists and people who merely want to live in a society of equanimity again would be to marry the ostensible "left-wing" concerns of economic inequality with the "right-wing" desire to maintain one's nation and civilization. While both avenues left to their own devices leave considerable qualities to be desired--leftism's economic welfare statism has been degrading and unjust; nationalism is foolhardy, particularly for a large country that spans thousands of miles with a population in the hundreds of millions--considering how best to apply the Aristotelian virtues of the ancient "common weal" to our own times may yet bring about genuine "hope and change" for the common folk.

If the above reads a bit like rambling rationalizing, it probably is. The "Flight 93" piece is flawed in some ways but the mourning of even the pretense of an alternative to the course on which the U.S. is embarked is warranted, and the exasperation with those purportedly "right" who either simply do not understand or, perhaps for commercial reasons, refuse to, remains palpable. 



BruiserKC said:


> Like the expression goes that is attributed to Thomas Jefferson (although not found in his writings)...""If your government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have."
> 
> This is what will save the conservative movement...as younger people grow up many of them traditionally start thinking differently. The idea of everyone getting everything they need changes when you see what it's like to actually earn for a living. I don't need the government to tell me how to live my life, they need to take care of the basics and let me deal with the rest. I have no problem with helping people that truly need the assistance. At the same time, I've worked my ass off for everything that I have in my life and I have a serious problem with those that sponge off the rest of us. Down the road, we pay for it...that's what we're seeing now with all these free programs, they are not totally free as somebody has to foot the bill.
> 
> 
> 
> I've thought about those who see Trump as that counter...I think this is the absolutely worst thing that could be done. Just completely disregarding the Constitution just because Obama and his cronies have (and sadly, Bush before that), would destroy what we have worked to create. Many of them don't want liberals to legislate from the bench, but would have no objection with conservative judges doing the same thing. It's one thing to fight back politically using the same smear tactics the liberals have perfected, but to use those tactics to govern would be fatal.
> 
> 
> 
> Gary Johnson became out of the question the moment he said, "Where's Aleppo?"
> 
> Many of the social conservatives are flocking towards Trump because Christianity (and faith in general) is under attack in this country. Not to the extent of Christians being slaughtered like you see in the ME, but the fact that any mention of God is being completely swept away. You can't talk about God in the public square without someone being offended. Granted, I'm not full-on social con (I have no issue with gay marriage, etc), but I have a major problem with being told that I can't mention my faith in public without someone being offended. And I'm not one of those who preaches and tries to convert.
> 
> You can believe (or not believe) whatever you want...but I want the right to be able to practice my faith without being told I can't. People can mock it if they want, that's their right. But, when you tell me I can't practice it...I have a problem with that and will tell you to your face it won't happen.


I don't foresee a mass exodus of young people anytime soon. Tremors are present, but the overwhelming majority of them flocked to Bernie Sanders, presumably because they loved hearing about getting their own "bailout" for all of their college tuition debt. Recent polls demonstrate that a mere 12% of millennials consider themselves as "patriotic"; now, what the word _patriotic_ means, after barely scratching the surface of "liberal" and "conservative" above, we may wish to leave alone for now. The point is that however many "come to their senses" from your perspective, it probably won't make any difference to the trajectory of the U.S. Most of these young people like to believe that they are above religion but for many of them, what we may call "liberal orthodoxy," no matter how painful it is to use that terminology, is their greatest article of faith. As with Western Europe, democracy, egalitarianism, equality, feminism, universal human rights, the particularly American history-centric critical race theory textbook conclusions--these are their deities. Martin Luther King, Jr. is, at this point, the U.S.'s patron saint, and the molders of opinion in academia and mass media churn out the same message with almost unyielding repetition. 

From Epicurus to Hart and back again we may find ourselves discussing natural needs. What is almost humorous is that millennials are, would they admit it, beginning to revert to their antecedents' characteristics in some important ways. The dramatic increase in uxorilocal and patrilocal families, but most pervasively in families in which adult children simply stay at home, may, if some families allow it, restore a bond between generations. Robert Trivers' perspective of viewing conflict between generations or between siblings as natural biological development is considerably important to keep in mind while also admitting that few foundations are as important for the greatest number of individuals as the family unit. A majority of millennials recognize that theirs is the first generation for whom the standard of living has decreased rather than increased; three cars, a swimming pool and three-week vacations are no longer reasonable "middle class" goals. With many of them drowning in debt, a fair number are retreating to drugs, alcohol, and sexual escapades, but a vociferous number are becoming celibate and viewing their station with what we could call "Spartan goggles." 

As for @GOON and his wish for Trump to become a strongman... It may be prudent to keep in mind that even in the generations immediately following the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, an Aristotelian "revolution within the form" took place within the federal government. Jeffersonian republicanism arguably met its first devastating match with the Louisiana Purchase; Jefferson had wanted to have the Constitution amended, ever the strict Constitutionalist, in time for the purchase from France, but, while his effort was valiant, he fell short on time, and so, the purchase ineluctably altered the conditions of the American regime, as it had been known throughout the administrations of George Washington and John Adams. Even Adams's Alien and Sedition Acts, however bemoaned, did not leave such a permanent legacy (though they would serve as inescapable precedents in the future). James Madison, "father of the Constitution," nevertheless nearly tore the young republic apart in playing a major role in provoking war with Great Britain, a war which easily could have ended calamitously (and, for a while, looked like it would--it was, for the most part, still an embarrassment). 

With the 1820s came the establishment of professional political parties and expanded democracy, and one could easily argue that this was where things seriously began to go awry. Nevertheless, Jeffersonian republicanism morphing into Andrew Jacksonian democracy, as it was known, was the first instance of the populist strongman in U.S. history. Jackson was exquisitely jealous of the executive branch and held tight to the lessons he learned from studying Jefferson's confrontations with the Supreme Court and Chief Justice George Marshall. When Marshall's decision in favor of the national bank in _Worcester v. Georgia_ came down, legend long had it that Jackson snarled, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" That was not an actual quote, but the spirit of it remains accurate. Jackson was taking the Jeffersonian republican values of the Revolutionary War generation and applying them to his own time. As the historian Joyce Appleby noted, Jackson was considered a backward hick, and that to the federalists, there was fundamentally no difference between poor whites and blacks. Jackson's strongman administration sought to keep the American union together, bitterly opposing South Carolina and John C. Calhoun when the state howled at the pain inflicted by the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations" by 1832 and 1833, of course removed whole American Indian populations from settled states and relocated them, and popularly stood athwart the machinations of the biggest banks, suspecting that monied interests would supplant republicanism with a cartel of financial conspiring and banking power over the concerns of the people. 

Jeffersonian republicanism leading to Jacksonian democracy made sense as a reasonably linear matter. 

Ultimately, the U.S. Constitution no longer exists as efficacious bulwark against tyranny, usurpation or, effectively, much of anything. Imagine the Jeffersonian or Jacksonian response to Chief Justice John Roberts squeaking out that Obamacare is constitutional. Meanwhile, the U.S. Constitution is frequently used as a sledgehammer to break up local statutes or state laws created for those communities and states. The Constitutional republic that the framers left the U.S. with was meant, if one reads their writings, primarily for a predominantly Anglo-Saxon constituency, fluent in English and at least somewhat learned in the Anglo-Saxon traditions, a few of which dated back to before the Norman conquest, others to the Magna Carte, still others to the previous one hundred years spanning from the "Glorious Revolution." I would say that I could run around areas of San Jose, California with a pocket U.S. Constitution and scream about what the framers of the republic envisioned, a taut, delicate system that could easily be destroyed from within through usurpation and lax morality, and I would get a bunch of vacant looks--but the truth is I could do the same thing in the whitest area of Marin County and I would get vacant looks there, too. White people messed up their republic here, and white people shall pay the price. The point, however, is that Hondurans and Guatemalans, by and large, have only the scantest understanding of what you and I may be talking about. No shame in that; no reason to look down on them. It is, however, simply the truth of the matter. Only one demographic group votes for smaller government, less taxes and less regulations, election cycle after election cycle, and even with whites, it's split around 60-40. Hugging the Constitution until the ink stains your shirt is not going to do anything to stop the death of republican governance in the U.S., no matter what Ted Cruz might tell you. 

Trump will probably go down to defeat. The "people," people like the ones seeing the towns and communities they always knew wither and die, the people whose way of life is nearing an end, are too few in number to democratically combat the forces behind Hillary Clinton (which, as the DNC Wikileaks incontrovertibly establish, includes the lion's share of the organs of the mainstream corporate media). 

That the social malaise hitting the U.S. will simply go away like so much smoke in the air is a pipe dream, should anyone be indulging in it. Fragmentation of civic life seems to be the destiny of this abstraction we call the United States of America. To a major extent this could be phenomenally healthy, should a knowledgeable citizenry adopt ancient virtues and pragmatic philosophies. We have so much at our fingertips, with I conversing with someone in Kentucky, another in Hawaii, another in Florida, another in Iowa, and on and on, in this very thread. Plato and Socrates, Aristotle and Cicero, Filmer and Maine, Hume and Epicurus, such wisdom should be critically studied. Bringing politics back to the human level will entail either caring for one's own community--or finding a new one.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> True American patriots would believe in freedom above all else, that's what the soldiers die for isn't it? to keep society free. that includes freedom of religion, therefore a potential muslim President shouldn't matter should it?
> 
> True freedom really means putting up with a whole bunch of stuff you don't like because in return you get to do what you want, within reason of course.
> 
> Otherwise, you're no different from the leftists who apparently want to shut down and deny all counter opinion and ideology.


What part of _*islam doesn't value freedom for other innocents*_ do you not understand?

A muslim president? Jesus...

I'm sure by a _"muslim president"_ you mean a person who doesn't follow islam at all yeah? Because those are muslims too yeah? Just like vegans who eat fish are vegan too yeah? Bloody hell.

Yes I know many presidents have been labelled themselves christian, but the number of self identifying christians who are actually christian are as christian as Adolf Hitler was a Japanese sumo wrestler. The number of actual genuine muslims however is large, genuine muslims are a HUGE minority, that's why the entire self identifying islamic community look worse to people not affiliated with islam. 

Also people need to shut the fuck up at this _"freedom in everything"_ bullshit and I don't care if this gets me hate on here, every American spits on the concept of freedom when they force people to live lives without murdering or stealing. You take away THEIR FREEDOM to steal or murder. Almost everybody is an authoritarian who starts talking about freedom the second they wanna themselves or a group of people treated someway. The concept of laws shouldn't be spoken of in a manner of _"freedom freedom"_, it should be spoken of in a manner of ethical philosophy.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Most of these young people like to believe that they are above religion but for many of them, what we may call "liberal orthodoxy," no matter how painful it is to use that terminology, is their greatest article of faith. As with Western Europe, democracy, egalitarianism, equality, feminism, universal human rights, the particularly American history-centric critical race theory textbook conclusions--these are their deities. Martin Luther King, Jr. is, at this point, the U.S.'s patron saint, and the molders of opinion in academia and mass media churn out the same message with almost unyielding repetition.
> 
> From Epicurus to Hart and back again we may find ourselves discussing natural needs. What is almost humorous is that millennials are, would they admit it, beginning to revert to their antecedents' characteristics in some important ways. The dramatic increase in uxorilocal and patrilocal families, but most pervasively in families in which adult children simply stay at home, may, if some families allow it, restore a bond between generations. Robert Trivers' perspective of viewing conflict between generations or between siblings as natural biological development is considerably important to keep in mind while also admitting that few foundations are as important for the greatest number of individuals as the family unit. A majority of millennials recognize that theirs is the first generation for whom the standard of living has decreased rather than increased; three cars, a swimming pool and three-week vacations are no longer reasonable "middle class" goals. With many of them drowning in debt, a fair number are retreating to drugs, alcohol, and sexual escapades, but a vociferous number are becoming celibate and viewing their station with what we could call "Spartan goggles."


I'm not qualified to respond to the majority of your post. If I can understand and assimilate it, that's enough of an achievement for me for the day - however, I do believe that I am qualified to add my thoughts to the aspect of religion and today's youth. 

The thing is that religion in and of itself remains archaic by its very principle. You can reform it, you can update it, you can re-interpret it to become increasingly compatible with modern life, but at its core it's essentially reverse engineered morality if you know what I mean. Even with the reformation of religion it remains more static in terms of adaption and with increased global awareness it's lost its necessity in people's lives. It's already done the maximum that it can in terms of helping us evolve to the highest ideals we could evolve and go even further with our own doctrines and not just the self-limiting ones of religion. Most people who are religious tend to do the same thing. Pick the best parts of their religion, ignore the worst and try to be better people. Religion's role in society has ended and we don't need it any more in the society. People can still believe what they want to believe, but the society has already built upon the progressive religious values. The only problems some of us still have with religion (and I'm not talking about the raging atheist, but rather the more religious friendly atheists like myself) is that we see some parts of certain religions as regressive and we don't want those in our lives or our children's lives. That's it. 

When you really think about it, the ultimate goal of religion is to provide comfort to the ailing (be it in any walk of life) and a code of moral guidance upon which to build societies. This sort of moral ethos and modus of control works in small groups, but as the group becomes larger and larger religious cohesiveness and that moral guide breaks down because it was never designed to maintain order over a large group and in it lies its biggest inherent weakness. Every single time any religion got too big, it devolved into fascism and totalitarianism. You can see this in the abrahimic religions and you can see it in hunduism. 

Anyways to relate this back to your point, what I see happening is exactly this. Religion has lost its necessity in a society that has grown too large for religion to have enough innate ability to control. The youngsters rebelling against religion and as you so eloquently put reverting to other non-religious religions is exactly what you'd expect because those smaller "religious" groups give them that moral ethos and code that religion no longer applies for them. The response to this is not to try to bring them back into that archaic religious fold, but rather to acknowledge the limitations of the religions (as our forefathers did) and let it stay close to the individual rather than be implemented upon the entire group as a whole. This same thing actually applies to the non-religious religious affiliations and groups of the current non-religious generation as well. 

My point is after all that ... we're not supposed to be governed by large, over-arching structures and we need to return to the principles of excellence within smaller groups and individualism. The identification and morals of the larger group have been well defined. We just need to recognize those and continue to govern ourselves and our smaller units as best as we can. I don't think that humans were meant to live under such large groups as we do in some countries today --- we're much too different.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/775108467849781248


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/775108467849781248


That's funny considering she didn't seem out and about much while Trump's been everywhere. Also LOL Patton this guy is such a clown. 

Will Patton send out a tweet when Hilary is questioned by the DoJ and FBI again and fails to answer them? 

"Hilary "short circuiting" but still trying to answer the FBI questions? Whut a badass!"


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

She was attending multiple fundraisers. :shrug

No doubt Patton is a shill for Hillary, but that doesn't mean the spin isn't half bad as it is relatable to people powering through being sick to go to work.

If it was anyone else you wouldn't be so critical about that comment and commend that person as being tough.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-advisor-carl-paladino-theres-no-doubt-that-obama-is-a-muslim/
> 
> http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_51016.pdf
> 
> 
> :shrug
> 
> 
> Yet they are doing the same of shutting down this topic of discussion of nativism and racism being a rallying call for Trump supporters by feigning outrage at being called names. Have you attended a Trump rally or watch videos of them chanting really awful stuff about different ethnicity and religion? And when others call them out on it they feign outrage and say they aren't racists. Hell, these supporters were there even before Trump when Obama was campaigning in the last two elections. But McCain and Romney don't encourage them like Trump does during Q&As or rallies.
> 
> What is the point you are trying to make here? Some people are voting for Trump because he's a celebrity or because they only vote Republican too. Partisanship support happens for nominees from both major party. Am I defending Hillary for saying it? I am saying what she said isn't that far off from reality but it was also wrong. So why would I defend Trump if he said something like that?
> 
> I've echoed claims about BLM being hijacked into being a racist movement here so don't attempt to pigeon hole me into some crazy leftist who will defend everything she says, unlike many Trump surrogates on television who have to perform mental gymnastics everytime Trump opened his mouth the last few months.
> 
> Here's the thing, you can't be claiming for disliking safe spaces and then cry foul when someone said something that is not to your liking. Trump cites white supremacists memes in his tweets and use those as the basis of his gross generalisation, while Hillary's gaffe was based on looking at Trump's tweets over the past year and polls like the one I cited above. Yet Trump supporters defend his lack of tactfulness for a year as being authentic but now is saying Hillary is so bad for not being careful with her words. Hypocritical much?
> 
> If a Trump supporter claim having safe spaces that shuts down discussion is wrong, but then shuts down discussion of Trump's appeal during this election cycle because of feigned offence, does that really mean he/she really claim to want to encourage discussion? Or are they just as thin skin as Trump who can dish it out but can't take criticism back and really just want safe spaces for their own views?



Safe spaces have nothing to do with calling random people who you've never met a bunch of racists, space spaces on Colleges for children who do not want to deal with reality or touchy subjects is a completely different matter. It's apples and oranges. If you and I were to have a debate about, I don't know Eugenics or possibly another iffy subject as abortion or even racial crime statistics and you showed me facts which gave validity to an argument which is offensive and instead of debating I wanted you gone because your facts are "mean", that would be censorship to an illogical degree.

Now if you came up to me and said "Sally I don't like that you like this and that so that makes you a racist" without establishing as to how I'm racist and just outright attacking me as a person with little to no facts, that's different. It's not anti-PC to baselessly call me a racist to derail the argument, ruin my credibility and it actually makes real racism that less meaningful because to you, anyone who thinks differently is racist without any proof of such.

Why it's such a stupid thing for her to say is because not everyone voting for Trump is voting for the same reasons, also if she wants to sling the term racist around she should look at her own shady history should she not? Or the Democrats very real racist members who are still behind the scenes. So seems a little hypocritical on her end to use such language especially when it's not fitting. Anti-PC doesn't mean you're pro calling people terms to just end an argument, it means not letting people censor very real issues or things because it's offensive. It's not a free reign to be an asshole especially in Politics.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

CNN headline:

Clinton: "I'm much more transparent than Trump"

Bitch, you're translucent at best even after Wikileaks' recent deluge of info. :chlol

And you know Don Juan truly isn't in it to win it when he has yet to release his tax returns and medical history even though they'd make for a capable 1-2 punch against Clinton's monetary shadiness and recent display of being flabby and sick.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Safe spaces have nothing to do with calling random people who you've never met a bunch of racists, space spaces on Colleges for children who do not want to deal with reality or touchy subjects is a completely different matter. It's apples and oranges. If you and I were to have a debate about, I don't know Eugenics or possibly another iffy subject as abortion or even racial crime statistics and you showed me facts which gave validity to an argument which is offensive and instead of debating I wanted you gone because your facts are "mean", that would be censorship to an illogical degree.
> 
> Now if you came up to me and said "Sally I don't like that you like this and that so that makes you a racist" without establishing as to how I'm racist and just outright attacking me as a person with little to no facts, that's different. It's not anti-PC to baselessly call me a racist to derail the argument, ruin my credibility and it actually makes real racism that less meaningful because to you, anyone who thinks differently is racist without any proof of such.
> 
> Why it's such a stupid thing for her to say is because not everyone voting for Trump is voting for the same reasons, also if she wants to sling the term racist around she should look at her own shady history should she not? Or the Democrats very real racist members who are still behind the scenes. So seems a little hypocritical on her end to use such language especially when it's not fitting. Anti-PC doesn't mean you're pro calling people terms to just end an argument, it means not letting people censor very real issues or things because it's offensive. It's not a free reign to be an asshole especially in Politics.


But her comments were based on polls conducted by respectable pollsters about Trump supporters. Just this thread you see a few posters believing Obama isn't a Christian. Some even go as far as saying Hillary is pro-Sharia law. Sure these are just anecdote examples, but it really isn't isolated when one goes over comments by Trump supporters at other comment sections. Isn't shutting down the discussion because of the uncomfortable facts being 'mean' the same thing Trump supporters are doing now?

Why is the word racist such a trigger word for so many Trump supporters? Don't tell me they are the same as leftist black activists that deny black people can be racist?


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/775108467849781248












:aries2


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> But her comments were based on polls conducted by respectable pollsters about Trump supporters. Just this thread you see a few posters believing Obama isn't a Christian. Some even go as far as saying Hillary is pro-Sharia law. Sure these are just anecdote examples, but it really isn't isolated when one goes over comments by Trump supporters at other comment sections. Isn't shutting down the discussion because of the uncomfortable facts being 'mean' the same thing Trump supporters are doing now?
> 
> Why is the word racist such a trigger word for so many Trump supporters? Don't tell me they are the same as leftist black activists that deny black people can be racist?


Again there are a few million people who are going to be voting for Trump, there is no possible way even half of them believe in what you said unless those pollsters went out and talked to nearly every single of one of them. I'm not denying there are idiots, I've said before Democrats and Republicans are two sides to the same coin. She isn't attacking the fringe element, she attacked -all- the supporters. She pretty much alienated half the country over a few people who also exist in her very party. It seems ironic she claims trump supporters are racist yet her own party is the one sending each other emails with racist remarks about their own voters. :laugh:

You're purposely acting dumb and it's getting a little annoying now. There is no discussion, she made a slanderous accusation about a huge group of people who come from various backgrounds both men and women, people who were born here and not born here. There wasn't a discussion to begin with, she simply made a statement a very bigoted one i might add and people are calling her out on it. Again before slinging mud she should look at herself and her party for their racist remarks, she shouldn't be pushing any sort of PC agenda when she cannot even stick to it herself.

This isn't about comfort or any type of discussion she's simply writing off people as racist, she's the one ensuing that any concerns Trump supporters have isn't of any concern because "them's all just a bunch of racists!" Also please just stop trying to trap me with obvious bait, it's not working. If you don't consider being called a racist or labeling a whole group as racist as a way to avoid addressing any of their questions than you have zero self awareness. Being called a racist or any such form of slander isn't something one should use or take lightly. Of course you couldn't care less because you enjoy the sound of your own anti-Trump echo chamber in this thread. Had Trump called Hilary supporters a bunch of racists and sexists you'd probably be bashing him relentlessly with glee. Be honest if roles were reversed you'd be preaching to us like a street preacher on how Trump hates half the nation etc. 

And for the record I work in Health Care as a nurse, her going around sick and calling attention to the fact she may not be healthy enough to lead is moronic and comes off as a weak explanation for her health status. I'd think that about anyone who puts themselves in such a predicament when she could have found other avenues of campaigning while sick. Given Hilary's constant lying, I'd be one to question anything she says or does. That's not because of what party she's from or her political views, that's because she's actually lied, a lot.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I look forward to Trump demolishing Clinton in the debates, if she lives that long.
When she has these rallies she doesn't say things that lift people, just always negative.

Even Pepe the Frog is getting attacked by the Clinton gang :HA


----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> I've thought about those who see Trump as that counter...I think this is the absolutely worst thing that could be done. Just completely disregarding the Constitution just because Obama and his cronies have (and sadly, Bush before that), would destroy what we have worked to create. Many of them don't want liberals to legislate from the bench, but would have no objection with conservative judges doing the same thing. It's one thing to fight back politically using the same smear tactics the liberals have perfected, but to use those tactics to govern would be fatal.


Tbh the Constitution is virtually useless nowadays. It has done nothing to secure our freedoms against those who wish to usurp it, and whenever one wishes to destroy those who want subvert our freedoms, it's decried as unconstitutional. It's also deemed "unconstitutional" to deport the 11 million+ illegals who, once legalized, will vote for the party that is against virtually all of the freedoms it once guaranteed. It's essentially a mere social contract that is now being ignored by most parties.

With the current state we find ourselves in, we need to place conserving America above all else. I don't see the merits in handicapping ourselves by binding ourselves to standards set by a document that our enemies choose to ignore. The progressive-marxists have and will continue to use the sword of the State against us. If we are fortunate enough to gain power, we should use the behemoth they created to destroy them.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






:lol


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Raven said:


> Fun fact, America is a continent, not a country.


im aware...but America the beautiful is about u.s and not continent


----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

America _will_ be the continent once we annex Canada and Mexico into the one-thousand year Trumpenreich.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Raven

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> im aware...but America the beautiful is about u.s and not continent


Not really, It's about it's tropical paradise and the beauty of the nature in it.


----------



## Raven

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



GOON said:


> America _will_ be the continent once we annex Canada and Mexico into the one-thousand year Trumpenreich.


I'm not quite understanding your post, there. please explain it detail by detail on how you and Trump will exclude canada and mexico which are part of north america from america?


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Yes, what I mean with my previous post was that greater advancements in automation for manufacturing are presently underway and more manufacturing jobs will be lost as a consequence of that within these next five years. Obviously as you and *Tater* noted, automation is reaching the service industry, and soon most service jobs will be gone as well, with automation yawning out.


It's not just blue collar jobs that are disappearing to automation. A lot of white collar jobs are too.

Automation: Most White-Collar Jobs Aren't As Safe As You Think

The robots set to disrupt white collar work

Robots Are Taking White Collar Jobs, Too

3 white collar jobs that robots are already mastering

5 white-collar jobs robots already have taken

The Robots Are Coming for Wall Street

A lot of people who make over $350,000 are about to get replaced by software

Things don't change when poor people get fucked over. The people with the money and power don't give a fuck about poor people. When the middle class is gone though, gone too will be the buffer zone. One of the greatest tricks of American oligarchy has been the ability to convince the middle class into blaming poor people for their problems. The way things are going now, the middle class will also be poor people before too much longer. Real change will happen when there is not enough wealth left over for the 99% to keep them placated. It's a story as old as civilization.



DesolationRow said:


> It is also funny that I happened to speak with a futurist yesterday about how driverless cars will be coming probably sooner than most realize, as has been abundantly clear for many years now. As the capitalists behind McDonald's noted, with the $15 federal minimum wage coming before long, your Big Mac and fries will be served by Ronnie the Robot quite soon.


The McDonald's owner who said he would rather automate his restaurants than pay his employees $15 an hour was using it as a threat to keep wages low. The thing is, automation is coming, regardless of how high or low the wages are. People didn't keep riding in horse carriages after the automobile was invented. Why would people want to keep working shitty jobs anyways? Just for the sake of working? If we want everyone capable of working to continue working when there are only enough full time jobs for half the population, then we're going to have establish a system where everyone is working part time jobs. Otherwise, half the population will be working full time while the other half suffers in poverty.

Something else to consider is all the studies showing that people who work shorter hours and lead happier lives are also much more productive workers. Some poor miserable bastard toiling away 50 hours a week at a job he hates isn't going to be as productive as two happy people doing the same job for 25 hours each. Increased productivity for time spent working is something one would think would be a good thing. 



DesolationRow said:


> These discussions often yield a greater and more thorough reckoning of just how useless these "left" and "right" labels are.


They're useless because ignorance of their definitions have allowed them to become useless. I'll be the first person to admit that was is called "the left" are a bunch of useless jackasses. Then I'll turn around and bitch about them being called "the left" because they don't actually stand for leftist principles. Political terms have definitions and meanings. If we inaccurately apply those labels to people who don't fit into the definition of those labels, then yeah, you're right, they are useless. The idea that Democrats are the party of the left and Republicans are the party of the right is one of the biggest lies in all of the USA. Both deliver the military industrial complex and corporate fascism, with are decidedly right wing authoritarian traits. More people would know that if they understood the basic definitions of political terms.



DesolationRow said:


> I read counterpunch and other websites quite often because while I will frequently disagree with the philosophical conclusions of genuine "leftists" they tend to be far more interesting and eclectic than their tyrannical Social Justice Warrior counterparts or Democratic Party apparatchiks.


I'm glad you mentioned CounterPunch because it's my favorite and go-to site for reading material. I don't necessarily agree with every view presented there but they are all most definitely leftist views on the news of the world. Anyone who regularly reads that site knows my frustration over how retarded people sound when they call the MSM "leftist" or "liberal media". It's a result of mass propaganda perpetrated by corporate media because they don't want the masses hearing leftist viewpoints. Most of the news I absorb spends just as much time ripping Hillary to shreds as it does Trump. Just as a general rule of thumb, if a media source does not question capitalism and corporatocracy, _it's not leftist media_.

This Secular Talk clip from yesterday shows Rand Paul at his finest and corporate media at it's worst. @AryaDark








DesolationRow said:


> It is with respect that I weigh your principled leftism.


ositivity



DesolationRow said:


> What inevitably occurs with less and less social cohesion is each "group" looking out for its own interest.


Divide and conquer. The establishment fucks over everyone and then uses the blame game to turn different groups against one another. The last thing they'd ever want is society standing together as a whole against them because that's when they are well and truly fucked. Sadly, tribalism is far too easy to exploit and bringing together those with different ideologies for a common goal is always a difficult proposition.



DesolationRow said:


> And as an increasingly vocal segment of purported "conservatives" are recognizing, capitalism, unto itself, is no guarantor of a society worth conserving. The "Flight 93" writer does not come out and say it, precisely, but a "free market" fatigue seems to be settling in for many surveyors of American decline. To put it more crisply and--dare I pat myself on the back too liberally--eruditely, it is one thing to read Adam Smith's _An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations_ and almost perfectly concur with Smith's point that capitalism is the best means by which people may attain the good life, and another thing to read Smith's _The Theory of Moral Sentiments_ and find it rather appalling as philosophy. Too many "marketists," like Marxists, become devoted to Smith's doughy, troubled efforts to philosophically buttress his arguments, and tend to parrot points from same with almost no thinking committed to their enterprise. Sheer, unfettered capitalism may indeed play a prominent role in reducing people into atomized individuals, a kind of insular, alone Travis Bickle character attempting to navigate his way through a sea of disconnected, disinterested strangers. How much of civilization has already been lost to that which is most efficient, most streamlined, least costly, etcetera?


Capitalism has failed us because it is designed to fail us. It's worked out just dandy for those at the very top. Any commoner who professes belief in the "free market" is just a rube for billionaire conmen because they are promoting a system that will only fuck over the working class even more. As long as we as a society continue allowing the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a few, be they the government and/or the corporations/billionaire class, the vast majority of the population will continue to get fucked over. The USA is already an oligarchy. Until the empire is overthrown, things are only going to continue getting worse. 



DesolationRow said:


> John C. Calhoun


Fun fact: I grew up in Calhoun county, AL, named after John C. Calhoun. Guaranteed that if you ask 99% of the people who live there, they have no idea who John C. Calhoun was. 


I'm going to have to stop here because I could go on for hours responding to your truly epic post.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> This really has nothing to do with what I said though.
> 
> I said that a president can believe whatever they want to believe but they cannot be allowed to let their religious beliefs influence their decisions when they're head of state. And as long as the right has troubles with separating their beliefs from how they run the state I have problems with the right.
> 
> You wouldn't want a Muslim president to come in and say In Allah we Trust would you?
> 
> Christianity is not under attack. Christianity is being told that you're not the only religion in this country so you should respect that and also that you are obligated to ensure that your influence is not overtly impacting how the government functions or approaches it's decisions.


I have no issue with that. But, what is happening is a certain section of the populace are using that to basically tell us..."We want absolutely no religion discussed anywhere, anyplace, anytime. We don't want you to talk about it, pray, etc." That is a serious concern for many. Again, I respect all viewpoints and faiths (or lack of faith if that's what works for you). But, you have a number of people who say, "If we don't talk about God, then you can't either." Those are the ones I have a problem with. These are the people who say we can't say The Pledge of Allegiance because of the words "under God."


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> I have no issue with that. But, what is happening is a certain section of the populace are using that to basically tell us..."We want absolutely no religion discussed anywhere, anyplace, anytime. We don't want you to talk about it, pray, etc." That is a serious concern for many. Again, I respect all viewpoints and faiths (or lack of faith if that's what works for you). But, you have a number of people who say, "If we don't talk about God, then you can't either." Those are the ones I have a problem with. These are the people who say we can't say The Pledge of Allegiance because of the words "under God."


For me, the pledge of allegiance and having in god we trust on our money and in the court rooms is a trivial matter. It's really not that much different than feminists whining about air conditioning being sexist. I don't think that having mentions of god here and there is something to get that upset about as some atheists do to the point of protesting on the streets and wasting everyone's time and money on long and drawn court room dramas. 

It's essentially the testament to someone' privilege that they can make a protest out of trying to remove a word. 

Now if religion is used to force state interference into people's lives, I have an issue with that. And no, no matter how someone spins it, seeing the word god and hearing the word god is not interference. It's just a word. The only reason why this word continues to have power over someone's life is if they themselves give it that much power. 

If someone forces my kid to pray to god and creates an issue out of not doing it, I'll counter that. If some "science" teacher decides that they want to teach intelligent design in the classroom and not teach evolution, then I'll teach my child evolution myself. If I don't, then I'm revealing myself to be a confrontationalist who has already lost the child rearing battle by admitting that the state is my child's parent and not I. 

There's so many non-confrontational ways to deal with religion in a society that sometimes I too get a little annoyed by how much atheists rant and rave about certain stuff.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> I have no issue with that. But, what is happening is a certain section of the populace are using that to basically tell us..."We want absolutely no religion discussed anywhere, anyplace, anytime. We don't want you to talk about it, pray, etc." That is a serious concern for many. Again, I respect all viewpoints and faiths (or lack of faith if that's what works for you). But, you have a number of people who say, "If we don't talk about God, then you can't either." Those are the ones I have a problem with. These are the people who say we can't say The Pledge of Allegiance because of the words "under God."


The example I use to try to explain this to people is the issue of prayer in public school. The Christian right often whines about prayer being taken out school and claims they are being oppressed. No, they're really not. Kids are allowed to pray in school and there are no laws saying they can't. What the law says is that teachers can't lead the students in prayer. There is a very fundamental difference between the two things. A kid praying in school of his or her own volition is religious freedom. A teacher leading the kids in prayer is using a position of power to force prayer onto kids. The Christian right doesn't see it that way though. They believe that if they are not allowed to push their religion onto people, that somehow means they are being oppressed.



Reaper said:


> If some "science" teacher decides that they want to teach intelligent design in the classroom and not teach evolution...


If a "science" teacher decides they want to teach fairy tales as fact in science class, that is a violent of the separation of church and state and that teacher should be fired. Kids these days are uneducated enough as it is. The last thing we need is teachers teaching factually incorrect bullshit.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This is the first I'm hearing about this ... I feel kinda bad that I missed the original murder attempt. Or maybe the press didn't cover it as extensively. I don't know. It happened at the end of June and I was sick for a month so I might have missed it during my illness. 

I have a question though. How come this isn't being tried as a terrorism case? This man clearly tried to murder an American presidential candidate. This is exactly what terrorism is ... Even if he's a lone wolf, this man should have been treated like a terrorist and sent to guantanamo forever ... not allowed to simply leave the country. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/british-man-pleads-guilty-in-donald-trump-attempted-attack-case/



> *British man pleads guilty in Trump attempted attack case*
> 
> *LAS VEGAS* -- A British man pleaded guilty Tuesday to federal charges that could get him about two years in a U.S. prison and deported for trying to grab a police officer’s gun to shoot Donald Trump at a June campaign rally in Las Vegas.
> Michael Steven Sandford entered the pleas to being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm and disrupting an official function.
> “I tried to take a gun from a policeman to shoot someone with, and I’m pleading guilty,” Sandford told the judge.
> Sandford could have faced up to 20 years in a U.S. prison if he had been convicted at trial of both charges.
> Sandford, 20, was arrested June 18 after grabbing for the gun in a 1.500-seat venue at Treasure Island hotel-casino. Sandford didn’t get the gun, and no shots were fired before he was arrested.
> Sanford entered his pleas after his mother, Lynne Sandford, and a lawyer arrived from London and met with him in custody last week.
> Family attorney Saimo Chahal said a psychiatrist she enlisted to review the case determined that Sandford was delusional at the time of the attempted attack. Sandford also suffers seizures, obsession-compulsion, anxiety and autism spectrum disorders, Chahal said.
> Play Video
> *Secret Service: British man plotted to kill Donald Trump*
> 
> 
> “Michael was not in control at the time of the events and needs help,” the attorney said in an email to The Associated Press before the plea in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas. “He is desperate to return to the U.K. to be near his family as he has no ties with the U.S.A.”
> Sentencing guidelines call for 18 to 27 months in prison for the offenses, after credit for time served, accepting responsibility for the crime and avoiding trial, which had been set to start Oct. 3. Under the plea deal, Sandford won’t be able to appeal.
> Court documents say Sandford acknowledged asking the police officer at the event if he could get Trump’s autograph then grabbing with both hands for the officer’s 9mm handgun.
> It wasn’t clear if Trump recognized a threat before officers escorted Sandford out of the auditorium.
> Sandford later told a federal agent that he drove from California to Las Vegas with a plan to kill Trump, and that he rented a 9mm pistol and fired 20 shots at a paper target at a Las Vegas gun range the day before Trump’s appearance, according to court documents.
> Sandford told the agent it was the first time he had ever fired a gun.
> He also said he expected he would be killed during the assassination attempt, but that if he wasn’t, he would make another attempt on Trump’s life at a rally in Phoenix, court documents state.
> The plea agreement acknowledges Sandford had been in the U.S. illegally for almost 10 months at the time of his arrest.
> As a result of his plea, “It is almost certain that he will be permanently removed ... and will not be able to return to the United States at any time in the future,” the document said.
> 
> 
> © 2016 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


This man is why we need to be more concerned about SJW's. Especially the extreme SJW's from Europe and other extremist left countries. He's clearly brainwashed by the constant comparisons between Trump and Hitler, so he thought in his stupid mind that he was ridding the world of a great evil.



Tater said:


> If a "science" teacher decides they want to teach fairy tales as fact in science class, that is a violent of the separation of church and state and that teacher should be fired. Kids these days are uneducated enough as it is. The last thing we need is teachers teaching factually incorrect bullshit.


I think it's one of those murky areas where it's not perfectly clear whether this is a breach of the constitution or not ... I know that schools are a part of the state in a sense, but the education curriculum is developed by individual teachers even though they are public servants. You can't force every single teacher to adhere through threat of public sanction or punishment ... I'm a firm believer in countering bad ideas with good ideas and honestly, I've thought about it extensively that I actually want my kids to be exposed to as many ideas as is possible so that they can develop their own thinking skills with my help. Intelligent design is an extremely easy ideology to debunk and I would want someone to try to teach it to my child so that we can have a discussion about it :shrug


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Firstly just wanted to say that @Reaper's post from the other day about caring more about local governance over federal governance was just about perfect. Unfortunately Marin County, California has many hilarious problems, as does California the state, but the thought is what counts in this matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Jill Stein is the one ostensibly principled and strict desirer of peace among the candidates enjoying even 1% in the race. For that reason and that reason alone I would vote for her over Gary "I Actually Smoked Aleppo Fifteen Minutes Ago, More of a Downer Strain, Really, Heh, Heh--Uh.. What?" Johnson. One thing is for certain--"libertarianism's" moment has passed with the Johnson-Weld ticket.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, what I mean with my previous post was that greater advancements in automation for manufacturing are presently underway and more manufacturing jobs will be lost as a consequence of that within these next five years. Obviously as you and *Tater* noted, automation is reaching the service industry, and soon most service jobs will be gone as well, with automation yawning out.
> 
> 
> 
> These discussions often yield a greater and more thorough reckoning of just how useless these "left" and "right" labels are. Once hosted an academic seminar on the absurdities of American political terms like "liberal" and "conservative," and how misappropriated the words have been for decades and decades now. Here within the same thread is someone like *BruiserKC* complaining about the Republican Party's unfaithfulness toward conservative principles and you descrying the Democratic Party's right-wing corporatism. Are either of you wrong? Based on the Republicans' steadfast inability and unwillingness to even begin to find a speck of a tendril of a knuckle hair of the bloated, gargantuan federal Leviathan to actually cut, and the Democrats' jubilation at the prospect of passing a corporatist-fascistic Troubled Asset Relief Program, no, of course neither of you are. Although, and again, here come those pesky definitions again: "conservatives" as they had been known for centuries would have first concerned themselves with the maintenance of the aristocracy (oh, if only the U.S. still had a natural one!) rather than concern themselves too greatly about trimming the fat of the state (though even the most blasé "conservatives" of bygone regimes would have blushed and blanched upon seeing the waste, corruption and utter lavishness of the present U.S. federal regime) under the tortured logic of the TARP bill "saving capitalism" as both Republicans and Democrats insisted it would, a fairly unscrupulous "liberal" in the sense it had been known throughout the nineteenth century would have, while having contorted his own classical liberal principles if it meant the preservation of what he deemed to be "the free market."
> 
> In that sense, William F. Buckley, Jr., who was constantly teasing his political adversaries, was correct: he was "the real liberal," placing capitalism above almost all other considerations.
> 
> Unfortunately what I have discovered in my limited time on this planet is that most people who dare be politically aware are insincere. The overwhelming majority of whom we call "conservatives" today possess this awful trait, too, but perhaps due to growing up where I have, most of my personal experiences with unprincipled political forces have been on what is largely referred to as "the left." Most of political parlance is flimflam man-worthy obfuscation and doubletalk, of course. Yet it must count for something that while I have met and corresponded with at least a fair number of people who would call themselves "conservative" or "libertarian," and find that they actually did indeed wore upon their being genuine principle and steadfast virtue as honorable figures. This being in just everyday life, academia, elsewhere. Principled and honorable "liberals" or "leftists" if you will have always been even more difficult to find than their "right-wing" counterparts. For every Ralph Nader--with whom I had the pleasure of meeting and conversing at great length during his 2004 presidential campaign and, as I knew long before I ever met him, whose politics are frankly a bit more difficult to pin down than most realize in that way that recalls Eugene Debs or the late principled and always-fun-to-read "leftist" writer Alexander Cockburn--or Dennis Kucinich, there seem to exist an overwhelming army of pretenders, hucksters and grifters emanating from what is, again, generally referred to as the American left. Any supposed "right-winger" who has championed the Bush family or Paul Ryan or any number of sinister characters has nothing to talk about, but this has been irritating. I read counterpunch and other websites quite often because while I will frequently disagree with the philosophical conclusions of genuine "leftists" they tend to be far more interesting and eclectic than their tyrannical Social Justice Warrior counterparts or Democratic Party apparatchiks. One columnist there recently posted a list of ten things which make him feel ashamed of the U.S. and while I would quibble with the wording due to some respect for what is an almost dead letter in the U.S. Constitution's 10th Amendment, and disagree with a couple points, I largely concurred with the majority of his assessments. Genuine "leftists" may, in their own, often inchoate way, long for the sense of _thymos_, as per Plato, the way a far-right traditionalist may. The pathways to achieving such a polity differ starkly but just as there is a shocking degree of overlap between the managerial hydra heads of the two major political parties, certain commonalities may be found among the far-flung "fringes" of pontification.
> 
> It is with respect that I weigh your principled leftism.
> 
> What the "Flight 93" article was saying, albeit in a slightly clumsy way, was that for anyone even remotely interested in dialing down the federal beast, or keeping at least parts of the society they knew and cherished, for a viable national opposition to continue to exist against the Democrats, it is now or never. The writer is unmistakably a middle-ranking (or higher) soldier in the so-called "Conservative Movement" and as such his only viable political party, at a national level, is the Republican Party. One could easily ponder just what worth the GOP has for someone who prides himself on being such a stalwart "conservative" as this writer is, but no matter. He correctly sees the oncoming demise of his party as a truly national force in the imminent future and, understandably, he is distraught. It is one thing to lose the national party; it is another thing to notice that it is en route to receding beneath the waves and to survey the connective tissue pertaining to that sinking ship. Demography--time--is against it. Vastly more important than the fate of the Republican Party is the fate of society. A solid article from the _Boston Globe_ points out the demographic transition that is occurring throughout enormous sections of the U.S.: http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...ity-georgia/PpBh8303fUVlfkYUDgQeuN/story.html As the article states,
> 
> And, again:
> 
> It should be noted that when I am asked by someone, "Why bother studying the classics?" my retort is simple: "So as to not become a barbarian." For, of course, the word "barbarian" is a Greek word that originally referred to someone who did not speak Greek. It was not a term of derision, _necessarily_; just a note, as it were, of difference.
> 
> Once upon a time, the aristocracies which oversaw the commons believed that they had to preserve the society into which they had been born for their own posterity. Corruption, vice, all sorts of malfeasance existed, yes, but, on the whole, these aristocracies largely succeeded. The war usually called World War I saw an end to many of these aristocracies, to many of the old orders and rich houses, as though violently completing the overarching metamorphosis from the medieval order through the Enlightenment to what Friedrich Nietzsche saw unfurling, the birth of what would become the postmodern democratic state.
> 
> Today's version of what passes for the aristocracy in the West has been undermining societal cohesion for decades. Every single day the French police and intelligence services have to stop another terrorist attack. Somewhere around 70% of all prisoners in French prisons are Muslims, most North Africans. Approximately 50% of all California state prisoners are illegal aliens. Every year, like clockwork, approximately half of all murders in the U.S. are committed by a fraction of the 6% of the population making up black males. Every single day the U.S. permits more aliens to infiltrate its territory. One Border Patrol report from a few weeks ago stated that approximately 80% of all illegal aliens caught at the border are simply released, with no medical checking up, no background check to see if the individual alien has committed violent crimes in Mexico or El Salvador or Nigeria. Twenty-two U.S. military veterans take their own life each day. Heroin addiction, and fatal overdoses stemming from same, have each reached unprecedented heights. According to a dozen different studies over the past two years, children between five and ten years old are experiencing approximately as much sunshine as a federal prisoner, per day. In the wake of the housing bubble popping, black poverty has increased by almost 100%. Cases of leprosy and tuberculosis are spreading in U.S. public schools in Southern California and parts of the Chicago and New York City area due to unchecked immigration. The disparity between the richest and the poorest is increasing year by year, with a smaller and small number representing the "median." These are the tea leaves suggesting that social cohesion is on the road to gradually collapsing.
> 
> What inevitably occurs with less and less social cohesion is each "group" looking out for its own interest. Patriotism dwindles. The regime's call for the people to continue to bend the knee and follow their duty as citizens finally goes unheard. For decades "black pride" has been important, as has all manner of celebration of Mestizo accomplishments and history. All well and good, we may say. Yet do these masters of the universe believe that whites, as their numbers decrease, will never contend that reveling in their past, their achievements, the societies that they once knew or, as the years roll on, merely heard of from their forebears?
> 
> And as an increasingly vocal segment of purported "conservatives" are recognizing, capitalism, unto itself, is no guarantor of a society worth conserving. The "Flight 93" writer does not come out and say it, precisely, but a "free market" fatigue seems to be settling in for many surveyors of American decline. To put it more crisply and--dare I pat myself on the back too liberally--eruditely, it is one thing to read Adam Smith's _An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations_ and almost perfectly concur with Smith's point that capitalism is the best means by which people may attain the good life, and another thing to read Smith's _The Theory of Moral Sentiments_ and find it rather appalling as philosophy. Too many "marketists," like Marxists, become devoted to Smith's doughy, troubled efforts to philosophically buttress his arguments, and tend to parrot points from same with almost no thinking committed to their enterprise. Sheer, unfettered capitalism may indeed play a prominent role in reducing people into atomized individuals, a kind of insular, alone Travis Bickle character attempting to navigate his way through a sea of disconnected, disinterested strangers. How much of civilization has already been lost to that which is most efficient, most streamlined, least costly, etcetera?
> 
> In that vein, the degree to which automation overtakes the service industry will be yet another realm that finds greater and greater displacement of human interaction. The world as we know it may within a generation resemble a mash-up of Woody Allen's _Sleeper_ and Ridley Scott's adaptation of Philip K. Dick's _Blade Runner_.
> 
> It is also funny that I happened to speak with a futurist yesterday about how driverless cars will be coming probably sooner than most realize, as has been abundantly clear for many years now. As the capitalists behind McDonald's noted, with the $15 federal minimum wage coming before long, your Big Mac and fries will be served by Ronnie the Robot quite soon.
> 
> The most arresting potential beacon for populists and people who merely want to live in a society of equanimity again would be to marry the ostensible "left-wing" concerns of economic inequality with the "right-wing" desire to maintain one's nation and civilization. While both avenues left to their own devices leave considerable qualities to be desired--leftism's economic welfare statism has been degrading and unjust; nationalism is foolhardy, particularly for a large country that spans thousands of miles with a population in the hundreds of millions--considering how best to apply the Aristotelian virtues of the ancient "common weal" to our own times may yet bring about genuine "hope and change" for the common folk.
> 
> If the above reads a bit like rambling rationalizing, it probably is. The "Flight 93" piece is flawed in some ways but the mourning of even the pretense of an alternative to the course on which the U.S. is embarked is warranted, and the exasperation with those purportedly "right" who either simply do not understand or, perhaps for commercial reasons, refuse to, remains palpable.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't foresee a mass exodus of young people anytime soon. Tremors are present, but the overwhelming majority of them flocked to Bernie Sanders, presumably because they loved hearing about getting their own "bailout" for all of their college tuition debt. Recent polls demonstrate that a mere 12% of millennials consider themselves as "patriotic"; now, what the word _patriotic_ means, after barely scratching the surface of "liberal" and "conservative" above, we may wish to leave alone for now. The point is that however many "come to their senses" from your perspective, it probably won't make any difference to the trajectory of the U.S. Most of these young people like to believe that they are above religion but for many of them, what we may call "liberal orthodoxy," no matter how painful it is to use that terminology, is their greatest article of faith. As with Western Europe, democracy, egalitarianism, equality, feminism, universal human rights, the particularly American history-centric critical race theory textbook conclusions--these are their deities. Martin Luther King, Jr. is, at this point, the U.S.'s patron saint, and the molders of opinion in academia and mass media churn out the same message with almost unyielding repetition.
> 
> From Epicurus to Hart and back again we may find ourselves discussing natural needs. What is almost humorous is that millennials are, would they admit it, beginning to revert to their antecedents' characteristics in some important ways. The dramatic increase in uxorilocal and patrilocal families, but most pervasively in families in which adult children simply stay at home, may, if some families allow it, restore a bond between generations. Robert Trivers' perspective of viewing conflict between generations or between siblings as natural biological development is considerably important to keep in mind while also admitting that few foundations are as important for the greatest number of individuals as the family unit. A majority of millennials recognize that theirs is the first generation for whom the standard of living has decreased rather than increased; three cars, a swimming pool and three-week vacations are no longer reasonable "middle class" goals. With many of them drowning in debt, a fair number are retreating to drugs, alcohol, and sexual escapades, but a vociferous number are becoming celibate and viewing their station with what we could call "Spartan goggles."
> 
> As for @GOON and his wish for Trump to become a strongman... It may be prudent to keep in mind that even in the generations immediately following the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, an Aristotelian "revolution within the form" took place within the federal government. Jeffersonian republicanism arguably met its first devastating match with the Louisiana Purchase; Jefferson had wanted to have the Constitution amended, ever the strict Constitutionalist, in time for the purchase from France, but, while his effort was valiant, he fell short on time, and so, the purchase ineluctably altered the conditions of the American regime, as it had been known throughout the administrations of George Washington and John Adams. Even Adams's Alien and Sedition Acts, however bemoaned, did not leave such a permanent legacy (though they would serve as inescapable precedents in the future). James Madison, "father of the Constitution," nevertheless nearly tore the young republic apart in playing a major role in provoking war with Great Britain, a war which easily could have ended calamitously (and, for a while, looked like it would--it was, for the most part, still an embarrassment).
> 
> With the 1820s came the establishment of professional political parties and expanded democracy, and one could easily argue that this was where things seriously began to go awry. Nevertheless, Jeffersonian republicanism morphing into Andrew Jacksonian democracy, as it was known, was the first instance of the populist strongman in U.S. history. Jackson was exquisitely jealous of the executive branch and held tight to the lessons he learned from studying Jefferson's confrontations with the Supreme Court and Chief Justice George Marshall. When Marshall's decision in favor of the national bank in _Worcester v. Georgia_ came down, legend long had it that Jackson snarled, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" That was not an actual quote, but the spirit of it remains accurate. Jackson was taking the Jeffersonian republican values of the Revolutionary War generation and applying them to his own time. As the historian Joyce Appleby noted, Jackson was considered a backward hick, and that to the federalists, there was fundamentally no difference between poor whites and blacks. Jackson's strongman administration sought to keep the American union together, bitterly opposing South Carolina and John C. Calhoun when the state howled at the pain inflicted by the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations" by 1832 and 1833, of course removed whole American Indian populations from settled states and relocated them, and popularly stood athwart the machinations of the biggest banks, suspecting that monied interests would supplant republicanism with a cartel of financial conspiring and banking power over the concerns of the people.
> 
> Jeffersonian republicanism leading to Jacksonian democracy made sense as a reasonably linear matter.
> 
> Ultimately, the U.S. Constitution no longer exists as efficacious bulwark against tyranny, usurpation or, effectively, much of anything. Imagine the Jeffersonian or Jacksonian response to Chief Justice John Roberts squeaking out that Obamacare is constitutional. Meanwhile, the U.S. Constitution is frequently used as a sledgehammer to break up local statutes or state laws created for those communities and states. The Constitutional republic that the framers left the U.S. with was meant, if one reads their writings, primarily for a predominantly Anglo-Saxon constituency, fluent in English and at least somewhat learned in the Anglo-Saxon traditions, a few of which dated back to before the Norman conquest, others to the Magna Carte, still others to the previous one hundred years spanning from the "Glorious Revolution." I would say that I could run around areas of San Jose, California with a pocket U.S. Constitution and scream about what the framers of the republic envisioned, a taut, delicate system that could easily be destroyed from within through usurpation and lax morality, and I would get a bunch of vacant looks--but the truth is I could do the same thing in the whitest area of Marin County and I would get vacant looks there, too. White people messed up their republic here, and white people shall pay the price. The point, however, is that Hondurans and Guatemalans, by and large, have only the scantest understanding of what you and I may be talking about. No shame in that; no reason to look down on them. It is, however, simply the truth of the matter. Only one demographic group votes for smaller government, less taxes and less regulations, election cycle after election cycle, and even with whites, it's split around 60-40. Hugging the Constitution until the ink stains your shirt is not going to do anything to stop the death of republican governance in the U.S., no matter what Ted Cruz might tell you.
> 
> Trump will probably go down to defeat. The "people," people like the ones seeing the towns and communities they always knew wither and die, the people whose way of life is nearing an end, are too few in number to democratically combat the forces behind Hillary Clinton (which, as the DNC Wikileaks incontrovertibly establish, includes the lion's share of the organs of the mainstream corporate media).
> 
> That the social malaise hitting the U.S. will simply go away like so much smoke in the air is a pipe dream, should anyone be indulging in it. Fragmentation of civic life seems to be the destiny of this abstraction we call the United States of America. To a major extent this could be phenomenally healthy, should a knowledgeable citizenry adopt ancient virtues and pragmatic philosophies. We have so much at our fingertips, with I conversing with someone in Kentucky, another in Hawaii, another in Florida, another in Iowa, and on and on, in this very thread. Plato and Socrates, Aristotle and Cicero, Filmer and Maine, Hume and Epicurus, such wisdom should be critically studied. Bringing politics back to the human level will entail either caring for one's own community--or finding a new one.


The Constitution has multiple origins in addition to the Judeo-Christian principles that it is partially based on. There's the Code of Hammurabi (which precedes Judeo-Christian laws by 1000 years), ancient Greek democratic thought, Anglo-Saxon common law, etc. To me, it's worth preserving. I refuse to accept that a Trump defeat (if it comes to that) is the end. If anything, I hope that those who woke up to what's going on and have come out to speak might mean that the revival could happen. Let's face it, many of those that won't vote for HRC doesn't have the same tendencies or fears of being pointed at as hateful the way Obama managed to do. If enough people let their elected officials know that under no circumstances are we going to accept anything Hillary does, there might be a chance. If enough people speak up, it can happen. Look at the attempts over the years to bring amnesty for illegals...many times it came to the people letting their officials know they'd be out of a job if they allowed it to happen. 

Again, that depends on whether or not those who are getting involved for the first time in a long time or for the very first time stick around. Maybe it changes the Republican Party, or maybe the party dies and is replaced by a different party that is more conservative and sticks to the principles of the Constitution. The Democratic Party could be seeing such changes here in the near future, many there are not happy about HRC as the nominee. It's the last gasp of the Baby-Boomer generation we're seeing. Where this election goes will determine the fate of this country for at least the next generation.

Maybe it's time for the evolution of the political process. But I will be here to fight for what I believe in.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

When I look at all the posts in this thread I don't see people who want to grow and create things

I see people who want the blood of those who they think created the "horrible times" times we live (AKA one of the most peaceful times in history)

They want their fears justified and want to feel like the world is on the edge of destruction 

I see people who want things to be "more fair" which coincidentally always results in them getting more than they started with 

You know why?

Because they all want to feel important, they want to feel like their issues are the ones that "matter", that they understand the "real world"

They want to think that their ideas are SO important that the world would be a utopia if only everyone listened to them and you are just stupid if you don't

I feel this is a sign that society is working perfectly 

People have so much free time they can sit around and fear the DOWNFALL OF CIVILIZATION and fight THE INTERNET REVOLUTION and not worry about if a famine will wipe out their town or if the local warlord will decide decapitate you and put your head on a post because he hasn't done that in a few weeks and people might think he his a pussy

Situations that a massive amount of the Earths population currently lives in

So sit back and relax and talk about how horrible your life is and how everything is going to crash down tomorrow because no one listened to you and ignore those who live on the borders of powerful nations who put out government propaganda calling for your invasion, entire communities that live on substance farming or where a minor sickness can wipe out an area

Sit and fear worker automation when less than a hundred years ago your family line could have been wiped out if a wolf pack had hunted slightly farther east 

That is the joy of society, its safety, its luxury and its convenience gives you plenty of time to think about how you are better than it and how its a crime that it is not shaping itself in your image


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Again there are a few million people who are going to be voting for Trump, there is no possible way even half of them believe in what you said unless those pollsters went out and talked to nearly every single of one of them. I'm not denying there are idiots, I've said before Democrats and Republicans are two sides to the same coin. She isn't attacking the fringe element, she attacked -all- the supporters. She pretty much alienated half the country over a few people who also exist in her very party. It seems ironic she claims trump supporters are racist yet her own party is the one sending each other emails with racist remarks about their own voters. :laugh:
> 
> You're purposely acting dumb and it's getting a little annoying now. There is no discussion, she made a slanderous accusation about a huge group of people who come from various backgrounds both men and women, people who were born here and not born here. There wasn't a discussion to begin with, she simply made a statement a very bigoted one i might add and people are calling her out on it. Again before slinging mud she should look at herself and her party for their racist remarks, she shouldn't be pushing any sort of PC agenda when she cannot even stick to it herself.
> 
> This isn't about comfort or any type of discussion she's simply writing off people as racist, she's the one ensuing that any concerns Trump supporters have isn't of any concern because "them's all just a bunch of racists!" Also please just stop trying to trap me with obvious bait, it's not working. If you don't consider being called a racist or labeling a whole group as racist as a way to avoid addressing any of their questions than you have zero self awareness. Being called a racist or any such form of slander isn't something one should use or take lightly. Of course you couldn't care less because you enjoy the sound of your own anti-Trump echo chamber in this thread. Had Trump called Hilary supporters a bunch of racists and sexists you'd probably be bashing him relentlessly with glee. Be honest if roles were reversed you'd be preaching to us like a street preacher on how Trump hates half the nation etc.
> 
> And for the record I work in Health Care as a nurse, her going around sick and calling attention to the fact she may not be healthy enough to lead is moronic and comes off as a weak explanation for her health status. I'd think that about anyone who puts themselves in such a predicament when she could have found other avenues of campaigning while sick. Given Hilary's constant lying, I'd be one to question anything she says or does. That's not because of what party she's from or her political views, that's because she's actually lied, a lot.


You are adopting the SJW leftist position and see no irony in doing so while lamenting others for doing so when confronted with uncomfortable facts.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



obby said:


> http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/


:mase

This cannot be an actual website. This has to be a satire type of thing.



> Hilary is taking shots at Pepe now. Is there length to which she will not go? :no:


Someone please tell me that this is not an actual website that is real.

:mase

plz


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This is a official Hillarity Clinton site Pratch.






> * Paid for by Hillary for America, a grassroots campaign of over 2 million donors committed to electing Hillary Clinton (and keeping Donald Trump out of the White House). *


----------



## obby

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

PEPE 2016


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> This is a official Hillarity Clinton site Pratch.


I have officially lost all faith in the American people. The existence of this website alone is proof enough of what a sham politics is and anybody ignorant enough to be swayed by one word contained therein does not deserve to call themselves a living, sentient being.

I hope that not only is Trump elected, but he finds the strength within himself to push the jolly, candylike red button and wipe us all from existence. We as a species have earned no less than that for allowing something like this to exist without being mercilessly ridiculed and eschewed.


----------



## .MCH

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Pratchett said:


> I have officially lost all faith in the American people. The existence of this website alone is proof enough of what a sham politics is and anybody ignorant enough to be swayed by one word contained therein does not deserve to call themselves a living, sentient being.
> 
> I hope that not only is Trump elected, but he finds the strength within himself to push the jolly, candylike red button and wipe us all from existence. We as a species have earned no less than that for allowing something like this to exist without being mercilessly ridiculed and eschewed.


So because you hate your life and are miserable, everyone else has to be miserable? You want everyone dead? Why drag the rest of us down with your misery by voting that asshole into office?

If you're that unhappy with your life, Donald Trump isn't the solution.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> You are adopting the SJW leftist position and see no irony in doing so while lamenting others for doing so when confronted with uncomfortable facts.


I disagree, I'm pointing out that anti-PC isn't going around saying dickbutt to everyone and that anti-PC means anti censorship where censorship is currently trying to be slipped into such as College and Political talking points. In the 80's people would have debates and disagree without name calling, I never knew this until I started watching some. What Hilary said isn't anti-PC, it's just plain stupid. Calling an entire group of people racists isn't anti-PC, it's just downright disgusting. There is a complete difference here.

We also both know if Trump had said this you'd be bumping this thread talking about it, you claim to be unbiased yet you don't come off that way. I'm as anti-PC as it gets, comedy shouldn't be touched, neither should books etc, but you cannot have a possible President alienating people and calling them slurs. Want to call them misguided or ignorant? Sure, not as bad but you cannot use one of the worst terms you can call somebody loosely while keeping the stance you're PC yourself. It doesn't work that way.


----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Raven said:


> I'm not quite understanding your post, there. please explain it detail by detail on how you and Trump will exclude canada and mexico which are part of north america from america?


Do you not know what "annex" means?



Tater said:


> Divide and conquer. The establishment fucks over everyone and then uses the blame game to turn different groups against one another. The last thing they'd ever want is society standing together as a whole against them because that's when they are well and truly fucked. Sadly, tribalism is far too easy to exploit and bringing together those with different ideologies for a common goal is always a difficult proposition.


But that's the thing: a multicultural society can never stand together, for different groups will always look out for their own interests first and foremost. In a multicultural society, nothing exists that binds otherwise different people together, therefore leading to tribalism intensifying. If anything, multiculturalism benefits the elites more so than the people themselves (who don't really benefit at all).



stevefox1200 said:


> That is the joy of society, its safety, its luxury and its convenience gives you plenty of time to think about how you are better than it and how its a crime that it is not shaping itself in your image


Ah yes, the joys of a materialistic society: where nothing matters except pleasure. God forbid anyone strive for something better.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



.MCH said:


> So because you hate your life and are miserable, everyone else has to be miserable? You want everyone dead? Why drag the rest of us down with your misery by voting that asshole into office?
> 
> If you're that unhappy with your life, Donald Trump isn't the solution.


I don't want everyone else to be miserable, I want them all to be gone.

The existence of this website proves that humanity has failed and does not deserve to continue.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Gandhi said:


> What part of _*islam doesn't value freedom for other innocents*_ do you not understand?
> 
> A muslim president? Jesus...
> 
> I'm sure by a _"muslim president"_ you mean a person who doesn't follow islam at all yeah? Because those are muslims too yeah? Just like vegans who eat fish are vegan too yeah? Bloody hell.
> 
> Yes I know many presidents have been labelled themselves christian, but the number of self identifying christians who are actually christian are as christian as Adolf Hitler was a Japanese sumo wrestler. The number of actual genuine muslims however is large, genuine muslims are a HUGE minority, that's why the entire self identifying islamic community look worse to people not affiliated with islam.
> 
> Also people need to shut the fuck up at this _"freedom in everything"_ bullshit and I don't care if this gets me hate on here, every American spits on the concept of freedom when they force people to live lives without murdering or stealing. You take away THEIR FREEDOM to steal or murder. Almost everybody is an authoritarian who starts talking about freedom the second they wanna themselves or a group of people treated someway. The concept of laws shouldn't be spoken of in a manner of _"freedom freedom"_, it should be spoken of in a manner of ethical philosophy.


FFS you can run your stupid 'Muslims are only real if they follow the Quran to the letter' point to your grave over and over but *IT DOES NOT MAKE IT FACT. IT DOESN'T.* People who want to identify as muslim and follow the religious practices they want to is their freedom. *You don't have the right or the authority to tell people they aren't of a certain faith because of your opinion. Get it?*

As for your ridiculous 'freedom to steal or murder' point. I can't believe you typed that out and actually hit post. A cat that walked over an unattended keyboard couldn't have come up with something so inane by accident. 

A child no older than ten could've recognised my point and any point about freedom has an unwritten caveat 'as long as you aren't hurting anyone else etc'. Jesus man, come on.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I disagree, I'm pointing out that anti-PC isn't going around saying dickbutt to everyone and that anti-PC means anti censorship where censorship is currently trying to be slipped into such as College and Political talking points. In the 80's people would have debates and disagree without name calling, I never knew this until I started watching some. What Hilary said isn't anti-PC, it's just plain stupid. Calling an entire group of people racists isn't anti-PC, it's just downright disgusting. There is a complete difference here.


Are you sure about anti-PC people aren't going around saying dickbutt to everyone? Much like BLM, their movement have been overtaken by the likes of Milo and trolls who are anti-PC for the sake of being anti-PC instead of furthering any real meaningful conversation. What Hillary said was stupid and wrong, but it is also not sugarcoating the reality that many Trump supporters exhibit those tendencies. There is a reason why the Trump campaign don't go out of their way to condemn blatantly hateful remarks by his supporters. 

Ignoring that conversation on the basis that the words were 'so mean' is what I am getting at here.



> We also both know if Trump had said this you'd be bumping this thread talking about it, you claim to be unbiased yet you don't come off that way. I'm as anti-PC as it gets, comedy shouldn't be touched, neither should books etc, but you cannot have a possible President alienating people and calling them slurs. Want to call them misguided or ignorant? Sure, not as bad but you cannot use one of the worst terms you can call somebody loosely while keeping the stance you're PC yourself. It doesn't work that way.


Hillary also called the other Trump supporters as people who felt the government has let them down and nobody cares for them and their future. Though she was just as guilty as Trump with blacks in describing Trump supporter's world in overly pessimistic terms with a huge drop of condescension, she did say these Trump supporters deserve their understanding and empathy. And she apologised for these specific remarks. Did Trump ever apologise for any of his condescending or gross generalisation? I only recall him offering 'regrets' for saying the wrong things without specifying which. Just go back this thread and see how many times Trump supporters defend his slurs and genralisations as 'telling it like it is' and lauded him for it. Yet now someone else using generalisation on Trump supporters, it is now 'plain stupid'.

To be clear, both Trump and Clinton are stupid for saying such things. It is the hypocrisy of Trump supporters that defend one side while bitching when someone else uses it on them. You can't cry foul when Trump has been name calling everyone since he started his campaign.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I think it's one of those murky areas where it's not perfectly clear whether this is a breach of the constitution or not ... I know that schools are a part of the state in a sense, but the education curriculum is developed by individual teachers even though they are public servants. You can't force every single teacher to adhere through threat of public sanction or punishment ... I'm a firm believer in countering bad ideas with good ideas and honestly, I've thought about it extensively that I actually want my kids to be exposed to as many ideas as is possible so that they can develop their own thinking skills with my help. Intelligent design is an extremely easy ideology to debunk and I would want someone to try to teach it to my child so that we can have a discussion about it :shrug


There's a huge difference between wanting your kid to hear about religious myths so you can have a discussion with them about it and allowing teachers in taxpayer funded schools teach myth as fact. This area is not murky in the slightest. It is very black and white. It's the same basic concept as politicians who use their religion as a basis for writing law, which I already know you're against. Any time someone who is on the taxpayer dime uses their position of authority to advance religious beliefs is a violation of the separation of church and state. That goes for the president all the way down to some lowly science teacher in Nebraska.



GOON said:


> But that's the thing: a multicultural society can never stand together, for different groups will always look out for their own interests first and foremost. In a multicultural society, nothing exists that binds otherwise different people together, therefore leading to tribalism intensifying. If anything, multiculturalism benefits the elites more so than the people themselves (who don't really benefit at all).


Well, not _nothing_, but an extreme catalyst would be required. A complete crash of the economy, forcing everyone but the the 1% to live in poverty would do it.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



GOON said:


> Do you not know what "annex" means?
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the thing: a multicultural society can never stand together, for different groups will always look out for their own interests first and foremost. In a multicultural society, nothing exists that binds otherwise different people together, therefore leading to tribalism intensifying. If anything, multiculturalism benefits the elites more so than the people themselves (who don't really benefit at all).
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the joys of a materialistic society: where nothing matters except pleasure. God forbid anyone strive for something better.


What exactly are you striving for that is so important?

For more people to match your point of view?

To have the ability to say "I told you so"? 

perhaps you want something more "real" like working a field while a man with an AK threatens to gut you and wrap your intestines on a pole as warning to those to meet their work quota

That is the "better" that non-materialistic society hopes for, the ability to survive another day 

You have to be comfortable to think like that


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/electio...ook-trump-clinton-year-of-voting-dangerously/



> “For centuries, women were considered temperamentally and biologically unsuited to hold higher office or even vote. And so now in this campaign, we have a candidate who gets their feelings hurt very easily and is pouty and gossipy and bitchy and sometimes hysterical, and worries constantly about hair care – but it’s not the woman,” Dowd said, chuckling. “And then we have one who’s very controlled and hawk and wears tailored suits, and it’s not the man.”


:lol


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> FFS you can run your stupid 'Muslims are only real if they follow the Quran to the letter' point to your grave over and over but *IT DOES NOT MAKE IT FACT. IT DOESN'T.* People who want to identify as muslim and follow the religious practices they want to is their freedom. *You don't have the right or the authority to tell people they aren't of a certain faith because of your opinion. Get it?*
> 
> As for your ridiculous 'freedom to steal or murder' point. I can't believe you typed that out and actually hit post. A cat that walked over an unattended keyboard couldn't have come up with something so inane by accident.
> 
> A child no older than ten could've recognised my point and any point about freedom has an unwritten caveat 'as long as you aren't hurting anyone else etc'. Jesus man, come on.


So your response is simply _"durrr it's just your opinion!"_. :lmao

How is it not a fact that people who don't attempt to follow islam aren't really muslim? Never have I seen so much bullshit in a line of reasoning when discussing islam. Your post is void of any facts, everytime I point this out you just try to run off because you know you have nothing to say to refute me. Anybody who knows the rules of being a muslim has the authority to say who is and isn't really muslim, this goes for anybody who has studied islam really. Can I identify as a Neo Nazi and then just make up my own rules and say that said rules are what REAL Neo Nazism is about? Do you see how bloody ignorant you sound?

*If you're a muslim, you follow islam, if you're not a muslim, you DON'T follow islam.
*
Is this rocket science to you?

Also there's nothing wrong with my post about freedom, it was posted so you'd stop talking about this stupid _"freedom above all else"_ mindset.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> There's no shame in wanting the nation as a whole to start coming together and rediscovering God. No, I wouldn't want Allah in his place. I want us to remember the God that supposedly gave us this land so he may heal it. That's all.


That wasn't my point...my point was that I want to be able to pray and follow what I believe as I see fit. I don't force my views on others, but at the same time there are those who want no mention whatsoever of God in the public square. Like I don't want those who want to turn this into somewhat of a theocracy, I don't want to be told that I can't say the word God. 

I think that I'm done with this thread until after the election. Politics usually amps people up...this year has driven just about everyone batshit crazy. I'm going to step out and just follow my conscience on Election Day. Voting for Trump is a possibility but I'm going to weigh this decision very heavily because I have to live with that decision. 

Anyone who wishes to engage with me in political discussions, feel free to message me.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081.html

There goes the anti-globalist or national security reasons for supporting Trump. It is just nativism and racism now.


----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> What exactly are you striving for that is so important?
> 
> For more people to match your point of view?
> 
> To have the ability to say "I told you so"?
> 
> perhaps you want something more "real" like working a field while a man with an AK threatens to gut you and wrap your intestines on a pole as warning to those to meet their work quota
> 
> That is the "better" that non-materialistic society hopes for, the ability to survive another day
> 
> You have to be comfortable to think like that


Because the only options that this world can possibly offer is a meaningless, material existence or "working a field while a man with an AK threatens to gut you and wrap your intestines on a pole as warning to those to meet their work quota"

You're probably one of those people who think civilization only existed after World War II.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Gandhi said:


> So your response is simply _"durrr it's just your opinion!"_. :lmao
> 
> How is it not a fact that people who don't attempt to follow islam aren't really muslim? Never have I seen so much bullshit in a line of reasoning when discussing islam. Your post is void of any facts, everytime I point this out you just try to run off because you know you have nothing to say to refute me. Anybody who knows the rules of being a muslim has the authority to say who is and isn't really muslim, this goes for anybody who has studied islam really. Can I identify as a Neo Nazi and then just make up my own rules and say that said rules are what REAL Neo Nazism is about? Do you see how bloody ignorant you sound?
> 
> *If you're a muslim, you follow islam, if you're not a muslim, you DON'T follow islam.
> *
> Is this rocket science to you?
> 
> Also there's nothing wrong with my post about freedom, it was posted so you'd stop talking about this stupid _"freedom above all else"_ mindset.



It's a religion though. It is open to interpretation. Some people have interpreted the teachings of Mohammed one way, and some have interpreted them another way. 

To say one group of people is "right" and the other "wrong" is nonsense. To say one group are actually muslim and other group just think they're muslim but aren't actually because they've interpreted Islamic teachings wrong is like saying protestants aren't christians because they're "wrong" and catholicism is "right". 

Which btw I have 100% legitimately heard religious catholics say about protestants, and religious protestants say about catholics. Neither are right. It's the same with different interpretations of Islam.

Basically god isn't real so they're all wrong anyway.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> It's a religion though. It is open to interpretation. Some people have interpreted the teachings of Mohammed one way, and some have interpreted them another way.
> 
> To say one group of people is "right" and the other "wrong" is nonsense. To say one group are actually muslim and other group just think they're muslim but aren't actually because they've interpreted Islamic teachings wrong is like saying protestants aren't christians because they're "wrong" and catholicism is "right".
> 
> Which btw I have 100% legitimately heard religious catholics say about protestants, and religious protestants say about catholics. Neither are right. It's the same with different interpretations of Islam.
> 
> Basically god isn't real so they're all wrong anyway.


I find it really weird that you non-mulisms who were never muslims seem so sure in your knowledge that you can lecture ex-muslims who've been closer to Islam and Islamic societies than you'll ever hope to be. It really is like an anti-vaxxer trying to tell a doctor that vaccines don't work. Are we really getting to this point in our conversations about a certain religion that even legitimate criticism is no longer deemed valid, and not even further researched because touting your ignorance seems intuitively correct? We get lambasted for using that word, but as ex-muslims we have every right to use that word especially when we know exactly why this word needs to be used in this conversation. We know more. We've lived it. Plain and simple. There's really no other way to describe it to you. There is literally no valid comparison between Islam and Christianity and any parallel you draw in your head is completely and utterly wrong. Islam was and is a militant religion. Always has been. That's how it spread - on the strength of the sword. Mohammad used to send a letter to his neigbors asking them to submit to allah, pay tax or be invaded. This is exactly what the ISIS do now. 

It's not a matter of interpretation that creates the difference between the more acceptable muslims and the less so -- it's a matter of selectively ignoring the worst parts of Islam ... That is a key difference. There are certain things where interpretation matters, but when it comes to the life of Mohammad and his companions the muslims that want shariah law go all the way back to the origins of Islam. The modern, moderate and peaceful Muslim you see doesn't exist because they interpreted Islam differently. They exist because they ignore the worst parts of the Shariah and therefore aren't "true muslims". Gandhi is correct. 

I could go on, but I really hope that that's all I need to say about this and at some point you guys will realize that Gandhi and I both know far more than you guys want to believe. Our knowledge and experience on this subject is not equal and therefore your opinions are not equally valid.


----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081.html
> 
> There goes the anti-globalist or national security reasons for supporting Trump. It is just nativism and racism now.


The article lost an immense amount of credibility once they called Saudi Arabia an "important ally." The entire world would benefit if the House of Saud was eradicated.

It essentially writes off the Clinton Foundation as a mere charity, despite having connections to foreign entities and it being known that the Clintons are a family of traitors. The fact that a Saudi Prince felt the need to tweet and say that Trump should "drop out" is proof enough of who they support.

That said, I really don't care if the Trump Family builds hotels in Russia because of Donald's connections. As long as he builds the Wall and stems the tide of illegals flowing across, we have a fighting shot at conserving America herself. America isn't going survive as a multicultural entity, and we're already seeing the nation tear apart at its seams. Imagine what it will be like in another decade if current trends persist and nothing is done.

It's not "racism" to want to conserve the historical demographics of your nation. I like Hispanics just fine; I just don't want to permanently live in Brazil, which America will reflect demographically in a few decades if nothing is done. America doesn't have magic soil that changes people into freedom-lovers the moment they set foot on this land.



Alkomesh2 said:


> Which btw I have 100% legitimately heard religious catholics say about protestants, and religious protestants say about catholics. Neither are right. It's the same with different interpretations of Islam.


Except Catholics aren't going around beheading Protestants and wrecking havoc in their respective nations because they view one side as heretical.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I find it really weird that you non-mulisms who were never muslims seem so sure in your knowledge that you can lecture ex-muslims who've been closer to Islam and Islamic societies than you'll ever hope to be. It really is like an anti-vaxxer trying to tell a doctor that vaccines don't work. Are we really getting to this point in our conversations about a certain religion that even legitimate criticism is no longer deemed valid, and not even further researched because touting your ignorance seems intuitively correct?
> 
> I could go on, but I really hope that that's all I need to say about this and at some point you guys will realize that Gandhi and I both know far more than you guys want to believe.


Hey Reaper a couple of white guys from Aussieland/Europe who've never lived in the Mid East nor ever been Muslim or been in a traditional Muslim family are sure to know more about it than you! Don'tcha know that when you start to lean to a more "progressive" ideology that suddenly you become an expert on all Religions and Cultures? Shame on you Reaper! Your vast experience nor own culture can compare to their knowledge! It's why non-whites like you and Gandhi get treated like you're disabled children because these other people know more! (Don't you worry, it's for the best, leave the thinkin and the worryin to your progressive betters!) Rejoice for you're loved by your betters, it's the reason why what you say/want/do matters not because you know nothing! 

I feel safer already being taken care of. :sk Come join me under the blanket of protection!



HAHAHAHA that article call the Saudis important allies? In what? Spreading toxic wahhabism?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Hey Reaper a couple of white guys from Aussieland/Europe who've never lived in the Mid East nor ever been Muslim or been in a traditional Muslim family are sure to know more about it than you! Don'tcha know that when you start to lean to a more "progressive" ideology that suddenly you become an expert on all Religions and Cultures? Shame on you Reaper! Your vast experience nor own culture can compare to their knowledge! It's why non-whites like you and Gandhi get treated like you're disabled children because these other people know more! (Don't you worry, it's for the best, leave the thinkin and the worryin to your progressive betters!) Rejoice for you're loved by your betters, it's the reason why what you say/want/do matters not because you know nothing!
> 
> I feel safer already being taken care of. :sk Come join me under the blanket of protection!


I know. Maajid Nawaz - reformed ex-member of the ISIS has been told that he's ignorant about the ISIS by his white superiors who've never even left their small towns. 

I don't even know as much as Maajid Nawaz does ... but holy shit all this proves to me is that white people are as much an enemy for other white people as ISIS are -- at least from an ideological perspective.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I know. Maajid Nawaz - reformed ex-member of the ISIS has been told that he's ignorant about the ISIS by his white superiors.
> 
> I don't even know as much as Maajid Nawaz does ... but holy shit all this proves to me is that white people are as much an enemy for other white people as ISIS are -- at least from an ideological perspective.


I found this out when I asked several white women who had adopted black babies as to why they did it, I expected generic answers like "Because they deserve a chance etc" when there are so many kids within our own nation that need families... oddly enough many just out right said they'd make better mothers for these children than black mothers. I was pretty shocked! I mean you see racism etc but only white people are so delusional to believe their racist ideology is actually both justified and good and these are the people who are "progressives". It's like they live in their own little insane world where only they know what's best for others and anyone with any sort of melanin is some down's syndrome person that needs to be told how to live, think, feel, act and protected in the world because of scary people lurking about! 

It's like you and Gnadhi stop mattering once your reasoning doesn't line up with their own, reminds me of ex-muslims who are banned from speaking at colleges in Europe and chastised by whites for daring to speak out against Islam! "Your thoughts matter.. when you think like me! Sieg Hei..I mean love is great! So are puppies and kittens, yes thinking like me means you love those things!"


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Gandhi said:


> So your response is simply _"durrr it's just your opinion!"_. :lmao
> 
> How is it not a fact that people who don't attempt to follow islam aren't really muslim? Never have I seen so much bullshit in a line of reasoning when discussing islam. Your post is void of any facts, everytime I point this out you just try to run off because you know you have nothing to say to refute me. Anybody who knows the rules of being a muslim has the authority to say who is and isn't really muslim, this goes for anybody who has studied islam really. Can I identify as a Neo Nazi and then just make up my own rules and say that said rules are what REAL Neo Nazism is about? Do you see how bloody ignorant you sound?
> 
> *If you're a muslim, you follow islam, if you're not a muslim, you DON'T follow islam.
> *
> Is this rocket science to you?
> 
> Also there's nothing wrong with my post about freedom, it was posted so you'd stop talking about this stupid _"freedom above all else"_ mindset.


Yes it is your opinion, it is not fact. Facts are about evidence leading to widely accepted theory. You have no evidence for your ridiculous theory you keep on bleating about. No one else I've ever heard shares your theory you can't stop bleating about. As someone else mentioned it's an ideology open to interpretation. 

No one is making up any rules, they're simply not following everything down to a tee because they have common sense and they probably know some age old book isn't appropriate for 2016 so they change accordingly.

There are also plenty of old laws still on the books that no one follows because they're simply out of date. No one cares about them because they're quite obviously irrelevant in this day and age. It's the same with religion for people who aren't corrupt and/or stupid.

I don't need to be ignorant point out your stupid theory you cannot stop bleating about is ridiculous.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



GOON said:


> The article lost an immense amount of credibility once they called Saudi Arabia an "important ally." The entire world would benefit if the House of Saud was eradicated.


How did it lose credibility by stating realities of the world? How do you expect the US to contain Iran without Saudi Arabia's help? Trump would have lost everything in the 90's without the Saudi Prince bailing him out.



> It essentially writes off the Clinton Foundation as a mere charity, despite having connections to foreign entities and it being known that the Clintons are a family of traitors. The fact that a Saudi Prince felt the need to tweet and say that Trump should "drop out" is proof enough of who they support.


Trump supporters like you seem more like Hillary haters or Muslim haters than wanting the country to progress. The Saudi Prince tweeted that because of Trump's blanket Muslim ban rhetoric last year. But you somehow connect that as proof enough of who they support. :lol



> That said, I really don't care if the Trump Family builds hotels in Russia because of Donald's connections. As long as he builds the Wall and stems the tide of illegals flowing across, we have a fighting shot at conserving America herself. America isn't going survive as a multicultural entity, and we're already seeing the nation tear apart at its seams. Imagine what it will be like in another decade if current trends persist and nothing is done.


You don't care about the corruption and potential conflict of interests of Trump but rant about those about the Clintons and the Clinton foundation?



> It's not "racism" to want to conserve the historical demographics of your nation. I like Hispanics just fine; I just don't want to permanently live in Brazil, which America will reflect demographically in a few decades if nothing is done. America doesn't have magic soil that changes people into freedom-lovers the moment they set foot on this land.


Get more caucasian immigrants then...on wait they are filthy liberals from Europes. It is racism when you assume they are inferior. In the past it was northern Europeans against Southern Europeans. Now all are Americans, why wouldn't it be the same for Hispanics and non-Hispanics in the future?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> It's like you and Gnadhi stop mattering once your reasoning doesn't line up with their own, reminds me of ex-muslims who are banned from speaking at colleges in Europe and chastised by whites for daring to speak out against Islam! "Your thoughts matter.. when you think like me! Sieg Hei..I mean love is great! So are puppies and kittens, yes thinking like me means you love those things!"


The only examples these people in a country like Australia have is of economic and very wealthy migrants - who are not close adherents of the religion and never will be. These people exist in vast numbers, but to call them the real muslims is a dangerous way of looking at muslims as a whole because it creates a blind spot to the average muslim that is radicalized or has all the potential to become radicalized. At this point in the world's history - only muslims are being radicalized in the 10's of thousands and it's happening every day. It's a direct result of some of the things they all learn in childhood as muslims and thus make them easy pickings by the terrorists. 

People in Australia have literally no experience with the average muslim or his/her views ... They get the minority which forms a majority in their country ... and then they become blind to the existence of the majority which Gandhi and I have seen. The vast majority of Muslims (as close as 90%+) are anti-gay, mysoginistic and believe in only marriage within muslim families. 90%+ refuse a woman her right to marry a non-Muslim and will only allow their daughter to marry a non-muslim if they convert. And these are the liberal muslims and not even the extremists. I've tried to explain this to BM before and he finally understood it that when it comes to degrees of extremism, the average christian is less extremist and more tolerant than the average muslim on the same social issues. However, the impression that non-muslims have about muslims is that the average muslim is as liberal as the average christian. That is just not true. At all. The majority of Muslims are no where _near _the levels of tolerance that the majority of christians are. 

Pew research laid this idea to waste a long time ago and things haven't changed since. Westerners really need to read this amazing bit of research in depth but many will refuse to do so. 

The europeans have found out the hard way what the average muslim is like and what the average muslim really wants. The average muslim wants no-go zones, their own theocratically governed states and they're willing to die for it. But apparently, europe isn't a included in their evidence because for them their muslim friend in Australia is representative of the entire muslim population. 

This idea that only peaceful muslims are real muslims but the violent muslims have no ideological justification in islam for their violence is ignorant as fuck and completely flies in the face of intellectualism.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Hey Reaper a couple of white guys from Aussieland/Europe who've never lived in the Mid East nor ever been Muslim or been in a traditional Muslim family are sure to know more about it than you! Don'tcha know that when you start to lean to a more "progressive" ideology that suddenly you become an expert on all Religions and Cultures? Shame on you Reaper! Your vast experience nor own culture can compare to their knowledge! It's why non-whites like you and Gandhi get treated like you're disabled children because these other people know more! (Don't you worry, it's for the best, leave the thinkin and the worryin to your progressive betters!) Rejoice for you're loved by your betters, it's the reason why what you say/want/do matters not because you know nothing!


People are having discussions with different viewpoints here. I don't need to have belonged to a certain group or any particular group to comment on someone else's opinion if that opinion flys in the face of reasonable logic.

You yourself are more than happy to deride supposed PC police, feminists, leftists, anyone else when you don't belong to that group and may only have a passing knowledge of the topic, so get off your high horse.

Reaper was more than happy to preach to me in his usual condescending manner about some Australian issues a while back but I don't remember you saying a peep because you're on the same team.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> FFS you can run your stupid 'Muslims are only real if they follow the Quran to the letter' point to your grave over and over but *IT DOES NOT MAKE IT FACT. IT DOESN'T.* People who want to identify as muslim and follow the religious practices they want to is their freedom. *You don't have the right or the authority to tell people they aren't of a certain faith because of your opinion. Get it?*
> 
> As for your ridiculous 'freedom to steal or murder' point. I can't believe you typed that out and actually hit post. A cat that walked over an unattended keyboard couldn't have come up with something so inane by accident.
> 
> A child no older than ten could've recognised my point and any point about freedom has an unwritten caveat 'as long as you aren't hurting anyone else etc'. Jesus man, come on.





Gandhi said:


> So your response is simply _"durrr it's just your opinion!"_. :lmao
> 
> How is it not a fact that people who don't attempt to follow islam aren't really muslim? Never have I seen so much bullshit in a line of reasoning when discussing islam. Your post is void of any facts, everytime I point this out you just try to run off because you know you have nothing to say to refute me. Anybody who knows the rules of being a muslim has the authority to say who is and isn't really muslim, this goes for anybody who has studied islam really. Can I identify as a Neo Nazi and then just make up my own rules and say that said rules are what REAL Neo Nazism is about? Do you see how bloody ignorant you sound?
> 
> *If you're a muslim, you follow islam, if you're not a muslim, you DON'T follow islam.
> *
> Is this rocket science to you?
> 
> Also there's nothing wrong with my post about freedom, it was posted so you'd stop talking about this stupid _"freedom above all else"_ mindset.


Seeing as how religion is made up fantasy bullshit to begin with, there is no reason why people can't change the rules of said made up fantasy bullshit to suit their own purposes.

The court rules in favor of yeahbaby!












Alkomesh2 said:


> It's a religion though. It is open to interpretation. Some people have interpreted the teachings of Mohammed one way, and some have interpreted them another way.
> 
> To say one group of people is "right" and the other "wrong" is nonsense. To say one group are actually muslim and other group just think they're muslim but aren't actually because they've interpreted Islamic teachings wrong is like saying protestants aren't christians because they're "wrong" and catholicism is "right".
> 
> Which btw I have 100% legitimately heard religious catholics say about protestants, and religious protestants say about catholics. Neither are right. It's the same with different interpretations of Islam.
> 
> Basically god isn't real so they're all wrong anyway.





Reaper said:


> I find it really weird that you non-mulisms who were never muslims seem so sure in your knowledge that you can lecture ex-muslims who've been closer to Islam and Islamic societies than you'll ever hope to be. It really is like an anti-vaxxer trying to tell a doctor that vaccines don't work. Are we really getting to this point in our conversations about a certain religion that even legitimate criticism is no longer deemed valid, and not even further researched because touting your ignorance seems intuitively correct? We get lambasted for using that word, but as ex-muslims we have every right to use that word especially when we know exactly why this word needs to be used in this conversation. We know more. We've lived it. Plain and simple. There's really no other way to describe it to you. There is literally no valid comparison between Islam and Christianity and any parallel you draw in your head is completely and utterly wrong. Islam was and is a militant religion. Always has been. That's how it spread - on the strength of the sword. Mohammad used to send a letter to his neigbors asking them to submit to allah, pay tax or be invaded. This is exactly what the ISIS do now.
> 
> It's not a matter of interpretation that creates the difference between the more acceptable muslims and the less so -- it's a matter of selectively ignoring the worst parts of Islam ... That is a key difference. There are certain things where interpretation matters, but when it comes to the life of Mohammad and his companions the muslims that want shariah law go all the way back to the origins of Islam. The modern, moderate and peaceful Muslim you see doesn't exist because they interpreted Islam differently. They exist because they ignore the worst parts of the Shariah and therefore aren't "true muslims". Gandhi is correct.
> 
> I could go on, but I really hope that that's all I need to say about this and at some point you guys will realize that Gandhi and I both know far more than you guys want to believe. Our knowledge and experience on this subject is not equal and therefore your opinions are not equally valid.


The court references the "made up fantasy bullshit" precedence established in the Gandhi v. yeahbaby! case and rules in favor of Alkomesh.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I find it really weird that you non-mulisms who were never muslims seem so sure in your knowledge that you can lecture ex-muslims who've been closer to Islam and Islamic societies than you'll ever hope to be. It really is like an anti-vaxxer trying to tell a doctor that vaccines don't work. Are we really getting to this point in our conversations about a certain religion that even legitimate criticism is no longer deemed valid, and not even further researched because touting your ignorance seems intuitively correct? We get lambasted for using that word, but as ex-muslims we have every right to use that word especially when we know exactly why this word needs to be used in this conversation. We know more. We've lived it. Plain and simple. There's really no other way to describe it to you. There is literally no valid comparison between Islam and Christianity and any parallel you draw in your head is completely and utterly wrong. Islam was and is a militant religion. Always has been. That's how it spread - on the strength of the sword. Mohammad used to send a letter to his neigbors asking them to submit to allah, pay tax or be invaded. This is exactly what the ISIS do now.
> 
> It's not a matter of interpretation that creates the difference between the more acceptable muslims and the less so -- it's a matter of selectively ignoring the worst parts of Islam ... That is a key difference. There are certain things where interpretation matters, but when it comes to the life of Mohammad and his companions the muslims that want shariah law go all the way back to the origins of Islam. The modern, moderate and peaceful Muslim you see doesn't exist because they interpreted Islam differently. They exist because they ignore the worst parts of the Shariah and therefore aren't "true muslims". Gandhi is correct.
> 
> I could go on, but I really hope that that's all I need to say about this and at some point you guys will realize that Gandhi and I both know far more than you guys want to believe. Our knowledge and experience on this subject is not equal and therefore your opinions are not equally valid.


Its a philosophical point about religion generally, not knowledge. 

And btw I studied the life of Mohammed as part of my medieval history degree, wrote a couple of essays on him and have read every historical account from his lifetime that has been translated into english. Except the Quran.

Also my father converted to Islam so he could marry his second wife.

I know more than enough about Islam to be able to say it is no different to Judaism or Christianity, its just got one extra prophet ffs. The idea that is fundamentally different is just absolute nonsense. 

Except in so far as, religion is more powerful where people are poorer and less educated, and countries with Islamic majorities tend to be poorer and less educated. Hence Islam is more powerful in more countries than either Judaism or Christianity currently are. But it itself is not fundamentally different.

On what basis, is someone who believes they are a Muslim, believes they are following the teachings of Mohammed, have read the actual Quran or at least bits of it, not a real Muslim?



GOON said:


> Except Catholics aren't going around beheading Protestants and wrecking havoc in their respective nations because they view one side as heretical.


Ever heard of Ireland?

Or the Wars of Religion?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Reaper was more than happy to preach to me in his usual condescending manner about some Australian issues a while back but I don't remember you saying a peep because you're on the same team.


Difference is that if you had schooled me on that topic and can maybe still school me on that topic (I don't even remember the discussion), I would have actually given you the benefit of the doubt. Or I may already have. 

I don't normally stick to my guns when I'm out of my depth in a particular conversation.



Alkomesh2 said:


> Its a philosophical point about religion generally, not knowledge.


Philosophical points generally have no merit unless they're backed by knowledge. 



> And btw I studied the life of Mohammed as part of my medieval history degree, wrote a couple of essays on him and have read every historical account from his lifetime that has been translated into english.


Which books did you read? Did you read the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. The most commonly used seerat-un-nabi is Martin Lings account and that is a very liberal take. It doesn't cover much about thighing of Aisha, talk about his concubines, his slaves or just paints him in a very positive light. I'd be very interested to know which books did you read. Most liberal accounts don't cover things like raiding the quraish caravans and instigating the wars with mecca (which is now happening to british lorries), stealing his adopted son's wife. Taking slaves. Having a son with a sex slave. Not giving his adopted son any inheritance. Butchering the Jews, chopping off the arms of a woman who stole something .. amongst other adventures. All of which are being rigorously and religiously replicated by the ISIS. 



> Also my father converted to Islam so he could marry his second wife.


Doesn't make him an average Muslim. Makes him a convert. Converts can go either way. They can either remain liberal based on their prior indoctrination, or become extremists because they just can't handle not being seen as a good muslim. Some just don't care. I don't know your father, so I won't comment. 



> I know more than enough about *Islam to be able to say it is no different to Judaism or Christianity,* its just got one extra prophet ffs. The idea that is fundamentally different is just absolute nonsense.


If you really did, you wouldn't say that. 



> Except in so far as, religion is more powerful where people are poorer and less educated, and countries with Islamic majorities tend to be poorer and less educated. Hence Islam is more powerful in more countries than either Judaism or Christianity currently are. But it itself is no fundamentally different.


Or is it that the religion itself is so backwards that it keeps the societies from developing? This actually goes for all overly religious societies and groups. It's not religion that comes about as a result of poverty, but rather religion that keeps people in a state of perpetual poverty by making them pray for things instead of working for them. 

Ever thought about that? You seem somewhat well-read. Have you read Max Weber's Protestant Ethic and the spirit of Capitalism. The problem is that no such counter exists in the Muslim world. It is and always has been a theocratic autocracy that has created a ruling class and a ruled class. The entire 



> On what basis, is someone who believes they are a muslim, believes they are following the teachings of Mohammed, have read the actual Quran or at least bits of it, not a real muslim?


When they cherry pick to the point where Islam is no longer Islam, but rather a way of life where Islamic following is merely ritualistic in nature. 

The thing everyone loves to ignore is that Islam has always claimed itself to be the complete way of life and that the quran is the complete code of that life and that the way mohammad lived his life goes hand in hand with how the quran describes muslims should live. There is a qualifying verse in the quran that justifies relying on the hadith. The hadith then forms the sharia and that is why you have shariah proponents that want the muslim world to be completely theocratic. 

There are terrible ideas in Islam. The thing is that muslims have evolved beyond that and just simply ignore those terrible ideas. That makes them non-muslims and that's all gandhi and our point is. The "real" muslims really are the ones that follow the quran and hadith to the core. It's no longer a matter of interpretation when the hadith calls for the beheading of an apostate and the quran says follow the hadith. It is no longer a matter of interpretation when mohammad butchered jewish men after conquering them when the quran says jews are your natural enemies and that you should follow what mohammad did. Mohammad married a 6 year old girl. That sets the precedent for child marriages across the muslim world. If someone doesn't marry a 6 year old girl, it doesn't make them a non-muslim, but since living like mohammad is seen as a virtue and has been defined as a virtue repeatedly in hadith and the quran itself, it encourages muslims to do the same. 

I can give you dozens of other examples. But I hope you're finally starting to see my point. 

 And, please go through the Pew research I posted above so that you can finally start understanding what the majority of muslims really think. Too many people have ignored that extremely important bit of data. 

Muslims are nothing like Christians. At all. This is a muslim myth created by the muslim marketing machine in order to hide their beliefs (taqqyia).


----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> How did it lose credibility by stating realities of the world? How do you expect the US to contain Iran without Saudi Arabia's help? Trump would have lost everything in the 90's without the Saudi Prince bailing him out.


What do the American people gain from containing Iran? They're not going to nuke us. And Saudi Arabia doesn't "contain" anything; all they do is spread their cancerous version of Islam.



> Trump supporters like you seem more like Hillary haters or Muslim haters than wanting the country to progress. The Saudi Prince tweeted that because of Trump's blanket Muslim ban rhetoric last year. But you somehow connect that as proof enough of who they support. :lol


"Progress" towards what, exactly?



> You don't care about the corruption and potential conflict of interests of Trump but rant about those about the Clintons and the Clinton foundation?


Because I don't trust Clinton to do right by the American people. She'll sell this country out in a heartbeat for more left-wing voters via amnesty. I partially trust Trump because why else would he risk assassination and say the things that he said if his goal was merely to build a hotel in, say, Russia? So long as he does right by the American people I couldn't care less where he builds his hotels.





> Get more caucasian immigrants then...on wait they are filthy liberals from Europes. It is racism when you assume they are inferior. In the past it was northern Europeans against Southern Europeans. Now all are Americans, why wouldn't it be the same for Hispanics and non-Hispanics in the future?


I'm not assuming anything. Compare nations like Sweden and Germany to Mexico, Brazil, El Salvador, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, etc. The latter group of nations are virtually all shit-holes, so why would I want masses of people from said shit-hole to immigrate to America? Their track-record speaks for itself. If you can't see the difference then I'm not sure what to tell you. Some cultures are more compatible than others.

America is no longer a growing nation, where we needed people to build the country up from nothing. America needs to begin shedding this whole "nation of immigrants" non-identity and actually begin to consolidate one.



Alkomesh2 said:


> Ever heard of Ireland?
> 
> Or the Wars of Religion?


Oh man. One example of a single nation and a conflict from the 16th century.

Tell me where people are being beheaded in the West by Christians today. However, I seem to recall a Muslim beheading a Priest at the altar in France two months ago.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> People are having discussions with different viewpoints here. I don't need to have belonged to a certain group or any particular group to comment on someone else's opinion if that opinion flys in the face of reasonable logic.
> 
> You yourself are more than happy to deride supposed PC police, feminists, leftists, anyone else when you don't belong to that group and may only have a passing knowledge of the topic, so get off your high horse.
> 
> Reaper was more than happy to preach to me in his usual condescending manner about some Australian issues a while back but I don't remember you saying a peep because you're on the same team.


Well I wasn't mentioning you, I don't think I've caught you and Reapers back and forth, I was more or less giving my opinion on some of the silly white progressive types he's dealt with. I honestly wasn't lumping you in with him but it is Aussies/Euros who seem to disregard anything ex-muslims or hardcore muslims say simply because it doesn't jive with what they want to think Islam is.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> The court references the "made up fantasy bullshit" precedence established in the Gandhi v. yeahbaby! case and rules in favor of Alkomesh.


You trolling brah :cudi


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> The only examples these people in a country like Australia have is of economic and very wealthy migrants - who are not close adherents of the religion and never will be. These people exist in vast numbers, but to call them the real muslims is a dangerous way of looking at muslims as a whole because it creates a blind spot to the average muslim that is radicalized or has all the potential to become radicalized. At this point in the world's history - only muslims are being radicalized in the 10's of thousands and it's happening every day. It's a direct result of some of the things they all learn in childhood as muslims and thus make them easy pickings by the terrorists.
> 
> People in Australia have literally no experience with the average muslim or his/her views ... They get the minority which forms a majority in their country ... and then they become blind to the existence of the majority which Gandhi and I have seen. The vast majority of Muslims (as close as 90%+) are anti-gay, mysoginistic and believe in only marriage within muslim families. 90%+ refuse a woman her right to marry a non-Muslim and will only allow their daughter to marry a non-muslim if they convert. And these are the liberal muslims and not even the extremists. I've tried to explain this to BM before and he finally understood it that when it comes to degrees of extremism, the average christian is less extremist and more tolerant than the average muslim on the same social issues. However, the impression that non-muslims have about muslims is that the average muslim is as liberal as the average christian. That is just not true. At all. The majority of Muslims are no where _near _the levels of tolerance that the majority of christians are.
> 
> Pew research laid this idea to waste a long time ago and things haven't changed since. Westerners really need to read this amazing bit of research in depth but many will refuse to do so.
> 
> The europeans have found out the hard way what the average muslim is like and what the average muslim really wants. The average muslim wants no-go zones, their own theocratically governed states and they're willing to die for it. But apparently, europe isn't a included in their evidence because for them their muslim friend in Australia is representative of the entire muslim population.
> 
> This idea that only peaceful muslims are real muslims but the violent muslims have no ideological justification in islam for their violence is ignorant as fuck and completely flies in the face of intellectualism.


I think the truth is somewhere in between you and Ghandi's violent depiction of Muslims and the utopian version of Muslims some Western liberals try to stuff down people's throats. 

From my experience, the average Muslim is not much different from the average Christian in everyday life with just one big giant RED FLAG in their views on what is acceptable level of persecution for apostasy. The hostility towards people who abandon the religion is very much similar to the level of partisanship hatred from the religious right seen in American politics with much more severe repercussions, so I find it understandable why ex-Muslims have so much resentment towards it. There are also Muslim theocracies that are still existing today, and is viewed as a choice of a political system for some instead of merely a religion.

Look at the passion Trump is able to incite just by abandoning all pretence the GOP have been winking at over the years to appeal to the baser instincts of the religious right in America. These people self-identify as Christians even though they are not acting in the 'turn the other cheek' doctrine. It is the same for Muslims in Muslim majority country and even if Islam is a religion of peace, someone can still incite peaceful believers into violent behaviour.

PS: Them Aussies have to deal with the crazy Indonesian leaders so they aren't as sheltered as Americans about Islam.



GOON said:


> What do the American people gain from containing Iran? They're not going to nuke us. And Saudi Arabia doesn't "contain" anything; all they do is spread their cancerous version of Islam.


Ensuring a stable middle east or whatever is considered stable there. Securing global oil supply. Protecting Israel. To name a few.



> "Progress" towards what, exactly?


Against anti-intellectualism for one.



> Because I don't trust Clinton to do right by the American people. She'll sell this country out in a heartbeat for more left-wing voters via amnesty. I partially trust Trump because why else would he risk assassination and say the things that he said if his goal was merely to build a hotel in, say, Russia? So long as he does right by the American people I couldn't care less where he builds his hotels.


It is your right to not trust her. But why would anyone put trust in Trump? Do you not understand conflict of interest of Trump's empire with murky ties to other countries state-sponsored businesses or are just ignoring all the potential risks because it isn't Hillary?




> I'm not assuming anything. Compare nations like Sweden and Germany to Mexico, Brazil, El Salvador, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, etc. The latter group of nations are virtually all shit-holes, so why would I want masses of people from said shit-hole to immigrate to America? Their track-record speaks for itself. If you can't see the difference then I'm not sure what to tell you. Some cultures are more compatible than others.


Because more often than not, the people that decide to immigrate from so-called shit-hole understand how bad it could be and more appreciative of your country.



> America is no longer a growing nation, where we needed people to build the country up from nothing. America needs to begin shedding this whole "nation of immigrants" non-identity and actually begin to consolidate one.


Look at Japan to see where that will lead to. What non-identity? You are promoting an idea that is antithesis of the American identity of it being the land of opportunity.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> From my experience, the average Muslim is not much different from the average Christian in everyday life with just one big giant RED FLAG in their views on what is acceptable level of persecution for apostasy. The hostility towards people who abandon the religion is very much similar to the level of partisanship hatred from the religious right seen in American politics with much more severe repercussions, so I find it understandable why ex-Muslims have so much resentment towards it. There are also Muslim theocracies that are still existing today, and is viewed as a choice of a political system for some instead of merely a religion.


No. No. No. Just no. Comparing Christians to Muslims is just plain wrong right now. Yes, some muslims are like most christians but there is a staggering difference in specific beliefs. Like I've already pointed out, 95%+ of all muslims are severely homophobic. The number of muslims that want to kill people like me and gandhi is in the high 70% in most of the muslim world.I can keep quoting stats on specific issues, but just read the Pew research. It captures the "average" muslim much better than your intuitive sense of them.

The facts are out there that prove without a shadow of a doubt that the average muslim is nothing like the average christian.

That said, I'll have to paste the data because apparently you guys are not even interested in clicking a fucking link: 


















































































And so on and so forth. 

The more you look at this, the more you'll realise that the average muslim is nothing like the average christian and hopefully make you see that this comparison is a dangerous one because it creates the situation that happened in Europe where they too believed the same and let in far too many extremists in the end.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Philosophical points generally have no merit unless they're backed by knowledge.


Fair, but I don't see what knowledge you have that discounts Islam from being a religion fundamentally different to Christiany or Judaism considering they believe in the same god and 2/3 the same prophets and holy books. I mean most of the really bad stuff in all 3 religions is actually from Leviticus in the Torah (the old testament for christians). 

Jesus is mentioned around 180 times in the Quran according to wikipedia.

How can it be that different when it literally is the same religion?



> Which books did you read? Did you read the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. The most commonly used seerat-un-nabi is Martin Lings account and that is a very liberal take. It doesn't cover much about thighing of Aisha, talk about his concubines, his slaves or just paints him in a very positive light. I'd be very interested to know which books did you read.


Honestly don't remember, was mainly contemporaneous sources, so stuff written during or shortly after his actual life, and there wasn't much, so I could probably look it up. I'm not sure if I read in modern biographies. 



> Doesn't make him an average Muslim. Makes him a convert. Converts can go either way. They can either remain liberal based on their prior indoctrination, or become extremists because they just can't handle not being seen as a good muslim. Some just don't care. I don't know your father, so I won't comment.


It was just a joke to him, had to be done because of a legal thing.



> If you really did, you wouldn't say that.


Unsurprisingly I disagree.



> Or is it that the religion itself is so backwards that it keeps the societies from developing? This actually goes for all overly religious societies and groups. It's not religion that comes about as a result of poverty, but rather religion that keeps people in a state of perpetual poverty by making them pray for things instead of working for them.
> 
> Ever thought about that? You seem somewhat well-read. Have you read Max Weber's Protestant Ethic and the spirit of Capitalism. The problem is that no such counter exists in the Muslim world. It is and always has been a theocratic autocracy that has created a ruling class and a ruled class.


Haven't read it, or at least not the full thing, I am aware of its argument though and have never found it particularly convincing. 

It's probably more about which countries colonised which imo. 



> When they cherry pick to the point where Islam is no longer Islam, but rather a way of life where Islamic following is merely ritualistic in nature.


Thats what the vast majority of jews and christians do.... are they not really jewish or christian? 

Thats just what religion is in the modern secular western world. 



> The thing everyone loves to ignore is that Islam has always claimed itself to be the complete way of life and that the quran is the complete code of that life and that the way mohammad lived his life goes hand in hand with how the quran describes muslims should live. There is a qualifying verse in the quran that justifies relying on the hadith. The hadith then forms the sharia and that is why you have shariah proponents that want the muslim world to be completely theocratic.


EXACTLY. That stuff isn't even in the Quran, it didn't even come from Mohammad. That stuff is not integral to islam anymore than the teachings of the pope are integral to Christianity. 

They are integral to a sect or interpretation, but nothing more.

Which btw is a very direct analogy with Catholicism. 

And Judaism has its own version of the Hadith and Sharia (Halacha) and there are sects of Judaism which insist it must be followed, and sects which don't. 



> There are terrible ideas in Islam. The thing is that muslims have evolved beyond that and just simply ignore those terrible ideas. That makes them non-muslims and that's all gandhi and our point is. The "real" muslims really are the ones that follow the quran and hadith to the core. It's no longer a matter of interpretation when the hadith calls for the beheading of an apostate and the quran says follow the hadith. It is no longer a matter of interpretation when mohammad butchered jewish men after conquering them when the quran says jews are your natural enemies and that you should follow what mohammad did. Mohammad married a 6 year old girl. That sets the precedent for child marriages across the muslim world. If someone doesn't marry a 6 year old girl, it doesn't make them a non-muslim, but since living like mohammad is seen as a virtue and has been defined as a virtue repeatedly in hadith and the quran itself, it encourages muslims to do the same.
> 
> I can give you dozens of other examples. But I hope you're finally starting to see my point.
> 
> And, please go through the Pew research I posted above so that you can finally start understanding what the majority of muslims really think. Too many people have ignored that extremely important bit of data.
> 
> Muslims are nothing like Christians. At all. This is a muslim myth created by the muslim marketing machine in order to hide their beliefs (taqqyia) and pass themselves off as better human beings than they really are.


So are christians who are gay not really christians because the bible extorts the death penalty for homosexuality?

Are jewish people who eat bacon on occasion not really jewish? 

What about Christians who eat shellfish, that shit is forbidden according to their holy book.

I ask again, how is Islam any different to Judaism or Christianity?

They believe in the same god.

They believe in the same prophets. 

They have sects that work exactly the same.

Some people who follow them are very religious, some people who follow them aren't. 

Like if all those people aren't muslim, then a whole lot of people who think they're jewish or think they're christian aren't.

For example anyone who thinks the world is round or was created in longer than 7 days... You are no longer jewish or christian, no matter what you may think, because you don't follow the real religion.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> No. No. No. Just no. Comparing Christians to Muslims is just plain wrong right now. Yes, some muslims are like most christians but there is a staggering difference in specific beliefs. Like I've already pointed out, 95%+ of all muslims are severely homophobic. The number of muslims that want to kill people like me and gandhi is in the high 70% in most of the muslim world. Just read the Pew research. It captures the "average" muslim much better than your intuitive sense of them.
> 
> The facts are out there that prove without a shadow of a doubt that the average muslim is nothing like the average christian.


Majority of the people in those regions are homophobic but not due to religion so I'll take that with a grain of salt. Maybe a poll conducted with Christians from those region can be used as a comparison, or even those who follows non-abrahamic religion.

I did raise the point about converting to other faiths.


----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Ensuring a stable middle east or whatever is considered stable there. Securing global oil supply. Protecting Israel. To name a few.


Except the Saudis are one of the prime exporters of Wahhabism, the source of the Islamic ideology that destabilizes the entire Middle East. Iran isn't the problem here.



> Against anti-intellectualism for one.


Ok.



> It is your right to not trust her. But why would anyone put trust in Trump? Do you not understand conflict of interest of Trump's empire with murky ties to other countries state-sponsored businesses or are just ignoring all the potential risks because it isn't Hillary?


Because I know Hillary will be bad. Trump is a wildcard. Worst case scenario is that we're at the same place we would've been after Hillary, but at least we gambled and lost instead of not playing at all. We're doomed on our current trajectory, so let's at least make an effort to change it.



> Because more often than not, the people that decide to immigrate from so-called shit-hole understand how bad it could be and more appreciative of your country.


Then why is it that they vote for the left, even after Reagan gave them amnesty? And then they get mad and call you racist when you say that you don't want them flooding the country. They clearly haven't learned their lesson. In fact, it seems that only the Cubans who arrived pre-Castro learned this lesson.



> Look at Japan to see where that will lead to. What non-identity? You are promoting an idea that is antithesis of the American identity of it being the land of opportunity.


America wasn't founded upon something flimsy like a "land of opportunity." This idea that the Founders were some group of universalists, who wanted to create an America for everyone, is nonsense. Benjamin Franklin didn't even want Germans in the newly-formed United States.

In fact, the entire "nation of immigrants" non-identity only started post-1965 Immigration Act and a very recent invention. Before then, as seen by the immigration quotas, lawmakers were quite aware of what America's identity was--an extension of Anglo-Saxon/European civilization. The only reason they opened up immigration to non-Anglo-Saxons in the first place was to help settle the huge landmass that was the United States.

By 1965, we had no need for relaxed immigration quotas, for the land that was previously empty was now settled. But that didn't stop both left and right from backstabbing the people, with the left doing it for votes whilst the right did it for cheap labor.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Reaper, you keep fighting the good fight mate. (Y)












Alkomesh2 said:


> It's a religion though. It is open to interpretation. Some people have interpreted the teachings of Mohammed one way, and some have interpreted them another way.
> 
> To say one group of people is "right" and the other "wrong" is nonsense. To say one group are actually muslim and other group just think they're muslim but aren't actually because they've interpreted Islamic teachings wrong is like saying protestants aren't christians because they're "wrong" and catholicism is "right".
> 
> Which btw I have 100% legitimately heard religious catholics say about protestants, and religious protestants say about catholics. Neither are right. It's the same with different interpretations of Islam.
> 
> Basically god isn't real so they're all wrong anyway.


Absolute nonsense that shows you know fuck all of islam.

Scripture in the quran & hadiths that clearly order the killing of certain people isn't _"open to interpretation"_. Same with pedophilia in the quran & hadiths or whatever, the list just goes on from the same scripture muslims pride themselves in NEVER changing. Yeah, the quran has NEVER changed and muslims brag about it whilst not knowing what's in it thinking what's in it is hugs & kisses. Read the quran & hadiths, talk to muslims, and see the bullshit yourself that makes you realize how ignorant you sound right now.

You can't interpret _"stab the fucker to death"_ as _"hug the fucker"_. 

This mindset of yours is ridiculous and you know it. 



yeahbaby! said:


> Yes it is your opinion, it is not fact. Facts are about evidence leading to widely accepted theory. You have no evidence for your ridiculous theory you keep on bleating about. No one else I've ever heard shares your theory you can't stop bleating about. As someone else mentioned it's an ideology open to interpretation.
> 
> No one is making up any rules, they're simply not following everything down to a tee because they have common sense and they probably know some age old book isn't appropriate for 2016 so they change accordingly.
> 
> There are also plenty of old laws still on the books that no one follows because they're simply out of date. No one cares about them because they're quite obviously irrelevant in this day and age. It's the same with religion for people who aren't corrupt and/or stupid.
> 
> I don't need to be ignorant point out your stupid theory you cannot stop bleating about is ridiculous.


The ideology has it's own book, ever read it? The same book ALL muslims claim to follow.

The quran has NEVER changed and all who say they're muslim claim they follow the quran when in truth they are either ignorant of what's in the quran or tell us they'll let god judge them for not following the quran whilst telling you god's word in the quran is NEVER wrong.

How many muslims do you know? Have you ever spoken to a muslim who says the quran isn't the word of god? You know fuck all about islam, and fuck all about muslims, you are living in denial because you obviously want to live off this inane mindset that moderates who claim to follow islam aren't hypocrites who pretend the immoral verses in islamic scriptures exist. All this because you wanna comfort a cookie cutter muslim in their stupid mindset of hypocrisy.

The second a person refuses to follow a word in god's supposed book and sees it as false, is the second they're not following islam anymore but their own ideology and lifestyle which is NOT islam and contradicts with islamic law. Also don't bother giving me shit saying islam has peaceful verses, those were all in Meccan verses and Mohammed changed the verses himself by stating in a Medina chapter that the NEWER which are the Medinian verses are the ones to be followed instead of the older ones if both verses contradict the other. All the peaceful verses are Meccan, and the hateful & violent ones are Medinian.

You're beyond ignorant on the topic of islam and muslims, nothing you say matters on said topic.



Tater said:


> Seeing as how religion is made up fantasy bullshit to begin with, there is no reason why people can't change the rules of said made up fantasy bullshit to suit their own purposes.
> 
> The court rules in favor of yeahbaby!


You're not a muslim when you don't follow islamic scripture, you're something else.

Vegans who eat fish aren't vegan, they're pescatarians.

Your court is as bad as UAE courts that punish women for getting raped by muslims.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Gandhi said:


> Absolute nonsense that shows you know fuck all of islam.
> 
> Scripture in the quran & hadiths that clearly order the killing of certain people isn't _"open to interpretation"_. Same with pedophilia in the quran & hadiths or whatever, the list just goes on from the same scripture muslims pride themselves in NEVER changing. Yeah, the quran has NEVER changed and muslims brag about it.
> 
> You can't interpret _"stab the fucker to death"_ as _"hug the fucker"_.
> 
> This mindset of yours is ridiculous and you know it.


Homosexuality is punished by death in both Judaism and Christianity, so is eating shellfish. 

How are they one iota better?

Why is it fine for Judaism and Christianity to be interpreted so that people ignore all the icky stuff (pedophilia is encouraged more than once in the old testament, as is slavery) but not ok for people to do that with Islam?

How can "the earth was created in 7 days" be reinterpeted to "the earth was created over a period millenia"? How is that totally cool?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Fair, but I don't see what knowledge you have that discounts Islam from being a religion fundamentally different to Christiany or Judaism considering they believe in the same god and 2/3 the same prophets and holy books. I mean most of the really bad stuff in all 3 religions is actually from Leviticus in the Torah (the old testament for christians).
> 
> Jesus is mentioned around 180 times in the Quran according to wikipedia.
> 
> How can it be that different when it literally is the same religion?


Oof. Talk about only looking at the surface and not even having the knowledge to examine the core differences ... If you had that knowledge you would not make that comparison because it's not a valid comparison. The difference is in the extreme specifics that the Quran goes into as compared to the Torah or the Bible. The Quran itself says that it's the updated version of the Bible and Torah. It is Torah 3.0 and Bible 2.0. BTW, The torah is the old testament that modern christians have justifiably rejected. 

Comparing Muslims to Jews and to Christians is the same as comparing Windows 10 to Windows 3.11 and Windows 95. Quran has far, far more specifics about how to live your life than the Torah and Bible do. But I'm not surprised that you wouldn't know that. You've literally just parroted the classic muslim argument that I grew up listening to. It's classic taqqya regurgitated back at me and that kinda makes me sad and amused at the same time. 



> Honestly don't remember, was mainly contemporaneous sources, so stuff written during or shortly after his actual life, and there wasn't much, so I could probably look it up. I'm not sure if I read in modern biographies.


I won't comment till you give me specifics. This backtracking and not knowing the actual sources is starting to make your original statement a lie. 



> It was just a joke to him, had to be done because of a legal thing.


Then how does that make you an authority on Islam because that was the context of relating this story, right? 



> Unsurprisingly I disagree.


And yet you have no way to back up why. 



> It's probably more about which countries colonised which imo.


You don't know specifics about colonization? 



> Thats what the vast majority of jews and christians do.... are they not really jewish or christian?


No. Actually, most do not cherry-pick in the same way Muslims do because their books don't have the kind of hardcore specifics that exist in the Quran and the Shariah. You would know that if you were or had lived your life as a muslim. Also, I agree that christians and jews that cherry pick aren't real christians and jews. You can't just call yourself something, have your actions be something else and still be that same thing. It's like when feminists call themselves pro-equality and then revel in the fact that some random woman somewhere raped a guy and it's a laughing matter. That's called hypocracy and you really think I won't call out jew and christian hypocrisy? 



> Thats just what religion is in the modern secular western world.


Not for the average Muslim. You need to learn more. 



> EXACTLY. That stuff isn't even in the Quran, it didn't even come from Mohammad. That stuff is not integral to islam anymore than the teachings of the pope are integral to Christianity.


What the fuck are you talking about? I just explained to you that Quran calls itself the complete way of life, and then there are qualifying verses that justify belief in the hadith. You just kinda screamed the opposite. 



> They are integral to a sect or interpretation, but nothing more.


They are integral to all muslims. The muslims cherry-picked to create sects. 



> Which btw is a very direct analogy with Catholicism.


Doesn't make all of it the same. Just because a table has four legs and an elephant has four legs doesn't mean that the table is an elephant. There are other things that I've repeatedly pointed out that create the core differences in specific areas and you want to ignore them because you want to believe that a table is an elephant! 



> So are christians who are gay not really christians because the bible extorts the death penalty for homosexuality?


Where does the bible say that homosexuals should be killed? That's the old testament for the christians, and there aren't many jew groups going around massacring gays. Not as much as muslims and therein lies the difference. 



> Are jewish people who eat bacon on occasion not really jewish?


No they're not. 



> What about Christians who eat shellfish, that shit is forbidden according to their holy book.


I believe that's the old testament, not new testament. Dude, are you just gonna quote atheist memes back at me without researching further? 


> I ask again, how is Islam any different to Judaism or Christianity?


I've pointed out the differences. I've pointed out the Pew Research, but you've decided not to read. 



> They believe in the same god.


Muslims think they do, but they don't. The Muslim god is basically the arab moon god called illah that has been elevated to the status of yahweh which is the jew god. This is why Muslims have the moon symbol splattered all over their world and follow the lunar calendar. 



> They believe in the same prophets.


No they don't. Jews don't accept Mohammad as a prophet. Mohammad says the Jesus is a prophet, but Christians say that Jesus is the son of god, which immediately makes all christians heretics in the eyes of muslims. 



> They have sects that work exactly the same.


Name a single Christian or Jew sect that went on to form the ISIS. 



> Some people who follow them are very religious, some people who follow them aren't.


The average Muslim has less tolerant views than the average christian. Read the research. 



> Like if all those people aren't muslim, then a whole lot of people who think they're jewish or think they're christian aren't.


That is absolutely true. 



> For example anyone who thinks the world is round or was created in longer than 7 days... You are no longer jewish or christian, no matter what you may think, because you don't follow the real religion.


That is true.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Homosexuality is punished by death in both Judaism and Christianity, so is eating shellfish.
> 
> How are they one iota better?
> 
> Why is it fine for Judaism and Christianity to be interpreted so that people ignore all the icky stuff (pedophilia is encouraged more than once in the old testament, as is slavery) but not ok for people to do that with Islam?
> 
> How can "the earth was created in 7 days" be reinterpeted to "the earth was created over a period millenia"? How is that totally cool?


Its not okay, nice strawman argument though.

90% of people who identify as christian or jew aren't really who they claim to be, they too are ignorant or hypocritical. The same goes with muslims, only the problem with muslims is that there are a LARGE amount of genuine muslims, a minority, but a large minority nonetheless that have shown terror worldwide in many forms one of which is ISIS. An active homosexual _"christian"_ is as christian as Saudi Arabia is a jewish state.

It's that simple really, don't comfort ignorance.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

As long as you're going to apply, only people who adhere to the most extreme version of a religion are actual adherents to the religion to all religions equally I can't complain.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

^So this means that you're not going to read the research and continue to believe that muslims, jews and christians are all _exactly _the same?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



GOON said:


> Except the Saudis are one of the prime exporters of Wahhabism, the source of the Islamic ideology that destabilizes the entire Middle East. Iran isn't the problem here.


The problem is Iran wanting nukes. I am not saying the Saudis are saints, but they are a key ally of American interests in containing Iran.



> Because I know Hillary will be bad. Trump is a wildcard. Worst case scenario is that we're at the same place we would've been after Hillary, but at least we gambled and lost instead of not playing at all. We're doomed on our current trajectory, so let's at least make an effort to change it.


Both are bad, but one is worse than the other. And Trump is not the better choice. The worst case scenario isn't something similar to Grandma Nixon but a Duterte in the Philippines. Is it an American identity using the Hail Mary approach to politics?




> Then why is it that they vote for the left, even after Reagan gave them amnesty? And then they get mad and call you racist when you say that you don't want them flooding the country. They clearly haven't learned their lesson. In fact, it seems that only the Cubans who arrived pre-Castro learned this lesson.


Are you saying you have the right to dictate how they vote?




> America wasn't founded upon something flimsy like a "land of opportunity." This idea that the Founders were some group of universalists, who wanted to create an America for everyone, is nonsense. Benjamin Franklin didn't even want Germans in the newly-formed United States.
> 
> In fact, the entire "nation of immigrants" non-identity only started post-1965 Immigration Act and a very recent invention. Before then, as seen by the immigration quotas, lawmakers were quite aware of what America's identity was--an extension of Anglo-Saxon/European civilization. The only reason they opened up immigration to non-Anglo-Saxons in the first place was to help settle the huge landmass that was the United States.
> 
> By 1965, we had no need for relaxed immigration quotas, for the land that was previously empty was now settled. But that didn't stop both left and right from backstabbing the people, with the left doing it for votes whilst the right did it for cheap labor.


You wanted an identity and you got one. And it was a great one that enabled the country to attract the best talents in the world to help ensure America's prosperity for the next half a century. More likely than not, your ancestors were immigrants as well. The lawmakers in the 60's shared your views about racial make up, but it was also the 1960's and legal racial segregation was still fairly recent. They clearly didn't expect the changes to create such a shift in demographics but what can you do if Europeans aren't immigrating to America? Again, take a look at Japan to see how your way would have turned out for America.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> ^So this means that you're not going to read the research and continue to believe that muslims, jews and christians are all _exactly _the same?


If you can find any research that exclusively looks at "real" Christians and Jews to "real" Muslims I'd be interested, but I doubt you can as that distinction isn't made regarding Christians and Jews. 

Christians and Jews who believe the world was created in only 7 days tend to be absolutely insane and believe crazy genocidal stuff.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> If you can find any research that exclusively looks at "real" Christians and Jews to "real" Muslims I'd be interested, but I doubt you can as that distinction isn't made regarding Christians and Jews.
> 
> Christians and Jews who believe the world was created in only 7 days tend to be absolutely insane and believe crazy genocidal stuff.


Isn't belief and act completely different? I mean we got the Saduis who still behead people and support terrorism, Iran does too, most of the middle east is filled with people who still kill homosexuals. What part of the US and Europe do they do that? Is there any theocracies in the Western World? Because there are in the mid east. I didn't know West boro was doing terrorist attacks?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> If you can find any research that exclusively looks at "real" Christians and Jews to "real" Muslims I'd be interested, but I doubt you can as that distinction isn't made regarding Christians and Jews.
> 
> Christians and Jews who believe the world was created in only 7 days tend to be absolutely insane and believe crazy genocidal stuff.


"Crazy genocidal stuff". Really? Creationists are fucking harmless. They believe that their god committed genocide. They don't believe that that gives them the right to commit genocide. Name _one _creationist that killed someone for disagreeing with him in the modern era .. and I'll name 10,000 fundamentalist muslims that have done the same for disagreeing with them. 

That's the difference right there and you're willfully blind to this difference.

It's funny how you will create these myths about what christians are like just to justify your completely wrong narrative of what muslims are like. That's the problem with people like you. You have to create lies to justify what you believe. Facts are meaningless to you.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> "Crazy genocidal stuff". Really? Creationists are fucking harmless. Name _one _creationist that killed someone for disagreeing with him in the modern era .. and I'll name 10,000 fundamentalist muslims that have done the same for disagreeing with them.
> 
> That's the difference right there and you're willfully blind to this difference.
> 
> It's funny how you will create these myths about what christians are like just to justify your completely wrong narrative of what muslims are like. That's the problem with people like you. You have to create lies to justify what you believe. Facts are meaningless to you.


Wow are you saying he sounds just like a Fundamentalist Religious person?! Wowie this progressive stuff sounds more and more like a Religion everyday! Sounds like one of those snake holding Religions, this ideology sounds like those people who believe modern humans and dinos shared tea together 6 thousand years ago!


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> You trolling brah :cudi


Guilty as charged. :lol



Reaper said:


> Muslims are nothing like Christians. At all.


Sure they are. They both believe in made up fantasy bullshit. All religions have that one thing in common. That's why I find this entire discussion to be so troll-worthy. You guys are arguing over what makes a "real" Muslim/Christian when there is nothing real about Islam or Christianity to begin with. You'll have to pardon my amusement.



Gandhi said:


> You're not a muslim when you don't follow islamic scripture, you're something else.


If by "something else", you mean someone with enough intelligence to not follow islamic scripture, I'd have to agree.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Sure they are. They both believe in made up fantasy bullshit. All religions have that one thing in common. That's why I find this entire discussion to be so troll-worthy. You guys are arguing over what makes a "real" Muslim/Christian when there is nothing real about Islam or Christianity to begin with. You'll have to pardon my amusement.


However, the necessity to have this conversation is to ascertain the potential threat. It's not to debate whether they're equal in the sense of believing in fairy tails, but in the sense of the impact those fairy tales have on their sense of right and wrong and tolerance for others. This is a battle the Muslims have evidently lost and the facts support this. 

Also, as I told Alkomesh, just because a table has four legs and an elephant has four legs doesn't mean that the table is an elephant  This was a logic puzzle we were taught as kids. C'mon now.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> "Crazy genocidal stuff". Really? Creationists are fucking harmless. Name _one _creationist that killed someone for disagreeing with him in the modern era .. and I'll name 10,000 fundamentalist muslims that have done the same for disagreeing with them.
> 
> That's the difference right there and you're willfully blind to this difference.
> 
> It's funny how you will create these myths about what christians are like just to justify your completely wrong narrative of what muslims are like. That's the problem with people like you. You have to create lies to justify what you believe. Facts are meaningless to you.


Yeah a lot of ceationists believe in killing in the name of god.

And a HEAP of jews do. In fact all the ones living in Israel as well as a lot around the world. 

You've decided Christianity is this wonderful thing, and it isn't, its a religion and its as fucked as all the rest.

If you really want me to go into a history lesson then I will.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Yeah a lot of ceationists believe in killing in the name of god.


Such as? 



> And a HEAP of jews do. In fact all the ones living in Israel as well as a lot around the world.


Sure they do. But not as many as Muslims do. Doesn't make them equal or the same at all. 



> You've decided Christianity is this wonderful thing, and it isn't, its a religion and its as fucked as all the rest.


Saying that one religion and one group of religious people isn't the same as saying that that entire religion is "wonderful". I hate the fact that I end up talking to people on this forum who don't even want to use simple rules of logic in conversations fpalm 



> If you really want me to go into a history lesson then I will.


And you think that Muslim history is pure and violence free? 

The thing is that Christians lost their power to a growing diversity in their nations that they controlled as well as gave up their power over to the lapsed and less fundamentalistic because there are no extreme measures built into Christianity to prevent people from leaving Christianity - whereas no such thing has happened in Islam and may never happen because the nature of the Quran and Hadith make it such that it's very difficult if not impossible for Muslims to evolve into less homogeneaic societies. 

The controls against diversity and freedom of thought are already in-built into the religion and this is why studying the core differences between the religions is so important which you just don't want to do because you're lazy. 

You want to compare history .. then compare the history of christians to the history of muslims ... you don't compare the history of christians to the atrocities of modern muslims because overall society was less evolved and you'd find similar atrocities around the world, including the muslim world at the time - but while most of the world has evolved their sense of right and wrong pretty uniformly, the muslim world has stayed stuck rooted in fundamentalist ways with archaic laws and barbaric punishment systems ---- because those controls are built into the religion. 

You have a comparison between modern christians and modern muslims. That is how you compare. The other kind of comparison you want to make is. 

Clearly they are not the same, or exactly the same. You're completely wrong at this point.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> However, the necessity to have this conversation is to ascertain the potential threat. It's not to debate whether they're equal in the sense of believing in fairy tails, but in the sense of the impact those fairy tales have on their sense of right and wrong and tolerance for others. This is a battle the Muslims have evidently lost and the facts support this.
> 
> Also, as I told Alkomesh, just because a table has four legs and an elephant has four legs doesn't mean that the table is an elephant  This was a logic puzzle we were taught as kids. C'mon now.


Who has killed more civilians over the past 15 years? Jihadists or the American military?


----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Is it an American identity using the Hail Mary approach to politics?


It is when it's the last option on the table. 




> Are you saying you have the right to dictate how they vote?


I can certainly judge them on it, and if they tend to vote for the party closest to the regime in their homeland, it shows that they haven't learned a damn thing from their corrupt Latin American shit-hole. They come here and then act the same way they did back home. 



> You wanted an identity and you got one. And it was a great one that enabled the country to attract the best talents in the world to help ensure America's prosperity for the next half a century. More likely than not, your ancestors were immigrants as well. The lawmakers in the 60's shared your views about racial make up, but it was also the 1960's and legal racial segregation was still fairly recent. They clearly didn't expect the changes to create such a shift in demographics but what can you do if Europeans aren't immigrating to America?


Of course my ancestors were immigrants, but as mentioned before, they came (along with others) during a time when America needed immigrants to build up the land. We have Americans, whose ancestors have been here for over a century, who are either out of work or homeless. We don't need anymore. As the Australians say, "fuck off, we're full."

The "nation of immigrants" identity isn't an identity, but a blank slate that essentially says that America herself is nothing but a landmass. Even if I were to accept your proposal that an American identity is based upon values, is it not evident that certain people are more predisposed to accepting those values? 

Considering that these values did not just fall down from the moon, but were instead cultivated over centuries of European thought and philosophy, would it not make sense to bring over people whose culture, regardless of a few differences, is similar to the culture that spawned these "values" in the first place? These values are virtually nonexistent in Latin American countries (and almost everywhere else, sans America, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe). What do we gain from allowing them in sans cultural conflict?

That's what gets me about those who claim America's identity is rooted in its values. If that's the case, why allow people people to immigrate into the country whose culture knows nothing of these aforementioned values?



> Again, take a look at Japan to see how your way would have turned out for America


And see what? A country with very little cultural conflict because they weren't dumb enough to open their borders to the entire world? Their birthrate is low because the men are either A) Working ungodly hours b/c of their work culture or B) Whacking off to anime girls in VR.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Who has killed more civilians over the past 15 years? Jihadists or the American military?


Introducing a 4th evil into a conversation involving 3 evils does not mean that we cannot have a conversation about the other three. 

This way, I can sit back and claim - well, heart disease is really the absolute worst of everything therefore we shouldn't talk about what the military complex is doing. 

But cars kill more people than guns therefore we shouldn't talk about gun safety. 

Nah. Sorry, these distractionery tactics have gotten so old that while I see the merit in talking about the American military complex, I fail to see how that negates the conversation about the terrorist threat or the potential threat of a growing group of people with a vastly different ideology than the one that governs the country I live in.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Introducing a 4th evil into a conversation involving 3 evils does not mean that we cannot have a conversation about the other three.
> 
> This way, I can sit back and claim - well, heart disease is really the absolute worst of everything therefore we shouldn't talk about what the military complex is doing.
> 
> But cars kill more people than guns therefore we shouldn't talk about gun safety.
> 
> Nah. Sorry, these distractionery tactics have gotten so old that while I see the merit in talking about the American military complex, I fail to see how that negates the conversation about the terrorist threat or the potential threat of a growing group of people with a vastly different ideology than the one that governs the country I live in.


Christians run DC and decide American foreign policy. More innocent civilians have died since 9/11 because of American foreign policy than because of jihadists. Why is the one that has killed more the lesser threat to the world? Is it because the Christians deciding American foreign policy don't outwardly claim they are killing in the name of religion like the jihadists do?

Just asking honest questions here.


----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Christians run DC and decide American foreign policy. More innocent civilians have died since 9/11 because of American foreign policy than because of jihadists. Why is the one that has killed more the lesser threat to the world? Is it because the Christians deciding American foreign policy don't outwardly claim they are killing in the name of religion like the jihadists do?
> 
> Just asking honest questions here.


The difference is that those "Christians" aren't doing it in the name of God.

But if we're going to play that game, then we can blame atheism for the Holocaust and the Holodomor since the people in charge were either atheist or agnostic, despite their religion (or lack of) not being a motivating factor behind it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Christians run DC and decide American foreign policy. More innocent civilians have died since 9/11 because of American foreign policy than because of jihadists. Why is the one that has killed more the lesser threat to the world? Is it because the Christians deciding American foreign policy don't outwardly claim they are killing in the name of religion like the jihadists do?
> 
> Just asking honest questions here.


You're not asking honest questions. You ignored the context of my response completely again to convert this into a conversation you personally feel comfortable having because that's what you always do and I've repeatedly asked you to stop doing that.

Also, if you really want to play this game, then let's go about proving that the "christians" that run DC run their war machine and not the external forces you've been claiming that does. Since that "group" is so vast as per your own claims and unknowable, then how do you know that the people running DC are christians in the first place? I mean, honestly speaking, you yourself claim that the american government is just a puppet ... but whose puppet you've sort of left up to a wild guess from what I've noticed. 

You claim that the corporate machine runs the government .. but then how do you know the religion of that corporate machine. Just one corporate group that's a Hillary donor is the Saudis ... so there's already a lack of christianity there ... How can you even make this as a rational argument? 

Dude, you're digging a hole for yourself.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



GOON said:


> The difference is that those "Christians" aren't doing it in the name of God.


And you know that how? Because they don't outwardly proclaim it? Have you ever considered that maybe they're smart enough to know the kind of backlash they would receive if they did?



Reaper said:


> You're not asking honest questions. You ignored the context of my response completely again


I asked a question. You did not answer my question. I asked you more questions. Again, no answer. Then you whine about me ignoring your context? Tell ya what, if you want me to not ignore your context, you answer my questions first.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Anyone see the latest DNC leaks?


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> If by "something else", you mean someone with enough intelligence to not follow islamic scripture, I'd have to agree.


Enough intelligence makes a person not be a muslim. wens2


----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> And you know that how? Because they don't outwardly proclaim it? Have you ever considered that maybe they're smart enough to know the kind of backlash they would receive if they did?


If that's the case then you just confirmed that Christians are smarter than Muslims.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Who has killed more civilians over the past 15 years? Jihadists or the American military?


Jihadists, easily.

Surprised this is even a question. The American military has killed less than 100,000 civilians the last 15 years plus a little less than 100,000 jihadists.

In the same time period jihadists have killed well over 250,000 civilians. Probably closer to 500,000 now. Jihadists have killed over 100,000 in Iraq, probably closer to 200,000, tens of thousands in Syria, tens of thousands in Nigeria and Somalia and the Sudan each, over 10,000 in Libya and Yemen and Pakistan each, and thousands combined from terrorist attacks in India, Russia, Turkey, southeast Asia + Indonesia + the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, other parts of Africa, Europe, Australia and the United States.

It takes a special kind of prejudiced ignorance to ask that question.



Tater said:


> And you know that how? Because they don't outwardly proclaim it? Have you ever considered that maybe they're smart enough to know the kind of backlash they would receive if they did?


Ah I see. Your prejudice is the same thing as evidence. 

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. This may be the internet where that kind of nonsense is more acceptable than anywhere else these days (in the West anyway) but it's still no actual evidence for your implication other than your oft-expressed prejudice.

If Christianity were as violent as you believe you wouldn't be as safe as you are in trashing it. Which is 100% safe since Christians don't kill people for 'insulting' Christianity. Name the last time people had to go into hiding or get 24/7 police protection or got killed because they 'insulted' Christianity. It's been a very long time. Meanwhile, that happens all the time with Islam. All the time.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> I asked a question *whilst ignoring your points*. You did not answer my question. I asked you more questions *to ignore you points some more*. Again, no answer. Then you whine about me *ignoring your points*? Tell ya what, if you want me to not ignore *your points*, you answer my questions first *because I can't refute your points*.


Fixed that for you.

Dealt with you before, you're one of the most dishonest posters on WF.


----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*CNN Ohio and Florida polls
*
*FL*
Trump 47
Clinton 44 
Johnson 6
Stein 1

*OH*
Trump 46
Clinton 41
Johnson 8
Stein 2

Trump is also up in Colorado and Nevada by two points each.










*Hillary is DONE*

Also: Hillary Clinton confirmed to be DYING~!


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Anybody reading Colin Powell's leaked emails about Clinton and Trump? He and those emailing him let everybody have it with both barrels.



> : “I would rather not have to vote for her, although she is a friend I respect.” He noted that she is a 70-year-old person with “long track record,” but is hampered by being “greedy, not transformational, with a husband still dicking bimbos at home (according to the [New York Post])."
> 
> 'Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris.'
> 
> 'I told her staff three times not to try that gambit. I had to throw a mini tantrum at a Hampton's party to get their attention. She keeps tripping into these 'character' minefields.'
> 
> 'HRC could have killed this two years ago by merely telling everyone honestly what she had done and not tie me to it,'
> 
> 'I told you about the gig I lost at a University because she so overcharged them they came under heat and couldn't any fees for awhile. I should send her a bill.'
> 
> Jeffrey Leeds to Powell: “Sheldon Whitehouse, who is a huge Clinton supporter, said they were both giving speeches at the same event a few months back and she could barely climb the podium steps,”
> 
> Powell's response: "Not sure, but she has launched a story line that will be picked up. I think there is something to it. On HD tv she doesn't look good. She is working herself to death. (…) She will turn 70 her first year in office."
> 
> Jeffrey Leeds to Powell: 'It's the one prize she wants. She has everything else. And she HATES the President ('that man' as the Clintons call him) kicked her a** in 2008. She can't believe it or accept it.'
> 
> Jeffrey Leeds to Powell: "No one likes her and the criminal thing ain't over,' "'I don't think the president would weep if she found herself in real legal trouble. She'll pummel his legacy if she gets a chance and he knows it."





> 'FOX got the highest ratings ever after the debate so Ailes makes friends again with Trump and sends Megyn Kelly off to get over her period. Hey, noting [sic] personal, just business.'
> 
> 'Yup, the whole birther movement was racist. That's what the 99% believe. When Trump couldn't keep that up he said he also wanted to see if [President Obama's] certificate noted that he was a Muslim.'
> 
> "He is at 1% black voters and will drop. He takes us for idiots," "He can never overcome what he tried to do to Obama with his search for the birth certificate hoping to force Obama out of the Presidency."
> 
> -'You guys are playing his game, you are his oxygen. He outraged us again today with his comments on Paris no-go for police districts. I will watch and pick the timing, not respond to the latest outrage.'
> 
> -'To go on and call him an idiot just emboldens him.'
> 
> -'Trump has no sense of shame'
> 
> -'National disgrace'
> 
> -'International pariah'


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Gotta love what I'm learning about how the typical American voter thinks this election. 



1. Hillary had a major Benghazi scandal. No problem. Still gonna vote

2. Hillary played a major role in the destabilization of Libya. No problem. Still gonna vote HIllary

3. Hillary should have been sent to jail for the email scandal. No problem. She's still a good choice for president

4. DNC leaks prove that Hillary and her cronies rigged the elections to rob Bernie. Oh well, she's still better than Trump

5. Clinton staff cell phones are revealed to have been purposefully destroyed with hammers. Eh. At least she's not Trump! 

6. Hillary gets pneumonia ... OH FUCK. SHIT. WE CAN'T HAVE A PRESIDENT THAT'S SICK!


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Jesus fucking Christ. :trips7


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Seeing as how religion is made up fantasy bullshit to begin with, there is no reason why people can't change the rules of said made up fantasy bullshit to suit their own purposes.
> 
> The court rules in favor of yeahbaby!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The court references the "made up fantasy bullshit" precedence established in the Gandhi v. yeahbaby! case and rules in favor of Alkomesh.


You're better than this. Don't be one of "Those" Atheists.

Damn, we're all going to hate each other in November, aren't we?


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



GOON said:


> If that's the case then you just confirmed that Christians are smarter than Muslims.


You can look at all the RFRA stuff and the fights against abortion laws and gay marriage as proof of religion influencing the decision making of politicians. I see no reason why we shouldn't suspect it also influences their decision making when it comes to foreign policy. Maybe they don't say it publicly but I have a hard a time believing that it affects their decisions in so many other areas but not for this one.



Gandhi said:


> Dealt with you before, you're one of the most dishonest posters on WF.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> You can look at all the RFRA stuff and the fights against abortion laws and gay marriage as proof of religion influencing the decision making of politicians. I see no reason why we shouldn't suspect it also influences their decision making when it comes to foreign policy. Maybe they don't say it publicly but I have a hard a time believing that it affects their decisions in so many other areas but not for this one.


Bigot Tater holding up his bigotry as "evidence" of other people's misdeeds again :heston

Projection ain't just a thing that used to happen in movie theaters.

What part of Christianity does bigot Tater think influences American foreign policy? The part that causes the US to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on using its military to transport medicine and food and equipment and people thousands of miles across the globe when there's a natural disaster? Or just for the normal routine every day distribution of food and medicine and clothing around the world, a distribution system which would break down if it weren't for the US military's logistics capabilities? Many of the recipient countries are, you guessed it, not Christian-majority...

What part of Christianity does bigot Tater think has influenced American politicians from George W. Bush to Barack Obama bending over backwards to create a clear distinction in their remarks between Islamic terrorists and regular Muslims? 

What part of Christianity does bigot Tater think influenced George W. Bush's Iraq policy that sent American troops from large bases in the desert into small outposts in Iraq's major cities, which caused a large decrease in Muslim-on-Muslim violence that was killing thousands of Muslims every month?

What part of Christianity does bigot Tater think influenced Barack Obama's decision to bomb the military and government of Muammar Qaddafi, which was on the brink of slaughtering thousands of anti-Qaddafi Muslims in Libya? 

Which part of Christianity does bigot Tater think influenced the foreign policy decisions of George W. Bush and Barack Obama to spend over $200 billion dollars trying to build the infrastructure of Iraq and Afghanistan? You know, those dastardly attempts to build roads and schools and hospitals and power plants and water systems. I have no doubt that their Christian beliefs helped urge them on that particular sinister course. 

Or how about going to war against Serbia to save mostly Muslim non-Serbs from being massacred by Serbs? No doubt Christianity influenced that disgustingly evil foreign policy decision as well.

Or how about George W. Bush working for years to end the slaughter in south Sudan? He got a lot of credit from people who usually would never give him credit for anything for that. I am so sick of Christians trying to help people partially because Jesus said to, it's just sick!

Maybe the US policy of supporting women actually going to school in countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan was caused by that bloodthirsty Christian Crusade mentality. 

Or George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton using American pressure and then sending soldiers to Somalia to try to stop the slaughter there in the early 1990s, no doubt Christianity played a role in that repugnant foreign policy decision. 

If you look at the historical record, all those times in the last 25 years the United States has tried to lift Muslims and other non-Christians up out of starvation or disease or poverty or ignorance or stop them from being slaughtered or dying by the thousands thanks to an earthquake or tsunami or whatever, clearly Christianity influenced those awful decisions and we should make sure that Christian idealism has no place in decision-making so they never happen again! Next time just let them slaughter each other or starve to death. That's far better than letting those sick Christian Dominionists hold sway.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Very interesting interview, covers the election as well. The part with Bernie should raise some eyebrows for sure.


----------



## blackholeson

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> Jihadists, easily.
> 
> Surprised this is even a question. The American military has killed less than 100,000 civilians the last 15 years plus a little less than 100,000 jihadists.
> 
> In the same time period jihadists have killed well over 250,000 civilians. Probably closer to 500,000 now. Jihadists have killed over 100,000 in Iraq, probably closer to 200,000, tens of thousands in Syria, tens of thousands in Nigeria and Somalia and the Sudan each, over 10,000 in Libya and Yemen and Pakistan each, and thousands combined from terrorist attacks in India, Russia, Turkey, southeast Asia + Indonesia + the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, other parts of Africa, Europe, Australia and the United States.
> 
> It takes a special kind of prejudiced ignorance to ask that question.
> 
> 
> Ah I see. Your prejudice is the same thing as evidence.
> 
> Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. This may be the internet where that kind of nonsense is more acceptable than anywhere else these days (in the West anyway) but it's still no actual evidence for your implication other than your oft-expressed prejudice.
> 
> If Christianity were as violent as you believe you wouldn't be as safe as you are in trashing it. Which is 100% safe since Christians don't kill people for 'insulting' Christianity. Name the last time people had to go into hiding or get 24/7 police protection or got killed because they 'insulted' Christianity. It's been a very long time. Meanwhile, that happens all the time with Islam. All the time.


*American Presidents for the last Century have used the Right of God to act upon other nations like for example Iraq. Bush Jr was huge advocator of using God's will to do what is just in the world. Where have you been? Christians have killed far more civilians in the West than Jihadists. Perhaps it's higher over there, but also remember the Slave Trade, or slave trades and I'm not just talking about Africans. However, it's not about numbers because if that were the case the amount of starvation in Iraq alone due to sanctions from the first Gulf War were tragic. Nearly 1.2 million people starved to death from nearly two decades of Sanctions on a Hussein regime. *

*Do I need to remind you that we are comparing America and it's lack of Theocracy versus nations who rule under a Theocracy? America has it's fare share of Conservatives, but as you said they're not out looking to kill others for not thinking like them. We have evolved out of this issue as we separate Church from State. It wasn't that long ago when people were hanging women for being "witches" here in the States. The rage and suffering going on the Mid East is nothing the poorest here can truly understand and there are some bad neighborhoods in America. However, the reason these Jihadists are willing to die is based primarily on the fact that there are no jobs, education, or stable economy in those regions affected. Governments are toppled, leaders are killed, and ultra high levels of unemployment created this mess. They react so harshly because many of these folks have nothing, literally. They are the world's largest gang of poor an unemployed men, women, and children. That's what happens when you rule under a religious view.*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Gotta love what I'm learning about how the typical American voter thinks this election.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Hillary had a major Benghazi scandal. No problem. Still gonna vote
> 
> 2. Hillary played a major role in the destabilization of Libya. No problem. Still gonna vote HIllary
> 
> 3. Hillary should have been sent to jail for the email scandal. No problem. She's still a good choice for president
> 
> 4. DNC leaks prove that Hillary and her cronies rigged the elections to rob Bernie. Oh well, she's still better than Trump
> 
> 5. Clinton staff cell phones are revealed to have been purposefully destroyed with hammers. Eh. At least she's not Trump!
> 
> 6. Hillary gets pneumonia ... OH FUCK. SHIT. WE CAN'T HAVE A PRESIDENT THAT'S SICK!


You forgot 5. DNC leaks show some of the DNC staff make racist remarks about their own minority voters. That's okay, Trump is the real racist.


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Im detecting a _Faint _change in poll results. :trump


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hey Jesse, what is Aleppo? 

:duck


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://theantimedia.org/wikileaks-dnc-government-positions-sale/


> Also in the leak was a detailed list of over 100,000 donations dating back to 2008, including some high-profile donors who received international ambassadorships from President Barack Obama in return for their pledges to both the DNC and Obama’s Organizing for Action nonprofit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew Barzun took the number one spot, donating more than $3.5 million. In return, he served as U.S. Ambassador to Sweden from 2009 to 2011, worked as President Obama’s National Finance Chair during his 2012 reelection campaign, and is currently U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom.
> Just under him is Julius Genachowski, who was appointed chair of the FCC for his generous donation of just under $3.5 million. Tony West paid a little over a million dollars to be appointed the Associate Attorney General on March 9, 2012, the very same day his money is recorded in DNC’s ledger. Who knew the government could be so efficient?
> Essentially, Obama and the DNC sold government positions off to the highest bidder while Hillary sat as Secretary of State, but for some reason, _CNN _reported that “_There appear to be no damaging emails in this batch._”
> What?
> Just last night, Hillary posted a video to social media breaking down the meaning of “pay-to-play,” throwing Donald Trump under the bus for shady politics and _trying to get out of an investigation_. Is that a joke? More than half of Americans think Hillary Clinton is a criminal, a fact that seems to escape her completely. Thus far, Clinton has done a pretty good job of staying sheltered from any consequences of her actions, and there is no indication that is about to change anytime soon.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't think I've ever met a true Hillary supporter. Just people who begrudgingly won't vote Trump.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> I don't think I've ever met a true Hillary supporter. Just people who begrudgingly won't vote Trump.


That may be just a result of your own circle composition of places you frequent, but there's millions of hardcore Hillary Supporters. You just need to read the comments in places like Huffpo and Hillary supporter facebook pages (and there are millions on those groups) to see just how horrifying Hillary supporters really are. 

https://www.facebook.com/Hillary2016/?fref=ts

There's dozens of pages like these and millions of supporters on them. This will give you an idea of how bad the situation really is. There's still a reason why she's still leading in most polls - and it's not just Trump hate. There's genuine love for her. There's also this narrative that everything anti-Hillary is just a conspiracy to keep a woman from getting elected, which is why she's consistently leading amongst women. 

The only group of women where she's not leading is married and educated white women. Not surprisingly.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Some of the stuff Trump said was pretty funny, he mentioned something about Obama should be busy working instead of campaigning for Hilary was pretty damn funny. 

Thou he has a point, why is the President on the campaign trail when there is a bunch of shit going on? I could imagine the reactions if Dummy Dubyah did that!

Trump's son is a very good speaker, comes off as very likable.

All in all Trump speeches are pretty interesting and funny.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@Reaper @Miss Sally


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> @Reaper @Miss Sally


Edit: This is wrong. There are several types of Bacterial Pneumonia. Some are contagious and some are not contagious. There's nothing wrong with this statement. 



> *Is Bacterial Pneumonia Contagious?*
> 
> 
> Whether or not bacterial pneumonia is contagious depends upon the type of bacteria causing the infection. In many cases, people contract pneumonia when bacteria they normally carry in the nose or throat are spread to the lungs. Most kinds of bacterial pneumonia are not highly contagious. However, pneumonia due to * Mycoplasma pneumoniae and tuberculosis* are exceptions. Both these types of bacterial pneumonia *are highly contagious*. These are spread among people by breathing in infected droplets that come from coughing or sneezing, similar to the spread of viral infections.





Miss Sally said:


> Some of the stuff Trump said was pretty funny, he mentioned something about Obama should be busy working instead of campaigning for Hilary was pretty damn funny.
> 
> Thou he has a point, why is the President on the campaign trail when there is a bunch of shit going on? I could imagine the reactions if Dummy Dubyah did that!
> 
> Trump's son is a very good speaker, comes off as very likable.
> 
> All in all Trump speeches are pretty interesting and funny.


“It used to be that cars were made in Flint and you couldn’t drink the water in Mexico. And now the cars are made in Mexico and you can’t drink the water in Flint,” Trump said at the church. “It’s terrible.” - Trump 



:banderas


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This is what happens when you nominate a weird little money grubbing gargoyle homonculus, Democrats. You get a :trump either tied or leading nationally and in many battleground states 6 weeks from the election. 

John fn Kerry, maybe the most inept presidential candidate since Bob Dole (or Mondale) would be beating :trump harder than Anthony Weiner does his weiner, but nope you couldn't nominate some boring ass aristocrat, you had to nominate white trash who made good.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*Obama’s Tax Collections Surpass $20,000,000,000,000; Still Runs Up Debt by $8,878,290,996,028​*


> CNSNews.com) – With the additional $231,327,000,000 in taxes that the U.S. Treasury collected in August, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today, President Barack Obama has now presided over more than $20,000,000,000,000 in federal tax collections during the 91 full months he has served in the Oval Office.
> 
> From February 2009 through August 2016, the Treasury collected approximately $20,197,437,000,000 in tax revenues (in non-inflation-adjusted dollars), according to the Monthly Treasury Statements.
> 
> During those same 91 months, the federal debt rose from $10,632,005,246,736.97 to $19,510,296,242,765.66—an increase of $8,878,290,996,028.69.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In August, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today, the federal government took in $231,327,000,000 in taxes and spent $338,438,000,000—running a one-month deficit of $107,112,000,000.
> 
> So far in fiscal 2016, according the Treasury statement, the federal government has collected approximately $2,910,151,000,000 in taxes and spent approximately $3,530,922,000,000—running a deficit of $620,771,000,000 for the first eleven months of the fiscal year.
> 
> Given that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported that there were 151,614,000 people employed in the United States in July, the $20,197,437,000,000 in taxes the Treasury has collected during Obama’s first 91 full months in office equals approximately $133,216 per worker.
> 
> The $8,878,290,996,028.69 in additional debt the federal government incurred during Obama’s first 91 full months in office equals approximately $58,559 per worker.
> 
> During the first 91 full months George W. Bush was president (February 2001 through August 2008), according to the Monthly Treasury Statements, the Treasury collected approximately $16,205,198,000,000 in taxes. During those same 91 months, the debt rose from $5,716,070,587,057.36 to $9,645,725,555,640.02—an increase of $3,929,654,968,582.66.
> 
> From February 2001 (the first full month of George W. Bush’s presidency) through January 2009 (the month that Bush left office and Obama was inaugurated), the Treasury collected $17,251,191,000,000 in taxes.
> 
> Here, according to the numbers published in the Monthly Treasury Statements, are the total receipts the Treasury has brought during the 91 full months President Barack Obama has completed in office:
> 
> Feb. 2009-Sept. 2009: $1,330,887,000,000
> 
> Fiscal 2010: $2,161,728,000,000
> 
> Fiscal 2011: $2,302,495,000,000
> 
> Fiscal 2012: $2,449,093,000,000
> 
> Fiscal 2013: $2,774,011,000,000
> 
> Fiscal 2014: $3,020,371,000,000
> 
> Fiscal 2015: $3,248,701,000,000
> 
> Oct. 2015- August 2016: $2,910,151,000,000
> 
> 91 Month Total: $20,197,437,000,000


Just saw this and it reminded me of the tax vs spending argument. The figures here certainly show the problem is the amount of spending the federal government has done over the years. So utterly utterly wasteful.


----------



## Vic Capri

It was just one month ago many people were saying Donald Trump didn't have a chance of winning.

With scandals galore and health problems, the media turned on Hillary. We've seen a complete 180!

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/l...aminer: News From - 09/14/16&utm_medium=email



> The most explicit language was included in a May 18, 2016 email sent by Perkins Coie attorney Jacquelyn Lopez to staffers at the DNC, in which Lopez asked them to set up a call "to go over our process for handling donations from *donors who have given us pay to play letters."*


The Democrats in the Age of Obama are so arrogant and corrupt they're giving Harry Daugherty and the Ohio boys from Warren Harding's administration a run for their money. And they have a reason to be so arrogant, they know full well that the mainstream media has dropped all pretense of professionalism and is nothing more than the propaganda arm of their party.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










:kobelol


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Third and Fourth party candidates will never be taken seriously, because the MSM does not want them to be. If Jill Stein and Gary Johnson got the same amount of attention that the main two did, and if they were to be allowed to participate in the Presidential debates this year, both Clinton and Trump would suffer a noticeable loss of support. And the more people that jumped ship, the more interesting this election would get.

But we cannot have that, can we? :mj

























































And you people still think we have an actual say in who runs this country. :mj4


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Edit: This is wrong. There are several types of Bacterial Pneumonia. Some are contagious and some are not contagious. There's nothing wrong with this statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “It used to be that cars were made in Flint and you couldn’t drink the water in Mexico. And now the cars are made in Mexico and you can’t drink the water in Flint,” Trump said at the church. “It’s terrible.” - Trump
> 
> 
> 
> :banderas


Buried Obama and that great Flint line.. was hilarious!

If Gary Johnson wasn't an idiot he'd have more support. I don't even consider him to be a real libertarian.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I don't even consider him to be a real libertarian.


Thats because he isn't one


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> *Obama’s Tax Collections Surpass $20,000,000,000,000; Still Runs Up Debt by $8,878,290,996,028​*
> 
> 
> Just saw this and it reminded me of the tax vs spending argument. The figures here certainly show the problem is the amount of spending the federal government has done over the years. So utterly utterly wasteful.


You should be concerned about a Trump presidency if you are concerned about deficit spending. Thus far in the campaigning he has proposed huge spending for almost everyone while cutting tax revenue with nothing but 'I will create' or 'someone else will pay for it' assurances to balance the budget.

Ideologues from both side opposes austerity measures for different reasons, and even wants to increase spending to double down on things they believe, while propose cuts to things that won't hurt their votes but is still a vital function of government which could hurt the voters.

Hey maybe some of that federal spending would be reduced if the witch hunt over Bengazi didn't last for 2 years or using 40m to help Trump build a hotel.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Meme magic!


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Pratchett said:


> Third and Fourth party candidates will never be taken seriously, because the MSM does not want them to be. If Jill Stein and Gary Johnson got the same amount of attention that the main two did, and if they were to be allowed to participate in the Presidential debates this year, both Clinton and Trump would suffer a noticeable loss of support. And the more people that jumped ship, the more interesting this election would get.
> 
> But we cannot have that, can we? :mj
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you people still think we have an actual say in who runs this country. :mj4


Or it could just be that the ideas and candidates of the Green Party and the Libertarian Parties are actually not that popular :draper2

Well not could be that's the way it is. 

The Libertarians in particular have been around forever and are well known. They aren't fringe parties because the media doesn't give them the proper attention. They're fringe parties because people generally don't like their ideas or generally don't believe in their politicians.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If anyone wants to know how low the bar has been set by the media for Trump, him saying Obama is born in the United States is praise-worthy and made headlines.

fpalm


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

^At least he got praised for _something_. 

I can't even remember the last time even the pro-Hillary media praised her for anything at all. All they've been doing is damage control and shitting on Trump. 

:kobelol


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I can't believe it. We are just a few weeks away from the election and it looks like Trump is actually going to win this thing. 

I mean....good God. 

It really shows how inept Hillary's campaign has been when the mainstream media, entertainment world, and the most vocal areas of social media are either on her aside (or at least against Trump) and she STILL looks like she's going to lose. 

Of course being a crook doesn't help either.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/johnson-ron-paul-friend/



> *Gary Johnson Still Waiting for Ron Paul to Accept His Friend Request*
> 
> 
> 
> Several months after earning the Libertarian presidential nomination for a second time, *Gary Johnson* awaits news on perhaps an ever more important front: his pending Facebook friend request to former Congressman *Ron Paul*. The former New Mexico Governor is also awaiting an acceptance to get into the secret “Former Libertarian Presidential Nominees” group, of which Paul is an administrator.
> ​ Pressed for comment, Johnson assured interviewers that it was a mere oversight on Paul’s part. Since sending the request in January, the current LP nominee has messaged Dr. Paul on three different occasions. The first message read “Hey Ron! Just seeing if you got my friend request!” The next said only “Taxation is theft, amirite? Lol.” Finally the most recent asked Paul if he would be interested in going to see the new movie _Snowden_.​ Though each message contains a “seen” receipt, Johnson assured those inquiring that the messages must have gotten lost in Paul’s “other” box. Some have speculated that perhaps Paul is dismayed that Johnson changed his relationship status to “on a presidential ticket with Bill Weld.”​
> 
> Nonetheless, Johnson and Paul like many of the same Facebook interests, like “Bicycling,” “End the Fed,” and “Puppies.” That notwithstanding, their interactions on the social media platform have been few and far between. The most recent came when Johnson “checked in” at a Cheesecake Factory restaurant in August with running mate Weld. Paul commented only “#BakeTheCheesecake.”​


:kobelol


----------



## Vic Capri

A mod on another forum I frequent got all butthurt when I reminded people on there that a bunch of violent minorities almost turned San Jose turned into a war zone.

According to some liberals, facts are racist!

- Vic


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/johnson-ron-paul-friend/
> 
> 
> 
> :kobelol


Sad that the Libertarians had a chance to at least set a foundation for election in 4 years and this clown was who they chose.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Okay, which one of you anti-Trumpers here made this account? :lmao


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Okay, which one of you anti-Trumpers here made this account? :lmao


Can we just stop posting shit from Twitter? My view on humanity gets more cynical every time it happens


----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

From my experience that's just how a typical Jew reacts to Trump tbh.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Sad that the Libertarians had a chance to at least set a foundation for election in 4 years and this clown was who they chose.


It seems to me if there was ever an election for Libertarians to make a real impact on the general electorate, and actually get some momentum, this was the one. This was the one they had to come out swinging. And what do they do? They march out Gary fucking Johnson. :lmao fpalm


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Okay, which one of you anti-Trumpers here made this account? :lmao


a good old james taranto HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA is the best response to these losers getting overwrought and hysterical :heston


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

NVM.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> If anyone wants to know how low the bar has been set by the media for Trump, him saying Obama is born in the United States is praise-worthy and made headlines.
> 
> fpalm


It doesn't help Clinton is harping on the Birther thing when she in 2008 was using it. Tho now MSM is starting to talking about that too. Honestly I'm surprised with all the slinging of mud Clinton does that Trump didn't use Obama's own words against her.


----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Hillary is *DONE*.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> ^At least he got praised for _something_.
> 
> I can't even remember the last time even the pro-Hillary media praised her for anything at all. All they've been doing is damage control and shitting on Trump.
> 
> :kobelol


She's been praised for raising childcare issues throughout the campaign. (which the Trumps somehow co-op it as 'their' issue) But yeah, the media has finally come around to this important issue, what does Hillary stand for? They know Trump stands for the wall and xenophobia, but Hillary's campaign is a run-of-the-mill Stronger Together slogan. Most of her positions were Bernie Sander's. Paternity leave can only get you this far in connecting to voters.



TripleG said:


> I can't believe it. We are just a few weeks away from the election and it looks like Trump is actually going to win this thing.
> 
> I mean....good God.
> 
> It really shows how inept Hillary's campaign has been when the mainstream media, entertainment world, and the most vocal areas of social media are either on her aside (or at least against Trump) and she STILL looks like she's going to lose.
> 
> Of course being a crook doesn't help either.


Americans just want a change, and betting that Trump won't lead to utter chaos. As long as Trump don't act as a crazy man, Congress can reign him in. Best case scenario, you get a Thaksin Shinawatra who bring corruption to a whole other level but the world will go on until it gets exposed. Worst case, you get Duterte in the Philippines who encourage the people to enforce vigilante justice.



Miss Sally said:


> It doesn't help Clinton is harping on the Birther thing when she in 2008 was using it. Tho now MSM is starting to talking about that too. Honestly I'm surprised with all the slinging of mud Clinton does that Trump didn't use Obama's own words against her.


This is reaching. Her supporters started it during the 2008 campaign but her campaign and herself dropped this issue long ago. Trump perpetuated the issue for years to enter politics. Where is the 'unbelievable information' his investigators found on Obama almost 5 years ago? It is as credible as him not releasing his taxes due to an audit.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Can we just stop posting shit from Twitter? My view on humanity gets more cynical every time it happens


The "news" likes to highlight this bullcrap from both sides, never mentioning the fact that tweeters like this (and her right wing counterparts) are severely mentally ill.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/16/12941790/donald-trump-commercial-birther-speech-cable-news-media

Seriously how do people think someone like this is actually fit for president? You wouldn't like it if your boss summons you for an important meeting, and you made appropriate preparations for it, only to have it turn out to be a sales pitch on some product or services from another of her company.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> This is reaching. Her supporters started it during the 2008 campaign but her campaign and herself dropped this issue long ago. Trump perpetuated the issue for years to enter politics. Where is the 'unbelievable information' his investigators found on Obama almost 5 years ago? It is as credible as him not releasing his taxes due to an audit.


What's this matter? If she started it and used it she cannot chastise anyone else for it unless she herself comes out and says it was a mistake on her campaigns part. Instead she's acting like she had nothing to do with it, she calls it racist so since her campaign started it she must therefore be racist. Or is this going to be like the super predator thing, "Oh it was said in the past so therefore it doesn't count now" type of logic? The hypocrisy is astounding.

So no it's not reaching, Trump has declared Obama to be born in the US so according to "leftists" and the MSM based on how they defend Hilary all should be forgiven!


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> What's this matter? If she started it and used it she cannot chastise anyone else for it unless she herself comes out and says it was a mistake on her campaigns part. Instead she's acting like she had nothing to do with it, she calls it racist so since her campaign started it she must therefore be racist. Or is this going to be like the super predator thing, "Oh it was said in the past so therefore it doesn't count now" type of logic? The hypocrisy is astounding.
> 
> So no it's not reaching, Trump has declared Obama to be born in the US so according to "leftists" and the MSM based on how they defend Hilary all should be forgiven!


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/birther-movement-founder-trump-clinton-228304

You are being disingenuous attempting to pin the movement to Hillary when it has been Trump using the movement, which was a front for racism, for years to get a following to enter politics.

Using your logic, Trump cannot chastise anyone for the Iraq war because he supported it before the war as well. :lol


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/birther-movement-founder-trump-clinton-228304
> 
> You are being disingenuous attempting to pin the movement to Hillary when it has been Trump using the movement, which was a front for racism, for years to get a following to enter politics.
> 
> Using your logic, Trump cannot chastise anyone for the Iraq war because he supported it before the war as well. :lol


Big difference being that a flippant remark on Howard Stern does not equate to or hold nearly the same influence as an actual vote on the Senate floor. As with the birther stuff, Hillary was in office as a Senator, when she looked the other way while her campaign cooked up ways to take down Obama. It's all readily available in black and white for those willing to do just a little digging.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Fringe said:


> Big difference being that a flippant remark on Howard Stern does not equate to or hold nearly the same influence as an actual vote on the Senate floor. As with the birther stuff, Hillary was in office as a Senator, when she looked the other way while her campaign cooked up ways to take down Obama. It's all readily available in black and white for those willing to do just a little digging.


Typical Trump defence when called out on his lies. Pleading ignorance or frivolity if he said something that don't fit the narrative, yet praise other equally flippant remarks as something praiseworthy if it fits their narrative. Few would use his stance on Iraq against him if he hasn't kept using that as an example of his brilliant foresight against the field. 

Did her campaign ultimately use birther stuff as a big talking point? Did Trump continue to question Obama's birthplace even after he released his birth certificate? I want to do a little more digging on this 'unbelievable information' Trump supposedly obtained about Obama, but no one has posted it online yet.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Meme magic!


Hillary at a sports store opening apparently? Aiming high...


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The election is over, guys. Trump has won.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> http://www.vox.com/2016/9/16/12941790/donald-trump-commercial-birther-speech-cable-news-media
> 
> Seriously how do people think someone like this is actually fit for president? You wouldn't like it if your boss summons you for an important meeting, and you made appropriate preparations for it, only to have it turn out to be a sales pitch on some product or services from another of her company.


I'm not sure what kind of activity you think you've stumbled onto but that's called politics. Genius politics. 

The media has openly either said it is out for :trump or ruminated about how it's probably okay for journalists to be do whatever they feel like to hurt :trump 's chances. 

The media is also the most distrusted and disliked it has ever been in this country. 

Manipulating it in such a naked fashion is a big fuck-you to a bunch of people 70% of the country thinks needs a big fuck-you. That :trump , always taking the angle that resonates.



CamillePunk said:


> The election is over, guys. Trump has won.


keith jackson says whoah nellie


----------



## Chloe

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Just popped into the thread to say that it's amusing to see some fucking goofballs who obviously have no idea what they're talking about try and argue with dudes like Reaper and Gandhi about Islam and its ideology. Like are you actually serious? These motherfuckers have lived what are you trying to speak on and you think you're more informed? :lmao

Try and tell people who have lived in the Islam dominated world what it's all about when you're probably some white dude in America brehs.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> keith jackson says whoah nellie


I'm serious. :draper2 He's going to win by a significant margin. Hillary collapsed at the 9/11 memorial while Trump is doing everything everyone ever claimed they wanted him to do (and the media is attacking him for it, tanking their credibility even further). He's staying on-message, avoiding significant gaffes, actually preempted her on childcare and eldercare while she was incapacitated - which was masterful, and the results are beginning to bear out in these battleground polls, which don't even account for the obvious, enormous enthusiasm gap between Trump supporters and Clinton supporters, or the fact that Trump has many closet supporters. The debates can't hurt him since the bar of expectations for him is so low - and so high for Hillary, and if Clinton has just one coughing fit during the debates you might as well swear him in right there on the stage.

It's time for people to get familiar with the idea of President Trump.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I'm serious. :draper2 He's going to win by a significant margin. Hillary collapsed at the 9/11 memorial while Trump is doing everything everyone ever claimed they wanted him to do (and the media is attacking him for it, tanking their credibility even further). He's staying on-message, avoiding significant gaffes, actually preempted her on childcare and eldercare while she was incapacitated - which was masterful, and the results are beginning to bear out in these battleground polls, which don't even account for the obvious, enormous enthusiasm gap between Trump supporters and Clinton supporters, or the fact that Trump has many closet supporters. The debates can't hurt him since the bar of expectations for him is so low - and so high for Hillary, and if Clinton has just one coughing fit during the debates you might as well swear him in right there on the stage.
> 
> It's time for people to get familiar with the idea of President Trump.













I am not sure the fat lady has sung yet but you're right about Trump having closet supporters and all his current supporters will being going out of their way to vote and get others to vote. Hilldog seems to be losing steam and her voter base is demoralized, the Democrats have fucked over themselves with their racist emails, have relied way to much on blacks falling in line with white libs and underestimated Trump.

It will be a close election maybe if she wins or a blow out if he wins. While not saying the polls are rigged it is odd that Trump rallies are full yet Hilary rallies are empty. Even DT jr draws a decent crowd. Hilary is having to play catch up on the issues, has her mud slinging backfire on her and has caused more and more people to become apathetic or angry at the MSM.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It was always the Republican's election to lose. The last time a major party held the presidency for more than 2 terms was the first Bush. It is the incompetence of both major parties that we ended up with Trump vs Hillary.

After the DNC, anti-Hillary democrats won't vote for her or vote third party in protest while neverTrump republicans will find excuses to vote for him in the end. Bruiser and BM in this thread is a good anecdote example of these type of voters. It was only due to Trump's incompetence that gave us that huge swing in the polling the weeks after the DNC. It might have been a blessing in disguise for Trump because it pushed the Mercers to finally decide enough is enough and billed out Trump's pathetic national campaign to prevent a Hillary presidency.

But even now Trump can't help himself, distorting the incident with the pastor at Flint to make himself out as the victim. Just like the incident with Mexico's president, Trump was meek in the face of the people he was trashing, and then went full bluster after the fact when not around them to trash them.

Trump is now the puppet of the Mercers special interests. The same special interests that made Cruz so frightening to support.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is winning, Tofu is raging...I feel real good about life! 

(JK Tofu Luv U)


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I ain't raging. Just scared as hell about what a Trump presidency will result in.

There is already a preview with Duterte of the Philippines.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Quinnipiac poll shows presidential race tightening nationally
> 
> In an ever-tightening, increasingly negative presidential campaign, a new national poll by Quinnipiac University shows Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump are virtually tied when third-party candidates are included in the race.
> 
> The poll found Clinton ahead by only 2 percentage points when the margin of error is 3.2 points — meaning the race is too close to call.
> 
> In a one-on-one matchup, Clinton leads Trump by 5 percentage points — half of her previous lead. Clinton, the former Secretary of State, had been leading Trump by 10 percentage points in a head-to-head poll by Quinnipiac that was released on Aug. 25.
> 
> But Clinton’s lead dissipated when two lesser-known candidates — Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party — were included in the poll in a four-way race.
> 
> The latest survey of likely voters showed that both major candidates have exceedingly high negative ratings, and many voters say they will be casting ballots against one of them — rather than chiefly voting in favor of a candidate.
> 
> The race has been tightening at a time of concern and increased media reports about Clinton’s health. A widely circulated videotape showed Clinton stumbling as she attempted to enter a van after leaving a ceremony in lower Manhattan on the 15th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Her campaign announced later that she had been diagnosed by her Westchester County personal physician with pneumonia.
> 
> “No doubt the pneumonia will pass, but like a nagging cough that just won’t go away, Donald Trump defies every remedy Hillary Clinton throws at him,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. “It’s the definition of ‘damned by faint praise’ _ a presidential contest where a vote for a candidate is less an endorsement of that candidate than a stinging rejection of his or her opponent.”
> 
> Malloy continued, “Priority one for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as the election looms: lure the cynical, disaffected, downright disgusted electorate into their camp. That’s no mean feat as clouds of distrust loom over both campaigns.”
> 
> The Quinnipiac poll showed that 54 percent of Clinton voters said they were primarily opposing Trump, and only 32 percent “say they are mainly voting for Clinton.”
> 
> In the same way, 66 percent of Trump’s supporters said they were primarily opposing Clinton, and only 23 percent were chiefly supporting Trump.
> 
> In a year with the two major candidates with the highest negatives in modern presidential history, 52 percent of independents said they would “consider voting” for a third-party candidate.
> 
> The highest among those voters were young people ages 18 to 34 at 62 percent. Only 21 percent of those over 65 said they would consider voting for a minor-party candidate.
> 
> The poll shows that the electorate is clearly divided in a tight race. Trump leads among white voters and men, while Clinton leads among non-white voters and women.
> 
> Democrats overwhelmingly back Clinton at 92 percent, while 86 percent of Republicans and 45 percent of independents back Trump. Another 40 percent of independents back Clinton, while the rest support third-party candidates.
> 
> “Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton may be King and Queen of the prom, but they are showing up solo and their dance cards are blank,” said Malloy. “The winner who waltzes at the Inaugural Ball will be the candidate who finally gets the other kids to like him or her.”
> 
> The national poll was taken between Sept. 8 and Tuesday, and likely voters were surveyed on both cellphones and landlines.
> 
> Earlier Wednesday, a new poll by Bloomberg Politics showed that Trump is ahead by 5 percentage points in the key battleground state of Ohio. Numerous political pundits say that Trump will have major difficulty winning the election if he cannot win in Ohio.
> 
> For years, Ohio has been a key swing state in the Rust Belt that helps determine the national outcome.
> 
> Democrat Barack Obama won Ohio in 2008 and 2012 on his way to nationwide victories, and Republican George W. Bush won the state in both 2000 and 2004.
> 
> Some polls have showed the race tightening recently after Clinton was sharply criticized for saying in widely quoted remarks that essentially half of Trump’s supporters are “a basket of deplorables.”
> 
> 
> http://www.crescent-news.com/on_the...cle_c7a4677d-0788-5bbb-b72a-64b22f5b55ad.html


People claiming that this was "The repub's election to lose" are absolutely fucking nuts. Trump was a man that came up largely as an independent ticket that plowed through the republican primaries and it wasn't just because his candidates were weak. When propped up by the GOP support, whether a candidate is weak or not doesn't matter to the extent that people tend to think it does. The populist nature of elections and party support by individuals ensures that even weak candidates have a chance. This wasn't just because the Republicans fielded shit candidates, but because Trump had a very basic framework of what people wanted to hear especially on the GOP side. Now back then Trump was uncouth and vulgar, but since winning he has essentially tightened himself up and become increasingly presidential in both his demeanor and his statements. Yes, he still has that mean streak, but tbh I'd rather have a president with a mean streak than someone that pussy foots the PC line. 

On the flip, it was really the Dem's election to lose after Trump got the nomination. He was down by about 10-12 points at one point before Clinton herself completely aligned the dems with the extreme SJW left and started talking shit about the alt-right and Pepe the frog. Like are you fucking kidding me? Who the fuck is running her campaign right now because who ever it is is responsible for this fiasco as much if not more than Clinton herself. This election should have been clearly in the dem's pockets right now. 

And anyone not seeing the change in Trump, his campaign and his messages is clearly blind. While I still disagree with the alt-right alignment with Trump and Mike Pence, at least I can see that they haven't overrun his campaign with bullshit provacative tactics doing more damage to his campaign than the idiots running Hillary's did to hers. The shit that's come of the Clinton camp the last few weeks is shit straight out of the mouths of a Tumblrina twat and not what you'd want to hear from a presidential candidate. Meanwhile Trump has barely said anything that negative at all. 

What a fucking switch. People are not stupid. This idea that American voters are stupid needs to die. Each camp thinks that the others' camp is stupid and while that might be true to an extent, the American voter still remains more intelligent and aware of certain issues than voters in a lot of other countries. Despite the fact that Hillary has more media support, more celebrity support, more athlete support, more influential endorsement than Trump ever got, her being down right now is a testament to the voter intelligence and ability to see through the bullshit facade so if anything Americans should be proud of themselves right now.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It was the Republican's election to lose. You can deny it all you want but history and voter sentiments were all in favour of a GOP winner. Only Trump made it competitive because of how historically divisive he is. You are comparing polling results in two months to say it was Dem's election to lose compared to historical analysis and the difference in voter sentiments about the importance of this election between conservative and liberal voters.

Hillary lead was cut because her campaign choose the wrong strategy of waiting out the clock after the sizeable lead. Not the result of some alt-right fantasy that mentioning them or aligning with the SJW more prominently cause Hillary to lose support. They thought the historic unlikeability of Trump will ease them towards the finish line, forgetting that Hillary is a close second behind Trump in people not liking her.

There is no change in Trump. He didn't change, he is just being babysitted by the Mercers' handlers. It is easy to notice when he is left to his own device, he goes back to his usual way. The Fox interview with regards to the Flint pastor was just another example of how he has not changed.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Someone that just compared Trump to a potential cold blooded killer (and not just as a meme or joke) has absolutely no credibility to comment on what he think about the candidates at all. Either of them. 

With your Duterte comparison, you've lost pretty much whatever little credibility you had to have your comments taken seriously in this thread.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If you don't see similarities in their approaches and campaigning then that's on you. Guess you need a safe space when confronted with uncomfortable facts that don't fit your narrative.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> If you don't see similarities in their approaches and campaigning then that's on you. Guess you need a safe space when confronted with uncomfortable facts that don't fit your narrative.


There are no similarity between Trump and a killer. 

You've lost the argument so many times that now you're resorting to comparing him to a killer. 

"need a safe space" :kobelol 

Keep digging.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> There are no similarity between Trump and a killer.
> 
> You've lost the argument so many times that now you're resorting to comparing him to a killer.
> 
> "need a safe space" :kobelol
> 
> Keep digging.


What argument did I lose again? That Trump has changed? His hostility towards the media, inability to not take a swipe at people that points out his lies or criticises him, and continued lying on the campaign just repeated itself again the past few days. You are the one that lost the argument and tried to discredit me with an ad hominem argument.

Why is Duterte only a killer to you? Isn't he also a conservative firebrand that won an election on a hyper macho personality and populist ticket?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> What argument did I lose again? That Trump has changed? His hostility towards the media, inability to not take a swipe at people that points out his lies or criticises him, and continued lying on the campaign just repeated itself again the past few days. You are the one that lost the argument and tried to discredit me with an ad hominem argument.
> 
> Why is Duterte only a killer to you? Isn't he also a conservative firebrand that won an election on a hyper macho personality and populist ticket?


And why doesn't the fact that he's a killer and an advocate of extra judicial killings not enough of a difference to realize that there is no comparison between the two? As I pointed out to two other people in this thread just because a table as four legs and an elephant as four legs doesn't make them the same. But I don't expect people with an agenda to acknowledge that to actually make a comparison you have to look at things that go beyond very cursory surface comparisons--- the kind of comparisons that while can be made aren't deep enough to warrant a comparison in the first place. That's like that age old riddle where an elephant has a trunk and a car has a trunk therefore a car is the same as an elephant kind of comparison :kobelol 

You wanted to compare the fact that Duterte is a killer and you've alluded to the fact that you think that Trump is the second coming of the anti-christ that will lead the world to its destruction several times. Therefore your comparison wasn't to the populist conservatism of Duterte. Now you're back peddling but still making illogical comparisons. American conservatism is nothing like conservatism in the eastern world. Nothing.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I ain't raging. Just scared as hell about what a Trump presidency will result in.
> 
> There is already a preview with Duterte of the Philippines.


You don't live in the US. Think of is as like viewing a couple, whatever goes on their bedroom and house is their business, not for you to worry about it. >


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> You don't live in the US. Think of is as like viewing a couple, whatever goes on their bedroom and house is their business, not for you to worry about it. >


Thanks for confirming this. I had a feeling this guy wasn't an American. 

I didn't know half as much about america 2.5 years ago lol. FB memories has a great way of reminding me that 4-5 years ago, I was just as ignorant as some other non-Americans in this thread about American politics - and especially conservatism. Some people from some parts of the world where they've been completely brainwashed by the extreme left have literally no business commenting on the American brand of conservatism because they've been trained meticulously to view it as innately evil.

This is why you get shit comparisons between cold-blooded killers in the eastern world and Americans. They have no clue how to actually even compare, let alone are so far removed from the reality of things that they have their own versions of what American conservatism is like.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Thanks for confirming this. I had a feeling this guy wasn't an American.
> 
> I didn't know half as much about america 2.5 years ago lol. FB memories has a great way of reminding me that 4-5 years ago, I was just as ignorant as some other non-Americans in this thread about American politics - and especially conservatism. Some people from some parts of the world where they've been completely brainwashed by the extreme left have literally no business commenting on the American brand of conservatism because they've been trained meticulously to view it as innately evil.
> 
> This is why you get shit comparisons between cold-blooded killers in the eastern world and Americans. They have no clue how to actually even compare, let alone are so far removed from the reality of things that they have their own versions of what American conservatism is like.


Yup I'm mostly teasing him but never understood why why non-Americans say Americans are so arrogant think they're so great yadda yadda but when an election comes up they want to decide what America should do and the election will have such a big impact! So what is it non-Americans? Also still don't understand how any Europeans can take the high road, their countries are bombing the fuck out of the Mid East too.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Yup I'm mostly teasing him but never understood why why non-Americans say Americans are so arrogant think they're so great yadda yadda but when an election comes up they want to decide what America should do and the election will have such a big impact! So what is it non-Americans? Also still don't understand how any Europeans can take the high road, their countries are bombing the fuck out of the Mid East too.


I'm more than willing to give foreigners the benefit of the doubt as long as they're willing to listen. There's plenty of good commentators on the American system that are foreigners that know more than the average american and I will defer to them if they exhibit better knowledge. 

I'm still only learning about the American system. I'm no authority, but after coming here I've realized that the American government is actually a very complex creature - much more so than any other government I've experienced and much more so than I was told about while I was still in those foreign countries. 

I've been ignoring Tofu for the most part - and I'm even willing to give him credit for certain things he's posted - but at the same time, I don't get why in good conscience someone would continue to make the killer argument for Trump when he has absolutely no such history and his support for wars is far less obvious than his opponents. You compare apples to apples. With Hillary we have a full blown history of supporting not only covert operations, but actually being involved in war crimes of her own. Even if you create this hypothetical where Trump might become the second reincarnation of Hitler, you still have to take into consideration that Hillary is already a war criminal. The hypothetical cannot be used to compare to the actual. 

The problem is that people like Tofu have created this insane hypothetical in their heads about what Trump's presidency is going to be like and turned into into a reality. What hasn't happened yet is more real to them than what is already happening - and that is the very definition of bias.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I'm more than willing to give foreigners the benefit of the doubt as long as they're willing to listen. There's plenty of good commentators on the American system that are foreigners that know more than the average american and I will defer to them if they exhibit better knowledge.
> 
> I'm still only learning about the American system. I'm no authority, but after coming here I've realized that the American government is actually a very complex creature - much more so than any other government I've experienced and much more so than I was told about while I was still in those foreign countries.
> 
> I've been ignoring Tofu for the most part - and I'm even willing to give him credit for certain things he's posted - but at the same time, I don't get why in good conscience someone would continue to make the killer argument for Trump when he has absolutely no such history and his support for wars is far less obvious than his opponents. You compare apples to apples. With Hillary we have a full blown history of supporting not only covert operations, but actually being involved in war crimes of her own. Even if you create this hypothetical where Trump might become the second reincarnation of Hitler, you still have to take into consideration that Hillary is already a war criminal. The hypothetical cannot be used to compare to the actual.
> 
> The problem is that people like Tofu have created this insane hypothetical in their heads about what Trump's presidency is going to be like and turned into into a reality. What hasn't happened yet is more real to them than what is already happening - and that is the very definition of bias.


I see it like someone standing in front of their burning house but is more worried about a possible tornado because the sky is a little dark.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> And why doesn't the fact that he's a killer and an advocate of extra judicial killings not enough of a difference to realize that there is no comparison between the two? As I pointed out to two other people in this thread just because a table as four legs and an elephant as four legs doesn't make them the same. But I don't expect people with an agenda to acknowledge that to actually make a comparison you have to look at things that go beyond very cursory surface comparisons--- the kind of comparisons that while can be made aren't deep enough to warrant a comparison in the first place. That's like that age old riddle where an elephant has a trunk and a car has a trunk therefore a car is the same as an elephant kind of comparison :kobelol
> 
> You wanted to compare the fact that Duterte is a killer and you've alluded to the fact that you think that Trump is the second coming of the anti-christ that will lead the world to its destruction several times. Therefore your comparison wasn't to the populist conservatism of Duterte. Now you're back peddling but still making illogical comparisons. American conservatism is nothing like conservatism in the eastern world. Nothing.


I am comparing them because they share the same contempt for international rules and norms, appeal to a populist movement, talks in a macho way that offends leaving their staff to backtrack later, incites vigilante violence with their words and so on and on.

Yet you cling to one assumption you made on your part in me only associating them because Dutere is a more extreme version of Trump to ignore any comparisons. Seems like I need to add Dutere to the list of trigger warning when conversing with you from now on.



Miss Sally said:


> You don't live in the US. Think of is as like viewing a couple, whatever goes on their bedroom and house is their business, not for you to worry about it. >


Like it or not the US is the world leader and whatever happens in your backyard has serious repercussions for all of us. You are the boss of us, we can only worry but helpless to do anything. Well except to find a new boss in China or Russia which is even scarier for most of us. :/


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I am comparing them because they share the same contempt for international rules and norms, appeal to a populist movement, talks in a macho way that offends leaving their staff to backtrack later, incites vigilante violence with their words and so on and on.
> 
> Yet you cling to one assumption you made on your part in me only associating them because Dutere is a more extreme version of Trump to ignore any comparisons. Seems like I need to add Dutere to the list of trigger warning when conversing with you from now on.
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not the US is the world leader and whatever happens in your backyard has serious repercussions for all of us. You are the boss of us, we can only worry but helpless to do anything. Well except to find a new boss in China or Russia which is even scarier for most of us. :/


Now I wish Russia or China would become the new #1 power. US get's left alone, everyone else has to deal with China. :sleep


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I'm serious. :draper2 He's going to win by a significant margin. Hillary collapsed at the 9/11 memorial while Trump is doing everything everyone ever claimed they wanted him to do (and the media is attacking him for it, tanking their credibility even further). He's staying on-message, avoiding significant gaffes, actually preempted her on childcare and eldercare while she was incapacitated - which was masterful, and the results are beginning to bear out in these battleground polls, which don't even account for the obvious, enormous enthusiasm gap between Trump supporters and Clinton supporters, or the fact that Trump has many closet supporters. The debates can't hurt him since the bar of expectations for him is so low - and so high for Hillary, and if Clinton has just one coughing fit during the debates you might as well swear him in right there on the stage.
> 
> It's time for people to get familiar with the idea of President Trump.





Miss Sally said:


> It will be a close election maybe if she wins or a blow out if he wins. While not saying the polls are rigged it is odd that Trump rallies are full yet Hilary rallies are empty. Even DT jr draws a decent crowd. Hilary is having to play catch up on the issues, has her mud slinging backfire on her and has caused more and more people to become apathetic or angry at the MSM.



Sorry but....nop.

Hillary still has a lead of likely at least 40 delegates over Trump.

To win Trump not only need to hold his marginal recent adventage in some states like Florida and North Carolina, which would make the debates crucial. But he also at least needs to turn two of the current likely democrats wins like Colorado, New Hampshire, Nevada or Pensilvania in a combination like Colorado/Nevada or NH/Pensilvania to match Hillary. Which seeing what he has done in the last month is a real possibility but also can go to other side as he has been up and down and hasn't have a real stedy tendency for sure in this election to predict a real pattern.

The two high possibilities for this are Nevada and New Hampshire, specially this last one where the possibility of one single vote deciding the outcome is bigger.

If anything a win for Trump have something like 2/5 odds at this rate, and would be for something like 10 or 20 delegates, 40 or 50 at the very best. But the chances of a landslide in Trumps's favor are laughable.

Rally attendances are meaningless because that is a biased sample source and rabid support isn't conducting of votting tendencies in the general population. Unless, of course, you have a rally where more than half of likely votters of a state go


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu;62722577[B said:


> ]I am comparing them because they share the same contempt for international rules and norms[/B], appeal to a populist movement, talks in a macho way that offends leaving their staff to backtrack later, incites vigilante violence with their words and so on and on.
> 
> Yet you cling to one assumption you made on your part in me only associating them because Dutere is a more extreme version of Trump to ignore any comparisons. Seems like I need to add Dutere to the list of trigger warning when conversing with you from now on.


Horses are mammals. Horses have four legs. Horses have a mouth. Are they lions? No because lions eat horses but horses don't eat lions. Is there a valid comparison between a horse and a lion? Do you even know how to actually compare things the way they're supposed to be compared. All the evidence points to the contrary. 

If you can't use simple rules of logic, why are you still having a conversation with me. 

What makes you think I'm offended by your comparison. If anything I'm offended by your inability to logic but that offense doesn't require me to need a safe space. We're here in this platform conversing aren't we? Neither you, nor I have run off. I'm countering your bad ideas with my ideas even if I'm doing so in a highly condescending manner like I'm talking to someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. 

You don't even know how to use "Trigger warnings" and "safe space" rebuttals in the right context. Just throwing the words in there doesn't mean that you've used them correctly or that they even apply. You don't know how to make valid comparisons. And you think that we should listen to you. Are you still holding on to the time when I said that you're regurgitating an SJW argument when that's exactly what you did? :kobelol 



> Like it or not the US is the world leader and whatever happens in your backyard has serious repercussions for all of us. You are the boss of us, we can only worry but helpless to do anything. Well except to find a new boss in China or Russia which is even scarier for most of us. :/


Then stop your leaders from following American leaders. Ask your countrymen and your governments to develop the required backbones. Meanwhile here we are trying to keep a warhawk, a war criminal, a corporate shill and someone who takes donations from Saudi monarchs from getting elected. What are you doing in your country? Clearly not much if you still believe that whatever America does has an impact in your country. There are several countries out there that have remained unaffected by America's actions. It's not our fault that your country's leaders are likely hobos who chase money when they see it. Nah. Only American governments are the ones leading everyone else in corruption. The rest of the world just follows because they have no choice in the matter at all. 

:kobelol



asdf0501 said:


> Sorry but....nop.
> 
> Hillary still has a lead of likely at least 40 delegates over Trump.
> 
> To win Trump not only need to hold his marginal recent adventage in some states like Florida and North Carolina, which would make the debates crucial. But he also at least needs to turn two of the current likely democrats wins like Colorado, New Hampshire, Nevada or Pensilvania in a combination like Colorado/Nevada or NH/Pensilvania to match Hillary. Which seeing what he has done in the last month is a real possibility but also can go to other side as he has been up and down and hasn't have a real stedy tendency for sure in this election to predict a real pattern.
> 
> The two high possibilities for this are Nevada and New Hampshire, specially this last one where the possibility of one single vote deciding the outcome is bigger.
> 
> If anything a win for Trump have something like 2/5 odds at this rate, and would be for something like 10 or 20 delegates, 40 or 50 at the very best. But the chances of a landslide in Trumps's favor are laughable.
> 
> Rally attendances are meaningless because that is a biased sample source and rabid support isn't conducting of votting tendencies in the general population. Unless, of course, you have a rally where more than half of likely votters of a state go


Correction: Her lead has shrunk to 18. 

Electoral college has gone from 83% to 60% in favor of Clinton. It's not going to be a blow-out for Trump I agree. However, what was once a clear blowout for Clinton around the time of the muslim soldier's dad fiasco has now tightened to a close race ... Much closer than it was supposed to be. Whether people admit it or not, Clinton's health is what turned the tide and if she has any bouts during the debates, she's essentially done. Americans don't want an unhealthy president. They'll accept a lot, but when it comes to a president's health, it's pretty much a done deal. Most people when asked whether it's about the health or not will lie, but the evidence is in Clinton's lead shrinking and the popular vote as well as much of the electoral vote swinging in favor of Trump is all the evidence you really need. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN11M2A4

If the election was decided via popular vote, Clinton is now losing. Even Quinnipac polls have Trump possibly ahead (based on error of margin) and so far they were showing the popular vote clearly in favor of Clinton.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't dispute anything of that. 

Which i'm saying is that Clinton still has the lead, and some of Trumps adventages are on marginal points because are states he turned around recently, which mean it could still go to Clinton unless we talk about a stedy tendency which is highly possibly in NC or Florida, but is still such a marginal adventage that it could likely turn in a month. Trump insulted a veteran's dad and everyone said it was done, given the fluctuant trajectory of Trump is difficult to predict he will keep rising, specially in a race given to blunders like this, and this aplly to both candidates. The odds of a Hillary win were rising again to a big landslide the week before the health colapse even when Trump was acting in a more mature and measure way for example.

In a normal race both gaffers (the health issue and the Trump horrible mont post conventions) would be the end, the problem is both candidates have such a negative image, any gaffer re-inforce negative perception and easily turn the perception around because there is no pre-concive rational notion to defend at a party level like it normally happens. And this is supported by the big turmoil both candidates have in their own party.

Trump can win Nevada which is at his stake now, still he needs to add a likely democrat state to get the adventage which is difficult, gven that he need a big state like Pensilvania or Michigan to win. He also need to keep Florida at all costs.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Sorry but....nop.
> 
> Hillary still has a lead of likely at least 40 delegates over Trump.
> 
> To win Trump not only need to hold his marginal recent adventage in some states like Florida and North Carolina, which would make the debates crucial. But he also at least needs to turn two of the current likely democrats wins like Colorado, New Hampshire, Nevada or Pensilvania in a combination like Colorado/Nevada or NH/Pensilvania to match Hillary. Which seeing what he has done in the last month is a real possibility but also can go to other side as he has been up and down and hasn't have a real stedy tendency for sure in this election to predict a real pattern.
> 
> The two high possibilities for this are Nevada and New Hampshire, specially this last one where the possibility of one single vote deciding the outcome is bigger.
> 
> If anything a win for Trump have something like 2/5 odds at this rate, and would be for something like 10 or 20 delegates, 40 or 50 at the very best. But the chances of a landslide in Trumps's favor are laughable.
> 
> Rally attendances are meaningless because that is a biased sample source and rabid support isn't conducting of votting tendencies in the general population. Unless, of course, you have a rally where more than half of likely votters of a state go


I was talking about popular vote, nothing else. So yep.


----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Nate Silver is getting nervous~!












FriedTofu said:


> I ain't raging. Just scared as hell about what a Trump presidency will result in.
> 
> There is already a preview with Duterte of the Philippines.


Fam what are you scared of? You have nothing to fear unless you're a filthy globalist.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/trumps-polling-surge-is-turning-into-a-wave/



> *Trump’s Polling “Surge” Is Turning Into A “Wave”*
> 
> Two weeks ago, some pundits began talking about a Trump “surge.” Suddenly, that surge is looking like a full-fledged “wave.”
> In one battleground after another, the billionaire real estate mogul is opening up a lead over Hillary Clinton – or making that state’s race competitive again. He’s also beating Clinton in several of the latest national polls. Mainstream pundits are reeling from the shock.
> Take Ohio. Three straight polls now find Trump with a solid single-digit lead. Trump has closed the gap with women to low single-digits while preserving his robust double-digit lead among men. And Trump’s leading among college-educated and non-college educated voters alike. That’s a real sea-change.
> The same is happening in Florida where the latest poll has Trump up by three. Trump’s also narrowed Clinton’s lead among Hispanics. Remember the Trump “pivot” on immigration? It looks like it might be working.
> 
> 
> Florida and Ohio are quadrennial battleground states; typically, they are close. But the former reality TV star is also winning in Iowa and narrowing the gap with Clinton in Blue-trending states like Colorado, Nevada and Virginia.
> In Virginia, Clinton was so confident of victory that she’d canceled her planned ad buys and was beginning to close down field offices. And Colorado, a key Southwestern swing state, seemed to be sewn up, too. The former First Lady once had strong double digit leads in both states.
> No longer. In fact, despite the advice of some Republicans, Trump is determined to keep fighting for the Commonwealth State. The latest poll showing him trailing by just three points seems to vindicate that decision.
> There’s also strong evidence that Clinton’s efforts to vie for traditional Red States like Utah, Arizona and Georgia are foundering. The latest poll in the Peach State shows Trump up by six, and in Arizona, Clinton is trailing by 5. In Utah, he’s close to twenty points ahead.
> On a CNN panel Wednesday night, pro-Clinton pundits insisted that Clinton is still leading the race and that any Trump gains are due to recent stumbles on their candidate’s part — not on the success of Trump’s own campaign.
> But the two trends are closely related. Clinton has suffered body blows due to the continuing drip-drip of scandal surrounding her emails and the Clinton Foundation. But Trump is gaining in his own right, consolidating support among Republicans and wooing independents with a strong shift in his campaign messaging and tactics.
> 
> *Clinton supporters insist that the basic electoral math still favors their candidate. It’s true in one key respect: Trump’s path to victory is narrower than his rival’s.*
> *Trump will need to win Florida, Ohio and North Carolina, hold on to the Red states, and flip a Blue-trending state like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Virginia to have a real shot at victory.*
> *The problem for Clinton? Trump is doing just that. In fact, he may end up flipping more than one of those three states. Add Nevada, and maybe even Maine, Rhode Island, and New Jersey, where Trump only trails by low single-digits in each case, and he will easily surpass Clinton – maybe achieving a minor “landslide.”*
> 
> 
> There are three big factors that are beginning to favor Trump.
> 
> *1. One is that Republicans are registering more new voters than Democrats are – by a wide margin.*
> 
> *2. Second is the “enthusiasm gap.” Republicans are simply more excited about voting for their candidate. That could easily translate into higher turn-out for Trump at the ballot box.*
> 
> 
> 3. *And third, and perhaps more ominously, **a much higher share of voters now believe that Trump can win. *One recent poll found that Clinton had only a 43%-40% lead among respondents on the issue of who was more likely to win the presidency. In the past, Clinton led more than 2-1 on this score.
> In sports, commentators often talk about the “Big Mo” – referring to which team seems to have the overarching momentum. Right now, Trump does, and his head of steam is still building, just ten days before the first – and probably the most decisive – nationally televised presidential debate on September 26th.
> Clinton needs to stem Trump’s tide – and do it quickly.
> Otherwise, the former First Lady could find herself before a nationally televised audience on the defensive — and desperate for a Trump gaffe to rescue what’s looking right now like a fast-fading candidacy.
> 
> ​​


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I ain't raging. Just scared as hell about what a Trump presidency will result in.
> 
> There is already a preview with Duterte of the Philippines.


When :trump is responsible responsible for 3000+ deaths the way Duterte is come back with that comparison.

It's ridiculous some of the things being said like this and all it does is help :trump


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> It was always the Republican's election to lose.


:heston


----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hot take: Rodrigo Duterte, in the grand scheme of things, has done nothing wrong.

The only good dealer is a dead dealer.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Reaper said:


> ^At least he got praised for _something_.
> 
> I can't even remember the last time even the pro-Hillary media praised her for anything at all. All they've been doing is damage control and shitting on Trump.


What is there to praise?

All her ideas are old, tired liberal garbage

She wont speak to reporters

Democrats are acting like its in the bag, and with the voter fraud theyve been perfecting the last few elections, it is.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The lesson this election for the future for the next line of presidential candidates is this:

Keep an eye on your supporters, fuckers turn into the SS if you don't keep an eye on them


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*












> (K.R.) Did you hear about this? Yesterday, Donald Trump held a news conference which the press expected would be about Trump's previous assertions that President Obama wasn't born in the United States. The media all covered it live.
> Instead, Trump brought out various of generals, medal of honor recipients, and veterans to endorse him. The media was livid. Afterwards, CNN correspondent Dana Bash said "Trump had teased us that he was gonna say something [about the birther controversy], but he played us... Instead he got [us to cover] 20 minutes of very important, decorated veterans praising him and saying he should be the next commander-in-chief, which would not have been live on cable news otherwise."
> Yet, just moments later, CNN broadcast 30 minutes of Michelle Obama praising Hillary at a Clinton campaign rally live. The network has clearly dropped all pretense of objectivity in recent months, seemingly doing everything in its power to help get Hillary Clinton elected president. Audiences have responded by tuning out, dropping CNN to 3rd place behind Fox and MSNBC.
> SOURCES: http://dailycaller.com/…/media-outraged-after-trump-trick…/…
> https://youtu.be/6ZCEd8mtgHw


Obviously considering that CNN is one of Hillary's direct donors - they are merely just now nothing more than a 24/7 "Paid for by Hillary Clinton" advertisement.


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

More evidence piling up that the Birther narrative originated from H's camp. The Daily Beast is about as left as it gets, but I'll bet dollars to donuts right now they wish they'd scrubbed this one from the archives. From 2010:



> A Clinton supporter from Texas known as Linda Starr was particularly fired up by what she later told me was "the daily misogynistic hate speech against Hillary" during the primaries. As a Democratic precinct captain in Medina County, Starr had volunteered for the Clinton campaign during the hotly contested June Lone Star State primary and served as a Clinton delegate at the state convention. But Starr's real talent was as an amateur opposition researcher—she'd dug up dirt against Republican congressional leaders like Dan Burton and Bob Livingston during the Clinton impeachment hearings in the late 1990s. She was also cited as a key source for CBS' discredited election year investigation into George W. Bush's National Guard records that led to Dan Rather's replacement after 24 years as the evening news anchor.
> After Clinton's concession, Starr turned her attention to Obama. "I determined that I was going to start digging up every bit of dirt that I could find on him," she told me after I hunted her down in late 2009, "and that hopefully that I would find something against him that would convince the Democratic Party to dump him and make Hillary the nominee."


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/02/08/the-secret-history-of-the-birthers.html


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Fringe said:


> More evidence piling up that the Birther narrative originated from H's camp. The Daily Beast is about as left as it gets, but I'll bet dollars to donuts right now they wish they'd scrubbed this one from the archives. From 2010:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/02/08/the-secret-history-of-the-birthers.html


CNN saying it's all false, CNN is going to be the new Fox News by the time this election is done, possibly even worse.


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> CNN saying it's all false, CNN is going to be the new Fox News by the time this election is done, possibly even worse.


Morning Joe also confirmed that the narrative originated from H's camp in 2008. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwN0VBdbNOs

Hilarious to watch them all stumble all over themselves after the cat comes out the bag. 

The MSM is imploding on itself. :kobelol


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/777347015982415872
:nowords


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Wait ... so because Trump calls it a bomb now the media and the democrats don't even want to call it a bomb? 

They're calling it an intentional explosion. 

Is this really the kind of bullshit world we are living in now? 

I actually did a bing search on this. And when I type New York Bomb, all I get is media ridiculing Trump. 

When I type New York Explosion, I get actual results, but they're calling it an "intentional explosion" ... What is the purpose of a bomb if not to cause an intentional explosion. 

This is a kind of descent into madness I didn't even see in Pakistan as the Taliban were taking it over. because at least our secular media weren't afraid to call the Taliban terrorists or lead a massive protest against the state. I was there with my colleagues on the streets protesting so I know what I'm talking about.

With a future with Clinton, we wouldn't even be allowed to call terrorists that and they'll just be called "disgruntled individuals" instead. Oh what a fucking load of shit American media has become. This is the worst of state run propaganda you'll ever see in a western country.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Wait ... so because Trump calls it a bomb now the media and the democrats don't even want to call it a bomb?
> 
> They're calling it an intentional explosion.
> 
> Is this really the kind of bullshit world we are living in now?
> 
> I actually did a bing search on this. And when I type New York Bomb, all I get is media ridiculing Trump.
> 
> When I type New York Explosion, I get actual results, but they're calling it an "intentional explosion" ... What is the purpose of a bomb if not to cause an intentional explosion.
> 
> This is a kind of descent into madness I didn't even see in Pakistan as the Taliban were taking it over. because at least our secular media weren't afraid to call the Taliban terrorists or lead a massive protest against the state. I was there with my colleagues on the streets protesting so I know what I'm talking about.
> 
> With a future with Clinton, we wouldn't even be allowed to call terrorists that and they'll just be called "disgruntled individuals" instead. Oh what a fucking load of shit American media has become. This is the worst of state run propaganda you'll ever see in a western country.



Funny enough she said it was a bomb too.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Funny enough she said it was a bomb too.


Well she's probably too sick or high to keep her facts straight.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

she looks exhausted in that interview...


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> she looks exhausted in that interview...


She always looks like dying.


----------



## Rick_James

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Obviously considering that CNN is one of Hillary's direct donors - they are merely just now nothing more than a 24/7 "Paid for by Hillary Clinton" advertisement.


hahaha, Trump just does so many epic moves that it's impossible to keep track of all the gems. This one is truly amazing though.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:trump now leads by 6.7% in the LA Times daily national tracking poll.

Battleground states poll: :trump 42, Clinton 42

Nearly every battleground state has gone from toss-up to lean :trump or from lean Clinton to toss-up.

It's funny as fuck that the debates which a week ago were seen as :trump 's last chance may now be Hillary's last chance.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> :trump now leads by 6.7% in the LA Times daily national tracking poll.
> 
> Battleground states poll: :trump 42, Clinton 42
> 
> Nearly every battleground state has gone from toss-up to lean :trump or from lean Clinton to toss-up.
> 
> It's funny as fuck that the debates which a week ago were seen as :trump 's last chance may now be Hillary's last chance.


Honestly if CNN tries to hide the fact Clinton mentioned bombings in New York and continue to bash Trump for it then I see it only hurting her more. The media and the DNC and Republican party took massive hits with this election. The MSM has been caught lying and doctoring stuff, now nobody can claim CNN is any better than Fox news, actually at this point they maybe worse. The dems were caught with election fixing for Clinton against Bernie and with racist nonsense. The neocons got exposed big time within the republican party.

This has been great!


----------



## Chloe

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

best Trump vs Clinton debates i can watch?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@Reaper @DesolationRow @CamillePunk


IF 9/11 HAPPENED TODAY: "Several jets have accidentally crashed themselves into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Authorities are confident this is just a tragic coincidence. In other news..." :lmao


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@Reaper: Excellent thoughts about religion, both civic as well as spiritual. Ideology is itself a civic, purportedly secular form of religion, expressing to the newly initiated who they are, who the outsiders to the faith/"thinking" are, et. al.
@Tater thank you for the kind words. 

John C. Calhoun is a most fascinating figure of American history. More people should learn of him. Sad that so few in Calhoun, Alabama would know for whom the town was named.



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/777347015982415872
> :nowords


:lmao

Would hardly be surprised if Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party contend that the bombings and the mass stabbing in Minnesota were all actually a conspiracy emanating from the Kremlin.

I see that Mr. Nobel Peace Prize is making hay on the campaign trail for the former Secretary of State with several coats of blood on her hands by arguing that Donald Trump is too peaceful in his outlook concerning Putin's Russia.

:lol @Beatles123


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

They changed the narrative when Hillary claimed it was a bomb too. 

But yeah what I'm seeing is that this election is a test run for how state run media would work with the Hillary in power. I mean they're trying their best but it's really through sheer incompetence that they are not as well oiled as state run media in other countries. But that does seem to be one of the dems hidden agendas at the moment. I do foresee more centralized dissemination of verbiage straight from government once Hillary assumes control. So far they're disorganized but not that much.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I can't believe I hadn't heard of anything regarding to Duterte till now. I looked him up cause of that one guy going on about him.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*Black voters are turning from Clinton to Trump in new poll​*



> Donald Trump is gaining support among African-American voters — whose enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton is eroding, a tracking poll released Saturday revealed.
> 
> Trump saw a 16.5 percentage-point increase in backing from African-American voters in a Los Angeles Times/University of Southern California tracking poll, up from 3.1 percent on Sept. 10 to 19.6 percent through Friday.
> 
> Meanwhile, the same poll showed Clinton’s support among that group plummeting from 90.4 percent on Sept. 10 to 71.4 percent.
> 
> Clinton’s nearly 20-point crash began Sunday, said Dan Schnur of USC. Sunday was the day Clinton was recorded collapsing while entering a Secret Service van at a 9/11 event.
> 
> The survey, which spanned through Friday, included the days in which Trump reignited the divisive “birther” issue — which critics contend is a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the country’s first black president. Late Wednesday, Trump had refused to acknowledge that President Obama was born in the United States, demurring on the topic in a Washington Post interview published the next day.
> 
> But at a bizarre press conference at Trump International, his new .hotel in Washington, DC, on Friday, the tycoon conceded, “President Barack Obama was born in the United States, period.”
> 
> For the week, the poll found a 6-point rise for Trump. The Republican is now at 47.2 percent of the vote to Clinton’s 41.2 percent.
> 
> “It’s the largest shift we’ve seen in a one-week period since we began polling in July,” Schnur said.


Damn son.

I'm going to reply to some people's posts in a day or so.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Landslide is happening, folks.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Imagine if Trump would have picked a charismatic black conservative as his running mate? There was one I cannot remember his name but he was on the Stossel show and he would have been someone who would look to be a good VP, former Military from a long line of black soldiers, has some Libertarian ideas when it comes to drugs but conservative on other issues, think he would have been the perfect mix.

How is CNN going to look after all is said and done?


----------



## Death Rider

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Obviously considering that CNN is one of Hillary's direct donors - they are merely just now nothing more than a 24/7 "Paid for by Hillary Clinton" advertisement.


I dislike Trump but fuck me that is funny as fuck :lmao. Maybe he is smart after all. 



Also people criticising him for using the word bomb is just stupid.


----------



## Chloe

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump just proved why he should he be president. That type of craftiness is just what the world needs. Not these faux-progressives and their social justice.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

^^

It is funny because Pence seem more like Bush and Trump more like Cheney.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Pence was definitely Trump's biggest non verbal mistake.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Again, if you don't want to look like a 2012 Karl Rove i encourage everyone to read aggregates on polls instead of just isolated results....


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Pence wasn't a mistake at all. :lol The best case scenario for a VP pick is someone who won't hurt you and there's no reason to believe Pence has done that. In contrast to Trump he just seems like a generic, bland politician. The perfect pick.



asdf0501 said:


> Again, if you don't want to look like a 2012 Karl Rove i encourage everyone to read aggregates on polls instead of just isolated results....


The aggregates had Hillary up by like 6-7 points a few weeks ago. :mj Now she's between 0-1 point up on aggregate. She's sinking fast and it's only going to get worse once her "pneumonia" card runs out of time and she's still having health incidents.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> The aggregates had Hillary up by like 6-7 points a few weeks ago. :mj Now she's between 0-1 point up on aggregate. She's sinking fast and it's only going to get worse once her "pneumonia" card runs out of time and she's still having health incidents.


Yeah..... mmm nop

The aggregates also had Trump tied with Hillary after the DNC and at 20% odds two weeks later.

What you are seeing could easily be a regresion to the mean escenary, the normal thing in this kind of situations is wait to see if we are seeing a steady rising out of the realm of Trump likely voters or just a unification of likely republican voters. The fact that you're projecting over her health instead of talking about normal scenarios is very telling to say the least

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/09/16/is-a-change-in-the-air/

Again, Trump have pretty good options to win at this rate. 10 points or something is likely out of the real of possibilities today, demos don't allow that and only a real health crisis or some shit like that could lead to it.

*edit:* there is also a big amount of noise in the fact that at this time of the year polling change from RV to LV


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Let's revisit this discussion in a week or so.


----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> What you are seeing could easily be a regresion to the mean escenary


Or the combined effect of blacks torching their cities, Muslims being Muslims, and Hillary nearly dropping dead at the 9/11 Memorial, along with Trump cleaning up his act.

Trump is going to win if he's within 2% nationally come election day. The combination of the following will give Trump the White House:

1) Lower (than usual) youth and black turnout for Hillary, which will doom her in swing states.
2) Trump galvanizing previously apolitical people to vote. The enthusiasm gap is on his side, and this is extremely important in a close race.

You can crunch numbers all you want, but they did the same thing with Brexit and they ended up being wrong by an immense margin. It's entirely conceivable that Trump could lose the popular vote, but he's in good shape electorally. Judging by recent state polls, I have him at 266 electoral votes, which means that he only needs to steal a state like Colorado, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, or New Hampshire from the Hill-Dawg.

*EDIT- LA TIMES POLL UPDATE*










*HILLARY IS DONE~!*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://truthfeed.com/cnns-jake-tapp...tly-edits-out-hillarys-bombings-remark/24411/

Another gem from Clinton news network:


> *CNN’s Jake Tapper Criticizes Trump’s “Bombing” Remark Then Secretly Edits out Hillary’s “Bombings” Remark*
> 
> 
> 
> CNN’s Jake Tapper asked New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on _State of the Union _on Sunday morning about the supposed contrast between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in their responses to the explosions Saturday in New York, editing out Clinton’s reference to “bombings” to create a false distinction.
> Tapper cited Trump referring to a “bomb” in New York, then played a clip of Clinton criticizing him for saying that — leaving out Clinton’s reference, seconds before, to what she called “bombings.”
> 
> Here is the Tapper’s question for Christie, with the edited Clinton clip:*Tapper: *There is a contrast, I would say, between how you’re speaking about it and how Mr. Trump spoke about it yesterday. He’s being criticized for talking about the New York bomb before local officials or local law enforcement had a chance to do so. He told the Colorado Springs crowd that “a bomb went off in New York, and nobody knows exactly what’s going on” — that’s really just a few minutes after the incident. And his opponent tried to draw a contrast. She waited hours later, until local officials spoke, and then she said this:
> *Clinton (clip): *I think it’s important to know the facts about any incident like this. I think it’s always wiser to wait until you have information before making conclusions.
> *Tapper:* As a general note, do you think politicians should wait until more information comes in, and should they defer to local official and investigators? Isn’t that what you do as the governor of New Jersey?​Tapper made no mention of Clinton’s similar remark.
> Here is the full, relevant exchange between Clinton and reporters on Saturday night, viaLiz Kreutz of ABC News and other sources:*Clinton:* I’ve breen briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey, and the attack in Minnesota. Obviously, we need to do everything we can to support our first responders, also to pray for the victims. We have to let this investigation unfold. We’ve been in touch with various officials, including the mayor’s office in New York, to learn what they are discovering as they conduct this investigation. And I’ll have more to say about it when we actually know the facts?
> *Reporter: *Secretary Clinton, Do you have any reaction to the fact that Donald Trump, immediately upon taking the stage tonight, called the explosion in New York a “bomb” … ?
> *Clinton:* Well, I think it’s important to know the facts about any incident like this. That’s why it’s critical to support the first responders, the investigators who are looking into it, trying to determine what did happen. I think it’s always wiser to wait until you have information before making conclusions because we are just in the beginning stages of trying to determine what happened.​Ironically, later in the program, while introducing Clinton’s running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Tapper played the full clip, including Clinton’s use of the word “bombings.” Tapper did not ask Kaine about whether Clinton’s remark was appropriate.
> For the record, Christie’s response to Tapper’s question defended Trump without referring to Clinton’s statement.*Christie: *Well, listen, I don’t think you have to defer when saying there was an explosion and a bomb in New York. I mean, everybody knew that. It was being reported in television, Jake, so there’s a difference. Now, you shouldn’t attribute it to any particular organization or group if you don’t have the facts or information to do that. But I think that what Donald did was perfectly appropriate to tell that group in Colorado Springs a bomb exploded. This is typical of Mrs. Clinton. She has absolutely no basis to be critical of what he did yesterday …​Tapper was not all smiles for Kaine: he questioned the Democratic vice presidential nominee aggressively about Hillary Clinton’s close confident Sidney Blumenthal’s alleged role in pushing the Birther conspiracy theory in 2008.


 \

CNN took similar ratings' hits in each of the previous elections as well (I saw articles somewhere) so it seems like they work it into their planning and simply don't care. Apparently, it's ok for them to take temporary hits in order to further their agenda.

The people who tune out of CNN aren't the ones they're talking to anyways. From a propaganda standpoint, you want fewer converts than you want loyalty from the already brainwashed.


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I have to say, Trump tricking the media to covering a campaign rally where veterans endorsed him has got to be one of the most hilarious political tricks I have ever seen in my entire life. That is just golden. 

If Trump wins, it'll be because he has played the media like a fiddle. He has basically tricked them into covering and talking about him non-stop (giving him little reason to spend any money campaigning himself) and he's even using their clear bias against him to his advantage.

Its downright comical.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



GOON said:


> Or the combined effect of blacks torching their cities, Muslims being Muslims, and Hillary nearly dropping dead at the 9/11 Memorial, along with Trump cleaning up his act.


Or could also be an easy effect of polling passing from RV to LV which mean a thightining a general. In fact, at this rate polling always became close, Obama was tied at the national level with Romney today, worse Romney was ahead after the first debate

The difference between both of us is i'm accepting and pondering the different options, you're sure of something without certain proof and doing a Dick Morris all over the place

I don't really care who wins, in fact i been saying like for three or four post that Trump options are good today, in a conservative model (The Silver one for example) he is at 2/5 odds which is more than what Romney and McCain had at this rate, still unlikely. But you're fooling yourselfs posting things like "landslide" or thinking that Trump is wining.........yet



GOON said:


> Trump is going to win if he's within 2% nationally come election day. The combination of the following will give Trump the White House:
> 
> 1) Lower (than usual) youth and black turnout for Hillary, which will doom her in swing states.
> 2) Trump galvanizing previously apolitical people to vote. The enthusiasm gap is on his side, and this is extremely important in a close race.


The first option is determinant, but you're forgetting important data. For example, the most probable thing is the numbers of Johnson and Stein will comeback to the historical numbers of third party candidates, which mean, something between 1% and 2% the closer we get to the election. This are the candidates that are stealing younger votes for Hillary, the key demo she needs today. So in a projected scenary, your 1) point is a difficult thing if i'm base my opinion just in this point (which is stupid but whatever, i'm doing just an example).

Number two is more unlikely, Trump has the bigger unfavorable rating of any candidate in american history. Enthusiasm is always big among republicans, that doesn't necesarily mean that we're talking about a national enthusiasm

As you can see, doing hypoteticals is funny, putting probabilities on them is another entire token

About your 2% points, is funny. Normally the standard deviation in this election are on the 2 points rate. The PEC model has a projection of what happens if those 2 points in prediction error are ONLY in Trump favors, Hillary still win by 8 delegates (http://www.270towin.com/maps/princeton-election-consortium-trump-outperforms-polls). 



GOON said:


> You can crunch numbers all you want, but they did the same thing with Brexit and they ended up being wrong by an immense margin.


Brexit was under the margin of error before the election.....

American polling is also highly accurate for different reasons, following, party stability, etc.



GOON said:


> It's entirely conceivable that Trump could lose the popular vote, but he's in good shape electorally. Judging by recent state polls, I have him at 266 electoral votes, which means that he only needs to steal a state like Colorado, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, or New Hampshire from the Hill-Dawg.


Your prediction is pretty good based on today numbers, yes. Wining one of the states you're saying give Trump the adventage today, However wining one of them is difficult. Trump can comeback in Arizona, Georgia, Ohio, North Carolina and the so because those are battleground states and some of them has been Republican for a long time.

The problem is, the states you're naming are likely democrats states, which mean a lot of ground game that Trump doesn't have at this rate, one of the reasons why the paths to win for him are less than Hillary. With current demos and voters tendencies, a Democrat only has to get his democrat and likely democrats states to win while republican needs to win almost all swing states and turn some likely democrat ones.

He also need to retain Florida which is just a 0,2% odds in his favor, without Florida doesn't matter what happens he is roasted



GOON said:


> *EDIT- LA TIMES POLL UPDATE*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *HILLARY IS DONE~!*


I don't get why aggregates count this poll, which is not random, but whatever.











Note two things, the L.A. Times is likely an outlier. But at the same time, the polling with the bigger Clinton margin are both still made based on RV, when those polls pass to LV the margin is gonna reduce heavily. If you take away those polls (which are going to tigh once the change is made) and the L.A. Times one, the aggregates are still between 1% and 3% on Hillary corner.

the combination of aggregates



























Trump is close to getting a lead, but that doesn't change anything of substance, yet


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't really care about polls right now. I don't know this is a fact, but I've often heard that democrats lose when they don't get out to vote. No one is enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton. Her approval ratings are abysmal. This likely means Dems will not go out and vote. Because of this the GOP wins by default.

This is what Trump is banking on if he wants to win. 

Also have we discussed how amazing Kellyanne Conway is?


Finally, nothing matters right now because we haven't had a debate yet. After the first debate we will get a better sense of things. A debate can win or lose the election.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

whoever comes out of the second debate looking stronger will probably win

that has been a pretty reliable indicator of things, whoever wins the second debate wins the election


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I think the point of Trump supporters sharing the polls and celebrating his lead is kind of being missed by asd501.

I think it's not about the nuance at this point (because most people completely understand the nuance in this thread anyway), but rather just how realistic his chances are in the first place despite all the negativity around him. 

The liberal media, celebrities, other world leaders have basically screamed themselves hoarse and are bleeding hatred from their mouths calling Trump all kinds of horrible things. Huffpost has a standing order to call him racist, homophobe and misoginist under any article about him. Facebook, Google and other search engines have specifically resorted to highlighting all negative Trump things. They've been trying to nail him on everything and he has literally shrugged everything off and instead of his platform weakening or cracking under the microscope has only gotten stronger. So much has been exposed this year about the dems that that should be considered a victory in and of itself. 

That in itself has been a sight to behold and worth celebrating in its own right - and the way you do that is by announcing that he's leading in the polls. 

This race should never have been tight - and right now it looks like he has more than a legit chance.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> I don't really care about polls right now. I don't know this is a fact, but I've often heard that democrats lose when they don't get out to vote. No one is enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton. Her approval ratings are abysmal. This likely means Dems will not go out and vote. Because of this the GOP wins by default.


It's true, in fact this is one of the reasons why polling tends to close the gap when you start polling Likely Voters (LV) instead of Register voters (RV). Registers voter tend to go Democrat in his majority, but some of the guys who are Registered voters tend to not go to vote, for a majority of reasons, for example expending in public transportation to go to the votting place. Likely Voters in exchange tend to go Republican.

The last sentence is problematic, is half true, Trump approval is even worse than Hillary, therefore you can have an scenary where democrats go to vote in big turnouts just to stop a Trump POTUS. Which isn't out of the realm of possibilities. This could be true also for independents

I agree that polling is not THAT important now, but keeping the tracking of aggregates is important because it lead campaigns to understand where the focus needs to be and it allow to track tendencies. This year is an anomally so i think it would fluctuate moren than usual but yeah.



MrMister said:


> Finally, nothing matters right now because we haven't had a debate yet. After the first debate we will get a better sense of things. A debate can win or lose the election.


Debates at this stage are certainly important, specially when we have a race which is currently deciding in three or four states. But i think we are overstimating the effects of debates in general, like i said before Romney was ahead after the first debate. More than the debate in itself, what is important is the narrative created by media ann pundits after the debates


edit:



Reaper said:


> The liberal media, celebrities, other world leaders have basically screamed themselves hoarse and are bleeding hatred from their mouths calling Trump all kinds of horrible things. Huffpost has a standing order to call him racist, homophobe and misoginist under any article about him. Facebook, Google and other search engines have specifically resorted to highlighting all negative Trump things. They've been trying to nail him on everything and he has literally shrugged everything off and instead of his platform weakening or cracking under the microscope has only gotten stronger. So much has been exposed this year about the dems that that should be considered a victory in and of itself.



I think all of this can be true, but it's also true that media need the race to be close, even if majority of the media is in Clinton pocket they need to twist regularly the cover of the race for a number of different reasons. Therefore they also know when and how they have to push one of the candidates. The cover Trump got in August when both where tied was completely aggresive and destructive compared to what he got the last month even when Hillary was in the hiding also in that period of time.

How many celebrities are comming for Hillary now compared with the period of the conventions? it could be for what Mr. Mister is saying,there is little to zero enthusiasm for her but it's also because as i said, media in general preffer push for races to be close, it's not only what's best for ratings but what push for brand recognition, levels of influence and put celebrities in front in terms of political image. You're already seeing another cicle of attacking Trump and pushing Hillary which would be follow for the contrary if she pulls ahead again.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> I think all of this can be true, but it's also true that media need the race to be close, even if majority of the media is in Clinton pocket they need to twist regularly the cover of the race for a number of different reasons. Therefore they also know when and how they have to push one of the candidates. The cover Trump got in August when both where tied was completely aggresive and destructive compared to what he got the last month even when Hillary was in the hiding also in that period of time.
> 
> How many celebrities are comming for Hillary now compared with the period of the conventions? it could be for what Mr. Mister is saying,there is little to zero enthusiasm for her but it's also because as i said, media in general preffer push for races to be close, it's not only what's best for ratings but what push for brand recognition, levels of influence and put celebrities in front in terms of political image. You're already seeing another cicle of attacking Trump and pushing Hillary which would be follow for the contrary if she pulls ahead again.


I'm not quite following you here - so I just want to be sure. Are you saying that it's justified that the media twist stories and create one-sided narratives, or are you saying that they do that as a matter of fact? 

I agree that the push is indeed there to try to get people to go out and vote but at the same time what I'm noticing is that the one-sided media narrative is actually creating a more negative atmosphere for Hillary. The way they reported her health her more when she collapsed. They tried to pretend that she wasn't ill at all. Then they tried to twist the bomb narrative and that also hurt her. Her poll tracking is showing the opposite result to the media push - so while I agree that they are definitely one-sided and trying to push for a closer election, they're inadvertently helping Trump instead of hurting him. 

Trump while not the best candidate in the world should never have come as close as he has and the media trying to hurt him is helping him. In the last two weeks he's looked more and more presidential while Hillary has looked like the wannabe pretender --- and the media has played a huge role in hurting her.

Oh and I just wanted to mention that even though Florida seems close right now, it's not going to be. I live in a small town of 77k and from what I've seen, Trump's support is in the high 90's and it's similar across the board in the smaller towns and cities. 

I think it's Miami that Trump has to worry about because of the huge immigrant population, but it should be a sweep for him because I've noticed that southern minorities are either keeping completely quiet, or are mostly split with a slight Trump favorability.

I have enjoyed white people try to talk to me about politics though. Most are almost afraid to ask because they think I'm going to be a Hillary supporter and then really open up when I do say Trump. It's like he's bringing out a kind of pride and hopefulness amongst white people that I haven't seen before ... And it's a good kind. It's not racist just because white people are supporting Trump as the media is trying to spin it ... Some of the nicest people that have been extremely friendly and welcoming towards me are all Trump supporters. There's a very negative spin on Trump supporters and from my personal experience I just think it's a load of hogwash.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Agreed with *MrMr* and @deepelemblues that at this point, the debates will be most paramount. 

These are also probably the most unpredictable debates that will have proceeded for a presidential campaign season in several decades.

Trump and the moderator may come to blows after a Candy Crowley-style proliferation of lies on behalf of Hillary; Hillary may have a stroke on the air; Joe Biden and Chris Christie may perform run-ins with steel chairs. 

Seriously, though, it is an accurate assessment to say that Kellyanne Conway deserves considerable credit for refocusing Trump and making his outreach to women more viable than it had been only a few short weeks ago. 

It remains an uphill climb. The electoral map features a narrow road for a Republican at this point in time, an ever-dwindling single-lane perilously against a cliff overlooking a rocky beach. Still think Hillary wins but this could end up being the closest election since 2000 pretty easily. Hillary is using all of her influence possible with the Federal Reserve to prop the economy up through the autumn. The Fed plays an instrumental role in empowering whichever side feeds it best. And as a U.S. senator from New York Hillary played a major role in setting up the $1.65 billion in extremely low-interest, federally insured Liberty Bonds which had purportedly been earmarked for rebuilding of areas of New York City following September 11, 2001, all to fund the creation of Goldman Sachs' lavish new building in Manhattan. At the groundbreaking ceremony in 2005 Hillary called Goldman Sachs her "partner in government." Of course most of us all know the story of Hillary's ardent support of the 2008 bailout on behalf of Goldman Sachs. Before long she was receiving at least $675,000 for three speeches from the firm, which has continued to liberally donate to her during this 2016 campaign. Goldman Sachs has even gone so far as to sanction any employee who dare donate to Donald Trump. :lol The Dallas President of the Federal Reserve Branch there is a "max donor" to Hillary for a reason. As with Richard Nixon in 1972 I fully expect the White House and Federal Reserve to work in concert, between stressing geopolitical challenges that, in the eyes of the establishment will be deemed too complex and difficult for Trump to grasp in a way that the Nixon administration used Vietnam and the strategic alliance to beat George McGovern over the head with while Federal Reserve Chairman Arthur F. Burns delivered the public easy access to credit on behalf of the man who had instituted price controls in 1971 as part of the bargain with Burns, who, in return, supplied money by the bushel. @AryaDark @L-DOPA 

Meanwhile, no scam is too large, nor too small for the Clintons: http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusi...n-systematically-overcharging-poorest-donors/ :lmao @2 Ton 21



> Exclusive: Hillary Clinton Campaign Systematically Overcharging Poorest Donors
> Wells Fargo fraud department inundated with calls from low-income Clinton supporters reporting repeated unauthorized charges
> By Liz Crokin • 09/15/16 2:35pm
> 
> Hillary for America processed a total of $94 in unauthorized charges to Carol Mahre’s US Bank account. This follows a pattern in which unwitting donors are charged multiple times, but always for a total of less than $100, which is a key trigger point for banks’ internal action systems. Photo: Courtesy Carol Mahre
> 
> Hillary Clinton’s campaign is stealing from her poorest supporters by purposefully and repeatedly overcharging them after they make what’s supposed to be a one-time small donation through her official campaign website, multiple sources tell the Observer.
> 
> The overcharges are occurring so often that the fraud department at one of the nation’s biggest banks receives up to 100 phone calls a day from Clinton’s small donors asking for refunds for unauthorized charges to their bankcards made by Clinton’s campaign. One elderly Clinton donor, who has been a victim of this fraud scheme, has filed a complaint with her state’s attorney general and a representative from the office told her that they had forwarded her case to the Federal Election Commission.
> 
> “We get up to a hundred calls a day from Hillary’s low-income supporters complaining about multiple unauthorized charges,” a source, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of job security, from the Wells Fargo fraud department told the Observer. The source claims that the Clinton campaign has been pulling this stunt since Spring of this year. The Hillary for America campaign will overcharge small donors by repeatedly charging small amounts such as $20 to the bankcards of donors who made a one-time donation. However, the Clinton campaign strategically doesn’t overcharge these donors $100 or more because the bank would then be obligated to investigate the fraud.
> 
> “We don’t investigate fraudulent charges unless they are over $100,” the fraud specialist explained. “The Clinton campaign knows this, that’s why we don’t see any charges over the $100 amount, they’ll stop the charges just below $100. We’ll see her campaign overcharge donors by $20, $40 or $60 but never more than $100.” The source, who has worked for Wells Fargo for over 10 years, said that the total amount they refund customers on a daily basis who have been overcharged by Clinton’s campaign “varies” but the bank usually issues refunds that total between $700 and $1,200 per day.
> 
> The fraud specialist said that Clinton donors who call in will attempt to resolve the issue with the campaign first but they never get anywhere. “They will call the Clinton campaign to get their refund and the issue never gets resolved. So they call us and we just issue the refund. The Clinton campaign knows these charges are small potatoes and that we’ll just refund the money back.”
> 
> The source said that pornography companies often deploy a similar arrangement pull. “We see this same scheme with a lot of seedy porn companies,” the source said. The source also notes that the dozens of phone calls his department receives daily are from people who notice the fraudulent charges on their statements. “The people who call us are just the ones who catch the fraudulent charges. I can’t imagine how many more people are getting overcharged by Hillary’s campaign and they have no idea.”
> 
> The source said he’s apolitical but noted that the bank’s fraud department is yet to receive one call from a Donald Trump supporter claiming to have been overcharged by Trump’s campaign. “I’m only talking to you because what Hillary’s doing is so messed up, she’s stealing from her poorest supporters.”


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I'm not quite following you here - so I just want to be sure. Are you saying that it's justified that the media twist stories and create one-sided narratives, or are you saying that they do that as a matter of fact?


I'm saying they create one sided narratives as a matter of fact, and that the side of this narrative depend on what makes closer the race.

They're only going to go full Hillary two or three weeks before the election.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> I'm saying they create one sided narratives as a matter of fact, and that the side of this narrative depend on what makes closer the race.
> 
> They're only going to go full Hillary two or three weeks before the election.


Well, as evidenced by what's currently happening, they're only going to hurt her more. The only way out for her at the moment is a major, major gaffe by Trump, but so far he seems to be gaining control over himself while Hillary is falling apart.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

oh shit...


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Now Bill says it's only natural for people donating to his charity to ask for political favors. Sounds so legit :trump


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



NotGuilty said:


> Now Bill says it's only natural for people donating to his charity to ask for political favors. Sounds so legit :trump


Like when Trump donated money from his charity (illegal!) to the attorney general who days later dropped an investigation into Trump University?



> Sure enough, minutes after my call to housekeeping, a pleasant woman arrived with a copy of “The Glorious Qur’an” in Arabic and English, along with a brown prayer rug and a compass pointing in the “direction of al Kaaba” in Mecca. I expressed skepticism to her that the hotel also kept a copy of the Talmud: millions of words and many volumes of Jewish law.
> 
> “I will find it for you,” she vowed.
> 
> I tipped her $4 for bringing the Koran and declined the Talmud.
> 
> The exchange, which I undertook wearing a made-in-China “Trump Hotels” bathrobe and Trump slippers, says everything you need to know about Donald Trump. Trump the candidate has talked of banning Muslims from the country and forcing those here to register and submit to surveillance. But Trump the hotelier welcomes Muslims with Korans and prayer rugs.
> 
> It was a further reminder, as if one were needed, that the man who would take up residence just five blocks up Pennsylvania Avenue from his new hotel is a charlatan.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...7bbd53d2b5d_story.html?utm_term=.e8ff8bdb10d3 

People really think a person born into the Millionaire class who made further profits off shipping jobs offshore is going to now turn around and close the very same loop holes he has taken advantage of for decades?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

As long as you are paying the Trumps, you are not a poisoned Skittles.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Like when Trump donated money from his charity (illegal!) to the attorney general who days later dropped an investigation into Trump University?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...7bbd53d2b5d_story.html?utm_term=.e8ff8bdb10d3
> 
> People really think a person born into the Millionaire class who made further profits off shipping jobs offshore is going to now turn around and close the very same loop holes he has taken advantage of for decades?


"Rich person BAAAAAAD!!!"


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

LOL :trump isn't even allowed to treat Muslims with respect because it makes him a charlatan.

Hilarious. 

This is the kind of bullshit that is gonna backfire in the media's face and help propel :trump to the Oval Office.

:trump makes his money off real estate both buying and selling and renting out high-value properties, why would he care about what cracking down on outsourcing would do to his business. :trump brand clothing made in Bangladesh or wherever is contributing like .001% of his yearly income. Big fucking deal what does he care. So fucking funny when I see these commercials about how :trump outsourced :trump brand clothes to Southeast Asia like that means he's not serious about doing something about outsourcing. :trump as evidenced by his entire business career doesn't really give a fuck if ancillary business like that dries up and dies. As long as he's still slinging properties and getting major rental income he's straight.


----------



## SuperDanielBryan

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Without saying anything about Donald Trump, can anyone tell me what they actually like about Hillary? Again, without talking about trump. Give me examples of what you like about her, her personality, and her plans. Should be interesting.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



SuperDanielBryan said:


> Without saying anything about Donald Trump, can anyone tell me what they actually like about Hillary? Again, without talking about trump. Give me examples of what you like about her, her personality, and her plans. Should be interesting.


She is a policy wonk who has surrounded herself with more reputable advisers which shows in some of the political positions she has adopted. She cares about childcare and women's right for much of her public life. She backs net neutrality. That's really all about it. 

Have to admit her appeal is largely due to how frightening Trump is ill-equipped for the job, especially his foreign policy knowledge.


----------



## SuperDanielBryan

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> She is a policy wonk who has surrounded herself with more reputable advisers which shows in some of the political positions she has adopted. She cares about childcare and women's right for much of her public life. She backs net neutrality. That's really all about it.
> 
> Have to admit her appeal is largely due to how frightening Trump is ill-equipped for the job, especially his foreign policy knowledge.


Well, I can respect your opinion especially since you gave an actual answer. Mostly everyone that I know that is voting for Hillary, it's solely because of how they feel about Donald Trump.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



SuperDanielBryan said:


> Well, I can respect your opinion especially since you gave an actual answer. Mostly everyone that I know that is voting for Hillary, it's solely because of how they feel about Donald Trump.


I'm not an American so maybe that's why . I am also mostly a status quo kind of guy. I mostly sided with the more experienced candidate or incumbent in US presidential elections which is less likely to rock the global economy or stability. Only exception was Bush v Kerry because of the Iraq war and felt Bush was using American power for a personal vendetta. I even sided with McCain over Obama 1, that is until he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. :lol


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> , that is until he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. :lol


I think most Americans did that too


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> She is a policy wonk who has surrounded herself with more reputable advisers which shows in some of the political positions she has adopted. She cares about childcare and women's right for much of her public life. She backs net neutrality. That's really all about it.


Mrs Clinton cares about women :lol since when 2016?
Net neutrality is Google filtering and obscuring serach results on her campaign's behalf. Don't get me started on Zuckerberg either. The internet was created to be free and not be controlled by any single entity, group or _foundation_. In this case the word neutrality means controlled because why else would it be mentioned? Read between the lines.



> Have to admit her appeal is largely due to how frightening Trump is ill-equipped for the job, especially his foreign policy knowledge.


Let's talk about Mrs Clinton's idea of foreign policy

- the removal of Mubarak and a Morsi-led Muslim Brotherhood government put in place (overthrew a year later to no surprise): (Y)

- the removal and murder of Col. Gaddafi and the subsequent black hole Libya has become. Sure, just remove world leaders with impunity. We don't need a trial or anything like that. Then we can just go on national TV and gloat, laugh, smile and revel in someone's murder: (Y) (that's democracy I'd vote for)

- pushing for boots to be put on the ground in Syria for no real reason. Oh yeah to help the "rebels" right? (Y) 
Any sane, rational person knew who these "rebels" were from the beginning. 

There are 3 reasons why you should vote for war with Russia and be content with thousands of brave troops killed to satisfy Mrs Clinton's bloodlust. What you should do is vote for the person who does not want war with Russia :trump

Imagine this for next week, we are at the debates and Mrs Clinton is leaning on the podium and Trump says 'Don't you want somebody to stand up for you? She can't even stand up long enough to lie to you!﻿'


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Ultimate Warrior said:


> Mrs Clinton cares about women :lol since when 2016?
> Net neutrality is Google filtering and obscuring serach results on her campaign's behalf. Don't get me started on Zuckerberg either. The internet was created to be free and not be controlled by any single entity, group or _foundation_. In this case the word neutrality means controlled because why else would it be mentioned? Read between the lines.


Clinton has campaigned for women's right for a long time and have fought off the stigma of being a career woman as first lady. :shrug

Please, some other Trump supporter educate this guy about net neutrality. I don't want to go on a rant against another ignorant Trumper.





> Let's talk about Mrs Clinton's idea of foreign policy
> 
> - the removal of Mubarak and a Morsi-led Muslim Brotherhood government put in place (overthrew a year later to no surprise): (Y)
> 
> - the removal and murder of Col. Gaddafi and the subsequent black hole Libya has become. Sure, just remove world leaders with impunity. We don't need a trial or anything like that. Then we can just go on national TV and gloat, laugh, smile and revel in someone's murder: (Y) (that's democracy I'd vote for)
> 
> - pushing for boots to be put on the ground in Syria for no real reason. Oh yeah to help the "rebels" right? (Y)
> Any sane, rational person knew who these "rebels" were from the beginning.
> 
> There are 3 reasons why you should vote for war with Russia and be content with thousands of brave troops killed to satisfy Mrs Clinton's bloodlust. What you should do is vote for the person who does not want war with Russia :trump


She is hawkish. Doesn't mean she knows less about foreign policies than Trump. 

Mubarak's removal is Clinton's fault? Gaddafi is her fault? She was criticised for initially being pro status quo and not reacting to the local sentiments fast enough, now she's criticised for doing just that?

If she didn't push for boots to be put on the ground in Syria, you would be saying she's letting ISIS win. Any rational person know you are merely criticising her instead of looking objectively at whether it was a good or bad decision.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary is an advocate for women and a proponent of net neutrality? Since when?

MAAAAAAAN :heston


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Double post I know but this just coming in...

*EXCLUSIVE: Clinton Foundation AIDS Program Distributed ‘Watered-Down’ Drugs To Third World Countries*

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/19/e...-watered-down-drugs-to-third-world-countries/



Daily Caller said:


> Former President Bill Clinton and his Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) distributed “watered-down” HIV/AIDs drugs to patients in sub-Saharan Africa, and “likely increased” the risks of morbidity and mortality, according to a draft congressional report obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
> The congressional report, titled,“The Clinton Foundation and The India Success Story,” was initiated by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican and vice-chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
> 
> The CHAI program to help AIDS victims is considered one of the Clinton Foundation’s most important contributions and is probably its best known initiative.
> 
> The congressional report focused on Clinton’s decade-long relationship with a controversial Indian drug manufacturer called Ranbaxy, which CHAI used as.one of its main distributors of HIV/AIDS drugs to Third World countries.
> 
> It also highlighted the work of Dinesh Thakur, a former Ranbaxy employee who became a star whistleblower, permitting the U.S. government to launch a landmark lawsuit against the Indian firm..The company was vulnerable to U.S. prosecution because it also sold its generic drugs on the U.S. market.
> Ranbaxy ultimately pleaded guilty in 2013 to seven criminal counts with intent to defraud and the introduction of adulterated drugs into interstate commerce.
> 
> Do You Think The Clinton Foundation Has Saved Many Lives As They Claim?
> ..Yes.........No.........Maybe.......
> 
> Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
> The Department of Justice further levied a $500 million fine and forfeiture on the company.
> 
> “This is the largest false claims case ever prosecuted in the District of Maryland, and the nation’s largest financial penalty paid by a generic pharmaceutical company,” said U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland Rod J. Rosenstein when Ranbaxy pleaded guilty.
> 
> “When companies sell adulterated drugs, they undermine the integrity of the FDA’s approval process and may cause patients to take drugs that are substandard, ineffective, or unsafe,” said Stuart F. Delery, acting assistant attorney general for the civil division of the Department of Justice, when the government announced its action against the Indian company.
> 
> The Department of Justice stated in its final settlement, “alleged due to the company’s diluted drugs, it ‘subjected patients to increased risks of morbidity and mortality,’” according to the report.
> 
> “The question becomes, ‘how many people lost their lives, how many people found it was a false promise,’” asked Blackburn in an interview with TheDCNF.
> 
> The possibility that CHAI distributed adulterated and diluted AIDS drugs to Third World victims could shake the foundations of the Clinton charity and spark a new round of scrutiny in the final weeks of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
> 
> Blackburn said she planned to deliver the report to the inspector generals at the Department of Health and Human Services and to the Department of State, where Hillary served as secretary of state during President Barack Obama’s first term.
> 
> The congressional study also highlighted the unseemly ties between Bill.and two controversial Indian-Americans who have been investigated and sanctioned by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
> 
> The most troubling revelations concern the Clinton Foundation’s vigorous promotion of Ranbaxy despite mounting evidence the Indian firm had persistently poor quality control and attempted to cover it up through either faulty or fraudulent reporting to the FDA.
> 
> It is unclear at this juncture how many AIDS patients received the “watered-down” drugs.
> ProPublica estimated.that in 2007 alone, the U.S. Agency for International Development allocated $9 million to Ranbaxy and delivered “more than $1.8 million packages.”
> 
> “Substandard HIV medicines cause health problems for patients, perhaps even accelerating death from HIV-related infections,” Roger Bate, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute who researches substandard and counterfeit medicines, told TheDCNF.
> 
> Thakur told TheDCNF that many of the company’s anti-retroviral drugs were used to stabilize platelet and white blood cell counts in AIDS patients.
> 
> “These drugs allow it to stabilize and essentially provide immunity to patients. If the content of the medicine is not what is listed on the label, you will not see the platelet levels or the WBC levels stabilize,” he said.
> 
> Ranbaxy’s first public hint of problems occurred in August 2004, one year after CHAI began working with the firm. The World Health Organization reported irregularities involving three Ranbaxy drugs in South Africa, according to the report.
> The FDA.sent a public “warning letter” to Ranbaxy in 2006 about reported irregularities in the company’s quality control efforts. It concluded that the drugs, which included anti-retroviral HIV/AIDs medications, “show much lower potencies in these batches.”
> 
> Although Ranbaxy’s generic drugs are now barred from being sold in the U.S., CHAI and the former president continue to praise Ranbaxy and distribute the company’s HIV/AID drugs to patients abroad.
> 
> Bill heaped praise on Ranbaxy in 2013 during a speech in Mumbai, saying, the drugs saved millions of lives.
> Neither CHAI nor the Clinton Foundation have announced they severed ties with Ranbaxy.
> 
> Thakur said he’s now a public health activist who tries to get global health charities to focus on the quality of drugs rather than simply on “access” to patients.
> 
> The whistleblower tried to meet with CHAI and Clinton Foundation officials, but was only met with silence. “I have tried to reach out to them,” he told TheDCNF. “But I haven’t had a great amount of success with the Clinton Foundation.”
> 
> CHAI was a part of the Clinton Foundation until 2010, when it spun off into a separate entity. The groups still have some overlapping board members and staff, and they continue to operate in close coordination. Bill Clinton, for example, is deeply involved with both organizations.
> 
> Charles Ortel, a Wall Street analyst who has been an outspoken critic of the legal missteps by the Clinton Foundation, claims their separation was “deeply suspect.”
> 
> “In the application, trustees of the new entity, including Bill Clinton, falsely claim the entity is not a successor to previous efforts. This is not true. They purposefully obscure the fact that a similar operation called ‘CHAI’ was by far the largest piece of the original Foundation,” Ortel told TheDCNF.
> 
> The congressional study suggests Bill may have relaxed quality standards in a 2000 executive order.
> He signed an executive order that, “relaxed intellectual property policy standards,” promising the U.S. government “would not revoke or revise the intellectual property laws of any ‘Sub-Saharan country’ relating to HIV/AIDS medicines or technologies,” the report states.
> 
> CHAI announced in October 2003 it was going to distribute generic, low-cost HIV drugs from four foreign drug manufacturers: .Ranbaxy; Cipla of Mumbai, India; Matrix Labs of Hydrabad, India; Aspen Pharmacare of Johannesburg, South Africa.
> 
> CHAI’s endorsement also allowed Ranbaxy to manufacture HIV drugs that would be bought by the U.S. government under the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS relief — a $15 billion initiative proposed by former President George W. Bush.
> 
> The flow of U.S. funds combined with Clinton’s endorsement allowed the four foreign drug manufactures to become “good acquisition targets,” according to the study.
> 
> Ranbaxy filed 10 abbreviated new drug applications, three of which were approved by the FDA, according to the congressional study. Eventually, the firm would produce 13 generic HIV drugs.
> 
> The companies enjoyed great financial profits and they “exploded as they partnered with the Foundation for several years,” the report states.
> 
> The study also examined the key players in the Clinton-CHAI orbit, the potential for corruption and how the program ultimately benefited the Clinton Foundation in terms of donor contributions.
> One relationship unearthed by the report was the American Indian Foundation, which Clinton co-founded with Indian-American businessmen Rajat Gupta and Vinod Gupta in 2001.
> 
> Rajat was convicted of insider trading in 2012 in a sensational trial.
> 
> Vinod eventually was forced to resign as CEO and chairman of the company InfoGroup and was fined $9 million in a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation. One of the charges stated Vinod had awarded Bill $3.3 million without board approval.
> 
> Blackburn says the worst part of the story were the “false hopes” offered by the Clinton Foundation.
> “You think about the emotional state of health care workers as they are dealing with these individuals and the emotional state of the patients. To me it’s disturbing and very sad,” she said.


"B-but Trump said this mean thing I didn't like....I mean, I think that is what he said."

You people are willing to vote this evil bitch in for the sake of being "progressive" against Trump. AYY LMAO :duck


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> Hillary is an advocate for women and a proponent of net neutrality? Since when?


Since it became an issue http://time.com/3721452/hillary-clinton-net-neutrality/ and she hasn't flip flopped to any degree, nor is she likely to, the tech giants are some of her biggest supporters and they love net neutrality, it's the media giants which hate it.

Look hate her all you want, but you can't deny she is a supporter of net neutrality.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

you need only to see that bill clinton is a raging sex addict and that Hil stayed with him to know that she's only in it for power.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> you need only to see that bill clinton is a raging sex addict and that Hil stayed with him to know that she's only in it for power.


Nothing to do with the fact that they had a daughter aye, couldn't possibly be that. Has to have been all that delicious delicious first lady power.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.albawaba.com/loop/donald-trump-jrs-refugee-analogy-used-be-feminist-argument-884860

*Donald Trump Jr's refugee analogy used to be a feminist argument*












They're _*both *_stupid as fuck because this idea in and of itself is crazy. 

But I'm just loving the hypocrisy. :kobelol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Crowd in Florida.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Ask the people of Haiti how they feel about the Clintons, it seems the only black people to like Hilary only exist in the States, everywhere else they'd hang her from the nearest tree.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So Paul Joseph Watson had an AMA yesterday and brought up that some legit shit is being planned to go down come October to "destroy" Trump. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and find some of the stuff PJW says to be completely dumb but this does come off with some concerning questions:










Brace yourselves, everyone. October is going to be a REAL shitty month the likes we've never seen in this election.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald...king_news_house_oversight_committee_chairman/

:trump /R/THE_DONALD SAVING THE COUNTRY! :banderas1


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Nothing to do with the fact that they had a daughter aye, couldn't possibly be that. Has to have been all that delicious delicious first lady power.


Right, because i'd really want my Daughter living with slick willie if I were actually concerned for her. Even if I believed Bill and she were my daughter, I wouldn't want here there just to be on the safe side.


----------



## dannybosa

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> So Paul Joseph Watson had an AMA yesterday and brought up that some legit shit is being planned to go down come October to "destroy" Trump. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and find some of the stuff PJW says to be completely dumb but this does come off with some concerning questions:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brace yourselves, everyone. October is going to be a REAL shitty month the likes we've never seen in this election.


isn't obama giving the UN control of the internet in october?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Right, because i'd really want my Daughter living with slick willie if I were actually concerned for her. Even if I believed Bill and she were my daughter, I wouldn't want here there just to be on the safe side.


I guess Marla Maples took your advice with Tiffany Trump.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I guess Marla Maples took your advice with Tiffany Trump.


So? If you claim that is valid then my point still stands. At least they were amicable. 

You can't tell me Hill genuinely cares about America more or less than Trump.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> So? If you claim that is valid then my point still stands. At least they were amicable.
> 
> You can't tell me Hill genuinely cares about America more or less than Trump.


What has whether either genuinely care about America has anything to do with your point? You tried to attack Hillary's decision to stay in her marriage with a sex addict as solely due to her ambition. Disregarding her views on marriage base on her religion or concern about her daughter.

Wouldn't you call Trump a raging sex addict as well if you are calling Bill Clinton one? Shouldn't you condemn Ivana for staying with Trump for so many years and leaving their daughter in his care, only for 'power'.?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> What has whether either genuinely care about America has anything to do with your point? You tried to attack Hillary's decision to stay in her marriage with a sex addict as solely due to her ambition. Disregarding her views on marriage base on her religion or concern about her daughter.
> 
> Wouldn't you call Trump a raging sex addict as well if you are calling Bill Clinton one? Shouldn't you condemn Ivana for staying with Trump for so many years and leaving their daughter in his care, only for 'power'.?


No, because Trump never put his family through the dysfunction that Clinton did. Nor did Trump have the entire nation watching the spectacle, nor did Trump lie under oath about it.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> No, because Trump never put his family through the dysfunction that Clinton did. Nor did Trump have the entire nation watching the spectacle, nor did Trump lie under oath about it.


Erm....the early 90's might disagree with your narrative. Just a little bit.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Erm....the early 90's might disagree with your narrative. Just a little bit.


Name one time in the early 90s that :trump 's sex life captured the attention of the nation the way Slick Willie's did a few years later.

Name one time :trump lied under oath in the early 90s about his sex life.

Nobody really knows what Slick Willie's serial sexual assaults and general debauchery did to his family because the Clintons made damn sure that very little of the consequences to the relationships between Bill and Hillary and Bill and Chelsea and Hillary and Chelsea were ever revealed to the public.

So yeah if you mean "not at all and I'm feeling salty because I got nothing" then yeah just a little bit.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> Name one time in the early 90s that :trump 's sex life captured the attention of the nation the way Slick Willie's did a few years later.
> 
> Name one time :trump lied under oath in the early 90s about his sex life.
> 
> Nobody really knows what Slick Willie's serial sexual assaults and general debauchery did to his family because the Clintons made damn sure that very little of the consequences to the relationships between Bill and Hillary and Bill and Chelsea and Hillary and Chelsea were ever revealed to the public.
> 
> So yeah if you mean "not at all and I'm feeling salty because I got nothing" then yeah just a little bit.


I was referring to putting his family through dysfunction and having his kids discover the details along with the nation through the media. As for lying under oath, Trump did so for his business hearings. All of them are guilty of it. :shrug

:trump was a private citizen yet his affairs made headlines nation wide. His wife and mistress fought publicly in one incident. :shrug

You are blaming the lack of a public breakdown of the Clinton's family relationships due to the Clintons not wanting to air even more dirty laundry in public. Whut?

Speaking of debauchery...


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I was referring to putting his family through dysfunction and having his kids discover the details along with the nation through the media. As for lying under oath, Trump did so for his business hearings. All of them are guilty of it. :shrug
> 
> :trump was a private citizen yet his affairs made headlines nation wide. His wife and mistress fought publicly in one incident. :shrug
> 
> You are blaming the lack of a public breakdown of the Clinton's family relationships due to the Clintons not wanting to air even more dirty laundry in public. Whut?
> 
> Speaking of debauchery...


Dude, we're talking about a normal celeb Vs. the president of the united fucking states, and Trumps divorces were largely amicable vs the relationship between Bill and Hill. If you can't see that they hate each other off camera you have no idea of their history before the affair.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Dude, we're talking about a normal celeb Vs. the president of the united fucking states, and Trumps divorces were largely amicable vs the relationship between Bill and Hill. If you can't see that they hate each other off camera you have no idea of their history before the affair.


Your point was Trump never putting his family through dysfunction nor did it capture the nation's attention the way Clinton did. I merely contested that Trump did something very similar. Why the change in argument again? I give you the part that only Bill had to answer about his relationships under oath though.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> I have a confession to make. I don’t find Samantha Bee very funny. I also don’t think John Oliver, Trevor Noah, or Seth Meyers are all that amusing. I bring this up because in The New York Times Ross Douthat wrote a column suggesting that liberal political comedians like Bee cause certain problems for Hillary Clinton. He says these late-night comedians and their views occupy a much greater space in culture than they do in the opinions of the electorate, which puts Clinton in an awkward position.
> 
> If Clinton gets too close to Bee’s scolding progressivism, she risks losing more middle-of-the-road voters. But if she doesn’t, she could alienate Bernie Sanders voters, 25 percent of whom already might not vote for her. For his trouble, Douthat met some rather aggressive pushback from liberals, who view all the branches of the Jon Stewart comedy tree as gold.
> 
> 
> The liberal New Republic ripped off two pieces attacking Douthat’s conclusions. The first alleged that, wait for it, Douthat had not taken race into account thoroughly enough in arguing that part of Trump’s appeal is rooted in his rejection of progressive political correctness. The second argued that he was off-base because most millennials are socially liberal, as if older Americans don’t vote and younger people don’t become older people.
> 
> Bee herself weighed in, saying in a conference call “it’s so good to know that we’re the problem, and not racism,” according to New York Times writer Dave Iztkoff’s Twitter feed. When Iztkoff got some blowback from conservatives he had this to say:
> 
> Follow
> Dave Itzkoff ✔ @ditzkoff
> Isn't it interesting that people get so upset that comedians have any place in our discourse, or that viewers watch of their own volition? https://twitter.com/mzhemingway/status/778668710089424896 …
> 3:20 PM - 21 Sep 2016
> 8 8 Retweets 111 111 likes
> The weird thing about all of this is that the only people upset were liberals attacking Douthat’s theory. Part of the reason so many reacted is no doubt affection for Bee, who regularly “destroys” all the horrible conservative badness in the country. But what really got under their skin was something deeper.
> 
> People Are Voting for Fallon With Their Remotes
> The background for the current discussions about late-night comedy is the ferocious anger thrust at “Tonight Show” host Jimmy Fallon for being too nice to Trump. Earlier this week I wrote about how wrongheaded the reaction was. But I failed to mention something that speaks to Douthat’s theory that hyperpoliticizing entertainment is turning off more people than it is enlightening. Fallon and “The Tonight Show” blow their competition away in the ratings. The shows’ viewership dwarfs all of the political-minded comedy shows.
> 
> 
> “The Tonight Show” gets a bigger audience because most people aren’t looking for the self-righteous mirth of slamming those stupid Republicans right before bed. Most would rather just have a chuckle. But as the backlash against Fallon shows, that apolitical style of comedy is not only becoming rare, it is being openly attacked as insufficiently politically militant.
> 
> This is the phenomenon to which Douthat is rightly attributing much of Trump’s appeal. His signature issue, more than immigration, more than crime, more than trade, is political correctness. Are some of his supporters downright racists? Sure, but many, many more connect with him when he says the speech police are keeping us from having frank conversations about real issues and problems. It is an effective argument for Trump because it is largely true. Yet saying so drives the progressives of the cultural elite absolutely bonkers with outrage.
> 
> There are comedians who eschew political correctness; Jerry Seinfeld has taken flack for criticizing the snowflake mentality of the permanently outraged. Some comedians unable to secure late-night TV spots use the more open arena of podcasts. One such celebrity is Norm MacDonald, and a recent podcast exchange with Stephan Merchant might give a hint about why television isn’t giving him a broader platform.
> 
> About 12 minutes into a recent podcast, MacDonald and Merchant discuss transgenderism, pointing out ways in which the trans movement contradicts itself. At one point Macdonald asks if Merchant knows what cisgender means. Merchant didn’t, so MacDonald explained it is a man born a man who identifies a man, going on to say, “It’s a way of marginalizing normal people.”
> 
> 
> Now, that’s a funny joke to my way of thinking, but not one safe for TV. Tellingly, by the end of the segment on the trans issue, Merchant suggests he knows he must have offended people, but he’s not exactly sure how or why.
> 
> Stop Ordering Us How to Think
> This is exactly the predicament many voters leaning towards Trump feel. Their ideas, concerns, and feelings are consistently dismissed as not only wrong, but so wrong that they must never be spoken or heard. They know people are offended by them, but they aren’t even sure why, because it can’t be discussed. Trump and those who share positions with him are so deplorable they should only appear on TV to be destroyed.
> 
> Meanwhile, Hollywood celebrities are lining up, not just to tell us not to vote for Trump, but that not voting for Trump is the most important thing anyone can do in his or her entire life. In response to the latest video of anti-Trump hysteria, Ben Domenech hit the nail on the head.
> 
> YouTube ‎@YouTube
> Follow
> Ben Domenech ✔ @bdomenech
> This is the most convincing ad for Trump I've ever seen. https://youtu.be/nRp1CK_X_Yw
> 6:27 PM - 21 Sep 2016
> 191 191 Retweets 227 227 likes
> I understand that many right-thinking Samantha Bee fans are disappointed that not every American has jumped on their “muticulti, choose your own pronoun, get out of my safe space before I’m triggered” bandwagon. It’s hard knowing many people out there don’t share one’s fundamental beliefs. When we are told our religious beliefs, politics, and worldviews aren’t acceptable in decent discourse, it pisses us off.
> 
> 
> Trump’s unique genius in this election cycle was in identifying political correctness as a major issue for many Americans. Resistance to the progressive inquisition explains better than anything else the surprising breadth of Trump’s appeal. Liberals don’t want to hear this; after all, they consider themselves to be the apex of tolerance. More and more Americans don’t see it that way. They see a progressive hegemony that makes their ideas cogitatio non grata.
> 
> Should Trump become the next president, a possibility some on the Left are awaking to with cold shudders, the rebellion against political correctness will be why. As much pause as Trump gives me, that rebellion alone has made his candidacy worthwhile.


http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/22/leftist-scolds-like-samantha-bee-definitely-reason-trump-may-win/#disqus_thread


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/22/leftist-scolds-like-samantha-bee-definitely-reason-trump-may-win/#disqus_thread


Good link, I agree with what was said. Most "leftist" comedy is like diet soda, comes off good at first then by the end leaves that nasty taste in your mouth. Most people just want to laugh but when you cannot tell a joke without inserting some form of your own ideology into it or something political, it takes away from it a lot. Oddly enough many who enjoy Bee and Noah etc love their political humor but when people make fun of SJW's, the idiocy of PC etc these same very people get upset. It makes no sense to me other than they only want their narrative to be the one to make fun of all others.

People are tired of the constant propaganda today, even worse if you don't want to hear political shit yet most of the comedians on TV are "leftist" comedians who cannot help but insert politics into their comedy. They come off as those really terrible cartoons they show to kids at churches where the kids are excited thinking they're going to see a funny cartoon but ends up being a a show about church. Borrriiing!


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> It's the bombshell that the media has barely acknowledged this week. Evidence has emerged that the day after Hilary Clinton was ordered to turn over work-related emails from her personal server to congress, an attempt was made to alter the emails by hiding or changing the information in them. On 7/24/14, the IT specialist who eventually wiped Hillary's server posted the following in an online help forum:
> "Hello all- I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP's (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a PST file. Basically, they don't want the VIP's email address exposed to anyone, and want to be able to either strip out or replace the email address in the to/from fields in all of the emails we want to send out.
> "As a PST file or exported MSG files, this could be done though, yes? The issue is that these emails involve the private email address of someone you'd recognize, and we're trying to replace it with a placeholder address as to not expose it...
> "I have these emails available in a PST file. Can I rewrite them in the PST? I could also export to MSG and do some sort of batch find/replace. Anyone know of tools that might help with this?"
> The Reddit user making these requests is “Stonetear”, which is the account name of Paul Combetta, the tech specialist with Platte River Networks who ultimately deleted Clinton’s emails. After the Reddit messages were discovered this week, Combetta attempted to erase his Reddit history. However screenshots were cached in several locations, including archive.com.
> This newly discovered information is now being investigated by several House committees, including one led by Lamar Smith (R-TN), who released the following statement:
> “If true, these details raise new questions as to whether Platte River Networks purposefully defied legal document retention requirements. Further, it is unclear if the Federal Bureau of Investigation was aware of these facts at the time of their investigation,” Smith wrote in a letter sent Wednesday.
> “Additionally, I am concerned that Mr. Combetta may have made an attempt to delete relevant posts, including the post mentioned above, from his Reddit.com username just hours after reports initially surfaced on September 19, 2016, about his request for assistance on deleting email addresses from archived emails,” Smith wrote.
> “This raises significant concerns that materials directly related to the Committee’s investigation and responsive to its outstanding requests are being actively destroyed in an attempt to conceal relevant information from coming to light,” Smith writes.
> Astonishingly, the Justice Department gave Paul Combetta immunity from prosecution. Despite this, Combetta pleaded the Fifth during his prior appearance before the House Oversight Committee. The fact that he was immune from prosecution but still refused to answer questions suggests he's covering for someone else. Representative Smith has demanded Combetta come before his committee and answer questions, although he would likely end up taking the Fifth again.
> Which means, thanks to stonewalling, a less than thorough investigation, the destruction of evidence, and very questionable granting of immunity to key witnesses, we will likely never know the truth behind what now appears to be a very real scandal and coverup. Yet voters can judge for themselves come election day.


http://www.unbiasedamerica.com/media/techs-were-asked-to-doctor-hillary-emails

No idea if I want to believe this or not, but the case seems to be pretty strong.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Astonishingly, *the Justice Department gave Paul Combetta immunity from prosecution*. Despite this, *Combetta pleaded the Fifth during his prior appearance* before the House Oversight Committee. The fact that he was immune from prosecution but still refused to answer questions suggests he's covering for someone else. Representative Smith has demanded Combetta come before his committee and answer questions, although he would likely end up taking the Fifth again.
> Which means, thanks to stonewalling, a less than thorough investigation, the destruction of evidence, and very questionable granting of immunity to key witnesses, *we will likely never know the truth behind what now appears to be a very real scandal and coverup*. Yet voters can judge for themselves come election day.


There is nothing to see here folks. :mj

No cover up. :mj

Nothing the least but suspicious at all. :mj

Y'all are nothing but a bunch of conspiracy theorists. :mj





















As the saying goes, "Where there is smoke, there is fire". How much smoke do people have to see before they begin to admit that maybe there is something odd smoldering over there in the Clinton camp?

:mj

But they tell us that Trump is a bigot, so I guess we have no need to be concerned.

:mj


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> http://www.unbiasedamerica.com/media/techs-were-asked-to-doctor-hillary-emails
> 
> No idea if I want to believe this or not, but the case seems to be pretty strong.


This is all the work of Trump and the Russians :bayley


----------



## DevastationInc

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

bwhahaha


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

BACK IN JUNE OF 2012, HILLARY CLINTON LAUGHED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF A WAR WITH IRAN IN AN INTERVIEW WITH CHARLIE ROSE

https://comfy.moe/pgppuq.mp4

>Charlie Rose: This question about Iran, my understanding of the administration's position on containment is that, that dog will not hunt? Right? 

>Hillary Clinton: Yes. 

>Charlie Rose: Do you agree with that? 

>James Baker: I agree with that. 

>Charlie Rose: Containment will not work. 

>James Baker: I agree with that. I -- my -- my personal position on that is this -- we ought to try every possible avenue we can to see if we can get them to correct their -- their desire and goal of -- of acquiring a nuclear weapon, but we cannot let them acquire that weapon. We are the only country in the world that can stop that. The Israelis, in my opinion, do not have the capability of stopping it. They can delay it. There will also be many, many side effects, all of them adverse, from an Israeli strike. But at the end of the day, if we don't get it done the way the administration is working on it now -- which I totally agree with -- then we ought to take them out. 

>Charlie Rose: Secretary Clinton?

>Hillary Clinton: (laughter) Well, we're -- we're working hard. We're working hard. 

>James Baker: I said at the end of the day. The end of the day may be next year. It will be -- it will be next year.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


>


God I love Zach G he's hilarious. I don't think anyone can slam this as leftist bias he slammed Hildog PLENTY.

Regarding the butthurt over the leftist political comedians, fair enough, but where are the rightist comedians? Oh yes, righties idea of hilarity is a ventriloquist monkey.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> God I love Zach G he's hilarious. I don't think anyone can slam this as leftist bias he slammed Hildog PLENTY.
> 
> Regarding the butthurt over the leftist political comedians, fair enough, but where are the rightist comedians? Oh yes, righties idea of hilarity is a ventriloquist monkey.







Censorship and speech policing is now squarely a left-wing platform. While fighting against the left's authoritarian stance on freedom of speech is now become very much a right-wing battle because of them both being on opposing forces. 

So basically any comedian that has ever spoken on behalf of unrestricted freedom of speech at this point and has that particular stance has more of a right wing libertarian aspect to it than left-wing. It's pretty sad that it's become this way. The left used to consider itself pro-liberty, but ever since they ignored that now they're more like "liberty for some at the expense of the liberty of others", they can't either be called pro-liberty, or left-wing. Take your pick. And no right winger has oppressed comedians and their right to freedom of speech more than leftwingers with their feelings getting hurt over everything. 

The left abandoned a lot of the good things they used to stand for because of the authoritarians in their camp.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> God I love Zach G he's hilarious. I don't think anyone can slam this as leftist bias he slammed Hildog PLENTY.
> 
> Regarding the butthurt over the leftist political comedians, fair enough, but where are the rightist comedians? Oh yes, righties idea of hilarity is a ventriloquist monkey.


The rightist version of political commentary in entertainment are talk radio hosts like Limbaugh and Hannity. Each side have their own domain. Difference is the right present themselves as news media, until backed into a corner and proceed to claim they aren't really journalists. The left hide behind the not journalist/political commentators right from the get go.


----------



## Achilles

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I thought this quote from Robert F. Kennedy's speechwriter, Adam Walinsky, was worth sharing.



> ...today’s Democrats have become the Party of War: a home for arms merchants, mercenaries, academic war planners, lobbyists for every foreign intervention, promoters of color revolutions, failed generals, exploiters of the natural resources of corrupt governments. We have American military bases in 80 countries, and there are now American military personnel on the ground in about 130 countries, a remarkable achievement since there are only 192 recognized countries. Generals and admirals announce our national policies. Theater commanders are our principal ambassadors. Our first answer to trouble or opposition of any kind seems always to be a military movement or action.
> 
> Nor has the Democratic Party candidate for president this year, Hillary Clinton, sought peace. Instead she has pushed America into successive invasions, successive efforts at “regime change.” She has sought to prevent Americans from seeking friendship or cooperation with President Vladimir Putin of Russia by characterizing him as “another Hitler.” She proclaims herself ready to invade Syria immediately after taking the oath of office. Her shadow War Cabinet brims with the architects of war and disaster for the past decades, the neocons who led us to our present pass, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, in Ukraine, unrepentant of all past errors, ready to resume it all with fresh trillions and fresh blood. And the Democrats she leads seem intent on worsening relations with Russia, for example by sending American warships into the Black Sea, or by introducing nuclear weapons ever closer to Russia itself.


Full article: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/rfk-trump-2016-democratic-party-speechwriter-214270#ixzz4L377Pn6p


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Fuck Russia doe. You don't let a rival who's a piece of shit to boot space to operate. Strangle that bear bitch and if the bear don't like it too fucking bad. Eastern/Central Europe and the Balkans and the Caucasus and Central Asia don't come with a "Russia's bitch forever" tattoo somewhere on 'em.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Ted Cruz has given a lengthy and unambiguous endorsement of Donald Trump for president.

https://www.facebook.com/tedcruzpage/posts/10154476728267464



Lyin' Ted said:


> This election is unlike any other in our nation’s history. Like many other voters, I have struggled to determine the right course of action in this general election.
> 
> In Cleveland, I urged voters, “please, don’t stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket whom you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”
> 
> After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.
> I’ve made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.
> 
> Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable — that’s why I have always been #NeverHillary.
> 
> Six key policy differences inform my decision. First, and most important, the Supreme Court. For anyone concerned about the Bill of Rights — free speech, religious liberty, the Second Amendment — the Court hangs in the balance. I have spent my professional career fighting before the Court to defend the Constitution. We are only one justice away from losing our most basic rights, and the next president will appoint as many as four new justices. We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue. Trump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices “in the mold of Scalia.”
> 
> For some time, I have been seeking greater specificity on this issue, and today the Trump campaign provided that, releasing a very strong list of potential Supreme Court nominees — including Sen. Mike Lee, who would make an extraordinary justice — and making an explicit commitment to nominate only from that list. This commitment matters, and it provides a serious reason for voters to choose to support Trump.
> 
> Second, Obamacare. The failed healthcare law is hurting millions of Americans. If Republicans hold Congress, leadership has committed to passing legislation repealing Obamacare. Clinton, we know beyond a shadow of doubt, would veto that legislation. Trump has said he would sign it.
> 
> Third, energy. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s war on coal and relentless efforts to crush the oil and gas industry. Trump has said he will reduce regulations and allow the blossoming American energy renaissance to create millions of new high-paying jobs.
> 
> Fourth, immigration. Clinton would continue and even expand President Obama’s lawless executive amnesty. Trump has promised that he would revoke those illegal executive orders.
> 
> Fifth, national security. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s willful blindness to radical Islamic terrorism. She would continue importing Middle Eastern refugees whom the FBI cannot vet to make sure they are not terrorists. Trump has promised to stop the deluge of unvetted refugees.
> 
> Sixth, Internet freedom. Clinton supports Obama’s plan to hand over control of the Internet to an international community of stakeholders, including Russia, China, and Iran. Just this week, Trump came out strongly against that plan, and in support of free speech online.
> 
> These are six vital issues where the candidates’ positions present a clear choice for the American people.
> 
> If Clinton wins, we know — with 100% certainty — that she would deliver on her left-wing promises, with devastating results for our country.
> My conscience tells me I must do whatever I can to stop that.
> 
> We also have seen, over the past few weeks and months, a Trump campaign focusing more and more on freedom — including emphasizing school choice and the power of economic growth to lift African-Americans and Hispanics to prosperity.
> 
> Finally, after eight years of a lawless Obama administration, targeting and persecuting those disfavored by the administration, fidelity to the rule of law has never been more important.
> 
> The Supreme Court will be critical in preserving the rule of law. And, if the next administration fails to honor the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then I hope that Republicans and Democrats will stand united in protecting our fundamental liberties.
> 
> Our country is in crisis. Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to be president, and her policies would harm millions of Americans. And Donald Trump is the only thing standing in her way.
> A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment. And if you don’t want to see a Hillary Clinton presidency, I encourage you to vote for him.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

What a fucking backtrack. The same guy who went into business for himself at the RNC, thinking those in attendance and everywhere would follow suit but instead got booed out of the stage and is being threatened to be no longer supported by the base and party for his future ambitions.

Ted had no choice but man what a failed coup, per se, Cruz tried to do. Regardless of this, I don't think he gets the support he once did anyways.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm actually more concerned about Trump joining hands with Cruz after he absolutely decimated him in the primaries. 

Clinton and Sanders handshake was necessary because Bernie bros could have swung the election. But I really don't think Cruz is the Bernie of the republican party .. at all.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Holy shit:










How does is feel knowing that when you die, everything you worked towards in your life becomes the government's property?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> What a fucking backtrack. The same guy who went into business for himself at the RNC, thinking those in attendance and everywhere would follow suit but instead got booed out of the stage and is being threatened to be no longer supported by the base and party for his future ambitions.
> 
> Ted had no choice but man what a failed coup, per se, Cruz tried to do. Regardless of this, I don't think he gets the support he once did anyways.


Well, common wisdom at the time was that Trump wouldn't win, so Cruz was possibly positioning himself to be one of the few credible GOP voices in the post-2016 election period. With Clinton on an apparent steep decline physically, mentally, and image-wise, I suppose Ted found it prudent to jump aboard the Trump Train while there were still tickets available. 

It was never about principles or dignity for Cruz, and those who thought it was are politically naive. 



Reaper said:


> I'm actually more concerned about Trump joining hands with Cruz after he absolutely decimated him in the primaries.
> 
> Clinton and Sanders handshake was necessary because Bernie bros could have swung the election. But I really don't think Cruz is the Bernie of the republican party .. at all.


Why? It's exactly what you ought to have expected. Post-RNC Trump is a unifier. He wanted to bring the party together and Cruz's endorsement of him fits his objectives. Would've been silly for him to snub the endorsement. It costs Trump nothing to welcome it. 



Beatles123 said:


> Holy shit:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does is feel knowing that when you die, everything you worked towards in your life becomes the government's property?


This was apparently enough for Scott Adams - who endorsed Clinton for his safety but doesn't support either candidate - to change his endorsement from Clinton to Trump. Quite a significant development for those following his chronicling of this election cycle through the lens of persuasion.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Holy shit:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does is feel knowing that when you die, everything you worked towards in your life becomes the government's property?


I'm surprise that they're even waiting until death to do this


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Debates are on Monday right? I can't wait!

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Interesting. Trump is making a stopover in my city for a short rally. Literally just flying in at the airport, holding a brief rally right there and taking off. I might go just for the heck of it.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Plato said:


> I thought this quote from Robert F. Kennedy's speechwriter, Adam Walinsky, was worth sharing.
> 
> 
> 
> Full article: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ratic-party-speechwriter-214270#ixzz4L377Pn6p


He speaks the truth. The uncomfortable reality is that Hillary Clinton has been a passionate proponent of every war/military action (just, unjust, legal and illegal) the US has participated in (or led) since (and including) Vietnam. She has fully endorsed the very hawkish neo-conservative foreign policy agenda (which is essentially war crimes). 

With a Hillary Clinton presidency two things are guaranteed:
1. Illegal US invasions of multiple nations (resulting in the senseless deaths of American servicemen and countless innocent civilians) 

2. Increased frequency of terror attacks in the US

Because of this and as a way of saying fuck you to the "news" media's reprehensible propaganda and distorted coverage, I have decided who I'm voting for. I am a gay man, my political views are very liberal, I am a passionate advocate for civil rights and this November I will be voting for Donald Trump. 

Hillary Clinton has a clear track record of advocating for military action which has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men and women. 

Hillary Clinton's rhetoric about civil rights is empty rhetoric: when she had the power to enact change, she did nothing. Think about it: The woman that called Black youths "super predators" and passionately railed against gay marriage, only changed her positions when she was out of power (because the polls said she should). Her actions (votes) on those issues contradict her current empty rhetoric. At least Donald Trump hosted Elton John's wedding; that's more action than Hillary Clinton has ever taken in support of gays. 

The harsh reality is that the candidate whose track record is one of radical advocating for US world domination via illegal military action (war crimes) is far more similar to a man who desired world domination and used the German military in an attempt to achieve it than her opponent is. 

So this gay liberal has decided not to vote for a third party but to vote for the candidate who is far from perfect but is not a war criminal.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

65% Estate Tax seems fine to me when you consider it doesn't apply to stuff left to your spouse, you can give gifts to others tax free before you die, and you only start getting Estate Tax at all over $5.45 Mil, so if you earn less than that then Estate Tax just doesn't effect you in any way shape or form, let alone the top rate moving from 40% to 65%, 0.2% of Americans pay any form of Estate Tax let alone the top rate. 

This would effect only the absolute super super rich.

4/5 members of the 1% are too poor to pay Estate Tax.

Also a good play by Hilary, the first in a while, adopting one of Sanders more reasonable policies that will be attacked by the right as being massively socialist, while actually being really reasonable will hopefully get the left wing base more energised for her.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

And people say Trump isn't working for special interests. The estate tax is the special interest of the super wealthy like him.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I think it's a crying shame that the top 20% only pay 65% of the total taxes in this country and almost 85% of the income tax. A much more fair amount would be 80% of the total taxes and 99% of the income tax because they can "afford it" and I don't have their money and I want some so that's good enough to justify someone else stealing it for me.


----------



## amhlilhaus

deepelemblues said:


> I think it's a crying shame that the top 20% only pay 65% of the total taxes in this country and almost 85% of the income tax. A much more fair amount would be 80% of the total taxes and 99% of the income tax because they can "afford it" and I don't have their money and I want some so that's good enough to justify someone else stealing it for me.


Thats the spirit!

Power to the people!


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Equality advocates my ass. All of you tax the rich unfairly advocates are no better than thugs who break into rich people's homes and steal their stuff.

Tax the rich unfairly advocates behind the veil of financial lingo literally act like this: 

"It's equality to steal from rich people because they're rich and I'm poor therefore I deserve their money because I'm poor, but I'm not actually a thief, I didn't actually break into someone's home to steal their stuff, I just voted in the thug that did it for me."

Wanna get rich? Come up with a business plan, get venture capital or a business loan and work for it. Or get an education, do the leg work and find a good job.


----------



## Stipe Tapped

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> *An Open Letter Regarding Climate Change From Concerned Members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences*
> 
> Human-caused climate change is not a belief, a hoax, or a conspiracy. It is a physical reality. Fossil fuels powered the Industrial Revolution. But the burning of oil, coal, and gas also caused most of the historical increase in atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. This increase in greenhouse gases is changing Earth’s climate.
> 
> Our fingerprints on the climate system are visible everywhere. They are seen in warming of the oceans, the land surface, and the lower atmosphere. They are identifiable in sea level rise, altered rainfall patterns, retreat of Arctic sea ice, ocean acidification, and many other aspects of the climate system. Human-caused climate change is not something far removed from our day-to-day experience, affecting only the remote Arctic. It is present here and now, in our own country, in our own states, and in our own communities.
> 
> During the Presidential primary campaign, claims were made that the Earth is not warming, or that warming is due to purely natural causes outside of human control. Such claims are inconsistent with reality.
> 
> Others argued that no action is warranted until we have absolute certainty about human impacts on climate. Absolute certainty is unattainable. We are certain beyond a reasonable doubt, however, that the problem of human-caused climate change is real, serious, and immediate, and that this problem poses significant risks: to our ability to thrive and build a better future, to national security, to human health and food production, and to the interconnected web of living systems.
> 
> The basic science of how greenhouse gases trap heat is clear, and has been for over a century. Ultimately, the strength of that basic science brought the governments of the world to Paris in December 2015. They went to Paris despite pronounced differences in systems of government, in national self-interest, in culpability for past emissions of greenhouse gases, and in vulnerability to future climate change. The leaders of over 190 countries recognized that the problem of human-caused climate change is a danger to present and future citizens of our planet. They made national commitments to address this problem. It was a small but historic and vital first step towards more enlightened stewardship of Earth’s climate system.
> 
> From studies of changes in temperature and sea level over the last million years, we know that the climate system has tipping points. Our proximity to these tipping points is uncertain. We know, however, that rapid warming of the planet increases the risk of crossing climatic points of no return, possibly setting in motion large-scale ocean circulation changes, the loss of major ice sheets, and species extinctions. The climatic consequences of exceeding such thresholds are not confined to the next one or two electoral cycles. They have lifetimes of many thousands of years.
> 
> The political system also has tipping points. Thus it is of great concern that the Republican nominee for President has advocated U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Accord. A “Parexit” would send a clear signal to the rest of the world: "The United States does not care about the global problem of human-caused climate change. You are on your own." Such a decision would make it far more difficult to develop effective global strategies for mitigating and adapting to climate change. The consequences of opting out of the global community would be severe and long-lasting – for our planet’s climate and for the international credibility of the United States.
> 
> The United States can and must be a major player in developing innovative solutions to the problem of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Nations that find innovative ways of decarbonizing energy systems and sequestering CO2 will be the economic leaders of the 21st century. Walking away from Paris makes it less likely that the U.S. will have a global leadership role, politically, economically, or morally. We cannot afford to cross that tipping point.
> 
> The following signers of this letter do so as individual NAS members and not on behalf of the NAS itself or their Institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: signers
> 
> 
> 
> Benjamin D. Santer, Member, National Academy of Sciences^
> Kerry A. Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology^
> George B. Field, Harvard University^
> Ray Weymann, Carnegie Institution for Science Emeritus^
> Peter C. Agre, Johns Hopkina Malaria Research Institute
> Bruce Alberts, University of California San Francisco
> Thomas D. Albright, The Salk institute for Biological Studies
> Richard M. Amasino, University of Wisconsin-Madison
> Jim Anderson, Harvard University
> Phillip W. Anderson, Princeton University
> Roger Angel, University of Arizona
> Luc E. Anselin, University of Chicago
> Fred Anson, California Institute of Technology
> David Arnett, Univerity of Arizona
> Mary T. Kalin Arroyo, University of Chile
> Greg Asner, Carnegie Institution for Science
> Sir Michael Atiyah, University of Edinburgh
> Tanya M. Atwater, University of California Santa Barbara
> Francisco J. Ayala, University of California Irvine
> George Backus, University of California San Diego
> Neta Bahcall, Princeton University
> Steven Balbus, University of Oxford
> David Baltimore, California Institute of Technology
> Allen Bard, University of Texas
> Sir David Baulcombe, University of Cambridge
> Adriaan Bax, Member, National Academy of Sciences
> Barry J. Beaty, Colorado State University
> Michael Bender, Princeton University
> Charles L. Bennett, Johns Hopkins University
> Michael V.L. Bennett, Albert Einstein College of Medicine
> Jeffrey L. Bennetzen, University of Georgia
> John Bercaw, California Institute of Technology
> May R. Berenbaum, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> Howard Berg, Harvard University
> Robert Bergman, University of California Berkeley
> Jacques E. Blamont, Centre National d' Etudes Spatiales
> Roger Blandford, Stanford University
> Michael R Botchan, University of California Berkeley
> Ed A. Boyle, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> Daniel Branton, Member, National Academy of Sciences
> Winslow Briggs, Carnegie Institution for Science
> Steven P. Briggs, University of California San Diego
> Wallace Broecker, Columbia University
> Axel T. Brunger, Stanford University
> Douglas W. Burbank, University of California Santa Barbara
> E. Margaret Burbidge, University of California San Diego Emerita
> John Cairns, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
> Mark A. Cane, Columbia University
> Claude Canizares, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> Marian Carlson, Columbia University
> John Carlson, Yale University
> Stephen Carpenter, University of Wisconsin-Madison
> Sean B. Carroll, University of Wisconsin-Madison
> Emily A. Carter, Princeton University
> Katherine Cashman, University of Bristol
> Juan Carlos Castilla, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
> Anny Cazenave, Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales
> Thure E. Cerling, University of Utah
> Sylvia T. Ceyer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> Martin Chalfie, Columbia University
> F. Stuart Chapin, University of Alaska
> Roger Chevalier, University of Virginia
> Steven Chu, Stanford University
> Ralph Cicerone, Professor Emeritus, University of California
> David E. Clapham, Harvard Medical School
> George Clark, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> Michael T. Clegg, University of California Irvine
> Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Laboratoire Kastler Brossel
> Jonathan J. Cole, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
> Rita R. Colwell, University of Maryland
> Karen S. Cook, Stanford University
> Richard M. Cowling, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
> James Cronin, University of Chicago
> Paul J. Crutzen, Max Planck Institute for Chemistry
> Roy Curtiss III, University of Florida
> Gretchen Daily, Stanford University
> G. Brent Dalrymple, Oregon State University
> Sir Partha Dasgupta, University of Cambridge
> Earl W. Davie, University of Washington
> Russ E. Davis, University of California San Diego
> Marc Davis, University of California Berkeley
> Ruth DeFries, Columbia University
> Edward F. DeLong, University of Hawaii Manoa
> David L. Denlinger, Ohio State University
> George Denton, University of Maine
> Donald DePaolo, Univerity of California Berkeley
> Bob Dickinson, University of Texas
> Rodolfo Dirzo, Stanford University
> Michael J. Donoghue, Yale University
> Russell F. Doolittle, University of California San Diego
> Dennis A. Dougherty, California Institute of Technology
> John E. Dowling, Harvard University
> Bruce Draine, Princeton University
> Alan Dressler, Carnegie Institution for Science
> Thomas Dunne, University of California Santa Barbara
> Joseph R. Ecker, Member, National Academy of Sciences
> R. Lawrence Edwards, University of Minnesota
> Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
> John M. Eiler, California Institute of Technology
> David Eisenberg, University of California Los Angeles
> Richard Eisenberg, University of Rochester
> W. Gary Ernst, Stanford University
> Mark Estelle, University of California San Diego
> James A. Estes, University of California Santa Cruz
> Paul Falkowski, Rutgers University
> Nina V. Fedoroff, Pennsylvania State University Emerita
> Juli Feigon, University of California Los Angeles
> Joseph Felsenstein, University of Washington
> Alex Filippenko, University of California Berkeley
> Gerald D. Fischbach, Simons Foundation, Chief Scientist
> Edmond H. Fischer, University of Washington
> Donald Forsyth, Brown University
> Stewart Fotheringham, Arizona State University
> Wendy Freedman, University of Chicago
> Katherine H. Freeman, Pennsylvania State University
> Perry Allen Frey, University of Wisconsin-Madison
> Margaret T. Fuller, Stanford University
> Douglas J. Futuyma, Stony Brook University
> Fred H. Gage, Salk Institute for Biological Research
> Chris Garrett, University of Victoria
> Neil Gehrels, Member, National Academy of Sciences
> Reinhard Genzel, Max-Planck-Institut für Extraterrestrische Physik
> Howard Georgi, Harvard University
> Charles Gilbert, The Rockefeller University
> Sheldon Glashow, Boston University
> Roy Glauber, Harvard University
> Alexander N. Glazer, University of California Berkeley
> Peter H. Gleick, Pacific Institute
> Stephen P. Goff, Columbia University
> Robert B. Goldberg, University of California Los Angeles
> Peter Goldreich, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
> Michael Goodchild, University of California Santa Barbara
> Richard Goody, Harvard University
> Fred Gould, North Carolina State University
> Harry Gray, California Institute of Technology
> Paul Greengard, Rockefeller University
> Diane E. Griffin, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
> David Gross, University of California Santa Barbara
> Charles G. Gross, Princeton University
> Carol A. Gross, University of California San Francisco
> Timothy Grove, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> Robert H. Grubbs, California Institute of Technology
> Jim Gunn, Princeton University
> Sarah Hake, Agricultural Research Service
> Alexander Halliday, University of Oxford
> Jim Hansen, Columbia University
> Susan Hanson, Clark University
> Stanley Hart, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
> Daniel L. Hartl, Harvard University
> Dennis Hartmann, University of Washington
> Robert Haselkorn, The University of Chicago
> Alan Hastings, University of California Davis
> Robert M. Hauser, University of Wisconsin-Madison
> Stephen Hawking, Cambridge University
> Wick C. Haxton, Univerity of California Berkeley
> John Hayes, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
> Martha P. Haynes, Cornell University
> Timothy Heckman, Johns Hopkins University
> Carl Heiles, University of California Berkeley
> Lars Hernquist, Harvard University
> Dudley Herschbach, Harvard University
> John G. Hildebrand, University of Arizona
> David M. Hillis, University of Texas
> Sarah Hobbie, University of Minnesota
> Bert Hoelldobler, Arizona State University
> Paul F. Hoffman, University of Victoria
> Albrecht W. Hofmann, Max Planck Institute for Chemistry
> Sir Brian Hoskins, Imperial College London & University of Reading
> Andre T. Jagendorf, Cornell University
> Daniel H. Janzen, University of Pennsylvania
> J.R. Jokipii, University of Arizona
> Tom Jordan, University of Southern California
> Jean Jouzel, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climate et de l'Environnement
> William A. Jury, University of California Riverside
> H. Ronald Kaback, University of California Los Angeles
> Thomas Kailath, Stanford University
> Peter M. Kareiva, University of California Los Angeles
> David Karl, University of Hawaii
> Harvey Karten, Professor Emeritus, University of California San Diego
> Guinevere Kauffmann, Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics
> Steve A. Kay, University of Southern California
> Paul Kay, International Computer Science Institute
> Peter Kelemen, Columbia University
> Kenneth Kellermann, National Radio Astronomy Observatory
> Donald Kennedy, Stanford University
> Charles Kennel, University of California San Diego
> Robert C. Kennicutt, Cambridge University
> Wolfgang Ketterle, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> Margaret Kidwell, University of Arizona
> Susan W. Kieffer, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> Peter S. Kim, Stanford University
> Patrick V. Kirch, University of California Berkeley
> Margaret Kivelson, University of California Los Angeles
> Daniel Kleppner, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> Catherine L. Kling, Iowa State University
> Judith P. Klinman, University of California Berkeley
> Eric I. Knudsen, Stanford University School of Medicine
> Brian Koblika, Stanford University School of Medicine
> M.A.R. Koehl, Univerity of California Berkeley
> David Kohlstedt, University of Minnesota
> Sir Hans Kornberg, Boston University
> John Krebs, University of Oxford
> Shrinivas Kulkarni, California Institute of Technology
> J. Clark Lagarias, University of California Davis
> Kurt Lambeck, Australian National University
> Eric Lambin, Stanford University
> Arthur Landy, Brown University
> Charles H. Langmuir, Harvard University
> Brian A. Larkins, University of Nebraska, Lincoln
> John H. Law, University of Arizona Emeritus
> Sir John Lawton, Former Chief Executive, UK Natural Environment Research Council
> Yuan Lee, Academica Sinica Taiwan
> Richard E. Lenski, Michigan State University
> Simon Levin, Princeton University
> Michael Levitt, Stanford University School of Medicine
> Gene E. Likens, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
> Laszlo Lorand, Feinberg Medical School Northwestern University Emeritus
> C. Owen Lovejoy, Kent State University
> Jane Lubchenco, Oregon State University
> Jonathan I. Lunine, Cornell University
> Michael Lynch, Indiana University
> Akin Mabogunje, Foundation for Development and Environmental Initiatives
> Trudy Mackay, North Carolina State University
> Anthony P. Mahowald, University of Chicago
> Syukuro Manabe, Princeton University
> Joyce Marcus, University of Michigan
> Rudolph A. Marcus, California Institute of Technology
> Douglas S. Massey, Princeton University
> Pamela A. Matson, Stanford University
> Rowena G. Matthews, University of Michigan Emerita
> Michel G. Mayor, University of Geneva
> Bonnie J. McCay, Rutgers University
> Richard McCray, University of Colorado
> Bruce S. McEwen, Rockefeller University
> Fred McLafferty, Cornell University
> Jim McWilliams, University of California Los Angeles
> Jerrold Meinwald, Cornell University
> Jerry M. Melillo, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole
> Henry J. Melosh, Purdue University
> Sabeeha Merchant, University of California Los Angeles
> Joachim Messing, Rutgers University
> Mario Molina, University of California San Diego
> Harold Mooney, Stanford University
> Peter B. Moore, Yale University
> James M. Moran, Member, National Academy of Sciences
> Nancy Moran, University of Texas
> M. Granger Morgan, Carnegie Mellon University
> Ellen S. Mosley-Thompson, Ohio State University
> Walter Munk, University of California San Diego
> Royce Murray, Univeristy of North Carolina
> Sidney Nagel, University of Chicago
> Ramesh Narayan, Harvard University
> Jeremy Nathans, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
> Eugene W. Nester, University of Washington
> William T. Newsome, Stanford University
> Richard P. Novick, New York University School of Medicine
> Paul E. Olsen, Columbia University
> Peter Olson, Johns Hopkins University
> Neil D. Opdyke, University of Florida
> Jeremiah Ostriker, Columbia University
> Sarah Otto, University of British Columbia
> Sir Ronald Oxburgh, Cambridge University
> Stephen Pacala, Member, National Academy of Sciences
> Norman R. Pace, University of Colorado
> Richard D. Palmiter, University of Washington School of Medicine
> Stephen Palumbi, Stanford University
> Joseph Pedlosky, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
> Jim Peebles, Princeton University
> Gordon Pettengill, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> S. George Philander, Princeton University
> William Phillips, Member, National Academy of Sciences
> Dolores R. Piperno, Member, National Academy of Sciences
> Terry Plank, Columbia University
> William H. Press, University of Texas
> Frank Press, Member, National Academy of Sciences
> George W. Preston, Carnegie Institution for Science
> Peter H. Raven, Missouri Botanical Garden
> Maureen E. Raymo, Columbia University
> Martin Rees, Cambridge University
> Peter Rhines, University of Washington
> Frank Richter, University of Chicago
> Robert E. Ricklefs, University of Missouri
> Lynn M. Riddiford, University of Washington
> George Rieke, University of Arizona
> Marcia Rieke, University of Arizona
> Adam Riess, Johns Hopkins University
> Morton Roberts, National Radio Astronomy Observatory
> Gene E. Robinson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> A. Kimball Romney, University of California Irvine
> Michael Rosbash, Brandeis University
> Mal Ruderman, Columbia University
> Roberta L. Rudnick, University of California Santa Barbara
> Gary Ruvkun, Massachusetts General Hospital
> Roald Sagdeev, University of Maryland
> Pedro A. Sanchez, Columbia University
> David Sandwell, University of California San Diego
> Joshua R. Sanes, Harvard University
> Daniel L. Schacter, Harvard University
> Paul Schechter, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> Randy W. Schekman, University of California Berkeley
> Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
> David W. Schindler, University of Alberta
> Bill Schlesinger, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
> Johanna Schmitt, University of California Davis
> Robert J. Scholes, University of the Witswatersrand
> Julian Schroeder, University of California San Diego
> Gerald Schubert, Universty of California Los Angeles
> Matthew P. Scott, President, Carnegie Institution for Science
> Sara Seager, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> Ronald R. Sederoff, North Carolina State University
> Jeff Severinghaus, University of California San Diego
> Irwin Shapiro, Harvard University
> Carla J. Shatz, Stanford University
> Peter Shearer, University of California San Diego
> Frank Shu, University of California San Diego
> Kerry Sieh, Nanyang Technological University
> James Simons, Chairman, Simons Foundation
> Norman H. Sleep, Stanford University
> Susan Solomon, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> Pamela S. Soltis, University of Florida
> Alfred Sommer, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
> David Spergel, Princeton University
> Nicholas C. Spitzer, University of California San Diego
> Charles Steidel, California Institute of Technology
> Thomas A. Steitz, Yale University
> Edward Stolper, California Institute of Technology
> Howard A. Stone, Princeton University
> Joan E. Strassmann, Washington University, St. Louis
> Timothy Swager, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> Lynn R. Sykes, Columbia University Emeritus
> Harvey Tananbaum, Member, National Academy of Sciences
> Joseph Taylor, Princeton University
> Saul A. Teukolsky, Cornell University
> David Hurst Thomas, American Museum of Natural History
> Lonnie Thompson, Ohio State University
> Kip Thorne, Member, National Academy of Sciences
> James M. Tiedje, Michigan State University
> Alar Toomre, Massachusetts Institute of technology
> Scott Tremaine, Institute for Advanced Study
> Susan Trumbore, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry
> James Tumlinson, Pennsylvania State University
> Monica G. Turner, University of Wisconsin-Madison
> Anthony Tyson, University of California Davis
> Joan Selverstone, Valentine University of California Los Angeles
> James L. Van Etten, University of Nebraska
> Martha Vaughan, Member, National Academy of Sciences
> Inder Verma, The Salk institute for Biological Studies
> George Veronis, Yale University
> Peter H. von Hippel, University of Oregon
> Gerhard Wagner, Harvard Medical School
> David B. Wake, University of California Berkeley
> David Walker, Columbia University
> John M. Wallace, University of Washington
> E. Bruce Watson, Member, National Academy of Sciences
> Steven Weinberg, University of Texas
> Rainer Weiss, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> William J. Welch, University of California Berkeley
> Mary Jane West-Eberhard, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute Emerita
> Simon D.M. White, Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics
> Torsten N. Wiesel, President Emeritus, The Rockefeller University
> Edward O. Wilson, Harvard University
> Robert W. Wilson, Member, National Academy of Sciences
> David Wineland, Member, National Academy of Sciences
> Steven Wofsy, Harvard University
> Julian Wolpert, Princeton University
> John Wood, Member, National Academy of Sciences
> George M. Woodwell, Woods Hole Research Center
> Stanford E. Woosley, University of California Santa Cruz
> Carl Wunsch, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> Keith Yamamoto, University of California San Francisco
> Martin Yanofsky, University of California San Diego
> Tilahun Yilma, University of California Davis
> William Young, University of California San Diego
> Mary Lou Zoback, Stanford University
> Maria T. Zuber, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> 
> 
> 
> SOURCE


The smartest people on the planet, led by Stephen Hawking, are telling us that the planet is fucked if Trump is elected.

Meanwhile, Trump is participating in voodoo rituals.






:HA

In the interests of fair criticism, we're just as fucked with a Clinton presidency, we'll just be fucked slightly later on down the road with her in charge. Make no mistake about it though, we're fucked either way.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> The smartest people on the planet, led by Stephen Hawking, are telling us that the planet is fucked if Trump is elected.
> 
> Meanwhile, Trump is participating in voodoo rituals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :HA
> 
> In the interests of fair criticism, we're just as fucked with a Clinton presidency, we'll just be fucked slightly later on down the road with her in charge. Make no mistake about it though, we're fucked either way.


Question:
Are all the properties Trump owns compliant with EPA standards? 

Answer:
Through his Trump Organization (15, 16), he owns in whole or in part or manages or lends his name to 12 large luxury hotels, 17 golf courses and onsite hotels and 28 other large real estate properties the latter consisting of luxury condominium towers and office buildings. The hotels also usually combine lodging with permanent residences in the same building.

All of these properties have more than met the sustainability standards and his newest and future properties all feature best in class sustainability standards using the latest technology to achieve this.

Source: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/donald-trump-secret-man-green-alvia-gaskill-jr-


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

He's going to abolish the EPA though. :drose


----------



## Achilles

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Thought some of you may enjoy this message from Canada.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Uhhhh ohhhhhhhhh~











@CamillePunk @Fringe @DesolationRow @Reaper @Tater @Miss Sally

TRIPLE DOUBLE 150cc MARIO KART UNDERWATER WHILE BASKET WEAVING IN SPACE ON A GIANT CHESSBOARD!


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I am going to miss the fuck out of this election cycle when it's over. Politics has never been this entertaining. I wake up every morning excited to read about what new, hilarious wrinkle the election has developed while I slept. I'm rarely disappointed.

EDIT: :lmao Somebody remixed the "Avengers endorse Clinton" ad to make it pro-Trump, and it's hilarious and poignant and beautiful all at the same time:


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Anyone can feel free to correct me, as I may be wrong on the policies here.

So Trump wants to do something about immigration....he doesn't want Muslims to enter the country (again, could have been false information I was reading, feel free to correct) to help combat terrorism. I absolutely get that people see a problem in this, as we can't judge every single Muslim based on the actions of some. On the other hand, it's clearly hard enough to pick the terrorists out of a crowd and control the problem. To make it clear, ANYONE can be a terrorist, we just obviously have an issue with one particular group at the moment.

The Aussies here can help me with this one: Isn't it difficult to get in to Australia as an immigrant? I believe they have very strict laws on immigration, it's very tight, correct? If so, I just find it interesting that people are up in arms over Trump's policy but Australia gets a pass on it.

I don't think it's fair that people get judged based on their religion, where they are from, etc., but, I also agree that there is an issue here and 'being the bad guy' by making a decision such as Trump's may be a good thing in the long run. I have always been for countries putting their own people first, I personally think it's the right thing to do. 

Just a bit of a random thought I had.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

lol anyone believing Ted Cruz had any integrity at all. i am sorry you had to find out this way.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Catalanotto said:


> Anyone can feel free to correct me, as I may be wrong on the policies here.
> 
> So Trump wants to do something about immigration....he doesn't want Muslims to enter the country (again, could have been false information I was reading, feel free to correct) to help combat terrorism. I absolutely get that people see a problem in this, as we can't judge every single Muslim based on the actions of some. On the other hand, it's clearly hard enough to pick the terrorists out of a crowd and control the problem. To make it clear, ANYONE can be a terrorist, we just obviously have an issue with one particular group at the moment.
> 
> The Aussies here can help me with this one: Isn't it difficult to get in to Australia as an immigrant? I believe they have very strict laws on immigration, it's very tight, correct? If so, I just find it interesting that people are up in arms over Trump's policy but Australia gets a pass on it.
> 
> I don't think it's fair that people get judged based on their religion, where they are from, etc., but, I also agree that there is an issue here and 'being the bad guy' by making a decision such as Trump's may be a good thing in the long run. I have always been for countries putting their own people first, I personally think it's the right thing to do.
> 
> Just a bit of a random thought I had.


He doesn't want muslims entering from war-torn regions controlled by ISIS or countries that are known to sponsor terrorism.

He does not want to ban all muslims. that is more liberal lies.

Everyone else will be vetted. He wants "extreme vetting" which is really just common sense by now.

Do you support death for people that leave islam, or are gay or follow other religions, do you support women rights blah blah...i mean really who wants these type of people in the country to begin with?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> lol anyone believing Ted Cruz had any integrity at all. i am sorry you had to find out this way.


> Won't "go like a servile puppy dog" and support Trump (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/ted-cruz-rules-out-voting-for-hillary-clinton-225944)

> Becomes his bitch just a few days ago despite Don Juan dragging his dad and wife through the mud

>









:trump


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> lol anyone believing Ted Cruz had any integrity at all. i am sorry you had to find out this way.


I actually thought that Cruz was going to support that bald guy, Evan McMurray(?) who is apparently running for president


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Catalanotto said:


> I don't think it's fair that people get judged based on their religion


What if a person claimed they were of a religion that orders rape or murder?

Would you not judge that person negatively?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Famous people shilling for Hilary is hilarious, you'd think this is one election they'd sit out. Oh who am I kidding, rich democrats will never be effected by insane Democratic policies because they live in their own little world.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Famous people shilling for Hilary is hilarious, you'd think this is one election they'd sit out. Oh who am I kidding, rich democrats will never be effected by insane Democratic policies because they live in their own little world.


Doesn't help that most of Hollywood likes to rub elbows with Democrats and brag about it.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*OH SHIT!*









@CamillePunk @Miss Sally 

IT'S HAPPENIIIIIIIING! :lmao


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Catalanotto said:


> Anyone can feel free to correct me, as I may be wrong on the policies here.
> 
> So Trump wants to do something about immigration....he doesn't want Muslims to enter the country (again, could have been false information I was reading, feel free to correct) to help combat terrorism. I absolutely get that people see a problem in this, as we can't judge every single Muslim based on the actions of some. On the other hand, it's clearly hard enough to pick the terrorists out of a crowd and control the problem. To make it clear, ANYONE can be a terrorist, we just obviously have an issue with one particular group at the moment.
> 
> The Aussies here can help me with this one: Isn't it difficult to get in to Australia as an immigrant? I believe they have very strict laws on immigration, it's very tight, correct? If so, I just find it interesting that people are up in arms over Trump's policy but Australia gets a pass on it.
> 
> I don't think it's fair that people get judged based on their religion, where they are from, etc., but, I also agree that there is an issue here and 'being the bad guy' by making a decision such as Trump's may be a good thing in the long run. I have always been for countries putting their own people first, I personally think it's the right thing to do.
> 
> Just a bit of a random thought I had.


Firstly Australia does not get a pass on it's immigration policy, which is vile. 

But also it's actually quite different to what Trump has proposed. And btw my understanding is that Trump has backed down from the no Muslim immigration stance and now just backs making immigration harder from certain countries (presumably ones with Muslim majority populations), so this way Scottish Muslims won't be banned from entering the US for example. But his stance on Muslim immigration seems to change wildly depending on who his audience is, so its hard to say, you could be right.

But yeah we don't have discriminatory immigration policy like Trump supports, and both major parties have ruled it out.

What we've done is make illegal immigration impossible and pointless. Basically cause we're an island we have the navy out trying to catch and find boats of illegal immigrants at which point we tow them back to Indonesia. 

If they happen to escape the net of boats then we lock them up in camps, where a bunch of people have died and children have been raped and tortured.

Also, FWIW the biggest group of illegal immigrants to Australia, both before and after we did all this were and are British people who took a plane here and never took one home. But for some reason there isn't as much public outrage and panic about that as there are people escaping warzones and trying to get here by boat.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

That Avengers shit left a really bad taste in my mouth and I don't even support Trump. What a joke.


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Gandhi said:


> What if a person claimed they were of a religion that orders rape or murder?
> 
> Would you not judge that person negatively?



If it were in that context where the person absolutely believes that is right and practices such things, yes.

I was thinking more of people assuming that since someone is Muslim, they MUST be a terrorist. I should have said the generalization of a group of people. As soon as anyone hears the words Muslim, Islam, etc., terrorism comes to mind.

I watched a social experiment the other day on youtube where they had a white girl ask people to hold her bag as she did things like go get water or go to the washroom. Everyone took her bag without a problem.

They then set out a Muslim woman to ask the same question and everyone made excuses like 'I'm leaving now'. One guy actually said yes and some guy at the end of the bench was shocked and said 'look at how she is dressed' and straight up called her a terrorist.


----------



## Gandhi

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Catalanotto said:


> If it were in that context where the person absolutely believes that is right and practices such things, yes.
> 
> I was thinking more of people assuming that since someone is Muslim, they MUST be a terrorist. I should have said the generalization of a group of people. As soon as anyone hears the words Muslim, Islam, etc., terrorism comes to mind.
> 
> I watched a social experiment the other day on youtube where they had a white girl ask people to hold her bag as she did things like go get water or go to the washroom. Everyone took her bag without a problem.
> 
> They then set out a Muslim woman to ask the same question and everyone made excuses like 'I'm leaving now'. One guy actually said yes and some guy at the end of the bench was shocked and said 'look at how she is dressed' and straight up called her a terrorist.


*Sahih Bukhari Hadith (52:260) - "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' " 

Bukhari Hadith (72:715) - "Aisha said, 'I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women'"

Bukhari Hadith (6:60:79) "the Prophet ordered the two adulterers to be stoned to death, and they were stoned to death near the place where biers used to be placed near the Mosque. I saw her companion (i.e. the adulterer) bowing over her so as to protect her from the stones."

Bukhari Hadith (48:826) "The Prophet said, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind."

Bukhari Hadith (88:219) - "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler." 

Abu Dawud Hadith (4462) - "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.".

Quran (Surah Ali 'Imran 3:28) - "Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them..."

Quran (Surah At-Talaq 65:4) "And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women - if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah - He will make for him of his matter ease."

Quran (Surah Al-Fath 48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves"

Quran (Surah At-Tawbah 9:5) "And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

Quran (Surah Al-Bayyinah 98:6) "Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures."

Also don't bother to show me peaceful veres, those were all in Meccan verses and Mohammed changed the verses himself by stating in a Medina chapter that the NEWER verses are the ones to be followed instead of the older ones if both verses contradict the other. All the peaceful verses are Meccan, and the hateful & violent ones are Medinian.

Quran (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:106) "We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?"*

All the green above is muslim scripture of muslim lifestyle.

Regardless if a self identifying _"muslim"_ follows or doesn't follow said scripture out of ignorance, isn't it understandable to be cautious around those who label themselves followers of said scripture? Scripture that is, ..well, about terrorism?


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Gandhi said:


> What if a person claimed they were of a religion that orders rape or murder?
> 
> Would you not judge that person negatively?


Nop. Because Orthodoxia is just a part of a religion. The fact that a person advocate for a religion doesnt necessarily mean that his translation of the doctrine is literal

And even then, even Orthodoxia es just a denomination, the best example of this is how Protestans and Orthodox christians have their own interpreation of the Doxa but the cult is heavily based on it.

Every sacred book order Rape and Murder in one place or another, rational justifications for it are an entirely different discussions. The first argument in discussion should be "is this order moral?" If it's, is justifable under certain situations or just because the books advocate for it? (not including the fact that the book could advocate for it under certain conditions and not in general). If it isn't you have a situation where "is the book completely disposable just for that mandate? or there is some value in it independently of that order?".

The point is, you could keep extending this argument to infinite loops pased the second point. Your question is tricky because it points a false dichotomy, because you're attributing all the moral compass on the book, when the discussion is about where is the source of moral behaviour, for example, the book could be the ruling but if the source of power of he book is divine ilumination then that leave space for disobedience


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










:draper2


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> :draper2


Of course the KKK would support Trump. If I wanted Chocolate Ice cream and one guy was offering me vanilla, and another was offoring me strawberry with chocolate syrup, im obviously going to pick strawberry. It's not what I want, but it's the closest thing. Trump wanting illegal aliens gone and police to not be shat upon doesn't equal their extremes, but they'll take him over someone like Hilary who wants the complete polar opposite of what they do.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

the communist party USA endorsed obama in 2012

communism is responsible for more human death and misery and starvation and torture and environmental degradation and about 20 other bad things than anything else in the history of mankind

does this mean obama is tainted with all the bad things communists have done and believe? no.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> communism is responsible for more human death and misery and starvation and torture and environmental degradation and about 20 other bad things than anything else in the history of mankind


The undisputed, reigning, universal champion of all things that have fucked up society throughout the entire history of mankind is religion. Communism is a punk ass little bitch by comparison.

Anyone who cares about actual freedom and liberty should oppose authoritarianism no matter if it comes from the left (communism) or from the right (fascism). Sadly, the two major choices in this election cycle are just different forms of fascism.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It's a shame all 3,000 of those KKK votes are probably going to come from safe red states. :sad: The Klan should relocate to Pennsylvania IMO.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> The undisputed, reigning, universal champion of all things that have fucked up society throughout the entire history of mankind is religion. Communism is a punk ass little bitch by comparison.
> 
> Anyone who cares about actual freedom and liberty should oppose authoritarianism no matter if it comes from the left (communism) or from the right (fascism). Sadly, the two major choices in this election cycle are just different forms of fascism.


Nationalism doesn't have to mean you get a raging sieg heil in your pants every time you see an iron cross. 

What we're trying to achieve here, friend, is Americanism. NOT Globalism.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

TBH, I hate to be that guy, but in 2016 given how flacid the KKK is (when was the last time they were even involved in a shooting or lynching?), I would probably prefer their endorsement for Trump over certain other groups endorsing Hillary :shrug

I've said this before and I still hold to it (till someone presents evidence otherwise), the 2016 KKK and conservative Christian is less violent than many other groups amongst our midst. Of course, the KKK ideology is sickening and I don't support what they stand for, but at least they're not going around shooting other people anymore at the rates other groups are doing to either their own or others.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2016/year-hate-and-extremism


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> The undisputed, reigning, universal champion of all things that have fucked up society throughout the entire history of mankind is religion. Communism is a punk ass little bitch by comparison.
> 
> Anyone who cares about actual freedom and liberty should oppose authoritarianism no matter if it comes from the left (communism) or from the right (fascism). Sadly, the two major choices in this election cycle are just different forms of fascism.


This is completely false. Religion is hardly the worst thing that's happened to mankind, the worst thing that's happened to mankind is higher thinking. It was science and ingenuity which has created weapons since the dawn of time to kill each other with. The two greatest wars fought weren't over Religion, there has been more non-religious conflicts during the past 100 years that has killed more people than any previous Religious wars. Even in the Medieval age many of the wars fought weren't Religious at all.

The notion that Religion is this big scary boogeyman is completely hilarious. We wouldn't even be at this current level of technology if not for Priests who preserved reading writing, math and science after Rome fell because the barbarians had no use for it. The day the middle east truly went backwards was because the Mongolians sacked Baghdad and killed all the scholars, learned people and tossed all the books and scrolls kept there into the river which ran colored with the dye from these treasures for days. 

The people who actually got science rolling and were the fathers of astronomy were Religious men, why? Because the average person was busy working and trying to figure out where their next meal was coming from, Rulers were busy trying to figure out how to take stuff from everyone else. Only Religious people got the chance to really sit down and ponder things which lead to more discoveries. Reading and writing even just Religious text is mind expanding far more than anything an illiterate could do. During a dark time where learning wasn't valued it was Religious people who set up schools.

Once learning and science was realized for it's potential it was soaked up by various men for various purposes. It wasn't a church that made the first gun, it wasn't Religion that ushered us into the era of drones, chemical weapons, nukes and bombings. 

Blaming Religion as the worst thing is like blaming the low level drug dealer for someone ODing but not the creator, the manufacturer nor the person who choose to do the drug. There is blame for all of them.

In reality we don't even need Religion to set us back, people do that already. The regressive left and SJWs who are made up of anti-Religious people would ban books that are offensive, subjects that are touchy and anything that hurts feelings. They'd be burning books on the lawn written by anyone who doesn't live up to their moral code. All that people have done is replace a Religious moral code with one of their own making. It's no wonder why some of the worst genocides were committed by atheists who valued science and discipline above all else.

Humanity with or without Religion will set itself back or destroy itself no matter what and possibly on an even greater scale and this is coming from someone who is a cynical agnostic.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Democide and State Atheism are intrinsically linked to anywhere between 40 million to 260 million deaths. 

Now as an atheist I used to fall for the same old arguments that atheism had nothing to do with those deaths but then that makes me realize that how come an atheist can claim that deaths under religious rule were all a result of religion, but act like none of the deaths and genocides under state atheism had anything to do with atheism ... especially when there's proof that under state atheism, the religious were persecuted. Even if not all of individuals killed in democide were a result of state atheism as a policy, many were and we can't allow that murkiness and dispute to make us ignore the facts that it happened. I've also come to realize that simply embracing atheism does not make one more rational. It's simply an ideology with its own failings and therefore must be seen for what it really is. It doesn't make someone smarter, or their perception of the world better because while they remove themselves from one group of monoliths, they usually end up becoming a part of another. 

Anyways, I'm not sure if we can blame religion for the worst atrocities in the world at all when we know what happened in countries that adopted atheism and communism at the same time. The atrocities currently happening in North Korea are also happening while their state religion is atheism .. are they linked to one another in a causal relationship .. probably not. But likely so.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Anyways, I'm not sure if we can blame religion for the worst atrocities in the world at all when we know what happened in countries that adopted atheism and communism at the same time. The atrocities currently happening in North Korea are also happening while their state religion is atheism .. are they linked to one another in a causal relationship .. probably not. But likely so.


And what is the causal relationship exactly?

You say one likely exists, but how exactly are the deaths in North Korea caused by atheism?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> And what is the causal relationship exactly?
> 
> You say one likely exists, but how exactly are the deaths in North Korea caused by atheism?


http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...and.crushed.to.death.in.north.korea/96190.htm


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...and.crushed.to.death.in.north.korea/96190.htm


Your post made it sound like you were trying to link North Korea's atheism with a lot more than just the persecution of Christians.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Your post made it sound like you were trying to link North Korea's atheism with a lot more than just the persecution of Christians.


fpalm

That's just one example. There's a lot more. Whatever I "alluded" to is something you cooked up in your own head. I was being very cautious in talking about the causal relationship, but context as always is lost upon you. 

I'd tell you to do your own research but you never do. Talking with you is useless because you have your own preconceived ideas about things and you always waste my time.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> fpalm


That's exactly how I felt about you posting an article form Christian Today quoting a report from "Christian Solidarity Worldwide".

Though it makes very clear why you hold the views you do.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> That's exactly how I felt about you posting an article form Christian Today quoting a report from "Christian Solidarity Worldwide".


And that just proves how fucking biased _you _are that you saw christian and immediately assumed that their research is wrong, or worth dismissing.

Thanks for continuing to expose how your brain operates :lol

You are now the first person I have ever come across in my life that has defended North Korea. Congratulations, you win a medal for being a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> And that just proves how fucking biased _you _are that you saw christian and immediately assumed that their research is wrong, or worth dismissing.


Nothing says unreasonable bias than questioning the use of an article from Christian Today quoting a report from "Christian Solidarity Worldwide" in an argument about religion.

The only unbiased thing is to accept what they say blindly.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

We lost rush but still have aussies like yeahbaby and alkomesh. :mj2


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Nothing says unreasonable bias than questioning the use of an article Christian Today quoting a report from "Christian Solidarity Worldwide" in an argument about religion.
> 
> The only unbiased thing is to accept what they say blindly.


So you're saying that because a christian organization conducted research on the living conditions and persecution of christians in North Korea, therefore by virtue of them all being christians the entire research is worth rejecting? 

So then this logic should apply to everything always. 

- Just because climate scientists research about climate science therefore all climate science research should be rejected
- Just because feminists conduct research on the plight of women, therefore all feminist research is worth rejecting
- Just because muslims come out and say that muslims are being persecuted in america therefore we can claim that no muslims are ever persecuted in america
- Just because blacks come out and say that blacks are being oppressed in america therefore we can reject their claim. 

You sir, are a parody of logical thinking.


----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> :draper2


Imagine caring about the KKK in the year 2016.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Congratulations to the KKK for actually being able to produce print news in 2016

Proof that it has not all gone digital


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Fascinating read from Scott Adams, explaining why he switched his endorsement from Clinton to Trump:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150919416661/why-i-switched-my-endorsement-from-clinton-to


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Gandhi said:


> All the green above is muslim scripture of muslim lifestyle.
> 
> Regardless if a self identifying _"muslim"_ follows or doesn't follow said scripture out of ignorance, isn't it understandable to be cautious around those who label themselves followers of said scripture? Scripture that is, ..well, about terrorism?


I absolutely get that, and, I absolutely understand why people judge the way they do, it's just in our nature, however, just because someone follows a specific religion doesn't mean they follow every part of it, you know what I mean? They can follow the good parts of it but disagree with the bad parts of it. There are people like that out there. There are religious people out there who have no issues with homosexuals, even though their religion tells them they should.

I hope that at least make some sense. I am not fully educated on all aspects of every religion and are an atheist myself. I do like to talk about it and learn, though, sometimes taking the time to read about such things just to gain knowledge about it so my points may not always be accurate.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Did Ghandi get banned for criticizing Islam again?

I don't get why all these threads pertaining to race, that are never civil, are allowed but criticizing a religion is a bannable offense?

And I don't even agree with him on much...I just find that...odd.


----------



## amhlilhaus

For the debates, all hillary has to do is not have a coughing fit, avoid arguing with trump and she will be hailed as winning huge. 

Lets see if she can do it


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Goku said:


> We lost rush but still have aussies like yeahbaby and alkomesh. :mj2


Hey what's wrong with us? You don't like us because we always tell the truth?


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Reaper said:


>


Is this another attempted hit-piece from the left? :lmao
it's getting more desperate day by day. You know things are tough when the latest swear involves a cameo from _Home Alone_

:mark: waiting for Mrs Clinton to crack tomorrow


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Just for fun


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Fascinating read from Scott Adams, explaining why he switched his endorsement from Clinton to Trump:
> 
> http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150919416661/why-i-switched-my-endorsement-from-clinton-to


Dude was a Trump supporter from the start. His endorsement for Hillary was satirical. This is similar to the tactic used by Adam Walinsky using his ties to Kennedy to sway undecided Democrat leaning voters by telling them they are switching sides, even though both have been Republican leaning for years.


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Big Salad said:


>


http://www.snopes.com/what-if-taxpayers-only-voted-map/

:lmao


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> http://www.snopes.com/what-if-taxpayers-only-voted-map/
> 
> :lmao


That's funny, RIGHT SMARTS is usually so objective.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@Miss Sally @DesolationRow @Reaper @Lumpy McRighteous 






CUCKS ARE BACK!

BACK AGAIN.


What's funny is that people like some here actually believe we Trump supporters think this.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Hey what's wrong with us? You don't like us because we always tell the truth?


you're not rush

:mj2


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> @Miss Sally @DesolationRow @Reaper @Lumpy McRighteous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CUCKS ARE BACK!
> 
> BACK AGAIN.
> 
> 
> What's funny is that people like some here actually believe we Trump supporters think this.


More cringeworthy than the recent Joss Whedon-backed Save the Day commercial. :tripsscust

I'm not voting / supporting Trump though, since it's obvious he's only doing this for the sake shit-ton of publicity. However, only he and Bernie are definitely cool in my book, with the reasons regarding Don Juan being his exceptional chessmaster skills, damn near destroying the Republican Party after their flabby and sick attempt at modernizing themselves and, of course, throwing caution to the wind by throwing political correctness into the trash where it belongs.

Hopefully the Democratic Party soon gets blown the fuck out too. :trump


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> I'm not voting / supporting Trump though, since it's obvious he's only doing this for the sake shit-ton of publicity.


I've heard that he's doing it because he got really pissed off at how Obama talked mad shit on him at the 2011 White House Correspondent's Association dinner, that he's running for president basically so when he wins he can give the middle finger to people like Obama and humiliate them. 

I can believe that. That's the kind of person he is, show him up and he'll plot his revenge to show you up 1000x harder and do his damnedest to make it happen.


----------



## samizayn

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



The Ultimate Warrior said:


> Is this another attempted hit-piece from the left? :lmao
> it's getting more desperate day by day. You know things are tough when the latest swear involves a cameo from _Home Alone_
> 
> :mark: waiting for Mrs Clinton to crack tomorrow


That's a meme. Part of me feels like that was willful ignorance on your part.


----------



## 3ku1

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

While Trump would actively be harmful for America at this time. America needs to be unified. And I fear Trump is trying to divide people. Hillary seems the safer choice. But i am not sure she is a great option either. Trumps makes her look good, but in the long term take Trump out of the equation. Hillary I don't think is a great choice either. From an outside obersver, your screwed either way hahaha.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



samizayn said:


> That's a meme. Part of me feels like that was willful ignorance on your part.


a left-wing themed meme


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Twenty depressing minutes about both candidates.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> So you're saying that because a christian organization conducted research on the living conditions and persecution of Christians in North Korea, therefore by virtue of them all being Christians the entire research is worth rejecting?
> 
> So then this logic should apply to everything always.
> 
> - Just because climate scientists research about climate science therefore all climate science research should be rejected


A climate scientist is someone who's job it is to study science, not someone who has a predisposed opinion on the topic, the way Christian does about Christianity or a feminist does about feminism. Climate science is a job not a belief system. A scientist who studies climate and believes it isn't man made is still a climate scientist. It doesn't actually say anything about their views or opinions. 



> - Just because feminists conduct research on the plight of women, therefore all feminist research is worth rejecting


If we were having an argument about feminism and I quoted say ukfeminista.org saying that 1/3 of women have been sexually assaulted by the time they finish highschool and that the gender paygap was 34%, would you just accept those figures blindly or would the fact they came from ukfeminista.org make you question them?

http://ukfeminista.org.uk/take-action/facts-and-statistics-on-gender-inequality/



> Just because muslims come out and say that muslims are being persecuted in america therefore we can claim that no muslims are ever persecuted in america


Or if I quoted electronicintifada.net to say that the US has 15,000 secret agents most of whom who's job it is to do nothing but hassle innocent Muslims, would you accept that blindly? Or would you perhaps question it because it came from electronicintifada.net? 

https://electronicintifada.net/content/undercover-persecution-muslim-americans/11164


Or are you really standing by "its on the internet, it must be true".


And I've never said "it came from Christians therefore it isn't true"I've said I'm not willing to rely on that as source in an argument on religion. If what you're saying is true it really shouldn't be hard to find support for it somewhere a tad more reputable than the sources you were attempting to.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



3ku1 said:


> *While Trump would actively be harmful for America at this time. America needs to be unified. And I fear Trump is trying to divide people. Hillary seems the safer choice.* But i am not sure she is a great option either. Trumps makes her look good, but in the long term take Trump out of the equation. Hillary I don't think is a great choice either. From an outside obersver, your screwed either way hahaha.


The war monger and corrupted thief is a more safer pick than "People think I say mean words" Trump.

This country, man.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Tonight is the debate. Hilary coughs and this election is ober.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Tonight is the debate. Hilary coughs and this election is ober.


If she does something so common as coughing and it is 'over'. Meanwhile, Trump just needs to behave like a normal person to 'win'. Such a difference in expectations.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Catalanotto said:


> I absolutely get that, and, I absolutely understand why people judge the way they do, it's just in our nature, however, just because someone follows a specific religion doesn't mean they follow every part of it, you know what I mean? They can follow the good parts of it but disagree with the bad parts of it. There are people like that out there. There are religious people out there who have no issues with homosexuals, even though their religion tells them they should.
> 
> I hope that at least make some sense. I am not fully educated on all aspects of every religion and are an atheist myself. I do like to talk about it and learn, though, sometimes taking the time to read about such things just to gain knowledge about it so my points may not always be accurate.


There is a lot of merit to your neutral view of Islam and muslims, however, ex-muslims like myself and gandhi want to take this discussion further and help people develop a deeper understanding and knowledge of the "Average" / "typical" Muslim. The thing isn't that there aren't that many genuinely peaceful and non-violent muslims with tolerant views. They are a smaller minority and while most Muslims aren't going out and committing murders, their ideologies make them ambivalent to the fundamentalists in their religion for the most part. Muslims cannot conceive of a life without Quran and Shariah and if you ask any muslims they'll say they support the shariah and what this does is allow anyone (including the fundamentalists) to use shariah against everyone and even Muslims themselves. Most muslims have a mixture of tolerant and intolerant views and while this is true for most people, when it comes to muslims they're at the lowest end of tolerance when it comes to gays, extra marital sex, drinking, eating pork, discussing Islam and mohammad in a less than pleasing contenxt and a lot of other things .. Stuff like this keeps muslims from ever creating a peaceful and harmonious society themselves --- and also why their growing numbers in western countries are causing those western countries to decline. 

The thing is that even the cherry-picking and non-violent muslims are not as tolerant as other non-religious people and so while there are some similarities, at the end of the the truly liberal/free-thinking muslims are the very small minority. This is confirmed by this Pew research. Meanwhile, the fundamentalists in other religions are the minority and are still nowhere near as extreme or violent as the extreme fundoo muslims.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> If she does something so common as coughing and it is 'over'. Meanwhile, Trump just needs to behave like a normal person to 'win'. Such a difference in expectations.


It's not my fault she's looked like a Zombie in all her appearances as of late.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> It's not my fault she's looked like a Zombie in all her appearances as of late.


Zombies are not inherently evil creatures seeking to intentionally destroy anyone who gets in their path as they work towards world domination. They are just mindless killing and eating machines. Please don't link them in any way with Hillary Clinton again in the future, I beg of you.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Tonight is the debate. Hilary coughs and this election is ober.


She'll be pumped full of 'roids which do prevent coughing quite a bit. 

Also, I find it pretty amusing that despite everything Hillary has said and done including war crimes, her health was what finally broke the camel's back :lol


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






*#Destroyed* :lol

- Vic


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'd happily trade in a decade of my life to watch Sick Hillary collapse on stage tonight. Trump needs to take the intensity and pressure up to 100% present tonight. Crack this tired old hag like a nut.


----------



## Freelancer

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

this will probably be one of the most entertaining debates that we've ever had. I think the outcome all depends on weather Trump keeps his cool or not. It's his to lose in my opinion.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



3ku1 said:


> While Trump would actively be harmful for America at this time. America needs to be unified. And I fear Trump is trying to divide people. Hillary seems the safer choice. But i am not sure she is a great option either. Trumps makes her look good, but in the long term take Trump out of the equation. Hillary I don't think is a great choice either. From an outside obersver, your screwed either way hahaha.


Hilary isn't anyone who will unify anyone, she's already vilified Police, anyone who votes for Trump or has any questions on Islamic immigration or Islam as a whole. We'll get more divisive nonsense from her like we did Obama. You might as well have Obama stay in for another 8 years. 

What you will get with Hilary is, 

More wars
More corruption
More illegal immigration and less enforcing of laws
More scandals in politics and the private sector
Worse diplomatic relations
A worse economy
More handouts
More pandering to special interest groups
More infantilizing of nonwhites
And a hell of a lot more "leftist" propaganda forced on people in schools and the media

It's not going to be a pretty picture with Hilary.


----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump to put the old Hill-dawg out to pasture tonight.

President Trump.


----------



## samizayn

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



The Ultimate Warrior said:


> a left-wing themed meme


You can't even know that much for sure


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

What's the over-under on Hillary having an psychotic episode, coughing fit, fainting spell, excessive "bathroom" break, balloon-face short-circuit, or cringey derprage moment tonight?

Also, I wonder how many will be tuning in just to see this happen live.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I am SO excited for tonight. This is like how I used to feel about RAW lol


----------



## Freelancer

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> I am SO excited for tonight. This is like how I used to feel about RAW lol


You took the words right out of my mouth lol.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










:lmao.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> :lmao.


^ How to give yourself alcohol poisoning


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Freelancer said:


> You took the words right out of my mouth lol.


That feel when you realize the future president is actually also a WWE Hall Of Fame member! :taker


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> I am SO excited for tonight. This is like how I used to feel about RAW lol


I got butterflies in my stomach!


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> I am SO excited for tonight. This is like how I used to feel about RAW lol


i have a bad feeling that it is gonna be like RAW - underwhelming and disappointing

:trump is gonna try to look presidential and not crazy so probably no thug life :trump moments 

hillary is gonna be putting 75% of her energy into not falling over and dying on live TV


----------



## Klorel

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> :lmao.


Are you trying to kill me?


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm going to be hospitalized just at the fake coughing part!

*#NoMonia*

Vic


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Really looking forward to this debate. Starts at 2.am here but that does not put me off. I stay awake to watch Raw every week so this Monday i should at least get some entertainment for my efforts


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So is it safe to say this debate is more RAW than RAW is going to be tonight?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> :lmao.


At least the person making the list has some decency. If you apply 7 to both candidate you'll die of alcohol poisoning before the half hour mark. Trump lies every 3.5 mins in his campaigning.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I wonder how much fact-checking bias we'll see from this debate


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> I wonder how much fact-checking bias we'll see from this debate


If you bothered to read the whole article you would find the author justifying why she called the comments false.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> If you bothered to read the whole article you would find the author justifying why she called the comments false.


>Justifying
:quite


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> There is a lot of merit to your neutral view of Islam and muslims, however, ex-muslims like myself and gandhi want to take this discussion further and help people develop a deeper understanding and knowledge of the "Average" / "typical" Muslim. The thing isn't that there aren't that many genuinely peaceful and non-violent muslims with tolerant views. They are a smaller minority and while most Muslims aren't going out and committing murders, their ideologies make them ambivalent to the fundamentalists in their religion for the most part. Muslims cannot conceive of a life without Quran and Shariah and if you ask any muslims they'll say they support the shariah and what this does is allow anyone (including the fundamentalists) to use shariah against everyone and even Muslims themselves. Most muslims have a mixture of tolerant and intolerant views and while this is true for most people, when it comes to muslims they're at the lowest end of tolerance when it comes to gays, extra marital sex, drinking, eating pork, discussing Islam and mohammad in a less than pleasing contenxt and a lot of other things .. Stuff like this keeps muslims from ever creating a peaceful and harmonious society themselves --- and also why their growing numbers in western countries are causing those western countries to decline.
> 
> The thing is that even the cherry-picking and non-violent muslims are not as tolerant as other non-religious people and so while there are some similarities, at the end of the the truly liberal/free-thinking muslims are the very small minority. This is confirmed by this Pew research. Meanwhile, the fundamentalists in other religions are the minority and are still nowhere near as extreme or violent as the extreme fundoo muslims.



Is this why you are no longer a Muslim?

I have heard of lot of references to Islam being a 'peaceful' faith in reality. I am assuming that is not entirely true? Or at least most aspects? I know some things about it, not everything, so, thank you to you and Gandhi (RIP) for sharing.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> >Justifying
> :quite


Market forces played a part in declining jobs related to coal in Michigan, which are plants related rather than mining.
The study Trump allegedly used was using potential job losses, which are not as quantifiable as real job losses. Jobs losses related to construction of coal plants can be replaced by jobs related to construction of natural gas plants that replaced them.

Here's another source as to why Trump's coal talk is BS.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilv...-producers-gives-them-the-shaft/#290af0842166


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Here's how I expect it to go - 

"Mrs Clinton, how many letters are there in the English alphabet?"

"Mr Trump, how many letters are there in the Arabic alphabet?"


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Market forces played a part in declining jobs related to coal in Michigan, which are plants related rather than mining.
> The study Trump allegedly used was using potential job losses, which are not as quantifiable as real job losses. Jobs losses related to construction of coal plants can be replaced by jobs related to construction of natural gas plants that replaced them.
> 
> Here's another source as to why Trump's coal talk is BS.
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilv...-producers-gives-them-the-shaft/#290af0842166


>Source :quite


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Catalanotto said:


> Is this why you are no longer a Muslim?
> 
> I have heard of lot of references to Islam being a 'peaceful' faith in reality. I am assuming that is not entirely true? Or at least most aspects? I know some things about it, not everything, so, thank you to you and Gandhi (RIP) for sharing.


I'm ex Muslim cuz I don't believe in the existence of God. 

Muslims can be peaceful as a result of cherry picking but Islam is Judaism and Christianity 3.0 therefore pretty much a regression towards the old testament and some of the new testament.

It contains all the same stories, combined with the permission to fight holy wars and considers itself the final version of Yahwehs message. Basically up until the 70's the moderate muslims were winning to an extent, but there's this caveat that Shariah and Quran HAVE to be the supreme rule of every single muslim country period. What this does is that it convinces even the most moderate and liberal muslims into having blind spots to archaic interpretations of both the quran and hadith to start taking over small groups, and then larger groups and eventually evolve into groups like Al Qaeda, Taliban and ISIS right in their own backyards. Every single Muslim has a blind spot to the extreme interpretations and those who would exploit the implementation of the theocracy into achieving their means. 

Unfortunately it also includes a lot of Arab barbarism borrowed from other misogynistic and savage cultures compiled in the sunnah traditions. 

This is why if you notice there's less violence rampant amongst Shi'a muslims than there is amongst Sunnis.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> >Source :quite


Typical :lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

LOL at the giddyness in here for the debate. Herre's hoping for a surprise D-Bry running knee on Trump!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Typical :lol


Of course you'd laugh. Anyone who refuses Liberalism tends to be laughed at. Especially when they won't click links containing specific factoids designed only to support liberal doctrine.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Of course you'd laugh. Anyone who refuses Liberalism tends to be laughed at. Especially when they won't click links containing specific factoids designed only to support liberal doctrine.


If you think Forbes is liberal doctrine then you are making yourself look like an idiot. Sorry.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

TONIGHT IS THE NIGHT


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> If you think Forbes is liberal doctrine then you are making yourself look like an idiot. Sorry.


I didn't say they were. Re-read and try again.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> I didn't say they were. Re-read and try again.


Are you copying your false idol in attempting to lie your way through everything now?


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

They put the debate on opposite of Monday Night Football. Debbie, is that you? :lol

Fuck this shitty ass debate between shitty ass candidates. I'll be watching football. I have my priorities straight. It's not even a difficult decision.


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

10 minutes.

I'm erect.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Are you copying your false idol in attempting to lie your way through everything now?


Tofu, I NEVER said Forbes itself is liberal. I said that Libs pick only sources that contain factoids that play to their doctrine.

Why did I even have to explain that all because you questioned if I was trying to lie?


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Its nearly time

opcorn


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The National Debates are going to be more entertaining than anything the WWE creative team throws together tonight. Hillary is about to get her ass handed to her by Trump. It is live and it is NOW!






- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Tofu, I NEVER said Forbes itself is liberal. I said that Libs pick only sources that contain factoids that play to their doctrine.
> 
> Why did I even have to explain that all because you questioned if I was trying to lie?


You questioned the Forbes link as a 'source' initially. You then said you refuse to click on links containing specific factoids designed only to support liberal doctrine. I only listed the forbes link.

So either you choose to discredit facts that don't support your narrative which you try to spin to Libs doing so, or you were trying to discredit my link to Forbes as liberal doctrine therefore not credible. Which is it?


----------



## SovereignVA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

There goes Hillary pretending she knows someone in the audience again.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

they shook hands!!
if I was Trump I would have just stared at her


----------



## SovereignVA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

"Today is my grandaughters birthday so I think about this a lot..."

I don't even hate Hillary, but there transparent attempts at "humanizing" her are annoying.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> You questioned the Forbes link as a 'source' initially. You then said you refuse to click on links containing specific factoids designed only to support liberal doctrine. I only listed the forbes link.
> 
> So either you choose to discredit facts that don't support your narrati
> 
> ve which you try to spin to Libs doing so, or you were trying to discredit my link to Forbes as liberal doctrine therefore not credible. Which is it?


What I meant is what I told you. I don't need you trying to correct me, thank you.'


----------



## SovereignVA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump's opening statement: Fuck Mexico and fuck China. Hillary?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Now then. On to retentive topics.

KICK HER ASS, TRUMP!


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump sounds like he is full of a cold. Poor guy


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is lying through his teeth from the get go. Lucky we don't need to drink everytime he lies.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*












Interesting choice of colour there by Hillary


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump wearing a blue tie and Hillary in red isn't a coincidence.


----------



## SovereignVA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Trump is lying through his teeth from the get go. Lucky we don't need to drink everytime he lies.


Seriously, Hillary is kicking his ass so far.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



SovereignVA said:


> Seriously, Hillary is kicking his ass so far.


Trump seems to be losing his cool early on thus far. Hillary trying her hardest not to get riled up. :lol


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary just got steamrolled.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump blasting Hillary, this is going to be pretty good!


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

That "30 years" line cracked her a little bit.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Big Salad said:


> That "30 years" line cracked her a little bit.


She's completely cracked. She's just rambling off talking points while Donald railroads her.

"FACTS"


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Nice attack by Trump trying to get Hillary to disagree with Obama.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

FACTS


----------



## Phaedra

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is totally coming off like a belligerent loud mouth bitch.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Phaedra said:


> Trump is totally coming off like a belligerent loud mouth bitch.


Only to complete betas. This is big boy business.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Nice attack by Trump trying to get Hillary to disagree with Obama.


It's smart, Obama has ranked on Hillary a lot before, would be a good thing.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump did really well with the ISIS comment.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump showed too much emotion there when mentioning ISIS


----------



## SovereignVA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump had a rough start, but he started going HAM.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is coming off like an armchair critic. Hillary is coming off as someone who is trying to not argue with said armchair critic.


----------



## SovereignVA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

"Why not?" :lmao


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*











:lmao


----------



## Phaedra

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



markoutsmarkout said:


> Only to complete betas. This is big boy business.


please. 

fuck I said i wouldn't talk about politics on this forum ever again lol. 

we're living in a post facts world.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This is hilarious


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Juggernaut said:


> :lmao


Is that real? :lmao


----------



## Mra22

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary isn't even wearing an American flag...She is such a traitor


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Donald needs to calm down


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



SovereignVA said:


> "Why not?" :lmao


That was stone cold brutal.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

This is fucking hilarious.

I'm guessing there's a lot of abused young kids getting triggered tonight because this is like watching their abusive parents all over again.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

'financial statement of sorts' :lmao


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> Donald needs to calm down


Agreed, calm Donald is actually a lot better. Loud Trump is hilarious but this is the time to be Presidential, when he shows up as Presidential he gets people wanting to vote for him.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Reaper said:


> This is fucking hilarious.
> 
> I'm guessing there's a lot of abused young kids getting triggered tonight because this is like watching their abusive parents all over again.


He reminds them of their daddy issues. They never stopped rebelling against their stern dads in their teenage years.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is destroying her on taxes but he is coming across as a aggressive arse hole


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:lmao Release the tax returns


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Moderator starting to act like a democratic interrogator because Clinton getting her ass whooped.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Lawyers advice you not to release before the audit is over because something you are hiding might be uncovered. Duh.


----------



## Shane Banks

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

damn he said when she releases the emails he will release his taxes info lmao, that was epic hahaha


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Release the Clinton Foundation info


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Lawyers advice you not to release before the audit is over because something you are hiding might be uncovered. Duh.


Yeah just like being advised not to talk to police, right? You must be guilty?


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Not watching, but from the sound of things, this is a better match than anything Raw could be doing.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Mrs Clinton talking about hiding things :lmao


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Release the Clinton Foundation info


shhhh can't talk about that


----------



## Shane Banks

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Clinton has some solid points, it does seem like he is hiding something frfr


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So Mrs Clinton said she made a mistake. Admission of guilt? :draper2


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump coming back hot!


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



markoutsmarkout said:


> Yeah just like being advised not to talk to police, right? You must be guilty?


It is so you don't say anything that allow the police to hold you on some other charges. Doesn't mean you must be guilty on the specific thing you are charged with.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump getting winded but he's really owning the floor. However he needed to be more prepared on the Clinton email scandal. He seems to not have much to say about it.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

god i hate these 2.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump coming back soooo fucking strong everytime I think he's lost a point. 

Moderator giving him less time too lol.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Oh shit here's the race talk


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Go on Billary, slate the white people. Waiting for it!
How's it tragic in Charlotte? A good shoot. What's tragic is the rioting and looting


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Reaper said:


> Trump getting winded but he's really owning the floor. However he needed to be more prepared on the Clinton email scandal. He seems to not have much to say about it.


Emails, Clinton Foundation, Haiti, Libya etc. Lots to grill her on. It's his first time so giving him some leeway.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Clinton basically admitted that she wants to take guns out of the hands of African Americans. Lol

That's actually a very racist thing to say. Too bad Trump had to say his talking points and did not jump on it.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Getting rid of the guns is all well and good but that won't stop anyone getting them. I can look at mainland UK, where guns are banned; more gun crime than enough.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Wow. Moderator race baiting. fpalm


----------



## razzathereaver

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

From watching this debate, it seems America is fucked either way it votes. It's a choice between six or half a dozen.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

cuck alert!

"implicit bias in everybody" lol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Hillary and Trump both are saying the right things about race issues. The debate is actually taking a very strong turn towards some enlightened thinking finally. This is pretty satisfactory imo.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Reaper said:


> Hillary and Trump both are saying the right things about race issues. The debate is actually taking a very strong turn towards some enlightened thinking finally. This is pretty satisfactory imo.


Trump cooled it down and got sincere for this, perfectly. He's rolling this debate.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Murders have been up in 2015 though overall violent crimes have fallen. Crime statistics are a mixed bag for this elections.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump keeping the moderator in check who wants to keep race baiting :kobelol


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is not answering the question.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

But you started the Birther issue, Mrs Clinton!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

The moderator completely biased obviously fpalm and here we have Hillary fumbling as well :kobelol 

Hillary really is her own worst enemy lol.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

What is the moderators political stance? I have never seen or heard of him before but he seems to be going a lot easier on Hillary


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I wouldn't say the moderator is biased in asking that question. It is as legitimate as asking why Hillary changed her position on TPP after supporting it for a long time. The problem is the official Trump stance of 'not wanting it to be a distraction' is not a good answer.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> What is the moderators political stance? I have never seen or heard of him before but he seems to be going a lot easier on Hillary


Clearly pro Hillary. Has not asked her a single tough question or brought up anything at all.


----------



## Malakai

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

not watching cause it ain't on Hulu or Netflix.

Besides the president is nothing but a figurehead while people like the Rothschild family and other corporations run everything in the background :fact


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

She's fucking implying nuclear war here. What else is a different kind of war?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump calls out that Hilary started the birther movement!


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Malakai said:


> not watching cause it ain't on Hulu or Netflix.
> 
> Besides the president is nothing but a figurehead while people like the Rothschild family and other corporations run everything in the background :fact


Watch on Youtube


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> What is the moderators political stance? I have never seen or heard of him before but he seems to be going a lot easier on Hillary


Registered Republican who works for a liberal news media.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Malakai said:


> not watching cause it ain't on Hulu or Netflix.
> 
> Besides the president is nothing but a figurehead while people like the Rothschild family and other corporations run everything in the background :fact


Free on YouTube.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Registered Republican who works for a liberal news media.


So in other words a Neocon.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Watch on Youtube


For a second there I thought my post was showing up under your avatar and I was confused as fuck :kobelol


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Lot more civil now, also Trumped missed something on Clinton's mention of using allies to figh ISIS as we basically gave ISIS a billion worth of gear.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Malakai said:


> not watching cause it ain't on Hulu or Netflix.
> 
> Besides the president is nothing but a figurehead while people like the Rothschild family and other corporations run everything in the background :fact


You can watch it on the BBC site also


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm skeptical about the whole Bin Laden thing, Mrs Clinton mentioned. Too conveniently timed for my liking.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Clinton has been able to make her points clearly but she hasn't been able to shake off Trump. For the most part (except the jobs and tax releases part), Trump has been surprisingly doing pretty well.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I see what Mrs Clinton is doing. Sneakily saying that Trump did business with Gaddafi. So? Prime Minister Tony Blair met Gaddafi.

Mrs Clinton supprots the police only when it suits her agenda, she just admitted it there.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Lot more civil now, also Trumped missed something on Clinton's mention of using allies to figh ISIS as we basically gave ISIS a billion worth of gear.


he said that i believe.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The Muslim community CAN come forward with information anytime but they don't and haven't


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't think this debate will ultimately change anything but Trump and Clinton have held their own well. Clinton hasn't buckled a whole lot on charges that should have and Trump has been able to combat and defend on most of the issues being talked about.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

NYT burial lol


----------



## BarrettBarrage

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump seems to come from a genuine place.
A genuine and very stupid place but a place.
Even though he rambles for most of it.

Hillary just comes across as a slimy robot spewing PR.
The shilling her book for sale and shilling her website made me cringe.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'll be dead if I drink everytime Trump lied in this debate. :sodone


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Didn't Hillary support the 2003 Invasion?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Moderator unashamedly pro Clinton. Just absolutely sad.


----------



## Malakai

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

ok...watching now.....not sure I can handle the derp


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This is why this bitch deserves worse than hell. Her opponent makes a point and she just laughs it off. 
Hold on, didn't Hillary say if she became president she'd attack Iran?


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I like how Mrs Clinton is implying Donald could be a dictator. I think Congress would have something to say if he was to think of launching the nukes


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Ultimate Warrior said:


> I see what Mrs Clinton is doing. Sneakily saying that Trump did business with Gaddafi. So? Prime Minister Tony Blair met Gaddafi.


Since the Chilcot Report found Blair to be a war criminal I'm not sure you're going to want to use him as justification for anything. The man's as corrupt and crooked a leader as anyone could be lol.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Can't take it off the table is exactly why nuclear weapons are a deterrent. To say that you'll never use them they lose that ability.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Since the Chilcot Report found Blair to be a war criminal I'm not sure you're going to want to use him as justification for anything. The man's as corrupt and crooked a leader as anyone could be lol.


Blair is not liked; we agree. However, I don't think meeting Gaddafi was a bad thing because over the last say 20 years he tried to be a friend to the West


----------



## Malakai

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










What's wrong with B-52s?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is rambling again about the first strike question when he could have just stopped at keeping his options open.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Mrs Clinton helped destablize the world! What's she talking about!


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump can be obnoxious but Hillary is just as disingenuous. 

Holy fuck.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Moderator asks Trump a question then interrupts him 5 seconds later all night. Fucking twat


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm looking forward to Wallace's moderated debate now. It is going to be hilarious when FOX tries to the same to Hillary.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Women don't deserve as good of pay as men unless they do as good of a job? No shit Hillary.


----------



## Demolition119

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Depressing just depressing. We are screwed with whoever wins this messed up election.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Baiting final question. :lol


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

lol Trump almost forgot to shake the hands of Lester because he was pissed. :lol


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Round 2 October 9th


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I will say Mrs Clinton put on a decent performance tonight which was somewhat pandering and insulting in many parts.
Donald had a good run too but I feel he has to up his game come round 2


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I have a feeling that people whining about "we are screwed as a nation regardless of whomever wins" are actually Hillary supporters who are upset that Hillary did not destroy Trump in this debate. 

America's Oligarchy wouldn't change no matter who wins the election, but in an ideal world where a president actually has the power to enact change, Trump clearly makes the better president - there's no doubt in my mind.



The Ultimate Warrior said:


> I will say Mrs Clinton put on a decent performance tonight which was somewhat pandering and insulting in many parts.
> Donald had a good run too but I feel he has to up his game come round 2


Hillary only looked good because the moderator did not press her on a single issue and yet brought every single media talking point about Trump. Now it may have been an attempt to get Trump to clear his side and I'm ok with it because Trump answered a lot of those concerns really well - but at the same time it came at the expense of a complete lack of any kind of cross-examination of anything Hillary has done.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Was a good debate, agreed Donald needs to up his game. Hilary zinged him on a few things and he could have really dug into her on a lot of things. I hope he brings up the Clinton Foundation and honestly when she mentioned 11 hours at an inquiry he should have talked about that too. Less talk of yourself, more about America and more about why Hilary is a bad choice.


----------



## Scott Hall's Ghost

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

everyone is a mark. 

can NO ONE stay on point and just deal with facts, points, and positions? jeezuz. 

donald owned hillary, but lost the debate. 

america is losing america. ugh. 

i can't even...


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Was a good debate, agreed Donald needs to up his game. Hilary zinged him on a few things and he could have really dug into her on a lot of things. I hope he brings up the Clinton Foundation and honestly when she mentioned 11 hours at an inquiry he should have talked about that too. Less talk of yourself, more about America and more about why Hilary is a bad choice.


When she brought up 11 hours at a Congressional hearing she walked right into trouble but he missed it.

But I think Trump was on a gameplan to avoid hitting her hard on the emails and server for whatever reason. He should have slammed it on during the cyber security part too. Strange.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Was a good debate, agreed Donald needs to up his game. Hilary zinged him on a few things and he could have really dug into her on a lot of things. I hope he brings up the Clinton Foundation and honestly when she mentioned 11 hours at an inquiry he should have talked about that too. Less talk of yourself, more about America and more about why Hilary is a bad choice.


Seems like someone in Trump's camp gave him some bad advice about not attacking Hillary. 

But again ... given the female hypocracy that plagues the west, Hillary can and will be allowed to castrate Trump verbally, but if Trump does it in response it will be an attack on ALL women because saggy beef curtains bleed and rot together.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> lol Trump almost forgot to shake the hands of Lester because he was pissed. :lol


He really shouldn't have shaken hish and


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Overall, this debate will probably not change anything but I though Hillary did a decent job holding her own and making her points, as bullshit as most of them were. However, Trump did catch Hillary slipping a couple of times on the race issue, the birther deal, and NAFTA/TPP. Hillary was shook for those moments. 

Trump in terms of presence and style outclassed Hillary and showed more confidence IMO but the substance needs work. The jobs portion of the debate had him stumbling as he was specific at all (yes, I know the moderator was interrupting but still). Also, Hillary got a good jab at him not releasing his taxes too.

A pretty entertaining and fun debate to watch. Can't wait for Round 2.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



markoutsmarkout said:


> When she brought up 11 hours at a Congressional hearing she walked right into trouble but he missed it.
> 
> But I think Trump was on a gameplan to avoid hitting her hard on the emails and server for whatever reason. He should have slammed it on during the cyber security part too. Strange.


Yes the Tax Returns and the 11 hour thing should have been grilled. Hillary pretty much admitted her email guilt today which is funny because she was stressing how she was innocent. Hillary left herself open on a lot of things that Trump should have attacked.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Was a good debate, agreed Donald needs to up his game. Hilary zinged him on a few things and he could have really dug into her on a lot of things. I hope he brings up the Clinton Foundation and honestly when she mentioned 11 hours at an inquiry he should have talked about that too. Less talk of yourself, more about America and more about why Hilary is a bad choice.



Yes when she mentioned stamina and being in front of hearings, I fully expected Trump to jump on her about it. I would have. But next time maybe  yeah you shouldn't brag about being in front of a congressional hearing :lol


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Scott Hall's Ghost said:


> everyone is a mark.
> 
> can NO ONE stay on point and just deal with facts, points, and positions? jeezuz.
> 
> donald owned hillary, but lost the debate.
> 
> america is losing america. ugh.
> 
> i can't even...


Trump easily won that debate. More energy, more passion, more proud, less robotic, less fake.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Juggernaut said:


> He really shouldn't have shaken hish and


Why not? Just because he went hard at Trump during the debate isn't an excuse to not appear civil afterwards.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> Overall, this debate will probably not change anything but I though Hillary did a decent job holding her own and making her points, as bullshit as most of them were. However, Trump did catch Hillary slipping a couple of times on the race issue, the birther deal, and NAFTA/TPP. Hillary was shook for those moments.
> 
> Trump in terms of presence and style outclassed Hillary and showed more confidence IMO but the substance needs work. The jobs portion of the debate had him stumbling as he was specific at all (yes, I know the moderator was interrupting but still). Also, Hillary got a good jab at him not releasing his taxes too.
> 
> A pretty entertaining and fun debate to watch. Can't wait for Round 2.


We need to remember also that people don't remember specific questions and answers in the coming days and weeks. But they do remember the "feeling" and energy of the debate. Hillary looked rehearsed, weak, submissive. Trump was powerful, empathetic, and in control. Alpha. Presidential.


----------



## 3ku1

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Media are saying Hillary won it. I Thik Trump did. IT felt like a boxing match. Trump made alot more hits. But Hillary was smart, and got a KO blow. First 15 Trump won it. But then he rambled about the past, on subjects he was never gonna win. I don't think Hillary has done enough, to suggest she well win. Would not be surprsied if Trump does. Although if I was an american I don't think I would be confident in both. Can't you keep Obama haha.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:lmao Lester Holt got manhandled tonight. Couldn't get a fucking word in edgewise.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Moderators are not supposed to be the center of attention, nor are they supposed to be fact checkers.

Holt could have done better by stopping Trump from rambling too much though imo.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Moderators are not supposed to be the center of attention, nor are they supposed to be *fact checkers*.


So they're supposed to let the viewers be misinformed by incorrect facts? :draper2


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> So they're supposed to let the viewers be misinformed by incorrect facts? :draper2


They're only supposed to check facts on whomever the MSM is against.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> So they're supposed to let the viewers be misinformed by incorrect facts? :draper2


They are supposed to let the candidates correct any misinformation the other side bring up. Not do it for them.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



3ku1 said:


> Media are saying Hillary won it. I Thik Trump did. IT felt like a boxing match. Trump made alot more hits. But Hillary was smart, and got a KO blow. First 15 Trump won it. But then he rambled about the past, on subjects he was never gonna win. I don't think Hillary has done enough, to suggest she well win. Would not be surprsied if Trump does. Although if I was an american I don't think I would be confident in both. Can't you keep Obama haha.


Media is pretty much entirely infused with Hillary supporters at this point and from what I'm seeing, a huge majority of voters have now stopped relying on the most popular media outlets for their news. The media bias is already exposed and they can't unexpose it if you know what I mean. The paradigm shift happened with the rise of alternate and conservative media over the last few years. 

Even on sites that have extremely pro-Hillary articles, the commenters are pretty much always in disagreement and the top comments are usually the ones berating the article for its bias. 

Don't forget that the person who writes the story is just one person with one vote. Americans are not that stupid that they'll be influenced by the media when they go out to vote. They're going to be influenced by their personal feelings towards the candidate which is why the strongest push against Trump is regarding racism and sexism and nothing else. The rest is window dressing. Democrats want to win the liberal vote simply by convincing their own voters that Trump is racist and sexist. That's it. Even if it's a lie it doesn't matter. 

Trump at this point needs to keep speaking to the republicans and the conservatives and doing what he's been doing in terms of presenting himself as a strong man. That's really all he needs to do at this point imo. DNC has the fence-sitters, while Trump has the most staunch following. In a vote decision that matters to the extent that Trump is going to benefit from newer voters and better voter turn out.


----------



## TyAbbotSucks

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hilary by clear UD. All went downhill for Donald the moment she pulled his "you don't pay taxes" card


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> They are supposed to let the candidates correct any misinformation the other side bring up. Not do it for them.


A moderator is also supposed to be neutral and non bias. Interrupting Trump every 5 seconds and grilling Trump on tax returns while letting Hillary speak without interruption and not questioning her on things like the Clinton foundation etc made it look that he was far more sympathetic towards Hillary


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> A moderator is also supposed to be neutral and non bias. Interrupting Trump every 5 seconds and grilling Trump on tax returns while letting Hillary speak without interruption and not questioning her on things like the Clinton foundation etc made it look that he was far more sympathetic towards Hillary


I would interrupt Trump too when he kept on rambling instead of answering the questions. Hillary barely got a word in at times because Trump was talking a lot about nothing.The tax returns probably was an issue over Clinton foundation issues this debate because of the topic discussed.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If all the moderators are going to do is give Hillary passes on things than Trump should change his game plan, stick to facts and what he will do for America. Foreign Policy goes a long way but people are sick of hearing about the mid east, stick to his message about uniting people and what he will do for America while Clinton continues personal attacks and deflections and avoiding things.


----------



## Stormbringer

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Why did they bring up Trump specific talking points before the end? The birth certificate is something negative on the Trump side of things, but not only that it wasn't a point Hilary could discuss nor important to running America.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> If you bothered to read the whole article you would find the author justifying *rationalizing* why she called the comments false.


FTFY


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump: "So when does the swimsuit competition begin?"


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

But he has no facts backing up what he says he will do for America. And his supporters, like you, don't care if facts don't back Trump's claims. When Clinton brought up his past gaffes on foreign policies, he just meekly said 'no' each time.

Honestly were we watching the same debate?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DX-Superkick said:


> Why did they bring up Trump specific talking points before the end? The birth certificate is something negative on the Trump side of things, but not only that it wasn't a point Hilary could discuss nor important to running America.


Few of the points had nothing with how to run America, thought it was dumb questions myself. If you're going to bring up stuff like that then have to bring up Clinton stuff or else you just sound biased, the people are pulling from the MSM because of this. It was just totally off the wall.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I would interrupt Trump too when he kept on rambling instead of answering the questions. Hillary barely got a word in at times because Trump was talking a lot about nothing.The tax returns probably was an issue over Clinton foundation issues this debate because of the topic discussed.


He got stuck into Trump on numerous occasions yet give Hillary a bit of a easy ride. Thats how it come across to me anyway. I dont really know much at all about American politics btw. Just a neutral observer saying it as i seen it. Will the same guy be the moderator at the next 2 debates or do they use different people?. If different then who makes the decision on the selection of moderator?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The only misogynist on that platform was the moderator 'cuz he treated Hillary like a pampered and fragile little woman who couldn't handle the hard questions :kobelol


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Both of them sucked big horse dick.

I could have annihilated Hillary about a dozen times :trump missed out on and :trump was far too rote.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DX-Superkick said:


> Why did they bring up Trump specific talking points before the end? The birth certificate is something negative on the Trump side of things, but not only that it wasn't a point Hilary could discuss nor important to running America.


The topic was about race relation in the US. The birther movement is seen as helping to worsen race relations, with Trump supporting the movement for years and using it to enter politics. Trump suddenly dropping it recently is a relevant question.

I assume Wallace would ask Hillary about her support of BLM if the same topic of race relations is being discussed.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump did enough that he's winning most of the online polls (Though clinton leads some.)


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



3ku1 said:


> Media are saying Hillary won it. I Thik Trump did. IT felt like a boxing match. Trump made alot more hits. But Hillary was smart, and got a KO blow. First 15 Trump won it. But then he rambled about the past, on subjects he was never gonna win. I don't think Hillary has done enough, to suggest she well win. Would not be surprsied if Trump does. Although if I was an american I don't think I would be confident in both. Can't you keep Obama haha.


Obama is a disaster.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> He got stuck into Trump on numerous occasions yet give Hillary a bit of a easy ride. Thats how it come across to me anyway. I dont really know much at all about American politics btw. Just a neutral observer saying it as i seen it. Will the same guy be the moderator at the next 2 debates or do they use different people?. If different then who makes the decision on the selection of moderator?


Anderson Cooper and Chris Wallace are the moderators for the next 2 debates.

Some commission picked the moderators earlier this month.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> So they're supposed to let the viewers be misinformed by incorrect facts? :draper2


If Hillary thinks Trump said something that is incorrect, she can challenge him, and vice versa. Moderators are there to MODERATE, not argue.

No fact is black and white. It's all subjective.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Notes from The Debates said:


> The two minute time limit was a joke. They kept interrupting each other since they both wanted to get in the last word. I felt bad for the moderator.
> 
> The economy is not good. All under 8 years of Democratic leadership.
> 
> Hillary has 30 years of experience in US politics and hasn't done much good since leaving the White House.
> 
> President Obama was fiscally irresponsible by adding $9 trillion to the national debt with his failed policies. We are more in debt and have nothing to show for it.
> 
> Making Trump look bad because he works in real estate was a low move. So businesses aren't allowed to make a profit?
> 
> President Obama wasted $535 MILLION on the solar panel company, Solyndra, when it collapsed.
> 
> The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed by the Clinton administration and it was a disaster as it affected a lot of American jobs negatively.
> 
> Blue collar workers are going through rough times right now.
> 
> Hillary wouldn't answer the question about Obama when Trump pressed for it.
> 
> Government regulations by the current administration kill small business.
> 
> The wealthy are a necessary evil. If you keep taxing them, they're not going to make a profit making it hard for jobs to be created.
> 
> Bad trade deals were set in place by people in Washington.
> 
> So tired of his tax returns being talked about. Hey, let's see YOUR tax returns!
> 
> Him bringing up the 30,000 e-mails being deleted got a pop from the audience. He also called her disgraceful. Loved it!
> 
> Hillary made things personal talking about his wealth and calling him a racist.
> 
> I laughed so hard when Hillary had the nerve to say Trump had something to hide. Coming from her, REALLY?
> 
> She knows all about bait and switching.
> 
> We need to get tougher on the laws and support the police better.
> 
> Stop and frisk IS effective!
> 
> The 3 Strikes law was put into place by her and her husband that resulted in so many people of color being put behind bars. She also coined the term "Superpredators" that was aimed at them.
> 
> Seriously, what did Clinton ever do for the state of New York as Senator besides collect a paycheck?
> 
> She lied to black voters in order to gain their votes. Black Lives Matter turned on her because of it!
> 
> It was Hillary's campaign that first brought up Obama's birth certificate, Trump was aggressive about the issue because he was her friend at the time when she made her first attempt to get into The White House!
> 
> She is two faced when it comes to Obama. The "Holier Than Thou" was a great line because of how fake she is.
> 
> Trump reminding everybody Bernie Sanders was fucked over by The Democratic Party so Hillary could get the nomination.
> 
> Hillary plans to defeat ISIS yet the Democrats are the ones who cut defense & military spending.
> 
> Trump warned terrorist attacks by radicals Muslims were going to happen in the US and they did.
> 
> Iraq was left defenseless and now ISIS is a global problem of it.
> 
> You protect citizens of the United States of America by not letting every foreigner come in all at once and especially by not doing some kind of background check on them.
> 
> I'm glad he was able to clarify his stance on the Iraq War. He never supported it!
> 
> In a sign of desperation, Hillary was pandering to people who live in other countries. Sorry, they can't vote for you.
> 
> The "No plan" comment by Hillary was dumb. Like Trump is supposed to reveal exactly what he's going to do when it comes to military operations? But then again, what does she know about stuff being classified?
> 
> Hillary bringing up feminism. Its a non-issue. Another reason for her to fuck off!
> 
> The Clinton campaign spent millions and MILLIONS of dollars on Trump in negative ads and yet he's beating her in the polls. What does that tell you?
> 
> Hillary has experience and its bad as evidenced by her track record.


Facts and logic > your feelings

- Vic


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I thought Trump did well early on, most notably during the trade portion of the debate.

After that, it was all downhill for him.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Anderson Cooper and Chris Wallace are the moderators for the next 2 debates.
> 
> Some commission picked the moderators earlier this month.


"Some commission" = Clinton Foundation


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary sounded like a mature adult while Trump sounded like the average adolescent forum member here, if only slightly more composed and knowledgeable. It was like watching a grown woman have to deal with her bratty nephew in front of a live audience who's laughing right along at his non-composure.

Trump's basically a 17 year old in a wrinkled and paunchy body.

FWIW I'm not even halfway through it, I'm watching the replay.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> I thought Trump did well early on, most notably during the trade portion of the debate.
> 
> After that, it was all downhill for him.


I felt he started to lose his cool once Hillary went low like him, attacking his tax returns and privileged upbringing and brought up his previous gaffes on the campaign trail.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

When Hillary attacked him about women :trump could have brought up all the nasty things she's said about Bill Clinton's many accusers. But he didn't.

When she attacked :trump about blowing up Iranian ships for "taunting" he could have nailed her to the wall because it's not taunting. Iranian boats come up on US ships very fast then veer off, that's not "taunting." It's playing chicken making it look like an attack run then pulling away at the last second. Which is dangerous and provocative as fuck. But he didn't. 

She kept up with the "fair share" bullshit on taxes which :trump could have shut down by bringing up what percentage of total taxes the wealthy and Wall Street and large corporations pay in this country and that the US has the highest statutory and second-highest effective corporate tax rate in the world which hurts America in global competition. He didn't. Yeah he talked about taxes in other countries and said he was going to lower the corporate tax rate but he should have been specific about how high it is compared to the rest of the world. 

Yeah that was one good zinger about the e-mails when she kept going on and on about his tax returns and business dealings but she wouldn't shut up about it and :trump could have hit her hard on the Clinton Foundation but he didn't.

That's just four of the many opportunities :trump missed out on because he was again far too rote. He needs to be more flexible and bring up more numbers and details when attacking Clinton instead of saying over and over again we're losing and it's such a mess and all his other campaign rally lines. 

Hillary had some weird Joker smile going on half the time and her one-liners about fact-checkers and such fell flat because she's a weirdo but :trump did not defend himself against her attacks as adroitly as he could have.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I felt he started to lose his cool once Hillary went low like him, attacking his tax returns and privileged upbringing and brought up his previous gaffes on the campaign trail.


She baited him hard, and he really couldn't help himself.

On the one hand, there were points where his interruptions and attacks were effective. On the other hand, he spent a _lot_ of time on defense, and it didn't go very well for him.

For her part, Hillary's not a very skilled debater, but she stuck to her talking points to decent effect and didn't get sidetracked by some of Trump's weaker attack efforts. I also laughed pretty hard when she gave the camera the "Get a load of this guy" look like Jim from The Office at one point. :lol


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ManiacMichaelMyers said:


> Hillary sounded like a mature adult while Trump sounded like the average adolescent forum member here, if only slightly more composed and knowledgeable. It was like watching a grown woman have to deal with her bratty nephew in front of a live audience who's laughing right along at his non-composure.
> 
> Trump's basically a 17 year old in a wrinkled and paunchy body.


Trump sounded like the angry sports fan ranting about his team, thinking all of his ideas from the comfort of his armchair are better over the people who does it for a living. Credits himself for any idea that the team puts forth that is similar to his. Oversimplifying why his teams loses to the coaches or players suck.

Hillary sounds like the fantasy league player who is fixated on the facts and figures and is seen as overly cold towards the human aspect of the team.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Ultimate Warrior said:


> Blair is not liked; we agree. However, I don't think meeting Gaddafi was a bad thing because over the last say 20 years he tried to be a friend to the West


I think you missed my point. You basically said "why is meeting Gaddafi bad? Tony Blair did it." My point was that saying "Tony Blair did it" is more likely to make people view that as a sketchy, bad action these days considering.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Trump sounded like the angry sports fan ranting about his team, thinking all of his ideas from the comfort of his armchair are better over the people who does it for a living. Credits himself for any idea that the team puts forth that is similar to his. Oversimplifying why his teams loses to the coaches or players suck.
> 
> Hillary sounds like the fantasy league player who is fixated on the facts and figures and is seen as overly cold towards the human aspect of the team.


What do you expect though? The moderator, the media, the camera angles and my grandmother are all biased against Trump.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The media spin post-debate was pretty hilarious. People already know :trump is a hothead. He's already won the GOP nomination and pulled even or ahead in the polls after a solid 10 months of Republicans and Democrats hitting him for being a hothead. George Stephanopolous and Cokie Roberts and all the other hacks saying "oh my goodness that :trump sure lost his cool sometimes that doesn't look good" is a joke.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> What do you expect though? The moderator, the media, the camera angles and my grandmother are all biased against Trump.


http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/26/13016146/donald-trump-liar-media

I read this earlier and it is fucking scary why pointing out Trump lies does nothing.



> You don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that if something you’re doing makes your enemies mad, it means you’re winning. As writer Ned Resnikoff put it recently, in Trump’s politics, “the only real political choice is selecting the fiction you most prefer.”


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Vox :duck


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/26/13016146/donald-trump-liar-media
> 
> I read this earlier and it is fucking scary why pointing out Trump lies does nothing.


Acting like :trump is any different from Hillary or Obama or Dubya or Bill or Daddy Bush or Reagan or Carter or Ford or Nixon or LBJ or JFK or Eisenhower or Truman or FDR or any of the presidents in the modern era when it comes to lying (pre-1900 they were even worse) is what is fucking scary. People don't care about :trump lying because it's a big fuck-you to people like the people at Vox. They've been lying to the American people for years and years on matters great and inconsequential. They don't give a fuck about it or are proud of it too and people know that. That's why the media is so distrusted and in many cases hated by the common people no matter what politics they have. Now it may be a con but (some) people sense a basic honesty about :trump that he wants the country to come first. With Hillary not many people do.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> Vox :duck


I mean, he's not wrong about Trump lying all the time to the point that it no longer moves the needle anymore to point out that he's doing it.

But I was going to say the exact same thing. :lmao


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

A question to people who like Trump. What do you expect America to look like if he won this thing? You really buy into the whole pick yourself up by your bootstraps bullshit? You want to show no respect to any of the other world leaders pretty much saying to them do as I say or suck my dick?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> Vox :duck


The reason why vox and huff and all these sink holes of western intellectualism don't seem to matter is because they too lie all the fucking time and are consistently called out on their own double standards, poor reporting and absolute disregard for objectivity.



The Hardcore Show said:


> A question to people who like Trump. What do you expect America to look like if he won this thing? You really buy into the whole pick yourself up by your bootstraps bullshit? You want to show no respect to any of the other world leaders pretty much saying to them do as I say or suck my dick?


In other words be like Obama and Bush before him. 

"If you're not with us, you're against us" has been america's motto through pretty much every single president. 

The difference is that those other presidents said that while smiling and sipping tea and stabbing the other world leaders in the back while Trump is merely stating the same more abrasivel and saying that this time you and your tax payers will pay for it instead of outs. 

Obviously none of the other country's are going to ante up because they've driven themselves into the ground as a result of their social welfare stateism but I do agree that America has to stop shouldering the cost of world safety. Don't care who started it or whatever. I do care about pulling out of this bullshit instead of sinking deeper as we've seen with Hillary and Obama.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> The reason why vox and huff and all these sink holes of western intellectualism don't seem to matter is because they too lie all the fucking time and are consistently called out on their own double standards, poor reporting and absolute disregard for objectivity.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words be like Obama and Bush before him.
> 
> "If you're not with us, you're against us" has been america's motto through pretty much every single president.
> 
> The difference is that those other presidents said that while smiling and sipping tea and stabbing the other world leaders in the back while Trump is merely stating the same more abrasivel and saying that this time you and your tax payers will pay for it instead of outs.
> 
> Obviously none of the other country's are going to ante up because they've driven themselves into the ground as a result of their social welfare stateism but I do agree that America has to stop shouldering the cost of world safety. Don't care who started it or whatever. I do care about pulling out of this bullshit instead of sinking deeper as we've seen with Hillary and Obama.


Would I be wrong in saying that a lot of Trump's plan would be to once again tell anybody of any race or creed that if they are poor for any reason they are the cause for most of the US's problems?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Hardcore Show said:


> A question to people who like Trump. What do you expect America to look like if he won this thing? You really buy into the whole pick yourself up by your bootstraps bullshit? You want to show no respect to any of the other world leaders pretty much saying to them do as I say or suck my dick?


Just lower my taxes and stop importing people en masse from incompatible cultures and I'd be happy. I don't have expectations for government or politicians to improve my life, just steal less of my money and don't force me to associate with savages who would never have come here if they didn't roll out the red carpet for them.

I'd also feel much safer knowing the person in charge of whether we go to war or not is a businessman who has a less interventionist view of our country's role in the world instead of a career politician who regularly antagonizes nuclear-armed foreign governments in the name of scoring political points and trying to poorly conceal her own blatant corruption. Not dying in a nuclear war is kind of a life goal of mine, and obviously Trump is the safer bet on avoiding that doomsday scenario.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Hardcore Show said:


> A question to people who like Trump. What do you expect America to look like if he won this thing? You really buy into the whole pick yourself up by your bootstraps bullshit? You want to show no respect to any of the other world leaders pretty much saying to them do as I say or suck my dick?


Fuck the rest of the world, America is not the world Police, we shouldn't be dealing with 75% of what we do. There is being respectful and cooperating with leaders and there is paying money and giving deals to people who would blow us up if they could. It's moronic.

Yes people need to pull up their bootstraps because what good has the welfare system done for anyone? If anything it hinders people because it's idiotically put together.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Just lower my taxes and stop importing people en masse from incompatible cultures and I'd be happy. I don't have expectations for government or politicians to improve my life, just steal less of my money and don't force me to associate with savages who would never have come here if they didn't roll out the red carpet for them.
> 
> I'd also feel much safer knowing the person in charge of whether we go to war or not is a businessman who has a less interventionist view of our country's role in the world instead of a career politician who regularly antagonizes nuclear-armed foreign governments in the name of scoring political points and trying to poorly conceal her own blatant corruption. Not dying in a nuclear war is kind of a life goal of mine, and obviously Trump is the safer bet on avoiding that doomsday scenario.


Then you'd be very disappointed to know that as per a pew report released in August, America has let in 29k Muslim refugees in 2016 which is more than any other year in its history of data-keeping which also happens to be higher than christians let in. 

According to Pew, these refugees were let in via a vetting process conducted by non governmental organizations and not the traditional american immigration authorities. 



> People seeking to enter the U.S. as refugees are processed overseas. As part of the process, they are asked a series of questions, including their religious affiliation. When their applications are approved, refugees travel to the U.S. to be resettled by nonprofit groups associated with the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Refugees to the U.S. are different from asylum seekers, who claim asylum after already being in the U.S. or crossing into the U.S. via an airport or land border.


This means that this current batch of refugees have gone through the lightest vetting possible .. This is literally 1/10th of the vetting process I went through myself because I went through a full FBI profile, fingerprinting as well as my current address, wife's name/address and her being the primary sponsor going on both our permanent records. If these people are being let in via non governmental organizations, then their "sponsor" is essentially an entity and not another individual. There is no way to track back because there is less of a paper trail.

It's almost as though they want to let terrorists in at this point. 

Oh and finally, of the syrian refugees, only 1% of all of them were christians --- this means that despite the syrian population having a 5% distribution of christians, they are grossly under-represented, despite being one of the main targetted groups. 

There's hints of corruption and a complete breakdown of the vetting process already. Didn't even need to wait for Hillary to come into power.

Man, if you want to come to America come here legally. My wife had to declare every single penny she earned, her tax returns and give in a written affidavit from her Bosses proving that she's a worthy employee that has long term permanent employment in the US before they even made her eligible to become a sponsor.


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Fuck the rest of the world, America is not the world Police, we shouldn't be dealing with 75% of what we do. There is being respectful and cooperating with leaders and there is paying money and giving deals to people who would blow us up if they could. It's moronic.


Fully agree but I have to believe there is more to global politics that can be understood from the comforts of our living room chairs. There's got to be a good reason for America to play world police, that is, some benefit to us. It makes zero sense otherwise so it's hard to believe there isn't a far more complex motivation for the U.S. to behave as it does.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ManiacMichaelMyers said:


> Fully agree but I have to believe there is more to global politics that can be understood from the comforts of our living room chairs. There's got to be a good reason for America to play world police, that is, some benefit to us. It makes zero sense otherwise so it's hard to believe there isn't a far more complex motivation for the U.S. to behave as it does.


Yeah, we haven't had to fight another war that spanned the entire globe and put tens of millions of people in uniform and had the country rationing everything under the sun.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ManiacMichaelMyers said:


> Fully agree but I have to believe there is more to global politics that can be understood from the comforts of our living room chairs. There's got to be a good reason for America to play world police, that is, some benefit to us. It makes zero sense otherwise so it's hard to believe there isn't a far more complex motivation for the U.S. to behave as it does.


Are you saying that you're personally incapable of reading a bunch of books or pick up the treaties or read what analysts have been saying for decades, and that anyone that isn't a politician is ignorant by virtue of not being a part of the forces that govern the world?


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Are you saying that you're personally incapable of reading a bunch of books or pick up the treaties or read what analysts have been saying for decades, and that anyone that isn't a politician is ignorant by virtue of not being a part of the forces that govern the world?


I'm simply saying they're in the thick of it and have the true perspective of what's actually going on. Everything that reaches the people is based on what information is made available and not all of it is made available or should be.



deepelemblues said:


> Yeah, we haven't had to fight another war that spanned the entire globe and put tens of millions of people in uniform and had the country rationing everything under the sun.


That's important.


----------



## .MCH

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Jesus Christ, Hillary MOPPED the floor with him. He looked like an absolute joke. 

Anyone still voting for Trump after tonight, stay home on November 8.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Fuck the rest of the world, America is not the world Police, we shouldn't be dealing with 75% of what we do. There is being respectful and cooperating with leaders and there is paying money and giving deals to people who would blow us up if they could. It's moronic.


Agreed.



Miss Sally said:


> Yes people need to pull up their bootstraps because what good has the welfare system done for anyone? If anything it hinders people because it's idiotically put together.


I agree with this in principle. If you are capable of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, that's what you should do. The problem is, not everyone is capable of doing that (elderly, disabled, etc.) and not everyone who is capable has the opportunity. Simply put, there aren't enough bootstraps anymore to go around. People can't pull themselves up by bootstraps they don't have, no matter how hard they try.

On a related note, no one should be bitching about welfare for the poor without addressing the corporate welfare that hands out billions in subsidies to the people who are already filthy rich. That's on top of the billions we hand out to foreign countries thanks to our fucked up foreign policy. Seems like to me that those should rank higher on the list of priorities that need to be dealt with.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ManiacMichaelMyers said:


> Fully agree but I have to believe there is more to global politics that can be understood from the comforts of our living room chairs. There's got to be a good reason for America to play world police, that is, some benefit to us. It makes zero sense otherwise so it's hard to believe there isn't a far more complex motivation for the U.S. to behave as it does.


Cognitive dissonance of the same people blaming American troops leaving Iraq for ISIS and then saying fuck the rest of the world is astounding.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



.MCH said:


> Jesus Christ, Hillary MOPPED the floor with him. He looked like an absolute joke.
> 
> Anyone still voting for Trump after tonight, stay home on November 8.


I'm sure the millennials will get home first, if anything. :mj4


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with this in principle. If you are capable of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, that's what you should do. The problem is, not everyone is capable of doing that (elderly, disabled, etc.) and not everyone who is capable has the opportunity. Simply put, there aren't enough bootstraps anymore to go around. People can't pull themselves up by bootstraps they don't have, no matter how hard they try.
> 
> On a related note, no one should be bitching about welfare for the poor without addressing the corporate welfare that hands out billions in subsidies to the people who are already filthy rich. That's on top of the billions we hand out to foreign countries thanks to our fucked up foreign policy. Seems like to me that those should rank higher on the list of priorities that need to be dealt with.


The corporate bailouts pissed me off and that was an Obama thing. When they bailed out the car companies by giving them money I was shocked. If anything they should have given all tax payers and people who were low income a car credit, basically an X amount of money to use for a new/used car from one of the struggling Car Companies, it gives the Car Companies a foothold while allowing people who don't have a car or who are paying off a car a way to have transport. 

College students, families and lower middle class would have benefited greatly from it. But nope, line the pockets of businesses that failed. 

Another program I support is foodstamps for lower class workers, people could work, get their kids into some kind of education if they had help to buy food for larger families. In return the head of household has to work and at least one of the family if they are old enough volunteers a few hours a week doing something. It's better than paying for people to sit at home doing nothing.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Midway through so far, the fuck is with Trump sniffing every couple of seconds? 

If that was Hilary you'd all be posting photos of her with one foot in the grave and calling the election won on that point.


Edit: Ok up to the bit where trump starts going on about taking Iraq's oil.... 

There is a lot of criticism of Hilary for being a supposed war criminal, but when Trump actively calls for actual war crimes to be done he gets a total pass?

Like stealing natural resources as if it was the middles ages or something or torturing people, which he has also called for repeatedly.

The crowd laughing when Trump said he had a better temperament than Hilary was a great moment haha

Trump instead of backing down re blowing an Iranian Military Vessel declaring that it wouldn't start a war was absolutely terrifying. Because you know he believes that. It would start a war btw. Attacking another countries military in their territory is an act of war haha What is actually wrong with this person?

Wow he even butted in trying to bring this up again after Hilary had moved on. Unbelievable. He was like "they were taunting us" as if that justifies blowing up a ship and killing a heap of people. Like actually the fuck? 

If you are voting for him after standing by that you need to accept that you're a horrible warmonger, and frankly a terrible human being generally.

It's also an interesting interpretation of turn the other cheek for all those intending to vote on him because it's what Jesus would have wanted. 

Old Testament: "An eye for an eye", If they hit you, hit them back.
New Testament:"Turn the other cheek", if they hit you, ignore it and pretend they didn't
Trump: "if they insult you, kill them"


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> The corporate bailouts pissed me off and that was an Obama thing. When they bailed out the car companies by giving them money I was shocked. If anything they should have given all tax payers and people who were low income a car credit, basically an X amount of money to use for a new/used car from one of the struggling Car Companies, it gives the Car Companies a foothold while allowing people who don't have a car or who are paying off a car a way to have transport.


It's not just that though, it's the consistent slew of tax breaks and subsidies big business gets to do business in the country. Both sides are guilty of that and it's been going on a long time.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> The corporate bailouts pissed me off and that was an Obama thing. When they bailed out the car companies by giving them money I was shocked. If anything they should have given all tax payers and people who were low income a car credit, basically an X amount of money to use for a new/used car from one of the struggling Car Companies, it gives the Car Companies a foothold while allowing people who don't have a car or who are paying off a car a way to have transport.
> 
> College students, families and lower middle class would have benefited greatly from it. But nope, line the pockets of businesses that failed.


It's absolutely fair to criticize Obama for being a corporate lackey as long as you don't forget that Republicans are the original corporate lackeys. Democrats are now where Republicans were 20-25 years ago. Both parties have been consistently moving right for decades now.

I like your idea though. Instead of just straight giving cash to the failing car corporations, a much better solution would have been to give low income people credit to buy cars with. But, you know, that's something that would have helped everyone and our government isn't in the business of looking out for the best interests of the people.



Miss Sally said:


> Another program I support is foodstamps for lower class workers, people could work, get their kids into some kind of education if they had help to buy food for larger families. In return the head of household has to work and at least one of the family if they are old enough volunteers a few hours a week doing something. It's better than paying for people to sit at home doing nothing.


Ever hear of ABAWD? AKA able bodied adult without dependents. I dunno how it works in all states but here in Hawai'i, you can only get food stamps for a couple of months if you're an ABAWD and not working or in some kind of jobs program. Again, I can't say how it works in other states but here we don't give people money to eat just for sitting on their asses. They have to at least be trying to better themselves. Those are the people I don't mind receiving assistance.

Families are a different problem because kids are involved. I consider it immoral to let children starve, especially when we throw away over 40% of the food that we produce in this country. At the same time, we shouldn't allow adults to leach off the system solely because they have children. There has to be some kind of system in place that allows parents in poverty to contribute for the assistance they receive.

The biggest problem as far as food stamps are concerned is the fact that there are so many people who are working their asses off but still don't make enough money to get by on. The extreme income inequality we have now is not sustainable in the long run. Mega-corporations who are raking in billions in profit should not be employing people who are working for poverty wages. The welfare money their workers receive should not come from the middle class taxpayer. It should come straight out of the pockets of the owners of the corporation. If they won't willingly pay their workers a living wage, they should be taxed directly for every dime their employees receive in assistance. It's my opinion that we should get rid of the concept of hourly wages and start paying workers for productivity and a percentage of business. If a corporation makes a lot of profit, everyone who works for that corporation should be making good money, rather than all the gains going to the top while the workers have to get food stamps.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

CNN's poll says Clinton won the debate.

The polls from Time, CNBC, NJ.com, Telegraph, Drudge, Breitbart, Fortune AND Vanity disagree.

- Vic


----------



## amhlilhaus

Vic Capri said:


> CNN's poll says Clinton won the debate.
> 
> The polls from Time, CNBC, NJ.com, Telegraph, Drudge, Breitbart, Fortune AND Vanity disagree.
> 
> - Vic


Those other polls are just right wing hatchet job groups.

Hillary was flawless. Shes the most honest, healthy and QUALIFIED candidate to ever run.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



.MCH said:


> Jesus Christ, Hillary MOPPED the floor with him. He looked like an absolute joke.
> 
> Anyone still voting for Trump after tonight, stay home on November 8.


Mmmm, That's some yummy b8, m8!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> Those other polls are just right wing hatchet job groups.
> 
> Hillary was flawless. Shes the most honest, healthy and QUALIFIED candidate to ever run.


----------



## cablegeddon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*"We came in with the internet"*


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



cablegeddon said:


> *"We came in with the internet"*


Grammar aside, we did.


----------



## cablegeddon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Grammar aside, we did.


In or up? Down or out?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



cablegeddon said:


> In or up? Down or out?


Whatever you gotta Nitpick to take your mind off of NAFTA and the multiple other anti-American laws we need fixed, lad!


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Shocked at the polling results. I thought for sure Hillary won the debate given how many times Trump looked rattled and was rambling too much. She's in trouble if America viewed the debate but still thought Trump won.

Perception really is reality.


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary came across as a dishonest politician reading off rehearsed lines. Trump was nowhere near as eloquent or as vicious as I'd have liked, but he came across as genuine. That matters. President Trump also did well to discredit everything Hillary claimed by pointing out that she's had nearly 30 years as a high-ranking politician to get things done, in which she hasn't. That comment highlighted the fact that professional politicians are all talk, no action.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Perception really is reality.


Oh the irony ... 

:kobelol


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Oh the irony ...
> 
> :kobelol


Most reputable analysts concluded that Trump started well but bombed the last 2/3 of the debate. If someone was giving points for the debate, Hillary should have won. Even Trump's spin doctors were spinning right after the debate in interviews to put out any potential fire. So it is indeed shocking and worrying for Clinton that poll results showed that America is awarding the win to Trump. 

:shrug


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Most reputable analysts concluded that Trump started well but bombed the last 2/3 of the debate. If someone was giving points for the debate, Hillary should have won. Even Trump's spin doctors were spinning right after the debate in interviews to put out any potential fire. So it is indeed shocking and worrying for Clinton that poll results showed that America is awarding the win to Trump.
> 
> :shrug


Yeah, because Hillary's spin doctors and liberal media is totally being objective afterwards. 

Maybe Americans actually are sick and tired of people telling them what to think and are thinking for themselves and have learnt how to see through Hillary's bullshit. 

The reality is if you actually care to look at it because you don't as your bias also has been exposed several times in this thread, that even a large chunk of democrats are not supporting Hillary this election. There is less loyalty in her camp, fewer new registrations, less support and more fence-sitting. Trump has more loyal followers, encouraging new participants into politics, getting new registrations and sparking more interest overall. Plus both Johnson and Stein will pull more votes and support away from Hillary than they will from Trump because the right will still go for Trump while the left has at least 2 choices to pick from. 

Of course, there's going to be some bias in clicking a button - which also goes both ways, but let's not forget all of the above factors before crying foul either.


----------



## Ruduko

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Most reputable analysts concluded that Trump started well but bombed the last 2/3 of the debate. If someone was giving points for the debate, Hillary should have won. Even Trump's spin doctors were spinning right after the debate in interviews to put out any potential fire. So it is indeed shocking and worrying for Clinton that poll results showed that America is awarding the win to Trump.
> 
> :shrug


Just because she sounded great and what not doesn't mean she won. She was extremely hypocritical through out the entire debate (can't believe she got on Trump's case about LIBYA and BENGHAZI) and had to resort to ad hom. All the major points against her got expanded on by Trump while she fell flat with her comebacks. 

Sometimes things aren't how they seem.


----------



## cablegeddon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Most reputable analysts concluded that Trump started well but bombed the last 2/3 of the debate. If someone was giving points for the debate, Hillary should have won. Even Trump's spin doctors were spinning right after the debate in interviews to put out any potential fire. So it is indeed shocking and worrying for Clinton that poll results showed that America is awarding the win to Trump.
> 
> :shrug


I want to know what those "reputable analysts" said about Lester Holst who had a very vested interest when he lectured Trump on the frisk-and-stop policies, asked critical questions about the Obama birth certificate controversy, kept bringing up Trump's tax returns while brushing over Clinton's email-server.


How more biased could Lester Holst have been? 


This is why people don't trust media. Because media is left-wing and they prove it again and again.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Yeah, because Hillary's spin doctors and liberal media is totally being objective afterwards.
> 
> Maybe Americans actually are sick and tired of people telling them what to think and are thinking for themselves and have learnt how to see through Hillary's bullshit.
> 
> The reality is if you actually care to look at it because you don't as your bias also has been exposed several times in this thread, that even a large chunk of democrats are not supporting Hillary this election. There is less loyalty in her camp, fewer new registrations, less support and more fence-sitting. Trump has more loyal followers, encouraging new participants into politics, getting new registrations and sparking more interest overall. Plus both Johnson and Stein will pull more votes and support away from Hillary than they will from Trump because the right will still go for Trump while the left has at least 2 choices to pick from.
> 
> Of course, there's going to be some bias in clicking a button - which also goes both ways, but let's not forget all of the above factors before crying foul either.


What has objectivity got to do with their initial reactions after the debate? The need to go into defensive mode means the initial reaction by those in his campaign was that he didn't do well in a normal debate setting.

Americans getting sick and tired of the the norm and accepting whoever the change candidate is, however flawed, is worrying. 

What the heck are you ranting about anyway about me crying foul? Did I disagree with the poll results like your fellow Trumpters who cry 'rigged' or 'skewed' whenever poll results doesn't favour their narrative? No.

I was merely stating that objectively Hillary won the debate, but it didn't seem to be reflected in the reaction of the average poll takers. And that is worrying for the Clinton campaign. Most analysts agree debates seldom help to win elections but a poor performance could dissuade potential voters which is the only straw for Clinton at this point judging by the poll results so far. Romney won the first debate by most estimates but ended up losing the election. It could very well happen to Clinton as well.



Ruduko said:


> Just because she sounded great and what not doesn't mean she won. She was extremely hypocritical through out the entire debate (can't believe she got on Trump's case about LIBYA and BENGHAZI) and had to resort to ad hom. All the major points against her got expanded on by Trump while she fell flat with her comebacks.
> 
> Sometimes things aren't how they seem.


She managed to attacked Trump on most of his weakness, and his retorts were laughable at best. Trump couldn't help himself to chimed in with lies in denial when Clinton listed his past comments about global warming, NATO and ISIS. She manage to get on Trump on Libya because he did say those things. When you have to claim you have the best temperament, you don't have it.



cablegeddon said:


> I want to know what those "reputable analysts" said about Lester Holst who had a very vested interest when he lectured Trump on the frisk-and-stop policies, asked critical questions about the Obama birth certificate controversy, kept bringing up Trump's tax returns while brushing over Clinton's email-server.
> 
> 
> How more biased could Lester Holst have been?
> 
> 
> This is why people don't trust media. Because media is left-wing and they prove it again and again.


Erm...many right wing pundits gave the win to Hillary too. Was Lester Holst biased or just ticked off at Trump avoiding almost every question asked due to his lack of preparations?

Read the transcript of his reply to the Iraq war question. Trump reduced his answers into ask Sean fucking Hannity.


----------



## cablegeddon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Erm...many right wing pundits gave the win to Hillary too. Was Lester Holst biased or just ticked off at Trump avoiding almost every question asked due to his lack of preparations?
> 
> Read the transcript of his reply to the Iraq war question. Trump reduced his answers into ask Sean fucking Hannity.


I'm just saying, this is not what mainstream media and hard working journalists need. They don't need an asshole who take sides during one of the biggest debates of all time. It's was obvious that he took sides. Just like Candy Crowly derailed the Obama - Romney debate in 2012.

It happens over and over again.


----------



## Ruduko

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> She managed to attacked Trump on most of his weakness, and his retorts were laughable at best. Trump couldn't help himself to chimed in with lies in denial when Clinton listed his past comments about global warming, NATO and ISIS. She manage to get on Trump on Libya because he did say those things. When you have to claim you have the best temperament, you don't have it.


Yes but when Clinton herself was the catalyst to the whole Libya situation, she loses credibility. Credibility is important, especially in a presidential debate. And if Trump looked bad from Hillary's attacks then she really got caught with her pants down when the emails were brought up. That and when the whole experience argument was brought into play. Those were shots that were difficult to recover from.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Read the transcript of his reply to the Iraq war question. Trump reduced his answers into ask Sean fucking Hannity.


"I didn't support the Iraq War"

"Before the Iraq War you are on the public record calling for it be invaded"

"Yeah but in private I was telling people it was a bad idea"


Also as for the win/loss objectivity question, the betting markets have Hilary as 4% more likely to win since the election than they did before it. 

But I guess the betting markets have decided to give up on the whole making money thing in favour of taking part in the massive democratic conspiracy.


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:lmao


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/780755048955392000


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The moderator was a registered republican btw. 

I know Trump said the moderator was a democrat in the past, but that's because he's a compulsive liar and he's backed down now anyway http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...n-he-knew-the-man-s-1474895246-htmlstory.html


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



cablegeddon said:


> I'm just saying, this is not what mainstream media and hard working journalists need. They don't need an asshole who take sides during one of the biggest debates of all time. It's was obvious that he took sides. Just like Candy Crowly derailed the Obama - Romney debate in 2012.
> 
> It happens over and over again.


He is giving Trump an opportunity to clarify his positions on those issues that are raised consistently. Don't blame him for Trump not being prepared to answer them in a way that doesn't make him look like a rambling fool. Clinton deflected the emails question Trump raised easily. I felt that Clinton missed an opportunity to attack Trump for saying she changed her mind on TPP because of Trump. She could have pandered to the Bernie supporters and said Bernie helped her solidify her change in position.



Ruduko said:


> Yes but when Clinton herself was the catalyst to the whole Libya situation, she loses credibility. Credibility is important, especially in a presidential debate. And if Trump looked bad from Hillary's attacks then she really got caught with her pants down when the emails were brought up. That and when the whole experience argument was brought into play. Those were shots that were difficult to recover from.


If credibility is important to you, what's your take on Trump denying he said China started the global warming hoax? How about his take on birther movement helping Obama? He got a good shots in early trying to make her attack Obama and the 30 years thing. But he lost the rest of the debate. Basically brought 30mins worth of content to a 90 mins show was what a conservative pundit said.


----------



## cablegeddon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> The moderator was a registered republican btw.
> 
> I know Trump said the moderator was a democrat in the past, but that's because he's a compulsive liar and he's backed down now anyway http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...n-he-knew-the-man-s-1474895246-htmlstory.html


Was or is? If he is that has to be a planned strategy. Just listen to his questions....please?


----------



## cablegeddon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> He is giving Trump an opportunity to clarify his positions on those issues that are raised consistently. Don't blame him for Trump not being prepared to answer them in a way that doesn't make him look like a rambling fool. Clinton deflected the emails question Trump raised easily. I felt that Clinton missed an opportunity to attack Trump for saying she changed her mind on TPP because of Trump. She could have pandered to the Bernie supporters and said Bernie helped her solidify her change in position.


This is fact: This moderator, Lester, was lecturing Trump on frisk-and-stop and court rulings and constitution. How can you dispute that? It was on tv, it's documented. It's fact.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



cablegeddon said:


> This is fact: This moderator, Lester, was lecturing Trump on frisk-and-stop and court rulings and constitution. How can you dispute that? It was on tv, it's documented. It's fact.


When did I dispute that? Trump tried to lie his way out of the question due to a lack of preparation. Don't blame anyone else for it.



cablegeddon said:


> Was or is? If he is that has to be a planned strategy. Just listen to his questions....please?


He must have planned for moderating a presidential debate since 2003 then...


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Holt going hard on Trump's "record" on the Iraq war, as if a civilian talking on a radio show = an elected official voting on the Senate floor :kobelol

One of these is not like the other...


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Fringe said:


> Holt going hard on Trump's "record" on the Iraq war, as if a civilian talking on a radio show = an elected official voting on the Senate floor :kobelol
> 
> One of these is not like the other...


^^ Are you admitting Trump has been lying all this time about his Iraq position that he claim to prove he had better judgement than the typical politicians?

Trump sounds like the sports guy at a bar who feels he can do everything better than the coaches of his team.


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> ^^ Are you admitting Trump has been lying all this time about his Iraq position that he claim to prove he had better judgement than the typical politicians?
> 
> Trump sounds like the sports guy at a bar who feels he can do everything better than the coaches of his team.


No, I'm saying that an offhand comment on a radio show does not equate to an elected official casting a vote on the Senate floor. Learn to read before you respond to my posts, thanks.


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



cablegeddon said:


> I'm just saying, this is not what mainstream media and hard working journalists need. They don't need an asshole who take sides during one of the biggest debates of all time. It's was obvious that he took sides. Just like Candy Crowly derailed the Obama - Romney debate in 2012.
> 
> It happens over and over again.


I didn't see the debate last night, so I can't say but the Candy Crowly bit during the 2012 debate was obvious and absurd. 

As a moderator, it is not your job to pick sides and make one look good and the other look bad. You job is to MODERATE the debate, make sure it stays on track, keep the flow going and make sure both candidates have their say.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Fringe said:


> No, I'm saying that an offhand comment on a radio show does not equate to an elected official casting a vote on the Senate floor. Learn to read before you respond to my posts, thanks.


It can be both. :shrug

He made it an issue by saying his opposition to the war proved he had better judgement. Yet fact-checking has shown he has publicly supported the war.


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*Argument for Lester Holt Being Biased*: Lester Holt was clearly biased.

*Argument Against Lester Holt Being Biased*: Lester Holt is a registered republican, therefor, he can't be biased.

Yeah . . . pretty clear to see which argument holds water, and which argument has more holes than 2Pac's corpse.

Either way, an overwhelming number of polls are declaring a Trump victory. I'd wager Holt's unbearable one-sidedness helped Trump far more than it hurt him.

This whole concept of "looking presidential" is dead. Being a pull-string puppet spouting off rehearsed lines isn't fooling anyone other than the most stupid (people who use the #ImWithHer hashtag, for example).


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

wait polls are saying Trump won that debate?

are you fucking shitting me?

:garrett


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> wait polls are saying Trump won that debate?
> 
> are you fucking shitting me?
> 
> :garrett












the man cannot be stopped


----------



## Littbarski

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> wait polls are saying Trump won that debate?
> 
> are you fucking shitting me?
> 
> :garrett


No serious poll had Trump winning that debate. It was one of the worst ever debate performances by a Presidential candidate.

If Trump won last night he wouldn't have been on full defensive this morning.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Nothing significant or new was said in the debate, and I expect the next two debates will go the same way. Trump continued to re-frame the election by being reserved and focusing on the issues while Hillary threw out personal attack after personal attack, a strategy that the debate questions seemed designed to enable. People already knew that Hillary was far more experienced as a political debater so the fact that she "won" the debate on a facts and policy level is pretty meaningless. It hasn't mattered up until now, so why would it suddenly matter? People don't care about those things. 

Trump achieved his objectives for the debate - stay the course, and that's why he's going to win the election by a significant margin.


----------



## sideon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Both candidates are just an indictment on America TBH.


----------



## Blackbeard

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I thought Drumpf started off strong but lost his way after 30 minutes. He gets rattled too easily once you bring up his fiances and start poking around his past. It baffles me why anyone would want him in the White House. He doesn't appear to be a rational man to me. Hilary at least has the experience and right temperament for the job.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Is impossible for now to say who won the debate without reliable information.

Online polling is highly sensible to bias, which render it almost useless. We should wait until next week and analize aggregates with current polling which would most probably reflects the real effect of the debate (supossing it had any effect).


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I just finished the debate and Trump supporters won't like me for this but I think he lost this one and really lost his way about half way through the debate. He started off strong and hammered her on a couple of key points but as soon as the Birther stuff came into play to me he looked completely rattled and rambled on way too much. There really was not a lot of substance from both sides which was to be expected. Both were very hawkish when it came to foreign policy (at least Trump was less so ) and a lot of issues were of course not covered.

Trump missed so many opportunities to hammer Hillary on her email scandal, her health, the Clinton Foundation, her corruption, Benghazi, her overall horrible record on the middle east, her links to companies who have funded ISIS...so much stuff he could have hammered her on and he didn't. Furthermore if you noticed from a psychology standpoint at times Hillary was treating the Donald like a crazy person and cracked jokes when he went on one of his long rambling speeches and it was a very smart move because it made her look like the adult in the room and more fit to be president. I really hate to say it because I think Hillary becoming president is the absolute worst option at this time but she made him look very foolish at times.

Not a knockout blow by any means but I feel she definitely had the momentum and upper hand in that debate. I know the snap polls have Trump winning and maybe in a week or so when the scientific polls come out it shows the complete opposite in terms of outcome in Trump's favour but that's my initial reaction after watching.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump was a total mess. Anyone saying he won is delusional or a shill.

It won't affect him though which is :garrett

TEFLON DON


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> I just finished the debate and Trump supporters won't like me for this but I think he lost this one and really lost his way about half way through the debate. He started off strong and hammered her on a couple of key points but as soon as the Birther stuff came into play to me he looked completely rattled and rambled on way too much. There really was not a lot of substance from both sides which was to be expected. Both were very hawkish when it came to foreign policy (at least Trump was less so ) and a lot of issues were of course not covered.


He was really good early on, but then he just kinda blew it. The birther stuff was really bad. How his campaign wasn't ready for that kind of "gotcha" question, I don't know. Then again, "Why were you still suggesting that Obama's birth certificate was fraudulent _after_ he released it?" isn't exactly the easiest question to answer. Best case might have been maybe to frame some of his more outlandish tweets as him maintaining a public presence for his followers and trying to engage them in entertaining and meaningful dialogue. They've already suggested that some of his statements and tweets were meant sarcastically, so it's not like they're unwilling to run away from some of that stuff. I dunno.



> Trump missed so many opportunities to hammer Hillary on her email scandal, her health, the Clinton Foundation, her corruption, Benghazi, her overall horrible record on the middle east, her links to companies who have funded ISIS...so much stuff he could have hammered her on and he didn't. Furthermore if you noticed from a psychology standpoint at times Hillary was treating the Donald like a crazy person and cracked jokes when he went on one of his long rambling speeches and it was a very smart move because it made her look like the adult in the room and more fit to be president. I really hate to say it because I think Hillary becoming president is the absolute worst option at this time but she made him look very foolish at times.


I don't think he knew what to do when she said "I made a mistake" on the email thing. I don't think he was expecting her to take any sort of accountability. I don't think anyone was, for that matter. :lol

One thing that was interesting to note was that he consistently referred to her as "Secretary Clinton," while she spoke to him as "Donald." It may have been something of a lack of decorum on her part, but you're right in that it made him seem less professional, less significant, less whatever.



> Not a knockout blow by any means but I feel she definitely had the momentum and upper hand in that debate. I know the snap polls have Trump winning and maybe in a week or so when the scientific polls come out it shows the complete opposite in terms of outcome in Trump's favour but that's my initial reaction after watching.


As someone noted above, internet polls are stupid unreliable because they're incredibly easy to manipulate. The only remotely scientific polls I've seen so far are CNN's snap poll (which historically has a Dem skew of like +17) which had Clinton +35 (so, really, more like something in the teens) and PPP which had Clinton +11. FWIW, the betting markets seem to be responding as though Hillary won. Though the appearance of "winning" a debate is probably hard to judge, given that who really knows how these things can affect base turnout, etc. But it does appear that she did better among Independents last night.

If anyone's seen any other scientific poll results, feel free to chime in.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> Furthermore if you noticed from a psychology standpoint at times Hillary was treating the Donald like a crazy person and cracked jokes when he went on one of his long rambling speeches and it was a very smart move because it made her look like the adult in the room and more fit to be president. I really hate to say it because I think Hillary becoming president is the absolute worst option at this time but she made him look very foolish at times.


I particularly agree with this.

Corporal language was pretty telling, Trump never felt like someone comfortable on stage, the culmination of this was the moment when he tried to hit her on temperament and spontaniously people laughted at him, his reaction at the moment was priceless.

He was loss a lot of times, but the contrast on composure is in point with the narrative about character and temperament setted for him previously to the debate, whereas him was unable to hit her in his distrust or lies issues at all, when he tried it with the e-mails she fastly shifted it admiting her fault, which Trump could also be able to do with the Birther issue or apologizing for some things and instead he dragged those conflicts on a on


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

you know whats funny I think Trump killed it for the first quarter of debate and was avg at best and off his game by the pointed questions aimed at by him by lester holt. and Hillary was still the little liar she always was, but what this debate proved to me is how debates are just that debates.. we are judging people on how well they speak and counter arguments which doesn't translate to the leadership it takes to run a nation...just look at President Obama, one of the best talkers of his generation, ii cant stand him but I will admit hes charming n when on teleprompter, articulate. but hes a terrible leader....imo debates are overrated. I wonder if our past presidents like Jefferson would ever be elected if they had to debate on tv


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> you know whats funny I think Trump killed it for the first quarter of debate and was avg at best and off his game by the pointed questions aimed at by him by lester holt. and Hillary was still the little liar she always was, but what this debate proved to me is how debates are just that debates.. we are judging people on how well they speak and counter arguments which doesn't translate to the leadership it takes to run a nation...just look at President Obama, one of the best talkers of his generation, ii cant stand him but I will admit hes charming n when on teleprompter, articulate. but hes a terrible leader....imo debates are overrated. I wonder if our past presidents like Jefferson would ever be elected if they had to debate on tv


Normally debates have little to non impact in polling avg. The fact that pundits focus so much on them is one of many reasons why they're normally clueless.

This debates are different just for the fact that candidates are close, but tendencies pushed by and for debates don't tend to have effects longer than a week or two weeks, at best one month, just like conventions have


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Normally debates have little to non impact in polling avg. The fact that pundits focus so much on them is one of many reasons why they're normally clueless.
> 
> This debates are different just for the fact that candidates are close, but tendencies pushed by and for debates don't tend to have effects longer than a week or two weeks, at best one month, just like conventions have


yea the media were hyping it like it was ....well u filled it in, but I get it they want to get those ad money for the pre debate hour and post debate fallout. it was only 2 weeks ago Hillary was a zombie but time past and no one talks about it anymore...technology/politics is strange...my aunts husband knows that Hillary lies and that trump was right about African american community but because he is a democrat, he doesn't care and will vote for hillary


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Saw the debate only moments ago. 

Without reading any posts on the subject here (I'll catch up soon)...

The first 30-40 minutes were all Trump. Hillary Clinton was remarkably tentative in the early going, and Trump was on his game in the opening third or so of the debate. Trade is a major issue which has not seen a clash in the "national championship round" in American presidential election cycle tournaments in decades. Hillary's efforts to thwart Trump's attack were rather unconvincing here. Trump even spoke of the states impacted, and for thousands of viewers in states such as Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and other states, Trump's argument surely resonated. 

After that lengthy stretch of the debate, however, it became, at best, a scrum (from Trump's perspective). The man is a grievously flawed debater (Ted Cruz is actually far wilier and formidable in thinking on his feet in terms of taking an attack and countering it right away, for all the good it did him against Trump in the primary season) and all of the general critiques of him as an over-the-top personality are true: he is easily "baited," and between the content of the material and Hillary's cleverly inserted lines of attack throughout the rest of the debate, Trump found himself tangled in a web of wastefully countering those attacks. Trump is Trump--and he cannot help but endeavor to "correct the record" as he sees fit, whether it's about how much money he made in the past year lmao) or the role he played in the entire "birther" saga or what have you. As a result the early lead he accumulated in the first 30-40 minutes was gone, if we're "scoring" the debate like some boxing contest.

UCLA professor Albert Mehrabian has documented just how much of communication is nonverbal (a colossal 93%). Ultimately, I could not help but see Trump bleed votes of women as he continually interrupted his opponent. Millions of women will strongly dislike Trump's performance for that and other reasons. At the same time, I have already seen many men say that Hillary came across as condescending and icy. 

As with almost all presidential debates, little was gained, little was lost, but in spite of everything, Trump probably emerges relatively unscathed. It's not a newsflash that he's a hotheaded motor-mouth from New York City who will passionately fight over minutiae pertaining to his own record as a businessman, public figure or presidential candidate. Most of Hillary's biggest lines seemed well-rehearsed. 

That said, Trump utterly failed to continue the journey of capably battling Hillary that the first 30+ minutes featured. Lester Holt actually threw an underhanded pitch to Trump on cyber security and Trump somehow failed to mention Hillary's email-gate, which is an almost unforgivable miss. He never mentioned the Clinton Foundation. He never clarified just what "taunting" by the Iranians entails, which, for those who do not know, probably came off, from this debate, as a few men sticking their tongues out and giving the Americans the finger in the Persian Gulf, rather than the generally highly dangerous maneuvers that the Iranians are continuing to perform near American vessels. (Not to say this in the interest of pounding war drums against Iran, but reality is reality.) He practically assisted Hillary in terms of letting his tax returns dominate a large portion the debate. Stop-and-frisk was a scrum. 

Suspect Hillary's numbers will go up several points. Trump's may go up a little bit in key swing states, too. 

Hillary is probably still winning this election but Trump is retaining the whirlwind enthusiasm. It's zeal and excitement vs. concern over Trump being too much of a wild man in assisting Hillary's already-strong GOTV at this point. Several of these swing states are probably going to keep a lot of people up late on November 8.

Perhaps the best aspect of this entire election cycle is that it has been a clear, decisive awakening for millions of Americans. It's wonderful that we have two such detestable characters as Hillary and Trump, an excellent development. Barack Obama oriented an entire generation of youthful Americans to believe that politics is some noble enterprise marked by idealism and hope and change. This election cycle features one of the most corrupt figures in America history versus a crude businessman-cum-political street-fighter. How many Americans are waking up to the point that this is a blood sport? How many swing state voters are prepared to say goodbye to the dismal and staid post-Cold War bipartisan arrangement in favor of a brutish _caudillo_? 

These and other questions will have to be answered in the coming weeks.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Like a guy who works with data sets and designs polls for a living, thinks like this irritate me to no end.




















The Kellyanne shit is worse because she is a pollster herself, so she ultimately had to delete the poll.

Which is funny is this


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/780757611914391552
Let see the correlation between CNN poll after the debate and gainings in polls









When you have to write pieces like this to stop the nonsense, i really fear sometimes we have science for shit today

http://www.weeklystandard.com/which...-trust-and-which-to-disregard/article/2004568


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Saw the debate only moments ago.
> 
> Without reading any posts on the subject here (I'll catch up soon)...
> 
> The first 30-40 minutes were all Trump. Hillary Clinton was remarkably tentative in the early going, and Trump was on his game in the opening third or so of the debate. Trade is a major issue which has not seen a clash in the "national championship round" in American presidential election cycle tournaments in decades. Hillary's efforts to thwart Trump's attack were rather unconvincing here. Trump even spoke of the states impacted, and for thousands of viewers in states such as Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and other states, Trump's argument surely resonated.
> 
> After that lengthy stretch of the debate, however, it became, at best, a scrum (from Trump's perspective). The man is a grievously flawed debater (Ted Cruz is actually far wilier and formidable in thinking on his feet in terms of taking an attack and countering it right away, for all the good it did him against Trump in the primary season) and all of the general critiques of him as an over-the-top personality are true: he is easily "baited," and between the content of the material and Hillary's cleverly inserted lines of attack throughout the rest of the debate, Trump found himself tangled in a web of wastefully countering those attacks. Trump is Trump--and he cannot help but endeavor to "correct the record" as he sees fit, whether it's about how much money he made in the past year lmao) or the role he played in the entire "birther" saga or what have you. As a result the early lead he accumulated in the first 30-40 minutes was gone, if we're "scoring" the debate like some boxing contest.
> 
> UCLA professor Albert Mehrabian has documented just how much of communication is nonverbal (a colossal 93%). Ultimately, I could not help but see Trump bleed votes of women as he continually interrupted his opponent. Millions of women will strongly dislike Trump's performance for that and other reasons. At the same time, I have already seen many men say that Hillary came across as condescending and icy.
> 
> As with almost all presidential debates, little was gained, little was lost, but in spite of everything, Trump probably emerges relatively unscathed. It's not a newsflash that he's a hotheaded motor-mouth from New York City who will passionately fight over minutiae pertaining to his own record as a businessman, public figure or presidential candidate. Most of Hillary's biggest lines seemed well-rehearsed.
> 
> That said, Trump utterly failed to continue the journey of capably battling Hillary that the first 30+ minutes featured. Lester Holt actually threw an underhanded pitch to Trump on cyber security and Trump somehow failed to mention Hillary's email-gate, which is an almost unforgivable miss. He never mentioned the Clinton Foundation. He never clarified just what "taunting" by the Iranians entails, which, for those who do not know, probably came off, from this debate, as a few men sticking their tongues out and giving the Americans the finger in the Persian Gulf, rather than the generally highly dangerous maneuvers that the Iranians are continuing to perform near American vessels. (Not to say this in the interest of pounding war drums against Iran, but reality is reality.) He practically assisted Hillary in terms of letting his tax returns dominate a large portion the debate. Stop-and-frisk was a scrum.
> 
> Suspect Hillary's numbers will go up several points. Trump's may go up a little bit in key swing states, too.
> 
> Hillary is probably still winning this election but Trump is retaining the whirlwind enthusiasm. It's zeal and excitement vs. concern over Trump being too much of a wild man in assisting Hillary's already-strong GOTV at this point. Several of these swing states are probably going to keep a lot of people up late on November 8.
> 
> Perhaps the best aspect of this entire election cycle is that it has been a clear, decisive awakening for millions of Americans. It's wonderful that we have two such detestable characters as Hillary and Trump, an excellent development. Barack Obama oriented an entire generation of youthful Americans to believe that politics is some noble enterprise marked by idealism and hope and change. This election cycle features one of the most corrupt figures in America history versus a crude businessman-cum-political street-fighter. How many Americans are waking up to the point that this is a blood sport? How many swing state voters are prepared to say goodbye to the dismal and staid post-Cold War bipartisan arrangement in favor of a brutish _caudillo_?
> 
> These and other questions will have to be answered in the coming weeks.


Agreed, the first half of the debate Trump was doing excellent, sounding like a President and then he got baited which to me makes no sense. Clinton has far more skeletons in her closet so when she brought up his Taxes he should have brought up her Foundation, that way anytime it came up it would look like Hilary was afraid and just deflecting. His constant interrupting was off-putting, he should have let Hilary come off as the asshole which actually helped him because her attack campaigns have failed.

He really should have stayed talking about America, detailing the Iranian taunting and how he will improve America. He also missed a key zinger on stamina when Hillary mentioned an 11 hour Congressional Hearing, like seriously he could have put her to bed with that in an instant, she basically admitted she did wrong by admitting to the emails as a mistake and then saying that. Also no mention of Haiti? If we're going to talk Foreign Policy he should have brought up how the Clintons handled Haiti and then proceed to bury any Hollywood support for Hillary by mentioning that her whole Foundation is a song and dance, nothing but of actors, much like her supporters.

That would have ended the debate no matter what questions were tossed at him.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I doubt Trump even know anything about Haiti and the Clintons because he didn't care to prepare for the debate seriously. Same mistake as Obama 4 years ago. :lol

It is telling that Trumpters are having to make up defence for his performances yet the online polls showed he 'won'. Wonder which side has people 'skewing' the polls? 

Also, Lester gave Trump a lead into attacking Clinton on her emails with a question about cyber security which he somehow manage to make himself look worse than her on with his rambling that ended on him talking about his 10 year old son.


----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump hit his points on how the people have been plundered of their livelihood by deals like NAFTA, which he really nailed Hillary on. And Hillary's response to that was passive aggressive bullshit like "well, that's your opinion." It was the typical opinion of someone who is completely detached from actual Americans. The hatred for the American working-class that Hillary possesses was on full display.

Hillary technically "won" the debate but that really doesn't matter. I can't see how Hillary closes the enthusiasm gap, which is what doomed the Remain campaign in Brexit. Trump supporters will walk through fire to vote for him. Hillary voters will go out to vote only if the weather is nice.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Trump showed up at my city today.



















This is a city of about 77,000 people. They're saying that an estimated 27,000 showed up to see him after 6 despite a storm (This includes people who couldn't get in) - though I'm guessing that number is at least doubled. However, even if it was 10k-15k plus which is what it looks like from the pictures, that's still 1/6th of the entire population on a week day that simply turned up to catch a glimpse. 

According to the locals here this is pretty much the first time anything has drawn such a huge crowd in this small city's history.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Reaper said:


> Trump showed up at my city today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a city of about 77,000 people. They're saying that an estimated 27,000 showed up to see him after 6 despite a storm (This includes people who couldn't get in) - though I'm guessing that number is at least doubled. However, even if it was 10k-15k plus which is what it looks like from the pictures, that's still 1/6th of the entire population on a week day that simply turned up to catch a glimpse.
> 
> According to the locals here this is pretty much the first time anything has drawn such a huge crowd in this small city's history.


That's impressive in turn out! Hopefully next debate he comes fully prepared and hits Clinton hard. His support has not gone down which is a good thing.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/780596318452408320
:lmao


----------



## HullKogan

A few years ago, the idea that the country would have a president trump was a fucking joke. 

Now that joke has turned the country itself into the punchline. 

Yeah, the spoiled rich baby draft dodger without any political or military experience is fit to lead this country. "But bro, didn't you watch The Apprentice?"

What's he going to do if China pushes him on something? Call the Chinese fat cows? 
The uneducated would get behind it, thinking "oh funny, cool!" while the educated people foresee the ramifications.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Even Michael Moore said Trump won the debate! There's a shocker for you! O_O



> This is a city of about 77,000 people. They're saying that an estimated 27,000 showed up to see him after 6 despite a storm (This includes people who couldn't get in) - though I'm guessing that number is at least doubled. However, even if it was 10k-15k plus which is what it looks like from the pictures, that's still 1/6th of the entire population on a week day that simply turned up to catch a glimpse.
> 
> According to the locals here this is pretty much the first time anything has drawn such a huge crowd in this small city's history.


A lot of hard working Americans are tired of getting fucked over by officials in Washington. Hope and change didn't do jack shit for them. Hope Trump wins by a landslide because Hollywood and the media are scared to death of him and how much momentum he's gained the past month.

- Vic


----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



HullKogan said:


> The uneducated would get behind it, thinking "oh funny, cool!" while the educated people foresee the ramifications.


These "educated" people have been the ones who have sold out country. Forgive me for not caring about their opinion.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Even Michael Moore said Trump won the debate! There's a shocker for you! O_O


Since when did Michael Moore saying something stupid become a shocker?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



GOON said:


> Trump hit his points on how the people have been plundered of their livelihood by deals like NAFTA, which he really nailed Hillary on. And Hillary's response to that was passive aggressive bullshit like "well, that's your opinion." It was the typical opinion of someone who is completely detached from actual Americans. The hatred for the American working-class that Hillary possesses was on full display.
> 
> Hillary technically "won" the debate but that really doesn't matter. I can't see how Hillary closes the enthusiasm gap, which is what doomed the Remain campaign in Brexit. Trump supporters will walk through fire to vote for him. Hillary voters will go out to vote only if the weather is nice.


And you did not see the hatred Trump had for the working class on full display where he basically said it was good business to not pay people the money that is owed to them? 

Hillary was stupid for not asking Trump when he was going on and on about losing companies to china and Mexico, that he makes his ties in Mexico and also used illegals to build a lot of his buildings. 

Hillary won the debate after getting destroyed for the first 30 mins but she did not hit Trump hard enough.

The biggest moment of the debate is when the crowd was laughing at Trump when he claimed he had a better temperament. He looked like a jackass when he said that and everyone was laughing. 

You claim Hillary is detached from actual Americans while that may be true how is Trump also not detached from actual Americans?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



cablegeddon said:


> This is fact: This moderator, Lester, was lecturing Trump on frisk-and-stop and court rulings and constitution. How can you dispute that? It was on tv, it's documented. It's fact.


That is the moderators job, it's called FACT CHECKING, more moderators should be calling out Trump and Hillary when they are wrong or lying about something. Trump was wrong with what he was saying. Stop and frisk is unconstitutional.


----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> And you did not see the hatred Trump had for the working class on full display where he basically said it was good business to not pay people the money that is owed to them?


That's not really comparable to someone actively working to destroy the working class. That's business; not hatred.

Meanwhile, Hillary works against her own people and country.



> You claim Hillary is detached from actual Americans while that may be true how is Trump also not detached from actual Americans?


Because he's smart enough to realize that trade deals like the TPP will only continue to plunder the American working class of their livelihoods. Meanwhile, Hillary continues to act aloof to the entire plight of the working class.



birthday_massacre said:


> Stop and frisk is unconstitutional.


One district court ruled on it and it wasn't the Supreme Court. It's only _really_ unconstitutional if the Supreme Court says it is. 

But if we're going to cite a single district court in order to argue the constitutionality of anything, then you could probably find grounds to deem anything over the last few decades as unconstitutional.

Lester intentionally left out the bit about the district court, in order to give the impression that it was the Supreme Court that gave the ruling.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






:shrug


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



GOON said:


> One district court ruled on it and it wasn't the Supreme Court. It's only _really_ unconstitutional if the Supreme Court says it is.


I don't know why you think this, but it isn't vaguely true.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The condescending attitude from some Dems and Hillary voters are going to really come to cost them big time. 

Trump's momentum and ground game is really getting underestimated. I live in California (Sacramento to be specific) and althought it's obvious we're going blue, I've observed something when I'm out. When I overhear conversations about politics, I always hear likely Trump voters/supporters talk about anything Trump related (policy, personality, beliefs, memes, reasons of voting for him, etc.) while the likely Hillary voters/supporters either try to bring up why they "hate/dislike" Trump and give their reasons or they usually counterpoint whenever someone says they support Trump. Barely mention or talk about Hillary and what she will do/what she believes. 

Just an observation. Stop underestimating Trump supporters. It'll cost you even if you don't want to believe it.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

sry double post


----------



## GOON

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> I don't know why you think this, but it isn't vaguely true.


The court in question only has jurisdiction over its particular district in New York. Since the Supreme Court, which has jurisdiction across the entirety of the United States, has never ruled on it, Trump is free to promote the policy in cities like Chicago that desperately need it. 

My point is that one judge's ruling in New York does not apply to the entirety of the nation. It would be one thing if Trump was running for Mayor of New York, but since he's running for a nationwide position, one local judge's ruling is essentially moot.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



GOON said:


> The court in question only has jurisdiction over its particular district in New York. Since the Supreme Court, which has jurisdiction across the entirety of the United States, has never ruled on it, Trump is free to promote the policy in cities like Chicago that desperately need it.
> 
> My point is that one judge's ruling in New York does not apply to the entirety of the nation. It would be one thing if Trump was running for Mayor of New York, but since he's running for a nationwide position, one local judge's ruling is essentially moot.


Oh ok, I see what you mean.

Still though, the District court may only have jurisdiction over its own district but if its interpreting the constitution then that would apply to all districts as the constitution is national. The current state of the law is that it is unconstitutional.

Theoretically if it was done in a different state a different district court could overturn the New York decision as the decision of an equal level court isn't binding. But that would require them changing the law from where it currently stands.

At least that's my understanding, I could be wrong.


----------



## Stipe Tapped

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> The condescending attitude from some Dems and Hillary voters are going to really come to cost them big time.
> 
> Trump's momentum and ground game is really getting underestimated. I live in California (Sacramento to be specific) and althought it's obvious we're going blue, I've observed something when I'm out. When I overhear conversations about politics, I always hear likely Trump voters/supporters talk about anything Trump related (policy, personality, beliefs, memes, reasons of voting for him, etc.) while the likely Hillary voters/supporters either try to bring up why they "hate/dislike" Trump and give their reasons or they usually counterpoint whenever someone says they support Trump. Barely mention or talk about Hillary and what she will do/what she believes.
> 
> Just an observation. Stop underestimating Trump supporters. It'll cost you even if you don't want to believe it.


That attitude will definitely bite them in the ass. Neither candidate was the most personable the other night but Trump's narcissism was far less unappealing than Hillary's constant smirking, flippancy and condescension. 

The debate was quite representative of the supporters of both. A lot of Trump supporters (and Trump himself) are unable to admit that Trump sometimes makes mistakes. It was particularly evident when he allowed himself to get stuck on the birther issue and the Rosie O'Donnell stuff. He just can't help himself. His ego compels him to defend every single thing he's ever done rather than focusing on the many areas where he can rip Clinton to shreds. It was the same when Trump's unpaid architects were brought up. His "Maybe they didn't do a good enough job"
response was the worst direction he could have taken. Most voters are apolitical. Sound bites like that will allow Hillary and her supporters to take the moral high ground and paint Trump as an uncaring, ruthless, dog-eat-dog capitalist who doesn't have the moral fortitude to be the president.

Hillary will fall apart if he presses her on any of the myriad of shady dealings from her past, which we saw a bit of when Trump didn't let her get away with classifying the private server thing as a "mistake". The blueprint to beat Clinton isn't complicated. Trump's pride will be his biggest obstacle unless he's able to let things go and stop defending every single miniscule irrelevant thing he's ever done. As long as he can resist the temptation to chase the squirrel in the coming weeks, he could win this thing yet.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

AHAHAHAHAHA!










*BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!*
@CamillePunk @DesolationRow @Miss Sally @Fringe @GOON 

THOSE PESKY WHITES ARE AT IT AGAIN! :lmao


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So much fear :kobelol 

"Whites are just too damned angry to see reason" ... 

Good.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



HullKogan said:


> A few years ago, the idea that the country would have a president trump was a fucking joke.
> 
> Now that joke has turned the country itself into the punchline.
> 
> Yeah, the spoiled rich baby draft dodger without any political or military experience is fit to lead this country. "But bro, didn't you watch The Apprentice?"
> 
> What's he going to do if China pushes him on something? Call the Chinese fat cows?
> The uneducated would get behind it, thinking "oh funny, cool!" while the educated people foresee the ramifications.


This is due to the Republicans and Democrats fucking over the people time and time again. Don't act like this is just something that came up out of nowhere, it's because both parties are corrupt to the core. We just seen how hateful and corrupt the Democratic Party is and the MSM claims they're the "Good" guys. The American people are sick of the bullshit, we're near French Revolution status here!

Don't blame the average American people, blame the fuckhead Politicians for their lies and pandering, blame the hardcore Democrats/Republican voters who vote in droves no matter if the person they're voting for is any good. 

People are flocking to Trump because he's different, look at Hillary! In what world do we live in where someone who has as much blood on her hands is actually running for President? I guess the same could be said for Obama, his experience was limited before getting to the white house. People don't want a Politician, people are turning on the Media, Colleges, Washington and these cuckold Military leaders Obama put into place. These people thought they could just keep butt fucking everyone and nobody would complain, imagine if someone with a bit more even temperament who was witty and had the funds to run actually ran, this election would be over. 

The pandering buffoons in Washington and on the "Left"/"Right" better worry, they better pray that their welfare gets accepted and if they can flood places with illegals for votes and or commit voter fraud because a storm is coming! Keep pretending it's just a fringe movement. Keep pretending that everything is racist and keep shitting on nonwhites who don't see things your way because they're starting to see through the lies. You can only bamboozle Blacks, Hispanics and others with shitty "Leftist" school teaching that don't stand up to actual facts, because those people are going to see all the pandering has made them slaves to a corrupt Party Machine.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Raising minimum wage is always a good way to get people to lose their jobs


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> Raising minimum wage is always a good way to get people to lose their jobs


Socialized Health Care is a good way to make medical advancements! 

Lots of Regulations increase company growth!

Welfare states without jobs nor proper education is beneficial to our children's future!

:nerd:


----------



## amhlilhaus

People go, how can you vote for trump, hes an idiot. A billionaire is an idiot? Ok

Meanwhile, theyre gonna vote for someone with no chance of winning or someone who says they will make the country a better place but hasnt gotten it done in 20 years


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> People go, how can you vote for trump, hes an idiot. A billionaire is an idiot? Ok
> 
> Meanwhile, theyre gonna vote for someone with no chance of winning or someone who says they will make the country a better place but hasnt gotten it done in 20 years


They're voting for someone who has 30 years in Politics who's only real accomplishments are getting brown people killed, selling out favors for money and getting into scandals. The only way she's made money is by selling influence.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> They're voting for someone who has 30 years in Politics who's only real accomplishments are getting brown people killed, selling out favors for money and getting into scandals. The only way she's made money is by selling influence.


What have you accomplished in 30 years? 

"Well my husband was a great president and he achieved a lot"

And this is exactly what feminism is :kobelol


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> What have you accomplished in 30 years?
> 
> "Well my husband was a great president and he achieved a lot"
> 
> And this is exactly what feminism is :kobelol


Excuse me. 

I'll have you know she got a courthouse renamed:

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...bill-renaming-nyc-building-her-single-success


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> Raising minimum wage is always a good way to get people to lose their jobs


I find it sad that people still believe in retarded myths like this that are not backed up by any factual evidence.



> *A report that analyzed every minimum-wage hike since 1938 should put a bunch of nonsense ideas to rest*
> 
> From the fear-mongering headlines marking passage of $15 statutes in New York and California, you would think nobody ever dared raise the minimum wage before.
> 
> "Raising minimum wage risky," the Lexington (Kentucky) Herald-Leader tersely warned.
> 
> "Raising minimum wage hurts low-skill workers," the Detroit News bluntly declared.
> 
> "Even left-leaning economists say it's a gamble," Vox solemnly cautioned.
> 
> Nonsense. We have been raising the minimum wage for 78 years, and as a new study clearly reveals, 78 years of minimum-wage hikes have produced zero evidence of the "job-killing" consequences these headline writers want us to fear.
> 
> In a first-of-its-kind report, researchers at the National Employment Law Project pore over employment data from every federal increase since the minimum wage was first established, making "simple before-and-after comparisons of job-growth trends 12 months after each minimum-wage increase."
> 
> What did the researchers find? The paper's title says it all: "Raise Wages, Kill Jobs? Seven Decades of Historical Data Find No Correlation Between Minimum Wage Increases and Employment Levels."
> 
> The results were clear. Of the nearly two dozen federal minimum-wage hikes since 1938, total year-over-year employment actually increased 68% of the time.
> 
> In those industries most affected by the minimum wage, employment increases were even more common: 73% of the time in the retail sector, 82% in low-wage leisure and hospitality.
> 
> "These basic economic indicators show no correlation between federal minimum-wage increases and lower employment levels," the authors write.
> 
> In fact, if anything, the data suggest that increases in the federal minimum appeared to encourage job growth and hiring.
> 
> Perhaps even more striking, of the only eight times that total or industry-specific employment declined after a minimum-wage increase, the US economy was already in recession (five times), technically just emerging from recession (twice), or about to head into recession (once).
> 
> Clearly, this handful of employment downturns would be better explained by the normal business cycle than by the minimum wage.
> 
> "As those results mirror the findings of decades of more sophisticated academic research," the authors conclude, "they provide simple confirmation that opponents' perennial predictions of job losses are rooted in ideology, not evidence."
> 
> But while there is no evidence that raising the minimum wage is the "risky" "gamble" that doomsayers describe, the devastating economic costs of keeping wages too low are very well documented.
> 
> After decades of stagnant wages, 73 million Americans — nearly one quarter of our population — now live in households eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, a benefit exclusively available to the working poor.
> 
> And according to a 2014 report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, rising income inequality (and the reduced consumer demand that comes with it) knocked 6% to 9% off US economic growth over the previous two decades.
> 
> Wow. If the US economy were 9% bigger than it is today, it would have created about 11 million additional jobs. Imagine how great that would be for both American workers and businesses.
> 
> To be clear, I am not suggesting that there's no limit to how high we can raise the minimum wage. But minimum-wage opponents are not haggling over a number. They are not making a nuanced argument that the minimum wage might be bad for some people if it's too high or phased in too fast or if the economy is too weak to absorb the change.
> 
> No, their core claim is that the minimum wage always hurts the whole economy — that it will always reduce growth— that it is always a sure-fire "job-killer."
> 
> For decades, our minimum-wage debate has been dominated by ideology — the zero-sum claim that if wages go up, employment must inevitably go down — leading even many progressives to believe that the minimum wage is at best a necessary trade-off between fairness and growth.
> 
> But 78 years of evidence demonstrates that this old trickle-down model just isn't true. On the contrary: *When workers have more money, businesses have more customers and hire more workers. That is the virtuous cycle that has always described the way market economies actually work.*
> 
> So if you are genuinely worried about killing jobs, our current $7.25-an-hour minimum wage is arguably far riskier than $15.
> 
> SOURCE


The sooner people stop believing in this dumbass trickle down bullshit, the sooner we'll have a strong economy again. A consumer based economy doesn't function if the consumer doesn't have any spending power. Giving massive tax breaks to the rich does not and has not ever created massive job growth. Businesses have no incentive to hire more employees if they don't have enough customers coming through their doors. They pocket the extra cash and the economy slows down because money is not circulating. Cash in the hands of the rich is a dead end. Cash in the hands of the working class means more people spending money on the economy. As an added bonus, it's something right wing small government people _should_ support, because it means less people on welfare.

This is one of the reasons I am supporting Trump. Because people are retarded and have to learn things the hard way. We've had 4 decades of trickle down economics and there are still people who haven't figured out it doesn't work. It's going to take another complete crash of the economy like what happened during the Great Depression before people will finally learn their lesson. We almost got there 8 years ago but then Obama came along with his bailouts, which hasn't fixed our problems, only delayed the inevitable. Hillary would only bring about more of this slow death. If Trump gets elected and institutes his economic plans, it's all going down in a heaping mass of flames.

In the long run, the USA will be better off for it. Hopefully our future generations will remember the lesson this time, because our generation is too fucking stupid to learn from the lessons of the past.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> I find it sad that people still believe in retarded myths like this that are not backed up by any factual evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> The sooner people stop believing in this dumbass trickle down bullshit, the sooner we'll have a strong economy again. A consumer based economy doesn't function if the consumer doesn't have any spending power. Giving massive tax breaks to the rich does not and has not ever created massive job growth. Businesses have no incentive to hire more employees if they don't have enough customers coming through their doors. They pocket the extra cash and the economy slows down because money is not circulating. Cash in the hands of the rich is a dead end. Cash in the hands of the working class means more people spending money on the economy. As an added bonus, it's something right wing small government people _should_ support, because it means less people on welfare.
> 
> This is one of the reasons I am supporting Trump. Because people are retarded and have to learn things the hard way. We've had 4 decades of trickle down economics and there are still people who haven't figured out it doesn't work. It's going to take another complete crash of the economy like what happened during the Great Depression before people will finally learn their lesson. We almost got there 8 years ago but then Obama came along with his bailouts, which hasn't fixed our problems, only delayed the inevitable. Hillary would only bring about more of this slow death. If Trump gets elected and institutes his economic plans, it's all going down in a heaping mass of flames.
> 
> In the long run, the USA will be better off for it. Hopefully our future generations will remember the lesson this time, because our generation is too fucking stupid to learn from the lessons of the past.


Not every business is capable of of handling the increase of wages . Also, if you raise the minimum wage, price of food and cost of living also increases which completely negates raising the minimum wage to begin with and we're right back where we started. It's a never ending cycle . Minimum skills = minimum wage, any moron can pour a cup of coffee

Want more money? Get a better job , stop punishing everyone else because people are too lazy to stay in school and have a career.


----------



## cablegeddon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Oh ok, I see what you mean.
> 
> Still though, the District court may only have jurisdiction over its own district but if its interpreting the constitution then that would apply to all districts as the constitution is national. The current state of the law is that it is unconstitutional.
> 
> Theoretically if it was done in a different state a different district court could overturn the New York decision as the decision of an equal level court isn't binding. But that would require them changing the law from where it currently stands.
> 
> At least that's my understanding, I could be wrong.


bottom line is that Lester shouldn't give lectures during the debate


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> What have you accomplished in 30 years?
> 
> "Well my husband was a great president and he achieved a lot"
> 
> And this is exactly what feminism is :kobelol


She's gotten Americans killed, helped to further the destabilization across the Middle East thereby facilitating the continued rise of ISIS, compromised untold amounts of intelligence, perpetuated increasingly radical and violent divisions on the back of cultural Marxist identity politics, lined her pockets by brokering political power out to the highest bidders, helped perpetuate the importation of ideologically incompatible and potentially extremist elements, stoked the embers of the Cold War in an attempt to reignite it, popularized flagrant lies, and so on, and so forth. 

She's a real go-getter, this one. :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



GOON said:


> That's not really comparable to someone actively working to destroy the working class. That's business; not hatred.
> 
> Meanwhile, Hillary works against her own people and country.
> 
> 
> 
> Because he's smart enough to realize that trade deals like the TPP will only continue to plunder the American working class of their livelihoods. Meanwhile, Hillary continues to act aloof to the entire plight of the working class.
> 
> 
> 
> One district court ruled on it and it wasn't the Supreme Court. It's only _really_ unconstitutional if the Supreme Court says it is.
> 
> But if we're going to cite a single district court in order to argue the constitutionality of anything, then you could probably find grounds to deem anything over the last few decades as unconstitutional.
> 
> Lester intentionally left out the bit about the district court, in order to give the impression that it was the Supreme Court that gave the ruling.



Yes it is comparable, just on a different scale, its still the same thing. Trump has ripped of thousands of people but I guess you think that is ok. 

How is Trump not working against the people of his own country? His ties are made in China and he hired illegals to build his buildings.




Trump is only against TPP because Hillary is for it. You really think he is against it when it takes advantage of it? 

Stop and frisk is unconstitutional. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...top-and-frisk-was-not-ruled-unconstitutional/

Trump claims it was not and he is wrong. It falls under the 4th amendment the court just backed up that fact. It falls under the terry frisk supreme court cause of 1968

Lester should have pointed that out as well but Lester was still right that its unconstitutional Trump was wrong.





cablegeddon said:


> bottom line is that Lester shouldn't give lectures during the debate


Yes you should if the person is arguing with you over what is true or not.

Trump said something that was not true , Lester corrected him by saying stop and frisk is unconstitutional, to which Trump said no its not. So Lester told him why it was. That is what you do when you fact check. What did you want Lester to just say yes it is, no you give people the facts to prove why Trump is wrong. That is the mods job.


----------



## FatherJackHackett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

As an observer from the UK, it really is fascinating to observe the parallels between this situation and Brexit.

I seriously think that people are highly underestimating the influence that silent Trump voters will have on the outcome of this election the same way as what happened during the referendum. I can almost guarantee Trump is going to have a very large following of people who are ready to vote for him but haven't taken any part in polls, haven't discussed it publicly etc for the same exact reasons as Leave voters often didn't - they are routinely vilified and wrongly labelled racist or xenophobic and quite frankly can't be arsed with the hassle of trying to argue with the boisterous, brainwashed opposition.

A lot of these voters, like Brexit, will be older. This is why they have less presence on social media, where 1) they will get shouted down and lectured to by whiny millennial keyboard warriors and 2)they're old so they realise there are more important things in life. They will, however, do what matters and actually go out and vote, unlike said whiny millennial keyboard warriors many of whom are only doing it because they think it's fashionable and not because they actually 1) give a fuck or 2) have a clue about politics.

Then, if the election votes come out and Trump wins, people will skim over the voting by demographic and take to Twitter in their droves to complain that they were 'sold out' or 'betrayed' by the older generation and that only university-educated people should be allowed to vote, conveniently ignoring that turnout amongst youths is the lowest out of all of them, and if their cohorts had dragged their lazy, self-important arses away from their phones for five fucking minutes to go down the polling station they may have actually got the outcome they desired.

As with Brexit, the political class have completely brought this upon themselves and have nobody else to blame. Trump would not have been necessary had the elites not become so lackadaisical and uncaring towards the populace and become so out-of-touch with the issues that actually matter to working-class people. They became way too comfortable, so Trump and his supporters are saying a big 'fuck you' and good for them.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://abcnewsgo.co/2016/09/25-perc...r-quitting-if-donald-trump-elected-president/

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @MissSally; @Reaper @Tater



> According to a poll conducted by Government Business Council, one in four federal employees would consider leaving their job if Donald Trump is elected president.
> 
> Ethyper reports One in four federal employees said they would consider quitting their job if Donald Trump is elected president.
> 
> A poll conducted by Government Business Council, Government Executive Media Group’s research arm showed 14 percent of government workers said they would definitely consider quitting if Trump wins the White House. Another 11 percent said they might consider it.
> 
> Among Democrats, 42 percent said they would consider leaving while 48 percent said they would not. Only 8 percent of Republicans said they would quit if Trump, a billionaire turned politician, wins the presidential election.
> 
> Among all federal employees, almost 60 percent said they would be “embarrassed” to have him as their boss. Fifty percent of those who responded said they would be embarrassed by Hillary Clinton compared to 45 percent for Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and 37 percent for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt; and 20 percent for Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida.
> 
> Trump’s mixed numbers
> 
> While the survey shows some federal employees have mixed feelings about Trump, it also reveals he maintains a commanding lead among the GOP field.
> 
> The poll showed Trump was the top choice for 32 percent of the government workers who said they would be voting in the GOP primaries, an increase of 12 percent from August 2015. He is followed in the Republican field by Cruz at 17 percent, Rubio at 12 percent and Dr. Ben Carson at 9 percent.
> 
> Among federal employees who identified as Democrats, Clinton was the top choice for 51 percent, followed by Sanders at 35 percent.
> 
> The poll was a random sampling of government employees representing more than 30 civilian and defense agencies. It was conducted Jan. 20-26.


Oh god this is absolutely glorious :banderas.

Big government liberals will hate this but anyone who knows how bloated and bureaucratic the US government has become will LOVE this news. I'm not a Trump supporter by any means but if his presidency would mean a quarter of Federal employees quit and their departments go with them then that would be an absolutely wonderful thing.

I just wish Trump was for abolishing the NSA, TSA and Homeland Security .


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> http://abcnewsgo.co/2016/09/25-perc...r-quitting-if-donald-trump-elected-president/
> 
> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk MissSally @Reaper @Tater
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god this is absolutely glorious :banderas.
> 
> Big government liberals will hate this but anyone who knows how bloated and bureaucratic the US government has become will LOVE this news. I'm not a Trump supporter by any means but if his presidency would mean a quarter of Federal employees quit and their departments go with them then that would be an absolutely wonderful thing.
> 
> I just wish Trump was for abolishing the NSA, TSA and Homeland Security .


Trump will probably try to run the country like a business. As an MBA with a sold marketing, sales and contract negotiation background myself, I pretty much picked up on all the layman ways Trump tried to allude to this during the debate ... When businessmen talk, you have to pay attention to the most important thing "what am I going to get out of this?" and that usually means that things aren't profitable and some serious negotiations are in order. But since the media and the general population has become so sickeningly anti-capitalist because of the brainwashing they go through in their easy as fuck social "science" and "cultural" studies programs and degrees, they have no fucking clue about what things are actually worth and how to negotiate for them to be worth that much. The average westerner today is so far removed from the cost of production that they have no clue how to even determine worth and value of something. This happened in the 90's and still is happening today and a businessman like Trump is exactly what you need to get these astronomical government costs and poorly negotiated global treaties back to reality. 

I'm pretty sure there is a big chance of some serious and sweeping reforms within the federal employee base. That said, it's unlikely considering that there would be widespread strikes and all kinds cockblocking shenanigans by overfed, lazy bureaucrats who only get into government jobs because they put in at best 2-3 hour workdays and get paid for 8 with benefits. 

If the government was run like a business, it would already have 1/5th the staff it currently does imo with most of the federal jobs outsourced to HR sourcing companies. 

That's one of those reasons why I want Trump in that no one has yet even talked about. Then again, this is also one of those cases of "maybe he'll do this" without having any actual confirmation that he will or won't.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

1/4 down, 3/4 to go. :trump Of course I doubt many of those government employees would have the courage or competency to actually leave their cushy government jobs and try their skills in the private sector.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Trump will probably try to run the country like a business. As an MBA with a sold marketing, sales and contract negotiation background myself, I pretty much picked up on all the layman ways Trump tried to allude to this during the debate ... When businessmen talk, you have to pay attention to the most important thing "what am I going to get out of this?" and that usually means that things aren't profitable and some serious negotiations are in order. But since the media and the general population has become so sickeningly anti-capitalist because of the brainwashing they go through in their easy as fuck social "science" and "cultural" studies programs and degrees, they have no fucking clue about what things are actually worth and how to negotiate for them to be worth that much. The average westerner today is so far removed from the cost of production that they have no clue how to even determine worth and value of something. This happened in the 90's and still is happening today and a businessman like Trump is exactly what you need to get these astronomical government costs and poorly negotiated global treaties back to reality.
> 
> I'm pretty sure there is a big chance of some serious and sweeping reforms within the federal employee base. That said, it's unlikely considering that there would be widespread strikes and all kinds cockblocking shenanigans by overfed, lazy bureaucrats who only get into government jobs because they put in at best 2-3 hour workdays and get paid for 8 with benefits.
> 
> If the government was run like a business, it would already have 1/5th the staff it currently does imo with most of the federal jobs outsourced to HR sourcing companies.
> 
> That's one of those reasons why I want Trump in that no one has yet even talked about. Then again, this is also one of those cases of "maybe he'll do this" without having any actual confirmation that he will or won't.


You cant run the GOVT like a business that is the thing Trump does not get.

Not to mention Trump had SIX bankruptcies, and he loves to stiff paying people what is owed to them he is the last person I want running a business.




L-DOPA said:


> http://abcnewsgo.co/2016/09/25-perc...r-quitting-if-donald-trump-elected-president/
> 
> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk @MissSally; @Reaper @Tater
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god this is absolutely glorious :banderas.
> 
> Big government liberals will hate this but anyone who knows how bloated and bureaucratic the US government has become will LOVE this news. I'm not a Trump supporter by any means but if his presidency would mean a quarter of Federal employees quit and their departments go with them then that would be an absolutely wonderful thing.
> 
> I just wish Trump was for abolishing the NSA, TSA and Homeland Security .


I love how the right always talks about oh big govt libs yet at the same time always talk about how the military needs to be better. How is that not big govt LOL

No to mention Reagan and GW had huge goverment spending under them, but oh yeah lets talk about libs. At least with libs they want the spending to be used on the middle class and not to give the rich tax breaks like the conseratives do.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

wait, why can't you run the government like a business?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So Lib cuck mod /U/Spez may be going to prison. It's now confirmed that Reddit admins tried to hide the Clinton IT guys's posts:


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I love how the right always talks about oh big govt libs yet at the same time always talk about how the military needs to be better. How is that not big govt LOL
> 
> No to mention Reagan and GW had huge goverment spending under them, but oh yeah lets talk about libs.


And this is why there are libertarians. :aryep


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You cant run the GOVT like a business that is the thing Trump does not get.
> 
> Not to mention Trump had SIX bankruptcies, and he loves to stiff paying people what is owed to them he is the last person I want running a business.


If we are looking at government in terms of spending, bureaucracy and in terms of how to run it best efficiently then absolutely it should be treated more like a business. There is so much wasteful government spending which has not been kept in check by Congress that it needs someone to reign it in. Government has expanded so large that it has literally allowed for several departments for areas such as national defence. Why do you need 4 to 5 different departments or even more than that for one area of government? It is taxpayers money being wasted on institutions which are not doing a good job and in many cases are doing a worse job than if it were all streamlined and rolled into one...or were just simply abolished. You look at the NSA for example, a cross study analysis showed that their methods of collecting data to combat terrorism i.e collecting all of your phone records, emails and personal detail has not stopped one terrorist attack since the PATRIOT ACT was first written. For all intents and purposes it is useless and has no purpose being around other than to spy on innocent civilians.

There is literally hundreds if not thousands of examples where money is being spent by the US government which benefits not one single citizen. The US government for example spent $300,000 to study whether or not Japanese Quail are more sexually promiscuous under cocaine, they spent half a million for college students to come up with what the main food would be if we lived on mars and they came up with pizza. They spent over $1 million dollars to create a televised cricket league in Afghanisation when only 1 in 50 Afghan citizens have television. How does any of that spending benefit anyone? That is the problem with RINO's and tax and spend liberals, they have no concept of responsibility when it comes to fiscal spending and budgeting because they are not using their own private money, they are either using tax payer dollars or money printed from the Federal Reserve.

Then there is the deficit, there is the lie you and other progressives have spouted saying Obama has reduced the deficit since Bush's time in office but it is very dishonest and misleading. The fact is yes since 2014 Obama has ended up with less deficit spending than Bush's final year in office but that was *after* the first term where there was over a trillion dollar deficit in each of the 4 years in office and the all the other years where it was still in high hundreds of billions and which were mostly larger than Bush's year on year. This isn't to defend Bush who was terrible on the deficit, nor to defend past Republicans who have been terrible when it comes to spending. I'm neither Republican nor a Conservative so you can save that deflective comeback for someone else.



> 2000	$236.4 Billion Surplus	$329.25 Billion Surplus
> 
> 2001	$127.3 Billion Surplus	$172.26 Billion Surplus
> 
> 2002	$157.8 Billion Deficit	$210.12 Billion Deficit
> 
> 2003	$377.6 Billion Deficit	$491.67 Billion Deficit
> 
> 2004	$413 Billion Deficit	$524.11 Billion Deficit
> 
> 2005	$318 Billion Deficit	$390.18 Billion Deficit
> 
> 2006	$248 Billion Deficit	$294.89 Billion Deficit
> 
> 2007	$161 Billion Deficit	$186.13 Billion Deficit
> 
> 2008	$459 Billion Deficit	$511.14 Billion Deficit
> 
> 2009	$1413 Billion Deficit	$1578.77 Billion Deficit
> 
> 2010	$1294 Billion Deficit	$1421.98 Billion Deficit
> 
> 2011	$1299 Billion Deficit	$1384.86 Billion Deficit
> 
> 2012	$1100 Billion Deficit	$1148.23 Billion Deficit
> 
> 2013	$680 Billion Deficit	$699.59 Billion Deficit
> 
> 2014	$485 Billion Deficit	$490.89 Billion Deficit
> 
> 2015	$438 Billion Deficit	$438 Billion Deficit



Here are the figures from the beginning of the Bush years all the way to last year. As you can see Bush ended up with over $500 Billion deficit at the end of his presidency. For the next 4 years, Obama ended up going up over $1 Trillion for each of the following years. The deficit exploded even further under Obama's tax and spend plan. Furthermore it took until 2014, 6 years into Obama's presidency to pull it back down to below Bush's final years in office. That is a horrible record regardless of how you spin it. From 2008 to 2009, Obama somehow managed to triple the deficit in a single year, that is absolutely unheard of.

Liberals love to point out that under Reagan, the deficit exploded in his first term after the Carter years which it's true, it did. But then when it comes to Obama they are awfully selective or cherry pick certain statistics to fit their narrative without looking at the entire picture. It's cheap and dishonest.

Also here is my source, it documents all the deficits and surpluses from 1940 up till the present day. It includes all the deficit spending under Republicans as well as the surpluses under Bill Clinton, so it's not a biased source. It has all the facts and figures there. You can't get around it: http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

In any event, government in terms of size, bureaucracy and spending is way out of control. If it takes a business approach to sort that mess out then I'm all for it. But to be honest with you, I do not think Trump is the man to do it nor do I think he would cut the deficit significantly...he may even explode it himself.






> I love how the right always talks about oh big govt libs yet at the same time always talk about how the military needs to be better. How is that not big govt LOL
> 
> No to mention Reagan and GW had huge goverment spending under them, but oh yeah lets talk about libs. At least with libs they want the spending to be used on the middle class and not to give the rich tax breaks like the conseratives do.


You are talking to one of the wrong people here on this issue. For starters, one of the few things I agree with Jill Stein on is military spending. The US spends more on it's military than the next 10 countries combined. I would advocate for the military overseas budget to be cut by at least 40%, for the vast majority of bases to be closed and to bring every troop home. Jill Stein proposes exactly the same but with 50% cuts. I'd be completely on board with it.

It is the Neo-Conservatives that want massive military spending. I'm not a Neo-Conservative, I'm one of the most non-interventionist people you will ever meet. I've criticized every foreign policy intervention since 9/11 and have criticized Conservatives like Rubio who want to "rebuild the military". You can put Trump in that category too.

Furthermore I have already criticized Reagan for his deficit spending, I am against increased spending to prop up the private sector because that is what partly causes these artificial boom and bust cycles. I am against corporate welfare in all forms; subsidies to big corporations, tax breaks and loopholes should not exist at all. But you know what helps to prop up these sorts of policies? The Federal Reserve. And you know the types of people who are AGAINST AUDITING THE FED? Liberals and Progressives such as yourself (using the term generally, you personally may be for it).

I am largely for free market capitalism and against the cronyism that a lot of Republicans, particularly establishment ones are for. I want government to be cut across the board and am consistent about it. But you what the funny thing is? I even put in a post in this thread that I would prioritize cutting the military, abolishing the NSA, TSA, Homeland Security etc. ahead of medicare, medicaid, welfare and the department of education. So in actuality, even as a libertarian with a limited government outlook I'm putting policies that liberals (and of course libertarians) would support ahead of establishment RINO's and Neo-Con's. Typically areas which "small government conservatives" would absolutely hate spending being cut on.

Now tell me, isn't that funny and how am I not consistent with my principles?


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> *Not to mention Trump had SIX bankruptcies, *and he loves to stiff paying people what is owed to them he is the last person I want running a business.


1. This is still the worst angle people are taking on this. http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/01/donald-trumps-bankruptcies/ Its about as bad as the "per capita" gun deaths angle clinton tried to take with sanders.

2. The stiffing people is heresay, and we don't have all the details(or maybe they are available and I've not seen them). If I ordered a steak dinner from you and you brought me a hamburger, I sure am not paying you for a steak dinner(or maybe even that hamburger you sent me). If I hired you to build me a 3 bed 2 bath house and you built me a 2 bed 1 bath house.. you better believe you aren't getting a penny from me. 

Clinton making those accusations during the debate after Clinton herself reportedly stiffed some police departments just a few months ago is something I find rather humorous as well.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@Miss Sally I agree with all of your points concerning Trump's unwillingness or unpreparedness in debating Hillary Clinton, and his eagerness to excessively explain matters of his past. Although I have to admit, I laughed when he kept bellowing, "Call Sean Hannity!" :lmao :mark: 



Reaper said:


> Trump showed up at my city today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a city of about 77,000 people. They're saying that an estimated 27,000 showed up to see him after 6 despite a storm (This includes people who couldn't get in) - though I'm guessing that number is at least doubled. However, even if it was 10k-15k plus which is what it looks like from the pictures, that's still 1/6th of the entire population on a week day that simply turned up to catch a glimpse.
> 
> According to the locals here this is pretty much the first time anything has drawn such a huge crowd in this small city's history.


Quite fascinating! Thank you for informing the thread of this!

This is such a splendid tweet:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/780914750125404160


WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> The condescending attitude from some Dems and Hillary voters are going to really come to cost them big time.
> 
> Trump's momentum and ground game is really getting underestimated. I live in California (Sacramento to be specific) and althought it's obvious we're going blue, I've observed something when I'm out. When I overhear conversations about politics, I always hear likely Trump voters/supporters talk about anything Trump related (policy, personality, beliefs, memes, reasons of voting for him, etc.) while the likely Hillary voters/supporters either try to bring up why they "hate/dislike" Trump and give their reasons or they usually counterpoint whenever someone says they support Trump. Barely mention or talk about Hillary and what she will do/what she believes.
> 
> Just an observation. Stop underestimating Trump supporters. It'll cost you even if you don't want to believe it.


Interesting information, *WINNING*! Forgot you were in Sacramento, brother! We'll have to meet up one day! 



Beatles123 said:


> So Lib cuck mod /U/Spez may be going to prison. It's now confirmed that Reddit admins tried to hide the Clinton IT guys's posts:


Intriguing story that I have been monitoring for a while. Thank you for including it here.
@L-DOPA I actually saw that same story about the "25% of federal employees..." Seems like a good start.  

And :sodone at your most recent post here! Terrifically researched! :clap


One solid sign for Trump coming out of the debate is that the small donations are pouring in, nearly $20 million over the course of the first twenty-four hours following the debate, all in small donations. Not bad.


A story worth taking a look at: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...to-swear-in-new-citizens-due-to-election.html

Granted, the source is Fox News but just because Fox News lied on behalf of the George W. Bush administration does not mean all of the critical stories on the Barack Obama administration emanating from the network are false... Thought many posters would find this interesting. A Bill Clinton administration official who I cannot name but with whom I spoke at a luncheon years ago admitted that the Clinton administration did the same thing as this in the run-up to the 1996 election, in spite of the obvious near-landslide Clinton was going to enjoy against Bob Dole anyway. 

I can, and will, however, say that I met and spoke with Adam Walinsky at a function in New York City not too long ago and he's a charming, intelligent and principled man. Thanks to @Plato for posting about his statements concerning the present presidential race.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

At the end of the day, is much going to change with either Trump or Hillary in? To the outsider it seems like both will still have higher corporate and security/military masters to please, both will still be hamstrung by Congress etc won't they? Both will not be able to impact unemployment that much or stop covert terrorists or improve life for the average citizen.

meh. depressing.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










@Reaper @Miss Sally @CamillePunk @DesolationRow @Goku@MrMister @Fringe

I have said it before and will say it again: If Trump wins it will be the left's own shunning of others that bring it about. This is absolutely absurd. Even if you're certain the poll was raided by Trump supporters, to not give then status as real people is shameful.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> 1. This is still the worst angle people are taking on this. http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/01/donald-trumps-bankruptcies/ Its about as bad as the "per capita" gun deaths angle clinton tried to take with sanders.
> 
> 2. The stiffing people is heresay, and we don't have all the details(or maybe they are available and I've not seen them). If I ordered a steak dinner from you and you brought me a hamburger, I sure am not paying you for a steak dinner(or maybe even that hamburger you sent me). If I hired you to build me a 3 bed 2 bath house and you built me a 2 bed 1 bath house.. you better believe you aren't getting a penny from me.
> 
> Clinton making those accusations during the debate after Clinton herself reportedly stiffed some police departments just a few months ago is something I find rather humorous as well.


The stiffing of people is not hearsay, hell look at how he defrauded all of those people with Trump U. 

And 6 bankruptcies is a huge deal, not to mention all his other failed businesses that did not go bankrupt. 

Now you are just making shit up oh they did not give Trump what they wanted, give me a break.

You should also read your own article you posted, it makes my point for me LOL

Did you miss this part as well

"It's an oft-cited statistic that Donald Trump "has" 515 companies, but a number of those businesses are only connected to him in tangential ways (e.g., through licensing agreements) and aren't owned or directly controlled by him."


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> @Reaper @Miss Sally @CamillePunk @DesolationRow @Goku@MrMister @Fringe
> 
> I have said it before and will say it again: If Trump wins it will be the left's own shunning of others that bring it about. This is absolutely absurd. Even if you're certain the poll was raided by Trump supporters, to not give then status as real people is shameful.


Where is this poll from? Who produced it? Just some yayhoo taking the piss it looks like?

You posting this to make a sweeping generalisation about the big bad left is akin to me posting this video featuring a Trump supporter ape to make a point about ALL Trump supporters and Rightists. Useless.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






She's the fucking Devil. :lol

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> @Reaper @Miss Sally @CamillePunk @DesolationRow @Goku @MrMister @Fringe
> 
> I have said it before and will say it again: If Trump wins it will be the left's own shunning of others that bring it about. This is absolutely absurd. Even if you're certain the poll was raided by Trump supporters, to not give then status as real people is shameful.


Well tbh, I've been around on the internet long enough to know that this wasn't raided by Trump supporters, but rather bots. This is why many sites now have captchas and human recognition tools to prevent exactly this from happening. 

8 million vs 400k is obviously the result of bots, and not genuine voting.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Indeed, there is little doubt that an army of bots are working overtime, and they are making Donald Trump supporters believe he is going to blow Hillary Clinton out. :lol 

Social media continues to become more advanced and in this cycle Trump's proxies are fanatical. 

Doubtless all engineered from Moscow.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yes it is comparable, just on a different scale, its still the same thing. Trump has ripped of thousands of people but I guess you think that is ok.
> 
> How is Trump not working against the people of his own country? His ties are made in China and he hired illegals to build his buildings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is only against TPP because Hillary is for it. You really think he is against it when it takes advantage of it?
> 
> Stop and frisk is unconstitutional. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...top-and-frisk-was-not-ruled-unconstitutional/
> 
> Trump claims it was not and he is wrong. It falls under the 4th amendment the court just backed up that fact. It falls under the terry frisk supreme court cause of 1968
> 
> Lester should have pointed that out as well but Lester was still right that its unconstitutional Trump was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you should if the person is arguing with you over what is true or not.
> 
> Trump said something that was not true , Lester corrected him by saying stop and frisk is unconstitutional, to which Trump said no its not. So Lester told him why it was. That is what you do when you fact check. What did you want Lester to just say yes it is, no you give people the facts to prove why Trump is wrong. That is the mods job.


This has already been answered, a district court ruled on it but the Supreme Court has not so therefore it isn't unconstitutional, so Trump is correct.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

There's nothing wrong with running the government like a business. But are taxpayers willing to pay high ranking officials what companies pay CEOs? :troll


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So here is where the 2016 electoral map stands so far:










So at this current moment, which swing states go to which candidates and why? I think Trump, as Reaper stated earlier, probably has Florida on lock at this point. Seems like he'll take Ohio and Iowa. It is looking to be Pennslyvania that will be the deciding factor this year. Some say Trump can take Colorado but I'm not confident in Bernie voters/Johnson voters to vote third party or sit it out and will vote Hillary as an "against Trump" vote. 

Clinton will probably get Wisconsin and North Carolina too. Nevada could be a dead heat too.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

She's certainly not winning over here in Duplin County NC. Damn city folk in bigger areas might be why.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> So here is where the 2016 electoral map stands so far:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So at this current moment, which swing states go to which candidates and why? I think Trump, as Reaper stated earlier, probably has Florida on lock at this point. Seems like he'll take Ohio and Iowa. It is looking to be Pennslyvania that will be the deciding factor this year. Some say Trump can take Colorado but I'm not confident in Bernie voters/Johnson voters to vote third party or sit it out and will vote Hillary as an "against Trump" vote.
> 
> Clinton will probably get Wisconsin and North Carolina too. Nevada could be a dead heat too.


Isn't there an election saying 'As (certain state) goes so goes the country'. Isn't it Ohio/Iowa? I feel the dark side of Trump's force growing stronger!


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The stiffing of people is not hearsay, hell look at how he defrauded all of those people with Trump U.


Wow.. i know cherry picking data is not new for you, but you've hit an all time high.

1. It is heresay cause we have someone's word vs. his. And at worse its she said he said on the item from the debate.

2. Trump u is a strawman. Does not directly have anything to do with proving he did/did not pay someone for some as of yet undetailed service.



> And 6 bankruptcies is a huge deal, not to mention all his other failed businesses that did not go bankrupt.
> 
> Now you are just making shit up oh they did not give Trump what they wanted, give me a break.


3.Did you see the list of businesses listed there that claimed bankruptcy? A. Noone would call those failed businesses. Bankruptcy is overblown and miscategorized for what it actually is.

4. A. Im not making things up. I'm providing scenarios.. know the difference. B. We dont know who 'these people' are or what 'services' they are claiming he hired them for and if they did a satisfactory enough job to get paid. Its their word (or hillary's) vs his. Nothing is made up in waiting for some hard data before passing judgement. Edit: especially considering (if true and as terrible as they are making it out to be) these people could sue for services rendered. That would be much more to go on than someone just saying it was so.



> You should also read your own article you posted, it makes my point for me LOL
> 
> Did you miss this part as well
> 
> "It's an oft-cited statistic that Donald Trump "has" 515 companies, but a number of those businesses are only connected to him in tangential ways (e.g., through licensing agreements) and aren't owned or directly controlled by him."


And the grandaddy of them all. "Oh, he doesnt have the full 515, lmaorofl", yet still ignoring the fact that he has 300+ directly tied to him, and only 6 needed bankruptcy. 

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but you are failing pretty hard in doing so.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

For all the minimum wage hike proponents: 



> (K.R.) Race was a big topic of discussion during the debate, and Donald Trump repeatedly said that policies enacted by Democrats have been harming blacks for generations. Although it'd be hard to make a blanket assessment of such a broad claim, there is one liberal policy that has had a demonstrably negative impact - the minimum wage.












http://www.bet.com/news/national/2011/05/12/black-teens-lose-jobs-when-the-minimum-wage-rise.html



> *Black Teens Are Fired When the Minimum Wage Rises *
> 
> *Two labor economists report that when the minimum wage increases, Black teens suffer disproportionate dismissals.*
> 
> It is no surprise that Black teens, 16- to 19-years old, are disproportionately unemployed. At the Great Recession’s bottom, African-American teens had an unemployment rate of nearly 50 percent while the rate for all teens was 27.1 percent. In the weak post-Recession, many teens compete for jobs against down-sized adults with college degrees.
> 
> And economists William Even from Miami University and David Macpherson from Trinity University report that when a state, or the federal government, increases the minimum wage, Black teens are more likely to be laid off. The duo analyzed 600,000 data points, which the Employment Policies Institute says included “a robust sample of minority young adults unprecedented in previous studies on the minimum wage.”
> 
> The report focused on 16-to 24-year-old males without a high school diploma and found that for each 10 percent increase in the federal or state minimum wage employment for young Black males decreased 6.5 percent. By contrast, after the same wage boost, employment for white and Hispanic males fell respectively just 2.5 percent and 1.2 percent.
> 
> The real hit for Black teens occurred, however, in the 21 states that had the federal minimum wage increase in 2007, 2008 and 2009.
> 
> The findings reveal that while 13,200 Black young adults lost their jobs as a direct result of the recession nearly 40 percent more, a total of 18,500, were fired because of the rise in the federal minimum wage, raising the researchers’ question: “Why do black males suffer more harm from wage mandates than their white or Hispanic counterparts?”
> 
> A key reason is that many young Blacks hold tenuous, low-skilled positions in the nation’s eating and drinking businesses, such as fast food restaurants. The researchers report “that nearly one out of three Black young adults without a high school diploma works in the industry.”
> 
> It is a sector that welcomes their entry, and lauds young Black workers in its ads. But African-American teens working in that highly-competitive industry with its narrow profit margins should know that their job is on shaky ground when the minimum wage rises.
> 
> 
> _(Photo: Finbarr O' Reilly/ Landov)_


Apparently if you want to institute another minimum wage hike, then you do it at the expense of african american workers ... Basically, to do this you have raise the wage and force employers to retain their diversity hires. Now I'm not going to comment on something I don't know (i.e. whether these firings have a racial element to them or not, but it would seem that there is some sort of a racial element to the firings), but the fact that this is the first time I've seen the link between wage hikes and minority firings is surprising.

BTW, I would be more than willing to be further educated on the subject if someone does happen to know more so this is basically me dabbling into an aspect of the debates in order to get a conversation going on it so I can learn more.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I think I finally have to say it, as a business graduate I just can't.even.right.now. I just can't.even.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I think I finally have to say it, as a business graduate I just can't.even.right.now. I just can't.even.





Reaper said:


> Maybe Americans actually are sick and tired of people telling them what to think and are thinking for themselves


:troll


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I think I finally have to say it, as a business graduate I just can't.even.right.now. I just can't.even.


Minimum wage promoters don't realize they screw lots of people with this, first of all it screws people making above minimum wage but not yet in the 20+ Dollar an hour range as with a proposed 15 dollar an hour hike it cuts into those workers money and now their wages can no longer pay for what it did because prices will raise.

It screws over workers because companies just fire their part timers and excess people which means the quality of work goes down.

It ensures small businesses never hire many people.

It's funny how people support a new minimum wage yet don't want prices on goods to rise, sorry cannot have it both ways. Minimum wage laws benefit company owners and fuck over anyone not upper middle class or super rich.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> Not every business is capable of of handling the increase of wages.


So, because some small businesses can't afford to pay it's workers more, you think that's good reason for giant corporations who rake in billions in profit to pay their workers poverty wages? And you don't realize how retarded that sounds?

Actually, I do somewhat agree with this in some ways, which is why I don't think pay should be decided by hourly wages. I think pay should be decided by productivity and a percentage of business. Claiming small businesses can't afford to pay it's workers more as an excuse for massively profitable corporations paying poverty wages is fucking bullshit. If a business is making massive amounts of profit, then abso'fucking'lutely the workers who produce that wealth should be sharing in that wealth.

And you know what happens when the workers for those massive corporations have more of that wealth to spend? They go spend it on small businesses, who then have more money to pay their employees, because they are doing more business. That's what makes an economy run.



Stinger Fan said:


> Also, if you raise the minimum wage, price of food and cost of living also increases which completely negates raising the minimum wage to begin with and we're right back where we started. It's a never ending cycle.


Would the price of food and cost of living go up if the minimum wage is increased? Yes. But not to the extent that you think it would.



> Guess how much more mac and cheese would cost at Walmart if they paid their employees a living wage
> 
> On average, 40 employees at a Walmart store use food stamps. Then guess where they spend them?
> 
> Yep, Walmart.
> 
> This video shows how Walmart is “the single biggest beneficiary of the food stamp economy” and then shows how it would cost them virtually nothing to change this and instead pay all their employees enough that none of them qualify for food stamps. In the process, taxpayers would save $300 million every year.
> 
> If they did this, taking Mac and Cheese as an example product, guess how much prices would increase for Walmart shoppers…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will they do this? Of course not. But the number crunching and ensuing indignation is still fascinating…
> 
> SOURCE


That's just one study but there are many others. They all come to the conclusion that Wal-Mart would only have to raise their prices between a penny and a dime to be able to afford to pay their employees a living wage while still raking in billions in profit. At the same time, it saves a shit ton of taxpayer money that needs to be spent on other things like our crumbling infrastructure.

Seems like to me that fewer people on welfare is something conservatives should be in favor of. But that's just me.



Stinger Fan said:


> Minimum skills = minimum wage, any moron can pour a cup of coffee


Okay, and? That's still no excuse for paying people poverty wages. We're not a third world country. We're the richest country in the history of the world. There is no legitimate excuse for having the amount of people living in poverty that we do when we have the wealth we have as a nation.



Stinger Fan said:


> Want more money? Get a better job , stop punishing everyone else because people are too lazy to stay in school and have a career.


If everyone tried the "want more money? get a better job" retard philosophy, there would still be people who ended up with the bottom rung jobs because _somebody_ has to do them. "Everyone else" are the people being punished *now* because it's our taxpayer dollars that are being used to subsidize the profits of the corporations who won't pay a living wage.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*









@Tater @Reaper @DesolationRow @CamillePunk

_"PLEASE DON'T DIE! PLEASE DON'T DIE!"_ :vince2


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> So at this current moment, which swing states go to which candidates and why? I think Trump, as Reaper stated earlier, probably has Florida on lock at this point. Seems like he'll take Ohio and Iowa. It is looking to be Pennslyvania that will be the deciding factor this year. Some say Trump can take Colorado but I'm not confident in Bernie voters/Johnson voters to vote third party or sit it out and will vote Hillary as an "against Trump" vote.
> 
> Clinton will probably get Wisconsin and North Carolina too. Nevada could be a dead heat too.


I think race will be closer than ever before with Trump winning at 279 if he can close the deal on Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Nevada (finally going red again). He needs to win over blue collar workers though.

Leaving at Hillary at 259 as I see Iowa and Virginia staying blue.



Although there is a good possibility neither candidate will be able to reach the 270 mark and the election will be decided by the House of Representatives. The first time since 1825!

- Vic


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:WOO:WOO:WOO

I am here for this.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> So here is where the 2016 electoral map stands so far:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So at this current moment, which swing states go to which candidates and why? I think Trump, as Reaper stated earlier, probably has Florida on lock at this point. Seems like he'll take Ohio and Iowa. It is looking to be Pennslyvania that will be the deciding factor this year. Some say Trump can take Colorado but I'm not confident in Bernie voters/Johnson voters to vote third party or sit it out and will vote Hillary as an "against Trump" vote.
> 
> Clinton will probably get Wisconsin and North Carolina too. Nevada could be a dead heat too.


Fun! I was just making some "fluid predictions," i.e., predictions based on what is occurring in the race and extrapolating from the "momentum," however flimsy our reading of such momentum is, to some friends this evening, so I'm all warmed up for this.

If current trends continue, I believe Trump will take home Ohio and Florida. Florida is going to be tougher, probably, but he probably prevails. Much will depend upon how many "new voters" for the Democrats show up. 

Ohio has been interesting because the vaunted ground game of Hilary's has been conspicuously weaker than I suspect anyone was anticipating. It's another indicator that there is a major enthusiasm "gap" that is hurting her right now. Trump's ground game in Ohio was almost nonexistent a mere five weeks ago, but now it's rolling and competing with hers. Also, @yeahbaby! Ohio is indeed the state about which you are thinking. Republicans cannot win the White House without it--doesn't mean that they will win the presidency should they win it, but without Ohio, Trump's finished before he begins. That was the one thing Karl Rove was good at with George W. Bush, strengthening the brand in the states that they needed most desperately, and without some of his maneuvers in 2004, it's conceivable that John Kerry wins Ohio and thus the presidency. This was also before states such as New Mexico turned blue and states such as Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada and others became purple. (I'm inclined to view Virginia as "blue" but some recent polls from there suggest that Trump could put it in play, thus weakening Hillary even more than she is presently by forcing her to spend more time there than she and her machine ever reckoned they would have to when they were practically gloating about having Virginia in the bag.) 

Florida is honestly the more "interesting" state to study because there are, effectively, three Floridas. There is, firstly, North Florida, which covers everything north of Tampa-St. Petersburg and Orlando. Jacksonville, Tallahassee, Pensacola and Gainesville are the primary urban areas. The large rural swaths of North Florida are culturally not unlike South Alabama or South Georgia. Trump will almost surely clean up here, for Pensacola is almost deep red and Jacksonville, in Duval County, is at least barely red. Fort Walton Beach joins Pensacola and Duval County as three major military population centers. Trump will probably do just fine in those areas. 

Tallahassee, home to the state government, A&M University and of course Florida State University, is deep blue, as is Gainesville, almost exclusively due to the population of the University of Florida. 

The news out of North Florida is not good for Hillary--at least not yet, at least. One Democratic pollster after another is bemoaning the unquestionable lack of enthusiasm among Democrats in this region of Florida for the party's candidate. Most of the youthful voters attending those universities were fond of Bernie Sanders and Hillary has largely failed, thus far, to win them over. Many may end up voting for her but enthusiasm tends to count for something in races that will probably end up being close statewide. 

This trend is almost entirely nationwide. Hillary is underperforming in every poll I can get my hands on with millennials. Most recent polling has her only 4-5 percentage points ahead of Trump with that group of voters, with Gary Johnson claiming an impressive 10-12 percent. Will Johnson fade? My instinct says yes.

There is, then, the I-4 Corridor Florida, the metropolitan centers in and ringing around the Tampa Bay Area and Orlando, running all the way up to Daytona. Again, Hillary is underperforming there compared to Obama. Obamacare is as unpopular in this part of the U.S. as it is anywhere, and that is hurting not only Hillary but Democrats in general. Myriad Republican candidates are gleefully running against Obama's unpopular record in this part of Florida, and it's helping Trump. 

There is of course South Florida. Massive population centers of minorities are to be found in South Florida. Broward County, Miami-Dade County, Palm Beach County and others are already suggesting that black enthusiasm is remarkably low for Hillary compared to her Democratic Party nominee predecessor. Puerto Rican voters will almost surely massively break for Hillary, with her machine working to promote the Get-Out-the-Vote drive for them in Spanish language commercials. 

In any event, based on polling right now, Trump would probably win Ohio and Florida. Georgia is a state that is undergoing radical demographic changes that bode ill for Republicans in the near future but it's looking like it will remain a Republican state for at least a few more years, and Arizona probably likewise. He would also likely win Nevada but I am expecting tomfoolery there based on how the Sanders/Clinton battle went. Everything coming out of Iowa indicates that Trump should perform well there, but some samples are notoriously difficult to read much into from that state. 

North Carolina will probably go down to the wire but some disgust with the fallout to the shooting in Charlotte may drive up voting for Trump. Or the black vote will become more mobilized there on behalf of Hillary. That is a state I expect to be "too close to call" for several hours after polls close.

Hillary will win Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and probably win Colorado unless Johnson truly does play some ridiculous Marijuana King spoiler (highly unlikely). 

The problem for Republicans is that their pathway is so narrow now. New Mexico and Virginia being solidly flipped, Colorado being mostly gone for Republicans, Nevada on the way "out" and Arizona only a few years behind Nevada... One can see why the map continues to worsen for the generic Republican candidate. 

The 800-pound gorilla in the room that I am only now getting to is Pennsylvania. The Republicans' white whale. 

If there were ever a Republican candidate who, one would think, could conceivably take it home, it would be Trump. Unlike free trade hawks such as Dubya, McCain and Romney, Trump speaks in a language that many a central Pennsylvanian probably understands. 

To put it simply, if Trump makes Pennsylvania a true battleground state, a state that could almost go one way or the other between now and early November, Hillary will be in trouble. If Trump wins Pennsylvania, it's over for Hillary. If he takes that he's taking Ohio and Florida, and we're potentially talking about something of a blowout, particularly considering the relative "handicaps" of a Republican candidate in the U.S. electoral college of today. Virginia and Pennsylvania are Hillary's true firewall. She can ill-afford to spend inordinate time in those states, but of course if worse comes to worse for her, she will have to stand her ground and hold on to them as best she can. With Tim Kaine she and the Democrats are employing something of an "Atlantic" strategy, coursing through the eastern seaboard from Florida to Pennsylvania. 

Some of us are probably looking at all of the possibilities and becoming overheated in our over-analysis.

Put in far more jejune terms, as September closes I would say that Trump, today, has something of a 40-45% of winning the White House, while Hillary still relishes a fairly commanding lead of 55-60%. Trump has to hit an inside straight, as it were, to win. He could theoretically win without Pennsylvania but it is astonishingly difficult. No Pennsylvania means the path is thin. If Hillary were in an actual meltdown spinning out of the debate Monday night, the complexion of the race could become irrevocably altered, but that is not happening and it is not going to happen. Right now Hillary forces are regrouping and recognizing their own shortcomings that have plagued their September. Their task is somewhat difficult because their candidate is so crushingly problematic, but they still have the high ground. With all of the obstacles in Ohio and Florida, for instance, Hillary is, in the aggregate polling, only down a couple of points in each state, I believe. She's up by three in Pennsylvania and Michigan. 

My reading of all of the data compels me to believe that because Trump has ardent support behind him, and Hillary Clinton is a fundamentally terrible candidate in a plethora of ways, he will continue to keep and force states such as Pennsylvania and Michigan and perhaps even Virginia to be tantalizingly "in play" only to lose them in the end. 

Trump's a brave gambler but you don't bet against the house, and in U.S. presidential elections, thanks to sweeping demographic changes to the U.S. population, the Democratic nominee and machine backing that nominee is the house.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> This has already been answered, a district court ruled on it but the Supreme Court has not so therefore it isn't unconstitutional, so Trump is correct.


Not true. The District Court has the power to rule things unconstitutional. 

A decision of the District Court can be overruled by the Supreme Court, but so can Supreme Court decisions so that isn't a meaningful distinction. 

Just because the State of New York didn't appeal it to the Supreme Court and just accepted the District Court decision doesn't mean it somehow isn't a real or binding decision.

Also it's worth noting that stop and search full stop isn't unconstitutional, it's only unconstitutional if it is carried out in a discriminatory manner. It's actually a very reasonable decision and is unlikely to be overturned.


And re minimum wage in the US, I've always thought it weird that you had a national minimum wage at all to be honest, seems something more sensibly set on a state basis.

Also as for business not being able to afford a minimum wage increase, if you can't afford to pay the people working for you enough to live on then your business isn't efficient enough and shouldn't exist. Allowing businesses to pay people below what is required to actually live on and forcing the gov to step in with food stamps is just govt welfare propping up inefficient businesses.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










This is just adorable!


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18689...acy-theorists-claim-in-latest-bizarre-theory/

:duck


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> So here is where the 2016 electoral map stands so far:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So at this current moment, which swing states go to which candidates and why? I think Trump, as Reaper stated earlier, probably has Florida on lock at this point. Seems like he'll take Ohio and Iowa. It is looking to be Pennslyvania that will be the deciding factor this year. Some say Trump can take Colorado but I'm not confident in Bernie voters/Johnson voters to vote third party or sit it out and will vote Hillary as an "against Trump" vote.
> 
> Clinton will probably get Wisconsin and North Carolina too. Nevada could be a dead heat too.


 think you're fffaaaarrr away in your prediction. Florida and Nevada are a toss up at the moment. North Carolina is Trump

http://election.princeton.edu/history-of-meta-analysis/

http://election.princeton.edu/electoral-college-map/


Take in mind that Wang have predicted 50 for 50 in the last two presidential elections, better than Silver.

As i said many times already here, Trump have paths to win without Nevada, but Florida is crucial for him, without Florida his chances fall under marginal statistical error. Hillary however don't need Florida to win, supossing Florida is Trump she needs to mantain his adventages in Pennsylvania, Winsconsin, Colorado and New Hampshire, all solid blue at the moment.

Even in outliers models like Silver. Which currently have Florida and Nevada in Trump's camp his chances are limited


http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/


FatherJackHackett said:


> I seriously think that people are highly underestimating the influence that silent Trump voters will have on the outcome of this election the same way as what happened during the referendum. I can almost guarantee Trump is going to have a very large following of people who are ready to vote for him but haven't taken any part in polls, haven't discussed it publicly etc for the same exact reasons as Leave voters often didn't - they are routinely vilified and wrongly labelled racist or xenophobic and quite frankly can't be arsed with the hassle of trying to argue with the boisterous, brainwashed opposition.
> 
> A lot of these voters, like Brexit, will be older. This is why they have less presence on social media, where 1) they will get shouted down and lectured to by whiny millennial keyboard warriors and 2)they're old so they realise there are more important things in life. They will, however, do what matters and actually go out and vote, unlike said whiny millennial keyboard warriors many of whom are only doing it because they think it's fashionable and not because they actually 1) give a fuck or 2) have a clue about politics.


I'm quoting Wang again, because he has talked about this.



> 3. Are Trump supporters undercounted in polls? In a phenomenon called the Bradley effect, it used to be that poll respondents tended to vote for minority-group candidates a bit less than their answers would indicate. This idea has been used to suggest that additional Trump supporters are lurking in the wings, but are unwilling to admit their possible racism to a human interviewer.
> 
> I doubt that there is any hidden bonus for Trump. The Bradley effect was never more than about 2 percentage points, and in any event, it disappeared a few decades ago. A research finding from Morning Consult earlier this year suggested that Trump’s support was lower in live-interviewer polls than in computer-conducted “robopolls” has been the same – but later analysis has not confirmed this result. That original report probably arose by chance or had deficient statistical methods.
> 
> Finally, I note that Trump’s support in the primaries was very close to what polls indicated. In all probability, polls will do fine this year.
> 
> Having said that, because state polls have not yet caught up with national polls, it is useful to see what would happen if one candidate got a boost in state polls. Over in the right sidebar are links you can click if you want to see what would happen if Trump had 2% more support than state polls currently indicate. That probably gives a good picture of the true state of the race today. Conversely, once the Meta-Margin gets closer to zero, the regression-to-the-mean concept suggests that a Clinton recovery would become likely. At that point you can click on the Clinton +2% link to see where things might head.


http://election.princeton.edu/2016/09/16/is-a-change-in-the-air/


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Are there really any silent Trump supporters? Their online presence is as loud as the Bernie supporters. They pack Trump's rally.

I believe the silent voters, if there are any this election, are the Ted Cruz voters. Really a toss up if they decide to follow their candidate who endorsed Trump and vote along party lines or vote against the more radical candidate for fear of too much chaos.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Okay, and? That's still no excuse for paying people poverty wages. We're not a third world country. We're the richest country in the history of the world. There is no legitimate excuse for having the amount of people living in poverty that we do when we have the wealth we have as a nation.


That's not how this works at all ... Not even close ... Ugh .. This is why people accuse you guys of being pro-communism because in order to re-distribute wealth equally you will absolutely have to have a communist system in place. This idea that a country has a huge economy therefore everyone in it should be wealthy is a pipe dream based on not knowing just how different markets work, how industry growth is driven and how this wealth is created in the first place. 

Different sectors and industries have different pie sizes. You can't create a pool of _overall _wealth that everyone can sink their teeth into without having associated problems of a long-term industry collapse for the industries that are taxed more than others because that's the only way this can work. 

There is an industry whose size is 1 billion dollars but thousands of small companies and there is another industry whose size is 40 billion dollars but fewer companies --- Also both those industries have different profit margins, different revenues, different numbers of people involved. Absolutely nothing is equal about those industries. Some products are in a highly competitive environment such as textiles, while others have little to no competition like pro sports. There is no conspiracy behind this - this is just how industries are. Big budget hollywood movies are essentially a single product, but bread-making for example has dozens of substitutes and therefore completely different economies. Saying that a McDonald's worker should make $15/hour because a Pro-sports athlete makes 100 million a year is basically a biproduct of ignorance of how those industries work and what can actually be drawn from the pie to pay the workers. There is probably a 1000:1 ratio of a mcdonald's worker to a pro-sports athlete. What this means is that even IF the pie size of both industries are the same, the net impact on profitability of ONE athelete is a 1000 times greater than the net impact of a McDonald's worker - hence the difference in pay. If you decided to pay a pro-sports athlete the same as a mcdonald's worker, you're basically driving out the incentive of the athlete to be as skilled as he is .. This applies to the labor markets across the board - and why you can't have equal distribution of wealth. 

This applies to CEO pay as well. The amount of experience wealth of knowledge and skill it requires to be a CEO is far far greater than the skill required to flip a fucking burger and hence why a CEO should never have his pay reduced. While there are some CEOs that do drive their companies to the ground by overpaying themselves but that is a problem of corruption and greed which is specific to some CEOs not all. If this was really the case pretty much all companies right now would be going under. My dad was a CEO for a couple of decades and I'll tell you that that man was a behemoth working 20 hours a day and deserved the highest pay in the company. He was a also a CEO of a smaller company so his pay wasn't as great as even some sales persons in other industries. That is a consequence of the difference in pie sizes and profit impact of that individual not greed in that case. 

While some industries and companies can handle a minimum wage increase, others absolutely cannot. The amount of intellectual dishonesty involved in saying that oh just because walmart can raise their minimum and handle a forced minimum wage means that every single industry can do it is just something that makes me so fucking mad. Stop looking at only the big motherfucking companies and look the smaller industries that have a small number of employees, but where the fucking wage hikes would simply drive them out of business! A forced government pay hike impacts a small grocery store owner, a small cottage industry owner, a fisherman who has to hire a couple of guys for his crew .. it impacts EVERYONE and not EVERYONE can handle this kind of a pay hike and it will destroy more livelihoods of more small business owners and their employees while yeah it'll help a bunch of burger flippers and grocery baggers. Woo hoo. Congratulations. 

Don't even let me start on the negative impact on interest rates, lending, disruption of innovation and decline in high tech industries and shrinkage of their pie. This is why you see social welfare states leeching off the technological innovation of other countries and not have any of their own - not to that extent anyways. Currently because America is no longer a manufacturing country, there's hardly any investment in new industries meaning fewer jobs for unskilled labor in the first place. There's only so much service sector jobs you can create. Investment in technology, tech infrastructive and R&D develop new markets and new markets create new manufacturing jobs and new manufacturing jobs creates the middle class and the middle class has babies and so on and so forth. In a service economy you have all that, but less opportunity and slower growth. You have billionnaires sitting on their money and investing in low return/low interest money markets instead of building industry and manufacturing new products. This drives down employment rates and fucks up the middle class even more. 

The average salary of the 1 billion dollar industry cannot be raised beyond a certain point before it starts putting those small business out of business without being subsidized by the larger business's wealth. But if you subsidize small businesses with money stolen from the large businesses what you're essentially doing is disrupting two different industries by a) introducing money into one industry that will misuse that money because market forces based on competition simply won't allow that industry to grow and b) at the same time shrinking the profitability and therefore long-term viability of the large industry that you're stealing money from in order to give to the smaller industry. 

Trickle down economics has nothing to do with this. That is literally just a buzz word created in order to resist the idea of free market capitalism. Free market capitalism does not guarantee business and industry success, it simply guarantees fair prices and fair wage rates only to the extent of lack of corruption and governmental interference. Free market includes failure of businesses and industries as much as success because the success of a company is highly dependent on thousands of factors and not just how much money it can and always make. 

And if you involve the government into this with regards social welfare and income redistribution, for what you say to work requires a central treasury that taxes each industry in such a way that the shortfalls of the smaller sized industries are made up by the larger industries which then puts a tremendous amount of pressure on the larger industry driving its costs up, profits down and an eventual down-scaling (which is why you see large acquisitions and mergers and huge layoffs) .... Hello 10,000 people tossed into unemployment in one fucking day! 

Yes, these are short-term effects and yes the market eventually does recover, but in the short term the devastation it causes does not make it worth it overall - as we've witnesses that since the 1970's the buying power of the dollar has shrunk significantly. You cannot force someone to pay more than they should in any given industry because you either destroy that industry or drive prices up to the point where that pushes the middle class down into the lower class while at the same time stunting the growth potential of high tech industries and overall national development.

What you need to encourage is entrepreneurship and increased competition to facilitate wealth creation. You do not want to hand out money to unskilled workers literally for the same reasons why there shouldn't be large corporate bailouts because it gives them absolutely no incentive to grow as people just as it did not ineentivise large corporations to become better. 

Poverty is not a state of being, it is a state of mind.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Are there really any silent Trump supporters? Their online presence is as loud as the Bernie supporters. They pack Trump's rally.
> 
> I believe the silent voters, if there are any this election, are the Ted Cruz voters. Really a toss up if they decide to follow their candidate who endorsed Trump and vote along party lines or vote against the more radical candidate for fear of too much chaos.


There are. The reason they are silent is fear of backlash (verbal, digital, or even physical) and being labeled "racist/sexist/etc." They will turn out. They have the momentum, buzz, and energy of this election.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> There are. The reason they are silent is fear of backlash (verbal, digital, or even physical) and being labeled "racist/sexist/etc." They will turn out. They have the momentum, buzz, and energy of this election.


If the other option is overwhelmingly positive, you would have a case. But Hillary is probably the 2nd most unpopular nominee in history behind Trump. I don't think many people would be afraid to say they are voting for Trump as a vote against Hillary and vice versa.

Most silent majority type voters in elections are conservative or prefer relative stability over radical changes. Neither candidate appeal to their sensibilities. Neither Trump nor Clinton is a true conservative. Trump has questionable temperament and is asking for radical tax cuts, especially for the rich, and even more spending to go along with it. Clinton is campaigning on a the most leftist platform ever with radical changes to minimum wages and tax increases for the rich.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump's voters are more war ready to vote for him than Hillary's voters who are disenfranchised.

This election has been about Trump, for better or worse.


----------



## Raven

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

She owned him in the first debate


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> Trump's voters are more war ready to vote for him than Hillary's voters who are disenfranchised.
> 
> This election has been about Trump, for better or worse.


I am not disputing that Trump has the more enthusiastic supporters. Clearly his rallies and online support prove he has them.

The point we were talking about was whether there is a silent voter base for Trump that isn't reflected in the polls that will create a gap between polling and the actual results.

The silent voter could be the Hillary voter that is afraid of going against the consensus that the America is heading in the wrong direction. Or it could be the Trump voter that is afraid of being labelled a racist. Or it could be the Ted Cruz voter that wants a conservative presidency but is too put off by Trump. We don't know till after the elections.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Fun! I was just making some "fluid predictions," i.e., predictions based on what is occurring in the race and extrapolating from the "momentum," however flimsy our reading of such momentum is, to some friends this evening, so I'm all warmed up for this.
> 
> If current trends continue, I believe Trump will take home Ohio and Florida. Florida is going to be tougher, probably, but he probably prevails. Much will depend upon how many "new voters" for the Democrats show up.
> 
> Ohio has been interesting because the vaunted ground game of Hilary's has been conspicuously weaker than I suspect anyone was anticipating. It's another indicator that there is a major enthusiasm "gap" that is hurting her right now. Trump's ground game in Ohio was almost nonexistent a mere five weeks ago, but now it's rolling and competing with hers. Also, @yeahbaby! Ohio is indeed the state about which you are thinking. Republicans cannot win the White House without it--doesn't mean that they will win the presidency should they win it, but without Ohio, Trump's finished before he begins. That was the one thing Karl Rove was good at with George W. Bush, strengthening the brand in the states that they needed most desperately, and without some of his maneuvers in 2004, it's conceivable that John Kerry wins Ohio and thus the presidency. This was also before states such as New Mexico turned blue and states such as Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada and others became purple. (I'm inclined to view Virginia as "blue" but some recent polls from there suggest that Trump could put it in play, thus weakening Hillary even more than she is presently by forcing her to spend more time there than she and her machine ever reckoned they would have to when they were practically gloating about having Virginia in the bag.)
> 
> Florida is honestly the more "interesting" state to study because there are, effectively, three Floridas. There is, firstly, North Florida, which covers everything north of Tampa-St. Petersburg and Orlando. Jacksonville, Tallahassee, Pensacola and Gainesville are the primary urban areas. The large rural swaths of North Florida are culturally not unlike South Alabama or South Georgia. Trump will almost surely clean up here, for Pensacola is almost deep red and Jacksonville, in Duval County, is at least barely red. Fort Walton Beach joins Pensacola and Duval County as three major military population centers. Trump will probably do just fine in those areas.
> 
> Tallahassee, home to the state government, A&M University and of course Florida State University, is deep blue, as is Gainesville, almost exclusively due to the population of the University of Florida.
> 
> The news out of North Florida is not good for Hillary--at least not yet, at least. One Democratic pollster after another is bemoaning the unquestionable lack of enthusiasm among Democrats in this region of Florida for the party's candidate. Most of the youthful voters attending those universities were fond of Bernie Sanders and Hillary has largely failed, thus far, to win them over. Many may end up voting for her but enthusiasm tends to count for something in races that will probably end up being close statewide.
> 
> This trend is almost entirely nationwide. Hillary is underperforming in every poll I can get my hands on with millennials. Most recent polling has her only 4-5 percentage points ahead of Trump with that group of voters, with Gary Johnson claiming an impressive 10-12 percent. Will Johnson fade? My instinct says yes.
> 
> There is, then, the I-4 Corridor Florida, the metropolitan centers in and ringing around the Tampa Bay Area and Orlando, running all the way up to Daytona. Again, Hillary is underperforming there compared to Obama. Obamacare is as unpopular in this part of the U.S. as it is anywhere, and that is hurting not only Hillary but Democrats in general. Myriad Republican candidates are gleefully running against Obama's unpopular record in this part of Florida, and it's helping Trump.
> 
> There is of course South Florida. Massive population centers of minorities are to be found in South Florida. Broward County, Miami-Dade County, Palm Beach County and others are already suggesting that black enthusiasm is remarkably low for Hillary compared to her Democratic Party nominee predecessor. Puerto Rican voters will almost surely massively break for Hillary, with her machine working to promote the Get-Out-the-Vote drive for them in Spanish language commercials.
> 
> In any event, based on polling right now, Trump would probably win Ohio and Florida. Georgia is a state that is undergoing radical demographic changes that bode ill for Republicans in the near future but it's looking like it will remain a Republican state for at least a few more years, and Arizona probably likewise. He would also likely win Nevada but I am expecting tomfoolery there based on how the Sanders/Clinton battle went. Everything coming out of Iowa indicates that Trump should perform well there, but some samples are notoriously difficult to read much into from that state.
> 
> North Carolina will probably go down to the wire but some disgust with the fallout to the shooting in Charlotte may drive up voting for Trump. Or the black vote will become more mobilized there on behalf of Hillary. That is a state I expect to be "too close to call" for several hours after polls close.
> 
> Hillary will win Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and probably win Colorado unless Johnson truly does play some ridiculous Marijuana King spoiler (highly unlikely).
> 
> The problem for Republicans is that their pathway is so narrow now. New Mexico and Virginia being solidly flipped, Colorado being mostly gone for Republicans, Nevada on the way "out" and Arizona only a few years behind Nevada... One can see why the map continues to worsen for the generic Republican candidate.
> 
> The 800-pound gorilla in the room that I am only now getting to is Pennsylvania. The Republicans' white whale.
> 
> If there were ever a Republican candidate who, one would think, could conceivably take it home, it would be Trump. Unlike free trade hawks such as Dubya, McCain and Romney, Trump speaks in a language that many a central Pennsylvanian probably understands.
> 
> To put it simply, if Trump makes Pennsylvania a true battleground state, a state that could almost go one way or the other between now and early November, Hillary will be in trouble. If Trump wins Pennsylvania, it's over for Hillary. If he takes that he's taking Ohio and Florida, and we're potentially talking about something of a blowout, particularly considering the relative "handicaps" of a Republican candidate in the U.S. electoral college of today. Virginia and Pennsylvania are Hillary's true firewall. She can ill-afford to spend inordinate time in those states, but of course if worse comes to worse for her, she will have to stand her ground and hold on to them as best she can. With Tim Kaine she and the Democrats are employing something of an "Atlantic" strategy, coursing through the eastern seaboard from Florida to Pennsylvania.
> 
> Some of us are probably looking at all of the possibilities and becoming overheated in our over-analysis.
> 
> Put in far more jejune terms, as September closes I would say that Trump, today, has something of a 40-45% of winning the White House, while Hillary still relishes a fairly commanding lead of 55-60%. Trump has to hit an inside straight, as it were, to win. He could theoretically win without Pennsylvania but it is astonishingly difficult. No Pennsylvania means the path is thin. If Hillary were in an actual meltdown spinning out of the debate Monday night, the complexion of the race could become irrevocably altered, but that is not happening and it is not going to happen. Right now Hillary forces are regrouping and recognizing their own shortcomings that have plagued their September. Their task is somewhat difficult because their candidate is so crushingly problematic, but they still have the high ground. With all of the obstacles in Ohio and Florida, for instance, Hillary is, in the aggregate polling, only down a couple of points in each state, I believe. She's up by three in Pennsylvania and Michigan.
> 
> My reading of all of the data compels me to believe that because Trump has ardent support behind him, and Hillary Clinton is a fundamentally terrible candidate in a plethora of ways, he will continue to keep and force states such as Pennsylvania and Michigan and perhaps even Virginia to be tantalizingly "in play" only to lose them in the end.
> 
> Trump's a brave gambler but you don't bet against the house, and in U.S. presidential elections, thanks to sweeping demographic changes to the U.S. population, the Democratic nominee and machine backing that nominee is the house.


While at work I was reading this and decided to respond when I came home, my phone is a little wonky when it comes to typing and it's annoying to constantly check auto correct for moronic errors that it seems to do.

Talking to a friend who still lives in Arizona we were discussing why Arizona was up in there air considering it's long standing Red stance. According to him and others I've spoken to that Demographics are changing in some areas, for instance many parts of Arizona are starting to have older Democrats move into the nicer parts of it and turning those places blue, another would be immigration though the tough laws there have curtailed it some and also the fact that the very people Democrats pander to are moving to places like Arizona, Nevada and Utah for the cheaper rent. 

I don't expect this to change much, though when Joe Arpaio was challenged I was a bit surprised. He's pretty much been Sheriff for a long time and his stances are tough but have been liked by most people from Arizona. So obviously there is something in the works as my friend said, some changes within the state, possibly people leaving and others coming in. Though I do not expect Arizona to turn blue but the Democrats will try their best to ensure that every election after this one is always in their favor, though not surprising why they support open borders, pandering and not checking voter IDs.

The Republicans are going to need to change up their game in order to keep playing even if they win this election. The Democrats will say, do whatever it takes to ensure they get their way and with the way America is starting to change both Demographically and on the College level there will need to be some changes. 

Sadly the Republicans have been going about things in a "multicultural" way, as we all know multiculturalism doesn't work, never has never will. Pointing out glaring differences only causes divide, not unity. The Republicans need to go down an assimilation route, one where they mention what makes people the same. Growing up in a mostly Hispanic area, being inducted into La Raza thinking from an early age and being around Hispanics most of my life you get to see how things work. People would be surprised at how traditional, religious and conservative they really are. They have more in common with Republicans than Democrats but Republicans have failed to cash in on this voter base. 

The problem the Republicans face with Hispanics is the mud slinging the Democrats have been tossing at them for a few decades and the fact that Republicans focus solely on the illegals and not the Hispanic citizens. An example of how it's been handled is if you had a drug addict brother, you knew he was a scumbag, he's not a good guy but he's family, so if someone states the obvious that your brother is scum, you'd still be upset. This is how the Republicans have screwed up with them, nobody really likes illegal immigration, not even Hispanics. Many move here legally to escape the problems, they don't want to come here and live with it but neither do they want to be lumped in with the bad portion of these other people. 

The Republicans need to focus more on talking about how illegal immigration isn't fair to our legal Hispanic citizens, how jobs should be staying here in America for our Hispanic workers and their families and not Mexico so that Hispanics can be underpaid and underappreciated. Republicans need to talk of the importance of community, Religion, Family and Work as these are the things most important to most Hispanics. Hispanics know that illegals cause problems so instead focus on talking about how Republicans will help our LEGAL citizens as many Hispanics pride themselves on their hard work ethic. They despise the Welfare state as much as most White Republicans do. If the Republicans focus on the commonalities and work, these Hispanics will vote Red and assimilate at a very fast rate. Anecdotally speaking as I've not met all Hispanics but every single Legal Hispanic that's come here has been a hard worker and has assimilated eagerly and they often try to send their children to school. Those are the people the party needs. 

The issue Republicans are facing now is the size of the Democratic Horde and I call them a Horde because they're made up of tribalistic factions lead by people who say whatever is popular and not what they mean. (The emails and the DNC corruption has shown this.) They're large and unruly and focused on one thing, driven by many agendas real or fiction and this makes them dangerous and their ideology infectious. Though they have a weakness, like all Hordes only the thinnest of Alliances and reasons holds them together so weathering them means their defeat, falling to them means never regaining anything again as they'll take everything they can get their hands on and never give back what is taken. 

The Republicans are late Western Rome, will they stop fighting among themselves and assimilate more into their folds? Or will they be like the Romans and fail to assimilate people into their folds and ostracize people until they cannot hold back the Horde of malcontents? There is no question on what should be done, doing it would be easy but it means the Republicans have to give up their NeoCons and cast off the shackles from the super rich that also control the Democrats. Do this and eventually the Democratic Horde will eat itself as that many incompatible ideologies cannot stay focused for long! The corruption will be seen and the real DNC will be seen in all it's naked glory. Hispanics came here to escape a corrupt Government, not to help start a new one. 

Most people want the same things in life but Republicans need to remember, it's not what you say but how you say it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Anyone see Trump of wheel of fortune last night?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Just.had.to.


----------



## Banez

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I dno if it's been mentioned yet in the thread but, there's a game in steam called "Make America Great Again: The Trump Presidency"

I find it funny because most popular tag for this game is "psychological horror" :lmao


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This doesn't sound like a politics class. It's also Canada and a class taught by a professor that can barely string an eloquent english sentence together. I mean, if I was a Canadian dean hiring a professor, I'd make sure that being able to communicate effectively is one of the primary requirements. I dunno, maybe that makes me a racist :shrug 

If this guy has the right idea and the ability to speak fluently he can express what he's trying to say better, probably won't go on illogical rants and maybe even be able to shut down the dissenting student with a counter response instead of simply getting his panties in a twist and asking him to leave. I see typical eastern world stubborn-ness and a knee-jerk reaction here at having his authority questioned (which is not what the student did) because him acting out the way he did was way more childish than the student pointing out a mistake he made. 

At the same time, you have another student chiming in "oh but you Donal Trump supporters are worthy of criticism" implying criticism as individuals, not criticism of their ideas. 

That said, this classroom is pretty much the epitome of the crap I'm seeing from other college students from other countries in this very thread .. an inability to understand the rules of discourse and how to address specific ideas and statements with adequate responses and understanding context. 






There's just so much similar stuff going on all over the first world in their classrooms that it's sad at this point. You have barely educated professors acting as adequate authority figures trumpeting out theory after theory without properly examining and even being open to critique themselves. This guy's either listen to my lecture or GTFO attitude amongst liberal minded professors isn't exclusive to just him and should be seen as reason to fire them on the spot.


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

We are in this strange setting now where today's new age liberals have changed the left side of the aisle from the champions of free speech to the enemies of it and the political lines are being redrawn to where you have atheists, homosexuals, and Christian conservatives all on the same side because they support free speech. 

Its just...odd.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> This doesn't sound like a politics class. It's also Canada and a class taught by a professor that can barely string an eloquent english sentence together. I mean, if I was a Canadian dean hiring a professor, I'd make sure that being able to communicate effectively is one of the primary requirements. I dunno, maybe that makes me a racist :shrug
> 
> If this guy has the right idea and the ability to speak fluently he can express what he's trying to say better, probably won't go on illogical rants and maybe even be able to shut down the dissenting student with a counter response instead of simply getting his panties in a twist and asking him to leave. I see typical eastern world stubborn-ness and a knee-jerk reaction here at having his authority questioned (which is not what the student did) because him acting out the way he did was way more childish than the student pointing out a mistake he made.
> 
> At the same time, you have another student chiming in "oh but you Donal Trump supporters are worthy of criticism" implying criticism as individuals, not criticism of their ideas.
> 
> That said, this classroom is pretty much the epitome of the crap I'm seeing from other college students from other countries in this very thread .. an inability to understand the rules of discourse and how to address specific ideas and statements with adequate responses and understanding context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's just so much similar stuff going on all over the first world in their classrooms that it's sad at this point. You have barely educated professors acting as adequate authority figures trumpeting out theory after theory without properly examining and even being open to critique themselves. This guy's either listen to my lecture or GTFO attitude amongst liberal minded professors isn't exclusive to just him and should be seen as reason to fire them on the spot.


The prof looks to be Indian, his English is fine, i had a prof in college who was Indian and he just got back from India and spoke similar. His first language is probably not english. He was still speaking perfectly fine.

That video is just dumb, so that kid in the class was getting pissy because the prof was giving a lecture again Trump?

The video is also bullshit since we dont hear what the prof said .


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The prof looks to be Indian, his English is fine, i had a prof in college who was Indian and he just got back from India and spoke similar. His first language is probably not english. He was still speaking perfectly fine.
> 
> That video is just dumb, so that kid in the class was getting pissy because the prof was giving a lecture again Trump?
> 
> The video is also bullshit since we dont hear what the prof said .


So you didn't actually listen to the kid who was complaining like everyone else did you?

The professor made a comment attacking Trump supporters similar to the shit Hillary said about them being a basket of deplorables. Which is why that other student chimed in defending that idea. The dissenting student is complaining specifically about the professors ad hominem which is exactly what he should be doing. 

If a student is more aware of rules of discourse than a professor then what does it say about the qualifications of the professor himself? 

His english is not fine at all and neither his is attitude. I would never be able to respect a professor who couldn't string two words of proper english together. You can call me a racist for that - but considering that english is also my second language and in order to acquire the eloquence I've managed, I've put in a lot of effort which I'm sorry to say people like him do not. He may be qualified to teach a class, but he's not eloquent and understanding him is a struggle.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

An investigative report published in Newsweek reveals that Donald Trump illegally conducted business in communist Cuba in a direct violation of a decades-long American embargo

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/28/us-e...iolated-cuba-trade-embargo-newsweek-says.html


A company controlled by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump secretly conducted business in Cuba in the late 1990s in violation of the long-running trade embargo, Newsweek reported Friday, citing interviews with former executives, internal company records and court filings. 
MSNBC first unveiled details of the report late on Thursday.

Documents indicated that the Trump company, then called Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, spent at least $68,000 in 1998, with Trump's knowledge, funneling the cash through a consulting firm so that it could appear legal by tying it to an after-the-fact charitable endeavor, the report said.

Trump's campaign did not immediately return an emailed request for comment sent outside office hours.

Read the full Newsweek report here.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> An investigative report published in Newsweek reveals that Donald Trump illegally conducted business in communist Cuba in a direct violation of a decades-long American embargo
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/28/us-e...iolated-cuba-trade-embargo-newsweek-says.html
> 
> 
> A company controlled by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump secretly conducted business in Cuba in the late 1990s in violation of the long-running trade embargo, Newsweek reported Friday, citing interviews with former executives, internal company records and court filings.
> MSNBC first unveiled details of the report late on Thursday.
> 
> Documents indicated that the Trump company, then called Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, spent at least $68,000 in 1998, with Trump's knowledge, funneling the cash through a consulting firm so that it could appear legal by tying it to an after-the-fact charitable endeavor, the report said.
> 
> Trump's campaign did not immediately return an emailed request for comment sent outside office hours.
> 
> Read the full Newsweek report here.


Considering the embargo is one of the dumbest political moves this country has maintained over decades... Not sure this would actually be a criticism against Trump. More likely to win over more people that are sick of the idiotic anti Cuba bullshit of every regime since the 60s.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



News Week said:


> *HOW DONALD TRUMP’S COMPANY VIOLATED THE UNITED STATES EMBARGO AGAINST CUBA*


Wow, the media reporting something Trump may have done 20 years ago. What's next? Getting dirt on him when he was 5 years old? They're scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> So you didn't actually listen to the kid who was complaining like everyone else did you?
> 
> The professor made a comment attacking Trump supporters similar to the shit Hillary said about them being a basket of deplorables. Which is why that other student chimed in defending that idea. The dissenting student is complaining specifically about the professors ad hominem which is exactly what he should be doing.
> 
> If a student is more aware of rules of discourse than a professor then what does it say about the qualifications of the professor himself?
> 
> His english is not fine at all and neither his is attitude. I would never be able to respect a professor who couldn't string two words of proper english together. You can call me a racist for that - but considering that english is also my second language and in order to acquire the eloquence I've managed, I've put in a lot of effort which I'm sorry to say people like him do not. He may be qualified to teach a class, but he's not eloquent and understanding him is a struggle.


I did listen and the kid was saying oh you can't talk about Trump that way, the kid was being a dick, the 2nd kid that spoke up had the right idea and was talking about how the teacher was attacking Trump supporters while attacking Trump. 

And sorry but the prof is right most of the Trump supporters are just as ignorant and uninformed as Trump is. Trump is a buffoon who talks out of his ass most of the time. And you want to talk about someone who cant put together a coherent sentence together. Look no further than Trump. He speaks like a 4th grader.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Love you davey.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I did listen and the kid was saying oh you can't talk about Trump that way, the kid was being a dick, the 2nd kid that spoke up had the right idea and was talking about how the teacher was attacking Trump supporters while attacking Trump.
> 
> And sorry but the prof is right most of the Trump supporters are just as ignorant and uninformed as Trump is. Trump is a buffoon who talks out of his ass most of the time. And you want to talk about someone who cant put together a coherent sentence together. Look no further than Trump. He speaks like a 4th grader.


"Many Hillary and Bernie supporters are ignorant". 

Now respect me because I'm right. Don't argue with me. Don't say anything in dissent. Don't re-quote me. Just shut up or get out of this thread. 

I just replicated that professor and his classroom for you. Give me my tenure.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



TripleG said:


> We are in this strange setting now where today's new age liberals have changed the left side of the aisle from the champions of free speech to the enemies of it and the political lines are being redrawn to where you have atheists, homosexuals, and Christian conservatives all on the same side because they support free speech.
> 
> Its just...odd.


It's gone in complete reverse, the "Left" is fighting against free speech, trying to indoctrinate people and push loving a Religion on you (Islam) and lying to the people every chance they get! (MSM) Having hate mobs that attack people, doing whatever they can to silence people.

You have the "Right" and it's homosexuals, atheists, christians, whites, nonwhites, poor and working class fighting against censorship, not retaliating against the attacks and trying to stop the Globalist Elite.. 

It's insanely weird.


----------



## Dan Den

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Reptilian said:


> I truly hope he wins, i can't wait for the whole PC crap to end.


Amen to that. I'm a christian. That rather have no PC crap. If Trump wins. I think he'll will. Donald Trump is gonna to be the first WWE Hall of Famer in the White House.


----------



## Dan Den

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I heard that homosexuals are going to vote for Trump cause the attack from the Islam Terrorists was that attackers.


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Am I the only one who feels just a little bit dumber every time they read one of birthday_massacre's rambling posts? The poor grammar, coupled with his all-out assault on logic and reason, is really hard to stomach.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Big Salad said:


> Am I the only one who feels just a little bit dumber every time they read one of birthday_massacre's rambling posts? The poor grammar, coupled with his all-out assault on logic and reason, is really hard to stomach.


His posts are much better than those of the condescending non-Americans that keep troll.. I mean posting in here about things they know little to nothing about. Not like any of us give a shit about their elections or where they live. But got to get their two cents in I guess! :sleep


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Both sides do the same indoctrination. You can pick the sheeps from the comment sections from either side pretty easily. Threatening litigation on a whim like Trump isn't a stance against censorship.

What the far right is actually complaining about is not being able to spread their hate speech in mainstream media, not that they are champions of free speech. Look at how they treat people who disagree with them. Same as the far left by being obnoxious or threatening to the point the other side simply stay quiet.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Both sides do the same indoctrination. You can pick the sheeps from the comment sections from either side pretty easily. Threatening litigation on a whim like Trump isn't a stance against censorship.
> 
> What the far right is actually complaining about is not being able to spread their hate speech in mainstream media, not that they are champions of free speech. Look at how they treat people who disagree with them. Same as the far left by being obnoxious or threatening to the point the other side simply stay quiet.


Like you have the right to tell me what I believe.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> "Many Hillary and Bernie supporters are ignorant".
> 
> Now respect me because I'm right. Don't argue with me. Don't say anything in dissent. Don't re-quote me. Just shut up or get out of this thread.
> 
> I just replicated that professor and his classroom for you. Give me my tenure.


You can only use that logic if I say you can't say that about Hillary or Bernie supporters and don't give reasons why they are not ignorant. But that is what they kid was doing , he was just crying oh you can't say that about Trump supporters instead of trying to show why Trump supporters are not ignorant.

Like I said that 2nd kid that spoke up did a much better job but that first kid was just whiny.





Big Salad said:


> Am I the only one who feels just a little bit dumber every time they read one of birthday_massacre's rambling posts? The poor grammar, coupled with his all-out assault on logic and reason, is really hard to stomach.


What is exactly illogical about what I have said?

And that is cute, attack grammar, that is what people do when they can't rebut what said someone has said. So instead of trolling, tell me why you disagree.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Like you have the right to tell me what I believe.


Are you admitting you belong to the far right?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Like you have the right to tell me what I believe.


People don't have the right to tell you what you believe but they have the right to tell you what you believe is wrong.

For example, if you believe that slavery should be legal, someone has the right to tell you that you are wrong.
If you are against gay marriage, someone has to right to tell you that you are wrong to believe that. 
If you believe that being gay is immoral, someone has the right to tell you that you are wrong.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> People don't have the right to tell you what you believe but they have the right to tell you what you believe is wrong.
> 
> For example, if you believe that slavery should be legal, someone has the right to tell you that you are wrong.
> If you are against gay marriage, someone has to right to tell you that you are wrong to believe that.
> If you believe that being gay is immoral, someone has the right to tell you that you are wrong.


No, you really don't.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Are you admitting you belong to the far right?


:lmao what the fuck does it matter where i belong to? You don't have the right to assume what ANYONE believes.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> :lmao what the fuck does it matter where i belong to? You don't have the right to assume what ANYONE believes.


Everyone knows you are far right, that was a rhetorical question. And you dont have to assume what you believe because we know what you believe based on your posts. I just never understand why you always dodge things like this.

You should stand up for what you believe and not have to hide it. Are you that worried you can't defend your positions?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Everyone knows you are far right, that was a rhetorical question. And you dont have to assume what you believe because we know what you believe based on your posts. I just never understand why you always dodge things like this.
> 
> You should stand up for what you believe and not have to hide it


You are so full of shit. You red rep me on every post i make for no given reason, why the hell would I want to discuss anything with you?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> No, you really don't.


Actually yes they do since if you are telling gay people that should not be able to get married or that its immoral to be gay or that blacks should be slaves again then anyone has the right to tell you that you are wrong and explain why.

I think its funny that you think its ok that someone would be allowed to say those things but that anohter person would not be able to tell them they are wrong.




Beatles123 said:


> You are so full of shit. You red rep me on every post i make for no given reason, why the hell would I want to discuss anything with you?


So you just trolling and saying love you davey does not warrant a neg? You dont think that is trolling?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> His posts are much better than those of the condescending non-Americans that keep troll.. I mean posting in here about things they know little to nothing about. Not like any of us give a shit about their elections or where they live. But got to get their two cents in I guess! :sleep


We don't give a shit about other countries because they don't make things that we use in our daily lives. They don't have the kind of services that would make our lives even the slightest bit worse if any of those countries (other than China) collapses in on themselves. But if America and American economy collapses, the world loses its iPhones, it's Android operating systems, Blockbuster movies, some of the world's best TV shows, comic books, a fair amount of literature, R&D in medicine. 

Sure, Germany and a few other European countries will hold the fort for a little while but we can already see a major cultural shift in those cultures already. Thank you multi-culturalism. We'll miss companies like Siemens and the heavy machinery industries will suffer. There might be a medical equipment shortage but if 90% of the world's countries just stopped producing anything it won't really impact American lives as much as if the American economy collapses. :shrug 

I think there is a great deal of narcissism when it comes to these foreigners and how they have come to falsely believe that their countries are "better" because they're not voting Trump, or don't have high crime while shitting on the very country that on the strength of its strong economy has for decades facilitated their boring lives with tremendous innovation (in a language that they can actually understand because Japanese sure love to innovate but they sure as hell don't like to translate anything and mainly only started doing so in order to compete in the American markets) and still do.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Actually yes they do since if you are telling gay people that should not be able to get married or that its immoral to be gay or that blacks should be slaves again then anyone has the right to tell you that you are wrong and explain why.
> 
> I think its funny that you think its ok that someone would be allowed to say those things but that anohter person would not be able to tell them they are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you just trolling and saying love you davey does not warrant a neg? You dont think that is trolling?


Nope.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Nope.


Not sure what that nope is for but ill assume its for the first part.

You need to stop living in your little bubble. If you are going to tell people what you think, be prepared for people to tell you that you are wrong or disagree with you and tell you.


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Based Jill Stein. :banderas


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/780941220952481793


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Not sure what that nope is for but ill assume its for the first part.
> 
> You need to stop living in your little bubble. If you are going to tell people what you think, be prepared for people to tell you that you are wrong or disagree with you and tell you.


Nope, second part actually.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Fringe said:


> Based Jill Stein. :banderas
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/780941220952481793


With Stein and Johnson doing pretty well in the polls what are the chances that neither Hillary nor Trump get enough EC votes to win? If that was ever going to happen it would be this election


----------



## just4kicks

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

OP Can you add a poll option on election day? I'm curious how the results will turn out on this site.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



just4kicks said:


> OP Can you add a poll option on election day? I'm curious how the results will turn out on this site.


This site is easily 90% Trump 10% other lol

WF is super right-winged as you can see by this section.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> :lmao what the fuck does it matter where i belong to? You don't have the right to assume what ANYONE believes.


Do you not see the irony in your position on this given what you have posted over the year in this thread? Others can't assume what anyone believe, but you can assume what others believe.

Are you one of those people who changed your mind about where Obama was born because of what Trump said?



birthday_massacre said:


> This site is easily 90% Trump 10% other lol
> 
> WF is super right-winged as you can see by this section.


I wouldn't say super right-winged. Just more pro-Trump. Also, both left and right wing posters, me and you included, are just finding excuses to blame the other side. Nobody posted anything about Hoboken, but people post about police shootings to push a narrative.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Do you not see the irony in your position on this given what you have posted over the year in this thread? Others can't assume what anyone believe, but you can assume what others believe.
> 
> Are you one of those people who changed your mind about where Obama was born because of what Trump said?
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say super right-winged. Just more pro-Trump. Also, both left and right wing posters, me and you included, are just finding excuses to blame the other side. Nobody posted anything about Hoboken, but people post about police shootings to push a narrative.


Well more Pro Trump or Pro guns. Than Anti Trump or stricter gun laws. Is that more fair to say?


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I can admire some of Jill Stein's stances (and find myself agreeing with some of 'em in principle), but the way she wants to go about 'em can be economically unfeasible and too government-heavy. Gary Johnson is a false libertarian. Neither of 'em will gain my support (though Johnson did for a bit until he ousted himself on a couple of issues), just like the primary two candidates will *never* get my support.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> I can admire some of Jill Stein's stances (and find myself agreeing with some of 'em in principle), but the way she wants to go about 'em can be economically unfeasible and too government-heavy. Gary Johnson is a false libertarian. Neither of 'em will gain my support (though Johnson did for a bit until he ousted himself on a couple of issues), just like the primary two candidates will *never* get my support.


You have my support if there is a mod election!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> You have my support if there is a mod election!


Only if LC is VP


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@L-DOPA @Reaper @Fringe @Pratchett @Beatles123 






Scott Adams and Stefan Molyneux recap Monday's debate.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Well more Pro Trump or Pro guns. Than Anti Trump or stricter gun laws. Is that more fair to say?


Not really more pro-guns. Other wrestling forum I frequent are not fond of gun control either. But the conservatives over there are pretty much on the trump is a loose cannon train but they can't bring themselves to vote for Hillary either.

This site has more vocal Trump supporters that's for sure.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I was thinking if he was older Ben Shapiro would mop the floor with Hilary.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> His posts are much better than those of the condescending non-Americans that keep troll.. I mean posting in here about things they know little to nothing about. Not like any of us give a shit about their elections or where they live. But got to get their two cents in I guess! :sleep


So.... us non-Americans should just keep our mouths shut if we disagree with an American on the election? And who was it again apparently against free speech?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> So.... us non-Americans should just keep our mouths shut if we disagree with an American on the election? And who was it again apparently against free speech?


No but needless input is annoying having to sort through. You have zero stakes in this election, you're not voting so your input is less than nothing. I'm not against free speech at all, by all means say what you want but that doesn't mean any of us have to even listen to it nor take your opinion seriously. Frankly whatever happens in your country is your business, I'm not going to go to Aussie election sites and trololo about your candidates or political parties. 

Also the Free Speech I was talking about is American Free Speech, general Free Speech is lacking in Europe at the moment. You're not American so technically Free Speech doesn't apply to you. >


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> No but needless input is annoying having to sort through. You have zero stakes in this election, you're not voting so your input is less than nothing. I'm not against free speech at all, by all means say what you want but that doesn't mean any of us have to even listen to it nor take your opinion seriously. Frankly whatever happens in your country is your business, I'm not going to go to Aussie election sites and trololo about your candidates or political parties.
> 
> Also the Free Speech I was talking about is American Free Speech, general Free Speech is lacking in Europe at the moment. You're not American so technically Free Speech doesn't apply to you. >


Free speech is free speech.
Not everyone on this thread will vote - you just don't like stuff that doesn't add to the Trump echo chamber.
The US Election is bigger, way more media and global ramifications and you know it.

Basically like a lot of righties you make outrageous statements, get challenged, then back up and take half of it back. Got it.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Free speech is free speech.
> Not everyone on this thread will vote - you just don't like stuff that doesn't add to the Trump echo chamber.
> The US Election is bigger, way more media and global ramifications and you know it.
> 
> Basically like a lot of righties you make outrageous statements, get challenged, then back up and take half of it back. Got it.


I took nothing back and besides why would I take your opinion seriously on anything? You said yourself most of what you say isn't serious. 

My post was rather clear, I said non-Americans who had no idea what they were talking about. That's pretty specific as to the people I was referring to and what exactly I meant. But if you took it as that no non-Americans should speak well that's on you. Again your stakes in this election are zero, so say whatever you want but ultimately it means nothing, nor does reading a few articles online make you an expert on America. I find it funny when non-Americans get upset that Americans assume what a country is like without being there but yet when non-Americans do it, well it's totes fine!

This shouldn't be an echo chamber no but the attempts at derailment and silliness posted is a bit distracting when there is no debate nor discussion, just anti-Trumpers with blinders on posting just to post and not adding to the discussion at all, nor listening to anyone else but their own echo chamber of anti Trump rhetoric.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@Miss Sally

TBF, while elections in other countries might not have much of an effect on the USA, what happens with USA elections does kinda affect the entire world. It's understandable why people from other countries would pay attention to what happens here. You know how the USA is. We meddle in fuckin' _everyone's_ business. I know we both wish it wasn't that way but it kinda is and has been that way for a long time now. That's not going to change any time soon.


----------



## LilOlMe

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Was gonna write in Bernie, but now my plan has been thwarted because apparently in my state write-in votes get thrown out if a candidate doesn't launch an official write-in campaign.

What to do now?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> @Miss Sally
> 
> TBF, while elections in other countries might not have much of an effect on the USA, what happens with USA elections does kinda affect the entire world. It's understandable why people from other countries would pay attention to what happens here. You know how the USA is. We meddle in fuckin' _everyone's_ business. I know we both wish it wasn't that way but it kinda is and has been that way for a long time now. That's not going to change any time soon.


It's like indie promotions need to plan according to what the WWE do. Your local groceries aren't going to say they have no stakes in what Walmart or Target do.

But these Trumpters don't seem to get that and blame the smaller countries for not being strong enough.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> @Miss Sally
> 
> TBF, while elections in other countries might not have much of an effect on the USA, what happens with USA elections does kinda affect the entire world. It's understandable why people from other countries would pay attention to what happens here. You know how the USA is. We meddle in fuckin' _everyone's_ business. I know we both wish it wasn't that way but it kinda is and has been that way for a long time now. That's not going to change any time soon.



True enough! The US should send the Aussies and Europe gift baskets, without them it would be a little more expensive blowing up the mideast. Or maybe they can thank us because now they can say how good they are for helping refugees! :grin2:

Regardless it seems like some people didn't read the OP and post biased media nonsense and add nothing to the discussion. More like got to add anti-trump narrative without any discussion, edgy just to be edgy. 

I was pretty specific! I still say we let China and Russia have a go at running things for a while.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> So.... us non-Americans should just keep our mouths shut if we disagree with an American on the election? And who was it again apparently against free speech?


Giving input. Reading posts. Making up your minds. Changing your opinions. Developing more nuanced opinions. Appreciating the information passed on to you. Having cordial discussions. Is something most of us appreciate. However, there's a small group of you that aren't in this thread for that and your posts have made it clear that you just want a soap box. So you can have the soap box, but if it's a bunch of shitty opinions, then expect them to be criticized.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



LilOlMe said:


> Was gonna write in Bernie, but now my plan has been thwarted because apparently in my state write-in votes get thrown out if a candidate doesn't launch an official write-in campaign.
> 
> What to do now?


Well, a lot of left leaners are thinking about Gary Johnson. But whatever you do, don't give into the media generated paranoia about Trump. Read what he's actually said instead of what the media is saying he says and make up your mind. 

I encourage you to make up your mind and in the end if you decide to vote Hillary still go for it. But don't let extremist views hold you back from at least considering the GOP and reading their platform. Don't think of this as Trump vs Hillary, still think of this as GOP vs Democrats and as parties which one has the better platform because in the long run it's still going to be party politics, not personal politics that are going to shape the futre. :shrug



Oda Nobunaga said:


> I can admire some of Jill Stein's stances (and find myself agreeing with some of 'em in principle), but the way she wants to go about 'em can be economically unfeasible and too government-heavy. Gary Johnson is a false libertarian. Neither of 'em will gain my support (though Johnson did for a bit until he ousted himself on a couple of issues), just like the primary two candidates will *never* get my support.


Not that it's going to matter but at this point Jill Stein on science is probably the worst possible candidate we can have. 

http://deadstate.org/does-your-candidate-even-science-bro/



> *Jill Stein: I love science! Look at my tin foil hat! It’s Made of Quantum!*
> *Dr. Jill Stein* is currently polling lower than a beloved departed gorilla, but despite polling numbers that you have to drill for, she’s made herself into an indefatigable force on Twitter this election. Let’s have a chat about how her inability to science has made doctors like Dr. Pepper and Dr. Dre lose credibility.
> She’s a medical doctor, so you’d expect that first and foremost, she’d be beating the drum about how vaccines are good, right?
> I should have mentioned earlier that she’s the Green Party Candidate.
> Jill Stein is “not anti-vax” the way that Donald Trump “doesn’t hurl personal insults.” In her Reddit AMA, she took a few paragraphs to say everything except that vaccines work and that you should get them and give them to your children. It’s not that Stein thinks vaccines are evil or will speak at anti-vaxxer conventions, it’s that she panders and speaks the same language as the crowd that does think they’re evil. She’s gone as far as to say the following to the Washington Post:
> ​ “There were concerns among physicians about what the vaccination schedule meant, the toxic substances like mercury which used to be rampant in vaccines. There were real questions that needed to be addressed. I think some of them at least have been addressed. I don’t know if all of them have been addressed.”​ Let’s be clear, the vaccine schedule is safe, proven, and tested. Who questions if it has problems? People like *Dr. Bob Sears, *who make a fortune telling people the schedule isn’t safe… and Dr. Jill Stein, who is at the very least, pandering.
> In this environment of easily-stoked vaccine fears, Dr. Stein’s message is damaging. Given her training as a medical doctor, the least scientific community could ask from a doctor’s presidential campaign would be to promote vaccination. Stein has failed at the absolute lowest expectation of scientifically ethical behavior.
> Where does she succeed scientifically? Being part of the Green Party, it’s not surprising that she wants to transition to all clean, renewable energy by 2030. It’s an admirable goal because it also means she’s right on the issue that climate change is real.
> Unfortunately, her goal to resolve it is not anything that could be considered scientific.
> 2030 is fourteen years away. As of 2015, less than 14% of our energy came from renewables. I don’t say this because I think Stein’s heart is in a bad place, but I’m not here to talk about the inherent goodness of her intentions. At this point, the typical mass produced solar cell for the home has approximately a 22% solar capture rate, with the world record being a touch over 44%. This represents decades of advancements in the field. However, given that we’re meeting less than ⅙ of our energy needs with renewables, we need to get a lot better at solar capture (and other forms of renewables) in order to meet our growing needs. This includes pouring money into research, growing infrastructure, and training scientists. It will probably also mean using nuclear, one of the cleanest energies we have despite public distrust, which Stein has branded a “weapon of mass destruction.”
> A plan to be independent of non-renewables is a good idea, but the timeline is anti-science because it’s simply not feasible and demonstrates a deep lack of understanding of the issue. If we cut ourselves off from gas, oil, and coal in that time frame solely out of ideology, you would be reading this via carrier pigeon.
> Stein’s other extreme positions are going to be rattled off lightning round style because, much like the American voter, ain’t nobody got time for that:
> 
> 
> She thinks wifi is bad for kids (no it’s not, but I made you this nice tin foil hat, Jill).
> She wants a moratorium on all GMOs until they’re proven safe (I think she needs to google what ‘proven safe’ means because this is drastically anti-farmer and anti-environment).
> Ditto a moratorium on pesticides (because apparently she doesn’t understand how famines happen).
> And last but certainly not least, she’s pro-homeopathy (I have a fairly strong opinion on this).
> Maybe you’d be better voting Harambe.


Her anti-science anti-intellectualism definitely makes the dead gorilla a far better candidate because at least the gorilla is self-aware that it's just a gorilla, yet Jill Stien just has the mental capacities of one when it comes to science.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@Reaper Think you might like this vid!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> @Reaper Think you might like this vid!


Yeah, this is literally what so many of immigrants are tying to say. A lot of us leave our fucking countries to embrace the greatness and freedoms of western culture. 

My own feminist sister is one of these people and yet she's convinced herself that this magical utopia exists where she and her children can be raised perfectly according to Islamic principles as well as assimilate in western culture without realizing so many things are incompatible between the two. My sister is at least on the very far left of Islam like my parents were so she's assimilating better, but at the same time she also like other muslims and western liberals have a misconception about what majority of muslims are like in the east especially the refugees that can be infiltrated by extremists - easily. This is why there are so many ghettos in france, sweden and other parts of europe because they too had a blind spot to what the average muslim is like. 

The only way a muslim can truly assimilate in the west is by being on the far left of their religion .. basically to a point where religion is merely a ritual for you like it is for many non-practicing christians. You have to ignore pretty much 90% of the hadith and completely ignore the shariah.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Yeah, this is literally what so many of immigrants are tying to say. A lot of us leave our fucking countries to embrace the greatness and freedoms of western culture.
> 
> My own feminist sister is one of these people and yet she's convinced herself that this magical utopia exists where she and her children can be raised perfectly according to Islamic principles as well as assimilate in western culture without realizing so many things are incompatible between the two. My sister is at least on the very far left of Islam like my parents were so she's assimilating better, but at the same time she also like other muslims and western liberals have a misconception about what majority of muslims are like in the east especially the refugees that can be infiltrated by extremists - easily. This is why there are so many ghettos in france, sweden and other parts of europe because they too had a blind spot to what the average muslim is like.
> 
> The only way a muslim can truly assimilate in the west is by being on the far left of their religion .. basically to a point where religion is merely a ritual for you like it is for many non-practicing christians. You have to ignore pretty much 90% of the hadith and completely ignore the shariah.


I seen it and thought of you! Sadly these people go ignored, I'm sure many Swedes and Germans can give their experiences first hand and they weren't even living in the Mid East! Her logic is sound though, want to experience the culture? Go live there! But obviously this girl, you and Gandhi and countless others experiences don't mean much after all a bunch of white people who've never really been around these types know more than you all! :laugh:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I seen it and thought of you! Sadly these people go ignored, I'm sure many Swedes and Germans can give their experiences first hand and they weren't even living in the Mid East! Her logic is sound though, want to experience the culture? Go live there! But obviously this girl, you and Gandhi and countless others experiences don't mean much after all a bunch of white people who've never really been around these types know more than you all! :laugh:


She's unfortunately a weaker speaker than I am. I mean, I'm not attacking her or putting her down ... I'm referring to her ability to get a strong point across because she seems nervous (which is expected since it's an unexpected platform that girls like her NEVER receive). 

A lot of this stuff as well as the lack of powerful voices apostates generally have is encouraging me to start my own vlog and stuff, but my wife and family are not fully supportive yet because they're afraid of the blowback I'll get from the "tolerant left" and potential terrorists. But maybe one day I'll just put on a hood, a Shield mask and just let it rip.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

About the silent voters phenomena 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...t-they-need-to-register/?ex_cid=2016-forecast


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> About the silent voters phenomena
> 
> http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...t-they-need-to-register/?ex_cid=2016-forecast


I'd say it's more than just white voters but nonwhites as well who will not openly admit to voting for Trump as many nonwhite families do not openly discuss politics. What they should be looking at is how many Hispanic, Black and Asian voters will not turn up or vote for Trump after the scandals that have come forward. Most dissatisfied people will not vent publicly especially if they've been life long Democrats. 

This election will prove to be very interesting in this regard.


----------



## Raven

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Warlock

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I'd say it's more than just white voters but nonwhites as well who will not openly admit to voting for Trump as many nonwhite families do not openly discuss politics. What they should be looking at is how many Hispanic, Black and Asian voters will not turn up or vote for Trump after the scandals that have come forward. Most dissatisfied people will not vent publicly especially if they've been life long Democrats.
> 
> This election will prove to be very interesting in this regard.


The problem is basically that the article is pointing to the core of Trump's favorable demos, therefore a big registration of that votes surely will have an effect on Trump's numbers. You could be right, some nonwhites registering could be new Trump supporters, but given that a) they're minorities demographically and b) in pure statistics term, given that the support of trump is low among minorities and that minorities tend to participate in minor ratio to elections, the ratio of Trump's supporter among this groups that register to vote for him is so low that his effects are marginal, unless you have big levels of registration suggesting high levels of enthusiasm for him, which are dismissed emperically in the article

I think the bigger point is that, there is really no sign of a real effects of "silent voters" for Trump. Registration hasn't got up in any significant way like Obama acomplished in 2008, primary polls captured pretty accurately the numbers of Trump and basically the effect of "silent voters" has to be between 1 and 2 standard deviations to swing the election at this rate which is too much. 

But the article also points to a big flaw in Trump Plan, he could be focusing in this group of people and win the election by a big margin, but for one he lacks the ground game to do so because his campaign is basically media driven, he lacks the money to do so and his organization is almost non-existent. And second, and most important, the option of talking about this "silent voters" to reject polling and to gain confidence among his campaign is similar to what Romney's team did in 2012 when talking about "skewing" numbers in polls, this allows confidence and a certain level of arrogance which is pretty damaging in the big picture.

The only way polls really are skewed at this rate is in a case of a pretty low turn out in election day, which isn't out of the realm of possibilities given how unpopular both candidates are


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










I know the movie was based on the race, but man, that is creepy!

- Vic


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@AryaDark @Beatles123 @CamillePunk @L-DOPA @Reaper

TRUMP WUZ RITE. 

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...ssion-acknowledges-issues-trump-s-mic-n657651



> Debate Commission Acknowledges 'Issues' With Trump's Audio
> 
> by Carrie Dann
> 
> 
> After Donald Trump complained of problems with his microphone during Monday night's presidential debate, the nonpartisan organization sponsoring the event confirmed Friday that there were problems with his audio inside the auditorium.
> 
> "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," the Commission on Presidential Debates said in a brief statement posted on its website Friday afternoon.
> 
> After the debate, which was moderated by NBC's Lester Holt, Trump told reporters "my mic was defective within the room," adding that he thought the audio problems might have been purposeful.
> 
> Trump's performance in Monday night's debate has been widely panned, with polls indicating that Hillary Clinton bested Trump by a wide margin.
> 
> Earlier this week, Clinton mocked Trump for his complaints about the audio issue, saying "anybody who complains about the microphone is not having a good night."
> 
> The Commission on Presidential Debates, founded in 1987, is a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization that has sponsored all presidential debates since 1988.


And to think people doubted this paragon of virtue. :trump


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The Commission on Presidential Debates being described as "nonprofit and nonpartisan". :mj Pretty sure it is partisan for the two-party duopoly and profits those affiliated greatly.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

At 3 AM. He just can't help himself.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781784161044553728

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781785509639118848

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781788223055994880
She doesn't have a sex tape as far as anyone can find. The fuck is he thinking? The Machado thing would have blown over. It was a one off from the debate. Couple of days and it's forgotten and now he's just made it into something bigger. It's like the Khans. Let it go. Don't get up at 3 in the morning to start angry tweeting about. The man sees a tiny ember and throws gas on it every time. It has to be frustrating for the people in his campaign. Can just imagine Kellyanne Conaway waking up this morning, reads the news, and lets out a defeated "goddammit".


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Funny thing is that even with all the bias in much of the reporting, they end up making statements that come from Clinton that make her look dumb as fuck :lol 

The Clinton soundbyte about Trump's complaints could have been left out of this article, but the journalist just tossed her under the bus.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The fact that the media has tried to take Trump down so many times at this point to where they have thrown away and risked their "objectivity and transparency" to blatantly be biased on for Trump to still play 4D chess with them is truly astonishing.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Sweenz said:


>


He had 6 not 4 that also does not count his failed businesses as well and he did not have 515 successful businesses, a huge number of those are ones he just sold his name to be put on by a licensing deal, he never owned or controlled them 


when will people still posting these wrong Trump memes


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*










:kobelol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Nvm


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> The fact that the media has tried to take Trump down so many times at this point to where they have thrown away and risked their "objectivity and transparency" to blatantly be biased on for Trump to still play 4D chess with them is truly astonishing.


It's hardly the whole media though is it? There is PLENTY of right wing media out there that loves Trump and goes to any length to ignore or explain away Trump negativity and do nothing but attack Hilldog. I'm not saying media isn't biased ofcourse it is, but please let's not play into some Trump victim mentality by pretending it's him versus the entire media.

Besides he is to blame for a huge part of the negative press he gets, he's been a bull in a china shop on so many occasions, ofcourse the media is going to latch on to that.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

You forget that the right wing media has been coming after Trump too.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Right wing media consumption is mainly restricted to right wing circles but left wing media is what is considered national media and consumed by fence-sitters where exposure actually matters. People who are either on the left, or the right are already going to be there. People who are in the middle get most influenced by the most easily accessible media and that's the left media.

However, I'm not concerned by the left media bias. Hillary is such a piss poor excuse of a human being that the more they try to cover for her, the worse she ends up looking anyways so at this point I'll say let the left do whatever the fuck it wants because in the end it's actually making the right look objective in comparison - probably for the first time in the right's recent history.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-supporters-audio-leak-228997
@CamillePunk @Reaper @Miss Sally

:lmao


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Way to bring up old wounds for Bernie supporters, cunt.

Hillary is going to hand Trump this election with shit like this.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

You just read the headline, didn't you


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

For what its worth, I share her evaluation of the situation.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> You just read the headline, didn't you


Because rationalizing calling them basement dwellers by saying "Its okay! She's just stating fact!" would make you sound smart?


----------



## 777

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Bozo the Clown vs the Queen of Corruption.

Don't envy Americans this election cycle.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> You just read the headline, didn't you


Sure, cuck. Not that I read Hillary being a condescending cunt to the voters she's trying to court after screwing them.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Because rationalizing calling them basement dwellers by saying "Its okay! She's just stating fact!" would make you sound smart?


I think the quote was meant to say this generation can't afford housing of their own. Not exactly labelling them as basement dwellers or a 400 pound hacker hacking the DNC.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Literally just what I was saying in my previous post. You don't have to wait long before Hillary undoes all the effort her media expends trying to make her look good.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://www.facebook.com/TrekAgainstTrumpOfficial/posts/887685388029999

fpalm


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

>People still unironically using "cuck".

lol

Not even voting for Hillary anyways, but reading the whole thing isn't as bad as the headline made it to be.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> https://www.facebook.com/TrekAgainstTrumpOfficial/posts/887685388029999
> 
> fpalm


LOL, wow that's desperate. Also Star Trek is fictional, maybe that's why they support Hillary.. they think all her scandals are fiction too! :grin2:
@tofu I agree with Hillary on her take of Bernie supporters. I feel bad for Bernie getting bullied out and fucked over but the guy has no backbone at all. Never stuck to anything he said, those poor Bernie supporters who spent money on him and now he just bought a new home, living it up while praising Hillary..


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> You forget that the right wing media has been coming after Trump too.


Like Hannity? Practically on his knees backstage _right _after the debate ready to polish Trump's pecker?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> LOL, wow that's desperate. Also Star Trek is fictional, maybe that's why they support Hillary.. they think all her scandals are fiction too! :grin2:
> @tofu I agree with Hillary on her take of Bernie supporters. I feel bad for Bernie getting bullied out and fucked over but the guy has no backbone at all. Never stuck to anything he said, those poor Bernie supporters who spent money on him and now he just bought a new home, living it up while praising Hillary..


I disagree with Bernie's politics but trying to rich-shame Bernie for buying a new house is lame. If not sticking to anything one said is a lack of backbone, wouldn't your candidate be the same? Last I checked, the Mercers are the definition of special interests in politics. And they have basically taken over Trump's campaign due to his incompetence at running one when it dawned on him bluster alone isn't enough in a national election. Also, the backpedalling of his racist birther movement once it no longer benefited him politically. Trump is the one that never stuck to anything he said. It is all on record through out the campaign.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

But he didn't just buy a new home, Bernie bought a second $600,000 summer home.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Unless there is some financial fuckery that he took money from the campaign to pay for it why should Bernie be shamed for buying a new house?


----------



## 777

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Politicians actually make very little in terms of salary...play with that thought.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

174,000 a year. I think he can afford to finance the new house. His household income of just above 200k a year would qualify him as a top 2-6% depending on the metrics.


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> At 3 AM. He just can't help himself.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781784161044553728
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781785509639118848
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781788223055994880
> She doesn't have a sex tape as far as anyone can find. The fuck is he thinking? The Machado thing would have blown over. It was a one off from the debate. Couple of days and it's forgotten and now he's just made it into something bigger. It's like the Khans. Let it go. Don't get up at 3 in the morning to start angry tweeting about. The man sees a tiny ember and throws gas on it every time. It has to be frustrating for the people in his campaign. Can just imagine Kellyanne Conaway waking up this morning, reads the news, and lets out a defeated "goddammit".


bro u cant be this innocent, that's not how cnn, msnbc, abc works, unless something really interesting. worthwile happens, they will continouslly talk about the machado lady, they basically work for Hillary . also u got remember trump is 70, he is not changing, this is who he is and if people were more honest with themselves they'll understand he's just venting a.k.a being human. its alotta pressure getting it from all size having people going out there way to make u fail, also not being a politicaian and being himself, would it be ideal for him to lay of the twitter or not fight back all the time..yes but I think a certain segment of the populace don't mind and I can tell from experience at my house we wonder why the fuck is any of this relevant to being president of the u.s but this is what sells I guess.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> He had 6 not 4 that also does not count his failed businesses as well and he did not have 515 successful businesses, a huge number of those are ones he just sold his name to be put on by a licensing deal, he never owned or controlled them
> 
> 
> when will people still posting these wrong Trump memes


I was just posting in response to a meme in with inaccurately massaged facts with another meme of the same type to create the opposite stance(le - i was making fun of the previous poster). You and i already discussed this(bankruptcies), so you know i already know the facts on this in much better detail than you, but im sure you are trying to forget that convo even happened.

What i find funny is that you quoted me about the 4 businesses in the pro trump meme, yet ignored the pro hillary post right right before me with the exact same thing. Then try to make a blanket comment about pro trump memes when its was actually a pro hillary meme that was originally being mocked.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> bro u cant be this innocent, that's not how cnn, msnbc, abc works, unless something really interesting. worthwile happens, they will continouslly talk about the machado lady, they basically work for Hillary . also u got remember trump is 70, he is not changing, this is who he is and if people were more honest with themselves they'll understand he's just venting a.k.a being human. its alotta pressure getting it from all size having people going out there way to make u fail, also not being a politicaian and being himself, would it be ideal for him to lay of the twitter or not fight back all the time..yes but I think a certain segment of the populace don't mind and I can tell from experience at my house we wonder why the fuck is any of this relevant to being president of the u.s but this is what sells I guess.


But can't you see that having people provide excuses for his behaviour on twitter of all thing and babying him every other day is something very relevant to whether to vote for Trump as president?

Think of it from another perspective. If a liberal candidate did everything Trump did or if Trump is running as a democrat, would you let things slide?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*FUCKING YES!*
@CamillePunk @Fringe @Miss Sally @Reaper @DesolationRow

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...en-debating-skills-clash-Hillary-Clinton.html


MAD MEN.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> bro u cant be this innocent, that's not how cnn, msnbc, abc works, unless something really interesting. worthwile happens, they will continouslly talk about the machado lady, they basically work for Hillary . also u got remember trump is 70, he is not changing, this is who he is and if people were more honest with themselves they'll understand he's just venting a.k.a being human. its alotta pressure getting it from all size having people going out there way to make u fail, also not being a politicaian and being himself, would it be ideal for him to lay of the twitter or not fight back all the time..yes but I think a certain segment of the populace don't mind and I can tell from experience at my house we wonder why the fuck is any of this relevant to being president of the u.s but this is what sells I guess.


Innocent? The Machado story had no legs. Donald Trump called her fat and and Miss Housekeeping in the 90s. You can't make round the clock coverage out of it for long. It would have been finished over the weekend. Now they get another weeks coverage out of it. It's another unforced error.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> *FUCKING YES!*
> @CamillePunk @Fringe @Miss Sally @Reaper @DesolationRow
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...en-debating-skills-clash-Hillary-Clinton.html
> 
> 
> MAD MEN.


Outsourcing when there are capable american workers for the job. :troll


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










:lol


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> But can't you see that having people provide excuses for his behaviour on twitter of all thing and babying him every other day is something very relevant to whether to vote for Trump as president?
> 
> Think of it from another perspective. If a liberal candidate did everything Trump did or if Trump is running as a democrat, would you let things slide?




I like trump not because he is a republican(I don't believe he is) but because of his boldness, his ruthlessness during primary, not being fake...and I don't care about his tweeting. as to if a liberal did the same thing...idk to be honest, but its not like im voting for trump even though id rather he be president


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> Innocent? The Machado story had no legs. Donald Trump called her fat and and Miss Housekeeping in the 90s. You can't make round the clock coverage out of it for long. It would have been finished over the weekend. Now they get another weeks coverage out of it. It's another unforced error.


yea but in the eyes of the political class...how does him doing what he did, diminish his capacity to lead a nation? he's human, we all are .we all got our weak points, trumps is he feel the need to respond to slights...which isn't as bad as being corrupt and a political whore


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@Tater @CamillePunk @AryaDark @Reaper

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-com...-and-senior-leadership-yellen-says-1475179202



> Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen said Thursday there could be benefits to allowing the central bank to buy stocks as a way to boost the economy in a downturn.
> 
> Speaking to a minority bankers’ conference at the Kansas City Fed via videoconference, Ms. Yellen said stock-buying could be a tool for policy makers in the future.
> 
> “There could be benefits to the ability to buy either equities or corporate bonds,” she said in reply to a question from the audience. “There would also be costs as well that would have to be carefully considered in deciding whether that would be a good idea.”
> 
> The Fed doesn’t have legal authority to buy stocks. After the financial crisis, it bought Treasurys and mortgage-backed securities to push down long-term yields to encourage borrowing, spending, hiring and investment.
> 
> In an appearance before the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday, Ms. Yellen said the Fed wouldn’t be able to buy equities unless Congress changed the law.
> 
> Fed officials have been thinking about new tools it can use to make policy now that interest rates and inflation are expected to remain low for the foreseeable future. That leaves less room to cut short-term borrowing costs to spur economic activity, the Fed’s primary policy measure.
> 
> “If our economy were hit by a negative shock and the Fed needed to intervene to stimulate the economy, we have less room using our conventional overnight interest rate tool to do that,” Ms. Yellen said Thursday. “We need a wider range of tools.”
> 
> Other central banks, including the Swiss National Bank and the Bank of Japan, already use stock and exchange-traded fund purchases as a monetary policy instrument. Officials at the European Central Bank also haven’t ruled it out.
> 
> Ms. Yellen didn’t discuss the likely path of interest rates this year or the state of the economy.
> 
> Ms. Yellen also vowed to promote a diverse workforce at the central bank as “the right thing to do.”
> 
> “I am committed to improving diversity throughout our organization, including at the upper ranks,” she said. That effort extends to the boards of directors and advisory councils of the regional banks, she added.
> 
> Ms. Yellen’s appearance at the Kansas City Fed conference represents another step by top Fed officials to improve the institution’s outreach to women and minority groups. Advocacy organizations, particularly the Center for Popular Democracy’s Fed Up campaign, have criticized the Fed’s leadership for being overwhelmingly white and male.
> 
> Ms. Yellen’s remarks came two days after Fed Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer told an audience at Howard University in Washington that the economics profession needs more diversity.
> 
> “We need—and by that I mean society as a whole needs—a more diverse set of practitioners in economics, practitioners who may perceive different questions to be important and different answers to be more persuasive,” he said.


With this election cycle coming to a close, the FED continues in mind to be one of the most important topics in American Politics and by far the least covered aspect. As with the duopoly, the establishment continues to turn a blind eye to the most important of issues with only Trump every now and then bringing the issue up more as a political point score than anything of substance.

So the folly with the Federal Reserve continues, adding more means as it were to encourage short term borrowing and spending in the event of an economic downturn. What's worse is the buying of stock market bonds in order to secure these set short term measures. The only winners in this sort of event is Wall Street, the ordinary citizen continues to get messed over by the ponzi scheme known as Central Banking. Furthermore, with several artificial bubbles in the economy and with the FED being guilty of playing a role in propping up the mortgage bubble leading directly to the 2008 crash, Yellen wants to prop up the stock market in the exact same way; one of the most volatile and least secure markets in the economy.

These people live on a different planet from everyone else it's unbelievable.

I need your expert analysis of this suggestion @DesolationRow.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> yea but in the eyes of the political class...how does him doing what he did, diminish his capacity to lead a nation? he's human, we all are .we all got our weak points, trumps is he feel the need to respond to slights...which isn't as bad as being corrupt and a political whore


Me pointing it out ≠ defending her, but he shows a lack of impulse control which is a bad trait in a leader.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> Me pointing it out ≠ defending her, but he shows a lack of impulse control which is a bad trait in a leader.


You can't be a leader without being impulsive. If you're too cautious, then you can't become a leader either. 

Sure, him randomly tweeting in the middle of the night like a teenager with a chip on her shoulder is a terrible idea for a president, but here's the thing. At least we know that it's HIM tweeting and not some PR shill like it is for everyone else. 

He gets bonus points for not hiding behind a paid shill and actually using his own twitter.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> You can't be a leader without being impulsive. If you're too cautious, then you can't become a leader either.
> 
> Sure, him randomly tweeting in the middle of the night like a teenager with a chip on her shoulder is a terrible idea for a president, but here's the thing. At least we know that it's HIM tweeting and not some PR shill like it is for everyone else.
> 
> He gets bonus points for not hiding behind a paid shill and actually using his own twitter.


Yeah you can be too cautious, but this isn't impulsive like a decision that has to be made quickly. This is everyone has told him doing this is a bad idea and he cant stop himself. Look it's happened before and it will happen again. It's not a disqualifying trait, but it is a bad idea.

Do agree that it's at least interesting to see a public figure that doesn't just have a team sanitizing all their social media. Wonder how many hours someone in the West Wing agonizes over a tweet before posting it on Obama's account.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Tater said:


> @Miss Sally
> 
> TBF, while elections in other countries might not have much of an effect on the USA, what happens with USA elections does kinda affect the entire world. It's understandable why people from other countries would pay attention to what happens here. You know how the USA is. We meddle in fuckin' _everyone's_ business. I know we both wish it wasn't that way but it kinda is and has been that way for a long time now. That's not going to change any time soon.


Trump is the best candidate to stop meddling in other countries affairs.

But hes scary because he says things that hurts peoples feelings, so to the rest of the world:

Enjoy your war mongering hillary


----------



## amhlilhaus

777 said:


> Politicians actually make very little in terms of salary...play with that thought.


And studies consistently show that these guys and gals net worth explodes, by 4 to 5 times after a couple years in congress.

Net worth 250 k

Salary 250k x 2

Net worth 1.5 million

Does NOT add up.

Only logical explanation is cash bribes


----------



## amhlilhaus

Beatles123 said:


> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-supporters-audio-leak-228997
> @CamillePunk @Reaper @Miss Sally


I hate the hag more than anybody. I clicked on gleefully expecting her to destroy berniebots but, 

I actually dont think it was that bad. What shes said about trump supporters has been far worse


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> In the wake of a New York Times report revealing that Donald Trump claimed a $916 million dollar loss in 1995 according to leaked tax forms, surrogate for the GOP presidential nominee Rudy Giuliani said, “he's a genius.”
> 
> Giuliani, a former New York City mayor, said Trump took advantage of tax laws as, he said, a good businessman should.
> 
> “He would have been a fool not to take advantage” of the laws, he ABC News' George Stephanopoulos on "This Week"
> 
> Giuliani also emphasized that what Trump did was “perfectly legal."
> 
> As to the size of the business loss that Trump claimed, Giuliani cited the Republican presidential candidate's 1987 bestselling book “The Art of The Deal,” that “every great man has had failures.”
> 
> Giuliani said the U.S. needs a “a man who knows how to fail and then come back.”
> 
> "[Trump] went down and went all the way back up," the former mayor said. "American needs a turnaround artist,”


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-claim-916-million-loss-shows-hes-genius/story?id=42497011


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hill quitting Nevada slowly?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-claim-916-million-loss-shows-hes-genius/story?id=42497011


In the same vein, can Hilldog be called a 'genius politician' for obfuscating her email scandal?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Donation e-mails are so gross. :lol






Condescending Hollywood elite blown the fuck out. :banderas


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*












> (K.R.) As if you needed more reason to disdain the media this election season... The New York Times has been pounding Trump after it obtained his tax records for 1995, which show a loss of $900 million. The newspaper speculates that the real estate tycoon used the loss to offset income in later years, thus insinuating that he "did not pay his fair share of taxes".
> 
> Not only is carrying forward loses completely legal, but now comes word that the New York Times itself used accounting loopholes to get out of paying taxes in 2014. The company made a profit of $29.9 million, yet paid no taxes and even got an income tax refund of $3.5 million. Their 2014 annual report explained: “The effective tax rate for 2014 was favorably affected by approximately $21.1 million for the reversal of reserves for uncertain tax positions due to the lapse of applicable statutes of limitations.”
> 
> The New York Times also built it's headquarters on land seized by the government under the power of eminent domain from ten different owners, some of whom did not want to sell, and negotiated $26 million in tax breaks in exchange for keeping jobs in New York City.
> 
> Yet fast forward 2 years and the notoriously left-leaning publication is now calling Donald Trump out for using the law to minimize his taxes. That, folks, is what hypocrisy looks like.
> 
> SOURCES: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffrey...orate-taxes-reaches-record-high/#2de1912f6577


Interestingly Forbes had already called them out for their Hypocricy as early as Jan 2016.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Donation e-mails are so gross. :lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Condescending Hollywood elite blown the fuck out. :banderas


Nice one. The original video should've come with a vomit bag. What the fuck do I care what a bunch of actors think. Good on you for being a successful actor but lets not pretend your political views matter to anyone else.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

My favorites are the ones where the actors and singers threaten to leave the country and never perform here again if their candidate loses the election. Where have they gone? :mj4


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> In the same vein, can Hilldog be called a 'genius politician' for obfuscating her email scandal?


Have to admit that her ability to shrug off scandals and actual criminal activity is second to none. She would have made a good Madam mob boss.

Also we don't agree on a lot but your opinion here matters more to me than some actors. You're saying what you think, even if it's not serious. Actors just rally around whomever pays or whatever new fad is in. They don't really care, how can they? no matter what they're rich. It's a lame they try to use their position to force their own personal opinions or whatever else they think onto everyone else. Imagine if everyone did that everyday? Go to get your coffee, get a lecture on what you should be doing political wise!


----------



## Raven

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Watching how trump's advisor failed to answer the question about trump's tax report made me feel sorry for him and any one who supports this crook

Video is right here

[USER]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMQFUBMMwnQ[/USER]


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So Trump is one of the 47%er Romney was talking about. :lol


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

>tax records leak
>nyt illegally publishes them
>revealed trump didnt have to pay taxes for years because of little known part of the tax code
>hillary and her campaign rail against him
>call him a tax dodger
>blame he and the rich for the governments current state
>blame the rich for the failure of government programs
>revealed that the leaked tax records came from WITHIN trump tower
>revealed that nyt could face legal consequences for publishing the tax return
>revealed that nyt payed NO taxes in 2014
>revealed that it was BILL CLINTON that put that particular dodge into our tax code
>revealed the HILLARY HERSELF USED THE EXACT SAME LOOPHOLE TO AVOID PAYING TAXES!

19 dimensional, backwards, upside down, interstellar magnetchess!

He cant be fucking stumped.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Just admit you got played by the conman and move on from defending the indefensible. Geez.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Just admit you got played by the conman and move on from defending the indefensible. Geez.


No.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@L-DOPA @DesolationRow @Reaper @AryaDark @BruiserKC



> *Installing a President by Force: Hillary Clinton and Our Moribund Democracy*
> 
> The Democratic National Committee tilted the primary season to favor Hillary Clinton. This might be seen benignly as an aberration, a negligible prank in the messy world of politics. It was not an aberration.
> 
> Unless the nation lapses into lunacy on November 8, Hillary Clinton will be our next president.
> 
> The prospect raises an alarming question we’ve never before confronted.
> 
> How can a thriving democracy conceivably elect a president who is dishonest and untrustworthy in the minds of 59% of the people? A woman shown to be a felon but not prosecuted for want of precedent? A woman who lies and contradicts herself, documented in video clips? A bold hypocrite who solicits and accepts hundreds of millions in campaign contributions from Wall Street banks, the armaments industry, and Big Pharma, and claims to abhor Citizens United which enables her to do so?
> 
> The answer: we live in a moribund democracy, not a thriving one. A conjunction of corporate political power and immense wealth is forcibly installing a president. We haven’t confronted this before, either. We will cast our ritual ballots in November, but not in a free election: the Democratic nominee was imposed upon us by the corporate and the wealthy.
> 
> No, we have not been finessed by a patrician coup d’etat nor a secret cabal in sinister conspiracy. Instead we are victimized by systemic corruption in five institutions of public practice, and it is subverting our democracy.
> 
> Of immediate concern is the corruption in the Democratic Party. Directly violating the requirement for strict neutrality throughout the primaries, the Democratic National Committee intervened in the process at every opportunity, handicapping the Sanders campaign to assure Hillary Clinton’s nomination. The effort was covert, but it was suspected, finally exposed, and ultimately successful.
> 
> This was the engine of coercion, the denial of democracy, and the reason we will likely suffer a president unworthy of our trust. The corruption was not an aberration, nor was it unique and isolated: it flourished in a matrix of decadent institutions in which democracy cannot survive.
> 
> *The Corruption of Corporate Regulation*
> 
> Corporations are indispensable in our economy, but they are capable of imposing intolerable social costs: savaging their labor forces, marketing shoddy or dangerous products, overtly bribing or unduly inducing governments to do their will, ravaging landscapes for raw materials, acquiring other corporations to grow without limit, and restraining the market competition that assures equitable pricing.
> 
> Corporations must be subordinated to the welfare of society at large and for most of our history they have been—through government regulation.
> 
> An epic battle between corporate enterprise and the federal government raged throughout the 19th century and into the 20th, and every single one of the listed abuses was eventually prohibited by law.
> 
> But in episodic fits and starts the legal restraints on corporate behavior were repealed or relaxed—for the most part in the anti-government frenzy of the Reagan years—or substantially ignored. Deregulation was rampant, and it continued into the Administrations of George H.W. Bush and William Clinton.
> 
> The most serious of the policy reversals was the effective termination of anti-trust enforcement. Virtually every one of our industries has been consolidated into fewer and fewer but ever larger corporate structures.
> 
> The power of ballooning corporations grew in both economic and political terms. One result is our hollowed-out, flaccid domestic economy, and the powerful upward shift in wealth and incomes it has occasioned. Another is the inordinate influence corporations exert on the political system, challenging democracy with sponsored policy think-tanks, thousands of lobbyists, unlimited contributions to political campaigns, and constantly revolving doors.
> 
> *The Corruption of Objective Journalism*
> 
> Nowhere is corporate concentration more pernicious than in the information industry—the “mass media.”
> 
> Print and electronic media dominate the private and public discourse of the nation with their content messaging—news, documentation, and entertainment programming—and their commercial messaging—advertising. If this massive information flow is not to threaten democracy the sources must be many, varied, decentralized, and not constrained in any way.
> 
> At one time they were: in 1983 the ownership of 90% of the American mass-media outlets was spread among fifty corporations—newspaper chains, movie studios, magazines, book publishers, and local radio and TV stations affiliated with a number of national networks.
> 
> By 2011 that 90% was owned by six gigantic media conglomerates. Today there are five.
> 
> Professional journalists seek to discover and provide objective information, and their ethic dominated the smaller companies. But the media conglomerates are driven by the MBA ethic of their professional managers: maximizing shareholder value. The programming mix underwent a sea-change, accordingly: entertainment and spectacle attract and retain far larger audiences—and hence sell more advertising—than stodgy news programming.
> 
> And such programming is far less expensive to produce: the newsrooms were savaged, the news-gatherers decimated. Bring on the Kardashians.
> 
> Investigative journalism is indispensable for well-informed democracy to thrive. If not arguably dead, it is rarely visible today.
> 
> For entertainment and spectacle, the Kardashians can’t lay a finger on professional football. For half the year the mass media are saturated with it, exploiting its irresistible attraction of ongoing conflict and suspense: the preseason, the regular season, the playoffs, the Super Bowl. The spectacle of football is unmatched for generating advertising revenues.
> 
> There is one exception: the presidential election process, which displays the same attraction of ongoing conflict and suspense. The parallels are striking: early debates as preseason, primaries as regular season, conventions as playoffs, and then a political Super Bowl in November. And the season is three times as long, advertising revenues three times greater.
> 
> The media conglomerates quickly transformed presidential politics into a spectacle of sport.
> 
> Football programming is lucrative because audiences are predictably large and constant, and they are strongly polarized. Opposing fans are enemies, and nothing in the football experience is either complex or sophisticated. The conflict is everything and resolution simple: who will be victorious, who vanquished? Could politics be fashioned into a similar experience, with divisions in the audience equally as stark?
> 
> The media succeeded in doing so.
> 
> When Rupert Murdoch replaced objective journalism with political evangelism, the process was underway. Created as the voice of hard-right conservative ideology, Fox News became the house organ for the Republican Party. Rupert Murdoch’s financial success made Fox News the template for corporate journalism, and MSNBC was soon the countervailing force of liberalism and the Democrats.
> 
> Their formats are identical: cheerleading, sarcasm, and ridicule—species of entertainment and spectacle.
> 
> The sense of collective citizenship among the American people soon yielded to vigorous, even rabid partisanship. Democrats and Republicans became the fans of opposing teams, and we follow the presidential campaign with passion and malevolence, hoping our team will crush the opponent, finally, in the political Super Bowl. Civil discourse, respectful disagreement, reasoned argument have disappeared in our culture; they are not displayed by the fans of opposing teams.
> 
> The media conglomerates have made us a nation of sports fans, uninformed, unaware of democracy’s decay.
> 
> *The Corruption of the Rule of Law*
> 
> Tilting the primaries in Hillary Clinton’s favor was briefly noted by the media conglomerates—after Julian Assange exposed it—and then put out of mind. No questions raised, no investigation undertaken, not even a normative comment. Breaking the rules was abjectly condoned.
> 
> It was condoned by Hillary Clinton’s appointment of DNC Chair Wasserman-Schultz to a prestigious post in the campaign. It was condoned by President Obama, who praised Wasserman-Schultz’ for her work with the party.
> 
> Monstrous violations are tolerated. President Bush lied to Congress about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. The criminal behavior was massively evident, but no prosecution was suggested by the mainstream media. No questions raised, no investigation undertaken, not even normative comment. Mr. Bush then invaded two sovereign nations without provocation, violating the United Nations charter. The media corporations delighted in the spectacle, treating warfare as a mortal sporting event, but addressed the criminality not at all.
> 
> Years later the Wall Street mega-banks—in another heavily concentrated industry—were near collapse from their fraudulent activities. The Bush Administration chose not prosecute them for breaking laws but to reward them with trillions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts. By his oath of office Mr. Bush was sworn to prosecute criminality, not to encourage it, but the media said nothing.
> 
> When Barack Obama took office he elected not to pursue his predecessor’s lawlessness. He, too, violated his oath to support the Constitution, which states, “…the president shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” There are no asterisks.
> 
> The media conglomerates noted the new president’s desire, as he said, “…to look forward, not backward,” and then fell silent.
> 
> The Obama Administration did address Wall Street’s lawbreaking, but the response was a travesty. Mr. Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder joined government service from Covington, Burling, a law firm listing the guilty banks among its long-term clients. Instead of prosecuting the bank executives, he negotiated financial penalties to be paid from corporate funds. This was political window dressing; the fines were trivial, and the executives never faced trial. Mr. Holder then walked back through the revolving door to his post at Covington, Burling.
> 
> His was not faithful execution of laws, either, but the corporate media raised no questions, undertook no investigation….
> 
> Democracy is threatened by casual respect for the Constitution.
> 
> *The Corruption of Campaign Finance*
> 
> The total cost of the Congressional and presidential campaigns in 2008 was $5.3 billion. Two years later the Supreme Court rendered its infamous Citizens United decision, creating Super PACs and allowing corporations to make unlimited political contributions. In 2012, consequently, campaign spending jumped by nearly a third, to $7.0 billion.
> 
> Much of that money sluiced in from corporations, but America’s mega-wealthy individuals displayed their patriotism as well. $396 million—60.4% of all the funds pooled by Super PACs—was donated by 132 wealthy men and women.
> 
> On a pie chart of the 2012 campaign spending published by Demos, contributions from individual citizens totaled less than ½ of 1%.
> Running for office is obscenely expensive. In 2012 the costs of a senatorial campaign averaged $10.5 million, a House campaign $1.7 million, and the presidential candidates each spent more than $1 billion each.
> 
> Elected officials strapped to such extravagant costs brush close to indentured servitude; they enter a symbiotic relationship with their various benefactors, and share an interest in sustaining it.
> 
> The extravagance and servitude are utterly unnecessary and wholly unprecedented. The Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1910 limited not contributions to political campaigns, but capped instead the candidates’ expenditures. It is pointless to raise money you can’t spend; the modest limit of $10,000 for Senators and $5,000 for Representatives could be raised quickly from personal assets, family, and friends. It had to be: corporations were explicitly prohibited in the law from making political contributions.
> The law was repealed in 1971.
> 
> *Moribund Democracy—the end game*
> 
> The U.S. no longer displays a thriving democracy: hard evidence is accumulating to document this in rigorous, scholarly research. Studying almost 1,800 issues of public policy, political scientists Martin Gillens and Benjamin Page said this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> …economic elites and…business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
> 
> 
> 
> Two other political scientists, Bastiaan van Apeldoorn and Nana de Graaff, looked into the “grand strategy makers,” the 30 most influential people in cabinet-level and senior advisory positions in the last three administrations—Bill Clinton’s, Bush’s, and Obama’s. In the Clinton Administration, 25 of the 30 “grand strategy makers” (83%) were linked to 197 different corporations, as executives, directors, senior associates, or partners in law firms, either prior to their public service or after it. In the Bush Administration 27 of the 30 (90%) had connections to 157 corporations. In the Obama Administration 23 of the 30 (over 70%) had such “top-level corporate affiliations” with 111 companies. Most of the companies involved were financial institutions and transnational corporations.
> 
> Oligarchy is rule by the few. Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy. Corporatocracy is a society governed or controlled by corporations. We have all three.
> 
> The conjunction of corporate political power and immense wealth has a lock on Washington. The citizens comprising it—“the 1%” in common parlance—are prospering as never before: the upward shift of wealth and incomes continues, accompanied by expanding, apparently dominant political influence.
> 
> The people of the 1% inducted Bill and Hillary Clinton into their ranks, by enriching them over four decades with an astonishing $3 billion in various contributions, commissions, and speaking fees. (See the documentation in the Washington Post here.) All five of the Clintons’ previous campaigns have been lavishly financed by them, Hillary’s current candidacy even more so, and the Clintons over all those years have served them well.
> 
> So have the corrupted institutions. The Democratic National Committee would not and could not have thumbed the scale without the unfettering of corporations, without the distraction by entertainment and spectacle, without the cavalier respect for laws, without a grotesque system of campaign funding.
> 
> The mortal imperative for the wealthy and powerful is to keep the status quo inviolate. Hillary Clinton’s nomination would assure that. Senator Sanders’ call for political revolution was an intolerable threat, particularly when it was so enthusiastically endorsed by twelve million voters, 44% of the national total.
> 
> In the end, the imposition of Hillary Clinton was a cliff-hanger. Even after the fraudulent primaries she did not have enough democratically-elected delegates to secure the nomination. 7% short of the requisite 2,382, she needed the votes of 163 unelected superdelegates, those empowered by the Democratic National Committee.
> 
> Hillary Clinton’s presidency will change nothing of substance because she is a creature of the corruption. Corporate dominion will prevail. Entertainment and spectacle will displace awareness with delusion. Laws will be ignored for financial or political gain. Governance will be marketed. Democracy will be a myth and a memory.
> 
> SOURCE
Click to expand...


----------



## Loudness

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I was just watching a news site today here on a german website of "5 top moments in their debate" and all moments were her talking over Trump...feels sad.

I don't know what's worse, putting white trash whores in her places (Clinton) or actually supporting a white trash guy for actually supporting common sense while still leaving logic out of the window 99% of times. 

I hope Trump wins simply because he's a male and white as he supports those rights, but I do know this idiot will fuck up things beyond belief aswell. What is he gonna call the politicians in other countries once arguments get heated? Fat pigs? LMAO, this world is doomed...fml.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Donation e-mails are so gross. :lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Condescending Hollywood elite blown the fuck out. :banderas


Holy fuck, this was GLORIOUS. :mj4

Look at all those racists, sexists, and deplorables, fam. :heston


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Loudness said:


> I hope Trump wins simply because he's a male and white as he supports those rights, but I do know this idiot will fuck up things beyond belief aswell. What is he gonna call the politicians in other countries once arguments get heated? Fat pigs? LMAO, this world is doomed...fml.


I see nothing wrong with that. 

I also don't see how the situation of the world will get worse just because of that considering what the state of the world is already now under Obama and Clinton. 

Never forget that those two (and the dems in general) are the primary reason why the ISIS thrived post Iraq just like Al Qaeda and Taliban thrived under Bill. Yes, I include Bill in this because once Operation Cyclone was over, it too left a massive power vacuum in Afghanistan which led to the rise of Taliban in exactly the same way as it did the rise of ISIS and that happened throughout Bill Cliton's terms as president in the 90's. 

The world is headed towards doom either way, so I don't think calling a few world leaders fat pigs, or cunts or whatever is going to make things any worse.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This is all I can think of every time $hillary bloviates about economics and the economy.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Beatles123 said:


>


Yeah, i loathe bill clinton but im not falling for that one


----------



## The Bliss Blower

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I am voting for Trump, we need to keep these thugs of the streets and also restrict immigration so we dont end up like Europe.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Another gaffe that would have sank any other candidate, but just another day for Trump. fpalm


----------



## amhlilhaus

FriedTofu said:


> Another gaffe that would have sank any other candidate, but just another day for Trump.


That wouldnt have sunk hillary either.

Both candidates are bulletproof to their diehards


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> That wouldnt have sunk hillary either.
> 
> Both candidates are bulletproof to their diehards


You must be confusing Hillary with Obama.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

How is that a gaffe or unreasonable in any way? :kobe


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

He just implied people who has PTSD as weak because he couldn't resist the urge to pander to the crowd he was talking to. How is that not a gaffe?


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Another gaffe that would have sank any other candidate, but just another day for Trump. fpalm


What's so bad about that statement?

Many people DO have severe difficulty dealing with what they see and experience in war and combat, so much so, in fact, that veteran suicide has become a rather alarming issue. All he's done here is draw spotlight to how much of a problem PTSD really is among the military community. So, why is this such an alleged "gaffe," exactly?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> He just implied people who has PTSD as weak because he couldn't resist the urge to pander to the crowd he was talking to. How is that not a gaffe?


I don't know if you know this or not, but there is such a thing as being more resistant to PTSD which is why not every veteran suffers from it after being exposed to the same things. There's also a significant over-diagnosis of PTSD amongst war vets and just because they're war vets they have taken significant advantage of playing the victim after coming back.

Linked without pay-wall 

Sure, I will like many others be willing to give someone that has been ravaged by war the benefit of the doubt and choose my words wisely and I do think that Trump should simply avoid this issue even though it is a real issue that ought to be talked about. 

The military recruitment is essentially suffering because America has been at war for more than a decade and a half and therefore letting in men that are weaker than they would have under ideal circumstances. 

Sure, I'm not willing to give Trump the credit for saying what he didn't say and I think he's just quoting someone who knew more than him about the subject like he has done several times - however, blowing his comment out of proportion is also something that only people with an anti-Trump agenda are doing at this point. 

I do agree that this is a gaffe and that he could have been more precise, but unfortunately for people like you and pretty much every other anti-Trump person on the planet, whether he adds nuance to his words or not still will not matter (and I've seen that it doesn't matter) because you don't actually care about any of the issues being discussed this election but only the surface of how something said can make a particular candidate look like Hitler.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

In one week Trump is regresing close to the level of his numbers at the end of august. In all the forecasts he's losing NC, Florida y Nevada now and close to start losing in Ohio, at the same time he not only need to regain those states but fight on PA, CO and NH.

Asumming he can still win Nevada, Florida and NC he need to back track in the latter states which are solid blue, and regain the numbers it cost him one month to obtain. In the mean time his camp has starting a serious attack on Bill's infidelities (A certified no-no with voters) and need to clean this tax controversy.

Unless we have a serious non accounted phenomena like a massive turn out of under-college whites or a low turn out in general i say this is Hillary race to lose now (and i mean no more health or scandals shit)


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> What's so bad about that statement?
> 
> Many people DO have severe difficulty dealing with what they see and experience in war and combat, so much so, in fact, that veteran suicide has become a rather alarming issue. All he's done here is draw spotlight to how much of a problem PTSD really is among the military community. So, why is this such an alleged "gaffe," exactly?


The gaffe is Trump implying people who suffer from PTSD are not as strong as the people he was addressing because they didn't suffer from PTSD. Remember this is coming from the guy that dodged the draft with a phoney medical condition before.



Reaper said:


> I don't know if you know this or not, but there is such a thing as being more resistant to PTSD which is why not every veteran suffers from it after being exposed to the same things. There's also a significant over-diagnosis of PTSD amongst war vets and just because they're war vets they have taken significant advantage of playing the victim after coming back.
> 
> Linked without pay-wall
> 
> Sure, I will like many others be willing to give someone that has been ravaged by war the benefit of the doubt and choose my words wisely and I do think that Trump should simply avoid this issue even though it is a real issue that ought to be talked about.
> 
> The military recruitment is essentially suffering because America has been at war for more than a decade and a half and therefore letting in men that are weaker than they would have under ideal circumstances.
> 
> Sure, I'm not willing to give Trump the credit for saying what he didn't say and I think he's just quoting someone who knew more than him about the subject like he has done several times - however, blowing his comment out of proportion is also something that only people with an anti-Trump agenda are doing at this point.
> 
> I do agree that this is a gaffe and that he could have been more precise, but unfortunately for people like you and pretty much every other anti-Trump person on the planet, whether he adds nuance to his words or not still will not matter (and I've seen that it doesn't matter) because you don't actually care about any of the issues being discussed this election but only the surface of how something said can make a particular candidate look like Hitler.


So you admit it was gaffe, but couldn't resist the urge to try to spin his ignorance and words as something positive, and end it with attack on people who point out how unfit for presidency Trump is to appear to be still teamTrump. :clap


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> The gaffe is Trump implying people who suffer from PTSD are not as strong as the people he was addressing because they didn't suffer from PTSD. Remember this is coming from the guy that dodged the draft with a phoney medical condition before.


He didn't say anything about relative strength. You necessarily have to be making presumptive, and largely baseless leaps to arrive at the above basis for calling this a "gaffe."

Sounds to me like you're projecting your own biased interpretation into things, or alternatively, you're just regurgitating the MSM's desperate narrative, practically verbatim.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> He didn't say anything about relative strength. You necessarily have to be making presumptive, and largely baseless leaps to arrive at the above basis for calling this a "gaffe."
> 
> Sounds to me like you're projecting your own biased interpretation into things, or alternatively, you're just regurgitating the MSM's desperate narrative, practically verbatim.


He tried to pander to the audience with his usual trick of peppering flattery in between his sentences saying they are strong and can handle it. Implying those that couldn't handle it aren't strong. It was unneeded, but Trump couldn't help himself and created this whole mess.

definition of a gaffe:
an unintentional act or remark causing embarrassment to its originator; a blunder.

So how is it not a gaffe?

Seems like you are the one projecting your bias by defaulting to MSM = bad whenever Trump says something inappropriate or offensive.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> So how is it not a gaffe?


As previously stated, what he said is a valid and factually-backed observation on the issue of PTSD as it affects and relates to military veterans. Iterating facts on specific issues, and drawing attention to them as part of a message and platform isn't a blunder.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> As previously stated, what he said is a valid and factually-backed observation on the issue of PTSD as it affects and relates to military veterans. Iterating facts on specific issues, and drawing attention to them as part of a message and platform isn't a blunder.


So do you agree people who suffer from PTSD aren't as strong as the veterans in the audience that didn't suffer from PTSD?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Seems hillary wants to drone strike assange


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> So do you agree people who suffer from PTSD aren't as strong as the veterans in the audience that didn't suffer from PTSD?


Relative, arbitrary notions about "strength" is not the issue here, and frankly, I have no idea why you continue to obsess over this entirely irrelevant red herring. The point of this statement wasn't about strength and weakness. For all I know, and for all Trump knows, there may very well have been members of that audience suffering from varying degrees of PTSD--*and he even allowed for this possibility in the words he chose in this statement*. He didn't say "everyone" in the audience, he said "maybe a lot of folks in this room." But, again, *none* of this was even his central point. And the fact that you fail to grasp this so completely is rather sad, quite honestly. You seem so pedantically consumed with semantic nonsense that you're completely deaf to the actual substance of the issue at hand. 

I agree, and think it's demonstrably true that some people who experience war/combat are significantly more affected by their experience in war/combat than others, and that PTSD is a severe issue that requires and warrants much more attention, particularly among the often-neglected veteran community. PTSD is something that is not discussed often enough, or given nearly enough attention for how much of a problem it is and has become. It's still largely a mystery to the medical community in many ways. And given how many other significant problems it can lead to, it certainly demands the attention it has been given here. Unfortunately, some people are so obviously blinded by their warped political lens that they can't be bothered to focus on any of this, because they're so infatuated with inventing ways to defame Trump.

It's a rather sad commentary on things when a good opportunity to further the discussion on PTSD (which we have been well aware of for many, many decades, even when we called it by different names) gets drowned out by warped interests who are more invested in nitpicking Trump than actually discussing the issue at hand.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> *The Biggest Heist in Human History*
> by Mike Whitney
> 
> Here’s your economics quiz for the day:
> 
> Question 1– What do you think would happen if you put $3 trillion into the financial system?
> 
> a–Stock prices would rise
> 
> b–Stock prices would fall
> 
> c–Stock prices would stay the same
> 
> Question 2– What do you think would happen if you put $3 trillion into the economy? (Via fiscal stimulus for infrastructure projects, extended unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc)
> 
> a–Activity would increase and the economy would grow
> 
> b–Activity would slow and the economy would shrink
> 
> c–Activity would stay the same, so growth would remain unchanged
> 
> If you picked “a” for both questions, then pat yourself on the back because you got the right answers.
> 
> Now try to answer this one, last “bonus” question:
> 
> Question 3– If adding money to the financial system boosts asset prices, and adding money to the economy boosts growth, then why did the Fed add $3 trillion to the financial system expecting the economy to grow?
> 
> Is the Fed confused about how the economy works? Is the Fed confused about how the financial system works?
> 
> Probably not. There’s probably some other explanation altogether, after all, why would someone put gas in their radiator when the gas-tank is empty. That’s not going to provide fuel for the engine, is it? The same rule applies to stimulus. The only way stimulus can work is if its put where it’s needed. And we can now say with 100 percent certainty, that the Fed’s stimulus wasn’t put where it was needed which is why it hasn’t worked.
> 
> How do we know that?
> 
> Just take a look at GDP. Second Quarter GDP came in at a dismal 1.2 percent even though interest rates are still locked at near-zero and the Fed is still recycling the cash from maturing bonds into more government debt.
> 
> Do you know what 1.2 percent GDP means?
> 
> It means that spending is weak, business investment is anemic, personal consumption is in the toilet and credit growth is kaput. It means that the economy has basically stopped breathing, been taken off the respirator and is being rushed to the morgue for embalming before rigor mortis sets in. It means that the people who are assigned the task of managing the system either don’t know how the system works or have an ulterior motive for the policies they’re using.
> 
> So, which is it? Is the Fed a moron or a liar?
> 
> Now we’ve all heard the expression, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result”.
> 
> Well, the Fed has been doing the same thing for the last seven years — dumping money into the financial system while predicting stronger growth. That would seem to suggest that the Fed is insane, but is the Fed insane?
> 
> No, in fact, the members of the FOMC are extremely-bright, well-educated professionals who have a solid grasp of the economy and the many intricacies of the financial system. These are smart guys, real smart. So, maybe they have an ulterior motive. Maybe that’s why they’ve stuck with the same failed policies all these years.
> 
> But if they have an ulterior motive, then what is it? What are they trying to achieve?
> 
> The easiest way to answer that question is by simply following the money. We’ve already seen that QE and zero rates have done nothing for growth, so –the question is– where have these policies had the greatest impact?
> 
> Why, the stock market, of course!
> 
> Did you know that the Dow Jones Industrials (DJIA) bottomed on March 9, 2009 at 6,507. As of Thursday (9-15-16), the Dow finished the day at 18,211 nearly three times higher. The same goes for the S and P 500 which slipped to 676 in March 2009, but rebounded to 2,147 as of yesterday afternoon. Then there’s the Nasdaq which fared even better bouncing back from an abysmal 1,268 in 2009 to a lofty 5,249 yesterday.
> 
> Now if stocks rise due to fundamentals, then that’s just great because it means the underlying strength of the economy is driving prices higher. But if stock prices rise because the people who are supposed to be the referees (The Fed) are gaming the system by printing up trillions of dollars and sticking it in the financial markets so their crooked friends can send their kids to Ivy League schools and drive around in Lamborghinis, then it’s not so great.
> 
> When the Fed pumps liquidity directly into the financial system, that liquidity cannot accurately be called “monetary stimulus”. It’s not stimulus anymore than if the Fed put a billion bucks into your fledgling-Podunk landscape business. It’s a subsidy, a gift, a handout. Even so, $3 trillion is a lot of money, enough money to light a fire under stocks and send them into the stratosphere. Which it has. But let’s not kid ourselves, stocks didn’t triple because production, earnings and growth are all going great-guns. That’s not it at all, in fact, they’re all unusually weak. Stocks are in record territory because the Fed’s relentless interventions have kept them elevated, which has propped up the insolvent banking system and generated gigantic profits for Wall Street.
> 
> And while rising stock prices don’t necessarily prove that the Fed has an ulterior motive; identifying the people who benefit from those inflated prices certainly does. After all, who owns stocks and bonds?
> 
> We can break these people up into three separate groups; The pretty rich, the very rich and the filthy rich. These are the people who own stocks and who benefit from the Fed’s policies.
> 
> So what does this tell us about the Fed’s “full employment, price stability” mandate?
> 
> It tells us its baloney. It tells us its public relations-hype designed to bamboozle the sheeple who can’t see what’s going on right beneath their noses. It tells us the Fed has a secret mandate to assist the profit-accumulation process for the Kleptocrat class of ivy league moochers. (Wall Street) It tells us that the Fed’s real job is implement the policies that best facilitate the upward distribution of wealth. It tells us that the Fed’s so called “independence” is a complete and utter fraud and that if Janet Yellen or any of her meat-puppet-colleagues on the FOMC ever veered as much as a centimeter to the left of her corporate marching orders– they’d find themselves wrapped in plastic-sheeting and gasping for air at the bottom of the East River in a pair of cement booties.
> 
> The whole idea that the mousy Ms Yellen is calling the shots for the world’s most powerful financial institution is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. Does anyone actually believe that rubbish?
> 
> Yellen is a public relations invention, a small but critical part of a larger charade that is intended to conceal the manner by which the vast bulk of the nation’s wealth is transferred from one class to another. Let’s call it The Great Central Bank Policy Swindle, because that’s what it is. The Fed is merely an apparatchik agency that keeps its thumb on the scale to make sure all the loot goes to its bloodsucking constituents. That’s how the system works. Here’s a little background from an article at the WSWS:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “A new report issued by the Swiss bank Credit Suisse finds that global wealth inequality continues to worsen and has reached a new milestone, with the top 1 percent owning more of the world’s assets than the bottom 99 percent combined."
> 
> 
> 
> Of the estimated $250 trillion in global assets, the top 1 percent owned almost exactly 50 percent, while the bottom 50 percent of humanity owned collectively less than 1 percent. The richest 10 percent owned 87.7 percent of the world’s wealth, leaving 12.3 percent for the bottom 90 percent of the population.” (“Top 1 percent own more than half of world’s wealth“, World Socialist Web Site)
> 
> But it’s not just the fact that half of everything is owned by a handful of obscenely-wealthy, money-grubbing loafers. This same voracious crew of miscreants is pulling down the lions-share of the yearly income too. Check it out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “The census data also reveals that income inequality in America remained virtually unchanged from 2014, with the wealthy in the top fifth of the population taking in about half of all household income, while the bottom fifth earned only 3.4 percent.” (“Despite increase in 2015, US household income still lags behind pre-recession levels“, Kate Randall, World Socialist web Site)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So –not only do the plutocrats own half of everything on planet earth– their share of the booty is actually increasing every year. Nice, eh?
> 
> The point is, none of this is accidental. These outcomes are the direct result of policy, the Fed’s policies. And the Fed is not alone either. This greatly-accelerated class war is a now global phenom. Just look at this tidbit I picked up from an article at CNBC:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Data from JPMorgan shows that the top 50 central banks around the world have cut rates 672 times since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, a figure that translates to an average of one interest rate cut every three trading days. This has also been combined with $24 trillion worth of asset purchases.” (“QE Infinity: Are we heading into the unknown?“, CNBC)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> $24 trillion!
> 
> $24 trillion represents the biggest freaking bank heist in human history, and what do we have to show for it?
> 
> A big fat nothing, that’s what! All the data is sagging and global growth has slowed to a crawl. It’s like all the dough that was supposed to strengthen the fictitious recovery just vanished into thin air. Poof!
> 
> So why hasn’t that $24 trillion had more of an impact? Why isn’t their more inflation, more activity, more spending, more consumption and more growth???
> 
> It’s because everywhere the global bank cartel has its tentacles, the same policies of austerity and QE have been adopted. (Japan, UK, EU, US etc) Everywhere you look it’s caviar and Dom Perignon for the investor class and thin gruel and table scraps for everyone else. Everywhere economies are being gutted, looted, hollowed out by financial parasites who seek greater gain by holding down wages, slashing benefits and retirement, and eviscerating standards of living for ordinary working slobs while the big money honchos are living the life of Riley. Everywhere it’s starve the beast but gorge the rich.
> 
> This is political economy writ large. Trump is right, the Fed is the most political institution in government. It IS the government, and it has an absolute stranglehold on the economy.
> 
> Is it any wonder why owners of wealth are no longer using their money to invest in future production or growth or retooling or building factories or anything. Instead, they’re buying back their own shares, issuing fat dividends on droopy earnings, and shrinking their businesses in the relentless pursuit of short-term gain.
> 
> This type of destructive behavior didn’t just appear out of the ether. Heck, no. The Fed’s easy money policies created irresistible incentives for this reckless, suicidal behavior. That means the Fed is 100 percent responsible for the fragile condition of the financial system and the ginormous asset-price bubble that’s headed lickety-split for the powerlines.
> 
> But now it’s all coming to a head. Now all the bigtime global institutions (IMF, BIS, WTO, OECD) are warning that a “Hard Rain’s a-gonna Fall” and that the day of reckoning may be at hand. According to a recent report by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), GDP-per-capita will grow only 1% in 2016, “which is half the average in the two decades preceding the crisis.”
> 
> As it happens, the OECD report is no more apocalyptic then the others, it’s just more explicit in what it expects to transpire. Here’s more on the report from Wolf Street:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Financial instability risks are rising, including from exceptionally low interest rates and their effects on financial assets and real estate prices.”…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Share prices have risen significantly in recent years in advanced economies, notably in the United States. By contrast, the growth of profits for non-financial companies has recently slowed to a modest pace, following a post-crisis recovery…
> 
> A reassessment in financial markets of interest rates could result in substantial re-pricing of assets and heighten financial volatility even if interest rates were to remain below long-term averages….”
> 
> (“OECD Warns Fed, BOJ, ECB of Asset Bubbles, “Risks to Financial Stability,” Pinpoints US Stocks & Real Estate“, Wolf Street)
> 
> Okay, let’s summarize: The global economy is slowing, corporate profits are tanking, monetary stimulus has lost its mojo, and financial instability risks are rising.
> 
> Oh, and did you catch the part about “a substantial re-pricing of assets”. That’s financial jargon for “a crash”, a big, thundering, cataclysmic, earth-shattering CRASH. The author is simply stating the obvious, that Central Banks have brought us to the brink of another gut-wrenching downward spiral followed by another excruciating financial crisis.
> 
> And it’s all by design, the unavoidable result of the Fed’s destabilizing, wealth-shifting policies.
> 
> How many times are we going to go through this drill before we disband the Fed and start from scratch?
> 
> SOURCE
Click to expand...

The next time anyone feels the need to whine about welfare for the poor, I want them to remember this. The greatest con plutocrats have ever pulled is convincing the poor that the even poorer are somehow the reason everyone is broke. Folks, the game is rigged and the world is run by criminals. There is certainly wealth redistribution going on and it's not to the poor. The top 1% own more than the bottom 99% combined. The bottom 90% is expected to live off 12.3% of the wealth and that's a shrinking amount. Every day that passes, those at the top gain more wealth, while the rest of us are expected to live off less and less. Yet, there are complete blithering fucking morons who think we can solve this problem by deregulating everything even further and giving even more tax breaks to the rich, when that's largely what led us into this situation to begin with. That plan is about as smart as trying to put out a fire by pouring napalm on it.

The crash is coming and it's going to be a global meltdown that makes the Great Depression look like a day at the park. This is not a fixable situation without the crash because the people with all the power and the wealth aren't going to give it up willingly. It's going to take a complete crash followed by a revolt if we're ever going to restore any kind of balance to wealth distribution. I'm not suggesting everyone should have equal wealth because that's just retarded. At the same time, believing that the extreme levels of wealth imbalance we have now is sustainable is equally retarded. 

This idea that giving more money to the already obscenely wealthy will somehow cause them to stimulate the economy is not based in reality. In reality, the ultra-wealthy already have most of the wealth and the economy is pure shit. In reality, what creates a strong economy is when the working class has spending power and there is a high amount of money flow. The fact that so many people struggle with that concept is a large part of why it's going to take a crash of this magnitude before anything will get fixed.

The biggest difference between Republicans and Democrats these days is that Democrats prop up a failing system while Republicans crash it. Electing Hillary would only delay the inevitable. Electing Trump would send us hurtling over the precipice. The sooner, the better, I say. Then we can get on with the business of building a different system; preferably, one not rigged to favor plutocracy.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Seems hillary wants to drone strike assange


lol 

obvs Hilldog was joking. Assange is in London right? The US is definitely not going to drone strike London. The whole thing is pretty fucking :garrett

Now sending murican ninjas to kill him. That could happen.


It does show what a psychopath she is of course. We already knew that though.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I thought the Fed only control money supply, not how the money is being spent? I believe the Fed's decision was to hit certain inflation rate, but hasn't met them even with so much more money in circulation the past few years. Is it the fault of the Fed if investors find more value or efficiency in playing the finance game instead of investing in producing stuff?


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Assange has just lost all credibility. What a fucking asswipe. What a joke of a "press conference".


----------



## Neuron

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> Assange has just lost all credibility. What a fucking asswipe. What a joke of a "press conference".


"We'll release the leaks at the end of the year, buy my book."

Yep. The msm is probably going to drag them through the mud tomorrow as well. I can't believe I stayed up for this shit.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Neuron said:


> "We'll release the leaks at the end of the year, buy my book."
> 
> Yep. The msm is probably going to drag them through the mud tomorrow as well. I can't believe I stayed up for this shit.



Either this cunt never had anything on Hillary to begin with or he cut some sort of deal. Why would he say he'd release shit "by the end of the year"? If he has ANYTHING, he'll put it out after the election when it won't matter anymore. 

He was right, though. This shit show truly was "devastating".

Fuckface has been talking for almost half an hour without actually saying a damn thing.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Wasn't Trump praised for doing the same shit with his birther movement thing a while ago?


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Wasn't Trump praised for doing the same shit with his birther movement thing a while ago?


How the fuck can you compare these things? Trump is a politician trying to win an election. Let him play all the games he wants to play, let him fuck with the media. I don't care what he does. I don't need this shit from Wikileaks. They're supposed to be all about facts and information. This asshole is sitting there pulling some sort of con while wearing a shirt with the word "truth" on it. 

No disrespect, but that is a really silly comparison.


Edit: ... and by the way, at least Trump did eventually reveal his stance on the birther thing. I could even put up with Assange bullshitting for an hour IF HE ACTUALLY REVEALED SOME IMPORTANT INFORMATION at the end.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If he releases something i'll comment. till then it's all fluff. He says he will begin this week. Let's see.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> How the fuck can you compare these things? Trump is a politician trying to win an election. Let him play all the games he wants to play, let him fuck with the media. I don't care what he does. I don't need this shit from Wikileaks. They're supposed to be all about facts and information. This asshole is sitting there pulling some sort of con while wearing a shirt with the word "truth" on it.
> 
> No disrespect, but that is a really silly comparison.
> 
> 
> Edit: ... and by the way, at least Trump did eventually reveal his stance on the birther thing. I could even put up with Assange bullshitting for an hour IF HE ACTUALLY REVEALED SOME IMPORTANT INFORMATION at the end.


Wait...did you just say you hold a fugitive activist to a higher standard than a person running for the presidency of the United States?

:chan


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Wait...did you just say you hold a fugitive activist to a higher standard than a person running for the presidency of the United States?
> 
> :chan


Yes. How naive do you have to be to expect to hear the whole truth and nothing but the truth from any politician?

Maybe I was naive, too, thinking Assange and his crew might be legit. I guess I wanted to believe...


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Embed of Assange's press conference.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> Yes. How naive do you have to be to expect to hear the whole truth and nothing but the truth from any politician?
> 
> Maybe I was naive, too, thinking Assange and his crew might be legit. I guess I wanted to believe...


Erm...the comparison wasn't about telling the truth, but trolling the press gathered to cover the event. I think he still has some damaging information on everyone, but probably won't release them until he can milk all the attention and $$$ for all it's worth.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Holding back information on Hillary until after the election is both dishonest and wrong. The whole point of Wikileaks is to share information. Unless he thinks that Hillary will be impeached but even that won't matter with Kaine there. 

This stunt pretty much ensured that anything Wikileaks puts out is ignored from now on.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Wikileaks turning into a tabloid :kobelol


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> If he releases something i'll comment. till then it's all fluff. He says he will begin this week. Let's see.


He's been saying the same for the last and a half month. He isn't doing shit, let's face it



Miss Sally said:


> Holding back information on Hillary until after the election is both dishonest and wrong. *The whole point of Wikileaks is to share information*. Unless he thinks that Hillary will be impeached but even that won't matter with Kaine there.
> 
> This stunt pretty much ensured that anything Wikileaks puts out is ignored from now on.


Wrong, the point of Wikileaks is selling information, big difference. Assange isn't doing anything in the name of truth, he's doing it because it's profitable, in that sense creating spectation is just a marketing strategy even if the information doesn't exist.
There is a big difference between people like Snowden who did what he did because he believed in something and people like Assange who created a Business out of it.

Wikileaks ALWAYS has been a tabloid


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Wikileaks ALWAYS has been a tabloid


Turns out, this is true. The more I read about it, it's actually beginning to sound worse than a tabloid at this point.

That said, we still have to keep in mind that whether its motives are credible or not does not detract credibility from the info they release in and of itself, because unlike tabloids and conspiracy websites, the info they release is real and not forged/faked. :shrug


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Here's the thing; Assange never said that anything would be leaked yesterday. All that Assange announced was a press event celebrating his organization's 10th anniversary. Much of that was hyperbole from Jones and the like, and like him anyone who stayed up till 4AM EST got themselves worked. Fairly masterful play, all things considered. Furthermore, why would he announce the time of dropping the material? Seems like that would be counter effective. Let's face it, the guy is sitting on a mountain of documents he wants to release. However, if he goofs up even once in his vetting and releases something fake, his credibility is shot, rendering any and future leaks worthless. So far he's on the record stating his commitment to the vetting process, and will release documents over the next several weeks.

I say let the man do his job, he will put out his leaks in time, when he's certain enough the material is legitimate, and when it can be most effective. Can you imagine the wave of bullshit that is likely being sent his way in order to throw him off the trail? Rushing in to release unvetted and unconfirmed material does no one any favors. 

Moreover, Trump's candidacy should not be solely based on Hillary's corruption. The core reasons that people support him are separate from H's misdeeds. He's the only one proposing a sane immigration policy, renegotiating trade policies, the rule of law, non-interventionist foreign policy, revitalizing public infrastructure, focusing our tax dollars on Americans first before other countries. All of these are important, and none depend on Assange for their legitimacy.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> https://lara-murphy.com/thoughts-trumps-1995-tax-return/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look folks, we’re not fans of Donald Trump; see our earlier post questioning the wisdom of voting at all. But the commentary regarding the leaked excerpts from his 1995 tax return is appalling. In this post I’ll make four basic observations to get you thinking the right way about this issue.
> 
> 
> (1) Most important: The NYT article that broke the story was incredibly misleading. I would guess that if you asked 1,000 people who read it, at least 990 of them would be quite confident that Donald Trump had “avoided taxes for nearly two decades” (that’s a phrase right from the headline).
> 
> And yet, actually, all we have are three pages from a single return filed in 1995. This was not an affidavit submitted by a fortune teller. Trump’s tax return from 1995 did not inform us how much he paid in income taxes in the 15 years following that.
> Now, what the article _does_ actually establish is that in 1995, Trump reported a loss of $916 million. So why is everyone acting as if we now have ironclad proof that Trump got rich while not paying a dime in taxes–as everyone from Hillary Clinton on down is claiming?
> 
> Here’s the money line from the NYT article: _“Although Mr. Trump’s taxable income in subsequent years is as yet unknown, a $916 million loss in 1995 would have been large enough to wipe out more than $50 million a year in taxable income over 18 years.”
> 
> _ All they are saying is that a $916 million loss could be used to offset $916 million in other, net income spread out over 18 years. (My understanding is that the technical provisions back then would’ve allowed 3 years prior and 15 forward.) To repeat, the “bombshell” NYT article tells us nothing about how much Trump paid in taxes in 1996, 1997, 1998, …, 2009, or 2010. Rather, tax experts are merely explaining the obvious thing to do with a $916 million loss.
> 
> I’m trying to think of an analogy, and here’s the best one I’ve got: Imagine a Wall Street Journal headline saying, “Hillary Clinton Tax Returns Show She Could Have Purchased Up To 40,000 Copies of _The Communist Manifesto_.” And then when you read the story, it turns out that the WSJ writer grabbed Hillary’s take-home income in 1995 from her tax return, divided that dollar figure by the price of a single copy of _The Communist Manifesto_, and then reported how many copies of Marx & Engels’ tract she could have purchased–even though there was no evidence that she had bought even a single copy. My fictitious statement would be an accurate headline, and yet unbelievably misleading.
> 
> I was curious if anybody from the progressive left would have the decency to even bring this up. Ezra Klein at Vox did, when he wrote:Here’s the thing I can’t get over about the New York Times’s bombshell story on Donald Trump’s tax returns: _they don’t actually know what’s in his tax returns._
> Look at their headline again. “Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades, The Times Found.” The word “could” is doing a lot of work there.
> Reread the first sentence. “Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years.” “Could” is doing all the work there, too. It’s also possible that Trump paid taxes in all of those years!​Ah, so at least Ezra Klein–alone among progressive commentators that I encountered–saw the incredible slipperiness of the NYT hit piece. Surely Klein would denounce this sloppy move. I mean, imagine if a hawkish newspaper wrote something like, “Experts Say Iranian Centrifuges Could Be Used to Create Up to 18 Nuclear Bombs,” when in fact there were no evidence at all that a single bomb had been made? I bet Ezra Klein would see the problem in that kind of situation.
> Alas, rather than chastising the NYT for grossly misleading the world, Klein actually congratulates them because they “bet correctly.” (I’m not making this up.) Since Trump didn’t release his actual tax records and show that they had gambled _incorrectly_, Klein concludes with his own baseless headline: “Whatever is actually in Trump’s tax returns is worse than what the New York Times says.”
> 
> No, Mr. Klein, we don’t know that. And at least the NYT headline was technically correct (though misleading), whereas yours could turn out to be totally false. For example, it’s possible that Trump had net income that absorbed the $916 million loss after (say) 13 years, and then he paid what he owed on net income afterward. So in that case, the actual situation would have been _better_ than what the NYT implied, but it still might make sense for Trump to keep his returns hidden. After all, the editors of the NYT and the ostensible smart wonks at Vox don’t seem to know how journalism or accounting work. So why would Trump give them even more returns to drool over? Would that really be damage control to say, “Nuh uh, I only offset all federal income tax for 13 years, not 18” ?
> 
> (2) It’s not a clever trick to lose a billion dollars. Yet the supposed experts that the NYT piece quoted would make you think otherwise. For example: _“‘He has a vast benefit from his destruction’ in the early 1990s, said one of the experts, Joel Rosenfeld, an assistant professor at New York University’s Schack Institute of Real Estate.”_
> Oh really? So do you think Warren Buffett read the NYT piece and thought, “Darnit, I wish _I’d_ lost $916 million last year” ? Of course not. This whole episode is embarrassing.
> If you still feel like Trump is cheating, realize you too can take advantage of this “vast benefit.” I’ll show you how you can avoid paying all federal income tax next year. First, figure out your annual income; let’s say it’s $85,000. Then start a consulting business, and spend $85,000 buying printer paper and hiring a receptionist. During the course of the year, do absolutely nothing with this business, but you instruct your employee (who is getting paid a salary) to rip up the paper and throw it in the garbage, before she goes to the store to buy some more. Come tax time, when your accountant tells you that your new business suffered an $85,000 operating loss, use that to offset your $85,000 in other income. Your net income is $0 and so you owe nothing. Voila! Hey man, don’t hate the player, hate the game.
> 
> (Note: To avoid any misunderstanding, I’m being facetious. *Don’t* do this, it would be incredibly stupid. Also, there are complexities with the tax code, with distinctions between capital losses and ordinary losses. I’m just trying to get you to see why losing a boatload of money to reduce your future tax liability is not something you would do intentionally.)
> 
> (3) In the grand scheme, it’s not a “tax loophole” to say that an operating loss reduces taxable income. Again, there are fine distinctions in the actual tax code, but 99% of the discussion around this topic ignores these subtleties. Both fans and critics of Trump are convinced that using a huge loss to offset other income is evidence of gaming the system.
> 
> No, this is simple accounting. It would be crazy if you _couldn’t_ use losses from one year to offset gains in other years. After all, what’s so special about the time unit of one year? If a certain business lost $916 million from January through June, and then made $916 million in net income from July through December, so that on the year as a whole it exactly broke even… Would Hillary Clinton expect that business to pay tax on a “profit” of $916 million?
> 
> So then by the same token, if a certain individual reports a loss of $916 million in 1995, and then cumulative net income over the next decade of $916 million…why would Hillary Clinton expect that individual to pay income tax? The income tax is a tax on income. (That’s where its name comes from.) If, over the relevant time horizon, an entity actually has no net income (because early losses offset future gains), then it obviously shouldn’t pay income tax.
> 
> (If you actually want to see a calm, non-partisan discussion of “income” and how it relates to changes in capital value, see my article from a few years ago.)
> 
> (4) There is lots of talk about debt forgiveness and “debt parking”; people were passing around this post, for example. Yet here again, we have not a shred of evidence. This guy has no clue whether Trump “parked” his debt in a way that allowed him to reduce his taxes even though he didn’t actually experience a true loss.
> 
> So his speculations are fine as far as they go, but if we’re just going to make stuff up that Trump _might_ have done, why stop with tax fraud? Just say, “Trump COULD HAVE Set Orphanage on Fire, Arsonists Explain.”


 @Miss Sally , @CamillePunk , @Fringe , @L-DOPA , @DesolationRow . 

When actual experts and not biased journalists weigh in, the conclusion is pretty much guaranteed to be different than a bunch of hacks trying to make sense of something they're not even remotely trained to comment on.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Looks like Clinton was hacked again:

https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/clinton-foundation/


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So a supossed hacker in Assange Pocket came out hacking the Clinton Foundation, in which there is a folder called "pay for play", hours after doing a bust.

And people seriously believe this stuff?:lmao


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> So a supossed hacker in Assange Pocket came out hacking the Clinton Foundation, in which there is a carpet called "pay for play", hours after doing a bust.
> 
> And people seriously believe this stuff?:lmao


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

TARP was a Bush program. Why would the money be used to fund democrats.

Really? again, people believe this stuff? :lmao

I even took the time to read your source and the hacker jumps to the conclussion about TARP and your image too.

Look i believe both parties are corrupt at their core. But the mental gimnastics to defend both candidates and create conspiracies in this campaign is out of the realm of normal. Everyone with a normal reading comprehension and a set of logic would know the stuff in this "hack" is laughable


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

At this point I am starting to think that people would believe a file called "EVIL THINGS I DID!!DO NOT OPEN!!" if I claimed it came from a Clinton's server

No one keeps their dirty shit where people can get to it let alone digitally where a minor drive failure could erase decades of connections and deals


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Half of me wants to watch tonight's VP debate because one of those two boring, stupid fucks might become president someday.

The other half doesn't want to because they're both boring, stupid fucks.










I'm conflicted.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-...-debate-winnerbefore-debate/story?id=42570234

:lmao


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-...-debate-winnerbefore-debate/story?id=42570234
> 
> :lmao


Hilarious. Great Scott Marty! You put the wrong date in the Delorian!


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Nobody is answering the question in this VP debate. :lol

Both just deflect to attacking the other guy's nominee. :lol


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The moderator gets mad props for telling those petulant children to stop interrupting each other.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I feel for Mike Pence in this debate having to defend Trump's positions.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Never heard of either of these two guys. The guy in the red tie is coming across as a smarmy prick. he cant stop butting in and has a serious obsession with talking about Trump. The other guy is just rambling on without making any points.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Ack..Kaine somehow managed to use 9/11 against Trump. Not sure if I should be impressed by the spin or disappointed that 9/11 is still used to score political points.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Putin will respect Trump because of strength? :lmao


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Listening to Tim Kaine is making me lose brain cells.

*#Crackpot*

- Vic


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Pence remained cool, calm and answered most of the questions in a forthright manner. Kaine, on the other hand, acted like a coked-up, smug bastard who kept rudely interrupting Pence and spewing out whatever bullshit the Clinton campaign fed him. (ESPECIALLY the whole "tax returns" thing.) I mean Pence did have his "rudely interrupting" moments, but Kaine REALLY came off like an annoying chihuahua who kept interrupting & attacking.

Elaine Quijano also gets an L for sporadically grilling Pence, yet leaving Kaine alone (barring the occasional "Senator Kaine, shut the fuck up and let the Governor answer the question"). But I'll still give her props for telling them to stop interrupting one another.

Overall, Pence definitely won the debate. But I'm sure most of the media will find a way to spin this night in Kaine's (and the Clinton campaign's) favor.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

i saw for 20 minutes and when i realized it was turning into the worst debate ever i changed the channel


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Meh neither really answered the questions, besides the personal faith question. Kaine came off too overbearing with his constant interruptions. Pence looked more presidential than the guy at the top of the ticket, able to defend his ticket's positions so much better than Trump.


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It was a very heated debate; far more than the first presidential debate, I thought.

The biggest takeaway is how much more likable and cool, calm, and collected Pence seemed to be than the smarmy Kaine. He really is the perfect complement to the rambunctious Trump, and by far the most likable person on either ticket.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

CAN'T DISPENSE THE PENCE!!!


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

What a surprise, Trump's side won once again despite the moderator, the entire media, and basically Zeus against them.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Hilarious. Great Scott Marty! You put the wrong date in the Delorian!


We mocked them too soon. Maybe the RNC really did invent the time machine! :lol


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Going by the consensus on social media, Pence won the debate pretty decisively.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Pence won on demeanor alone. When Chris Matthews says the Republican won, the Republican most likely won.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Anyone who thinks Pence won the debate really is delusional. Kaine destroyed him, Pence could not defend Trump at all. Everything Kaine said about Trump were facts and all Pence could do is shake his head.

And I love all the Trump fans crying about Kaine interrupting all the time when those same people loved when Trump did it on the primaries.




WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> Going by the consensus on social media, Pence won the debate pretty decisively.


That's because they already had it written he won even before the debate. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-committee-mike-pence-debate-winner/91576394/

You never go by the media on who won the debates. Sanders beat Hillary is all the debates even though the media would claim Hillary won.




Beatles123 said:


> CAN'T DISPENSE THE PENCE!!!


Pence got destroyed in his debate. It really was not even close. All he could do is shake his head and laugh and not be able to defend Trumps policies or things Trump has said.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Here we go :mj4


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Anyone who thinks Pence won the debate really is delusional. Kaine destroyed him, Pence could not defend Trump at all. Everything Kaine said about Trump were facts and all Pence could do is shake his head.
> 
> And I love all the Trump fans crying about Kaine interrupting all the time when those same people loved when Trump did it on the primaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because they already had it written he won even before the debate. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-committee-mike-pence-debate-winner/91576394/
> 
> You never go by the media on who won the debates. Sanders beat Hillary is all the debates even though the media would claim Hillary won.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pence got destroyed in his debate. It really was not even close. All he could do is shake his head and laugh and not be able to defend Trumps policies or things Trump has said.


Kaine winning is a sign of delusion. Are you sure you're just not hearing what you want to hear? Take off the fish bowl so other people's thoughts can actually be heard because your bowl is all foggy and echoy from all your talking!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Kaine winning is a sign of delusion. Are you sure you're just not hearing what you want to hear? Take off the fish bowl so other people's thoughts can actually be heard because your bowl is all foggy and echoy from all your talking!


I don't like either ticket, I think they all suck. But Kaine won this debate easily by pointing out all of Trumps awful policies and the things Trump has said. 

The only people's fish bowl who is foggy are Trump fans who think Pence won this debate. He could not defend Trumps policies or things Trump has said. 

I also love the things Trump fans are shitty on Kaine for, oh he was not well spoken and he kept interrupting are all things Trump is known for but now that the other person was more well spoke they go with that person .

Going based on content an what was said and not defended. Kaine was the clear winner. If you are just going by who was more well-spoken and polite and don't go by content that is the only way Pence won.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If you are only going by whether Pence was able to defend Trump, then of course Kaine won because that is something nobody can win on. But if you are going by the whole debate, Pence was able to address his ticket's positions of strength more clearly than Kaine. Pence's demeanour helped to stablise the sinking ship of their ticket. Not sure how you can say Kaine won.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> If you are only going by whether Pence was able to defend Trump, then of course Kaine won because that is something nobody can win on. But if you are going by the whole debate, Pence was able to address his ticket's positions of strength more clearly than Kaine. Pence's demeanour helped to stablise the sinking ship of their ticket. Not sure how you can say Kaine won.


I already stated how Kaine won. He totally destroyed Trump and the Trump tickets polices. Kaine pointed out what Trump has said and what a lot of his policies are and how bad the are and Pence could not defend them. That is exactly how Kaine won.

Now if you are for all the shitty policies the Trump ticket is for, that will destroy the country, then I can see why you would think Pence won but Kaine was able to show why they are bad.

I am also not sure why people are taking off for Kaines demeanour when he does exactly what Trump does all the time and Trump is loved for it But I know why, its because Trump fans are hypocrites and now that someone else does it, oh that person is rude and bad but when Trump does it they love it and overlook it.


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

God forbid Kaine allowed Pence to get a fucking sentence in. For anybody that bitched about Trump interrupting Hilary please do NOT talk about how Kaine won this debate. 

Really wanted to see Pence talk about education much more. This choice of school for minorities in AWFUL school districts needs to be heard. These poor kids don't have a shot with the way they grow up in school. Let them have a chance. We all know that the Democrats will never support it because the teachers union is giving them an insane amount of money. 

** I am saying this as somebody who is in their freshman year in college to become a teacher. It is downright DISGUSTING that this is how we treat kids in bad communities. I really cannot think of any other word to describe this right now and how infuriated I am that this is just never talked about. Instead we talk about "debt free college", how about you talk about the poor kids that don't have a fucking chance to even get to college with the way they are brought up?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Smarkout said:


> God forbid Kaine allowed Pence to get a fucking sentence in. For anybody that bitched about Trump interrupting Hilary please do NOT talk about how Kaine won this debate.
> 
> Really wanted to see Pence talk about education much more. This choice of school for minorities in AWFUL school districts needs to be heard. These poor kids don't have a shot with the way they grow up in school. Let them have a chance. We all know that the Democrats will never support it because the teachers union is giving them an insane amount of money.
> 
> ** I am saying this as somebody who is in their freshman year in college to become a teacher. It is downright DISGUSTING that this is how we treat kids in bad communities. I really cannot think of any other word to describe this right now and how infuriated I am that this is just never talked about. Instead we talk about "debt free college", how about you talk about the poor kids that don't have a fucking chance to even get to college with the way they are brought up?


There was way too much bullshit foreign policy in this debate which was not needed. You are right, it should have talked about education and a number of other issues too like income equality. 

Again I love how people are bitching about Kaine interrupting yet when Trump did it no one really cared and gave him credit for it. 

As for college, didnt Hillary changed from debt free college to free college for any kids that can get it for any household that makes under like 80k a year? Pretty sure Bernie Sanders moved her to going with some sort of free college.

As for those poor kids, under Trump and Pence they would get even poorer. But again like I said, this debate had way too much foreign policy shit that who cares about. It should have been about how their ticket will help Americans.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I already stated how Kaine won. He totally destroyed Trump and the Trump tickets polices. Kaine pointed out what Trump has said and what a lot of his policies are and how bad the are and Pence could not defend them. That is exactly how Kaine won.
> 
> Now if you are for all the shitty policies the Trump ticket is for, that will destroy the country, then I can see why you would think Pence won but Kaine was able to show why they are bad.
> 
> I am also not sure why people are taking off for Kaines demeanour when he does exactly what Trump does all the time and Trump is loved for it But I know why, its because Trump fans are hypocrites and now that someone else does it, oh that person is rude and bad but when Trump does it they love it and overlook it.


Maybe, just maybe someone like me who isn't a Trump supporter view Kaine losing because he acted like Trump during the debate? fpalm. You have this idea that anyone who disagrees with you are somehow supporters of someone/something you hate because it is easier to fit into your narrative of the world against poor little me mentality.


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> There was way too much bullshit foreign policy in this debate which was not needed. You are right, it should have talked about education and a number of other issues too like income equality.
> 
> *Again I love how people are bitching about Kaine interrupting yet when Trump did it no one really cared and gave him credit for it.*
> 
> *As for college, didnt Hillary changed from debt free college to free college for any kids that can get it for any household that makes under like 80k a year?* Pretty sure Bernie Sanders moved her to going with some sort of free college.
> 
> *As for those poor kids, under Trump and Pence they would get even poorer*. But again like I said, this debate had way too much foreign policy shit that who cares about. It should have been about how their ticket will help Americans.


I never gave Trump credit for anything in that debate. I also did not take anything away from him. 

Kaine used the term "debt free college" quite a bit, I am just going off of from what he said. 

I also disagree with the last part of the bolded. Giving parents (or sadly in many cases PARENT) a choice of what school their child goes to is BIG. I currently work in an elementary school as an assistant for a sort of before/after care program and I see it there. In some schools you can clearly see how much of a difference it can make. I have seen children come into the program that were just not on pace to be on a 5th grade reading level by the time they were in 7th grade, but the school and surrounding area made a HUGE difference. 

Listen BM, I'm not here to talk about foreign policy which I am sure many will debate you about but I will sit here forever and debate you on this. Let's cut government interaction in public schools and leave it up to the states, COMPETITION is key. If every school learns the same thing then schooling and education will take a massive swoop down. 

I had a family move in next door to me roughly one year ago from a very bad area and surprisingly enough the turnaround in the kids (who are in elementary school) is extraordinary. Hilary and Kaine aren't changing anything, they are absolutely fine collecting their sweet money from the unions.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Smarkout said:


> I never gave Trump credit for anything in that debate. I also did not take anything away from him.
> 
> Kaine used the term "debt free college" quite a bit, I am just going off of from what he said.
> 
> I also disagree with the last part of the bolded. Giving parents (or sadly in many cases PARENT) a choice of what school their child goes to is BIG. I currently work in an elementary school as an assistant for a sort of before/after care program and I see it there. In some schools you can clearly see how much of a difference it can make. I have seen children come into the program that were just not on pace to be on a 5th grade reading level by the time they were in 7th grade, but the school and surrounding area made a HUGE difference.
> 
> Listen BM, I'm not here to talk about foreign policy which I am sure many will debate you about but I will sit here forever and debate you on this. Let's cut government interaction in public schools and leave it up to the states, COMPETITION is key. If every school learns the same thing then schooling and education will take a massive swoop down.
> 
> I had a family move in next door to me roughly one year ago from a very bad area and surprisingly enough the turnaround in the kids (who are in elementary school) is extraordinary. Hilary and Kaine aren't changing anything, they are absolutely fine collecting their sweet money from the unions.


I am talking about most trump fans in general not you.

As for Kaine and him saying debt free college, I was just asking about the change in Hillarys police. And I agree they should have had a question on education. 

Im not here to debate about foreign policy either. I could not care less about it. I care way more about domestic policy which is what I was pissed most of the debate was about foreign policy.

As for cutting govt interaction in schools and leave it up to the state, I disagree a million percent. Last thing we need is leaving it up to the state and let the bible thumper states teach creationism in schools like its a fact like evolution is. 

As for Hillary and Kaine not changing anything, I am not super familiar with their policies since I am a Bernie supporter, but what exactly is Trump going to do for the poor and schools?


Also

Pence got destoryed based on the facts. Can't wait for the ads to come out about him denying things Trump said, then the ad giving a video fo Trump saying it.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@birthday_massacre has gone full-on #ImWithHer :mj2


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> @birthday_massacre has gone full-on #ImWithHer :mj2


I hate both of them, I am still voting for Jill Stein. i am just being honest with who won. If Pence would have won, I would admit it. Hillary used voter suppression and election fraud to beat Sanders, you really think I would pretend her VP or Hillary won a debate she didnt?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I hate both of them, I am still voting for Jill Stein. i am just being honest with who won. If Pence would have won, I would admit it. Hillary used voted fraud to beat Sanders, you really think I would pretend her VP or Hillary won a debate she didnt?


Well I didn't watch the debate because I don't think they matter at all, but the common consensus seems to be that Pence won, so that's nice.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I hate both of them, I am still voting for Jill Stein. i am just being honest with who won. If Pence would have won, I would admit it. Hillary used voted fraud to beat Sanders, *you really think I would pretend her VP or Hillary won a debate she didnt*?


:yes :yes :yes


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I am talking about most trump fans in general not you.
> 
> As for Kaine and him saying debt free college, I was just asking about the change in Hillarys police. And I agree they should have had a question on education.
> 
> Im not here to debate about foreign policy either. I could not care less about it. I care way more about domestic policy which is what I was pissed most of the debate was about foreign policy.
> 
> As for cutting govt interaction in schools and leave it up to the state, I disagree a million percent. Last thing we need is leaving it up to the state and let the bible thumper states teach creationism in schools like its a fact like evolution is.
> 
> As for Hillary and Kaine not changing anything, I am not super familiar with their policies since I am a Bernie supporter, but what exactly is Trump going to do for the poor and schools?
> 
> 
> Also
> 
> *Pence got destoryed based on the facts. Can't wait for the ads to come out about him denying things Trump said, then the ad giving a video fo Trump saying it.*



In all fairness, an ad could probably be made up of just Hilary doing this. 

I'm curious as to what the difference in your opinion would be on "bible thumper" states and a Trump presidency overlooking education would be though? I personally believe one of the most dangerous thing is allowing the government to control what we will and will not learn in school. I also do not believe as a country we should allow states to teach all evolutionism or all creationism. To be quite honest I just graduated high school and this was NEVER really brought up. I get the sense you think this is the 1890's, if states (or specific schools) try and do that the media will kill them on it. 

Why not allow the people that actually went to school for education have a voice in what the children of America should be learning. 


For what it's worth here is a link of what Trump's viewpoints are, I agree totally with this school choice thing. I am not saying he is 100% correct, but SOMETHING needs to be done. 
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/education

FYI I am not super smart on what Kaine's positions are, but I cannot see him disagreeing with Hilary too much regarding this. They get way too much money from the teachers union to really make any sort of non biased judgment.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Someone counted how many times Kaine interrupted someone and it was over 70. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Smarkout said:


> In all fairness, an ad could probably be made up of just Hilary doing this.
> 
> I'm curious as to what the difference in your opinion would be on "bible thumper" states and a Trump presidency overlooking education would be though? I personally believe one of the most dangerous thing is allowing the government to control what we will and will not learn in school. I also do not believe as a country we should allow states to teach all evolutionism or all creationism. To be quite honest I just graduated high school and this was NEVER really brought up. I get the sense you think this is the 1890's, if states (or specific schools) try and do that the media will kill them on it.
> 
> Why not allow the people that actually went to school for education have a voice in what the children of America should be learning.
> 
> 
> For what it's worth here is a link of what Trump's viewpoints are, I agree totally with this school choice thing. I am not saying he is 100% correct, but SOMETHING needs to be done.
> https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/education
> 
> FYI I am not super smart on what Kaine's positions are, but I cannot see him disagreeing with Hilary too much regarding this. They get way too much money from the teachers union to really make any sort of non biased judgment.



I posted a video of Hillary lying for 15 minutes. Its in this thread somewhere or one of the political threads. Hillary lies all the time. 

The US has a thing called separation of church and state. Religion has no business being in public schools. That is what private schools are for. 

As for you believing that schools should not teach all evolution or all creationism? What are you talking about. Evolution is a scientific fact, you know like gravity. Creationism is a made up story like the geek gods.
You really think that Zeus should be taught in schools like it's real and scientific like creationist want creationism to be taught in science class? That is how you make American dumber . You don't teach religion in science class like its real. 

You are not one of those people that believe that creationism should be taught in public schools in science class side by side with evolution do you?


Trumps education policies are awful. he wants to cut a lot of spending on education that is the last thing our countries needs. You should want increased spending on schools not less. 
Trumps education plans would make Americans much dumber.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> Someone counted how many times Kaine interrupted someone and it was over 70. :lol


And Trump interrupted Hillary over 50 times in their debate.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> @birthday_massacre has gone full-on #ImWithHer :mj2


If him and his ilk were, the election would not be this close. :mj2


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> Someone counted how many times Kaine interrupted someone and it was over 70. :lol


"Th-thats because all of what pence said is a lie, Senpai! B-but remember, Libs always have facts so y-you should never say that about them!" 0:nerd: :lol


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I posted a video of Hillary lying for 15 minutes. Its in this thread somewhere or one of the political threads. Hillary lies all the time.
> 
> The US has a thing called separation of church and state. Religion has no business being in public schools. That is what private schools are for.
> 
> *As for you believing that schools should not teach all evolution or all creationism? What are you talking about.* Evolution is a scientific fact, you know like gravity. Creationism is a made up story like the geek gods.
> You really think that Zeus should be taught in schools like it's real and scientific like creationist want creationism to be taught in science class? That is how you make American dumber . You don't teach religion in science class like its real.
> 
> *You are not one of those people that believe that creationism should be taught in public schools in science class side by side with evolution do you?*
> 
> 
> Trumps education policies are awful. he wants to cut a lot of spending on education that is the last thing our countries needs. You should want increased spending on schools not less.
> Trumps education plans would make Americans much dumber.




While I didn't want you to take creationism and evolution and try to make it into a debate you did lol. This was NOT the main point I was trying to make. I never said I believed Zeus should be taught in schools like it's real. When I was originally taught evolution in school it wasn't a big deal, more of like a "oh hey that's pretty cool". That being said, everything should be taught whether or not we disagree with it. I had a great teacher that went over all religions with my class back in middle school no matter how silly they sounded and in my opinion helped me respect other religious thought processes a lot more. *You want to mess around with creationism and teach it as false you begin to mess around with many religions. I would never treat it as a joke in my classroom. *

All I meant was a school should always should all sides to a story, I didn't mean to offend you. It sounds like that was a misunderstanding. 

In an earlier post you admitted to not knowing much about Trump's education policy and now hate it. I do have a few questions for you if you do not mind. 

1.) What did you read between then and now to form your opinion?

2.) Why does school of choice not work?

3.) What would you personally do? (I am interested to hear your response to this, another perspective is always welcome).


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> "Th-thats because all of what pence said is a lie, Senpai! B-but remember, Libs always have facts so y-you should never say that about them!" 0:nerd: :lol


What Kaine was saying about Trump was true. Are you really going to even deny Trump did not say those things? I know conservatives don't like facts but they should really try to use them sometimes. I love how they try to talk like facts is a dirty word.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Pence got his point across better, he was more calm and was able to talk about what he wanted.

Kaine came off as a unhinged asshole who was trying to out Trump, Trump while belonging to a ticket that claims anyone acting like Trump shouldn't lead. So he managed to make his ticket look like hypocrites and with Hillary's health in question will Democrats want him being President? 

It's funny that Trump interrupting hillary is sexist but Kaine was interrupting a woman. Lol


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I posted a video of Hillary lying for 15 minutes. Its in this thread somewhere or one of the political threads. Hillary lies all the time.
> 
> The US has a thing called separation of church and state. Religion has no business being in public schools. That is what private schools are for.
> 
> As for you believing that schools should not teach all evolution or all creationism? What are you talking about. Evolution is a scientific fact, you know like gravity. Creationism is a made up story like the geek gods.
> You really think that Zeus should be taught in schools like it's real and scientific like creationist want creationism to be taught in science class? That is how you make American dumber . You don't teach religion in science class like its real.
> 
> You are not one of those people that believe that creationism should be taught in public schools in science class side by side with evolution do you?
> 
> 
> Trumps education policies are awful. he wants to cut a lot of spending on education that is the last thing our countries needs. You should want increased spending on schools not less.
> Trumps education plans would make Americans much dumber.


:clap for "geek gods" lol



> *Mike Pence believes in creationism, and he wants to teach that to your kids in public schools*
> 
> There’s something about Donald Trump’s running mate that seems to have escaped the media narrative: he’s a radical Christian whose belief in “intelligent design” suggests he likely subscribes to the notion of a biblical young earth (around 6,000 years-old according to some, while others will allow for 10,000 years. Other believers in intelligent design will avoid the question of the earth/universe’s age altogether), and he wants this form of religious charlatanry taught in public schools.
> 
> Mike Pence‘s belief in a young earth isn’t proven, but his rhetoric is designed to pander to those who do.
> 
> When he was confronted on the subject by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews back in 2009, Pence did everything he could to avoid acknowledging the scientific fact of evolution. It was a pathetic display of pandering to the anti-science religious voter.
> 
> But during his tenure as a U.S. Congressman, Pence wasn’t so evasive.
> 
> During an impassioned speech on the House floor in 2002, Pence regurgitated the ignorant ‘evolution is only a theory’ theme, and declared that “intelligent design” should be taught to children as a scientific alternative with equal weight.
> 
> “I believe that God created the known universe, the earth and everything in it, including man,” Pence said. “And I also believe that someday scientists will come to see that only the theory of intelligent design provides even a remotely rational explanation for the known universe.”
> 
> “I would simply and humbly ask, can we teach it as such and can we also consider teaching other theories of the origin of species?” Pence continued. “Like the theory that was believed in by every signer of the Declaration of Independence. Every signer of the Declaration of Independence believed that men and women were created and were endowed by that same Creator with certain unalienable rights. The Bible tells us that God created man in his own image, male and female. He created them.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Writing for Patheos, Michael Stone points out that Pence’s false and misleading claim that creationism is a valid scientific alternative to the theory of evolution is a tactic widely used by evangelicals to undermine the way science is taught in the public school system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pence, like many advocates for creationism, is uninformed and uneducated as to what the term “theory” means in a scientific context. For the record, the scientific definition of “theory” is quite different from the everyday use of the word.
> 
> 
> 
> As the National Academy of Science notes, the “formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
> 
> Say what you want about either of the candidates in the 2016 race for president. But it’s undeniable that a religious extremist with dreams of theocracy is near the top of one of the tickets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SOURCE
Click to expand...

It takes a special kind of stupid to be a creationist. And we might elect one as VP. 'Murica.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Smarkout said:


> While I didn't want you to take creationism and evolution and try to make it into a debate you did lol. This was NOT the main point I was trying to make. I never said I believed Zeus should be taught in schools like it's real. When I was originally taught evolution in school it wasn't a big deal, more of like a "oh hey that's pretty cool". That being said, everything should be taught whether or not we disagree with it. I had a great teacher that went over all religions with my class back in middle school no matter how silly they sounded and in my opinion helped me respect other religious thought processes a lot more. *You want to mess around with creationism and teach it as false you begin to mess around with many religions. I would never treat it as a joke in my classroom. *
> 
> All I meant was a school should always should all sides to a story, I didn't mean to offend you. It sounds like that was a misunderstanding.
> 
> In an earlier post you admitted to not knowing much about Trump's education policy and now hate it. I do have a few questions for you if you do not mind.
> 
> 1.) What did you read between then and now to form your opinion?
> 
> 2.) Why does school of choice not work?
> 
> 3.) What would you personally do? (I am interested to hear your response to this, another perspective is always welcome).



Your kind of thinking is exactly what the govt needs to step in with what is taught in schools and not leave it up to the state.

No everything should not be taught in schools when we know its not a fact. 

There is not scientific evidence to prove that creationism is real, but there is scientific evidence to show that evolution is a fact. You dont teach something in science class or history that is not real.

If you want to teach the bible in mythology class along with the greek gods, that is fine but you dont teach it in science class like evolution is a scientific fact like evolution is. 

Using your logic, you should be able to teach kids that 2+2=5 because using your own words, well we dont agree what 2+2=5 but it should be taught anyways and respect the people that think 2+2=5.

Creationism like the greek gods has no scientific evidence to back it up, that is why we don't teach them as facts. 

You are the perfect example of what states cannot chose what is taught in schools and what is not and the GOVT needs to.

It has nothing to do with hearing all the sides when something is a fact. And you did not offend me, you just can't teach religion in science class like it's science when it's just mythology. The only time creationism should ever be taught in science class is if science even proves it to be true, which has never been done.

I just know the basics about Trumps education plan because he is a buffoon and he cant explain it well. I just know he wants to cut spending to education and he hates common core.

As for school of choice, all school of choice is going to do is segregate kids by income and race. That is the last thing you want to do.
And there is already basically a choice of school anyways since you can go to a public school or private and when you get to HS have the option to also go to a trade school.

If you want to improve schools, give them more money, pay the teachers better and also make sure the teachers are tested better every few years to make sure they are qualified.




Miss Sally said:


> Pence got his point across better, he was more calm and was able to talk about what he wanted.
> 
> Kaine came off as a unhinged asshole who was trying to out Trump, Trump while belonging to a ticket that claims anyone acting like Trump shouldn't lead. So he managed to make his ticket look like hypocrites and with Hillary's health in question will Democrats want him being President?
> 
> It's funny that Trump interrupting Hillary is sexist but Kaine was interrupting a woman. Lol


I love how Trump fans bash Kaine for coming off as an unhinged asshole why that is how Trump always is and they love him for it and never bash him for that. it just shows how Trump supporters have no credibility. 

its comical to watch Trump fans speak about Kaine like this when Trump is the same way. At least in Kaines case what he was saying was true and when Trump does it, he is full of shit.


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Your kind of thinking is exactly what the govt needs to step in with what is taught in schools and not leave it up to the state.
> 
> No everything should not be taught in schools when we know its not a fact.
> 
> There is not scientific evidence to prove that creationism is real, but there is scientific evidence to show that evolution is a fact. You dont teach something in science class or history that is not real.
> 
> *If you want to teach the bible in mythology class along with the greek gods, that is fine but you dont teach it in science class like evolution is a scientific fact like evolution is.
> *
> Using your logic, you should be able to teach kids that 2+2=5 because using your own words, well we dont agree what 2+2=5 but it should be taught anyways and respect the people that think 2+2=5.
> 
> Creationism like the greek gods has no scientific evidence to back it up, that is why we don't teach them as facts.
> 
> *You are the perfect example of what states cannot chose what is taught in schools and what is not and the GOVT needs to.*
> 
> It has nothing to do with hearing all the sides when something is a fact. And you did not offend me, you just can't teach religion in science class like it's science when it's just mythology. The only time creationism should ever be taught in science class is if science even proves it to be true, which has never been done.
> 
> *I just know the basics about Trumps education plan because he is a buffoon and he cant explain it well. I just know he wants to cut spending to education and he hates common core.*
> 
> *As for school of choice, all school of choice is going to do is segregate kids by income and race. That is the last thing you want to do.
> And there is already basically a choice of school anyways since you can go to a public school or private and when you get to HS have the option to also go to a trade school.*
> 
> If you want to improve schools, give them more money, pay the teachers better and also make sure the teachers are tested better every few years to make sure they are qualified.


I would never teach the Bible or any sort of religious text in a science class nor advocate for doing so. That is 100% NOT what I was trying to get across. 

Confused on the bolded for the second part? How am I a perfect example? You totally took my text out of context and now just throw hateful remarks towards my way. I never said to teach this thing in a fucking science class. 

The last two pieces of bolded I have issues with as well. You said you know the basics of Trump's plan because he is a fool and cannot explain it well. Did you read the link I sent you? 

Let's not act like many schools aren't already segregated by income in many places of this place. Private schools are outrageous in price sometimes. My parents could not afford to send me to one, it is not a viable second option.

** Just in case I need to put this here again I NEVER SAID TO TEACH THE BIBLE IN SCIENCE CLASS. NOT ONCE DID I SAY THIS.


You also talk about Common Core a little bit, but I have not talked to one teacher that actually likes it. Most feel it is based too much around making the student learn useless things instead of being a kid for once. This is what any government program is going to look like unless you get real people with an education background in charge.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

^ Listen Pal, we're not letting you teach your God book in my science class get that in your head.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Common core has its pros and cons. The emphasis on STEM is crucial to finding jobs in the new economy, but it often neglect humanities and and the arts. You lose something culturally if there is an overemphasis on a few subjects.

As for top down vs bottom up in education, no one way is the best. If left purely up to the state, the standards might not be there for some states which clearly don't value education. If it is only from the top down, some students might not be able to keep up with standards and lose interests in the subject early on. Tricky situation.

And any educator advocating teaching creationism as a science should just quit teaching science.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I once had a super Christian Biolgy teacher. Not even kidding. I went to a tiny High School, so they often recycled coaches as teachers. The education there was absolutely atrocious.

Anyways, when we got to Evolution, he would constantly stress that it was just a theory. :lol I mean, yeah it is, but it was just funny cause he literally gave us a sermon in one class period. For real.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

You all should realize it doesn't matter what we believe, we're all going to be irrelevant in 10 thousand years, and dead.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Your kind of thinking is exactly what the govt needs to step in with what is taught in schools and not leave it up to the state.
> 
> No everything should not be taught in schools when we know its not a fact.
> 
> There is not scientific evidence to prove that creationism is real, but there is scientific evidence to show that evolution is a fact. You dont teach something in science class or history that is not real.
> 
> If you want to teach the bible in mythology class along with the greek gods, that is fine but you dont teach it in science class like evolution is a scientific fact like evolution is.
> 
> Using your logic, you should be able to teach kids that 2+2=5 because using your own words, well we dont agree what 2+2=5 but it should be taught anyways and respect the people that think 2+2=5.
> 
> Creationism like the greek gods has no scientific evidence to back it up, that is why we don't teach them as facts.
> 
> You are the perfect example of what states cannot chose what is taught in schools and what is not and the GOVT needs to.
> 
> It has nothing to do with hearing all the sides when something is a fact. And you did not offend me, you just can't teach religion in science class like it's science when it's just mythology. The only time creationism should ever be taught in science class is if science even proves it to be true, which has never been done.
> 
> I just know the basics about Trumps education plan because he is a buffoon and he cant explain it well. I just know he wants to cut spending to education and he hates common core.
> 
> As for school of choice, all school of choice is going to do is segregate kids by income and race. That is the last thing you want to do.
> And there is already basically a choice of school anyways since you can go to a public school or private and when you get to HS have the option to also go to a trade school.
> 
> If you want to improve schools, give them more money, pay the teachers better and also make sure the teachers are tested better every few years to make sure they are qualified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love how Trump fans bash Kaine for coming off as an unhinged asshole why that is how Trump always is and they love him for it and never bash him for that. it just shows how Trump supporters have no credibility.
> 
> its comical to watch Trump fans speak about Kaine like this when Trump is the same way. At least in Kaines case what he was saying was true and when Trump does it, he is full of shit.


Actually Trump has said a lot about Hillary that is very true. As for Kaine I explained why he came off looking like an idiot, he tried to imitate and failed. Cannot claim that a man like Trump shouldn't lead but then you come out acting like what you speak out against.

Bernie followers have as much credibility as Hillary followers. :wink2:


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> You all should realize it doesn't matter what we believe, we're all going to be irrelevant in 10 thousand years, and dead.


Speak for yourself, buddy. I'll still be alive and relevant in 10 thousand years because I am the Highlander.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Well I didn't watch the debate because I don't think they matter at all, but the common consensus seems to be that Pence won, so that's nice.


also bm seems to think the opposite. So it's a good sign.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Hope you guys like kaines behavior.

Hes going to be president after hillary dies 2 years into her first term.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Smarkout said:


> I would never teach the Bible or any sort of religious text in a science class nor advocate for doing so. That is 100% NOT what I was trying to get across.
> 
> Confused on the bolded for the second part? How am I a perfect example? You totally took my text out of context and now just throw hateful remarks towards my way. I never said to teach this thing in a fucking science class.
> 
> The last two pieces of bolded I have issues with as well. You said you know the basics of Trump's plan because he is a fool and cannot explain it well. Did you read the link I sent you?
> 
> Let's not act like many schools aren't already segregated by income in many places of this place. Private schools are outrageous in price sometimes. My parents could not afford to send me to one, it is not a viable second option.
> 
> ** Just in case I need to put this here again I NEVER SAID TO TEACH THE BIBLE IN SCIENCE CLASS. NOT ONCE DID I SAY THIS.
> 
> 
> You also talk about Common Core a little bit, but I have not talked to one teacher that actually likes it. Most feel it is based too much around making the student learn useless things instead of being a kid for once. This is what any government program is going to look like unless you get real people with an education background in charge.


But you did say that, and i quote "All I meant was a school should always should all sides to a story"

Were you not referring to creationism vs evolution and that kids should hear both sides in school?

I did not take anything out of context. What did you mean by hearing both sides then?

And yes there already are some places segregated by income for schooling, under Trump it would be even worse. You dont need to segregated further.

What usless things that common core make the children learn?




Cipher said:


> I once had a super Christian Biolgy teacher. Not even kidding. I went to a tiny High School, so they often recycled coaches as teachers. The education there was absolutely atrocious.
> 
> Anyways, when we got to Evolution, he would constantly stress that it was just a theory. :lol I mean, yeah it is, but it was just funny cause he literally gave us a sermon in one class period. For real.


That teacher was a moron, there is a huge difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

Gravity is also a scientific theory. lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Actually Trump has said a lot about Hillary that is very true. As for Kaine I explained why he came off looking like an idiot, he tried to imitate and failed. Cannot claim that a man like Trump shouldn't lead but then you come out acting like what you speak out against.
> 
> Bernie followers have as much credibility as Hillary followers. :wink2:


Hillary is one of the most corrupt politicians of all time and the most disliked and least trust worthy democratic nominee ever, not sure what that has to do with Pence lying about claiming Trump did not say the things that Kaine was saying, when we all know Trump said them.

And you can say that Kaine came off looking like an idiot all you want but he acted exactly like Trump does all the time, but the only difference is most of what Kaine was saying is true and when Trump speaks, he speaks like a 4th grader and is super racist, bigoted, and ignorant yet Trump fans love when he acts like that. I just think its funny it's hilarious how Trump fans are bashing Kaine for doing some of the things Trump always does.

Also, Kaine did not fail at all. He made Pence look like a total idiot, because Pence kept saying Trump never said that or its not true when it is true, and he kept dodging Kaine's points about Trump when Pence kept claiming he would go over them point by point and never did.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Hillary is one of the most corrupt politicians of all time and the most disliked and least trust worthy democratic nominee ever, not sure what that has to do with Pence lying about claiming Trump did not say the things that Kaine was saying, when we all know Trump said them.
> 
> And you can say that Kaine came off looking like an idiot all you want but he acted exactly like Trump does all the time, but the only difference is most of what Kaine was saying is true and when Trump speaks, he speaks like a 4th grader and is super racist, bigoted, and ignorant yet Trump fans love when he acts like that. I just think its funny it's hilarious how Trump fans are bashing Kaine for doing some of the things Trump always does.
> 
> Also, Kaine did not fail at all. He made Pence look like a total idiot, because Pence kept saying Trump never said that or its not true when it is true, and he kept dodging Kaine's points about Trump when Pence kept claiming he would go over them point by point and never did.


I have so much material on you should Trump win. I keep warning ya...


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I didn't watch the debate because Biden reminded me that the VP is nothing more than a glorified government salaried golfer.


----------



## amhlilhaus

This observation is very unscientific, but...

I live just outside cincinnati in the same region since 08. In 08 and 12 there were about 50 50 obama to mccain/romney bumper stickers and yard signs. If i had to guess id even say obamas wasseen more, especially inside the city limits ( black areas). 

This year, i have literally seen almost NO hillary signs. In fact, i cant recall what they look like. I have seen more jill stein signs than clinton. Trump is everywhere, with gary johnson a very distant second.

If you did not look at the polling, based on signs youd think trump was way ahead. 

I dont know if hillary just isnt bothering around here, even though it went heavy for obama the last 2 elections.

Its just very strange


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> But you did say that, and i quote "All I meant was a school should always should all sides to a story"
> 
> Were you not referring to creationism vs evolution and that kids should hear both sides in school?
> 
> I did not take anything out of context. What did you mean by hearing both sides then?
> 
> And yes there already are some places segregated by income for schooling, under Trump it would be even worse. You dont need to segregate it further.
> 
> What usless things that common core make the children learn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That teacher was a moron, there is a huge difference between a theory and a scientific theory.
> 
> Gravity is also a scientific theory. lol


By hearing both sides all I meant was that it should be brought up in school. We had specific classes in my middle school (not really high school) for that. That's really all I meant to be honest. 

On the segregating schools under Trump, how would it be even worse? I have read nothing but positive things about charter schools. 

I am very surprised you are on board with common core. Take a look at the curriculum, it is meant to basically make our kids robots and leaves kids/teachers with no creative thinking. 

Also for the guy who was saying Pence believes school should teach creationism, this is exactly why school curriculum should not belong to the national government. You cannot apply one method of learning to every kid in this country. It is disturbing that they think this way. 

I found a pretty good article from the Huffington Post actually that describes your viewpoint but then shows how a charter school fixed that issue :http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/charter-school-desegregation_us_56faf0e6e4b083f5c605eae5

Education is bad now, trust me I see it every day. Some kids are naturally smart enough and they will easily get by, but will never be challenged. Some kids will struggle, but everything is geared towards state tests here in New York so teachers still have to make sure they understand everything for the state test. Last but not least you have the rest of the kids who may not be great in school, but have a God given gift but are not really allowed to ever use it because it is outside school guidelines. 

Trump wants to add an additional $20 billion towards school choice as well, I am losing you when you state he wants to greatly cut education. His plan would allow for every child currently living in poverty to attend the school of their choice. 

Spending is also not the problem, we are ranked 5th in spending per pupil yet ranked in the 20's when it comes to reading and math (reading might be 17). 

Hilary's answer to this is that these schools would lead to a "white supremacist" school. She also said this could lead to a "school of jihad. All she cares about is raking in the dough from her teachers union.


----------



## Freelancer

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> This observation is very unscientific, but...
> 
> I live just outside cincinnati in the same region since 08. In 08 and 12 there were about 50 50 obama to mccain/romney bumper stickers and yard signs. If i had to guess id even say obamas wasseen more, especially inside the city limits ( black areas).
> 
> This year, i have literally seen almost NO hillary signs. In fact, i cant recall what they look like. I have seen more jill stein signs than clinton. Trump is everywhere, with gary johnson a very distant second.
> 
> If you did not look at the polling, based on signs youd think trump was way ahead.
> 
> I dont know if hillary just isnt bothering around here, even though it went heavy for obama the last 2 elections.
> 
> Its just very strange


I've been noticing the exact same thing. I'm right outside of Pittsburgh, and every election we basically have a 50/50 split with stickers and signs. I see Trump stuff everywhere, but I've literally only seen 3 Hillary signs. They are almost non-existent.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Are people begrudgingly voting for Hillary? Like children forced to eat their veggies? Sadly kids with these veggies there is no desert after!


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Freelancer said:


> I've been noticing the exact same thing. I'm right outside of Pittsburgh, and every election we basically have a 50/50 split with stickers and signs. I see Trump stuff everywhere, but I've literally only seen 3 Hillary signs. They are almost non-existent.


Also in PA. I am seeing large Trump/Pence signs pop up every day. People are no longer afraid to show support for him.

And I haven't seen a single hillary sign yet. She draws a few hundred people to rallies while Trump is filling stadiums like a rock star.

Hillary = tna. Trump = WWE . pretty much.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Smarkout said:


> I have read nothing but positive things about charter schools.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Here's a good read for people who don't treat comedians as serious sources of information: 

http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/22/john-olivers-anti-charter-school-rant-is


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Smarkout said:


> By hearing both sides all I meant was that it should be brought up in school. We had specific classes in my middle school (not really high school) for that. That's really all I meant to be honest.
> 
> On the segregating schools under Trump, how would it be even worse? I have read nothing but positive things about charter schools.
> 
> I am very surprised you are on board with common core. Take a look at the curriculum, it is meant to basically make our kids robots and leaves kids/teachers with no creative thinking.
> 
> Also for the guy who was saying Pence believes school should teach creationism, this is exactly why school curriculum should not belong to the national government. You cannot apply one method of learning to every kid in this country. It is disturbing that they think this way.
> 
> I found a pretty good article from the Huffington Post actually that describes your viewpoint but then shows how a charter school fixed that issue :http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/charter-school-desegregation_us_56faf0e6e4b083f5c605eae5
> 
> Education is bad now, trust me I see it every day. Some kids are naturally smart enough and they will easily get by, but will never be challenged. Some kids will struggle, but everything is geared towards state tests here in New York so teachers still have to make sure they understand everything for the state test. Last but not least you have the rest of the kids who may not be great in school, but have a God given gift but are not really allowed to ever use it because it is outside school guidelines.
> 
> Trump wants to add an additional $20 billion towards school choice as well, I am losing you when you state he wants to greatly cut education. His plan would allow for every child currently living in poverty to attend the school of their choice.
> 
> Spending is also not the problem, we are ranked 5th in spending per pupil yet ranked in the 20's when it comes to reading and math (reading might be 17).
> 
> Hilary's answer to this is that these schools would lead to a "white supremacist" school. She also said this could lead to a "school of jihad. All she cares about is raking in the dough from her teachers union.


Again NO it should not be bright up in school. Teaching religion has no place in public schools. Separation of church and state. If you want to learn about the bible go to a catholic school.

Someone already beat me to the punch on the charter schools, go watch that video.

As for common core, it does not take out creative thinking at all.

And Trump does want to cut spending for schools, do you even know what his education plan is? HIs plan would only help rich white kids and hurt everyone else especially the lower income kids. Trump wants to fund privite schools and cut spending on public schools


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Not so significant anecdote time... My public highschool education consisted of the exact same curriculum as my middle school courses that were a mix of home school and DoD school. Let that sink in, a DoD school was more advanced in middle school than the public school I transferred to for the last three years. That was at the end of the 90s... Can't imagine the situation has gotten better.

That is how piss poor our education system is in this country. I don't get why anyone thinks throwing more money at a problem will work when it isn't about how much is spent, but how and what is taught and the flexibility of meeting each student's unique needs. Also, the insane obsession with math and science also needs to be curtailed. There are benefits to the arts as well and they shouldn't be brushed aside as secondary at every possible juncture.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Here's a good read for people who don't treat comedians as serious sources of information:
> 
> http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/22/john-olivers-anti-charter-school-rant-is


Yet they are a serious source of information. People like John Oliver and before him John Stewart are way more credible source of information than fox news.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

that's nice dear


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> that's nice dear


Sorry if the truth hurts. Fox news has the most uninformed views of any news channel.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Sorry if the truth hurts. Fox news has the most uninformed views of any news channel.


You have never watched MSNBC have you? They make Fox News look positively nuetral and competent in comparison that is how awful that channel is. They only people that are left watching that trash are either looking only for an echo chamber or are just beyond any form of actual intelligence....


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Kabraxal said:


> You have never watched MSNBC have you? They make Fox News look positively nuetral and competent in comparison that is how awful that channel is. They only people that are left watching that trash are either looking only for an echo chamber or are just beyond any form of actual intelligence....


MSNBC is just as bad as Fox but Fox is worse. I remember reading a year or so ago how 60% of fox news so called facts are lies. 

Both stations are bad but fox is worse but not by much.

Comparing Fox and MSNBC is like comparing Hitler and Stalin.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

And I can say MSNBC is worse than Fox News. They're just your subjective opinion. Quit making it as fact.

All corporate, state owned media is awful, no matter the slant. Quit acting like one is above the other because it fits more within your "ideology". I used to think the same too until I grew up.


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

For what it's worth, all scientific data points to life on Earth being designed. Claims to the contrary are ideology masquerading as science.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> And I can say MSNBC is worse than Fox News. They're just your subjective opinion. Quit making it as fact.
> 
> All corporate, state owned media is awful, no matter the slant. Quit acting like one is above the other because it fits more within your "ideology". I used to think the same too until I grew up.


So you can state that MSNBC is worse than FOX and that is ok but when I say Fox is worse, I am stating it as a fact LOL yeah ok.

if anyone needs to grow up its you. Stop being a hypocrite.




Big Salad said:


> For what it's worth, all scientific data points to life on Earth being designed. Claims to the contrary are ideology masquerading as science.


No it doesn't . Do tell how all life on earth is intelligent designed?

Take the universe , 99.9% of it cannot sustain life. How is that designed? 99.9% of all species that have ever been on earth is extinct, how is that intelligently designed?

There is nothing in science that shows it was designed because if there was science would come out and say it.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Let's keep this thread on topic of politics and not stray into intelligent design vs reality please.


Also MSNBC and Fox are both echo chambers. We all know this. No need to to argue this.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> MSNBC is just as bad as Fox but Fox is worse.


THIS ISN'T HOW LANGUAGE WORKS


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The debates arround school choice are pretty, the ideal sistem is voucher and random selection trough lottery. Is true what was said before about the possitve net effects of charter schools but:

- Those effects tend to dissapear when you control by urban sectors
- There are a big chunk of literature showing how charter schools are prone to racial segregation through things like white fligh.

There is a reason why organizations like the OECD don't recommend to put the focus in school choice today, i say this coming from a country where all the educational system is predicated in this and has resulted in one of the most elitist educational systems in the world



Big Salad said:


> For what it's worth, all scientific data points to life on Earth being designed. Claims to the contrary are ideology masquerading as science.


:lmao

Don't go there please


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> Let's keep this thread on topic of politics and not stray into intelligent design vs reality please.
> 
> 
> Also MSNBC and Fox are both echo chambers. We all know this. No need to to argue this.


The difference between MSNBC and Fox News is that, until recently MSNBC has always branded itself as a political commentary station and not an actual news station. 
Meanwhile, Fox News falsely brands itself as a news station and bills itself as "fair and balanced", when it is nothing more than a PR outlet for the Republican party. 
While MSNBC's commentary has a heavily leftist stance, they don't try to masquerade what they are as something else like Fox News does. Fox News was explicity created by Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes as a right wing propaganda network


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> Let's keep this thread on topic of politics and not stray into intelligent design vs reality please.


TBF, it's not like the political discussion based in the realm of reality either. :lol


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


>





CamillePunk said:


> Here's a good read for people who don't treat comedians as serious sources of information:
> 
> http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/22/john-olivers-anti-charter-school-rant-is





birthday_massacre said:


> *Again NO it should not be bright up in school. Teaching religion has no place in public schools.* Separation of church and state. If you want to learn about the bible go to a catholic school.
> 
> Someone already beat me to the punch on the charter schools, go watch that video.
> 
> *As for common core, it does not take out creative thinking at all.*
> 
> *And Trump does want to cut spending for schools, do you even know what his education plan is? HIs plan would only help rich white kids and hurt everyone else especially the lower income kids.* Trump wants to fund privite schools and cut spending on public schools



I just want to touch on the bolded because once again, it is not my place as a teacher to go up to 9 year old Sally during Christmas season and say, "well ya know this is all fake right?". It's simply not my place. 

On Common Core, have you actually seen any curriculum based on it? I do not mean to be offensive or smart here but I don't see any basis for your opinion here. No joke, I've seen the younger kids cry and say they do not want to go to school anymore after some of this ridiculous work they were given in preparation for common core. 

I know what his education plan is BM, but thank you for asking. How would giving lower income kids a school of choice hurt them and help rich white kids? You talked about private schools being a viable option instead of a charter school system and I disagree. Mostly wealthier kids are going to these schools, lower income kids do NOT have a choice as of now. 

FYI I went to public school, and I was blessed to have many teachers that cared about me. I also was lucky enough to hear of the amount of corruption goes on from the district office and admins in regards to money. But nobody can truly do anything because there really isn't another choice for many kids. 

Camille seemed to answer that John Oliver link fairly well for me, so I suppose there is no need to touch on that. 

Trust me, as a future teacher I would love to get paid more because of the Democrats, but I also realize this isn't about me, it is also about the kids. The way education is being done now will not work. You didn't really give me a clear answer to some of my questions before so if it's alright with you I just have some for you to answer. Thanks.


1.) What would you do to fix education instead of charter schools and "school of choice"?

2.) Not that this discredits your opinion in any sort of way, but do you have any experience with common core? Just curious. 

3.) What am I supposed to say when a 9 year old comes up to me and asks what I'm getting for Christmas in class? 
** I will be saying an item I want (hey maybe a WWE Network gift card), because she is NINE. It is not my place to rip into a 9 year olds religion. As somebody who does believe there is a higher up and is semi religious (I know I am stupid BM, please just ignore that), it is also not my place to go up to 12 year old Kevin and tell him "yeah well your parents have no idea what you are talking about evolution is FAKE". 

^That doesn't mean I do not believe in evolution, but you cannot just force your beliefs on a bunch of kids. It is not right and not fair to them. It does not mean, however, that when they get to the proper age that you do not go over this information. Of course this has to be gone over. Public school is a very mixed group of kids so you also have to be careful in how you teach this information. If I do not use the word "theory" to describe any of this I WILL be called on by at least one parent because that is how the world works.


----------



## Mr.S

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

MSNBC is also biased in many ways, pays DNC good money n so on.

But Fox can't really be categorized as a News Channel with their Sean Hannity sh** & I could go on & On. Only Wallace, Bret & Kelly are probably decent & they would be the most conservative by a long margin in NBC or CNN.

Fox is just a propaganda machine of the Republican party & tea party extremist luncatics.

The difference in NBC & CNN would love the GOP if they stopped their sexist, racist stuff, drive the tea party lunatics out, weed out the idiotic views on abortion, gay marriage etc & be mildly intelligent - For ex - You can't build a country without Infra Investment, you just can't oppose every taxes - That way you won't have a country - Republicans used to oppose Deficits once, a big section opposed Kennedy's plan to cut taxes from 90-80% odd fearing it will blow up the deficit. Since then how many GOP guys gave budget surpluses? Bush blew up the financial system, fought stupid wars & left a 1.3T Deficit which Obama took 8 years to bring down to 400-500-600M $ odd. The Republicans went from the party of budget concern to oppose all taxes party!

If the Republicans became the party of the 80's moderate NBC & CNN would love it. They don't have much ideology, they are just establishment loving corrupt folks who want favors.

Trump is just an extreme version of that non-sense, he is a monster but I think he can get elected considering how big of a phony & fraud Clinton actually is. I would love to see the reaction of the Trump fans when the economy tumbles down into a big recession.

I mean if what Bush left in 2008 was a mess, I imagine what Trump will do - There will be no recovery for the GOP for 4-5 years! Anyways the Republican party is heading for sure disaster - The Demographics have turned hugely against & not just minorities, but they are also bleeding women & young voters. Especially young people just dislike the Republican party & every election that will show up more n more in Presidential elections n will trickle down to local races as well. In 8-10 years unless GOP reforms it has got a huge HUGE problem.

Look at the electoral map - It will take a miracle for Trump to win - He needs PA with OH & FL & NC or win all or NV, IW & NH/CO with OH, FL, NC. He loses anyone of those states & he can't win. I don't think even Trump expects Wisconsin or Michigan however well he does in the rust belt. This is despite running against Clinton!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Smarkout said:


> I just want to touch on the bolded because once again, it is not my place as a teacher to go up to 9 year old Sally during Christmas season and say, "well ya know this is all fake right?". It's simply not my place.
> 
> On Common Core, have you actually seen any curriculum based on it? I do not mean to be offensive or smart here but I don't see any basis for your opinion here. No joke, I've seen the younger kids cry and say they do not want to go to school anymore after some of this ridiculous work they were given in preparation for common core.
> 
> I know what his education plan is BM, but thank you for asking. How would giving lower income kids a school of choice hurt them and help rich white kids? You talked about private schools being a viable option instead of a charter school system and I disagree. Mostly wealthier kids are going to these schools, lower income kids do NOT have a choice as of now.
> 
> FYI I went to public school, and I was blessed to have many teachers that cared about me. I also was lucky enough to hear of the amount of corruption goes on from the district office and admins in regards to money. But nobody can truly do anything because there really isn't another choice for many kids.
> 
> Camille seemed to answer that John Oliver link fairly well for me, so I suppose there is no need to touch on that.
> 
> Trust me, as a future teacher I would love to get paid more because of the Democrats, but I also realize this isn't about me, it is also about the kids. The way education is being done now will not work. You didn't really give me a clear answer to some of my questions before so if it's alright with you I just have some for you to answer. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 1.) What would you do to fix education instead of charter schools and "school of choice"?
> 
> 2.) Not that this discredits your opinion in any sort of way, but do you have any experience with common core? Just curious.
> 
> 3.) What am I supposed to say when a 9 year old comes up to me and asks what I'm getting for Christmas in class?
> ** I will be saying an item I want (hey maybe a WWE Network gift card), because she is NINE. It is not my place to rip into a 9 year olds religion. As somebody who does believe there is a higher up and is semi religious (I know I am stupid BM, please just ignore that), it is also not my place to go up to 12 year old Kevin and tell him "yeah well your parents have no idea what you are talking about evolution is FAKE".
> 
> ^That doesn't mean I do not believe in evolution, but you cannot just force your beliefs on a bunch of kids. It is not right and not fair to them. It does not mean, however, that when they get to the proper age that you do not go over this information. Of course this has to be gone over. Public school is a very mixed group of kids so you also have to be careful in how you teach this information. If I do not use the word "theory" to describe any of this I WILL be called on by at least one parent because that is how the world works.



Santa Claus has nothing to do with being catholic. Lets not forget that Christians stole the xmas holiday from the pagans. 

If you mean telling Sally that god/jesus is fake, then yes you are right. That is why religion has no place in school. Either preaching for it, or against it. It's no ones place to speak about relgion in school. That is my point.

So what is some of the ridiculous work they were given in preparation for common core? 

As for giving lower income kids the school of their choice, yeah so you really think school systems are going to let poorer kids go into the same school as richer kids? Also how exactly would they pick who gets in and who does not? We all know how that is going to work out.

Choice of school only benefits the wealthy. 

What they need to do is give more money to teachers, and make smarter people want to teach. That way you have a better crop of teachers.

The whole choice thing makes zero sense. oh you want choice, so everyohe picks the same school, there is not enough room for all those kids so then what? 

The fix is simple, pay teachers a little bit more if they are willing to go into the low come school districts, so they have just as good as teachers as the wealthy neighborhoods

Again as for your question about kid asks you what you are getting for xmas, you answer them. I am an atheist and i celebrate xmas. Xmas for kids and most people has nothing to do with god or jesus. Also its a stupid question to even bring up since what if you were Jewish. They dont celebrate xmas either.

When ever kids talk about xmas they are talking about Santa and not Jesus so your point really does not make any sense.

We were talking about not teaching religion like creationism in class like its a scientific theory like evolution is.

And yes you should not force your beliefs onto kids in public schools, That is why religion has no place in school. You are the one who was saying they need to hear it.

And even though evolution is a scientific theory, so is gravity but both are pretty much facts since science has proven them.

So no, it should not be left up to teh states to decide, last thing we need is creationism being taught in schools like its science based.


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Santa Claus has nothing to do with being catholic. Lets not forget that Christians stole the xmas holiday from the pagans.
> 
> If you mean telling Sally that god/jesus is fake, then yes you are right. That is why religion has no place in school. Either preaching for it, or against it. It's no ones place to speak about relgion in school. That is my point.
> 
> So what is some of the ridiculous work they were given in preparation for common core?
> 
> As for giving lower income kids the school of their choice, yeah so you really think school systems are going to let poorer kids go into the same school as richer kids? Also how exactly would they pick who gets in and who does not? We all know how that is going to work out.
> 
> Choice of school only benefits the wealthy.
> 
> What they need to do is give more money to teachers, and make smarter people want to teach. That way you have a better crop of teachers.
> 
> The whole choice thing makes zero sense. oh you want choice, so everyohe picks the same school, there is not enough room for all those kids so then what?
> 
> *The fix is simple, pay teachers a little bit more if they are willing to go into the low come school districts, so they have just as good as teachers as the wealthy neighborhoods*
> 
> Again as for your question about kid asks you what you are getting for xmas, you answer them. I am an atheist and i celebrate xmas. Xmas for kids and most people has nothing to do with god or jesus. Also its a stupid question to even bring up since what if you were Jewish. They dont celebrate xmas either.
> 
> *When ever kids talk about xmas they are talking about Santa and not Jesus so your point really does not make any sense.*
> 
> We were talking about not teaching religion like creationism in class like its a scientific theory like evolution is.
> 
> And yes you should not force your beliefs onto kids in public schools, That is why religion has no place in school. *You are the one who was saying they need to hear it.*
> 
> *And even though evolution is a scientific theory, so is gravity but both are pretty much facts since science has proven them.*
> 
> So no, it should not be left up to teh states to decide, last thing we need is creationism being taught in schools like its science based.



The kids might not associate it but the parents can easily take that and turn it into a big deal how I'm the teacher who forces their beliefs on kids. 

I said eventually they should hear all thought processes and I fail to see why it is wrong? I never said I even believed in creationism but it should be gone over to see how people used to think the world worked and how some even do now. I am saying that because people (parents) will be upset if their side of the story does not make the cut. 

Listen, I would love for my future job to surprisingly get a pay raise, trust me on the one. :smile2:

I do think you bring up an interesting point though on teacher pay. In high school I was a fairly good student and many people were trying to pressure me into high paying majors, but I ended up going with something I felt would actually help people. Unfortunately many kids I have met that share my major are going into the field for the "time off" and it saddens me to be quite honest. One of the main reasons more qualified people are not going into this profession is because of the pay, and it's quite sad.

That being said, I am not sure how many teachers complain when they have tenure and are getting paid a good amount of money to also get summers off. Not the reason I went into this field at all, but I see first hand how many people don't actually care for kids. 

Sounds like we may have to agree to disagree here and I know many people rip into you on this thread but this was a pleasant interaction. I also do not think we are too far off on our thoughts on this. My main thought process is not the way education is today just doesn't work.


----------



## Lariat From Hell

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*









Interesting stuff from Five Thirty Eight, but I'm sure most could predict the results.*


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*Strongly* disagree with Pence in regard to environmental and LGBT issues, but anyone who says Kaine won the debate is out of their damn mind and/or a shill. Dude couldn't shut the fuck up for a minute, which made him a much more suitable target of Dean's cocaine tweet than Don Juan, while Pence was impressively calm and calculated in that he defended Trump's silliness as best as he could *and* keep his own brand in shape for a potential run in 2020.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Y'all worried about creationism being taught in schools (but of course if we had more school choice you could just not send your kids to those schools. I personally would never send my child to a public school aka indoctrination center) but the daily reinforcement and indoctrination into the unquestionable moral good of the state is just fine. :mj Tater wants his religion to have total control of our healthcare and education at the point of a gun and nobody bats an eye. I guess the only choice that exists in a leftist's mind is the choice for a pregnant woman to destroy the fetus inside of her. It's a pretty clever marketing scheme to brand yourselves "pro-choice" over one issue while simultaneously being anti-choice over virtually every other single issue.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:trump is gonna lose barring a Wikileaks October nuclear surprise or :trump whipping her 2 debates in a row

Can't win with a shabby get out the vote operation in a tight race and like all Republican candidates since Reagan except Dubya in 2004 :trump 's GOTV operation is a bare bones embarrassment. They know that the tech companies all help the Democrats with software to target voters and the GOP's software always sucks. The way to counteract that is to spend the money to put LOTS of boots on the ground knocking doors but they never spend enough money on it.


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> :lmao
> 
> Don't go there please


I've already went there. However, I'll respect the science-denying moderator's wishes and put it in a separate thread.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> :trump is gonna lose barring a Wikileaks October nuclear surprise or :trump whipping her 2 debates in a row
> 
> Can't win with a shabby get out the vote operation in a tight race and like all Republican candidates since Reagan except Dubya in 2004 :trump 's GOTV operation is a bare bones embarrassment. They know that the tech companies all help the Democrats with software to target voters and the GOP's software always sucks. The way to counteract that is to spend the money to put LOTS of boots on the ground knocking doors but they never spend enough money on it.


But Trump doesn't want to win, though. :serious:

He got what he wanted: A global amount of publicity and gave a family friend a relatively easy road to the White House.

The fact that he hilariously and infamously destroyed a political party's supposed best of the best in the process was just the cherry on top.

:trump


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> *Y'all worried about creationism being taught in schools (but of course if we had more school choice you could just not send your kids to those schools.* I personally would never send my child to a public school aka indoctrination center) but the daily reinforcement and indoctrination into the unquestionable moral good of the state is just fine. :mj Tater wants his religion to have total control of our healthcare and education at the point of a gun and nobody bats an eye. I guess the only choice that exists in a leftist's mind is the choice for a pregnant woman to destroy the fetus inside of her. It's a pretty clever marketing scheme to brand yourselves "pro-choice" over one issue while simultaneously being anti-choice over virtually every other single issue.


Such a simple point and I never even thought of it like that. It was just in my opinion that telling these kids that creationism is not true, never was true, and never will be true is asking for issues. BUT if there was more school choice competition would be running wild and if a school was so crazy about creationism they would lose a ton of students. 

I said before though that when these kids get to the proper age all of these theories should be gone over because that is the fair way to do it. You cannot just treat these things like a joke, people take it very seriously.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Here's a good read for people who don't treat comedians as serious sources of information:
> 
> http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/22/john-olivers-anti-charter-school-rant-is


Says the guy who posts analysis from self appointed you-tube experts named Stefan, and a damn cartoonist!


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> But Trump doesn't want to win, though. :serious:
> 
> He got what he wanted: A global amount of publicity and gave a family friend a relatively easy road to the White House.
> 
> The fact that he hilariously and infamously destroyed a political party's supposed best of the best in the process was just the cherry on top.
> 
> :trump


if that is true, unless she hooks :trump up in a style that would make teapot dome look like small potatoes, at the moment of defeat and for a while afterward :trump will discover that he really, really, really wanted to win. they all do.

of course if that is true it's better than even money that she would hook :trump up real good


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Says the guy who posts analysis from self appointed you-tube experts named Stefan, and a damn cartoonist!


Are you saying Scott Adams isn't on your level simply because he draws cartoons? Fucking read his blog, plebeian. He's got more intelligence in his finger than most on this entire forum.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> if that is true, unless she hooks :trump up in a style that would make teapot dome look like small potatoes, at the moment of defeat and for a while afterward :trump will discover that he really, really, really wanted to win. they all do.
> 
> of course if that is true it's better than even money that she would hook :trump up real good


Actually, "Trump TV" is his endgame for this fuckery:

https://www.google.com/#q=trump+tv+station

It makes sense too, considering he got Jabba the Hut Roger Ailes on board and away from Fox News.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Big Salad said:


> I've already went there. However, I'll respect the science-denying moderator's wishes and put it in a separate thread.


lol

thanks man


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> :trump is gonna lose barring a Wikileaks October nuclear surprise or :trump whipping her 2 debates in a row
> 
> Can't win with a shabby get out the vote operation in a tight race and like all Republican candidates since Reagan except Dubya in 2004 :trump 's GOTV operation is a bare bones embarrassment. They know that the tech companies all help the Democrats with software to target voters and the GOP's software always sucks. The way to counteract that is to spend the money to put LOTS of boots on the ground knocking doors but they never spend enough money on it.


You might want to google Cambridge Analytica to put your mind at ease, or in horror at what sort of data the Mercers funded company is using to GOTV.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> This observation is very unscientific, but...
> 
> I live just outside cincinnati in the same region since 08. In 08 and 12 there were about 50 50 obama to mccain/romney bumper stickers and yard signs. If i had to guess id even say obamas wasseen more, especially inside the city limits ( black areas).
> 
> This year, i have literally seen almost NO hillary signs. In fact, i cant recall what they look like. I have seen more jill stein signs than clinton. Trump is everywhere, with gary johnson a very distant second.
> 
> If you did not look at the polling, based on signs youd think trump was way ahead.
> 
> I dont know if hillary just isnt bothering around here, even though it went heavy for obama the last 2 elections.
> 
> Its just very strange


I live in a similar part of town as you (basing on what you say about location to downtown Cincy) and I can confirm this. I have been noticing the past few weeks more and more Trump signs are going up in people's yards no matter what part of the city I go to. But hardly any signs for Hillary. There is one down the street from where I live, but it is actually a "Hillary for Prison" sign. :lol

Honestly I think I have seen more Johnson and Stein signs than Hillary ones in certain areas. Even in some neighborhoods where I remember seeing lots of Obama signs, I have yet to see a significant number of signs for Hillary. I have spent the past couple weeks wondering about that.

I also think, that for as divisive and intense this election is, there are fewer signs overall than I ever remember seeing during a Presidential election year.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If your atheist kid goes to school, learns about creationism and becomes a creationist, then you did something wrong in teaching your kid how to critically think for himself. 

If you're afraid that learning about the origin story of one religion (and not others) will make your child think that that is the real origin of the universe, then it's your fear that that is a superior idea than the one you can impart - meaning that the reason why you believe that no god exists is too weak to hold up against indoctrination. 

If you fought it off, so will your child. I don't mind putting in the extra effort because my reasons for why god doesn't exist are stronger than the average religious persons' for why their god does exist. I don't mind engaging in that battle. I learnt a lot from it when I went through it. I think the best way for creationism and intelligent design to implode upon itself is to teach it in schools. In fact teach it to future physicists and chemists and engineers. 

Like all bad ideas it will die the death it deserves.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Are you saying Scott Adams isn't on your level simply because he draws cartoons? Fucking read his blog, plebeian. He's got more intelligence in his finger than most on this entire forum.


I'm sure he does kid, however my dismissal of him was posted as a counter to Punk's implications of John Oliver's opinions as being invalid because he's a comedian. Oliver also has plenty of intelligent things to say and arguments to back them up, but I'm sure you'd simply write him off as leftist propaganda. Why don't you FUCKING watch his show?

Nice plebian reference though, I had to look that up.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> If your atheist kid goes to school, learns about creationism and becomes a creationist, then you did something wrong in teaching your kid how to critically think for himself.
> 
> If you're afraid that learning about the origin story of one religion (and not others) will make your child think that that is the real origin of the universe, then it's your fear that that is a superior idea than the one you can impart - meaning that the reason why you believe that no god exists is too weak to hold up against indoctrination.
> 
> If you fought it off, so will your child. I don't mind putting in the extra effort because my reasons for why god doesn't exist are stronger than the average religious persons' for why their god does exist. I don't mind engaging in that battle. I learnt a lot from it when I went through it. I think the best way for creationism and intelligent design to implode upon itself is to teach it in schools. In fact teach it to future physicists and chemists and engineers.
> 
> Like all bad ideas it will die the death it deserves.


Kids are at a younger age are not able to critically think, that is why its so easy to indoctrinate them with religion 

School is all about teaching kids facts not things that are not true. 

There is zero evidence to show that creationism is true but there is scientific evidence to show how evolution is true. using your logic, we should teach kids 2+2=5 and let them decide if that is right or wrong on their own. 

I also love how its always about Christianity in schools when it comes to conservatives. Imagine if some schools wanted to try to teach Islam being real, conservative would have a fit. You don't teach mythology as science in school. Its just going to make people dumber.

But I can see you are all about indoctrinating people with lies. 

Also if you are going to pull the oh well they should learn creationism ni school, then they also need to learn all the other religions stories too.

why not add the flying spaghetti monster in school too claiming that is real. You want kids to learn about that too having teachers claiming its real and scientific?


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






From the great state of Nevada. Battle born!

- Vic


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hard to believe the election is only 33 days away. Feels like all this has been going on for almost 2 years now lol


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Y'all worried about creationism being taught in schools (but of course if we had more school choice you could just not send your kids to those schools. I personally would never send my child to a public school aka indoctrination center) but the daily reinforcement and indoctrination into the unquestionable moral good of the state is just fine. :mj Tater wants his religion to have total control of our healthcare and education at the point of a gun and nobody bats an eye. I guess the only choice that exists in a leftist's mind is the choice for a pregnant woman to destroy the fetus inside of her. It's a pretty clever marketing scheme to brand yourselves "pro-choice" over one issue while simultaneously being anti-choice over virtually every other single issue.


If you were ever to stop and use the intelligence that I know you have, you'd find that we agree on more than we don't. You're a fine example of why the USA is so fucked. Libertarians from the left and the right should be natural allies against the authoritarian state but people like you let your paranoia get the best of you and somehow convince yourselves that the people who should be your allies are your enemy. The idea that I would ever be in favor of "the unquestionable moral good of the state" is pure delusion.



Smarkout said:


> Such a simple point and I never even thought of it like that. It was just in my opinion that telling these kids that creationism is not true, never was true, and never will be true is asking for issues. BUT if there was more school choice competition would be running wild and if a school was so crazy about creationism they would lose a ton of students.
> 
> I said before though that when these kids get to the proper age all of these theories should be gone over because that is the fair way to do it. You cannot just treat these things like a joke, people take it very seriously.


Should the schools be teaching Lord Xenu too? How about Odin and Thor? Krishna maybe? There are thousands of different religions and thousands of different creation stories. If schools took the time to go over all the different mythologies, no learning would ever be accomplished. 

The only thing publicly funded schools should be teaching are things that are fact based and can be proven by science. The choice for parents should be whether or not they want to send their kids to public school or to private school or to home school them. Let the government offer public school but don't give them the power to force parents into sending their kids to them if that is against their wishes. As long as public funds aren't being used to teach mythology as fact, there is no issue.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> If you were ever to stop and use the intelligence that I know you have, you'd find that we agree on more than we don't. You're a fine example of why the USA is so fucked. Libertarians from the left and the right should be natural allies against the authoritarian state but people like you let your paranoia get the best of you and somehow convince yourselves that the people who should be your allies are your enemy. The idea that I would ever be in favor of "the unquestionable moral good of the state" is pure delusion.


Way to not respond to any of my points. :banderas You aren't any kind of libertarian. You want the government in total control of healthcare and education. That is pretty opposite of any school of thought that could be called "libertarian". We aren't natural allies in the slightest. You have a religious belief that an institution of force has the right to monopolize services (the antithesis of libertarian thought). I don't share that religious belief. Please go knock on someone else's door and leave me to my voluntary interactions.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

^^ You aren't any libertarian either if you support Trump's immigration positions. :shrug

Nobody is ideological pure on every issue. Unless you are a caricature from a cartoon.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Way to not respond to any of my points. :banderas You aren't any kind of libertarian. You want the government in total control of healthcare and education. That is pretty opposite of any school of thought that could be called "libertarian". We aren't natural allies in the slightest. You have a religious belief that an institution of force has the right to monopolize services (the antithesis of libertarian thought). I don't share that religious belief. Please go knock on someone else's door and leave me to my voluntary interactions.


There's a libertarian left and an authoritarian left, just like there is a libertarian right and an authoritarian right. The USA would be a lot better off if things were framed as libertarian vs. authoritarian instead of left vs. right. I'm opposed to all things authoritarian, no matter which side it comes from. Libertarian left and libertarian right should be natural allies. It's people like you who cannot see beyond left vs. right that prevents a cohesive alliance against our authoritarian government.

I've never said I want the government in total control of healthcare and education. That's your delusions talking. What's even more delusional is accusing a gnostic atheist of having religious beliefs, especially in "an institution of force". I am opposed to all forms of centralized power, which is something I have stated many times, if you would ever use your brain instead of your emotions. I'm basically an anarchist when it comes to personal liberties and freedoms. The government should never have a right to tell people how to live their lives and what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. That's an area where you and I should agree wholeheartedly, if you're the libertarian that you claim to be.

Healthcare: I'm in favor of a non-profit public *option*. I'm not in favor of forcing people to use it. If people choose to use it, that is their choice. If they choose to get raped on price by for-profit private insurance, that should also be their choice. 

Education: Maybe it's something you need more of because your reading skills are sorely lacking. _As I just said_ in my previous post, people should have the option of where they send their children for school. The USA is a secular government and they should offer secular school. As an option. What they should not have is the power to force parents to send their children to schools that teach things they do not approve of. If parents want to teach their children a bunch of retarded mythology bullshit, then that is their own prerogative. There's no problem as long as public funds aren't going to teaching religious nonsense.

At no point have I ever suggested a monopoly of anything. Monopolies are one of the biggest reason our country is so fucked right now; monopolization of government power and monopolization of corporate power. Again, I am opposed to centralized forms of power. I believe that power should be spread amongst the people; something else I have stated many times. No one's life should be owned and run by the government or corporations. People should have the power to live their lives how they see fit without any form of centralized power that makes those decisions for them.

If you can't figure out why the libertarian left and the libertarian right should be natural allies, then it's you that needs to get your delusions in check. We don't have to agree on everything but we should agree on the important things, like ridding ourselves of the corrupt shitheads who run DC and ending the USA's fealty to the military industrial complex.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> ^^ You aren't any libertarian either if you support Trump's immigration positions. :shrug
> 
> Nobody is ideological pure on every issue. Unless you are a caricature from a cartoon.


I support few of Trump's actual policies. :mj I don't believe in government solutions. Talking about immigration in the context of libertarianism with the existence of a welfare state and incentives for illegal immigration (for which there are many in my state of California) is meaningless though because it's not a voluntary playing field. There are many initiations of force involved which create the conditions for them to want to come here. Our current immigration system is forced association. Stopping immigration altogether would be no less libertarian, but I'd prefer we just got rid of those incentives and then let whoever can come here and make it on their own do so. 



Tater said:


> There's a libertarian left and an authoritarian left, just like there is a libertarian right and an authoritarian right. The USA would be a lot better off if things were framed as libertarian vs. authoritarian instead of left vs. right. I'm opposed to all things authoritarian, no matter which side it comes from. Libertarian left and libertarian right should be natural allies. It's people like you who cannot see beyond left vs. right that prevents a cohesive alliance against our authoritarian government.


Considering you want people to be forced at gunpoint to fund a "public option", I hardly see how you are on the libertarian side of the matter. 



> I've never said I want the government in total control of healthcare and education. That's your delusions talking. What's even more delusional is accusing a gnostic atheist of having religious beliefs, especially in "an institution of force". I am opposed to all forms of centralized power, which is something I have stated many times, if you would ever use your brain instead of your emotions. I'm basically an anarchist when it comes to personal liberties and freedoms. The government should never have a right to tell people how to live their lives and what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. That's an area where you and I should agree wholeheartedly, if you're the libertarian that you claim to be.
> 
> 
> Healthcare: I'm in favor of a non-profit public *option*. I'm not in favor of forcing people to use it. If people choose to use it, that is their choice. If they choose to get raped on price by for-profit private insurance, that should also be their choice.


I can only go by what you say. You've said you want a public healthcare option that would lead to the end of private insurance companies. The details matter. That public option won't be funded by rainbows and unicorns. 

Also it is absolutely a religious belief to think the government taking over healthcare completely would improve healthcare. Improving things is not what governments do. There's a reason I pay Triple A ninety dollars a year so I never have to deal with the incompetent imbeciles at the DMV or public roadside emergency assistance. Perhaps healthcare would be "cheaper", but I'd rather pay a bit more and not have my life in the hands of some incompetent buffoon who is employed only by the grace of a complete absence of market forces in his industry. 

Forcing people to fund government programs is not and never will be libertarian. 




> Education: Maybe it's something you need more of because your reading skills are sorely lacking. _As I just said_ in my previous post, people should have the option of where they send their children for school. The USA is a secular government and they should offer secular school. As an option. What they should not have is the power to force parents to send their children to schools that teach things they do not approve of. If parents want to teach their children a bunch of retarded mythology bullshit, then that is their own prerogative. There's no problem as long as public funds aren't going to teaching religious nonsense.
> 
> At no point have I ever suggested a monopoly of anything. Monopolies are one of the biggest reason our country is so fucked right now; monopolization of government power and monopolization of corporate power. Again, I am opposed to centralized forms of power. I believe that power should be spread amongst the people; something else I have stated many times. No one's life should be owned and run by the government or corporations. People should have the power to live their lives how they see fit without any form of centralized power that makes those decisions for them.
> 
> If you can't figure out why the libertarian left and the libertarian right should be natural allies, then it's you that needs to get your delusions in check. We don't have to agree on everything but we should agree on the important things, like ridding ourselves of the corrupt shitheads who run DC and ending the USA's fealty to the military industrial complex.


I conflated you with someone else re: government education. My mistake.

Removing the "corrupt shitheads" from power won't work. Government power attracts corrupt shitheads almost without exception. 

You can't say you're against monopolization though when you have argued for the public option to put everyone else out of business. :mj 



Tater said:


> If Americans could choose a public option, it would eventually lead to single payer and run the private healthcare industry out of business.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Healthcare: I'm in favor of a non-profit public option. I'm not in favor of forcing people to use it. If people choose to use it, that is their choice. If they choose to get raped on price by for-profit private insurance, that should also be their choice.


the same thing would happen that that is happening to obamacare, unless taxes were raised every year by large amounts to pay for it. a non-profit comprehensive public option brings in all the sick and the old and you can say they deserve care period all you want and you're not entirely wrong but how is it going to be paid for. medicaid has been greatly expanded thanks to obamacare and the federal govenrment said we'll pick up the whole tab for five years to get states to sign on. well those five years are about to be up and 3 states, who all will only start out paying 5% of the cost with that going up to 10% by 2020 are already saying they'll have to raise medicaid premiums (which do exist) and others are lining up ready to yell at washington that they need money. 

a public option is even cheaper to the public than medicaid, or completely free to the public, or available to all. without one of those three things there's no point to it. how would it be paid for? are you going to levy a special tax on "the rich" and then raise it 5% every year or more? even that probably wouldn't pay for it all. the dirty little secret is you can't do this kind of stuff without raising taxes on the middle class and outside of europe that is not a winner right now anywhere in the world.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I support few of Trump's actual policies. :mj I don't believe in government solutions. Talking about immigration in the context of libertarianism with the existence of a welfare state and incentives for illegal immigration (for which there are many in my state of California) is meaningless though because it's not a voluntary playing field. There are many initiations of force involved which create the conditions for them to want to come here. Our current immigration system is forced association. Stopping immigration altogether would be no less libertarian, but I'd prefer we just got rid of those incentives and then let whoever can come here and make it on their own do so.


In other words, libertarianism doesn't apply to real life situations, which is why they fail to exist in anywhere in the world. Maybe some warlord in the middle east practice libertarian policies. :shrug

I feel that right-leaning libertarians like you fail to see the irony that when they profess to favour personal liberty over state intervention, they ultimately favours authoritarianism. They simply desire the authoritarian that supports their beliefs and dismiss all issues they care less about with 'the invisible hand will fix it'.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Considering you want people to be forced at gunpoint to fund a "public option", I hardly see how you are on the libertarian side of the matter.
> 
> I can only go by what you say. You've said you want a public healthcare option that would lead to the end of private insurance companies. The details matter. That public option won't be funded by rainbows and unicorns.
> 
> Also it is absolutely a religious belief to think the government taking over healthcare completely would improve healthcare. Improving things is not what governments do. There's a reason I pay Triple A ninety dollars a year so I never have to deal with the incompetent imbeciles at the DMV or public roadside emergency assistance. Perhaps healthcare would be "cheaper", but I'd rather pay a bit more and not have my life in the hands of some incompetent buffoon who is employed only by the grace of a complete absence of market forces in his industry.
> 
> Forcing people to fund government programs is not and never will be libertarian.
> 
> 
> I conflated you with someone else re: government education. My mistake.
> 
> Removing the "corrupt shitheads" from power won't work. Government power attracts corrupt shitheads almost without exception.
> 
> You can't say you're against monopolization though when you have argued for the public option to put everyone else out of business. :mj


I didn't argue that the public option should be used to put everyone else out of business. I speculated that it's what would happen if people were allowed to choose a public option. I could be wrong. Maybe large portions of the population would choose to stick with private healthcare insurance. Either way, I think people should have the option of that choice. You'd never hear me argue that people not using it should be forced to pay for it. Maybe you don't know it but I am just as opposed to Obamacare as you are. Forcing people to buy healthcare and penalizing them if they don't is fucking bullshit. My idea of a public option would give people the option to buy into it and it would be for the people who choose to buy into it. It would operate the same as any other insurance company but it would cost less because there wouldn't be a need to pad the pockets of CEOs and shareholders.

I'm not advocating that the government "completely take over healthcare". I'm advocating that they offer an optional non-profit alternative to for-profit private healthcare insurance. It's my speculation that believes it will be so successful that most everyone will want to use it. You understand me now?


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

#MakeLibertarianismSocialistAgain


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> (K.R.) POLITICAL NARRATIVE: Bernie Sanders is at it again, this time claiming we'd have no country without the income tax.
> REALITY: Perhaps he's unaware that, before 1913, we had no income tax. In fact, we had very little in the way of taxation at all. Between 1790 and 1913, taxation averaged 5.1% of GDP per year, nearly 80% lower than from 1914 to 2012, when taxes averaged 24.5% of GDP.
> And yet our economy grew faster, with lower unemployment, lower inflation, and nearly no deficit.
> Oh, and during that time we also invented the cotton gin, suspension bridge, fire hydrant, refrigeration, morse code, sewing machine, combine harvester, steam shovel, circuit breaker, vulcanized rubber, jackhammer, safety pin, paper clip, clothes pin, clothes hanger, dishwasher, electric stove, escalator, vacuum cleaner, repeating rifle, machine gun, torpedo, ratchet wrench, rotary printing press, motorcycle, barbed wire, paper bag, tape measure, sand blasting, grain silo, jeans, fire sprinkler, dental drill, phonograph, central heating, microphone, photographic plate, photographic film, carton, cash register, oil boiler, metal detector, electric iron, electric fan, blood pump, solar cell, thermostat, dissolvable pill, skyscraper, mixer, fuel pump, file cabinet, calculator, induction motor, drinking straw, ball point pen, pay phone, stop sign, cereal, smoke detector, tesla coil, rotary phone, zipper, bottle cap, tractor, mouse trap, surgical gloves, muffler, charcoal briquette, remote control, semi-auto shotgun, airplane, nickel-zinc battery, fly swatter, thumbtack, assembly line, safety razor, hearing aid, air conditioning, offset printing press, windshield wiper, automatic transmission, paper towel, paper shredder, headset, autopilot, electric blanket, traffic lights, and much more.
> ...and increased our real GDP per capita by 500%
> ...and doubled our life expectancy.
> SOURCES: http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1820_2016U…
> http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp13214.pdf


Increased taxes do not help the economy, they hurt it. They destroy innovation as is witnessed by the complete and utter lack of innovation in high taxed social welfare states. 

People assume that if we continue to raise taxes that somehow magically wealth will continue to be created at exactly the same levels therefore taxation can occur at the same levels as they are today.

No, that's not how this works. The more you tax, the more there is disinvestment, the less there is to tax and the slower the industry growth. The reason why the IT industry and .com thrived was because of the 0 tax environment. Even today the vast majority of internet business is being done under some of the lowest taxation you have in any industry. The reason why Uber succeeded is because it managed to create a business that spread taxes in such a way where self-employed individuals pay lower taxes than major taxi companies where the income structure is centralized. 

Taxes kill innovation. Plain and simple. 

Compared to the kind of innovation and manufacturing that still goes on in America, you have comparitively nothing coming out of anywhere else in the social welfare world. If you want to live in a global economy where if you want to buy 1 can of 1 type of beans (instead of the dozens different kinds available to us today) then by all means create a social welfare state. If you want a world where we no longer have 200 million dollar movies (name ONE social welfare state that has ever made a 200 million dollar movie), the by all means follow that model. If you want to live in a world where we don't have Flash, Arrow, Agent's of Shield, Avengers and instead bland and boring social drams filmed out of some buddies living room on a $1,000 budget, by all means create a social welfare state. Social Welfare can work assuming certain levels of sustained economic growth and GDP - but make no mistake, one of the directions that countries always take is stagnation of that GDP post implementation of social welfare programs. 












> “When I saw those shelves crammed with hundreds, thousands of cans, cartons and goods of every possible sort, for the first time I felt quite frankly sick with despair for the Soviet people,” Yeltsin wrote. “That such a potentially super-rich country as ours has been brought to a state of such poverty! It is terrible to think of it.


Modern socialists continue to blame corruption on the failure of socialism in other countries. They call it "perverted" (like they call religions that incentivize killing "perverted"). It's so easy to simply say "that's not "real" socialism" .. "that's no "real" feminism" ... "that's not "real" liberalism" .... Maybe it's time these people that say that nothing that goes wrong is "real" or a natural and logical conclusion of following a specific ideology should come out of their fantasy world because if nothing is real to them, then that means they're literally living a fantasy where reality is the perversion, but their fantasy is the reality.


----------



## amhlilhaus

So, after hillary wins what will the excuse be for her very rapid disappearance from public view? What will the official line be when she dies 2 years into her term?

My guess:

Its the republicans fault


----------



## Warlock

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Complete shock. So unexpected. If only there were signs.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

President Barack Obama’s job approval rating hit 55 percent in a new poll released Thursday, the highest that number has been at any point during his second term in office.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/obama-approval-229224


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> In other words, libertarianism doesn't apply to real life situations


So in other words I'm just gonna make something up and respond to my own hallucination of what you said.


----------



## The Bliss Blower

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Its never time for extreme liberalism especially not now with his refugee Crisis, we cant end up like an Islamic caliphate like Europe will be in 10 years.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson said he is comfortable with his decision to run even if he turns out to take votes from Democrat Hillary Clinton — securing a victory for Republican Donald Trump.
> 
> Yahoo Global News Anchor Katie Couric asked the former New Mexico governor to address a concern among some voters that most third-party candidates hear on the campaign trail: the possibility that his presence on the ballot would result in a spoiler effect.
> 
> “If, in fact, your candidacy helps Donald Trump become president of the United States, are you comfortable with that?” Couric asked.
> 
> Johnson, who is extremely critical of the nation’s two-party system, did not immediately talk about the possibility of a Trump victory. Instead, he brought up how he’s giving independents another option.
> 
> “Here’s what I’m comfortable with,” he said, “is that right now I am leading among independents and right now 50 percent of Americans who are going to register to vote are registering as independents. 50 percent! That’s amazing. Where’s their representation? Well, right now, I’m leading in that category.”
> 
> He also said he’s tied with Clinton among millennials and predicted that he may even surpass her for youth support by Nov. 8. But Couric returned to her initial concern about being a spoiler candidate.
> 
> “If that doesn’t happen, governor, though,” she said, “and let’s just say you are siphoning votes primarily from Hillary Clinton and you help put Donald Trump over the finish line, will you feel comfortable with that?”
> 
> “I’m feeling really comfortable about offering people their first vote,” he responded.
> 
> Couric beseeched Johnson to answer her question, and he insisted that he was. He started to say that it’s irrelevant whether or not his campaign inadvertently helps Trump, before finally acquiescing.
> 
> “Absolutely, Katie. Absolutely. I’m going to sleep well at night. I could[n’t] care less about Democrats and Republicans. I think they’ve lost touch with America.”
> 
> He contended he was polling ahead of Clinton and Trump among active military personnel — likely referencing a poll conducted by Doctrine Man — and believes that this is based upon his ideas, particularly regarding the use of the U.S. military.
> 
> “I feel great about my life. I feel great about my life. I feel great about this endeavor,” he said.
> 
> No matter the outcome, Johnson said, his team is going to continue to address the issues that need to be talked about in the United States. He accused Clinton and Trump of ignoring the need to reduce military spending and to reform Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
> 
> Johnson suggested that everything is not “just rosy” in the U.S. with the regular two parties running things.
> 
> “It’s not an option to do nothing when so many issues are facing this country.”


https://www.yahoo.com/news/gary-johnson-id-sleep-well-siphoning-votes-from-clinton-202657528.html


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> https://www.yahoo.com/news/gary-johnson-id-sleep-well-siphoning-votes-from-clinton-202657528.html


Did anyone else imagine Ol Funky Gary sucking on a big fat doob in between each sentence here?



> “I feel great about my life. I feel great about my life. I feel great about this endeavor,” he said.


Then just giggle his way out of there.

Camera goes off, Katie says: 'Let me hit that Gaz!'


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Not really a fan of this guilt tripping the masses. "IF YOU VOTE FOR ANYONE ELSE BUT OUR GUY, YOU'RE HELPING THE CANDIDATE YOU DON'T LIKE WIN."


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> Not really a fan of this guilt tripping the masses. "IF YOU VOTE FOR ANYONE ELSE BUT OUR GUY, YOU'RE HELPING THE CANDIDATE YOU DON'T LIKE WIN."


Its been that way since the Bush/Gore election


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is now losing North Carolina, Ohio and Iowa. And is with less than a point of adventage in Arizona :lmao

Edit: lol that fake polling memo, how desperate is people?


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> I didn't argue that the public option should be used to put everyone else out of business. I speculated that it's what would happen if people were allowed to choose a public option. I could be wrong. Maybe large portions of the population would choose to stick with private healthcare insurance. Either way, I think people should have the option of that choice. You'd never hear me argue that people not using it should be forced to pay for it. Maybe you don't know it but I am just as opposed to Obamacare as you are. Forcing people to buy healthcare and penalizing them if they don't is fucking bullshit. My idea of a public option would give people the option to buy into it and it would be for the people who choose to buy into it. It would operate the same as any other insurance company but it would cost less because there wouldn't be a need to pad the pockets of CEOs and shareholders.
> 
> I'm not advocating that the government "completely take over healthcare". I'm advocating that they offer an optional non-profit alternative to for-profit private healthcare insurance. It's my speculation that believes it will be so successful that most everyone will want to use it. You understand me now?


 @CamillePunk @DesolationRow (because I think you would find this interesting).

I get the argument you are trying to make but the problem is with a public option it is inevitable people are going to be forced to pay for it through taxation unless the government funds it through further spending (which would in many ways would be even worse). If you are someone who likes their health coverage and wants to keep their private insurance yet a public option is created by the government, you essentially run the risk being charged twice: once for your personal choice of coverage and the other for the public option through taxation. As CamillePunk stated, medicaid has already been greatly expanded through Obamacare and it would be even larger under a public option. This means the government footing the bill even further, which would mean either greater taxation to fund the project or further printing of money. Neither option is good.

And whilst I understand you are saying that a public option would not by design force a monopoly right then and there, you are creating a greater means for the monopoly of healthcare under the US system by placing a greater market share of the healthcare industry in the hands of government. Once government gets a hold of that share, they are not going to want to let that go and they are going to want to expand it. Especially the big government liberals.

I want to heed warning to you and others from someone who lives in the UK which has the dreadful NHS, you do not want a state ran healthcare system. The NHS is currently £9 Billion pounds in debt, which might not seem like a lot but it's increased by £2.3 Billion over the last 5 or so years (under a conservative government no less...) which is struggling with resources, is behind in terms of technologial advances and over the last year has been plagued by a junior doctor's strike in which there are really no babyfaces (to use a wrestling term in this post :lol.). Thousands of appointments and surgeries have been cancelled during this period and it's projected that over a million appointments are going to be cancelled if the full run of strikes goes ahead. That's a million people affected by infighting between politicians and doctors. What has caused this? Government ran healthcare.

Now let's talk about something liberals do not think about when advocating state controlled healthcare: the workers themselves. Here in the UK, if you want to become a doctor or a nurse you only have one place to work. If you are not happy with your working conditions or pay you cannot up and leave like any other job to find work in the same sector, because pay is determined by contractors who are under the government's watch. This has been the main cause of the year long fight between doctors and the government, depending on who you talk to the arguments have been about either pay or working conditions. The reality is that it is a bit of both. It is all about the new junior doctor's contracts they have been offered, who has control over those contracts? The Health Secretary, again government. For a doctor to open up his own private practice and offer insurance it is next to impossible, because the monopoly the state has over healthcare and the regulations that have been put in place. That means the cost of starting up and opening your own practice is extremely high, meaning that the doctors have to raise prices to cover the costs. Who suffers? The normal average joe, because only the super rich can afford private healthcare and they take it if they can to avoid the NHS. Less choice means less access, which means a worse service because the NHS has no fear of going out of business. Why? Because the government owns it and will either increase taxes or print more money to keep the project going.

Currently 1 in 4...yes 25%! of the NHS staff currently employed are bureaucrats. That is absolutely astonishing and those figures would make any sensible person drop their jaw. The NHS doctors and nurses spends a staggering 10 hours a week on bureaucracy. Which means more time is being spent ticking boxes and filling quotas than actually providing better healthcare for patients. What does this tell you? Government healthcare in general will mean much more red tape on the healthcare industry which effects workers and patients a like. Everyone suffers:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-142543/One-NHS-staff-bureaucrat.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...ors-spend-10-hours-a-week-on-bureaucracy.html


And let's not forget the classic consequences of a state ran health service: longer waiting times, months at a time waiting for important operations (you can spend around 6-12 months or longer waiting for a hip or knee replacement for example) and delays in getting important x-rays and examinations. If that is what you want in general, then funding a public option is the first step on the road to what has been happening in the UK, my country.

Providing a public option would risk providing less choice for the individual over their healthcare and more government share of the healthcare industry. That isn't libertarian in any way imaginable, it is giving more power to the government. And why the fuck would you trust government to provide good healthcare when you distrust government on nearly everything else?

Just some food for thought.

I might post some things about education another time.


----------



## DWils

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Clinton will win by more than 100 Electoral Votes, mark my words. You heard it here first.

Trump will probably slink into some hole for a few months after the election.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I have Hillary winning but I think it's going to be a super close race. Trump can still do it but the route to white house for him is going to be narrow and difficult and I just don't see him pulling it off.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> I have Hillary winning but *I think it's going to be a super close race*. Trump can still do it but the route to white house for him is going to be narrow and difficult and I just don't see him pulling it off.


I don't think so.

At this rate the gap between Hillary and Trump is bigger than the one between Obama and Romney, Hillary isn't wining by a bigger margin than Obama because both candidates are incredible unpopular therefore the support for third candidates or people undecided is bigger than in normal elections. As far as Johnson keep fading away, which he should the closer we are to election day, Hillary is gonna get even a bigger difference.

I think he doing better on the debates could not even matter at this rate. He could easily lose by a margin of 100 electoral votes as the guy above said, barring some bizarre shit like a massive low turn out in election day.

Eit: In an incredible possitive scenary, he could win Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina, Nevada and Florida, and just then the election becomes a Toss up. Is too much to overcome in one month


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






“So, it’s rigged if Hillary wins, but not if Trump wins?"
"Isn't that saying any woman who don't want to date you is a lesbian?" 

:lmao


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> I don't think so.
> 
> At this rate the gap between Hillary and Trump is bigger than the one between Obama and Romney, Hillary isn't wining by a bigger margin because both candidates are incredible unpopular therefore the support for third candidates or people undecided is bigger than in normal elections. As far as Johnson keep fading away Hillary is gonna get even a bigger difference.
> 
> I think he doing better on the debates could not even matter at this rate. He could easily lose by a margin of 100 electoral votes as the guy above said, barring some bizarre shit like a massive low turn out in election day


It will be interesting either way, I'm not going to pretend that I definitely can predict the outcomes in terms of margin or who is winning so you and the poster above could very well be right. I'm just giving my gut instinct as well as what I know to be the routes both Hillary and Trump roughly need to take to win the election.

There has been a lot of talk on how the debates could make a big difference this time around because of how unpopular both candidates are but from all the data I have seen (and I'll be happy to be corrected if I am wrong) but it has not really made a big difference in terms of polling, I've seen on average Hillary go up about only 2 points despite Trump absolutely imploding during the 2nd half of the debate.

In reality though, polling won't matter I don't think until when the election results actually happen. The polls for example got Brexit completely wrong all the way up to the referendum :lol. So there is that to keep in mind.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

A most excellent post, @L-DOPA.

I do not consider myself an expert on the British health care system but I have read many of these same points raised elsewhere, and have noted them. The rationing of care, fundamentally, becomes something of a necessity under such a system, and we are seeing a virtual explosion of rationing of health care and health care services in Great Britain, which I have no doubt will only worsen over time.

Thank you for the mention and the excellent post... 
@Tater I just read your post about Hillary Clinton. Extraordinarily insightful. I agree with almost all of the essential tenets expressed by Richard W. Behan at Counterpunch. My main caveat would be that the framers of the original U.S. system of government were highly skeptical of and contemptuous toward democracy. John Adams's warning that there had never been a democracy that did not ultimately commit suicide bears repeating here. 

Setting aside all partisan squabbles, which is especially easy since I recognize that both major political parties are almost hopelessly corrupt, the point that Hillary Clinton can run for the presidency and most likely become the next president of the U.S. speaks to a staggering and voluminous apathy. Again, Adams: the American Constitution and republican government were made only for a moral people, and, as he said, a religious people. Let's not get into another argument over religion. Let's accept that religion, like ideology, establishes a code of pattern recognition and system of behavior for those inculcated in it, nothing more, nothing less, for now. Few of the framers were overtly "Christian," most of them were deists of one kind or another. Yet for the most part, barring some of the radicals like Thomas Paine, who nonetheless used religious iconography and imagery in his propaganda, they admitted that a religious people as they knew the majority of the people were, had a certain advantage in being moral and vigilant against certain public vices of their supposed representatives. (All of this while Adams and Jefferson's respective forces and media may as well have called the other Satan in the 1800 presidential election campaign.) 

This election cycle has seen eye-popping corruption of both the Democratic Party and media surrogates fighting for Hillary Clinton, and the reaction of all to many people is to yawn. (There is a significant number of Bernie Sanders supporters who have sworn off the whole business, it must be said. Not that that should prevent Hillary from winning...) 

I'm sure you would agree, *Tater*, as well as you, @Reaper, that one of the more insidious aspects of Obamacare--which we already know was initially a major giveaway to behemoth insurance companies--is that it, like so many other regulations, actually discourage investment capital and the growth of small businesses. I've spoken with one small business owner after another in the San Francisco Bay Area, people who are employing 30+ people, who are saying that they cannot go over a certain number of employees, or else they will find themselves devastated by Obamacare. It was designed, in part, to keep small businesses small, which is one of the myriad factors contributing to a chronically underperforming economy. 

I'll get to the other posts which mentioned me by *L-DOPA* and *Reaper* soon! Haha.


Also, yes, Trump is slipping rather badly just about everywhere. The only place where there seems to be good news for Team Trump this week is New Hampshire, which has seen an army of Gary Johnson supporters ostensibly switch allegiances to Trump. 

Hillary's Get-Out-the-Vote ground game is apparently succeeding in North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania (where the numbers are downright brutal for Trump) and even Iowa. Michigan peculiarly remains fairly close (but I'm confident it will stay blue) for now, and New Hampshire is a fly in Hillary's ointment, but otherwise, the advances Trump made over September are in the process of being reversed. Colorado looks safer for Hillary than it did a mere week ago, too, and I never thought she'd lose it. 

Nevada might end up being close.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I did not realize things were going that badly now for Trump. This is what happens when you spend a week or so away from the US election race :lol.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> There has been a lot of talk on how the debates could make a big difference this time around because of how unpopular both candidates are but from all the data I have seen (and I'll be happy to be corrected if I am wrong) but it has not really made a big difference in terms of polling,


But the debate had a big effect. 

There is two parts of it. The race was tight before the debate but for one part Hillary started to bounce back because the effect of her health concern were put in the back and then the debate reforced her image with some of the undecided voters.

The odds of wining for her were below the 70% in some of the forecast (namely PEC) and 55% on some more volatil ones (538), she was loosing in Iowa and Ohio and risking North Carolina, Florida and Nevada. Now she has regained all those states while fighting again in Iowa and Ohio and his Odds are close to 80% in all the forecasts.

To put things in context, Trump loosed a 5% adventage in Ohio. And polling still don't reflect the tax issue



L-DOPA said:


> I've seen on average Hillary go up about only 2 points despite Trump absolutely imploding during the 2nd half of the debate.


What you need to see is the aggregates, not individual polling. As there is a lot of art going in polling in general (i.e. Weighting to predict turn out) mixing the averages of good polls allows you to eliminate bias and skewing.

The biggest discussion is what polls you accept and how many weight you put in every one into your prediction model, which is a more nerdy discussion but in the sense of this election doesn't matter too much because all the models say basically the same.



L-DOPA said:


> In reality though, polling won't matter I don't think until when the election results actually happen. The polls for example got Brexit completely wrong all the way up to the referendum :lol. So there is that to keep in mind.


Is good to see this point being bring on because it allows me to adressing it:

- First, if you see aggregates again, you only see a difference of 2% (http://www.ncpolitics.uk/uk-eu-referendum/) at best and a tie at worst (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/06/britain-s-eu-referendum). Meaning, the election was basically a toss-up because (without seeing the standard errors) i suspect there is no difference between the confidence intervals.

- Second, low turnouts screw your predictions. I said before that a big chunk of polling is based on the ability of predicting turn outs. If the turn out in one elections is under normal levels, your entire weight process is screwed up, which mean you're skewing your predictions. This is the case with the UK referendum and the recent colombian pace plebiscit.

- USA elections are more easy to predict than those other cases. For a number of reasons:
+ demos tend to vote in big blocks, whites and uneducated are more conservative, minorities and people with degrees tend to lean liberal. 
+ Electoral college allow you to predict a consistent and fixed number of votes 
+ Polling states instead of just national allows you to predict with greater levels of precision the turnout
+ Emphasis in swing states and identification with both parties (and the stability of it) allows for lower margins of error


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Excellent post, @asdf0501. 

Everyone, please strike what I just said about Nevada. Looking over the numbers, I think Hillary wins it fairly easily. She may only be up by 3% right now but just about every last poll there has her up, and while Trump may perform better among low-income whites than Mitt Romney did, I don't see how he overtakes her there. The Democratic ground game is ostensibly proving sound again.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> @CamillePunk @DesolationRow (because I think you would find this interesting).
> 
> I get the argument you are trying to make but the problem is with a public option it is inevitable people are going to be forced to pay for it through taxation unless the government funds it through further spending (which would in many ways would be even worse). If you are someone who likes their health coverage and wants to keep their private insurance yet a public option is created by the government, you essentially run the risk being charged twice: once for your personal choice of coverage and the other for the public option through taxation. As CamillePunk stated, medicaid has already been greatly expanded through Obamacare and it would be even larger under a public option. This means the government footing the bill even further, which would mean either greater taxation to fund the project or further printing of money. Neither option is good.
> 
> And whilst I understand you are saying that a public option would not by design force a monopoly right then and there, you are creating a greater means for the monopoly of healthcare under the US system by placing a greater market share of the healthcare industry in the hands of government. Once government gets a hold of that share, they are not going to want to let that go and they are going to want to expand it. Especially the big government liberals.
> 
> I want to heed warning to you and others from someone who lives in the UK which has the dreadful NHS, you do not want a state ran healthcare system. The NHS is currently £9 Billion pounds in debt, which might not seem like a lot but it's increased by £2.3 Billion over the last 5 or so years (under a conservative government no less...) which is struggling with resources, is behind in terms of technologial advances and over the last year has been plagued by a junior doctor's strike in which there are really no babyfaces (to use a wrestling term in this post :lol.). Thousands of appointments and surgeries have been cancelled during this period and it's projected that over a million appointments are going to be cancelled if the full run of strikes goes ahead. That's a million people affected by infighting between politicians and doctors. What has caused this? Government ran healthcare.
> 
> Now let's talk about something liberals do not think about when advocating state controlled healthcare: the workers themselves. Here in the UK, if you want to become a doctor or a nurse you only have one place to work. If you are not happy with your working conditions or pay you cannot up and leave like any other job to find work in the same sector, because pay is determined by contractors who are under the government's watch. This has been the main cause of the year long fight between doctors and the government, depending on who you talk to the arguments have been about either pay or working conditions. The reality is that it is a bit of both. It is all about the new junior doctor's contracts they have been offered, who has control over those contracts? The Health Secretary, again government. For a doctor to open up his own private practice and offer insurance it is next to impossible, because the monopoly the state has over healthcare and the regulations that have been put in place. That means the cost of starting up and opening your own practice is extremely high, meaning that the doctors have to raise prices to cover the costs. Who suffers? The normal average joe, because only the super rich can afford private healthcare and they take it if they can to avoid the NHS. Less choice means less access, which means a worse service because the NHS has no fear of going out of business. Why? Because the government owns it and will either increase taxes or print more money to keep the project going.
> 
> Currently 1 in 4...yes 25%! of the NHS staff currently employed are bureaucrats. That is absolutely astonishing and those figures would make any sensible person drop their jaw. The NHS doctors and nurses spends a staggering 10 hours a week on bureaucracy. Which means more time is being spent ticking boxes and filling quotas than actually providing better healthcare for patients. What does this tell you? Government healthcare in general will mean much more red tape on the healthcare industry which effects workers and patients a like. Everyone suffers:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-142543/One-NHS-staff-bureaucrat.html
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...ors-spend-10-hours-a-week-on-bureaucracy.html
> 
> 
> And let's not forget the classic consequences of a state ran health service: longer waiting times, months at a time waiting for important operations (you can spend around 6-12 months or longer waiting for a hip or knee replacement for example) and delays in getting important x-rays and examinations. If that is what you want in general, then funding a public option is the first step on the road to what has been happening in the UK, my country.
> 
> Providing a public option would risk providing less choice for the individual over their healthcare and more government share of the healthcare industry. That isn't libertarian in any way imaginable, it is giving more power to the government. And why the fuck would you trust government to provide good healthcare when you distrust government on nearly everything else?
> 
> Just some food for thought.
> 
> I might post some things about education another time.


It's not all doom and gloom for public health systems, and just because the NHS is apparently struggling as you say doesn't necessarily mean the same thing would happen in America or other systems.

Our Australian health system isn't perfect but in a lot of ways it also can be damn sweet for the average joe. I'm about to have a baby and we've had several extremely beneficial baby classes, and last night we had a great 'Meet the Midwives' session where we got some great new advice, and we were lucky enough to get into a certain 'Maternity group' where we get our own awesome suite (if it's not taken) with a nice big room and awesome bath etc. After we give birth and go home we get three visits from our midwife in the coming three days to check baby is ok and give us advice and help. Throughout the pregnancy my wife has gotten personalised help and check ups from her own Midwife that is assigned to her.

All of the above stuff we haven't paid a penny out of our pockets for.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Excellent post, @asdf0501.
> 
> Everyone, please strike what I just said about Nevada. Looking over the numbers, I think Hillary wins it fairly easily. She may only be up by 3% right now but just about every last poll there has her up, and while Trump may perform better among low-income whites than Mitt Romney did, I don't see how he overtakes her there. The Democratic ground game is ostensibly proving sound again.


He needs to boost his ground game but it maybe too late now. I did say about a month or two ago that with Trump's very strong support from his followers that he should have done more with them. Going door to door and volunteering with projects and helping low income areas could have been a good way to humanize him compared to Hillary who's charitable work lines her pockets thus making Trump seem like the candidate more likely to help people in need.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Nevada is strange and every pollster accept that is probably the most difficult state to poll. I suspect the power of sindicates over there creates huge bias.

But i also suspect it will be comfortable Hillary, ground game is just bigger and better in cases like that

edit: about ground game, i don't understand why Trump didn't accepted private donations until one or two months ago, he could had easily reach Sanders levels with the enthusiasm of his voters. Right now is not just that he lacks the organizations but also the money. And his strategy of "TV Saturation" isn't effective on a national level


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> But the debate had a big effect.
> 
> There is two parts of it. The race was tight before the debate but for one part Hillary started to bounce back because the effect of her health concern were put in the back and then the debate reforced her image with some of the undecided voters.
> 
> The odds of wining for her were below the 70% in some of the forecast (namely PEC) and 55% on some more volatil ones (538), she was loosing in Iowa and Ohio and risking North Carolina, Florida and Nevada. Now she has regained all those states while fighting again in Iowa and Ohio and his Odds are close to 80% in all the forecasts.
> 
> To put things in context, Trump loosed a 5% adventage in Ohio. And polling still don't reflect the tax issue
> 
> *What you need to see is the aggregates, not individual polling.* As there is a lot of art going in polling in general (i.e. Weighting to predict turn out) mixing the averages of good polls allows you to eliminate bias and skewing.
> 
> The biggest discussion is what polls you accept and how many weight you put in every one into your prediction model, which is a more nerdy discussion but in the sense of this election doesn't matter too much because all the models say basically the same.



I bolded this part because I didn't see the aggregates myself and only some individual polls that came out (ignoring the flash polls) which would explain why I only saw a minimal change. Seeing that a lot of states that were in danger of going to Trump now flipping right back around to Hillary does indicate he is in a lot of trouble as of right now.

Bad news for Trump supporters and practically anyone who is anti-Hillary like me :lol.




asdf0501 said:


> Is good to see this point being bring on because it allows me to adressing it:
> 
> - First, if you see aggregates again, you only see a difference of 2% (http://www.ncpolitics.uk/uk-eu-referendum/) at best and a tie at worst (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/06/britain-s-eu-referendum). Meaning, the election was basically a toss-up because (without seeing the standard errors) i suspect there is no difference between the confidence intervals.


Interesting you bring these up because I remember the BBC had said that the polls on the day of voting showing a 4 point lead to Remain. Was there any aggregates showing this at all or was it likely an individual poll? It wouldn't surprise me if it were the latter because the BBC (despite saying they are unbiased :lmao. No such thing as an unbiased media) were clearly in favour of Remain and against Brexit...even now after the result. Would be interesting to see an answer to this.



asdf0501 said:


> Second, low turnouts screw your predictions. I said before that a big chunk of polling is based on the ability of predicting turn outs. If the turn out in one elections is under normal levels, your entire weight process is screwed up, which mean you're skewing your predictions. This is the case with the UK referendum and the recent colombian pace plebiscit.


In theory this definitely makes sense but was there a lower turnout for the Brexit result than predicted? It was an extremely high turnout in any event for a British vote, much higher than recent general elections and higher than I expected. I had always thought that the higher turnout would actually favour Brexit because people who wanted to leave we're generally more passionate about the issue and we're more likely to go out and vote. I should know because I voted Brexit myself :lol.





asdf0501 said:


> - USA elections are more easy to predict than those other cases. For a number of reasons:
> + demos tend to vote in big blocks, whites and uneducated are more conservative, minorities and people with degrees tend to lean liberal.
> + Electoral college allow you to predict a consistent and fixed number of votes
> + Polling states instead of just national allows you to predict with greater levels of precision the turnout
> + Emphasis in swing states and identification with both parties (and the stability of it) allows for lower margins of error


All of these are very true, particularly the voting blocks and the swing states points. I still need to get to grips with the electoral college a little bit more because as a Brit the concept is very alien to me. But am beginning to understand the system slowly.

Great posts mate, am learning quite a bit here haha .


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> why the fuck would you trust government to provide good healthcare when you distrust government on nearly everything else?


:lol

I don't. 

Just as a reminder, I'm the guy who wants to burn the Establishment to the ground and completely replace our government. The duopoly is beyond repair. It is far too corrupt to ever be fixed while keeping the current structure in power.

Yeah, you're right, with the people we have running the USA now, a public option or single payer would be a complete goddamned disaster. I won't argue against you on that point. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea. There are a lot of good ideas the USA could be doing that will never be feasible without replacing our corrupt government first.

To do that, there is going to have to be a complete meltdown. With the extreme wealth imbalance we have now, out of control Wall Street and banks and how bad the economy sucks for the working class, that could be happening a lot sooner than most people realize. We haven't fixed the problems that caused the last crash 8 years ago and the bubble is infinitely bigger now than it was then.

The question then becomes, will the masses revolt and demand change this time or will they take their fucking lying down like last time? Only time will tell.



DesolationRow said:


> I'm sure you would agree, *Tater*, as well as you, @Reaper, that one of the more insidious aspects of Obamacare--which we already know was initially a major giveaway to behemoth insurance companies--is that it, like so many other regulations, actually discourage investment capital and the growth of small businesses. I've spoken with one small business owner after another in the San Francisco Bay Area, people who are employing 30+ people, who are saying that they cannot go over a certain number of employees, or else they will find themselves devastated by Obamacare. It was designed, in part, to keep small businesses small, which is one of the myriad factors contributing to a chronically underperforming economy.


Most all government regulations these days are designed to keep the power in the hands of those who already have the power. That doesn't mean regulations are a bad thing. It means we have a corrupt government that writes regulations that benefit the donor class. If you look at the history of the USA over the past century, one of the reasons we had the Great Depression was a lack of regulation. Then the New Deal came along and the big corporations have been fighting it ever since. Now they own the government and get their lackeys to write the laws to only benefit them. It was a "if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em" strategy and it has worked to perfection. 

The TPP will be the final nail in the coffin that officially sells out our national sovereignty to the corporations. We won't even be able to write laws anymore to keep them in check because they'll just sue us for lost profits and they'll win too because it won't go through our courts, but through an international tribunal set up by the corporations themselves. Where will that money come from, you might ask? From the taxpayer. The corporations always get their money, whether you willingly give it to them or not.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Disagreeing about the poll talk here. If Trump wins Pa and CO the way some say, watch out.

Also:


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Disagreeing about the poll talk here. If Trump wins Pa and CO the way some say, watch out.
> 
> Also:


Who says? Is it on another totally legitimate leaked insider document?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Nevada is strange and every pollster accept that is probably the most difficult state to poll. I suspect the power of sindicates over there creates huge bias.
> 
> But i also suspect it will be comfortable Hillary, ground game is just bigger and better in cases like that
> 
> edit: about ground game, i don't understand why Trump didn't accepted private donations until one or two months ago, he could had easily reach Sanders levels with the enthusiasm of his voters. Right now is not just that he lacks the organizations but also the money. And his strategy of "TV Saturation" isn't effective on a national level


Also wondered this, there were a few things that confused me. With the level of enthusiasm Trump had from his supporters he should have used it to his advantage. His capaign at times has been excellent and then at times missing very obvious things to do.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Disagreeing about the poll talk here. If Trump wins Pa and CO the way some say, watch out.
> 
> Also:




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/784147520108625920


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Who says? Is it on another totally legitimate leaked insider document?


The document I showed you you can read for yourself. Stop your shitposting.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> The document I showed you you can read for yourself. Stop your shitposting.


You mean this document?

https://www.scribd.com/document/324776022/Monmouth

Can you honestly tell me the thing is real once you read through it? Please don't be a caricature of Trump supporters. :lmao


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> The document I showed you you can read for yourself. Stop your shitposting.


Jesus H Christ man! You pop up and post ridiculous fakes that wouldn't fool even your most blinded Team Trump member on here and you have the gall to tell me to stop posting? You post this crap then don't even have the gumption to try and defend it.

I'm sorry I know you're having fun but you're out of your depth posting ridiculous stuff like fake leaked documents and expecting anyone on her to take you seriously. I mean, are you actually serious posting that or what? That document has language that sounds like it's written by a 13 year old. 




> Strengths
> Almost none. The voter-registrations in Florida are balanced but we need to have at least D+3 to have a credible story. We also need to greatly oversample women. This shouldn’t be hard to manage as they are more likely to answer the phone and chat


WE NEED TO OVERSAMPLE WOMEN!!!!

What's coming out next week? A document coming out entitled 'We here at the Lefty Party have successfully silenced teh Emailz which prove HRC lied about our troops dying".


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Jesus H Christ man! You pop up and post ridiculous fakes that wouldn't fool even your most blinded Team Trump member on here and you have the gall to tell me to stop posting? You post this crap then don't even have the gumption to try and defend it.
> 
> I'm sorry I know you're having fun but you're out of your depth posting ridiculous stuff like fake leaked documents and expecting anyone on her to take you seriously. I mean, are you actually serious posting that or what? That document has language that sounds like it's written by a 13 year old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WE NEED TO OVERSAMPLE WOMEN!!!!
> 
> What's coming out next week? A document coming out entitled 'We here at the Lefty Party have successfully silenced teh Emailz which prove HRC lied about our troops dying".


I don't have to defend or explain anything to any of you :lmao


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> Interesting you bring these up because I remember the BBC had said that the polls on the day of voting showing a 4 point lead to Remain. Was there any aggregates showing this at all or was it likely an individual poll? It wouldn't surprise me if it were the latter because the BBC (despite saying they are unbiased :lmao. No such thing as an unbiased media) were clearly in favour of Remain and against Brexit...even now after the result. Would be interesting to see an answer to this.


It probably was a single poll. In reality pundist in general don't know how to read polls even if their life depend on it. Analysis is more based on things like "guts" and "experience".

I don't disregard the possibility of bias, but think is more a general level of ignorance, which i even find worse



L-DOPA said:


> In theory this definitely makes sense but was there a lower turnout for the Brexit result than predicted? It was an extremely high turnout in any event for a British vote, much higher than recent general elections and higher than I expected. I had always thought that the higher turnout would actually favour Brexit because people who wanted to leave we're generally more passionate about the issue and we're more likely to go out and vote. I should know because I voted Brexit myself :lol.
> .


Is was a general stable turnout but it was low in urban places and high in rural setting, which skrewed the weighthing. Also rural tend to have more older populations which tend to lean conservative not only in USA or England but in all the world.

Certainly that is one of the biggest threaths to democracy today, older people tend to be consistenly the likely voters in demographics but less and less people tend to vote which is a decipe for disaster as governments would be more ilegimate as the turnouts keep descending and the capacity of prediction in election would be also less



Beatles123 said:


> Disagreeing about the poll talk here. If Trump wins Pa and CO the way some say, watch out.


If he can't win Florida. Pa and CO are irrelevant.

Also, who says he can win PA or CO?



Beatles123 said:


> The document I showed you you can read for yourself. Stop your shitposting.


Dude, that image was clearly photoshopped....

EDIT: IN THAT SCRIBD THE TABLES FOR DEMOS ARE MADE WITH SPSS :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> I don't have to defend or explain anything to any of you :lmao


That's right you don't. Lucky thing to, since you've proved you don't possess the chops to do so.

It's on me though I need to leave the bait alone.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

the biggest threat to democracy is the voters. Imagine that.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> That's right you don't. Lucky thing to, since you've proved you don't possess the chops to do so.
> 
> It's on me though I need to leave the bait alone.


I could give less of a damn whether you think my defenses or my explanations are good enough for you. You certainly don't as you are just as full of it to me as I am to you.

INB4 "lol i have facts."


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> It probably was a single poll. In reality pundist in general don't know how to read polls even if their life depend on it. Analysis is more based on things like "guts" and "experience".
> 
> I don't disregard the possibility of bias, but think is more a general level of ignorance, which i even find worse
> 
> 
> 
> Is was a general stable turnout but it was low in urban places and high in rural setting, which skrewed the weighthing. Also rural tend to have more older populations which tend to lean conservative not only in USA or England but in all the world.
> 
> Certainly that is one of the biggest threaths to democracy today, older people tend to be consistenly the likely voters in demographics but less and less people tend to vote which is a decipe for disaster as governments would be more ilegimate as the turnouts keep descending and the capacity of prediction in election would be also less
> 
> 
> 
> If he can't win Florida. Pa and CO are irrelevant.
> 
> Also, who says he can win PA or CO?
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, that image was clearly photoshopped....
> 
> EDIT: IN THAT SCRIBD THE TABLES FOR DEMOS ARE MADE WITH SPSS :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao


To be fair to him, he only posted the image of the first page here to prove a point. I googled to find the source for everyone.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> If he can't win Florida. Pa and CO are irrelevant.
> 
> Also, who says he can win PA or CO?


 Not every poll, but a few. Here's one for CO: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/new-reuters-polling-trump-7-iowa-2-colorado-13-georgia/


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If Trump has a strong second debate and gets stuck into Hillary on the Emails, Clinton foundation etc it could all change very quickly again. It will do him no harm at all mentioning her laughing about getting a rapist paedophile off with a reduced sentence. I feel the majority of the mud they have on Trump has already been thrown in the first debate (Taxes, Sexism, Taxes, Sexism, Taxes, Sexism). Trump has plenty of ammunition in reserve to hit her with and the first debate would have done him the world of good in terms of experience and getting a good idea of what its all about

Saying that i will never again read into so called polls and predictions especially after the way the Brexit vote went. Never has anything been predicted so wrong, At 11p.m on the night of the vote it was a emphatic victory for remain. A Brexit vote looked impossible going off the predictions etc. Even the bookmakers joined in offering odds of 1/7 for remain. 6 hours later Brexit had prevailed and the public had spoken. It aint over till its over

I must say though i am enjoying the U.S presidential race immensely. Far more than any British election in my life time


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Been away a few days and come back to see that The Avengers support Mrs Clinton
(SAVE THE DAY propaganda video)

Let's all listen to ultra-rich millionaires, who live in gated properties away from us mere riff-raff, because they're all smarter than us obviously

When Mrs Clinton takes the war to Russia perhaps Ruffalo can get angry, Scarlett clads the black..to do whatever she does... and Downey Jr. and his black mate can don the Iron Man suits and go fight for _liberty_ and _freedom_


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

FWIW Australia has had a public option since the 70s and our private healthcare industry is still going strong. 

About 60% of Australians still have private healthcare. (My guess was 30% btw, I had to look this up and according the Australian Bureau of Statistics it was 57% in 2011, my mind is a little blown its that high tbh but the ABS are reliable af. The ABS are the people who collect census results in Aus so that means 60% of people in the census said they had private healthcare http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/E334D0A98272E4DCCA257B39000F2DCF)

I don't know how or why having a public option would kill the American private healthcare industry when it hasn't done so to the Australian one.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This is the bump from tonight on Adult Swim that preceded ATHF.

Elections are kind of like birthday presents.
You don't know what you're getting until the big day.
And if you don't get the thing you wanted,
you can just return it for cash.
Correction:
We _wish_ elections were like birthday presents.

:lol


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/784165709463052288
:aryalol


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/06/h...hillary-fangirl-in-email-to-clinton-campaign/


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/784165709463052288
> :aryalol


Funny! The Lama also spoke out against Europe's mass migration policy. Many white Buddhists cried.:crying:


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






:lmao


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> Not really a fan of this guilt tripping the masses. "IF YOU VOTE FOR ANYONE ELSE BUT OUR GUY, YOU'RE HELPING THE CANDIDATE YOU DON'T LIKE WIN."


I don't believe it's an effective method to guilt people,however since we don't have a parliamentery system in the Usa,if you vote for a candidate with no chance of winning it's effectively like not voting or writing your pet dog's name in if you vote Johnson,Stein or some other minor party candidate. Barring unforseen circumstance Hilary or Donald will be the next President so if you think one is worse then the other one then someone should go the lesser of 2 evil's route with their vote.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ShiningStar said:


> I don't believe it's an effective method to guilt people,however since we don't have a parliamentery system in the Usa,if you vote for a candidate with no chance of winning it's effectively like not voting or writing your pet dog's name in if you vote Johnson,Stein or some other minor party candidate. Barring unforseen circumstance Hilary or Donald will be the next President so if you think one is worse then the other one then someone should go the lesser of 2 evil's route with their vote.


Going by that logic nobody else should ever try to run and nobody should be allowed to register as anything but Democrat or Republican. Though in the next ten years given the right circumstances there may not even be anything but one giant political party. 

Oh.
Joy.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Going by that logic nobody else should ever try to run and nobody should be allowed to register as anything but Democrat or Republican. Though in the next ten years given the right circumstances there may not even be anything but one giant political party.
> 
> Oh.
> Joy.


Your system does make it basically impossible for third parties and independents to get elected and have a real voice compared to other major democracies.

I actually prefer the US system, we have third parties and independents with a real say every now and again Australia (as in right now) and its a nightmare.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Your system does make it basically impossible for third parties and independents to get elected and have a real voice compared to other major democracies.
> 
> I actually prefer the US system, we have third parties and independents with a real say every now and again Australia (as in right now) and its a nightmare.


If it were up to me I'd like three parties, Democrat, Libertarian and Republican. The system does make it hard but not completely impossible, we're seeing more third party turnout this election. Just wish there were people better than Stein and Johnson who isn't a real Libertarian or else his numbers would be higher.

It will be a victory just to see people notice Libertarians and possibly start electing a few in and getting the message out. 

What worries me is that the Democrats while corrupt to the core are still getting the minority vote despite disliking them, it's super weird. I don't want to see our country go to a one party system lead by warhawks and selling out the country to the highest bidder which will happen if it ever becomes one party. 

I can see how your Politics would be messy though with a lot of groups running around willy nilly!


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Going by that logic nobody else should ever try to run and nobody should be allowed to register as anything but Democrat or Republican. Though in the next ten years given the right circumstances there may not even be anything but one giant political party.
> 
> Oh.
> Joy.


Not at all. Lincoln won the Presidency effectively as a 3rd Party candidate. Many Governors have won outside of either party.Lisa Murkowski a few years ago lost in the Republican primary ,and ran Indy in Nov and beat the Democrat and Republicans. If a 3rd party candidate picks up traction and you think they are better then the other 2 options seems like the best thing to do is vote for them. However right now less than a month away Gary Johnson,Jill Stein etc doesn't seem to have any realistic chance at winning barring a 1 in a billion longshot like pictures coming out of Trump and Clinton involved in a child pornography ring or something else implausable. President Elect Donald or President Elect Hilary will happen and their policies will have a tangable effect not just on the Usa but the world. From a cost analysis prespective it is a better use of one's vote is to look these 2 candidates positions and think who will tangibly leave the Usa better of in 4 years and long term. If you are a Libertarian all these votes from disgruntled Bernie Bro on the left or pissed off Never Trumper on the right will actually hurt your parties and 3rd party causes in the long term because if the election is within 5% or so all these Johnson/Stein votes will be considered spoiler votes.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Going by that logic nobody else should ever try to run and nobody should be allowed to register as anything but Democrat or Republican. Though in the next ten years given the right circumstances there may not even be anything but one giant political party.
> 
> Oh.
> Joy.


Until they get money out of politics with super PACs no one that is not a democrat or republican will ever have a chance to win.m They won't even let them into the debates. They don't even let them on some of the ballots in some of the states. There is a reason why Sanders had to run as a democrat instead of independent.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://prospect.org/article/hardened-divide-american-politics-0



> Although news reports and commentators during this year’s presidential election have focused on twists in the race and shifts in polls, the real story about campaigns since the mid-1990s is how little movement there is during a general election. American voters are much less open to persuasion by the other side than they used to be. With increased partisan polarization among voters, how states vote from one election to the next also changes much less than it previously did. That’s the reason we can talk about “red states” and “blue states” and focus on only a few battlegrounds. Election outcomes aren’t foreordained, but all the movement has been taking place within a relatively narrow range.
> 
> The volatility of public opinion during an election year can be measured using the standard deviation, a number that describes how far sentiment has departed from the average. Like the stock market, presidential races may be volatile (high standard deviation) or placid (low standard deviation). As the figure below shows, low-variability campaigns suddenly became the norm in the mid-1990s.
> 
> Six of the seven least volatile races in the past 64 years have occurred since Bill Clinton’s re-election in 1996. During the general election in 2008, for example, the Obama-McCain margin spent about two-thirds of its time within 2 percentage points of its average. Compare that remarkably low level of variation to 1980, when the Reagan-Carter margin had a standard deviation of 12 percentage points—six times as volatile. Shown in red is an even more precise measure of volatility that I developed in 2004—the state poll Meta-Margin—which confirms the stasis of recent campaigns.
> 
> What happened between 1992 and 1996 to make presidential campaigns more stable? For one thing, Americans started voting more predictably on the basis of national party affiliations and doing so for both the presidency and Congress. Starting from the mid-1990s, the presidential popular vote and the national congressional vote have come into close alignment, differing by an average of only 2.9 percent. Earlier, there was some truth to the dictum that “all politics is local,” as Tip O’Neill, the Democratic speaker of the House from 1977 to 1987, famously put it. But today all politics is national, and it has been that way ever since 1994, when Newt Gingrich and the House Republicans swept into power with a national platform, the Contract with America.
> 
> Of course, these developments were long in the making. The role of the two parties in the civil-rights revolution in the 1960s brought about a massive regional realignment, which had its final chapter with the Republican takeover of the House in 1994. But other factors in the 1990s, particularly innovations in media and technology, may have contributed to the nationalization of politics, especially among Republicans. Conservative talk radio and cable news—above all, Rush Limbaugh and Fox—began providing their audience with a strong, one-sided, partisan message on a daily basis. Local, person-to-person communication has also become more ideologically consistent. As documented by Bill Bishop in The Big Sort and confirmed in detail by later researchers, the last few decades have seen a clustering of like-minded voters with one another in the same communities.
> 
> The geographic sorting of voters facilitates the creation of noncompetitive districts. The number of swing districts that can go either way has decreased, a trend that is driven both by population clustering and partisan gerrymandering. In most districts, general elections for state legislatures or the House of Representatives carry little suspense. Primary elections, when turnout is low and dominated by the most motivated partisans, determine who gets elected.
> Advertisement
> The hardening of partisan geography explains why the terms “red states” and “blue states” now make sense to us.
> 
> The hardening of partisan geography explains why the terms “red states” and “blue states” now make sense to us. Since 2000, only two states, Virginia and Colorado, have shifted from being more Republican than average to being more Democratic than average; only Missouri has shifted in the opposite direction. The rest have stayed the same.
> 
> To determine when geographic voting patterns change in consecutive elections, I use the state-by-state correlation coefficient, a measure that is based on whether individual states are above or below average in their partisan strength. Correlation coefficients are not affected by national swings in opinion; in other words, if one party wins an election by gaining an additional 10 percent of voters in every state, there is no change in this measure.
> 
> The maximum possible value for the correlation coefficient is +1.00, which indicates perfect proportionality with only an offset for the average national swing. If there is no relationship between state-by-state voting in consecutive elections, the correlation will be zero. Consider two elections won by Democrats. In 1992, the Democrats won 32 states under Bill Clinton after winning just ten states under Michael Dukakis in 1988. That change was principally driven by a nationwide shift in Democratic-Republican vote margins by an average of nearly 13 percentage points. The state-to-state correlation coefficient was +0.90.
> 
> In contrast, when Democrats won a landslide victory under Lyndon Johnson in 1964, they didn’t just benefit from a nationwide swing from 1960, when John F. Kennedy won by a narrow margin. The 1964 election shook up the entire map. The state-by-state correlation between 1960 and 1964 was -0.03, close to zero and indicating no relationship.
> 
> In recent years, consecutive elections show very little change in state-by-state voting patterns. In the last 15 elections, the five largest election-to-election correlations occurred between 1992 and 2012—and 2016 looks to be similar. The color-coded map below left shows polling margins, with darker colors indicating larger leads.
> 
> As of early September, the pre-election polling margins between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were a near-replica of the Romney-Obama race, with a correlation of +0.93. Despite the radical nature of Trump’s candidacy, the distribution of his support reflects the same pattern as the support for George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney.
> 
> No matter who wins the presidency, these trends suggest that polarization will remain after November. That’s not to say the current patterns are fixed forever. Although primaries favor each party’s diehards, the fissure that opened this year between GOP party leaders and voters may open the way for surprises—including even future realignments. The 2018 campaign may show what kind of fruit arises from seeds planted in 2016.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Until they get money out of politics with super PACs no one that is not a democrat or republican will ever have a chance to win.m They won't even let them into the debates. They don't even let them on some of the ballots in some of the states. *There is a reason why Sanders had to run as a democrat instead of independent.*


So, what you're saying is, it wouldn't have mattered either way. The system is rigged to keep Independents out... but when he ran as a Democrat, they rigged the primary to steal the election from him. Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> So, what you're saying is, it wouldn't have mattered either way. The system is rigged to keep Independents out... but when he ran as a Democrat, they rigged the primary to steal the election from him. Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't. :lol


it makes my point even stronger. He was an independent that is why they rigged the democratic primary against him. Sanders would have won if not for all the voter suppression and election fraud. 

But Sanders almost beat Hillary in the primary even with the deck stacked against him, if he ran as an independent in the general, he would not have done nearly as good because he would not have been let into the debates where he could get his message out there. Before the primaries he was done like 60 points but he came back to pretty much tie her and even at some points over take her

Since Sanders ran as democrat he almost beat a Clinton who has way more name recognition than her. If he stayed independent he would be where Johnson and Stein are, and around 10-15% in the pollng.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@AryaDark @birthday_massacre @CamillePunk @L-DOPA @Miss Sally would-mention-*MrMr*-if-I-could @Pratchett @Reaper (hope you're still alive) @Tater 

This Dateline special, "The Choice," brings to mind the quote from George Herbert:

_"One father is more than a hundred schoolmasters."_


----------



## Piers

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Pardon my lack of knowledge about American elections but are Hilary and Donald really the only two candidates Americans can vote for ?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Jerichoholic62 said:


> Pardon my lack of knowledge about American elections but are Hilary and Donald really the only two candidates Americans can vote for ?


There is Jill Stein and Gary Johnson as well as a few others but they get almost no press and they are not even on all the ballots in every state.

Jill Stein had to get petitions going to get on some state ballots.


----------



## Piers

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> There is Jill Stein and Gary Johnson as well as a few others but they get almost no press and they are not even on all the ballots in every state.
> 
> Jill Stein had to get petitions going to get on some state ballots.


Ok thanks. I read so many complaints about Hilary and Donald but nothing about other candidates, why are people complaining so much about these two, like they absolutely HAVE to vote for one of them, instead of voting for other people ?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @birthday_massacre @CamillePunk @L-DOPA @Miss Sally would-mention-*MrMr*-if-I-could @Pratchett @Reaper (hope you're still alive) @Tater
> 
> This Dateline special, "The Choice," brings to mind the quote from George Herbert:
> 
> _"One father is more than a hundred schoolmasters."_


Lol we're good. It was scary though and we've been without power for about 12 hours. Expecting to be without it for at least another 10 or so. 

Pretty scary experience but we were fully prepared and bunkered in.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Jerichoholic62 said:


> Ok thanks. I read so many complaints about Hilary and Donald but nothing about other candidates, why are people complaining so much about these two, like they absolutely HAVE to vote for one of them, instead of voting for other people ?


For their parties they have the highest unfavorable of all time. So its voting for the lesser of two evils basically. There are other people to vote for like Stein and Johnson but they are not very widely known so neither have a shot to win but they could swing the election to either Trump or Hilary. and from what I have read, Johnson is taking votes from Hillary now so that is not good for her.

This will be interesting since both are so hated , voter turnout will probably be low.


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> it makes my point even stronger. He was an independent that is why they rigged the democratic primary against him. Sanders would have won if not for all the voter suppression and election fraud.
> 
> But Sanders almost beat Hillary in the primary even with the deck stacked against him, if he ran as an independent in the general, he would not have done nearly as good because he would not have been let into the debates where he could get his message out there. Before the primaries he was done like 60 points but he came back to pretty much tie her and even at some points over take her
> 
> Since Sanders ran as democrat he almost beat a Clinton who has way more name recognition than her. If he stayed independent he would be where Johnson and Stein are, and around 10-15% in the pollng.


While the DNC did take measures to help Hillary, Hillary still would have won by a large margin regardless. 
First of all, Hillary won by a landslide if you look at popular vote, where Hillary won by 55-43%. That's a pretty large margin. Most of Hillary's victories were large margins while Bernie's were narrow wins.
Secondly, it was only close because of caucuses. In states that caucused the votes (which prevented people to vote unless they were willing to take hours out of their day), Bernie won 12 out of the 14 states that caucuse, while Hillary won 27 out of the legit 37 state primaries. Furthermore, going by the electoral college, Hillary would have won 399-139. So yeah, it wasn't close.
So in reality, all the DNC's rigging managed to do was help Hillary win by an even larger margin than she would have.
The main basis for the primary being rigged was based on super delegates, which would have been bullshit if that was the difference maker.  But Hillary easily won without the super delegates. And whatever tactics the DNC used to get voters to Hillary's side (which is debatable if they were even effective) was offset by Bernie outspending every primary candidate on either side, Democrat or Republican by a fairly large margin.
Bernie's support was much, much smaller than people are lead to believe. Just because he had the loudest, most vocal diehard supporters doesn't mean he had more. Each person is only one vote, no matter how passionate, loud, or vocal you are about your support for a candidate is.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Jerichoholic62 said:


> Pardon my lack of knowledge about American elections but are Hilary and Donald really the only two candidates Americans can vote for ?


You could always choose to be ass raped by a barbwire covered bat. It would be a preferable alternative to voting for Trump or Hillary.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*





I still remember when Trump warned Cruz to not attack him. Now look at him. lol

Edit: Welp, this election is over. Ain't no going back for Trump now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Its so easy to not fuck up

I mean I can go months at a time without fucking up

Hilary fucks up but at least she chooses to fuck up over money or to cover her ass

Trump seems fuck up over minor things and ride them flaming into the ground 

When you are going to die on a hill make sure its a good one and not just the one you just happen to be on at the time

I have gained a lot of respect for the VPs however, while the lead candidates run around trying be rock-stars the VPs carry the binder of the actual goals and try to keep everyone on task 

You want to know what the real goals are? Look at the VPs


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://archive.is/vvs3R

judge for yourself and stay off my ass.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cabanarama said:


> While the DNC did take measures to help Hillary, Hillary still would have won by a large margin regardless.
> First of all, Hillary won by a landslide if you look at popular vote, where Hillary won by 55-43%. That's a pretty large margin. Most of Hillary's victories were large margins while Bernie's were narrow wins.
> Secondly, it was only close because of caucuses. In states that caucused the votes (which prevented people to vote unless they were willing to take hours out of their day), Bernie won 12 out of the 14 states that caucuse, while Hillary won 27 out of the legit 37 state primaries. Furthermore, going by the electoral college, Hillary would have won 399-139. So yeah, it wasn't close.
> So in reality, all the DNC's rigging managed to do was help Hillary win by an even larger margin than she would have.
> The main basis for the primary being rigged was based on super delegates, which would have been bullshit if that was the difference maker. But Hillary easily won without the super delegates. And whatever tactics the DNC used to get voters to Hillary's side (which is debatable if they were even effective) was offset by Bernie outspending every primary candidate on either side, Democrat or Republican by a fairly large margin.
> Bernie's support was much, much smaller than people are lead to believe. Just because he had the loudest, most vocal diehard supporters doesn't mean he had more. Each person is only one vote, no matter how passionate, loud, or vocal you are about your support for a candidate is.


Yeah, for better or worse, I don't think the Democratic Primary was stolen to the extent that people wish it was. Here in California, there was a lot of conspiracy theories about voter fraud in a state where Bernie needed more than 75% of the vote to get enough delegates. Clinton didn't need to steal California at all. There's a 0% chance that Bernie was going to win by that much, especially in a heavily blue state with a lot of established Democrats.

Bernie had a lot of support and raised a lot of money, but Hillary won.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










"But, didn't you hear? Trump grabs pussy. We don't have time for any of this NWO shit man"


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> "But, didn't you hear? Trump grabs pussy. We don't have time for any of this NWO shit man"


Trump once said that he could shoot someone in the middle of the street and not lose voters on the republican side of things(paraphrasing here). That actually is true when applying it to Hilary Clinton who allowed American soldiers to die, lied about it tried to cover it up and people still don't believe she was responsible. Hell, there are people who don't believe in the email server or that emails actually exist and think its all a lie. Much can be said about the lengths people would go to support Trump, we actually know the lengths people will go to support Hilary Clinton and its quite scary .


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Ultimate Warrior said:


> When Mrs Clinton takes the war to Russia perhaps Ruffalo can get angry, Scarlett clads the black..to do whatever she does... and Downey Jr. and his black mate can don the Iron Man suits and go fight for _liberty_ and _freedom_


Lol at "Rhodey" Rhodes (played by the great actor Don Cheadle) is reduced to 'his black mate'. Don't change bro.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Mifune Jackson said:


> Yeah, for better or worse, I don't think the Democratic Primary was stolen to the extent that people wish it was. Here in California, there was a lot of conspiracy theories about voter fraud in a state where Bernie needed more than 75% of the vote to get enough delegates. Clinton didn't need to steal California at all. There's a 0% chance that Bernie was going to win by that much, especially in a heavily blue state with a lot of established Democrats.
> 
> Bernie had a lot of support and raised a lot of money, but Hillary won.


Yes it was. Just look at how off the exit polls were, they even covered it up so much they stopped doing them at the end to make it easier to hide the primary was rigged.

This video has most of the info all in one place.






watch it then tell me it was not to the extent that was claimed. If anything it was worse

Hillary did not won, Sanders won but it was stolen. Just look at how many people were taken off the register so they could not even vote or their affiliation was changed so they could not vote for Sanders.




Beatles123 said:


> "But, didn't you hear? Trump grabs pussy. We don't have time for any of this NWO shit man"



so you take sexual assault lightly? Why am I not surprised.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> "But, didn't you hear? Trump grabs pussy. We don't have time for any of this NWO shit man"


What's wrong with being idealistic even though it is not realistic to accomplish? Open borders and a common market helped the United States become great, so why is it a bad thing?

Seriously with every post you make I don't know whether you are trolling or really believe in these stuff.

News media is rigged! Nobody is talking about Clinton's emails and Bengazhi! Where do you hear that? From the news. fpalm


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> What's wrong with being idealistic even though it is not realistic to accomplish? Open borders and a common market helped the United States become great, so why is it a bad thing?
> 
> Seriously with every post you make I don't know whether you are trolling or really believe in these stuff.
> 
> News media is rigged! Nobody in the media talked about Clinton's emails and Bengazhi! Where do you hear that? From the news. fpalm


yeah I love when people claim no one talks about Clinton's emails and Bengazhi if that were true then how does everyone know about it?

Not to mention Hillary was cleared for Bengazhi like 8 different times by republicans. So as far as Bengazhi is concerned there is nothing left to talk about.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The problem with how Bengazhi is treated is that it was so obvious scapegoating and wasting taxpayers money over it. How did she allow American soldiers to die? How was she responsible for the embassy attacks? American embassies have been target of attacks by fringe groups for many years. Bengazhi was initially overly politicised because an American ambassador died. But over the years that has been glossed over to use the grief of the family members of the servicemen because an ambassador's death isn't potent enough to rile voters up.

The email server is her fault though and she should have owned up to it much earlier but probably chose not to due to legal reasons. Her attempts to deflect that were weak sauce. Those who don't believe that are as guilty of ignoring reality as the Trump supporters who believe in NWO and Obama isn't born in America or is a secret Muslims.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Can someone explain to me why a no borders global nation is a horrible dystopian thing?

All the US states are in the same general borders but have varying cultures and styles that have never gone away

For all the "horror" of the NWO most of their supposed goals would make the world a far better place where war and conflict would be all but obsolete


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


>


Pretty sad to see this is pretty much getting totally ignored here. Seriously, just listen to it, this isn't just like his usual fuck ups where he says something stupid. He's bragging about how he would just start kissing a woman and grabbing their vagina without their consent. What a creep. 

But oh well, I guess sexual assault isn't much of a problem for Trump's supporters.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RenegadexParagon said:


> Pretty sad to see this is pretty much getting totally ignored here. Seriously, just listen to it, this isn't just like his usual fuck ups where he says something stupid. He's bragging about how he would just start kissing a woman and grabbing their vagina without their consent. What a creep.
> 
> But oh well, I guess sexual assault isn't much of a problem for Trump's supporters.


I am appalled by it! Maybe some trump supporters have no issue with this just like many Hillary supporters are okay with murder. :grin2:


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Lol at "Rhodey" Rhodes (played by the great actor Don Cheadle) is reduced to 'his black mate'. Don't change bro.


Don't know his name and didn't care to look it up. The word "black" offends you, yes?


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> News media is rigged! Nobody is talking about Clinton's emails and Bengazhi! Where do you hear that? From the news. fpalm


In the U.K i have never seen or read a single thing in regards to Emails the Clinton Foundation, Bengazhi or anything negative towards Hillary. Trumps taxes and any Sexist comments on the other hand are reported daily on the T.V news and newspapers

Barely anybody who i know gives a toss about the presidential race but a couple who i have spoke to about it have no idea about any of Hillarys controversies. They are fully aware of negative things regarding Trump though. 

Bias media reporting is rife in the U.K when it comes to this presidential race. No doubt about it


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Ultimate Warrior said:


> Don't know his name and didn't care to look it up. The word "black" offends you, yes?


Calm your jets sweetheart you can type whatever you want. It was a pretty funny, and yes, revealing, turn of phrase is all.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I am appalled by it! Maybe some trump supporters have no issue with this just like many Hillary supporters are okay with murder. :grin2:


Yeah, I'm not interested in discussing conspiracy theories. If you wanted to stick to reality however, I would say that's a fair criticism when concerning her hawkish foreign policy.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary fucking up again.



> Pretty sad to see this is pretty much getting totally ignored here. Seriously, just listen to it, this isn't just like his usual fuck ups where he says something stupid. He's bragging about how he would just start kissing a woman and grabbing their vagina without their consent. What a creep.
> 
> But oh well, I guess sexual assault isn't much of a problem for Trump's supporters.


Holy shit! We got 11 year old evidence of Trump acting like every other guy out there! :lol

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RenegadexParagon said:


> Yeah, I'm not interested in discussing conspiracy theories. If you wanted to stick to reality however, I would say that's a fair criticism when concerning her hawkish foreign policy.


Oh such a deflection! Guess we know where you stand. Yes everything that comes to Hillary is all conspiracy... :laugh:


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Holy shit! We got 11 year old evidence of Trump acting like every other guy out there! :lol


That is such bullshit :lmao 




> “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful -- I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.”
> “And when you’re a star they let you do it,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”
> “Whatever you want,” says Bush
> “Grab them by the p---y,” Trump says. “You can do anything.”


There's a fine line between risque banter with guys saying they think a woman looks fine and bragging about sexual assault. Maybe you and your buddies do, but I don't, not has anyone I've ever known.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Oh such a deflection! Guess we know where you stand. Yes everything that comes to Hillary is all conspiracy... :laugh:


Ah, you definitely seem like a reasonable person. No, you don't know where I stand. I'm not a Hillary supporter, nor a liberal. I don't even have any plans on voting next month. But yes, clearly I'm some Hillary shill because I don't agree with you or subscribe to common conspiracy theories. :lmao


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> In the U.K i have never seen or read a single thing in regards to Emails the Clinton Foundation, Bengazhi or anything negative towards Hillary. Trumps taxes and any Sexist comments on the other hand are reported daily on the T.V news and newspapers
> 
> Barely anybody who i know gives a toss about the presidential race but a couple who i have spoke to about it have no idea about any of Hillarys controversies. They are fully aware of negative things regarding Trump though.
> 
> Bias media reporting is rife in the U.K when it comes to this presidential race. No doubt about it


That is not true. A simple google search has shown guardian, daily mail, the independent, BBC etc UK media. all having articles about all the Clinton scandals over the campaign, and even prior to the presidential primary. No doubt the media is heavily partisan in the UK, but they do report on Hillary too. Maybe they don't go as in depth towards the reporting on Clinton because it isn't as relatable as taxes and sexism.

The thing is Clinton's negative news have been played out for years by now. The negatives about Trump with new relavations are just coming out. When the Clinton talk about Bernie supporters were leaked, which was a new revelation, the UK media reported on it as well.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> There's a fine line between risque banter with guys saying they think a woman looks fine and bragging about sexual assault. Maybe you and your buddies do, but I don't, not has anyone I've ever known.


You should hang out with more guys if you're delusional to think this kind of talk doesn't happen all the time. Fuck out of here with your "Holier Than Thou" bullshit.

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.snopes.com/leaked-e-mail-clinton-foundation-john-oliver/

I don't know why but this made me laughed.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> You should hang out with more guys if you're delusional to think this kind of talk doesn't happen all the time. Fuck out of here with your "Holier Than Thou" bullshit.
> 
> - Vic


I do. I'm a guy, I have mostly guy friends and again, I've never heard someone say they wanted to grope a woman without their consent. And if they did, I'd call them out on it, _because it's a shitty thing to say_. Saying "most guys do it" isn't a reasonable excuse regardless.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> That is not true. A simple google search has shown guardian, daily mail, the independent, BBC etc UK media. all having articles about all the Clinton scandals over the campaign, and even prior to the presidential primary. No doubt the media is heavily partisan in the UK, but they do report on Hillary too. Maybe they don't go as in depth towards the reporting on Clinton because it isn't as relatable as taxes and sexism.
> 
> The thing is Clinton's negative news have been played out for years by now. The negatives about Trump with new relavations are just coming out. When the Clinton talk about Bernie supporters were leaked, which was a new revelation, the UK media reported on it as well.


So now you know what is reported in a country you have probably never been to :lmao

The BBC and ITV are by far the 2 biggest domestic TV channels in the U.K. Sky T.V is massive but is a PPV type broadcaster

2 controversies come out of the USA today in regards to the presidential race. Trump being sexist and The Hillary email wiki leaks

Go on the BBC, ITV and Sky news websites now. All 3 are reporting the Trump incident yet not a single word on any of them regarding Hillary.

What would you call that?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> So now you know what is reported in a country you have probably never been to :lmao
> 
> The BBC and ITV are by far the 2 biggest domestic TV channels in the U.K. Sky T.V is massive but is a PPV type broadcaster
> 
> 2 controversies come out of the USA today in regards to the presidential race. Trump being sexist and The Hillary email wiki leaks
> 
> Go on the BBC, ITV and Sky news websites now. All 3 are reporting the Trump incident yet not a single word on any of them regarding Hillary.
> 
> What would you call that?


Maybe the UK stations you speak of did not report it because its UNPROVEN

http://www.snopes.com/julian-assange-drone-strike/

And what Trump said was him on tape.

News should only report on things that are proven not rumors or bullshit

EDIT

Just saw a tweet about some of Hillarys speeches have leaked. Now that shit should be reported.
If that is what you were talking about then yes you are 100% right. The US news is keep that quite for sure as well.


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It seemed to me Trump just kept going on and on because the guy was laughing and it seemed like a guy moment. Still not a good look and I am interested to see what happens Sunday now. 

Would love to see a personal conversation between Hilary and Bill though. Hilary and anybody actually.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> I do. I'm a guy, I have mostly guy friends and again, I've never heard someone say they wanted to grope a woman without their consent. And if they did, I'd call them out on it, because it's a shitty thing to say. Saying "most guys do it" isn't a reasonable excuse regardless.


It happens. Tough shit. Facts don't care about your feelings.

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> So now you know what is reported in a country you have probably never been to :lmao
> 
> The BBC and ITV are by far the 2 biggest domestic TV channels in the U.K. Sky T.V is massive but is a PPV type broadcaster
> 
> 2 controversies come out of the USA today in regards to the presidential race. Trump being sexist and The Hillary email wiki leaks
> 
> Go on the BBC, ITV and Sky news websites now. All 3 are reporting the Trump incident yet not a single word on any of them regarding Hillary.
> 
> What would you call that?


You claimed to not have read or seen anything in regards to anything negative towards Hillary which isn't true at all.

I would call them reporting what they can verify first. The Trump story is just a video with Trump's own voice. The Clinton leak will probably be reported more extensively when they go over the leaked documents themselves. I just posted a conservative source spinning the leaked document into something absurd. The bigger news media probably err on the side of caution on that. :shrug


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Maybe the UK stations you speak of did not report it because its UNPROVEN
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/julian-assange-drone-strike/
> 
> And what Trump said was him on tape.
> 
> News should only report on things that are proven not rumors or bullshit


This Trump story is complete Bullshit. Its a nothing story. Its not even news worthy yet it is a headline on the 3 said media outlets. Its a pathetic effort of smearing Trump and blatant media bias against him


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> This Trump story is complete Bullshit. Its a nothing story. Its not even news worthy yet it is a headline on the 3 said media outlets. Its a pathetic effort of smearing Trump and blatant media bias against him


How is Trump joking about how he likes to sexual assault women not a story, you cant be serious. Its a huge story. 

Its not a smear or biased, he said it and its true.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> It happens. Tough shit. Facts don't care about your feelings.
> 
> - Vic


And again, even if it did, that isn't a reasonable excuse for bragging about sexual assault.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> This Trump story is complete Bullshit. Its a nothing story. Its not even news worthy yet it is a headline on the 3 said media outlets. Its a pathetic effort of smearing Trump and blatant media bias against him


Why can't it be both news worthy and a smear attempt? :shrug 

Trump's campaign have been trying to shore up women votes in recent weeks, saying the things he said about women were just for entertainment, being provocative for an audience. This doesn't seem like it. :shrug


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> And again, even if it did, that isn't a reasonable excuse for bragging about sexual assault.


If we're going to play that card, Bill Clinton is a rapist.

- Vic


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> If we're going to play that card, Bill Clinton is a rapist.
> 
> - Vic


Good job he's not up for election then I guess...


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> How is Trump joking about how he likes to sexual assault women not a story, you cant be serious. Its a huge story.
> 
> Its not a smear or biased, he said it and its true.


To me it is not a big story. He was giving it the big one acting like a smart arse to another man who was laughing and encouraging the conversation. A rich arrogant man acting like a rich arrogant man. When the women in question approached Trump he was nothing but respectful towards her. it was a load of bravado on his behalf and nothing more

I have already seen this reported on BBC and Sky News in the last few hours. The clip will be played over and over again

Hillary Clinton was recorded laughing about getting a reduced sentence for a paedophile who raped a 12 year old girl. She basically stated that she knew he was guilty. She was laughing about it. Do you think that audio has ever been played on a U.K based news programme?. Do you think that was even reported on BBC or Sky News?. Was it fuck

You have not the got slightest clue of how bias the British media are


----------



## Iapetus

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> To me it is not a big story. He was giving it the big one acting like a smart arse to another man who was laughing and encouraging the conversation. A rich arrogant man acting like a rich arrogant man. When the women in question approached Trump he was nothing but respectful towards her. it was a load of bravado on his behalf and nothing more
> 
> I have already seen this reported on BBC and Sky News in the last few hours. The clip will be played over and over again
> 
> Hillary Clinton was recorded laughing about getting a reduced sentence for a paedophile who raped a 12 year old girl. She basically stated that she knew he was guilty. She was laughing about it. Do you think that audio has ever been played on a U.K based news programme?. Do you think that was even reported on BBC or Sky News?. Was it fuck
> 
> You have not the got slightest clue of how bias the British media are


Yeah...she laughed at the polygraph test, not the guy getting off. 

Nice try tho.
:sashahi

Also, Trump has multiple rape cases against him, paedophilia included, so........


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> If we're going to play that card, Bill Clinton is a rapist.
> 
> - Vic


Sure, he very well could be. Now, what does Clinton's allegations of sexual assault have to do with Trump saying he wants to kiss and grope a woman without consent? Or do you just have trouble talking about Trump without saying "But...But..But... Bill and Killary are bad " ?


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> Hillary Clinton was recorded laughing about getting a reduced sentence for a paedophile who raped a 12 year old girl. She basically stated that she knew he was guilty. She was laughing about it. Do you think that audio has ever been played on a U.K based news programme?. Do you think that was even reported on BBC or Sky News?. Was it fuck




That's not being reported because it isn't true lol


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Iapetus said:


> Yeah...she laughed at the polygraph test, not the guy getting off.
> 
> Nice try tho.
> :sashahi
> 
> Also, Trump has multiple rape cases against him, paedophilia included, so........


And this post has what to do with British media bias ?



Alkomesh2 said:


> That's not being reported because it isn't true lol


Isn't true?








unkout


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> And this post has what to do with British media bias ?
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unkout



At no point on that clip does she laugh at a dude getting off...

Listen to the stuff you post ffs


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:trump said Bill Clinton has said much worse things about women on the golf course... because :trump was with him busting a gut laughing

gennifer flowers also said that bill told her hillary has eaten way more pussy than he ever has

finally this election has gotten to the endpoint of destroying democracy, crude sexual comments are frontpage news and no one cares really. it's just will this hurt or help my candidate. maybe not destroy democracy literally but destroy the point of it anyway.

you literally have the beverly fucking hillbillies in bill and hillary and on the other side is :trump 

republicans already know they're fucked

democrats will win so they might not think they're fucked but after 4 years of hillary they will realize they are fucked too

probably not even gonna take 4 years


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Sure, he very well could be. Now, what does Clinton's allegations of sexual assault have to do with Trump saying he wants to kiss and grope a woman without consent? Or do you just have trouble talking about Trump without saying "But...But..But... Bill and Killary are bad " ?


I'm more concerned about what Hillary (and Bill) did than what mean things Trump has said.

- Vic


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> At no point on that clip does she laugh at a dude getting off...
> 
> Listen to the stuff you post ffs


1.34 - 1.36

Sounds like laughter to me. If you are really going to try and deny what she is laughing about then i give up. Honestly. Anybody that even tries to deny that shit is a disgrace


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> 1.34 - 1.36
> 
> Sounds like laughter to me. If you are really going to try and deny what she is laughing about then i give up. Honestly. Anybody that even tries to deny that shit is a disgrace


She has an awkward laugh about him passing a polygraph test and it destroying her faith in polygraph tests. 

She does not laugh about a pedophile getting off like you've said repeatedly.

Give up on your fantasy world and come back to reality.


----------



## BarackYoMama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I just hope all the people who are totally fine with what Trump said, never have a daughter, or don't have have a daughter....if so then I guess they would be fine with a guy doing that crap to them, since Trump gets a free pass for it.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> She has an awkward laugh about him passing a polygraph test and it destroying her faith in polygraph tests.
> 
> She does not laugh about a pedophile getting off like you've said repeatedly.
> 
> Give up on your fantasy world and come back to reality.


:Wat?


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Wait so you're actually gonna pretend she laughs about getting a pedophile of? 

Trying to use her work as a public defender against her is grubby af.

Like seriously, that she did community service is commendable, especially when you look at all Trump did with his life, inherit a bunch of money and live of moving it around while never working a day in his life.

Like if she'd been defending pedophiles for money it'd be a bit different, but she didn't, she did it as a public defender, you don't really get to say no to work as a public defender.


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> \, especially when you look at all Trump did with his life, inherit a bunch of money and live of moving it around while never working a day in his life.
> 
> Like if she'd been defending pedophiles for money it'd be a bit different, but she didn't, she did it as a public defender, you don't really get to say no to work as a public defender.



first of, how do u think trump expanded his dad business if he never worked a day in his life....that's now how reality works
and a public defender can refuse cases...u should definently research things before spewing bull
http://www.answers.com/Q/Can_a_public_defender_refuse_to_defend

p.s there are other sites which states same thing. 
p.s.s you seem to be fine with a women who will lie to American people with no problem and set us of for possible war with Russia/ china.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> I'm more concerned about what Hillary (and Bill) did than what mean things Trump has said.
> 
> - Vic


It's very much possible to be concerned about what both have said, done, and want to do. It's also possible to discuss these things honestly and not pretend they aren't a issue.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> first of, how do u think trump expanded his dad business if he never worked a day in his life....that's now how reality works
> and a public defender can refuse cases...u should definently research things before spewing bull
> http://www.answers.com/Q/Can_a_public_defender_refuse_to_defend
> 
> p.s there are other sites which states same thing.
> p.s.s you seem to be fine with a women who will lie to American people with no problem and set us of for possible war with Russia/ china.


From your link "conflict of interest is the usual explanation, illness and inability to defend due to excessive case-load are other reasons. Also a public defender can refuse to defend due to issues with the client ie. if they feel threatened or abused they are entitled to walk-away"

In other words the can't unless:
- there is a conflict of interest
- they are ill for the case
- they have too many other cases at that point
- they feel personally threatened by the client

But thats it, they can't just say "no I don't feel like it" or "I don't feel that crime is worth defending".

Trump has lied just as much if not more than Clinton so frankly I don't see why you'd vote for either candidate on that basis.

Also Clinton isn't anywhere near as likely to lead to war with Russia or China is Trump is with basically any number of random countries because he's an idiot and has threatened to use force in response to insults ie with Iran. 

He has clearly said that had he been in power at the time an Iranian vessel insulted the US he would have blown the vessel up. So if you're voting for peace you should definitely vote for Clinton.

Also Trump didn't expand his father's business, it's been shown repeatedly that if he'd just put everything he inherited in a bank he'd be richer today.


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> From your link "conflict of interest is the usual explanation, illness and inability to defend due to excessive case-load are other reasons. Also a public defender can refuse to defend due to issues with the client ie. if they feel threatened or abused they are entitled to walk-away"
> 
> In other words the can't unless:
> - there is a conflict of interest
> - they are ill for the case
> - they have too many other cases at that point
> - they feel personally threatened by the client
> 
> But thats it, they can't just say "no I don't feel like it" or "I don't feel that crime is worth defending".
> 
> Trump has lied just as much if not more than Clinton so frankly I don't see why you'd vote for either candidate on that basis.
> 
> Also Clinton isn't anywhere near as likely to lead to war with Russia or China is Trump is with basically any number of random countries because he's an idiot and has threatened to use force in response to insults ie with Iran.
> 
> He has clearly said that had he been in power at the time an Iranian vessel insulted the US he would have blown the vessel up. So if you're voting for peace you should definitely vote for Clinton.



do u know what "ie." means? also you must not be listening or watching when Hillary stating she wants no fly zone in Syria which will lead to ww3, or how she wants to bomb states that cyber aTTACK US. and you are confusing bluster with what he will actually do...a lot of what trump says is just that words he woundnt acutally do it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wCwJ8pfXXo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzPaCxHLl8s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNtwAZ6KomE


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> It's very much possible to be concerned about what both have said, done, and want to do. It's also possible to discuss these things honestly and not pretend they aren't a issue.


Nobody cares what you think.

- Vic


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> first of, how do u think trump expanded his dad business if he never worked a day in his life....


Sorry, you think he did what exactly? It's well known that Trump is a colossally horrific businessman lol

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...us-elections-republican-politics-7173666.html


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Sorry, you think he did what exactly? It's well known that Trump is a colossally horrific businessman lol
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...us-elections-republican-politics-7173666.html


please share that with the thousands of people he has employed and provided wages for what is approaching decades now...im sure they want to be told that the money they got and use to buy homes feed their kids pay for stuff was given to them by a man who wasn't a great businessman.... im being sarcastic...I hope u can tell


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> please share that with the thousands of people he has employed and provided wages for what is approaching decades now...im sure they want to be told that the money they got and use to buy homes feed their kids pay for stuff was given to them by a man who wasn't a great businessman.... im being sarcastic...I hope u can tell


I'm sure that's very comforting to the thousands of people he's defrauded over the years and all of the businesses he mismanaged that went bust and cost even more people their jobs. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm sure you find it difficult to tell because you don't seem particularly aware of what's actually happening in the world.


----------



## paladin errant

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

here 's a translation of a french blogger who has really relevant ideas ...sorry if the translator made mistakes.i hope you will like it.

*The US election campaign is taking an interesting twist, not only because of the more or less artificial excitement around the two main candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as the polarization of the media on the two representatives of the two main political parties in the country was almost complete, a third candidate now seems to emerge and gain unexpected support.
It seems that the candidate of the Libertarian Party US, Gary Johnson, recently harvested a little more attention than his place of complete outsider would have enabled it to obtain. Traditionally, candidates of parties other than the Republican or Democratic party will get one or two mentions, early in the season. Only Ross Perot, who in 1992 invested his personal fortune into his campaign, had succeeded in triggering media interest as to allow three triangular discussions with candidates Clinton and Bush on national media. Since the rules governing the holding of these debates were strictly enforced to prevent further surprise and finish in a third TV dinner and embarrassing candidate, which probably explains why Johnson will have no right to give replica Trump or Clinton.
Still, difficult to completely ignore the man.

There is already a program, which clashes facing one of the two current contenders surmédiatisés: fiscally conservative, that is to say seeking fiscal balance and control of public spending, liberal socially returning individuals their responsibility, and non-interventionist both domestically and externally (in military matters in particular), Gary Johnson thus presents a real opportunity to reduce the weight of the American state that, if it is still far from highs in Europe by the French and Belgian States for example, remains omnipresent in the lives of citizens at the level of taxation at the level of laws restricting freedoms (Patriot Act, in particular).

There are also scores in its various surveys, in which it is regularly credited with 8 to 13% of the vote. If this does not seem enough to qualify for television debates, the fact remains that these scores are more than respectable (and higher than Perot in his day who had had him the opportunity to s explain tray).

Finally, there is a growing number of personalities and even editorial teams of major local or national newspapers that chose to lend their support to his candidacy. The rejection of Clinton, increasingly often seen as hypocritical, or Trump, dislike by his populist side, leading many to approach the positions Johnson.
Now if there is a significant number of newspapers or Republican allegiance personalities behind Johnson, we discover more and more Democrats, too tired by the unsympathetic character Clinton to join the former governor of New Mexico in his presidential race. More specifically, we will quote the recent editorial in the Chicago Tribune, yet clearly Democratic newspaper, whose team has chosen to support the Libertarian candidate. Moreover, if one takes into precisely the character of candidates and as noted a columnist for the Boston Globe, the candidate Johnson appears far more recommendable than the other two.

In passing, we can not help noting the outraged reactions of some readers to the editorial in the Chicago Tribune, shocked and we can reject both candidates officially knighted by the mass media. Commentators come quickly to insults or insults, and ascend hairpin small Johnson of communication errors (confused when it came to comment on the battle of Aleppo, Syria, and unable to cite the name of a global leader admire it), as if these two errors were a biblical scale catastrophe facing the gaffes yet quite phenomenal strung at the same time as beads both Trump by Clinton. Moreover, even here we find journalists - even on the very democratic yet Huffington Post - to put into perspective though these devices trifles to the US national debate.

In short, although there is a build-up, modest but persistent elements for the third candidate, and not just because he has the support of some segment of the young population, or because it would bring together the disappointed two main parties, but because it offers a real opportunity in the US to get out of the neoconservatives paradigms and / or populist want to offer that other candidates.

Of course, as with the scores he is credited in the polls in the timidity with which the media relay the program, the probability that it takes power is extremely low. It is a pity that, as in France where, as I mentioned a few days ago, none of the candidates who currently emit can claim to take the consent (even soft) of a majority of French the United States are in a similar password that whoever is elected will not pretend collect half of voters behind him.
However, low does not mean zero. Thus, in the present state of the polls, and in light of how the voting takes place in the United States, Johnson could win the state of which he was governor, New Mexico. We could, in this case, result in comical situation where the other two candidates neck and neck with each other, could then lock the 270 electoral votes needed to be effectively appointed president of the United States and the House of Representatives would have to decide (a probability estimated at 0.6%). Currently under Republican majority, one can reasonably imagine that she would not choose Hillary Clinton. Although very unlikely, assuming a choice of Johnson on Trump appears not completely impossible ...
Regardless of these soft but very strong assumptions, remains the liberal message, the message that is to remember that a State may very well by focusing on its own sovereign prerogatives and stop scatter in collectivization and excessive interventionism in all directions. It looks across the Atlantic, this message will eventually wear.

Hopefully. France still being delayed by 20 years, it gives us an idea of the time it will take for the citizens of this side of the Atlantic again become somewhat lucid.*


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

FFS I just wonder why so many people are incapable of calling these Trump comments the shitty fucking things they are. I can't believe how much people will bend over backwards to justify this. it was a fucking shitty thing to say. You don't have to stop supporting him just by calling his shot out for what it is - a blowhard arrogant fuck talking tough about women and flexing about his power.

Yes we know Hillary's the wicked witch of the west too. Doesn't change Trump's terrible comments. If we don't call this out and then he just gets worse and worse and we all just accept it.

Jesus for some of his supporters it seems like he could take a dump in their mouths and they'd swallow it down and say 'Well, he had to go somewhere, what, you never had to take a shit? Hillary's a war monger murderer!'


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I'm sure that's very comforting to the thousands of people he's defrauded over the years and all of the businesses he mismanaged that went bust and cost even more people their jobs. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm sure you find it difficult to tell because you don't seem particularly aware of what's actually happening in the world.


:grin2: yeaaa you are over generalizing only 4 or 6 out of hundreds of his busniesses went bust...that is a good perecentage, my bad that is a Fucking Great percentage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trump_Organization
http://www.investopedia.com/updates/donald-trump-companies/
anyone who tells you that every one of their ideas work is a fucking liar (baring GOD)
also as someone who realizes that businesses fail every day and that ergo people losing their job is actually normal in societies, I will be the bigger man and just give you the evidence.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic-cycle.asp
http://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/economic-cycle
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericwag...ons-8-out-of-10-businesses-fail/#c37715b5e3c6
you know what, i realize that u replied to me with snark because i started it... im not sorry but i prob shouldn't have reacted that way.


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> FFS I just wonder why so many people are incapable of calling these Trump comments the shitty fucking things they are. I can't believe how much people will bend over backwards to justify this. it was a fucking shitty thing to say. You don't have to stop supporting him just by calling his shot out for what it is - a blowhard arrogant fuck talking tough about women and flexing about his power.
> 
> Yes we know Hillary's the wicked witch of the west too. Doesn't change Trump's terrible comments. If we don't call this out and then he just gets worse and worse and we all just accept it.
> 
> Jesus for some of his supporters it seems like he could take a dump in their mouths and they'd swallow it down and say 'Well, he had to go somewhere, what, you never had to take a shit? Hillary's a war monger murderer!'


maybe its because some of us aren't hyprocites, i know ive said worse done similar things in my life and thought along those lines before, i will not act like these things/his comments were right they aren't but NO ONE IS PERFECT...also its one thing to talk about how he acts around women(being manly) its another to be for killing babies who are due the day before (Hillary)...so maybe some of us just have things we prioritize like not voting for someone who is a war criminal, war monger, nd letting a canidate who isn't perfect, not smooth with his words, talks like regular guy have a pass....


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


>


All I see are two bros bro'ing down, Bush speaking truthfully about the chick in purple being a tasty treat and Don Juan doing what a real man would do and admit that even he can fail to score pussy.

LEAVE DONNY ALONE!



















































































































































:trump :troll


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> .also its one thing to talk about how he acts around women(being manly) its another to be for killing babies who are due the day before (Hillary)..


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

How crazy is it that Billy Bush might lose his job over the leaked hot mic but Donald Trump might end up as president of the United States? :lmao


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Nobody cares what you think.
> 
> - Vic


Okay :lol


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So Hill called Bernie supporters losers in her paid speech. @birthday_massacre will you please disavow?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> So Hill called Bernie supporters losers in her paid speech. @birthday_massacre will you please disavow?


She did not say that. Please follow your original intention in starting the thread in having a honest discussion while also including jabs at the nominees.

In creating a meme to tar Clinton, the right wing propaganda machine project their view on those group they are trying to distance with the democrats.

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/56fdvp/that_bucket_of_losers_clinton_speech_transcript/

It's so sad that buzzfeed is able to factcheck your news source so quickly. Freaking buzzfeed.


----------



## Cliffy

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Game over for trump

What an idiot


----------



## Rembrandt

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Priceless Blaze said:


> I just hope all the people who are totally fine with what Trump said, never have a daughter, or don't have have a daughter....if so then I guess they would be fine with a guy doing that crap to them, since Trump gets a free pass for it.


He's famous though, so it must be okay? :grande


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Wait so you're actually gonna pretend she laughs about getting a pedophile of?
> 
> Trying to use her work as a public defender against her is grubby af.
> 
> Like seriously, that she did community service is commendable, especially when you look at all Trump did with his life, inherit a bunch of money and live of moving it around while never working a day in his life.
> 
> Like if she'd been defending pedophiles for money it'd be a bit different, but she didn't, she did it as a public defender, you don't really get to say no to work as a public defender.


First off i thought you just trolling. The fact you are not is a disgrace. She laughed as she said it destroyed her faith in polygraph tests. What she means is she knew that he was guilty and the polygraph was wrong.

No Public defender/lawyer is forced to defend people. At any stage she could have told the scumbag to fuckoff and find someone else to defend him. She didn't. She then continued to smear a 12 year old rape victim and call her a liar amongst other things even though she knew the poor child was telling the truth. There was nothing awkward about her laugh.It was a cocky and condescending chuckle

The fact that she was not getting paid for her work makes what she did a lot worse. The fact that you are trying to defend her over this is disgraceful and extremely ignorant of you


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> The fact that she was not getting paid for her work makes what she did a lot worse. The fact that you are trying to defend her over this is disgraceful and extremely ignorant of you


Again, you're attacking someone for doing community service while supporting a mediocre businessman who has never done a real days work in his life, beyond stealing from people and not honouring his debts. 

Unless you believe in giving up on innocent until proven guilty everyone needs a defence, even people accused of rape. 

And no public defenders can't just refuse to defend people charged with certain crimes no matter what fantasy world you like to live in, they wouldn't be public defenders for long if they tried.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

All right, so a few thoughts on this Trump Tapes business:

It is bad. As @yeahbaby! notes, it is "shit." Trump's phony-baloney, half-baked apology somehow makes it worse, too. "I'm sorry if I offended anyone." That language never fails to come across as either smug (which I would like to think even the most devoted Trumpian would admit is a highly active trait of "The Donald's") or insincere. In this instance, the smugness comes through. It's a bad look for a host of reasons, but the timing of the leaking of this is especially difficult because after taking a relative beating for over a week, the Trump forces seemed to be regrouping around Mike Pence's unspectacular but almost wholly okay outing in the VP debate, and that news cycle gave them a bit of a cushion going into this Sunday evening debate. That cushion is no more and now this story will doubtless consume the weekend leading right into the debate. 

Now, the Trump fans noting that this behavior is commonplace are not wrong. I have overheard more statements about the various anatomies of women in locker rooms and throughout the offices of chief risk management officers and various other locations in San Francisco's Financial District than I care to speak about. As my friend @Rowdy Yates pointed out, justifiably, it is true that this is effectively banter, and it's almost always really about the men impressing the other men with their exploits. (It's also "interesting"--insofar as this subject can be--that a considerable part of Trump's conversation is about a failed conquest. It's almost like he was lacing the stereotypical "big powerful businessman" persona that we all know exists and that Trump thoroughly cultivates and inhabits with a dose of quasi-humility, as if saying, "Not even Donald Trump, like James Bond or Gordon Gekko, always succeeds at this." That in no way mitigates what he says because, honestly, it is embarrassing behavior. None of it is in the least bit surprising. Which segues into my next point.

When I saw the news story break, I thought of how Hillary Clinton could so easily take advantage of this. Firstly, everyone on earth knows that her husband is a longtime philanderer and, weighing the mountain of evidence, probably guilty of certain deeds that go beyond consensual adult philandering. Now that Trump has been wounded in this regard, his efforts to go after Bill Clinton's history will be unrelenting. In fact, he immediately brought that history up.

All Hillary need say about this is, "What is heard on that tape is very unfortunate... I'm saddened to hear Donald Trump degrade and objectify women, to see them as mere playthings. He says that he cannot help it. That is so sad to hear, and so deeply unfortunate. I am not surprised by these revealed truths, the American people know how my life in public service and my personal life have been touched by these kind of issues. Let's now move past this..." etc., etc.

Instead, 



> This is horrific. We cannot allow this man to become president.


Kind o' dumb. She had the opportunity to take that underhanded pitch and crush it out of the ballpark, defuse the talk of her husband and leave Trump twisting in the wind, and instead she went this route. It immediately opens up the avenue for both Trump and his surrogates to go after the history with Bill Clinton, and it sounds both disingenuous, which she seems incapable of not being, and tone deaf.

_However!_ It doesn't really matter because this is precisely the kind of gift that could convince some crucially important evangelical voters in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania to simply stay home, voters without whom Trump has no chance whatsoever of winning. 

Endgame: Trump, who was already trending down, is now probably truly finished, as this gives the majority of the people who make up the Republican Party's establishment the cover that they have been seeking to ditch/politically assassinate their party's nominee. The drumbeat from the Bush family and Marco Rubio coalitions will be the loudest, as the first day coming out of this revelation has already displayed. More and more Republican Senate candidates and whatnot will be asking for the plug to be as pulled as much as it possibly can be for Team Trump, and resources and money poured into their particular quests.

Donald Trump is a great deal like Ralph Kramden. He's got a BIIIIIG mouth. :lol 



deepelemblues said:


> :trump said Bill Clinton has said much worse things about women on the golf course... because :trump was with him busting a gut laughing
> 
> gennifer flowers also said that bill told her hillary has eaten way more pussy than he ever has
> 
> finally this election has gotten to the endpoint of destroying democracy, crude sexual comments are frontpage news and no one cares really. it's just will this hurt or help my candidate. maybe not destroy democracy literally but destroy the point of it anyway.
> 
> you literally have the beverly fucking hillbillies in bill and hillary and on the other side is :trump
> 
> republicans already know they're fucked
> 
> democrats will win so they might not think they're fucked but after 4 years of hillary they will realize they are fucked too
> 
> probably not even gonna take 4 years


This is all true, but in terms of Democrats being "fucked" or not with a Hillary presidency, as far as the voters are concerned, yes, but in four years with the present demographic trajectory going ineluctably ahead with Hillary at the helm (let's not forget, she wants more and more and more immigration), present purple states like Nevada and North Carolina will doubtless be solid blue and a host of states such as Arizona, Georgia and South Carolina which in this cycle will probably go to Trump will become the next wave of purple swing states. (According to a bunch of polls, Arizona and South Carolina are quickly nearing such a designation already.) 

Less than thirty years ago George H.W. Bush won Virginia in a landslide, taking home 60% of the state's votes. Within only a few election cycles, however, mass immigration irrevocably changed Virginia's electoral makeup, rendering it a mild swing state for a little while before going deep blue with Barack Obama and now never looking back. All one need do is study certain counties. North Carolina's Randolph County may be the most informative in the entire nation, as sweeping demographic displacement has turned what once was a ruby red county into a purple up-for-grabs county with a sudden surge of Mexican and El Salvadoran, etc. immigration, as that ethnic group, though they tend to strongly dislike one another based on nationality as Mexicans versus Salvadorans (Los Angeles and other areas have seen some of the more vicious fallout from that ongoing major rift), has a lower median age versus the white population of Randolph County, which, for the most part, goes back many generations.

In eight years, with these demographic trajectories reaching their perfectly foreseeable markers, no less than Texas will become a genuine swing state. And once that state finally goes blue within a few years following that, the Republican Party can truly close up shop, at least as far as its "national" aspirations are concerned. Couple this to the highly likely ramifications from 2020 redistricting, and the GOP's present grasp of even the House of Representatives will be confronted by a clear and present danger in the next decade. 

If people want to know what the U.S. political landscape will be in 15 or 16 years (save Alaska and Hawaii), look to California. A fundamentally one-party state with an impossibly stifling bureaucracy and debilitating, pervasive nanny state. Texas has been the chief beneficiary of California's punishing statist madness, with a river of businesses flowing out of the Golden State and right to the business-friendly Lone Star State over the past eight years now. And as with most of the metropolitan areas of California today, the battles of the future won't be between Democrats and Republicans or flower children Democrats and labor union Democrats but disparate racial and ethnic avatar candidates representing but one party, the Democratic Party, as the respective blocs--Latino, black, Asian--wrestle with one another for the spoils and the exaltation that apparently comes with the securing in office their own racial or ethnic avatar candidate. 

Almost hilarious to think that George W. Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger were in all likelihood the last Republican president and Republican California governor, respectively. Oh, well, it was clearly a party interested in suicide. _Abyssus abyssum invocat_ and all that.



FriedTofu said:


> She did not say that. Please follow your original intention in starting the thread in having a honest discussion while also including jabs at the nominees.
> 
> In creating a meme to tar Clinton, the right wing propaganda machine project their view on those group they are trying to distance with the democrats.
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/56fdvp/that_bucket_of_losers_clinton_speech_transcript/
> 
> It's so sad that buzzfeed is able to factcheck your news source so quickly. Freaking buzzfeed.


Agree with you. Republicans/conservatives are so often their own worst enemy. The takeaway from Hillary's recorded phrasing is that she is herself admitting there that times have been extraordinarily tough, really for almost everyone but the super-rich, but, in certain ways, rather acutely for young people since the beginning of the Great Recession and right on through Obama's two terms. The share of people thirty-five and under living with their parents resembles the figures from the Industrial Revolution when young men were largely apprentices and the through-line of family life remained somewhat intact for many with marriages forming because the young couple's respective parents wanted grandchildren and marriage set the rules of monogamy and child-producing and -rearing. As the slow, steady breakdown of civilization occurs in myriad realms, perhaps some millennials will rediscover what the ancients knew all along. We can only hope!

But yes, as usual Republicans/conservatives gobble up the wrong talking points and regurgitate them.


Oh, and when I heard what Trump said, with a few friends around me, my trifling and footling quip was, "Clearly Trump learned some unconventional submission holds from his time with WWE wrestlers in the late '80s." Made a couple of the fellas chuckle, anyway.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Agree with you. Republicans/conservatives are so often their own worst enemy. The takeaway from Hillary's recorded phrasing is that she is herself admitting there that times have been extraordinarily tough, really for almost everyone but the super-rich, but, in certain ways, rather acutely for young people since the beginning of the Great Recession and right on through Obama's two terms. The share of people thirty-five and under living with their parents resembles the figures from the Industrial Revolution when young men were largely apprentices and the through-line of family life remained somewhat intact for many with marriages forming because the young couple's respective parents wanted grandchildren and marriage set the rules of monogamy and child-producing and -rearing. As the slow, steady breakdown of civilization occurs in myriad realms, perhaps some millennials will rediscover what the ancients knew all along. We can only hope!
> 
> But yes, as usual Republicans/conservatives gobble up the wrong talking points and regurgitate them.
> 
> 
> Oh, and when I heard what Trump said, with a few friends around me, my trifling and footling quip was, "Clearly Trump learned some unconventional submission holds from his time with WWE wrestlers in the late '80s." Made a couple of the fellas chuckle, anyway.


That's what they get for associating with the conspiracy theorists instead of condemning them for speculating without evidence. Hillary's friendly attitude towards the banks in her speeches is probably why she didn't want to have the transcripts revealed as it was bad for her politically in the current election climate, especially with Bernie in the primaries. There was no need to add fake stuff in it to make her look bad.

This seems to lend credence that Russia is disrupting democratic processes in western democracies that seems just as absurd as the conspiracy theories on the right but now seem plausible. This method of mixing fake information with real news is very Russian propaganda like. Putin's objective probably isn't to get Trump elected or prevent Clinton's nomination, but to undermine democracy ideals to extend Russian influence globally. Didn't Ukraine's presidential election a few years back got hit by a cyberattack?

FWIW,

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-russia-idUSKCN12729B

:shrug


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If Trump loose by a pretty Big margin, as it seems he would, the democrats not only have he adventage of the growing minority demos and the fact than some legal immigrants lke the asians are leaning democrat pretty fast. They have the possibility of push the republicans as the party of Trump for years and gaining voters for it


----------



## amhlilhaus

RenegadexParagon said:


> birthday_massacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sad to see this is pretty much getting totally ignored here. Seriously, just listen to it, this isn't just like his usual fuck ups where he says something stupid. He's bragging about how he would just start kissing a woman and grabbing their vagina without their consent. What a creep.
> 
> But oh well, I guess sexual assault isn't much of a problem for Trump's supporters.
Click to expand...

Nope, just like worshipping a RAPIST and his wife who wouldnt leave him because a MAN was a womens, a feminist i mean, path to power.

Btw, if trump actually did this, where are all the women he did it too.

Im sure a bunch will come out now, but why not before?

Couldnt be because of fear, only people crossing the clintons commit suicide shooting themselves IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> If Trump loose by a pretty Big margin, as it seems he would, the democrats not only have he adventage of the growing minority demos and the fact than some legal immigrants lke the asians are leaning democrat pretty fast. They have the possibility of push the republicans as the party of Trump for years and gaining voters for it


It shouldn't be that way. Immigrants are mostly fiscally conservative although many would prefer the state to provide a security blanket. Many minorities share the same family values of conservatism. They are a natural fit to become dependable Republican voters. The issue is most are just not interested in the voting process unless they feel threatened. And the GOP increasing racial and religious rhetoric the past 8 years is turning many of them to the Democrats by default.


----------



## amhlilhaus

yeahbaby! said:


> FFS I just wonder why so many people are incapable of calling these Trump comments the shitty fucking things they are. I can't believe how much people will bend over backwards to justify this. it was a fucking shitty thing to say. You don't have to stop supporting him just by calling his shot out for what it is - a blowhard arrogant fuck talking tough about women and flexing about his power.
> 
> Yes we know Hillary's the wicked witch of the west too. Doesn't change Trump's terrible comments. If we don't call this out and then he just gets worse and worse and we all just accept it.
> 
> Jesus for some of his supporters it seems like he could take a dump in their mouths and they'd swallow it down and say 'Well, he had to go somewhere, what, you never had to take a shit? Hillary's a war monger murderer!'


Democrats shit in their constituents mouths too.

Trumps a fuck. Thats why hes my protest candidate.

Doesnt matter, hillary knows shes gonna win, bitch is too sick to even campaign the days before debates so she can rest up.

Hillary wins, then dies before her first term. Wanna know how to tell her time is up? The old traiterous scjs will 'retire' so the hag can pack the court with even worse judges.

After trump loses, the rinos will crow about being right, start their search for another moderate to run in 4 years, who will get his ass handed to him again.

I wish the progressives sweep everything, put all their bullshit schemes in place. The resulting conflageration is gonna warm my heart


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> It shouldn't be that way. Immigrants are mostly fiscally conservative although many would prefer the state to provide a security blanket. Many minorities share the same family values of conservatism. They are a natural fit to become dependable Republican voters. The issue is most are just not interested in the voting process unless they feel threatened. And the GOP increasing racial and religious rhetoric the past 8 years is turning many of them to the Democrats by default.


Well, your last point is pretty obvious.

http://theconversation.com/why-asian-americans-dont-vote-republican-48369

But the problem is just rethoric (and well actual politics too, but with a change in rehtorics you could change at least some minds). I don't get it, after Romney loss the GOP issued their need to change the rethoric to a more inclussive one. And here they are :lmao

Edit: Wang is arguing something i agree with, in the last 2 weeks it has been obvious this race is over. This scandal is just an excuse for the GOP to start separating himself from Trump and avoiding the "party of Trump" effect i said before, that why they're reacting different than in past incidents or polemics


----------



## downnice

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

All country is literally turning into a South Park episode

ffs.......


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I guess we'll only know when the election happens, but hopefully Trump is finally finished. Not like Hillary is much better, though...


----------



## Mifune Jackson

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yes it was. Just look at how off the exit polls were, they even covered it up so much they stopped doing them at the end to make it easier to hide the primary was rigged.
> 
> This video has most of the info all in one place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> watch it then tell me it was not to the extent that was claimed. If anything it was worse
> 
> Hillary did not won, Sanders won but it was stolen. Just look at how many people were taken off the register so they could not even vote or their affiliation was changed so they could not vote for Sanders.


Redacted Tonight is doing the same thing all those right wing dudes do, where he reports news aimed to get people angry. It's not entirely substantiated either.

As someone who personally experienced the California Provisional No Party Preference thing (though I knew what to say and got to vote, many of my friends had to mail theirs in), I can say that it wasn't that big of a deal and that a lot of those votes could have easily been independents for Hillary, too.

The California stuff is pretty dumb, ultimately. He needed more than 75% of the vote. Even if Bernie won by the same 55-45 margin (or whatever), Clinton still wins the primary. There's absolutely no need to stack the deck. I can buy individual operators acting within their own prejudices at poll booths, but not the Clinton campaign or DNC having anything to do with it.

When I say "not to the extent claimed," I mean that it wasn't stolen to the extent that Bernie would have won. Certainly not overwhelmingly. I don't doubt that fraud happened, as there were probably pro-Hillary people at the poll booths, etc., but I think there were far more Hillary supporters than people gave credit for. Just for the record, I wasn't one of them, but have no problems acknowledging that she won the primary.

Anyway, primary season 2016 is a dead issue.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/784790388938674176
:lol


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump's VP has all but abandoned him

It doesn't matter if you love or hate Trump 

It doesn't matter if you think the media is being unfair

The man who is closest to Trump, who would have no problem getting "the true story", who would become one of the most powerful men in the world if he won, is washing his hands of the matter

That says ALOT


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> Trump's VP has all but abandoned him
> 
> It doesn't matter if you love or hate Trump
> 
> It doesn't matter if you think the media is being unfair
> 
> The man who is closest to Trump, who would have no problem getting "the true story", who would become one of the most powerful men in the world if he won, is washing his hands of the matter
> 
> That says ALOT


:kobe No he hasn't.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

How can anyone, especially a woman, defend Trump on this one? People are acting like oh they are just words, no they are not just words. Trump was joking about how HE SEXUALLY ASSAULTS WOMEN. And people wonder why rich kids like Brock Turner get a slap on the wrist for raping a girl behind a dumpster. Anyone defending Trump on this has no morals what so ever. Would you be laughing if Trump sexual assaulted YOU or your mother, sister, daughter, or wife and joked about it?





Mifune Jackson said:


> Redacted Tonight is doing the same thing all those right wing dudes do, where he reports news aimed to get people angry. It's not entirely substantiated either.
> 
> As someone who personally experienced the California Provisional No Party Preference thing (though I knew what to say and got to vote, many of my friends had to mail theirs in), I can say that it wasn't that big of a deal and that a lot of those votes could have easily been independents for Hillary, too.
> 
> The California stuff is pretty dumb, ultimately. He needed more than 75% of the vote. Even if Bernie won by the same 55-45 margin (or whatever), Clinton still wins the primary. There's absolutely no need to stack the deck. I can buy individual operators acting within their own prejudices at poll booths, but not the Clinton campaign or DNC having anything to do with it.
> 
> When I say "not to the extent claimed," I mean that it wasn't stolen to the extent that Bernie would have won. Certainly not overwhelmingly. I don't doubt that fraud happened, as there were probably pro-Hillary people at the poll booths, etc., but I think there were far more Hillary supporters than people gave credit for. Just for the record, I wasn't one of them, but have no problems acknowledging that she won the primary.
> 
> Anyway, primary season 2016 is a dead issue.


Yes it was stolen to the point if there was no election fraud Bernie would have won. All the facts and evidence show that. And all the info in that video was substantiated. If you want to ignore the evidence that is on you but its all there and backed up. 

The DNC leaks showed how they were stacking the deck against Sanders. Seriously, have you not been paying attention the past few months? 

Also stealing a few real delegate votes in every state would easily swing the election to Sanders not to mention how the DNC totally fucked him with the super delegate votes and even in states where Bernie beat Hillary they still gave her most of the super delegate votes. Oh yeah but it was not rigged. 



Beatles123 said:


> So Hill called Bernie supporters losers in her paid speech. @birthday_massacre will you please disavow?


How many times do I need to tell you to stop believing those BS Trump memes you see. Fact check before you post things like this that are not true.

And you wonder why I kept telling you how uninformed you are. 

As for disavowing Hillary? WTF are you talking about. Not sure how many times I need to tell you I am voting for Jill Stein. Its like you dont even listen to what people tell you.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Pence cancelled all his upcoming events. Huh.


----------



## QWERTYOP

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Soooo...

Fuck muslims
Fuck Mexicans
Fuck the disabled
Fuck vets that get captured
Fuck vets with PTSD
Fuck people who pay tax
fuck women

... Have I missed anyone? Can't wait for this guy to get shat on in November.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Oh, and when I heard what Trump said, with a few friends around me, my trifling and footling quip was, "Clearly Trump learned some unconventional submission holds from his time with WWE wrestlers in the late '80s." Made a couple of the fellas chuckle, anyway.


I hope someone declared it 'the jibe of the season' over a nice Cabernet!


----------



## skypod

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



QWERTYOP said:


> Soooo...
> 
> Fuck muslims
> Fuck Mexicans
> Fuck the disabled
> Fuck vets that get captured
> Fuck vets with PTSD
> Fuck people who pay tax
> fuck women
> 
> ... Have I missed anyone? Can't wait for this guy to get shat on in November.


Threw the 0.01% gay vote out the window too when Pence got involved.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Clinton's die hard supporters are hysterical. "You should go show your daughters and wives how Trump talks about women!!"...completely ignoring that Hilary defended a rapist by making it seem like the girl asked for it and on top of that covered up her own husbands sexual assaults over the years... Ridiculous. He talked like how a lot of guys talk about women, which don't get me wrong isn't something he should be saying so openly(and you can argue even in private) but Clinton die hards need to get off their very low "moral high ground".


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is not going to lose many supporters over this which is said, but its probably going to prevent him from getting new supporters that were on the fence.




Stinger Fan said:


> Clinton's die hard supporters are hysterical. "You should go show your daughters and wives how Trump talks about women!!"...completely ignoring that Hilary defended a rapist by making it seem like the girl asked for it and on top of that covered up her own husbands sexual assaults over the years... Ridiculous. He talked like how a lot of guys talk about women, which don't get me wrong isn't something he should be saying so openly(and you can argue even in private) but Clinton die hards need to get off their very low "moral high ground".


You keep missing the point. Trump was not just saying words, he was joking about HOW HE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED women and was laughing at it. And Hillary did not rape anyone, you can't fault her for what Bill did. And she took him at his word, he was saying he did not do it, so of course his wife will believe him. 

People need to stop acting like Trump just say some lewd things, he was talking about his actions toward women. That is a huge difference.


----------



## Iapetus

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> In more than one interview with Stern, Trump took part in conversations about Ivanka Trump's appearance, including one about the size of her breasts.
> In an October 2006 interview, Stern remarks that Ivanka "looks more voluptuous than ever," and asked if she had gotten breast implants. Trump is willing to engage in the discussion about his own daughter, telling Stern that she did not get implants.
> "She's actually always been very voluptuous," Trump responds. "She's tall, she's almost 6 feet tall and she's been, she's an amazing beauty."
> In another interview, from September 2004, Stern asks Trump if he can call Ivanka "a piece of ass," to which Trump responds in the affirmative.
> "My daughter is beautiful, Ivanka," says Trump.
> "By the way, your daughter," says Stern.
> "She's beautiful," responds Trump.
> "Can I say this? A piece of ass," Stern responds.
> "Yeah," says Trump.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/08/politics/trump-on-howard-stern/

((shudders))

Why the hell is he such a freak on his own daughter?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

You all act as if Trump's comments ex out all ogf what Hilary wants to do:










Straight from WikiLeaks


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










:applause


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You keep missing the point. Trump was not just saying words, he was joking about HOW HE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED women and was laughing at it. And Hillary did not rape anyone, you can't fault her for what Bill did. And she took him at his word, he was saying he did not do it, so of course his wife will believe him.
> 
> People need to stop acting like Trump just say some lewd things, he was talking about his actions toward women. That is a huge difference.


Writing in caps doesn't scare me, nor do I care when you do it. You're trying desperately to change his words into something they are not. You've bought into this feminist ideology over what is considered "sexual assault" and are trying to push a narrative that may not actually exist. His words hardly gives much detail , even when he says he grabs women there's no context there,he doesn't' say women are rejecting him and telling him "no", or "stop" because I highly doubt he'd be bragging about it if he wasn't successful. There's not any indication that would suggest those women were against the notion of him touching them, because as he says celebrity allows people to do what they want, which isn't false. If women allow him to do those things, then its not "sexual assault" as you're trying to push that narrative. Also, trying to sleep with married women is sleazy, don't get me wrong but that hardly means he's a "rapist" or "serial sexual assaulter" , he's a guy who tried and failed. Covering up a rape is pretty horrible and trying to paint a sexual assault victim as someone who essentially asked for it, goes against this notion that she's in favor of womens rights

While she may not be a rapist, she sure as hell has killed people , something Donald Trump(to my knowledge) hasn't done.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vince's Massive Bulge said:


> Game over for trump


That was said when he buried Mexicans, POWs, disabled people, Muslims and veterans with PTSD. Also, this latest video is actually the *fourth* time he's buried women during his presidential run:

The first was when he expressed disgust at Carly Fiorina's face (which I agree with :tripsscust)
The second was when he made a subtle jab at Megyn Kelly being on her period
The third was when he said that women seeking abortions should be punished

I'm not voting for either candidate, but he's Teflon Don for a reason. This latest bruhaha will fizzle out just like the rest and ultimately amount to nothing.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> Writing in caps doesn't scare me, nor do I care when you do it. You're trying desperately to change his words into something they are not. You've bought into this feminist ideology over what is considered "sexual assault" and are trying to push a narrative that may not actually exist. His words hardly gives much detail , even when he says he grabs women there's no context there,he doesn't' say women are rejecting him and telling him "no", or "stop" because I highly doubt he'd be bragging about it if he wasn't successful. There's not any indication that would suggest those women were against the notion of him touching them, because as he says celebrity allows people to do what they want, which isn't false. If women allow him to do those things, then its not "sexual assault" as you're trying to push that narrative. Also, trying to sleep with married women is sleazy, don't get me wrong but that hardly means he's a "rapist" or "serial sexual assaulter" , he's a guy who tried and failed. Covering up a rape is pretty horrible and trying to paint a sexual assault victim as someone who essentially asked for it, goes against this notion that she's in favor of womens rights
> 
> While she may not be a rapist, she sure as hell has killed people , something Donald Trump(to my knowledge) hasn't done.


So... when it comes to Trump its all about context and circumstances.

When it comes to Hillary - she's killed people full stop, end of story, no context required.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> So... when it comes to Trump its all about context and circumstances.
> 
> When it comes to Hillary - she's killed people full stop, end of story, no context required.


You don't think she has?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> Writing in caps doesn't scare me, nor do I care when you do it. You're trying desperately to change his words into something they are not. You've bought into this feminist ideology over what is considered "sexual assault" and are trying to push a narrative that may not actually exist. His words hardly gives much detail , even when he says he grabs women there's no context there,he doesn't' say women are rejecting him and telling him "no", or "stop" because I highly doubt he'd be bragging about it if he wasn't successful. There's not any indication that would suggest those women were against the notion of him touching them, because as he says celebrity allows people to do what they want, which isn't false. If women allow him to do those things, then its not "sexual assault" as you're trying to push that narrative. Also, trying to sleep with married women is sleazy, don't get me wrong but that hardly means he's a "rapist" or "serial sexual assaulter" , he's a guy who tried and failed. Covering up a rape is pretty horrible and trying to paint a sexual assault victim as someone who essentially asked for it, goes against this notion that she's in favor of womens rights
> 
> While she may not be a rapist, she sure as hell has killed people , something Donald Trump(to my knowledge) hasn't done.


No im not trying to chance the words into some they are not. He was talking about how he sexually assaulted women in the past 

How is grabbing a woman's pussy without her asking you to and it being wanted not sexual assault. You cant just go up to a woman and grab her pussy. 

There is context, its in the recording but people like you just ignore the context. 

Trump is a rapist, his ex wife said he raped her and a 13 year old also said Trump raped her. How is he not a rapist?




Beatles123 said:


> You don't think she has?


What evidence do you have Hillary killed people?


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I just can't wait until this shitshow is fucking over. Just crown her ass already and let her start shit with the Russians. I guess you'll all be happy then. #ImWithWAR


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

i'm always amazed by the mental gimnastics in favor of both candidates here.:lmao


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> i'm always amazed by the mental gimnastics in favor of both candidates here.:lmao


If anyone was honest, they would at least admit that both candidates are the scum of the earth.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If there was a time to be sincere it was now. May lose some voters but may gain some by being honest, regardless of wrong doing it would have shown some humility and admitting to being less than cordial. Not to mention it would have been different from Hillary and Bill who are covered in lies, scandals and fraud. Really big opportunity missed here.

While Trump's words are pretty bad, many males in power fuck around with women a lot. It's funny to see politicians and hollywood reacting because they use their power to do this sort of stuff all the time.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Just listened to the Trump tapes.....

Yeah that was pretty bad, joking or not joking. To be fair, this kind of talk I have heard among guys where I live...obviously not in the same context but still the same sort of sexual banter. It's just not going to be acceptable to a lot of people when you have him running for president of the fucking united states.

@DesolationRow is right about the direction the country is going politically if the Republican party continues to go in the direction it's heading, especially with the demographic changes. I might post what I think the Republican party needs to do if it is going to have any chance of competing for the presidency in future.

I can't see Trump winning now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> If there was a time to be sincere it was now. May lose some voters but may gain some by being honest, regardless of wrong doing it would have shown some humility and admitting to being less than cordial. Not to mention it would have been different from Hillary and Bill who are covered in lies, scandals and fraud. Really big opportunity missed here.
> 
> While Trump's words are pretty bad, many males in power fuck around with women a lot. It's funny to see politicians and hollywood reacting because they use their power to do this sort of stuff all the time.


Did you watch the video? He was being smug the whole time, and you can tell he did not mean it. It did not help after apologizing he tore into Hillary Clinton. 

He should have left it at just the apology but of course Trump could not help himself.



L-DOPA said:


> Just listened to the Trump tapes.....
> 
> Yeah that was pretty bad, joking or not joking. To be fair, this kind of talk I have heard among guys where I live...obviously not in the same context but still the same sort of sexual banter. It's just not going to be acceptable to a lot of people when you have him running for president of the fucking united states.
> 
> @DesolationRow is right about the direction the country is going politically if the Republican party continues to go in the direction it's heading, especially with the demographic changes. I might post what I think the Republican party needs to do if it is going to have any chance of competing for the presidency in future.
> 
> I can't see Trump winning now.


the country is trending toward progressive. Sanders proved though and he only lost because the DNC rigged the primary. I can easily see in 4 years Hillary getting primaried and having to face someone else, maybe even LIz Warren or another real progressive. 

The more to the left this country goes the better off it will be for everyone, especially for education, and the middle and lower classes.





KC Armstrong said:


> If anyone was honest, they would at least admit that both candidates are the scum of the earth.


There is a reason why they have the two highest unfavorable of any candidate for their parties in history. 

For most people, they are not voting for Hillary or Trump they are voting against them. Which is why whoever wins, we are in for a long shitty 4 years. 

With Hillary we know what we will get, with Trump we don't know how bad it will get and it's sad that does not scare more people.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

double post


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> T
> I'm not voting for either candidate, but he's Teflon Don for a reason. This latest bruhaha will fizzle out just like the rest and ultimately amount to nothing.


He was done with or without this. Is just the nailf in the coffin

http://election.princeton.edu/faq/



> As of October 8, 5:04PM EDT:
> Snapshot (169 state polls): Clinton 323, Trump 215 EV Meta-margin: Clinton +3.3%
> RSS
> Clinton Nov. win probability: random drift 88%, Bayesian 93%



http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/



> Who will win the presidency?
> 
> Chance of winning
> 
> Hillary Clinton
> 
> 81.4%
> 
> Donald Trump
> 
> 18.6%
> FiveThirtyEight


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html



> Who Will Be President?
> 
> Hillary Clinton has an 83% chance of winning the presidency.


http://elections.dailykos.com/app/elections/2016/office/president



> Hillary Clinton currently has a
> 90% chance
> of winning the presidency


An Polling still don't capture this gaffe. Woman and independents are not votting for Trump and he needed them to reverse some hard situations like Florida

GOP is just distancing from Trump because they aLready knew it was over, and they want to retain the House, not the contrary. If this happened 3 weeks ago, you would see amazing mental gimnastics to justify this shit.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

ITT: Geeks who ask women for permission before they go in for the kiss and/or pussy grab aka first base.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> There is a reason why they have the two highest unfavorable of any candidate for their parties in history.
> 
> For most people, they are not voting for Hillary or Trump they are voting against them. Which is why whoever wins, we are in for a long shitty 4 years.
> 
> With Hillary we know what we will get, with Trump we don't know how bad it will get and it's sad that does not scare more people.



Hillary at least has the media to keep up the illusion of her being this beloved rockstar.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Did you watch the video? He was being smug the whole time, and you can tell he did not mean it. It did not help after apologizing he tore into Hillary Clinton.
> 
> He should have left it at just the apology but of course Trump could not help himself.
> 
> 
> 
> the country is trending toward progressive. Sanders proved though and he only lost because the DNC rigged the primary. I can easily see in 4 years Hillary getting primaried and having to face someone else, maybe even LIz Warren or another real progressive.
> 
> The more to the left this country goes the better off it will be for everyone, especially for education, and the middle and lower classes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a reason why they have the two highest unfavorable of any candidate for their parties in history.
> 
> For most people, they are not voting for Hillary or Trump they are voting against them. Which is why whoever wins, we are in for a long shitty 4 years.
> 
> With Hillary we know what we will get, with Trump we don't know how bad it will get and it's sad that does not scare more people.



It's why I mentioned it was a missed opportunity to really humanize himself. It was a massive one. Being smug and attacking Clinton wasn't the right thing to do, would have been a time to be heartfelt and dig deep but nope.

I wish it was Trump Jr running for President, he's very likable.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary Clinton OFFICIALY on record as saying that a man who treats women as sexual objects should never become President of the United States of America. If you are able to spend more than one second thinking about that without making the :mj face, then you may be part of the problem.

What I find interesting about this whole fiasco, is why was this recording made in the first place? Not that I am trying to make an excuse for Trump's comments, but this comes off as highly suspicious to me. More than ever, I am believing that Trump is a plant set in place by the political establishment to make Hillary seem more electable by comparison. In a sane world, this woman should never even be considered for the position. Let alone any type of public office. Yet here she is, standing on the cusp of becoming the next President of the USA. And this is not causing people to worry. At all.

I suppose the power behind the throne really has won. And nobody actually cares.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Pratchett said:


> Hillary Clinton OFFICIALY on record as saying that a man who treats women as sexual objects should never become President of the United States of America. If you are able to spend more than one second thinking about that without making the :mj face, then you may be part of the problem.
> 
> What I find interesting about this whole fiasco, is why was this recording made in the first place? Not that I am trying to make an excuse for Trump's comments, but this comes off as highly suspicious to me. More than ever, I am believing that Trump is a plant set in place by the political establishment to make Hillary seem more electable by comparison. In a sane world, this woman should never even be considered for the position. Let alone any type of public office. Yet here she is, standing on the cusp of becoming the next President of the USA. And this is not causing people to worry. At all.
> 
> I suppose the power behind the throne really has won. And nobody actually cares.


You do know Bill Clinton got impeached by the House because of it right? He almost got fully impeached. so lets not act like what Bill did not have consequences. 

Also

this is huge

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/299998-gop-women-break-with-trump

Almost every GOP woman has pulled their support for Trump. Only one is left.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Can't we just do this?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Pratchett said:


> Hillary Clinton OFFICIALY on record as saying that a man who treats women as sexual objects should never become President of the United States of America. If you are able to spend more than one second thinking about that without making the :mj face, then you may be part of the problem.
> 
> What I find interesting about this whole fiasco, is why was this recording made in the first place? Not that I am trying to make an excuse for Trump's comments, but this comes off as highly suspicious to me. More than ever, I am believing that Trump is a plant set in place by the political establishment to make Hillary seem more electable by comparison. In a sane world, this woman should never even be considered for the position. Let alone any type of public office. Yet here she is, standing on the cusp of becoming the next President of the USA. And this is not causing people to worry. At all.
> 
> I suppose the power behind the throne really has won. And nobody actually cares.


They've pretty much deflated both parties with this election! They broke the will of the American people and will continue to bring in people who's culture doesn't mesh with ours and others who just want handouts. Think the people as a whole have just given up. Oh well, even Rome fell but good grief it wasn't this pathetic.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You do know Bill Clinton got impeached by the House because of it right? He almost got fully impeached. so lets not act like what Bill did not have consequences.


That is a really low standard for consequences there. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> That is a really low standard for consequences there. :lol


well one side did their job, the other not so much. But they did try to do something about it.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> He was done with or without this. Is just the nailf in the coffin
> 
> http://election.princeton.edu/faq/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html
> 
> 
> 
> http://elections.dailykos.com/app/elections/2016/office/president
> 
> 
> 
> An Polling still don't capture this gaffe. Woman and independents are not votting for Trump and he needed them to reverse some hard situations like Florida
> 
> GOP is just distancing from Trump because they aLready knew it was over, and they want to retain the House, not the contrary. If this happened 3 weeks ago, you would see amazing mental gimnastics to justify this shit.


No, he was done when he agreed to throw his hat into the race after his phone call with Bill in the weeks leading up to his campaign announcement. Him getting this far was just a very pleasant surprise for his family friends The Clintons.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> More than ever, I am believing that Trump is a plant set in place by the political establishment to make Hillary seem more electable by comparison.


Me, too. We all know about the infamous phone conversation between Trump and Bill before he announced he was running and The Donald is the only guy unlikeable enough to make Hillary seem like the only choice in comparison. She would have struggled against pretty much every regular candidate who doesn't say outrageous shit every single day. 

I have to give them credit. It was a brilliant move and it's all coming together.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> ITT: Geeks who ask women for permission before they go in for the kiss and/or pussy grab aka first base.


You should not worry, he's still wining in a Landslide...


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You do know Bill Clinton got impeached by the House because of it right? He almost got fully impeached. so lets not act like what Bill did not have consequences.


This means nothing. Absolutely nothing.

She knew damn well what Bill did, yet still campaigned for him before the 1992 election and kept working for his 1996 run in spite of it. I guess I should not be surprised by her changing her stance on something years after the fact. She used to be opposed to gay marriage, and now is on board. Just like she used to be okay with a President that was a womanizer, but now she thinks it is wrong (but I will give you that maybe she gave a special dispensation for her husband). 

LOL at Hillary being a "champion for women". She stayed married to her philandering, unfaithful husband because it benefited her politically. That tells me all I need to know about her morals and ethics.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

can we pls dispense with the beyond retarded "Trump is a Clinton plant" theories?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Pratchett said:


> This means nothing. Absolutely nothing.
> 
> She knew damn well what Bill did, yet still campaigned for him before the 1992 election and kept working for his 1996 run in spite of it. I guess I should not be surprised by her changing her stance on something years after the fact. She used to be opposed to gay marriage, and now is on board. Just like she used to be okay with a President that was a womanizer, but now she thinks it is wrong (but I will give you that maybe she gave a special dispensation for her husband).
> 
> LOL at Hillary being a "champion for women". She stayed married to her philandering, unfaithful husband because it benefited her politically. That tells me all I need to know about her morals and ethics.


Like I said, Bill lied to her and she stood by her husband, all wives do that. If she did know about it then yes she is a hypocrite to now be bashing Trump for what he said. 

But we all know Hillary is full of shit and just panders to the crowd she is speaking to. She only is pro gay marriage now because more people politically in the democratic side are pro gay marriage. If she was on the republican side, she would still be against it. 

I posted a video during the primary of her lying for 15 straight minutes. I have said it many times, Hillary pretends she is a progressive but we all know she is a center right. or as i call it republican lite.





CamillePunk said:


> can we pls dispense with the beyond retarded "Trump is a Clinton plant" theories?


Exactly, if Trump was a plant, he would not be saying everything he does about Hillary and Bill Clinton. He would do what Sanders did (which he should not have) and ignored the email thing and take the high road with all the Bill Clinton BS (which is not even relevant since Bill is not the one running).

But I dont see how anyone can claim Trump is a plant when he is always bringing up dirt on Hillary 

we barely ever agree, but this is one thing we do agree on. Its nonsense that Trump is a plant. When ever I hear people say this, I always take it as them being sarcastic and not really mean it. But some people really believe its true"?


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> can we pls dispense with the beyond retarded "Trump is a Clinton plant" theories?


Why? It makes perfect sense.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> But we all know Hillary is full of shit and just panders to the crowd she is speaking to. She only is pro gay marriage now because more people politically in the democratic side are pro gay marriage. If she was on the republican side, she would still be against it.



I'm sure Hillary doesn't want the voters to see all the things she said and all the positions she took back in 2005...


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> Why? It makes perfect sense.


If a supossed "plant" runed over your 16 "better" candidates, that says more about the party than about the "plant"


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> Why? It makes perfect sense.


How does it not make sense when Trump is calling out all her flaws and things she wants to stay hidden?

If he was a plant, he would not bring up anything that would harm her politically.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> If a supossed "plant" runed over your 16 "better" candidates, that says more about the party than about the "plant"


More than anything it speaks volumes about the state of the country (even the state of the world in general). People desperately wanted something other than another regular politician and Trump gave it to them. 

Of course it's easy dismiss people as "conspiracy theorists", but if you wanted to get Hillary elected, you would want someone like Trump on the other side. Not a lot of people like Hillary, so get someone who people will hate even more than her. Donald used to be tight with the Clintons, supported them financially, etc. He was never a conservative and now he pretends to be just that. There are a lot of dots you can easily connect.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

He supported Romney.

Unless you thinks this a 12 year plot and he also taped this recording to put dirt on him when Forbes has estimated that his firm has loosed 800 millions alone this year thanks to devaluation fo his image. Of course it make perfect sense.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> How does it not make sense when Trump is calling out all her flaws and things she wants to stay hidden?
> 
> If he was a plant, he would not bring up anything that would harm her politically.



The endgame is to get her elected. Period. End of story. He's doing a tremendous job in helping her achieve that goal.

Of course he has to bring up some things to at least make it seem like he's trying. It's all part of the deception, part of the con.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> The endgame is to get her elected. Period. End of story. He's doing a tremendous job in helping her achieve that goal.
> 
> Of course he has to bring up some things to at least make it seem like he's trying. It's all part of the deception, part of the con.


yeah he is doing a great job that on some polls he is tied or ahead of her.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah he is doing a great job that on some polls he is tied or ahead of her.



Oh, come on. Every prediction, every calculation says it's basically a lock for Hillary and that was prior to the final death blow which was delivered yesterday. It's over. Job well done by everyone involved.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

He never had to go after her to win the nomination though. If he was a plant he would've just won the nomination and then never bring up any of the shady shit she and her husband are involved in. He just fucking retweeted Juanita Broadrick on Twitter. :lol 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/784726633588592640

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/784734493471019008
Expect more of this in the coming days due to that leaked tape. He's not a fucking plant for Christ's sake. :lol fpalm


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> Oh, come on. Every prediction, every calculation says it's basically a lock for Hillary and that was prior to the final death blow which was delivered yesterday. It's over. Job well done by everyone involved.


I bet you watch Alex Jones and/or Rush dont you


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> Oh, come on. Every prediction, every calculation says it's basically a lock for Hillary and that was prior to the final death blow which was delivered yesterday. It's over. Job well done by everyone involved.


Good. Thats good. Keep thinking that and don't vote.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I bet you watch Alex Jones and/or Rush dont you


Don't know why you're going with that strategy to make me look like an idiot since Alex Jones is a passionate Trump supporter while I am not. The only thing I have in common with him is we both hate Hillary.

I have thought about buying this shirt, though, to be honest.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> Don't know why you're going with that strategy to make me look like an idiot since Alex Jones is a passionate Trump supporter while I am not. The only thing I have in common with him is we both hate Hillary.
> 
> I have thought about buying this shirt, though, to be honest.


Because Alex Jones and Rush are huge conspiracy theorist. Just curious where you are getting your info from.

As for that shirt, well Trump could have a shirt just like it since he is a rapist too.

And at least both agree that we hate Hillary.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Because Alex Jones and Rush are huge conspiracy theorist. Just curious where you are getting your info from.



... but don't just throw names around when you don't know what you're talking about. If I was looking for that I would watch CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC. "Aaahhhh, conspiracy theory, Alex Jones, false flag, aaaahhhh". Stop it.

Alex thinks Trump is like George Washington reincarnated, here to save the nation. I just called Trump the scum of the earth half an hour ago. So there's that.


----------



## amhlilhaus

KC Armstrong said:


> asdf0501 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm always amazed by the mental gimnastics in favor of both candidates here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone was honest, they would at least admit that both candidates are the scum of the earth.
Click to expand...

I do! Trumps my lol candidate. Imagine the frenzy when he pisses the press off during briefings.

Both parties suck, and more and more people are realizing that, too bad its too late


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> *Both parties suck*, and more and more people are realizing that, too bad its too late


... and the Libertarian candidate is a fucking lunatic as well.

:duck


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> ... but don't just throw names around when you don't know what you're talking about. If I was looking for that I would watch CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC. "Aaahhhh, conspiracy theory, Alex Jones, false flag, aaaahhhh". Stop it.
> 
> Alex thinks Trump is like George Washington reincarnated, here to save the nation. I just called Trump the scum of the earth half an hour ago. So there's that.


But you dont know what YOU are talking about because you think Trump is a plant.

Where are you getting this info from. Please show a legit source for this info.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Thanks, @L-DOPA. 



Pratchett said:


> Hillary Clinton OFFICIALY on record as saying that a man who treats women as sexual objects should never become President of the United States of America. If you are able to spend more than one second thinking about that without making the :mj face, then you may be part of the problem.
> 
> What I find interesting about this whole fiasco, is why was this recording made in the first place? Not that I am trying to make an excuse for Trump's comments, but this comes off as highly suspicious to me. More than ever, I am believing that Trump is a plant set in place by the political establishment to make Hillary seem more electable by comparison. In a sane world, this woman should never even be considered for the position. Let alone any type of public office. Yet here she is, standing on the cusp of becoming the next President of the USA. And this is not causing people to worry. At all.
> 
> I suppose the power behind the throne really has won. And nobody actually cares.


Concur with you on several points but as far as this whole fiasco...

None of us have any way of verifying this, but based on what I heard from a man who worked in the CIA in the early 1990s with Bush I as president, combined with everything that is readily and publicly available about the Bush family, and that Billy Bush is cousin to Jeb and George W. Bush, nephew to "Poppy" Bush. 

This would seem coordinated. Someone with whom I used to work who went to K Street says that it's fundamentally a coup. He isn't pointing toward the Bush family but he says that Republicans are being told, across the Beltway, and through the hinterlands, all public officials, to not raise a finger in defense of Trump. Mike Pence offered a touch of support as @CamillePunk noted earlier in the thread but certainly the overall reaction to this episode by the GOP and GOP establishment indicate that they were more than ready to stage a mutiny against their crazed captain with the brass balls (that's a reference to a classic Humphrey Bogart performance, folks). 

Let's go back in time to this past winter, namely the debate at which Donald Trump nearly made Jeb! cry. Jeb! sought to be macho and defend his family's honor, and Trump was brazen and unforgiving. When Jeb! mentioned the high-spiritedness of his mother, saying she was the strongest woman in the world, making her Mark Henry's counterpart, Trump cut him off at the knees: "She should be running." 

By the time Trump was done browbeating Jeb! and the Bush clan over sending the U.S. into the morass known as Iraq, Jeb! looked humiliated.

I'll never forget the expression on his face as he said, teeth clenched, "You're never going to be president." It wasn't a threat, it was a promise. Trump had brought the Bush clan down, rubbed their faces in it and they would, one day, have their revenge. 

George H.W. Bush? He motioned toward Trump a "cut-throat" motion shortly thereafter at another debate. 

These people do not enjoy being made into a punch line. They are also aligned, practically at the hip, with the Clintons. Bill Clinton is called by George W. Bush, "a brother from a different mother." The Bushes and the Clintons formed a strategic alliance years and years ago, with Bush, Sr. and Bill Clinton working hand-in-glove together on several different initiatives. 

Bush, Sr. admitted a few weeks ago that he will be voting for Hillary. 

That's my take, anyway. The Bushes have enjoyed considerable control over much of the Republican Party's machinery for a good while now. Poster after poster in this thread is believing that Trump was the Clintons' stalking horse. If anyone was, it was probably Jeb!. Bush, Sr. was going to be fine with either his son or the wife of the man Dubya calls "a brother from a different mother." 

Oligarchical families form alliances to increase their respective shares of power by conquering greater political territory than they could "on their own" all of the time. This is the beating black heart of the U.S.'s present two-party duopoly hegemony, a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton Complex that could theoretically stretch on to any number of Bush cousins or Chelsea Clinton or who knows who next? 

And now we all get to bear witness to the spectacle of particular individuals on Capitol Hill feign shock and horror and dismay, individuals who knew just what Dennis Hastert was up to for a rather long time. Hastert was such a degenerate he could not play along to keep his misdeeds in Washington, D.C. At least one congressional staffer confided that Hastert's misbehavior was "a big secret." 

(Don't really think Jeb! was _The Clintonian Candidate_, but the case for believing so is stronger than Trump being that.)


----------



## amhlilhaus

Pratchett said:


> Hillary Clinton OFFICIALY on record as saying that a man who treats women as sexual objects should never become President of the United States of America. If you are able to spend more than one second thinking about that without making the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> face, then you may be part of the problem.
> 
> What I find interesting about this whole fiasco, is why was this recording made in the first place? Not that I am trying to make an excuse for Trump's comments, but this comes off as highly suspicious to me. More than ever, I am believing that Trump is a plant set in place by the political establishment to make Hillary seem more electable by comparison. In a sane world, this woman should never even be considered for the position. Let alone any type of public office. Yet here she is, standing on the cusp of becoming the next President of the USA. And this is not causing people to worry. At all.
> 
> I suppose the power behind the throne really has won. And nobody actually cares.


They have. Theyre just fucking with us now.

They got the first black homosexual man in the white house, now they will get the first woman lesbian.

Whos next?

Im guessing hispanic transsexual


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> But you dont know what YOU are talking about because you think Trump is a plant.
> 
> Where are you getting this info from. Please show a legit source for this info.



I didn't say I know this for a fact, but I think there's a good chance of this being the case. Where did I say I have definitive proof that he is a plant? In my OPINION there are a lot of things pointing in that direction.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> I didn't say I know this for a fact, but I think there's a good chance of this being the case. Where did I say I have definitive proof that he is a plant? In my OPINION there are a lot of things pointing in that direction.


And what is that "a lot of evidence"?


----------



## amhlilhaus

Vic Capri said:


> - Vic


Lmao


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Please take Ol' Yeller behind the shed already.
:lol at him refusing to stop down. If he wins at this point, he'll be absolutely right. 
Election is rigged.


----------



## amhlilhaus

virus21 said:


>


Id vote for it.

No bullshit. 'We will enslave you, then use you as our food source'

Id take my chances that its term runs out before im served for dinner


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


>


Cthulhu should promise, "No more elections. No more democracy." 

In 2004 when faced with two Yale Skull and Bones creeps I wrote in Thomas Jefferson/James Madison.

I may just write in Cthulhu at this point. Peak 2016.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> And what is that "a lot of evidence"?


1) If you want to quote me, don't put words in my mouth. I didn't use the word "evidence". 

2) I already mentioned all of these things earlier. Their personal relationship/friendship over many years, Trump supporting the Clintons and their foundation in the past, Trump being the only opponent that would absolutely guarantee a Hillary victory, Trump being a liberal pretending to be a conservative who gives a shit about the Bible, Bill's conversations with Donald prior to The Donald announcing he's running, etc. 

Again, I don't KNOW it, I don't have EVIDENCE, it's an opinion, it's a feeling, whatever you want to call it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> 1) If you want to quote me, don't put words in my mouth. I didn't use the word "evidence".
> 
> 2) I already mentioned all of these things earlier. Their personal relationship/friendship over many years, Trump supporting the Clintons and their foundation in the past, Trump being the only opponent that would absolutely guarantee a Hillary victory, Trump being a liberal pretending to be a conservative who gives a shit about the Bible, Bill's conversations with Donald prior to The Donald announcing he's running, etc.
> 
> Again, I don't KNOW it, I don't have EVIDENCE, it's an opinion, it's a feeling, whatever you want to call it.


I love how you are getting all cute with what words you used. You said a lot of things, which means evidence. If you really do feel strongly he is a plant you would not get so defensive on being called out on it.

And I can refute all your points pretty easily.

Who cares of the Clintons and Trump had relations in the past. Trump bought off the Clintons like everyone else dies to get what they want. Bill and Hillary has taken bribes from many people, Trump was just one of them.

Hillary could have beaten Cruz easily. Cruz is a despicable human being. his own party even hated him. If Hillary faced Cruz should would have won easily as well. Rubio she would have had a little trouble but she could have beaten him as well. Jeb LOL don't make me laugh, he would have crumbled facing Hillary. He let some rinky dink rotary club member kick him off stage during his speech.

So no, Trump is not the only one Hillary could have beaten, she could have beaten anyone on the GOP side. Trump has the highest unfavorable and he beat everyone on the GOP side so what does that tell you?

Trump is not a liberal, dont make me laugh. Do you even know what a liberal is? Trump is far from a lib. 

And like I said before the easily way to show Trump is not a plant is, if he was he would not be calling out the Bill Clinton sex scandel stuff and putting the blame on Hillary, he would not bring up her emails (Bernie never did and he was against her legitly), he would not keep bringing up Bengazi when she has been cleared a number of a times by republicans. He would not be bringing up her speeches either.

Trump has played super dirty with Hillary, if he was a plant he would not be doing that.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> So... when it comes to Trump its all about context and circumstances.
> 
> When it comes to Hillary - she's killed people full stop, end of story, no context required.


Ah, leftist logic right there. My point is that, if a guy goes out on a date and kisses a woman but she rejects him, its quite the stretch to call that guy a "sexual assaulter". Also, guys who have a ton of money and get a lot of women are going to brag about it. You're interpreting his words as if the women in question are screaming "rape!", thats the issue with people trying to claim that he's admitting to sexually assaulting women. 

Also, apples to oranges comparison. There's no context to be misunderstood when Hilary claims she didn't delete emails, her emails were only about yoga or that she only emailed her husband, which all turned out to be false. 



birthday_massacre said:


> No im not trying to chance the words into some they are not. He was talking about how he sexually assaulted women in the past
> 
> How is grabbing a woman's pussy without her asking you to and it being wanted not sexual assault. You cant just go up to a woman and grab her pussy.
> 
> There is context, its in the recording but people like you just ignore the context.
> 
> Trump is a rapist, his ex wife said he raped her and a 13 year old also said Trump raped her. How is he not a rapist?


You're doing exactly what I said, stretching his words to fit your narrative. You're ignoring that these statements were not from the same story. You're picturing a married woman crying out for help, which again is not the case because clearly he accepted his rejection. These are different stories that you've seemingly combined as one because it suits your narrative better. 

Also, you do realize women can give consent without actually stating so right? Not every sexual interaction between two consenting adults consist in contract signings and stipulations of what can and cannot be done before people take their clothes off. You're trying to paint things as black and white as you possibly can to make things look worse than they are. As I said, there's no context into the situations he's talking about because he says he can do virtually anything he wants because of his celebrity, which sounds more like women are more eager to sleep with him because of his celebrity. Which goes against being this serial sexual assaulter that you're trying to claim he's admitting to. I'll say this one last time, we simply do not know exactly what he's talking about we do not know what his rejection rate is by any means nor do we know how those women feel and how they reacted to him. You're assuming something you have zero knowledge about.

Btw, there's no amount of "evidence" that would show Hilary's guilt that would ever convince you. You backed that horse and you're riding it until death, which is fine but don't try to act like everyones a fool


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> So no, Trump is not the only one Hillary could have beaten, she could have beaten anyone on the GOP side. Trump has the highest unfavorable and he beat everyone on the GOP side so what does that tell you?















> Who cares of the Clintons and Trump had relations in the past. Trump bought off the Clintons like everyone else dies to get what they want. Bill and Hillary has taken bribes from many people, Trump was just one of them.












Holy shit, look at the hatred in his eyes. He really can't stand them.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The threat of nuclear war or an insane economic plan couldn't reduce Trump's chances of winning but being Bill Cosby did. Madness.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> *The threat of nuclear war* or an insane economic plan couldn't reduce Trump's chances of winning but being Bill Cosby did. Madness.



The only one threatening the Russians with war is Hillary and her camp so that narrative was bullshit to begin with.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> Ah, leftist logic right there. My point is that, if a guy goes out on a date and kisses a woman but she rejects him, its quite the stretch to call that guy a "sexual assaulter". Also, guys who have a ton of money and get a lot of women are going to brag about it. You're interpreting his words as if the women in question are screaming "rape!", thats the issue with people trying to claim that he's admitting to sexually assaulting women.
> 
> Also, apples to oranges comparison. There's no context to be misunderstood when Hilary claims she didn't delete emails, her emails were only about yoga or that she only emailed her husband, which all turned out to be false.
> 
> 
> You're doing exactly what I said, stretching his words to fit your narrative. You're ignoring that these statements were not from the same story. You're picturing a married woman crying out for help, which again is not the case because clearly he accepted his rejection. These are different stories that you've seemingly combined as one because it suits your narrative better.
> 
> Also, you do realize women can give consent without actually stating so right? Not every sexual interaction between two consenting adults consist in contract signings and stipulations of what can and cannot be done before people take their clothes off. You're trying to paint things as black and white as you possibly can to make things look worse than they are. As I said, there's no context into the situations he's talking about because he says he can do virtually anything he wants because of his celebrity, which sounds more like women are more eager to sleep with him because of his celebrity. Which goes against being this serial sexual assaulter that you're trying to claim he's admitting to. I'll say this one last time, we simply do not know exactly what he's talking about we do not know what his rejection rate is by any means nor do we know how those women feel and how they reacted to him. You're assuming something you have zero knowledge about.
> 
> Btw, there's no amount of "evidence" that would show Hilary's guilt that would ever convince you. You backed that horse and you're riding it until death, which is fine but don't try to act like everyones a fool


My horse is not Hillary. I supported Sanders, everyone knows that. And there is zero evidence that Trump is a plant. I gave you tons of evidence why he is not one. You just gave me OH YOU FEEL LIKE HE IS. 

You have not shown anything that would prove Trump is a plant. You can defend Trumps sexual assaults all you want. Trump has also been accused of rape a number of times but of course you ignore that too.

So is someone who rapes women not a sexual assaulter?






KC Armstrong said:


> Holy shit, look at the hatred in his eyes. He really can't stand them.


You are nice to people you are bribing. You still cant answer if Trump is a plant why is he digging up all this dirt on the Clintons? if he was a plant he would be going easy on her and saying nice things about her NOW but he is not. 

As for your chart that chart is from Feb. Bernie Sanders made up 60 points in less than a year on Hillary. You cannot go by polling charts over 9 months ago.

Polling data changes weekly. Just look on that very chart you posted how much it changed over a few months.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/10/08/what-color-is-the-swan/#more-17785



> Today’s estimated Clinton win probability is 93%. The Meta-Margin is Clinton +3.3% and the red one-sigma band, indicating the likely range of electoral outcomes, is 290-348 EV. Betting markets are catching up, especially after yesterday’s newest wave of Trump stories, especially the groping story.
> *
> The insta-consensus among commentators is that somehow this event is a cause of Trump’s electoral doom. I think the logic is backwards – to me, the growing obviousness of his doom created an environment for this story to blow up. The genuinely new development is the impact for downticket – in both the Senate and the House.
> 
> In one common sentiment, catching Trump on tape bragging about groping women without consent is somehow a last straw that has caused supporters to desert him, starting off with GOP Reps. Jason Chaffetz (district Partisan Voting Index R+25%) and Martha Roby (R+17%), and Utah governors Gary Herbert (current) and Jon Huntsman (former). Taniel’s running tally of GOP reactions is here. Some PEC readers think this is a black swan – an unexpected anomaly that moves everything.
> 
> However, the idea that the recording comes as a surprise does not make sense. Trump’s record of misogynistic comments is abundant, and his unfiltered comments are part of his core appeal. As a reality television star with thousands of hours of candid footage, it was inevitable that such comments would come to light…though it’s taken a while.
> 
> I would argue that this weekend’s public blowback is triggered by a growing realization of what will happen on November 8th. After the first debate, it became obvious that Trump was going to lose the general election. Clinton’s bounceback is small, but by modern (i.e. post-1996) standards it looks large. There isn’t enough time for opinion to shift back (for instance, within my random diffusion assumption), especially given the natural setpoint of the race (my Bayesian prior that assumes regression to the mean). In other words, people’s intuitions started telling them that time had run out for Trump.*
> 
> Based on past elections, I estimate that people’s “animal spirits” about a campaign start to shift when the front-runner’s win probability gets close to 95% as defined using PEC’s methods. At that point, the marketplace of ideas starts looking for a reason to pile on to the loser. Enter the video/audio recording.
> 
> Elected officials have a nose for the stench of a candidate who is on the cusp of becoming a loser. All along, Republican officials have been skittish about Trump, who executed a hostile takeover of their party. Now they have an excuse to jump ship.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> http://election.princeton.edu/2016/10/08/what-color-is-the-swan/#more-17785


Wonder what beatles will say about that when he sees that since he has been giving me shit for over a month since I said Trump has no chance at winning.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> The only one threatening the Russians with war is Hillary and her camp so that narrative was bullshit to begin with.


Clinton wasn't the one that suggested US allies obtain nuclear weapons to defend themselves...


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> As for your chart that chart is from Feb. Bernie Sanders made up 60 points in less than a year on Hillary. You cannot go by polling charts over 9 months ago.
> 
> Polling data changes weekly



You claimed Hillary would have easily beaten every GOP candidate pointing to the fact that all of these guys lost to Trump in the primaries. The primaries don't mean shit in the general election. At the same time that Rubio was losing to Trump among Republicans he was beating Hillary in almost every poll while Trump was far behind Hillary head-to-head. Rubio would have had an excellent shot to win in November, Trump has no shot.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Clinton wasn't the one that suggested US allies obtain nuclear weapons to defend themselves...


She said the next time the Russians reveal embarrassing information about her (or she claims it's the Russians) there will be a military response. Harmless stuff...


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> The only one threatening the Russians with war is Hillary and her camp so that narrative was bullshit to begin with.





FriedTofu said:


> Clinton wasn't the one that suggested US allies obtain nuclear weapons to defend themselves...


YUP Trump thinks other countries should get nuclear weapons like Saudi Arabia.




KC Armstrong said:


> You claimed Hillary would have easily beaten every GOP candidate pointing to the fact that all of these guys lost to Trump in the primaries. The primaries don't mean shit in the general election. At the same time that Rubio was losing to Trump among Republicans he was beating Hillary in almost every poll while Trump was far behind Hillary head-to-head. Rubio would have had an excellent shot to win in November, Trump has no shot.


Here was my quote about Rubio

"Rubio she would have had a little trouble but she could have beaten him as well"

I also love how you admit that Rubio was ahead of Hillary in every poll and that Trump was far behind Hillary.

So that shows that polls back then dont mean shit because Trump caught up to Hillary and even passed her on some polls over the past few months

So using polls to show Rubio beating Hillary in Feb-March really does not mean a thing


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Wonder what beatles will say about that when he sees that since he has been giving me shit for over a month since I said Trump has no chance at winning.


I'll still give you shit tbh fam, its gotten damn near personal with us now.

You lost any pull with me when you wouldn't deny having dreams of blowing me and my kind to hell.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> She said the next time the Russians reveal embarrassing information about her (or she claims it's the Russians) there will be a military response. Harmless stuff...


She said a military response is an option if Russian cyberattacks against American interests continues or escalates, not about revealing information about her. Stop treating misinformation from conservative media that post provocative stuff to grab eyeballs as facts.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> I'll still give you shit tbh fam, its gotten damn near personal with us now.
> 
> You lost ant pull with me when you wouldn't deny having dreams of blowing me and my kind to hell.


Right because its hard to believe someone that is pro stricter gun laws would not want to blow someone away? You see the flaw in your logic there right? You just get upset because when you post those BS Trump memes I fact check them and show you how they are BS. You should not take that personal. You still do it to this day and someone else had to correct you today or was it yesterday.

Before you post your info, just do a quick google and check snopes or PolitiFact, it will tell you if the info is legit or not.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This thread is so fun to read


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> She said a military response is an option if Russian cyberattacks against American interests continues or escalates, not about revealing information about her. Stop treating misinformation from conservative media that post provocative stuff to grab eyeballs as facts.



I saw the speech, buddy. Nobody has to spin that shit for me. 

You keep on believing Queen Hillary. Keep believing that a former KGB officer is the mastermind behind the conservative movement in the United States.

:duck


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> I saw the speech, buddy. Nobody has to spin that shit for me.
> 
> You keep on believing Queen Hillary. Keep believing that a former KGB officer is the mastermind behind the conservative movement in the United States.
> 
> :duck


Who is less fit to be president? Trump or Clinton?

Who would you rather have as our next president between those two


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> I saw the speech, buddy. Nobody has to spin that shit for me.
> 
> You keep on believing Queen Hillary. Keep believing that a former KGB officer is the mastermind behind the conservative movement in the United States.
> 
> :duck


If you saw the speech then point out when did she mention anything about revealing her information?

I don't believe Putin is behind the conservative movement in America. Just spreading misinformation among the conservatives who are easy marks to disrupt the democratic process.


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Seeing Trump being reduced to a Bill Cosby like creeper and Hilary still disliked by most of the public,I the Libertarians right now must be frustrated that they picked a Goober in ill fitting suits to be their nominee this year. If Weld was at the top of their ticket and not Johnson I could see a lot of Republicans going to him as their defacto candidate after the Trump tapes came out.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ShiningStar said:


> Seeing Trump being reduced to a Bill Cosby like creeper and Hilary still disliked by most of the public,I the Libertarians right now must be frustrated that they picked a Goober in ill fitting suits to be their nominee this year. If Weld was at the top of their ticket and not Johnson I could see a lot of Republicans going to him as their defacto candidate after the Trump tapes came out.


Weld did a good job when he was in MA. You are right, he should have been at the top of the ticket not Johnson.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Who is less fit to be president? Trump or Clinton?
> 
> Who would you rather have as our next president between those two


Id opt for third option and pick anarchy


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Some of the republican senators and governors are trying to get Pence to pull a coup 

If he actually pulled that off I would use aliases to vote for him at least 6 times


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I know I intended to stay out of this thread until after the election...but as @DesolationRow is somewhat persuasive, I had to weigh in on the debauchery of the Trump tape and the hypocrisy that abounds everywhere. And even though I have been a harsh critic of the Donald, my take might surprise you. 

First of all...most guys (myself included) have made comments about women at one time or another. Anywhere from "she is a very beautiful lady" to "I'd hit it"...we've probably said it. If we say we haven't said it, at one time or another we've thought it. I'm not going to justify it,we're men. That's how we are wired. That's how we roll, ladies and gentlemen. It's a fact. I've done it on this board, from certain divas to Sharon Stone to Faith Hill, etc. Does that make me a disgusting person? No, it makes me a guy. It would make me more disgusting if I actually went out of my way to act on it. I have the restraint and some aspect of manners to not do so. 

Is Donald Trump exactly a Casanova or Don Juan when it comes to the ladies? No, he is probably not that type. Did what he say be considered crude? Yes, it was somewhat typical locker-room talk. But...let's put this in perspective. This is something that he said 10 years ago, and all of a sudden this tape now shows up out of nowhere and is out there. Somebody clearly has an axe to grind somewhere, whether it's someone he pissed off in the past or someone that is affiliated with the Clinton campaign who went out of their way to do this (wouldn't surprise me in the least especially considering how vicious they are...even the Obamas hate Bill and Hillary.) Not to mention Billy Bush was a correspondent on the Today Show and was associated with NBC and the Marxist News Broadcasting Corporation. Trump is clearly being set up, they are pulling out all the stops to cut this man down more than anyone I've ever seen. It wasn't this vicious when Reagan was running. 

Hillary Clinton saying that he has no business being president with his disdain for women is laughable, considering that her husband was not exactly clean. He was banging interns and low-level government women from the governor's mansion in Little Rock to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He even lost his law license for lying about banging Monica Lewinsky to a federal grand jury (and you can't tell me they stopped at getting a hummer in the Oval Office...at some point they were bumping uglies.) Not to mention that she could have left him at any point, but she stayed and even went out of her way to destroy the reputation of some of these ladies. What her statements mean is Sunday night will be even more vicious and brutal then the first debate. Trump will unload on Hillary all of Bill's dirty laundry, and Hillary will respond. This will be the equivalent of watching monkeys throwing their shit at each other at the zoo. 

At the end of the day...what Trump said was bad, but the reaction has been overblown from all sides. The lamestream media wants Trump gone, they are willing to destroy him no matter what the cost. They are fighting to keep the progressive agenda going, and they see Trump as the enemy of that. In reality, this is something that should have blown over but will continue to be run with right on up until Election Day. It's sad that this is what one of the biggest elections in the history of this nation is boiling down to who is the least disgusting, amoral, and depraved. 

However...as we have rolled along with this election process...I have to also lay the blame at Trump's feet to an extent. Donald Trump was a punchline, a novelty, somewhat of a protest candidate when he first started. He pointed out what was wrong with the country when he first ran, and he is right to a point. The US is heading in the wrong direction. Our economy is in a precarious position, we have people that are struggling to find work and losing their health care, a nation that is no longer respected by many of our allies and is not feared by our enemies. Trump used that stance to blow by many of the top people in the GOP to snag the nomination. 

However, he couldn't separate Donald Trump the reality star to Donald Trump the candidate. He steamrolled over many GOP and conservative people along the way. He has openly mocked anyone that has dared to question him, especially going after reporters who ask him the questions they are paid to do so. Yes, he has become the face of the GOP, but he has pissed a ton of people off along the way. Hillary Clinton rubbed people the wrong way, including Bernie Sanders...but she managed to make amends with them and that's why you see Bernie campaigning for her right now. Trump has chased the Bush family and Mitt Romney from the GOP (no big loss), and put down everyone from McCain to Rubio to Ted Cruz. He has refused to apologize...this apology he had to give over the tapes was maybe the first one he had to do. 

It would not have hurt him to reach out and apologize to those that he went after during the primary season, chalk it up to doing what needs to be done but now time to come together. In fact, I said here that he needs to reach out to Cruz, reach out to the Bush camp, etc. Instead, he has told people like myself that he doesn't need us. Many of the deplorables, including some I work with, have gone down the road to use liberal smear tactics to attack me because I'm not blindly giving my vote to him. I had a lady the other day call me a Hillary supporter, even though I hate Clinton with a passion. If she was drowning, I'd throw her a hose and tell her to put the damn thing in her mouth and finish the job. Donald, you could have reached out and worked with us, shown that you were serious about defending the principles of the Constitution. However, your hubris now has you all alone on that limb. You did this to yourself, Mr. Trump...you only have yourself to blame. 

I have said I was willing to give him a chance to earn my vote...but my vote is not something I give no matter what. It comes with a price, and that is I expect you to fight for what I believe in. If I don't believe you are going to do that, I'm not going to vote for you. I will not support you. What I saw at the debate the other night has cemented that my vote will not be for Donald Trump this November. 

First of all...I counted at least six times (only one of them in jest or in irony) that he agreed with programs that Hillary Clinton was proposing. Talking about proposals for child care, No Fly No Buy (basically banning people on the no-fly list from getting to do other things without the chance for due process), cyber-terrorism, even on Hillary's experience). Sorry, I don't want you to be agreeing with her on ANYTHING. Maybe one of those was most likely done in irony, but the rest weren't. 

Then...during the parts when he was going after her for the e-mails and she at first shut it down, he stopped. Then, she went after him on other things, and he backed down. All he told us for months was that when he was face-to-face with Hillary Rodham Clinton is that he would fight her every step of the way. He backed off...much like Romney did in '12 when he didn't attack Obama more effectively. This was supposed to be the man who backed down from no one, and he folded. Not to mention he is apparently backing off many of his stances on immigration, including the vetting of Muslims. Sorry, I wanted no amnesty and to follow the laws of our country. If you're going to let some of them stay, that doesn't sit well with me. 

This is the election the people wanted...this is the election we deserve then. I tried to bail us out by voting for McCain and Romney...but if the GOP is going to continue to make bad choices I'm not bailing them out again. It's time for the Republican Party to die and be replaced by a true conservative party...one that will uphold the values of the Constitution and work for smaller government and to truly make America for the people again. That does not mean being represented by two clearly progressive candidates who are hell bent on continuing using big government programs to further a terrible agenda. 

It's time for conservatives like me to step away and let this play out. When people are hell-bent on making bad decisions, sometimes it's best to just step out of the way and let them do it. I'm done protesting and pointing out the mistakes we've made, because it does no good. I know I'm probably going to be attacked by the Trumpamaniacs but I don't care. Their liberal smear tactics are just that, smear tactics because they have nothing else. This is on them for letting this happen and reach this point. I want America to be great again...but I'm a patriot, not a nationalist. I refuse to go down the road that both Trump and Clinton want us to go down. I want America to be great again, but not like this.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Johnson is a goober, this was the year for Libertarians to make a move even if they didn't win, missed spot there.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Weld did a good job when he was in MA. You are right, he should have been at the top of the ticket not Johnson.


Neither Weld or Johnson should've been anywhere near the LP ticket because neither of them line up even adequately with the LP platform. There really weren't any good alternatives either though. McAffe was too blatantly crazy and Austin Petersen far too punchable. I've never been able to stand Austin in all the years I've been following the Libertarian Republic. 



BruiserKC said:


> However, he couldn't separate Donald Trump the reality star to Donald Trump the candidate. He steamrolled over many GOP and conservative people along the way. He has openly mocked anyone that has dared to question him, especially going after reporters who ask him the questions they are paid to do so. Yes, he has become the face of the GOP, but he has pissed a ton of people off along the way. Hillary Clinton rubbed people the wrong way, including Bernie Sanders...but she managed to make amends with them and that's why you see Bernie campaigning for her right now. Trump has chased the Bush family and Mitt Romney from the GOP (no big loss), and put down everyone from McCain to Rubio to Ted Cruz. He has refused to apologize...this apology he had to give over the tapes was maybe the first one he had to do.
> 
> It would not have hurt him to reach out and apologize to those that he went after during the primary season, chalk it up to doing what needs to be done but now time to come together. In fact, I said here that he needs to reach out to Cruz, reach out to the Bush camp, etc. Instead, he has told people like myself that he doesn't need us. Many of the deplorables, including some I work with, have gone down the road to use liberal smear tactics to attack me because I'm not blindly giving my vote to him. I had a lady the other day call me a Hillary supporter, even though I hate Clinton with a passion. If she was drowning, I'd throw her a hose and tell her to put the damn thing in her mouth and finish the job. Donald, you could have reached out and worked with us, shown that you were serious about defending the principles of the Constitution. However, your hubris now has you all alone on that limb. You did this to yourself, Mr. Trump...you only have yourself to blame.







I guess you aren't giving him any credit for this speech then. :lol 

Ted looks like such an unbelievable asshat now from both sides for finally endorsing Trump only when it looked like he was going to win, only for this to happen. 

Of course, I'm not saying it's over for Trump. :mj Two more debates in which Trump can only do better, and as last month showed, anything can happen to take Hillary down several pegs as well.


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> 1) If you want to quote me, don't put words in my mouth. I didn't use the word "evidence".
> 
> 2) I already mentioned all of these things earlier. Their personal relationship/friendship over many years, Trump supporting the Clintons and their foundation in the past, Trump being the only opponent that would absolutely guarantee a Hillary victory, Trump being a liberal pretending to be a conservative who gives a shit about the Bible, Bill's conversations with Donald prior to The Donald announcing he's running, etc.
> 
> Again, I don't KNOW it, I don't have EVIDENCE, it's an opinion, it's a feeling, whatever you want to call it.


Hey, found this on the floor, I think you dropped it.









Look, they might've schmoozed back in the day but that hardly makes them best friends. Trump supporting a foundation means absolute dick. He's probably supported 1,000 foundations and couldn't even name them all. He's been making moves up the political ladder for a long time. It's practically textbook 1%er 101. The uber rich always seek out a more powerful position and that position is ultimately in politics and Trump is now going for the grand prize. There's no way this is a well crafted plan. Trump wants to win and win badly because it really means more power and influence. 

The thing is he's such a fucking failure at politics and his unorthodox ways are wearing thin on just about everyone. He was nominated sure, but not to lay down and lose. He just flat out sucks and that's on him.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

He's a failure at politics? :lol Pretty sure in his first go at public office he took out 16 other people, many of which have had decades of political experience, to win a major party nomination and was leading Hillary in most polls including battleground states as recently as two weeks ago.

You people sure have a funny idea of what "failure" is, as highlighted by some of the ridiculous claims by some in here that he's a business failure. :lol Makes me wonder what it takes to be considered a success at anything, by some of these asinine standards.


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> *However, he couldn't separate Donald Trump the reality star to Donald Trump the candidate.
> 
> *Many of the deplorables, including some I work with, have gone down the road to use liberal smear tactics to attack me because I'm not blindly giving my vote to him. I had a lady the other day call me a Hillary supporter, even though I hate Clinton with a passion.
> 
> *First of all...I counted at least six times (only one of them in jest or in irony) that he agreed with programs that Hillary Clinton was proposing.
> 
> *Not to mention he is apparently backing off many of his stances on immigration, including the vetting of Muslims. Sorry, I wanted no amnesty and to follow the laws of our country. If you're going to let some of them stay, that doesn't sit well with me.


Point by point responses to starred portions of your post.
1. The most significant statement in your post and why "The Donald" was always unfit for office (as if that should even ever have been up for debate). 
2. Shows the blind sheep that will support him even if the Donald spits in their face while talking to them. 
3. Trump came off cucked in the debate.
4. Why shouldn't we let Muslims stay that are here legally and not on any watch lists? Muslims are just part of a religion. They're not all extremists.



CamillePunk said:


> He's a failure at politics? :lol Pretty sure in his first go at public office he took out 16 other people, many of which have had decades of political experience, to win a major party nomination and was leading Hillary in most polls including battleground states as recently as two weeks ago.
> 
> You people sure have a funny idea of what "failure" is, as highlighted by some of the ridiculous claims by some in here that he's a business failure. :lol Makes me wonder what it takes to be considered a success at anything, by some of these asinine standards.


I see him as not a failure at being a popular choice with his party. He's obviously succeeded there. He's a failure at remaining one. I don't follow all this strict party line bullshit because I think for myself. I'll admit to agreeing with a lot of what Trump was saying early on because it was the truth in a lot of cases and we aren't accustomed to hearing the bold faced truth. But he's a failure at remaining popular. 

He constantly alienates every minority group like it's his job, and then tries to make light of it and say "that's not what I meant" when it obviously is. He's his own worst enemy and he's a giant failure for that because if he had more skill he'd have this entire country wrapped around his finger against Hillary but he doesn't. That's why he's a fucking failure. His life at the top 1% means he doesn't understand or more to the point empathize with the plights of the common American person.


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ManiacMichaelMyers said:


> Point by point responses to starred portions of your post.
> 1. The most significant statement in your post and why "The Donald" was always unfit for office (as if that should even ever have been up for debate).
> 2. Shows the blind sheep that will support him even if the Donald spits in their face while talking to them.
> 3. Trump came off cucked in the debate.
> 4. Why shouldn't we let Muslims stay that are here legally and not on any watch lists? Muslims are just part of a religion. They're not all extremists.
> 
> 
> 
> I see him as not a failure at being a popular choice with his party. He's obviously succeeded there. He's a failure at remaining one. I don't follow all this strict party line bullshit because I think for myself. I'll admit to agreeing with a lot of what Trump was saying early on because it was the truth in a lot of cases and we aren't accustomed to hearing the bold faced truth. But he's a failure at remaining popular.
> 
> He constantly alienates every minority group like it's his job, and then tries to make light of it and say "that's not what I meant" when it obviously is. He's his own worst enemy and he's a giant failure for that because if he had more skill he'd have this entire country wrapped around his finger against Hillary but he doesn't. That's why he's a fucking failure. His life at the top 1% means he doesn't understand or more to the point empathize with the plights of the common American person.


yet it was Hillary in her talks with wall street stating how she cant relate to common folks
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/hillary-clinton-speeches-wikileaks.html
also u are asking a lot for a political novice who lived a life that shows he never expected to actually run for office be some political savant in 2 years...unrealistic.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/784869833288650752
Jeb! fucking wrecked.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






De Niro has no chill.


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> I know I intended to stay out of this thread until after the election...but as @DesolationRow is somewhat persuasive, I had to weigh in on the debauchery of the Trump tape and the hypocrisy that abounds everywhere. And even though I have been a harsh critic of the Donald, my take might surprise you.
> 
> First of all...most guys (myself included) have made comments about women at one time or another. Anywhere from "she is a very beautiful lady" to "I'd hit it"...we've probably said it. If we say we haven't said it, at one time or another we've thought it. I'm not going to justify it,we're men. That's how we are wired. That's how we roll, ladies and gentlemen. It's a fact. I've done it on this board, from certain divas to Sharon Stone to Faith Hill, etc. Does that make me a disgusting person? No, it makes me a guy. It would make me more disgusting if I actually went out of my way to act on it. I have the restraint and some aspect of manners to not do so.
> 
> Is Donald Trump exactly a Casanova or Don Juan when it comes to the ladies? No, he is probably not that type. Did what he say be considered crude? Yes, it was somewhat typical locker-room talk. But...let's put this in perspective. This is something that he said 10 years ago, and all of a sudden this tape now shows up out of nowhere and is out there. Somebody clearly has an axe to grind somewhere, whether it's someone he pissed off in the past or someone that is affiliated with the Clinton campaign who went out of their way to do this (wouldn't surprise me in the least especially considering how vicious they are...even the Obamas hate Bill and Hillary.) Not to mention Billy Bush was a correspondent on the Today Show and was associated with NBC and the Marxist News Broadcasting Corporation. Trump is clearly being set up, they are pulling out all the stops to cut this man down more than anyone I've ever seen. It wasn't this vicious when Reagan was running.
> 
> Hillary Clinton saying that he has no business being president with his disdain for women is laughable, considering that her husband was not exactly clean. He was banging interns and low-level government women from the governor's mansion in Little Rock to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He even lost his law license for lying about banging Monica Lewinsky to a federal grand jury (and you can't tell me they stopped at getting a hummer in the Oval Office...at some point they were bumping uglies.) Not to mention that she could have left him at any point, but she stayed and even went out of her way to destroy the reputation of some of these ladies. What her statements mean is Sunday night will be even more vicious and brutal then the first debate. Trump will unload on Hillary all of Bill's dirty laundry, and Hillary will respond. This will be the equivalent of watching monkeys throwing their shit at each other at the zoo.
> 
> At the end of the day...what Trump said was bad, but the reaction has been overblown from all sides. The lamestream media wants Trump gone, they are willing to destroy him no matter what the cost. They are fighting to keep the progressive agenda going, and they see Trump as the enemy of that. In reality, this is something that should have blown over but will continue to be run with right on up until Election Day. It's sad that this is what one of the biggest elections in the history of this nation is boiling down to who is the least disgusting, amoral, and depraved.
> 
> However...as we have rolled along with this election process...I have to also lay the blame at Trump's feet to an extent. Donald Trump was a punchline, a novelty, somewhat of a protest candidate when he first started. He pointed out what was wrong with the country when he first ran, and he is right to a point. The US is heading in the wrong direction. Our economy is in a precarious position, we have people that are struggling to find work and losing their health care, a nation that is no longer respected by many of our allies and is not feared by our enemies. Trump used that stance to blow by many of the top people in the GOP to snag the nomination.
> 
> However, he couldn't separate Donald Trump the reality star to Donald Trump the candidate. He steamrolled over many GOP and conservative people along the way. He has openly mocked anyone that has dared to question him, especially going after reporters who ask him the questions they are paid to do so. Yes, he has become the face of the GOP, but he has pissed a ton of people off along the way. Hillary Clinton rubbed people the wrong way, including Bernie Sanders...but she managed to make amends with them and that's why you see Bernie campaigning for her right now. Trump has chased the Bush family and Mitt Romney from the GOP (no big loss), and put down everyone from McCain to Rubio to Ted Cruz. He has refused to apologize...this apology he had to give over the tapes was maybe the first one he had to do.
> 
> It would not have hurt him to reach out and apologize to those that he went after during the primary season, chalk it up to doing what needs to be done but now time to come together. In fact, I said here that he needs to reach out to Cruz, reach out to the Bush camp, etc. Instead, he has told people like myself that he doesn't need us. Many of the deplorables, including some I work with, have gone down the road to use liberal smear tactics to attack me because I'm not blindly giving my vote to him. I had a lady the other day call me a Hillary supporter, even though I hate Clinton with a passion. If she was drowning, I'd throw her a hose and tell her to put the damn thing in her mouth and finish the job. Donald, you could have reached out and worked with us, shown that you were serious about defending the principles of the Constitution. However, your hubris now has you all alone on that limb. You did this to yourself, Mr. Trump...you only have yourself to blame.
> 
> I have said I was willing to give him a chance to earn my vote...but my vote is not something I give no matter what. It comes with a price, and that is I expect you to fight for what I believe in. If I don't believe you are going to do that, I'm not going to vote for you. I will not support you. What I saw at the debate the other night has cemented that my vote will not be for Donald Trump this November.
> 
> First of all...I counted at least six times (only one of them in jest or in irony) that he agreed with programs that Hillary Clinton was proposing. Talking about proposals for child care, No Fly No Buy (basically banning people on the no-fly list from getting to do other things without the chance for due process), cyber-terrorism, even on Hillary's experience). Sorry, I don't want you to be agreeing with her on ANYTHING. Maybe one of those was most likely done in irony, but the rest weren't.
> 
> Then...during the parts when he was going after her for the e-mails and she at first shut it down, he stopped. Then, she went after him on other things, and he backed down. All he told us for months was that when he was face-to-face with Hillary Rodham Clinton is that he would fight her every step of the way. He backed off...much like Romney did in '12 when he didn't attack Obama more effectively. This was supposed to be the man who backed down from no one, and he folded. Not to mention he is apparently backing off many of his stances on immigration, including the vetting of Muslims. Sorry, I wanted no amnesty and to follow the laws of our country. If you're going to let some of them stay, that doesn't sit well with me.
> 
> This is the election the people wanted...this is the election we deserve then. I tried to bail us out by voting for McCain and Romney...but if the GOP is going to continue to make bad choices I'm not bailing them out again. It's time for the Republican Party to die and be replaced by a true conservative party...one that will uphold the values of the Constitution and work for smaller government and to truly make America for the people again. That does not mean being represented by two clearly progressive candidates who are hell bent on continuing using big government programs to further a terrible agenda.
> 
> It's time for conservatives like me to step away and let this play out. When people are hell-bent on making bad decisions, sometimes it's best to just step out of the way and let them do it. I'm done protesting and pointing out the mistakes we've made, because it does no good. I know I'm probably going to be attacked by the Trumpamaniacs but I don't care. Their liberal smear tactics are just that, smear tactics because they have nothing else. This is on them for letting this happen and reach this point. I want America to be great again...but I'm a patriot, not a nationalist. I refuse to go down the road that both Trump and Clinton want us to go down. I want America to be great again, but not like this.



I totally agree with some of what u said but I gotta point out that people like bush would NEVER back him...he pointed out that his brother lied to get us into war, and correctly pointed out that his character wasn't what the country need also demasculated him in debates... also when have Donald trump ever go after the voters, it was always the politicans, you are being unfair to lump u(someone he never actually said anything about if im not mistaken) with the politicans on stage/attacking him. and are u really surprise that trump have some liberal polices...no one who is voting for him actually believes he is a republican, they like him for his personality and his proposals, wall, muslim ban, tough on isis...the regular talking points...my mom/dad were democrats who never voted republican, black immigrants who legally immigrated to this country guess what, they are voting trump because of his tough stance on illegal immigration and they like that he is a rich businessman. im certain there are a lot of people like them in America..as for trump backing down...did u miss first half of debate..he was attacking what happen was the attacks went from policy to personal things that hurts his image, he being amateur politican isn't a black belt in deflection jujutsu...hopefully he powers up and learns for this debate:nerd:


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/784869833288650752
> Jeb! fucking wrecked.


Billy Bush in that tape is Jeb's cousin! He really should have shut up about this. :lol


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> yet it was Hillary in her talks with wall street stating how she cant relate to common folks
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/hillary-clinton-speeches-wikileaks.html
> also u are asking a lot for a political novice who lived a life that shows he never expected to actually run for office be some political savant in 2 years...unrealistic.


I'm sure she can a hell of a lot more than Trump. 
I'm asking a lot? Of course. It's the U.S. Presidency at stake! fpalm 
Unrealistic? Yes, he is.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

For all the people claiming Trump was not sexually assaulting women

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a49408/trump-sexual-assault-accusations/

At least three women have come forward with horrible stories.


BY PETER WADE
OCT 8, 2016 
1.7k
It is impossible not to be offended at the language Donald Trump used so casually to describe how he sexually assaults women, but it is even more important to listen to the stories from women who allegedly have suffered sexual assault at the hands of Donald J. Trump.

Lost in the nonstop coverage of the leaked Access Hollywood tape are the accounts by women who have come forward to substantiate Donald Trump's own claims that he feels entitled to grab and grope and assault women who are unlucky enough to find themselves alone in a room with him.

I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn't get there, and she was married... _ just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait.

The New York Times published Nicholas Kristof's column slated for Sunday on Friday after the tape was released because it documents Trump's "relentless" unwanted advances toward Jill Harth, who did business with him in the early 90s.

According to Harth, who was married at the time, Donald Trump cornered her during a tour of his Mar-a-Lago mansion, pushed her against a wall, and started to kiss her without her consent. "He was showing me this big mural and the next thing I know, he was pushing me up against the wall and making a move on me and was all over me," Harth said, adding, "I had to push him off of me."


Later, in March of 1993, Trump again allegedly assaulted Harth, who brought charges of sexual assault against him at the time. "He was always trying to grope me and touch me. I had to tell him to stop," she said.

But Harth dropped the suit in order to settle another suit her husband brought against Trump for failure to pay for business dealings.

I gotta use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her.

CNN's Erin Burnett also came forward with allegations, on behalf of a friend, of Trump sexually assaulting another women. Burnett read her friend's account of the incident on air Friday.

"The Tic Tacs. That's exactly what Trump did to me," Burnett said. "Trump took Tic Tacs, suggested that I take them also. He then leaned in ... catching me off guard and kissed me almost on the lips. I was really freaked out."


And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

And then, there is the federal lawsuit filed by a "Jane Doe" who claims Trump raped her when she was only 13 years old. According to the suit, Trump had promised he could help launch her modeling career but instead invited her out to parties and sexually assaulted her four separate times. The last time, he allegedly tied the girl to a bed and "forcibly raped" her. She begged him to stop but instead hit her face with his hand and yelled that he could do whatever he wanted, according to her account.

The suit will go to a hearing on December 16.

All of these stories ring true because these acts were perfectly described by Trump himself in that bus in 2005. He himself said he sexually assaults women who want nothing more than to do business with him. The women coming forward, now in a slow trickle, bring to mind other similar cases of men who preyed on women: Bill Cosby and Roger Ailes. Men who were ultimately undone by a flood of accusations of assault and harassment from women across the country.

Could this be Trump's undoing?_


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> Holy shit, look at the hatred in his eyes. He really can't stand them.


do u really believe that there is no dirt on Rubio...and are u watching same msm that I am...any body in the way of Hillary will be vilified and labeled bogey man by them...unless they real leaders in this country doesn't mind having Rubio be their pretty face...he was for gang of 8 bill.


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> For all the people claiming Trump was not sexually assaulting women
> 
> http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a49408/trump-sexual-assault-accusations/
> 
> At least three women have come forward with horrible stories.
> 
> 
> BY PETER WADE
> OCT 8, 2016
> 1.7k
> It is impossible not to be offended at the language Donald Trump used so casually to describe how he sexually assaults women, but it is even more important to listen to the stories from women who allegedly have suffered sexual assault at the hands of Donald J. Trump.
> 
> Lost in the nonstop coverage of the leaked Access Hollywood tape are the accounts by women who have come forward to substantiate Donald Trump's own claims that he feels entitled to grab and grope and assault women who are unlucky enough to find themselves alone in a room with him.
> 
> I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn't get there, and she was married... _ just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait.
> 
> The New York Times published Nicholas Kristof's column slated for Sunday on Friday after the tape was released because it documents Trump's "relentless" unwanted advances toward Jill Harth, who did business with him in the early 90s.
> 
> According to Harth, who was married at the time, Donald Trump cornered her during a tour of his Mar-a-Lago mansion, pushed her against a wall, and started to kiss her without her consent. "He was showing me this big mural and the next thing I know, he was pushing me up against the wall and making a move on me and was all over me," Harth said, adding, "I had to push him off of me."
> 
> 
> Later, in March of 1993, Trump again allegedly assaulted Harth, who brought charges of sexual assault against him at the time. "He was always trying to grope me and touch me. I had to tell him to stop," she said.
> 
> But Harth dropped the suit in order to settle another suit her husband brought against Trump for failure to pay for business dealings.
> 
> I gotta use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her.
> 
> CNN's Erin Burnett also came forward with allegations, on behalf of a friend, of Trump sexually assaulting another women. Burnett read her friend's account of the incident on air Friday.
> 
> "The Tic Tacs. That's exactly what Trump did to me," Burnett said. "Trump took Tic Tacs, suggested that I take them also. He then leaned in ... catching me off guard and kissed me almost on the lips. I was really freaked out."
> 
> 
> And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.
> 
> And then, there is the federal lawsuit filed by a "Jane Doe" who claims Trump raped her when she was only 13 years old. According to the suit, Trump had promised he could help launch her modeling career but instead invited her out to parties and sexually assaulted her four separate times. The last time, he allegedly tied the girl to a bed and "forcibly raped" her. She begged him to stop but instead hit her face with his hand and yelled that he could do whatever he wanted, according to her account.
> 
> The suit will go to a hearing on December 16.
> 
> All of these stories ring true because these acts were perfectly described by Trump himself in that bus in 2005. He himself said he sexually assaults women who want nothing more than to do business with him. The women coming forward, now in a slow trickle, bring to mind other similar cases of men who preyed on women: Bill Cosby and Roger Ailes. Men who were ultimately undone by a flood of accusations of assault and harassment from women across the country.
> 
> Could this be Trump's undoing?_


_

this is pathetic shit I saw durng primary...as for erin burnett real interesting how she never said shit till yesterday also that bitch wanted trump dead during primaries in Chicago when the riot broke out she leaked on live telivison the current whereabouts of trump,plasting his location on nationional t.v . she is evil... plus a lot of what u what is heresay and none of which has been or can be proven.u seem to be a hack...saw your like thanks man...u still seem like a hack though xd_


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ManiacMichaelMyers said:


> I'm sure she can a hell of a lot more than Trump.
> I'm asking a lot? Of course. It's the U.S. Presidency at stake! fpalm
> Unrealistic? Yes, he is.



Hillary is a fuckn robot who doesn't think for herself and has every thought focus grouped to death...yes in an ideal world trump would be able to deftly ignore taunts n counter into arguments that bolster his position, but also in an ideal world every american would see that she's brought, is a cold evil bitch, and wants war with Russia/china and will continue killings in middle east but that's not reality... and to be fair to trump he prob assumed incorrectly tht I just beat 16 jabroonis in primary what is one half dead bitch to a stud like me...


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> this is pathetic shit I saw durng primary...as for erin burnett real interesting how she never said shit till yesterday also that bitch wanted trump dead during primaries in Chicago when the riot broke out she leaked on live telivison the current whereabouts of trump,plasting his location on nationional t.v . she is evil... plus a lot of what u what is heresay and none of which has been or can be proven.u seem to be a hack...saw your like thanks man...u still seem like a hack though xd


We dont have to agree on everything. If I agree I will like your post. I am just posting the info that is out there, and some people are scared to come out when things like that happen. And since this audio of Trump came out, she may have thought wow this just did not happen to me, and now is coming out. And I bet more and more women will come out saying Trump did this to them. I think its already up to 5 from 3 when this article was written.


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> Hillary is a fuckn robot who doesn't think for herself and has every thought focus grouped to death...yes in an ideal world trump would be able to deftly ignore taunts n counter into arguments that bolster his position, but also in an ideal world every american would see that she's brought, is a cold evil bitch, and wants war with Russia/china and will continue killings in middle east but that's not reality... and to be fair to trump he prob assumed incorrectly tht I just beat 16 jabroonis in primary what is one half dead bitch to a stud like me...












I mean, there really is no other response I can give to that.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Right because its hard to believe someone that is pro stricter gun laws would not want to blow someone away? You see the flaw in your logic there right? You just get upset because when you post those BS Trump memes I fact check them and show you how they are BS. You should not take that personal. You still do it to this day and someone else had to correct you today or was it yesterday.
> 
> Before you post your info, just do a quick google and check snopes or PolitiFact, it will tell you if the info is legit or not.


You really don't get it...


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> You really don't get it...


Go ahead. Explain "it".

There is something wrong with this guy. Hillary is awful but making Trump the Republican nominee just put her in the White House.


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> Go ahead. Explain "it".
> 
> There is something wrong with this guy. Hillary is awful but making Trump the Republican nominee just put her in the White House.


There's almost 800 pages of everyone explaining "it". None of you are convincing anyone else.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Aido Get Laido said:


> There's almost 800 pages of everyone explaining "it". None of you are convincing anyone else.


That doesn't mean it makes any fucking sense. All the excuses for Trump have been people going "yea well....these people did things too." like it's a valid excuse.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










The Heritage Foundation asked the very prudent question of when will Washington wake up to this? The left continues wants to continue to fund social and public programs that they aren't going to pay for whilst the right continues to want more military spending. Both want more war.

The rate in which it is going the debt is expected to double over the next 30 years. Sooner or later it will become unsustainable, the world is in more debt to the Central Banks than ever before and it continues to rise.

Yet it has hardly been talked about in this US election.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> I totally agree with some of what u said but I gotta point out that people like bush would NEVER back him...he pointed out that his brother lied to get us into war, and correctly pointed out that his character wasn't what the country need also demasculated him in debates... also when have Donald trump ever go after the voters, it was always the politicans, you are being unfair to lump u(someone he never actually said anything about if im not mistaken) with the politicans on stage/attacking him. and are u really surprise that trump have some liberal polices...no one who is voting for him actually believes he is a republican, they like him for his personality and his proposals, wall, muslim ban, tough on isis...the regular talking points...my mom/dad were democrats who never voted republican, black immigrants who legally immigrated to this country guess what, they are voting trump because of his tough stance on illegal immigration and they like that he is a rich businessman. im certain there are a lot of people like them in America..as for trump backing down...did u miss first half of debate..he was attacking what happen was the attacks went from policy to personal things that hurts his image, he being amateur politican isn't a black belt in deflection jujutsu...hopefully he powers up and learns for this debate:nerd:


CNN had Mike Pence on earlier this week. He talked about the Muslim ban (granted, it was only temporary until we could get the vetting process in place). He said it was no longer Trump's stance. Either that's not true and Trump has lost control of the message (which is bad) or Trump has changed his tune and that has led to his flip-flopping on one of his core messages. That is one thing you can't walk back without major blowback from his own voters. 

Trump barely mentioned the e-mails and no mention of Benghazi at all. He had boasted about how he was going to do that all along. He said he was going to take the fight to HRC on that, and he backed down. He should have pushed that and didn't. All we hear is that he's going to do that again...wouldn't surprise me if he backs down again or this time just flies off the handle and goes into major jackass mode. 

The pattern of talking tough, then backing down, gets old. I'm of the attitude that if you're going to do something, I don't want to hear you talk about it. I want to see you do it. If you get the chance to do it and then don't, that tells me all I need to know. Trump has you all duped. At the end of the day, the wall isn't going to get built, he's not going to do the extreme vetting needed to make us safer, and he won't go after ISIS. 

Plus, in the past he's bragged about being a dealmaker. He says he'll reach out and make great deals. Boehner was a dealmaker, Ryan is a dealmaker, McConnell is a dealmaker. It ain't working, I don't want deals. I want shit to finally get done, and Trump seems to be no different than the rest of them. 

I gave him a chance...I hate Hillary Clinton more than even the most ardent Trump fan. I sure as hell don't want her in office because there will be more of the same. At the end of the day, it seems that all he is was just a lot of hot air and he would back off when someone called his bluff. Your parents appreciated the tough talk and the non-political speak. I will admit, it was refreshing to hear something different. But, it struck me as being all show. 

Meanwhile...I have to call to task all the people (not here) that are backers of Trump but are begging practically for Julian Assange and Wikileaks to hand them the election. Much like Putin, Assange doesn't give a shit about America. They do not have the best interests of this country at heart. They have an anti-American agenda, but you can't tell them that. To think they do is outright dangerous and stupid.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Neither Weld or Johnson should've been anywhere near the LP ticket because neither of them line up even adequately with the LP platform. There really weren't any good alternatives either though. McAffe was too blatantly crazy and Austin Petersen far too punchable. I've never been able to stand Austin in all the years I've been following the Libertarian Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you aren't giving him any credit for this speech then. :lol
> 
> Ted looks like such an unbelievable asshat now from both sides for finally endorsing Trump only when it looked like he was going to win, only for this to happen.
> 
> Of course, I'm not saying it's over for Trump. :mj Two more debates in which Trump can only do better, and as last month showed, anything can happen to take Hillary down several pegs as well.


Whenever Trump has tried to apologize, it sounds forced. It sounds canned, reminds me of a celebrity or athlete who reads the apology his/her agent places in front of them that some underling in the office typed up. He hates to apologize, he hates to be wrong. I can relate to that, I hate admitting I'm wrong. But, I realize that there are times where you have to do so and I do my best to be sincere. 

Ted Cruz said he would support the candidate. He eventually kept his promise. Let's be honest, there is nothing enforceable about the pledge anyway, it's just window dressing that can never be enforced. However, as a result of that (and the blowback that is going on now), Cruz can kiss his presidential hopes good-bye. It really did nothing to enhance his brand and now he looks like he backed the wrong horse. 

Is it completely over? No, there's still a shot. However, he no longer has the support of the people he needs to back him. Many that were behind him (including many that were wholeheartedly with him from the start) are abandoning him. He has a major problem now when many in your own party are dropping you. That will make it that much harder, and there's not a lot of time to turn this around. He needs an October Surprise in the worst way now.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't think so, I checked the polls today fearing the worst, but most have him around 3-6 under which isn't that bad. Maybe the electorate might be swaying towards Hillary again, but the fact that everyone is abandoning him is extremely exaggerated at this point.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Reaper said:


> I don't think so, I checked the polls today fearing the worst, but most have him around 3-6 under which isn't that bad. Maybe the electorate might be swaying towards Hillary again, but the fact that everyone is abandoning him is extremely exaggerated at this point.


Those were taken before this latest scandal.

Its fairly apparent clinton is pulling away, IF the polls are accurate. In 12, romney was close, then was dusted. Maybe trump could pull off something similar.

Im resigned to hillary winning. Her only goal as president will be to pack the supreme court with globalists, who will help to erode the constitution. Other than that, expect hillary to be an invisible president as her disease takes her down.

Rewatch the vp debate, that fucking clownface lunatic will be president for a year or two after hillary dies.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> He's a failure at politics? :lol Pretty sure in his first go at public office he took out 16 other people, many of which have had decades of political experience, to win a major party nomination and* was leading Hillary in most polls including battleground states as recently as two weeks ago.*


We had this conversation, don't fool yourself, he closed the gap, yeah, but he never was wining the race





Reaper said:


> I don't think so, I checked the polls today fearing the worst, but most have him around 3-6 under which isn't that bad. Maybe the electorate might be swaying towards Hillary again, but the fact that everyone is abandoning him is extremely exaggerated at this point.


in average he's loosing by 5 points, it doesn't sound big, but in reality it means a difference of 100 EV. He's at the point of even loosing Arizona (why do you think McCain abandoned the ship?) and polls don't reflect the past two days yet :lmao

Also, is pretty damaging for republicans, if Trump lose by a margin of something between 6 and 8 percent, the House is in play again. And by all accounts that is gonna happen next week

Let's put things in real context


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/784863321744740352
The same effect could happen with 6 supporters don't votting or going third ticket/Pence

Again, he's not being abandoned by this. This is a just a reflection of him already loosing big. there is a 39% of the republican caucus rejecting him today and the RNC is redirecting all his money to donwtickets. It was over before friday and this is just the confirmation.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> Those were taken before this latest scandal.
> 
> Its fairly apparent clinton is pulling away, IF the polls are accurate. In 12, romney was close, then was dusted. Maybe trump could pull off something similar.
> 
> Im resigned to hillary winning. Her only goal as president will be to pack the supreme court with globalists, who will help to erode the constitution. Other than that, expect hillary to be an invisible president as her disease takes her down.
> 
> Rewatch the vp debate, that fucking clownface lunatic will be president for a year or two after hillary dies.


Hillary isn't dying. Pretty much everything we saw from her "disease" was exactly what you'd expect from the progression of a cardiovascular disease. The worst thing that's wrong with her is a little clotting and the typical old person problems, but nothing major.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I don't think so, I checked the polls today fearing the worst, but most have him around 3-6 under which isn't that bad. Maybe the electorate might be swaying towards Hillary again, but the fact that everyone is abandoning him is extremely exaggerated at this point.


I think it would take a miracle at this point for him to win as the media is going to demonize him big time. Even with more DNC email leaks it may not make a big enough difference. Now that the Democrats have been outed the only ones that care are the true left, the regressives and nu left couldn't care less. If it's their side doing the bad stuff it must be justified or it's all conspiracies according to them.

I believe anyone who is truly Liberal, Conservative or Libertarian are fucked! Neo Conservatives will continue to run the Republican party into the ground, the Democrats are going to be the new Republican party with their own neo cons and crazy "leftists" who will continue to be caught in scandal after scandal while advocating perpetual victimhood while shrugging off any attacks on their character. Things will just get worse, the last 16 years have been bad, heck you cannot even criticize this President without people being called racist.. imagine once Hillary takes office..

Next election we'll be hearing the same old crap how the GOP is racist, Democrats assfucking Libertarians and true Leftists while the safe space morons cheer them on. Meanwhile we'll be in another few wars, more violence, political and religious tension will rise and we'll be in even bigger debt but somehow it won't be Hillary or the Democrats fault.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

^I think people are misunderstanding what I said. I said that this isn't a doom scenario for Trump, not that he will win. Point being, that Hillary is still such a horrible other "choice" that despite one of the biggest gaffes in political history, Trump is still only 3-6 behind. It says a lot about the state of affairs of the DNC and American politics as a whole. 

I took out my support for Trump a while ago, but it was because of the alt-right and Pence.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Meanwhile we'll be in another few wars,


The way Hilary talks, I afraid of her starting _the_ war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_III


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






"reporter: what Trump was describing in that tape is sexual assault
Rudy: That what he's talking about...... whether it happened or not i don't know"

:lmao

This campaign :lmao

Edit:


Reaper said:


> ^I think people are misunderstanding what I said. I said that this isn't a doom scenario for Trump, not that he will win. Point being, that Hillary is still such a horrible other "choice" that despite one of the biggest gaffes in political history, Trump is still only 3-6 behind. It says a lot about the state of affairs of the DNC and American politics as a whole.
> 
> I took out my support for Trump a while ago, but it was because of the alt-right and Pence.


But it's Doom.

This gaffe isn't reflected in polls yet, and the adventage of Hillary was already growing over 6% because undecided were leaning towards her and people leaning third ticket will probably follow. Also a difference of of more than 4% in USA elections is a BIG adventage


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> The way Hilary talks, I afraid of her starting _the_ war
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_III


I hope Europe is up for the virtue signaling that will come from it, well that is if there is still a Europe when all is said and done. We both know it won't be the leftist Euros fighting nor their children.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

The best route to have the best possible outcome for everyone: 
Trump drops out. 
GOP replaces him with Romney. 
Romney wins 40+ States.
Warmonger Clinton is just a civilian.
Everyone wins.


----------



## Cliffy

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Parachute oven mitts in


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> The best route to have the best possible outcome for everyone:
> Trump drops out.
> *GOP replaces him with Romney.
> Romney wins 40+ States.*
> Warmonger Clinton is just a civilian.
> Everyone wins.


:lmao


----------



## virus21

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> The best route to have the best possible outcome for everyone:
> Trump drops out.
> GOP replaces him with Romney.
> Romney wins 40+ States.
> Warmonger Clinton is just a civilian.
> Everyone wins.


Cool story


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> :lmao


Look, I don't like Romney either but he's far more appealing to the American public than a war criminal or a jackass. He'd win and it wouldn't be close.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> You really don't get it...


Please explain. Your problem is you have a woo is me complex. I love how you are super pro Trump and love how he is not PC, and you are huge on not being PC yet when someone like me is no PC you got all pissy.

I guess as long as the person is for what you believe in its ok but if the person is a progressive or lib like me, then you take issue. That is what is so funny about conservatives , especially Trump supporters on this board. 

They love how Trump is not PC and is a total dick , condescending or blunt, yet when libs act that way you guys all take issue and complain about it. You need to make up your mind.

Also you need to stop taking things so seriously and personal on this board. You act like any time someone says something against what you believe in, as a personal attack toward you.





asdf0501 said:


> "reporter: what Trump was describing in that tape is sexual assault
> Rudy: That what he's talking about...... whether it happened or not i don't know"
> 
> :lmao
> 
> This campaign :lmao
> 
> Edit:
> 
> 
> But it's Doom.
> 
> This gaffe isn't reflected in polls yet, and the adventage of Hillary was already growing over 6% because undecided were leaning towards her and people leaning third ticket will probably follow. Also a difference of of more than 4% in USA elections is a BIG adventage


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> Look, I don't like Romney either but he's far more appealing to the American public than a war criminal or a jackass. He'd win and it wouldn't be close.


Yeah. Trump base will vote for a replacement after republicans force Trump to drop.

Keep dreaming


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










How The Debates are going to happen tonight.

*#ThisIsCNN*



> Look, I don't like Romney either but he's far more appealing to the American public than a war criminal or a jackass. He'd win and it wouldn't be close.


Romney has the charisma of a block of wood. Fuck out of here! :lol

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Scott Adams' blog continues to be the best place to follow this election. :lol This week, Adams has switched his endorsement to Gary Johnson amid the sexual assault allegations toward Trump, and has framed supporting either Clinton or Trump as being seen associating with alleged sexual abusers. :done 

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151552548531/why-i-endorse-gary-johnson-this-week


----------



## AJ_Styles_P1

The Clinton controlled media spin has gotten ridiculous, past the point of logic into idiocy. 

This newest "story" is an absolute joke. 

Do these people that think Trump is terrible because of it not understand that it has no relevance to anything.

And they are hypocrites, remove the fact that it was a female he was talking negatively about (since feminism is about equality) and just say it was an "attack" on an unspecificed type of person. 

It's not like every single person hasn't had things like that to say about someone else or something similar at some point in their lives even if they don't really mean it.

And before someone says "I'm not running for president" (such an ignorant sign of stupidity, such a cop out). He didn't run for anything politically until 10 years after, it has no relevance at all. 

And even then Hillary laughed about defending a rapist who raped a little girl, which is worse? Seems obvious to me. 

People just fall for anything the media tells them, it's like no one has learned a single thing from George Bush's presidency.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

We should've all gotten behind Bernie. He only WROTE about rape, nobody ever accused him of it AFAIK. @birthday_massacre

If I was the kind of man who cared enough to actually go vote for a third party, I'd probably vote for Darrell Castle at this point. As it stands, I'll probably just not vote as per usual. Won't matter in California anyway.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

What time does the debate start?


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

9pm, EST.

On a side note, I always thought CamillePunk was a female. Slightly disappointed.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

CNN are hosting the debate?

Damn, this is definitely going to be unbiased then surely.....:lmao.


----------



## T0M

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This one could get ugly tonight. Can't wait.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

At this point...Trump is ready to throw the kitchen sink at her. The woman issue is really a zero sum game. At best both Donald and Bill are guys who can't keep it in their pants. At worst they are sexist, misogynistic pigs. There is no way to really go above the fray. 

Donald needs to apologize right off the bat. Then don't say anything unless HRC brings it up. Then fire away. That will be his only shot at winning this thing. Hope that Hillary Clinton doesn't have the strength to not rub salt in the wound. 

Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal talking about Trump is now ready to go to war with the GOPers that are dropping him. This comes on the heels of the GOP rank and file meeting on Monday, obviously to determine whether Trump has a future with the party. At this point, it's WAY too late to dump him, and to alienate him now would send many of his supporters home where they won't vote. On the other hand, keeping him means that his brand now taints all but a handful who have stood firm and refused to support him. Guys like Haase of Nebraska, Mike Lee, Lindsey Graham, etc. This is something that could tarnish their name for many years.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Big Salad said:


> 9pm, EST.
> 
> On a side note, I always thought CamillePunk was a female. Slightly disappointed.


Calling me a female because I'm no longer supporting Donald Trump (although I still want him to win for financial, survival, and entertainment purposes). :mj2 Harsh.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Russia is getting pissed at us.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-idUSKCN1290DP

pls don't start World War 3, Hillary


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Voting for either one is pure idiocy. Wtf has happened to the world


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KingCosmos said:


> Voting for either one is pure idiocy. Wtf has happened to the world


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KingCosmos said:


> Voting for either one is pure idiocy. Wtf has happened to the world


It became populated by idiots


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Voting for either one is pure idiocy. Wtf has happened to the world


Sanders got fucked over and A LOT of hard working Americans are sick and tired of The Establishment in Washington.

- Vic


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I really hope that when and if Clintigula gets elected, the american people make her term as difficult as possible


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> It became populated by idiots


My faith in humanity is lost, Just look at all the people in this thread arguing over Trump and Hilary. It's primitive thinking like that which holds humans back from achieving greatness. Fuck i wonder if 200 years from now they will look at us like blubbering retards or if we will still be in the same position with trivial bullshit like this. Seeing the idiots at Trump or Hilary rallies honestly baffles and i can't fathom how a modern human's are so idiotic. It's like now a days rational thought and philosophy have become rarities for the population


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KingCosmos said:


> My faith in humanity is lost, Just look at all the people in this thread arguing over Trump and Hilary. It's primitive thinking like that which holds humans back from achieving greatness. Fuck i wonder if 200 years from now they will look at us like blubbering retards or if we will still be in the same position with trivial bullshit like this. Seeing the idiots at Trump or Hilary rallies honestly baffles and i can't fathom how a modern human's are so idiotic. It's like now a days rational thought and philosophy have become rarities for the population


In 200 years people will still be complaining that they live in the worst time ever and want to go back to the good ol' days of the 2000's.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KingCosmos said:


> My faith in humanity is lost, Just look at all the people in this thread arguing over Trump and Hilary. It's primitive thinking like that which holds humans back from achieving greatness. Fuck i wonder if 200 years from now they will look at us like blubbering retards or if we will still be in the same position with trivial bullshit like this. Seeing the idiots at Trump or Hilary rallies honestly baffles and i can't fathom how a modern human's are so idiotic. It's like now a days rational thought and philosophy have become rarities for the population


In 200 years, we'll be still rebuilding civilization after the stupid fuckery of this century runs it into the ground


----------



## Rick Sanchez

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Maybe we would have been better off staying under British rule.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KingCosmos said:


> Voting for either one is pure idiocy. Wtf has happened to the world


This is South Park come to life...we are truly voting between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. Our system chases off all the good people that might actually make decent presidents. This is what we're left with.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Good said:


> Maybe we would have been better off staying under British rule.


The British government isn't any better than ours at the moment


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

With Anderson Cooper mediating, HRC will be purring like a kitten. An evil kitten.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Alaska is now a closer race than Pensilvania, and still no effect from the tape :lmao


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Good said:


> Maybe we would have been better off staying under British rule.


The english suffer through much worse leaders than we do - make no mistake about that.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump appeared with Bill alleged rape victims before the debate for a press conference.

He's really gonna immolate himself today isn't he?


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

lol Trump gives no fucks


----------



## amhlilhaus

KingCosmos said:


> Voting for either one is pure idiocy. Wtf has happened to the world


I blame the press. 90% vote for a certain party and they still have enough influence to mold public opinion.

You have schools indocrinating young people, a press who reports what theyre told to, and half the population who dont bother voting.


----------



## amhlilhaus

asdf0501 said:


> Trump appeared with Bill alleged rape victims before the debate for a press conference.
> 
> He's really gonna immolate himself today isn't he?


Gloves comin off. Either he destroys hillary or hes finished.

And even iff he destroys her, all it will do is narrow the race. Hillary still wins, lol


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Yeah. Trump base will vote for a replacement after republicans force Trump to drop.
> 
> Keep dreaming


It's not a dream. 
It's an unfortunate reality. 

If I were in the GOP I'd be embarrassed by the incompetence of the 16 other primary campaigns who failed to uncover this and other damaging audio of Trump. 

The only chance the GOP has to win is if Trump drops out. 

That's not because Trump's past comments are so awful, it's because the 6 corporations who own 90% of the media in America have decided to destroy him and ignore the crimes of his opponent.


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Watching LIVE on Twitter. opcorn
Is everyone here really watching No Mercy instead? :lol


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Donald don't let us down


----------



## JamesCurtis24

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Rofl this answer, what the fuck did it have to do with the question. What was the question? This is politics 101. Brilliant.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump isn't even answering the question. :lol

It is like he is trying to recite all his talking points before he forgets them later on.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't like Trump's opening


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

And right off the bat, Trump agrees with Clinton. This is not a good start. You can't agree with your opponent. Romney did that four years ago and look how that turned out.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump even ticked off freaking Anderson Cooper with his refusal to answer the question.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> And right off the bat, Trump agrees with Clinton. This is not a good start. You can't agree with your opponent. Romney did that four years ago and look how that turned out.


The issue isn't agreeing with Clinton, but not presenting a distinct difference in how to reach the shared values. He just recited all the Breitbart talking points so media friendly towards him can say he brought those things up during the debate.


----------



## Bret Hart

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Why is he sniffing still


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I hate to say it but HRC is very polished at this thing and she is killing Trump right now


----------



## SovereignVA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

"So I turned to her pussy and said, "You're not fired!"" Donald Trump - 2016


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

These moderators will only gain sympathy for Trump with this behaviour. Disgraceful


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:lmao

He really went there. He really brought up Bill in the debate.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

And the Donald is going full blast. Shit is about to get real. Some of Clinton's victims in the audience. This is going to get nasty...get your popcorn ready.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Yes, now he's scoring points and fighting back


----------



## SovereignVA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary is murdering Trump.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Oh yeah HRC, take on those words from a proud American called Moochelle Obama


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is going to attack Michelle Obama now? Is he crazy? :lmao


----------



## Bret Hart

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

I don't know why but I feel like Trump just wants to go up to Hillary and smash the hell out of her :lol


----------



## SovereignVA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

"I'm gonna personally get a prosecutor to look into your situation"

My God :lmao


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump got under her skin with the emails


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary is rattled :mark:


----------



## Lok

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

..becuase you would be in jail!


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Ultimate Warrior said:


> Oh yeah HRC, take on those words from a proud American called Moochelle Obama


The funny thing is the Obamas hate the Clintons partly for the things Trump brought up. Obama himself doesn't want Hillary to pick up the mantle for his agenda.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Lok said:


> ..becuase you would be in jail!


:sodone that wasn't shots fired, that was nukes fired


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Does Hillary not realize how awful her smiling makes her look? So condescending and dishonest . . .


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If Donald is going down he is taking this vile old wrench with him :lmao


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

"Because you'd be in jail."










Trump gives no fucks tonight.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is coming off as a petulant child.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Our country is so fucked omg


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm a gentleman :trump :grin2:


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Trump is coming off as a petulant child.


:heston

this is the :trump that should have shown up for the first fucking debate

take no shit, call these fucks out


----------



## SovereignVA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is always so specific when he's explaining the problem of a situation, but vague when pitching a solution.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump needs to stay on policy now and talk about what he is good at. Business. Hillary crumbled under pressure then and for 5 minutes he fucking mauled her.


----------



## DoubtGin

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

They are both fucking awful.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump needs to drop a DX crotch chop about now.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



SovereignVA said:


> Trump is always so specific when he's explaining the problem of a situation, but vague when pitching a solution.


that's the way they all are, democrats its "tax more and spend more and shit will be great" republicans its "tax less and spend less and shit will be great" until they're in office then they reveal the shitty details of their shitty plans


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> that's the way they all are, democrats its "tax more and spend more and shit will be great" republicans its "tax less and spend less and shit will be great" until they're in office then they reveal the shitty details of their shitty plans


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



SovereignVA said:


> Trump is always so specific when he's explaining the problem of a situation, but vague when pitching a solution.


This isn't limited to Trump, all Politicians do this.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump answer a Muslim question about her concern of being labelled a security threat in her own country by saying Muslims aren't doing enough. :lmao


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Trump answer a Muslim question about her concern of being labelled a security threat in her own country by saying Muslims aren't doing enough. :lmao


He was awful on that question i agree


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Remember everybody, these two are who Americans picked to run for the highest office in the country.fpalm


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Why don't you interrupt her? :lol


----------



## Bret Hart

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Lmao he didn't even answer the Muslim ladies question.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Seems like Trump hasn't sat down since the debate started. He's just lurking around the stage, waiting to strike again.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Clinton shouldn't have brought up the airstrike when bringing up the plight of Syrian refugees. fpalm

America is just as guilty as Russia for many of those atrocities.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

_women and children_ and now _Russian_, here we go


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

A few people have said it already and i have to agree. No matter what the outcome of this election is America is well and truly fucked :lmao


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Clinton shouldn't have brought up the airstrike when bringing up the plight of Syrian refugees. fpalm
> 
> America is just as guilty as Russia for many of those atrocities.


Not to mention her dealings with the Mid East are something.. not very good.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> A few people have said it already and i have to agree. No matter what the outcome of this election is America is well and truly fucked :lmao


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Honest Abe :lmao


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Blaming the Russians for shortcomings fpalm 
Here's her rallying cry for war


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Clinton defence about the leaks is just as bad as Trump's on all his crap. Both can only go on offence to deflect from the issue.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Clinton defence about the leaks is just as bad as Trump's on all his crap. Both can only go on offence to deflect from the issue.


More leaks are coming out for her too, lots on security and other stuff. No idea if it will make a difference but this election has been wonky.


----------



## JamesCurtis24

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Clinton defence about the leaks is just as bad as Trump's on all his crap. Both can only go on offence to deflect from the issue.


Which crap, just to be clear?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



JamesCurtis24 said:


> Which crap, just to be clear?


Not releasing his taxes, the leaked hot mic, birther movement, his business failings bailed out by Daddy.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Both are being intellectually dishonest about economy. Trump attempting to use China's growth target as something comparable to America's and Hillary saying most of the gains from the recovery has gone to the super rich are both wrong.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Ultimate Warrior said:


> Blaming the Russians for shortcomings fpalm
> Here's her rallying cry for war


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is being just as rude as Kaine was in the last debate. You may think Hillary is a lying, crooked bitch, but at least be courteous and let her talk.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

First of all...Russia does not have our best interests at heart. They are not our friend. Putin would prefer to have Trump in the White House because he feels that he can manipulate the relationship between us and the Russkis. 

As for his stance on the Muslim ban to extreme vetting...that is one of the reasons I can't vote for him. I am not against Muslims but I am against illegal immigration. We've heard this time and again. They talk about being tough then always walk it back. Soon they talk amnesty or use the code words. 

Donald Trump is going down that same road. Been there done that.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This debate is like two puber guys fighting "no, you started it"

If anything i think Trump has been better in talk and substance but his confrontational attitude and his stunt at the begining is burrying him


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

HRC surely understands that just saying "he's lying" and generally being dimissive is not a good show to put on


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The lady moderator sounds like she's gonna cry


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

And who are the Syrian rebels, Hillary?


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Screw this, Im going to start my own United States of America. With blackjack...and hookers.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Clinton shouldn't have brought up the airstrike when bringing up the plight of Syrian refugees. fpalm
> 
> America is just as guilty as Russia for many of those atrocities.


That was so dumb and weird. She can also partly be blamed for this because she's known to be a hawk that supports American Imperialist actions. And of course, this isn't even mentioning her support for Israel as well.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

After a great start and nailing her for ten minutes Trump is burying himself now. Very aggressive and continuously interrupting. Every question he is asked he goes off topic. FFS Donald


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Again Trump reminds me of the armchair critic who can find blame in everything on someone else.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Why should the U.S be prepared to attack Assad? Syria, and the talk of using military action needlessly, is a sore point with me


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

fpalm

The moderator's going back and forth against Trump. More fact-checking & grilling for him, yet Hillary's almost left alone. MSM, at least be more discreet with your bias.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump shouldn't pull a Kaine, not saying don't drill her but let her talk, she seems to give away easy things to pick on. Don't be rude though, overly rude regardless of if you're right makes you look bad!


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The moderators are openly debating Trump. It's a 3-on-1 debate and Trump is winning. Remarkable. :done

This is why Trump should win the election. It's time to burn down this rigged system. The elites don't get to fucking decide everything for us.


----------



## SovereignVA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Screw this, Im going to start my own United States of America. With blackjack...and hookers.


Throw in a little Texas Hold Em and I'm there.


----------



## JamesCurtis24

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Holy fuck, that dude's neck/chin is blowing my mind.


----------



## amhlilhaus

CamillePunk said:


> The moderators are openly debating Trump. It's a 3-on-1 debate and Trump is winning. Remarkable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why Trump should win the election. It's time to burn down this rigged system. The elites don't get to fucking decide everything for us.


Actually they do, and theres no way to change it


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Guys, I have a theory why Trump hasn't sat down yet: it's a stamina thing. He's trying to show that he has the stamina to be President while Hillary has to keep sitting down. It's either that or I'm starting to read too deep into this bullshit.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> The moderators are openly debating Trump. It's a 3-on-1 debate and Trump is winning. Remarkable. :done


They are debating Trump because he started attacking them after the first interrumption.

Trump is comming as an attack dog and with the stunt he pulled at the begining he's coming as a douche bag. It doesn't matter if he's winning in policy and now he's mostly rambling, Hillary could be exploting this better but she is not doing anything spectacular either


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> The moderators are openly debating Trump. It's a 3-on-1 debate and Trump is winning. Remarkable. :done
> 
> This is why Trump should win the election. It's time to burn down this rigged system. The elites don't get to fucking decide everything for us.


The moderators are actually doing their job and not letting Trump talk over Hillary, and also making sure he does not run way over his time, and when he says something that is not true, they call him on it.

You are just pissed because they are not letting Trump lie and pull his typical antics.


Also so hey Trump fans, are you going to bash Trump for interrupting Hillary like you did with Kaine last debate?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> The moderators are openly debating Trump. It's a 3-on-1 debate and Trump is winning. Remarkable. :done
> 
> This is why Trump should win the election. It's time to burn down this rigged system. The elites don't get to fucking decide everything for us.


You know Trump is the very definition of "the elite" right? He's a super-wealthy businessman who was born into wealth, he's hardly the "common man..."


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The moderators are actually doing their job and not letting Trump talk over Hillary, and also making sure he does not run way over his time, and when he says something that is not true, they call him on it.
> 
> You are just pissed because they are not letting Trump lie and pull his typical antics.
> 
> 
> Also so hey Trump fans, are you going to bash Trump for interrupting Hillary like you did with Kaine last debate?


I wish they'd fact check her more but what can you expect from CNN?


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Also so hey Trump fans, are you going to bash Trump for interrupting Hillary like you did with Kaine last debate?


Nice of you to drop by, bud. I'm not exactly a Trump fan, but this has already been brought up in the thread:



The Absolute said:


> Trump is being just as rude as Kaine was in the last debate. You may think Hillary is a lying, crooked bitch, but at least be courteous and let her talk.





Miss Sally said:


> Trump shouldn't pull a Kaine, not saying don't drill her but let her talk, she seems to give away easy things to pick on. Don't be rude though, overly rude regardless of if you're right makes you look bad!


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The moderator interrupted Clinton to get more questions from the crowd and somehow Trump can interrupt her interrupting Clinton. fpalm


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> Guys, I have a theory why Trump hasn't sat down yet: it's a stamina thing. He's trying to show that he has the stamina to be President while Hillary has to keep sitting down. It's either that or I'm starting to read too deep into this bullshit.


you're on to something :hmm: 




RavishingRickRules said:


> You know Trump is the very definition of "the elite" right? He's a super-wealthy businessman who was born into wealth, he's hardly the "common man..."


And HRC is collecting foodstamps


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Liberals ITT losing their shit because Trump is wrecking her so bad. :lmao

They thought this shit was over. :lmao


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Liberals ITT losing their shit because Trump is wrecking her so bad. :lmao
> 
> They thought this shit was over. :lmao


Liberals aren't the one picking on the moderators though. :shrug


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> They thought this shit was over. :lmao


You were saying you're not supporting Trump anymore three hours ago......

And is over, both guys are shit, but is over


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Liberals aren't the one picking on the moderators though. :shrug


Picking on them? Pretty sure I said Trump was beating them. :mj Interesting hallucination of what I aid. 



asdf0501 said:


> You were saying you're not supporting Trump anymore three hours ago......
> 
> And is over, both guys are shit, but is over


:mj I can't be seen supporting anyone with sexual assault allegations against them. It's bad for my brand. I did say in that very post I wanted him to win though.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:lmao :lmao :lmao

*KARL BECKER WITH THAT GOAT QUESTION!!!!!!*

:mark: :mark: :mark:


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Ultimate Warrior said:


> And HRC is collecting foodstamps


How does that remotely dispute what I said? So because Hilary is also wealthy that somehow makes Trump no longer one of the elite? Cool story....kay


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The last question! :lmao


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

HRC really pusing her website tonight


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Picking on them? Pretty sure I said Trump was beating them. :mj Interesting hallucination of what I aid.
> 
> :mj I can't be seen supporting anyone with sexual assault allegations against them. It's bad for my brand. I did say in that very post I wanted him to win though.


You seem to have cognitive dissonance. Implying the moderators were ganging up on Trump in a 3 on 1 isn't picking on them? And the other Trump supporter saying the female moderator looked like she was crying isn't picking on them?

You can't even get your position on Trump straight in this reply.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RavishingRickRules said:


> How does that remotely dispute what I said? So because Hilary is also wealthy that somehow makes Trump no longer one of the elite? Cool story....kay


HRC is part of the elite
Thanks for clarifying that 

be balanced next time kay


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> You seem to have cognitive dissonance. Implying the moderators were ganging up on Trump in a 3 on 1 isn't picking on them? And the other Trump supporter saying the female moderator looked like she was crying isn't picking on them?
> 
> You can't even get your position on Trump straight in this reply.


Why are you bringing up something someone else said like it has anything to do with me? :lmao And no pointing out what they're doing isn't picking on them. Fair play to them to fight for what benefits them the most (the establishment remaining in power). 

My position is completely straight. :trump Sorry you can't understand nuance but I don't feel obligated to dumb myself down for you.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I should write-in *KARL BECKER* this November just for the fuck of it.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> P
> *:mj I can't be seen supporting anyone with sexual assault allegations against them. *It's bad for my brand. I did say in that very post I wanted him to win though.


Really? i swear i saw this



CamillePunk said:


> ITT: Geeks who ask women for permission before they go in for the kiss and/or pussy grab aka first base.


Whatever.....

I guess it changes to sexual assault when your candidate start to loose


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> And the other Trump supporter saying the female moderator looked like she was crying isn't picking on them?


I assume this is directed at me. I said the lady moderator (missed her name) _sounded_ like she was crying.

What's wrong with that?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Why are you bringing up something someone else said like it has anything to do with me? :lmao And no pointing out what they're doing isn't picking on them. Fair play to them to fight for what benefits them the most (the establishment remaining in power).
> 
> My position is completely straight. :trump Sorry you can't understand nuances.


Because you said liberals ITT are losing it during the debate when it wasn't the case. :shrug Maybe you expected liberals to gloat like Trump supporters but didn't get it? :shrug

I'm not even a liberal so I don't even know why I'm defending them from your projection. :shrug



The Ultimate Warrior said:


> I assume this is directed at me. I said the lady moderator (missed her name) _sounded_ like she was crying.
> 
> What's wrong with that?


Nothing wrong. Just pointing it out.


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

An infinitely better performance from Trump. He masterfully handled the leaked Access Hollywood tapes; they were an afterthought after the first 10 minutes of the debate.

I think he wrecked her.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Big Salad said:


> An infinitely better performance from Trump. He masterfully handled the leaked Access Hollywood tapes; they were an afterthought after the first 10 minutes of the debate.
> 
> I think he wrecked her.


I thought that was one of the weakest part of the night for Trump. There was just nothing else to hammer him on with that other than he is a sexual predator and his only defence was Bill Clinton! blah blah.

He did much better with regards to hammering Clinton on her foreign policies tonight.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I actually think his transition from the tape to ISIS was great, the problem is, he actually used the clinton girls to political adventage. Then he claims he's not a politician.

It was awful in general both were rambling for the most part


----------



## Pure_Dynamite12

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump went all Lesnar on the Soros-bot tonight.

MAGA


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> I actually think his transition from the tape to ISIS was great, the problem is, he actually used the clinton girls to political adventage. Then he claims he's not a politician.
> 
> It was awful in general both were rambling for the most part


I think I pointed out he was simply putting all his talking points in the beginning and wasn't answering anything about it. He got better as the debate went on as other topics were brought up.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Darrell Castle is my candidate and I have no dog in this fight, but Trump truly delivered a master class performance tonight when you consider the week he had and how the moderators quickly showed their obvious bias. The Clintons may have made a huge mistake leaking the Billy Bush tape (although we'll see what else they have up their sleeves), as Trump's gloves have come off and the general is now placed firmly in the muck - where Trump excels. No longer is Trump going to restrain himself out of respect for Chelsea Clinton. Meanwhile, the Clintons are going to have to throw out some strong oppo fast to recover from this devastating defeat. If you thought this election was filthy and embarrassing now, just wait. :lol

Regardless of who wins, one thing is clear: The government will have less credibility than ever before. How does that make me feel as an anarchist? Well...

:heston

(although I'd obviously prefer the guy who doesn't want to go to war with Russia wins because I don't want everyone I love dying in a nuclear apocalypse etc)


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/785312133055705088
pundits are really awful, in general


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Raddatz and Anderson being biased? LOL, I hate cooper so much. As for Trump if they bring up the tape again I'd be like "I apologized for that, it was something stupid to say and I only hope the media is as forgiving to me as they and the FBI are to Bill and Hillary's scandals. "


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The media forgiving of Bill and Hillary's scandals? What world are you living in?


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

After that I think maybe I should've watched No Mercy instead...

Fuck, that was tiresome. Trump is just a broken record at this point and really has nothing new to add. He also came off as a pompous jackass but that's par for the course. 

Him and his supporters will claim victory when it was only a victory for them in their minds. A true victory is Trump swaying the undecideds, not rallying his troops, and I highly doubt that he did with his bully schtick and especially not after his character assassination (as if he needed one) in recent days on him being outed as someone who has no problem with sexually assaulting women. 

The media has it right. He merely survived. He didn't gain any traction. Still spinning the tires but he didn't fall into the ravine so supporters are all like "HE WON!" :lol 

The biggest loser was me wasting my time on that shit. With all Trump's deflections and double talk and going on off topic rants, we got less into the issues we need to be talking about. Trump is sabotaging the whole thing and that's really the only strategy he has at this point. 

Whenever Hillary spoke, my brain could breathe again. 
I bet she's going to have the worst migraine tonight.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*THE DEBATES ROUND TWO*:



> Hillary Clinton makes promises and changes on many issues for YEARS she should've done already.
> 
> Hillary acting phony by being all positive was vomit inducing.
> 
> Anderson Cooper demonizing Donald Trump right off the bat instead of focusing on more important issues. This was character assassination at its finest.
> 
> Donald said those inappropriate things 11 years ago, not yesterday.
> 
> Hillary lied to black voters. She did before and she's going to do it again.
> 
> The CNN moderators did everything they could to bury Donald Trump in the first half hour.
> 
> I believe the accusations that Bill Clinton is a rapist. There's a video you can look up of him trying to grope a woman's vagina.
> 
> Have you ever apologized to everybody you know? No? Okay then.
> 
> Trump getting a special lawyer to investigate Clinton's crimes was a great idea.
> 
> Because "you'd be in jail" was the zinger of the night! *OWNED!!! * :lol
> 
> CNN trying to control the crowd was a joke. That's how a socialist government operates.
> 
> Donald was composed for as long as he could. I don't blame him for losing it as the bias against him continued.
> 
> Obamacare is a joke. Insurance premiums skyrocketed so people can't afford it then Americans who can't afford it get fined. People would rather pay the fine because its cheaper than the Not Affordable Care Act. Repealed or not, this shit needs to be fixed ASAP.
> 
> Electing Hillary is basically a 3rd Obama term.
> 
> Anderson was interrupting in this debate more than Donald Trump was in the last one!!!
> 
> I love whenever Donald said "Excuse me." out of the countless times he was getting interrupted. Let him finish!
> 
> A lot of the recent terrorist acts were committed by radical Muslims. Safety for Americans comes first. You can't just let everybody into this country. That's why we have rules and regulations on immigrantion.
> 
> Newsflash for Hillary. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it include the words "Jesus", "Christianity" or the "Bible."
> 
> Credit to CNN for cutting Hillary's time and bringing up Wikileaks on being her being pro-banks to at least give the illusion they were being unbiased.
> 
> Hillary bringing up his tax returns again. YAWN!
> 
> Donald saying Hillary was blaming Abraham Lincoln was also a great moment.
> 
> Donald made a great point about Hillary's obsession with Russia. I thought she said she was great at foreign policy?
> 
> Hillary and her rich friends (appreciated the name drop of that rich scumbag George Soros who's been funding Black Lives Matter) benefited from the same legal tax loopholes.
> 
> Hillary kept going over the two minute time limits.
> 
> Hillary was an ineffective politician in her political career after leaving the White House. I don't see many accomplishments from her.
> 
> Donald pointing out CNN being biased was great since the media is dishonest to remind voters.
> 
> Hillary calling voters deplorables. She's no better than Trump who she kept calling racist and sexist.
> 
> Ludicrous accusation from Hillary on Trump buying illegal steel from China.
> 
> I laughed my ass off when Hillary said she respected gun owners.
> 
> Loved the respect question at the end.
> 
> Kudos to Donald for putting up a fight tonight, but he was getting ganged up on. Hillary made a bigger ass out of herself tonight, period.


- Vic


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/785311438726397956
This election is over.

Trump wins.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> The media forgiving of Bill and Hillary's scandals? What world are you living in?


The one where Bill Clinton could possibly wind up back in the White House.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ManiacMichaelMyers said:


> A true victory is Trump swaying the undecideds, not rallying his troops,


He might not have changed the minds of the undecideds to vote for him but he certainty swayed there minds to not vote for Hillary


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> The one where Bill Clinton could possibly wind up back in the White House.


And the media still talk about his 2-3 decades old scandals in 2016.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Interesting tidbit...Billy Bush is the nephew of former president George Bush 41. Perhaps the leak was deliberate to defend the honor of the Bush family? 

At any rate...tonight was an example of how our country is going down the shitter. They were far more interested in flinging shit at each other then they were truly debating the issues that face our country. Meanwhile, Trump throws his VP candidate under the bus in talking about how to handle the situation in Syria. Again...Trump doesn't give a shit about this country anymore than HRC does. They are both about their brand names and their brand names only. 

So now...what happens on Monday when Paul Ryan meets with the GOP rank and file. Do they keep Trump? Do they send him on his way? Will be interesting.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Interesting tidbit...Billy Bush is the nephew of former president George Bush 41. Perhaps the leak was deliberate to defend the honor of the Bush family?
> 
> At any rate...tonight was an example of how our country is going down the shitter. They were far more interested in flinging shit at each other then they were truly debating the issues that face our country. Meanwhile, Trump throws his VP candidate under the bus in talking about how to handle the situation in Syria. Again...Trump doesn't give a shit about this country anymore than HRC does. They are both about their brand names and their brand names only.
> 
> So now...what happens on Monday when Paul Ryan meets with the GOP rank and file. Do they keep Trump? Do they send him on his way? Will be interesting.


Im sorry you see it that way. I thought Trump Dominated the first hour at least.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The Trump tape is as much fair game as Bill's whoring around. Neither one should be brought up again because I would like to see a clean race above the belt where both campaigns talk about the issues between now & election day. But if the media & the Clintons keep harping on Trump's tape (and I'm sure they probably will), Trump has no choice but to keep exploiting Bill's victims for his own political benefit.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> So now...what happens on Monday when Paul Ryan meets with the GOP rank and file.


The joke will be on the Republican Party if Trumps wins the election.




> The Trump tape is as much fair game as Bill's whoring around. Neither one should be brought up again because I would like to see a clean race above the belt where both campaigns talk about the issues between now & election day. But if the media & the Clintons keep harping on Trump's tape (and I'm sure they probably will), Trump has no choice but to keep exploiting Bill's victims for his own political benefit.


Agreed. Trump had no choice, but to pull out his ace card since this was basically Handicap Match for him. They would've been talking about the Access Hollywood leak and his tax returns for the entire 90 minutes if he didn't.

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> The Trump tape is as much fair game as Bill's whoring around. Neither one should be brought up again because I would like to see a clean race above the belt where both campaigns talk about the issues between now & election day. But if the media & the Clintons keep harping on Trump's tape (and I'm sure they probably will), Trump has no choice but to keep exploiting Bill's victims for his own political benefit.


I don't know how attacking Hillary on Bill's infidelity is really going to help. People often side with the party that was cheated on. It is preaching to the choir of his already dedicated base. They aren't abandoning Trump even though the GOP elites are starting to.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> So now...what happens on Monday when Paul Ryan meets with the GOP rank and file. Do they keep Trump? Do they send him on his way? Will be interesting.


Paul Ryan is in the shitter now.

The race is over, yes Trump railed his base today but he's not wining undecided and women with this. But the perception of comeback from the media will stop the bleeding. Ryan and the RNC can stop supporting Trump and, more importantly, focus money on downtickets instead of using it in the defficient ground game of Trump, i think they want to prevent not only giving Hillary the presidency but the House and the senate aswell.

But at doing so they're loosing Trump's base who still think they can win after today and at doing so they're giving fuel to the perception of "elites who fuck over outsiders". He also has to deal with the turmoil of the guys who throw the support for Trump out of the window.

Whatever happen is a loose situation for them, and i think the GOP is pretty cose to a drift


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*CNN dedicated an article to Charlamagne for giving Donald Trump Donkey of The Day a half a dozen times :lmao* http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/07/polit...-gets-political-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/


----------



## Achilles

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump with that clean win over all three of his opponents tonight. :trump


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Interesting tidbit...Billy Bush is the nephew of former president George Bush 41. Perhaps the leak was deliberate to defend the honor of the Bush family?
> 
> At any rate...tonight was an example of how our country is going down the shitter. They were far more interested in flinging shit at each other then they were truly debating the issues that face our country. Meanwhile, Trump throws his VP candidate under the bus in talking about how to handle the situation in Syria. Again...Trump doesn't give a shit about this country anymore than HRC does. They are both about their brand names and their brand names only.
> 
> So now...what happens on Monday when Paul Ryan meets with the GOP rank and file. Do they keep Trump? Do they send him on his way? Will be interesting.


Why don't you try being specific about what he "threw Pence under the bus" about? Pence said he would consider attacks on Assad's forces. Trump's position has always been against regime change. Should Trump have changed his position to be more interventionist for the sake of making Pence look good? Obviously not. What did he say? "We haven't spoken about it, I disagree". OH MAN, HOW WILL PENCE EVER RECOVER? fpalm 

Good on Trump for standing firm AGAINST the type of interventions and regime changes that have decimated the middle east and cost countless lives.


FriedTofu said:


> And the media still talk about his 2-3 decades old scandals in 2016.


Mainly when Trump is bringing it up, but why shouldn't they be talking about it? His wife is running for president and Bill Clinton could end up back in the White House. It's hugely relevant.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> The joke will be on the Republican Party if Trumps wins the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Trump had no choice, but to pull out his ace card since this was basically Handicap Match for him. They would've been talking about the Access Hollywood leak and his tax returns for the entire 90 minutes if he didn't.
> 
> - Vic


Trump has pretty much hinted that he is going after anyone who has dumped him. He's pretty much throwing gasoline on the GOP and is ready to set the sumbitch on fire. Personally, I think that it is a great thing for the GOP to finally wake up and see what this party has become. When you have not done shit to solve the problems in this country, this is what they deserve. If the GOP can't do that, then it's time to kill the party and start over. 



The Absolute said:


> The Trump tape is as much fair game as Bill's whoring around. Neither one should be brought up again because I would like to see a clean race above the belt where both campaigns talk about the issues between now & election day. But if the media & the Clintons keep harping on Trump's tape (and I'm sure they probably will), Trump has no choice but to keep exploiting Bill's victims for his own political benefit.


In a perfect world, it would happen. However, the media is going to run this thing out there and give it as much juice as it can. Trump is prepared to take as many people as possible down with him as possible.



Beatles123 said:


> Im sorry you see it that way. I thought Trump Dominated the first hour at least.


Here's the long answer on where you are fairly sure by now I've decided on in regards to whether I am voting for Trump or not. 

http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anyth...-2016-discussion-thread-793.html#post63136313

If you don't want to read it (but I hope you do as you can see it had nothing to do with the tapes), I have decided that to vote for this man goes against my conservative principles. He is every bit as progressive/liberal as Clinton and will continue to use big government solutions for the most part to try to solve our problems. Not to mention the fact he has started to walk back on his ban on Muslim immigration and turned it into extreme vetting. I'm not anti-Muslim...I'm anti-immigration. Seen this play out to where they talk tough on immigration, and then it eventually becomes amnesty. He is heading down that road...I am not going for that. I said that would be a dealbreaker...so that and other things finally led me to say there is no way I'm going to vote for him. 

The Trump fans have it all wrong, you have been fooled by a snake oil salesman. He is no better than Hillary Clinton and many of his stances are liberal (I have laid them out here in the past, will not rehash them). I've decided that if this is what the country wants, then there are many conservatives like me that are going to just get out of the way and let this nation suffer the consequences of their choices. When you're seriously ready to have a candidate that adheres to the principles of the Constitution and limited government and is ready to put America first and not their own brand, I'm here. Until then...I'm eating my popcorn and watching the fuckery push this nation over the cliff.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> The Trump fans have it all wrong, you have been fooled by a snake oil salesman. He is no better than Hillary Clinton and many of his stances are liberal (I have laid them out here in the past, will not rehash them). I've decided that if this is what the country wants, then there are many conservatives like me that are going to just get out of the way and let this nation suffer the consequences of their choices. *When you're seriously ready to have a candidate that adheres to the principles of the Constitution and limited government and is ready to put America first and not their own brand, I'm here.* Until then...I'm eating my popcorn and watching the fuckery push this nation over the cliff.


Sorry, you're far too interventionist for my taste. I'd rather have Trump. (And especially Darrell Castle, who is my candidate) He's less likely to start World War III than you.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Why don't you try being specific about what he "threw Pence under the bus" about? Pence said he would consider attacks on Assad's forces. Trump's position has always been against regime change. Should Trump have changed his position to be more interventionist for the sake of making Pence look good? Obviously not. What did he say? "We haven't spoken about it, I disagree". OH MAN, HOW WILL PENCE EVER RECOVER? fpalm
> 
> Good on Trump for standing firm AGAINST the type of interventions and regime changes that have decimated the middle east and cost countless lives.


How about actually talking to your VP candidate and making sure your messages are consistent? I know that the supervisors that work under me and I are on the same page when it comes to addressing things with the worker bees. I'm sure as hell not going to embarrass my people in front of others, and sure as hell aren't going to do it on national TV. 

Besides...Trump gave no answer on how he's going to take the fight to ISIS, especially considering Syria, Russia, and Iran hate us and want us nowhere near the battlegrounds. Which means, just like his walking back on vetting of Muslims from danger areas, he's going to not take the fight to ISIS either. He's all hot air and no action.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Tears, man. Tears.

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> How about actually talking to your VP candidate and making sure your messages are consistent? I know that the supervisors that work under me and I are on the same page when it comes to addressing things with the worker bees. I'm sure as hell not going to embarrass my people in front of others, and sure as hell aren't going to do it on national TV.


You're making a mountain out of a molehill here and I think you know that as that's been your MO this entire election, so there's not much point in discussing it further. 



> Besides...Trump gave no answer on how he's going to take the fight to ISIS, especially considering Syria, Russia, and Iran hate us and want us nowhere near the battlegrounds. Which means, just like his walking back on vetting of Muslims from danger areas, he's going to not take the fight to ISIS either. He's all hot air and no action.


Pointing out that Syria and Russia don't want us anywhere near the battleground is kind of irrelevant when you're talking about a new president who is clearly of a different mind of and very critical of the current president. Besides from that obvious fact (that you don't bring up on purpose, despite being smart enough to understand it), would it really be so bad to let Russia and Syria take care of ISIS for us? Why do we have to be the ones to do it? What would be wrong with dumping the middle east on Russia and focusing on our own country? Didn't you just say you would be all about "America first"?


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Sean Hannity has managed to find the only British politician who has publicly supported Trump in Nigel Farage and get him on his show :lmao

If only all media were as neutral and non bias as good old Sean 

:duck


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Mainly when Trump is bringing it up, but why shouldn't they be talking about it? His wife is running for president and Bill Clinton could end up back in the White House. It's hugely relevant.


Which counters the point that the media is forgiving of them. These scandals have been covered ad nauseam for 20 years, even before Trump's campaign.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> You're making a mountain out of a molehill here and I think you know that as that's been your MO this entire election, so there's not much point in discussing it further.
> 
> Pointing out that Syria and Russia don't want us anywhere near the battleground is kind of irrelevant when you're talking about a new president who is clearly of a different mind of and very critical of the current president. Besides from that obvious fact (that you don't bring up on purpose, despite being smart enough to understand it), would it really be so bad to let Russia and Syria take care of ISIS for us? Why do we have to be the ones to do it? What would be wrong with dumping the middle east on Russia and focusing on our own country? Didn't you just say you would be all about "America first"?


Even when you have dumped the Donald, you continue to use the same liberal smear tactics that many of the Trumpamaniacs use. At least I stuck to my principles and saw through the facade, I won't apologize for that. The Trump fans are so blinded by devotion to their god that they don't see he is no better than Hillary Clinton and every bit the demagogue. 

Breaking news...Russia and Syria are far more concerned with crushing the other rebel groups that are trying to overthrow Assad and his government then they are about ISIS. That's reality. Putin is not there to fill Syria with cupcakes, puppies, and rainbows. Assad is far more concerned with saving his own ass then dealing with the Islamic State. Meanwhile, Trump talks a big game, but I don't care about talk at this point. I want shit to get done. Don't tell me what you're going to do about ISIS, etc...I want to see you do it. Trump is no different than Obama in the regard is all they do is talk. If you're going to act, then do it. Otherwise, shut up and just hope ISIS doesn't show up at our doorstep with a 9/11-type attack.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Ugh. Bruiser, stop...:fpalm those reasons are weaksauce.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Ultimate Warrior said:


> HRC is part of the elite
> Thanks for clarifying that
> 
> be balanced next time kay


I think you're maybe a bit backwards or something? I dunno, but I was responding to somebody who was saying a vote for Trump was a vote preventing the elite from running everything. Are you seriously this dense or do you have to work at it?


----------



## RabbitHole

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



birthday_massacre said:


> It won't work based on what? The fact is when people have more disposable income they spend that money and that stimulates the economy and that is what creates MORE jobs. That is what works.
> 
> You don't even have anything to back up it won't work. I totally destroyed your thing about oh things will go up a few cents. You didn't even answer my question.
> 
> I will ask again.
> 
> would you rather make $8 an hour and pay 1.29 for a hamburger
> OR
> make $15 an hour and pay 1.50 for the same hamburger?


Minimum wage companies do an ROI on labor. If it is cheaper to pay people, they will do that. If people get too expensive, they will automate. Obviously this doesn't work for everything, but there won't be counter people at $15 an hour.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Haven't watched the debate yet, my Dad is visiting town so we're gonna watch it together tonight, he's a huge Trump fan so should be fun.

On a related note here are two Australian senators arguing about Trump while walking through the halls of the senate http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...-clash-over-trump-in-parliament-house-hallway


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Even when you have dumped the Donald, you continue to use the same liberal smear tactics that many of the Trumpamaniacs use. At least I stuck to my principles and saw through the facade, I won't apologize for that. The Trump fans are so blinded by devotion to their god that they don't see he is no better than Hillary Clinton and every bit the demagogue.


What liberal smear tactics? You wanted to convince us that Trump had "thrown Pence under the bus" by simply saying they disagree on something and then immediately moving on from it. That doesn't pass anyone's smell test, sorry. 



> Breaking news...Russia and Syria are far more concerned with crushing the other rebel groups that are trying to overthrow Assad and his government then they are about ISIS. That's reality. Putin is not there to fill Syria with cupcakes, puppies, and rainbows. Assad is far more concerned with saving his own ass then dealing with the Islamic State. *Meanwhile, Trump talks a big game, but I don't care about talk at this point. I want shit to get done. Don't tell me what you're going to do about ISIS, etc...I want to see you do it. *Trump is no different than Obama in the regard is all they do is talk. If you're going to act, then do it. Otherwise, shut up and just hope ISIS doesn't show up at our doorstep with a 9/11-type attack.


What the fuck? :lmao You just fucking criticized him for not talking about what he's going to do about ISIS and now you're saying you DON'T want him to tell you what he's going to do about ISIS?! Will you please make up your mind?! :lol

What is he supposed to do about ISIS as a candidate? He has no power to do anything about them right now. What an insane post by you, completely contradicting your previous post. Get a hold of yourself, Bruiser.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Ugh. Bruiser, stop...:fpalm those reasons are weaksauce.


No, my reasons are not weaksauce...but in your mind they are because I'm not drinking the Trump Kool-Aid. I gave the man a chance to show that he was deserving of my vote. I will not just blindly give my vote to someone or devotedly walk on water for any candidate to the ends of the earth. If I feel they are deserving of my vote, I give them my vote. If not, I don't. Maybe if enough people stopped kissing his ass every 20 seconds he might actually have some principles. He isn't immoral, but he is amoral. He has no principles or standards, just whatever he likes that people want to hear. 

This man is ready to throw at us federally subsidized child care among other of the typical socialist goodies that the Democrats want to throw at the poor for their votes. He is in favor of the "No Fly, No Buy" policy, which is a violation of our civil rights as people that are unfairly put on the No Fly List aren't given the proper channels to appeal that decision and are not allowed to conduct certain transactions. He would reinstate the Patriot Act and the NSA would have control over our phone records again. Liberal stances all. 

This is not about two opponents with clear cut choices. We are looking at two people cut from the same cloth. Plus, if Hillary is so evil, why did Donald Trump be willing to donate to her all these years to her campaigns and the Clinton Foundation? 

If this all offends you that I dare to spit upon the memorial to the mighty Donald...well, maybe it's time someone spoke the truth and be the adult in the room. I feel sorry for you, dude...you have been duped and the wool is so far over your eyes you can knit a sweater out of it.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Bruiser you just literally criticized Trump for not talking about ISIS and then demanded that he not talk about ISIS. Trump can't win with you. It's time to stop posting.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Christ mate did you really just say Trump needs to take action against ISIS instead of talk?

He is not President yet whew lad.

Should he spend his own billions to hire private mercs to defeat ISIS?


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Bruiser you just literally criticized Trump for not talking about ISIS and then demanded that he not talk about ISIS. Trump can't win with you. It's time to stop posting.


BTW...considering the fact you dumped Trump for the tapes when there are a lot worse reasons to dump him means you have absolutely zero credibility on the matter. 

What I am saying is that he has talked for months about taking on ISIS...I want action done. If someone comes to me and says they have a great plan, don't talk about it. Put the plan into action. Words mean little to me, I prefer actions. Trump talks a big game, but won't follow through. Just like he's walking back his immigration stances, etc. 

I've said all I need to say on the matter, so at this point I will go ahead and exit the thread for now. But, I had a sneaking suspicion all along that he would go down this path. I was right.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I think you're maybe a bit backwards or something? I dunno, but I was responding to somebody who was saying a vote for Trump was a vote preventing the elite from running everything. Are you seriously this dense or do you have to work at it?


You were so happy to respond to someone with the fact Donald was born into wealth and is far from the "common man". Fine. I merely pointed out that you did not mention Hillary, who is far from poor. I see what you were trying to do. 

Lots of anti-Trump posters in the thread but at least they don't get their panties in a twist because someone simply responds to them or disagrees with them.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm with Brusier in that a forgien policy is main concern and right now and its Trump's weakest area

Its full of maybes and mights with insults to allies and complements to enemies 

Hillary may be a hawk but she is drawing a clear line of "this is where our values are and this the exceptions we have set, you will not be a friend of the US if you violate them." where as Trump's about giving up some of America's closest as a payment to Russia, China and Iran and hoping to "outsource" the US's military to them in exchange for influence that they might not even give 

All I see is Neville Chamberlain


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary taking jabs at Russia like she wants to start WW3.

If Assad is gone who takes his place btw? It will be another open vacuum with more terrorist groups taking place or a fight for it by Russia and the U.S which could lead to war.

Hillary already toppled Gaddafi with no plan and destroyed Libya. Letting ISIS spread to a new continent good job.

And Trumps plan of extreme vetting, secure boarders, and no refugees is sure a hell of a better plan than lets kill another bad leader and let worse people take his place.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Ultimate Warrior said:


> You were so happy to respond to someone with the fact Donald was born into wealth and is far from the "common man". Fine. I merely pointed out that you did not mention Hillary, who is far from poor. I see what you were trying to do.
> 
> Lots of anti-Trump posters in the thread but at least they don't get their panties in a twist because someone simply responds to them or disagrees with them.


No actually, I think you're just being over-defensive to hell, I'm neither for Hillary or Trump. I was simply pointing out that if someone is voting for Donald as an "anti-elite" candidate they're being a bit off-base. Stop thinking everything is a huge conspiracy of "anti-Trump posters," how batshit are you people?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> BTW...considering the fact you dumped Trump for the tapes when there are a lot worse reasons to dump him means you have absolutely zero credibility on the matter.


Show me where I dumped Trump for tapes. Pure hallucination on your part. I don't care about the taped conversation at all. I just don't want to associate myself with candidates who have sexual assault allegations against them as it's bad for my brand, as a professional in a liberal state. He's also talked about executing Edward Snowden, and so I can't support his candidacy as I don't want Snowden's blood on my hands. That's why Darrell Castle is my guy. I'd still like for Trump to win though, for reasons I've stated. Don't call me a supporter though. I'm Team Castle all the way. 



> What I am saying is that he has talked for months about taking on ISIS...I want action done. If someone comes to me and says they have a great plan, don't talk about it. Put the plan into action. Words mean little to me, I prefer actions. Trump talks a big game, but won't follow through. Just like he's walking back his immigration stances, etc.


HE'S NOT PRESIDENT YET AND LITERALLY CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH THE MILITARY AS A CANDIDATE. The rest is just you pretending you can predict the future.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Voting for someone because they are "anti-establishment" or "anti-elite" is as dumb as voting because of someones gender or race 

If someone is anti-elite because they feel that the rich have made deals with Satan and we need to get god on our side would he be some great candidate?

Just because someone is preaching your brand of bullshit does not make it not bullshit


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

LOL CNN caught on hot mic coaching their " independent panel ". So corrupt and biased!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqCIub3SmCI


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CenaBoy4Life said:


> LOL CNN caught on hot mic coaching their " independent panel ". So corrupt and biased!
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqCIub3SmCI


CNN is worse than Fox News now, they're on TYT level.


Why do people still want the US to keep fucking with the Mid East? Wasn't Libya, Iraq, Afgan and Syria enough? How much more blood do you people want? How many more drone strikes are enough until the blood lust is sated? We have problems at home with Cartels and terrorists trying to sneak in. We're bringing in people who we know we cannot vet. Why are we so obsessed with playing world police until it drains us dry? 

All china and russia have to do is let the US tire itself on fighting pointless wars and funneling terrorists to us. All they have to do is watch because endless wars and mass immigration is not sustainable at all.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The moderators interrupted 42 times, compared to Trump's 19.

- Vic


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CenaBoy4Life said:


> LOL CNN caught on hot mic coaching their " independent panel ". So corrupt and biased!
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqCIub3SmCI


:ha

Surely this sort of stuff does not surprise anybody though

CNN are notorious dirtbags. At least Fox dont try to hide the fact that they favour the Republicans


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump supporters trying to blame CNN now. Classic. It's everyones fault but Donalds that everyone is seeing through his horseshit lies and sexism. Donny is done folks. Just a matter of time now.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> Trump supporters trying to blame CNN now. Classic. It's everyones fault but Donalds that everyone is seeing through his horseshit lies and sexism. Donny is done folks. Just a matter of time now.
> 
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html


CNN has been caught doing stupid shit already a few times and not just with Trump. CNN as a whole sans the Trump stuff has dropped below Fox levels.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@DesolationRow @L-DOPA 

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151599421561/quick-debate-reactions-from-switzerland

Scott Adams chimes in again with a rapid reaction to the debate. Like myself, Scott Adams saw tonight as a huge victory for Trump. He gives his analysis of the debate through the persuasion filter. 

He also goes on to discuss how great Switzerland (where he is currently visiting) is. Switzerland has for a while now been my dream locale. It'd be awesome if I could one day qualify to immigrate there.


In other news, Frank Lutz's focus group had Trump winning the debate big league:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/785311438726397956


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @L-DOPA
> 
> http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151599421561/quick-debate-reactions-from-switzerland
> 
> Scott Adams chimes in again with a rapid reaction to the debate. Like myself, Scott Adams saw tonight as a huge victory for Trump. He gives his analysis of the debate through the persuasion filter.
> 
> He also goes on to discuss how great Switzerland (where he is currently visiting) is. Switzerland has for a while now been my dream locale. It'd be awesome if I could one day qualify to immigrate there.
> 
> 
> In other news, Frank Lutz's focus group had Trump winning the debate big league:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/785311438726397956


Say you're from Syria and that you need a place to go, seems to have worked for a few million people last year.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> CNN has been caught doing stupid shit already a few times and not just with Trump. CNN as a whole sans the Trump stuff has dropped below Fox levels.


Doesn't matter what CNN does. Donalds done enough on his own to lose the election. This sucker is OVER.


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Dead. :lol :faint: 









TRUMP: "I have great respect for women. Nobody has more respect for women than I do."

_It shows Donald, it shows and everyone believes you...everyone that has a Trump sign in their front lawn._


----------



## Stipe Tapped

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Just watching the debate now. Trump is eviscerating the old hag so far.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Much better performance from Trump than last time, and a couple of mistakes from Hilary but nothing major, don't see this turning the election around.

Trump's "I know nothing about Russia" will be a nice soundbite for attack ads going in to the next month too. 

His performance will go down great with his base but I'll be surprised if it has a major effect on the people he needs at this point


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KingCosmos said:


> My faith in humanity is lost, Just look at all the people in this thread arguing over Trump and Hilary. It's primitive thinking like that which holds humans back from achieving greatness. Fuck i wonder if 200 years from now they will look at us like blubbering retards or if we will still be in the same position with trivial bullshit like this. Seeing the idiots at Trump or Hilary rallies honestly baffles and i can't fathom how a modern human's are so idiotic. It's like now a days rational thought and philosophy have become rarities for the population


Intelligence quotient tests are not encouraging; average IQ globally keeps slowly but inexorably moving downward over the past couple of decades. 



CamillePunk said:


> The moderators are openly debating Trump. It's a 3-on-1 debate and Trump is winning. Remarkable. :done
> 
> This is why Trump should win the election. It's time to burn down this rigged system.


Affirmative. 



The Absolute said:


> Guys, I have a theory why Trump hasn't sat down yet: it's a stamina thing. He's trying to show that he has the stamina to be President while Hillary has to keep sitting down. It's either that or I'm starting to read too deep into this bullshit.


This seems accurate to me. 

The debates featuring candidates standing behind podiums have always seemed too restrictive for Donald Trump. He likes to move around and engage people, which this debate's format gave him ample opportunity to. He was ostensibly more in his element, as it were. 

He dominated the venue, optically, and the dialogue, audibly. It was an edge as far as this debate was concerned. 



Plato said:


> Trump with that clean win over all three of his opponents tonight. :trump


:lol



Vic Capri said:


> Tears, man. Tears.
> 
> - Vic


:mark: :mark: :mark: :banderas



stevefox1200 said:


> All I see is Neville Chamberlain


Neville Chamberlain was not a guiltless man but the bogeyman caricature made out of him has been a devastating misreading of both the man and his time throughout the latter half of the twentieth century all the way to today. Chamberlain considered himself a fierce democrat who felt bound by the realities of Great Britain's democracy. The overwhelming majority of Britons had no interest in going to war in 1938 only twenty years after a terrible war that had already wounded the empire had concluded with approximately 700,000-750,000 British men killed in it. 

American and British liberals alike recognized that the peace established by Versailles was absurd and unjust. Seeking to enforce the conditions of it in the face of overwhelming animus toward the very idea of conflict running through massive majorities was politically untenable. The Tory government concurred with the liberals; a terrible wrong had been committed against the approximately 3.25-million Bohemian Sudetenland Germans living in Czechoslovakia under Prague, along with the 2.5 million Slovaks, 800,000 Hungarians, 500,000 Ukrainians and roughly 150,000-160,000 Poles. The vote of the Saar Plebiscite through referenda on the territorial status was held in mid-January 1935, with a little over 90% of voters opting for complete reunification with Germany, and only 9% voting for the _status quo_ of the League of Nations mandate territory, and Austria's annexation, the majority of Sudeten Germans pestered Prague--and Berlin--while clamoring for the annexation of the territories stripped away from Germany to be annexed by the Germans. 

Americans, Britons, Frenchmen... Only a microscopically tiny sliver of each respective population would have supported even the mildest threat of military action against Germany at the time of Munich. 

Not terribly unlike how the overwhelming majority of Americans, fed up with fifteen years of hopeless war, the end result appears to be the mass acceptance of populations who, rather than being vetted, according to customs agents with whom I have spoken, merely have a single State Department-issued stationary with their birthdate and home city and country upon it, are not in any way interested in seeing ground troops in Syria. Which is why even über-hawk Hillary Clinton cannot say she supports U.S. ground troops in Syria. Only special forces, CIA operatives, assistants, trainers, etc. 

Of course, as noted in an earlier post here, with the demographical alterations to the U.S. electorate continuing to proceed at a startling clip, it probably will not matter if Hillary Clinton sends U.S. ground troops into Syria during her first term. In 2020 the Republican Party will run the sweetest, gentlest, kindest, most pro-immigration, pro-Mexican, pro-Muslim candidate in history, and Hillary will still win the presidency in a walk. 



CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @L-DOPA
> 
> http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151599421561/quick-debate-reactions-from-switzerland
> 
> Scott Adams chimes in again with a rapid reaction to the debate. Like myself, Scott Adams saw tonight as a huge victory for Trump. He gives his analysis of the debate through the persuasion filter.
> 
> He also goes on to discuss how great Switzerland (where he is currently visiting) is. Switzerland has for a while now been my dream locale. It'd be awesome if I could one day qualify to immigrate there.


Entirely fascinating. Scott Adams's points here are difficult to argue with, as I too thought Donald Trump was generally far, far stronger than in his first debate performance and, on the whole, won this debate.

Granted, I do not believe that these debates matter nearly as much as many (notably most Trump fans) would like them to, and it is not as though Trump has ceased being a problematic debater in myriad ways. It's just that Hillary is such a terribly vacuous presence. Her complete, utter lack of a defense on the tens of thousands of emails deleted was probably the single most telling moment of the entire debate. She has no defense. When Trump threatens her with images of a special prosecutor, all he is doing is foretelling the obvious future. 

So, Trump won the night but it's difficult to gauge how much that will help him out. The RNC is endeavoring to funnel most of the money earmarked for Trump to down-ticket races so a power struggle seems inevitable. In less than three hours Republicans in the House of Representatives will be holding a conference call. 

It is quite possible that Donald Trump is in the process of doing just well enough to doom the Republican Party on election day. 

Not often does one get to watch a political party perish. The GOP, for years, seemed ripe to simply slowly lose relevance as the U.S. electorate's makeup continued to change, but perhaps Trump is doing the Republicans a huge favor: trading agonizing, decades-spanning torture with a golden-haired, ill-tempered, hilariously egotistical .45 ACP shot to the head.


----------



## Alco

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> CNN is worse than Fox News now, they're on TYT level.
> 
> 
> Why do people still want the US to keep fucking with the Mid East? Wasn't Libya, Iraq, Afgan and Syria enough? How much more blood do you people want? How many more drone strikes are enough until the blood lust is sated? We have problems at home with Cartels and terrorists trying to sneak in. We're bringing in people who we know we cannot vet. Why are we so obsessed with playing world police until it drains us dry?
> 
> All china and russia have to do is let the US tire itself on fighting pointless wars and funneling terrorists to us. All they have to do is watch because endless wars and mass immigration is not sustainable at all.


Intervening in other places of the world is always driven by a national agenda. US interventions in the Middle-East, while ineffective, are not at all pointless. They serve, at least in the minds of American policy makers, to increase national security (and influence, obviously, in that region). And don't think Russia doesn't have issues with terrorism in their country, because they certainly do. 

Secondly, there's a clear reason why terrorists choose Western targets and not Russia, China or other. Actually the vast majority of casualties by terrorist attacks is made in the Middle-East itself, but that's not the point here. My point is the USA and European countries represent everything this brand of terrorism wants to destroy or at least combat. Even if the USA will take a more isolationist approach, I hope its core values of liberty and individual freedom remain. Which means it will remain a target for this particular brand of terrorism.

Take my country Belgium as an example: Sure we sent a couple of hundred soldiers to the Middle-East (under NATO or UN flag, mind you), but that is not the reason our airport and capital was struck by bombs. It's because Brussels, as the capital of the EU, is a symbol of a set of values that these people do not subscribe to and want to combat.

For a country as big and as influential and as economically important to the entire globe as the USA, I believe that foreign policy is equally as important as internal affairs.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> In other news, Frank Lutz's focus group had Trump winning the debate big league:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/785311438726397956



Focus Groups don't matter. There is something called sample size......

If we are going to call pundist on their shit, we should start to recognize what is shit and what not


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Just finished watching that debate. Trump won very comprehensively, more so than Hillary did in the first debate. The first half an hour especially he absolutely killed her. It also seemed this time around he was much more prepared and went less off track than the waffling he suffered from the first debate.

Other than on the email scandal and Bill Clinton's past however Hillary wasn't really knocked for six and was put to bed so that is worrying. What angers me is she practically lied throughout the entire debate and her smugness and arrogance just radiated. I despise her with a passion for things like that.

Her lies about wanting to rebuild the coal industry was especially disgusting when she clearly stated that she was going to put them out of business.






Disgusting.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Focus Groups don't matter. There is something called sample size......
> 
> If we are going to call pundist on their shit, we should start to recognize what is shit and what not


Don't consider this a personal attack but recently I've noticed that you're letting emotions and "gotcha moments" get the better of your posts in here over the last few days. 

You have been a decent statistician up until this point and I have read your posts with great interest, but at this point you're discrediting yourself by making a very flippant comment about "sample size" without taking into consideration that lend credibility to sample sizes and their limitations as well. I know I don't have to tell you that it's not even just a sample size that determines statistical accuracy because we have to be careful what the sample itself is. 

But if you're going after "gotcha's" yourself, then you have to become extra careful in what you say as well.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> Just finished watching that debate. Trump won very comprehensively, more so than Hillary did in the first debate. The first half an hour especially he absolutely killed her. It also seemed this time around he was much more prepared and went less off track than the waffling he suffered from the first debate.
> 
> Other than on the email scandal and Bill Clinton's past however Hillary wasn't really knocked for six and was put to bed so that is worrying. What angers me is she practically lied throughout the entire debate and her smugness and arrogance just radiated. I despise her with a passion for things like that.
> 
> Her lies about wanting to rebuild the coal industry was especially disgusting when she clearly stated that she was going to put them out of business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disgusting.


Hillary lied? According to some of our "fact checkers" in here only Trump lies.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Don't consider this a personal attack but recently I've noticed that you're letting emotions and "gotcha moments" get the better of your posts in here over the last few days.
> 
> You have been a decent statistician up until this point and I have read your posts with great interest, but at this point you're discrediting yourself by making a very flippant comment about "sample size" without taking into consideration that lend credibility to sample sizes and their limitations as well. I know I don't have to tell you that it's not even just a sample size that determines statistical accuracy because we have to be careful what the sample itself is.
> 
> But if you're going after "gotcha's" yourself, then you have to become extra careful in what you say as well.


Don't worry i'm not trying to do a a "gotcha" in general., if i grill camille more than other people is because i'm surprise at how he picks information when it's convenient to him and then grill other people for the same, which i find really toxic.

Still, going to the issue, in a conversation about cuantitaive data, i.e. how many people change opinion, focus groups are irrelevant, which is what he, and Luntz by extention, tried to do. You're right, Sample sizes have limitations, For example, experts believe that an accurate poll of POTUS need at minimum 400 persons, to avoid normal bias, poll under that need to describe methods and are of certainly less quality in general, and in other areas maybe your sample can be less, so yes we need to accept the realtivity of sample sizes, To not talk about things like random selection and etc. Even then to do generalized commentaries (and unless you're doing an expriment), the minimum sample you need is 120 person (for technical reasons: T de student) less than that is completely useless in normal conditions and render a lot of problems, so in a case like this the discussions about limitations in sample are not even pertinent. 

A group of 30 or 35 people is not relevant to understand how many people could change their opinion under any circunstance.

That render Focus groups irrelevant? nop. Note that i say that Focus can't predict "how" opinion change or, better, in what number they really change. Focus groups are materiall for "cualitative data" and theferore they answer to cualitative reasons like "why you changed your opinion" or "what are the reasons behind your change". Which is helpful in particular settings but not in the one someone like Luntz use.

I saw here everyday talk about how biased media is and the so, well if we want to start doing better than media and pundits we should start by putting ourseves at better standards don't we? If the answer to this is yes, then we should start to recognize when media is pulling and ass and selling us a narrative and what tools or misinterprations of them they use to do so. Everyone here agree that pundits are shit, well, then don't act like pundits


----------



## amhlilhaus

DesolationRow said:


> KingCosmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> My faith in humanity is lost, Just look at all the people in this thread arguing over Trump and Hilary. It's primitive thinking like that which holds humans back from achieving greatness. Fuck i wonder if 200 years from now they will look at us like blubbering retards or if we will still be in the same position with trivial bullshit like this. Seeing the idiots at Trump or Hilary rallies honestly baffles and i can't fathom how a modern human's are so idiotic. It's like now a days rational thought and philosophy have become rarities for the population
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligence quotient tests are not encouraging; average IQ globally keeps slowly but inexorably moving downward over the past couple of decades.
> 
> 
> 
> CamillePunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The moderators are openly debating Trump. It's a 3-on-1 debate and Trump is winning. Remarkable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why Trump should win the election. It's time to burn down this rigged system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Affirmative.
> 
> 
> 
> The Absolute said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys, I have a theory why Trump hasn't sat down yet: it's a stamina thing. He's trying to show that he has the stamina to be President while Hillary has to keep sitting down. It's either that or I'm starting to read too deep into this bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This seems accurate to me.
> 
> The debates featuring candidates standing behind podiums have always seemed too restrictive for Donald Trump. He likes to move around and engage people, which this debate's format gave him ample opportunity to. He was ostensibly more in his element, as it were.
> 
> He dominated the venue, optically, and the dialogue, audibly. It was an edge as far as this debate was concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> Plato said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump with that clean win over all three of his opponents tonight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vic Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tears, man. Tears.
> 
> - Vic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stevefox1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I see is Neville Chamberlain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neville Chamberlain was not a guiltless man but the bogeyman caricature made out of him has been a devastating misreading of both the man and his time throughout the latter half of the twentieth century all the way to today. Chamberlain considered himself a fierce democrat who felt bound by the realities of Great Britain's democracy. The overwhelming majority of Britons had no interest in going to war in 1938 only twenty years after a terrible war that had already wounded the empire had concluded with approximately 700,000-750,000 British men killed in it.
> 
> American and British liberals alike recognized that the peace established by Versailles was absurd and unjust. Seeking to enforce the conditions of it in the face of overwhelming animus toward the very idea of conflict running through massive majorities was politically untenable. The Tory government concurred with the liberals; a terrible wrong had been committed against the approximately 3.25-million Bohemian Sudetenland Germans living in Czechoslovakia under Prague, along with the 2.5 million Slovaks, 800,000 Hungarians, 500,000 Ukrainians and roughly 150,000-160,000 Poles. The vote of the Saar Plebiscite through referenda on the territorial status was held in mid-January 1935, with a little over 90% of voters opting for complete reunification with Germany, and only 9% voting for the _status quo_ of the League of Nations mandate territory, and Austria's annexation, the majority of Sudeten Germans pestered Prague--and Berlin--while clamoring for the annexation of the territories stripped away from Germany to be annexed by the Germans.
> 
> Americans, Britons, Frenchmen... Only a microscopically tiny sliver of each respective population would have supported even the mildest threat of military action against Germany at the time of Munich.
> 
> Not terribly unlike how the overwhelming majority of Americans, fed up with fifteen years of hopeless war, the end result appears to be the mass acceptance of populations who, rather than being vetted, according to customs agents with whom I have spoken, merely have a single State Department-issued stationary with their birthdate and home city and country upon it, are not in any way interested in seeing ground troops in Syria. Which is why even über-hawk Hillary Clinton cannot say she supports U.S. ground troops in Syria. Only special forces, CIA operatives, assistants, trainers, etc.
> 
> Of course, as noted in an earlier post here, with the demographical alterations to the U.S. electorate continuing to proceed at a startling clip, it probably will not matter if Hillary Clinton sends U.S. ground troops into Syria during her first term. In 2020 the Republican Party will run the sweetest, gentlest, kindest, most pro-immigration, pro-Mexican, pro-Muslim candidate in history, and Hillary will still win the presidency in a walk.
> 
> 
> 
> CamillePunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> @DesolationRow @L-DOPA
> 
> http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151599421561/quick-debate-reactions-from-switzerland
> 
> Scott Adams chimes in again with a rapid reaction to the debate. Like myself, Scott Adams saw tonight as a huge victory for Trump. He gives his analysis of the debate through the persuasion filter.
> 
> He also goes on to discuss how great Switzerland (where he is currently visiting) is. Switzerland has for a while now been my dream locale. It'd be awesome if I could one day qualify to immigrate there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Entirely fascinating. Scott Adams's points here are difficult to argue with, as I too thought Donald Trump was generally far, far stronger than in his first debate performance and, on the whole, won this debate.
> 
> Granted, I do not believe that these debates matter nearly as much as many (notably most Trump fans) would like them to, and it is not as though Trump has ceased being a problematic debater in myriad ways. It's just that Hillary is such a terribly vacuous presence. Her complete, utter lack of a defense on the tens of thousands of emails deleted was probably the single most telling moment of the entire debate. She has no defense. When Trump threatens her with images of a special prosecutor, all he is doing is foretelling the obvious future.
> 
> So, Trump won the night but it's difficult to gauge how much that will help him out. The RNC is endeavoring to funnel most of the money earmarked for Trump to down-ticket races so a power struggle seems inevitable. In less than three hours Republicans in the House of Representatives will be holding a conference call.
> 
> It is quite possible that Donald Trump is in the process of doing just well enough to doom the Republican Party on election day.
> 
> Not often does one get to watch a political party perish. The GOP, for years, seemed ripe to simply slowly lose relevance as the U.S. electorate's makeup continued to change, but perhaps Trump is doing the Republicans a huge favor: trading agonizing, decades-spanning torture with a golden-haired, ill-tempered, hilariously egotistical .45 ACP shot to the head.
Click to expand...

Iqs going down because theyre more interested in shielding young minds from scary things, like an opinion that isnt like their teachers.

Its fucking ridiculous. People will say and do things you dont like, get over it.

Safe spaces? Micro aggression? Triggered? How the hell are these young nit wits going to be able to work with this shit shoved into their heads?

Whats gonna happen when fragile snowflake actually lands a job, then gets criticized on their performance review? I mean thats MICRO AGGRESSION that will TRIGGER them into needing a SAFE SPACE, and they wont have any of those. Theyll just be told to get back to work.


----------



## PraXitude

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hildebeast was SAVAGED! It was glorious!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump looked even more incompetent after this debate. Admitting he knows nothing about Russia. showed he has no clue about Syria, admitted he has not paid taxes in 20 years, also showed that he and his running mate are not even on the same page etc etc.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm with asdf on anything that shits on that charlatan Frank Lutz.

I didn't watch all of the debate, but from what I watched there was no domination. Please learn to eliminate your feels when viewing stuff like this. I need to watch the 2nd half today. It was pretty even to me, but I will say I'm not sure a person should say I'm going to put you in jail during a debate. That might play well for his base, but I'm not 100% this will bring people to your side.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> I'm with asdf on anything that shits on that charlatan Frank Lutz.
> 
> I didn't watch all of the debate, but from what I watched there was no domination. Please learn to eliminate your feels when viewing stuff like this. I need to watch the 2nd half today. It was pretty even to me, but I will say I'm not sure a person should say I'm going to put you in jail during a debate. That might play well for his base, but I'm not 100% this will bring people to your side.


The whole I am going to put you in jail thing shows what a fascist Trump is. Hillary already got off on her email charges by the FBI. If she should have or not is another question. But she was already found no wrong doing. Trump saying oh he is going to put her in jail anyway shows just how dangerous Trump is. 

Hillarys problem is she is not playing dirty like Trump is. The GOP tried that and rattled Trump in the one debate they played at his level, then they just stopped and Trump destroyed them. 

I don't understand why Hillary when Trump is ranting about Bill Clinton does not turn to him and say, Trump Bill is not running for President, I am. Not to mention Hillary should have said and you want to talk about rape and sexual assault, well 5 women came out and said you sexually assaulted them just like you spoke about in that video, and you were accused of raping your ex-wife and a 13 year old. 

Hillary needs to hit Trump back with the same stuff she is hitting Bill with.

She also needs to be like. Trump what is YOUR PLAN, and dont just say I am going to beat ISIS, HOW are you going to beat them. And keep hammering him on that because he has no clue how to. 

She could easily defuse most of his attacks but she is trying to play nice and its the wrong move. She did not learn from the GOP debates.

I still think dont Trump has a shot at beating her but she should be playing at Trumps level because when people do, he gets rattled.

I agree with you the debate was more or less even but Trump looked incompetent based on his answers but the reason people think Trump won is because Hillary was on the defensive after the first 30 mins of the debate and even though she had good answers for them, Trump was alawys attacking her and she was not attacking him back enough.

She also needs to stop the stupid go to my website bullshit. Tell the people how Trump is lying if you claim he is. The informed people know what both are lying about but when you call someone out for lying, at least prove it. No one is going to go to her dumb website. LIke the Iraq thing, say you said on Howard Stern you were for the war, then after it was seen it was the wrong move you then changed your tune and claim its not a good idea.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> I'm with asdf on anything that shits on that charlatan Frank Lutz.
> 
> I didn't watch all of the debate, but from what I watched there was no domination. Please learn to eliminate your feels when viewing stuff like this. I need to watch the 2nd half today. It was pretty even to me, but* I will say I'm not sure a person should say I'm going to put you in jail during a debate*. That might play well for his base, but I'm not 100% this will bring people to your side.


In fact










With things like this he's just railing his base, he's not wining undecided. Trump is still on the mentality of the primaries, not in the general. Yeah, Trump grilled her, early poll numbers still say Clinton won, is Tim Kaine al over again


----------



## KO Bossy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> I'm with asdf on anything that shits on that charlatan Frank Lutz.
> 
> I didn't watch all of the debate, but from what I watched there was no domination. *Please learn to eliminate your feels when viewing stuff like this*. I need to watch the 2nd half today. It was pretty even to me, but I will say I'm not sure a person should say I'm going to put you in jail during a debate. That might play well for his base, but I'm not 100% this will bring people to your side.


You might as well ask these people to stop breathing. In any sane universe, people would laugh at how much of a screw up Trump is and chastise him for having the gall to think he has what it takes to run a country. Instead...I dunno if its troll posters or really stupid people, but some posters are supporting him. Why? I haven't the least fucking clue.

Watching back at what happened (I obviously wasn't watching live because Jays/Rangers > politics), all Trump was doing was grade school bullshit like name calling and trying to insult Hillary. "Honest Abe, he never lied unlike you!" Ooooo, burn. "I'm gonna get a special prosecutor to investigate you!" Hey moron, how about instead of telling the country why she's the anti-Christ, how about you tell them how you're going to be better than her and lay out your awesome plan for how you'll accomplish that? Oh that's right, he hasn't got a clue, so he can't. He'd rather drone on about how he's going to start wars with countries because they thumb their noses at American sailors from their ships. You know, because he's a moron.

Let's not even talk about him singling out Bill Clinton. Last I checked, Bill isn't running against you, so bringing him up is a red herring. "Oh Bill did this, Bill did that." Bill was president 16 years ago, perhaps you should focus on THIS election? 

People sit in here and say "oh its so awesome how Trump is winning this debate." He didn't win, he looked like the biggest fool on the planet. Not to mention a bitter, butthurt little crybaby who is on the retreat after that tape surfaced. Its a comedy of errors. The fact that he's resorting to name calling and insults shows how he's got nothing of value left to contribute. This whole thing has been a ridiculous side show and finally, his party mates who were once backing him have figured out that "oh Christ, THIS is the boob we nominated?" Now they're bailing.

I'm just stunned that so many posters on this forum support him. Look, I don't think Hillary is that great either, but were I American, I sure as hell wouldn't be wasting my vote on a clear loser (not just in the election, but in general) like Trump. These posters here...their personal feelings is all they have to help them continue living under the delusion that Trump is somehow a) going to win and b) is the best choice for president. Once they stop acting on emotion, they'll have to start thinking for themselves and looking at scary things like facts, of which many portray their hero for who he is-a moron incapable of running the USA. And since that is contrary to their current beliefs, its easier to hide and pretend the opposite is true. This, to me, is just as scary as Trump is dumb. The fact that someone like Trump can get support mortifies me.

Of course, I'll just be called a Hillary lover because if I'm not pro Trump, I MUST be pro Hillary. Whatever. That's the train of logic fools use, and I simply don't care what fools think.


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm sitting here wondering if those of you who don't think Trump is winning in a blow out are stupid, or simply in deep denial.

It's over, folks. Trump wins. The liberals and the cuckolded invertebrate in the regressive right worked together to try to take Trump down, and he's dominated all of you. The more you push against president Donald J. Trump, the more the American people are pulling away from you and towards their charismatic champion. You can't win!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Big Salad said:


> I'm sitting here wondering if those of you who don't think Trump is winning in a blow out are stupid, or simply in deep denial.
> 
> It's over, folks. Trump wins. The liberals and the cuckolded invertebrate in the regressive right worked together to try to take Trump down, and he's dominated all of you. The more you push against president Donald J. Trump, the more the American people are pulling away from you and towards their charismatic champion. You can't win!


Trump has no shot at winning, especially after that video came out, its over for Trump. Its been over for a while now, that was just the nail in the coffin.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KO Bossy said:


> You might as well ask these people to stop breathing. In any sane universe, people would laugh at how much of a screw up Trump is and chastise him for having the gall to think he has what it takes to run a country. Instead...I dunno if its troll posters or really stupid people, but some posters are supporting him. Why? I haven't the least fucking clue.
> 
> Watching back at what happened (I obviously wasn't watching live because Jays/Rangers > politics), all Trump was doing was grade school bullshit like name calling and trying to insult Hillary. "Honest Abe, he never lied unlike you!" Ooooo, burn. "I'm gonna get a special prosecutor to investigate you!" Hey moron, how about instead of telling the country why she's the anti-Christ, how about you tell them how you're going to be better than her and lay out your awesome plan for how you'll accomplish that? Oh that's right, he hasn't got a clue, so he can't. He'd rather drone on about how he's going to start wars with countries because they thumb their noses at American sailors from their ships. You know, because he's a moron.
> 
> Let's not even talk about him singling out Bill Clinton. Last I checked, Bill isn't running against you, so bringing him up is a red herring. "Oh Bill did this, Bill did that." Bill was president 16 years ago, perhaps you should focus on THIS election?
> 
> People sit in here and say "oh its so awesome how Trump is winning this debate." He didn't win, he looked like the biggest fool on the planet. Not to mention a bitter, butthurt little crybaby who is on the retreat after that tape surfaced. Its a comedy of errors. The fact that he's resorting to name calling and insults shows how he's got nothing of value left to contribute. This whole thing has been a ridiculous side show and finally, his party mates who were once backing him have figured out that "oh Christ, THIS is the boob we nominated?" Now they're bailing.
> 
> I'm just stunned that so many posters on this forum support him. Look, I don't think Hillary is that great either, but were I American, I sure as hell wouldn't be wasting my vote on a clear loser (not just in the election, but in general) like Trump. These posters here...their personal feelings is all they have to help them continue living under the delusion that Trump is somehow a) going to win and b) is the best choice for president. Once they stop acting on emotion, they'll have to start thinking for themselves and looking at scary things like facts, of which many portray their hero for who he is-a moron incapable of running the USA. And since that is contrary to their current beliefs, its easier to hide and pretend the opposite is true. This, to me, is just as scary as Trump is dumb. The fact that someone like Trump can get support mortifies me.
> 
> Of course, I'll just be called a Hillary lover because if I'm not pro Trump, I MUST be pro Hillary. Whatever. That's the train of logic fools use, and I simply don't care what fools think.


The funny thing about Trump fans are, when Kaine was being Trump like against Pence they gave him shit saying how rude he was and how he was so raging or what not and loved how pence was all calm, Yet when Trump does worse than what Kaine was doing, because Kaine did not insult he brought up facts, but he was interrupting, Trump fans love Trump for it and praise him how he did that to Hillary and that is why he won.

its like they are such hypocrites with their double standards. I just cant take the ones that are like that seroulsy.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Why? I haven't the least fucking clue.


Because facts don't care about your feelings.

- Vic


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Big Salad said:


> *I'm sitting here wondering if those of you who don't think Trump is winning in a blow out are stupid, or simply in deep denial.
> *
> It's over, folks. Trump wins. The liberals and the cuckolded invertebrate in the regressive right worked together to try to take Trump down, and he's dominated all of you. The more you push against president Donald J. Trump, the more the American people are pulling away from you and towards their charismatic champion. You can't win!


http://www.wrestlingforum.com/63132265-post7861.html


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hilary Clinton becomes president then we're all doomed. Donald Trump becomes president then..idk but it better not be Hilary.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Still, going to the issue, in a conversation about cuantitaive data, i.e. how many people change opinion, focus groups are irrelevant, which is what he, and Luntz by extention, tried to do. You're right, Sample sizes have limitations, For example, experts believe that an accurate poll of POTUS need at minimum 400 persons, to avoid normal bias, poll under that need to describe methods and are of certainly less quality in general, and in other areas maybe your sample can be less, so yes we need to accept the realtivity of sample sizes, To not talk about things like random selection and etc. Even then to do generalized commentaries (and unless you're doing an expriment), the minimum sample you need is 120 person (for technical reasons: T de student) less than that is completely useless in normal conditions and render a lot of problems, so in a case like this the discussions about limitations in sample are not even pertinent.


I guess it shouldn't be necessary to keep bringing this up, but while I agree that at this point polls are indicating a more than clear loss for Trump, it's good to keep in mind and I can't stress this enough that a win for Hillary is still not and never will be a win for American people. The opposition to Trump is a loss for America worth decades because not only is the RNC decimated, but also the Democrat strength is over-expressed due to the sheer incompetence of the republican party. With no opposition visible and with the republicans digging in their heels on social issues basically stuck in the 1960's a loss for them is not a win for America or the world by any means at all. I've repeatedly pointed out in this thread the damage that the democrats and republicans both have done, but the democrats more so because while republicans do it with public awareness, the democrats do it with a veil on the public's eyes thanks to the media now clearly coming out in the open as biased in the formation of public opinion towards democrat policies - both failures and successes. 

People don't even know the facts about the Middle East - and the media has kept those facts from them. There is no denying the fact that the vast majority of American voters are completely ignorant of the democrat's policies and actions that created the situation in the middle east and while Trump tries to speak mostly the truth about it, the illogicals amongst the eastern camp simply dismisses what he says as bullshit because he does say a lot of other bullshit. There is no denying the truth that Obama and Hillary did more damage to the middle east - especially Syria but even today you'll find deniers of their role whatsoever. 



> A group of 30 or 35 people is not relevant to understand how many people could change their opinion under any circunstance.


Agreed. 



> That render Focus groups irrelevant? nop. Note that i say that Focus can't predict "how" opinion change or, better, in what number they really change. Focus groups are materiall for "cualitative data" and theferore they answer to cualitative reasons like "why you changed your opinion" or "what are the reasons behind your change". Which is helpful in particular settings but not in the one someone like Luntz use.


As a marketing and consumer behavior guy whose seen focus groups go both ways, I can claim with pretty much absolute certainty that focus groups are inconclusive and have a very high margin of error obviously. 



> I saw here everyday talk about how biased media is and the so, well if we want to start doing better than media and pundits we should start by putting ourseves at better standards don't we? If the answer to this is yes, then we should start to recognize when media is pulling and ass and selling us a narrative and what tools or misinterprations of them they use to do so. Everyone here agree that pundits are shit, well, then don't act like pundits


I think you have a valid point but I encourage you to delve more deeply into the overall structure of society where the bias in the media is merely a direct result of the far left leaning ideologies within the social sciences. While there are certain theories that are reasonable, there are many theories preached by professors (many of whom are political activists more than they are professors) that have resulted in the decline of objectivity in the media. If you believe that you are right and are taught that you are right then you will write everything assuming that you are right and objective because that's all you know. The less you know, the more likely you are to tilt towards one-sidedness basically. The left media isn't biased knowingly that it's biased. It's biased because the knowledge they have received during their college years is biased. It's basically the echo chamber effect. 

As far as this forum is concerned, I think a lot of people make valid points on both sides. I don't actually care about "winning points" over fellow forum members because at the end of the day the real fact is that no matter who wins, America loses in some areas and wins in others, and it's one of those hard facts everyone needs to understand. 

Some of Trump's ideas are needed and welcomed and until and unless some of them are implemented whether it be by the democrats or not remains to be seen, but if nothing else, cultural preservation and the preservation of capitalism is an absolute must. The world depends on those two more than they do on anything else.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Ronzilla said:


> Hilary Clinton becomes president then we're all doomed. Donald Trump becomes president then..idk but it better not be Hilary.


You have it backwards. If Trump wins we are all doomed, it will be a shit show.

If Hillary wins, its just 4 more years of Obama which wont be great but it will be way better than what would happen if Trump wins.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Doesn't matter what side you are on, this is hilarious.


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You have it backwards. If Trump wins we are all doomed, it will be a shit show.
> 
> If Hillary wins, its just 4 more years of Obama which wont be great but it will be way better than what would happen if Trump wins.


Well Obamacare hurt my family and killed our families pre-existing insurance plan. It also made my dad spend upwards of 15k in medicine when previously it would be only 500 dollars a year.

I'm sorry I wont buy this from you.


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Considering Hilary Clinton went to my high school and lies about it and says she went to a different high school all I have to say is the truth has been seen by me about the scumbag she is


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Ronzilla said:


> Well Obamacare hurt my family and killed our families pre-existing insurance plan. It also made my dad spend upwards of 15k in medicine when previously it would be only 500 dollars a year.
> 
> I'm sorry I wont buy this from you.


You do understand if we did not have Obamacare that insurance would have gone up even more? Obamacare is not perfect but its better than what we had before and what we would have now without it.

The US needs singer payer / public option. what Trump wants to do with insurance would be a huge disaster and would give everyone shit insurance and would all them to once again not cover anyone with a pre-existing condition or someone they deem as not fit. 

Also dont blame obamacare for medicine prices they have nothing to do with each other. The price he pays would have been the same regardless of obamacare or not. Prescription drugs are not a part of Obamacare.

Obamacare how nothing to do with Martin Shkrel making a pill affordable at 13.50 per pill to $750 per pill. He did it because he was greedy.


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You do understand if we did not have Obamacare that insurance would have gone up even more? Obamacare is not perfect but its better than what we had before and what we would have now without it.
> 
> The US needs singer payer / public option. what Trump wants to do with insurance would be a huge disaster and would give everyone shit insurance and would all them to once again not cover anyone with a pre-existing condition or someone they deem as not fit.
> 
> Also dont blame obamacare for medicine prices they have nothing to do with each other. The price he pays would have been the same regardless of obamacare or not. Prescription drugs are not a part of Obamacare.


You are completely missing the fact.

1) a promise was given that pre-existing plans can be still purchased with Obamacare. Our plan was killed and we were forced to chose another plan. We are a small business owner.

2)premiums went up, coverage went down, deductible sky rocketed, and network available went down.

3)The medicine didn't go down*edit*up in price, the coverage went down.

Don't argue with a real life example. You can't tell me I should be thankful to watch my dad struggle to pay for his medicine, lose the ability to see his family doctor for the last 40 years because its too expensive to be in that network now, and that he can't see a damn doctor unless he's ready to give up a months pay.

Sorry pal, go pay for my dads bills then if you think it's better.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Ronzilla said:


> You are completely missing the fact.
> 
> 1) a promise was given that pre-existing plans can be still purchased with Obamacare. Our plan was killed and we were forced to chose another plan. We are a small business owner.
> 
> 2)premiums went up, coverage went down, deductible sky rocketed, and network available went down.
> 
> 3)The medicine didn't go down*edit*up in price, the coverage went down.
> 
> Don't argue with a real life example. You can't tell me I should be thankful to watch my dad struggle to pay for his medicine, lose the ability to see his family doctor for the last 40 years because its too expensive to be in that network now, and that he can't see a damn doctor unless he's ready to give up a months pay.
> 
> Sorry pal, go pay for my dads bills then if you think it's better.


You are missing the point. 

premiums were going up no matter what, they would be even higher now if not for Obamacare. 

Just curious what state you are in? Are you in one of the states that rejected Obamacare expansion? If you are then dont blame Obamacare blame your stupid governors 

And again SORRY PAL but it would be 100x worse under what Trump wants to do. At least with Hillary she says hse is going to fix the gaps in Obamacare, which is not perfect.

We still need singer payer but Trumps plan is going to be worse for everyone including your dad. But dont say I did not want you.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are missing the point.
> 
> *premiums were going up no matter what, they would be even higher now if not for Obamacare. *
> 
> Just curious what state you are in? Are you in one of the states that rejected Obamacare expansion? If you are then dont blame Obamacare blame your stupid governors
> 
> *And again SORRY PAL but it would be 100x worse under what Trump wants to do. *At least with Hillary she says hse is going to fix the gaps in Obamacare, which is not perfect.
> 
> *We still need singer payer* but Trumps plan is going to be worse for everyone including your dad. But dont say I did not want you.


*unprovable assertion*

and the problem is not really premiums even though obamacare premiums are pretty bad except for the cheapest and shittiest plans

it's the deductibles and other costs which are much worse in obamacare plans than in most employer-provided plans and most insurance plans period pre-obamacare 

*again unprovable assertion*

*single payer would literally bankrupt this country if obamacare is any indication of how much it would cost. this country is not sweden or denmark or france. it has 330 million some people and its government already usually spends several hundred billion more dollars a year than it receives in revenue. single payer also transfers a large chunk of the economy from private businesses to the government. inevitably there would be large job losses in the transition period. that will go over real well with people just as much as new and heavy taxes to pay for single payer will. middle-class taxes. thinking you can just pillage the rich and that will be enough is naive and foolish. they don't make enough money for a huge income tax hike on the rich to pay for it all or anywhere close. if you impose some new kind of asset tax many of them will renounce their citizenship and take their businesses and their money and property out of america. they can afford to.*


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> *unprovable assertion*
> 
> and the problem is not really premiums even though obamacare premiums are pretty bad except for the cheapest and shittiest plans
> 
> it's the deductibles and other costs which are much worse in obamacare plans than in most employer-provided plans and most insurance plans period pre-obamacare
> 
> *again unprovable assertion*
> 
> *single payer would literally bankrupt this country if obamacare is any indication of how much it would cost*


Single payer would not this country. The amount of uninformed people on this board is mind blowing. The US is the richest country ion the world and a lot fo countries have single payer and are not bankrupted by it. Stop watching fox news


http://usuncut.com/politics/top-economist-says-bernies-plan-will-actually-save-the-us-5-trillion/


The meat of the Wall Street Journal article, which started the media questioning of just how Bernie Sanders was going to pay for his proposed “Single Payer Health Care” stated that America would have to spend $15 trillion over the next decade. This seemed like a reach as every single single-payer health system in the world is cheaper than the current American health care system.

Well it turns out that Gerald Friedman, the economist whose analysis was used for the WSJ article saw it and wrote an open letter to them explaining that Sanders’ single payer healthcare proposal would actually SAVE America $5.08 trillion dollars over the next 10 years.


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump has no shot at winning, especially after that video came out, its over for Trump. Its been over for a while now, that was just the nail in the coffin.


No, sorry. I know your ilk was hopeful that 11-year-old false male bravado said in privacy would ruin Trump, but he quickly dashed your hopes. Within 10 minutes of the start of the debate, it was already an afterthought.

The tape was yet another idiotic miscalculation from the Democrats. Why, OH ****ING WHY, would someone with as dirty a history of rape and intimidation as the Ku Klux Clinton Klan bring sexual assault into the discussion? They really didn't think this one through, did they?

Best of all, since they're the instigators, anything Trump says or does regarding the Clinton's victims comes across as fighting fire with fire, rather than fighting dirty.

I would say it's time to start sweating bullets, Hillary supporters, but most of you are 400 pounds and bedridden. I think it's safe to say you were sweating bullets long before this election cycle began.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Single payer would not this country. The amount of uninformed people on this board is mind blowing. The US is the richest country ion the world and a lot fo countries have single payer and are not bankrupted by it. Stop watching fox news


I don't watch Fox News.

The Medicaid expansion under Obamacare has state governments freaking out because they will be expected to pay 20% of those costs by 2020 - the federal government is currently picking up the whole tab but this is the last year it will be doing that - and they are telling Washington that they simply can't afford to do it. 

The healthcare industry in 2015 was 15.7% of GDP. That's 2.72 trillion dollars. Going to single payer means that ultimately the government and thus the taxpayer would be responsible every year for some large percentage of that 2.72 trillion, and probably more. Because...



> http://usuncut.com/politics/top-econ...us-5-trillion/
> 
> 
> The meat of the Wall Street Journal article, which started the media questioning of just how Bernie Sanders was going to pay for his proposed “Single Payer Health Care” stated that America would have to spend $15 trillion over the next decade. This seemed like a reach as every single single-payer health system in the world is cheaper than the current American health care system.
> 
> Well it turns out that Gerald Friedman, the economist whose analysis was used for the WSJ article saw it and wrote an open letter to them explaining that Sanders’ single payer healthcare proposal would actually SAVE America $5.08 trillion dollars over the next 10 years.


Friedman is simply wrong and quite possibly a fool for believing such nonsense. There has not been a single major government program of the last 40 years that saved the government money. As an example in the healthcare field of how they have no idea how to estimate costs, when they created Medicare and Medicaid in the 60s they predicted that X amount of money would pay for it into the 1990s. That amount of money had been spent on Medicare and Medicaid within *four years* of their creation. 

It's all the same garbage assumptions they made about Obamacare saving money. Obamacare has saved no money anywhere. It's a money pit of gargantuan proportions. These people ignore history because of their hubris when they blithely toss out how greatly expanding government welfare programs saves money. It's a joke. The next time it happens will be the first.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Big Salad said:


> No, sorry. I know your ilk was hopeful that 11-year-old false male bravado said in privacy would ruin Trump, but he quickly dashed your hopes. Within 10 minutes of the start of the debate, it was already an afterthought.
> 
> The tape was yet another idiotic miscalculation from the Democrats. Why, OH ****ING WHY, would someone with as dirty a history of rape and intimidation as the Ku Klux Clinton Klan bring sexual assault into the discussion? They really didn't think this one through, did they?
> 
> Best of all, since they're the instigators, anything Trump says or does regarding the Clinton's victims comes across as fighting fire with fire, rather than fighting dirty.
> 
> I would say it's time to start sweating bullets, Hillary supporters, but most of you are 400 pounds and bedridden. I think it's safe to say you were sweating bullets long before this election cycle began.


Trump has no shot at winning. As for Clinton's victims, Bill Clinton is not running, Hillary is. And again women are coming out saying how Trump sexually assaulted them and there is still a case in court filed where a woman is accusing Trump of raping her when she was 13. 

BTW I am not a Hillary supporter, I hate both Trump and Hillary. I am voting for Jill Stein or may write in Bernie Sanders since it looks like I will be able to.

I just call it like it is. Trump is not going to win.




deepelemblues said:


> I don't watch Fox News.
> 
> The Medicaid expansion under Obamacare has state governments freaking out because they will be expected to pay 20% of those costs by 2020 - the federal government is currently picking up the whole tab but this is the last year it will be doing that - and they are telling Washington that they simply can't afford to do it.
> 
> The healthcare industry in 2015 was 15.7% of GDP. That's 2.72 trillion dollars. Going to single payer means that ultimately the government and thus the taxpayer would be responsible every year for some large percentage of that 2.72 trillion, and probably more. Because...
> 
> 
> 
> Friedman is simply wrong and quite possibly a fool for believing such nonsense. There has not been a single major government program of the last 40 years that saved the government money. As an example in the healthcare field of how they have no idea how to estimate costs, when they created Medicare and Medicaid in the 60s they predicted that X amount of money would pay for it into the 1990s. That amount of money had been spent on Medicare and Medicaid within *four years* of their creation.
> 
> It's all the same garbage assumptions they made about Obamacare saving money. Obamacare has saved no money anywhere. It's a money pit of gargantuan proportions. These people ignore history because of their hubris when they blithely toss out how greatly expanding government welfare programs saves money. It's a joke. The next time it happens will be the first.


Yeah an economist is a fool for believing the numbers LOL OK. There is no point in debating this with you since you just ignore the facts and numbers even by people job it is to know these things.


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

LMAO her vice president is a straight WEASEL. You want that guy as your VP then I question your criteria for talent. At least Trump understands the REAL problems in our country..


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are missing the point.
> 
> premiums were going up no matter what, they would be even higher now if not for Obamacare.
> 
> Just curious what state you are in? Are you in one of the states that rejected Obamacare expansion? If you are then dont blame Obamacare blame your stupid governors
> 
> And again SORRY PAL but it would be 100x worse under what Trump wants to do. At least with Hillary she says hse is going to fix the gaps in Obamacare, which is not perfect.
> 
> We still need singer payer but Trumps plan is going to be worse for everyone including your dad. But dont say I did not want you.


how can I be missing the point birthday_massacre when I made the point first. LOL. you argue for sport I see


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Ronzilla said:


> how can I be missing the point birthday_massacre when I made the point first. LOL. you argue for sport I see


No I am just telling you, that your dad is going to be way worse off under Trump but you dont seem to want to listen. So good luck with that.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Exactly.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Ronzilla said:


> Hilary Clinton becomes president then we're all doomed. Donald Trump becomes president then..idk but it better not be Hilary.


Nah, were not doomed.

We survived a clueless community organizer, we can survive hillary


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> No I am just telling you, that your dad is going to be way worse off under Trump but you dont seem to want to listen. So good luck with that.


lmao

dude..

..unless you are a graduate from an ivy league school who's studied analysis with statistical accuracy beyond general opinions formed off of basis of "talk" and views, providing me with an analysis backed by a guaranteed range of percentage strength, then really what you are saying is just bureaucratic bullshit. I need you to give me some real numbers, proof, trends, percentage of accuracy for your highly inaccurate opinions to force me to believe what you have to say.

if you do that, then I may consider your "view"


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Ronzilla said:


> lmao
> 
> dude..
> 
> ..unless you are a graduate from an ivy league school who's studied analysis with statistical accuracy beyond general opinions formed off of basis of "talk" and views, providing me with an analysis backed by a guaranteed range of percentage strength, then really what you are saying is just bureaucratic bullshit. I need you to give me some real numbers, proof, trends, percentage of accuracy for your highly inaccurate opinions to force me to believe what you have to say.
> 
> if you do that, then I may consider your "view"


All you have to do is google Trumps healthcare plan and see how all the experts say its a disaster and how bad it is.
But you dont seem to want to be informed. You have to go out of your way to not find info on how bad his plan would be.


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> All you have to do is google Trumps healthcare plan and see how all the experts say its a disaster and how bad it is.
> But you dont seem to want to be informed. You have to go out of your way to not find info on how bad his plan would be.


i'm done here. you're not a reliable source of information.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Ronzilla said:


> i'm done here. you're not a reliable source of information.


Like I said, you want to ignore all the information. I told you to google his plan so you can pick and choose from all articles saying how awful it is. But of course you won't do that.

Here are some articles


http://www.salon.com/2016/09/12/hil...ets-talk-about-trumps-awful-health-care-plan/


here is another

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/282587-trumps-healthcare-plans-trouble-gop

yet another

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/14/more-more-uninsured-donald-trumps-health-care-plan.html

want more

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...bad_as_every_other_republican_healthcare.html


Happy reading


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Like I said, you want to ignore all the information. I told you to google his plan so you can pick and choose from all articles saying how awful it is. But of course you won't do that.
> 
> Here are some articles
> 
> 
> http://www.salon.com/2016/09/12/hil...ets-talk-about-trumps-awful-health-care-plan/
> 
> 
> here is another
> 
> http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/282587-trumps-healthcare-plans-trouble-gop
> 
> yet another
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/14/more-more-uninsured-donald-trumps-health-care-plan.html



lmao..1 of them is salon.com and the other is thehill.com..

wow .. it just goes downhill doesnt it


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Ronzilla said:


> lmao..1 of them is salon.com and the other is thehill.com..
> 
> wow .. it just goes downhill doesnt it


just what I though.

Ignoring the facts. You are right we are done. You dont want the facts.

that is why I told you to google it so you can pick and choose the sources you want so you cant cry about they are. But you are still going to ignore the hill article and CNBC ones too right even though they say the same types of things like the two you are shitting on.


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> just what I though.
> 
> Ignoring the facts. You are right we are done. You dont want the facts.
> 
> that is why I told you to google it so you can pick and choose the sources you want so you cant cry about they are. But you are still going to ignore the hill article and CNBC ones too right even though they say the same types of things like the two you are shitting on.


you're super cena right now


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

lol


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I guess it shouldn't be necessary to keep bringing this up, but while I agree that at this point polls are indicating a more than clear loss for Trump, it's good to keep in mind and I can't stress this enough that a win for Hillary is still not and never will be a win for American people. The opposition to Trump is a loss for America worth decades because not only is the RNC decimated, but also the Democrat strength is over-expressed due to the sheer incompetence of the republican party. With no opposition visible and with the republicans digging in their heels on social issues basically stuck in the 1960's a loss for them is not a win for America or the world by any means at all. I've repeatedly pointed out in this thread the damage that the democrats and republicans both have done, but the democrats more so because while republicans do it with public awareness, the democrats do it with a veil on the public's eyes thanks to the media now clearly coming out in the open as biased in the formation of public opinion towards democrat policies - both failures and successes.


Sorry but i think you're reading this at the reverse order.

The big opossition against Trump is a result of the incompetence of the republican party, Trump itself is a reflection of the republican party, this election is just Republicans looking themselves at the mirror and being terrorized by the image they see. Let's be honest, a campaign who reflect all the recent deffects of the republicans was never going to win a general election, nor it was going to do it Ted Cruz who is Trump on a Religious platform.

Trump is just a reflection of years of the southern strategy. Research has found for years tendencies among conservatives for social dominance orientation (https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/...nius_SocialDominanceOrientation.pdf?sequence=) which correlates with group hierarchy, authoritarianism, aggresiveness towards others (https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/14302021/47638024.pdf?sequence=1) or the cateorization of others as blacks (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103113001054) and is oriented to utilitarian decissions intead of deontological ones (http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.ed...=Youre_Inferior_and_Not_Worth_Our_Concern.pdf).

Are the democrats demagogues? obviously. The thing is, one party has tried to reach massive support while the other has been concentrated on mantain just a group happy, recently we were discussing why asian americans are leaning in big proportions to democrats when they are the perfect example of conservatives values (without talking about why Whites keep gaining more for the same task than asians when asians have the bigger income) and Asians have high levels of education to no understand this, the reality is, they're no included in discussions because conservatives don't care. Things like this are why Trump would never won a general election, his discourse and platofrm appeal only to one group and people who want to enter that group. Ask yourself, why republicans were almost guaranteed to retain the house and the senate one week ago and before the trump tape he was loosing so big that those are in play. You know the last time one candidate was loosing during the ENTIRE race? yeah 60 years ago with Eisenhower. The reality is, conservatives not only reject diversity but the echo chamber they have been creating for the last 50 years is imploding in them as a party.

About the media, sorry again but that's another half truth. Yeah, generally media is biased in favor of liberals but the conservative movement has been in control of radio shows and has created a partisan voice in Fox News and this is the result of almost 20 years of it, hell, today the most popular political shows (outside of the Young Turks) in youtube are all conservative. The result of this has been not only bias but the promotion of disinformation that has contributed to a fracture between educated and uneducated people in USA, the rise of things like mistrust in statistics (look at 2012 and well, today...), the claiming of global warming as a hox, the rise of conspirational things like flat eathers and infowars, etc. And yes the exportation of labor force that Trump so enfatically claim, Asians have bigger income than americans because they're better prepared

Sorry, i think this is for the better, the GOP is probably leaning for a serious division between those who still believes in the southern strategy and low levels of education, the neocons, and those who believes in real economic conservative policies. They have build their bed, they need to lay on it.

Democrats have been mostly incompetents for the majority of their existence, they're gonna loose this adventage again, or are gonna divide themselves too between moderates like Hillary and progressives like Sanders. It's bad for democracie that a Party lean into obscurity? yes, but that could lead to renovation at least, a two party system were polarization lead to a group with no rationale behind his positions is worse.



Reaper said:


> People don't even know the facts about the Middle East - and the media has kept those facts from them. There is no denying the fact that the vast majority of American voters are completely ignorant of the democrat's policies and actions that created the situation in the middle east and while Trump tries to speak mostly the truth about it, the illogicals amongst the eastern camp simply dismisses what he says as bullshit because he does say a lot of other bullshit. There is no denying the truth that Obama and Hillary did more damage to the middle east - especially Syria but even today you'll find deniers of their role whatsoever.


This is not a fact of "democrats policies", this is USA being USA. Shortly after being independent USA started to intervine center America. They started to intervine in Africa after world war II and they're gonna stay in those places while they can, no matter how many presidents campaign on "no intervention policies"

USA has been intervening Africa and the Middle east for eternity. Trump is saying he's not gonna do this, but his party is gonna do it and he's gonna cave in, just like he changed his rhetoric depending on who was in charge of his campaign. Memory is a precious thing, GWB was runing in a non interventionist platform against Al Gore also and look how that ended.... 






Trump was in favor of an intervention on Syria before running and he's gonna be in favor of whatever other intervention is convenient for political gain just like Hillary is: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran. You name it.



Reaper said:


> I think you have a valid point but I encourage you to delve more deeply into the overall structure of society where the bias in the media is merely a direct result of the far left leaning ideologies within the social sciences.


I think we have this conversation before.

I think this position is a grose over-simplification.... Yeah some aspects of social sciences had led to stupid things (As an anecdote i have a profesor who works in stupidity like water as a political actor). But as everything i think there is a lot of things we don't research enough to do valuable assertions of a totality. Instead of looking at reactions in campus or to students with little to no influence outside of universities, why we don't look at real research and papers?

People like to talk about about social sciences, yet the mean of paper reading is six. Let that sink, a paper is only read by 6 persons. The reality is more people don't read research and talk just in base of abstracts....

Even more, i would love to see the same reactions to social sciences in economy or even other "hard" sciences. For example Austrian economics have been refuted in academia left and right for his over simplification of reality, yet they are the foundation for an entire political ideology. 

We want to have this discussion, let's have it, but let's be honest about it and, more important, real informed about it



Reaper said:


> While there are certain theories that are reasonable, there are many theories preached by professors (many of whom are political activists more than they are professors) that have resulted in the decline of objectivity in the media.


And how many theorist weren't a political activist of a sort? sorry but i think you're idealising sciences.

I would love to see what current theories you think are reasonable in social sciences and what are not. 

Let's go farther, and not specifically talking to you, let see how many people who like to talk about this issue can differentiate between critical theory, the cultural studies and theories some guys take from psichology like Lacan. I'm pretty sure in saying less than 5% of every person talking about this issues is capable of diing this distinction

This is what end with youtubers sending letter to universities to end all courses in social science without reading any research in general.



Reaper said:


> If you believe that you are right and are taught that you are right then you will write everything assuming that you are right and objective because that's all you know. The less you know, the more likely you are to tilt towards one-sidedness basically. The left media isn't biased knowingly that it's biased. It's biased because the knowledge they have received during their college years is biased. It's basically the echo chamber effect.


Again, i think you're confussed.

Echo chambers are produced when you apply a "black vs white" mentality which engages in the rejection of everything different under the pretenses of misscharactherization of others positions or under, yes, ignorance of others arguments or under group acceptance. But is not a necessity of "one sidedness" in information

At the same time, as Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and others show, knowledge is also subjective, meaning you argue from a position of believing you're true almost always. Data is by meaning interpretative, and as we said in the other thread it comes from a position of conciousness. Discussions are what it matters not how true we believes we are, a position of dishonesty is very easy to destroy, you're able to identify an echo chamber by his ability to argue his position.





Reaper said:


> As far as this forum is concerned, I think a lot of people make valid points on both sides. I don't actually care about "winning points" over fellow forum members because at the end of the day the real fact is that no matter who wins, America loses in some areas and wins in others, and it's one of those hard facts everyone needs to understand.


I completely agree with this.

But i'm worried about honest discussions, which is what we should encourage, the results of that discussion are meaningles, when the discussion is honest the results should be honest also.



Reaper said:


> Some of Trump's ideas are needed and welcomed and until and unless some of them are implemented whether it be by the democrats or not remains to be seen, but if nothing else, *cultural preservation and the preservation of capitalism is an absolute must*. The world depends on those two more than they do on anything else.


And you think those are at risk? like seriously, specially capitalism?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Wikileaks:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@asdf0501 

If we're really going to do this, how about we go about this in a different way. Apply the critical rationalist method to any social science theory and see what happens. It's an interesting way to examine social sciences because in the hard sciences a critical rationalist approach will eventually lead to 2+2=4 (even if we assume that it isn't true) whereas it's a much harder ball game with the social sciences and I would be interested to see you apply it to a specific social science theory (of your own choosing).


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> @asdf0501
> 
> If we're really going to do this, how about we go about this in a different way. Apply the critical rationalist method to any social science theory and see what happens. It's an interesting way to examine social sciences because in the hard sciences a critical rationalist approach will eventually lead to 2+2=4 (even if we assume that it isn't true) whereas it's a much harder ball game with the social sciences and I would be interested to see you apply it to a specific social science theory (of your own choosing).


I don't think the critical approach lead eventually to 2+2=4, this is why in statistics you work with an error margin always. You can produce at best an iteration which is replicable in almost all scenarios but not in all of them, that's what a confidence interval is.

But anyway, i would show something in one of my research fields which is stratification

http://www.harryganzeboom.nl/isko88/..\pdf\1992-ganzeboom-degraaf-treiman-isei68-(ssr).pdf


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Legit BOSS said:


> *CNN dedicated an article to Charlamagne for giving Donald Trump Donkey of The Day a half a dozen times :lmao* http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/07/polit...-gets-political-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/


CNN is so fuckin bias


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*Trump might as well be called Donkey of The Decade:*


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> I don't think the critical approach lead eventually to 2+2=4, this is why in statistics you work with an error margin always. You can produce at best an iteration which is replicable in almost all scenarios but not in all of them, that's what a confidence interval is.
> 
> But anyway, i would show something in one of my research fields which is stratification
> 
> http://www.harryganzeboom.nl/isko88/..%5Cpdf%5C1992-ganzeboom-degraaf-treiman-isei68-(ssr).pdf


Have you read Karl Popper and his criticisms of the social sciences? (BTW, I'm not going into the failure of the applicability of his ideas on psychology because I believe that psychology is getting closer to natural science because of its shift in direction towards understanding chemical processes) But much of his criticisms are still applicable to sociology and social psychology. 

PS> Maybe we should take this to PM's. I don't think people on here will benefit from this discussion.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Ronzilla said:


>


I'm sure he pussy-grabbed each one.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...e-clintons-got-paid-1476109925-htmlstory.html

Woman who has long criticized Hillary Clinton got paid by Trump ally

Its funny Trump keeps bringing up what Bill Clinton did when Bill is not even the one running, what is worse 5 women have accused Trump of sexual assault like he talked about what he likes to do in that video, not to mention Trump raped his ex-wife and a 13 year old girl.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> And again SORRY PAL but it would be 100x worse under what Trump wants to do.


Many times in your drivel filled Trump rants you have stated that he has no policy etc yet you seem to be a expert on his Healthcare policy. Any chance you can elaborate on what will make things 100x worse under Trump?

And please dont link some awfully bias article from awfully bias sites like CNBC or thehill.com

I would like to hear your expert view on the matter seems how like most things you seem to have in depth knowledge on Donald's healthcare policy (Y)


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

An amazing insight in why private polling is better at this rate than public polling (which means, Trump could be loosing bigger than what polls says). And how democrats are reasearching and doing decisions based on quality info in comparison with republicans

https://www.wired.com/2016/06/civis-election-polling-clinton-sanders-trump/

Everyone should read this


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> Many times in your drivel filled Trump rants you have stated that he has no policy etc yet you seem to be a expert on his Healthcare policy. Any chance you can elaborate on what will make things 100x worse under Trump?
> 
> And please dont link some awfully bias article from awfully bias sites like CNBC or thehill.com
> 
> I would like to hear your expert view on the matter seems how like most things you seem to have in depth knowledge on Donald's healthcare policy (Y)


I already said numerous times why Trumps healthcare plan is a disaster, I am done repeating myself. And yeah disregard the articles that also so why its so bad.

Go back a few posts and see why it will be bad.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I already said numerous times why Trumps healthcare plan is a disaster, I am done repeating myself. And yeah disregard the articles that also so why its so bad.
> 
> Go back a few posts and see why it will be bad.


:lmao

All you said was it will be 100x worse under Trump and lectured some guy about how good Obamacare is even though he said it has caused his family no end of trouble. You have not give one tiny little bit of factual or informed information. You linked some ridiculously bias articles of which none offered anything but bias opinions. You said things will be 100x worse under Trump so i presumed you are a expert on his healthcare policy so i ask again. please elaborate. I want educating and you appear to be the man in the know


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Obamacare is good? LOL well guess it is for some people but then again some people love to have other's shit in their mouth so thinking Obamacare is great doesn't surprise me.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> :lmao
> 
> All you said was it will be 100x worse under Trump and lectured some guy about how good Obamacare is even though he said it has caused his family no end of trouble. You have not give one tiny little bit of factual or informed information. You linked some ridiculously bias articles of which none offered anything but bias opinions. You said things will be 100x worse under Trump so i presumed you are a expert on his healthcare policy so i ask again. please elaborate. I want educating and you appear to be the man in the know


I gave FOUR articles showing why its bad, from FOUR difference sources, and quote an expert on it, yet you dont think that is evidence LOL

It just shows what no matter what facts and evidence you give Trump supporters they will just ignore it and pretend its not evidence. You also show it does not matter what any one says you will just claim its not evidence or proof or what not.

There is no point in even debating if you are going to ignore what experts say about his shitty plan. But keep your fingers in your ears and keep saying la la la la to yourself. It does not change the fact that experts pan Trumps healthcare plan and say how bad it is.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> :lmao
> 
> All you said was it will be 100x worse under Trump and lectured some guy about how good Obamacare is even though he said it has caused his family no end of trouble. You have not give one tiny little bit of factual or informed information. You linked some ridiculously bias articles of which none offered anything but bias opinions. You said things will be 100x worse under Trump so i presumed you are a expert on his healthcare policy so i ask again. please elaborate. I want educating and you appear to be the man in the know


I gave FOUR articles showing why its bad, from FOUR difference sources, and quote an expert on it, yet you dont think that is evidence LOL

It just shows what no matter what facts and evidence you give Trump supporters they will just ignore it and pretend its not evidence. You also show it does not matter what any one says you will just claim its not evidence or proof or what not.

There is no point in even debating if you are going to ignore what experts say about his shitty plan. But keep your fingers in your ears and keep saying la la la la to yourself. It does not change the fact that experts pan Trumps healthcare plan and say how bad it is.

And no matter what I would show, you would come back and say well how would you know, you are not an expert, which is what people like you do, thus why I gave you waht an expert said, and you just dimiss that.

This is the ignorance of Trump supporters in spades


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I gave FOUR articles showing why its bad, from FOUR difference sources, and quote an expert on it, yet you dont think that is evidence LOL
> 
> It just shows what no matter what facts and evidence you give Trump supporters they will just ignore it and pretend its not evidence. You also show it does not matter what any one says you will just claim its not evidence or proof or what not.
> 
> There is no point in even debating if you are going to ignore what experts say about his shitty plan. But keep your fingers in your ears and keep saying la la la la to yourself. It does not change the fact that experts pan Trumps healthcare plan and say how bad it is.
> 
> And no matter what I would show, you would come back and say well how would you know, you are not an expert, which is what people like you do, thus why I gave you waht an expert said, and you just dimiss that.
> 
> This is the ignorance of Trump supporters in spades


Experts at smearing Trump yes :lmao

Four articles by anti Trump writers. Thanks for the factual information (Y). 

Do you think the more times you say the word facts it will make me believe it. Someone's opinion on how something might or might not turn out is not a fucking fact. It is a opinion. Do you even know what a fact is?

I will go and read some Sean Hannity articles on Hillary Clinton then link his opinions as facts the next time i am debating someone eh 

Thought you was well informed on the subject but word that springs to mind is clueless


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

trump's healthcare plan is going to be 1800x times better than obamacare, it's not even close.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoplankton


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Goku said:


> trump's healthcare plan is going to be 1800x times better than obamacare, it's not even close.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoplankton


Spray tans will be covered.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






:fpalm
This is why Trump still has a shot. GOP voters aren't voting for him. They are voting against Hillary and for the supreme court. God can use anybody, so why not use Hillary? The hypocrisy is deep for these people.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Isnt hillary gaining momentum from people who arent voting for her but against trump? Not sure why its shocking that it is happening on both sides.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Sweenz said:


> Isnt hillary gaining momentum from people who arent voting for her but against trump? Not sure why its shocking that it is happening on both sides.


Because they are finding excuses to vote for him that they find deplorable on the liberal side. :shrug


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I gave FOUR articles showing why its bad, from FOUR difference sources, and quote an expert on it, yet you dont think that is evidence LOL
> 
> It just shows what no matter what facts and evidence you give Trump supporters they will just ignore it and pretend its not evidence. You also show it does not matter what any one says you will just claim its not evidence or proof or what not.
> 
> There is no point in even debating if you are going to ignore what experts say about his shitty plan. But keep your fingers in your ears and keep saying la la la la to yourself. It does not change the fact that experts pan Trumps healthcare plan and say how bad it is.
> 
> And no matter what I would show, you would come back and say well how would you know, you are not an expert, which is what people like you do, thus why I gave you waht an expert said, and you just dimiss that.
> 
> This is the ignorance of Trump supporters in spades



:lmao:genius:stupid::boredunk4


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The poll Clinton was ahead in was done by a Clinton Staff member:


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

"The poll" as if there has been one singular poll that Hilary has been found ahead in....

This is of course assuming what you've posted isn't photoshopped nonsense like 90% of what you post.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> *Trump might as well be called Donkey of The Decade:*












- Vic


----------



## The Boy Wonder

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



This guy has some guts. He got thrown out of the rally.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Boy Wonder said:


> This guy has some guts. He got thrown out of the rally.


He's lucky he is black or else they would have put the boots to him.


Also anymore on the wikileaks stuff? Heard that some racist stuff Hillary said came out but iunno if it's true or just trolling.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Because they are finding excuses to vote for him that they find deplorable on the liberal side. :shrug


That's a pretty broad statement. Some sure. But some see that, at least in their opinion, she has been accused of and/or done some pretty deplorable things as well. More so than Trump(i mean, there is an example of that very stance in the last couple of pages here). And feel her supporters have to perform some olympic sized mental gymnastics to justify/excuse them. 

And there are some yet that find that comparing the two is a wash and are voting for the positions that the parties themselves push for. 

Just because someone decides to vote a certain way, does not mean they are doing so for your own pre-determined reasons for doing so. Nor that they fully support everything that person/party does or will do. 

Think of it like a scale, placing all the good and bad of each option on it, then seeing where the needle falls.. for some, the scale will never shift from the one side and will never consider anything their side does as bad, or the other side does as good. Or there could be one thing a side stands for or says that weighs more than all the rest combined. Then there are some that actually like parts of either side(and dislike parts of both sides), but there is something for them that could barely tip the scale and eventually earns their vote.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## cablegeddon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Boy Wonder said:


> This guy has some guts. He got thrown out of the rally.


Is that Dave Chapelle?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Sweenz said:


> That's a pretty broad statement. Some sure. But some see that, at least in their opinion, she has been accused of and/or done some pretty deplorable things as well. More so than Trump(i mean, there is an example of that very stance in the last couple of pages here). And feel her supporters have to perform some olympic sized mental gymnastics to justify/excuse them.
> 
> And there are some yet that find that comparing the two is a wash and are voting for the positions that the parties themselves push for.
> 
> Just because someone decides to vote a certain way, does not mean they are doing so for your own pre-determined reasons for doing so. Nor that they fully support everything that person/party does or will do.
> 
> Think of it like a scale, placing all the good and bad of each option on it, then seeing where the needle falls.. for some, the scale will never shift from the one side and will never consider anything their side does as bad, or the other side does as good. Or there could be one thing a side stands for or says that weighs more than all the rest combined. Then there are some that actually like parts of either side(and dislike parts of both sides), but there is something for them that could barely tip the scale and eventually earns their vote.


When one side is resorting to attacking Hillary using pillows on chairs as evidence and for the sins of her husband, you know they are clutching at straws.

I was referring to voters like that one in the video I posted. And they form a large part of the GOP base. There is no scale for many of them, only repeal Roe V Wade and this elections has exposed them for their willingness to be hypocritical about their beliefs in pursuit of 'religious freedom'. 

If anything, I think this elections has also exposed the real 'values' leaders from the hypocritical power hungry leaders and the voters that care about conservatism from the white identity segment that form the base of GOP support. 

You talk about Hillary's supporters performing mental gymnastics, but Trump has flip-flopped on so many positions that watching his surrogates perform mental gymnastics on the news provided more entertainment this past year than Raw. Both candidates say different things to different audiences, but Trump has taken it to another level and his base is eating it up. Her supporters engaged in denial to comment on her scandals which hardly constitute mental gymnastics. Trump supporters on the other hand have to keep changing their positions, sometimes within the 24 hour news cycle because he mouth off like an entitled child instead of being a presidential candidate all the time. Look at his founder of ISIS rhetoric. First they said defended Trump's words attempting to give context to what Trump meant, then the next day Trump said it was sarcasm and they have to defend it as Trump meant what he said AND was being sarcastic. Even Donald Trump Jr threw them under the bus on a radio show a few months back.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> When one side is resorting to attacking Hillary using pillows on chairs as evidence and for the sins of her husband, you know they are clutching at straws.


I see your pillow, and raise you donald sniffling/heavy breaths.

As for bill.. That is not the only thing. Just the most recent thing, mainly cause it directly combats the leaked tapes.



> I was referring to voters like that one in the video I posted. And they form a large part of the GOP base. There is no scale for many of them, only repeal Roe V Wade and this elections has exposed them for their willingness to be hypocritical about their beliefs in pursuit of 'religious freedom'.


Yes, tyou took a single video of a single voter talking about one complete end of the spectrum and then generalizing all trump voters in that same catagory. Which is specifically what I commented on.



> If anything, I think this elections has also exposed the real 'values' leaders from the hypocritical power hungry leaders and the voters that care about conservatism from the white identity segment that form the base of GOP support.
> 
> You talk about Hillary's supporters performing mental gymnastics, but Trump has flip-flopped on so many positions that watching his surrogates perform mental gymnastics on the news provided more entertainment this past year than Raw. Both candidates say different things to different audiences, but Trump has taken it to another level and his base is eating it up.


"His are doing it too!" doesn't do anything about setting one apart from the other. Which was my point.



> Her supporters engaged in denial to comment on her scandals which hardly constitute mental gymnastics.


Over generalization again. Some.. sure.. But people/supporters have in the past and still do try to justify what she has done. Those that deny to comment know that its a road they don't want to go down cause it will turn out badly.

Edit: Though the mental gymnastics are not only about making public comments, but also how they continue to justify still supporting her with these scandals. They either have to accept what she has done in those scandals and are fine with it, or in their own way convince themselves that some/all of them arent true so that they can continue to give her their support.



> Trump supporters on the other hand have to keep changing their positions, sometimes within the 24 hour news cycle because he mouth off like an entitled child instead of being a presidential candidate all the time. Look at his founder of ISIS rhetoric. First they said defended Trump's words attempting to give context to what Trump meant, then the next day Trump said it was sarcasm and they have to defend it as Trump meant what he said AND was being sarcastic. Even Donald Trump Jr threw them under the bus on a radio show a few months back.


Over generalization again. Some.. sure. Most take anything said by a political opponent with a grain of salt. It wasn't that long ago that clinton was trying to make sanders state(vermont) to be a major contriburtor of gun trafficking in new york.. when in fact it only made up 1.2 %(if I'm remembering that right). And tried to use sandy hook victims as a political prop against him as well. There were staunch supporters that backed that claim at first, then had to backpeddal when people started showing how absurd it was. But by your logic, I could say "Clinton supporters buy ludicrous Sandy Hook connection hook, line and sinker.... and are now looking very dumb and foolish. I guess all her supporters are dumb/foolish."


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Wikileaks:


Out of curiosity, what do you find particularly scandalous about this?

They assessed the Republican landscape correctly and implemented a strategy that both made a ton of sense on paper and has, for all intents and purposes, worked. They identified the fault line in the party, and it has since become a pretty serious fracture.

Now, one thing that could be argued is that the Democrats' pearl-clutching routine is somewhat hypocritical, given that their desired outcome was to make the Republicans' more divisive candidates the forerunners of the conversation, which had the obviously foreseeable side effect of bringing more divisive rhetoric to mainstream politics.

But I don't want to feed you answers. I'd rather hear your thoughts unprompted.


----------



## .MCH

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The landslide for democrats this election is going to be INCREDIBLE. Thank you Donald. Thank you for destroying the republican party sooner than most people predicted.


----------



## The Boy Wonder

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



.MCH said:


> The landslide for democrats this election is going to be INCREDIBLE. Thank you Donald. Thank you for destroying the republican party sooner than most people predicted.


Hillary will win, but it won't be a landslide. Look at the size of his crowds compared to her small crowds. She's going to have to get all the help she can get to win this election. The result probably won't be determined until the next day.

As far as the Republican party goes they have no one to blame but themselves. They've had the Congress for two years and the House since 2010. They've been pushovers to the president, hence the reason for Trump's rise. The Republican party only cares about preserving power within their own party which is why they don't care about losing presidential elections. They'd rather fight their own nominee than the opposition. 

The ironic part is this: The Republican leaders want to prevent a sexual deviant from getting into the White House. However they're helping a candidate win who will allow a sexual deviant to once again come into the White House.


----------



## Bret Hart

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I gave FOUR articles showing why its bad, from FOUR difference sources, and quote an expert on it, yet you dont think that is evidence LOL
> 
> It just shows what no matter what facts and evidence you give Trump supporters they will just ignore it and pretend its not evidence. You also show it does not matter what any one says you will just claim its not evidence or proof or what not.
> 
> There is no point in even debating if you are going to ignore what experts say about his shitty plan. But keep your fingers in your ears and keep saying la la la la to yourself. It does not change the fact that experts pan Trumps healthcare plan and say how bad it is.
> 
> And no matter what I would show, you would come back and say well how would you know, you are not an expert, which is what people like you do, thus why I gave you waht an expert said, and you just dimiss that.
> 
> This is the ignorance of Trump supporters in spades


You like Hillary?


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This election is just proving there is no hope for humanity..... not only are the two nominees some of the most embarassing, corrupt and evil pieces of shit this country could put up for president, but we are actually going into constant internet dogfights to prop one over the other. We could actually all decide that we are tired of voting in corruption, selfishness, and evil and start actually voting for other people but nope.... gotta have constant pissing contests over which of these two douchebags is better. 

I want out....


----------



## The Boy Wonder

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Kabraxal said:


> This election is just proving there is no hope for humanity..... not only are the two nominees some of the most embarassing, corrupt and evil pieces of shit this country could put up for president, but we are actually going into constant internet dogfights to prop one over the other. We could actually all decide that we are tired of voting in corruption, selfishness, and evil and start actually voting for other people but nope.... gotta have constant pissing contests over which of these two douchebags is better.
> 
> I want out....


If Bernie wasn't such a pushover he could have been that candidate we were looking for. But instead he got steamrolled like a cartoon character.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Boy Wonder said:


> Hillary will win, but it won't be a landslide. Look at the size of his crowds compared to her small crowds. She's going to have to get all the help she can get to win this election. The result probably won't be determined until the next day.



Crowds sizes don't matter, i think people should had learned this from 2012..



















At this rate Trump is pace to loose for one of the bigger margins in Election history. Even Arizona, Georgia and Alaska are in play now


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Boy Wonder said:


> If Bernie wasn't such a pushover he could have been that candidate we were looking for. But instead he got steamrolled like a cartoon character.


Bernie, for me at least, would have simply been a minor upgrade from being shot or stabbed in the face to tortured until my sanity snapped. But then, there probably isn't a candidate for me out there because I am simply one that wants to live my life, let you live yours, and essentially as long as no one is getting raped, killed, or enslaved then I see no need for anyone else to get involved. 

But it seems a human past time for everyone else to tell another human what they can and cannot do as a consenting adult. Or the flipside, the shitbags that decide they can do whatever they want regardless of who they hurt. I want to be neither and want to be left alone.

In short: I hate humanity and would really like my own private universe right now.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Biran Posehn was on @mdnight last night and he had a great line in response to "Who won the debate?"

"No one won. Chris, it's the reverse Special Olympics. We're all losers. All losers. No one's winning"


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Kabraxal said:


> This election is just proving there is no hope for humanity..... not only are the two nominees some of the most embarassing, corrupt and evil pieces of shit this country could put up for president, but we are actually going into constant internet dogfights to prop one over the other. We could actually all decide that we are tired of voting in corruption, selfishness, and evil and start actually voting for other people but nope.... gotta have constant pissing contests over which of these two douchebags is better.
> 
> I want out....


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Polls are cucked so its not obvious when Hillary steals it like she did to Bernie.


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I've selected my candidate and on the day I cast that vote, I can honestly say that I have never been more proud in my selection. 

Here's hoping my write in "None of the Above" wins the White House! lol


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CenaBoy4Life said:


> Polls are cucked so its not obvious when Hillary steals it like she did to Bernie.


:lmao

You're never going to win elections again with this mentality.

You know, instead of crying and screaming at polls because you don't like what they say you could use them as a valid source of information to reach voters and know where to expand ground games. But alas, everyone is entitled to his own demise the way they like


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ts-are-subjective-and-based-party-affiliation

@DesolationRow @CamillePunk @MissSally; @Tater @Reaper @Beatles123 (You especially should be interested in this).



> The American electorate has never been more divided with people having wide ranging opinions on which party/candidate would be best for the future of the country. Certainly economic and other facts help guide those opinions but, in the end, the decision is also based on the subjective views of each voter.
> 
> But, for Politifact, apparently even the facts are subjective and based on party affiliation. Take the following example:
> 
> On July 6, 2015, Bernie Sanders made the following comment about Black youth unemployment in the United States:
> 
> "For young people who have graduated high school or dropped out of high school, who are between the ages of 17 and 20, if they happen to be white, the unemployment rate is 33 percent. If they are Hispanic, the unemployment rate is 36 percent. If they are African-American, the real unemployment rate for young people is 51 percent."
> Shortly after that comment was made, Politifact decided to "fact check" Bernie's assertion that black youth unemployment was sky high and found that it was "Mostly True."
> 
> Sanders said that for African-Americans between the ages of 17 and 20, "the real unemployment rate … is 51 percent." His terminology was off, but the numbers he used check out, and his general point was correct -- that in an apples-to-apples comparison, African-American youth have significantly worse prospects in the job market than either Hispanics or whites do. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.
> The problem is that when Donald Trump made a similar assertion at a rally on June 11, 2016, Politifact's "fact checking" analysis had a slightly different conclusion. Here is what Trump said:
> 
> "If you look at what’s going on in this country, African-American youth is an example: 59 percent unemployment rate; 59 percent."
> But this time around Politifact claimed that "Trump exaggerates" the level of black youth unemployment through a "misleading use of statistics." Politifact concludes that Trumps comments are therefore "Mostly False."
> 
> The unemployment rate is a widely used term with a specific definition: It refers to the percentage of jobless people in the workforce who are actively seeking employment. In May, the unemployment rate for blacks ages 16 to 24 was 18.7 percent, or less than one-third of Trump’s claim.
> Wait, now it is 18.7% when Politi"fact" said a year prior that Benie's 51% claim was "mostly true?"
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Both candidates were referring to studies like the one below from the Economic Policy Institute which attempt to find true unemployment rates based on the number of people employed to the total population adjusted for those still enrolled in continuing education. On this basis, true white youth unemployment is in the mid-30s while black youth unemployment is in the low-50s after hovering around 60% for several years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Politifact was able to "recall" this study when "fact checking" Bernie but, like Hillary in an FBI interview, they "did not recall" the study when fact checking Trump.
> 
> We rate Politifact's fact-checking Mostly Biased.



Incredible, even politifact and the fact checkers are at least biased towards Trump if not towards right wingers in general. This election cycle is so fucked.

I don't even like Trump, he has said some incredibly stupid shit and some his policies are awful but come on now. If it's not obvious to people that all of the mainstream media is trying their damndest to get Hillary nominated then you are incredibly naive.

In short, don't trust the fact checkers, look into EVERYTHING independently to seek the real truth in issues and come to your own conclusions.

Fuck the media, fuck fact checkers.

And most importantly fuck this election, I'm just watching to see how much of a train wreck it eventually turns out to be.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> Incredible, even politifact and the fact checkers are at least biased towards Trump if not towards right wingers in general. This election cycle is so fucked.
> 
> I don't even like Trump, he has said some incredibly stupid shit and some his policies are awful but come on now. If it's not obvious to people that all of the mainstream media is trying their damndest to get Hillary nominated then you are incredibly naive.
> 
> In short, don't trust the fact checkers, look into EVERYTHING independently to seek the real truth in issues and come to your own conclusions.
> 
> Fuck the media, fuck fact checkers.
> 
> And most importantly fuck this election, I'm just watching to see how much of a train wreck it eventually turns out to be.


Politifact is trash in general and not just for right wing politics. For example






Not that i claim MSNBC is not bias, but here you have and example of Politifact botching in the other direction.

Sorry, but you're doing the same thing you claim to be bias: Took one example and run with it as a general rule without consulting more sources. Maybe you're right and the media is trying to elect Hillary but Trump is runing his campaign into the ground alone, no one forced him to go on infinite twitter rants, nor botch the first debate, nor change 3 times of staffers because he don't botter to check who he was hiring, nor got into a civil war with the GOP, nor drag controversies like the Khans or Alicia Machado for more than one or two weeks because he don't support to get his ego hurt, nor was he force to botch his entire ground work

Media even tried to push the narrative of "THE COMEBACK" after the second debate because they need a horserace. Trump was so under the earth that people didn't even believed that he won the debate

When are we gonna stop making excuses for people? As a candidate is one of the worst runned campaigns ever. At this rate a moderate like Rubio could have Hillary on a tie, but nop, the second biggest unpopular candidate in history is gonna win in one of the biggest blow outs ever


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I always laugh when I see photos of Hillary rallies. The combination of their puny size compared to Trump rallies, and the fact that the women clearly have higher testosterone levels than the men, is just too much.

Worst candidate ever? Definitely.

Worst *human being* ever? Probably.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



.MCH said:


> The landslide for democrats this election is going to be INCREDIBLE. Thank you Donald. Thank you for destroying the republican party sooner than most people predicted.


The Republican party have destroyed itself from within. Nothing to do with Trump. From the first Republican primary debate it was obvious Trump was going to piss it and ever since he has received little to no support from the party. When Trump announced that he will be running for the GOP nomination he was mocked and ridiculed from all sides. The fact that a celebrity businessman can come in and destroy all these seasoned politicians in the primaries off the back of a few crazy policy suggestions shows just how much of a fucking mess the GOP was to begin with 

Trump has fought his campaign against the American media, The world media, The democrats and the Republican party itself and the fact that he is still standing and in the race with the elections only a few weeks away is a miracle in its own rite 

When Hillarys scandals have emerged how many Democratic senators have come out and publicly denounced her? How many Democratic Senators have publicly mocked and lambasted her? Despite the fact that her scandals in reality being much worse than Trumps. She has laughed at defending guilty paedophiles. She has put the national security of the U.S.A at risk with the email and server debacle. She lied about Benghazi. The farce that is the Clinton foundation. She has lied through her back teeth repeatedly to the American people as well as the F.B.I . All these incidents spanning from 30 years ago to the present day and yet she still has the backing and unwavering support of the Democratic party. Even Bernie through gritted teeth has put the party's best interests above his own and you know what fair play to them. They have behaved as a team should do. They have stuck together and ultimately will reap the rewards

Trump on the other hand makes a few sexist and stupid comments and the slimy, jealous back stabbing maggot members of the GOP seem delighted to throw him under the bus with public denouncing, mocking and attempted humiliation.The shit house that is Paul Ryan yesterday basically told the members to fuck the party and look after themselves. If they had 5% percent of the loyalty towards Trump as the Democratic party have towards Hillary there is a very good chance Trump could have won this election

Fuck the Republican party.They have nobody to blame but themselves


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Politifact is trash in general and not just for right wing politics. For example
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not that i claim MSNBC is not bias, but here you have and example of Politifact botching in the other direction.
> 
> Sorry, but you're doing the same thing you claim to be bias: Took one example and run with it as a general rule without consulting more sources. Maybe you're right and the media is trying to elect Hillary but Trump is runing his campaign into the ground alone, no one forced him to go on infinite twitter rants, nor botch the first debate, nor change 3 times of staffers because he don't botter to check who he was hiring, nor got into a civil war with the GOP, nor drag controversies like the Khans or Alicia Machado for more than one or two weeks because he don't support to get his ego hurt, nor was he force to botch his entire ground work
> 
> Media even tried to push the narrative of "THE COMEBACK" after the second debate because they need a horserace. Trump was so under the earth that people didn't even believed that he won the debate
> 
> When are we gonna stop making excuses for people? As a candidate is one of the worst runned campaigns ever. At this rate a moderate like Rubio could have Hillary on a tie, but nop, the second biggest unpopular candidate in history is gonna win in one of the biggest blow outs ever


I'm not denying Trump has damaged himself a lot in his campaign and of course there is bias towards Trump from the likes of Fox and Breitbart but the majority of the mainstream media want Clinton to win, Politifact is far from the only example which shows this. Trump's tape about women for example was plastered all over the media from different directions; around the same timeframe we had Wikileaks come out with the latest news on Hillary, in particular in relation to the transcripts with WallStreet. It was obviously reported but the majority of the mainstream media completely ignored it. I was even surprised it was brought up in the 2nd debate.

I agree again that some of the media tried to push The Donald comeback story, they obviously want a great story to come out of this because it pushes for views and more money, that will always be a part of media regardless of which way they swing politically. I do happen to believe Trump won the 2nd debate and quite convincingly (I posted my reasons why earlier), however early scientific polls do suggest Hillary slightly edging out Trump again amongst the voters. So my personal opinion counts for nothing, Hillary still has the advantage.

I'm not making excuses for Trump but pointing out the rather obvious bias amongst the majority of mainstream media outlets. Does not mean I support Trump, does not mean I don't call out his gaffes but I call it as I see it. Just because Trump has made a rather large mess of his campaign at critical times does not excuse what the media is doing. I believe the same thing for example would have happened to Rand Paul because Rand is an outsider opposed to the status quo in Washington. Trump at least puts himself across anti-establishment even if there is a large possibility he won't be. And his loose cannon, we don't what the fuck he'll actually do if he gets in office scares the hell out of the elite in Washington.

Hillary is the much safer option for them so it's hardly surprising the majority of mainstream outlets are biased in favour of her.

As far as politifact goes, I'll watch that video now. The most important thing uncovered could be that that site is complete garbage with an obvious bias against certain people.

EDIT: Watched the video :lmao.

Jesus christ are you serious? Politifact has to be one of the worst sites in existence.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



















fpalm 

Got this in the mail today. Face palming cuz this is just really bad and clearly aimed at a very specific audience.

I have to ask though ... does this kind of language and communication really work .. because it just seems so over-simplified and not even relevant imo. 

Or maybe it's because it's not directed at me ... Though I was hoping that it would have been.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Got this in the mail today. Face palming cuz this is just really bad and clearly aimed at a very specific audience.
> 
> I have to ask though ... does this kind of language and communication really work .. because it just seems so over-simplified and not even relevant imo.
> 
> Or maybe it's because it's not directed at me ... Though I was hoping that it would have been.







Hillary wants to bring 65,000 Syrian refugees into the country without ANY kind of background check. Add in the recent radical Muslim attacks in this country along with ISIS growing in numbers and the American people have every right to be afraid or up in arms about it.




> If Bernie wasn't such a pushover he could have been that candidate we were looking for. But instead he got steamrolled like a cartoon character.


I lost all respect for him when he blatantly got fucked over by his own party and he STILL supported them and a new mansion out of it! What a sellout!




> I've selected my candidate and on the day I cast that vote, I can honestly say that I have never been more proud in my selection.
> 
> Here's hoping my write in "None of the Above" wins the White House! lol


Gov. Jesse Ventura wants the option of "A Vote Of No Confidence" added to the voting ballots. I agree with him!

- Vic


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So I saw that some Trump supporters in response to his tweets this morning about Paul Ryan, John McCain, and the GOP establishment, are calling for supporters to vote for democratic challengers to those seats held by GOP that are no longer supporting trump.

Also, saw that Glenn Beck has endorsed Hillary, calling it the moral, ethical choice.

I am now wondering if somehow in the past year I crossed over into a parallel universe without knowing it.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






This is such an important video, this reiterates just how dangerous the Clinton foreign policy is. She's essentially a neo-conservative. As Kyle pointed out, any DECENT JOURNALIST would pound Clinton with questions on this. If it weren't for alternative media like Secular Talk nobody would know about it. Once again, mainstream media silent on a negative Clinton policy.


Meanwhile.....






More potential Trump tape leaks, it just keeps getting worse for the Trump campaign :lmao.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Wiki leaks keep getting worse and worse for Hillary


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> :lmao
> 
> You're never going to win elections again with this mentality.
> 
> You know, instead of crying and screaming at polls because you don't like what they say you could use them as a valid source of information to reach voters and know where to expand ground games. But alas, everyone is entitled to his own demise the way they like



can u explain to me how polls of 400 -500 ppl is suppose to represent 320 million


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> Wiki leaks keep getting worse and worse for Hillary


. . . and the mainstream continues to ignore it while overanalyzing everything Trump says or does, even if it was decades ago.

There's a word for how the MSM is behaving. What is it, again?

Oh, right. Deplorable.

The mainstream media is deplorable.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Big Salad said:


> . . . and the mainstream continues to ignore it while overanalyzing everything Trump says or does, even if it was decades ago.
> 
> There's a word for how the MSM is behaving. What is it, again?
> 
> Oh, right. Deplorable.
> 
> The mainstream media is deplorable.


Yep they don't want him to win at all. Trump is fight everyone that doesn't support him.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> This is such an important video, this reiterates just how dangerous the Clinton foreign policy is. She's essentially a neo-conservative. As Kyle pointed out, any DECENT JOURNALIST would pound Clinton with questions on this. If it weren't for alternative media like Secular Talk nobody would know about it. Once again, mainstream media silent on a negative Clinton policy.
> 
> 
> Meanwhile.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More potential Trump tape leaks, it just keeps getting worse for the Trump campaign :lmao.


Videos of Hillary tossing off Osama Bin Laden in exchange for Clinton foundation donations could be released and it would not make a blind bit of difference. The powers that be decided long ago that Trump can not win this election. He has been pissing against the wind since day one


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

All these Republicans turning on Trump are being two-faced imo. All it took were some lewd comments for them to turn their backs on him? That tells us that they weren't too thrilled with Trump to begin with. Now they're ready to throw in the towel and hand Clinton the keys to the White House.

Say what you will about Hillary and Bill's past, but at least the Democrats have the stones to stand behind their candidate no matter what.

If Trump somehow manages to win, he should give Paul Ryan the finger while he recites the Oath of Office.



The Boy Wonder said:


> This guy has some guts. He got thrown out of the rally.


:lmao The audacity of this Ray Lewis-looking motherfucker. He gets props for that. Here's the full video:






And here's another one from a Tim Kaine rally:


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> can u explain to me how polls of 400 -500 ppl is suppose to represent 320 million


Central limit theorem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem

If you assume your sample is at random (and is representative after weight), a sufficient N (normally over 120 persons) tend to a normal distribution. When you reach the point in which your sample reseamble a normal distribution (or a Z distribution however you wan to call it) you're able to say that your sample is representative of a general population you're examining.

This is supported by the law of large numbers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers), everytime you increase a number of iterations, you tend to approach similar Results and get close to a minimum level of dispersion because the larger your sample is, less effect your outliers have. Meaning there is a sufficient N in which you can obtain an optimal result .


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Sweenz said:


> I see your pillow, and raise you donald sniffling/heavy breaths.
> 
> As for bill.. That is not the only thing. Just the most recent thing, mainly cause it directly combats the leaked tapes.


You can't be serious in comparing the attacks with those pillows to jokes about Donald's sniffling during the debates. As far as I know only Howard Dean was making absurd claims about it while the pillows was treated as actual evidence by Trump's fringe supporters, even in this very thread!

So to combat the leaked tapes, Trump stopped caring about Chelsea Clinton's feeling that he claim to care so much about? (which was BS anyway because he and his surrogates still brought it up during the first debate with their pathetic nudge nudge wink wink ways to try to pass off as being compassionate)



> Yes, tyou took a single video of a single voter talking about one complete end of the spectrum and then generalizing all trump voters in that same catagory. Which is specifically what I commented on.


No. I used the video as evidence in this thread. I've read actual journalist work during this campaign that tried to find out why there is so much support among evangelicals for a thrice divorced, philandering casino magnate that has shown little knowledge of the bible. This goes back to even when Trump was battling Ted Cruz. I was one of those that assume Cruz had that group locked up in the primaries and I was so wrong about it.




> "His are doing it too!" doesn't do anything about setting one apart from the other. Which was my point.


Hypocritical when you use that as justification of using Bill's mistakes to attack Hillary.




> Over generalization again. Some.. sure.. But people/supporters have in the past and still do try to justify what she has done. Those that deny to comment know that its a road they don't want to go down cause it will turn out badly.
> 
> Edit: Though the mental gymnastics are not only about making public comments, but also how they continue to justify still supporting her with these scandals. They either have to accept what she has done in those scandals and are fine with it, or in their own way convince themselves that some/all of them arent true so that they can continue to give her their support.


Everyone has their skeletons in public life. Denial to comment is a standard defence for those in public eye. Trump's spokesperson has denied to comment on numerous occasions. Tax returns, evidence of an audit, sacking of campaign managers, etc. You brought up the mental gymnastics of her supporters in an attempt to paint them as bad as Trump's. But I feel like you are projecting what you feel about Trump's scandals onto his opponents to claim hey they are just as bad or worse and then sweep everything under the carpet. 





> Over generalization again. Some.. sure. Most take anything said by a political opponent with a grain of salt. It wasn't that long ago that clinton was trying to make sanders state(vermont) to be a major contriburtor of gun trafficking in new york.. when in fact it only made up 1.2 %(if I'm remembering that right). And tried to use sandy hook victims as a political prop against him as well. There were staunch supporters that backed that claim at first, then had to backpeddal when people started showing how absurd it was. But by your logic, I could say "Clinton supporters buy ludicrous Sandy Hook connection hook, line and sinker.... and are now looking very dumb and foolish. I guess all her supporters are dumb/foolish."


You can claim that if you believe they are equivalent. :shrug I disagree and would just laugh at the attempt at trying to claim this was something you thought off right off the bat with an exact figure.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Can anyone really still stand by Trump's claim of having the temperament to be president? He threw everyone under the bus when he still need congress to run the country. Does he know the limits of the presidency?

Day by day the memes of last year when Trump first started out his bid about Trump being a fascist is hilariously coming to life.



Reaper said:


> fpalm
> 
> Got this in the mail today. Face palming cuz this is just really bad and clearly aimed at a very specific audience.
> 
> I have to ask though ... does this kind of language and communication really work .. because it just seems so over-simplified and not even relevant imo.
> 
> Or maybe it's because it's not directed at me ... Though I was hoping that it would have been.


This is for the Breitbart consuming audience. :shrug


----------



## Warlock

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Tofu seems to think im throwing support to a specific candidate, when im simply showing how both are terrible, (and how the those in trump's side percieve hillary in the same light hers view him). His continued retorts about comparing the bad with clinton with similarly bad things from trump only supports that.


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










The mainstream media is one of two things:


*A.* An intentional parody.
*B.* The most self-unaware collection of human beings ever assembled.​
As much as I wish it was the former, I know it's the latter.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> This guy has some guts. He got thrown out of the rally.














> The landslide for democrats this election is going to be INCREDIBLE. Thank you Donald. Thank you for destroying the republican party sooner than most people predicted.


30,000 attendees and another 27,000 on live stream viewers just for this rally in Panama City, Florida.

More than half a million views on replay. The only way Trump is losing this election is the mainstream media discouraging his voters from going to the polls with their fake poll numbers and continued coverage of 10 - 20 year old non-issues.

- Vic


----------



## Warlock

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

:Whoa Lets not get crazy here. Trump has an uphill battle in this election.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

An Uphill battle? Like mission impossible:lmao


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> 30,000 attendees and another 27,000 on live stream viewers just for this rally in Panama City, Florida.
> 
> More than half a million views on replay. The only way Trump is losing this election is the mainstream media discouraging his voters from going to the polls with their fake poll numbers and continued coverage of 10 - 20 year old non-issues.
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic


You honestly think he will still win the election Vic?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Sweenz said:


> Tofu seems to think im throwing support to a specific candidate, when im simply showing how both are terrible, (and how the those in trump's side percieve hillary in the same light hers view him). His continued retorts about comparing the bad with clinton with similarly bad things from trump only supports that.


Is that the new memo from Trump supporters to deny they are Trump supporters or no longer supporting him in conversations to appear that neutrals are supporting Trump?

I seen this from CP and Reaper and now you.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> You honestly think he will still win the election Vic?


I believe if every Trump supporter shows up to vote at the polls (regardless of what state they live in) on November 8th, Trump will win this election.

Polls are meaningless as evidenced by the mainstream media saying Jimmy Carter was beating Ronald Reagan by 15 points (sound familiar?) in them before he got *DESTROYED* on Election Day!

- Vic


----------



## Warlock

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Is that the new memo from Trump supporters to deny they are Trump supporters or no longer supporting him in conversations to appear that neutrals are supporting Trump?
> 
> I seen this from CP and Reaper and now you.


That... or not. Likely the latter.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Polls are meaningless as evidenced by the mainstream media saying Jimmy Carter was beating Ronald Reagan by 15 points (sound familiar?) in them before he got *DESTROYED* on Election Day!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_U.S._Presidential_elections

i don't really know where people found this "facts"


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> I believe if every Trump supporter shows up to vote at the polls (regardless of what state they live in) on November 8th, Trump will win this election.
> 
> Polls are meaningless as evidenced by the mainstream media saying Jimmy Carter was beating Ronald Reagan by 15 points (sound familiar?) in them before he got *DESTROYED* on Election Day!
> 
> - Vic


Dude, Carter was beating Reagan in the polls at a much much earlier point.

Nearing election day the polls were all calling a slaughter in Reagan's favor which was what was delivered.

You might raise Brexit, but the polls were only 4 points off in Brexit and Trump is losing by more than that.

Also the polls were very accurate in the Primaries, particularly concerning Trump so there is little reason to think anything has changed.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...tial_elections
> 
> i don't really know where people found this "facts"


Says the guy citing Wikipedia. :lol

- Vic


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> You might raise Brexit, but the polls were only 4 points off in Brexit and Trump is losing by more than that.



The aggregates in Brexit were pretty much a tie. People who point at the failure of polls to read brexit have only looked at separate polling and have took erroneus conclusions.

Also as i said before, polling is pedicted in right weighting, if you can't predict with a certain amount of precission turnouts you're fucked.



Vic Capri said:


> Says the guy citing Wikipedia. :lol
> 
> - Vic


Well, you can also go to Gallup....

It doesn't change reality


----------



## DesoloutionRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

You're all screwed.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm willing to bet Hilary wins by the largest margin in modern times.


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Central limit theorem.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem
> 
> If you assume your sample is at random (and is representative after weight), a sufficient N (normally over 120 persons) tend to a normal distribution. When you reach the point in which your sample reseamble a normal distribution (or a Z distribution however you wan to call it) you're able to say that your sample is representative of a general population you're examining.
> 
> This is supported by the law of large numbers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers), everytime you increase a number of iterations, you tend to approach similar Results and get close to a minimum level of dispersion because the larger your sample is, less effect your outliers have. Meaning there is a sufficient N in which you can obtain an optimal result .


so 1)its just a theory...2) which explains why people overperform or underperform polling


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> I'm willing to bet Hilary wins by the largest margin in modern times.


I'd day the chances of your PM being involved at a gay orgy in a Mosque is more likely than any sort of hillary landslide.

The difference between the two is that what I said is unlikely to happen because no facts would ever suggest this happening, all you have is wishful thinking.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






This is mental gymnastics.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WikiLeaks said:


> Donna Brazile Shared CNN Town Hall Questions With Clinton Camp


Well, that explains why Hillary's answers were on point. The bitch can't help, but cheat all the time.

- Vic


----------



## paladin errant

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

sorry but it's time to laugh


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> so 1)its just a theory...2) which explains why people overperform or underperform polling


I don't understand what you mean with "it's a theory". All Applications are absed on theory, when you are trying to meet some sort of criteria, always that criteria is gonna be based on some theory...

Overperform or unpderforming is accounted in polling, statistics recognize that the mean in a sample doesn't have to equal the mean in a ppulation. BUT:

1) that's why you approach a sample that allows you to introduce a certain margin of error and in base of that you create an Interval of confidence which contains the mean of population....

2) one sample have various sources of bias, but when you have various samples you can mix all the sampling and disperse almost all the bias. That's what an aggregate does, in aggregate Hillary is KILLING Trump.

This last detail is why people sound in denial when they say "poll are fake", what you're saying is that ALL polling is skewed in favor of someone. If it was like this, for example, why both candidacies will do private polling? Hillary will not nededed because she had cocked number for her.

Some of the logic behind this statements is delusional and is just a cry because polls are saying something people can't confront. 2012 was similar when people tried to "unskew" polls, something that is impossible to do.....

The reality is, Trump is in peace to loose by a similar or bigger margin than McCain who loosed by 192 electoral votes. And talking about McCain, Trump is trashing McCain in live TV when he's +16 in Arizona, while Trump is +1, which mean he's putting in risk his win in Arizona just for a personal vendetta. Seriously people believe a campaign like that can win?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I'd day the chances of your PM being involved at a gay orgy in a Mosque is more likely than any sort of hillary landslide.


That would be still more work than he's done all year as Prime Minister.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Polls are meaningless as evidenced by the mainstream media saying Jimmy Carter was beating Ronald Reagan by 15 points (sound familiar?) in them before he got *DESTROYED* on Election Day!
> 
> - Vic



Well, seeing that i just linked one tracking in Gallup and i been preaching about aggregates the entire thread. i tried to found more info, also i wanted to explain Reagan overperforming. And yeah i found this










Yep, as you can see Reagan overperfomed by little in the aggregate. He also was mostly leading the entire time and seal the deal after the last debate....

If you want an outlier where the prediction is wrong you have to backtrack to 1968. 1992 was the biggest error but that predicted a massive landslide which was just a simple blow out. For the record both campaigns had a big third candidate running, which could have ended skewing the results, but i don't know if you can say that of Johnson.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Seems more hillary wiki stuff has come out, some pretty crazy stuff. No idea if it will do anything but her shit keeps getting deeper.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/10/democrats-were-worried-about-rand-pauls



> As for Rand Paul, he is one of a group of candidates the Dems need to take down, the memo writer asserts:
> 
> more will need to be done on certain candidates to undermine their credibility among our coalition (communities of color, millennials, women) and independent voters. In this regard, the goal here would be to show that they are just the same as every other GOP candidate: extremely conservative on these issues....
> 
> • Rand Paul -- What to undermine: the idea he is a "different" kind of Republican; his stance on the military and his appeal to millennials and communities of color.


I'm still amazed that Republicans didn't throw their weight behind this guy. I'd imagine that the standard mainstream Republican candidate (basically, anyone other than Trump, Carson or Cruz) would probably be beating Hillary right now. But I'd be willing to bet that Rand would be blowing her out of the water. He's the kind of candidate that can legitimately excite people. They just needed to give him the rocket push, and it never happened.

On a related note, I'm kind of amazed by for how incompetent Hillary's campaign and Democrat leadership in general has often been, that memo suggests that they really did read the landscape for this election pretty damn well.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It's a goddamn shame Rand Paul didn't make it farther.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Rand's campaign committed suicide when they attacked Trump after watching several dominoes before them fall after the same course of action. It was never really gaining traction anyway, though. Corporate media has programmed people to view non-interventionist foreign policy as isolationist, and to believe terrorism would be an even bigger problem without the US constantly poking the hornet's nest. Rand doesn't have the charisma, credibility, or influence with people to convince them otherwise. The left also would've tried to portray him as a homophobic racist for his positions on the civil rights act or the ever-so-important Gay wedding pizza hypothetical that defines our everyday lives.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Rand's campaign committed suicide when they attacked Trump after watching several dominoes before them fall after the same course of action. It was never really gaining traction anyway, though. Corporate media has programmed people to view non-interventionist foreign policy as isolationist, and to believe terrorism would be an even bigger problem without the US constantly poking the hornet's nest. Rand doesn't have the charisma, credibility, or influence with people to convince them otherwise. *The left also would've tried to portray him as a homophobic racist for his positions on the civil rights act or the ever-so-important Gay wedding pizza hypothetical that defines our everyday lives.*


They would have been able to attack him on gay rights, but I doubt they would have gained much traction painting him as a racist unless he pivoted sharply away from criminal justice reform. And that would have had the potential to do some interesting things to the dynamic of the race.

Though yeah, with his comments on the Civil Rights Act (which were completely consistent with his general views on the limitations of government), it's possible they could have succeeded on that front. And that would be a shame.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@DesolationRow @L-DOPA @Reaper 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/us-russia-tensions-cold-war/index.html

http://nypost.com/2016/10/12/putin-could-be-readying-for-war-calls-russians-back-to-motherland/

I may have to change my vote back to Trump. Being seen supporting someone accused of sexual assault and who wants to murder Edward Snowden is bad, but a nuclear apocalypse is worse.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://news.grabien.com/story-video-2008-campaign-appears-show-obama-flaunting-erection-fe






:heston

Obama should resign right? I mean this kind of male chauvinist sexist crude behavior can't be tolerated right?


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> I don't understand what you mean with "it's a theory". All Applications are absed on theory, when you are trying to meet some sort of criteria, always that criteria is gonna be based on some theory...
> 
> Overperform or unpderforming is accounted in polling, statistics recognize that the mean in a sample doesn't have to equal the mean in a ppulation. BUT:
> 
> 1) that's why you approach a sample that allows you to introduce a certain margin of error and in base of that you create an Interval of confidence which contains the mean of population....
> 
> 2) one sample have various sources of bias, but when you have various samples you can mix all the sampling and disperse almost all the bias. That's what an aggregate does, in aggregate Hillary is KILLING Trump.
> 
> This last detail is why people sound in denial when they say "poll are fake", what you're saying is that ALL polling is skewed in favor of someone. If it was like this, for example, why both candidacies will do private polling? Hillary will not nededed because she had cocked number for her.
> 
> Some of the logic behind this statements is delusional and is just a cry because polls are saying something people can't confront. 2012 was similar when people tried to "unskew" polls, something that is impossible to do.....
> 
> The reality is, Trump is in peace to loose by a similar or bigger margin than McCain who loosed by 192 electoral votes. And talking about McCain, Trump is trashing McCain in live TV when he's +16 in Arizona, while Trump is +1, which mean he's putting in risk his win in Arizona just for a personal vendetta. Seriously people believe a campaign like that can win?


some of these polls have +16 women or +10 dem....plz tell me how this is reliable...also not taking into account people who voted dem all there lives and is voting trump this election like my parents. and I know msm lie/peddle untuth, have biases I don't believe most of the things they push, I have actually caught them peddling mistruths that had been proven untrutfull...u can keep believing in polls, im wagering trump wins election


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@CamillePunk @Miss Sally @DesolationRow @Reaper

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5423

Clinton campaign: "We want [Bernie supporters] to go home happy and enthusiastic in working their asses off for Hillary. Why not throw Bernie a bone . . . his people will think they've "won" something from the Party Establishment. And it functionally doesn't make any difference anyway."


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/10/democrats-were-worried-about-rand-pauls
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still amazed that Republicans didn't throw their weight behind this guy. I'd imagine that the standard mainstream Republican candidate (basically, anyone other than Trump, Carson or Cruz) would probably be beating Hillary right now. But I'd be willing to bet that Rand would be blowing her out of the water. He's the kind of candidate that can legitimately excite people. They just needed to give him the rocket push, and it never happened.
> 
> On a related note, I'm kind of amazed by for how incompetent Hillary's campaign and Democrat leadership in general has often been, that memo suggests that they really did read the landscape for this election pretty damn well.


Lots of us were hoping for that but the Republican party is full of neocons who would rather vote for someone like Hillary. No chance a guy like Rand gets the full weight of the party behind him, Rand would be destroying Hillary right now and could have put life back into the party and hopefully exposed the Neocons. I think it will be a cold day in hell before either party gives us someone other than a neocon warhawk. People thought Captain Peace Prize would be that man and all he's done is blow up people with drones and fuck up race relations in the US.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm not sure when mainstream US foreign policy since 1945 became neocon warhawkism.

Oh wait I do know, when the Democratic Party cynically decided to act like George W. Bush and his administration were sooooooooooo different from every other post-1945 administration in order to whip up emotions for electoral gain. Then as soon as they got back in the White House they continued the same policies.

Hell it even goes back to 1941 when FDR ordered the Navy to sink German subs months and months before Germany and the US were formally at war. And farther back than that really, a lot of US foreign policy in the Caribbean and Central / South America from the 1880s to WW2 was wave America's big dick around in front of people's faces and if anyone tries to slap it away make them pay.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The renewed cold war is so contrived that I don't think anyone - even the most hardcore of democratic supporters should believe it. 

That said, the fact that they created this cold war out of nothing and keep fueling it over nothing is enough to not want to support the dems in and of itself, but oh well :shrug


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> The renewed cold war is so contrived that I don't think anyone - even the most hardcore of democratic supporters should believe it.
> 
> That said, the fact that they created this cold war out of nothing and keep fueling it over nothing is enough to not want to support the dems in and of itself, but oh well :shrug


Russia wanting to regain the suzerainty it believes it has historically exerted over eastern Europe, the Caucasus, central Asia, and the Balkans for a thousand-plus years is contrived? By who? Russia? It is kinda contrived since Russia didn't really exert controlling influence over all that territory until the 15th or 16th century, but still. They're scared as fuck of the Germans and also the Western Europeans, it's in their blood by now. And they think they have good reason to be considering all the times over the last ~700 years that Russian peoples were invaded and fucked up by Germanic and Western European peoples. So they want their buffer states.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

_Putin ally tells Americans: vote Trump or face nuclear war_

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russian-trump-idUSKCN12C28Q



> Americans should vote for Donald Trump as president next month or risk being dragged into a nuclear war, according to a Russian ultra-nationalist ally of President Vladimir Putin who likes to compare himself to the U.S. Republican candidate.
> 
> Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a flamboyant veteran lawmaker known for his fiery rhetoric, told Reuters in an interview that Trump was the only person able to de-escalate dangerous tensions between Moscow and Washington.
> 
> By contrast, Trump's Democratic rival Hillary Clinton could spark World War Three, said Zhirinovsky, who received a top state award from Putin after his pro-Kremlin Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) came third in Russia's parliamentary election last month.
> 
> Many Russians regard Zhirinovsky as a clownish figure who makes outspoken statements to grab attention but he is also widely viewed as a faithful servant of Kremlin policy, sometimes used to float radical opinions to test public reaction.
> 
> "Relations between Russia and the United States can't get any worse. The only way they can get worse is if a war starts," said Zhirinovsky, speaking in his huge office on the 10th floor of Russia's State Duma, or lower house of parliament.
> 
> *"Americans voting for a president on Nov. 8 must realize that they are voting for peace on Planet Earth if they vote for Trump. But if they vote for Hillary it's war. It will be a short movie. There will be Hiroshimas and Nagasakis everywhere."*


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> _Putin ally tells Americans: vote Trump or face nuclear war_
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russian-trump-idUSKCN12C28Q


It's kinda sad how easily the Russkis can still troll the West. They've only been doing it since 1917 and we still freak out over it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> Russia wanting to regain the suzerainty it believes it has historically exerted over eastern Europe, the Caucasus, central Asia, and the Balkans for a thousand-plus years is contrived? By who? Russia? It is kinda contrived since Russia didn't really exert controlling influence over all that territory until the 15th or 16th century, but still.


Russia and America never stopped fighting their proxy wars, but renewed mentions of Russia during the election cycle while ignoring the fact that both countries never actually stopped fighting their proxy war is what makes it contrived at the moment. 

The cold war never ended, but the mentions of it now simply to gain Hillary voters is why it's "contrived" this cycle.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> *some of these polls have +16 women or +10 dem*....plz tell me how this is reliable...also not taking into account people who voted dem all there lives and is voting trump this election like my parents. and I know msm lie/peddle untuth, have biases I don't believe most of the things they push, I have actually caught them peddling mistruths that had been proven untrutfull...u can keep believing in polls, im wagering trump wins election


It's called representative sampling, that's exactly why is reliable.

I don't get, how is that there are 3 or 4 forecast every election than can predict the exact result based in this polls and people still try to denied their value. It's amazing.

You can do what you want, is your choice, what amazes me is your instant disbelief in something instead of trying to comprehend it and then put value in it


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Reminds of this clip from Canadian Bacon


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> some of these polls have +16 women or +10 dem....plz tell me how this is reliable...also not taking into account people who voted dem all there lives and is voting trump this election like my parents. and I know msm lie/peddle untuth, have biases I don't believe most of the things they push, I have actually caught them peddling mistruths that had been proven untrutfull...u can keep believing in polls, im wagering trump wins election


So there's dozens of polls, some of them by conservative outlets, some liberal outlets, some neutral outlets. None of them have anything to do with each other, they all have different polling methods. And yet, Hillary leads every single one of them. But yeah, every single one must be wrong, right?
Also, no president has ever been behind within on the polls within a month of the election and won...
Plus the polls have been historically accurate.
There's only been one instance in history where the polls this late in the election were off by a larger margin than Hillary's current lead, which is only growing, so things are getting very, very dire for trump.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Obama should resign right? I mean this kind of male chauvinist sexist crude behavior can't be tolerated right?


Its okay if he does it, but if it was Trump, the mainstream media would be talking about it ALL DAY!

- Vic


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Thank you for the mentions, @CamillePunk and @Beatles123 and @L-DOPA and @Reaper. I'm just catching up with this thread once again, haha.

Hillary Clinton's constant drumbeat concerning Russia is becoming all-too-familiar, like the Bush family and neoconservative cabal's fixation with Saddam Hussein. Not that the Clintons will go so far but the Russians are being cynically used as the bogeyman once again by a political party. *Reaper*'s word, "contrived," resonates. 

Victoria Nuland and a host of shadowy American conspirators opened up Pandora's box with their quest of Ukrainian regime change. Nuland and the liberal-interventionists who supposedly go sleepless crying over the fate of "Pussy Riot"--one of the many creations of the State Department and Central Intelligence Agency--and homosexuals in Russia sought to overthrow the Russia-friendly President Yanukovych. Carl Gershman, who presides over the U.S. taxpayer-funded National Endowment for Democracy, a nest of war hawk neocons, wrote of Ukraine in September 2013 as being "the biggest prize" in this new cold war. Nuland declared "FUCK THE EU!" for the European Union's comparatively less antagonistic approach concerning Russia. She discussed who the next president of Ukraine should be with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, saying, "Yats is the guy," meaning Arseniy Yatsenyuk. 
@AryaDark @Pratchett @Vic Capri @Miss Sally

The leaks coming out from the "Podesta emails" are almost morbidly hilarious. 

On May 19, 2015, Hillary Clinton and forces working on her behalf wrote in emails of what the Department of Justice was planning, when the DOJ was planning it and how the DOJ's investigation into Hillary's private email server was proceeding.

In other words, Hillary was Salvatore Maroni and she had people inside the Department of Justice's Gotham District Attorney office and Gotham Police Department. 

While the DOJ could not keep track of Orlando mass murderer Omar Mateen's wife, certain DOJ agents were providing Hillary's people with information that should have been kept within the DOJ as per its supposedly independent investigation.

This is where your tax money is going, my fellow Americans. Are you surprised? Please do not say you are surprised.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Thank you for the mentions, @CamillePunk and @Beatles123 and @L-DOPA and @Reaper. I'm just catching up with this thread once again, haha.
> 
> Hillary Clinton's constant drumbeat concerning Russia is becoming all-too-familiar, like the Bush family and neoconservative cabal's fixation with Saddam Hussein. Not that the Clintons will go so far but the Russians are being cynically used as the bogeyman once again by a political party. *Reaper*'s word, "contrived," resonates.
> 
> Victoria Nuland and a host of shadowy American conspirators opened up Pandora's box with their quest of Ukrainian regime change. Nuland and the liberal-interventionists who supposedly go sleepless crying over the fate of "Pussy Riot"--one of the many creations of the State Department and Central Intelligence Agency--and homosexuals in Russia sought to overthrow the Russia-friendly President Yanukovych. Carl Gershman, who presides over the U.S. taxpayer-funded National Endowment for Democracy, a nest of war hawk neocons, wrote of Ukraine in September 2013 as being "the biggest prize" in this new cold war. Nuland declared "FUCK THE EU!" for the European Union's comparatively less antagonistic approach concerning Russia. She discussed who the next president of Ukraine should be with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, saying, "Yats is the guy," meaning Arseniy Yatsenyuk.
> @AryaDark @Pratchett @Vic Capri @Miss Sally
> 
> The leaks coming out from the "Podesta emails" are almost morbidly hilarious.
> 
> On May 19, 2015, Hillary Clinton and forces working on her behalf wrote in emails of what the Department of Justice was planning, when the DOJ was planning it and how the DOJ's investigation into Hillary's private email server was proceeding.
> 
> In other words, Hillary was Salvatore Maroni and she had people inside the Department of Justice's Gotham District Attorney office and Gotham Police Department.
> 
> While the DOJ could not keep track of Orlando mass murderer Omar Mateen's wife, certain DOJ agents were providing Hillary's people with information that should have been kept within the DOJ as per its supposedly independent investigation.
> 
> This is where your tax money is going, my fellow Americans. Are you surprised? Please do not say you are surprised.



Someone linked me to an email where supposedly Hillary or a DNC staffer, (I only read it in passing was at work) where they called Mid Eastern people "Sandni****s", it could be a fake but if it is real it wouldn't shock me nor would i expect anyone to care as we know how the DNC feels about Hispanics. Yet the narrative seems to keep on how Trump is the racist whilst ignoring the blatant racism emanating from their own party and staffers. Hillary will simply call it a "Mistake" like the emails, like Benghazi, like the super predators comment, like on her lying and Libya.. oh wait no she's proud of Libya.


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> https://news.grabien.com/story-video-2008-campaign-appears-show-obama-flaunting-erection-fe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :heston
> 
> Obama should resign right? I mean this kind of male chauvinist sexist crude behavior can't be tolerated right?


I'm slightly shocked by this video. When I first saw it this morning, it was in a Twitter video, and was too small and low quality to actually make out whether or not he had an erection; I assumed it was hyperbole.

Now that I've seen the higher-quality YouTube version, there can be no doubt: He's packing a woody, and he seems to be awfully proud of it.

Will those people who feigned outrage over Trump's words feign outrage over Obama's actions? I wouldn't bet on it.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> _Putin ally tells Americans: vote Trump or face nuclear war_
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russian-trump-idUSKCN12C28Q


This should be painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain who bothers to actually pay attention, and not mindlessly gobble up the Clinton propaganda tripe.

She's even more of a hawk than Obama who has proven to be more of a hawk than Bush. A HRC presidency will almost certainly bring despotism to the U.S.--the likes of which we've never seen--as well as an escalation in the destabilization of the Middle East and this potential for a new cold war with Russia.

How many red flags are required before people get a fucking clue?


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Someone linked me to an email where supposedly Hillary or a DNC staffer, (I only read it in passing was at work) where they called Mid Eastern people "Sandni****s", it could be a fake but if it is real it wouldn't shock me nor would i expect anyone to care as we know how the DNC feels about Hispanics. Yet the narrative seems to keep on how Trump is the racist whilst ignoring the blatant racism emanating from their own party and staffers. Hillary will simply call it a "Mistake" like the emails, like Benghazi, like the super predators comment, like on her lying and Libya.. oh wait no she's proud of Libya.


Could always take a few seconds to google it.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-sand-wikileaks-dump/

The gist of it is...



> The screenshot was real and the term "sand n****rs" did appear in e-mail published by WikiLeaks. However, that e-mail did not capture Hillary Clinton herself using the derogatory term to refer to Muslims.
> 
> The screenshot shows an opinion piece written by Israeli author David Grossman that was published by Haaretz on 24 February 2012. The piece was later translated into English by Sol Salbe and later shared by Clinton via e-mail. Both Clinton's e-mail and Salbe's translation were preceded with a note from the translator:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Note
> 
> 
> 
> Haaretz did something unusual: it placed an opinion piece on top of its front page. But it wasn't just an ordinary opinion piece, it was written by one of the country foremost novelists, David Grossman. The article, like Emile Zola's J'accuse, to which it has been compared, was a moral critique. Many who read it were very moved. But the moral missive never appeared in English (at least to my knowledge). The English Haaretz has always been somewhat reticent in presenting Israel to the world. And of course translating Grossman is not easy, he is a master of the language and the art of writing.I have no idea whether I have done justice to this work. But it needed to be translated. The message is too important.
> 
> 
> 
> It would also be incorrect to say that Grossman, the original author, used the term "sand n****r" to refer to Muslims in general. Grossman's piece described a series of events that led to a man being left to die on the side of the road, and the term "sand n****r" was used to refer to how the stranded man, Omar Abu Jariban, may have been viewed by authorities:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Excerpt
> 
> 
> 
> I read in the newspaper that an argument ensued with the Israeli checkpoint commander, and that he refused to accept the patient. Did Omar hear the argument about him from within the van, or did they drag him out of the van and plonked him in front of the commander, replete with catheter, nappy and hospital gown for a rapid overall assessment by the latter? And the commander said no. And yalla! We are on our way again. So they returned to van, and they kept on going. *And now the guys in the van are perhaps not quite as nice before, because it is getting late and they want to get back and wonder what have they done to have deserved copping this sand n****r and what are they going to do with him now.* If the Maccabim checkpoint rejected him, there was no way in which the Atarot checkpoint will take him. It is now pitch black outside and by the by, while traveling on Route 45, between the Ofer military base to the Atarot checkpoint, a thought or a suggestion pops up. Perhaps someone said something and nobody argued against, or perhaps someone did argue back but the one who came up with the original suggestion carried more weight. Or perhaps there was no argument, someone said something and someone else felt that this is precisely what needs to be done, and one of them says to the driver, pull over for a moment, not here, it’s too well lit, stop there. You, yes you, move it, get your arse into gear you piece of shit — thanks to you our van stinks;, you ruined our evening, get going! What do you mean to where? Go there.
> 
> 
> 
> So while it's true that the term "sand n****r" appeared in e-mail sent by Hillary Clinton, this term was not used by the former secretary of state to describe Muslims. Rather, it appeared in an opinion piece by an Israeli author about the death of a young man, which Clinton shared with others via e-mail.


So, there you go.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> Could always take a few seconds to google it.
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/hillary-sand-wikileaks-dump/
> 
> The gist of it is...
> 
> 
> 
> So, there you go.


Thank you, the net has not been working on my phone at work, the site works but is slow and searches seem to be taking forever. However your condescending tone can fuck off.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If you are looking for signs that this race is over, you could not find one more convincing than this: 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/f...voters-than-gop-in-past-month/article/2604323



> Florida Dems registered 60x more voters than GOP in past month
> 
> By Anna Giaritelli (@anna_giaritelli) • 10/12/16 12:19 AM
> 
> The Florida Democratic Party registered 60 times as many residents to vote as the state's Republican Party from Sept. 10 to Oct. 10, according to new data from the Florida Division of Elections.
> 
> More than 6,900 Floridians registered as Democrats in the month-long span while only 117 Republicans signed up.
> 
> From Jan. 1 through Aug. 31, a total of 650,900 residents have registered to vote, though partisan details were not released.
> 
> Tuesday was the deadline for registration, after a federal judge granted a one day extension due to the state's bout with Hurricane Matthew over the weekend. Democrats and Hillary Clinton's campaign had pushed for an extension before the storm hit, hoping to turn more voters out in the battleground state. Republicans have historically done better in years when voter turnout is low and dangling.


The last Republican president of the U.S. was Dubya.

Look for younger Bush family members to become Democrats, along with a host of neocons--as the Democratic Party was their original home, after many of them went through their Trotskyist phases--in the near future. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> If you are looking for signs that this race is over, you could not find one more convincing than this:
> 
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/f...voters-than-gop-in-past-month/article/2604323
> 
> 
> 
> The last Republican president of the U.S. was Dubya.
> 
> Look for younger Bush family members to become Democrats, along with a host of neocons--as the Democratic Party was their original home, after many of them went through their Trotskyist phases--in the near future. :lol


A one party country.. all ran by neocons.. oh the joy!


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> A one party country.. all ran by neocons.. oh the joy!


I'd rather have a country run by Neopets, tbh. :side:


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> I'd rather have a country run by Neopets, tbh. :side:


Frankly the prospect of a neocon one party state terrifies me. It should terrify everyone, not just Republicans but Libertarians and Liberals and true Left. 

It's going to be endless war after endless war with no end in sight, garbage immigration reform to keep that voter bloc coming in, rights challenged and the economy tanking horribly while politicians seem to get insanely rich. It's going to be a hell of a good time! :crying:


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> If you are looking for signs that this race is over, you could not find one more convincing than this:
> 
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/f...voters-than-gop-in-past-month/article/2604323
> 
> 
> 
> The last Republican president of the U.S. was Dubya.
> 
> Look for younger Bush family members to become Democrats, along with a host of neocons--as the Democratic Party was their original home, after many of them went through their Trotskyist phases--in the near future. :lol


And it was one of the Bush family (Billy Bush is the nephew of George Bush 41 and cousin of Dubya) that might have brought down Trump. I remember telling people that Trump needed to reach out to certain people and make good, including the Bush family. Apparently the Bush family might have the last laugh as they will have destroyed the Republican Party. 

We need a new conservative party...one that adheres to the principles of limited government and the Constitution. The GOP needs to die as it has failed in that regard, and regardless of whether Trump wins or loses, it will be done. If he wins, the party will follow his liberal and populist/nationalist program. Basically, the GOP will fully become Democrat-lite. 

If he loses...that's when you will witness the inferno that will burn the GOP to the ground. Trump will pretty much leave such scorched-earth not seen in this country since Sherman's March to the Sea. Those that survive being crushed by his ego will be as radioactive as Chernobyl.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't know how anyone seeing the meltdown by Trump the past few days can say he would make a good president. He took Bush's you are either with us or against us position to the extreme. Remember Bush campaigned on a dove platform, and after 9/11 hit went completely the other way. Imagine Trump in a similar position. All the fascists and dictators memes are not so funny now. :/


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Based Paul Watson :banderas


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



A Florida Voter said:


> Ok - I just got home from a Trump rally in Lakeland, FL. I am going to tell you exactly what I experienced. Thousands of the most nicest, enthusiastic, hard working people of all races. We all hugged, talked, accepted that we are all deporables and got all emotional. Not one person, that I saw, got out of line and the place was filled with police and secret service. Thank you Grady Judd (our sheriff) for keeping us all safe. BUT, the thing I saw that really got me excited was the amount of young people and older people that were there. The polls definitely lie - ladies and gentlemen - I saw it today in real time. And tons of women of all ages. The older people came out who can barely walk or are in wheelchairs to support Donald. It was amazing - I feel like I knew everyone. We are awesome supporters - Media you lie, Hillary you lie and suck. We love Donald - don't listen to anyone else - he has the popular vote by millions. I love you all - thank you for being in my life.


- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If old people push their already high turnout percentage into the stratosphere and young people don't show up for Hillary in a historical collapse of young voter turnout :trump might have a shot. Might. So basically two record-setting numbers. Slim pickins there I think.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

As Wikileaks starts to pick up steam NY Times (Hillary) puts out a story of Trump with "his hands were all over me" and by tomorrow the media will all be talking about this instead of the wiki leaks that could help stop out country from a crook woman


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> - Vic


Lol any real source for this?


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

"Wikileaks is just a tabloid and is holding back the truth for money"

later in the thread

"WIkileaks said something bad about hiliary *fap* *fap* Oh what a great source *fap* *fap" looking out for the people *fap* *fap*"

Some day a company or politician is going to make a ton of money by marketing itself as anti-establishment the same way they were able to sell "rebellious" water and deodorant to you in the 90s


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Based Paul Watson


We're experiencing the most corrupt Presidential election in US history all thanks to the media and movie stars.

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> "Wikileaks is just a tabloid and is holding back the truth for money"
> 
> later in the thread
> 
> "WIkileaks said something bad about hiliary *fap* *fap* Oh what a great source *fap* *fap" looking out for the people *fap* *fap*"
> 
> Some day a company or politician is going to make a ton of money by marketing itself as anti-establishment the same way they were able to sell "rebellious" water and deodorant to you in the 90s


There are already people doing it since the 90's as you pointed out. Alex Jones has been selling survival packages for a long time. Can't really shit on just the conservatives on this though. Kanye West was able to sell a plain white T-Shirt for $120 to fanatics of his too.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> We're experiencing the most corrupt Presidential election in US history all thanks to the media and movie stars.
> 
> - Vic


Derp. It's not corruption. It's most sane people seeing how bad he would be and speaking out against him. People saying he is toxic and a joke isn't corruption. It's calling it like they see it. Trump supporters seem to have this silly idea that theres some form of hidden agenda here. Theres nothing hidden about anything. People see him for what he is. A racist, misogynistic, orange clown that has NO business in a presidential election and are using their status in society to help turn your country away from driving off a cliff. It happens every election. If they were doing for Trump, you'd be sitting here praising all of them for standing up to Hillary. 

*JUST BECAUSE YOUR TEAM IS LOSING, DOESN'T MEAN THE GAME IS RIGGED. SOMETIMES IT'S BECAUSE YOUR TEAM SUCKS.*
Already grasping for excuses for when Doland loses.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> Derp. It's not corruption. It's most sane people seeing how bad he would be and speaking out against him. People saying he is toxic and a joke isn't corruption. It's calling it like they see it. Trump supporters seem to have this silly idea that theres some form of hidden agenda here. Theres nothing hidden about anything. People see him for what he is. A racist, misogynistic, orange clown that has NO business in a presidential election and are using their status in society to help turn your country away from driving off a cliff. It happens every election. If they were doing for Trump, you'd be sitting here praising all of them for standing up to Hillary.
> 
> *JUST BECAUSE YOUR TEAM IS LOSING, DOESN'T MEAN THE GAME IS RIGGED. SOMETIMES IT'S BECAUSE YOUR TEAM SUCKS.*
> Already grasping for excuses for when Doland loses.



While tofu, BM, alko, yeah baby and adsf are anti Trump and sometimes biased and silly they still try to be objective within reason and post as much facts as they can. 

You on the other hand just lost any credibility by claiming that this election isn't corrupt at all. This is false, let's dismiss Trump for a second. The DNC emails and the Bernie fiasco has shown the blatant corruption within the DNC and there is suspected voter fraud, we've seen several scandals this election and both parties have been exposed for corruption and cronyism.

Dick riding hillary and claiming there hasn't been nothing suspect about this election pretty much exposes you as someone who doesn't care about facts. The people I mentioned would be here even if Trump was winning by 50% or more but you'd not be because you don't care you just show up with nothing to add other than "derp hillary gonna win lolz".


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Whichever way this shitshow ends, I only want one thing for Christmas that is related to this fuckery:

*More* Kayleigh McEnany on my TV. :ellen

BOOK IT, Trump TV. :trump


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If you want to talk about corruption, Trump is hardly the guy to stand behind on that.

It is ironic that Trump stood for everything that his base is against, yet they are still supporting him while he exhibit the very same behaviour during the campaign that they say is bad for the country. Trump has done this his whole life, and the GOP was too weak to withstand Trump's assault on the party.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ory-barrett-hurt-dantiono-blair-obrien-213835

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/donald-trump-2016-biographers-214350

If you are interested in what his biographers think about Trump and the campaign those two links are interesting reads. Trump has a history of being 'too big to fail' and has no shame in forcing his partners down the mud with him and dare them to save him and themselves from himself. His dad bailed him out of his casino bond payment, the banks bailed him out of his 90's bankruptcies, and he has been trying to force the GOP to bail him out of his poor national campaign that he torpedoed with his own personal conduct. The Mercers rescued the campaign the past few months, they were starting to be competitive, and then he started the downfall with his lack of preparation for the first debate in preference in basking the adulation of his supporters at rallies.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> - Vic


Living in Florida myself, I feel like there's really been something off about Florida poll reporting. From what I've observed with my own eyes, at least 8/10 people here are Trump supporters. 

I'm not suggesting that the polls are rigged because apparently some people in her get their panties wedged up their ass when they don't hear exactly what they want to hear, but the ground reality is not aligning with the polls and that's based on personal observation. 

I have yet to come across a single Hillary supporter this election cycle in my entire town and that is a fact. Neither has my wife, nor has anyone in my family.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I have yet to come across a single Hillary supporter this election cycle in my entire town and that is a fact. Neither has my wife, nor has anyone in my family.


Count your blessings, my friend. Hillary supporters are psycho/retarded/lemmings and/or a combination of the three. Never underestimate the power of psycho retard lemmings. If you're not careful, they'll carry you right over the cliff with them.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Bernie lost fair and square, he was an independent running in an election only registered Democratic voters were allowed to vote in, no shit he lost, he wasn't and isn't a Democrat. Is it really that hard to believe that a bunch of Democrats voted for a Democrat over a socialist independent? Even if they liked him they must have known a socialist has 0% of winning an American Federal Election in 2016. Hell a socialist couldn't win an election in Australia and we're a fair bit to the left.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> If you want to talk about corruption, Trump is hardly the guy to stand behind on that.
> 
> It is ironic that Trump stood for everything that his base is against, yet they are still supporting him while he exhibit the very same behaviour during the campaign that they say is bad for the country. Trump has done this his whole life, and the GOP was too weak to withstand Trump's assault on the party.
> 
> http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ory-barrett-hurt-dantiono-blair-obrien-213835
> 
> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/donald-trump-2016-biographers-214350
> 
> If you are interested in what his biographers think about Trump and the campaign those two links are interesting reads. Trump has a history of being 'too big to fail' and has no shame in forcing his partners down the mud with him and dare them to save him and themselves from himself. His dad bailed him out of his casino bond payment, the banks bailed him out of his 90's bankruptcies, and he has been trying to force the GOP to bail him out of his poor national campaign that he torpedoed with his own personal conduct. The Mercers rescued the campaign the past few months, they were starting to be competitive, and then he started the downfall with his lack of preparation for the first debate in preference in basking the adulation of his supporters at rallies.



I've never claimed Trump has zero problems and i'm not defending any idocy he or his capaign has done because they should have put hillary to bed months ago. 

The reason I call out the Democrats a lot more has nothing to do with my personal political standing but the fact people claim them to be the good guys while republicans are super duper evil! If anything this has shown both parties are corrupt and any Democrat should question why some Republican politicians are sabotaging their own party for Hillary.

One should realize perhaps it's because they have the same principles, goals, benefactors and ideology even if they say they don't. They give zero fucks what the people want, Bernie is proof of this. Their emails more proof of their racist and blatant disregard for people. Obviously they care little for minorities because their policies have hurt them more than help.

This election is beyond corrupt and the cronyism between the Democrats and Republicans shows us that a one party state is on the horizon and what's beyond that horizon isn't something you'll like.

Trump is far from the guy I'd like to see President but I'll take him over insane hillary and slick bill. Trump would be fought by Congress every step of the way while Congress will placate to Hillary and suck the dried up milk from her Soros special interest inflated tits.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Count your blessings, my friend. Hillary supporters are psycho/retarded/lemmings and/or a combination of the three. Never underestimate the power of psycho retard lemmings. If you're not careful, they'll carry you right over the cliff with them.


I know. At least amongst Donald's supporters based on what they've seen, we've had the common sense to be open minded in changing our minds despite the hardcore hillary supporters who think that changing one's mind is somehow some sort of a bad thing. 

But of course, they wouldn't know what being truly open minded is because of the fact that they're the ones with misguided loyalty. 

I pity the fool that sees the facts before him/her and doesn't change his/her mind more than the fool that doesn't even get exposed to the facts or ignores them and continues to support the same person without question. Anti-Trumpers are an even worse category because they think that Trump is a bad candidate for all the wrong reasons - meanwhile Trumpers that have backed off have done so for other reasons. But of course, this has never been about listening to each other anyways. All this has been about is bold letters and large fonts shouting over each other. 

Most humans don't deserve the right to choose their own leaders. And I stand by that even if someone calls me a fascist. This was my stance before elections and it will remain my stance forever because there is no way in hell a man with an IQ of 70 should have the same worth as someone with an IQ of 120+. Equality in voting is like saying that Ted Bundy has the same ability as Albert Einstein to choose our leaders.


----------



## sesshomaru

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I know. At least amongst Donald's supporters based on what they've seen, we've had the common sense to be open minded in changing our minds despite the hardcore hillary supporters who think that changing one's mind is somehow some sort of a bad thing.
> 
> But of course, they wouldn't know what being truly open minded is because of the fact that they're the ones with misguided loyalty.
> 
> I pity the fool that sees the facts before him/her and doesn't change his/her mind more than the fool that doesn't even get exposed to the facts or ignores them and continues to support the same person without question. Anti-Trumpers are an even worse category because they think that Trump is a bad candidate for all the wrong reasons - meanwhile Trumpers that have backed off have done so for other reasons. But of course, this has never been about listening to each other anyways. All this has been about is bold letters and large fonts shouting over each other.
> 
> Most humans don't deserve the right to choose their own leaders. And I stand by that even if someone calls me a fascist. This was my stance before elections and it will remain my stance forever because there is no way in hell a man with an IQ of 70 should have the same worth as someone with an IQ of 120+. Equality in voting is like saying that Ted Bundy has the same ability as Albert Einstein to choose our leaders.


The reason anyone can vote is because if you discriminate who can vote, then future leaders will discriminate against non-voters.

If Blacks can't vote? They will basically be marginalized in upcoming elections. Same with letting someone with 70 IQ vote. Future elections would only focus on the voters, not the rest. Letting anyone vote=theoretically everyone has some level of representation in the goverment.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



sesshomaru said:


> The reason anyone can vote is because if you discriminate who can vote, then future leaders will discriminate against non-voters.
> 
> If Blacks can't vote? They will basically be marginalized in upcoming elections. Same with letting someone with 70 IQ vote. Future elections would only focus on the voters, not the rest. Letting anyone vote=theoretically everyone has some level of representation in the goverment.


Your premise is flawed. Giving everyone equal status has nothing to do with ending discrimination. They're completely unrelated. They don't even get protected. 

Secondly humans are just not equal. Our choices make sure that we can never be equal. I refuse to accept that the value of my vote is the same as the value of the vote of some alcoholic drug addict that never worked a day in his life nor read a single newspaper. 

Innate Equality is a sham and once we start making choices the betters should be allowed to have more say in bestowing power. 

Plus equal voting rights only results in the bullshit populist cults of personalities we're seeing in this election ... And you're still defending it?


----------



## sesshomaru

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Your premise is flawed. Giving everyone equal status has nothing to do with ending discrimination. They're completely unrelated. They don't even get protected.
> 
> Secondly humans are just not equal. Our choices make sure that we can never be equal. I refuse to accept that the value of my vote is the same as the value of the vote of some alcoholic drug addict that never worked a day in his life nor read a single newspaper.
> 
> Innate Equality is a sham and once we start making choices the betters should be allowed to have more say in bestowing power.
> 
> Plus equal voting rights only results in the bullshit populist cults of personalities we're seeing in this election ... And you're still defending it?


Uh, yeah. The main reason we're in this situation is because of how the Republican Primaries were set up. Allowed Trump to basically exploit the whole thing. If Jeb Bush or something won, this would be a standard-ass election cycle.


And yes, letting people vote means Goverments will consider their issues, especially while campaigning. Once again, if Blacks couldn't vote, then why should the Goverment appeal to their issues..like at all. Would Goverments care about LGBT issues if LGBTs couldn't vote? Nope, all those laws would be unchanged since Goverments don't have to appease those communities.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I've never claimed Trump has zero problems and i'm not defending any idocy he or his capaign has done because they should have put hillary to bed months ago.
> 
> The reason I call out the Democrats a lot more has nothing to do with my personal political standing but the fact people claim them to be the good guys while republicans are super duper evil! If anything this has shown both parties are corrupt and any Democrat should question why some Republican politicians are sabotaging their own party for Hillary.
> 
> One should realize perhaps it's because they have the same principles, goals, benefactors and ideology even if they say they don't. They give zero fucks what the people want, Bernie is proof of this. Their emails more proof of their racist and blatant disregard for people. Obviously they care little for minorities because their policies have hurt them more than help.
> 
> This election is beyond corrupt and the cronyism between the Democrats and Republicans shows us that a one party state is on the horizon and what's beyond that horizon isn't something you'll like.
> 
> Trump is far from the guy I'd like to see President but I'll take him over insane hillary and slick bill. Trump would be fought by Congress every step of the way while Congress will placate to Hillary and suck the dried up milk from her Soros special interest inflated tits.


You can't be serious in this rebuttal. Your position is against cronyism and corruption, something Trump is just as guilty of as the establishment. Trump IS the establishment. You forgive Trump standing for everything you say is what is ruining both parties and you dare to claim that your support for Trump or calling out Democrats isn't due to your political standing? Huh?

This election is an indictment of both parties, but not of corruption which legally exist in the system even during the good years in the past, but of their disregard in leadership renewal or pragmatism in favour of petty fight over dumb ideological beliefs.



Reaper said:


> I know. At least amongst Donald's supporters based on what they've seen, we've had the common sense to be open minded in changing our minds despite the hardcore hillary supporters who think that changing one's mind is somehow some sort of a bad thing.
> 
> But of course, they wouldn't know what being truly open minded is because of the fact that they're the ones with misguided loyalty.
> 
> I pity the fool that sees the facts before him/her and doesn't change his/her mind more than the fool that doesn't even get exposed to the facts or ignores them and continues to support the same person without question. Anti-Trumpers are an even worse category because they think that Trump is a bad candidate for all the wrong reasons - meanwhile Trumpers that have backed off have done so for other reasons. But of course, this has never been about listening to each other anyways. All this has been about is bold letters and large fonts shouting over each other.
> 
> Most humans don't deserve the right to choose their own leaders. And I stand by that even if someone calls me a fascist. This was my stance before elections and it will remain my stance forever because there is no way in hell a man with an IQ of 70 should have the same worth as someone with an IQ of 120+. Equality in voting is like saying that Ted Bundy has the same ability as Albert Einstein to choose our leaders.


Which Trump supporters in this thread has changed their mind or open to changing their mind base on what they've seen? You have Trump supporters badgering a Ted Cruz supporter here ffs.

I think Trump is a bad candidate because he is a narcissistic failed businessman that have caused harm to his fellow stakeholders. He made out better for himself but left many worse off. But face with facts, Trump supporters like you like to post memes about how he only has 4 (or is it 6?) bankruptcies in 500+ businesses instead of analysing the situation where Trump personally benefited while people who worked with him suffered.

If you believe in elitism, then you should have be with her all this time like me. :troll


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



sesshomaru said:


> Uh, yeah. The main reason we're in this situation is because of how the Republican Primaries were set up. Allowed Trump to basically exploit the whole thing. If Jeb Bush or something won, this would be a standard-ass election cycle.
> 
> And yes, letting people vote means Goverments will consider their issues, especially while campaigning. Once again, if Blacks couldn't vote, then why should the Goverment appeal to their issues..like at all. Would Goverments care about LGBT issues if LGBTs couldn't vote? Nope, all those laws would be unchanged since Goverments don't have to appease those communities.


Interesting that you bring up GOP when the counter to this is that the DNC consistently makes empty promises to the black, hispanic and LGBT voters - while ignoring the fact that the DNC has done nothing over the past 8 years to improve anything for any black or hispanic community specifically because the government simply cannot do that at all. All they can do is make promises and like idiots people flock to vote them based on those. 

Also, I don't know why you're bringing race and sexuality into this because those are not what I've been talking about. I don't give a fuck about blacks or hispanics, I give a fuck about knowledge and education. Whoever has it, should have the right to choose governance. 

Or better yet, let's just educate people on the merits of self-governance and small community based "governments" and get rid of the federal government altogether so we don't have this donkey and ass show that we get every 4 years.



FriedTofu said:


> Which Trump supporters in this thread has changed their mind or open to changing their mind base on what they've seen? You have Trump supporters badgering a Ted Cruz supporter here ffs.
> 
> I think Trump is a bad candidate because he is a narcissistic failed businessman that have caused harm to his fellow stakeholders. He made out better for himself but left many worse off. But face with facts, Trump supporters like you like to post memes about how he only has 4 (or is it 6?) bankruptcies in 500+ businesses instead of analysing the situation where Trump personally benefited while people who worked with him suffered.
> 
> If you believe in elitism, then you should have be with her all this time like me. :troll


Bullshit. I've been saying that I'm rescinding my support for Trump ever since he aligned himself with Pence and the Alt-right so you can fuck off with your attempts to paint me as a "trump supporter". Also, I don't think you understand the concept of supporting a candidate based on some of their platforms as opposed to actually supporting a candidate. Again, you're exceptionally weak when it comes to reading someone else's posts and I'm pretty sure you haven't bothered to read even 10% of all of my posts until and unless you're obsessed with me so at this point it just looks like you're projecting your bias on to someone else - and you've done and said nothing more in this thread than simply create a bunch of "trump supporter" strawmen in this thread ... something others have called you out on as well. You have very little credibility to stand on therefore you should probably stop questioning others'.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> You can't be serious in this rebuttal. Your position is against cronyism and corruption, something Trump is just as guilty of as the establishment. Trump IS the establishment. You forgive Trump standing for everything you say is what is ruining both parties and you dare to claim that your support for Trump or calling out Democrats isn't due to your political standing? Huh?
> 
> This election is an indictment of both parties, but not of corruption which legally exist in the system even during the good years in the past, but of their disregard in leadership renewal or pragmatism in favour of petty fight over dumb ideological beliefs.
> 
> Which Trump supporters in this thread has changed their mind or open to changing their mind base on what they've seen? You have Trump supporters badgering a Ted Cruz supporter here ffs.
> 
> I think Trump is a bad candidate because he is a narcissistic failed businessman that have caused harm to his fellow stakeholders. He made out better for himself but left many worse off. But face with facts, Trump supporters like you like to post memes about how he only has 4 (or is it 6?) bankruptcies in 500+ businesses instead of analysing the situation where Trump personally benefited while people who worked with him suffered.
> 
> If you believe in elitism, then you should have be with her all this time like me. :troll



My political standing has nothing to do with my vote. Trump seems less harmful than hillary by far, I'm going with the one who will have more checks against them, Hillary will be unopposed by anyone in Congress because she loves war, loves selling out and will do nothing of her promises.

Hillary is an ultra corrupt politician with nearly the full support of the msm and a blind eye from the fbi and doj. This election is corrupt to the core on both sides. Both sides are morally bankrupt and all but the most hardcore supporters see that.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> My political standing has nothing to do with my vote. Trump seems less harmful than hillary by far, I'm going with the one who will have more checks against them, Hillary will be unopposed by anyone in Congress because she loves war, loves selling out and will do nothing of her promises.
> 
> Hillary is an ultra corrupt political with nearly the full support of the msm and a blind eye from the fbi and doj. This election is corrupt to the core on both sides. Both sides are morally bankrupt and all but the most hardcore supporters see that.


Hillary unopposed? Have you seen what Obama has to deal with the past 4 years? Hillary is going to face the same obstructionists from the Freedom Caucus people. Unless you believe Trump is going to cause the GOP to lose their down ballot votes...but then it wouldn't make sense to vote for Trump to have more checks....unless you believe Trump is fighting all of the establishment? :confused

Wait....does this mean Trump is morally bankrupt after being the saviour for more than a year and you aren't a hardcore supporter?



Reaper said:


> Bullshit. I've been saying that I'm rescinding my support for Trump ever since he aligned himself with Pence and the Alt-right so you can fuck off with your attempts to paint me as a "trump supporter". Also, I don't think you understand the concept of supporting a candidate based on some of their platforms as opposed to actually supporting a candidate. Again, you're exceptionally weak when it comes to reading someone else's posts and I'm pretty sure you haven't bothered to read even 10% of all of my posts until and unless you're obsessed with me so at this point it just looks like you're projecting your bias on to someone else - and you've done and said nothing more in this thread than simply create a bunch of "trump supporter" strawmen in this thread ... something others have called you out on as well. You have very little credibility to stand on therefore you should probably stop questioning others'.


I think you are projecting your bias onto me. I seem to recall you still supporting Trump all through the primaries where he has already aligned himself with the alt-right.

I await another flip flop from you if somehow Trump wins. :shrug


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Hillary unopposed? Have you seen what Obama has to deal with the past 4 years? Hillary is going to face the same obstructionists from the Freedom Caucus people. Unless you believe Trump is going to cause the GOP to lose their down ballot votes...but then it wouldn't make sense to vote for Trump to have more checks....unless you believe Trump is fighting all of the establishment? :confused
> 
> Wait....does this mean Trump is morally bankrupt after being the saviour for more than a year and you aren't a hardcore supporter?
> 
> I think you are projecting your bias onto me. I seem to recall you still supporting Trump all through the primaries where he has already aligned himself with the alt-right.
> 
> I await another flip flop from you if somehow Trump wins. :shrug



I believe Trump had the right idea for running and I supported a bit of what he wanted. Sometimes outsider candidates end up being good at their job. Like Reaper I was hoping for someone else besides Pence my choice would have been a libertarian.

I do like Trump's bravado and his willingness to speak his mind rather than read a script but he's also been his worst enemy and the msm has misrepresented him on a few occasions, I'm a supporter but not hardcore, I think Hillary is the far worse choice. I don't think the media, Congress or people would let Trump get away with much compared to Hillary. We seen people called racist for bashing Obama so Hillary being a woman means feminists are out in force to slander anyone who dare says anything.

Obama's problems are his own, Democrats had full control of the Government for 3 years and did fuck all with that power. Obama is one of the most divisive and inept Presidents ever. Him and Bush are two peas in a pod. Even he hates Hilary. 

I believe both parties are rotten to the core. I was hoping a populist movement meant one day we as Americans can cast off the shackles of both parties and elect worthwhile people. I hoped for too much as people see the problem but many are party loyal forever. 

To leave the mid east alone, to have more jobs and Healthcare and immigration reform... to stop being world police and to let Europe fuck off on their own without benefits from our insestent warring... it's such a sweet dream.:sleep


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Hillary unopposed? Have you seen what Obama has to deal with the past 4 years? Hillary is going to face the same obstructionists from the Freedom Caucus people.


TBH I'd put the Congress Obama faced down to racism and I don't think Hilary would experience anything like it. Yet Trump probably would because he's insulted people like Paul Ryan who's support he desperately desperately would need to do anything.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> To leave the mid east alone, to have more jobs and Healthcare and immigration reform... to stop being world police and to let Europe fuck off on their own without benefits from our insestent warring... it's such a sweet dream.:sleep


TBH, the only healthcare reform America needs is to accept that there is price gouging when it comes to hospitalizations for major diseases and to get that under control. 

I was sick for more than a month a few months ago and outside of my stupid mistake to visit a hospital (something that ended up costing me 3,000 bucks), my overall bills were less than 300 bucks - and I was very sick for a while. Considering that the average social welfare statist pays 3k-4k for their stupid "free" healthcare, in a few years I still would have retained more of my money. Government healthcare is essentially giving a sum of your pocket money to your mommy because you're too stupid to take care of your own finances. 

When you're young and healthy, outside of a freak accident or major health problem you should have the right to save as much money as you possibly can and not hand it over to the fucking government. Problem is that people don't save money. If they earn 48k, they'll spend 48k ... What they should do is save 8k every year for emergencies ... but nope. 

As I've said several times, poverty is a state of mind, not a state of being. 

Sure there are genuinely poor people, but I don't think they deserve to get any benefits just for being poor. The only benefits I'm ok with are school and college (and that too limited loans) because at least there they can learn to gain skills for gainful employment.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I believe Trump had the right idea for running and I supported a bit of what he wanted. Sometimes outsider candidates end up being good at their job. Like Reaper I was hoping for someone else besides Pence my choice would have been a libertarian.
> 
> I do like Trump's bravado and his willingness to speak his mind rather than read a script but he's also been his worst enemy and the msm has misrepresented him on a few occasions, I'm a supporter but not hardcore, I think Hillary is the far worse choice. I don't think the media, Congress or people would let Trump get away with much compared to Hillary. We seen people called racist for bashing Obama so Hillary being a woman means feminists are out in force to slander anyone who dare says anything.
> 
> Obama's problems are his own, Democrats had full control of the Government for 3 years and did fuck all with that power. Obama is one of the most divisive and inept Presidents ever. Him and Bush are two peas in a pod. Even he hates Hilary.
> 
> I believe both parties are rotten to the core. I was hoping a populist movement meant one day we as Americans can cast off the shackles of both parties and elect worthwhile people. I hoped for too much as people see the problem but many are party loyal forever.
> 
> To leave the mid east alone, to have more jobs and Healthcare and immigration reform... to stop being world police and to let Europe fuck off on their own without benefits from our insestent warring... it's such a sweet dream.:sleep


Trump ran on a platform of racism, nativism and anti-trade. :shrug None of which seems like the 'right' idea to improve the lives of the average American.
And he sold it on the image the he is a winner, a successful 'self-made' businessman, a tell it as it is honest man and is anti-establishment. But upon closer inspection those claims crumble except for being successful in the early 80's. He even defied the norms of candidates releasing their tax returns. Imagine if Hillary did the same.

I don't know...Obama passed wall street and healthcare reforms, gave handouts to save America's automobile industry, advanced gay rights in America so I wouldn't say Obama did fuck all during the first 3 years. Even if you disagree with his policies, you can't deny Obama has faced ridiculous obstructionism because that was the GOP's main objective the past 8 years to make life as hard as possible for him, probably because a significant portion of their base hated the idea of a non-white president.

Obama's 2nd terms has created more jobs, started the process of increasing healthcare coverage and slowed down the rate of increase in healthcare costs, deported even more illegal Mexicans while also started immigration reforms to give legal status to those who are contributing to the American economy. America has to be the world police for their own selfish reason, as global stability is good for America. Even so, Obama administration has avoided to use ground forces to resolve issues, so much so that he has come under criticisms for not being hawkish enough.

It's almost like anyone that has to make hard decisions as a leader will be 'inept' as long as they aren't perfect. It seems like your ideal candidate is the 2nd term Obama. Just saying. :shrug



Alkomesh2 said:


> TBH I'd put the Congress Obama faced down to racism and I don't think Hilary would experience anything like it. Yet Trump probably would because he's insulted people like Paul Ryan who's support he desperately desperately would need to do anything.


You are underestimating sexism and the degree of hate many conservatives have for the Clintons for them losing the culture war since the early 90's.


----------



## Alco

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> To leave the mid east alone, to have more jobs and Healthcare and immigration reform... to stop being world police and to *let Europe fuck off on their own* without benefits from our insestent warring... it's such a sweet dream.:sleep


That's not very nice now :mj2


Btw if you think media bias is bad in the States itself, try following these elections in Europe (at least in my country). All they show is the extreme soundbites Trump produces because they get people to talk and they get people to tune in. Meanwhile, if there's any criticism on Hillary at all, it's that she has a lack of charisma and would just continue Obama's policies. No Wikileaks, no e-mail scandal, no vote rigging, nothing. It frustrates me to no end. 

Now I'm no Trump supporter by any means, but some media objectivity would be very welcome over here.


----------



## RobertRoodeFan

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Well Donald Trump path to the white house is this. He is not getting Penn, to blue, now days, and he had a good chance but cannot screw up like he did to turn it red, forget about the other firewall Clinton states to. 

He need to turn Iowa back red, first. 
Then probably Ohio. 
Then NC. 
Then Flordia. 
Then Nevada. 
Then New Hampshire and he is president. 

I think Donald trump will win it, because Hillary is so bad.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alco said:


> That's not very nice now :mj2
> 
> 
> *Btw if you think media bias is bad in the States itself, try following these elections in Europe (at least in my country). All they show is the extreme soundbites Trump produces because they get people to talk and they get people to tune in. Meanwhile, if there's any criticism on Hillary at all, it's that she has a lack of charisma and would just continue Obama's policies. No Wikileaks, no e-mail scandal, no vote rigging, nothing.* It frustrates me to no end.
> 
> Now I'm no Trump supporter by any means, but some media objectivity would be very welcome over here.


I have tried pointing this out already but posters like FriedTofu and birthday massacre tell me its nonsense. What would people who witness this sort of bias media reporting everyday know though eh



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36992955

*But attacks on Clinton in particular have sometimes crossed a line, displaying open hatred*. This bit got me most of all :lmao


More neutral articles from the BBC 


This disgrace of a organisation has its site and news programmes littered with Anti Trump propaganda on a daily basis and produces article like this yet still claims to be neutral on all political related issues. Honestly you could not make this stuff up. Outrageous

It is compulsory for every single household in the U.K that has a T.V to pay a yearly rate of £145.50 to these fuckers . You can even get sent to jail if you dont pay (unless your from Scotland of course) 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/599049/TV-Licence-jailed-England-BBC-fee-Scotland-fines

The BBC is a disgrace


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alco said:


> That's not very nice now :mj2
> 
> 
> Btw if you think media bias is bad in the States itself, try following these elections in Europe (at least in my country). All they show is the extreme soundbites Trump produces because they get people to talk and they get people to tune in.


We can tell from their posts in here. I have several canadians on my list and except one of my uncles who seems to follow my posts with keen interest, every single canadian I know is pretty much completely ignorant of every single hillary scandal.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> *Bernie lost fair and square*, he was an independent running in an election only registered Democratic voters were allowed to vote in, no shit he lost, he wasn't and isn't a Democrat. Is it really that hard to believe that a bunch of Democrats voted for a Democrat over a socialist independent? Even if they liked him they must have known a socialist has 0% of winning an American Federal Election in 2016. Hell a socialist couldn't win an election in Australia and we're a fair bit to the left.


Just out of curiosity, have you actually looked into how the election was stolen or are you basing this opinion on blind trust of our election system?

I've always wondered why people so easily accept the fact that our government is corrupt to it's core but for some strange reason they never question the actual voting results.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Just out of curiosity, have you actually looked into how the election was stolen or are you basing this opinion on blind trust of our election system?
> 
> I've always wondered why people so easily accept the fact that our government is corrupt to it's core but for some strange reason they never question the actual voting results.


I was going to ask this myself because some people seem to be under the impression that for some reason people agree that the Government is corrupt but when it comes to the voting process and even after the email scandal that somehow it's a-okay. 

Hey tater I know a guy who steals, cheats and rips people off any chance he gets.. but he what he sells out of the back of his car is totes legit! He says so! I trust him. :laugh:


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> It's called representative sampling, that's exactly why is reliable.
> 
> I don't get, how is that there are 3 or 4 forecast every election than can predict the exact result based in this polls and people still try to denied their value. It's amazing.
> 
> You can do what you want, is your choice, what amazes me is your instant disbelief in something instead of trying to comprehend it and then put value in it


http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016...ia-voters-switch-from-democrat-to-republican/
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8511
but I understand your point ...guess November 8th will tell adieu


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I was going to ask this myself because some people seem to be under the impression that for some reason people agree that the Government is corrupt but when it comes to the voting process and even after the email scandal that somehow it's a-okay.


Why anyone would trust a black box computer voting machine that produces results that cannot be verified is beyond me. 



Miss Sally said:


> Hey tater I know a guy who steals, cheats and rips people off any chance he gets.. but he what he sells out of the back of his car is totes legit! He says so! I trust him. :laugh:


:lol


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> It's not corruption. It's most sane people seeing how bad he would be and speaking out against him. People saying he is toxic and a joke isn't corruption. It's calling it like they see it. Trump supporters seem to have this silly idea that theres some form of hidden agenda here. Theres nothing hidden about anything. People see him for what he is. A racist, misogynistic, orange clown that has NO business in a presidential election and are using their status in society to help turn your country away from driving off a cliff. It happens every election. If they were doing for Trump, you'd be sitting here praising all of them for standing up to Hillary.


Explain why the liberal media never reports or glosses over anything bad about Hillary, whose done 10x worse shit than Trump. They'd rather focus on talking about old shit he did than the damaging Wikileaks (they have reported big news outlets have been talking to her campaign) reports on her.

Why are all the big Hollywood stars so desperate to get Hillary elected by begging each and every one of their fans to vote for her? Funny how they only care about the future during President election years.


You can't because you're so consumed with your Donald Trump hate you can't accept these facts.

- Vic


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Explain why the liberal media never reports or glosses over anything bad about Hillary, whose done 10x worse shit than Trump.


That's an easy explanation and one that shouldn't need explaining. It's because _they're not liberal media._ They're *corporate* media and Hillary is the *corporate* candidate. The same people who own the news outlets are the same people that own Hillary, so it should come as a surprise to no one that they are pro-Clinton. The MSM is nothing more than a glorified propaganda arm of the Clinton political machine.

Actual liberal media, like CounterPunch and Secular Talk, rips her to shreds on a daily basis. Actual liberal media spends as much time ripping Hillary to shreds as they do Trump. That's because _actual liberal media_ has principles, unlike the babbling cunts on TV who spend their time propping up their cunt candidate.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> That's an easy explanation and one that shouldn't need explaining. It's because _they're not liberal media._ They're *corporate* media and Hillary is the *corporate* candidate. The same people who own the news outlets are the same people that own Hillary, so it should come as a surprise to no one that they are pro-Clinton. The MSM is nothing more than a glorified propaganda arm of the Clinton political machine.
> 
> Actual liberal media, like CounterPunch and Secular Talk, rips her to shreds on a daily basis. Actual liberal media spends as much time ripping Hillary to shreds as they do Trump. That's because _actual liberal media_ has principles, unlike the babbling cunts on TV who spend their time propping up their cunt candidate.


Corporate media that considers itself liberal. 

You have your own version of what liberal is, but they also consider themselves liberals. It's fine that you want to create that differentiation Tater and have made it clear, but to simply deny the fact that corporate media isn't also liberal is a delusion at this point. It's not like there's only one kind of liberal you know ... It's kind of like there isn't just one type of conservative either. However, denying that there's absolutely nothing liberal about corporate media that supports hillary is just not fair in the sense that it creates a blind spot to the negative aspects of liberalism - which do exist. No theory is exempt or should be exempt from criticism in its ideologies. There are specific liberal stances that are indeed problematic such as multiculturalism and so we shouldn't simply exclude that from the conversation by exempting liberalism from anything that's negative about it.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

And now we actually have #repealthe19th becoming a thing........ this election has just further proved that humanity is a fucking joke. Every god damned day something new comes out about the corrupt fucking twats running for president and then more comes out to reveal that so many people are no fucking better.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016...ia-voters-switch-from-democrat-to-republican/
> https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8511
> but I understand your point ...guess November 8th will tell adieu


A lot of individual polls are somewhat unreliable for a variety of reasons. But that's why you take a cross-section of polls to piece the puzzle together.

That's also why you have people like Nate Silver, who takes the polls results, accounts for the previously observed house effect of that specific poll and provides adjusted numbers for how each specific poll likely mirrors the actual numbers. I don't know the performative history of the Gallup poll or Rasmussen or the WSJ or CNN or any of these individual polling firms (though Silver's "grade" for each one is probably reflective of that past performance, so we know that Monmouth, Fox News, WaPo, Selzer, etc. have traditionally been more accurate than others), but the fact that Silver's model accurately predicted 99 out of 100 states in the past two elections suggests that his model is probably one of the most accurate indicators of the shape of the election that you'll find. At least until proven otherwise.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Corporate media that considers itself liberal.


So, if I consider myself to be Hulk, I get to turn into a giant green rage monster? Is that how this works? Words don't have definitions or meanings anymore and you are whatever you consider yourself to be, even if reality doesn't back up those claims? I mean, fuck dictionaries anyways. The fuck do they know. Merriam-Webster, Cambridge and Oxford can all take their dictionaries and shove them up their asses. I consider myself to be the Hulk and I'm gonna go smash some shit.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Remember people, there's absolutely no corruption during this election according to nucklehead88!











This is just two cases thankfully caught on tape. Imagine how many more from the Clinton campaign are pull this kind of illegal shit!

- Vic


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> That's an easy explanation and one that shouldn't need explaining. It's because _they're not liberal media._ They're *corporate* media and Hillary is the *corporate* candidate. The same people who own the news outlets are the same people that own Hillary, so it should come as a surprise to no one that they are pro-Clinton. The MSM is nothing more than a glorified propaganda arm of the Clinton political machine.
> 
> Actual liberal media, like CounterPunch and Secular Talk, rips her to shreds on a daily basis. Actual liberal media spends as much time ripping Hillary to shreds as they do Trump. That's because _actual liberal media_ has principles, unlike the babbling cunts on TV who spend their time propping up their cunt candidate.


Even as a Libertarian I follow Secular Talk a lot because he is honestly great. I may disagree with about half of what he says but he is always informative and the vast majority of the time even if I disagree his viewpoint is coming from a valid place. Except when it comes to the debt, he's fucking terrible at that and has bought into the lies that Obama cut the deficit from 1.5 trillion dollars (when that was Obama's first year, I've even shown the official figures in this thread) down to below 500 billion.

But when it comes to foreign policy, privacy, criminal justice reform and drug policy you won't find much better than him. He's better than all the conservative outlets I know on that and he's very critical of SJW's and authoritarian leftists so he makes TYT look like an absolute joke.

And just to throw it in, fuck the Young Turks because they are fucking awful.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


>


This video is fantastic and everyone in this thread should watch this. Thanks for sharing mate.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:maury

NBC Nightly News is on some other shit. They spent about half of tonight's newscast reporting on the Trump tape, the women who accused Trump of harassing/groping them, Michelle Obama's comments about the tape, and some bullshit story about some voting machines in Pennsylvania.

*YET THEY SOMEHOW MANAGED TO COMPLETELY IGNORE THE WIKILEAKS EMAILS, WHICH SEEMS A LITTLE MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANY OF THAT STUFF!!!!!!!*

Lester Holt, you've let me down once again. I do like your new opening graphics though.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Kabraxal said:


> And now we actually have #repealthe19th becoming a thing........ this election has just further proved that humanity is a fucking joke. Every god damned day something new comes out about the corrupt fucking twats running for president and then more comes out to reveal that so many people are no fucking better.


It's trending because shitposters tricked a bunch of gullible people into thinking they were serious. The people who fell for shitposting are probably the one's keeping it going lol

People are easily to manipulate via the internet tbh

I wouldn't be surprised if they made anime avatars the next hate symbol at this point lol


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The Era of Women, by Scott Adams: 

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151737656851/the-era-of-women

It's going to be a very bumpy four years. :mj Hopefully we don't all die in a nuclear war. @DesolationRow will have to move up his timetable for Cloud City.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

All the talk about polls being wrong, here's a look at a quirky issue of an outlier affecting one specific poll. Basically a black 19 year old Trump supporter having a measurable difference to the USC/LA times poll all by himself. Bear in mind this poll is different from standard polls in their methodology but still it is funny how one guy can move the needle all by himself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/u...-is-distorting-national-polling-averages.html

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-daybreak-poll-questions-20161013-snap-story.html


----------



## amhlilhaus

FriedTofu said:


> Can anyone really still stand by Trump's claim of having the temperament to be president? He threw everyone under the bus when he still need congress to run the country. Does he know the limits of the presidency?
> 
> Day by day the memes of last year when Trump first started out his bid about Trump being a fascist is hilariously coming to life.
> 
> 
> 
> Reaper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got this in the mail today. Face palming cuz this is just really bad and clearly aimed at a very specific audience.
> 
> I have to ask though ... does this kind of language and communication really work .. because it just seems so over-simplified and not even relevant imo.
> 
> Or maybe it's because it's not directed at me ... Though I was hoping that it would have been.
> 
> 
> 
> This is for the Breitbart consuming audience.
Click to expand...

Obama has shown you dont need congress to run things. Just issue executive orders.

Course, if trump wins (he wont) and did 25% of what obamas done the press and the democrats would storm the white house to string him up


----------



## amhlilhaus

Tater said:


> Vic Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why the liberal media never reports or glosses over anything bad about Hillary, whose done 10x worse shit than Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> That's an easy explanation and one that shouldn't need explaining. It's because _they're not liberal media._ They're *corporate* media and Hillary is the *corporate* candidate. The same people who own the news outlets are the same people that own Hillary, so it should come as a surprise to no one that they are pro-Clinton. The MSM is nothing more than a glorified propaganda arm of the Clinton political machine.
> 
> Actual liberal media, like CounterPunch and Secular Talk, rips her to shreds on a daily basis. Actual liberal media spends as much time ripping Hillary to shreds as they do Trump. That's because _actual liberal media_ has principles, unlike the babbling cunts on TV who spend their time propping up their cunt candidate.
Click to expand...

Liberal or corporate, they vote 90 percent democratic, every election


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> Obama has shown you dont need congress to run things. Just issue executive orders.
> 
> Course, if trump wins (he wont) and did 25% of what obamas done the press and the democrats would storm the white house to string him up


Obama has issued less executive orders than the previous two presidents.

You can make a better argument with Obama administration being less transparent and being more punitive on whistleblowers.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

We have had British army burn down the capital

An election that people were so butt hurt over they thought that forming their own nation and demurring anyone who tired to stop them was the best option

A massive famine at the same time that urban business was down

Foreign Empires launching attacks on US Territory 

A nuclear armed nation that was not even trusted by its own allies less than 100 miles from the US main land

Several presidents who were murdered by radical fringe groups

and yet this is the time that is SO bad and scares you so much?

Good thing we have the electoral college because y'all dumb as fuck and suffer from a major case of "Self-important-ites"

You know who REALLY has something to fear in this elections?

Baltic states and independent eastern Asian nations 

Because the people who are deciding the control of the only leverage these places have against neighbors who regulatory put out official government statements calling for invasion and death for fifty year old "offenses" are more concerned about their tax dollars 

"EVERY THING EAST OF GERMANY CAN BE A RUSSIAN PROXY STATE AS LONG AS I SAVE 100$ A YEAR"


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump will win.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

That'd be nice. I like being alive.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Just out of curiosity, have you actually looked into how the election was stolen or are you basing this opinion on blind trust of our election system?
> 
> I've always wondered why people so easily accept the fact that our government is corrupt to it's core but for some strange reason they never question the actual voting results.


In the sense I was following the election very closely yes.

The accusations I'm aware of are:

1. Super delegates were going to vote for Clinton and overrule the will of the majority of normal elected delegates 
- this just never happened as Clinton won the majority of normal elected delegates 
- the fact it never happened has not stopped people acting as though it did

2. The DNC were biased in Hilary's favour 
- yeah no shit, the democratic national convention were biased in favour of the democrat over the independent
- I just don't see the scandal here, any who pretended to be surprised was lying frankly 

But yeah thats about it, I never heard accusations of voter rigging from any respectable organisation. 

I am curious though, if you genuinely believe the US elections are rigged, who decides who wins?


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> Obama has shown you dont need congress to run things. Just issue executive orders.
> 
> Course, if trump wins (he wont) and did 25% of what obamas done the press and the democrats would storm the white house to string him up


Except that Obama has issued the fewest executive orders per year than any other president since Chester Arthur from 1881-1885, so as like most anti-Obama talking points, the facts don't match up to your statement

Executive orders by president since 1885:
Benjamin Harrison 143 (35.8 per year)
Grover Cleveland 253 (31.6 per year)
William McKinley 185 (40.9 per year)
Teddy Roosevelt 1081 (144.7 per year)
William Howard Taft 724 (181 per year)
Woodrow Wilson 1803 (225.4 per year)
Warren Harding 522 (216.9 per year)
Calvin Coolidge 1,203 (215.2 per year)
Herbert Hoover 968 (242 per year)
FDR 3,522 (290.8 per year)
Harry Truman 907 (116.7 per year)
Dwight Eisenhower 484 (60.5 per year)
JFK: 214 (75.4 per year)
LBJ: 325 (62.9 per year)
Richard Nixon: 346 (62.3 per year)
Gerald Ford: 169 (69.1 per year)
Jimmy Carter: 320 (80 per year)
Ronald Reagan: 381 (47.6 per year)
George H.W. Bush 166 (41.5 per year)
Bill Clinton: 364 (45.5 per year)
GW Bush: 291 (36.4 per year)
Barack Obama: 235 (31.3 per year)


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cabanarama said:


> Except that Obama has issued the fewest executive orders per year than any other president since Chester Arthur from 1881-1885, so as like most anti-Obama talking points, the facts don't match up to your statement
> 
> Executive orders by president since 1885:
> Benjamin Harrison 143 (35.8 per year)
> Grover Cleveland 253 (31.6 per year)
> William McKinley 185 (40.9 per year)
> Teddy Roosevelt 1081 (144.7 per year)
> William Howard Taft 724 (181 per year)
> Woodrow Wilson 1803 (225.4 per year)
> Warren Harding 522 (216.9 per year)
> Calvin Coolidge 1,203 (215.2 per year)
> Herbert Hoover 968 (242 per year)
> FDR 3,522 (290.8 per year)
> Harry Truman 907 (116.7 per year)
> Dwight Eisenhower 484 (60.5 per year)
> JFK: 214 (75.4 per year)
> LBJ: 325 (62.9 per year)
> Richard Nixon: 346 (62.3 per year)
> Gerald Ford: 169 (69.1 per year)
> Jimmy Carter: 320 (80 per year)
> Ronald Reagan: 381 (47.6 per year)
> George H.W. Bush 166 (41.5 per year)
> Bill Clinton: 364 (45.5 per year)
> GW Bush: 291 (36.4 per year)
> Barack Obama: 235 (31.3 per year)


you're conflating number of orders with the impact of the orders.... I have read that prior orders were for mundane or small things while Obama have serious impact on millions of people
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/02/04/ruth-marcus-obama-executive-order/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/...-use-of-executive-orders-in-historical-terms/
personally I need to read up more on this but that is the crux of people against obamas orders


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ecclesiastes10 said:


> you're conflating number of orders with the impact of the orders.... I have read that prior orders were for mundane or small things while Obama have serious impact on millions of people
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/02/04/ruth-marcus-obama-executive-order/
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders
> http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/...-use-of-executive-orders-in-historical-terms/
> personally I need to read up more on this but that is the crux of people against obamas orders


The crux of the these complaints is they can't claim credit for 'stopping' Obama. Please.

A more valid complaint is Obama fudging what is considered executive orders with the excessive use of executive memorandum.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I didn't know Clinton issued that many! Jesus!



> I am curious though, if you genuinely believe the US elections are rigged, who decides who wins?


Corporations, Hollywood, and the press. Voters these days are uninformed and/or gullible.

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> I didn't know Clinton issued that many! Jesus!
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations, Hollywood, and the press. Voters these days are uninformed and/or gullible.
> 
> - Vic


Care to share with us who rigged the mid terms in 2014 and for who?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/786561869062504448
Nice guys really do finish last. :mj2


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/786561869062504448
> Nice guys really do finish last. :mj2


"Dr. President." :quite


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> Even as a Libertarian I follow Secular Talk a lot because he is honestly great. I may disagree with about half of what he says but he is always informative and the vast majority of the time even if I disagree his viewpoint is coming from a valid place. Except when it comes to the debt, he's fucking terrible at that and has bought into the lies that Obama cut the deficit from 1.5 trillion dollars (when that was Obama's first year, I've even shown the official figures in this thread) down to below 500 billion.
> 
> But when it comes to foreign policy, privacy, criminal justice reform and drug policy you won't find much better than him. He's better than all the conservative outlets I know on that and he's very critical of SJW's and authoritarian leftists so he makes TYT look like an absolute joke.


Kyle represents the libertarian left, as do I, and if more right leaning libertarians like you would listen to guys like him, they'd understand that we have a lot in common. Even Kyle himself admits that while he thinks that half the libertarian platform is batshit crazy, he very strongly agrees with the other half. If given the choice between the authoritarian left and the libertarian right, I'd take the libertarian right every single time. It's not even a difficult decision.



L-DOPA said:


> And just to throw it in, fuck the Young Turks because they are fucking awful.


Agreed. Fuck TYT. It annoys me to no end that their vids pop up as suggestions on YT because of other vids I watch.



virus21 said:


>


I watched this at work last night. It's mostly stuff I already knew but a good watch that's very informative. Highly recommended.



amhlilhaus said:


> Obama has shown you dont need congress to run things. Just issue executive orders.


For perspective:


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> I didn't know Clinton issued that many! Jesus!
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations, Hollywood, and the press. Voters these days are uninformed and/or gullible.
> 
> - Vic


Problem with this is that the Corporations, Hollywood and the Press rarely all agree on the one candidate. Even if they can manage to agree as a homogenous block. Like I highly doubt both MSNBC and Fox are trying to rig it the same way.

I don't know if rigged is quite the right word. 

Certainly if money alone won elections Trump would have lost the Republican Primaries and Bush would have swooped in to an easy victory.

Also seeing as Obama was a constitutional law professor who faced the most obstructionist congress in history, I'd be surprised if wasn't at least a little bit creative with his executive actions.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> And just to throw it in, fuck the Young Turks because they are fucking awful.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Fuck TYT. It annoys me to no end that their vids pop up as suggestions on YT because of other vids I watch.
Click to expand...

Same here. I loved how Alex Jones trolled and exposed them as frauds. If you want to make Cenk go berserk, tell him he loves Saudi Arabia! :lol

- Vic


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

m8 don't tell me you watch Alex Jones unironically


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Alex Jones thinks Hillary is a demon. A literal, actual demon. 






:HA

I hate Hilary just as much as any sane person but that takes his level of retard to a whole new level.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> m8 don't tell me you watch Alex Jones unironically


He's more credible than CNN at this point. His Ultimate Warrior-like promos are also hilarious.

https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/785599197768810496

*#1776*

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

At this point I think the likes of Alex Jones pose as much danger to global stability as the Madrasas that teach Wahhabism. fpalm


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Jessica Leeds, the nutty old lady who accused Trump of sexual assault on a jet, has been exposed as a fraud.

*Jessica Leeds' stepdaughter tricked over a dozen vulnerable women seeking a caretaker job into blowing her husband. : The_Donald*

Long story, short: She has a checkered history with The Donald involving unkempt property. To make matters worse, the family has a history of sex offenses and con artistry.

Her rape accusation was an obvious act of petty revenge, which was quickly and uncritically lapped up by the Trump haters at the New York Times -- who are going to be paying president Trump a lot -- *A LOT* -- of money in the not-too-distant future.

If the Trump campaign is crafty, and wants to flip this whole situation on its head:


Step 1. Point out the blatant lies and motivation of Jessica Leeds.
Step 2. Point out that the New York Times ran with her easily-falsified claims in yet another libelous hit piece.
Step 3. Point out that Donald is _suing the New York Times for a lot of money_.
Step 4. Pledge to donate the New York Times settlement to a victims of sexual abuse organization.​

_Voila!_ Just like that, the New York Times, the liberal media, and Crooked Hillary are seen as dishonest villains exploiting rape for their political agenda, and Trump and company look like heroes fighting for women.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Do you really believe Trump hasn't sexually assaulted women? Even after he's been caught on tape boasting about doing it?


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Do you really believe Trump hasn't sexually assaulted women? Even after he's been caught on tape boasting about doing it?


A billionaire who's been with 1,000 hot women for 40 years and not until mid-October of an election year does the press talk about it 24/7. Totally legit!

- Vic


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> A billionaire who's been with 1,000 hot women for 40 years and not until mid-October of an election year does the press talk about it 24/7. Totally legit!
> 
> - Vic



The tape only just came out though.

Don't get me wrong, it was clearly leaked by whoever leaked it, presumably the bushes, at the time it would hurt donald the most.

Its not like this has been a story the media have ignored until now, it just wasn't a story until now as the evidence the story is based on hadn't become public.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The Alex Jones trolling TYT video is hilarious. But he is crazy, he'll often have truthful news and discussions about real issues but then mix it in with some of the weirdest bat shit insane claims you will ever hear.

InfoWars are an eclectic bunch to say the least :lol.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://kotaku.com/donald-trump-as-a-bad-overwatch-player-1787782721


----------



## The Boy Wonder

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Reporters from various mainstream media outlets have apparently been reaching out to folks in the wrestling world trying to dig up dirt on Donald Trump from his time with WWE, specifically the WrestleMania 23 "Battle of the Billionaires" match/angle with Vince McMahon. (Cagesideseats)


From what I heard Trump used the "N-Word" when referring to Lashley and wanted to deport Rey Mysterio...

But seriously God forbid these main stream media outlets contact WWE for something good like Make-A-Wish, Susan G, or even WWE's commitment to featuring the women in wrestling.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

An excerpt from Scott Adam's most recent blog which perfectly encapsulates some of my thoughts during this election cycle:



> Before you start sobbing at the fact that Clinton and Trump are the best this country has to offer, I predict that all future presidential elections will be this nasty. Thanks to whistleblowers, hackers, and hot mics, we now have the means to see/read/hear the actual inner thoughts of candidates in ways that were never before possible. And if you learn enough about a human being, you’ll almost certainly hate that person. Expect future candidates to rival Clinton and Trump for unpopularity. That’s the new world we live in. We have the means to know too much about people.
> 
> To prepare for this new world of too-much-disclosure, I suggest we abandon the idea that presidents should be role models for our kids. Let’s treat the election like we are hiring for any other type of job. A candidate either has the right skills and motivation or doesn’t. Their rotten inner souls aren’t necessarily an indication of future job performance.
> 
> Clinton and Trump are in the so-called basket of deplorables along with 100% of American voters. We’re all flawed. I suggest voters pick the job applicant they think can best do the work of President and leave the role-modeling to mom and dad.


The most important job the president has in my view is not putting the country on a course of nuclear annihilation, therefore I'm going with Trump, despite the risk to my personal reputation with his sexual assault allegations, as well as the weight on my conscience with a possible Snowden execution. The survival of myself and my loved ones is more important than those things, ultimately. 

A few of my super liberal friends also find Hillary's saber-rattling with Russia deeply concerning, and I have heard them muse on multiple occasions that the Trump-Putin bromance could be the only thing that can save the world. :mj


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Wikileaks & Anonymous have to slowly ramp up the releases so that the mainstream can't keep up with putting out new distractions. Proper timing for maximum impact is important in a war of information.﻿

*#NovemberSurprise*

- Vic


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Pence said these false allegations will be proven false in the coming days. If Pence is staying by his side then you know its fake.

And its funny how all this shit happens right after Trump nails Bill Clinton for actually being a womanizing, assaulting, rapist that cheated on his wife. Like she cared anyway,,that *****.

They just deflect whatever you say about the Clintons back to Trump. The state of the media, and social media is downright fucking disgusting and alarming. This is third world North Korea shit in the USA right now and whether you support Trump or not it should disturb you the lengths the media is going to rig an election.

Not to mention the damn electronic voting machines are tied to the Clintons as well, and Soros. Its so fucking rigged the only way Trump can win is a landslide.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> The tape only just came out though.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, it was clearly leaked by whoever leaked it, presumably the bushes, at the time it would hurt donald the most.
> 
> Its not like this has been a story the media have ignored until now, it just wasn't a story until now as the evidence the story is based on hadn't become public.



He was bragging about being rich, and famous so much so that women throw themselves at him. Like no one has ever heard of gold diggers before or celeb groupies? fuck ring rats anyone?

He never admitted to assaulting anyone. Its immature, over exaggerated talk that happens daily with men and women.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CenaBoy4Life said:


> He was bragging about being rich, and famous so much so that women throw themselves at him. Like no one has ever heard of gold diggers before or celeb groupies? fuck ring rats anyone?
> 
> He never admitted to assaulting anyone. Its immature, over exaggerated talk that happens daily with men and women.


I know, it's like people have forgotten of the groupies and women that throw themselves at men all the time. I'm sure if you looked at what some famous musicians have said they'd have said nearly the same thing when talking about women etc. I'm not saying what Trump said isn't face palming but there is a vast difference between powerful people and you're everyday joe when you have people literally wanting to suck your cock any chance they get.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










I spotted this today on the front page of the local paper. The Clinton Machine doesn't take too kindly to Democrats who break rank and oppose them. They are vicious and will turn that opposition into a personal vendetta against the person who opposed them. Pulling Tulsi's funding is just the start. She's not going to have an easy time in DC going forward. They're going to have a hard time getting rid of her though because we fucking love Tulsi out here. She won her primary with 84.5% of the vote and her reelection is a lock. Hirono is 68 and I expect Tulsi to get her Senate seat when she retires.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> I spotted this today on the front page of the local paper. The Clinton Machine doesn't take too kindly to Democrats who break rank and oppose them. They are vicious and will turn that opposition into a personal vendetta against the person who opposed them. Pulling Tulsi's funding is just the start. She's not going to have an easy time in DC going forward. They're going to have a hard time getting rid of her though because we fucking love Tulsi out here. She won her primary with 84.5% of the vote and her reelection is a lock. Hirono is 68 and I expect Tulsi to get her Senate seat when she retires.


I made the comparison between Hillary Clinton and Cersei Lannister in this thread a while back but the way one of the most recently released emails says, "The Clintons will remember their friends..." as they set aside delegates that they already were counting as having secured weeks before the Illinois primary recalls the Lannister family's motto, "A Lannister always pays his debts." @AryaDark @CamillePunk

Another amusing email revelation is the antipathy Clinton forces around John Podesta had for NAACP president Ben Jealous. Jealous endorsed Bernie Sanders and the anger is palpable. Keeping power out of Jealous' hands seems to enthrall the Clintonites simply out of spite, as per the latest revelations. 


Also, much is made out of the DNC and the corruption of the Democrats and media here, and rightly so. Donna Brazille's latest perspicuous misconduct should be forcing a shower of calls for her to resign, but naturally that will not be happening.


Meanwhile, however, it is important to keep in mind that the RNC is not above performing sabotage against its candidate. As this _Politico_ story notes,



> RNC TV ad spending for Trump: $0
> 
> The national party breaks with tradition of spending millions on ads supporting its nominees.
> 
> By Kenneth P. Vogel and Alex Isenstadt
> 
> 10/13/16 04:59 AM EDT
> 
> The Republican National Committee insists that it’s doing everything in its power to elect Donald Trump, but as Trump gets clobbered on the TV airwaves by his well-funded Democratic rival, the RNC has been conspicuously absent.
> 
> A POLITICO analysis of campaign finance records reveals that the committee has not spent anything on commercials boosting Trump since he emerged as the party’s likely nominee.
> 
> That’s a stark departure from recent elections. In 2008 and 2012, the RNC spent tens of millions of dollars on so-called independent expenditures — principally TV ads, but also direct mail and phone banks — supporting its nominees or attacking their Democratic rivals.
> 
> The lack of air cover has prompted grumbling from Trump aides and allies, many of whom believe that the RNC was never fully supportive of their candidate and that it’s now turning its back completely on the anti-establishment nominee as his poll numbers crater.
> 
> “The Democrats have an unprecedented and lopsided advertising advantage in this race like we have never seen before, and it is having a serious and negative effect,” said Curt Anderson, a former RNC political director who is helping a pro-Trump super PAC, Rebuilding America Now. “It is possible that Trump has sealed his fate at this point, but it is still a terrible mistake not to have $50 million of advertising from the Republican Party exposing Hillary Clinton and keeping her numbers down,” said Anderson, who helped to lead the RNC’s independent expenditure effort in 2004 and 2008.
> 
> In 2004, the committee spent $18.2 million on independent expenditures — or IEs, in campaign parlance — boosting George W. Bush’s reelection bid. In 2008, the RNC’s IE spending surged to $53.5 million in support of John McCain’s campaign against Barack Obama. And in 2012, the RNC spent $42.4 million on IEs boosting Mitt Romney or opposing President Obama — with nearly 80 percent of the spending occurring before mid-October.
> 
> By contrast, this cycle the RNC has spent only $321,000 on independent expenditures attacking Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. And all of that spending occurred last fall — before Trump had emerged as the leader for the GOP presidential nomination.
> 
> RNC chief of staff Katie Walsh said the committee is not going to spend any more money this cycle on television ad IEs, but that the decision is completely unrelated to Trump.
> 
> Rather, she said, it stems from a strategic calculation made soon after the 2012 election that “that is not an efficient use of party committee dollars to spend money on television.” Pointing to a report that assessed the shortcomings of Republican efforts in the 2012 election, she said RNC leaders determined that the party’s money was better invested in data-driven voter contact operations.
> 
> “We put people on the ground for three years, invested in communities, doing data and voter registration, so that when we had a nominee, we would be able to link up with that nominee and work together to insure that the nominee had the best field program that the Republican nominee has ever had,” said Walsh.
> 
> Campaigns and super PACs are both better suited to funding ads, she argued.


The Republican ground game is being walloped. :lol 

Granted, at this point the Republicans are almost surely better off spending their money and resources on down-ticket races, but as usual it seems like they are looking to lose. 

FiveThirtyEight has Trump's chances to win the presidency down to 14% as the Trump campaign pulls out of Virginia, and he is now down by 3-4% in Florida. It's essentially a tie in Ohio. Hillary is up by at least 7% in Pennsylvania, and possibly as much as 12%. She's up by 5% in North Carolina. She's up in Arizona by 1%, possibly 2%. Trump is only leading in Georgia by 4% according to many of the latest polls from that state. 

Also, in one of the most underreported stories of this election cycle, Evan "McMuffin" McMullin is presently polling at 26% in Utah, which could theoretically tip the state to Hillary.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> FiveThirtyEight has Trump's chances to win the presidency down to 14% as the Trump campaign pulls out of Virginia, and he is now down by 3-4% in Florida. It's essentially a tie in Ohio. Hillary is up by at least 7% in Pennsylvania, and possibly as much as 12%. She's up by 5% in North Carolina. She's up in Arizona by 1%, possibly 2%. Trump is only leading in Georgia by 4% according to many of the latest polls from that state.
> 
> Also, in one of the most underreported stories of this election cycle, Evan "McMuffin" McMullin is presently polling at 26% in Utah, which could theoretically tip the state to Hillary.


Per 538. Alaska, Texas, Georgia, Arizona and Indiana are closer races than Wisconsin, Pennsilvania, New Hampshire and Colorado. Let that sink. Clinton could easily grab Georgia which is barely red and Arizona where Trump has a Fight with McCain (which is +16 in his senate race).

Utah is difficult to predict because we don't have too much polling including McMullin, but there are some clues of him gaining tracktion (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuvNm9DWEAA75Wb.jpg:large), Hillary could win with barely 30% Utah, specially with Trump reallocating money to only 4 states.

Which is worse is that 538 is one of the most volatile and conservative (in the sense of odds of wining) forecasts. Wang and the Princeton electoral consortium (Which i put above Silver tbh) currently has Clinton at 97% chance of wining in his bayesian model.

It's also important to say that the correlation between poll aggregate numbers at this date and the actual result historically is .96.











Everything under the horizontal red line is Trump wining and the yellow margin is the 95% chance of the actual outcome falling there.

The republicans are doing the right thing in spending resources to downtickets (supposing they spend money in Trump at one point) but it's also Trumps Fault to not have money to spend today. The fact that Trump has gone fully Breitbart is also an indication of his intention to retain his base instead of expanding it, so i suppose he's trying to stay in the political arena in the form of a TV Channel or in some form of media, which could easily mean a real division at the core of the GOP

edit: Support for Trump inside the same GOP also seems to point to a fraction if Trump stay after the election


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I've lived in Georgia

If you get that place to go Blue you done fucked up

Even the black and Latino (outside of immigration issues) communities were Red during the GWB years


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Fascinating, @asdf0501. Thank you for lending your expertise and I concur with the findings you are extrapolating from all of the data. 

The only thin reed of hope for Trump is that this is some sort of 1968-style "black swan" election but that seems exceedingly unlikely, at best. 

It's looking more like a probable 1964-style landslide.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> the RNC is not above performing sabotage against its candidate.


The Republican Establishment abandoning Trump's campaign is not a good strategy. It's their base who nominated Trump and it's that same base they need to vote for them on the down-ticket ballots. Yeah, Trump himself might get walloped in the General but I still think they'd do better in their other races by continuing to support him. They've already lost the voters who turned on Trump and now they are going to lose even more from the Trump loyalists because they turned their back on him. These are people who are already pissed off at them, which is why they nominated Trump in the first place. Abandoning Trump at this point will probably do more harm than good.

What's so fucked up about all of this is the fact that the Democrats have become so shitty that I can't properly enjoy the implosion of the Republican party. The destruction of the RNC _should_ be cause for celebration but our reward is a giant turd sandwich. Add that to the exponentially growing list of reasons why I hate Hillary. Reason #14,945,237: taking all the fun out of watching the Republican party go down in flames.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> It's looking more like a probable 1964-style landslide.


I don't think that much of a landslide is possible. I been kiding previously about an amazing landslide but that is too much, the race has reach a level of stability that allows little movement i think

The normal prediction is something between McCain and Romney loses (which also should worry republicans because it points to a trend), but it could easily turn in something worse with Trump unfavorables. If Trump botches the next debate again i see him loosing for 200 EV



Tater said:


> The Republican Establishment abandoning Trump's campaign is not a good strategy. It's their base who nominated Trump and it's that same base they need to vote for them on the down-ticket ballots. Yeah, Trump himself might get walloped in the General but I still think they'd do better in their other races by continuing to support him. They've already lost the voters who turned on Trump and now they are going to lose even more from the Trump loyalists because they turned their back on him. These are people who are already pissed off at them, which is why they nominated Trump in the first place. Abandoning Trump at this point will probably do more harm than good.


Is a no wining situation in any possition. By tunring against Trump they win again those voters who turned on Trump and the moderates.

As i see it, the problem is they created a coalition base which no candidate can aglomerate in his totality


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Nate plastic is a fraud. Another Clinton pawn and already stated he was biased against Trump.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So #PodestaEmails7 was the #3 trend in the united states today for a good while and then all of a sudden its not trending anymore. Even Twitter is protecting crooked Hillary


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Donald Trump said:


> This election will determine whether we are a free nation or whether we have only the illusion of democracy, but are in fact controlled by a small handful of global special interests rigging the system....Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe, and morally deformed. They will attack you, they will slander you, they will seek to destroy your career and your family, they will seek to destroy everything about you, including your reputation. They will lie, lie, lie, and then again they will do worse than that, they will do whatever is necessary. The Clintons are criminals, remember that. They're criminals.


- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> An excerpt from Scott Adam's most recent blog which perfectly encapsulates some of my thoughts during this election cycle:
> 
> The most important job the president has in my view is not putting the country on a course of nuclear annihilation, therefore I'm going with Trump, despite the risk to my personal reputation with his sexual assault allegations, as well as the weight on my conscience with a possible Snowden execution. The survival of myself and my loved ones is more important than those things, ultimately.
> 
> A few of my super liberal friends also find Hillary's saber-rattling with Russia deeply concerning, and I have heard them muse on multiple occasions that the Trump-Putin bromance could be the only thing that can save the world. :mj


I have a legit question as to why you believe Trump won't put the world on a course of nuclear annihilation. The sabre-rattling with Russia of the current administration isn't all one sided from the US side. What would Trump's reaction to Russia going rogue? Would the belief that Trump's personal wealth being tied to Russian interests make him a cuck to Putin give you more comfort that he won't react the same way he did to the GOP establishment when Russia go rogue? 

You are saying the candidate that went the scorched earth approach in an elections when he is losing is a safer option to avoid nuclear war. I can't comprehend that.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

International politics 101

You NEVER back down from international threats

Negotiation leads to concessions and concessions lead to more threats in the future 

That is why the US is having the problem its having overseas, this wishy washy "we MIGHT be angry maybe drones don't count as war"

Draw a clear line and don't half-ass


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> I've lived in Georgia
> 
> If you get that place to go Blue you done fucked up
> 
> Even the black and Latino (outside of immigration issues) communities were Red during the GWB years


Virginia used to be beet red, but mass immigration slowly started changing its composition twenty years ago (Northern Virginia, primarily), and the state started drifting leftward. John McCain and Mitt Romney didn't lose that state because they "fucked up," they lost because demographical destiny through wave upon wave of immigration spells the eventual end of the Republican Party as a national force. 

An interesting statistic and unsurprising statistic--Trump actually fares decently with Latinos born in the U.S., but he is destroyed with Latinos who were born elsewhere: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ess-theyre-english-speaking-or-american-born/

And the greater the population of Latino immigrants, the more pro-Hillary Clinton that region in which they reside will become. 

Georgia is just following Virginia and North Carolina along the blue trail: http://www.aol.com/article/2016/05/...e-turning-georgia-into-a-swing-stat/21377638/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/na...ity-georgia/PpBh8303fUVlfkYUDgQeuN/story.html

Texas will probably hold out for another few election cycles but it will become a swing state before long, too. Once it goes blue, the ball game is over, and it may well already be for a GOP presidential candidate. 

In the '80s Ronald Reagan won 56% of the white vote and annihilated the competition. Romney won almost 60% of the white vote in 2012 and lost decisively. 

This is why Hillary has been supremely demagogic on the issue of Black Lies Matter, race riots, and shootings both by and of cops--to ensure she beats Trump, gaining something like the 93% of the black vote that Obama secured is highly helpful.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> You are saying the candidate that went the scorched earth approach in an elections when he is losing is a safer option to avoid nuclear war. I can't comprehend that.


He actually didn't go with that approach until the other side did with the leaked tape and the sudden sexual assault victims showing up out of the woodwork a month before the election. As usual, Trump counter-attacks and catches all of the blame. 

As for nuclear war with Russia, Trump has made clear he sees no US interest in these disastrous Middle East interventions, which have put us on a collision course with Russia. We're trying to help a bunch of unknown rebels, many of which have relationships with or are themselves Al Qaeda, overthrow yet another secular government. How'd it go with Iraq? How'd it go with Libya? Clearly Trump's foreign policy is much safer and much less costly for the US.

Secondly, Trump isn't the one blaming Russia for everything that goes wrong with his campaign, or throwing around militaristic rhetoric toward a nuclear power that we really have no reason to be antagonistic toward. This sane behavior, of course, has to be rationalized by the left with conspiracy theories about Trump being in Putin's pocket or having significant financial ties with Russia. This is why we can't have nice things, like peace, for instance. Oh how I miss the anti-war Left of the Bush years.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Virginia used to be beet red, but mass immigration slowly started changing its composition twenty years ago (Northern Virginia, primarily), and the state started drifting leftward. John McCain and Mitt Romney didn't lose that state because they "fucked up," they lost because demographical destiny through wave upon wave of immigration spells the eventual end of the Republican Party as a national force.
> 
> An interesting statistic and unsurprising statistic--Trump actually fares decently with Latinos born in the U.S., but he is destroyed with Latinos who were born elsewhere: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ess-theyre-english-speaking-or-american-born/
> 
> And the greater the population of Latino immigrants, the more pro-Hillary Clinton that region in which they reside will become.
> 
> Georgia is just following Virginia and North Carolina along the blue trail: http://www.aol.com/article/2016/05/...e-turning-georgia-into-a-swing-stat/21377638/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/na...ity-georgia/PpBh8303fUVlfkYUDgQeuN/story.html
> 
> Texas will probably hold out for another few election cycles but it will become a swing state before long, too. Once it goes blue, the ball game is over, and it may well already be for a GOP presidential candidate.
> 
> In the '80s Ronald Reagan won 56% of the white vote and annihilated the competition. Romney won almost 60% of the white vote in 2012 and lost decisively.
> 
> This is why Hillary has been supremely demagogic on the issue of Black Lies Matter, race riots, and shootings both by and of cops--to ensure she beats Trump, gaining something like the 93% of the black vote that Obama secured is highly helpful.



I pointed it out earlier, much earlier in the thread about Hispanics supporting Trump. He probably has a good following with Hispanics born here and legal comers. Sadly Hispanics exist like a hive mind when it comes to voting due to the whole family sticking together thing they have which can be good or bad. I thought I'd see more outrage from Hispanics over the DNC throwing them under the bus but I forget many people come from failed socialist states and still vote for whomever will pander to them the most. 

The whole thing is odd as many Hispanics are traditional and fairly religious and conservative by nature which would seem to make them perfect candidates for the Republican party but they either haven't been reached by the Republicans or bought into the race rhetoric of the Democrats.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> He actually didn't go with that approach until the other side did with the leaked tape and the sudden sexual assault victims showing up out of the woodwork a month before the election. As usual, Trump counter-attacks and catches all of the blame.


Isn't that kind of the point I was making? He choose a take everyone down with him approach because his ego can't handle being labelled a loser. And as for him not going with that approach because the other side started it first, what is this excuse? Fifth grade? Do you think Russia or any other countries unfriendly towards America wouldn't strike first?



> As for nuclear war with Russia, Trump has made clear he sees no US interest in these disastrous Middle East interventions, which have put us on a collision course with Russia. We're trying to help a bunch of unknown rebels, many of which have relationships with or are themselves Al Qaeda, overthrow yet another secular government. How'd it go with Iraq? How'd it go with Libya? Clearly Trump's foreign policy is much safer and much less costly for the US.


His foreign policy is naive. Less we forget he once said he wouldn't mind more countries obtaining nuclear weapons to defend themselves. Trump supported the Iraq and Libya interventions. He was on tape saying America should have gone in faster in Libya. His approach is basically the world wouldn't hurt us if we don't do anything to them.



> Secondly, Trump isn't the one blaming Russia for everything that goes wrong with his campaign, or throwing around militaristic rhetoric toward a nuclear power that we really have no reason to be antagonistic toward. This sane behavior, of course, has to be rationalized by the left with conspiracy theories about Trump being in Putin's pocket or having significant financial ties with Russia. This is why we can't have nice things, like peace, for instance. Oh how I miss the anti-war Left of the Bush years.


I agree the Russian rhetoric from left is hyperbolic and not a good look unless they are able to present concrete evidence to back those up. But you can easily swap the media or NWO with Russia in Trump's scapegoating rhetoric easily to see how things can go badly if a President Trump feels threatened.



Miss Sally said:


> I pointed it out earlier, much earlier in the thread about Hispanics supporting Trump. He probably has a good following with Hispanics born here and legal comers. Sadly Hispanics exist like a hive mind when it comes to voting due to the whole family sticking together thing they have which can be good or bad. I thought I'd see more outrage from Hispanics over the DNC throwing them under the bus but I forget many people come from failed socialist states and still vote for whomever will pander to them the most.
> 
> The whole thing is odd as many Hispanics are traditional and fairly religious and conservative by nature which would seem to make them perfect candidates for the Republican party but they either haven't been reached by the Republicans or bought into the race rhetoric of the Democrats.


Me and asdf0501 have pointed this out repeatedly in this thread that these minorities in America tend to share characteristics that tend to vote republican. But they aren't being pulled in by Democrats as much as being pushed away from the Republicans with their rhetoric pandering to the group of people that wants them out of America. One side might be failing to fulfil all of their promises to you, but the other side is telling you that you aren't real Americans even if you spent your whole life in the United States. Who would you vote for? Until the GOP fixes that, many of the minorities are voting Democrats by default in presidential elections.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

While Trump sees Russia as an ally to take care of the dirty work in the Middle East, please don't fool yourselves. Putin sees Trump as the more easily manipulated option due to his lack of political experience. That's why he would rather see Trump than Clinton. 

Meanwhile, one consequence of us not getting involved in the Middle East is we will lose allies that were already pulling away from us. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are already negotiating treaties with the Russkis, and one of my local radio talk show hosts who has connections with Israel has been saying that the Israelis have been talking to Russia, China, and India over the last year or so. Apparently they feel Clinton will continue our administration's hostility towards them, and Trump's comments about "Israel might not be a fair negotiator" might lead to Israel going elsewhere for aid and military assistance.


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

political experience....please tell me the great experience Obama had to be president?
https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/787063275771101184
http://www.afrocache.com/russia-recalls-officials-back-home-fear-global-war/
#war talk
#wartime
#will Russia bow down to u.s
the level of propaganda level at us the u.s citizen sucks...ill never forget this
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/13/politics/russia-us-election/index.html


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Meanwhile, one consequence of us not getting involved in the Middle East is we will lose allies that were already pulling away from us. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are already negotiating treaties with the Russkis, and one of my local radio talk show hosts who has connections with Israel has been saying that the Israelis have been talking to Russia, China, and India over the last year or so. Apparently they feel Clinton will continue our administration's hostility towards them, and Trump's comments about "Israel might not be a fair negotiator" might lead to Israel going elsewhere for aid and military assistance.


I fail to see how this is a bad thing. We get to drop Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel from the payroll? Sign me up for that.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@BruiserKC You mean the Israelis, Saudis, Qataris, et. al. are going to coopt some other nation's foreign policy? Do they promise? 



ecclesiastes10 said:


> political experience....please tell me the great experience Obama had to be president?


All one could ever require in the U.S. of the twenty-first century. He was a man of no distinction, no significant experience, a politician whose Illinois legislature record was virtually kept under wraps like the legacy of a political dissident's life in a communist country, and whose U.S. Senate run was almost as unremarkable as anyone's in the history of the body. He was a pettifogging and petty cog of the extraordinarily oily Chicago Democratic Party machine run by wannabe mobsters like Mayor Richard Daley, Bill Daley, Rahm Emanuel and a host of others. 

The Republican Party of Illinois forced Senator Peter Fitzgerald out of office because he was deemed too stodgy and too fiscally conservative. He refused to go along with a third Chicago airport, for instance. Ray LaHood was the primary force behind prying Fitzgerald out; completely coincidentally, I am sure, LaHood became Obama's token Republican cabinet member as Secretary of Transportation. 

The Republicans of Illinois sent Jack Ryan packing because of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider's ruling that several of Ryan's custody records should be opened to the public. While calling on Democrats to not inject themselves into the campaign in early spring 2004, Obama was in truth allowing his supporters and aides to clandestinely email reports about Ryan's divorce records well before Judge Schnider's decision, urging the press to seek the opening of the records. 

This is all without mentioning Tony Rezko or Alexi Giannoulias.

Remember--Obama was to rid Washington, D.C. of corruption and make the operations of the White House transparent. 

These are the fictions to which voters irrationally cling for who knows what reason. Primarily because Obama gave a spirited speech on a balmy summer night in 2004 at the Democratic National Convention.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Trump's comments about "Israel might not be a fair negotiator" *might lead to Israel going elsewhere for aid and military assistance.*












Netanyahu in particular needs to fuck off the most. Arrogant piece of shit. :trump


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I highly doubt the Chinese or Indians will rush to the aid of Israel like America will. 

Anyway, Putin see Trump as someone that can be played into not interfering with Russia's plan of remaining as a global power using Christian Orthodoxy. Putin saw Russia's traditional advantage of being the leader of the alternative voice of non-democratic governance eroded by the rise of China as an existential threat to their global influence and has been pivoting for the last few years. Trump will be so clueless as long as Putin agrees to 'bomb' ISIS and not see the coming of the next cold war between these two powers.


----------



## DeborahSmith

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hope he doesn't win!


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> I fail to see how this is a bad thing. We get to drop Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel from the payroll? Sign me up for that.


Seriously, I'm not sure how anyone can see this as a bad thing. We've been picking up the paycheck for Israel for decades, I'll be happy if we can get out of the mid east and start closing down expensive bases that serve no purpose anymore.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Isn't that kind of the point I was making? He choose a take everyone down with him approach because his ego can't handle being labelled a loser. And as for him not going with that approach because the other side started it first, what is this excuse? Fifth grade? Do you think Russia or any other countries unfriendly towards America wouldn't strike first?


Okay so you're talking about a fucking nuclear strike on the US in which case what's it fucking matter since we're all dead anyway?



> His foreign policy is naive. Less we forget he once said he wouldn't mind more countries obtaining nuclear weapons to defend themselves. Trump supported the Iraq and Libya interventions. He was on tape saying America should have gone in faster in Libya. His approach is basically the world wouldn't hurt us if we don't do anything to them.


Yeah man that foreign policy that worked for like a hundred years until America started fucking with people. So naive. Because countries just attacked us when we were minding our own business all the fucking time back in the day. 



> I agree the Russian rhetoric from left is hyperbolic and not a good look unless they are able to present concrete evidence to back those up. But you can easily swap the media or NWO with Russia in Trump's scapegoating rhetoric easily to see how things can go badly if a President Trump feels threatened.


The media aren't being scapegoated by Trump. :lol They're literally collaborating with the Clinton campaign to bury Trump. This is not even up for debate. You're talking about the difference between Clinton blaming Russia (a NUCLEAR POWER) WITHOUT EVIDENCE for the DNC leaks, proving that her political party is corrupt, with Trump telling the media, who have no nuclear weapons, to knock it off. :lol Stop making bad comparisons.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@DesolationRow @Reaper @L-DOPA @Beatles123 @Fringe 






Stefan Molyneux completely dismantles the utterly absurd sexual allegations against Donald Trump. :done The media is disgusting and nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Democratic party.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> @DesolationRow @Reaper @L-DOPA @Beatles123 @Fringe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stefan Molyneux completely dismantles the utterly absurd sexual allegations against Donald Trump. :done The media is disgusting and nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Democratic party.


Will you be changing your vote back to Trump then?


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Stefan Molyneux completely dismantles the utterly absurd sexual allegations against Donald Trump. :done The media is disgusting and nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Democratic party.


:smile2: great vid

hopefully this whole thing gets pushed to the side forever. I thought about the whole bus recording, "grab her by the pussy" stuff and how overblown it is. I want someone here, man or woman, to say they have never said stuff like 'wow, look at his/her ass' or 'I wouldn't mind a piece of that'.

We are on a wrestling forum ok. For years The Rock asked women if they wanted his strudl and also said he wanted poontang pie. See, entertainment!


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

An excellent video, @CamillePunk. Thank you for sharing. The airplane story in particular seems to have some rather considerable holes running through it. :lol
@AryaDark @Pratchett @Reaper @Tater @L-DOPA @Fringe @Goku @Beatles123 @Miss Sally @samizayn @DA @GOON

*DISCLAIMER*: 

Yeah, yeah, it's Sean Hannity on Fox News. I myself do not have terribly much use for Mr. Hannity nor, for the most part, the network on which he appears nightly, but, a moment for perspective:

Were we to rewind the clock of time ten years, and this were October 2006, I would, were I around, quite probably be embedding a video of some host from MSNBC with whom I frequently disagreed, but whose special report on the duplicity of the neoconservatives behind the invasion of Iraq featured hard-hitting veracity in an impactful, short timeframe of footage that was so comprehensive, it demanded to be seen. Vividly recall some segments pertaining to that do I. 

Because the neocons and George W. Bush were awful, and because Hillary Clinton and her army of iniquitous slime balls are awful, I am willing to look past party affiliations or intrinsic network biases or dietary differences, or what have you. I do not care who it is, if they are a communist or a Nazi or a Black Panther or a monarchist or a libertarian or a Democrat or a Republican, if they are at least, at that moment, telling the truth, or doing something that is good, I will recognize that for at least the moment. Hannity could go on television next week and say Barack Obama was actually born in the ninth circle of hell for all I care but here he did something good.

So I give you what is probably Hannity's finest hour as a talking head on cable news, the first ten minutes of last night's broadcast of his show, as he goes through only a few of the most notable leaks from the wikileaks emails. After those ten minutes I politely suggest you stop pause the video and step away because Newt Gingrich is one of the wiliest and most unprincipled Machiavellian tricksters to pollute the Potomac, and that is saying a great deal. It's the first ten minutes and first ten minutes alone that matter.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Okay so you're talking about a fucking nuclear strike on the US in which case what's it fucking matter since we're all dead anyway?


That's not the point and you know it. I'm talking about Russia making the first provocation which isn't necessary a nuclear strike and Trump making decisions that hurts both parties just to get back at Russia. You are rationalising splitting the GOP party and hurting the democratic process in America by continuously sprouting rigged elections rhetoric in response to a leaked tape as equivalent actions.


> Yeah man that foreign policy that worked for like a hundred years until America started fucking with people. So naive. Because countries just attacked us when we were minding our own business all the fucking time back in the day.


Didn't and wouldn't work if hawks from other countries want to hit you even though they can't win just to make a point.






:shrug Naive.



> The media aren't being scapegoated by Trump. :lol They're literally collaborating with the Clinton campaign to bury Trump. This is not even up for debate. You're talking about the difference between Clinton blaming Russia (a NUCLEAR POWER) WITHOUT EVIDENCE for the DNC leaks, proving that her political party is corrupt, with Trump telling the media, who have no nuclear weapons, to knock it off. :lol Stop making bad comparisons.


She's blaming Russia base on the what your intelligence agencies have said. Trump has revoked press credentials from media that were critical of him during the primaries. Trump has praised the very same media if they write anything critical about his opponents. If any media is collaborating with one campaign to bury others, it is the absurd ties between Sean Hannity and Breitbart with Trump this election. Face the truth that you got taken for a ride by a charlatan and stop trying to defend your own poor judgement in trusting him to be the safer choice.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

TBH, anyone that believed the allegations against Trump at this point is missing a few brain cells. Given how dirty these elections have been and given that nothing could bury Trump, the timing of these cunts combined with the slew of false accusations that have recently come to fore in other trials where they too have been buried once scrutinized (Gomeshi trial in Canada for example), this is probably the worst time in human history for women to bring up rape accusations and that too in a group. 

It's interesting that this happens now when the media is still trying to bury the 12 year old girl Hillary buried - that was actually a rape victim.

This idea that just because a bunch of cunts claimed rape and that we have to believe them because we think the worst of a man is a bullshit idea that's been planted into the minds of people by modern SJW's. Take the Laci Green meme for example where she said that any accuser HAS to be believed which turned into the "Laci Green raped me" meme. 

We don't have to believe anyone. This is why we have courts. Fuck anyone that says someone raped them and then not have it proved in court after investigation. And yes this includes the women that were genuinely raped but decided not to get a rape kit right after. Everyone knows their rights and everyone is smart enough to know how the system works and that we live in a society where if you're really raped we will send your rapist to jail.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Wrestling Forum's Biggest Chicago Cubs Fan said:


> An excellent video, @CamillePunk. Thank you for sharing. The airplane story in particular seems to have some rather considerable holes running through it. :lol
> @AryaDark @Pratchett @Reaper @Tater @L-DOPA @Fringe @Goku @Beatles123 @Miss Sally @samizayn @DA @GOON
> 
> *DISCLAIMER*:
> 
> Yeah, yeah, it's Sean Hannity on Fox News. I myself do not have terribly much use for Mr. Hannity nor, for the most part, the network on which he appears nightly, but, a moment for perspective:
> 
> Were we to rewind the clock of time ten years, and this were October 2006, I would, were I around, quite probably be embedding a video of some host from MSNBC with whom I frequently disagreed, but whose special report on the duplicity of the neoconservatives behind the invasion of Iraq featured hard-hitting veracity in an impactful, short timeframe of footage that was so comprehensive, it demanded to be seen. Vividly recall some segments pertaining to that do I.
> 
> Because the neocons and George W. Bush were awful, and because Hillary Clinton and her army of iniquitous slime balls are awful, I am willing to look past party affiliations or intrinsic network biases or dietary differences, or what have you. I do not care who it is, if they are a communist or a Nazi or a Black Panther or a monarchist or a libertarian or a Democrat or a Republican, if they are at least, at that moment, telling the truth, or doing something that is good, I will recognize that for at least the moment. Hannity could go on television next week and say Barack Obama was actually born in the ninth circle of hell for all I care but here he did something good.
> 
> So I give you what is probably Hannity's finest hour as a talking head on cable news, the first ten minutes of last night's broadcast of his show, as he goes through only a few of the most notable leaks from the wikileaks emails. After those ten minutes I politely suggest you stop pause the video and step away because Newt Gingrich is one of the wiliest and most unprincipled Machiavellian tricksters to pollute the Potomac, and that is saying a great deal. It's the first ten minutes and first ten minutes alone that matter.


I'm not sure why you felt the need to link my name to this post. :lol

If it's about the first part, you haven't seen me in here talking about the allegations against Trump by various women because quite frankly, there are a lot bigger issues at stake.

If it's about the second part, dude, if you have to spend three paragraphs talking about how shitty a source is, you might want to find a different source. I don't care if he got it right this one time. There's plenty of sources I've already gotten info on the Podesta email leaks from without resorting to listening to Sean fucking Hannity. That jackass has about as much credibility as the crackhead hooker on the street corner.

If you linked my name just to say hi, then hi buddy! :grin2:


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> TBH, anyone that believed the allegations against Trump at this point is missing a few brain cells.


This is a man who calls his daughter a hot piece of ass,is on film saying to a little girl I will be dating her in 10 years,jokes with an entertainment reporter he barely knows about sexually assaulting women and even joked when one of Howard Sterns sidekicks called him a sexual predator. On tape admitted he creeped and barged in on women in his pageants. Then just yesterday his defense against some accusers was I would never assault those women cause their ugly. At the bare minimum even if he is not a rapist or predator he is a creeper and abysmal human being who I wouldn't want running a Kinko's let alone be the Defacto Highest Political Office in the free word.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ShiningStar said:


> This is a man who calls his daughter a hot piece of ass,is on film saying to a little girl I will be dating her in 10 years,jokes with an entertainment reporter he barely knows about sexually assaulting women and even joked when one of Howard Sterns sidekicks called him a sexual predator. On tape admitted he creeped and barged in on women in his pageants. Then just yesterday his defense against some accusers was I would never assault those women cause their ugly. At the bare minimum even if he is not a rapist or predator he is a creeper and abysmal human being who I wouldn't want running a Kinko's let alone be the Defacto Highest Political Office in the free word.


None of this has anything to do with the rape accusations.


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> None of this has anything to do with the rape accusations.


The dude pretty much bragged on tape a week ago he could rape with impunity because he is a big star.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ShiningStar said:


> The dude pretty much bragged on tape a week ago he could rape with impunity because he is a big star.


And that makes him an actual rapist?


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Yeah man that foreign policy that worked for like a hundred years until America started fucking with people. So naive. Because countries just attacked us when we were minding our own business all the fucking time back in the day.


The Lusitania and Pearl Harbor both say hello.

Not necessarily against American becoming a bit more isolationist than it is atm, but come on, isolationism was abandoned for the very reason that yes, American did just keep getting randomly attacked while trying to mind it's own business.




Reaper said:


> And that makes him an actual rapist?


Well it makes believing his is kinda reasonable don't you think? More reasonable than it would be otherwise?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Well it makes believing his is kinda reasonable don't you think? More reasonable than it would be otherwise?


It doesn't make it reasonable. How much do you study serial killer cases? The vast majority of serial killer cases have false claimants and false confessions. Is believing them "reasonable"? This is why we science the shit out of confessions as well. So just because a man likes to talk a big game, makes stupid statements and says stupid shit it's still unreasonable to believe that he's a rapist even if he talks shit. 

If a woman claims that she's a witch, would you burn her?


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> It doesn't make it reasonable. How much do you study serial killer cases? The vast majority of serial killer cases have false claimants and false confessions. Is believing them "reasonable"? This is why we science the shit out of confessions as well so just because a man likes to talk a big game, makes stupid statements and says stupid shit it's still unreasonable to believe that he's a rapist even if he talks shit.


But it's not just a confession though, its a confession and an accusation.

He has confessed to it. And he has been accused of it doing it. Hence it's reasonable to believe he did it. And the confession does make the accusation more believable even though confessions can be false.

I don't believe in witchcraft. I do believe in sexual assault. 

But if someone confessed to being a serial killer and was accused by multiple witnesses of being a serial killer it would be reasonable to believe they were.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> But it's not just a confession though, its a confession and and an accusation.


Where is the confession to the accused case? 



> He has confessed to it. And he has been accused of it doing it. Hence it's reasonable to believe he did it. And the confession does make the accusation more believable even though confessions can be false.


As always you missed the context of why I brought up the confession of serial killer example obviously. Even WITH a confession, you still need to ascertain whether that confession is real or not. Assuming that it is is real until it is investigated and determined to actually be true in a court of law. 

It's not reasonable to accept someone's confession without corroborating evidence as well. 



> But if someone confessed to being a serial killer and was accused by multiple witnesses of being a serial killer it would be reasonable to believe they were.


No it's not because there are plenty of reasons why someone would confess. 

- Protecting someone else
- Attention whoring/publicity
- financial gain

Sorry, you can't claim to be reasonable even when believing someone's confession after being accused. This is why due process is so fucking important - and this is why the left leaning liberal mentality is a dangerous one because in your misguided empathy towards the victim you'd hang anyone without proper investigation.


----------



## amhlilhaus

These allegations are sooooo timely, hope they work

My favorite is the people magazine writer who says trump accosyed her IN FRONT OF HIS NEW WIFE.

Anyone that believes THAT story, probably believes anything hes told


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Sorry, you can't claim to be reasonable even when believing someone's confession after being accused.


We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point I guess.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> TBH, anyone that believed the allegations against Trump at this point is missing a few brain cells. Given how dirty these elections have been and given that nothing could bury Trump, the timing of these cunts combined with the slew of false accusations that have recently come to fore in other trials where they too have been buried once scrutinized (Gomeshi trial in Canada for example), this is probably the worst time in human history for women to bring up rape accusations and that too in a group.
> 
> It's interesting that this happens now when the media is still trying to bury the 12 year old girl Hillary buried - that was actually a rape victim.
> 
> This idea that just because a bunch of cunts claimed rape and that we have to believe them because we think the worst of a man is a bullshit idea that's been planted into the minds of people by modern SJW's. Take the Laci Green meme for example where she said that any accuser HAS to be believed which turned into the "Laci Green raped me" meme.
> 
> We don't have to believe anyone. This is why we have courts. Fuck anyone that says someone raped them and then not have it proved in court after investigation. And yes this includes the women that were genuinely raped but decided not to get a rape kit right after. Everyone knows their rights and everyone is smart enough to know how the system works and that we live in a society where if you're really raped we will send your rapist to jail.


One thing I found very strange about Jessica Leeds' story is how she readily admits that she wouldn't have been mad if he only touched her chest. What? How was that glanced over by so many people lol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point I guess.


Thanks for conceding the argument.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Thanks for conceding the argument.


Hahahhahahahahahahha

Sure brah

Seriously though, there's nothing more to be said.

You think it's unreasonable to believe someone is guilty of something they're accused of and have confessed to, and I believe that is reasonable.

Neither of us are going to convince the other, whats the point?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Hahahhahahahahahahha
> 
> Sure brah
> 
> Seriously though, there's nothing more to be said.
> 
> You think it's unreasonable to believe someone is guilty of something they're accused of and have confessed to, and I believe that is reasonable.
> 
> Neither of us are going to convince the other, whats the point?


I don't need to convince you because thankfully the way the courts are run is by assuming that a confession is false and by allowing the confession itself to be scrutinized. I just hope that you never end up on the jury of a criminal trial.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> I don't need to convince you because thankfully the way the courts are run is by assuming that a confession is false and by allowing the confession itself to be scrutinized. I just hope that you never end up on the jury of a criminal trial.


Actually not how courts work. 

If someone is accused of something and they confess it they get found guilty. 

That may be sad realisation for you, but it is reality.

The logical fallacy you've gone with is to look at the confession and accusation each individually in a vacuum and not looked at them together. 

Each individually establishes little, but once together you need incredibly strong evidence to overturn, even if people later back down from the confession and say they were lying.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Actually not how courts work.
> 
> If someone is accused of something and they confess it they get found guilty.
> 
> That may be sad realisation for you, but it is reality.


:kobelol 

http://www.falseconfessions.org/



> The logical fallacy you've gone with is to look at the confession and accusation each individually in a vacuum and not looked at them together.


That's not a logical fallacy at all. In fact, as an investigator that is exactly what you're supposed to do because you should have more than just a confession to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> :kobelol
> 
> http://www.falseconfessions.org/


Dude that website argues against your point, as you'd realise had you bothered reading it.

It talks about one case from 1988 that was overturned in 2013. As I said, it is INCREDIBLY hard to overcome a confession, even if you turn around and say you were lying when you made it. Hence why it took so long, and that person was very lucky. 

I work in criminal law, if someone is accused of a crime, and they confess, even if they turn around later and say they were lying when they confessed it is nearly impossible to get them found innocent unless you have physical proof they are innocent. Otherwise they're f*cked, it's just that simple.

Look at Brendan Dassey, if not for making a murderer he'd be still be away, and his confession was obviously false it didn't even match up with physical evidence the prosecution did have.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Dude that website argues against your point, as you'd realise had you bothered reading it.
> 
> It talks about one case from 1988 that was overturned in 2013. As I said, it is INCREDIBLY hard to overcome a confession, even if you turn around and say you were lying when you made it. Hence why it took so long, and that person was very lucky.
> 
> I work in criminal law, if you are accused of a crime, and you confess, even if you turn around later and say you were lying when you confessed it is nearly impossible to get them found innocent unless you have physical proof they are innocent. Otherwise they're f*cked, it's just that simple


What do you do in criminal law? 

Obviously it's fucking hard to get a conviction over turned and obviously as always you've completely missed the point ... When I said that you shouldn't be on a criminal jury is because for you the only thing that matters is a confession - you wouldn't even bother to examine other facts in the case. If you would look at other facts then you can claim it now, but your earlier posts indicate that you don't care about other facts and just care about the confession - which is unreasonable and if the system, police and even judges are going simply by confession, then they're also doing it wrong and I have no quips about saying that. 

Convicting someone simply on the basis of a confession without corraborating evidence is leaving plenty of room of being wrong and it is unreasonable to do so. 

Look at the facts on the site I've posted. They're showing hundreds of fucking cases where later evidence was found to exonerate the criminal who was originally convicted based on a confession. 

If you, or anyone else is simply convicting people based on just a confession and no other corroborating evidence then you're doing a shittier job than those people who assume confessions to be false, get more evidence and work the case more diligently. The approach confession = guilt is unreasonable.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> What do you do in criminal law?


I do defense work.



> Obviously it's fucking hard to get a conviction over turned and obviously as always you've completely missed the point ... When I said that you shouldn't be on a criminal jury is because for you the only thing that matters is a confession - you wouldn't even bother to examine other facts in the case. If you would look at other facts then you can claim it now, but your earlier posts indicate that you don't care about other facts and just care about the confession - which is unreasonable and if the system, police and even judges are going simply by confession, then they're also doing it wrong and I have no quips about saying that. Convicting someone simply on the basis of a confession without corraborating evidence is leaving plenty of room of being wrong.


Not just get a conviction overturned, but to get them found innocent. If they've confessed to the police during the first interview they are basically fucked from that point. It is not literally impossible to get them off, but from that point the prosecution effectively no longer has to prove guilt because you have to prove your client was lying. Which is really hard. 

Basically the judge says "they were either lying then or now" now is the time that benefits them, then was the time that didn't benefit them, they are therefore more likely to have been telling the truth when they admitted it, and be lying now.



> Look at the facts on the site I've posted. They're showing hundreds of fucking cases where later evidence was found to exonerate the criminal who was originally convicted based on a conviction.


Hundreds out of how many? Hundreds of thousands at least. The amount of people that go through the criminal justice system is astronomical. Possible but very hard and rare. 



> If you, or anyone else is simply convicting people based on just a confession and no other corroborating evidence then you're doing a shittier job than those people who assume confessions to be false, get more evidence and work the case more diligently. The approach confession = guilt is unreasonable.


Again, not talking about just a confession, talking about a confession and an accusation. This is the logical fallacy you just keep making. You can't look at evidence in a vacuum, you have to look at it in totality.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> I do defense work.


What type of defence work (I'm asking because you implied authority and I want to establish if you actually have that authority or not)



> Not just get a conviction overturned, but to get them found innocent. If they've confessed to the police during the first interview they are basically fucked from that point. It is not literally impossible to get them off, but from that point the prosecution not longer has to prove guilt because you have to prove your client was lying. Which is really hard.


Yeah ... and that's a problem of the police not further investigating after a confession which actually opens them up to potentially making a mistake. 



> Hundreds out of how many? Hundreds of thousands at least. The amount of people that go through the criminal justice system is astronomical. Possible but very hard and rare.


Obviously because not all cases are simply closed on the basis of just having an accusation and a confession. There's pretty much corraborrating evidence to go along with it. And yeah, some cases are clear cut while others are not - which is why due diligence and completion of all investigation protocol is necessary to avoid mistakes being made. 



> Again, not talking about just a confession, talking about a confession and an accusation. This is the logical fallacy you just keep making. You can't look at evidence in a vacuum, you have to look at it in totality.


I don't think you understand how to spot logical fallacies ... Simply throwing it out there so maybe you can go and learn. 

Here's how you need to think about this:

Person A doesn't commit crime
Person B accuses person A of committing crime
Person A confesses to said crime. 

Is Person A guilty based on Person B's accusation simply because they've admitted to committing a crime? 

Since we KNOW that Person A didn't commit the crime, it's illogical to claim that Person B's accusation and Person A's confession combined makes Person A guilty of the crime. 

This is why even when you have an accusation and a confession you cannot assume that the person accused is actually guilty and I've already highligthed all the reasons why.

You're saying that Person B's accusation combined with Person A's confession means with absolute certainty that Person A committed the crime. It doesn't. This is why you need corroborating evidence.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> What type of defence post (I'm asking because you implied authority and I want to establish if you actually have that authority or not)


Experience not authority, not sure where you get authority from. I'm saying I've sat through a tonne of criminal law cases and I've seen how they go. 



> Yeah ... and that's a problem of the police not further investigating after a confession which actually opens them up to potentially making a mistake.
> 
> Obviously because not all cases are simply closed on the basis of just having an accusation and a confession. There's pretty much corraborrating evidence to go along with it. And yeah, some cases are clear cut while others are not - which is why due diligence and completion of all investigation protocol is necessary to avoid mistakes being made.


Sure, but we're talking about a situation where there is no other evidence obviously, I didn't think that needed to be said. 



> I don't think you understand how to spot logical fallacies ... Simply throwing it out there so maybe you can go and learn.
> 
> Here's how you need to think about this:
> 
> Person A doesn't commit crime
> Person B accuses person A of committing crime
> Person A confesses to said crime.
> 
> Is Person A guilty based on Person B's accusation simply because they've admitted to committing a crime?
> 
> Since we KNOW that Person A didn't commit the crime, it's illogical to claim that Person B's accusation and Person A's confession combined makes Person A guilty of the crime.


But not illogical to claim that it is reasonable for person c to believe that person a is guilty.

Unless c is physic of course, but I assume that isn't what you mean.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> But not illogical to claim that it is reasonable for person c to believe that person a is guilty, and that is what we have been arguing. The reasonable belief of a third party, not actual fact.


If you really want to go back to what this discussion actually started from, we were talking about Trump and how you think that it's reasonable to think that he's a rapist because of his shit-talking (which is actually not even a confession because when it comes to the actual crimes he's denied it, therefore now it needs to be investigated and the due diligence needs to be done in court). 

I mean, at this point you simply want to believe that Trump's shit-talking is a confession and that alone makes you incredibly unreasonable right there :shrug 

Anyways, coming to the current scenario, simply believing a confession even in light of an accusation is not reasonable in and of itself ... For something to be reasonable, it has to be fair and moderate and believing an accusation and a confession without corroborating evidence is unreasonable, no matter who does it because of the potentiality for error which is pretty high. 

I have yet to see you establish how it's actually reasonable.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> Anyways, coming to the current scenario, simply believing a confession is not reasonable in and of itself. I have yet to see you establish how it's actually reasonable.


Cause that isn't what I've been arguing. I'll leave you to reread my earlier posts and come back to me if you feel like actually engaging.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Cause that isn't what I've been arguing. I'll leave you to reread my earlier posts and come back to me if you feel like actually engaging.


You've been saying that an accusation combined with a confession makes it reasonable. How?


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> You've been saying that an accusation combined with a confession makes it reasonable. How?


Because both things are evidence. 

If you have more evidence in favour of a proposition than against it is reasonable to believe it.

It's not enough for certainty, but it's enough for reasonable belief in the absence of countervailing evidence.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Because both things are evidence.


An accusation is an assertion, it is not evidence. What? And you work in the criminal justice system ... :woah 

"Laci Green raped me". This is an accusation. It's an assertion. Assertions are not evidence ... They are simply assertions. Evidence is stuff you need to prove the assertion. Confession is evidence that proves the assertion (in some cases, but not all which is why just believing a confession is unreasonable), but the accusation in and of itself is evidence of anything at all. It's not even evidence of a crime having even happened. And this is especially a big problem in sexual assault, harassment and even rape cases. 

The other way to look at a confession and just tossing it out is "I confess to stepping on a cockroach" ... Sure that can be added into evidence but only if other evidence proves it. You need the body of a cockroach, you need to determine what time the cockroach was stepped on, whether my shoe has cockroach dung on it ... etc etc. My simply saying that I stepped on a cockraoch and then believing that I did is unreasonable. It's naive. 



> If you have more evidence in favour of a proposition than against it is reasonable to believe it.


Definitely agree, but an accusation isn't evidence. 



> It's not enough for certainty, but it's enough for reasonable belief in the absence of countervailing evidence.


In this discussion, we've established that the only evidence is a confession since an accusation is not evidence. Simply believing a confession is unreasonable for many reasons and I re-iterate:

- Possibly of Police coercion in gaining the confession
- Lack of corroborating evidence or even evidence establishing that a crime has even occurred 
- Ulterior motives of the person confession which include things like possible financial gain, publicity, fraud, mental illness, protecting the real criminal and other reasons.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reaper said:


> An accusation is an assertion, it is not evidence. What? And you work in the criminal justice system ... :woah
> 
> "Laci Green raped me". This is an accusation. It's an assertion. Assertions are not evidence ... They are simply assertions. Evidence is stuff you need to prove the assertion. Confession is evidence that proves the assertion, but the accusation in and of itself is evidence of anything at all. It's not even evidence of a crime having even happened. And this is especially a big problem in sexual assault, harassment and even rape cases.
> 
> Definitely agree, but an accusation isn't evidence.In this discussion, we've established that the only evidence is a confession since an accusation is not evidence. Simply believing a confession is unreasonable for many reasons and I re-iterate:
> 
> - Possibly of Police coercion in gaining the confession
> - Lack of corroborating evidence
> - Ulterior motives of the person confession which include things like possible financial gain, publicity, fraud, mental illness, protecting the real criminal and other reasons.


The witness testimony of an alleged victim is normally considered evidence.

I get that in the background of this discussion is the fact the accusation in question is one you believe to be politically motivated and hence of questionable worth as evidence. But that is a whole other can of worms.

As a basic principle, witness statements of alleged victims are considered evidence.

Like an accusation may not be evidence of a great deal of worth, but it's still evidence. 

If person a and b both say that they and they alone attacked c, and c says that b attacked them and a didn't would you not be more likely to believe that b did the attack and a didn't?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> The witness testimony of an alleged victim is normally considered evidence.


Interesting that you've changed from accusation which is just an assertion and charge in legal terms to eye-witness testimony though. 



> As a basic principle, witness statements of alleged victims are considered evidence.


Eye-witness testimony and accusations are two different things. An accusation is a formal charge. Eye witness testimony is presented before the court and even though it can come from the victim himself or herself, it still needs corroborating evidence. 



> Like an accusation may not be evidence of a great deal of worth, but it's still evidence.


Accusation is not evidence. The eye-witness testimony of the accuser can be considered evidence, but that's not the same as an accusation. 



> If person a and b both say that they and they alone attacked c, and c says that b attacked them and a didn't would you not be more likely to believe that b did the attack and a didn't?


No I wouldn't. And I doubt any reasonable person would without more evidence because it's possible that C has some favorable feelings for A and wants to punish B, meanwhile it's possible that B wants to protect A and A is the attacker. It's also possible that C has memory problems and confused A and B and that B wants to protect A. So many different possibilities. 

I still think that you'd make a piss poor juror based on this :shrug 

If the criminal justice system is putting people behind bars for shit confessions like this, then it's fucked.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Israel is literately surrounded by nations that's official state-sponsored stance is "Jews are inherently evil and need to be removed from this earth" and you guys are mad that Israel does not even try to negotiate with people who's official stance is "Hitler did nothing wrong" and support the flat out murder of Jews as not only justified but morally right 

I would tell them to go fuck themselves x5000 and use every opportunity to weaken them as they OFFICIALLY WANT TO GENOCIDE US

When one side's point is "they are mean and took our land" and the other side is "They want murder as many of us as possible" I am going to support the second guy


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Netanyahu in particular needs to fuck off the most. Arrogant piece of shit. :trump





Wrestling Forum's Biggest Chicago Cubs Fan said:


> @BruiserKC You mean the Israelis, Saudis, Qataris, et. al. are going to coopt some other nation's foreign policy? Do they promise?





Tater said:


> I fail to see how this is a bad thing. We get to drop Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel from the payroll? Sign me up for that.


Trust me, nothing would give me more pleasure to tell the whole world to take care of their own shit and we take care of our own. Unfortunately, the real world will tell us otherwise. Right now, the entire world is watching this election very closely and wondering where the United States stands on the world stage. Why do you think you have Zhirinovsky shooting off his mouth saying vote for Trump or we will nuke you? Why do you think the rebels in Yemen have opened fire on American naval ships? Why are our allies looking around to see who else they can work with? 

Our foreign policy has been screwed up, no question. We pretty much threw Egypt under the bus, we have now opened up ourselves to a shitload of grief in allowing our citizens to sue Saudi Arabia (understand the concern but we are moving into the land of unintended consequences), and even Israel right now is hedging their bets because the only possible guarantee is that Clinton will most likely continue Obama's anti-Israel policies and Trump might follow suit. Pulling up every tent and coming home is not an option. Don't forget we have a nuclear Iran and ISIS to deal with. There is no love and peace there, I can promise you.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

if a confession is evidence, then a denial is counter-evidence.

Trump has denied the accusations, no?


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Obama's anti-Israel policies


If agreeing to give them a handout of 38 billion dollars is an anti-Israel policy, I'd hate to see what a pro-Israel policy looks like.



BruiserKC said:


> Don't forget we have a nuclear Iran...


No, we don't.



BruiserKC said:


> ...and ISIS to deal with.


We shouldn't be involved. Let the ME deal with ME problems.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Will you be changing your vote back to Trump then?


In order to save the world, yes.

I encourage any non-sociopaths to do the same.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I just came across this hilarious image on Twitter. :lmao










There's some pretty funny stuff being tweeting at #HillaryBecause right now.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

WikiLeaks just released full transcripts of Hillary's GS speeches. The fallout from this is sure to be fun.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787338801853165568

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787343422227091457


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Is the rape lawsuit against Trump real or a hoax? I can't be bothered to check it out because Trump already failed to get my vote months ago.

An anonymous woman filed a federal lawsuit against Trump a few months back claiming he raped her when she was 13. I can't even imagine how this isn't out there more in the news. I reckon it's either total bullshit, or they're saving it to completely bury Trump the week of the election.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787045742900875265
I swear, they are doing it just for the lol now. :lmao


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> Is the rape lawsuit against Trump real or a hoax? I can't be bothered to check it out because Trump already failed to get my vote months ago.
> 
> An anonymous woman filed a federal lawsuit against Trump a few months back claiming he raped her when she was 13. I can't even imagine how this isn't out there more in the news. I reckon it's either total bullshit, or they're saving it to completely bury Trump the week of the election.


That is a complete hoax. Ties back to a TV producer with an axe to grind. The woman does not appear to even exist. 

The other allegations so far all seem to have quite a few holes in their stories, no pun intended. The timing of the accusations should say it all, really.

I'm sorry you won't be voting to save the world from annihilation.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> I just came across this hilarious image on Twitter. :lmao
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's some pretty funny stuff being tweeting at #HillaryBecause right now.


Quoting you because this made me smile. Also the latest Podesta email findings are remarkable. 



MrMister said:


> Is the rape lawsuit against Trump real or a hoax? I can't be bothered to check it out because Trump already failed to get my vote months ago.
> 
> An anonymous woman filed a federal lawsuit against Trump a few months back claiming he raped her when she was 13. I can't even imagine how this isn't out there more in the news. I reckon it's either total bullshit, or they're saving it to completely bury Trump the week of the election.


HOAX.

Three minutes to midnight, *MrMr*.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't care if you are for or against Trump, this is fucking funny.










:kobelol


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> WikiLeaks just released full transcripts of Hillary's GS speeches. The fallout from this is sure to be fun.


Goes back to the Twitter poster who called her out on it earlier this year:










Props to that guy.

:lol

- Vic


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> When one side's point is "they are mean and took our land" and the other side is "They want murder as many of us as possible" I am going to support the second guy


So who's the second guy supposed to be? Because Israel has been far more excessive in their brutality towards Palestinians. 

It's also always nice to see the defenders of poor defenseless Israel go on and on about antisemitic rhetoric by Arabs and completely ignore similar, genocidal rhetoric that exists in Israel.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RenegadexParagon said:


> So who's the second guy supposed to be? Because Israel has been far more excessive in their brutality towards Palestinians.
> 
> It's also always nice to see the defenders of poor defenseless Israel go on and on about antisemitic rhetoric by Arabs and completely ignore similar, genocidal rhetoric that exists in Israel.












I have no clue why Israel has not tried to negotiate 










The public faces of the opposition seem really reasonable

and its not like

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_war_of_independence

every time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis

their neighbors felt 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

they had an

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Attrition

advantage they would

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

launch some type of attack


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


























From Trump internal forecast :lmao

The guy who is gonna save the world from Annihilation can't even hire a decent analytics team, one able to discern between market and poll analysis. This also seems to indicate they don't do internal polling (when you have Kellyane Conway in your camp).

Really, the campaign this guy runs must be a suicide attempt or something. I'm starting to really question the intelligence of Trump.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

“The story will run in tomorrow's paper. I wanted to run some points by you about President Clinton… Clinton, like others, thinks that… only a well-financed, concerted campaign portrayed him as dangerous and bigoted will win… President Clinton (like Mrs. Clinton and many other Dems) thinks the single greatest weapon against Trump is Trump's own instinct to make outrageous, divisive, even hateful comments that can come across as unpresidential… Happy to talk this over by email or phone before 6pm today.”
-Patrick Healy, New York Times

“Here's what I'd sent before. I wanted option to use the following (obviously wouldn't use all, but a portion)... you could veto what you didn't want.”
-Mark Leibovich, New York Times

"Fine to use the moose, but appreciate leaving the mention of Sarah Palin out... fine to use everything from the paragraph… with the exception of this passage which I ask you leave out: ‘and gay rights has…’ Let me know if that is not clear… pleasure doing business!"
-Jennifer Palmieri, Communications Director

"...I'd also like to do a separate piece of business through social media along the lines of ‘10 things you don't know about Hillary Clinton’ that would showcase her personality and has a lot of viral potential... the reach and engagement will be significant... I have been assured the campaign wants this as well…”
-Katie Couric, Yahoo! Global News Anchor


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

"You want to know about voting. I'm here to tell you about voting. Imagine you're locked in a huge underground nightclub filled with sinners, whores, freaks and unnameable things that rape pit bulls for fun. And you ain't allowed out until you all vote on what you're going to do tonight. You like to put your feet up and watch "Republican Party Reservation". They like to have sex with normal people using knives, guns and brand-new sexual organs that you did not know existed. So you vote for television, and everyone else, as far as the eye can see, votes to fuck you with switchblades. That's voting. You're welcome."


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

VOTING IS SURE OFFICIAL

LETS JUST SHOOT PEOPLE TO SHOW OUR STANCES


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RenegadexParagon said:


> So who's the second guy supposed to be? Because Israel has been far more excessive in their brutality towards Palestinians.
> 
> It's also always nice to see the defenders of poor defenseless Israel go on and on about antisemitic rhetoric by Arabs and completely ignore similar, genocidal rhetoric that exists in Israel.


Speaking as a Jewish American, it can be tough to come to terms with the idea that Israel is the aggressor and in the wrong at present time after so many decades of acting in self-defense and self-preservation against a sea of enemies within the region (and even in their own homeland). They are, and some of their actions warrant censure.

It's just tough because as bad as Netenyahu's administration is, I still believe the country as a whole still needs some level of protection and allyship to continue to survive. You want to send a message to Israel saying "This is not okay" and help the Palestinians who are being victimized. But at the same time, you don't want to throw Israel to the wolves. I'm worried that without reining itself back in, Israel stands to potentially lose its support externally and thus potentially open itself up to eradication, which is a terrifying thought. They need to do right by Palestine, even though in previous decades, Palestine was often the aggressor. Gotta recognize your current position and act accordingly.


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ShiningStar said:


> This is a man who calls his daughter a hot piece of ass,is on film saying to a little girl I will be dating her in 10 years,jokes with an entertainment reporter he barely knows about sexually assaulting women and even joked when one of Howard Sterns sidekicks called him a sexual predator. On tape admitted he creeped and barged in on women in his pageants. Then just yesterday his defense against some accusers was I would never assault those women cause their ugly. At the bare minimum even if he is not a rapist or predator he is a creeper and abysmal human being who I wouldn't want running a Kinko's let alone be the Defacto Highest Political Office in the free word.


Hillary Clinton is a girl scout:laugh:


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> Is the rape lawsuit against Trump real or a hoax? I can't be bothered to check it out because Trump already failed to get my vote months ago.
> 
> An anonymous woman filed a federal lawsuit against Trump a few months back claiming he raped her when she was 13. I can't even imagine how this isn't out there more in the news. I reckon it's either total bullshit, or they're saving it to completely bury Trump the week of the election.


They're quickly being exposed as hoaxes.

One is a nutjob with a checkered business history with Trump. Her story was published by New York Times "journalists" with a history of discredited hit pieces against Trump. The verifiable aspects of her story don't add up, and it appears she copied much of her story from an earlier sex assault case.

One recently and frequently sent emails to Trump and associates, begging for a job, while praising how well they've treated her, including Trump, personally.

One, a beauty queen, made claims that contradicted nearly every other pageant contestant's claims.

The People "journalist's" claims don't add up. You're a journalist sitting on a hot story for over a decade? Her alleged assault came while Trump was giving her a tour of his home. She had a tape recorder on her, yet she conveniently keeps it turned off during the tour, thereby making sure all of Trump's incriminating words and actions aren't recorded. Furthermore, there was allegedly an eyewitness (butler) who denies her claims. The preponderance of evidence says she's telling fibs.

The overall impression is that this is a last-ditch effort by the Clinton campaign and her accomplices in the media to try to derail the Trump Train. As Paul Joseph Watson points out, this level of shameless character assassination only makes sense if they view Trump as a much bigger threat, and doing much better in internal polling, then they're letting on.

In Short: Trump Wins.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> Speaking as a Jewish American, it can be tough to come to terms with the idea that Israel is the aggressor and in the wrong at present time after so many decades of acting in self-defense and self-preservation against a sea of enemies within the region (and even in their own homeland). They are, and some of their actions warrant censure.
> 
> It's just tough because as bad as Netenyahu's administration is, I still believe the country as a whole still needs some level of protection and allyship to continue to survive. You want to send a message to Israel saying "This is not okay" and help the Palestinians who are being victimized. But at the same time, you don't want to throw Israel to the wolves. I'm worried that without reining itself back in, Israel stands to potentially lose its support externally and thus potentially open itself up to eradication, which is a terrifying thought. They need to do right by Palestine, even though in previous decades, Palestine was often the aggressor. Gotta recognize your current position and act accordingly.


Don't be fooled by the propaganda perpetrated by the radical Islamists, anti-Semites, and the BDS scam artists. Yes, I agree Israel's hands aren't sparking clean, but they are doing what they have to do to protect their homeland. If the US and their homeland was threatened, I'm sure we'd expect our government to do what we have to do to protect us. 

For example...the BDS movement refuses to even recognize Israel as a nation. They ignore the fact the Palestinian Arabs were offered their own homeland in 1948, the land that was to be called Transjordan. They rejected it, and ever since we've had wars. Arafat was offered almost 90% of what he wanted for a Palestinian state in 2000, including East Jerusalem as its capital. He said no.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Crowder's great. He's spot on with a lot of things.

- Vic


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> I have no clue why Israel has not tried to negotiate


Fantastic job at ignoring what I said. But hey, good for you, keep senselessly defending a state that wants to drive the indigenous people out of their own land. It's a real mystery as to why the Palestinians hate Israel so much and resort to violent fundamentalism. It's almost as if when you violently suppress someone you get a violent reaction! Wait, no, no, no, that can't be it, let's just pretend it's because the Palestinians just hate the Jews. After all, it's much easier for Westerners to blame anyone but themselves for the clusterfucks they've created. 

Also, calls for genocide and general racist bullshit? Why, Israelis would never ever do that!: 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-annihilation-fighting-forces-supporters.html 
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/netanyahu-palestinians-government/
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/...gure-urging-genocide-of-palestinians-1.310876 
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Ac...-Tel-Aviv-rally-to-support-IDF-shooter-451709 


Let's not forget Zionist terrorism that pushed for the creation of the state of Israel: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_violence
http://www.academia.edu/1449704/Jewish_Terrorism_and_the_Creation_of_the_State_of_Israel

Or Israel destroying Palestinian homes: 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-israeli-military-demolishes-west-bank-houses
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.640147
dem nice Israeli settlements tho, amirite? 

Excessive bombing by the IDF that killed and wounded thousands: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict

General human rights violations: 
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2016/country-chapters/israel/palestine

But obviously, Israel is just a poor and defenseless imperialist state that needs the unwavering support of another imperialist state. Man, those darned Arabs are a real menace.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Perhaps the most directly upsetting wikileaks revelation thus far is from a 2011 email exchange that copied Clinton campaign chief John Podesta, between Clinton spokesman Jennifer Plamieri and Center for American Progress fellow John Halpin. They are discussing Catholicism. Palmieri: "I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn't understand if they became evangelical." Halpin: "Excellent point." He continues, "They can throw around 'Thomistic' thought and 'subsidiarity' and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they are talking about." 

Now as someone who is not some raging Catholic but who has nonetheless studied the history of Catholicism and Catholic thought, it is angering that Palmieri and Halpin are ostensibly downright gleeful about no one knowing what "'Thomistic' thought" and "subsidiarity" are when they are perhaps crucial to understanding just how grievously this American experiment in government has erred. "Why yes it's a grand thing the people are wholly ignorant! Onward with more democracy!" 

Confirms what one may have always suspected.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Don't be fooled by the propaganda perpetrated by the radical Islamists, anti-Semites, and the BDS scam artists. Yes, I agree Israel's hands aren't sparking clean, but they are doing what they have to do to protect their homeland. If the US and their homeland was threatened, I'm sure we'd expect our government to do what we have to do to protect us.
> 
> For example...the BDS movement refuses to even recognize Israel as a nation. They ignore the fact the Palestinian Arabs were offered their own homeland in 1948, the land that was to be called Transjordan. They rejected it, and ever since we've had wars. Arafat was offered almost 90% of what he wanted for a Palestinian state in 2000, including East Jerusalem as its capital. He said no.


I'm well aware of the history. I was speaking exclusively about the current administration.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> Is the rape lawsuit against Trump real or a hoax? I can't be bothered to check it out because Trump already failed to get my vote months ago.
> 
> An anonymous woman filed a federal lawsuit against Trump a few months back claiming he raped her when she was 13. I can't even imagine how this isn't out there more in the news. I reckon it's either total bullshit, or they're saving it to completely bury Trump the week of the election.


According to an article from a fairly right wing paper from 2 days ago it's still set for trial in December.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...re-trial-date-despite-firm-denial-claims.html

As for Israel and Palestine, I have Israeli relatives and I really don't want them to die is my main thought on the issue.

I'd sum up my views like this though:

The Israeli right have run the country for the past couple of decades and have no desire for peaceful two state solution. They want one jewish state and Gaza to become part of Egypt and the West Bank to become part of Jordan.

Hamas are the dominant political force in Palestine, the only free and fair election the Palestinians ever had they voted for Hamas by like 80% and they currently rule in Gaza, but not in the West Bank as we (the west) refused to accept the election result. But yeah there isn't one Palestinian political group to be negotiated with as the two Palestinian territories are ruled by opposing political groups. 

Hamas have no desire for a two state solution. Hamas desire a one state solution with only arab muslims and the jews, druze, christians etc wiped out, particularly the jews, but I don't think they're all too fond of any of those other groups either. 

Also both sides are openly committing war crimes regularly. Settlement building is a clear war crime, it is literally stealing land they took by force during a war, that is a war crime and there is just no way around it. They have been doing it since 67 and they seem to have no intention of stopping. And yeah, intentionally attacking civilians, which Hamas openly do and celebrate is also a very clear war crime.

Basically neither side want peace so there won't be peace. 

Either things will just go as they will until the Israeli right get their way or America will drop support for Israel in which case there'll probably be a pretty messed up war.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Crowder's great. He's spot on with a lot of things.
> 
> - Vic


One of his masterpieces right here


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The Washington Post has an article posted about Linda McMahon and Donald Trump.

*Linda McMahon, who once called Trump’s comments about women ‘deplorable,’ gave $6 million to support his bid - The Washington Post*



> Linda McMahon, co-founder of the professional wrestling franchise WWE and a former Republican Senate candidate from Connecticut, infused a super PAC supporting Donald Trump with $6 million in August and September, new campaign finance filings show.[/I]
> 
> _The donations from McMahon made up nearly one-third of the nearly $18 million that Rebuilding America Now pulled in during the last quarter. She made five separate contributions, giving a final $1 million on Sept. 22._
> 
> _McMahon's support for the super PAC marks the second occasion in which she has stepped up with major financial support for Trump. Between 2007 and 2009, she and her husband Vince gave $5 million to Trump's charitable foundation._
> 
> _The latest donations make Linda McMahon one of the GOP presidential nominee's biggest outside benefactors — a somewhat surprising development, since she has been critical of his rhetoric in the past. During the GOP primary contest, she told Yahoo's Katie Couric that she was offended by Trump's disparaging comments of women, calling them "deplorable.”_
> 
> _“He’s not helping, certainly, to put women in the best light,” said McMahon, who now oversees Women's Leadership LIVE, a company that seeks to promote women in business. “Maybe he regrets them, maybe he doesn’t. I realize he punches hard when he punches back, but that’s just over the top.”_
> 
> _But last month, McMahon told the Associated Press that even though he was not her first choice for president, she is now a strong Trump backer, saying he had emerged as “a vessel that has housed this anger and this dissatisfaction” that exists throughout the country._
> 
> _“Once you're his friend, he is loyal to the end,” she added. “He's an incredibly loyal, loyal friend.”_
> 
> _Even with McMahon's backing, Rebuilding America Now and other pro-Trump super PACs are still vastly outmatched by the dominant super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton._
> 
> _Priorities USA Action, which is run by top Clinton aides, raised $132 million through the end of August, including $21.7 million that month. Meanwhile, nine pro-Trump groups pulled in $33.5 million over the last three months._
> 
> _The most generous Trump supporters so far are Las Vegas Sands chief executive Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, who together gave the super PAC Future 45 $10 million last month. The Adelsons, who just began doling out major contributions, are now on track to leap to the top of the 2016 donor rankings. They have already given more than $52 million in disclosed contributions to GOP super PACs in the last two months, including $20 million a piece to the groups backing Republican House and Senate candidates._
> 
> Other pro-Trump mega-donors include Home Depot co-founder Bernard Marcus ($5 million), hedge fund executive Robert Mercer ($2 million), poultry magnate Ronald Cameron ($2 million) and TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts ($1 million.)


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm all for stopping aid to Israel and giving the Palestinians the same deal Iran got which is billions of dollars and helping them with a nuke program. Because those poor palestinians and their claim to the land is ignored! (Despite supposedly not apparently having any actual history there.)


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

But Hillary's ahead in the polls because the media said so right?

Durr Durr Durr...

*#WeThePeople*

- Vic


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I legit loled at using the ratio of angry faces to smiley faces during a speech on a random social media feed as a sign the polls are rigged.

Thanks for that.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> I'm well aware of the history. I was speaking exclusively about the current administration.


And considering the unwillingness of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to negotiate in good faith, I'm not surprised that it has come to this point. No, Netanyahu is not totally innocent, but the people in Israel are tired of giving everything and getting nothing back. I know that if anyone was in this situation, it would be a matter of time before they stuck their middle finger up at the rest of the world. The first step is that they need to have Israel recognized as a state that deserves to exist. These groups still believe in wiping them off the face of the earth. Until that happens, nothing will move forward. 




Wrestling Forum's Biggest Chicago Cubs Fan said:


> Perhaps the most directly upsetting wikileaks revelation thus far is from a 2011 email exchange that copied Clinton campaign chief John Podesta, between Clinton spokesman Jennifer Plamieri and Center for American Progress fellow John Halpin. They are discussing Catholicism. Palmieri: "I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn't understand if they became evangelical." Halpin: "Excellent point." He continues, "They can throw around 'Thomistic' thought and 'subsidiarity' and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they are talking about."
> 
> Now as someone who is not some raging Catholic but who has nonetheless studied the history of Catholicism and Catholic thought, it is angering that Palmieri and Halpin are ostensibly downright gleeful about no one knowing what "'Thomistic' thought" and "subsidiarity" are when they are perhaps crucial to understanding just how grievously this American experiment in government has erred. "Why yes it's a grand thing the people are wholly ignorant! Onward with more democracy!"
> 
> Confirms what one may have always suspected.


The Republicans are traditionally in bed with the evangelicals, especially in the Moral Majority Days. Evangelicals are usually anti-Catholic for the most part, so they possibly thought they could turn the Catholics to agree with them more. Especially considering how Pope Francis is mistaken for being a liberal thinker as he has called for more compassion. The doctrine regarding homosexuality, abortion, same-sex marriage, etc...has not changed. But the mistake is that it has changed because Francis wants more compassion for those that don't live the Catholic lifestyle. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now...I had a chance to digest some of the Wikileaks stuff, including where Trump was listed as the candidate that they most wanted to take on HRC because she had the best chance to win. In that regard, yes the race probably was fixed so that Trump would take on Clinton. Here's why...

If you look at the stats, Trump did the best in states with open primaries (where you could vote and not necessarily be a Republican on your voter registration card). In states with closed primaries where you couldn't vote without the R on your card, the more traditional conservative/Republican candidates fared better like Cruz and Rubio. They estimated at least 12 million Democrats crossed over to vote for Trump in the primaries. In 2008, Rush Limbaugh urged his listeners to do the same, cross over and vote in Dem primaries to prolong Obama vs. Clinton right up to the primaries. John Podesta spoke that he was concerned about HRC wanting to focus strictly on DJT otherwise most any other GOP candidate could defeat her. 

At the very least, Trump is a pawn in this game. Not to mention the media fawned all over him and gave him all the publicity he wanted until he clinched the nomination. After that, the media would turn on him and that was coming. The Dems that crossed over to vote for him? Probably will vote for Clinton, their dirty work is done. 

But of course, that doesn't change the fact that Trump is a liberal regardless of what you say. To run a liberal against another liberal or moderate absolutely doesn't work. We saw that in '08 and '12. You need to show a clear-cut choice between the two candidates in principle, values, and policy positions. In reality, the two top candidates are closer than you would all care to admit. That's why you are seeing them sling shit at each other instead of talking about the issues. 

I hate this is where this has all gone...the fact that everyone here is buying into this con game that the system set up. We've been pwned. We have no one but ourselves to blame.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> I hate this is where this has all gone...the fact that everyone here is buying into this con game that the system set up. We've been pwned. We have no one but ourselves to blame.


I wouldn't absolve the republican party as well as conservative media and many conservatives themselves for 

a) Not fielding any candidates that were stronger than Trump
b) Acting like pussies on stage and letting Trump take over the primaries
c) Refusing to attack any of Trump's positions pre and post primaries
d) Not accepting Trump as a legit candidate and just packing it in after he won the primaries
e) Going back and forth on Trump and releasing party damaging statements consistently. 

They're disorganized, they don't have a coherent/united platforum, they're indulging in back-stabbing, they haven't yet let go of their archaic social mentality, they have a liberal candidate, so to off-set him they chose the most conservative running mate they could find. 

The Republican party is a fucking mess and a joke compared to the Democrats who despite all of Hillary's scandals and everything have not ONCE denounced her - meanwhile the Republicans have done nothing but backstab and hinder their candidate. One of the primary reasons why Hillary is still going strong isn't just because Trump is such a piece of shit but because the party backed her pretty much unanimously. Yeah .. It's possible to interpret that as the whole party being complicit in the scandals, but when it comes down to voting time, it is what will make the difference because no one will have any sound-bytes from other democratic candidates influencing their decision come voting time. 

You win as a party and you lose as a party and if you stab your own in the media, your whole party pays for it. 

The republican party is crap right now and if it doesn't change in the near future it's going to be crap for a long, long time. 

Maybe America needs a new conservative party or something because the current conservative party is at its absolute worst right now.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Not fielding any candidates that were stronger than Trump


Just out of curiosity, who exactly do you think they had that would have been a stronger candidate than Trump? As you might recall, a year ago, they were saying this is the strongest group of primary candidates that the party has ever fielded.

Here's the problem: the conservative base is pissed off at the Republican Establishment and the Republican Establishment is incapable of getting behind a candidate that is not an Establishment Republican.

Had they taken Trump seriously, they would have went all out to rig the primaries against him, like what the Democrats did to Bernie. Rigging elections is something they happen to be good at. Since they didn't take him seriously though, by the time they figured out he could actually win, it was too late.



Carte Blanche said:


> Maybe America needs a new conservative party or something because the current conservative party is at its absolute worst right now.


What America needs is the downfall of Establishment politics. Neither conservatives nor leftists have any true representation in DC. The only people who have representation in DC are the people with enough money to buy it.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Again, i think the repulicans are leaving Trump because he's heading for an astounding lose, which means downtickets are gonna suffer aswell. If Hillary was loosing by a margin of 6 or 7 points, the democrats will also be beatrying her over the emails shit. Trump is also running one of the worst organized campaigns in history and i don't think that speaks so well of his handling of business.

Note that the Republicans leaving Trump are people who can afford the effect of loosing some of Trumps base votes, people who are plus 10 in his respective districts like McCain. People like Rubio on the other hand would love to disabow Trump but they can't afford to do it, therefore why they run with the "we need to defeat Hillary".

But whatever. i was here to post more Sam Wang's greatness


http://election.princeton.edu/2016/10/14/motivated-reasoning-strikes-again/#more-18028


> *All The Reasons You Doubt Polls: Motivated Reasoning Strikes Again
> October 14th, 2016, 8:00am by Sam Wang
> *
> Every Presidential election, it happens. People on the side that is heading for a loss find ways to disbelieve what polls are telling them. This year is no different.
> 
> First, a tiny dose of cognitive science. Our brains are really good at letting in information that agrees with our prior views – and we look for reasons to reject information that is disagreeable. In a complex media environment, this tendency is deadly. It probably underlies our deep political divisions: getting the agreeable information is very easy. Witness the echo chambers in which dumps of fairly anodyne email from Hillary Clinton take on sinister significance.
> 
> People are the same way when they interpret polls. Two past cases come to mind:
> 
> In 2004, state polls were dead-on in giving a snapshot of the close race between Senator John Kerry and President George W. Bush. However, Kerry supporters suggested that undecided voters would break toward the challenger. This was a pretty small break, but it was enough because the race was so close that year. As longtime PEC readers know, I made this error.
> In 2012, “poll un-skewers” on the Republican side took it upon themselves to correct polls that they felt were demographically unbalanced. The king of the un-skewers was Dean Chambers.
> 
> This year, I have heard multiple possible objections to interpreting polls at face value (for example, see this PEC comment thread). Here they are, with my answers.
> 
> *1. Brexit.* It is said, wrongly, that polls missed Brexit. However, that is not true. Pre-election polls indicated that Brexit was too close to call – and there were 9% undecideds. It was pundits and conventional wisdom that failed.
> 
> *2. The 2014 midterms. *This is fair – on average, there was a 5 percentage point error that year. However, as I have analyzed, it is generally the case that in midterm years, which represent a low-turnout condition, polls are terrible. However, general election polls did extremely well in 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012. I wrote an article about it.
> 
> *3. “We didn’t think Trump would win the primaries, either.”* Erm…speak for yourself. Once again, pundits were wrong – but a poll-based approach was correct before the primaries began, and continued to be correct all the way through the primaries. Go through PEC’s archives and you’ll see.
> 
> *4. Known unknowns.* Will Sanders supporters show up to vote for Clinton? Will Trump bring new voters out of the woodwork, particularly people who don’t necessarily answer the phone for pollsters?
> 
> Most of these reasons are already captured in polling data, at least at the state level (national polls aren’t as good). For example, if Sanders supporters have come home to the Democratic nominee, they will be captured in polls. The same is likely to be true of Trump supporters; for example, primary-season polls did very well in predicting Trump support.
> 
> The most unmoored form of this argument is that somehow, tons of Trump supporters are simply not captured by polls. Evidence contradicts this speculation. This has not been apparent in voter registrations, so there is no clear place for these voters to come from.
> 
> Unpersuaded? Maybe you like that one poll from USC/Dornsife, which has serious weighting problems. If you want to imagine what would happen if your side got a few percentage points, the “Clinton +2%” and “Trump +2%” links at right will show you that.
> 
> *5. Undecideds and Gary Johnson/Jill Stein supporters. *In the past, nearly all of these voters end up supporting one of the two major candidates. For example, Johnson and Stein supporters combined got less than 2% of the vote in 2012. What will they do this year? Below, I estimate the impact.
> 
> Currently, undecideds and Johnson/Stein supporters constitute about 14% of voters. Drew Linzer has pointed out that undecideds/minor party supporters are unusually high this year, about 6% ahead of 2008 and 2012. This is a legitimate source of uncertainty about the eventual outcome. However, there is information about how these voters will eventually fall.
> 
> Undecided voters usually break somewhat evenly (sorry, 2004 Sam!). Data from SurveyMonkey suggests that Johnson supporters break about evenly between Clinton and Trump, while Stein supporters tilt strongly toward Clinton. This is consistent with many state polls that show Clinton doing the same or slightly better when the matchup is Clinton/Trump compared with Clinton/Trump/Johnson/Stein. So the net expected effect is, on average, slightly toward Clinton*.
> 
> The topic of undecided/minor-party support requires more unpacking. I would rate it as the most legitimate concern about prediction. In my estimation it alters the probability by a tiny amount at most.
> 
> Anyway, if there’s some hidden reason why polls are all wet, it hasn’t come up yet. If you’re a Trump supporter, it would be more productive to focus on downticket Senate and House races, where your side has a better chance of surviving November.
> 
> >>>
> 
> *This can be quantified. Based on recent data, let us assume 6% undecideds, 6% Johnson supporters, and 2% Stein supporters. By November 8th, they might break as follows.
> 
> Undecideds: Let’s say these voters end up somewhere between 4.5%-1.5% favoring Clinton, to 4.5%-1.5% favoring Trump. Using the rule of thumb that the range is 4*standard deviation, this leads to a net change of 0.0 +/- 1.5% (mean +/- SD).
> 
> Johnson voters: Assuming 1% stay with Johnson, the same logic leads to a net change of 0.0 +/- 1.3%.
> 
> Stein voters: Assuming 0.5% stay with Stein and an average 3-to-1 split for Clinton, the effect is an increase in Clinton’s margin by 0.7 +/- 0.5%.
> 
> The overall combined change is a net increase of margin in Clinton’s favor by 0.7 +/- 2.3%. Given current conditions and based on the uncertainty of 2.3%, in 3 out of 100 cases enough voters would switch to Trump to close his current deficit.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> I wouldn't absolve the republican party as well as conservative media and many conservatives themselves for
> 
> a) Not fielding any candidates that were stronger than Trump
> b) Acting like pussies on stage and letting Trump take over the primaries
> c) Refusing to attack any of Trump's positions pre and post primaries
> d) Not accepting Trump as a legit candidate and just packing it in after he won the primaries
> e) Going back and forth on Trump and releasing party damaging statements consistently.
> 
> They're disorganized, they don't have a coherent/united platforum, they're indulging in back-stabbing, they haven't yet let go of their archaic social mentality, they have a liberal candidate, so to off-set him they chose the most conservative running mate they could find.
> 
> The Republican party is a fucking mess and a joke compared to the Democrats who despite all of Hillary's scandals and everything have not ONCE denounced her - meanwhile the Republicans have done nothing but backstab and hinder their candidate. One of the primary reasons why Hillary is still going strong isn't just because Trump is such a piece of shit but because the party backed her pretty much unanimously. Yeah .. It's possible to interpret that as the whole party being complicit in the scandals, but when it comes down to voting time, it is what will make the difference because no one will have any sound-bytes from other democratic candidates influencing their decision come voting time.
> 
> You win as a party and you lose as a party and if you stab your own in the media, your whole party pays for it.
> 
> The republican party is crap right now and if it doesn't change in the near future it's going to be crap for a long, long time.
> 
> Maybe America needs a new conservative party or something because the current conservative party is at its absolute worst right now.


I don't argue at all what you are saying. The GOP had their choice of good conservative candidates. Rubio, Paul, and Cruz for starters. You really want someone that would shake up the system, Cruz would have been perfect. If he hadn't given in to peer pressure and let Trump self destruct, he could be the choice in 2020. Won't happen now.

Of course Trump could have also avoided all this by extending olive branches to all he alienated during the nomination process. He is fighting his own party as much as he is fighting Clinton. That is his own fault as his ego got in the way. 

The diehard Trump supporters will not admit how close the two are politically. Hillary is a neocon yet Trump says he loves war and would let other nations have nukes. There are plenty of other examples but they won't listen to reason. 

Personally I believe the GOP should die. I left the party years ago ad it had stopped being the party of limited government and the people and try to hard to be Dem-lite. Trying to be like liberals doesn't work because there is already a party of them. Either start from the ground up and build a party of true conservative values or burn the fan thing down, either way get rid of the vermin.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate, yet equally important, groups: the police, who investigate crime; and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories.







- Vic


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










:lol


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> You really want someone that would shake up the system, Cruz would have been perfect. If he hadn't given in to peer pressure and let Trump self destruct, he could be the choice in 2020. Won't happen now.


I hate to break it to ya buddy but the USA will never elect a theocrat like Ted Cruz who wants to institute Christian sharia. He's this year's Rick Santorum and will do about as well as Santorum did this year when he runs again in 2020.



BruiserKC said:


> The diehard Trump supporters will not admit how close the two are politically. *Hillary is a neocon* yet Trump says he loves war and would let other nations have nukes. There are plenty of other examples but they won't listen to reason.
> 
> Personally I believe the GOP should die. I left the party years ago ad it had stopped being the party of limited government and the people and try to hard to be Dem-lite. *Trying to be like liberals* doesn't work because there is already a party of them. Either start from the ground up and build a party of true conservative values or burn the fan thing down, either way get rid of the vermin.


Wait, are the Dems neocons or liberals? Make up your mind! :lol They can't be both because they are two opposing philosophies. What we've been witnessing over the past 4 decades is Republicans moving right and Democrats following them. Democrat policies now are what Republican policies used to be. Democrats adopt Republican policies, then Republicans move further right. Then Democrats chase them to the right, adopt even more of their policies, so the Republicans keep going even further right. Obamacare is an excellent example of this. The individual mandate came from Republicans. They didn't start hating it until Democrats adopted their own policy. Since they would never be caught dead supporting Democrats, they have to abandon their policies and move further right. The idea of Republicans trying to be "Dem-lite" is patently absurd and completely backasswards. One of the main reasons our country is so fucked right now is because Democrats keep trying to be more like Republicans and Republicans keep going further right in response.

But hey, at least we can agree on one thing. The GOP needs to die; preferably in a burial site right next to the DNC.


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> I hate to break it to ya buddy but the USA will never elect a theocrat like Ted Cruz who wants to institute Christian sharia. He's this year's Rick Santorum and will do about as well as Santorum did this year when he runs again in 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, are the Dems neocons or liberals? Make up your mind! :lol They can't be both because they are two opposing philosophies. What we've been witnessing over the past 4 decades is Republicans moving right and Democrats following them. Democrat policies now are what Republican policies used to be. Democrats adopt Republican policies, then Republicans move further right. Then Democrats chase them to the right, adopt even more of their policies, so the Republicans keep going even further right. Obamacare is an excellent example of this. The individual mandate came from Republicans. They didn't start hating it until Democrats adopted their own policy. Since they would never be caught dead supporting Democrats, they have to abandon their policies and move further right. The idea of Republicans trying to be "Dem-lite" is patently absurd and completely backasswards. One of the main reasons our country is so fucked right now is because Democrats keep trying to be more like Republicans and Republicans keep going further right in response.
> 
> But hey, at least we can agree on one thing. The GOP needs to die; preferably in a burial site right next to the DNC.


I think it's telling how far right the Republican party has become when someone like John Kasich is labeled as a moderate.
Or how Bernie Sanders is acknowledged as radical he is, and is far far left compared to the typical Democrats, yet someone like Marco Rubio, who is as far to the right and Bernie is to the left, is more or less the norm among Republicans.
Hell, Ronald Reagan would be labeled a "RINO" by today's standards...


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cabanarama said:


> I think it's telling how far right the Republican party has become when someone like John Kasich is labeled as a moderate.
> Or how Bernie Sanders is acknowledged as radical he is, and is far far left compared to the typical Democrats, yet someone like Marco Rubio, who is as far to the right and Bernie is to the left, is more or less the norm among Republicans.
> Hell, Ronald Reagan would be labeled a "RINO" by today's standards...


Reagan, for all his faults, at least had _some_ redeeming qualities. With the exception of Rand Paul, you can't say that about modern Republicans.

Bernie is only a "radical" by American standards. By international standards, he's a centrist. The fact that he is considered a radical only proves how brainwashed Americans are by MSM propaganda. Center right politicians are called leftists and centrists are called the extreme fringe left. Political labels have become so bastardized that they have basically lost all meaning.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Stefan Molyneux tackles more of the sexual assault allegations against Donald Trump.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Reagan, for all his faults, at least had _some_ redeeming qualities. With the exception of Rand Paul, you can't say that about modern Republicans.


You can't say that about anyone from either party.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*





 :lmao


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787699930718695425
SAD! :trump


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Stefan Molyneux tackles more of the sexual assault allegations against Donald Trump.


It seems that Molyneux made research enough to use Anthony Gilberthorpe as a secure witness in favor of Trump, but not enough research to explore Gilberthorpe history, specially the one in which he claims to be a pedo pimp for english politicians. In the best case the guy is a proved liar, in the worst your witness in a sexual assault case is a sexual pervert

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ng-boys-UK-politicians-sex-parties-1980s.html

It's impressive, specially when he used the past of Gloria Alfred with Herman Cain and Romney to knock her. 

He also does the same when talking about Anderson, yeah she is a single mom, so what? yeah he mocked the donors system, so what? where is the proof of Molyneux that se is loosing money for example, he conclude that because she did a joke about donations to her... like really?

I stopped the video after that because, while some of this is truth, is obvious there is no real compromise with the truth from the guy

It also seems to escape from the mind of Molyneux that if this shit has extended for more than a week is also because Trump, knowing that he is loosing, is focusing on it in all his rallies instead of talking about issues in his supossed revolution, he's just preparing the excuses to his defeat.


Let's asume this is a real smear campaign, which could easily be, or it could be that some of those women are lying while some say the true. You know how you don't respond to a smear campaign? with more smear.....

The fact is, the guys who scream "conspiracy", "conspiracy", "the world is against Trump" are the same guys who make 3, 4, 5 videos on it, because they know this is hot shit so it's going to give them views, instead of trying to come with tactics helping Trump. Just like Trump keeps riding on this because it keep his base on line, which is what he needs after election day because he knows he already lost this election

In a total unrelated note, why i'm not surpraised that one of the recommended videos of Molyneux when i open your link was about "cultural marxism". But Stephan Molyneux, grand, serious philosopher :lmao


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> But of course, that doesn't change the fact that Trump is a liberal regardless of what you say. To run a liberal against another liberal or moderate absolutely doesn't work. We saw that in '08 and '12. You need to show a clear-cut choice between the two candidates in principle, values, and policy positions.


I don't know if that's entirely the case anymore. The country has undeniably moved to the left in recent years, with opinion polls suggesting that the majority now supports gay marriage, the woman's right to have an abortion, legalizing marijuana, etc. So, I think Republicans would struggle to gain traction for a candidate who has designs to roll those back completely.

But someone like Kasich, who is often _painted_ as a moderate but has policy that's pretty solid red, would probably hit that sweet spot where the majority of his social views fall within the range of what current society deems acceptable while there's pretty substantial differentiation between his politics and that of the left.

You may say that's not enough, but my answer would be "Good luck finding someone who _is_ 'enough' without being too unpalatable to the average American." Democrats have largely succeeded in recent elections by making the campaign about social issues above all else. Republicans either need to adjust accordingly or somehow find a candidate capable of convincing voters that these social issues aren't the most important part of the election.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787699930718695425
> SAD! :trump


Seasonal Affective Disorder? Because it sure is depressing how pathetic MSM has become. :trump

Oh well, at least it has some use by giving TV time to the tasty treats known as Brooke Baldwin and Kayleigh McEnany. :yum:


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm not sure about the other Republicans in here but Trump doesn't scream small government to me. That was always one of my main problems with the guy and I think we screwed up by not just taking Rubio or Kasich. It's almost as if Trump wants to fix everything and it pisses me off that we cannot just give power back to the states. 

The sad thing is this election was still winnable with Trump if the Establishment just backed him up throughout the process but they looked like a bunch of wackos supporting him one day and turning against him the next. Say hello to Hillary Clinton... Great.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Bernie is only a "radical" by American standards. By international standards, he's a centrist. The fact that he is considered a radical only proves how brainwashed Americans are by MSM propaganda. Center right politicians are called leftists and centrists are called the extreme fringe left. Political labels have become so bastardized that they have basically lost all meaning.


Yeah, I think the problem is both how Americans see the political spectrum and the fact that Americans have very little exposure to far left viewpoints nowadays (DAE Obama is a Socialist? Liberals are Communists?? Anarchy is basically lawlessness??? I can't count how many times I've heard these things). But it's pretty hard to blame Americans themselves for this. The Red Scares damaged and shunned Leftism in America and currently, the major two parties dominate and for the most part, occupy the same place on the political spectrum. It doesn't help that one side will still shout "COMMUNIST" and "SOCIALIST" at the other as a pejorative. The furthest Left you might see someone is a Social Democrat like Bernie (granted, Bernie could be further left than he's letting on but I never found his campaign particularly Socialist).


----------



## SpeedStick

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

American Officials Just Provoked WW3 to Protect the Clintons?!?


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Evidently people are burning Trump campaign offices now? Who is intolerant again? :aries2


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> Evidently people are burning Trump campaign offices now? Who is intolerant again? :aries2


Not shocking at all. These is the so called "liberals" now. And they have to gaul to call others hate mongers.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



SpeedStick said:


> American Officials Just Provoked WW3 to Protect the Clintons?!?


When you have Vice President Joe Biden openly saying in an MSNBC interview, with a sly grin on his face, that America will be "responding" to Russia and that he "hopes" the public won't find out about it, yes, it's safe to say that our government is provoking the Russian government. We are ruled by psychopaths who are toying with our lives. The one man who has a _chance_ of at least temporarily getting in their way is currently being smeared by the corporate media with bogus allegations that mysteriously appeared a month before the election, with the accusers being Clinton supporters, donors, or people who have either previously been offended by or competed with him.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> I don't know if that's entirely the case anymore. The country has undeniably moved to the left in recent years, with opinion polls suggesting that the majority now supports gay marriage, the woman's right to have an abortion, legalizing marijuana, etc. So, I think Republicans would struggle to gain traction for a candidate who has designs to roll those back completely.
> 
> But someone like Kasich, who is often _painted_ as a moderate but has policy that's pretty solid red, would probably hit that sweet spot where the majority of his social views fall within the range of what current society deems acceptable while there's pretty substantial differentiation between his politics and that of the left.
> 
> You may say that's not enough, but my answer would be "Good luck finding someone who _is_ 'enough' without being too unpalatable to the average American." Democrats have largely succeeded in recent elections by making the campaign about social issues above all else. Republicans either need to adjust accordingly or somehow find a candidate capable of convincing voters that these social issues aren't the most important part of the election.


There is an opportunity...many of these issues really aren't spelled out in regards to how they are to be dealt with by the Constitution. Abortion, marijuana, same-sex marriage, etc...not spelled out. Therefore...that's where the 10th Amendment comes into play. Make these issues ones that are left up to the states. Then, the GOP can say, "The liberals will tell you what to do and use the government to do it. We believe that the government should handle the basics and everything else is left up to you."


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> There is an opportunity...many of these issues really aren't spelled out in regards to how they are to be dealt with by the Constitution. Abortion, marijuana, same-sex marriage, etc...not spelled out. Therefore...that's where the 10th Amendment comes into play. Make these issues ones that are left up to the states. Then, the GOP can say, "The liberals will tell you what to do and use the government to do it. We believe that the government should handle the basics and everything else is left up to you."


That's really the only plausible way I think you're going to see any sort of rollback on any of these issues. If there's a push for less federal governance and greater emphasis on states' rights. Because at a federal level, those bells have been rung and are not going to be un-rung at this point. The people by and large don't want them to be.

So, yeah. I know Rand Paul has consistently pushed for that sort of thing to be left up to the states. I think Kasich has said similar things in the past. That's probably the fairest compromise you'll find in terms of a Republican pushing back on those issues without risking unelectability.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787741466869194752


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The tolerant left striking again with their attacks on a republican building.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Smarkout said:


> The sad thing is this election was still winnable with Trump if the Establishment just backed him up throughout the process but they looked like a bunch of wackos supporting him one day and turning against him the next. Say hello to Hillary Clinton... Great.


Sorry but i don't think so. People seem to forget that Trump was already losing big after the first debate and he's the first republican candidate who has been losing the entire time since at least Stevenson against Eisenhower.

Again, republicans turning on Trump is just a sign of him losing, not the contrary.

The problem is that for one part the GOP has been incapable of extending his reach to other voters than whites, there is no minority in america who leans to republicans today: Asians, Hispanics, Blacks, Hindus, etc. All vote democrats. And in the second, republicans has form a coalision that is almost impossible to unify in a general election: Blue collar-rural uneducated, Evangelicals, conservative, white nationalist, etc.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787772509814870017
oh my

is this taken out of context or legit?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787804842668457984

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787783969802780672
Damage control after the initial tweet.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787783828358258688
:sodone


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://www.gofundme.com/reopen-a-n...ukuprzy?rcid=68294d9c940811e68f3fbc764e065f4f

It's good to see polarization can be beaten


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I was reading about the firebombing in NC. Hope they catch them soon. There should be no tolerance for an act of terror and intimidation like this. There was one thing though in the article. It's from NBC so who knows if the quote is accurate.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nc-republican-office-firebombed-nazi-gopers-threatened-graffiti-n667316



> North Carolina Republican Party spokeswoman Emily Weeks told NBC News that the office is totally unusable and that materials inside, *possibly including completed absentee ballots*, may have been destroyed.


I'm just asking because I don't know, but is that a normal thing? Do people send/fill out/leave their absentee ballots to/at political party offices? I've done absentee a couple of times, but I either mailed it or dropped it off at a designated reception site. Not trying to take away from the firebombing. I'm just wondering.

*EDIT:* Maybe people working in the office filled theirs out and left them to go out with the rest of the office mail on Monday.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787804842668457984
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787783969802780672
> Damage control after the initial tweet.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787783828358258688
> :sodone


I don't know what everyone's obsession with tone is but it'd be nice to see Hillary's WWIII-baiting tone addressed at some point, as it seems a little more important than Trump correctly condemning arsonists with a genuine message instead of the typical staff-written political BS.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

There is not going to be a war with Russia unless Russia is fucking retarded

The US has nulcear and non nulcear missile bases around the world in many different countries let alone nuclear equipped ships puttering around every ocean and is allied with France who has the third most Nukes in the world who would not look kindly on Russian armor tearing across the their land

All of those would have to be preemptively destroyed before any type of military invasion or destruction could take place 

Unless you have a psychic who knows the phone number to the silo and the US does not have its Chrono legion ready, in which case, things are a bit more balanced until the patch comes


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> I wouldn't absolve the republican party as well as conservative media and many conservatives themselves for
> 
> a) Not fielding any candidates that were stronger than Trump
> b) Acting like pussies on stage and letting Trump take over the primaries
> c) Refusing to attack any of Trump's positions pre and post primaries
> d) Not accepting Trump as a legit candidate and just packing it in after he won the primaries
> e) Going back and forth on Trump and releasing party damaging statements consistently.
> 
> They're disorganized, they don't have a coherent/united platforum, they're indulging in back-stabbing, they haven't yet let go of their archaic social mentality, they have a liberal candidate, so to off-set him they chose the most conservative running mate they could find.
> 
> The Republican party is a fucking mess and a joke compared to the Democrats who despite all of Hillary's scandals and everything have not ONCE denounced her - meanwhile the Republicans have done nothing but backstab and hinder their candidate. One of the primary reasons why Hillary is still going strong isn't just because Trump is such a piece of shit but because the party backed her pretty much unanimously. Yeah .. It's possible to interpret that as the whole party being complicit in the scandals, but when it comes down to voting time, it is what will make the difference because no one will have any sound-bytes from other democratic candidates influencing their decision come voting time.
> 
> You win as a party and you lose as a party and if you stab your own in the media, your whole party pays for it.
> 
> The republican party is crap right now and if it doesn't change in the near future it's going to be crap for a long, long time.
> 
> Maybe America needs a new conservative party or something because the current conservative party is at its absolute worst right now.


the PEOPLE choose trump


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I don't know what everyone's obsession with tone is but it'd be nice to see Hillary's WWIII-baiting tone addressed at some point, as it seems a little more important than Trump correctly condemning arsonists with a genuine message instead of the typical staff-written political BS.


How in any way is Trump 'correctly' condemning arsonists in the initial tweet? He is jumping to conclusions to make baseless accusations before investigations are done. Again.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> oh my
> 
> is this taken out of context or legit?


The Russians don't fuck around. It's legit.

- Vic


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> How in any way is Trump 'correctly' condemning arsonists in the initial tweet? He is jumping to conclusions to make baseless accusations before investigations are done. Again.


wouldn't want anyone jumping to conclusions to make baseless accusations before investigations are done.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> How in any way is Trump 'correctly' condemning arsonists in the initial tweet? He is jumping to conclusions to make baseless accusations before investigations are done. Again.


Seems to me he has a pretty good track record whenever he's done that. :mj I also don't think "baseless" is the correct word here. :lol I doubt a bunch of Green Party supporters did the deed.


----------



## Stipe Tapped

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> How in any way is Trump 'correctly' condemning arsonists in the initial tweet? He is jumping to conclusions to make baseless accusations before investigations are done. Again.


He just pointed out the most logical motivation for the attack. It was hardly a bit of mindless, random vandalism. Hillary has heavily implied that Alex Jones, a gay guy from England and a cartoon frog are all part of a Trump-led Neo-Nazi cult designed to undermine her campaign. You know, since we're pointing out "baseless accusations".


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> There is not going to be a war with Russia unless Russia is fucking retarded
> 
> The US has nulcear and non nulcear missile bases around the world in many different countries let alone nuclear equipped ships puttering around every ocean and is allied with France who has the third most Nukes in the world who would not look kindly on Russian armor tearing across the their land
> 
> All of those would have to be preemptively destroyed before any type of military invasion or destruction could take place
> 
> Unless you have a psychic who knows the phone number to the silo and the US does not have its Chrono legion ready, in which case, things are a bit more balanced until the patch comes


Meanwhile...Drumpf is the one that has talked about how he loves war and would help give nukes to other nations like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. And then his Kool-Aid drinkers want to say she is the one that wants World War III? Seriously? :serious:


----------



## Stipe Tapped

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Meanwhile...Drumpf is the one that has talked about how he loves war


You're taking half a sentence and using it as evidence that Trump is a bigger nuclear risk than Clinton, who's recently openly hinted that nuclear war with Russia is very much on the table? :homer2



> and would help give nukes to other nations like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. And then his Kool-Aid drinkers want to say she is the one that wants World War III? Seriously? :serious:


Once again, context is important. Trump also said that he hates proliferation and would arm the likes of Japan and South Korea to the point that they could be defensive, and perhaps offensive towards North Korea. He referenced the huge amount of money the US spends arming other countries every year and said that some of those countries being self-sufficient militarily might not be the worst idea.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Zydeco said:


> You're taking half a sentence and using it as evidence that Trump is a bigger nuclear risk than Clinton, who's recently openly hinted that nuclear war with Russia is very much on the table? :homer2
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, context is important. Trump also said that he hates proliferation and would arm the likes of Japan and South Korea to the point that they could be defensive, and perhaps offensive towards North Korea. He referenced the huge amount of money the US spends arming other countries every year and said that some of those countries being self-sufficient militarily might not be the worst idea.


To be honest, Trump strikes me as being a blowhard who boasts and brags about what he would do regarding our military but in the end would do nothing. He's as bad as Obama in that regard, the red line in Syria comes to mind. Although, his stance about no option being off the table is consistent with the approach of other presidents. 

I speak as a former member of the military here in the US...I'm tired of listening to our leaders talk about what they're going to do. The military is not a toy to take off the shelf and play with. Either use it correctly or don't use it at all.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The fact that America's number one enemy is campaigning for Trump and trying to threaten American's into voting for him should say a lot.

Putin wants Trump because Putin knows Trump is useless.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> The fact that America's number one enemy is campaigning for Trump and trying to threaten American's into voting for him should say a lot.
> 
> Putin wants Trump because Putin knows Trump is useless.


We're already "Useless"...Difference is, with Shillary, We'll be *DEAD.*

@BruiserKC, you know this, too. That's the scary part. You sound like that of a typical old fashioned repub, not wanting to do what it takes because that's not "Nice." A bible thumper will not win America back. We don't need a "Constitutionalism" guy who has a line he won't cross when we are dealing with MURDERERS like Hilary who have none. We need to cut out their bleeding hearts and mount them on our wall as far as liberals are concerned and I wish the old guard on the right understood this. Tell me something, do you want more people like BM who think your entire family need to die because you aren't far left enough? Cause I don't. I've been driven to near suicide just reading the drivel from leftists here. You want it to spread? No? Then I think Trump hurting people's fee-fee's are the least of the US's problem. These monsters need to be EXPOSED.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Cause I don't. I've been driven to near suicide just reading the drivel from leftists here.


:woah .. Trust me, ideologues like BM and others aren't worth that kind of mental anguish. 

Don't forget that the President in America actually has limited power. The house is still mostly conservative and if you live in a non-blue state or blue state slum, your life is still pretty good and privileged and Hillary or any other federal government will not be able to change that as long as state sovereignty exists. I say let the blue states win and let the blue states create their welfare programs because that will attract the more useless element of society to those states creating more opportunities in red states as a side-product of that movement  

Get as interested in local politics because they are the ones that matter the most in your life. :shrug


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*CNN: Trump's 'Heated Rhetoric' to Blame for Firebombing of NC GOP HQ*



> According to CNN, Donald Trump's "heated rhetoric" is to blame for the firebombing of the North Carolina GOP headquarters in Orange County.
> 
> From NewsBusters:
> Horrible news broke Sunday afternoon as details emerged of the vicious firebombing of the Orange County GOP Head Quarters in North Carolina. Nobody was killed in the attack, which is being described as a “political terrorism,” although the office itself was lost. According to authorities “Nazi Republicans get out of town or else” was spray-painted on a building close to the attack, but that didn’t stop CNN’s Brian Stelter from concluding Donald Trump’s “over heated the rhetoric” was what caused the attack.
> 
> During a segment on CNN’s Newsroom, the panel Stelter was on was discussing the recent series of death threats being received by an Arizona newspaper. “So the Arizona Republic getting so many death threats over an endorsement is an example of how over heated the rhetoric is,” Stelter then pivoted, “Another example out of North Carolina today, the firebombing of a local GOP office.”
> 
> “We have no idea who has done this. We don’t know if it’s a Republican, a Democrat, a movement. No idea. Could be some core of extremists, some sort of radical,” Stelter rambled on. But according to a report by The Hill, two hours before Stelter was on air, authorities found the graffiti labeling local Republicans as Nazis. That’s not really a term Republicans like to call each other oddly enough, it’s usually a term flung by the left.
> 
> “But that kind of action is unacceptable,” Stelter stated before setting his sights on Trump. “And we need to have the temperature come down on all sides right now,” he opined, “Unfortunately, Donald Trump is the lead in terms of raising the temperature at this moment in time.”
> 
> Stelter was silent in April, 2015 after his CNN colleague Marc Lamont Hill praised the Baltimore riots as an “uprising” against “police terrorism.” Yet, he was quick to jump to the conclusion that Trump’s rhetoric causes such events.
> 
> All evidence points to Hillary Clinton supporters carrying out this domestic terrorist attack.
> 
> That's why Hillary Clinton herself came out once again and told her supporters it's "unacceptable" to carry out terrorism to advance her political aims, just as she had to do after one of her beloved Black Lives Matter supporters killed five cops in Dallas while targeting "white people" for extermination.
> 
> 
> Share Facebook Twitter Google+ StumbleUpon Reddit Email
> 
> According to CNN, Donald Trump's "heated rhetoric" is to blame for the firebombing of the North Carolina GOP headquarters in Orange County.
> 
> From NewsBusters:
> Horrible news broke Sunday afternoon as details emerged of the vicious firebombing of the Orange County GOP Head Quarters in North Carolina. Nobody was killed in the attack, which is being described as a “political terrorism,” although the office itself was lost. According to authorities “Nazi Republicans get out of town or else” was spray-painted on a building close to the attack, but that didn’t stop CNN’s Brian Stelter from concluding Donald Trump’s “over heated the rhetoric” was what caused the attack.
> 
> During a segment on CNN’s Newsroom, the panel Stelter was on was discussing the recent series of death threats being received by an Arizona newspaper. “So the Arizona Republic getting so many death threats over an endorsement is an example of how over heated the rhetoric is,” Stelter then pivoted, “Another example out of North Carolina today, the firebombing of a local GOP office.”
> 
> “We have no idea who has done this. We don’t know if it’s a Republican, a Democrat, a movement. No idea. Could be some core of extremists, some sort of radical,” Stelter rambled on. But according to a report by The Hill, two hours before Stelter was on air, authorities found the graffiti labeling local Republicans as Nazis. That’s not really a term Republicans like to call each other oddly enough, it’s usually a term flung by the left.
> 
> “But that kind of action is unacceptable,” Stelter stated before setting his sights on Trump. “And we need to have the temperature come down on all sides right now,” he opined, “Unfortunately, Donald Trump is the lead in terms of raising the temperature at this moment in time.”
> 
> Stelter was silent in April, 2015 after his CNN colleague Marc Lamont Hill praised the Baltimore riots as an “uprising” against “police terrorism.” Yet, he was quick to jump to the conclusion that Trump’s rhetoric causes such events.
> All evidence points to Hillary Clinton supporters carrying out this domestic terrorist attack.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why Hillary Clinton herself came out once again and told her supporters it's "unacceptable" to carry out terrorism to advance her political aims, just as she had to do after one of her beloved Black Lives Matter supporters killed five cops in Dallas while targeting "white people" for extermination.
> 
> Follow
> Hillary Clinton ✔ @HillaryClinton
> The attack on the Orange County HQ @NCGOP office is horrific and unacceptable. Very grateful that everyone is safe.
> 10:13 PM - 16 Oct 2016
> 6,967 6,967 Retweets 18,311 18,311 likes
> 
> Not only does Hillary Clinton want to engage in terrorism overseas in Syria -- which even Green party candidate Jill Stein is warning could trigger a nuclear war with Russia -- her supporters are carrying out domestic terrorism here in the U.S. to keep people from voting for Donald Trump.








I didn't think the media could be anymore absurd but I was proven very wrong. Ridiculous.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Seems to me he has a pretty good track record whenever he's done that. :mj I also don't think "baseless" is the correct word here. :lol I doubt a bunch of Green Party supporters did the deed.





Zydeco said:


> He just pointed out the most logical motivation for the attack. It was hardly a bit of mindless, random vandalism. Hillary has heavily implied that Alex Jones, a gay guy from England and a cartoon frog are all part of a Trump-led Neo-Nazi cult designed to undermine her campaign. You know, since we're pointing out "baseless accusations".


He had no proof of who was responsible when he tweeted. Kneejerk reactions do not make a good leader. New nugget.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787995025527410688
Look at Beatles reply to Bruiser and tell me Trump, and the conservative 'media' you all claim is better than the MSM have not harmed the country. He actually wants to cut out the bleeding hearts of liberals due to ideological differences. :chan

Trump loves to invoke the image of refugees being the ultimate Trojan horse but it seems as the elections is nearing the finish line Trump looks more and more like one in destroying the GOP and the country when he is undermining the peaceful transition of power in a democracy with each inflammatory speech or tweet.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787995025527410688


I am an entirely 100% not surprised that the Donald does not understand the difference between voter fraud and election fraud. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> He had no proof of who was responsible when he tweeted. Kneejerk reactions do not make a good leader. New nugget.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787995025527410688
> Look at Beatles reply to Bruiser and tell me Trump, and the conservative 'media' you all claim is better than the MSM have not harmed the country. He actually wants to cut out the bleeding hearts of liberals due to ideological differences. :chan
> 
> Trump loves to invoke the image of refugees being the ultimate Trojan horse but it seems as the elections is nearing the finish line Trump looks more and more like one in destroying the GOP and the country when he is undermining the peaceful transition of power in a democracy with each inflammatory speech or tweet.


The GOP is destroying themselves by their own hands by sabotaging the man that won fair and square, by not supporting their own party. The Democrats have at least come together for the party sake. The country was already angry due to the fact we've had 16 years of inept Presidents, this is why Trump even got popular in the first place is because he was different from the standard Republican/Democrat candidate. 

You're so reaching with your statement but it's funny. Let's not forget the multiple of attacks on Trump supporters during his campaign done by "Leftists" I guess they wanted peace? No better way for peace than to be riotous! The GOP is destroying itself and Democrats seem fine with pushing someone as corrupt as Hillary. Those poor party loyalists, now they realize how terrible their parties are.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> I am an entirely 100% not surprised that the Donald does not understand the difference between voter fraud and election fraud. :lol


His son in law is already looking for investors in Trump-TV, he doesn't care :lmao

Meanwhile, in the race he's supoosedly trying to win, Clinton is outpassing Obama's 2012 mail-in ballot requests in Florida and North Carolina, while Trump is underperforming Romney in both.

Arizona is almost lost, Clinton's campaign is sending Chelsea and Bernie to do rallies in the state for the week and they plan to send Michelle Obama there later, while Trump has only $7000 dollars compromised for the last week of campaign and doesn't even have an HQ there.

Georgia is starting to turn blue and is at least close










Trump's campaign also broke with the Ohio GOP Chairman. And Alaska is publishing private polling from democrat and republicans where Trump is leading for less than 3 points.

In reality, Trump campaign is at best amateur, the fact that he's losing this big against the second most unpopular candidate ever is amazing


----------



## Vic Capri

Julianne Assange's Internet connection has been cut off. He's got Hillary spooked!

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> He had no proof of who was responsible when he tweeted. Kneejerk reactions do not make a good leader. New nugget.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787995025527410688
> Look at Beatles reply to Bruiser and tell me Trump, and the conservative 'media' you all claim is better than the MSM have not harmed the country. He actually wants to cut out the bleeding hearts of liberals due to ideological differences. :chan
> 
> Trump loves to invoke the image of refugees being the ultimate Trojan horse but it seems as the elections is nearing the finish line Trump looks more and more like one in destroying the GOP and the country when he is undermining the peaceful transition of power in a democracy with each inflammatory speech or tweet.


Why even listen to beatles? All he does is post BS and lies. The memes he posts are always easily debunked in seconds with a quick google search. you cant even take his posts seriously anymore. Just look at the BS he posted about me, oh i want him and his family dead LOL 

As for Trump talking about large scale election fraud, yes the DNC used election fraud and voter suppression in the primaries, but lets not act like the GOP did not and does not do the same exact thing. The GOP is all about voter suppression and election fraud. They stole the election from Gore and not to mention in these primaries they had tons of voter suppression to make it more difficult for blacks to vote and for people to be able to register. The whole oh we need IDs to vote which is bullshit is all about voter suppression. And let's not forget the GOPs favorate weapon of voter fraud, gerrymandering to rig the votes in their favor by changing the boundries to get the results they want.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Wang is showing a chart which says pretty clear, First debate killed Trump meanwhile the tape make no difference


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Not surprising @asdf0501. That first debate was a bad look for Trump on the whole.

This election cycle has nothing but bullshit and so many actual policies and issues have not even been addressed in either of the debates.

To be honest, I clocked out mentally in terms of having hope for who the next president will be a long time ago.

So here's Julie Borowski in some cool Liberty themed shirts  .


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> We're already "Useless"...Difference is, with Shillary, We'll be *DEAD.*
> 
> @BruiserKC, you know this, too. That's the scary part. You sound like that of a typical old fashioned repub, not wanting to do what it takes because that's not "Nice." A bible thumper will not win America back. We don't need a "Constitutionalism" guy who has a line he won't cross when we are dealing with MURDERERS like Hilary who have none. We need to cut out their bleeding hearts and mount them on our wall as far as liberals are concerned and I wish the old guard on the right understood this. Tell me something, do you want more people like BM who think your entire family need to die because you aren't far left enough? Cause I don't. I've been driven to near suicide just reading the drivel from leftists here. You want it to spread? No? Then I think Trump hurting people's fee-fee's are the least of the US's problem. These monsters need to be EXPOSED.


You clearly have not paid one bit of attention to what I've said on this site...apparently drinking Trump's Kool-Aid has some serious side effects. I am not a fan of liberals, I think that has been made very clear. No one here wishes you dead, stop being dramatic. I am not a Republican because the party has moved to the left and forgotten what being a conservative is all about. I despise Hillary Clinton more than you do, believe me. But I want to make sure you pay close attention here...please read this very carefully. 

If you want to cut out bleeding hearts of liberals...the first one is the one you worship on bended knee all this time. The heart of the one that talks about making America great again. The heart of the one that I have given you an entire laundry list of reasons why he is not a liberal and that he is going to be as bad if not worse than HRC. The heart of the one that up until a year ago was BFF's with the Clintons. That's right...I'm talking about your hero...DONALD TRUMP! 

He is a fucking liberal...let's just cut right to the chase. That's part of the reason why I will not vote for him. The voters and the GOP keep fucking up...they make the same mistake. You are so desperate to unseat the liberals that you are starting to use their playbook. Trump will do the same shit that HRC will do with big government, shredding the Constitution, and bullying people into doing what he wants. They are one in the same...in fact it wouldn't surprise me if they planned this the whole damn time...except they couldn't pull it off. The Clintons aren't that bright. 

Plus, have you ever stopped to think that if Trump actually acted like a leader and not shot his mouth off, fraternized with our enemies and people who don't give a shit about this country, not gotten into 3 AM Twitter pissing contests about beauty queens, and actually focused on the issues of this country, he might have a decent lead? He is sabotaging himself by flying off the handle. Is the media in the tank for her...yes. But he isn't making this easy...he pisses off the people he needs to work with. Not to mention the idiots who will vote for him but not for conservative Senators because they didn't like him being a dirty old man are going to hand the Senate and SCOTUS to the Dems. He did this to himself...no one else to blame. 

I have said all along I want to change the direction of this country. But I refuse to go along with someone who clearly doesn't have our best interests and are going to do the same shit the liberals will do. If that's the case, let the actual Dems do it and maybe we'll see what we missed. You backed the wrong horse...in your anger to shake things up in Washington you really fucked things up more than you could imagine. Congratulations. 

Besides...I will still fight for the Constitution. You have made no indication you will do that...you sound like you will take your ball and go home if Trump doesn't win. If you're not willing to stay and fight, then I don't want to hear it. 

Dude...we cool and all...but you need to pull your head out of Trump's rear end and see that's his own doing that this shit is hitting the fan.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Not that any of this is at all surprising, but this was released today






Edit:

And this






:draper2


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> The GOP is destroying themselves by their own hands by sabotaging the man that won fair and square, by not supporting their own party. The Democrats have at least come together for the party sake. The country was already angry due to the fact we've had 16 years of inept Presidents, this is why Trump even got popular in the first place is because he was different from the standard Republican/Democrat candidate.
> 
> You're so reaching with your statement but it's funny. Let's not forget the multiple of attacks on Trump supporters during his campaign done by "Leftists" I guess they wanted peace? No better way for peace than to be riotous! The GOP is destroying itself and Democrats seem fine with pushing someone as corrupt as Hillary. Those poor party loyalists, now they realize how terrible their parties are.


Why would any party loyalist want to support the candidate that don't even stand for the party?

What is reaching with my statement? Are you conveniently forgetting the terrible things Trump supporters have been saying about non-supporters of his? Sounds a lot like Salafism to me.

Blame GOP for not being poor party loyalists, then criticise Democrats for being one in the same post. Do you not see the irony? 



birthday_massacre said:


> Why even listen to beatles? All he does is post BS and lies. The memes he posts are always easily debunked in seconds with a quick google search. you cant even take his posts seriously anymore. Just look at the BS he posted about me, oh i want him and his family dead LOL
> 
> As for Trump talking about large scale election fraud, yes the DNC used election fraud and voter suppression in the primaries, but lets not act like the GOP did not and does not do the same exact thing. The GOP is all about voter suppression and election fraud. They stole the election from Gore and not to mention in these primaries they had tons of voter suppression to make it more difficult for blacks to vote and for people to be able to register. The whole oh we need IDs to vote which is bullshit is all about voter suppression. And let's not forget the GOPs favorate weapon of voter fraud, gerrymandering to rig the votes in their favor by changing the boundries to get the results they want.


I actually agree with getting voter ID laws in principle. But the way the GOP is championing them seems motivated by voter suppression because many states are incompetent in issuing them efficiently in time for elections. Also, I like that voting is a privilege not some handouts to those not bothered to get photo IDs after this issue has been pushed around seriously for more than a decade. :shrug


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> Not that any of this is at all surprising, but this was released today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit:
> 
> And this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :draper2


Cannot be true, she loves super predators! Robert Byrd? Pfft, he was just a white hobbyist nothing more!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> What is reaching with my statement? Are you conveniently forgetting the terrible things Trump supporters have been saying about non-supporters of his? Sounds a lot like Salafism to me.
> 
> Blame GOP for not being poor party loyalists, then criticise Democrats for being one in the same post. Do you not see the irony?
> 
> 
> 
> I actually agree with getting voter ID laws in principle. But the way the GOP is championing them seems motivated by voter suppression because many states are incompetent in issuing them efficiently in time for elections. Also, I like that voting is a privilege not some handouts to those not bothered to get photo IDs after this issue has been pushed around seriously for more than a decade. :shrug


Making people show IDs to vote is unconstitutional. All it does it make it tougher for blacks and minorities to vote which is why the GOP targets black neighborhoods when it comes to voter ID BS. 

Voting is not a privilege it's a constitutional right. It should be made much easier to vote and register than it is now but the GOP want to make it more difficult. 

Speaking of Trump and his crying about "voter fraud" lets not also forget he is the one who is telling his supporters to go to polling stations and WATCH people, IE intimidate them. Yeah like that is not voter supression.

Trump supporters are saying they will go to polling stations with guns (in the states with open carry permits).


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Making people show IDs to vote is unconstitutional. All it does it make it tougher for blacks and minorities to vote which is why the GOP targets black neighborhoods when it comes to voter ID BS.
> 
> Voting is not a privilege it's a constitutional right. It should be made much easier to vote and register than it is now but the GOP want to make it more difficult.
> 
> Speaking of Trump and his crying about "voter fraud" lets not also forget he is the one who is telling his supporters to go to polling stations and WATCH people, IE intimidate them. Yeah like that is not voter supression.
> 
> Trump supporters are saying they will go to polling stations with guns (in the states with open carry permits).


How is it harder for blacks and minorites to get IDs? Only whites are allowed to go to the DMV now? All my Hispanic family has IDs and Drivers licences, are whites coming to take them away?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Making people show IDs to vote is unconstitutional. All it does it make it tougher for blacks and minorities to vote which is why the GOP targets black neighborhoods when it comes to voter ID BS.
> 
> Voting is not a privilege it's a constitutional right. It should be made much easier to vote and register than it is now but the GOP want to make it more difficult.
> 
> Speaking of Trump and his crying about "voter fraud" lets not also forget he is the one who is telling his supporters to go to polling stations and WATCH people, IE intimidate them. Yeah like that is not voter supression.
> 
> Trump supporters are saying they will go to polling stations with guns (in the states with open carry permits).


All the issue with regards to voter ID would be resolved if both sides come together to allow people easier means to obtain their IDs. The ironic thing is I doubt anyone care that much to vote multiple times and move any needle. Most voting fraud would be done on the counting side. I agree Trump's crying wolf is harmful to the democratic process this election. It really is a page out of the book of a democracy from a third world country.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

In a more interesting issue because this race is over.

Would be Johnson able to touch 5%? if he does libertarians start to get FEC funding which could be BIG for the party. His current numbers are dead on the margin but third party candidacies tend to lose support the closer we get to election day, and the prospect of "McMuffin" is gonna make him loose a lot of votes in places like Utah


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> In a more interesting issue because this race is over.
> 
> Would be Johnson able to touch 5%? if he does libertarians start to get FEC funding which could be BIG for the party. His current numbers are dead on the margin but third party candidacies tend to lose support the closer we get to election day, and the prospect of "McMuffin" is gonna make him loose a lot of votes in places like Utah


His numbers would be higher if he was an actual Libertarian and wasn't prone to making an asshole out of himself. I said this a few times, this was the election for Libertarians to shine. Wouldn't win but maybe could make a big enough splash and noise to start getting into more places and eventually have a good run at getting in a Libertarian President.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

i don't think they're so interested in doing an splash as in getting federal founding (ironically :lmao), with a divided GOP and money they could make more noise in 2020


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> How is it harder for blacks and minorites to get IDs? Only whites are allowed to go to the DMV now? All my Hispanic family has IDs and Drivers licences, are whites coming to take them away?


Most states offer non-driving IDs at a fraction of the cost of the driver's license themselves. And, depending on where you live, they are good anywhere from 4-8 years on average. 

To me, it makes perfect sense. When I meet with a new employee where I work on their first day, they show me photo ID along with other needed paperwork. I have to have a photo ID to drive my vehicle. For the few times I write a check for a purchase (yes, they still have them) I have to show ID sometimes. If I want to buy alcohol, or go to an adult entertainment establishment (bar, strip club, casino) I have to show ID. Should be nothing wrong with providing ID to vote. Makes sense to me. :shrug

Irony here is that in Iowa...we had a state Senator (Democrat) who railed against voter IDs, but wanted to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses. Explain that logic to me. 



FriedTofu said:


> All the issue with regards to voter ID would be resolved if both sides come together to allow people easier means to obtain their IDs. The ironic thing is I doubt anyone care that much to vote multiple times and move any needle. Most voting fraud would be done on the counting side. I agree Trump's crying wolf is harmful to the democratic process this election. It really is a page out of the book of a democracy from a third world country.


It can not only be an issue in the inner cities, it can be an issue for rural areas away from cities. In my state, my Governor Branstad (who has turned out to be a RINO/CINO and ironically is also a Trump supporter to the point one of his sons is Trump's state director here) thought it would be a great idea to raise the gas tax. He went so far as to get the Speaker of the Iowa House pull off two no votes from his fellow Republicans to replace them with yes votes. What has happened as a result? Roads aren't being re-done, and they have closed quite a few Department of Motor Vehicle locations in rural locations. That makes it that much harder as people now have to drive in some cases up to 45 miles to find a location to get their license renewed. 

I find it enough to find the time to vote once on Election Day...voting more than once is out of the question.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Most states offer non-driving IDs at a fraction of the cost of the driver's license themselves. And, depending on where you live, they are good anywhere from 4-8 years on average.
> 
> To me, it makes perfect sense. When I meet with a new employee where I work on their first day, they show me photo ID along with other needed paperwork. I have to have a photo ID to drive my vehicle. For the few times I write a check for a purchase (yes, they still have them) I have to show ID sometimes. If I want to buy alcohol, or go to an adult entertainment establishment (bar, strip club, casino) I have to show ID. Should be nothing wrong with providing ID to vote. Makes sense to me. :shrug
> 
> Irony here is that in Iowa...we had a state Senator (Democrat) who railed against voter IDs, but wanted to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses. Explain that logic to me.
> 
> 
> 
> It can not only be an issue in the inner cities, it can be an issue for rural areas away from cities. In my state, my Governor Branstad (who has turned out to be a RINO/CINO and ironically is also a Trump supporter to the point one of his sons is Trump's state director here) thought it would be a great idea to raise the gas tax. He went so far as to get the Speaker of the Iowa House pull off two no votes from his fellow Republicans to replace them with yes votes. What has happened as a result? Roads aren't being re-done, and they have closed quite a few Department of Motor Vehicle locations in rural locations. That makes it that much harder as people now have to drive in some cases up to 45 miles to find a location to get their license renewed.
> 
> I find it enough to find the time to vote once on Election Day...voting more than once is out of the question.


I meant the issue can be resolved if they make it easier for people to obtain the stated IDs so both sides can done with the charade. Though I have to admit I didn't consider the difficulty of people living in rural areas in obtaining them. Most people are like you who find it bothersome just to vote once. Maybe try telling that to those who keep harping on voter fraud in here.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Most states offer non-driving IDs at a fraction of the cost of the driver's license themselves. And, depending on where you live, they are good anywhere from 4-8 years on average.
> 
> To me, it makes perfect sense. When I meet with a new employee where I work on their first day, they show me photo ID along with other needed paperwork. I have to have a photo ID to drive my vehicle. For the few times I write a check for a purchase (yes, they still have them) I have to show ID sometimes. If I want to buy alcohol, or go to an adult entertainment establishment (bar, strip club, casino) I have to show ID. Should be nothing wrong with providing ID to vote. Makes sense to me. :shrug
> 
> Irony here is that in Iowa...we had a state Senator (Democrat) who railed against voter IDs, but wanted to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses. Explain that logic to me.
> 
> 
> 
> It can not only be an issue in the inner cities, it can be an issue for rural areas away from cities. In my state, my Governor Branstad (who has turned out to be a RINO/CINO and ironically is also a Trump supporter to the point one of his sons is Trump's state director here) thought it would be a great idea to raise the gas tax. He went so far as to get the Speaker of the Iowa House pull off two no votes from his fellow Republicans to replace them with yes votes. What has happened as a result? Roads aren't being re-done, and they have closed quite a few Department of Motor Vehicle locations in rural locations. That makes it that much harder as people now have to drive in some cases up to 45 miles to find a location to get their license renewed.
> 
> I find it enough to find the time to vote once on Election Day...voting more than once is out of the question.


This is why the whole "Oh it only has an effect on minorities.. it's so bad!" is a load of shit. You need ID for pretty much anything. Walking around without ID is just irresponsible. Maybe white people think nonwhites are too stupid to get IDs or that using an ID to vote puts you in some sorta tracker for racist owned satellites will rain down hellfire upon them? What's odd is I see many nonwhites driving, working, buying booze, gambling, smoking, showing ID and insurance at my job. Maybe these are all the uncle tom types?


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> Not that any of this is at all surprising, but this was released today





> “We hire mentally ill homeless people to do sh _ _” at Trump rallies, says the director of the Clinton campaign’s criminal dirty trick organization that was recently “punked” by Project Veritas. This “sh _ _” involves acts of violence and vandilism [sic], among other things.


 http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/community-organizing-finally-explained/

Recall the occasion of the assaults on people attending Donald Trump's rally in Chicago this past March. That was perspicuous in how clearly well-financed and -organized it was.

One could almost say it is a page out of the book of a democracy from a third world country.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Clinton is gonna start doing advertisement in Texas

Holy Shit :lmao


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> He had no proof of who was responsible when he tweeted. Kneejerk reactions do not make a good leader. New nugget.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787995025527410688
> Look at Beatles reply to Bruiser and tell me Trump, and the conservative 'media' you all claim is better than the MSM have not harmed the country. He actually wants to cut out the bleeding hearts of liberals due to ideological differences. :chan
> 
> Trump loves to invoke the image of refugees being the ultimate Trojan horse but it seems as the elections is nearing the finish line Trump looks more and more like one in destroying the GOP and the country when he is undermining the peaceful transition of power in a democracy with each inflammatory speech or tweet.


Only because BM wanted it first.

I asked, his response was that the south and its people should die. I had never said that until he started saying it. BM doesn't know the south or my family at all and has made personal attacks the entire thread.


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Wang is showing a chart which says pretty clear, First debate killed Trump meanwhile the tape make no difference


What's interesting to me is it does kinda show that all these claims about media bias rigging the election are offbase. The bias may be there, but in reality it has had a minimal impact on the election...
I've been following the polls closely, and there's really only been four events that have any sort of impact:
1. Out of the primaries, Hillary had a pretty commanding lead over Trump, until the FBI report about the emails came out and pretty much eliminated the lead to the point where Trump was right on her tail going into the primaries, and even took a slight lead in those few days in between the conventions.
2. The conventions are basically a four day circle jerk whose sole purpose is for the parties to sell their candidate to the American people. In that regard, The DNC was far more successful, as once the dust settled in the polls following the conventions, Hillary found herself with a pretty solid lead, although not as strong as it was prior to all the details of the e-mail stuff coming out 
3. Hillary plummetted in the polls again following her mysterious health scare, and as a result they went into the debates with a virtual dead heat
4. Hillary destroyed Trump in the first debate, which has resulted in a significant boost to the point to where she has a larger lead than she started out with

Outside of these four instances, nothing has moved the needle. People can howl at the moon all they want about the media's bias towards Hillary, and even if it's true, it has had zero actual impact on the election. The only real boosts Hillary received were from the conventions and the debates (specifically the first one), instances where the candidates have the same opportunities to go head to head in presenting themselves to the American people. Hillary is in line to take the presidency not because of some tape, or some assault allegations, or the portrayal of Trump as some racist and sexist buffoon, or anything else the media has put out there, it's because when she went head to head with Trump to discuss the issues, she was successful in pulling in voters that were still on the fence in fairly large numbers.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Only because BM wanted it first.
> 
> I asked, his response was that the south and its people should die. I had never said that until he started saying it. BM doesn't know the south or my family at all and has made personal attacks the entire thread.


That's why I've always equate the two of you as the worst of the left and the right in this thread. :shrug

I once said I thought you were better than him because you didn't go there, but seems like I was wrong. :lol


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> You clearly have not paid one bit of attention to what I've said on this site...apparently drinking Trump's Kool-Aid has some serious side effects. I am not a fan of liberals, I think that has been made very clear. No one here wishes you dead, stop being dramatic. I am not a Republican because the party has moved to the left and forgotten what being a conservative is all about. I despise Hillary Clinton more than you do, believe me. But I want to make sure you pay close attention here...please read this very carefully.
> 
> If you want to cut out bleeding hearts of liberals...the first one is the one you worship on bended knee all this time. The heart of the one that talks about making America great again. The heart of the one that I have given you an entire laundry list of reasons why he is not a liberal and that he is going to be as bad if not worse than HRC. The heart of the one that up until a year ago was BFF's with the Clintons. That's right...I'm talking about your hero...DONALD TRUMP!
> 
> He is a fucking liberal...let's just cut right to the chase. That's part of the reason why I will not vote for him. The voters and the GOP keep fucking up...they make the same mistake. You are so desperate to unseat the liberals that you are starting to use their playbook. Trump will do the same shit that HRC will do with big government, shredding the Constitution, and bullying people into doing what he wants. They are one in the same...in fact it wouldn't surprise me if they planned this the whole damn time...except they couldn't pull it off. The Clintons aren't that bright.
> 
> Plus, have you ever stopped to think that if Trump actually acted like a leader and not shot his mouth off, fraternized with our enemies and people who don't give a shit about this country, not gotten into 3 AM Twitter pissing contests about beauty queens, and actually focused on the issues of this country, he might have a decent lead? He is sabotaging himself by flying off the handle. Is the media in the tank for her...yes. But he isn't making this easy...he pisses off the people he needs to work with. Not to mention the idiots who will vote for him but not for conservative Senators because they didn't like him being a dirty old man are going to hand the Senate and SCOTUS to the Dems. He did this to himself...no one else to blame.
> 
> I have said all along I want to change the direction of this country. But I refuse to go along with someone who clearly doesn't have our best interests and are going to do the same shit the liberals will do. If that's the case, let the actual Dems do it and maybe we'll see what we missed. You backed the wrong horse...in your anger to shake things up in Washington you really fucked things up more than you could imagine. Congratulations.
> 
> Besides...I will still fight for the Constitution. You have made no indication you will do that...you sound like you will take your ball and go home if Trump doesn't win. If you're not willing to stay and fight, then I don't want to hear it.
> 
> Dude...we cool and all...but you need to pull your head out of Trump's rear end and see that's his own doing that this shit is hitting the fan.


Stay and fight with Whom? Glenn Beck? We are the party of CUCKS.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Clinton is gonna start doing advertisement in Texas
> 
> Holy Shit :lmao


I think the Democrats might be premature here. This elections is highly charged for those on the right who has been sold on the presidency deciding the supreme court. Polls might not be capturing the harder to reach conservative voters who are voting partisan because of this issue.

I'm not assuming the race is over after Brexit and the Columbia peace vote.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> That's why I've always equate the two of you as the worst of the left and the right in this thread. :shrug
> 
> I once said I thought you were better than him because you didn't go there, but seems like I was wrong. :lol


Admittedly I am more angry due to my depression, and He and his comments are a big part of it. You should see the BS he negs me for. I have never did that to him. and in fairness? I have ignored it a long time until now. im at my limit with Him and the whole damn liberal asshole political spectrum.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Admittedly I am more angry due to my depression, and He and his comments are a big part of it. You should see the BS he negs me for. I have never did that to him. and in fairness? I have ignored it a long time until now. im at my limit with Him and the whole damn liberal asshole political spectrum.


I think the issue is both of you taking negs too seriously. Just my two cents. No need to call for genocide over an internet comment.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I think the issue is both of you taking negs too seriously. Just my two cents. No need to call for genocide over an internet comment.


It aint genocide I want. As I said, it is only because people like BM want it for people like me. The negs I could care less about. It's the elitism of his ilk.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> How is it harder for blacks and minorites to get IDs? Only whites are allowed to go to the DMV now? All my Hispanic family has IDs and Drivers licences, are whites coming to take them away?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Admittedly I am more angry due to my depression, and He and his comments are a big part of it. You should see the BS he negs me for. I have never did that to him. and in fairness? I have ignored it a long time until now. im at my limit with Him and the whole damn liberal asshole political spectrum.


If he seriously bothers you that much then put him on your Ignore List. There is no point to getting worked up over what some guy says or does on the internet. And you won't even see the negs anymore, so that won't be an issue either. It would probably be better for your state of mind if you are getting that depressed over it.

American politics sucks and it is not worth losing your sanity or your health over.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> It aint genocide I want. As I said, it is only because people like BM want it for people like me. The negs I could care less about. It's the elitism of his ilk.


The only person here is things they are entitled are people like you who cry every time someone calls them on their BS memes, incorrect posts or just made up lies.

You love to claim oh I said i want you and your family dead, please quote me where I ever said that.

The reason you keep getting negs from me is because you keep mentioning me, when I am not even posting in this thread, you have brouoght me up by name three times in the past week or so and you wonder why you get negged for it.

You bring this on yourself.

If you cant stand me then put me on ignore and stop talking about me.


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> This is why the whole "Oh it only has an effect on minorities.. it's so bad!" is a load of shit. You need ID for pretty much anything. Walking around without ID is just irresponsible. Maybe white people think nonwhites are too stupid to get IDs or that using an ID to vote puts you in some sorta tracker for racist owned satellites will rain down hellfire upon them? What's odd is I see many nonwhites driving, working, buying booze, gambling, smoking, showing ID and insurance at my job. Maybe these are all the uncle tom types?


In principal, I don't have an issue with requiring IDs at the polling stations. But the question to ponder is this: why are Republicans fighting so hard to push voter ID legislation through, when all evidence points to voter fraud being virtually non existent? 
The fact is, the motives have nothing to do with voter fraud. Should more blacks make an effort to obtain valid ID? For sure. But the fact remains that minorities tend not to at much higher rates, and that's the reason why Republicans are putting these laws into place.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cabanarama said:


> In principal, I don't have an issue with requiring IDs at the polling stations. But the question to ponder is this: why are Republicans fighting so hard to push voter ID legislation through, when all evidence points to voter fraud being virtually non existent?
> The fact is, the motives have nothing to do with voter fraud. Should more blacks make an effort to obtain valid ID? For sure. But the fact remains that minorities tend not to at much higher rates, and that's the reason why Republicans are putting these laws into place.


i already answered that question. its because they want to suppress the black vote and other minorities. There is rarely ever voter fraud when a voter votes twice or votes as someone else. Its super rare that ever happens and most times when they think it happens its a clerical error, like someone died but voted on an absentee ballot, or two people have the same name but a different SSN like a SR or JR in the same family.

In this study only 31 cases were found out of a billion votes and some of those like I said were clerical errors. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...le-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I think the Democrats might be premature here. This elections is highly charged for those on the right who has been sold on the presidency deciding the supreme court. Polls might not be capturing the harder to reach conservative voters who are voting partisan because of this issue.
> 
> I'm not assuming the race is over after Brexit and the Columbia peace vote.


I think you're getting this wrong. Colombia had an extraordinary low turnaout, which skewed any kind of prediction. And polling got right Brexit aside from what people say.

The correlation between this kind of lead and wining is .96. If anything, there is reasoning to assume a higher Hillary turnaout than Trump specially in the hispanics camp and women. There is no reason to assume a higher turnaout for Trump than what polls say, his numbers where predicted fine in the primaries where vote is more hardcore than in the general

Unless you have a serious black swan this is over, Clinton is focusing resources to low ballots and is starting to campaign in highly unlikely places like Arizona, Texas and Giorgia



Cabanarama said:


> What's interesting to me is it does kinda show that all these claims about media bias rigging the election are offbase. The bias may be there, but in reality it has had a minimal impact on the election...



It has minimal effect in any election and specially in demos as polarized as USA, the fact that people put so much emphasis on it, it's another effect of punditry in my opinion, people like to argue more with guts than with data because this allow more uncertainity, rethoric and speculations



Cabanarama said:


> I've been following the polls closely, and there's really only been four events that have any sort of impact:
> 1. Out of the primaries, Hillary had a pretty commanding lead over Trump, until the FBI report about the emails came out and pretty much eliminated the lead to the point where Trump was right on her tail going into the primaries, and even took a slight lead in those few days in between the conventions.
> 2. The conventions are basically a four day circle jerk whose sole purpose is for the parties to sell their candidate to the American people. In that regard, The DNC was far more successful, as once the dust settled in the polls following the conventions, Hillary found herself with a pretty solid lead, although not as strong as it was prior to all the details of the e-mail stuff coming out
> 3. Hillary plummetted in the polls again following her mysterious health scare, and as a result they went into the debates with a virtual dead heat
> 4. Hillary destroyed Trump in the first debate, which has resulted in a significant boost to the point to where she has a larger lead than she started out with



Conventions always have great effects in polling because they "rally the troups".

I don't think i do the same analysis, you're right those 4 events were the most important effects but i think that they aren't as important as event by themselves as their importance is more with the alination they had with normal election process.

Hillary suffered a normal convention boost, reforced by the dragging of it by Trump fighting with the Khans creating turmoil inside the GOP. The bump of Trump later is in obedience with the republicans and center right undecided started to line behind him after he cleaned his act or give the image of cleaning, . Clinton on the other hand suffered more to rally democrtas becuase a) their level of enthusiasm is historically less, b) more of the support is from minorities who tend have lower turnaouts in general.

Undecided lined behind Clinton after the debate which i think ruined every Trump option. Polarization means that people who settle his/her opinion don't changed after deciding. Is extrarodinary to have so much people undecided after the first debate but it has to do with the unpopularity both guys have

I also think that the tape didn't have serious repercutions for Trump because it was the debate where this "misogynist" vision was imposed, women were supporting Clinton in big numbers already. Keep in mind, the gender gap in this election is the bigger one since 1972, and Trump is even losing in the most traditional group of republican voters: women with degrees


Cabanarama said:


> Outside of these four instances, nothing has moved the needle. People can howl at the moon all they want about the media's bias towards Hillary, and even if it's true, it has had zero actual impact on the election. The only real boosts Hillary received were from the conventions and the debates (specifically the first one), instances where the candidates have the same opportunities to go head to head in presenting themselves to the American people. Hillary is in line to take the presidency not because of some tape, or some assault allegations, or the portrayal of Trump as some racist and sexist buffoon, or anything else the media has put out there, it's because when she went head to head with Trump to discuss the issues, she was successful in pulling in voters that were still on the fence in fairly large numbers.


It's also because Trump is runing one of the most disjointed and amateur campaigns in history, any competent republican would have Iowa, Arizona, North Carolina and Ohio under control now


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> i already answered that question. its because they want to suppress the black vote and other minorities. There is rarely ever voter fraud when a voter votes twice or votes as someone else. Its super rare that ever happens and most times when they think it happens its a clerical error, like someone died but voted on an absentee ballot, or two people have the same name but a different SSN like a SR or JR in the same family.
> 
> In this study only 31 cases were found out of a billion votes and some of those like I said were clerical errors.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...le-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/


Um... you do realize you just responded to a rhetorical question by basically saying the same thing I just said, right?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cabanarama said:


> Um... you do realize you just responded to a rhetorical question by basically saying the same thing I just said, right?


I was adding to what you were saying. I know its rhetorical and common sense for the left but for the right, its not because they keep pushing for it

I was just giving evidence with examples to back up your point.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The only person here is things they are entitled are people like you who cry every time someone calls them on their BS memes, incorrect posts or just made up lies.
> 
> You love to claim oh I said i want you and your family dead, please quote me where I ever said that.
> 
> The reason you keep getting negs from me is because you keep mentioning me, when I am not even posting in this thread, you have brouoght me up by name three times in the past week or so and you wonder why you get negged for it.
> 
> You bring this on yourself.
> 
> If you cant stand me then put me on ignore and stop talking about me.


You know what you said. I'm not going back months to drag it up for you. I asked if you would push a button to blow up the south. you didn't deny it, you tried justifying it. You then claimed that I and my family are in a minority and that the south as a whole should not exist, making generalizations about bigotry and just spewing a bunch of anti-southern stereotypes. Which, while stereotypes are based on truth in some form, not al of us are that stereotype. You, however, seem to think there are enough that we should all die. You even stated "Like someone who's pro gun wouldn't want me blown away"? as a justification for it.

You are as prejudice to people like me as you claim trump is. I asked you many times before it escalated to this level of ferocity between us to disavow what you said, and instead of clarifying it, you tried justifying it. No. A persons views on marriage and homosexuality do not call for them dying and they do not have to explain that opinion to you. You may claim that what I said about bleeding hearts was the same, so let me reiterate that I only said that in response to your ilk. Don't come in here talking about negs either. I hardly ever neg you, yet you neg posts that don't even mention you. Even when I tried to be nice and say "love you dave" you took it as sarcasm like a pompous douche. I'm not the only one who sees your BS and if that bothers you then stop baiting like you were already banned for once from this thread. I've said my peace to you, I'm not a racist, a bigot, or homophobic. Nor are a larger portion of people where I come from than you believe. Its sad, you probably would have supported that firebombing the other day, then you'd claim I would have supported it if it were done to a Sanders HQ.

Im not responding anymore. This has derailed the thread enough. Just know that even Trump losing won't change what I think of you. I don't care whether people believe what I post. I post it and let people chew on it and leave it to them to disprove it or whatever. There are plenty here I can get along with. You however are a whole different story and the worst spokesman for your political affiliation here.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> I think you're getting this wrong. Colombia had an extraordinary low turnaout, which skewed any kind of prediction. And polling got right Brexit aside from what people say.
> 
> The correlation between this kind of lead and wining is .96. If anything, there is reasoning to assume a higher Hillary turnaout than Trump specially in the hispanics camp and women.
> 
> Unless you have a serious black swan this is over, Clinton is focusing resources to low ballots and is starting to campaign in highly unlikely places like Arizona, Texas and Giorgia


Why didn't polls pick up on the low turnout in Columbia? :shrug

Columbia had lower than expected turnout while Brexit had higher than expected turnout. Most Brexit polling were within the margin of error but not many predicted the correct outcome. It is a trend globally that the results of elections have been skewing either conservative or anti-establishment, probably due to pushback against globalisation, but many polls often don't reflect that. Could it be giving too much weight to liberal leaning respondent to become likely voters or too little to conservative leaning ones?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> You know what you said. I'm not going back months to drag it up for you. I asked if you would push a button to blow up the south. you didn't deny it, you tried justifying it. You then claimed that I and my family are in a minority and that the south as a whole should not exist, making generalizations about bigotry and just spewing a bunch of anti-southern stereotypes. Which, while stereotypes are based on truth in some form, not al of us are that stereotype. You, however, seem to think there are enough that we should all die. You even stated "Like someone who's pro gun wouldn't want me blown away"? as a justification for it.
> 
> You are as prejudice to people like me as you claim trump is. I asked you many times before it escalated to this level of ferocity between us to disavow what you said, and instead of clarifying it, you tried justifying it. No. A persons views on marriage and homosexuality do not call for them dying and they do not have to explain that opinion to you. You may claim that what I said about bleeding hearts was the same, so let me reiterate that I only said that in response to your ilk. Don't come in here talking about negs either. I hardly ever neg you, yet you neg posts that don't even mention you. Even when I tried to be nice and say "love you dave" you took it as sarcasm like a pompous douche. I'm not the only one who sees your BS and if that bothers you then stop baiting like you were already banned for once from this thread. I've said my peace to you, I'm not a racist, a bigot, or homophobic. Nor are a larger portion of people where I come from than you believe. Its sad, you probably would have supported that firebombing the other day, then you'd claim I would have supported it if it were done to a Sanders HQ.
> 
> Im not responding anymore. This has derailed the thread enough. Just know that even Trump losing won't change what I think of you. I don't care whether people believe what I post. I post it and let people chew on it and leave it to them to disprove it or whatever. There are plenty here I can get along with. You however are a whole different story and the worst spokesman for your political affiliation here.


Of course you wont quote me saying I want you and your family dead, because I never said it. 

Now you are saying, you asked if I could would I blow up the south, and you say I did not even try to deny yet. That means I did not say yes. But you just assume I want to. LOL
As for justifying it. You mean I gave examples of how the south is racist and bigoted? But you know I never said I want everyone in the south dead because I never said that. That is just
your fantasy claiming I said that. So again quote me if I ever said anything like I want you and your family dead or the south dead. QUOTE IT

If you want to keep claiming I want everyone to die, QUOTE IT. Or stop making that BS up. 

I have said a million times, yes I am intolerant of racist, sexists, bigots etc etc. You act like that is a bad thing. 

Here is the problem with you, you think you have the right to tell people that same sex marriage is wrong and that being gay is a sin, yet you get all upset when peope call you out on it. If you are so proud of being against same sex marriage and gay people, why do you care what other people think about you that disagree? 

Sorry but if I see someone calling a black person the N word, I am going to claim that person is a racist. if you are going to get upset at people trying to make you justify your view then you should not be giving yoru view especially on a DISCUSSION forum.

You have made it known to the board, that you cant stand me, then you say love you dave in a post in a discussion and you want to claim its not sarcastic? It was a baiting post and instead of taking the bait you got negged for it. Dont get all upset because if backfired.

As for me supporting the firebombing, see just more BS from you, just making up things. 

You keep claiming you are not responding anymore yet you keep brining up my name in your posts. I was taking a break from this thread for a while until someone told me you talking trash about me. I even ignored it a couple of times until you kept doing it. And now you are playing the victim because I called you out on it.

As for me being the worst spokesman for my political affiliation here, you can claim what ever you want, its funny you love Trump for not being PC and for being blunt, yet someone from the left isnt PC, is blunt and you get all upset. Not to mention, you can claim what ever you want about me or how blunt or crass I am, but at least I am informed and back up my views with facts and not BS Trump memes that can be debunked in seconds with a quick google search or search of snopes.

Its just ironic a Trump support always hating how the libs want to be so PC yet I am far from PC and you get pissed at that too.

S stop mentioning my name and claiming things I never said without quoting it. The only one derailing the thread is you but constantly bringing me up in your posts.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Why didn't polls pick up on the low turnout in Columbia? :shrug


Because no poll can funct under the assumption of extreme low turnouts like the one in Colombia (more than 70% of the population) the lower the turnaout, the less likely you're of selecting a likely voter while conducting a poll. So your sample is repleted with false positives



FriedTofu said:


> Columbia had lower than expected turnout while Brexit had higher than expected turnout. Most Brexit polling were within the margin of error but not many predicted the correct outcome. It is a trend globally that the results of elections have been skewing either conservative or anti-establishment, probably due to pushback against globalisation, but many polls often don't reflect that.


Brexit was always a toss-up. Every aggregator leaned to that conclussion, if you follow the averages with detention you would see that Leave was on the rise so it has momentum. only in June, Leave led in 17 polls, Remain in 14, 3 ties. There is no conclussion where you can say "polls got it wrong", because there was not tracker were Remain was with more than 1.5 point of distance.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36271589
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/06/britain-s-eu-referendum

Also, most trackers has 9 or 10 points for undecided voters. Brexit was got wrong by betting markets

And i don't think there is an outcome where you can come to the conclussion of elections skewing in favor of anti-stablishment. First conservatives/right wing are always more consistent in enthusiasm which is traduced that they tend to get the adventage in low turnouts, which is also coincidental with bad polling so you can have a mixed effect there for skewing but nothing more than that. Outside of Brexit were it's the other example? Hungary and Colombia? both are cases of extreme low turnouts which coincidentally were wins for anti-stablishment movements



FriedTofu said:


> Could it be giving too much weight to liberal leaning respondent to become likely voters or too little to conservative leaning ones?


i don't think in any of those. 

I mean it could be any, but at the same time there are other multiple explanations, for example, in reality when turnaout tend to be less stable (for example in mid term elections) your prediction capacity is always going to be low. General elections,in exchange, tend to have bigger turnaouts by definition so are more easy to predict.

It's important to understand than when we see two phenom together it doesn't mean that there is a causality between boths. Are public polls less trust worthy today than in the past? yes, this mean that they haven't been able to predict anti-stablishment movements? nop


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@Beatles123 & @birthday_massacre 

Get a room. Get your hate fuck on. And get over it already.

:saul


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Of course you wont quote me saying I want you and your family dead, because I never said it.
> 
> Now you are saying, you asked if I could would I blow up the south, and you say I did not even try to deny yet. That means I did not say yes. But you just assume I want to. LOL
> As for justifying it. You mean I gave examples of how the south is racist and bigoted? But you know I never said I want everyone in the south dead because I never said that. That is just
> your fantasy claiming I said that. So again quote me if I ever said anything like I want you and your family dead or the south dead. QUOTE IT
> 
> If you want to keep claiming I want everyone to die, QUOTE IT. Or stop making that BS up.
> 
> I have said a million times, yes I am intolerant of racist, sexists, bigots etc etc. You act like that is a bad thing.
> 
> Here is the problem with you, you think you have the right to tell people that same sex marriage is wrong and that being gay is a sin, yet you get all upset when peope call you out on it. If you are so proud of being against same sex marriage and gay people, why do you care what other people think about you that disagree?
> 
> Sorry but if I see someone calling a black person the N word, I am going to claim that person is a racist. if you are going to get upset at people trying to make you justify your view then you should not be giving yoru view especially on a DISCUSSION forum.
> 
> You have made it known to the board, that you cant stand me, then you say love you dave in a post in a discussion and you want to claim its not sarcastic? It was a baiting post and instead of taking the bait you got negged for it. Dont get all upset because if backfired.
> 
> As for me supporting the firebombing, see just more BS from you, just making up things.
> 
> You keep claiming you are not responding anymore yet you keep brining up my name in your posts. I was taking a break from this thread for a while until someone told me you talking trash about me. I even ignored it a couple of times until you kept doing it. And now you are playing the victim because I called you out on it.
> 
> As for me being the worst spokesman for my political affiliation here, you can claim what ever you want, its funny you love Trump for not being PC and for being blunt, yet someone from the left isnt PC, is blunt and you get all upset. Not to mention, you can claim what ever you want about me or how blunt or crass I am, but at least I am informed and back up my views with facts and not BS Trump memes that can be debunked in seconds with a quick google search or search of snopes.
> 
> Its just ironic a Trump support always hating how the libs want to be so PC yet I am far from PC and you get pissed at that too.
> 
> S stop mentioning my name and claiming things I never said without quoting it. The only one derailing the thread is you but constantly bringing me up in your posts.


Once again, wrong on mostly everything. I don't NEED to quote you because instead of flat out saying "NO." you gave examples of why it needed to die You evaded a flat out answer because in your eyes its not a bad thing..

And yes, it wasn't baiting. Thats a fact and I meant it so don't come at me with that. It doesn't matter what you think it looked like...If the same could be applied to you, you should have been clear instead of leaning closer to yes than no. Now, as I said, im done.

I don't care if you think you can debunk everything i say, I post anything I see as interesting and let yall discuss if its factual or not. I never claimed to be an intellectual, but at least I can agree to disagree with people instead of saying im smart and they aren't. Elitism is poison.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Once again, wrong on mostly everything. I don't NEED to qote you because instead of flat out saying "NO." yoy gave examples of why it needed to die You evaded a flat out answer.


so you are now admitting, I never said that I wish you and your family were dead.

You are now just claiming I never humored your ridiculous question of do I want you and your family dead. 

So now that you admitted I never said that, stop saying it in your posts.

Stop talking about me and get back to talking about the election and if you want to talk more about it then send me a PM.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> so you are now admitting, I never said that I wish you and your family were dead.
> 
> You are now just claiming I never humored your ridiculous question of do I want you and your family dead.
> 
> So now that you admitted I never said that, stop saying it in your posts.
> 
> Stop talking about me and get back to talking about the election and if you want to talk more about it then send me a PM.


Wrong again, PM sent.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

FFS BM and Beatles just ignore each other already, you're fucking up this thread.

Neither of you will ever back down or see each other's sides so give. it. up.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> FFS BM and Beatles just ignore each other already, you're fucking up this thread.
> 
> Neither of you will ever back down or see each other's sides so give. it. up.


I have been ignoring him until he decided to claim three times I said i wanted he and his family dead which is not true. I even ignored it the first couple fo times , even reported him saying it, and the mods did nothing.

So if someone was claiming, oh you want them and their family dead, and keep making that claim, you are really going to ignore it?

The only person fucking up the thread is him by keep mentioning my name and claiming something that is not even true.

So you wouldn't call out someone that was making that claim about you?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I have been ignoring him until he decided to claim three times I said i wanted he and his family dead which is not true. I even ignored it the first couple fo times , even reported him saying it, and the mods did nothing.
> 
> So if someone was claiming, oh you want them and their family dead, and keep making that claim, you are really going to ignore it?
> 
> The only person fucking up the thread is him by keep mentioning my name and claiming something that is not even true.
> 
> So you wouldn't call out someone that was making that claim about you?


Oh, now you mention ME in the thread..nice.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Can you guys just hatefuck already and move on, good God.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I have been ignoring him until he decided to claim three times I said i wanted he and his family dead which is not true. I even ignored it the first couple fo times , even reported him saying it, and the mods did nothing.
> 
> So if someone was claiming, oh you want them and their family dead, and keep making that claim, you are really going to ignore it?
> 
> The only person fucking up the thread is him by keep mentioning my name and claiming something that is not even true.
> 
> So you wouldn't call out someone that was making that claim about you?


Yes I would ignore it because if I had them on ignore it would be because I already thought they were a useless buffoon. Therefore their words have no more effect than a chatty parrot.

You just keep taking the bag of shit he's trying to hand you, and to be honest you are making it worse by a writing manner which comes off as pretty condescending.

That's my only 2c on this, have a nice day and God Bless Ameri-Trump.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Yes I would ignore it because if I had them on ignore it would be because I already thought they were a useless buffoon. Therefore their words have no more effect than a chatty parrot.
> 
> You just keep taking the bag of shit he's trying to hand you, and to be honest you are making it worse by a writing manner which comes off as pretty condescending.
> 
> That's my only 2c on this, have a nice day and God Bless Ameri-Trump.


hopefully we worked this out in PMs just now

lets see if we can both put this behind us.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Hilarious, but absolutely brutal. McFarlane went for Trump's jugular with this.

Edit: Also isn't Beatles like 12 or something? I get that he's incredibly annoying, and I'd find him even more so if he was coming after me the way he has been after BM. He really isn't worth wasting time thinking about though.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/788211802739843073
The U.S.'s Deep State intervenes in and disrupts elections all over the world, Justin; hardly a surprise that the Democratic Party would do the same thing at home. (Of course Raimondo, like I, knew the score seven months ago.)


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Hilarious, but absolutely brutal. McFarlane went for Trump's jugular with this.
> 
> Edit: Also isn't Beatles like 12 or something? I get that he's incredibly annoying, and I'd find him even more so if he was coming after me the way he has been after BM. He really isn't worth wasting time thinking about though.


McFarlane really hates Trump doesnt he lol

As for beatles, it should all be over now, we worked it out in PM so it should be fine now.




Wrestling Forum's Biggest Chicago Cubs Fan said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/788211802739843073
> The U.S.'s Deep State intervenes in and disrupts elections all over the world, Justin; hardly a surprise that the Democratic Party would do the same thing at home. (Of course Raimondo, like I, knew the score seven months ago.)


Dont act like Trump supporters have not been doing the same thing. Trump supporters do it way more often too. Both are wrong but Trump is the one who started all this. You even have Trump supporters saying they would kill Hillary Clinton and Trump supporters bringing guns to Clinton HQs in some cities and said they will bring their guns to polling stations for the election.


http://usuncut.com/news/trump-supporter-openly-threatens-kill-hillary-clinton-shes-elected-video/


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> McFarlane really hates Trump doesnt he lol
> 
> As for beatles, it should all be over now, we worked it out in PM so it should be fine now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont act like Trump supporters have not been doing the same thing. Trump supporters do it way more often too. Both are wrong but Trump is the one who started all this. You even have Trump supporters saying they would kill Hillary Clinton and Trump supporters bringing guns to Clinton HQs in some cities and said they will bring their guns to polling stations for the election.
> 
> 
> http://usuncut.com/news/trump-supporter-openly-threatens-kill-hillary-clinton-shes-elected-video/


Trump supporters have done it more? You mean Trump supporters have rioted and attacked people at hillary events? There must be loads of documentation for all this! I love how you always say "Well they do it too" which you're not wrong on usually but then bring up "They do it more often too" which is a load of crap, like seriously? Must you always try to push this? You were in hiding when "leftists" were attacking people left and right.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Hilarious, but absolutely brutal. McFarlane went for Trump's jugular with this.


A Hollywood liberal went after Trump? Wow. How brave, how bold.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Trump supporters have done it more? You mean Trump supporters have rioted and attacked people at hillary events? There must be loads of documentation for all this! I love how you always say "Well they do it too" which you're not wrong on usually but then bring up "They do it more often too" which is a load of crap, like seriously? Must you always try to push this? You were in hiding when "leftists" were attacking people left and right.


There are way more examples of Trump supporters attacking Clinton supporters than the other way around. Are you really going to deny that? Trump directs his supporters to attack any protestors. 

I also love how you even admit, I'll say something, and then which I am not wrong on usually. Most of the violence comes from Trump supporters, you honestly cannot deny that.

Most times when you see a report of violence having to do with this election, it's a Trump supporter doing it.

Do you think its ok that Trump supporters bring guns and camped out in front of a Hillary HQ?

Do you think its ok that Trump supporters plan to bring guns to polling stations to intimidate voters?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Hilarious, but absolutely brutal. McFarlane went for Trump's jugular with this.
> 
> Edit: Also isn't Beatles like 12 or something? I get that he's incredibly annoying, and I'd find him even more so if he was coming after me the way he has been after BM. He really isn't worth wasting time thinking about though.


I don't recall having an issue with you.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> I don't recall having an issue with you.


You don't, I do find some of your posts annoying on occasion, but I'm sure plenty of people find plenty of my posts annoying too, don't think anything of it.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> Not that any of this is at all surprising, but this was released today


Not saying this is untrue, but when you've got overdramatization and bush league production values up the wazoo don't be surprised when no one takes your internet 'News' site seriously.

Honestly this comes off looking like 'Mr Simpson... Mr Simpson Nooooo!'


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Not saying this is untrue, but when you've got overdramatization and bush league production values up the wazoo don't be surprised when no one takes your internet 'News' site seriously.


You would focus on everything but the substance.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Stay and fight with Whom? Glenn Beck? We are the party of CUCKS.


There are millions of conservatives, just like me, that are fed up with this whole election. We are fed up with the whole idea of sending liberals to run against liberals. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are cut from the same cloth...if you actually take a very close look and are willin g to do so you will see their policies are very close to each other in most aspects. We want a better nation, but I will not go along with a liberal fascist like Trump who thinks he can get his way by bullying everyone...especially the folks he needs to get his policies passed. I am a patriot, not a nationalist. If a Trump administration decides to go along in a direction I am unwilling to go...I will shove my middle finger in the air towards him and tell him to go fuck himself. I do not show blind allegiance to anyone. The Founding Fathers warned about this. 

Besides...let me explain to you a little about what service really means. Doing your part is more than just sitting here on WF and showing cute little videos and spouting catchphrases. I have given a lot for this country. I volunteered to join the Army, and went to the Balkans 7000 miles away to help folks that were being slaughtered for the simple reason they were a different religion. Wouldn't surprise me if your idea of military service is campaign mode on Call of Duty. I have voted in every election and have volunteered for campaigns. I vote for President on down to my local school board. If there was an election tomorrow to determine whether or not Tijuana donkey shows are legal in my neighborhood...I'm voting on it. I e-mail and call my reps and Senators on issues, I stay involved. I ask questions. That's what it takes to be a citizen and an active one. 

Judging from your comments...I'm sure that you plan to just sit home if he loses and that's it. If that's the case, fine. But, that gives you no right whatsoever to question me and my decision. I am doing the right thing, even if it doesn't seem like it to you. I will continue to remain active and vigilant...but I'm not going to let this country slide into a dictatorship from either side...not without a fight.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Let's stop pretending Hillary and Trump are liberals because neither are. They are moderates to center right. Not sure why people keep claiming they are liberals.

The only reason some may claim Hillary is a liberal now is because Bernie pushed her to the left in the primaries but we all know she won't be that liberal once she is president. Just like Obama, Obama was totally a centrist.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> Not that any of this is at all surprising, but this was released today


not surprised this happens, but to see it documented is somewhat repulsive.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> You would focus on everything but the substance.


Forgive me if the 'substance' is coming from a guy infamous of selectively editing his videos to fit his narrative and is a paid Breibart operative.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Goku said:


> not surprised this happens, but to see it documented is somewhat repulsive.


This and Clinton Cash can make for some good watching, it's surreal how far we've come and fallen in Politics.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Forgive me if the 'substance' is coming from a guy infamous of selectively editing his videos to fit his narrative and is a paid Breibart operative.


No, I won't forgive you for continuing to present fallacies as if they're at all valid. Any other requests?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> No, I won't forgive you for continuing to present fallacies as if they're at all valid. Any other requests?


http://mediamatters.org/research/20...se-shows-hes-still-hack-not-journalist/213783

Whatever floats your boat. Dude has been trying to stay relevant since the ACORN video without much success.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Whatever floats your boat.


I'm not sure why you're quoting my last post, seeing as how you've evidently (and unsurprisingly) failed to comprehend it in spectacular fashion by making the exact same error once again, seemingly without even realizing it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

A state that has a hundreds of years worth of dictating regime changes and influencing political leadership in dozens of countries (and all of it has been proved) - and a country that is currently in the process of trying to overthrow a current leader in a middle eastern state will not influence the political leadership of its own people because it magically decided to be fair to its own people :lol 

I love some of you in here. So little knowledge, so many opinions.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> A state that has a hundreds of years worth of dictating regime changes and influencing political leadership in dozens of countries (and all of it has been proved) - and a country that is currently in the process of trying to overthrow a current leader in a middle eastern state will not influence the political leadership of its own people because it magically decided to be fair to its own people :lol
> 
> I love some of you in here. So little knowledge, so many opinions.


Are you implying that the American State is going to pick the next President not the American People?

Honestly not 100% sure.

In which case who is the American State and how do they pick who is going to be Pres? 

Again not 100% that is actually what you were saying, I mean it is an incredibly stupid thing to say, but hey, that hasn't stopped you in the past.

Problem is that growing up in a dictatorship you simply don't understand the basic cultural underpinnings of democracy. 

But hey your dictator was wonderful aye?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Are you implying that the American State is going to pick the next President not the American People?
> 
> Honestly not 100% sure.
> 
> In which case who is the American State and how do they pick who is going to be Pres?
> 
> Again not 100% that is actually what you were saying, I mean it is an incredibly stupid thing to say, but hey, that hasn't stopped you in the past.
> 
> Problem is that growing up in a dictatorship you simply don't understand the basic cultural underpinnings of democracy.
> 
> But hey your dictator was wonderful aye?


I don't think you have the brains to realize that America hasn't been a democracy for decades but rather an oligarchy ... Maybe even a couple of hundred years. Even past presidents have gone on record warning us about the power wielders that influence government :kobelol 

The 'state' here refers to the power players in that oligarchy. That group will do anything to influence a favorable regime.

Interesting that you bring up Musharraf though (actually pretending that just by childishly tossing around stupid statements you actually have a point while what you're doing is just betraying what you don't know). 

He's actually the perfect example of an American installed dictator who was put in place to fight the Taliban and had to be over-thrown via a local revolution which I was a part of myself in order to bring back democracy. Now democracy in Pakistan is still a sham because it's a feudal system and not necessarily a true democracy, but at least it's strong enough to not bend over and take it up the ass all the fucking time. Pakistan then took on Taliban on their own terms and have successfully pushed them back. With American "support" and an American installed dictator, the Taliban consistently became stronger.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> I don't think you have the brains to realize that America hasn't been a democracy for decades but rather an oligarchy ... Maybe even a couple of hundred years.


So like... how many legit elections do you say have happened in American history? I mean if its been rorted for a couple of centuries, like what... 7?

1778
1792
1796
1800
1804
1808
1812

Yeah, 7.

You're still being super vague, by Oligarchy what do you mean? As in, who are the Oligarch's and where do they derive their power?

I mean if all your saying is really rich people can have more of an influence over elections then less rich people and power has accumulated in the hands of wealthy, then duh. 

But that isn't an Oligarchy, that's a democracy wherein money has too much power.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> There are millions of conservatives, just like me, that are fed up with this whole election. We are fed up with the whole idea of sending liberals to run against liberals. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are cut from the same cloth...if you actually take a very close look and are willin g to do so you will see their policies are very close to each other in most aspects. We want a better nation, but I will not go along with a liberal fascist like Trump who thinks he can get his way by bullying everyone...especially the folks he needs to get his policies passed. I am a patriot, not a nationalist. If a Trump administration decides to go along in a direction I am unwilling to go...I will shove my middle finger in the air towards him and tell him to go fuck himself. I do not show blind allegiance to anyone. The Founding Fathers warned about this.
> 
> Besides...let me explain to you a little about what service really means. Doing your part is more than just sitting here on WF and showing cute little videos and spouting catchphrases. I have given a lot for this country. I volunteered to join the Army, and went to the Balkans 7000 miles away to help folks that were being slaughtered for the simple reason they were a different religion. Wouldn't surprise me if your idea of military service is campaign mode on Call of Duty. I have voted in every election and have volunteered for campaigns. I vote for President on down to my local school board. If there was an election tomorrow to determine whether or not Tijuana donkey shows are legal in my neighborhood...I'm voting on it. I e-mail and call my reps and Senators on issues, I stay involved. I ask questions. That's what it takes to be a citizen and an active one.
> 
> Judging from your comments...I'm sure that you plan to just sit home if he loses and that's it. If that's the case, fine. But, that gives you no right whatsoever to question me and my decision. I am doing the right thing, even if it doesn't seem like it to you. I will continue to remain active and vigilant...but I'm not going to let this country slide into a dictatorship from either side...not without a fight.


Excuse me, Bruiser, but what in the flying fuck? are you actually trying to tell me I don't fight for what I believe?! Why do you think I come to this thread despite me nearly wanting to gut myself at the stress it puts me under? You couldn't FATHOM the amount of work i put in to stay informed being that this is my first election and I've been demonized at every turn. You have no idea what its like being lambasted across social media being called a racist, sexist, bigot, and now evidently a neocon judging from your tone. I understand you care about the US, but your service to the military (which I thank God for) should not automatically earn you brownie points above the next person when it comes to loving the USA. I was born here, I'll die here, and I'd rather BE dead than see AN ACTUAL MURDERER be put in that oval office so she can sell us out to every foreign country on the map and multicultural globalism infects us like stink on a warthog, thank you very much. I want my borders closed, I want our trade deals fixed, and I want America to be a superpower even if other nations hate our guts! Show me one guy other than Trump who promised that. You can't. Ted had "Muh Bible" and nothing else. Jeb was as open border as anyone, Carson had the charisma of a pet rock, and Rand was nowhere near fiery enough to tap into what Trump did. He's the best we had, and should he get elected and none of what he promises comes to pass, I'll still thank God every day I wake up that my vote kept the most vile woman on earth away from Capitol Hill! You think I treat this like a damn game?! You think I think Trump is perfect?! Well, he may not be, but he's the only one even REMOTELY close to what we need, and I'm not about to let some liberals and Neocons with rustled jimmies tell me I'm a virgin who masturbates to Anime for believing it. Fuck the media, fuck the left and FUCK playing nice with these people! If Hilary gets in, we will never win another election for at least two to three cycles, you best believe, and by that point it'll be too late! If you really want to sit there and talk to me about fighting, then tell me how you think letting her win now is better than Trump? Better yet, if she were to win, how the hell am I supposed to LIVE?!!!! I live off of social security, not because I want to or because im freeloading. My handicap demands it. If the dems cut it, there goes my way of life as I know it, and socially, I'll be forever falsely known as a racist thanks to her narrative. You think I want to live like that? You think I want my children to live like that?? There are a lot of things about the world today that I don't even identify with my own generation on. im nearly 26 and feel 50 years old mentally already from this year alone. Pardon me if im a little pissed off at the prospect of that feeling enduring under Clinton. Yet, somehow, im still not fighting hard enough?? Homie, I fight to WAKE UP IN THE MORNING anymore because of this bullshit and what it's done to me. If I can't even choose my own candidate anymore without the rest of the world hating me, my therapist denouncing me, friends giving me weird responses and associates refusing to talk to me, maybe we deserve this shitstorm. Doesn't matter. I'll have tried. I gave it my last shot. If the rest of the world hates me for it so be it. I hope Trump wins and saves us all, but I've given up on my own happiness a long time ago and im ready for the end under the Hildabeast should it come to it fam. Maybe you think Dubya 2.0 or someone can change the social climate for people like me and other non-robots, but I can't give anymore than I already have and I'll go back to being the world's out-of-touch blame sponge if it doesn't work out. In fact, I expect it. It's all i've ever been politically. Some sort of backwards charlatan who was responsible for everything evil in the world to everyone else. At least with Trump I thought I had someone who saw it my way and was willing to make it so. If he loses, it just means I continue living my life in obscurity and mocked all the while. If you honestly believe some magical candidate will come along and convince the people who ruin this country not to be assholes, you go right ahead. I think we already have a chance and are wasting it, and im ready to watch the world burn when we do, because im too pissed to keep feeling like this the more my life goes on. Im ready for us to either unfuck ourselves or if not, I can just waste away like it's seemed I was destined to do in today's world. I find it hard to give more of a damn than I do already for my own llfe, let alone a world I don't even recognize anymore.


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> http://mediamatters.org/research/20...se-shows-hes-still-hack-not-journalist/213783
> 
> Whatever floats your boat. Dude has been trying to stay relevant since the ACORN video without much success.


We have 15 minutes of Hillary campaign members explicitly stating how they've been paid to intentionally incite violence at political rallies. Poisoning the well just ain't gonna cut it.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

If that video is legit, the uncut videos will be released soon. 

The guy has a history of editing video together to present a false narative, so should be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> A state that has a hundreds of years worth of dictating regime changes and influencing political leadership in dozens of countries (and all of it has been proved) - and a country that is currently in the process of trying to overthrow a current leader in a middle eastern state will not influence the political leadership of its own people because it magically decided to be fair to its own people :lol
> 
> I love some of you in here. So little knowledge, so many opinions.


Nooooooo, they wouldn't do anything shady at home to manipulate elections. That's only how they operate in the rest of the world. 



Alkomesh2 said:


> Are you implying that the American State is going to pick the next President not the American People?
> 
> Honestly not 100% sure.
> 
> In which case who is the American State and how do they pick who is going to be Pres?
> 
> Again not 100% that is actually what you were saying, I mean it is an incredibly stupid thing to say, but hey, that hasn't stopped you in the past.
> 
> Problem is that growing up in a dictatorship you simply don't understand the basic cultural underpinnings of democracy.
> 
> But hey your dictator was wonderful aye?


My buddy Reaper says stupid shit all the time but he ain't wrong about this one.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Nooooooo, they wouldn't do anything shady at home to manipulate elections. That's only how they operate in the rest of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> My buddy Reaper says stupid shit all the time but he ain't wrong about this one.


Keep that up and I'm gonna be roasting your ass next :cudi


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Here is the problem with the election fraud debate at this time

Unlike say Bush/Gore where things were close, most places predicted Trump losing hard and I agree with that assessment

To be honest it comes across as Trump trying to "justify" his major loss by claiming cheating 

Most election fraud has to be somewhat subtle with a minor nudge here or there, after all it is very illegal

To say Hillary is stuffing the box to get 85% of the vote is a bit stupid as everyone but hardcore Trump supporters predicted a similar outcome

Trump is kind of a dumb hill to die on in this case

Hillary would not need fraud to beat Trump and the FRAUD claims are more of attempt to save face for being crushed than an actual stance from his camp


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Keep that up and I'm gonna be roasting your ass next :cudi


Roasted taters ain't your worst idea ever. :homer












stevefox1200 said:


> Most election fraud has to be somewhat subtle with a minor nudge here or there


There is truth in this statement, in the sense that they couldn't take any old schmuck off the street and steal an election for them. They still have to play the game and gain significant support for that person. If their favored candidate is down 20 in the polls, that's probably a bit too much to steal. Stealing an election in a close race, say for someone only down 5-10, isn't that hard to do.

One method of election fraud is known as strip and flip. As in, strip the voter rolls of "undesirable" voters to get it close, then flip the results to get the win. Let's say a Republican candidate in a Republican state is losing a race by 10%. The Republican Secretary of State strips certain demographics from the voting rolls, demographics that are most likely voting Democrat, now all of a sudden that 10 point lead is only 5. That makes it a close race and makes it much less likely that people will question the results when they hack the voting machines and flip the results.

That's not to say only Republicans do it, I was just using them for the example. The most obvious case of election fraud from Democrats came in this year's primary, which was blatant as all hell.

In Trump's case, :lol, while he is correct that election fraud occurs in the USA (not voter fraud, as he calls it), :lol, they won't need to steal the election to keep him out of the WH. He's doing that all on his own.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*





This will get buried though


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> Here is the problem with the election fraud debate at this time
> 
> Unlike say Bush/Gore where things were close, most places predicted Trump losing hard and I agree with that assessment
> 
> To be honest it comes across as Trump trying to "justify" his major loss by claiming cheating
> 
> Most election fraud has to be somewhat subtle with a minor nudge here or there, after all it is very illegal
> 
> To say Hillary is stuffing the box to get 85% of the vote is a bit stupid as everyone but hardcore Trump supporters predicted a similar outcome
> 
> Trump is kind of a dumb hill to die on in this case
> 
> Hillary would not need fraud to beat Trump and the FRAUD claims are more of attempt to save face for being crushed than an actual stance from his camp


It will be pretty easy to tell if there is election fraud in the general. If Trump is winning all the exit polls but Hillary wins those states then Trump can make a case , but if the exit polls should Trump getting destroyed like he will, then Trump will have no case.









Stinger Fan said:


> This will get buried though


LOL at using infowars as a source, the game people who claim Hillary is a demon and smells like sulfur. Maybe if this came from a legit source you could believe it but its Alex's Jones group who is breaking this. Please.

If a more legit real news site confirms this then get back to me.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

“If I’m elected president I will push for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress. They’ve been talking about that for years.”

This is something I agree with Trump on 100% tbh


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> “If I’m elected president I will push for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress. They’ve been talking about that for years.”
> 
> This is something I agree with Trump on 100% tbh


I think that is one thing most people can agree on. It is dumb a president has a term limit but not members of congress. But we all know why that is. Because the system is corrupt, and if the same people are in power it makes it easier for the banks and big corps like Monsanto to buy them off and bribe them.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Let's stop pretending Hillary and Trump are liberals because neither are. They are moderates to center right. Not sure why people keep claiming they are liberals.
> 
> The only reason some may claim Hillary is a liberal now is because Bernie pushed her to the left in the primaries but we all know she won't be that liberal once she is president. Just like Obama, Obama was totally a centrist.


How are they not Liberals? Liberalism does not have to be left-leaning. Liberalism includes many schools of thought, even modern Conservatism/Liberal Conservatism and Right-Libertarianism have its roots in Classical Liberal thought (especially the latter). Liberalism occupies the center. It can be left-leaning or right-leaning, thus Liberalism is not really synonymous with Leftism as you seem to be implying.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at using infowars as a source, the game people who claim Hillary is a demon and smells like sulfur. Maybe if this came from a legit source you could believe it but its Alex's Jones group who is breaking this. Please.
> 
> If a more legit real news site confirms this then get back to me.


The accusation isn't coming *from* Infowars but Tracey Martin who was the actual chef for the Clintons. This isn't Alex Jones going off by himself, this is the real guy and if you actually listened to it, you'd know that. But some how that isn't good enough for you. Even though, you and I both know if someone made these accusations against Trump, you'd be all over it. It's quite funny how people give Hillary Clinton a pass for her racism , she considered her mentor a great American, who was Robert Byrd. A founding member of a KKK charter. She has actual ties to the KKK, but people talk about Trump and the KKK and how he didn't disavow them quick enough. Those same people completely ignore Bill's racist comments about Obama in 08 that Hillary ignored. Can't ignore one of her heroes Margaret Sanger either. Her Ghandi joke and her being against gay marriage are other forms of bigotry that people ignore. To suggest she couldn't possibly be a bigot, or racist or is "less so" than Trump is ridiculous. You can't say use the excuse that Trump is too much of a bigot not to vote for when we know exactly the things she's said in her past. Accusation or not, if this was made on Trump it'd be everywhere and you know it. Like Trump or not, he's no saint but Hillary isn't exactly The Virgin Mary herself.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RenegadexParagon said:


> How are they not Liberals? Liberalism does not have to be left-leaning. Liberalism includes many schools of thought, even modern Conservatism/Liberal Conservatism and Right-Libertarianism have its roots in Classical Liberal thought (especially the latter). Liberalism occupies the center. It can be left-leaning or right-leaning, thus Liberalism is not really synonymous with Leftism as you seem to be implying.


Liberals are for same-sex marriage, neither Trump nor Hillary are for same-sex marriage. Hillary only changed to oh im for it now because it was political not because she really believes it. 
Trump is pro-life, that is not liberal. Trump is against the first amendment that is not liberal. Trump is against planned parenthood, that is not liberal. both Trump and Clinton are pro war which his not liberal. Both are against universal healthcare which is not liberal. 

Hillary is a moderate. She even admitted it. 

I guess it all depends on what you mean when you say liberal. if liberal and progressive are the same thing, then they are not. If your definition of liberal is not the same as moderate then that is where the disconnect is. 


What is a liberal to you, why are Trump and Clinton liberals. Maybe that will help me understand.





Stinger Fan said:


> The accusation isn't coming *from* Infowars but Tracey Martin who was the actual chef for the Clintons. This isn't Alex Jones going off by himself, this is the real guy and if you actually listened to it, you'd know that. But some how that isn't good enough for you. Even though, you and I both know if someone made these accusations against Trump, you'd be all over it. It's quite funny how people give Hillary Clinton a pass for her racism , she considered her mentor a great American, who was Robert Byrd. A founding member of a KKK charter. She has actual ties to the KKK, but people talk about Trump and the KKK and how he didn't disavow them quick enough. Those same people completely ignore Bill's racist comments about Obama in 08 that Hillary ignored. Can't ignore one of her heroes Margaret Sanger either. Her Ghandi joke and her being against gay marriage are other forms of bigotry that people ignore. To suggest she couldn't possibly be a bigot, or racist or is "less so" than Trump is ridiculous. You can't say use the excuse that Trump is too much of a bigot not to vote for when we know exactly the things she's said in her past. Accusation or not, if this was made on Trump it'd be everywhere and you know it. Like Trump or not, he's no saint but Hillary isn't exactly The Virgin Mary herself.


I know its not coming from them, they are reporting it, which puts up all kinds of red flags.

Not saying it did not happen because she did use the term super predators. I want to see a legit source report this. Also who got that guy to come out and speak?


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

holy shit is @birthday_massacre actually attempting to reach common ground with another person. 

interesting development ITT.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Can we just all agree that no matter who wins that the next 4 years are going to fucking suck?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Can we just all agree that no matter who wins that the next 4 years are going to fucking suck?


No? The quality of my life isn't solely dependent on what the government is doing. 

However, if Hillary wins and continues Obama's policy of seeking conflict with Russia, as well as fulfilling her own rhetoric, then obviously the resulting war could affect my quality of life dramatically, if not simply ending my life altogether.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't 100% agree with everything here but this is an excellent read nonetheless. The Establishment is losing control and I don't think they'll be able to maintain the status quo for much longer because people from all points on the political spectrum are pissed off. It's only a matter of time before the entire system collapses in on itself from all the condensed power and wealth that has gone to the top. 

If we don't get a complete overhaul of our government and get some people in charge who will make serious changes to our foreign and energy policies, we won't have a habitable planet anymore in a few decades time. What war doesn't destroy, climate change will finish off.

One of the dumbest arguments that Hillbots make is that you should vote for Clinton if you care about the environment. They say, Democrats acknowledge man made climate change while Republicans deny it even exists. To that, I ask them what's worse... the people who are too stupid or too delusional to understand the science or the people who know full well that they are destroying the environment but do it anyways? If environmental protectionism is your reason for voting for Clinton, then you're either a fucking moron or completely ignorant of her pro-fossil fuel policies, because she doesn't give a shit about protecting the environment. That goes against the wishes of her masters and we all know Hillary serves her masters well.



> *The Hillary Push: Manipulation You Can Believe In*
> by Carol Dansereau
> 
> It’s underway: the non-stop, 100% focus on the disgusting misogynistic acts of Donald Trump, to the total exclusion of all other issues. U.S.-supported Saudi attacks in Yemen kill hundreds of civilians, including children. New studies show that all-out climate disaster is even closer than we feared. Poverty holds millions of people in its grip. But none of this is even mentioned. And with the election less than a month away, there is virtually no discussion of Hillary Clinton’s despicable record and positions.
> 
> The One Percent interests that long for Hillary to be President are doubtlessly thrilled with how things are going. It’s not just that vital issues are being ignored. It’s also that the screws are being tightened on anyone who would consider not voting for Hillary. The wealthy beneficiaries of business-as-usual must be enjoying the spectacle of “progressives” attacking anyone straying from the One Percent script. A friend of mine was called “idiotic” the other day when she mentioned possibly voting for a third party candidate, for example. I personally was labeled “puerile” for pointing out that submission to the manipulation that surrounds us only makes things worse.
> 
> I had explained that it’s not just that a vacuum on the left creates an opening for right-wing narcissists like Trump. It’s also that the Democratic Party proactively promotes the rise of such Neanderthals to head the Republican ticket. A leaked DNC memo lists Donald Trump as someone Democrats should “elevate”. It suggests encouraging the press to cover Trump and others like him. The DNC understands that the best way to scare people into voting for someone they dislike is to get the other mainstream party to run someone even worse. And if this strategy unleashes malevolent forces on society, well that’s just collateral damage.
> 
> We’re told to ignore that leaked memo. We’re also told to pay no attention to how the DNC undermined Bernie Sanders, a candidate who was much more capable of defeating Trump according to polls than Hillary. And we’re supposed to reject third party candidates as not viable without thinking about the role played by the Democratic and Republican Parties in undercutting their viability. The Presidential debate “Commission” controlled by the two corporate parties kept third party candidates out of the debates, for instance.
> 
> The lies, confusion and hypocrisy are in full swing. Take Hillary Clinton’s environmental record and positions, for example. They’re abysmal, yet big environmental groups have endorsed her and they pretend she’s an environmental leader. We need to mobilize immediately to reverse global warming, but Hillary Clinton is the queen of fracking, having actively promoted it around the world as Secretary of State. She’s committed to the delusional “all of the above” energy strategy and has identified repairing and replacing oil and gas infrastructure as a top priority. She’s a promoter of natural gas “as a bridge” to renewables, an approach which has been debunked as utter nonsense. Just as Barack Obama’s expansion of fossil fuel extraction and infrastructure locked us into fossil fuels and undercut renewables, so will Hillary’s. And she has appointed oil industry darling Ken Salazar as her transition chief, giving him a lead role in filling her cabinet.
> 
> Hillary promises to continue Obama’s “leadership” on other environmental issues as well, even though it’s been leadership in the wrong direction. Under Obama, the White House has derailed and weakened more environmental regulations than under George W. Bush. The EPA has approved GMOs, pollinator-threatening pesticides, and all sorts of other nasty chemicals. Obama has championed corporate-drafted, environmentally-destructive “trade” agreements that extend and enshrine the worst elements of NAFTA and other existing agreements.
> 
> These and other actions have made Obama one of the most aggressively anti-environmental Presidents ever and Hillary Clinton will continue on that path. Meanwhile environmental groups pretend that the Democrats are our environmental saviors and we’re all supposed to smile and clap obediently.
> 
> These same dynamics play out on other vital issues. If you want more wars, Hillary’s a great choice for you. If you want to ensure that the insurance industry boondoggle known as the Affordable Care Act will never be replaced by actual health care via a universal single payer system, you can count on Hillary. And if the destruction of basic rights like due process and privacy is your cup of tea, under Hillary there will be plenty to go around. These are just examples of the unacceptable Obama legacy that Hillary has pledged to continue.
> 
> But no, it’s “puerile” to even consider not voting for Hillary Clinton and the One Percent-serving, war-mongering, environmentally-destructive, rights-destroying, mass incarcerating, immigrant-deporting Democratic Party. According to voices coming at us from every direction, only women-haters and fools would refuse to bow their heads and vote for Clinton since her opponent is so appalling.
> 
> But here’s the truth. For decades, in poll after poll, disgust with corporate control over our democracy has been nearly universal. Far more people now identify as Independent than Democrat or Republican. Sixty-nine percent of 18 to 29 year olds and 50 percent of 30 to 49 year olds in the U.S. would now vote for a socialist. We are actually very close to being able to build the movement for economic and political democracy that we need, including but not limited to a political party of the 99%. That’s why we’re being subjected to the charade that characterizes this election season. Only through intense manipulation, and only by pitting an outrageous bigot against a right wing militaristic corporate hack like Hillary Clinton, can those who have been pushing humanity towards the brink of disaster maintain control.
> 
> Those who are being maligned for refusing to vote for the candidates of either Wall Street party should take hope. Change is coming. The forces committed to maintaining the 1%-serving status quo can only win by manipulation and coercion. And only if we let them. If ever there was a time to organize rather than mourn, this is it.
> 
> SOURCE


"Only through intense manipulation, and only by pitting an outrageous bigot against a right wing militaristic corporate hack like Hillary Clinton, can those who have been pushing humanity towards the brink of disaster maintain control."

This sums up the 2016 election quite well.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> I don't 100% agree with everything here but this is an excellent read nonetheless. The Establishment is losing control and I don't think they'll be able to maintain the status quo for much longer because people from all points on the political spectrum are pissed off. It's only a matter of time before the entire system collapses in on itself from all the condensed power and wealth that has gone to the top.
> 
> If we don't get a complete overhaul of our government and get some people in charge who will make serious changes to our foreign and energy policies, we won't have a habitable planet anymore in a few decades time. What war doesn't destroy, climate change will finish off.
> 
> One of the dumbest arguments that Hillbots make is that you should vote for Clinton if you care about the environment. They say, Democrats acknowledge man made climate change while Republicans deny it even exists. To that, I ask them what's worse... the people who are too stupid or too delusional to understand the science or the people who know full well that they are destroying the environment but do it anyways? If environmental protectionism is your reason for voting for Clinton, then you're either a fucking moron or completely ignorant of her pro-fossil fuel policies, because she doesn't give a shit about protecting the environment. That goes against the wishes of her masters and we all know Hillary serves her masters well.
> 
> 
> 
> "Only through intense manipulation, and only by pitting an outrageous bigot against a right wing militaristic corporate hack like Hillary Clinton, can those who have been pushing humanity towards the brink of disaster maintain control."
> 
> This sums up the 2016 election quite well.


Yeesh. That's the real depressing truth isn't it. I remember 'the environment' was a pressing issue when I was 10 in 1990. Governments were going to do something. We were recycling, we were talking about alternate energies to save the planet.

There are plenty of great programs out there, but at a large scale it seems like we're still just talking about it.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Excuse me, Bruiser, but what in the flying fuck? are you actually trying to tell me I don't fight for what I believe?! Why do you think I come to this thread despite me nearly wanting to gut myself at the stress it puts me under? You couldn't FATHOM the amount of work i put in to stay informed being that this is my first election and I've been demonized at every turn. You have no idea what its like being lambasted across social media being called a racist, sexist, bigot, and now evidently a neocon judging from your tone. I understand you care about the US, but your service to the military (which I thank God for) should not automatically earn you brownie points above the next person when it comes to loving the USA. I was born here, I'll die here, and I'd rather BE dead than see AN ACTUAL MURDERER be put in that oval office so she can sell us out to every foreign country on the map and multicultural globalism infects us like stink on a warthog, thank you very much. I want my borders closed, I want our trade deals fixed, and I want America to be a superpower even if other nations hate our guts! Show me one guy other than Trump who promised that. You can't. Ted had "Muh Bible" and nothing else. Jeb was as open border as anyone, Carson had the charisma of a pet rock, and Rand was nowhere near fiery enough to tap into what Trump did. He's the best we had, and should he get elected and none of what he promises comes to pass, I'll still thank God every day I wake up that my vote kept the most vile woman on earth away from Capitol Hill! You think I treat this like a damn game?! You think I think Trump is perfect?! Well, he may not be, but he's the only one even REMOTELY close to what we need, and I'm not about to let some liberals and Neocons with rustled jimmies tell me I'm a virgin who masturbates to Anime for believing it. Fuck the media, fuck the left and FUCK playing nice with these people! If Hilary gets in, we will never win another election for at least two to three cycles, you best believe, and by that point it'll be too late! If you really want to sit there and talk to me about fighting, then tell me how you think letting her win now is better than Trump? Better yet, if she were to win, how the hell am I supposed to LIVE?!!!! I live off of social security, not because I want to or because im freeloading. My handicap demands it. If the dems cut it, there goes my way of life as I know it, and socially, I'll be forever falsely known as a racist thanks to her narrative. You think I want to live like that? You think I want my children to live like that?? There are a lot of things about the world today that I don't even identify with my own generation on. im nearly 26 and feel 50 years old mentally already from this year alone. Pardon me if im a little pissed off at the prospect of that feeling enduring under Clinton. Yet, somehow, im still not fighting hard enough?? Homie, I fight to WAKE UP IN THE MORNING anymore because of this bullshit and what it's done to me. If I can't even choose my own candidate anymore without the rest of the world hating me, my therapist denouncing me, friends giving me weird responses and associates refusing to talk to me, maybe we deserve this shitstorm. Doesn't matter. I'll have tried. I gave it my last shot. If the rest of the world hates me for it so be it. I hope Trump wins and saves us all, but I've given up on my own happiness a long time ago and im ready for the end under the Hildabeast should it come to it fam. Maybe you think Dubya 2.0 or someone can change the social climate for people like me and other non-robots, but I can't give anymore than I already have and I'll go back to being the world's out-of-touch blame sponge if it doesn't work out. In fact, I expect it. It's all i've ever been politically. Some sort of backwards charlatan who was responsible for everything evil in the world to everyone else. At least with Trump I thought I had someone who saw it my way and was willing to make it so. If he loses, it just means I continue living my life in obscurity and mocked all the while. If you honestly believe some magical candidate will come along and convince the people who ruin this country not to be assholes, you go right ahead. I think we already have a chance and are wasting it, and im ready to watch the world burn when we do, because im too pissed to keep feeling like this the more my life goes on. Im ready for us to either unfuck ourselves or if not, I can just waste away like it's seemed I was destined to do in today's world. I find it hard to give more of a damn than I do already for my own llfe, let alone a world I don't even recognize anymore.


Hey bro, you still live in a free country that's got plenty of good to it. It will continue to have plenty of good things regardless of who sits in the white house spouting off their scripted lines like a bad Roman Reigns promo. 

I hope you don't spend all day on social media and forums like this, because as you know they can be poisonous, and they are not a reflection of the real world. The real world is so much better if you stop to smell the roses. There are still a lot of roses in your country, no one has taken them all away and I bet they won't for your lifetime.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Let's stop pretending Hillary and Trump are liberals because neither are. They are moderates to center right. Not sure why people keep claiming they are liberals.
> 
> The only reason some may claim Hillary is a liberal now is because Bernie pushed her to the left in the primaries but we all know she won't be that liberal once she is president. Just like Obama, Obama was totally a centrist.


I have to keep it real here. Hillary Clinton is going to legislate from the left...that's part of the deal she cut with Bernie to get his support. Remember...that's why a lot of folks voted for Obama 8 years ago from the Dem side because Hillary wasn't left enough. The same battle the GOP is fighting now was fought after the '04 election when many Dems/libs scratched their heads on a moderate like Kerry. Many of those same voters want more than what Obama has done. They think he didn't go far enough. 



Beatles123 said:


> Excuse me, Bruiser, but what in the flying fuck? are you actually trying to tell me I don't fight for what I believe?! Why do you think I come to this thread despite me nearly wanting to gut myself at the stress it puts me under? You couldn't FATHOM the amount of work i put in to stay informed being that this is my first election and I've been demonized at every turn. You have no idea what its like being lambasted across social media being called a racist, sexist, bigot, and now evidently a neocon judging from your tone. I understand you care about the US, but your service to the military (which I thank God for) should not automatically earn you brownie points above the next person when it comes to loving the USA. I was born here, I'll die here, and I'd rather BE dead than see AN ACTUAL MURDERER be put in that oval office so she can sell us out to every foreign country on the map and multicultural globalism infects us like stink on a warthog, thank you very much. I want my borders closed, I want our trade deals fixed, and I want America to be a superpower even if other nations hate our guts! Show me one guy other than Trump who promised that. You can't. Ted had "Muh Bible" and nothing else. Jeb was as open border as anyone, Carson had the charisma of a pet rock, and Rand was nowhere near fiery enough to tap into what Trump did. He's the best we had, and should he get elected and none of what he promises comes to pass, I'll still thank God every day I wake up that my vote kept the most vile woman on earth away from Capitol Hill! You think I treat this like a damn game?! You think I think Trump is perfect?! Well, he may not be, but he's the only one even REMOTELY close to what we need, and I'm not about to let some liberals and Neocons with rustled jimmies tell me I'm a virgin who masturbates to Anime for believing it. Fuck the media, fuck the left and FUCK playing nice with these people! If Hilary gets in, we will never win another election for at least two to three cycles, you best believe, and by that point it'll be too late! If you really want to sit there and talk to me about fighting, then tell me how you think letting her win now is better than Trump? Better yet, if she were to win, how the hell am I supposed to LIVE?!!!! I live off of social security, not because I want to or because im freeloading. My handicap demands it. If the dems cut it, there goes my way of life as I know it, and socially, I'll be forever falsely known as a racist thanks to her narrative. You think I want to live like that? You think I want my children to live like that?? There are a lot of things about the world today that I don't even identify with my own generation on. im nearly 26 and feel 50 years old mentally already from this year alone. Pardon me if im a little pissed off at the prospect of that feeling enduring under Clinton. Yet, somehow, im still not fighting hard enough?? Homie, I fight to WAKE UP IN THE MORNING anymore because of this bullshit and what it's done to me. If I can't even choose my own candidate anymore without the rest of the world hating me, my therapist denouncing me, friends giving me weird responses and associates refusing to talk to me, maybe we deserve this shitstorm. Doesn't matter. I'll have tried. I gave it my last shot. If the rest of the world hates me for it so be it. I hope Trump wins and saves us all, but I've given up on my own happiness a long time ago and im ready for the end under the Hildabeast should it come to it fam. Maybe you think Dubya 2.0 or someone can change the social climate for people like me and other non-robots, but I can't give anymore than I already have and I'll go back to being the world's out-of-touch blame sponge if it doesn't work out. In fact, I expect it. It's all i've ever been politically. Some sort of backwards charlatan who was responsible for everything evil in the world to everyone else. At least with Trump I thought I had someone who saw it my way and was willing to make it so. If he loses, it just means I continue living my life in obscurity and mocked all the while. If you honestly believe some magical candidate will come along and convince the people who ruin this country not to be assholes, you go right ahead. I think we already have a chance and are wasting it, and im ready to watch the world burn when we do, because im too pissed to keep feeling like this the more my life goes on. Im ready for us to either unfuck ourselves or if not, I can just waste away like it's seemed I was destined to do in today's world. I find it hard to give more of a damn than I do already for my own llfe, let alone a world I don't even recognize anymore.


Do you come at them the way you come at people on this site and in the way you are coming at me now? If you do, no wonder people don't want to hear it. That's the problem...most EVERYBODY has lost their fucking minds in this election. People have become assholes to the point there are quite a few sites I don't frequent anymore. Remember, I get my news from places like Newsmax and WorldNetDaily. Those are not mainstream sites, I promise you. I steer clear of those sites because everyone is going crazy and just have lost all common sense. Shit, this is probably the one place that I can actually discuss this shit because not only do the moderators pay attention, but almost everyone here actually has some common sense left and I can discuss this and still respect other people and their POV. And keep in mind...once again...you're talking to someone who leans so far to the right I make Rush Limbaugh look like a bleeding heart liberal. In fact...to me Limbaugh is a hypocritical left-wing nutjob. 

I have been called online and in real life a traitor, a Communist, and a few other names so creative I wish I wrote them down. I even came very close to disemboweling this jackass at the gym I frequent that called me a pinko homosexual (although he didn't use the second word in that phrase). I slammed him up against the locker...first time I've had a near fight since I was a bouncer at a strip club years and years ago. I let him know that if he ever spoke to me like that again he'd have to have his woman bring him an absentee ballot to the hospital. I'm sorry I had to go sideways, but I had no idea where that guy was going to go. However, for the most part, everyone else I talk to I can have a decent conversation because I don't lose my mind. 

You are not getting what I'm saying...but I'm not surprised as it seems you're like the rest of the deplorables and that is you've lost all sense of reason. I appreciate the fact that Donald Trump is willing to fight, I appreciate that he will say what needs to be said. I have no problem with the fact he wants to keep it really real. However...he doesn't know when to turn off the brawler and be the businessman that he is projecting himself to be. He reminds me of a dictator of a banana republic who demands extreme loyalty or you get a bullet in the head. He makes his volunteers sign a loyalty oath that they can never say anything negative about him. He has very thin skin and doesn't like being attacked. He is a bully who can dish it out but can't take it. He has the makings of a liberal fascist who demands nothing but that we kiss his ass at every chance. Sorry, I will never, ever permit myself to live that way. NEVER! People like me are far more dangerous to Trump and Clinton because I won't just blindly go along. 

You mention that if he never keeps a promise he made you'll be happy. BULLSHIT! That's part of the reason I am not falling for his schtick. He is already starting to walk back his promises...ban of Muslims is now extreme vetting. The deportation of all illegals is now kicking the criminals out and maybe letting the good ones stay. We'll see amnesty next from him, it's obvious. If he leaves office and didn't do shit, we're going to be that much worse off. What is the point of having him in office to start with? At the end of the day, we're going to have more debt, the wall won't get built, and now our allies really won't trust us and our enemies will truly hate us. We won't be any better off. This is like watching a horror movie again and again where the killer is chasing the gorgeous model down the street. Eventually, I know how this will end...she is getting killed and gutted like a fish. That is what a Trump presidency will provide if he keeps none of his promises. 

Plus, when we now have Congresspeople now singing the praises of Wikileaks, that's when I know this train has been derailed. We have a candidate who is doing everything short of going down on Putin. He probably would if he had the right music. Putin and Russia does not have our best interests. They feel Trump can be easily manipulated, that's why they want him in office. Wikileaks is sending us all this stuff on Clinton, but the real reason is to undermine our national foundations and forment major turmoil in this country. Assange is looking to stir up shit in the United States, he has no dog in this fight. He is every bit as hostile towards Trump as he is towards Clinton. He just realizes that stirring up the pot will drive all of us over the edge. 

I appreciate your passion, dude...really I do. But I'm telling you you backed the wrong horse. The Republican Party has done this again and again...they keep blowing this. There are several candidates who would have beaten Clinton quite handily but the GOP once again went a direction that doesn't work. There are millions of us that are fed up and are not going to bail them out again. They have taken our votes for granted and now we're to the point that they are going to face the consequences. I don't ask for extra brownie points for being a proud patriot. I am secure enough in knowing who I am and I don't give a shit what people think. If people appreciate it, fine. If not, that's fine, too. But I won't blow smoke up your ass...I'll tell you exactly how I stand. 

I want a better United States, let that NEVER be in question. But I'm unwilling to believe that Donald J Trump is the answer. I can assure you Hillary Clinton is not the answer, either. Maybe it's time for us to hit bottom so we can finally see the light. But if most of you Trump fans are going to go home if this doesn't work...then don't shit on me for my choice. I will still fight for what is right. 

Now...I know you're chomping at the bit to respond...I want you to read from these sites before you do. (Everyone else can as well). It will explain where I come from, and they lay it out matter-of-factly what needs to be done to get us back on track. 

http://conservativehardliner.com/
http://libertyisftw.org 

I have no issue with you, man. I know you have a lot of passion and you are fired up. That's good...but the anger is going to kill you and destroy this country. Anger can be healthy, but you have to channel it properly.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I meant the issue can be resolved if they make it easier for people to obtain the stated IDs so both sides can done with the charade. Though I have to admit I didn't consider the difficulty of people living in rural areas in obtaining them. Most people are like you who find it bothersome just to vote once. Maybe try telling that to those who keep harping on voter fraud in here.


My father-in-law had that issue when he had to renew his driver's license this year. The county he lives in shut down its DMV building and the courthouse saw a huge cut in personnel a few months prior so they can't take up the slack. He had to drive 45 miles to the next nearest courthouse that had the means to give him his renewal. He had a stroke a couple of years back so it's that much harder for him to get around. It wouldn't be just a problem for the inner cities...would be difficult for those out in the boondocks. 

I actually have not a huge issue with getting to my polling place to vote. It is a church about four blocks away from my home. On Election Day, I can come home from work, walk over to the church, do my civic duty, and walk home. 

What would be a good idea IMHO would be one that a local conservative radio host has. He says we should move Election Day to the weekend. In fact, the entire weekend would be set out for voting. Cast ballots Saturday and Sunday, announce the winner on Monday. Might increase turn out.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Liberals are for same-sex marriage, neither Trump nor Hillary are for same-sex marriage. Hillary only changed to oh im for it now because it was political not because she really believes it.
> Trump is pro-life, that is not liberal. Trump is against the first amendment that is not liberal. Trump is against planned parenthood, that is not liberal. both Trump and Clinton are pro war which his not liberal. Both are against universal healthcare which is not liberal.
> 
> Hillary is a moderate. She even admitted it.
> 
> I guess it all depends on what you mean when you say liberal. if liberal and progressive are the same thing, then they are not. If your definition of liberal is not the same as moderate then that is where the disconnect is.
> 
> 
> What is a liberal to you, why are Trump and Clinton liberals. Maybe that will help me understand.


Well I already gave you examples of right-leaning Liberalism, such as Right-"Libertarianism". Obviously Right-Libertarians would also have extremely different views on a welfare state than you, but nonetheless Right-Libertarianism has its origins in Classical Liberalism. 

As for what Liberalism is, Liberalism is quite broad and as mentioned includes many schools so its hard to define. But if I had to, the easiest way would be that Liberalism is the rejection of absolute monarchy, state religion, hereditary privilege, the divine rights of kings, essentially the remnants of the old Feudal order. Instead Liberals tend to be in support of capitalism, representative democracy, rule of law, and some belief in civil liberties and natural rights. And it should be noted not all Liberals now or historically have defined "liberty" in the same manner, hence how left and right leaning Liberals can have stark contrasts when it comes to beliefs in things such as human rights and liberty (just look at the founders of the United States).


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I know its not coming from them, they are reporting it, which puts up all kinds of red flags.
> 
> Not saying it did not happen because she did use the term super predators. I want to see a legit source report this. Also who got that guy to come out and speak?


The mainstream media isn't going to report on it and you know that, even though he has extended time with the Clinton's. Because it would be considered a baseless accusation, but that doesn't apply to Trump. Look, I'm not defending Trump and what he has said in the past , I'm just pointing out the clear double standards. The media should never be so bias in favor of Trump or Clinton. We all know what Trump has said, but the majority of people don't know a fraction of the things Hilary has said, and people should know who they're voting for on both sides


----------



## Vic Capri

> Here is the problem with the election fraud debate at this time Unlike say Bush/Gore where things were close, most places predicted Trump losing hard and I agree with that assessment To be honest it comes across as Trump trying to "justify" his major loss by claiming cheating Most election fraud has to be somewhat subtle with a minor nudge here or there, after all it is very illegal To say Hillary is stuffing the box to get 85% of the vote is a bit stupid as everyone but hardcore Trump supporters predicted a similar outcome Trump is kind of a dumb hill to die on in this case Hillary would not need fraud to beat Trump and the FRAUD claims are more of attempt to save face for being crushed than an actual stance from his camp


Sorry, but when



> - Clinton is getting more voters illegally
> 
> - The Media continuing to dig up old shit on Trump and talking about it 24/7 and almost nothing bad about Hillary
> 
> - Protestors getting paid to "peacefully protest" Trump rallies
> 
> - The poll numbers are exaggerated
> 
> - Facebook and Google being biased towards Hillary.
> 
> - One of Trump's campaign offices gets set on fire.
> 
> - Julian Assange getting censored due to US politicall pressure (Why do this if Wikileaks is all lies that doesn't get much coverage by the press?)


And all with proof, it is a big deal and Donald Trump is justified in his statement.

If Trump was losing as bad as they're saying, why are The Powers that be fighting so hard against him like he was winning?

Wikileaks just proved everything the conspiracy theorists have been saying for years.

"Lie, Cheat, and Steal" - Hillary 2016

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> What would be a good idea IMHO would be one that a local conservative radio host has. He says we should move Election Day to the weekend. In fact, the entire weekend would be set out for voting. Cast ballots Saturday and Sunday, announce the winner on Monday. Might increase turn out.


I will never understand why voting in the leader of a country in a country of 320 million (about 50% of which at least are voters) is done in a day.

Sure there's early voting and mail-in votes, but even then it's largely rushed ... 

I mean, what's the fucking rush? You wanna get rid of lack of voter turn out - give people a week or more. There's literally no justifiable reason to restrict voting to just one day.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> What would be a good idea IMHO would be one that a local conservative radio host has. He says we should move Election Day to the weekend. In fact, the entire weekend would be set out for voting. Cast ballots Saturday and Sunday, announce the winner on Monday. Might increase turn out.





Carte Blanche said:


> I will never understand why voting in the leader of a country in a country of 320 million (about 50% of which at least are voters) is done in a day.
> 
> Sure there's early voting and mail-in votes, but even then it's largely rushed ...
> 
> I mean, what's the fucking rush? You wanna get rid of lack of voter turn out - give people a week or more. There's literally no justifiable reason to restrict voting to just one day.


I think it would be easier to exercise control how many people turn up to vote when it is just one weekday...

But then you would have to be the kind of person who believes that those in power don't have the best interests of the people they are supposed to represent at heart. You would have to be the kind of person who honestly thinks that our leaders are corrupt and will do anything they can to hold onto (and expand) the power they enjoy. Even at the expense of the people who vote to keep them in power.

Oh wait, I happen to be that kind of person... :mj


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> The mainstream media isn't going to report on it and you know that, even though he has extended time with the Clinton's. Because it would be considered a baseless accusation, but that doesn't apply to Trump. Look, I'm not defending Trump and what he has said in the past , I'm just pointing out the clear double standards. The media should never be so bias in favor of Trump or Clinton. We all know what Trump has said, but the majority of people don't know a fraction of the things Hilary has said, and people should know who they're voting for on both sides


The major difference is with things that are said, with Trump they are on tape, where was with Hillary someone is claiming she said this. 

Not saying she never said it, but if she was caught on tape saying the N word and the main stream media was burying it, that would be a much bigger story. I do find it a little fishy that just a week after someone claims there are old apprentice tapes of Trump using the N word, that now this guy is coming out claiming Hillary called him the N word.

http://fortune.com/2016/10/09/theres-allegedly-apprentice-footage-of-donald-trump-saying-the-n-word/





RenegadexParagon said:


> Well I already gave you examples of right-leaning Liberalism, such as Right-"Libertarianism". Obviously Right-Libertarians would also have extremely different views on a welfare state than you, but nonetheless Right-Libertarianism has its origins in Classical Liberalism.
> 
> As for what Liberalism is, Liberalism is quite broad and as mentioned includes many schools so its hard to define. But if I had to, the easiest way would be that Liberalism is the rejection of absolute monarchy, state religion, hereditary privilege, the divine rights of kings, essentially the remnants of the old Feudal order. Instead Liberals tend to be in support of capitalism, representative democracy, rule of law, and some belief in civil liberties and natural rights. And it should be noted not all Liberals now or historically have defined "liberty" in the same manner, hence how left and right leaning Liberals can have stark contrasts when it comes to beliefs in things such as human rights and liberty (just look at the founders of the United States).


Ok fair enough, when I think LIberal I think more of progressive but I guess that some progressives may be liberal but not all liberals are progressive. Thanks.




Carte Blanche said:


> I will never understand why voting in the leader of a country in a country of 320 million (about 50% of which at least are voters) is done in a day.
> 
> Sure there's early voting and mail-in votes, but even then it's largely rushed ...
> 
> I mean, what's the fucking rush? You wanna get rid of lack of voter turn out - give people a week or more. There's literally no justifiable reason to restrict voting to just one day.


You only need one day to vote but what they need to do is make it a federal holiday so everyone has the day off.





CamillePunk said:


> No? The quality of my life isn't solely dependent on what the government is doing.
> 
> However, if Hillary wins and continues Obama's policy of seeking conflict with Russia, as well as fulfilling her own rhetoric, then obviously the resulting war could affect my quality of life dramatically, if not simply ending my life altogether.


Trump winning is way more likely to create wars and the end of your life than Hillary winning.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump winning is way more likely to create wars and the end of your life than Hillary winning.


Not going to stake my life on your hallucination that you can see the future. I'll go with sense data, that is, hearing Hillary accusing Russia of rigging our election without evidence + throwing around rhetoric about launching an attack against them based on that baseless claim. Trump, by contrast, talks about getting along with Russia and only seems interested in "taking out ISIS", which as far as I know does not yet possess nuclear weapons. That is, until the reckless arms dealer Hillary Clinton gets into power. :mj


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Not going to stake my life on your hallucination that you can see the future. I'll go with sense data, that is, hearing Hillary accusing Russia of rigging our election without evidence + throwing around rhetoric about launching an attack against them based on that baseless claim. Trump, by contrast, talks about getting along with Russia and only seems interested in "taking out ISIS", which as far as I know does not yet possess nuclear weapons. That is, until the reckless arms dealer Hillary Clinton gets into power. :mj


Maybe we can help start their program like we did with the Iran deal, you know who else should have nukes? Well besides ISIS of course, the Palestinians! They need it, they have such a rich history in that area and should be helped!


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Maybe we can help start their program like we did with the Iran deal, you know who else should have nukes? Well besides ISIS of course, the Palestinians! They need it, they have such a rich history in that area and should be helped!


Who's saying Palestinians need nukes? And are you still seriously asserting the bullshit myth that Palestinians have no connection to the land?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Not going to stake my life on your hallucination that you can see the future. I'll go with sense data, that is, hearing Hillary accusing Russia of rigging our election without evidence + throwing around rhetoric about launching an attack against them based on that baseless claim. Trump, by contrast, talks about getting along with Russia and only seems interested in "taking out ISIS", which as far as I know does not yet possess nuclear weapons. That is, until the reckless arms dealer Hillary Clinton gets into power. :mj


Oh but you can see the future LOL Give me a break. 

As for people throwing around baseless claims no one does that more than Trump. Trump talks out of his ass 90% of the time 

As for Trump being interested in taking out ISIS like the US is currently not trying to take them out 

And this is why you should worry more about Trump than Clinton when to comes to "nuclear" as Trump calls it.


https://thinkprogress.org/9-terrify...about-nuclear-weapons-99f6290bc32a#.hv99ef6fn

Trump is very unstable, he is the last person you want with access to nuclear weapons


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Yeesh. That's the real depressing truth isn't it. I remember 'the environment' was a pressing issue when I was 10 in 1990. Governments were going to do something. We were recycling, we were talking about alternate energies to save the planet.
> 
> There are plenty of great programs out there, but at a large scale it seems like we're still just talking about it.


That's the thing, had we been dealing with the problems of burning fossil fuel for as long as we've known about it, we'd already be on 100% renewable energy. Instead, we continue giving out billions in subsidies to the people who are destroying the environment because that's how our corrupt government works. People don't seem to understand that even if we ended all fossil fuel use tomorrow and never burned any more ever again, we're still going to be facing devastating effects in the future because of what we've already burned.

People think immigration from Syria is bad now... wait till they see what happens in a few decades when the entire Middle East is uninhabitable. People think wars over oil is bad now... wait till they see wars over drinkable water. We can live without oil. We can't live without water.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> That's the thing, had we been dealing with the problems of burning fossil fuel for as long as we've known about it, we'd already be on 100% renewable energy. Instead, we continue giving out billions in subsidies to the people who are destroying the environment because that's how our corrupt government works. People don't seem to understand that even if we ended all fossil fuel use tomorrow and never burned any more ever again, we're still going to be facing devastating effects in the future because of what we've already burned.
> 
> People think immigration from Syria is bad now... wait till they see what happens in a few decades when the entire Middle East is uninhabitable. People think wars over oil is bad now... wait till they see wars over drinkable water. We can live without oil. We can't live without water.


That shit with drinking water is already happening in the US.


http://time.com/4344983/lake-mead-water-reservoir-drought/


The water in the largest reservoir in the U.S. has shrunk to the lowest level on record, following years of drought in California and surrounding states.

Water levels at Lake Mead fell to 1,074 feet last week, down from an average of 1,084 feet in February, according to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The lake is currently at 37% of capacity, according to Bureau spokesperson Rose Davis


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> I will never understand why voting in the leader of a country in a country of 320 million (about 50% of which at least are voters) is done in a day.
> 
> Sure there's early voting and mail-in votes, but even then it's largely rushed ...
> 
> I mean, what's the fucking rush? You wanna get rid of lack of voter turn out - give people a week or more. There's literally no justifiable reason to restrict voting to just one day.


Basically, it's because the Republicans will never allow this to happen as it would hurt them badly in elections and greatly benefit Democrats...
Those that vote via mail-in balloting tend to vote Republican by a very large margin, while Democrats tend to fare better at polling stations. As a result, the lower the turnout, the better Republicans perform in elections while Democrats benefit from larger voter turnouts.
On top of that, when available, the early voting rates among blacks are significantly higher than any other group, which is why Republicans are constantly trying to limit or eliminate early voting. If mail-in ballots were heavily Democratic rather than Republican, the Republicans around the country would surely try to put a stop to that as well.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Oh but you can see the future LOL Give me a break.


Literally the opposite of what I said. 



> As for people throwing around baseless claims no one does that more than Trump. Trump talks out of his ass 90% of the time
> 
> As for Trump being interested in taking out ISIS like the US is currently not trying to take them out
> 
> And this is why you should worry more about Trump than Clinton when to comes to "nuclear" as Trump calls it.
> 
> 
> https://thinkprogress.org/9-terrify...about-nuclear-weapons-99f6290bc32a#.hv99ef6fn
> 
> Trump is very unstable, he is the last person you want with access to nuclear weapons


Yawn. Fake outrage at comments taken out of context, as per usual. His position on nuclear weapons is literally the position of every president we've had since we've had nuclear weapons, except Truman obviously. Never rule out their use (otherwise why have them at all), but hopefully never have to use them (it would be a mutually assured destruction scenario, as it's always been). Difference with Trump is he has a frank manner of speaking and tends to ramble, so he delivers those "gotcha" quotes like candy, even though he's really not saying anything controversial.

Pretty sure unstable people don't run billion dollar companies which involves negotiating with people all over the world. If he was unstable we'd have heard some crazy stories from his business dealings by now.


----------



## Big Salad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Every time I read one of birthday_massacre's posts, I'm reminded of Bill Ivey essentially bragging about how the DNC loves that their supporters are unaware and compliant, which is, of course, just a polite way of saying ignorant and spineless.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> That's the thing, had we been dealing with the problems of burning fossil fuel for as long as we've known about it, we'd already be on 100% renewable energy. Instead, we continue giving out billions in subsidies to the people who are destroying the environment because that's how our corrupt government works. People don't seem to understand that even if we ended all fossil fuel use tomorrow and never burned any more ever again, we're still going to be facing devastating effects in the future because of what we've already burned.
> 
> People think immigration from Syria is bad now... wait till they see what happens in a few decades when the entire Middle East is uninhabitable. People think wars over oil is bad now... wait till they see wars over drinkable water. We can live without oil. We can't live without water.


You're forgetting the migration from Africa that will happen thanks to the WHO handing out vaccines to people living in an area that cannot sustain that many people, nor the organizations sending food and these people have nothing but time and breeding to do. There is going to be massive amounts of people fleeing Africa as it becomes worse.

South America is also going to implode with high birth rates and failing socialist Governments. If the US is smart they'll build a highway to Canada so Canada can deal with it since they feel so high and mighty. Must be nice not living next to a corrupt shit hole. 

We're going to be seeing massive migrations soon, I'd say it bodes well for the Democrats to bolster their voting bloc but with that amount of people, voters is the last thing Politicians will be worrying about.. oh who am I kidding! They rich will just move away to islands and other places and seal themselves off.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> You're forgetting the migration from Africa that will happen thanks to the WHO handing out vaccines to people living in an area that cannot sustain that many people, nor the organizations sending food and these people have nothing but time and breeding to do. There is going to be massive amounts of people fleeing Africa as it becomes worse.


You don't really oppose providing vaccines to people in Africa do you?

Also Australia has Saturday voting, having voting on a working day is insane.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Big Salad said:


> Every time I read one of birthday_massacre's posts, I'm reminded of Bill Ivey essentially bragging about how the DNC loves that their supporters are unaware and compliant, which is, of course, just a polite way of saying ignorant and spineless.


I love when people like you that can't dispute the facts and evidence shown need to post bullshit like your post. The projection from people like you always amuses me. So instead of posting Ad hominem how about you actually try to refute what I say? 

Its always funny when posters like you attack me like this yet never even try to rebut what I said.

Oh I know why because you can't

You seem to be one of the most uninformed person on this board, its ironic you claim im not informed yet I always post what I say with facts and evidence unlike you.

So what exactly am I so ignorant about, do tell




CamillePunk said:


> Literally the opposite of what I said.
> 
> Yawn. Fake outrage at comments taken out of context, as per usual. His position on nuclear weapons is literally the position of every president we've had since we've had nuclear weapons, except Truman obviously. Never rule out their use (otherwise why have them at all), but hopefully never have to use them (it would be a mutually assured destruction scenario, as it's always been). Difference with Trump is he has a frank manner of speaking and tends to ramble, so he delivers those "gotcha" quotes like candy, even though he's really not saying anything controversial.
> 
> Pretty sure unstable people don't run billion dollar companies which involves negotiating with people all over the world. If he was unstable we'd have heard some crazy stories from his business dealings by now.


Oh yeah Trumps own words to questions about the topic he is speaking about is out of context. That is typical of a Trump supporter defense. 

And no Trump does not have a frank manner of speaking, he speaks out of his ass and has no clue what he is talking about. But you just claim oh that is him being taken out of context. Everything in that link was in context.

Its mind boggling the hoops Trump supporters need to jump through to defend Trump


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cabanarama said:


> Basically, it's because the Republicans will never allow this to happen as it would hurt them badly in elections and greatly benefit Democrats...
> Those that vote via mail-in balloting tend to vote Republican by a very large margin, while Democrats tend to fare better at polling stations. As a result, the lower the turnout, the better Republicans perform in elections while Democrats benefit from larger voter turnouts.
> On top of that, when available, the early voting rates among blacks are significantly higher than any other group, which is why Republicans are constantly trying to limit or eliminate early voting. If mail-in ballots were heavily Democratic rather than Republican, the Republicans around the country would surely try to put a stop to that as well.


If the USA had high voter turnout in every election, the GOP would have died out long ago.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> You don't really oppose providing vaccines to people in Africa do you?
> 
> Also Australia has Saturday voting, having voting on a working day is insane.


I'm not against helping anyone but you can't save everyone and you cannot change the entire way something works without repercussions. The way it was before was balanced, the land can only support so many people. But when you mess with that a population explosion happens.

It's irresponsible to change something you have no intention of upkeeping. Where are they going to go? Who will feed them, cloth them, teach them or get them jobs? Automation is coming so what do we do with all these people? Who tells them to stop breeding? 

It's easy to say that what the WHO did is good but it's not good long term. It's like seeing bunnies and wanting to help them, so you kill all their predators and then the bunnies do what they do, breed and eat until their food supply is gone, so they spread bringing disease and displacing others as they consume and breed until there is nothing to give.

Now who is the bad guy after you've destroyed an entire ecosystem without properly preparing for the side effects? Are you going to feed them all? Who has to give up what in order for people to keep breeding in an unsustainable fashion?

We're going to see a population and food crisis that society cannot cope with. We're going to see wars over food, water, power and living space. Even if you prepare now for the upcoming crisis, you really think anyone will step up to end the irresponsible breeding? People are no different than animals and our blind eye to this fact is why we're destroy our environment and shrug off responsibility in the name of "good".


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> I will never understand why voting in the leader of a country in a country of 320 million (about 50% of which at least are voters) is done in a day.
> 
> Sure there's early voting and mail-in votes, but even then it's largely rushed ...
> 
> I mean, what's the fucking rush? You wanna get rid of lack of voter turn out - give people a week or more. There's literally no justifiable reason to restrict voting to just one day.





Cabanarama said:


> Basically, it's because the Republicans will never allow this to happen as it would hurt them badly in elections and greatly benefit Democrats...
> Those that vote via mail-in balloting tend to vote Republican by a very large margin, while Democrats tend to fare better at polling stations. As a result, the lower the turnout, the better Republicans perform in elections while Democrats benefit from larger voter turnouts.
> On top of that, when available, the early voting rates among blacks are significantly higher than any other group, which is why Republicans are constantly trying to limit or eliminate early voting. If mail-in ballots were heavily Democratic rather than Republican, the Republicans around the country would surely try to put a stop to that as well.



The one thing that has actually come out as a positive in this election is the fact that many people are finally getting involved for the first time in the voting process or getting their registration out of mothballs after many years. Yes, many of them are stark raving mad lunatics but it amazes me that there has been all this voter apathy forever. 

Don't forget a lot of mail-in ballots come from members of the military. That's one reason why you're not going to kill early voting or absentee ballots...especially when almost 100% of military families turn out to vote. 

I think a weekend should be enough time...doing it on a Saturday or Sunday would really allow more people to do it and they would have less of an excuse to not vote.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I'm not against helping anyone but you can't save everyone and you cannot change the entire way something works without repercussions. The way it was before was balanced, the land can only support so many people. But when you mess with that a population explosion happens.
> 
> It's irresponsible to change something you have no intention of upkeeping. Where are they going to go? Who will feed them, cloth them, teach them or get them jobs? Automation is coming so what do we do with all these people? Who tells them to stop breeding?
> 
> It's easy to say that what the WHO did is good but it's not good long term. It's like seeingseeing bunnies and wanting to help them, so you kill all their predators and the the bunnies do what they do, breed and eat until their food supply is gone, so they spread bringing disease and displacing others as they consume and breed until there is nothing to give.
> 
> Now who is the bad guy after you've destroyed an ntire ecosystem without properly preparing for the side effects? Are you going to feed them all? Who has to give up what in order for people to keep breeding in an unsustainable fashion?
> 
> We're going to see a population and food crisis that society cannot cope with. We're going to see wars over food, water, power and living space. Even if you prepare now for the upcoming crisis, you really think anyone will step up to end the irresponsible breeding? People are. No different than animals and no our blind eye to this fact is why we're destroy our environment and shrug off responsibility in the name of "good".


I can sum up your philosophy in two words. Prime Directive.

---


----------



## witcher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

American elections have become a laughing stock for the rest of world. Two worst idiots in america are running for presidency.
Whoever wins America looses.
I do think trump is a better candiidate than clinton, he might be a bad person but atleast hes capable of running USA, clinton on other hand was always taking stupid decisions.
Remember she was the one who voted for letting pakistan goavernment know that they are gona hunt osama. If they had listened to clinton osama would have been still alive.
She was also the one who voted to go war with iraq that caused trillions of money and reason why US is in such a big debt.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

OK I'm gonna do this now because three people are doing this in this thread. 

It's "loses" not "looses". The latter is used when describing diarrhea while the former is used when describing the negative outcome of something 

I also don't give a damn about your first or second or third language excuses because English isn't my first language either and I actually keep working on my language skills. I even look up how to use certain words and which spellings I should use as I'm typing something. It takes less than 1 second. 

I know it's now considered rude to fix other people's language but at this point I'm on the verge of considering it rude to not make an attempt to improve oneself and pay attention to grammar and all that stuff.

Get some English language lessons.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cabanarama said:


> Basically, it's because the Republicans will never allow this to happen as it would hurt them badly in elections and greatly benefit Democrats...
> Those that vote via mail-in balloting tend to vote Republican by a very large margin, while Democrats tend to fare better at polling stations. As a result, the lower the turnout, the better Republicans perform in elections while Democrats benefit from larger voter turnouts.
> On top of that, when available, the early voting rates among blacks are significantly higher than any other group, which is why Republicans are constantly trying to limit or eliminate early voting. If mail-in ballots were heavily Democratic rather than Republican, the Republicans around the country would surely try to put a stop to that as well.


Doubt it's just the repubs because 1 day voting has been around forever and neither party has ever brought it up as an issue over the years. If it hurt just the democrats, they'd be doing something to stop it, not maintaining the status quo. Obviously voter turn out hurts both parties (now whether it's even or not is not something we'd know because it's not part of the system and therefore we'd have to make a lot of assumptions and assumptions usually turn out to be wrong). Why would it just hurt the dems? :lol 

I don't know why you guys keep trying to place the blame for specific shit that either party is capable of attempting to change on just one party. 1 Day voting is archaic because it used to be fine for smaller populations. With modern population levels it's literally one of the most retarded things ever. You're choosing the prime executive of your country and you only have a few hours to make sure you are able do so.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I am just assuming the one day thing is so the window of opportunity for election fraud is smaller. Anyway, voting isn't limited to one day as there are early votes for overseas voters or people who are unavailable on the voting day. As for holding it on a weekend, I suppose it would cost more due to overtime pay or harder to get volunteers. Though it should really be a federal holiday/half day holiday for a national election like the presidential elections to encourage higher voter turnout.

Population size shouldn't be an issue for a one day voting period if there were sufficient planning to have enough polling places to serve the surrounding areas. Not like the number of schools or churches that serve as polling station didn't increase along with the increase in population. The issue with American politics is the campaign runs for a whole year or more, for a 4 year term. That's just crazy.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> OK I'm gonna do this now because three people are doing this in this thread.
> 
> It's "loses" not "looses". The latter is used when describing diarrhea while the former is used when describing the negative outcome of something
> 
> I also don't give a damn about your first or second or third language excuses because English isn't my first language either and I actually keep working on my language skills. I even look up how to use certain words and which spellings I should use as I'm typing something. It takes less than 1 second.
> 
> I know it's now considered rude to fix other people's language but at this point I'm on the verge of considering it rude to not make an attempt to improve oneself and pay attention to grammar and all that stuff.
> 
> Get some English language lessons.


Also, the letter the 'H' is pronounced 'Aitch' not fucking 'Haitch'.

Also learn how to use the word literally properly in the correct fucking context.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I'm not against helping anyone but you can't save everyone and you cannot change the entire way something works without repercussions. The way it was before was balanced, the land can only support so many people. But when you mess with that a population explosion happens.
> 
> It's irresponsible to change something you have no intention of upkeeping. Where are they going to go? Who will feed them, cloth them, teach them or get them jobs? Automation is coming so what do we do with all these people? Who tells them to stop breeding?
> 
> It's easy to say that what the WHO did is good but it's not good long term. It's like seeingseeing bunnies and wanting to help them, so you kill all their predators and the the bunnies do what they do, breed and eat until their food supply is gone, so they spread bringing disease and displacing others as they consume and breed until there is nothing to give.
> 
> Now who is the bad guy after you've destroyed an ntire ecosystem without properly preparing for the side effects? Are you going to feed them all? Who has to give up what in order for people to keep breeding in an unsustainable fashion?
> 
> We're going to see a population and food crisis that society cannot cope with. We're going to see wars over food, water, power and living space. Even if you prepare now for the upcoming crisis, you really think anyone will step up to end the irresponsible breeding? People are. No different than animals and no our blind eye to this fact is why we're destroy our environment and shrug off responsibility in the name of "good".


I get applying "irresponsible breeding" to rabbits, but not to people. 

As a fundamental you can't apply the same rules to animals and people. 

If providing vaccines to Africa is 'messing with their ecosystem', why is not having vaccines in the US and Australia messing with our ecosystems? 

Biggest problem with Africa is the lack of stability, which is at least due in part to all the disease, not overpopulation. It's not the lack of farmland, its the fact that its hard to farm during a war and there is almost constant war in Africa. 

People being less sick in Africa wouldn't lead to more people being born, but rather to more people making it to adulthood which would have substantial impact on the political stability on the continent. 

The average life expectancy for a woman in Zimbabwe at the moment is 34 and in the US it's 78.7 years. And that is a major factor in the lack of political stability.

So yeah, providing vaccines to Africa is helping make it more stable and preventing the need for mass migrations.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> I get applying "irresponsible breeding" to rabbits, but not to people.
> 
> As a fundamental you can't apply the same rules to animals and people.
> 
> If providing vaccines to Africa is 'messing with their ecosystem', why is not having vaccines in the US and Australia messing with our ecosystems?
> 
> Biggest problem with Africa is the lack of stability, which is at least due in part to all the disease, not overpopulation. It's not the lack of farmland, its the fact that its hard to farm during a war and there is almost constant war in Africa.
> 
> People being less sick in Africa wouldn't lead to more people being born, but rather to more people making it to adulthood which would have substantial impact on the political stability on the continent.
> 
> The average life expectancy for a woman in Zimbabwe at the moment is 34 and in the US it's 78.7 years. And that is a major factor in the lack of political stability.
> 
> So yeah, providing vaccines to Africa is helping make it more stable and preventing the need for mass migrations.


Don't bring your facts in here man! It's so much easier victim blaming people in other countries I know nothing about!


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Don't bring your facts in here man! It's so much easier victim blaming people in other countries I know nothing about!


Never mind blaming them, let's just play the fun Nazi game of dehumanising them by comparing them to animals so we can feel superior in every way possible, oh wait I think someone already started...


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> As a fundamental you can't apply the same rules to animals and people.


why


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Goku said:


> why


Beyond the whole humans evolving past base-needs to higher brain functions therefore making any comparisons extremely shallow at best, dehumanisation is a tactic used to undermine specific groups to prepare the populous to accept atrocities against said group. This is the behaviour the Nazis used against the Jews, the KKK used towards black people and far-right organisations across the globe are currently using against Muslims. It's a conditioning technique, animalistic humanisation is where you compare a group of people to animals in an attempt to deny them the traits of humanity and pave the way for genocide or abuse without causing an uproar in the rest of the populace. It's very easy to see these days with posts about "Muslim rats" and the like. Feel free to read up more but that's the general jist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Per the last Fox News Poll










Edit:Current electoral map per Wang


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Beyond the whole humans evolving past base-needs to higher brain functions therefore making any comparisons extremely shallow at best, dehumanisation is a tactic used to undermine specific groups to prepare the populous to accept atrocities against said group. This is the behaviour the Nazis used against the Jews, the KKK used towards black people and far-right organisations across the globe are currently using against Muslims. It's a conditioning technique, animalistic humanisation is where you compare a group of people to animals in an attempt to deny them the traits of humanity and pave the way for genocide or abuse without causing an uproar in the rest of the populace. It's very easy to see these days with posts about "Muslim rats" and the like. Feel free to read up more but that's the general jist.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization


You were not the poster of the original quote.

"As a fundamental you can't apply the same rules to animals and people." was the original quote.

Now I saw the context but when you prefix a point as such, you mean in a general sense. Hence, fundamental to what? Rules regarding what?

'Dehumanizing' presupposes inherent value of humans all the same and inherent sub-value of all non-humans. If you can arrive at this based on observer bias, then intra-human differences can also be arrived at based on observer bias.

I would like the fundamental explained.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> I get applying "irresponsible breeding" to rabbits, but not to people.
> 
> As a fundamental you can't apply the same rules to animals and people.
> 
> If providing vaccines to Africa is 'messing with their ecosystem', why is not having vaccines in the US and Australia messing with our ecosystems?
> 
> Biggest problem with Africa is the lack of stability, which is at least due in part to all the disease, not overpopulation. It's not the lack of farmland, its the fact that its hard to farm during a war and there is almost constant war in Africa.
> 
> People being less sick in Africa wouldn't lead to more people being born, but rather to more people making it to adulthood which would have substantial impact on the political stability on the continent.
> 
> The average life expectancy for a woman in Zimbabwe at the moment is 34 and in the US it's 78.7 years. And that is a major factor in the lack of political stability.
> 
> So yeah, providing vaccines to Africa is helping make it more stable and preventing the need for mass migrations.



Having 5-10+ children regardless of where you live is irresponsible no matter how you justify it, it's unsustainable with how the world is moving forward especially if you cannot provide for said children.

Again, I'm not against giving vaccines but the problem is that they give vaccines and bring down infant mortality rate in an area where it was high because their way of life and land could not sustain the population. Now you have population booms with no way for these people to feed themselves, work or be productive. This is the fault of many organizations. The reason why vaccines don't have an adverse effect on developed nations is because 1. the land can support the population and 2. the population isn't breeding at an uncontrollable rate. This isn't rocket science, people in developed nations are having less children while those in poorer nations are having a lot more.

Again as I stated, I'm not against giving vaccines but if you're going to start a population boom perhaps it would have been best to stabilize the region before drastically changing it. Part of the reasons there are conflicts is due to no stability, not enough ways to produce food, disease from wars and overpopulation and corrupt unstable Governments. People are fighting for food and other resources in an area that's abundant with resources. 

You're wrong, more people making it to adulthood means more breeding, did you forget where babies come from? With vaccines there is less infant mortality which means more and more people are born in an area which does not practice contraception very well and does not have the means to provide for these new people.

The age difference is simply because of the region and many factors, you'd think that with the wars and famine it would reduce the population but it has not. Again i said that it's stupid to hand out vaccines and screw up an entire system that had been working for many years without any plan to help them cope with the new influx of newborns. There are many shitholes without vaccines nor clean water that have large populations. 

Is Africa anymore stable than when the WHO and other organizations stuck their noses into Africa? Are you saying there is currently no migrations from Africa and that both climate and political instability will not create a mass migration as people are predicting? I fail to see how increasing the population exponentially is going to prevent migrations as Europe is currently looking for ways to pay parts of Africa to prevent future migrations as we speak.

Humans are animals, just higher thinking animals. Given the chance people will resort to their baser instincts. It doesn't matter race, creed, Religion or whatever. 

@yeahbaby Funny you say that since you were one of the people implying Reaper and Gandhi didn't really know much of Islam despite being Middle Eastern and being ex muslims, I guess only white Aussies know anything about the world. Maybe your country can teach everyone how to deal with migrations and peace keeping?


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:lmao


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> :lmao


So wrong but so funny. :laugh:


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I laughed too and now I feel like a terrible human being.

I'm still laughing I am SORRY.


LOL TEXAS IS IN PLAY ACCORDING SOME POLLS. This might be a total blowout. Obviously if Hill wins Texas that's total game over. And maybe game over for the world:brady6


Wait now my vote could actually count?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> I laughed too and now I feel like a terrible human being.
> 
> I'm still laughing I am SORRY.
> 
> 
> LOL TEXAS IS IN PLAY ACCORDING SOME POLLS. This might be a total blowout. Obviously if Hill wins Texas that's total game over. And maybe game over for the world:brady6
> 
> 
> Wait now my vote could actually count?


It's up to you to save us! Or Y2J.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump being a disaster and losing hard would be funny though. But nuclear war wouldn't be.

I'm torn.

lulz or nuclear war?


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> LOL TEXAS IS IN PLAY ACCORDING SOME POLLS. This might be a total blowout. Obviously if Hill wins Texas that's total game over. And maybe game over for the world:brady6
> 
> 
> Wait now my vote could actually count?


In fact Hillary is gonna start campaining Texas next week as i said before

Trump is clearly underperfoming Texas by huge numbers, for perspective, every republican in the last 20 years has win Texas by double digits.

The problem basically is, Trump's number are high the higher your demographics of non-educated whites are, meanwhile the population of texas is high on college-educated whites who are struggling to rally behind him.

If Hillary wins Texas, it means she also won Arizona AND Georgia (and maybe Alaska), those two should be firewalls to put Texas really in play. Arizona is virtually lost already and Georgia is in a margin of 2, 3 points. Trump is fliriting already with less than 200 EV

edit: About this current split in America bteween educated and non educated people in Trump support http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/20/u...lights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> Trump being a disaster and losing hard would be funny though. But nuclear war wouldn't be.
> 
> I'm torn.
> 
> lulz or nuclear war?


You can have both lulz and no nuclear war by going with Trump.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> :lmao


Alternatively:


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I see a dick and balls.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> Trump being a disaster and losing hard would be funny though. But nuclear war wouldn't be.
> 
> I'm torn.
> 
> lulz or nuclear war?


You are way more likely to have a nuclear war with Trump than Clinton. Its not even close.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are way more likely to have a nuclear war with Trump than Clinton. Its not even close.






asdf0501 said:


> Per the last Fox News Poll
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit:Current electoral map per Wang


That map needs to add in McMullin tied with Trump in Utah. Trump will probably lose Utah.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

you can't say that McMullin is tied with Trump in Utah based on two polls. Let's be serious


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> you can't say that McMullin is tied with Trump in Utah based on two polls. Let's be serious


Yes we can especially in Utah and this close to the election. Don't be surprised if McMillen wins Utah.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Another gem from the Podesta e-mails:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18353

People close to her don't believe what she says and question her mental health. This seems important. 

*checks CNN's website*

Oh. Michael Moore released an anti-Trump documentary and Trump invited Obama's half-brother to the debate. Well then.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yes we can especially in Utah and this close to the election. Don't be surprised if McMillen wins Utah.


No we can't because we have little data in how the race is gonna behave when you have 3 real horses, plus polls tend to be less precise in three races than in two, asumming that the margin the polls show is real is literally a toss-up. Saying "this close to election" mean jackshit with so little information

Saying "probably" McMullin is gonna win is like saying i'm "probably" gonna obtain a head when flipping a coin


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I see a dick and balls.


:kobelol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> No we can't because we have little data in how the race is gonna behave when you have 3 real horses, plus polls tend to be less precise in three races than in two, asumming that the margin the polls show is real is literally a toss-up. Saying "this close to election" mean jackshit with so little information
> 
> Saying "probably" McMullin is gonna win is like saying i'm "probably" gonna obtain a head when flipping a coin


Utah is not a normal state, its super Mormon and they are revolting against Trump. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nger-of-losing-utah/58002271e9b69b059243020f/

Trump has a very good shot at losing Utah. It will be close. You can deny it all you want. 

I just love people that ignore the numbers. Put your head in the sand all you want. And no its not like a coin flip. It's not a coin flip if Trump or McMillen will win Utah.

The polls are showing Trump has a very good chance at losing.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Yeah asdf you blind Trump supporter. :no:


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Utah is not a normal state, its super Mormon and they are revolting against Trump.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nger-of-losing-utah/58002271e9b69b059243020f/
> 
> Trump has a very good shot at losing Utah. It will be close. You can deny it all you want.
> 
> I just love people that ignore the numbers. Put your head in the sand all you want.


so you went from "probably" to "good shoot" and "it will be close".

Sorry, but i think i'm the one talking numbers here. Yeah, Trump can lose Utah, proyecting a lose is a completely different thing you don't have enough data to do that prediction, yet. 


But whatever, "numbers". 

edit: and seeing your edit, polls aren't predicting anything yet because an aggregate of two polls is like doing an aggregate with an small sample. Numbers...


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> so you went from "probably" to "good shoot" and "it will be close".
> 
> Sorry, but i think i'm the one talking numbers here. Yeah, Trump can lose Utah, proyecting a lose is a completely different thing you don't have enough data to do that prediction, yet.
> 
> 
> But whatever, "numbers".


the polls are the data. But ignore them all you want. I know you like to ignore facts.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*





 
@BruiserKC @CamillePunk @Miss Sally @Tater

CNN is on Clinton's Donor-list. The media IS in the tank for hill.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't even like Trump and won't be voting for him, but at this point, I hope he wins just to see Birthday Massacre's reaction.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> the polls are the data. But ignore them all you want. I know you like to ignore facts.


I'm not ignoring the data, i'm saying is not enough data to reach such a rushed conclussion. God you're dense


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> I don't even like Trump and won't be voting for him, but at this point, I hope he wins just to see Birthday Massacre's reaction.


I suspect his reaction will be whatever The Young Turks decides is the correct reaction. :mj


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> I don't even like Trump and won't be voting for him, but at this point, I hope he wins just to see Birthday Massacre's reaction.


Trump has no chance of winning.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> @BruiserKC @CamillePunk @Miss Sally @Tater
> 
> CNN is on Clinton's Donor-list. The media IS in the tank for hill.


The media is in the tank for Hillary but it doesn't change the fact that Trump is pissing away the election because it is all about him. Hell, Roger Ailes is done with the campaign because Trump refused to listen to what he needed to do in the debates and how to handle the campaign. Meanwhile Trump wants to invite Obamas half brother to the debate. The half brother happens to be a supporter of Hamas. You want to fight radical Islam but you are going to invite a supporter of radical Islam?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Damn, BM is even more down on Trump's chances than Nate Silver (also known as the guy who predicted Trump would never win a state in the primary).


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Nate Silver is not the only guy doing forecasts anyway, and Nate Silver is the one giving Trump the biggest chances of a win...


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> The media is in the tank for Hillary but it doesn't change the fact that Trump is pissing away the election because it is all about him. Hell, Roger Ailes is done with the campaign because Trump refused to listen to what he needed to do in the debates and how to handle the campaign. Meanwhile Trump wants to invite Obamas half brother to the debate. The half brother happens to be a supporter of Hamas. You want to fight radical Islam but you are going to invite a supporter of radical Islam?


He's anti Obama. That's all Voters need.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> He's anti Obama. That's all Voters need.


Its all the Trump voters need but he already has those votes. the undecided will see the hypocrisy of Trump and will be turned off but it, if they haven't already by those tapes.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> He's anti Obama. That's all Voters need.


You do realize that Obama has a positive approval rating, right? :hmm:


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Damn, BM is even more down on Trump's chances than Nate Silver (also known as the guy who predicted Trump would never win a state in the primary).


Just to reiterate, Nate Silver's personal prediction was that Trump would fare poorly, but FiveThirtyEight's model only missed on two Republican primaries, both of which it predicted in favor of Trump but actually went to Cruz.

Trash the man all you want, but the data has been good.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> You do realize that Obama has a positive approval rating, right? :hmm:


Even Trumps campaign manager admits that Obama is a popular president.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> He's anti Obama. That's all Voters need.


Sorry I will not willingly invite a supporter of radical Islam to be a guest of mine when my stance is fighting radical Islam. Does not compute. 

Then again nothing about this election surprises me anymore. You could have Ashton Kutcher come out and say we've been Punk'd and both Hillary and Trump were in on this and i wouldn't be shocked at all.


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Obama is a @#%#%&$... to any one who cares, has any presidential nominee every done nothing like hillary, the media, her party is doing all the work.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Sorry I will not willingly invite a supporter of radical Islam to be a guest of mine when my stance is fighting radical Islam. Does not compute.
> 
> Then again nothing about this election surprises me anymore. You could have Ashton Kutcher come out and say we've been Punk'd and both Hillary and Trump were in on this and i wouldn't be shocked at all.


trump is a moron, he probably does not even know that he is a supporter of radical Islam , he was just doing it because he is against Obama and it's half Kenyan brother, which to Trump "proves" Obama is not American.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It might be irrational since there is zero proof and I'm ok with that, but I still can't shake the notion the Trump did all this shit to ensure Hillary becomes president.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> It might be irrational since there is zero proof and I'm ok with that, but I still can't shake the notion the Trump did all this shit to ensure Hillary becomes president.


If that were true, he would not bring up the Bill Clinton stuff nor would he bring up the deleted emails. Not to mention all he basically told his 2nd amendment supporters they could shoot and kill Hillary if she won.

You are smarter than that to believe Trump was a plant to get Hillary the win. If he did not say all that stuff against her and Bill and still was his bigoted and crazy self then sure but not after all that stuff he said about her.

Now if you want to claim he was a plant to destroy the GOP party, that is another story. Because he has all but done that. And because of Trump a lot of GOPs could be losing their seats in the upcoming election.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> @BruiserKC @CamillePunk @Miss Sally @Tater
> 
> CNN is on Clinton's Donor-list. The media IS in the tank for hill.


What are you going to tell me next, that water is wet?



MrMister said:


> It might be irrational since there is zero proof and I'm ok with that, but I still can't shake the notion the Trump did all this shit to ensure Hillary becomes president.


The public will probably never know for certain the full extent of manipulation that went into the presidential election. Maybe Trump is a plant. Maybe he isn't. There are valid cases to be made for both positions. What I can say for certain is that whether or not he was in this to get Clinton elected, that's the end result of it. Intentional or not, the only way the 2nd worst candidate of all time gets elected is by running against the worst candidate of all time.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://fizzxo.com/madonna-offers-oral-sex-hillary-clinton-voters/



> *Madonna Offers Oral Sex for Hillary Clinton Voters*
> 
> 
> 
> Pop star Madonna got raunchy while introducing comedian Amy Schumer at a performance in New York City Tuesday night, promising the crowd sexual favors in exchange for their support of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
> “If you vote for Hillary Clinton, I will give you a blowjob. OK?” the 58-year-old Rebel Heart singer told an audience at New York’s Madison Square Garden Tuesday night. “I’m really good. I’m not a douche, and I’m not a tool. I take my time, I have a lot of eye contact, and I do swallow.”
> The comments came as Madonna warmed up the crowd with a very brief standup set ahead of the Trainwreck star’s performance at the Garden Tuesday night, according to the New York Daily News.
> Schumer took the stage afterward for her first stand-up gig since hundreds of supporters of Republican candidate Donald Trump stood up and walked out of her performance in Tampa, Florida earlier this week after the comedian called him an “orange monster.” As Breitbart previously reported, Shumer was widely booed during the performance at Tampa’s Amalie Arena, where she instructed security to remove hecklers.
> During her performance Tuesday night, Schumer read aloud a letter she composed in response to the Trump fans who walked out on her show in Tampa.
> “Dearest Tampa, I’m sorry you didn’t want me, a comedian who talks about what she believes in, to mention the biggest thing going on in our country right now,” Schumer said, adding: “How could I think it was OK to spend five minutes having a peaceful conversation with someone with different views? After the show, I want you to know that I will go straight to a rehab facility.”
> The comedian added that she looks forward to “putting this all behind us” in November, when “Hillary Clinton is our motherf*cking president.”
> Madonna has previously used sex appeal to drum up support for the Democratic presidential candidate; in September, the singer joined fellow pop star Katy Perry in stripping off her clothes to encourage Clinton voters to head to the polls in November.


Maybe this would have been a big thing in the 80's when Madonna didn't look like a trash bag ho, but I doubt that that counts for much of an incentive today. 

Not surprised that Madonna doesn't realize the difference between sex and prostitution either :kobelol


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> Just to reiterate, Nate Silver's personal prediction was that Trump would fare poorly, but FiveThirtyEight's model only missed on two Republican primaries, both of which it predicted in favor of Trump but actually went to Cruz.
> 
> Trash the man all you want, but the data has been good.


I think Nate's model has been a little trashy this year. But i associate that with the take over by ESPN, because a private model is not marketable if it doesn't provide major traffic therefore it needs to move more. This time around the model is too volatile for my taste and the inclussion of three models has been producing more confussion than clarification.

Look at this. By the middle of September before the first debate, all the forescast were beheaving like this.










Now almost all the models are converging to the prediction of PEC (which has currently Clinton with a 97% odds of a win)

I think this is mostly because Nate and his team gave too much weight to some dubious poll based on sample size, the biggest example of this is the L.A. Times poll.

Not to say that 538 is bad or anything and the volatility of their model allow to see changes before than other forecast but personally i preffer PEC and Huffingston Post for this election. Also the articles of Wang have blow out of the water the ones from 538


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> That map needs to add in McMullin tied with Trump in Utah. Trump will probably lose Utah.


There are a few leaps going on in this one post. :lol

I mean, I would love to see McMuffin win a state in the presidential election when two-thirds of the country probably hasn't even heard of him, but...










"Probably."


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> I think Nate's model has been a little trashy this year. But i associate that with the take over by ESPN, because a private model is not marketable if it doesn't provide major traffic therefore need to move more. This time around the model is too volatile for my taste an the inclussion of three models has been producing more confussion than clarification.
> 
> Look at this. By the middle of September before the first debate, all the forescast were beheaving like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now almost all the models are converging to the prediction of PEC (which has currently Clinton with a 97% odds of a win)
> 
> I think this is mostly because Nate and his tema gave too much weight to some dubious poll based on sample size, the biggest example of this is the L.A. Times poll.
> 
> Not to say that 538 is bad or anything and the volatility of their model allow to see changes before than other forecast but personally i preffer PEC and Huffingston Post for this election. Also the articles of Wang have blow out of the water those of 538


PEC is also very good (though their fans can be understandably obnoxious :lol), but it's worth noting that the fact that all polls are now converging on PEC's projection does not necessarily indicate that the PEC projection has always been the one that was most accurate. It's entirely possible that the race was closer than PEC's numbers suggested but that recent events have tilted it to the point that everyone now has it as a blowout.

It's hard to know what exactly is what based on this one election alone. Historically, do you know if 538, PredictWise, etc. have tended to be more conservative (in predictions, not leanings) or hedged more than PEC?


----------



## amhlilhaus

CamillePunk said:


> Another gem from the Podesta e-mails:
> 
> https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18353
> 
> People close to her don't believe what she says and question her mental health. This seems important.
> 
> *checks CNN's website*
> 
> Oh. Michael Moore released an anti-Trump documentary and Trump invited Obama's half-brother to the debate. Well then.


Being a corrupt career politician and most likely dying isnt as nearly important that trump says mean things.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> There are a few leaps going on in this one post. :lol
> 
> I mean, I would love to see McMuffin win a state in the presidential election when two-thirds of the country probably hasn't even heard of him, but...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Probably."


That chart is not even close to being correct, for one it does not even list McMullin and two, all three candidates are all close to each other and Trump keeps dropping and McMullin is surging as each new poll comes out.

Since its a three way race in Utah, McMullin or Hillary could beat Trump in Utah since they are all very close. Trump can easily lose Utah.




amhlilhaus said:


> Being a corrupt career politician and most likely dying isnt as nearly important that trump says mean things.


Trump is a rapist and a sexual assaulter. lol that is not saying mean things.


----------



## december_blue

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










> BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti decided to share a little insight into Ivanka Trump’s capacity for lewdness on Twitter earlier today. According to Peretti, Ivanka is particularly interested in seeing “a mulatto cock.”
> 
> A few things. First: Jonah, you know you run a news site, right?
> 
> And second, this does not conform to Ivanka’s meticulously curated personal brand. We’ve reached out to the Trump campaign for comment on Ivanka’s cock preferences, and will update if and when we receive a response.
> 
> *Update 5:22 p.m.:*
> 
> BuzzFeed has confirmed that its CEO was, in fact, serious about Ivanka’s supposed aspirations.
> 
> *Update 5:25 p.m.:
> *
> BuzzFeed spoke with Peretti over the phone, who had this to say about his encounter with the Donald’s very favorite beloved daughter:
> 
> She was saying how she first said she had never seen an uncircumcised cock and then she said, ‘I’ve never seen a mulatto cock. There’s lots of cocks I’ve never seen,’ or something like that,
> 
> Peretti said the encounter with Ivanka occurred at a Manhattan dive bar called Tropical some about10 years ago with roughly five other people present.
> 
> Apparently, Peretti hadn’t said anything about the comment before today because he believed it was “personal.” While we have yet to hear back from the Trump campaign, we’re sure her father could not possibly be more proud.
> 
> http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/buzzfeed-ceo-ivanka-trump-told-me-she-wanted-to-see-mu-1787991802


This is the world we live in. And these are the hands we're given.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I've decided that I'm voting third party in this election.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I wish Waka Flocka Flame and Ric Flair were on the ballot.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> That chart is not even close to being correct, for one it does not even list McMullin and two, all three candidates are all close to each other and Trump keeps dropping and McMullin is surging as each new poll comes out.
> 
> Since its a three way race in Utah, McMullin or Hillary could beat Trump in Utah since they are all very close. Trump can easily lose Utah.


The pink is McMuffin. The liiiiiiiittle tiny bit of yellow is Gary Johnson, polling at around 9% on aggregate, giving him a snowball's chance.

It's great that Emerson's most recent poll has McMuffin winning. Emerson is a credible enough poll, and he's 100% in the mix. But the majority of polls still suggest that Trump is leading in Utah, if by a couple of points. Rasmussen has it essentially as a three-way dead heat, which is interesting because they tend to skew a little conservative on their results. But then you have YouGov with Trump up big, as of the end of last week. The big one is going to be Monmouth's next batch of poll results. If they have McMuffin winning, then I'll buy that he's actually up.

Obviously, Trump is dropping, as he has been nationally. And McMuffin's numbers have been surging. But we have no idea what Trump's floor is and where McMuffin's surge is likely to end, so until he actually _passes_ Trump in more than one or two polls, there's no real basis for saying that he's "probably" going to carry the state. Right now, it's trending in that direction. There's a solid chance it will end up being a dogfight. But at present time, Trump would have to be favored.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> PEC is also very good (though their fans can be understandably obnoxious :lol), but it's worth noting that the fact that all polls are now converging on PEC's projection does not necessarily indicate that the PEC projection has always been the one that was most accurate. It's entirely possible that the race was closer than PEC's numbers suggested but that recent events have tilted it to the point that everyone now has it as a blowout.
> 
> It's hard to know what exactly is what based on this one election alone. Historically, do you know if 538, PredictWise, etc. have tended to be more conservative (in predictions, not leanings) or hedged more than PEC?


Your first analysis is entirely true. But it's also difficult to understand why all models lean to a possibility between 70% and 80% while Nate model was in 55%. It's a discussion for nerds like me anyway so i don't know if is a valid complain :lmao

PEC has more history as far as i know, Wang have been running elections since 2004. Nate has been doing it since 2008.

But, for example, the week Hillary had his health concerns, her chances diminished more than 20%. Understandibly, it's too much for just one week. I followed Nate model in 2012 when i started understanding a little more statistics and his model was a little more stable.

I declare this as a preferance only, btw, more conservative models tend to be more correct. But that is also because the more conservative the model the more interval you capture in sacrifice of precision, so there is always an exchange there you have to do.



birthday_massacre said:


> That chart is not even close to being correct, *for one it does not even list McMullin* and two, all three candidates are all close to each other and Trump keeps dropping and McMullin is surging as each new poll comes out.


McMullin is the pink bar dude :lmao

You don't even know what you're talking about


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Your first analysis is entirely true. But it's also difficult to understand why all models lean to a possibility between 70% and 80% while Nate model was in 55%. It's a discussion for nerds like me anyway so i don't know if is a valid complain :lmao
> 
> PEC has more history as far as i know, Wang have been running elections since 2004. Nate has been doing it since 2008.
> 
> But, for example, the week Hillary had his health concerns, her chances diminished more than 20%. Understandibly, it's too much for just one week. I followed Nate model in 2012 when i started understanding a little more statistics and his model was a little more stable.
> 
> I declare this as a preferance only, btw, more conservative models tend to be more correct. But that is also because the more conservative the model the more interval you capture in sacrifice of precision, so there is always an exchange there you have to do.


Nate seems to be hedging his bets by being more conservative in his prediction, that way in the case of any upsets he can claim he was closer than anyone else. Also, because this is such an unusual/ bizarre election, Nate sees historical trends not being as reliable as they usually are, which leads to more unpredictability.
What is interesting to me is that most of these models are pretty much been based on the ones that Nate created, yet Nate seems to have less faith in the formula as evidenced by his more conservative predictions


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I hope the FOX moderators keep interrupting Hillary and let Trump talk for as long as he wants. Its only fair given what happened in the last two debates.

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Your first analysis is entirely true. But it's also difficult to understand why all models lean to a possibility between 70% and 80% while Nate model was in 55%. It's a discussion for nerds like me anyway so i don't know if is a valid complain :lmao
> 
> PEC has more history as far as i know, Wang have been running elections since 2004. Nate has been doing it since 2008.
> 
> But, for example, the week Hillary had his health concerns, her chances diminished more than 20%. Understandibly, it's too much for just one week. I followed Nate model in 2012 when i started understanding a little more statistics and his model was a little more stable.
> 
> I declare this as a preferance only, btw, more conservative models tend to be more correct. But that is also because the more conservative the model the more interval you capture in sacrifice of precision, so there is always an exchange there you have to do.
> 
> 
> 
> McMullin is the pink bar dude :lmao
> 
> You don't even know what you're talking about


An how would you know that since the bar is not labeled but for Hillary and Trump? It would be nice for a source for your graph to show where it came from and when its from.

And I know exactly what I am talking about, the most recent polls are showing its pretty much a 3 way tie with Trump falling and McMulllin surging.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> I hope the FOX moderators keep interrupting Hillary and let Trump talk for as long as he wants. Its only fair given what happened in the last two debates.
> 
> - Vic


Hillary never speaks over Trump. Trump never answers the question he is given, he just goes off topic all the time.

the mods are supposed to keep him on track to keep him on topic and to also make sure he is not talking over Hillary when its her turn to speak.

If Hillary is speaking over Trump during his time then yes they should call her out on it, if she is not answering a question, they should make her answer.

The mods did a great job last debate at not letting Trump do his antics.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> I hope the FOX moderators keep interrupting Hillary and let Trump talk for as long as he wants. Its only fair given what happened in the last two debates.
> 
> - Vic


That is pretty much the worst thing that can happen to Trump. The reason why Trump is getting his ass kicked in polls right now is because he kept shooting himself in the foot in the previous debates, and your solution to that is to give him more time to dig an even deeper hole for yourself? It will pretty much eliminated whatever slim chance he has of winning the election.

BTW, the only reason why the moderators cut off Trump a lot more than Hillary because Trump kept interrupting Hillary while it was her turn to speak, and because he went off topic far more often. Two of the main duties of a moderator to make sure that candidates stay on topic and don't speak out of turn.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> An how would you know that since the bar is not labeled but for Hillary and Trump? It would be nice for a source for your graph to show where it came from and when its from.
> .


You would knew if you went to the fucking page of 538 http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/, which you clearly haven't done (and still talk about Silver this and Silver that) since McMullin is assigned a national percentange with a pink color and Johnson with a yellow one right there....



virus21 said:


>



comming from the same guy who previously made this





Like seriously, why people hear guys like this? What's the point in "denouncing" agenda with more agenda


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Those James O'keefe videos could be the ones to bring down Crooked Hillary


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> Those James O'keefe videos could be the ones to bring down Crooked Hillary


Yeah, because we're supposed to take the guy seriously when his videos on ACORN and NPR both turned out to be fakes?


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cabanarama said:


> Yeah, because we're supposed to take the guy seriously when his videos on ACORN and NPR both turned out to be fakes?


Its about the content in the videos not about the guy who made them. Whats in the videos are too important to ignore.


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> Its about the content in the videos not about the guy who made them. Whats in the videos are too important to ignore.


Well, when the content in all of his previous videos have turned out to be fake, why should we expect the content in this to be any different?


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Debate night 

opcorn


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



MrMister said:


> Trump being a disaster and losing hard would be funny though. But nuclear war wouldn't be.
> 
> I'm torn.
> 
> lulz or nuclear war?


Admittedly a very pro-Hillary liberal site, but kind of fits Trump's behaviour over the years.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/donald-trump-obsessed-with-revenge

Nuclear war isn't off the table with Trump too. All it needs is Russia to say mean things about him for things to escalate.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> RetepAdam. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few leaps going on in this one post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, I would love to see McMuffin win a state in the presidential election when two-thirds of the country probably hasn't even heard of him, but...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Probably."
> 
> 
> 
> That chart is not even close to being correct, for one it does not even list McMullin and two, all three candidates are all close to each other and Trump keeps dropping and McMullin is surging as each new poll comes out.
> 
> Since its a three way race in Utah, McMullin or Hillary could beat Trump in Utah since they are all very close. Trump can easily lose Utah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being a corrupt career politician and most likely dying isnt as nearly important that trump says mean things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump is a rapist and a sexual assaulter. lol that is not saying mean things.
Click to expand...

You have to be a special kind of naive to believe that.

Trump, billionaire rapes someone and they dont sue immediately?

Yeah right


----------



## amhlilhaus

wwe9391 said:


> Those James O'keefe videos could be the ones to bring down Crooked Hillary


Hillary could announce tonight that shes reptillian, and if elected will enslave us to be fed to her species.

And shed still would get 40 % of the vote cause trump says mean things


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> Hillary could announce tonight that shes reptillian, and if elected will enslave us to be fed to her species.
> 
> And shed still would get 40 % of the vote cause trump says mean things


You could say the same about Trump. And Trump has said stupid stuff the whole campaign. :shrug

There is too much animosity and partisanship on both sides that there is a floor vote of 30+% for either major party nominee just to vote against the other side.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> You have to be a special kind of naive to believe that.
> 
> Trump, billionaire rapes someone and they dont sue immediately?
> 
> Yeah right


That is exactly why they did not sue, because he is a billionaire and Trump tells them he will end their careers.

Not to mention, you see what happens when women come forward to accuse someone with money of rape, the victim gets put on trial and they get attacked , like what is happening right now. Most women who are raped by men with power are too scared to come forward.

its just pathetic how people like you defend Trump when he is on tape admitting he likes to sexually assault women and you still deny he does it.




FriedTofu said:


> You could say the same about Trump. And Trump has said stupid stuff the whole campaign. :shrug
> 
> There is too much animosity and partisanship on both sides that there is a floor vote of 30+% for either major party nominee just to vote against the other side.


You really lose more and more credibility the more you speak with stupid shit like this post.

The reason why a lot of people are voting Clinton is not for her but against Trump.


----------



## amhlilhaus

FriedTofu said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary could announce tonight that shes reptillian, and if elected will enslave us to be fed to her species.
> 
> And shed still would get 40 % of the vote cause trump says mean things
> 
> 
> 
> You could say the same about Trump. And Trump has said stupid stuff the whole campaign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is too much animosity and partisanship on both sides that there is a floor vote of 30+% for either major party nominee just to vote against the other side.
Click to expand...

You got that right. The hardcore partisans on both sides think the others are the devil


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Final cage match. Let's do this.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You really lose more and more credibility the more you speak with stupid shit like this post.
> 
> The reason why a lot of people are voting Clinton is not for her but against Trump.


WTF are you even going about? You just said I post stupid shit and you agree with the same post?


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Great answers by both


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Amazing. Trump completely rumbled the first question but his deminor is the one of a normal person


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Wallace is coaching Trump to the talking point that will appeal to conservative voters. :lol


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Clinton is on the offensive tonight


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So far it's basically been the typical right/ left talking points... nothing that will have any sort of impact on the election


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Wallace is coaching Trump to the talking point that will appeal to conservative voters. :lol


About time he got a bit of support in these debates


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Wallace has been great btw, it helps that the guys aren't fighting each other.

Trump has estudied but seems to lack details, his better deminor will improve his performance approval anyway if he keeps it


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm a pretty good public speaker and I think I'm fairly intelligent. Listening to Trump is so frustrating because I feel like I could explain his position on guns and abortion better than he can. 

Interesting way to start the debate. Guns and Abortion and Trump sounds like your standard Republican.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Linking the heroin problem in the US to the boarder is smart. I live like 2,000 miles away from the border. My brother has had 3 people in his graduating class of 800 die of heroin overdose this year. It ravages small communities all over the country.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Wallace has been a *fair and balanced* moderator so far, unlike the previous ones.


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump's starting to unravel a bit...


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Wallace has been great btw, it helps that the guys aren't fighting each. Trump has estudied but seems to lack details, his better deminor will improve his performance approval anyway if he keeps it


I think it helps that Wallace is trying to help one candidate instead of attacking one at this point. Trump has also been resisting his instinct to interrupt Clinton, waiting until she finish her speech before interjecting.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Well, Trump is starting to losing his pacience again.

It was too good to be true


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Clinton is being made out a hypocrite with the boarders.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Wallace bringing up WikiLeaks. :banderas


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump loses control once someone attack him personally. Trump even interrupts Wallace when he is helping Trump.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The old hag is rattled :mark:


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FITZ said:


> I'm a pretty good public speaker and I think I'm fairly intelligent. Listening to Trump is so frustrating because I feel like I could explain his position on guns and abortion better than he can.
> 
> Interesting way to start the debate. Guns and Abortion and Trump sounds like your standard Republican.


Completely agree, not to mention Clinton pretty much admitted she fucked up on the email scandal in the first debate, Trump missed soooo many chances to put her away many times this election and to really get with the people. I wish it was his son running as his son is well spoken.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump going off topic again because he just can't let anything go....


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It's the third debate and Trump keep falling in the Russia Trap. Doesn't he have assessors or something?


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Trump going off topic again because he just can't let anything go....


Trump going off topic :lmao

Is there only 1 person debating on your t.v ?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> Trump going off topic :lmao
> 
> Is there only 1 person debating on your t.v ?


Dude Hillary went off topic to answer a question to deflect from her weakness. Trump went off topic for no reason other than he didn't get the last word on the previous question. If you can't tell the difference then that's on you, not me.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is not answering any of the questions, but he is making Hillary out to be such a huge lier and hypocrite


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

He is bringing up the videos!!


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

She enterily avoided the videos and Trump never brought them back, instead he keeped talking about women. 

This is not an intelligent strategy, like at all


----------



## Erik.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The whole thing is quite frankly a joke and you should all be worried that these two are front runners to run your country.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Wallace fact checking Trump. :O


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm very happy that Trump finally said that about paying taxes. What kind of jack ass would pay extra taxes when they didn't have? He didn't make the laws. He just followed them. It's obviously a problem that he was allowed to do that.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Wallace fact checking Trump. :O


Wallace has been far the most non bias and fair moderator


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This is a massacre.

Could we get Wallace as candidate instead?


----------



## amhlilhaus

Erik. said:


> The whole thing is quite frankly a joke and you should all be worried that these two are front runners to run your country.


We are, believe me


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is making the point for anti-Trumper. A change is not necessarily a good thing. A bad situation could become even worse. :lol


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm not really sure who's undecided right now but I feel like Trump is doing an OK job. When he gets a rolling on the right type of topic he is actually saying some good things. Just too much petty bullshit from him about dumb stuff.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FITZ said:


> I'm not really sure who's undecided right now but I feel like Trump is doing an OK job. When he gets a rolling on the right type of topic he is actually saying some good things. Just too much petty bullshit from him about dumb stuff.


The issue is his numbers just don't add up for many of his policies. And that should be alarming if you go by his business history. He is good at selling but delivering is a whole other issue.


----------



## SpeedStick

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## MR-Bolainas

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

BAGDADDY


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Who in their right mind is going to say a few weeks before the election that they are going to cut Social Security? You would have to be insane.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

wow Trump got decimated tonight. Trump did not know what hit him, he was a bumbling idiot. lol


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*Chuck Todd:* "(Trump) didn't seem to have a lot of substance."


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump's closing statement could have come out of South Park or an SNL skit. O_O


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Even in the scenary of him wining the debate big league, which he didn't, suggesting that he would not accept the results of the election is going to hunt him for at least another week. With that performance, is gonna be even worse

Way to destroy himself


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The election is rigged if he loses, but it is fair if he wins. 5th grader logic.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

what a fucking circus this is


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm not on either side, because I'm not fond of Hilary but Trump did ok. I liked when he went after her for taking money from nations that treat women like shit. His problem is that he always manages to shoot himself in the foot. He can't help himself. Calling Hilary a nasty woman, then suggesting that he might not accept the result of the election. C'mon dude. He creates un-necessary headlines for himself.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Don't think Trump did anything to move the needle tonight. Disappointing after last week's strong performance.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Headliner said:


> I'm not on either side, because I'm not fond of Hilary but Trump did ok. I liked when he went after her for taking money from nations that treat women like shit. His problem is that he always manages to shoot himself in the foot. He can't help himself. Calling Hilary a nasty woman, then suggesting that he might not accept the result of the election. C'mon dude. He creates un-necessary headlines for himself.


Can we get cottonmouth for President?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Don't think Trump did anything to move the needle tonight. Disappointing after last week's strong performance.


He totally moved the needle, but in Hillarys direction, that is how bad he got his ass kicked tonight.

He was a colossal failure.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm all for Paul Ryan 2020 now.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Headliner said:


> I'm not on either side, because I'm not fond of Hilary but Trump did ok. I liked when he went after her for taking money from nations that treat women like shit. His problem is that he always manages to shoot himself in the foot. He can't help himself. Calling Hilary a nasty woman, then suggesting that he might not accept the result of the election. C'mon dude. He creates un-necessary headlines for himself.


Off topic but why kill the most interesting character


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RenegadexParagon said:


> what a fucking circus this is


All politics is about bread and circuses, and it has been this way for a long, long time. The truth is, this election is nothing new in this regard, it's simply more overt and far-reaching this time around than it has ever been before.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> All politics is about bread and circuses, and it has been this way for a long, long time. The truth is, this election is nothing new in this regard, it's simply more overt and far-reaching this time around than it has ever been before.


It is going to get worse in the future when the dickpic generation run for office. :lol


----------



## Stormbringer

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Ronald Reagan an entertainer before he became president? Why does the Apprentice matter here?


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> All politics is about bread and circuses, and it has been this way for a long, long time. The truth is, this election is nothing new in this regard, it's simply more overt and far-reaching this time around than it has ever been before.


I know this, you're not exactly telling me anything I didn't already know. The only reason I keep up with mainstream politics is for the lulz, not because I'm genuinely invested in any of the candidates or the major parties.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

so, Is Trump gonna lose Texas now? :lmao


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> wow Trump got decimated tonight. Trump did not know what hit him, he was a bumbling idiot. lol


Any chance of your dealers phone number?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> Any chance of your dealers phone number?


You can't possibly think Trump won lol If you do, you are delusional.


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DX-Superkick said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Ronald Reagan an entertainer before he became president? Why does the Apprentice matter here?


Yes, but he also spent 30 years in politics before he became president, including two terms as governor of California...


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You can't possibly think Trump won lol If you do, you are delusional.


And voting.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> And voting.


What do you mean any voting?

Do you mean Trump has no shot at winning the vote either? Yes that is also correct, especially after tonight.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:trump did okay

not well enough

at the end when he was yelling that was a bad move

both of these candidates are ignorant of history and i don't just mean the facts of history. they are thintelligent. they're full of hubris.

plus they have no perspective, no way to string relevant, powerful, convincing facts together in a coherent way either for their own understanding or in a verbal fashion, and no mental capacity for those things. i'd wipe the floor with either of them in a debate and so would most people who argue about politics on the internet (not professionally, us amateurs) and spend more than four sentences at a time doing it. i'm dead serious about that. there's probably two dozen people who post on WF about politics minimum who would fuck them up and piss on the corpse.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Breitbart's poll is being raided.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> What do you mean any voting?
> 
> Do you mean Trump has no shot at winning the vote either? Yes that is also correct, especially after tonight.


Dave. Read what I said again. You're cold. Get warmer.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Dave. Read what I said again. You're cold. Get warmer.


instead of having my guess what you mean please write a full thought, not just and voting, which tells me nothing.

And voting makes no sense of what you quoted


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DX-Superkick said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Ronald Reagan an entertainer before he became president? Why does the Apprentice matter here?


Yes, but Reagan had political experience also when he ran for President, being a Republican governor of California (arguably the most liberal state in the US). He understood what he had to do to properly communicate his message to the American people...thus the name of "The Great Communicator." He learned the trade from years as an actor making movies and then helping defend other actors from accusations of Communism (he met Nancy while doing that). 

Difference between Reagan and Trump is that Reagan was OK with taking direction, Trump is not.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Breitbart's poll is being raided.


The irony is just :trump


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Breitbart's poll is being raided.


Trolls getting trolled. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Breitbart's poll is being raided.



and why do you think this:? Oh because they are saying Hillary won the debate?


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> both of these candidates are ignorant of history and i don't just mean the facts of history. they are thintelligent. they're full of hubris.
> 
> plus they have no perspective, no way to string relevant, powerful, convincing facts together in a coherent way either for their own understanding or in a verbal fashion, and no mental capacity for those things. i'd wipe the floor with either of them in a debate and so would most people who argue about politics on the internet (not professionally, us amateurs) and spend more than four sentences at a time doing it. i'm dead serious about that. there's probably two dozen people who post on WF about politics minimum who would fuck them up and piss on the corpse.


It's largely useless for a politician to care about facts or history, or invest any effort into educating themselves on such things beyond coming up with soundbytes and talking points with which to poison the well of their opponents. Any facts that do somehow make their way into a political campaign script are almost certainly cherry-picked half-truths that obfuscate the larger picture to reinforce whatever predetermined narrative they're trying to push. It's not about the facts, it's about the message. Then, of course, there's the whole issue with how thoroughly compromised the media is, too. 

The average Boobus that will visit the voting booth doesn't care about reals, they care about feels. And they don't know their asses from their elbows when it comes to topics of governance, or law, or economics, or policy...and why should they? These are all disciplines and special fields of expertise, yet we have a bunch of laymen deciding who gets to make decisions on these things, as if the tyranny of the ignorant majority is some kind of qualified moral authority--like I said, feels before reals. Nor do people have much interest in sound philosophy or a deference to sound logic. Reason is shunned while subjective perspective and worldview is their reality, as opposed to anything resembling objective reality absent ideological presupposition. There's still a large part of the population that thinks politicians, generally, give a damn about them as an individual, or group, or class, or race, or ethnicity, or religion, or demographic beyond how they can be leveraged for debt as tax livestock, and exploited for votes to keep them in power, that they can then proceed to broker out to the highest bidders for personal gains. It's pathetic.

Presenting facts in political discourse is actually often counterproductive, anyway, as it tends to result in what's known as the backfire effect, especially when brainless partisanship is clouding the landscape from the outset--reference the aforementioned point on subjective perspective and worldview being the only 'reality' that matters to most. People aren't interested in actually being correct in their thinking, rather, they're interested in having their thinking reaffirmed by some snake oil salesman presented as an authority.

And don't get me started and the innumerable amount of fallacies that litter virtually every political debate, be it some debate on the internet, or whatever puppets TPTB have decided to make their candidates this cycle. People don't even know how to argue properly this day and age because the only semblance of logic that is taught in school any more has to do with x's, y's, z's, p's, q's, and r's.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> :trump did okay
> 
> not well enough
> 
> at the end when he was yelling that was a bad move
> 
> both of these candidates are ignorant of history and i don't just mean the facts of history. they are thintelligent. they're full of hubris.
> 
> plus they have no perspective, no way to string relevant, powerful, convincing facts together in a coherent way either for their own understanding or in a verbal fashion, and no mental capacity for those things. i'd wipe the floor with either of them in a debate and so would most people who argue about politics on the internet (not professionally, us amateurs) and spend more than four sentences at a time doing it. i'm dead serious about that. there's probably two dozen people who post on WF about politics minimum who would fuck them up and piss on the corpse.




A 5 year old could beat Trump in a debate, dont act like that would be some sort of feat. 

As for Hillary, Trump had a number of openings to tear into Hillary, and instead he ranted about some other nonsense. If Rubio was going against Hillary, she would probably in trouble.

Its so easy to tear down HIllary, it sucks Bernie was too nice and Trump is too stupid.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary loves blaming Putin/the Russians almost as much as the Nazis loved blaming the Jews for every problem. 

My favorite part was Hillary saying she will stand up to corporate interests. My God, what a shitshow. If you mindlessly support either of these candidates, you need to seek help immediately.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> Hillary loves blaming Putin/the Russians almost as much as the Nazis loved blaming the Jews for every problem.


Indeed. If you're in the "I don't want everyone I love to die in a nuclear war" camp, as I am, Trump remains the safest vote.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*




























:lmao

Hilarious #TrumpBookReport trending right now.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/788957876387737600

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/788955866191892480

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/788953536121933824

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/788953518577164288


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> Hillary loves blaming Putin/the Russians almost as much as the Nazis loved blaming the Jews for every problem.
> 
> My favorite part was Hillary saying she will stand up to corporate interests. My God, what a shitshow. If you mindlessly support either of these candidates, you need to seek help immediately.


the whole reason why Hilary did that was to get Trump to go off on a rant about Russia and ignore the question on Wikileaks that Trump could have owned her on. And it worked. Trump went off topic because of Hillary and he did not ding her for all the stuff in wiki leaks that shows how two faced she is.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> the whole reason why Hilary did that was to get Trump to go off on a rant about Russia and ignore the question on Wikileaks that Trump could have owned her on. And it worked. Trump went off topic because of Hillary and he did not ding her for all the stuff in wiki leaks that shows how two faced she is.


She has been doing it for months, whether Trump is in the room or not. Gotta get the people ready and fired up to bomb those evil Russians.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> The election is rigged if he loses, but it is fair if he wins. 5th grader logic.


See page 865, bottom post.

- Vic


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Main takeaway from the three debates is that Donald Trump should have tried to have their running times halved. In this debate he was solid for approximately forty minutes--again--and he was workmanlike and provided some rudimentary, substantive-but-unexciting, fairly standard-issue-Republican candidate answers which may have even won him some points with Republicans... Which is a colossal must for him; if he continues to trend the way he is with Republican voters, he's deader in the water than any candidate for either of the two major parties since at least Walter Mondale.

The problem is that the debate was not forty-five minutes. Hillary even walked into a couple of obvious traps early on and Trump tagged her fairly well, but as the debate wore on he started flailing around as he seems inclined to do, and to defend himself as much as possible. When Trump had Hillary in the corner on "hemispheric open borders," listened to Hillary rant and rave about Russian villainy, and even had the solid rejoinder that pointed out how far away Hillary dodged away from the matter of "open borders" as found from the wikileaks revelations, he still could not help himself, allowing her to bait him, to use her terminology, to follow her down the rabbit hole of defending himself against charges of being Vladimir Putin's personal puppet. And on and on it went.

When Trump said that he would wait to see the results of the election to ascertain whether or not he would accept defeat, in not so many words, leaving the media and public "in suspense," it was undeniable that this is what media would jump on, and it points to the implosion of his campaign entire in all likelihood. The ground game could never begin to compete with Hillary's and that one moment of the debate obviated all of the gains Trump may have accrued early on.

Chris Wallace, while imperfect, was a major breath of fresh air over the moderators of the first two debates. Sincerely one of the best-moderated political debates I have ever watched and listened to... 

Altogether, however, it was a mostly uneventful debate whose largest events seemed to spell the final death spiral of Trump's presidential bid. 


Apropos of nothing directly, this is hilarious. If nothing else positive comes from 2016 at least any and all credibility CNN used to have will have been destroyed. This moment, where the interview feed is cut after wikileaks is mentioned, is reminiscent of how CNN edited the public statement of the sister of the young man shot and killed by a policeman in Milwaukee to make it sound like a call for peace when she was actually calling for mayhem to be unleashed on the suburbs. Remarkable, and Orwellian.


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> If nothing else positive comes from 2016 at least any and all credibility CNN used to have will have been destroyed.


The damage has already been done, not just to CNN, but the entire mainstream media.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Debates Final Round said:


> The Constitution means what it says as our forefathers had intended.
> 
> "I respect the Second Amendment." - Hillary. She is full of crap! If it was up to her, she would get rid of it entirely. Why do you think the NRA is against her? She doesn't believe you have a right to protect yourself and your family using firearms. Every gun owner should vote against her just on that alone.
> 
> Roe Vs. Wade should be left as is. Its what political compromise is all about. A woman has a choice with her body. However, I shouldn't be paying for it with my tax dollars.
> 
> The federal government shouldn't be involved in everything. I agree with Trump that the states should have more control over things.
> 
> Hillary wants to let every illegal immigrant into this country and give them benefits. What's the point of having immigration laws if she's not going to follow them?
> 
> The law is real simple. Become a US citizen or we'll deport your ass back where you came from.
> 
> There's a huge problem with heroin in this country. Most of the supplies come from the Mexican drug cartels.
> 
> Ironically, Hillary was very much like Trump on illegal immigration years ago before she changed her tune for the 97th time.
> 
> Hillary wants to get the economy working. That's an admission from her that it hasn't been working under Obama.
> 
> Hillary wants open borders. She said so in her own e-mails and confirmed it tonight.
> 
> Back to Hillary being hostile towards Russia again without a shred of proof.
> 
> Brownie point to Trump for calling Hillary out on pivoting subjects.
> 
> When did Hillary become "our people"? The ego of this woman astounds me.
> 
> The United States should not be the world's savior. It's why a lot of countries don't respect us because we keep meddling in their affairs.
> 
> Hillary said she wants to do all these things with the ecomony. Obama said the same exact thing 8 years ago and look how that turned out.
> 
> Hillary said Trump's tax plan would add an extra $20 trillion to the debt. Given how Obama is the one who added an extra $9 trillion to it, I'm pretty sure it would be her that added an astronomical amount to it. Democrats are fiscally irresponsible. They also love to tax the shit out of hard working Americans.
> 
> I fully support Trump getting rid of NAFTA.
> 
> Hillary said she won't raise taxes on a certain income bracket yet she said she was going raise taxes on the middle class right in front of that same group of people a few months ago!
> 
> "I will not add a penny to the debt." - Hillary, another amazing lie from the Secretary.
> 
> Yes, Obama stabilized the economy, but it was a mediocre effort at best since the country wasn't prosperous.
> 
> Again with the illegal steel from China accusations, where's Hillary's proof?
> 
> Hillary is all talk and no action. Her record speaks for itself.
> 
> Trump took a 1 million dollar loan and he became a billionaire. Enough said.
> 
> Getting real sick and tired of Hillary's "One woman attacked = all women attacked" tactic to gain sympathy women votes. Everybody is responsible for their own actions.
> 
> General Petraeus mishandled classified information and was convicted. Hillary did the same and got away Scott free with it.
> 
> Trump was right about McCain. War heroes are those who win battles, not get captured by the enemy.
> 
> The Clinton Foundation is a scam. Not only do donors get special favors for making big contributions, but 90% of the Haiti relief fund was pocketed by her fake charity organization instead of going to the people of Haiti.
> 
> Hillary takes donations from Saudi Arabia. You know the same country that hates blacks, women, and gay people that she panders to for votes?
> 
> Don't blame Trump for using legal tax loopholes. Blame the system that Hillary did nothing about.
> 
> Trump is right. This election IS rigged as Hell! The proof is in the pudding.
> 
> Hillary does not want to use troops as an occupying force. That's how exactly why ISIS grew!!!
> 
> Hillary revealed tonight she would be a horrible Commander In Chief. Just tell all our enemies exactly what you plan to do in advance.
> 
> Do you want 65,000 Syrian refugees being brought into this country by Hillary? I sure don't.
> 
> Hillary's tax plan = take every rich person's money because fu** working hard to succeed! That's known as communism.
> 
> Obamacare has been a disaster and Hillary wants to continue it!
> 
> 
> Trump pointed out everything that is wrong with America in his closing statement and Hillary has practically ignored all of that.


In closing, the only thing Hillary has been clear about is her stance on abortion and keeping the same Obama economy. Business as usual. Other than that she is so rehearsed and has changed her mind so many times on so many issues over the years that I have no idea what she is really about. Trump tends to be crystal clear on topics and where he stands.﻿ Hillary will be a miserable failure as President just like Obama.

- Vic


----------



## DesoloutionRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Just dropping in to remind you all that you're screwed.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Wrestling Forum's Biggest Chicago Cubs Fan said:


> Main takeaway from the three debates is that Donald Trump should have tried to have their running times halved. In this debate he was solid for approximately forty minutes--again--and he was workmanlike and provided some rudimentary, substantive-but-unexciting, fairly standard-issue-Republican candidate answers which may have even won him some points with Republicans... Which is a colossal must for him; if he continues to trend the way he is with Republican voters, he's deader in the water than any candidate for either of the two major parties since at least Walter Mondale.
> 
> The problem is that the debate was not forty-five minutes. Hillary even walked into a couple of obvious traps early on and Trump tagged her fairly well, but as the debate wore on he started flailing around as he seems inclined to do, and to defend himself as much as possible. When Trump had Hillary in the corner on "hemispheric open borders," listened to Hillary rant and rave about Russian villainy, and even had the solid rejoinder that pointed out how far away Hillary dodged away from the matter of "open borders" as found from the wikileaks revelations, he still could not help himself, allowing her to bait him, to use her terminology, to follow her down the rabbit hole of defending himself against charges of being Vladimir Putin's personal puppet. And on and on it went.
> 
> When Trump said that he would wait to see the results of the election to ascertain whether or not he would accept defeat, in not so many words, leaving the media and public "in suspense," it was undeniable that this is what media would jump on, and it points to the implosion of his campaign entire in all likelihood. The ground game could never begin to compete with Hillary's and that one moment of the debate obviated all of the gains Trump may have accrued early on.
> 
> Chris Wallace, while imperfect, was a major breath of fresh air over the moderators of the first two debates. Sincerely one of the best-moderated political debates I have ever watched and listened to...
> 
> Altogether, however, it was a mostly uneventful debate whose largest events seemed to spell the final death spiral of Trump's presidential bid.
> 
> 
> Apropos of nothing directly, this is hilarious. If nothing else positive comes from 2016 at least any and all credibility CNN used to have will have been destroyed. This moment, where the interview feed is cut after wikileaks is mentioned, is reminiscent of how CNN edited the public statement of the sister of the young man shot and killed by a policeman in Milwaukee to make it sound like a call for peace when she was actually calling for mayhem to be unleashed on the suburbs. Remarkable, and Orwellian.


I'd say the entire MSM got exposed, so did the WAPO and NY Times. This entire thing was ugly, the DNC got exposed but I enjoy watching people vote for someone utterly corrupt while trying to present that the Democrats actually are Left and that they care. Cannot put a price tag on that, well maybe if WWIII happens.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> In closing, the only thing Hillary has been clear about is her stance on abortion and keeping the same Obama economy. Business as usual. Other than that she is so rehearsed and has changed her mind so many times on so many issues over the years that I have no idea what she is really about. Trump tends to be crystal clear on topics and where he stands.﻿ Hillary will be a miserable failure as President just like Obama.
> 
> - Vic


You obviously don't pay attention. Trump has changed his stances a number of times in these debates especially in the primaries, hell he would change his stance mid sentence in the same debate. Trump has never been clear on how he would do anything. Trump will say something then a week later, claim I never said that. 

You cant even be honest about Trump, no Trump supporters can. Its why Trump supporters have no credibility.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...p-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801

"This list features 128 distinct shifts on 21 major issues, tracking only his stated views since he announced his candidacy on June 16, 2015."


----------



## .MCH

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The landslide for Clinton and democrats is going to be incredible. Hopefully she gets both the House and Senate. 

I can't wait to see the Trump fans meltdown when she flips states like Arizona and Texas and when some irrelevant third party candidate takes Utah.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



.MCH said:


> The landslide for Clinton and democrats is going to be incredible. Hopefully she gets both the House and Senate.
> 
> I can't wait to see the Trump fans meltdown when she flips states like Arizona and Texas and when some irrelevant third party candidate takes Utah.


Trump got Paul Ryan booed in his home state. The GOP could be in serious trouble if Trump starts telling his supporters to not vote for the GOP incumbents.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> I can't wait to see the Trump fans meltdown when she flips Texas







- Vic


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> The damage has already been done, not just to CNN, but the entire mainstream media.





Miss Sally said:


> I'd say the entire MSM got exposed, so did the WAPO and NY Times. This entire thing was ugly, the DNC got exposed but I enjoy watching people vote for someone utterly corrupt while trying to present that the Democrats actually are Left and that they care. Cannot put a price tag on that, well maybe if WWIII happens.


Quite right, quite right.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/788953244487720960
:lmao :lmao :lmao :faint:


----------



## cablegeddon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Clintons's response to the quote where she said she wants open borders: "PUTIN! PUTIN! PUTIN!".


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



.MCH said:


> The landslide for Clinton and democrats is going to be incredible. Hopefully she gets both the House and Senate.
> 
> I can't wait to see the Trump fans meltdown when she flips states like Arizona and Texas and when some irrelevant third party candidate takes Utah.



I've never seen Democrats so happy to vote for a neocon warmonger. This election really is hilarious.

:duck


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> I've never seen Democrats so happy to vote for a neocon warmonger. This election really is hilarious.
> 
> :duck


I don't know why democrats still get away from this impression that they're not war mongers. Dems fight proxy wars where they can easily skirt by the checks and balances put in place to prevent open wars .. which are even worse than open wars because at least with open wars there's less room for corruption. It's not a surprise that claims of military complex corruption, funding of terrorist groups etc came after the dems took over Bush's wars. 

Maybe I'm just being naive though, but at least my impression is that bush's wars had less such corruption (and yes, I'm aware that the Iraq war should never even have happened in the first place and it was more than just a mistake for Bush to invade Iraq - it was intentional) and the worst I remember being talked about back then was that rebuilding contracts in both Iraq and Afghanistan went to some companies that Bush had links too making him a ton of money that way. With the Dems you've got things like bombing hospitals, civilians, funding groups that went on to join terrorists, invasions of terrorists into Europe, formation of one of the worst terrorist groups we've ever seen etc etc.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> I don't know why democrats still get away from this impression that they're not war mongers. Dems fight proxy wars where they can easily skirt by the checks and balances put in place to prevent open wars .. which are even worse than open wars because at least with open wars there's less room for corruption. It's not a surprise that claims of military complex corruption, funding of terrorist groups etc came after the dems took over Bush's wars.
> 
> Maybe I'm just being naive though, but at least my impression is that bush's wars had less such corruption (and yes, I'm aware that the Iraq war should never even have happened in the first place and it was more than just a mistake for Bush to invade Iraq - it was intentional) and the worst I remember being talked about back then was that rebuilding contracts in both Iraq and Afghanistan went to some companies that Bush had links too making him a ton of money that way. With the Dems you've got things like bombing hospitals, civilians, funding groups that went on to join terrorists, invasions of terrorists into Europe, formation of one of the worst terrorist groups we've ever seen etc etc.


Your first paragraph is basically correct.

Your second paragraph could not be more inaccurate. The invasion of Iraq which killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians was not just a mistake, it was a war crime. Frankly Bush, Cheney, Obama and Clinton are all war criminals. 

The voices which, rightly, were protesting against the Iraq war showed their true colors when they disappeared when President Peace Prize was elected and used new means to commit egregious war crimes. 

Hillary Clinton has advocated for every US military action (regardless of their legality) since and including Vietnam. Now she and her neocon supporters are beating the dumb for war with Russia; which is fucking insane! You know how many times Russia has lost a war? Exactly. The US couldn't win against Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and now the Hillary Clinton's of the world are targeting Russia? The biggest US war victory was merely an assist; it was Russia, not the US who did the bulk of the work to defeat the Nazis. 

Two things you can guarantee with a Hilary Clinton presidency:
1. More illegal use of the US military in places that our involvement is not justified resulting in more senseless deaths of innocent civilians and American military men and women.

2. More terror attacks in the US.

The sad reality is that all of the 5 companies that own 90% of all the US news media have huge contracts as contractors for the US military. There's a vested interest in getting the war monger elected, especially in this election when the economy has big issues.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KC Armstrong said:


> I've never seen Democrats so happy to vote for a neocon warmonger. This election really is hilarious.
> 
> :duck


A neocon warmonger who's lied countless times and didn't accomplish anything in her 30 year Political career except line her pockets!

:liquor


Here's to you Democrats, you got behind someone who is clearly unstable, a liar, a racist and you all got exposed for talking about those "Taco bowl voters" and "Needy Latinos" and you still lined up to vote. Your guy Bernie couldn't wait to bow out and support someone he knew was terrible. But hey, you got a woman elected right? RIGHT?!


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Haven't watched the final debate and to be honest I'm not sure if I can be bothered. I tapped out on this election a long time ago :lol.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Jesus Christ, even the Toronto star can't be unbiased . Nearly every day they make articles of how many things Trump said were false and today they published another article claiming he made 1 false claim per minute. Unbelievable . Not one negative article about Hillary Clinton. My goodness this is ridiculous


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> A neocon warmonger who's lied countless times and didn't accomplish anything in her 30 year Political career except line her pockets!
> 
> :liquor
> 
> 
> Here's to you Democrats, you got behind someone who is clearly unstable, a liar, a racist and you all got exposed for talking about those "Taco bowl voters" and "Needy Latinos" and you still lined up to vote. Your guy Bernie couldn't wait to bow out and support someone he knew was terrible. But hey, you got a woman elected right? RIGHT?!


Pardon me but you're just wrong, she does have an additional accomplishment: as a Senator one piece of legislation that she was the main sponsor became law and designated the U.S. courthouse at 40 Centre Street in New York City as the “Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...bill-renaming-nyc-building-her-single-success


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> Jesus Christ, even the Toronto star can't be unbiased . Nearly every day they make articles of how many things Trump said were false and today they published another article claiming he made 1 false claim per minute. Unbelievable . Not one negative article about Hillary Clinton. My goodness this is ridiculous


Canada's PM is an SJW. That country has lost its way socially and their cultural decline is inevitable - and they have literally no right to talk about American politics when their country is being torn apart by an entitled play boy. 

It's funny how Trudeau keeps supporting Saudi Arabia, taking their money for weapons they will use to destroy dissent and give diversity speeches in mosques at the same time. Just how do these people live with themselves?


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Canada's PM is an SJW. That country has lost its way socially and their cultural decline is inevitable - and they have literally no right to talk about American politics when their country is being torn apart by an entitled play boy.
> 
> It's funny how Trudeau keeps supporting Saudi Arabia, taking their money for weapons they will use to destroy dissent and give diversity speeches in mosques at the same time. Just how do these people live with themselves?


Trudeau is stupid, if you didn't know it from his campaign, you found out right away when he named his cabinet not based on skill,or experience but rather what they have in between their legs, the color of their skin and their sexual preference. People still view him as a God though, he hasn't done a damn thing and people act like the country is booming. He literally is a walking photo op , you can name more places he's been too where he took photos than actual things he's done


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Stinger Fan said:


> Trudeau is stupid, if you didn't know it from his campaign, you found out right away when he named his cabinet not based on skill,or experience but rather what they have in between their legs, the color of their skin and their sexual preference. People still view him as a God though, he hasn't done a damn thing and people act like the country is booming. He literally is a walking photo op , you can name more places he's been too where he took photos than actual things he's done


Took him nearly a year to announce that it will take a committee another year to submit a report about the disappearing native women after which the actual investigations will take place (because deep down the government knows that there's little actual racism there but rather internal violence as a result of them being forced into extremely poorly funded conservations). Not saying that Canada doesn't have a problem with racism - which they do. In fact the living conditions and racism faced by innuit people is worse than the racism face by blacks in America (but shhh .. it's one of Canada's most deeply buried secrets). Also, immigrants to Canada end up in poverty which also all hushed up because they're put through a system of "you need canadian experience for this job" forcing skilled immigrants into unskilled jobs. They force skilled labor to come to canada and push them into unskilled jobs - which is something America does not do. 

But everything's peachy as long as Trudeau has a cabinet of diverse people. He's the ultimate in tokenism - but it's not just a result of outward flow of state propaganda, but the lack of Canadian awareness of their own country's problems.

Why do you think there are an equal number of foreigners in this thread than locals? Because their leadership is also failing and they need to create a distraction in order to keep inquiring minds from examining the shit their own countries are in at the moment.


----------



## Rise

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I now I am in the minority but I am a wrestling fan and I guess what you would call a liberal. That said the Democrats have proven to not align with my beliefs. I thought I was getting a peaceful President who would use diplomacy over violence, convince Congress to spend our hard earned tax dollars on sensible things that benefit the US population like education, healthcare, and infrastructure. None of this happened, sure I blame a lot of it on the do nothing Republican controlled Congress, but Obama is the leader, call them out! He never really did and so nothing got done, but we kept fighting wars. Honestly he turned out to be a better talking Bush Jr. Is there really any hope?

Clinton with all of her baggage should have been an easy defeat for the Republicans. All they had to do was nominate someone normal like Kasich and I would have voted for him in a heartbeat honestly. But no, finally all the misinformation on the right has come home to roost and we get Trump. Yes the left wing media misinforms on TV, but the right wing misinforms via the radio, internet, and Fox. The bottom line is we have an entire population that is misinformed, nobody, including me, really knows the truth. It is hard to admit, and I don't expect many to agree with me because everyone thinks they have it figured out, but sorry to say you don't. 

So what do I do? Hell if I know.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Here's to you Democrats, you got behind someone who is clearly unstable, a liar, a racist and you all got exposed for talking about those "Taco bowl voters" and "Needy Latinos" and you still lined up to vote. Your guy Bernie couldn't wait to bow out and support someone he knew was terrible. But hey, you got a woman elected right? RIGHT?!


I always find it weird when people present this line of logic as though we are able to just _not_ elect a president should we collectively decide that both candidates are pure, unadulterated ass. What are the alternatives to voting for the candidate you perceive to be the least shitty? Not voting, and letting the chips fall where they may? Obviously, a large percentage of the population doesn't feel comfortable with that idea, given how they feel about Trump. The same could easily be said for a pretty sizable chunk of voters on the right with regards to Hillary. So, what are those voters supposed to do? :shrug

I'd wager that at least 70% of Democrats are aware that Hillary sucks. If this were an election where the Republican candidate sucked less, I doubt you'd see the kind of voter turnout we're going to get because people wouldn't be sufficiently excited about the prospect of a Hillary presidency or terrified at the notion of a Trump presidency.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So, yeah about the theory of "shy" Trump support










https://alexandercoppock.com/working-papers/shy-trump-supporters/
draft:
https://alexandercoppock.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/coppock_trump_list.pdf


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rise said:


> I now I am in the minority but I am a wrestling fan and I guess what you would call a liberal. That said the Democrats have proven to not align with my beliefs. I thought I was getting a peaceful President who would use diplomacy over violence, convince Congress to spend our hard earned tax dollars on sensible things that benefit the US population like education, healthcare, and infrastructure. None of this happened, sure I blame a lot of it on the do nothing Republican controlled Congress, but Obama is the leader, call them out! He never really did and so nothing got done, but we kept fighting wars. Honestly he turned out to be a better talking Bush Jr. Is there really any hope?
> 
> Clinton with all of her baggage should have been an easy defeat for the Republicans. All they had to do was nominate someone normal like Kasich and I would have voted for him in a heartbeat honestly. But no, finally all the misinformation on the right has come home to roost and we get Trump. Yes the left wing media misinforms on TV, but the right wing misinforms via the radio, internet, and Fox. The bottom line is we have an entire population that is misinformed, nobody, including me, really knows the truth. It is hard to admit, and I don't expect many to agree with me because everyone thinks they have it figured out, but sorry to say you don't.
> 
> So what do I do? Hell if I know.


I'm very liberal which is why i cannot vote for a war criminal who will engage the US military in a most dangerous manner. I also have an issue with someone who when in power spoke with such passion about: black youth as super predators, being adamantly against gay marriage and led the charge to invading Iraq. Only when out of power did each of those positions change. Actions speak louder than her empty words.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> I always find it weird when people present this line of logic as though we are able to just _not_ elect a president should we collectively decide that both candidates are pure, unadulterated ass. What are the alternatives to voting for the candidate you perceive to be the least shitty? Not voting, and letting the chips fall where they may? Obviously, a large percentage of the population doesn't feel comfortable with that idea, given how they feel about Trump. The same could easily be said for a pretty sizable chunk of voters on the right with regards to Hillary. So, what are those voters supposed to do? :shrug
> 
> I'd wager that at least 70% of Democrats are aware that Hillary sucks. If this were an election where the Republican candidate sucked less, I doubt you'd see the kind of voter turnout we're going to get because people wouldn't be sufficiently excited about the prospect of a Hillary presidency or terrified at the notion of a Trump presidency.


There in lies the problem, we're a two party system and this election has proven that we cannot stay on a two party course. While I don't like Stein, she was there to vote for. The problem is nobody wants to break party lines and they stay loyal even when they shouldn't be. The Captain goes down with the ship but with these parties it's like the Captain is steering the ship straight into hell, why stay?

So you're right I guess just give up, keep voting for terrible people. Nothing will change, thanks Retep. People shouldn't try to change anything at all because nothing is worth it or even bothering to do.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> So, yeah about the theory of "shy" Trump support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://alexandercoppock.com/working-papers/shy-trump-supporters/


And why should this data by some assistant professor be viewed as credible? 

What experience does he have in this type of research? 

I'm not dismissing his findings but the assistant professor's site doesn't spell out why his work should be viewed as valid.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> And why should this data by some assistant professor be viewed as credible?
> 
> What experience does he have in this type of research?
> 
> I'm not dismissing his findings but the assistant professor's site doesn't spell out why his work should be viewed as valid.


Every graph is fact, don't question it!


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> And why should this data by some assistant professor be viewed as credible?
> 
> What experience does he have in this type of research?
> 
> I'm not dismissing his findings but the assistant professor's site doesn't spell out why his work should be viewed as valid.


Lol really? instead of fighting the arguments in the draft we're fighting the source?

And first of all, if you read the abstract you would know that the data is from the IPSOS poll not directly from the professor. And second if you readed past "asistant professor" you would have read his experience because he explicitely says 

"I use results from a series of novel survey experiments to show that persuasion is a commonplace occurrence in American political life: people, regardless of background or ideology, update their attitudes and beliefs in the direction of new political information. My interests extend beyond persuasion to the causes of mass political participation and the design and analysis of randomized experiments."

His results aren't viewed as valid ye because the work is still not peer-reviewed that's why it explicitely says "draft". And the process of review take months, but i guess we should wait until he published the experiment 6 or 12 months from now when no one else cares about it.....or we can talk about his findings and why they're or aren't valid, jesus



Miss Sally said:


> Every graph is fact, don't question it!


Same, what about discussing the graph or the findings and not the source......


----------



## Rise

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> I'm very liberal which is why i cannot vote for a war criminal who will engage the US military in a most dangerous manner. I also have an issue with someone who when in power spoke with such passion about: black youth as super predators, being adamantly against gay marriage and led the charge to invading Iraq. Only when out of power did each of those positions change. Actions speak louder than her empty words.


Fair, but if you really have liberal views can you then vote for Trump? Think of the Supreme Court, among other things like the return of failed trickle down economics. This country desperately needs new Parties which represent new ideas. 

I am really torn on what to do. I think Clinton is more Presidential, and I believe her Supreme Court Justices would more align with my views. On top of that the agendas that I do believe in won't get passed during her term, but they will get moved towards that direction. On the other hand she has so much baggage I don't know if I can bring myself to mark her name down. 

Trump is not Presidential, he just doesn't carry himself to the high standard that a President should. I do like his thoughts on trade deals, but that is pretty much it. I simply don;t agree with his views, and I empathize with the people he offends. I do believe it is a civic duty to listen to the offended and make an effort to make them feel comfortable, he takes the stance that if you're offended by what I say that is your problem. I just couldn't disagree more with that line of thinking, especially from a President. 

So logic says I should vote for a 3rd Party right? Maybe I will since in Illinois it is going Clinton regardless and then I can help further those agendas. It is just hard to vote for someone with no chance to win.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rise said:


> Fair, but if you really have liberal views can you then vote for Trump? Think of the Supreme Court, among other things like the return of failed trickle down economics. This country desperately needs new Parties which represent new ideas.
> 
> I am really torn on what to do. I think Clinton is more Presidential, and I believe her Supreme Court Justices would more align with my views. On top of that the agendas that I do believe in won't get passed during her term, but they will get moved towards that direction. On the other hand she has so much baggage I don't know if I can bring myself to mark her name down.
> 
> Trump is not Presidential, he just doesn't carry himself to the high standard that a President should. I do like his thoughts on trade deals, but that is pretty much it. I simply don;t agree with his views, and I empathize with the people he offends. I do believe it is a civic duty to listen to the offended and make an effort to make them feel comfortable, he takes the stance that if you're offended by what I say that is your problem. I just couldn't disagree more with that line of thinking, especially from a President.
> 
> So logic says I should vote for a 3rd Party right? Maybe I will since in Illinois it is going Clinton regardless and then I can help further those agendas. It is just hard to vote for someone with no chance to win.


I haven't decided who I'm voting for but know who I'm not voting for. The Supreme Court will get a far more safe, conservative leaning justice with Clinton than Obama has nominated. The sad reality is the imperial presidency we've had since 2000 has diminished the power of both the Court and the Congress.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Lol really? instead of fighting the arguments in the draft we're fighting the source?
> 
> And first of all, if you read the abstract you would know that the data is from the IPSOS poll not directly from the professor. And second if you readed past "asistant professor" you would have read his experience because he explicitely says
> 
> "I use results from a series of novel survey experiments to show that persuasion is a commonplace occurrence in American political life: people, regardless of background or ideology, update their attitudes and beliefs in the direction of new political information. My interests extend beyond persuasion to the causes of mass political participation and the design and analysis of randomized experiments."
> 
> His results aren't viewed as valid ye because the work is still not peer-reviewed that's why it explicitely says "draft". And the process of review take months, but i guess we should wait until he published the experiment 6 or 12 months from now when no one else cares about it.....or we can talk about his findings and why they're or aren't valid, jesus
> 
> 
> 
> Same, what about discussing the graph or the findings and not the source......


I responded before you edited your post to link to the pdf. Don't attack me and act like some lunatic with your hair on fire; it's just not necessary.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> I responded before you edited your post to link to the pdf. Don't attack me and act like some lunatic with your hair on fire; it's just not necessary.


I didn't attack you.

But the link to the draft is also in the link i posted before editing, same with the description of the author. It's just doing a bit of effort instead of acting suspicious immediately


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> There in lies the problem, we're a two party system and this election has proven that we cannot stay on a two party course. While I don't like Stein, she was there to vote for. The problem is nobody wants to break party lines and they stay loyal even when they shouldn't be. The Captain goes down with the ship but with these parties it's like the Captain is steering the ship straight into hell, why stay?
> 
> So you're right I guess just give up, keep voting for terrible people. Nothing will change, thanks Retep. People shouldn't try to change anything at all because nothing is worth it or even bothering to do.


I agree that the two-party stranglehold is a serious issue, as is our reliance on first-past-the-post voting. Stein is certainly there to vote for, and I know a handful of people who will be, but I think her platform is to the left of a good chunk of the Democrat voter base and doesn't really focus on the issues that are important to them. She's more of a protest candidate than someone whose views align with an overwhelming majority of people. Now, if Bernie Sanders had run, I think you'd see him splintering far more support on the left — which is why I'll bet the DNC did whatever they needed to do to ensure he didn't run.

There's also the whole "throwing your vote away" mantra, which probably doesn't help, but I think if there were actually a viable candidate running third party, they might be able to gain some traction. Gary Johnson has managed to carve out some support despite being fairly mediocre. I don't know what the circumstances are in Utah that are allowing McMuffin to be so competitive, but something like that on a national level is presumably possible.

But like I said, there are a lot of people in this country who perceive one of the two likely outcomes to be unacceptable. So, I don't know that it's a matter of party loyalty so much as just being unwilling to even allow for the possibility of the opposing major party candidate winning the White House. This exists, to a degree, in most elections, but I don't think anyone would argue that it's probably reached its peak in this one. The favorability ratings speak for themselves. A ton of people voting for Hillary are doing so as a means of cutting down Trump, and vice versa.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> I didn't attack you.
> 
> But the link to the draft is also in the link i posted before editing, same with the description of the author. It's just doing a bit of effort instead of acting suspicious immediately


No you're being an ass. I simply asked questions. I even said that I did not dismiss the work but would appreciate answers to those questions. 

You responded like some petulant child who hasn't taken his meds. It was completely uncalled for and troubling. 

Good day to you sir.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> No you're being an ass. I simply asked questions. I even said that I did not dismiss the work but would appreciate answers to those questions.
> 
> You responded like some petulant child who hasn't taken his meds. It was completely uncalled for and troubling.
> 
> Good day to you sir.


You asked questions suggesting that the work was invalid because you can't recognize the source which was in the link before editing. But yeah, good day to you too


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So I decided to watch the debate with Louder with Crowder commentary which made it far more entertaining to watch :lol.

To me there wasn't a clear winner in this debate, maybe Trump ever so slightly but he did not do enough I think to sway potential undecided voters. Too many times he was not specific enough policy wise and also was direct and honed in on the question asked. Not as bad as the first debate but definitely instances of this. Hillary played it very safe and went way more personal, she hid a lot during the debate as far as policy specifics go and in terms of criticisms of her own corruption and short comings.

The answers on the National Debt were pathetic, nothing on the huge deficits left by both Bush and Obama and nothing on the out of control spending which is the biggest problem facing the US right now. Both gave extremely vague answers on this and showed in truth that neither really know what they doing when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Nothing on the FED, it's policies or how they will make the Central Bank accountable.

As Wallace rightly points out, both candidates policies are projected to explode the debt to GDP ratio. It's going to be a terrible time economically for the US whoever gets voted in.

But yeah, Trump didn't do enough to win over the support he needs so am still picking Clinton to win the race. Even if there is a MASSIVE bombshell exposing Clinton you can be sure that CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post etc. will not cover it and do everything they can to pick out the tiniest examples to damage Trump because the media picked their candidate a long time ago.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> So I decided to watch the debate with Louder with Crowder commentary which made it far more entertaining to watch :lol.


Is that like MST3K for politics? Because that sounds like a great idea. :lmao


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> I always find it weird when people present this line of logic as though we are able to just _not_ elect a president should we collectively decide that both candidates are pure, unadulterated ass.


I think you're onto something here. One of the voting options should be, "fuck both these piece of shit candidates, come back with some new ones and we'll try this again".


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






CNN with their bullshit :lmao Does anyone actually still take them seriously?


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> I think you're onto something here. One of the voting options should be, "fuck both these piece of shit candidates, come back with some new ones and we'll try this again".


At any rate, I didn't mean to use @Miss Sally as a jumping off point for that discussion. I just saw that kind of sentiment on Facebook the other day and was kind of bewildered by it.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Unfortunately there really aren't any candidates to me who scream like a universally good candidate for president.

I will say this and this might annoy right wingers but it's what I feel, I was thinking about the 4 candidates that are running and the scariest thing for me is that the most left candidate of the 4 is actually the sanest person running for president. I say it's scary because she has a lot of policies economically speaking that I think would be a disaster but on foreign policy for example she is right on the money. She is the only one I can guarantee would actually be good when it comes to foreign affairs. Hillary is a warhawk, Trump is too inconsistent and a wildcard and Johnson is clueless. There is also a bunch of social issues and civil liberties issues which she is very good with, much better than the two main party candidates. She even criticized Hillary for undermining free speech meaning that I do not think she is a SJW leftist, even Johnson the so called libertarian candidate has essentially shown himself to a SJW in disguise.

If I were American, I wouldn't vote but if I were forced to choose I'd might have to vote Jill Stein and hope her more damaging policies get blocked by Congress. At least we would be guaranteed a much saner foreign policy and not a potential war with Russia.

Not that she would win but that would be my logic.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I pray every night that one day this era's Julius Caesar to end the corrupt American Republic and turn it into the American Empire. That will be the day I'll truly be happy with politics!


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



AryaDark said:


>


OMG YES! :mark: :mark: :mark:

I saw this the other day and it had me loling hard :lol.

Shoe0nhead2016.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I pray every night that one day this era's Julius Caesar to end the corrupt American Republic and turn it into the American Empire. That will be the day I'll truly be happy with politics!


Wait. We're not the American Empire yet?


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I pray every night that one day this era's Julius Caesar to end the corrupt American Republic and turn it into the American Empire. That will be the day I'll truly be happy with politics!


We're already close enough to an empire. It's just at the point where we don't always need to use direct military conquest to put someone under out boot.

I do have to say I'm disappointed in the lack of oligarchs getting stabbed to death though


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm not saying it's aliens, but LOL having Gary Johnson as the main third party guy. So yeah it's aliens.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> At any rate, I didn't mean to use @Miss Sally as a jumping off point for that discussion. I just saw that kind of sentiment on Facebook the other day and was kind of bewildered by it.


Shame on you. @Miss Sally has much better uses than as a jumping off point.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










(this is a joke, don't take this seriously cause I know some will lol)

Alright, who would you have gone with for the Libertarian nomination besides Gary Johnson? He's been incredibly disappointing.


----------



## Stormbringer

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The one thing I'm dreading is if Hilary wins, we'll have to endure so much female based propaganda and "history making" commercials, all leading to the inevitable Hilary Clinton holiday.......


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> I'm very liberal which is why i cannot vote for a war criminal who will engage the US military in a most dangerous manner. I also have an issue with someone who when in power spoke with such passion about: black youth as super predators, being adamantly against gay marriage and led the charge to invading Iraq. Only when out of power did each of those positions change. Actions speak louder than her empty words.


Trump will be way more dangerous when it comes to war. Trump said he will commit war crimes, he wants to bring back torture and said he would be open to bombing the innocent families of terrorists. So going based on your logic, you should not be voting for Trump either especially because Trump is a much bigger racist than Clinton. Trump is against same-sex marriage as well.

So who are you voting for?


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DX-Superkick said:


> The one thing I'm dreading is if Hilary wins, we'll have to endure so much female based propaganda and "history making" commercials, all leading to the inevitable Hilary Clinton holiday.......


"IT'S A REVOLUTION, MAGGLE!" :jbl


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787774752576245760
Hope this is true for any NDAs signed. I cannot wait for the books to be written about the behind the scenes goings on of this election.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Scott Adams scores the third (and most boring) presidential debate:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152067706781/i-score-the-third-debate

Enjoy. I certainly did.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Scott Adams scores the third (and most boring) presidential debate:
> 
> http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152067706781/i-score-the-third-debate
> 
> Enjoy. I certainly did.


Hillary does not need to rig the election to beat Trump. And again, the GOP try to rig the elections all the time. That is why they try so hard to push voter ID, why they do gerrymandering and why they try to suppress the vote especially of minorities. 

Both sides always do what they can do to rig the elections.

And Hillary won big last night, it was not even close.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Interestingly, both CNN and Frank Luntz's focus groups had Trump winning the debate:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/788935817376915456

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/788963879036424192


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Interestingly, both CNN and Frank Luntz's focus groups had Trump winning the debate:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/788935817376915456
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/788963879036424192


The scientific polls show otherwise. 


http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10...ton-voters-deem-trump-loser-final-debate.html

Also that was just a CNN focus group, the CNN/ORC polls said Clinton won.

Hillary Clinton won the final presidential debate, topping Donald Trump by a 13-point margin according to a CNN/ORC poll of debate watchers, giving Clinton a clean sweep across all three of this year's presidential debates.

Overall, 52% who watched tonight's matchup thought Clinton did the best job, to the 39% that thought Trump did


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Here's Bill Kristol melting down on Morning Joe. :lol


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I pray every night that one day this era's Julius Caesar to end the corrupt American Republic and turn it into the American Empire. That will be the day I'll truly be happy with politics!


Actually it was Augustus that created the Roman Empire. Caesar was dead before that. And we already are the American Empire and us and the EU are following the same path that lead to Rome's end.



Cipher said:


> (this is a joke, don't take this seriously cause I know some will lol)
> 
> Alright, who would you have gone with for the Libertarian nomination besides Gary Johnson? He's been incredibly disappointing.


Pretty accurate picture actually.

I would of gone with the Libs if they had a better candidate and not a SJW sounding idiot.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Jesus Christ, even the Toronto star can't be unbiased . Nearly every day they make articles of how many things Trump said were false and today they published another article claiming he made 1 false claim per minute. Unbelievable . Not one negative article about Hillary Clinton. My goodness this is ridiculous


You can thank Trudeau for that. Him and Obama are BFFs.

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Here's Bill Kristol melting down on Morning Joe. :lol


They are all pretty dumb. The reason why people like Paul Ryan don't unendorsed Trump is because they don't want to lose their seat. 

Paul started to speak poorly about Trump and Trumped turned the GOP voters against Ryan, Ryan got booed in his home town.

A week or so ago Paul Ryans approval rating was over +20 and its now at -5 for republicans.

Its even worse among Trump voters it was at +8 last week and now its at -36.

That is why they don't endorse him. Because Trump can cause them to lose


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:lol I just saw Bill Kristol's meltdown and was coming here to post about it. CP beat me to it.

:lmao

:garrett


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump will be way more dangerous when it comes to war. Trump said he will commit war crimes, he wants to bring back torture and said he would be open to bombing the innocent families of terrorists. So going based on your logic, you should not be voting for Trump either especially because Trump is a much bigger racist than Clinton. Trump is against same-sex marriage as well.
> 
> So who are you voting for?



















These videos are more relevant than ever when we have one of the most important debates when it comes to foreign policy and the two major parties. I am not excusing any of the positions Trump has taken on foreign policy, some of them are particularly very egregious and frankly are inhumane should he be serious about committing those acts. But there is a big difference between having a hawkish policy against ISIS (policies which I don't agree with either) and having a foreign policy which essentially treats the world like a chess board with Russia.

Having a no fly zone over Syria when it comes to Russia is more dangerous than any policy Trump has ever declared when it comes to foreign relations. In fact, Trump has said repeatedly he is not interested in regime change and is open to better relations with Putin. Now I'm no Russian sympathizer or Putin fan but that is infinitely better than wanting to put a policy in place where you potentially shoot down Russian planes. If that happens, not only would we see America fully committed to another full war in the middle east instead of these proxy wars but we will see the potential for world war III. That means countries like mine get dragged in along with it and I am not prepared to go to war myself or see any of my family go to war for a conflict that could easily be avoided with better judgement.

With all of Trump's short comings when it comes to foreign policy, the one thing I am sure about is under a Trump presidency we would be less likely to go into WW3. That is because Hillary is as much of a neo-conservative as a lot of the Republican Party. When you look at the tickets for both parties in terms of who their candidates are, there is no question that the Democrats have filled a much more pro-war candidate than the Republicans. That hasn't happened in over a decade going back to the Bush/Gore election which is extremely significant.

I am not prepared to co-sign a candidate who wants to escalate tensions with Russia and deflects any revelations from WikiLeaks or anything else that highlights her corruption and her two faced lying as a Russian conspiracy. The claims that she and her campaign have made in regards to Russia are as bad as some of the crazy things Alex Jones has claimed over the years. If you are going to be so anti-Trump or anti-Republican as to not see just how dangerous Clinton's foreign policy is; if you are going to ignore Jill Stein, a true progressive who states that Hillary's foreign policy positions are the most dangerous than any candidate including Trump simply to confirm your bias against Trump and the Republican party then I would question whether or not you are looking at the issues from a perspective that fits your political positions. As someone that I have seen criticize the foreign policy of the Bush years, I'm hoping to see consistency when quite clearly the Democratic nominee's position is the worst one out of two negative stances. Unfortunately I don't see that from you.

One final thing and I'm going to tag @Tater in this because he's seen the video I'm talking about, the US under Obama gave $20 Billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia since 2015. A couple of months ago, Congress passed a bill which approved a new $1.15 Billion weapons deal to the Saudi government. These are the weapons being used to kill civilians in Yemen. Hillary Clinton has taken money from the Saudi government into the Clinton Foundation. Why is that significant? Because as president it is guaranteed she will continue to arm foreign governments like the Saudi's who have some of the worst track records of human rights violations. Nothing changes on that front with Hillary and maybe it wouldn't under Trump but at least we'd have less of a chance going to war with Russia.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Rand. :mj2 What could've been.


----------



## Figure4Leglock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Just came to say god help USA , which one is lesser evil though? it doesn`t really matter, you still have to pick evil.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Rand. :mj2 What could've been.


Rand Paul would have destroyed Hillary. He was ok, the person on the right that made the most sense for me was Kasich. I did not agree with everything he said but Kasich was not nearly bad as Trump, Rubio or Cruz.

I would have voted for Paul or Kasich over Hillary.



And for L Dopa, the no fly zone thing is dumb, I agree. Its just daring Russia to cross into it. But I dont think she would do anything if they did.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> One final thing and I'm going to tag @Tater in this because he's seen the video I'm talking about, the US under Obama gave $20 Billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia since 2015. A couple of months ago, Congress passed a bill which approved a new $1.15 Billion weapons deal to the Saudi government. These are the weapons being used to kill civilians in Yemen. Hillary Clinton has taken money from the Saudi government into the Clinton Foundation. Why is that significant? Because as president it is guaranteed she will continue to arm foreign governments like the Saudi's who have some of the worst track records of human rights violations. Nothing changes on that front with Hillary and maybe it wouldn't under Trump but at least we'd have less of a chance going to war with Russia.


Pretty sure this is the vid you are referring to:






Here's a new one about Yemen from a couple of days ago:






"First of all, we shouldn't be aiding Saudi Arabia because they're massacring civilians. They don't care about civilian casualties and they aren't in this for hey, we need to preserve human rights and freedom and altruism... so, we shouldn't be backing them in the first place. And, we definitely shouldn't have our ships near fucking Yemen! GET 'EM OUT OF THERE! GET 'EM OUT OF THERE! GET 'EM OUT OF THERE! Why are you doing that?! Why are you doing that?! So then they get attacked there, oh, now we gotta go to war again."

:applause

And that's how they do it. They find ways to get into new wars. We shouldn't have ever had any ships anywhere near Yemen. They were like, please please shoot at us so we have an excuse to bomb you. Here we are. Take a shot. We beg you. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the USA faked the attack for PR reasons. The USA only "cares" about human rights violations when it's not their buddies. When it's Saudi Arabia, we'll help them commit war crimes in Yemen because that's just how we roll.

While I agree that Hillary is more likely to start WWIII than Trump is, it's important to remember that Trump has hired some of the worst of the neocons to his campaign and if elected, would still be the head of a party that is full of neocons. He might be less likely to start WWIII but really I don't think by much. It's not a stretch to believe he would be influenced by the neocons surrounding him behind closed doors.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Pretty sure this is the vid you are referring to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a new one about Yemen from a couple of days ago:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "First of all, we shouldn't be aiding Saudi Arabia because they're massacring civilians. They don't care about civilian casualties and they aren't in this for hey, we need to preserve human rights and freedom and altruism... so, we shouldn't be backing them in the first place. And, we definitely shouldn't have our ships near fucking Yemen! GET 'EM OUT OF THERE! GET 'EM OUT OF THERE! GET 'EM OUT OF THERE! Why are you doing that?! Why are you doing that?! So then they get attacked there, oh, now we gotta go to war again."
> 
> :applause
> 
> And that's how they do it. They find ways to get into new wars. We shouldn't have ever had any ships anywhere near Yemen. They were like, please please shoot at us so we have an excuse to bomb you. Here we are. Take a shot. We beg you. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the USA faked the attack for PR reasons. The USA only "cares" about human rights violations when it's not their buddies. When it's Saudi Arabia, we'll help them commit war crimes in Yemen because that's just how we roll.



More indicative as well in how the US is currently an economy based on war and how rampant the Military Industrial Complex has gotten influence over the American political system. Selling arms to countries to profit from war that only the contractors benefit from, meanwhile spending money on more wars plunging the US further and further into debt. The two biggest issues essentially rolled into one: Government spending and the US's interventionist war machine foreign policy.

You know as I was watching this my first instance was to think "where the FUCK are the UN on this? These are war crimes and violations being committed here". Then I found out Saudi Arabia is the head of the UN human rights panel.....

What
The
Fuck

fpalm.

Seriously, so messed up it's unreal.



> While I agree that Hillary is more likely to start WWIII than Trump is, it's important to remember that Trump has hired some of the worst of the neocons to his campaign and if elected, would still be the head of a party that is full of neocons. He might be less likely to start WWIII but really I don't think by much. It's not a stretch to believe he would be influenced by the neocons surrounding him behind closed doors.


Very fair and valid points to make. I agree with you. It's just I've seen so many instances here and on other sites where Hillary's abomination of a foreign policy is underplayed simply because either they hate Trump that much that they have to prove somehow he is worse at every turn or because they are a Democratic party shill who are political party supporters rather than having any political substance or honesty.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump will be way more dangerous when it comes to war. Trump said he will commit war crimes, he wants to bring back torture and said he would be open to bombing the innocent families of terrorists. So going based on your logic, you should not be voting for Trump either especially because Trump is a much bigger racist than Clinton. Trump is against same-sex marriage as well.
> 
> So who are you voting for?


Hillary has already committed war crimes it seems and so has Obama, Hillary has labeled black males as super predators, her husband's policies have done nothing but hurt the black community. Clinton was also against same sex marriage if I recall. 

Can you not be anymore biased? 

Let me guess, if Hillary becomes President, starts more wars and does a fuck ton of evil stuff.. "Well Trump would have committed war crimes! And he would have done this and that, so it's not as bad as what he would have done.. even though he's yet to do any of it!"


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Hillary has already committed war crimes it seems and so has Obama, Hillary has labeled black males as super predators, her husband's policies have done nothing but hurt the black community. Clinton was also against same sex marriage if I recall.
> 
> Can you not be anymore biased?
> 
> Let me guess, if Hillary becomes President, starts more wars and does a fuck ton of evil stuff.. "Well Trump would have committed war crimes! And he would have done this and that, so it's not as bad as what he would have done.. even though he's yet to do any of it!"


Tell me something I don't know about Hillary. That still does not mean that Trump is not worse. Yes the Clintons fucked over blacks especially with prisons for profit but Trump not only will fuck over blacks, he will latinos, women, gays, Muslims, etc etc etc

The only people that are biased here are Trump supporters like yourself. Trump has no clue what he is talking about, and you want someone who is incompetent as president Hell Trump thinks that global warming is a hoax FFS

We know what we will get with Hillary, more of fhe same of Obama with Trump it would be the downfall of the US

I think its funny you claim I am biased for Hillary when I despise her. Just shows you cant even be honest.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Tell me something I don't know about Hillary. That still does not mean that Trump is not worse. Yes the Clintons fucked over blacks especially with prisons for profit but Trump not only will fuck over blacks, he will latinos, women, gays, Muslims, etc etc etc
> 
> The only people that are biased here are Trump supporters like yourself. Trump has no clue what he is talking about, and you want someone who is incompetent as president Hell Trump thinks that global warming is a hoax FFS
> 
> We know what we will get with Hillary, more of fhe same of Obama with Trump it would be the downfall of the US
> 
> I think its funny you claim I am biased for Hillary when I despise her. Just shows you cant even be honest.


Yup far safer with Hillary for sure! 

Also I am more biased to Trump because Hillary is far worse than he is and I'm not basing this on what if's and maybes.

Hillary isn't going to be Obama 2.0, while Obama is an inept dumbass, Hillary is owned by far more people than he ever was and let's be real Obama did try to help people, Hillary couldn't care any less about people.

I'm not the only one pointing out your complete and utter bias, maybe that should be taken into consideration. This is how you sound, 

Random Person- "Man, Hillary just farted, that smells awful!"

BM- "HILLARY FARTED? WELL TRUMP FARTS ALL THE TIME, HE SAID HE WILL FART IN THE MOUTHS OF EVERYONE AND HE ONCE SMACKED A PUPPY AND EATS BEANS BECAUSE HE HATES *******!!!!"

Random Person- "Jesus settle down, I'm just saying Hillary stinks.."

BM- "NO I WILL NOT SETTLE DOWN YOU'RE BIASED AND YOU HATE ALL THAT IS GOOD, TRUMP'S FARTS WILL END THE WORLD!!"

I actually like your posts, they're funny you're almost like a "leftist" Alex Jones, or like watching TYT it's funny!

Also I support Cottonmouth for US President!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Yup far safer with Hillary for sure!
> 
> Also I am more biased to Trump because Hillary is far worse than he is and I'm not basing this on what if's and maybes.
> 
> Hillary isn't going to be Obama 2.0, while Obama is an inept dumbass, Hillary is owned by far more people than he ever was and let's be real Obama did try to help people, Hillary couldn't care any less about people.
> 
> I'm not the only one pointing out your complete and utter bias, maybe that should be taken into consideration. This is how you sound,
> 
> Random Person- "Man, Hillary just farted, that smells awful!"
> 
> BM- "HILLARY FARTED? WELL TRUMP FARTS ALL THE TIME, HE SAID HE WILL FART IN THE MOUTHS OF EVERYONE AND HE ONCE SMACKED A PUPPY AND EATS BEANS BECAUSE HE HATES *******!!!!"
> 
> Random Person- "Jesus settle down, I'm just saying Hillary stinks.."
> 
> BM- "NO I WILL NOT SETTLE DOWN YOU'RE BIASED AND YOU HATE ALL THAT IS GOOD, TRUMP'S FARTS WILL END THE WORLD!!"
> 
> I actually like your posts, they're funny you're almost like a "leftist" Alex Jones, or like watching TYT it's funny!
> 
> Also I support Cottonmouth for US President!


Your logic is so awful, its not even funny.

Your fart example is just so stupid but I expect nothing less from a Trump supporter.

We are comparing who will be worse Hillary or Trump so of course you will show why Trump would be worse. 

Your ignorance gets more and more amusing eery time you post. You can't defend Trump so of course you have to make a childish post like you making a personal attack toward me.

Just shows you know you have lost and have to resort to this kind of nonesense. Its because of childish Trump stuff like this why i took a break for almost a week. Its pretty pathetic what posters like you are stooping to.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Here's Bill Kristol melting down on Morning Joe. :lol


Rather than do something sensible like sleep I watched this live. 

Bill Kristol might be the single most detestable figure in all of American politics, that is how hideous he is. Plus he's a Dodgers fan so it fits. :side:

For decades I've been waiting for Tom Cruise to pull off Kristol's face on television.

EDIT:

Notice that his first reflex is toward purging anyone who does not sufficiently align with what he want. Mr. Kristol's father may have ditched Trotskyism for liberalism for neoconservatism but the strain of authoritarian purge-all-who-dissent philosophy, so prominent with the elevation of William F. Buckley, Jr. as purported pontiff of the American right, while serving firstly as a CIA agent and who brought Agency credentials and ideology with him in the creation of _National Review_, remains the neocons' most outstanding attribute.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Your logic is so awful, its not even funny.
> 
> Your fart example is just so stupid but I expect nothing less from a Trump supporter.
> 
> We are comparing who will be worse Hillary or Trump so of course you will show why Trump would be worse.
> 
> Your ignorance gets more and more amusing eery time you post. You can't defend Trump so of course you have to make a childish post like you making a personal attack toward me.
> 
> Just shows you know you have lost and have to resort to this kind of nonesense. Its because of childish Trump stuff like this why i took a break for almost a week. Its pretty pathetic what posters like you are stooping to.


Wait wait.. the person who personally attacks everyone in this thread who doesn't agree with them is complaining about it? Haha! 

My fart example is showing how stupid you sound when someone actually brings up strong points about Hillary, you cannot help yourself to pounce rather than have a rationale discussion. 

My post wasn't to defend Trump, the guy has said a lot of dumb things and cannot seem to stay on target when it comes to doing what he wants. He's had so many chances to actually make a good reason why he should be President but he's yet to do that because he takes everything personal. That being said I don't see any evidence he'd be worse than Hillary because speculation isn't proper evidence that he would do worse, well compared to Clinton's track record anyways.

We have one potential and one who has a legit track record of all their faults, I'm sorry but "potential bad" doesn't outweigh what is already established. It's possible you are correct but again we cannot actually say that or even claim it as something that can be true because it's not yet happened nor will it seem to happen at this point. So again your argument of potential bad is pointless and really unprovable because there is nothing to compare it with. 

If you weren't so biased people wouldn't post silly stuff to you. You were warned a few times in this thread for your attacking people and I believed banned at one point from the thread, could be wrong about the ban so forgive me if I don't take you taking the moral high road seriously.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Rand would have utterly destroyed Hillary :hogan


----------



## blackholeson

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*People of America. How did we get to this point in our American Democracy that we are left with Trump and Clinton? Seriously though.*


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



blackholeson said:


> *People of America. How did we get to this point in our American Democracy that we are left with Trump and Clinton? Seriously though.*


The American people have spent the last 10 years or so getting progressively dumber


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> You know as I was watching this my first instance was to think "where the FUCK are the UN on this? These are war crimes and violations being committed here". Then I found out *Saudi Arabia is the head of the UN human rights panel*.....
> 
> What
> The
> Fuck
> 
> fpalm.
> 
> Seriously, so messed up it's unreal.


I actually knew that because I've heard Kyle mention it on ST. Yeah, that's definitely one of the more WTF things in a WTF world. 



L-DOPA said:


> Very fair and valid points to make. I agree with you. It's just I've seen so many instances here and on other sites where Hillary's abomination of a foreign policy is underplayed simply because either they hate Trump that much that they have to prove somehow he is worse at every turn or because they are a Democratic party shill who are political party supporters rather than having any political substance or honesty.


That goes both ways. There are anti-Hillary people who (correctly) point out that she is a war monger and has a foreign policy that could very well lead us into WWIII but they conveniently ignore what's going on with Trump, who might end up being just as bad. It's fair to point out that Hillary has a record of being a hawk and Trump doesn't. However, a dove wouldn't be hiring neocons. It's not something you'd ever see Stein do. Since Trump doesn't have a record to judge him by, we can really only go by what he has said and who he has surrounded himself with. Since what he says can change on a daily basis, I am more inclined to judge him by the company he keeps. I posted this a couple of months ago and it is still relevant now.



> *Trump’s Connections to Wall Street, Soros, Blackwater and the CFR*
> 
> by Steven MacMillan
> 
> Out of all the individuals in the political sphere today, no one stirs controversy and divides opinion more than Donald Trump. For months now, Trump’s flamboyant personality and demagogic rhetoric has dominated the media landscape, turning the presidential race into the biggest entertainment event of the year. Hailed as the saviour of America by some, and as a train wreck waiting to happen by others; Trump still remains somewhat of an enigma.
> 
> There is no doubt that his straight-talking style has resonated with many Americans who are tired of career politicians more concerned with political correctness than confronting real issues. Many Americans are also encouraged by some of Trump’s stances on certain issues – including his comments on improving relations with Russia, and his seeming opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – yet his constant flip-flopping on issues makes it impossible to decipher what his actual policies will be if elected.
> 
> Trump’s chances are emboldened by the fact that his major competitor in the race is so hated by every thinking person in the world, that many Americans may support Trump purely as the lesser of two evils. With Hillary at the helm, the American people know exactly what they are going to get: more war, more corruption and more policies that will only benefit special interests.
> 
> *Trump: The Anti-Establishment Candidate?*
> 
> Trump supporters are often very vocal in their belief that the real estate magnate is an anti-establishment outsider. In many of his speeches and comments, Trump plays up to this (probably carefully constructed) persona. Judging by the nature of people advising the presidential candidate however, Trump’s anti-establishment populism looks anything but genuine.
> 
> In addition to the establishment heavyweights Trump has already met with – including the former US Secretary of State and member of the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Henry Kissinger, and the former Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and current head of the CFR, Richard Hass – Trump’s official advisory teams on both foreign and economic policy reveal some troublesome connections to the neocons, Wall Street, Soros and the CFR.
> 
> *A Foreign Policy Ran by Blackwater and the Neocons*
> 
> Trump’s official foreign policy team includes a minimum of two neocons, with Joseph E. Schmitz the clear winner of the award for the worst foreign policy adviser in Trump’s selection. Schmitz, a lawyer by trade, is the former Inspector General of the Department of Defense in addition to being a former executive at none other than Blackwater Worldwide. Blackwater, which rebranded itself as Academi in 2011 due to its atrocious reputation (similar to what Jabhat Al-Nusra just done), is the notorious military contractor that has been involved in various controversies.
> 
> It is probably most infamous for the horrific incident in 2007, when Blackwater guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians and injured a further 20 after opening fire at a traffic junction in Baghdad. Other Blackwater enterprises include making a fortune of pretending to fight the booming opium trade in Afghanistan (which so ‘curiously’ skyrocketed following the US-led invasion of the country in 2001), in addition to fighting alongside the Western-backed terrorists in Syria who are trying to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad.
> 
> Schmitz is also connected to the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a neocon think tank whose publications fuel the anti-Islamic hysteria that is so prevalent in the US today. As Professor Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research has documented, CSP is an organization that has received funding by corporate powers who are promoting Islamophobia in America. CSP is also reportedly financed by numerous giants of the military-industrial complex, including Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.
> 
> *Economic Advisers Connected to Wall Street, Soros and the CFR*
> 
> At the beginning of August, Trump officially announced his economic advisory council. Considering that Trump has criticised Hillary Clinton for her overt Wall Street connections, you would think that Trump would pick a council devoid of any Wall Street titans. Well think again; Trump’s economic team is largely comprised of bankers, hedge fund managers and Wall Street insiders, who do not in any way represent the interests of the average American voter.
> 
> Steven Mnuchin, Trump’s National Finance Chairman and a major economic adviser, could not be more in bed with Wall Street and the establishment. Mnuchin is a former partner at Goldman Sachs, spending a total of 17 years at the financial powerhouse, according to Bloomberg. In addition to working for Goldman for close to two decades, Mnuchin also worked at Soros Fund Management, a firm founded by the billionaire and regime change extraordinaire, George Soros.
> 
> Another prominent economic adviser to Trump is John Paulson, the billionaire and hedge fund manager who founded Paulson & Co in 1994. Paulson, who formerly worked at Bear Stearns, is famous for shorting the housing market in the run up to the financial crisis of 2007-08, earning approximately $4 billion from the trade. The billionaire is also a member of the CFR, in addition to previously backing Mitt Romney in his failed 2012 presidential bid.
> 
> In addition to Mnuchin and Paulson, Trump’s economic advisers include Stephen Feinberg, the CEO of the private investment firm, Cerberus Capital Management; Stephen Calk, the founder of the Federal Savings Bank who has previously worked for Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp and Bank of America; and Wilbur Ross, the billionaire who spent 25 years running Rothschild Inc’s bankruptcy practice. Trump has also reshuffled his campaign team recently, appointing Stephen Bannon, a former investment banker at Goldman Sachs, as his new campaign CEO.
> 
> It is clear that Clinton is the pick of the establishment, which explains the largely negative coverage of Trump in the mainstream media. But considering the nature of the advisers surrounding Trump, the establishment has pulled its usual trick of ensuring that it controls both major candidates in the presidential race.
> 
> SOURCE


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Wait wait.. the person who personally attacks everyone in this thread who doesn't agree with them is complaining about it? Haha!
> 
> My fart example is showing how stupid you sound when someone actually brings up strong points about Hillary, you cannot help yourself to pounce rather than have a rationale discussion.
> 
> My post wasn't to defend Trump, the guy has said a lot of dumb things and cannot seem to stay on target when it comes to doing what he wants. He's had so many chances to actually make a good reason why he should be President but he's yet to do that because he takes everything personal. That being said I don't see any evidence he'd be worse than Hillary because speculation isn't proper evidence that he would do worse, well compared to Clinton's track record anyways.
> 
> We have one potential and one who has a legit track record of all their faults, I'm sorry but "potential bad" doesn't outweigh what is already established. It's possible you are correct but again we cannot actually say that or even claim it as something that can be true because it's not yet happened nor will it seem to happen at this point. So again your argument of potential bad is pointless and really unprovable because there is nothing to compare it with.
> 
> If you weren't so biased people wouldn't post silly stuff to you. You were warned a few times in this thread for your attacking people and I believed banned at one point from the thread, could be wrong about the ban so forgive me if I don't take you taking the moral high road seriously.


You are a typical Trump supporter. I get attacked first then I do it back then you point the finger at me LOL Cool Story Bro.

Your fart example show you show ignorant Trump supporters are. The whole discussion is about Trump vs Hillary and who would be worse. And you get all pissy when I point out how Trump would be worse, then you use that stupid fart example to be like well see someone is saying why Hillary would be bad but you come back and show why Trump would be worse. Do you even believe the BS you are spewing? 

Trump is a racist, a sexist, a bigot, a rapist, a sexual assaulter, he is a huge failure in businesses, he defrauded people, he does not pay his debts, he complains about illegal immigrants yet uses them himself, he complains about steel from china, yet uses it himself. and liek I said he admitted he wants to commit war crimes and also wants to take away peoples first amendment rights. Trump is an idiot, he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about on anything. And this is the guy you want for president lol.

Its also ironic how you call out Hillary for being a war monger when that is what the GOP is known for. And Trump also thinks other countries should have nuclear weapons. Its not pointless on what the potential is espeicaly based on what Trump said he plans to do. You stop it before it even happens. 

The only reason people post still stuff toward me is because they know they cant refute it so they make stupid shit like you just did with your fart example.

None of this really matters anyways since Trump has pretty much no chance at winning.



And yeah its always funny how I get warned for fighting back against personal attacks yet the people the start it or do the baiting, dont. But we all know why that is.

So lets get back to Trump vs Hillary and leave the petty BS from both of us out of it.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are a typical Trump supporter. I get attacked first then I do it back then you point the finger at me LOL Cool Story Bro.
> 
> Your fart example show you show ignorant Trump supporters are. The whole discussion is about Trump vs Hillary and who would be worse. And you get all pissy when I point out how Trump would be worse, then you use that stupid fart example to be like well see someone is saying why Hillary would be bad but you come back and show why Trump would be worse. Do you even believe the BS you are spewing?
> 
> Trump is a racist, a sexist, a bigot, a rapist, a sexual assaulter, he is a huge failure in businesses, he defrauded people, he does not pay his debts, he complains about illegal immigrants yet uses them himself, he complains about steel from china, yet uses it himself. and liek I said he admitted he wants to commit war crimes and also wants to take away peoples first amendment rights. Trump is an idiot, he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about on anything. And this is the guy you want for president lol.
> 
> Its also ironic how you call out Hillary for being a war monger when that is what the GOP is known for. And Trump also thinks other countries should have nuclear weapons. Its not pointless on what the potential is espeicaly based on what Trump said he plans to do. You stop it before it even happens.
> 
> The only reason people post still stuff toward me is because they know they cant refute it so they make stupid shit like you just did with your fart example.
> 
> None of this really matters anyways since Trump has pretty much no chance at winning.
> 
> 
> 
> And yeah its always funny how I get warned for fighting back against personal attacks yet the people the start it or do the baiting, dont. But we all know why that is.
> 
> So lets get back to Trump vs Hillary and leave the petty BS from both of us out of it.


Kay, GOP bad, Trump bad, you're oppressed.

Democrats don't like war, Hillary isn't so bad, the "Left" has the answers, Gotcha.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Kay, GOP bad, Trump bad, you're oppressed.
> 
> Democrats don't like war, Hillary isn't so bad, the "Left" has the answers, Gotcha.


Hillary is not nearly as bad as Trump. A huge number of democrats are only voting Hillary because its a vote against Trump, they are not voting Hillary because they like her but they want to keep Trump from winning. Not sure why you keep missing this , even though its been said a number of times.

Trump is the epitome of the right. He just everything they think out loud and now it could destroy their party.

And the DNC is not far behind, especially with the wiki leaks emails coming out. Hopefully by this time in 4 years both parties will be for the better.

It also would not surprise me if Hillary does indeed win that by 2020 she has not been impeached.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> Rand would have utterly destroyed Hillary :hogan


Nope. 

Right now, instead of hearing about any number of _faux pas_ committed by Donald Trump throughout the media arms of the Democratic Party, all we would hear about is how Rand Paul "wants the 1950s back" because he is such a principled fellow that he rightly acknowledges the U.S. Civil Rights Act as unconstitutional forced racial integration by the federal government. We would hear about how the Paul family was tied in with segregationist groups, "pro-white" Southern groups, et. al., until we were sick of seeing the grainy black-and-white footage of civil rights protests, angry white Southerners, protesting blacks, etc., Unlike Trump, whose knowledge of the U.S. Constitution seems microscopic, Paul would actually be a "worse" candidate in that he would say that _Roe v. Wade_ was an unconstitutional overreach by the Supreme Court. Trump last night said the issue of abortion would go back to the states; Paul would supply the philosophical buttressing behind such a notion, and thus alienate the same group of voters who are most robustly rejecting Trump, young single women with college degrees.

Let's not even broach the subject of Rand Paul's awful "isolationism"; Hillary would doubtless insist that Paul is an agent of the Kremlin just as surely as she argues that Trump is Vladimir Putin's puppet. 

This is without even mentioning that in the Republican Party as presently constituted, Paul could never escape through the minefield to become the party's nominee. Republicans still use rhetoric of their having been instrumental in passing the Civil Rights Act, for instance, as though any significant number of blacks or minorities care what the party did over half a century ago. Republicans still cling to the "Democrats Are the Real Racists" line of attack, apparently oblivious to the point that the Democrats have for over a century been the first political stop for immigrants and minorities since the Irish and Italians constituted most of what would be considered same. (Blacks did vote Republican consistently until the 1930s thanks to the legacy of "Honest Abe.") 

Furthermore, Trump's "isolationism" by contrast has more of a Jacksonian flavoring to it than what we could construe from Paul as more Jeffersonian. The majority of Americans still want to pound their chest and view themselves as the indispensable superhero of the planet.

What last night's debate and the reactions to it reinforce is that politics is the ultimate flimflam industry. The thought of elections being "rigged" or voter fraud perpetrated is evidently less offensive to media and at least a significant segment of voters than Trump saying that he will wait to see the results for himself, even after the 2000 and 2004 fiascos which birthed innumerable retrospective looks at what occurred in Florida and Ohio, respectively. This is a neo-Jacobin society whose tendrils of philosophy are rooted in abstract abstractions--ours may have been the American Revolution but we're truly children of the French Revolution and have been for a long while now. So while politicians must insist that they are against drugs pouring across the border (while the U.S. government actually aids innumerable drug lords through myriad methods), it's actually more triggering to hear Trump utter the words, "bad _hombres_" according to an army of Latino special interest hustlers in the last 24 hours than the murky concept of millions of Americans getting hooked on heroin and opiates. While most American politicians insist that they are at least objectively against the commission of abortions in the final month or pregnancy, it's actually more triggering for millions of voting young women with college degrees to hear at least a few of the particulars of the practice from Trump's mouth. So unpresidential. Wow, just wow. 

This is a society which is increasingly unable to have adult conversations about much of anything anymore in the realm of politics. Which is just how the regime likes it.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Trump is a racist, a sexist, a bigot, a rapist, a sexual assaulter, he is a huge failure in businesses, he defrauded people, he does not pay his debts, he complains about illegal immigrants yet uses them himself, he complains about steel from china, yet uses it himself. and liek I said he admitted he wants to commit war crimes and also wants to take away peoples first amendment rights. Trump is an idiot, he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about on anything.







- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Hillary is not nearly as bad as Trump. A huge number of democrats are only voting Hillary because its a vote against Trump, they are not voting Hillary because they like her but they want to keep Trump from winning. Not sure why you keep missing this , even though its been said a number of times.
> 
> Trump is the epitome of the right. He just everything they think out loud and now it could destroy their party.
> 
> And the DNC is not far behind, especially with the wiki leaks emails coming out. Hopefully by this time in 4 years both parties will be for the better.
> 
> It also would not surprise me if Hillary does indeed win that by 2020 she has not been impeached.


I don't think she'll be impeached, like how some people will call you racist for saying anything bad of Obama's rule, people will label you sexiest for opposing Hillary. Feminism is the hot topic right now so unless Hillary majorly fucks things up I don't see anyone saying anything for fear of losing their job or support.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I don't think she'll be impeached, like how some people will call you racist for saying anything bad of Obama's rule, people will label you sexiest for opposing Hillary. Feminism is the hot topic right now so unless Hillary majorly fucks things up I don't see anyone saying anything for fear of losing their job or support.


People are saying it now without fear, so I doubt anything will come of it. Regressives have used to the sexism thing so often that no one really cares anymore


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> CNN with their bullshit Does anyone actually still take them seriously?







Trump sacrificed himself to expose the dishonest media so his Presidential campaign wasn't done in vain.

- Vic


----------



## skypod

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Not sure what the fear is in Clinton winning. I reckon she'll be the most unspectacular 4 year president in US history. Sure she's corrupt and a globalist, but that's nothing new in American politics. She's not going to make anything better but I doubt she'll make it that much worse. Having Trump is more of a black mark internationally at a time when the US badly needs to repair its reputation overseas. Media's biased against him yet, but that doesn't immediately make him the better option.

As they say, don't blame the winner for winning, blame the loser for losing. It's up to the Republicans to put forward a viable candidate. Steal the independent format and have someone that wants sensible realistic economic policies but isn't obsessed with getting tied up with abortion, gay rights, right wing Christian bullshit. There's a huge amount of middle ground voters being ignored here that don't want somebody from Duck Dynasty representing them.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Wow. Trump going in on Hillary at the Al Smith Dinner. Way more aggressive than what is traditionally expected. Crowd wasn't too receptive.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Damn. Hillary was pretty negative too. Clearly no love is lost between the two.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Trump sacrificed himself to expose the dishonest media so his Presidential campaign wasn't done in vain.
> 
> - Vic


Does anyone take any mainstream media seriously? They are all full of shit .


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Does anyone take any mainstream media seriously? They are all full of shit .


6% of the population


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



THE MAN said:


> Wow. Trump going in on Hillary at the Al Smith Dinner. Way more aggressive than what is traditionally expected. Crowd wasn't too receptive.


The pardon me joke was pretty funny. The rest not so much.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Does anyone take any mainstream media seriously?


apparently you


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump actually delivered quite a few great jokes there, but then he got real and started telling the truth about Hillary so all of the sycophants in attendance started jeering - as expected in the empire of lies, where truth is treason.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump actually delivered quite a few great jokes there, but then he got real and started telling the truth about Hillary so all of the sycophants in attendance started jeering - as expected in the empire of lies, where truth is treason.


The thing is the occasion was supposed to be a light-hearted event. Not meant for serious talk. Surprising since he claim to attend the event for years. Don't blame the crowd for jeering at his poor jokes from his writers.

Both of them were horrible, but Trump bombed hard after a promising start again. It is becoming a trend where Trump can be competent for 1/3 of the time and them bombed hard the rest of the way in most of his public speaking that are not in front of his sycophants.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> The thing is the occasion was supposed to be a light-hearted event. Not meant for serious talk.


Too bad. :draper2 The man is trying to save his country and most of the people attending that event are trying to stop him. He's not going to let social convention hold him back, nor should he.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Too bad. :draper2 The man is trying to save his country and most of the people attending that event are trying to stop him. He's not going to let social convention hold him back, nor should he.


The country needs saving from him. :draper2


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> The country needs saving from him. :draper2


That's like, your opinion, man.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> The pardon me joke was pretty funny. The rest not so much.


Hillary had some great jokes tonight. Who did she steal them from?

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> That's like, your opinion, man.


It is a pretty popular opinion if you venture outside of conservative social media. :shrug


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/789112291476189186
Joe Scarborough, of all people, defending Trump against the faux outrage over him "not accepting the election result".

Also from Morning Joe, a montage of liberals crying fraud over previous elections: 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ge_of_democrats_calling_elections_stolen.html

:done The hypocrisy is staggering.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Joe Scarborough, of all people, defending Trump against the faux outrage over him "not accepting the election result".


Wow, he's got some fucking balls saying that on MSNBC.




> The hypocrisy is staggering.


Not surprising coming from the biggest hypocrite of them all:






- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/789112291476189186
> Joe Scarborough, of all people, defending Trump against the faux outrage over him "not accepting the election result".
> 
> Also from Morning Joe, a montage of liberals crying fraud over previous elections:
> 
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ge_of_democrats_calling_elections_stolen.html
> 
> :done The hypocrisy is staggering.


At least you lump in that idiot Watson as being a hypocrite.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> At least you lump in that idiot Watson as being a hypocrite.


no


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Short of Hillary dying or going to prison, she's going to be the next president. If nothing else though, Trump has done a service for the USA by getting more people talking about how our elections are rigged. How they are rigged comes in many forms. It's not just outright hacking the machines to alter the results, although that happens too. Really, the main way it is rigged is systemic. From the electoral college to money in politics to corporate produced MSM propaganda, everything about how the system is designed is to keep the people in power, in power. Americans are given the illusion of choice. They say your vote counts but it really doesn't. It's manufactured consent. We are presented with two choices and the people who own the USA, own both of those choices, so no matter who wins, they win, and we lose. 

Without a complete collapse of the system followed by a mass revolt, nothing is going to change. It certainly will never change as long as the system remains in place.



> *Rigged*
> by David Swanson
> 
> The 2016 Republican presidential primary was rigged. It wasn’t rigged by the Republicans, the Democrats, Russians, space aliens, or voters. It was rigged by the owners of television networks who believed that giving one candidate far more coverage than others was good for their ratings. The CEO of CBS Leslie Moonves said of this decision: “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.” Justifying that choice based on polling gets the chronology backwards, ignores Moonves’ actual motivation, and avoids the problem, which is that there ought to be fair coverage for all qualified candidates (and a democratic way to determine who is qualified).
> 
> The 2016 Democratic presidential primary was rigged. It wasn’t rigged by bankers, misogynists, Russians, Republicans, or computer hackers. It was rigged by the Democratic National Committee and its co-conspirators in the media, many of whom have helpfully confessed (in case it wasn’t obvious) in emails leaked from the DNC and from John Podesta. The DNC chose Hillary Clinton and worked hard to make sure that she “won.” Nobody has produced a hint of evidence as to who leaked the emails that added unnecessary confirmation of this rigging, but they should be thanked for informing us, whoever they are.
> 
> The FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton’s misuse of email was as rigged as the non-prosecution of the CEO of Wells Fargo. The U.S. political system is bought and paid for. Without millions of dollars to funnel to television networks for advertising, any candidate is rigged right out of participating. This rigging of the system is not fixed by someone like Donald Trump pretending for a while that he won’t take bribes, that he’ll spend only his own money, because most people don’t have that kind of money to spend. This rigging is not fixed by making someone like Hillary Clinton take her bribes through her family foundation or requiring that her political action committees remain theoretically separate from the campaign they are collaborating hand-in-glove with, because money buys power.
> 
> The debates are rigged by a private entity with no official status that calls itself the Commission on Presidential Debates and transforms open debates among multiple candidates into exclusively bipartisan joint appearances with many large and fine points negotiated beforehand.
> 
> Actual governance of the United States is rigged. Congress plans to attempt to ram through a number of intensely unpopular measures just after the election, including a supplemental spending bill for more wars and including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The hope is that most people will have tuned out after the election circus, and that most of them will forget what happened 2 or 4 years later.
> 
> The demonization of Vladimir Putin is rigged. Nobody has seen evidence that he or his government did us the favor of informing us of the DNC’s corruption. He proposed a ban on cyber “war” that was rejected by the United States, for goodness sake. There’s no evidence that Russia shot down an airplane in Ukraine or invaded Ukraine or seized Crimea or plotted attacks on the United States. The United States pulled out of the ABM treaty, expanded NATO to Russia’s border, built missile bases, arranged military “exercises,” facilitated a Ukrainian coup, and pushed a string of hostile lies. Russia has shown even more restraint than your typical U.S. voter (who usually sits home and does not vote, especially in primaries).
> 
> Military spending is rigged. Nobody knows it amounts to over half of U.S. discretionary spending. Nobody knows it’s as much in the U.S. as in the rest of the world (allies and otherwise) combined. Nobody pays attention to the bribes from war profiteers, or to the threats held over Congress members to pull weapons jobs out of districts or states. Supporters of both big candidates claim their candidate plans to cut military spending. Both candidates have said the exact opposite. The debates and interviews steer clear of the whole topic.
> 
> The shapes of the districts are blatantly rigged by gerrymandering. The existence of the Senate, in which Rhode Island and Wyoming each have as much say as California is rigged against the popular will. The electoral college is rigged against the popular will and in favor of concentrating national campaigns in a handful of “swing states.”
> 
> Voter registration is rigged. A handful of states have now made it automatic, as most states have long-since done for military draft registration. In the rest of the country, thousands of young people run around registering voters, imagining they are engaged in “activism.” Meanwhile, the right to vote can be denied to anyone by claiming they aren’t registered.
> 
> People’s names are stripped from voting rolls through a so-called justice system that brands them as felons, and through the careful rigging of those rolls by corrupt and partisan state governments that intentionally strip out people likely to vote for a particular party. This includes racial profiling. Bob Fitrakis, Harvey Wasserman, Greg Palast and others have reported extensively on these practices.
> 
> Election day is rigged as well. It’s not a holiday. Most people have to work. Poor districts and racial minority districts tend to have fewer machines and longer lines. ID requirements are used to deny people the right to vote. Intimidation and racial profiling by partisan activists serve the same function of rigging the election. The myths and lies about the virtually nonexistent phenomenon of “voter fraud” also serve to rig the election.
> 
> The election machines are also rigged. That is to say: instead of verifiable paper ballots publicly hand-counted in front of observers from all interested parties in each polling place, we have a faith-based system of voting on black-box machines that can never, even in theory, be checked for accuracy. These machines have been very easily hacked in demonstrations. These machines have visibly flipped votes before the eyes (and cameras) of countless voters. These machines have almost certainly played a key role in flipping the results of numerous elections.
> 
> Now, the wider the margin of victory, the less likely an electronic flipping. And the fact that machines can easily be used to steal an election does not mean that they always will be. But it was very odd during the late summer of 2016 to watch the U.S. media announce that these machines were totally unreliable — just what many of us had been saying for years. But the media said this in order to accuse Russia of planning to sabotage the coming U.S. election, or in order to accuse Russia of exactly what these media reports themselves did: plant seeds of doubt in U.S. minds.
> 
> Those doubts should be there. People should watch for visible problems with machines and with partisan and racist intimidators, and report all such to 1-866-OUR-VOTE, to county clerks, to secretaries of state, and to corporate and independent media. Then we should work for necessary reforms, including a respectful cessation of the U.S. government’s routine practice of interfering in elections and overthrowing governments in other people’s countries — a practice that has clearly resulted in the U.S. media projecting such behavior on others.
> 
> Ultimately, an unrigging of the U.S. system might take the form of amending the U.S. Constitution to slip in words like these:
> 
> The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.
> 
> Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.
> 
> The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.
> 
> All elections for President and members of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate shall be entirely publicly financed. No political contributions shall be permitted to any federal candidate, from any other source, including the candidate. No political expenditures shall be permitted in support of any federal candidate, or in opposition to any federal candidate, from any other source, including the candidate. The Congress shall, by statute, provide limitations on the amounts and timing of the expenditures of such public funds and provide criminal penalties for any violation of this section.
> 
> State and local governments shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for state or local public office or any state or local ballot measure.
> 
> The right of the individual U.S. citizen to vote and to directly elect all candidates by popular vote in all pertinent local, state, and federal elections shall not be violated. Citizens will be automatically registered to vote upon reaching the age of 18 or upon becoming citizens at an age above 18, and the right to vote shall not be taken away from them. Votes shall be recorded on paper ballots, which shall be publicly counted at the polling place. Election day shall be a national holiday.
> 
> Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press. During a designated campaign period of no longer than six months, free air time shall be provided in equal measure to all candidates for federal office on national, state, or district television and radio stations, provided that each candidate has, during the previous year, received the supporting signatures of at least five percent of their potential voting-age constituents. The same supporting signatures shall also place the candidate’s name on the ballot and require their invitation to participate in any public debate among the candidates for the same office.
> 
> SOURCE


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Lol at the butthurt and hysteria from some of Team Trumpsters in here now that Trump appears to be doing a Hindenburg. 

I have to admit to now read the excuses and delusions after months of chest puffing holds a certain amount of satisfaction.

Maybe one day you'll be able to entertain the idea that it wasn't the big bad media, it wasn't the 'rigged' election, the failure of Trump was down to one thing:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Lol at the butthurt and hysteria from some of Team Trumpsters in here now that Trump appears to be doing a Hindenburg.
> 
> I have to admit to now read the excuses and delusions after months of chest puffing holds a certain amount of satisfaction.
> 
> Maybe one day you'll be able to entertain the idea that it wasn't the big bad media, it wasn't the 'rigged' election, the failure of Trump was down to one thing:


Once Trump loses will he really even try to fight it?

He is just going to launch Trump TV and make millions off that. That was always his end game if he did not win which he never was going to anyways.




CamillePunk said:


> no


UM YES. Its funny you even take him seriously. But I am not surprised you take someone from info wars seriously.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> UM YES.


No. You said I lumped him in with the hypocrites. I did not. 

Your opinion of him is irrelevant to me, as is your opinion on every single topic.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> No. You said I lumped him in with the hypocrites. I did not.
> 
> Your opinion of him is irrelevant to me, as is your opinion on every single topic.


Coming from you that is a huge compliment, it just makes me know I am right.

What was the point exactly of putting his tweet in with Scarbro when you were calling Scarbro a hypocrite


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Lol at the butthurt and hysteria from some of Team Trumpsters in here now that Trump appears to be doing a Hindenburg.
> 
> I have to admit to now read the excuses and delusions after months of chest puffing holds a certain amount of satisfaction.
> 
> Maybe one day you'll be able to entertain the idea that it wasn't the big bad media, it wasn't the 'rigged' election, the failure of Trump was down to one thing:


To an extent...I almost feel sorry for the most fervent Trumpsters because they thought their vote would change things in Washington. Well, it's going to. They nominated another New York Democrat to go against another New York Democrat. Yes, his cult of personality managed to defeat 16 other GOP nominees but this has been an absolute disaster. Hopefully, they will finally be honest about that because those who say they are voting for him because he's a good conservative are deluding themselves. He's just another big government proponent using the bureaucracy to solve our problems. That doesn't work, and we're seeing this again. 

So, yes, they have changed the landscape in Washington as the Republican Party can now be burned to the ground and replaced with a true conservative party. But not before nominating THE worst possible candidate in 160 years of the GOP. 

Although...the funny thing is that as crazy as this election year has been, it might not be over yet. We still have another possible October Surprise coming from somewhere. Maybe this election has gotten so nasty that people aren't admitting who they are voting for. After all, the polls showed Brexit would fail and look how that ended. 



birthday_massacre said:


> Once Trump loses will he really even try to fight it?
> 
> He is just going to launch Trump TV and make millions off that. That was always his end game if he did not win which he never was going to anyways.
> .


We already have CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc...why another liberal news channel.  

Seriously, Trump will take his ball and go home. He will not stick around after the election if he loses. He will rip the GOP establishment and that's that.


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Lol at the butthurt and hysteria from some of Team Trumpsters in here now that Trump appears to be doing a Hindenburg.
> 
> I have to admit to now read the excuses and delusions after months of chest puffing holds a certain amount of satisfaction.
> 
> Maybe one day you'll be able to entertain the idea that it wasn't the big bad media, it wasn't the 'rigged' election, the failure of Trump was down to one thing:


The only two bright spots to Hillary winning is that, one, we won't be stuck with the disaster that would be a Trump presidency, and two, the pending meltdown of the trump supporters will be very enjoyable.
Fact is, Trump and Hillary are both shitty human beings and probably the the two worst major party candidates we've seen. If you think either one of them will make a good president or will do anything to help this country, you're a fucking idiot. 

It seems to me that most people voting for Hillary aren't deluded and see her for the lying, corrupt, power hungry person she is, they know she'll say and do whatever it takes to advance her self with zero shame, that she's bought off by special interest groups. But they look at Trump, and see someone that's even worse. Or they look at the actual issues, and see that Hillary's stances are closer to their own.

Trump on the other hand has a ton of followers that actually drink his Kool-Aid, buy all into his bullshit that he'll do anything to improve our country, that he's this great self made businessman that didn't rely heavily on his dad to get where he is. That he has any clue what he's actually doing or has any qualifications to actually run the country. That they think he lies any less than Hillary does (althor that he's any less likely to get into a nuclear war. 

They dismiss the dozens of polls, independent of one another, with widely varying methods, some of them have good track records of getting it right, and have nothing to gain and everything to lose by getting them wrong. They whine about media bias, when regardless of whether or not it is true, has had zero actual impact on the election. Like Trump, they can't fathom that most people do not agree with them and thus the election must be rigged.

People are always biased and have their blinders on just to see what they want to see. It's a given in any election. But Trump supporters take it to a whole new level. And while I'm not at all looking forward to seeing Hillary winning the election, I am definitely looking forward to seeing the reaction of all the Trumptards.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## amhlilhaus

Cabanarama said:


> DX-Superkick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Ronald Reagan an entertainer before he became president? Why does the Apprentice matter here?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but he also spent 30 years in politics before he became president, including two terms as governor of California...
Click to expand...

Didnt stop the democrats from calling him 'a failed actor' constantly, even as he kicked their asses everyway possible


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Although...the funny thing is that as crazy as this election year has been, it might not be over yet. We still have another possible October Surprise coming from somewhere. Maybe this election has gotten so nasty that people aren't admitting who they are voting for. *After all, the polls showed Brexit would fail and look how that ended. *


I think is really over, the numbers are really overwelming in Hillary's favor. Just yesterday PEC reached a 99% of a Hillary win, some betting markets are paying their bets already. You can even see in Trump's internal that they know it, look at Trump reaction at the end of the debate, look at his family, some rats are already abandoning the ship: Chris Christie hasn't appear on TV in forever, Roger Ailes left before the debate and just yesterday Natioanl political director took a "break".

And i must say, again, that polls in aggregate didn't got Brexit wrong



BruiserKC said:


> Seriously, Trump will take his ball and go home. He will not stick around after the election if he loses. He will rip the GOP establishment and that's that.


I don't think Trump is just going home to be fair. 

The campaign forgot the idea of expanding the base, because it's obvious they know is over,so there has to be a reason to keep appealing to the same guys. Trump, i think, is looking at the day after election, he practically killed his public image with this campaign and his businesses have losed 600 million dollars only this year as a result of it. He can't just go into the sunset, basically because his brand is his only real succeses and that is almost lost at this point. He's gonna stay in some form, maybe his rumored channel, a run for the leadership of the GOP or whatever but he's trying to consolidate a base to go into something. Look at this










His popularity is sliding, but if Trump stays, he still could be able to make an hostil takeover


----------



## amhlilhaus

THE MAN said:


> Damn. Hillary was pretty negative too. Clearly no love is lost between the two.


Im convinced this is just a show. After hillary wins she will go back to soliciting campaign donations from trump


----------



## amhlilhaus

Goku said:


>


Dont worry about that, hillarys the smartest, experienced, funniest politician we have.

She will have putin on his back purring while she rubs his belly


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cabanarama said:


> And while I'm not at all looking forward to seeing Hillary winning the election, I am definitely looking forward to seeing the reaction of all the Trumptards.


:lmao

I feel the same way. Although, I would equally enjoy watching Hillbots meltdown if Trump were to win. When you can't stand either side or their supporters, there is always fun to be had reveling in the misery of the losing side.


----------



## Cipher

Goku said:


>


Now this is interesting.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> *Republicans call Trump’s refusal to endorse election outcome ‘stupid,’ ‘frightening’*
> 
> Trump’s remarks at Wednesday’s presidential debate were perhaps the most astonishing of his entire campaign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's feared that Trump's comments could well reduce public faith in America’s democratic institutions, and delegitimize the entire process. (Evan Vucci / AP)
> 
> By Daniel Dale Washington Bureau
> Thu., Oct. 20, 2016
> 
> WASHINGTON—Jim Moseley is buying extra ammunition and stocking up on canned goods.
> 
> He is a Donald Trump supporter in South Carolina, and he is preparing for “war.” The civil war he thinks will start if Hillary Clinton is elected president.
> 
> “Once the trucks stop rolling, the grocery shelves will go empty and gasoline rationing will go into effect,” Moseley, who calls himself a “Christian soldier,” wrote in a Facebook message early this week.
> 
> “Liberals will have targets on their backs, as their behaviors are pretty much evident ... race wars will begin as well, as your skin color will be your uniform!”
> 
> The Star first met Moseley, a 59-year-old retired salesman, outside a Christian bookstore during the South Carolina primary in February. He was shopping for an anniversary card featuring Bible verses. He was friendly and polite.
> 
> It is the existence of people like him that has contributed to the widespread alarm over Trump’s unprecedented remarks Wednesday about the legitimacy of the election.
> 
> At best, politicians and academic experts said Thursday, Trump’s comments will reduce public faith in America’s democratic institutions. At worst, they could contribute to some form of unrest or violence on election day, or soon after, inciting aggrieved supporters into action.
> 
> “I think it’s frightening beyond my ability to describe,” Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee, who is on Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court picks, told the student newspaper at Brigham Young University. “It’s almost an anticipated repudiation of the outcome of the election ... It delegitimizes the entire process in a way that is really dangerous.”
> 
> Trump’s remarks were perhaps the most astonishing of his entire campaign, stunning even from a Republican candidate who has made a political brand of bigotry, sexism and conspiracy theories. Rejecting a foundational element of democratic governance, Trump refused at the final presidential debate to say he would accept the outcome of the vote if he loses.
> 
> “I will look at it at the time. I’m not looking at anything now. I’ll look at it at the time,” he said. When pressed by moderator Chris Wallace, he added, “I’ll keep you in suspense, OK?”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supporter Jim Moseley says he is preparing for "war" if Hillary Clinton wins the election. Some believe Trump’s unprecedented remarks could trigger violence or unrest on Election Day as supporters refuse to accept the outcome. (Daniel Dale)
> 
> Trump has always been untethered to the norms that underpin the country’s politics. As his chances of winning have plummeted, he has lengthened his own thin leash.
> 
> For much of October, which has seen him fall to a daunting six-point deficit in the polls, Trump has been insisting with no evidence that the election will be “rigged,” corrupted by the “voter fraud” that is actually exceedingly rare. Cries of protest from Democrats and from scholars of elections, who warned that he sounded like a foreign authoritarian, produced only a muted response from most Republicans.
> 
> The dam burst on Thursday. Trump’s latest remarks were a bridge too far even for right-wing radio personality Laura Ingraham, who spoke at his convention, and Maine Gov. Paul LePage, a Trump endorser known for his own ill-considered outbursts.
> 
> “Not accepting the results, I think, is just a stupid comment,” LePage told a Maine radio station. “I mean, c’mon. Get over yourself.”
> 
> Some Republican allies, like party chair Reince Priebus, insisted Trump was simply saying he was not willing to abandon his right to request a recount in a tight race.
> 
> But Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican who lost to Barack Obama in 2008, said a concession is a “duty” and “an act of respect for the will of the American people, a respect that is every American leader’s first responsibility.” And experts said Trump had sunken to previously unseen depths.
> 
> “His decision to keep us ‘in suspense’ about whether he would recognize a victory by Clinton really takes us to a new low in this presidential campaign. It’s effectively calling into question the sanctity and legitimacy of the United States electoral process,” said Mark P. Jones, a fellow at the Baker Institute at Texas’s Rice University who is involved in the White House Transition Project.
> 
> “Even if Trump ends up recognizing her, some segment of his supporters will remember his initial reticence, and continue to foster the belief, in their minds at least, that the electoral process is rigged. And that’s just as pernicious for the entire democratic system, because the voting process is the bedrock of our democracy.”
> 
> The controversy over what Trump will do if he loses makes it more likely he will lose. Even if it does not turn off many voters, it is eating scarce time. There are only 18 days until Nov. 8, and no candidate has come back from a deficit this big with this little time remaining.
> 
> Pippa Norris, a Harvard University lecturer and director of the Electoral Integrity Project, warned earlier in the week that Trump’s remarks about the “rigged” election could lead to protests or violence. She said his “anti-democratic” debate remarks could add more fuel to the fire.
> 
> “Nobody in established democracies says that they don’t accept the rules of the game such that if they don’t win that they’re not going to respect the result,” Norris said. “I saw that he’s just now said that of course if he wins, he will accept. That’s not the point.”
> 
> Trump’s walk-back Thursday was typically defiant, but it did at least open the door to a concession.
> 
> First, Trump said, at a rally in Ohio, “I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election — if I win.” He added, though, “Of course I would accept a clear election result. But I would also reserve my right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result.”
> 
> Trump’s past suggests he would have difficulty accepting a loss. As Clinton noted at the debate, he reacted with accusatory dismay when his reality television show, The Apprentice, did not win an Emmy. The night Obama was re-elected, he called the election a “total sham and a travesty” and called on people to “fight like hell” and “march on Washington.”
> 
> The potential bad news for America’s democratic health: Trump now has more influence over more people. The semi-good news: absent violence or disruptive protests, the short-term significance of a refusal to concede could well be nil. As a non-incumbent, Trump would have almost no ability to impede a Clinton transition.
> 
> “There’ll be no consequence for Hillary Clinton,” said Jones, “other than a lower level of legitimacy among some voters. Who, especially if Trump refuses to recognize the result, will for the next four years refer to Hillary Clinton as the candidate who stole the election.”
> 
> SOURCE


You know you've hit rock bottom when Paul "the dumbest governor in America" LePage is calling your comments stupid.






Also, :lmao at any Republican talking about respecting the will of the American people. That one broke the irony meter.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> What was the point exactly of putting his tweet in with Scarbro when you were calling Scarbro a hypocrite


:chan

The article was embedded in PJW's tweet. That's how Twitter works. My post had literally nothing to do with PJW. 

I also didn't call Scarborough anything. :lmao 

Get something right for once, BM. Hooked on phonics has worked for a lot of people.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Russia is trying to hijack and influence the election!!!

How dare trump suggest the election is rigged!!

Liberals are such a fucking joke. The entire thing is rigged and massive vote fraud is already being discovered.

We need paper and ID to vote or its a all a scam. 

The fucking bitch just rigged the primary against Bernie Sanders. Liberals kicked and scream over Bush beating Gore, and Kerry. Suggesting it was a coup, and he cheated. Demanding recount after recount.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> :chan
> 
> The article was embedded in PJW's tweet. That's how Twitter works. My post had literally nothing to do with PJW.
> 
> I also didn't call Scarborough anything. :lmao
> 
> Get something right for once, BM. Hooked on phonics has worked for a lot of people.


Oh projection at it's finest. You don't even understand the BS that you post. But why am I not surprised coming from you once again. It's getting comical now.

You said and I quote "The hypocrisy is staggering." referring to Morning Joe making a montage of liberals crying fraud over previous elections while defending Trump for crying about how the election is rigged.


And your post also has a tweet from Paul saying how Joe is right about leftist whining about voting rigging.

So how are you not calling Joe a hypocrite here? Do tell

What will be the real hypocrisy will be none of your peanut gallery who love to call me out when I make smart ass comments like this one, won't tell you oh why are you making personal attacks

And people wonder why I am snarky in my posts. But of course if you are a Trump supporter you get away with it.





CenaBoy4Life said:


> Russia is trying to hijack and influence the election!!!
> 
> How dare trump suggest the election is rigged!!
> 
> Liberals are such a fucking joke. The entire thing is rigged and massive vote fraud is already being discovered.
> 
> We need paper and ID to vote or its a all a scam.
> 
> The fucking bitch just rigged the primary against Bernie Sanders. Liberals kicked and scream over Bush beating Gore, and Kerry. Suggesting it was a coup, and he cheated. Demanding recount after recount.


How is it rigged against Trump exactly? He is down in the polls LOL

If Trump was up in the polls, and he wins the exit polls yet Hillary still wins the you can claim election fraud. But how exactly is the election rigged against Trump? Do you have any evidence? 

Plus show were there is voter fraud in the general election. Do you have evidence? 

We do need paper voting for sure but voter ID is not needed. That just suppresses the minority vote which of course the GOP wants because that is how they rig the election along with their gerrymandering.

Trump is losing big in the polls. Its laughable to claim there is fraud going on in this case.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Are you saying minorities are to stupid to get an ID?

The only ones it should affect is illegals.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CenaBoy4Life said:


> Are you saying minorities are to stupid to get an ID?
> 
> The only ones it should affect is illegals.


There is no need for IDs for voting, what is the point exactly?

this video will explain why


----------



## KPnDC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Once Trump loses will he really even try to fight it?
> 
> *He is just going to launch Trump TV* and make millions off that. That was always his end game if he did not win which he never was going to anyways.
> .


He's already launched it. A version of it launched on FBLive during the third debate.

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/trump-tv-quietly-launches-during-final-presidential-debate-051923406.html


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Voter fraud is when one person votes more than once or impersonates another voter etc.

Election fraud is when the results of an election are altered to steal an election.

Voter fraud is done on a singular scale, while election fraud is done on a massive scale.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> There is no need for IDs for voting, what is the point exactly?
> 
> this video will explain why


To stop election fraud and the democrats from busing people around to voting stations? That they have been doing for the past 3 decades or maybe because somehow dead people still vote?

which is why paper is a must. The machines are owned by friends of the democrats and george soros.

before you say im lying or a conspiracy nut go google it.

And you didnt answer my question how is it racist exactly and will stop minorities from voting? Sounds like a liberal answer so you can keep using them to rig the election.

LOL john oliver sorry im not clicking that and watching that pos failed uk comedian/


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KPnDC said:


> He's already launched it. A version of it launched on FBLive during the third debate.
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/tv/trump-tv-quietly-launches-during-final-presidential-debate-051923406.html


Don't be surprised if Trump gets Roger Ailes to run it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CenaBoy4Life said:


> To stop election fraud and the democrats from busing people around to voting stations? That they have been doing for the past 3 decades or maybe because somehow dead people still vote?
> 
> which is why paper is a must. The machines are owned by friends of the democrats and george soros.
> 
> before you say im lying or a conspiracy nut go google it.
> 
> And you didnt answer my question how is it racist exactly and will stop minorities from voting? Sounds like a liberal answer so you can keep using them to rig the election.
> 
> LOL john oliver sorry im not clicking that and watching that pos failed uk comedian/


Nothing is wrong with busing people in to vote if they are registered.

Also dead people dont vote. Most times that happens when they voted earlier and die before the election.

I posted this once Ill post it again

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...le-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/


A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast.
And most of those 31 were explained and not voter fraud.

And of course you won't watch the video because you dont want to be informed. 

If you watch the video it will tell you why it will prevent minorities from voting but you dont want the answer, that is why you dont want to watch it.

So where is all this voter impersonation you speak of?

I also agreed with you about the paper ballots. They need to have a paper trail for sure. They need to be able to do a legit recount if the exit polls are off.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Im not watching a failed comedian uk hack trying to tell Americans what they should accept for their election. 


And there is no excuse for anyone to not be able to get an ID. Get a state ID. You need some ID to get welfare if you are that poor you already have an ID. If you dont have an ID then its your own fucking fault and you dont get to vote.

They can bus people to pulling stations so they can repeat vote yet they cant bus them to a dmv and push for all to get an ID?

And no comment about the electronic voting fraud and how easy it is to manipulate or hack? And how they are owned by people working to get Dems elected ?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The Crook vs The Monster, by Scott Adams: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152115888936/the-crook-versus-the-monster


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CenaBoy4Life said:


> Im not watching a failed comedian uk hack trying to tell Americans what they should accept for their election.
> 
> 
> And there is no excuse for anyone to not be able to get an ID. Get a state ID. You need some ID to get welfare if you are that poor you already have an ID. If you dont have an ID then its your own fucking fault and you dont get to vote.
> 
> They can bus people to pulling stations so they can repeat vote yet they cant bus them to a dmv and push for all to get an ID?


They don't repeat vote. You are just making shit up. I already showed you there is no evidence that people repeat vote.

Are you going to ignore the evidence? 

If Trump wins in exit polls but Hillary wins those areas, then you can speak about election fraud. But you need to stop with this nonsense that people are voting more than once. There is no evidence of it. Like that link i gave you , only 31 cases, most explained, out of over a BILLION votes cast that were possible voter fraud.

You are better off arguing about the machines not registering correctly. Since in the primaries, Hillary always beat the polls in the locations that had no paper trail. So in the general, look at those locations and see if that follows suit, then you can make a case that Trump got screwed.

But Trump is going to get destroyed in the general. It has a chance to be one of the biggest blow outs ever.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

hahah they dont repeat vote. they just bus them all around for fun. What a joke.'

And no argument as to why voting ID is bad or racist? The election, and democracy in the USA itself is completely compromised with no ID voting laws. In fact there should be a separate voting ID needed as well which could easily be created and mailed out to every legal citizen.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CenaBoy4Life said:


> hahah they dont repeat vote. they just bus them all around for fun. What a joke.'
> 
> And no argument as to why voting ID is bad or racist? The election, and democracy in the USA itself is completely compromised with no ID voting laws. In fact there should be a separate voting ID needed as well which could easily be created and mailed out to every legal citizen.


Watch the video and that is the argument. It gives all the info why, but you refuse to wach it. So that is on you.

You are also ignoring the facts in the Washington post article where it shows no one is voting multiple times. If you have evidence fo that, citation please. 

Also voter ID is unconstitutional 

Show your evidence there is an issue with voter fraud with people voting more than once.

If you dont, im done with you.


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CenaBoy4Life said:


> hahah they dont repeat vote. they just bus them all around for fun. What a joke.'
> 
> And no argument as to why voting ID is bad or racist? The election, and democracy in the USA itself is completely compromised with no ID voting laws. In fact there should be a separate voting ID needed as well which could easily be created and mailed out to every legal citizen.


There have been many comprehensive studies by different sources, and all evidence points to voter fraud being virtually non existent.
Fact is, minorities tend to be less likely to carry valid IDs for whatever reason. Should they make an effort to? Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that black voters are less likely to carry ID, and is the sole reason why Republicans are pushing for strict voter IDs laws. It's the same reason why they've tried to eliminate early voting all over the country, because blacks utilize early voting at a much higher rate than whites. Voter fraud is non-existent, but voter suppression has been running rampant ever since the 15th amendment was passed in 1870 allowing all men the right to vote regardless of race, and the primary target has always been blacks. The only difference is Republicans know they can no longer use Jim Crow era tactics, so they've found ways to be slicker and more subtle about it. Well, except for Trump who blatantly encouraged his supporters to go to the polling place to intimidate voters like the KKK used to do.

But keep drinking that Kool-Aid....


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Watch the video and that is the argument. It gives all the info why, but you refuse to wach it. So that is on you.
> 
> You are also ignoring the facts in the Washington post article where it shows no one is voting multiple times. If you have evidence fo that, citation please.
> 
> Also voter ID is unconstitutional
> 
> Show your evidence there is an issue with voter fraud with people voting more than once.
> 
> If you dont, im done with you.


http://www.ktvu.com/news/212589912-story

http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/13/voter-fraud-real-heres-proof/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/23/colorado-voter-fraud-revealed-slew-of-ballots-cast/

http://triblive.com/state/pennsylvania/7523867-74/state-voters-pennsylvania

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/illegal-voters-uncovered-philly-just-tip-iceberg/

http://www.nbc12.com/story/33364443/indiana-voter-fraud-investigation-grows-to-56-counties

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/potentially-thousands-illegal-voters-pennsylvania/

A simple fucking google search will show there are plenty of counties and cities where investigations are taking place or have in the past.

As for your dumb ass fucking ugly Oliver he is worried about your grandma or hobo uncle not being able to vote. Well then they don't get to vote. sorry.

That's how it works in other countries that actually take elections seriously. no ID? NO VOTE.

It would be easier to create a national voting ID and mail them out to every legal citizen than to have fought it to the supreme court. Where some liberal hacks say DAZ RACIZ and shut it down. because their fraud schemes will be over if illegals cant vote or if minorities cant be bused around to vote.

There is zero excuse to not have some kind of ID or why the government can not make their own if its such a huge deal. its more liberal bs to keep their fraud going and typical argument of shouting RACIST RACIST when caught and having nothing else to say.

Which is what you do anyways anytime you argue on this section. go ahead and block me you are a waste of time to debate on any topic on this site.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Some form of IDs are required for quite a bit of official(and non-official) things we do in daily life. I've never understood why voting is considered different. Just because someone hasn't claimed to be someone they aren't to vote, doesn't mean that we shouldn't take steps to prevent it. I always thought an ID was needed to even register to vote. Maybe that is unique to my state tho.

That said, if IDs are that difficult to get(I need more than some anecdotal examples), we defiantly need to cut out alot of the red tape in being able to get one. Getting an ID should be a right as much as voting.


----------



## Genking48

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

How does voting work in America? You don't just get sent the ballot in the mail and then have to fill it out during election day and turn it in/send it?


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> The Crook vs The Monster, by Scott Adams: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152115888936/the-crook-versus-the-monster


The narrative that Hillary is a crook and Trump is a monster is silly. Trump is the crook and Hillary is the monster.

:saul



CenaBoy4Life said:


> And no comment about the electronic voting fraud and how easy it is to manipulate or hack? And how they are owned by people working to get Dems elected ?


Yes, many of the voting machines are easy to hack and yes, hacking voting machines has been used to steal elections. And yes, both sides do it. If you are going to (accurately) point out that Dems have stolen elections by hacking voting machines, you also have to acknowledge that Republicans have done the same thing.



CenaBoy4Life said:


> And no argument as to why voting ID is bad or racist? The election, and democracy in the USA itself is completely compromised with no ID voting laws. In fact there should be a separate voting ID needed as well which could easily be created and mailed out to every legal citizen.


Voter IDs are not racist in and of themselves. It's Republican tactics of passing voter ID laws, then making it difficult for minorities to get those voter IDs that's racist. I like your idea of creating voter IDs for everyone and mailing them out to them. No one interested in fair elections should have a problem with voter IDs, just so long as they are easily accessible and not used as a voter suppression tactic.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CenaBoy4Life said:


> http://www.ktvu.com/news/212589912-story
> 
> http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/13/voter-fraud-real-heres-proof/
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/23/colorado-voter-fraud-revealed-slew-of-ballots-cast/
> 
> http://triblive.com/state/pennsylvania/7523867-74/state-voters-pennsylvania
> 
> http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/illegal-voters-uncovered-philly-just-tip-iceberg/
> 
> http://www.nbc12.com/story/33364443/indiana-voter-fraud-investigation-grows-to-56-counties
> 
> http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/potentially-thousands-illegal-voters-pennsylvania/
> 
> A simple fucking google search will show there are plenty of counties and cities where investigations are taking place or have in the past.
> 
> As for your dumb ass fucking ugly Oliver he is worried about your grandma or hobo uncle not being able to vote. Well then they don't get to vote. sorry.
> 
> That's how it works in other countries that actually take elections seriously. no ID? NO VOTE.
> 
> It would be easier to create a national voting ID and mail them out to every legal citizen than to have fought it to the supreme court. Where some liberal hacks say DAZ RACIZ and shut it down. because their fraud schemes will be over if illegals cant vote or if minorities cant be bused around to vote.
> 
> There is zero excuse to not have some kind of ID or why the government can not make their own if its such a huge deal. its more liberal bs to keep their fraud going and typical argument of shouting RACIST RACIST when caught and having nothing else to say.
> 
> Which is what you do anyways anytime you argue on this section. go ahead and block me you are a waste of time to debate on any topic on this site.


voting guides are not ballots, how exactly is that voter fraud?
As for dead people voting, that has already been explained.

also do you even read the articles you post LOL

Here is a quote from one of them. "Voter registration and election fraud experts said double voting is rare."

You should really learn to read the articles you are posting.

As for a lot of states having investigations of voter fraud, sure they have and it comes out there was none. Like I said, only 31 cases, most were explained of over a BILLION votes cast.

Just because there is an investigation it does not mean that it happened

You have shown no evidence that voter fraud happens.

All those articles say is potential, and then they find nothing

There is no reason make people use ID when voting because like one of your articles said


"Voter registration and election fraud experts said double voting is rare." another quote from anohter article “What we usually discover is that those cases of double voting usually melt down to one or two if any at all,

You totally contradicted your view with one of your very own articles

Next time dont just read the headline, read the actual article content. Even your articles admit people voting more than once rarely happens or does not happen at all.




Tater said:


> The narrative that Hillary is a crook and Trump is a monster is silly. Trump is the crook and Hillary is the monster.
> 
> :saul
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, many of the voting machines are easy to hack and yes, hacking voting machines has been used to steal elections. And yes, both sides do it. If you are going to (accurately) point out that Dems have stolen elections by hacking voting machines, you also have to acknowledge that Republicans have done the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Voter IDs are not racist in and of themselves. It's Republican tactics of passing voter ID laws, then making it difficult for minorities to get those voter IDs that's racist. I like your idea of creating voter IDs for everyone and mailing them out to them. No one interested in fair elections should have a problem with voter IDs, just so long as they are easily accessible and not used as a voter suppression tactic.


there is no need for voter IDs, it's just going to make it longer to vote. There is no reason to make people show IDs when voting since there is virtually no voter fraud. It's not an issue that needs solving.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> The narrative that Hillary is a crook and Trump is a monster is silly. Trump is the crook and Hillary is the monster.
> 
> :saul


Indeed, but it's the narrative that exists, which is all that really matters when it comes to how people are going to vote.


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> The narrative that Hillary is a crook and Trump is a monster is silly. Trump is the crook and Hillary is the monster.
> 
> :saul


Or more accurately they're both crooks and they're both monsters...


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump hasn't gotten anyone killed (and then laughed about it), as far as we know...


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> there is no need for voter IDs, it's just going to make it longer to vote. There is no reason to make people show IDs when voting since there is virtually no voter fraud. It's not an issue that needs solving.


I see nothing wrong with having an ID to verify who you are when you vote, as long as legal voters have easy access to the voting IDs. Plus, it has the added bonus of shutting up the jackasses who claim there is rampant voter fraud in the USA. Voter fraud may be next to non-existent but election fraud happens all the time and that's where everyone's attention needs to be focused.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Why am I not surprised that the democrats in here are against Voter ID's :lol 

If blacks and hispanics don't have ID's then they don't have the right to vote. Get your shit together


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It is truly a mystery. :mj


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

lost in the voter ID debate is that it's a shame and a disgrace that the united states government apparently can't effectively provide any citizen who wants one a simple photographic ID for the purposes of voting.

it's a fucking piece of plastic with a picture and a name and an address on it and a bar code or whatever for authentication. the whole thing is emblematic of how the united states government can't do even the simplest shit. 

that SUNY professor with the allegedly always right predictive model says :trump chance of winning:

87%

YUGE, baby

almost as YUGE as :trump 's love for renegotiating

with his big white dick

this prof says all the other polls are garbage or insane or something

i want what he's smoking


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> I see nothing wrong with having an ID to verify who you are when you vote, as long as legal voters have easy access to the voting IDs. Plus, it has the added bonus of shutting up the jackasses who claim there is rampant voter fraud in the USA. Voter fraud may be next to non-existent but election fraud happens all the time and that's where everyone's attention needs to be focused.


For one its unconstitutional, and 2 there is no need for it since there is virtually zero voter fraud.



Carte Blanche said:


> Why am I not surprised that the democrats in here are against Voter ID's :lol
> 
> If blacks and hispanics don't have ID's then they don't have the right to vote. Get your shit together



The only reason the GOP wants voter iD is to suppress the minority vote. There is no need for it at all.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> For one its unconstitutional, and 2 there is no need for it since there is virtually zero voter fraud.


Are you really going to make the argument that there is no reason whatsoever that people should have to prove they are a legal voter to be able to vote? You think people should be able to walk into any polling center and cast a vote without having to show any form of identification? And you don't see why some people might have a problem with that?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Are you really going to make the argument that there is no reason whatsoever that people should have to prove they are a legal voter to be able to vote? You think people should be able to walk into any polling center and cast a vote without having to show any form of identification? And you don't see why some people might have a problem with that?


Yes there is no reason for voter IDs.

There is pretty much zero voter fraud, so its not needed. People are not walking into polling stations and illegally casting votes, its just not happening. 

People have been doing exactly and its not been an issue.

AGAIN they only found 31 cases, most of which were explained, examples of "voter fraud" out of over a billion votes cast.

There is no need for voter IDs. And its also unconstitutional. People around here are so gung ho about the constitution when it comes to gun control, yet they want to piss all over it when it comes to this.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yes there is no reason for voter IDs.
> 
> There is pretty much zero voter fraud, so its not needed. People are not walking into polling stations and illegally casting votes, its just not happening.
> 
> People have been doing exactly and its not been an issue.
> 
> AGAIN they only found 31 cases, most of which were explained, examples of "voter fraud" out of over a billion votes cast.
> 
> There is no need for voter IDs. And its also unconstitutional. People around here are so gung ho about the constitution when it comes to gun control, yet they want to piss all over it when it comes to this.


I do struggle to understand why it is so difficult for minorities to have a form of identification but I do think the laws are largely there to make it more difficult to vote. 

I dislike the idea that I even have to register to vote and that there are deadlines for it. I understand the logistics of it but voting is one the most important rights that everyone has. You shouldn't have to register to have that right. You should just have it. 

A half competent government should be able to make it fairly simple for everyone to have the right kind of ID but I guess that's just too much to ask for.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> For one its unconstitutional, and 2 there is no need for it since there is virtually zero voter fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason the GOP wants voter iD is to suppress the minority vote. There is no need for it at all.


And the only reason why the Dems wants voter ID is because they want the poor, lazy fuckers and illegals to influence the election (see how this works?). GOP racism hasn't been a thing for decades. When was the last time the GOP denied a black man the right to his social security even? 

How can someone suppress someone's vote if they have a legal voter ID? How is that even possible? Do these blacks and hispanics also not have driver licenses? Don't they have social security numbers .. you know those numbers that make it possible for you to be able to get your food stamps? 

I don't see them not getting off their asses to get their social security numbers or anyone stopping them from getting their social security from their local governments until and unless they're illegals.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Research has found voter ID law in general to have voter supression effects. No because people don't have the papers to create ID, but because the fundamentals documents like birth ceritifcate or adress are normally only valid into the same district, there is a lot of bureacreacy into the issue.


And this is a highly partisan issue, from both sides. So the attacking of "dems do this", "reps do that" only show partisan views of point.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Is the voter id considered unconstitutional cause of the right to vote or something else?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FITZ said:


> I do struggle to understand why it is so difficult for minorities to have a form of identification but I do think the laws are largely there to make it more difficult to vote.
> 
> I dislike the idea that I even have to register to vote and that there are deadlines for it. I understand the logistics of it but voting is one the most important rights that everyone has. You shouldn't have to register to have that right. You should just have it.
> 
> A half competent government should be able to make it fairly simple for everyone to have the right kind of ID but I guess that's just too much to ask for.


The deadline to vote should be the day before the election , it is dumb how it can be months before an election that makes no sense. It only does if you want to suppress voters. But at least in MA not sure about other states, you can register when you renew your license and even online It's pretty simple now. 

You could have voter IDs but then the GOP would start contesting them on voting day, oh that ID is fake you can't vote to minorities .

The john oliver video, also shows why its so difficult for some to get voter ids.





Sweenz said:


> Is the voter id considered unconstitutional cause of the right to vote or something else?


it violates the 14th amendment that forbids unduly burdening someone's right to vote.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The deadline to vote should be the day before the election , it is dumb how it can be months before an election that makes no sense. It only does if you want to suppress voters. But at least in MA not sure about other states, you can register when you renew your license and even online It's pretty simple now.
> 
> You could have voter IDs but then the GOP would start contesting them on voting day, oh that ID is fake you can't vote to minorities .
> 
> The john oliver video, also shows why its so difficult for some to get voter ids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it violates the 14th amendment that forbids unduly burdening someone's right to vote.


What is considered unduly? Wouldnt registering in general for a right not be the same thing?

Edit: as well as being assigned a single physical location to vote with the expectations that you have the means to get there?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Ok. I'm not a citizen, but since there's no voter ID, I'm just gonna go and vote Trump. 

Thanks for being so clueless fellow americans.

I have all my ID, but I'm not a citizen. How do you prove that I'm not a full citizen and just an immigrant?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> What is considered unduly? Wouldnt registering in general for a right not be the same thing?


It means, making it a hassle for someone to vote. Making some people get an ID to vote is preventing them from easily voting which is against the 14th.

Answering your edit, you can vote by mail if you are unable to make it to the polls. 




Carte Blanche said:


> Ok. I'm not a citizen, but since there's no voter ID, I'm just gonna go and vote Trump.
> 
> Thanks for being so clueless fellow americans.


the only person clueless here is you since what you are saying does not happen.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> It means, making it a hassle for someone to vote. Making some people get an ID to vote is preventing them from easily voting which is against the 14th.



Note.. added an edit to the post you quoted. 

Moving on tho.. Wouldnt it be a hassle for someone to vote if they werent registed? Why isnt that considered unconstitutional?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> the only person clueless here is you since what you are saying does not happen.


How do they stop it from happening?

I show up at a polling station, present all my ID, ask for a ballot. How do they prove that I'm an immigrant not a citizen?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> Note.. added an edit to the post you quoted.
> 
> Moving on tho.. Wouldnt it be a hassle for someone to vote if they werent registed? Why isnt that considered unconstitutional?


Your question makes no sense. Since you are no longer being serious, I am just going to ignore you.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> What is considered unduly? Wouldnt registering in general for a right not be the same thing?
> 
> Edit: as well as being assigned a single physical location to vote with the expectations that you have the means to get there?


It hits certain groups of people with difficuties to reach some conditions to get IDs, specially residency. For example:

- Rural voters who have to go to distant-urban government offices to get their ID.
- People who live with caretakers, like veterans with some form of disability
- Poor people who don't have the money to paid for the process
- Homeless
- Immigrants who normally have problems to obtain their birth ceritificate validated by their new precints
- Etc.

edit: Disability is a big issue no one mention with ID Laws, in some years, people with disability is gonna be 30% of the electorate and if the soruces i'm quoting are correct six million of people over sixty years don't have ID


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Ok. I'm not a citizen, but since there's no voter ID, I'm just gonna go and vote Trump.
> 
> Thanks for being so clueless fellow americans.
> 
> I have all my ID, but I'm not a citizen. How do you prove that I'm not a full citizen and just an immigrant?


I think this may actually be a felony. :lol Although from what I've been able to find out it seems like nobody ever gets charged for things like double voting (which does happen, in small amounts). Don't quote me on that though. Maybe @FITZ knows more about it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> How do they stop it from happening?
> 
> I show up at a polling station, present all my ID, ask for a ballot. How do they prove that I'm an immigrant not a citizen?


Because your name would not be on the register. What is your next BS question, oh you would just pick a random name,, well sorry but you wouldn't be able to do that since you would need their name, address, and ward. 

You can ask all the dumb questions you want but voter fraud / impersonation just does not happen especially on a mass scale. 

Not sure why you keep ignoring the fact that it does not happen and its been proven it does not happen.




CamillePunk said:


> I think this may actually be a felony. :lol Although from what I've been able to find out it seems like nobody ever gets charged for things like double voting (which does happen, in small amounts). Don't quote me on that though. Maybe @FITZ knows more about it.


Depending on the state its up to 5 years in jail and a 10,000 fine per offense.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Your question makes no sense.


I thought it made perfect sense. 

The point that an id being required to vote (a right) is unconstitutional cause it causes people not to be able to carry out their right. 

Wouldnt someone that wasnt registed also have the arguement that bejng registered was required to vote (a right) is unconstitutional cause it causes people not to be able to carry out their right?

How are these different, and a voter id unconstitutional, but having to register for the same right not?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> I thought it made perfect sense.
> 
> The point that an id being required to vote (a right) is unconstitutional cause it causes people not to be able to carry out their right.
> 
> Wouldnt someone that wasnt registed also have the arguement that bejng registered was required to vote (a right) is unconstitutional cause it causes people not to be able to carry out their right?
> 
> How are these different, and a voter id unconstitutional, but having to register for the same right not?


No because you have to be registered and of age. No one is preventing you from registering as long as you are a US citizen and 18 or older which is the law.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Because your name would not be on the register. What is your next BS question, oh you would just pick a random name,, well sorry but you wouldn't be able to do that since you would need their name, address, and ward.
> 
> You can ask all the dumb questions you want but voter fraud / impersonation just does not happen especially on a mass scale.
> 
> Not sure why you keep ignoring the fact that it does not happen and its been proven it does not happen.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...o-without-id-conservative-activist-finds-out/



> Seeking to demonstrate how easy it is to register to vote without an ID in Colorado, Brandon Morse of Revealing Politics and Misfit Politics, headed to the Denver Elections Division on Friday without his ID and, well, got registered.
> Secretly recording his interaction, Morse informed the elections worker that did not have his driver’s license but wanted to register to vote.
> “And you don’t have a driver’s license?” the worker asks.
> “No,” Morse replies.
> “OK, that’s fine,” the worker says.
> In the video, Morse then offers to provide a “bank statement” to prove his identity, but the elections worker informs him that it isn’t necessary. “You’re OK,” he says.


You don't even need ID apparently. You just need an incompetent (or potentially "trained" worker to just go easy on some very specific people).

"It doesn't happen, my ass" :kobelol. I don't care if it doesn't happen on a mass scale ... Neither does black and hispanic voter suppression but it doesn't keep you from talking about it :lol 

@FITZ , @CamillePunk . 

Obviously I won't commit voter fraud, but it's not impossible. 

The checks and balances are weak as fuck and you guys need Voter ID :shrug


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> It hits certain groups of people with difficuties to reach some conditions to get IDs, specially residency. For example:
> 
> - Rural voters who have to go to distant-urban government offices to get their ID.
> - People who live with caretakers, like veterans with some form of disability
> - Poor people who don't have the money to paid for the process
> - Homeless
> - Immigrants who normally have problems to obtain their birth ceritificate validated by their new precints
> - Etc.


These same people didnt have the same issues when registering tho?

Ids should be free and a right imo(and easily accessible). If you are in a system, they should provide you a free means of showing you are a part of that system.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Ok. I'm not a citizen, but since there's no voter ID, I'm just gonna go and vote Trump.
> 
> Thanks for being so clueless fellow americans.
> 
> I have all my ID, but I'm not a citizen. How do you prove that I'm not a full citizen and just an immigrant?


They aren't going to let you vote if you're not registered and you can't register when you're not a citizen. 2 weeks ago I had to change my address and basically re-register to vote. I needed my social security number. 

I guess if you knew someone's Social, knew their address you could register for them and vote for them but it would be super illegal and also difficult to do that and I don't think the people that steal identities are that into voting.



CamillePunk said:


> I think this may actually be a felony. :lol Although from what I've been able to find out it seems like nobody ever gets charged for things like double voting (which does happen, in small amounts). Don't quote me on that though. Maybe @FITZ knows more about it.


I think it would be. Identity Theft or something like that. Since if you're not registered the only way to vote is to say you are someone else and vote for them. 

Regardless of how serious a crime it gets considered, and it will be a crime, you risk a year in jail or multiple years in prison to get 1 extra vote for someone when tens of millions of votes would be cast. In a national election it would be meaningless. You would need thousands of people going to dozens of polling stations and someone being allowed to vote for it to be worth the effort.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> No because you have to be registered and of age. No one is preventing you from registering as long as you are a US citizen and 18 or older which is the law.


But how do you prove that without id? 

I know some people have issues getting ids, but that should be simpler and a right.. again, imo. This should be the prevailing issue, not if slmeone has to show it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> But how do you prove that without id?
> 
> I know some people have issues getting ids, but that should be simpler and a right.. again, imo. This should be the prevailing issue, not if slmeone has to show it.


in MA you don't need an ID to register to vote. You can just go online and register, you just need to know your name, address and SSN.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> These same people didnt have the same issues when registering tho?
> 
> Ids should be free and a right imo(and easily accessible). If you are in a system, they should provide you a free means of showing you are a part of that system.


Yeah, but the idea behind some ID laws is to duplicate the process.

And you're right, for example, talking again in the case of disabilities, Social security or health-insurance cards (Medicaid in USA? I'm not so informed) should be enough


----------



## Warlock

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Ssn is still a form of id tho.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@FITZ , I have social security, Florida photo ID, bunch of bank statements, a lease and a bunch of other stuff. None of it says that I'm an immigrant, and not a citizen. How do they prove that I'm not a citizen?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Sweenz said:


> Ssn is still a form of id tho.


So you are going to claim, just saying your SSN without the actual card is a form of ID?

Are you saying you can just confirm your SSN at the polling station when you go to vote as a form of ID or even just the last 4 which would be more likely and not showing an actual card as a form of ID?





Carte Blanche said:


> @FITZ , I have social security, Florida photo ID, bunch of bank statements, a lease and a bunch of other stuff. None of it says that I'm an immigrant, and not a citizen. How do they prove that I'm not a citizen?


Because in the database that SSN will say you are not a citizen.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> "It doesn't happen, my ass" :kobelol. *I don't care if it doesn't happen on a mass scale* ... Neither does black and hispanic voter suppression but it doesn't keep you from talking about it :lol


Not entirely true. 

Research is split in the racial and minority issue. But some studies have found effects of supression that reach 4/10 of the population


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Not entirely true.
> 
> Research is split in the racial and minority issue. But some studies have found effects of supression that reach 4/10 of the population


Vague and forced to sound like you have a point. 

Sources.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> So you are going to claim, just saying your SSN without the actual card is a form of ID?
> 
> Are you saying you can just confirm your SSN at the polling station when you go to vote as a form of ID or even just the last 4 which would be more likely and not showing an actual card as a form of ID?


Polling stations cant have ssns tho. Thats sesitive information.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Why aren't you citizens able to answer a simple question like how do they deny me - an immigrant with an SSN and a legal Florida photo ID the ability to register to vote, except my own self imposed moral value to not do so?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Sweenz said:


> Polling stations cant have ssns tho. Thats sesitive information.


That is why I said the last 4 digits would be more likely than the full number, but you were the one that was claiming a SSN is a form of ID. My question was are you claiming just knowing your SSN without the card would count as an ID for voting?

You were the one who brought it up




Carte Blanche said:


> Why aren't you citizens able to answer a simple question like how do they deny me - an immigrant with an SSN and a legal Florida photo ID the ability to register to vote, except my own self imposed moral value to not do so?




I just told you. Your SSN in the database is flagged as a non-citizen. You would not be able to register with that SSN.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Because in the database that SSN will say you are not a citizen.


No it doesn't :kobelol

They give a separate card for that called the green card which has your immigration status, not your SSN.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> No it doesn't :kobelol
> 
> They give a separate card for that called the green card which has your immigration status, not your SSN.


You dont know what you are talking about. If you are not a US Citizen, you would not be able to vote.

It would reject you.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Vague and forced to sound like you have a point.
> 
> Sources.


http://spa.sagepub.com/content/12/4/394.short
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1625041


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You dont know what you are talking about. If you are not a US Citizen, you would not be able to vote.
> 
> It would reject you.


It doesn't contain my immigration status. SSN is ONLY for people who are workers and want government benefits. That's it.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> There is pretty much zero voter fraud, so its not needed.





birthday_massacre said:


> It violates the 14th amendment that forbids unduly burdening someone's right to vote.


"There is pretty much zero voter fraud" is not a valid reason for why we shouldn't have voter ID cards. The only valid argument you can make is that it can be used as a voter suppression tactic. As long as access to voter ID is made easy and accessible to all, then you cannot claim that it unduly burdens someone's right to vote.



birthday_massacre said:


> Because your name would not be on the register.





birthday_massacre said:


> No because you have to be registered and of age. No one is preventing you from registering as long as you are a US citizen and 18 or older which is the law.


Oh, so now you say people have to register... but they shouldn't have to prove who they are to vote? Why even bother registering if you don't have to prove that you are the registered voter who is casting their ballot? Why not give out the voter ID cards when people register? Why not automatically register everyone at 18 and send them a card? You need to work on your logic here, buddy, because you have failed mightily in this argument. 

This really isn't all that complicated. If you are a legal citizen who is registered to vote and you have easy access to voter ID, then you have nothing to complain about. This is a simple fix and it shuts up the dumbasses who think there is mass voter fraud. Shutting up dumbasses, kind of something I am in favor of. 

:red


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> "There is pretty much zero voter fraud" is not a valid reason for why we shouldn't have voter ID cards. The only valid argument you can make is that it can be used as a voter suppression tactic. As long as access to voter ID is made easy and accessible to all, then you cannot claim that it unduly burdens someone's right to vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now you say people have to register... but they shouldn't have to prove who they are to vote? Why even bother registering if you don't have to prove that you are the registered voter who is casting their ballot? Why not give out the voter ID cards when people register? Why not automatically register everyone at 18 and send them a card? You need to work on your logic here, buddy, because you have failed mightily in this argument.
> 
> This really isn't all that complicated. If you are a legal citizen who is registered to vote and you have easy access to voter ID, then you have nothing to complain about. This is a simple fix and it shuts up the dumbasses who think there is mass voter fraud. Shutting up dumbasses, kind of something I am in favor of.
> 
> :red


Voter suppression is the biggest reason and its not easy to get an ID for some people especially minorities. So because it is difficult then it does unduly burdens someone's right to vote and that is why its unconstitutional


You have always had to register to vote. WTF are you talking about? That is a given and common sense.

You dont need to prove who you are when you register. You just need your name, address and SSN. It can be done online, you dont need an ID.

I have easily proven why voter ID is not needed and how it unduly burdens someone's right to vote. NIce try though

You have not shown why its needed. You have not even give one simple reason why its needed.

Nice projection though.

So what reason is there for voting IDs?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Not easy to get ID nope nope. Gosh, I wonder how minorities buy booze, gamble, buy smokes, get jobs, buy guns or get cable or well anything that needs an ID. Holy shit being nonwhite is awful, they make sure you cannot do anything!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Not easy to get ID nope nope. Gosh, I wonder how minorities buy booze, gamble, buy smokes, get jobs, buy guns or get cable or well anything that needs an ID. Holy shit being nonwhite is awful, they make sure you cannot do anything!


I will ask you, what exactly is the point of voter ID? Voter fraud is not a thing, so what is it exactly?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> http://spa.sagepub.com/content/12/4/394.short
> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1625041


Lol. None of this suggests that if they actually do have Voter ID that it can be used to suppress their vote :kobelol

If you are a legal citizen of America, you will be able to get a Voter ID. If you have a Voter ID, you can vote. 

How is it hard for legal american citizens to get Voter ID, or how can it even be made hard for them if they have a paper trail proving their legal status?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Lol. None of this suggests that if they actually do have Voter ID that it can be used to suppress their vote :kobelol
> 
> If you are a legal citizen of America, you will be able to get a Voter ID. If you have a Voter ID, you can vote.
> 
> How is it hard for legal american citizens to get Voter ID, or how can it even be made hard for them if they have a paper trail proving their legal status?


Its been posted on here a number of times but you refuse to read or watch a video. You are ignoring all the into given you to. If you are not trolling at this point then , wow, just wow.

You dont want the answer. A number of people have given it to you

this is why hte GOP want voter ID

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...skew-democracy-in-favor-of-white-republicans/

New evidence that voter ID laws ‘skew democracy’ in favor of white Republican

Cam Punks chart even backs it up.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Voter suppression is the biggest reason and its not easy to get an ID for some people especially minorities.


Then. Make. It. Easy.

Comprende?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its been posted on here a number of times but you refuse to read or watch a video. You are ignoring all the into given you to. If you are not trolling at this point then , wow, just wow.
> 
> You dont want the answer. A number of people have given it to you


"Refuse to watch a video" .... Does the video actually have any credibility because I can watch a video where they make cases for why the earth is flat too you know :lol 

Give me the reasons why if someone has a legal paper trail proving that they're a US citizen that they will not be able to get a voter ID and then that voter ID would be rejected? Based on what and how? You really think a black or hispanic citizen walks up to the DMV and can't get a license in this country because they're black or hispanic? Why is a voter ID different from a license to drive? 

You're playing a double game here. In one place you're saying that I MUST have an SSN to prove that I'm legally allowed to vote, but then at the same time you seem to be contesting the idea of making that process of proof even better based on what reasons?



Tater said:


> Then. Make. It. Easy.
> 
> Comprende?


I just posed a blaze article about a guy that was able to register to vote without ANY ID btw. Of course, BM ignores that and pretends that only his "sources" matter :kobelol


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I will ask you, what exactly is the point of voter ID? Voter fraud is not a thing, so what is it exactly?


You say it's not a thing but even if it isn't why not take the chance? Although election fraud is more likely!

Want to prevent the dead from voting or to be sure that election fraud is harder to pull off? Then Voter ID is a good way to go. We've seen evidence of fraud starting to take place more in elections and it's important to prevent any of that from happening. They should just mail you your voter ID when you turn 18 and if you lose it you go to a Gov website, punch in your ID number and get sent a new one, easy!


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I really think its gonna be a very close election I really do. If I'm a betting man I say Clinton still wins but by very little. Reason I say this is because Trumps rallies are much much bigger held in Arenas, Clintons are small in gyms. Many focus groups after the last debate a majority of them said they were voting for Trump. Its gonna be very close.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> You say it's not a thing but even if it isn't why not take the chance? Although election fraud is more likely!
> 
> Want to prevent the dead from voting or to be sure that election fraud is harder to pull off? Then Voter ID is a good way to go. We've seen evidence of fraud starting to take place more in elections and it's important to prevent any of that from happening. They should just mail you your voter ID when you turn 18 and if you lose it you go to a Gov website, punch in your ID number and get sent a new one, easy!


But we're living in a racist country you know because the majority of blacks and hispanics don't have driver licenses ... 

Oh wait. That's not true at all.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Lol. None of this suggests that if they actually do have Voter ID that it can be used to suppress their vote :kobelol


I'm quoting.



> Using population data on registrants from two election cycles coupled with information on a subgroup of registrants known to lack photo ID, we conduct a policy impact analysis of the Georgia voter ID law. We find that the new law did produce a suppression effect among those registrants lacking proper ID.* Substantively, the law lowered turnout by about four-tenths of a percentage point in 2008*. However, we find no empirical evidence to suggest that there is a racial or ethnic component to this suppression effect.



Now, if you want to know if it's do with that purpose? obviously, it has partisan reasons from both sides as i also said before Even as an agenda setting is raised with partisan goals. And people see it as a partisan issue 
http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/10/03/poq.nft026.short


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> I don't think Trump is just going home to be fair.
> 
> The campaign forgot the idea of expanding the base, because it's obvious they know is over,so there has to be a reason to keep appealing to the same guys. Trump, i think, is looking at the day after election, he practically killed his public image with this campaign and his businesses have losed 600 million dollars only this year as a result of it. He can't just go into the sunset, basically because his brand is his only real succeses and that is almost lost at this point. He's gonna stay in some form, maybe his rumored channel, a run for the leadership of the GOP or whatever but he's trying to consolidate a base to go into something. Look at this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His popularity is sliding, but if Trump stays, he still could be able to make an hostil takeover


It depends on how the results turn out. If the race is close, he could stick around. However, if this turns out to be a landslide of massive proportions where he not only gets his ass handed to him but the GOP loses one or both of the branches of Congress, it would not surprise me that he either storms out or the GOP throws him out.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> I really think its gonna be a very close election I really do. If I'm a betting man I say Clinton still wins but by very little. Reason I say this is because Trumps rallies are much much bigger held in Arenas, Clintons are small in gyms. Many focus groups after the last debate a majority of them said they were voting for Trump. Its gonna be very close.


Nop, is not gonna be close.

Rallies messure enthusiasm not votes, Focus groups have too much of a little N to be indicative of anything in terms of change in votting


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> I'm quoting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, if you want to know if it's do with that purpose? obviously, it has partisan reasons from both sides as i also said before Even as an agenda setting is raised with partisan goals. And people see it as a partisan issue
> http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/10/03/poq.nft026.short


It also says that there is no racial or ethnic suppression. AND it says that the formula was applied to correct for people without proper ID's. You're null on both counts there. The context of bringing up a refusal to implement voter ID is racial or ethnic suppression. Your studies don't prove that. 

That's justifiable suppression. Is impounding someone's vehicle for not having a license to drive "driver suppression"? Yea ... Should it happen? Obviously. 

I don't see it as any different with elections. If you're a citizen, then you should have no problems getting a Voter ID or providing ID. If you're not a citizen and you fail to provide proof, then your status is suspect as it is when you try to get a license to drive, buy alcohol or cigarettes.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/789488923625926656
:hglol


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> It also says that there is no racial or ethnic suppression. AND it says that the formula was applied to correct for people without proper ID's. You're null on both counts there.
> 
> That's justifiable suppression. Is impounding someone's vehicle for not having a license to drive "driver suppression"? Yea ... Should it happen? Obviously.
> 
> I don't see it as any different with elections. If you're a citizen, then you should have no problems getting a Voter ID or providing ID. If you're not a citizen and you fail to provide proof, then your status is suspect as it is when you try to get a license to drive, buy alcohol or cigarettes.


Well there is any easy way to do this, say you're buying booze!

You show up, you look 30+ but the guy behind the register asks for ID, why? Because it's the law, just really that simple. It's not racist, ageist, sexiest or whatever.

Don't have ID? don't get booze. Again it's not discrimination or "suppressing" you from buying booze. 

But it does prevent minors from buying booze, I highly doubt many kids are going into stores and buying booze, so should we stop carding people for buying such?


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> It also says that there is no racial or ethnic suppression. AND it says that the formula was applied to correct for people without proper ID's. You're null on both counts there.
> 
> That's justifiable suppression. Is impounding someone's vehicle for not having a license to drive "driver suppression"? Yea ... Should it happen? Obviously.
> 
> I don't see it as any different with elections. If you're a citizen, then you should have no problems getting a Voter ID or providing ID. If you're not a citizen and you fail to provide proof, then your status is suspect as it is when you try to get a license to drive, buy alcohol or cigarettes.


And i said in my original point that the evidence is split in terms of race i never talked about that. Still it create general supression as it show in the conclussions, the fact that the formula is applied to correct for people whitout proper ID and there is still supression is the point.

You can argue that's is a correct supression and that is another discussion, i don't think so and your examples are invalid equivalencies i think, merely in terms of rights


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Well there is any easy way to do this, say you're buying booze!
> 
> You show up, you look 30+ but the guy behind the register asks for ID, why? Because it's the law, just really that simple. It's not racist, ageist, sexiest or whatever.
> 
> Don't have ID? don't get booze. Again it's not discrimination or "suppressing" you from buying booze.
> 
> But it does prevent minors from buying booze, I highly doubt many kids are going into stores and buying booze, so should we stop carding people for buying such?


I'm 36 and I get carded when buying alcohol with my wife because she gets carded everytime, so some cashiers will card me. Apparently, that's ok for bleeding heart liberals. 

But how dare they try to prove that someone actually does have the right to vote .... How DARE they. 

Fucking GOP RACIST PIGS!


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Well there is any easy way to do this, say you're buying booze!
> 
> You show up, you look 30+ but the guy behind the register asks for ID, why? Because it's the law, just really that simple. It's not racist, ageist, sexiest or whatever.
> 
> Don't have ID? don't get booze. Again it's not discrimination or "suppressing" you from buying booze.
> 
> But it does prevent minors from buying booze, I highly doubt many kids are going into stores and buying booze, so should we stop carding people for buying such?


Voter id laws were laws too.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> "Refuse to watch a video" .... Does the video actually have any credibility because I can watch a video where they make cases for why the earth is flat too you know :lol
> 
> Give me the reasons why if someone has a legal paper trail proving that they're a US citizen that they will not be able to get a voter ID and then that voter ID would be rejected? Based on what and how? You really think a black or hispanic citizen walks up to the DMV and can't get a license in this country because they're black or hispanic? Why is a voter ID different from a license to drive?
> 
> You're playing a double game here. In one place you're saying that I MUST have an SSN to prove that I'm legally allowed to vote, but then at the same time you seem to be contesting the idea of making that process of proof even better based on what reasons?
> 
> 
> 
> I just posed a blaze article about a guy that was able to register to vote without ANY ID btw. Of course, BM ignores that and pretends that only his "sources" matter :kobelol


I dont get your big revelation about a guy was able to register to vote without ID.

Did you not read my earlier post? You dont need an ID to register when you register online. At least not in MA. You act like its some huge deal. when you register, you put in YOUR NAME YOUR ADD and YOUR SSN and it verifies you.

Not sure why you think that is bad?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> And i said in my original point that the evidence is split in terms of race i never talked about that. Still it create general supression as it show in the conclussions, the fact that the formula is applied to correct for people whitout proper ID and there is still supression is the point.
> 
> You can argue that's is a correct supression and that is another discussion, i don't think so and your examples are invalid equivalencies i think, merely in terms of rights


No. The context of the discussion was that voter ID will be used as a tool to suppress minorities and your study does not prove that - in fact denies that it ever happened. So your study counter-proves what has been the crux of the primary argument against voter ID's. 

And you're just shooting the shit now (as I've often see you do in here) that is it valid suppression is "besides the point". It is very much a part of the point. Suppression did not happen without a justifiable reason. Not having photo ID as proof of US Citizenship is something that should be taken very seriously because it's not just a matter of rights, but a matter of the law - since it's illegal for non-citizens to vote. 

The equivalence is not invalid at all. 

- It is ILLEGAL to buy alcohol and cigarettes without being able to prove your age. 
- It is ILLEGAL to vote in elections without being a United States Citizen. 
- Photo ID is part of the process to prove your age. To receive that photo ID you have to prove you are legally a resident. To prove you're a resident, you have to prove that you are a legal immigrant or citizen. You don't just magically get photo ID without being legal
- Exactly the same laws are in place for voting. You have to prove you're a citizen otherwise it's illegal. SSN is not enough because you can get an SSN as an immigrant or a worker. You do not have to be a citizen to get an SSN and you do not have to be a citizen to get photo ID. You just need a series of legal documents to prove that you are legally allowed to work in the US - which has several processes in place already. 
- Voter ID would be the easiest thing in the world for someone to get and show. 

There are no false equivalences here at all. You're shooting the shit because you no longer have a counter argument. 

Thanks for playing.



birthday_massacre said:


> I dont get your big revelation about a guy was able to register to vote without ID.
> 
> Did you not read my earlier post? You dont need an ID to register when you register online. At least not in MA. You act like its some huge deal. when you register, you put in YOUR NAME YOUR ADD and YOUR SSN and it verifies you.
> 
> Not sure why you think that is bad?


Because the SSN does not contain your citizenship status. Your Birth Certificate proves that you're a citizen. The SSN only proves that you have the right to legally work in America and that can be achieved through a ton of ways.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> You say it's not a thing but even if it isn't why not take the chance? Although election fraud is more likely!
> 
> Want to prevent the dead from voting or to be sure that election fraud is harder to pull off? Then Voter ID is a good way to go. We've seen evidence of fraud starting to take place more in elections and it's important to prevent any of that from happening. They should just mail you your voter ID when you turn 18 and if you lose it you go to a Gov website, punch in your ID number and get sent a new one, easy!


The dead does not vote. And when it does happen most times its because the person voted early then died before the election. Its not some super wide spread thing. It rarely ever happens. 

Voter fraud is not going to swing the election but voter suppression, and the fuckery that goes on with the machines will. That is the stuff people should be more worried about.

Anyways, its storming here bad and lost power twice 
Ill be back later.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Nop, is not gonna be close.
> 
> Rallies messure enthusiasm not votes, Focus groups have too much of a little N to be indicative of anything in terms of change in votting


I would normally agree but then I read this today and it really got me thinking. 

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...l-over-the-place-shock-potential-is-enormous/

This guy has been covering elections for decades

Its gonna be close. Something is defiantly up with this election


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't see why it's so hard to obtain an ID full stop, but then again, 'Murica' - I wouldn't be surprised if it's easier to buy come out from a gun show with an arsenal than it is to obtain a simple photo ID.

The bigger issue is why the fuck do you people hold your election on a weekday when people have to work. I mean a small child could tell you more people will vote on a weekend.

Anyway, the main story is Trump is done. No amount of IDs or alleged rigging is going to change that.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The dead does not vote.


:heston



> And when it does happen most times its because the person voted early then died before the election.


:heston



> Its not some super wide spread thing. It rarely ever happens.


:heston



> Voter fraud is not going to swing the election but voter suppression, and the fuckery that goes on with the machines will. That is the stuff people should be more worried about.


Voter suppression is the thing that "rarely" ever happens. We're talking about a couple hundred thousand votes nationally, spread across all 50 states, that are not counted when they should have been because of voter ID and voter roll purges in a general election. 

Unless you're a crybaby Bernie Sanders fan crying that the registered voter rolls were purged, those same rolls Bernie Sanders fans like BM say are so up-to-date and checked rigorously ( :heston :heston )

Hey if the system is so great then there need to be periodic checks and purges to make sure that it actually is up-to-date and rigorous. 

Right?

Properly written and enforced, voter ID would 

1) not suppress anyone's vote
2) make voter fraud infinitely more hard

Everybody knows that thanks to shitty civic infrastructure and shitty education in their communities, neither of which is their fault, minorities are more likely not to have their shit together they need to have together to meet the requirements to vote. The solution is to fix that shit, not have lax requirements and safeguards or none at all just because "voter fraud doesn't happen." Do you leave the henhouse door open too because "well a fox has never got in there yet"?



> I don't see why it's so hard to obtain an ID full stop, but then again, 'Murica' - I wouldn't be surprised if it's easier to buy come out from a gun show with an arsenal than it is to obtain a simple photo ID.


I don't get why people say dumb shit like this. You don't have to wait to get an ID, you don't have to do a background check to get an ID. And you can't buy a gun legally anywhere in this country, at a gun shop, at a gun show, on the internet, or through the mail, without a background check. It's a complete lie that there is a loophole that is being exploited for some huge percentage of gun sales. If the seller is a legal, licensed gun dealer they have to do background checks on EVERY SALE period. 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/30/the-gun-show-loophole-myth/


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> No. The context of the discussion was that voter ID will be used as a tool to suppress minorities and your study does not prove that - in fact denies that it ever happened. So your study counter-proves what has been the crux of the primary argument against voter ID's.


I quoted you in another context, you were saying that Voter ID have little effect on voter turnaout, which i'm proved it's not right.

That was the point of start this saying to you "that's not ENTIRELY correct" instead of saying "you're wrong".
I was pointing this out because the effects of ID laws in turnaout are bigger than the few and isolated cases of voter fraud registered....



Carte Blanche said:


> And you're just shooting the shit now (as I've often see you do in here) that is it valid suppression is "besides the point". It is very much a part of the point. Suppression did not happen without a justifiable reason. Not having photo ID as proof of US Citizenship is something that should be taken very seriously because it's not just a matter of rights, but a matter of the law - since it's illegal for non-citizens to vote.


Is not besides the point.

If you think having two or three screening process to exercise rights is more important than the right itself, then well, that's up to you. It's illegal for non citizen to vote, but normally that should be sorted thanks to the registration process, which is already a first screen




Carte Blanche said:


> The equivalence is not invalid at all.
> 
> - It is ILLEGAL to buy alcohol and cigarettes without being able to prove your age.
> - It is ILLEGAL to vote in elections without being a United States Citizen.
> - Photo ID is part of the process to prove your age. To receive that photo ID you have to prove you are legally a resident. To prove you're a resident, you have to prove that you are a legal immigrant or citizen. You don't just magically get photo ID without being legal
> - Exactly the same laws are in place for voting. You have to prove you're a citizen otherwise it's illegal. SSN is not enough because you can get an SSN as an immigrant or a worker. You do not have to be a citizen to get an SSN and you do not have to be a citizen to get photo ID. You just need a series of legal documents to prove that you are legally allowed to work in the US - which has several processes in place already.
> - Voter ID would be the easiest thing in the world for someone to get and show.



It's a false equivalency because the ID is a first screening necesary for people to prove their age and buy alcohol, IDs in electoral process are a second screen after being reigstered. Obtaining an ID for buying alcohol is similar to registering to vote in function, the fact that you're comparing both cases because both are ID's doesn't mean they're similar. That's why i talked about rights, you can try to inforce the laws in a more secure way, but putting a serial of screanings to exercise basic rights is problematic because it puts the law above the rights when the laws are inforced to defend rights, this is a conservative principle...

Now, you can eliminate registration and install voting IDs as a way of registration and i would not mind....or prove that voter fraud is so rampant that the loss in ID upsets that of the Fraud

I also listed examples previously of people who have problems to obtain their ID




Carte Blanche said:


> Thanks for playing.


Ok?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> I don't see why it's so hard to obtain an ID full stop, but then again, 'Murica' - I wouldn't be surprised if it's easier to buy come out from a gun show with an arsenal than it is to obtain a simple photo ID.


Getting photo ID in America is extremely easy. Whoever says it's hard isn't reading or following the rules in place. And the rules in place are not prohibitive at all. In fact 95% of the process of my immigration and creation of subsequent legal trail was exclusively online or via post. All you have to do is keep your shit together and you can get photo ID. 

It's just yet more infantalization of minorities and white savior complex, that's all. 

Democrats have a voter base of infants who can't get shit done and they want to make sure that voter base votes despite meeting even the simplest of checks and balances which is why they want to make it such that they don't have to do anything to vote. That's all.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It took my less than 10 minutes to register to vote online and I got my card a week later


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump will be way more dangerous when it comes to war. Trump said he will commit war crimes, he wants to bring back torture and said he would be open to bombing the innocent families of terrorists. So going based on your logic, you should not be voting for Trump either especially because Trump is a much bigger racist than Clinton. Trump is against same-sex marriage as well.
> 
> So who are you voting for?


We KNOW Clinton has supported and advocated in favor or every war (both illegal and legal) since and including Vietnam. 

We KNOW Clinton wants to invade the sovereign nation of Syria. 

We KNOW Clinton is banging the dumb for war with Russia (which is literally insane). 

We KNOW Clinton is a war criminal. 

How can you honestly say Clinton is not the most dangerous candidate when it comes to war?

When Clinton was in power she voted against extending rights to LGBT Americans. 

When Clinton was first lady the crime bill she fiercely advocated for resulted in tremendous harm to African American and poor families. 

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN EMPTY WORDS!!!


----------



## Warlock

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Feels.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> I don't see why it's so hard to obtain an ID full stop, but then again, 'Murica' - I wouldn't be surprised if it's easier to buy come out from a gun show with an arsenal than it is to obtain a simple photo ID.
> 
> The bigger issue is why the fuck do you people hold your election on a weekday when people have to work. I mean a small child could tell you more people will vote on a weekend.
> 
> Anyway, the main story is Trump is done. No amount of IDs or alleged rigging is going to change that.


It's easy to get an ID, when your ID expires you get a notice, you bring in your old one and get a new one. The only time it's a hassle is if you lose your birth certificate etc and then you have to pay like 100-300 dollars to get everything you need. That sucks.

Also you have to register if you buy a gun from a gun show. LOL 

LOL easier to get a gun than an ID, oh boy.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> I quoted you in another context, you were saying that Voter ID have little effect on voter turnaout, which i'm proved it's not right.
> 
> That was the point of start this saying to you "that's not ENTIRELY correct" instead of saying "you're wrong".
> I was pointing this out because the effects of ID laws in turnaout are bigger than the few and isolated cases of voter fraud registered....


The study simply showed that an arithmetic formula was applied to reduce voter turnout by a fraction of the point and it was not indicative of race. Where did it say that the effects of ID laws in turnout are bigger than the cases of voter fraud? 

Fraud by its very definition is hard to quantify. As a statistician, you should know the danger of claiming any sort of quantifiable measure of voter fraud. 



> Is not besides the point.
> 
> If you think having two or three screening process to exercise rights is more important than the right itself, then well, that's up to you. It's illegal for non citizen to vote, but normally that should be sorted thanks to the registration process, which is already a first screen


The layers of screening are already built into Voter ID. Prove you're a citizen, get a voter ID. The screening is built into the ID itself. How is that multi-layering and when did I ever say that you should have voter registration as well as Voter ID? 



> It's a false equivalency because the ID is a first screening necesary for people to prove their age and buy alcohol, IDs in electoral process are a second screen after being reigstered. Obtaining an ID for buying alcohol is similar to registering to vote in function, the fact that you're comparing both cases becuase both are ID's doesn't mean they're similar. That's why i talk about rights, you can try to inforce the laws in more secure way, but putting a serial of screanings to exercise basic rights is problematic because it puts the law above the rights when the laws are inforced to defend rights.


And multiple screenings are already built into getting photo ID. You have to prove you're legal by proving you have either a green card or birth certificate. You have to prove that you're a resident by showing that you have a lease or a bank account. Multiple proofs go into handing out photo ID in the first place. It's only a problem for illegals. Not legals. It's extremely easy to get. 



> Now, you can eliminate registration and install voting IDs as a way of registration and i would not mind....


Voter registration is a system that impacts turn out far more than Voter ID's ever would - especially if voter ID's are handed out simply for proving that you're a citizen. As per law, the only requirement to vote is that you're a citizen. To prove that you're a citizen is easier than all the bullshit they have around voter registration. 



> I also listed examples previously of people who have problems to obtain their ID


Which can be sorted throughout the election year for anyone who's not a lazy shit. If you're legal and don't have paperwork at all, then you're likely not living a life in America since you can't get anything at all and at this point you should probably consider getting yourself legal representation to help prove you're a citizen somehow since without legal proof you can't get ANY government services AT ALL :kobelol


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> It's easy to get an ID, when your ID expires you get a notice, you bring in your old one and get a new one. The only time it's a hassle is if you lose your birth certificate etc and then you have to pay like 100-300 dollars to get everything you need. That sucks.
> 
> Also you have to register if you buy a gun from a gun show. LOL
> 
> LOL easier to get a gun than an ID, oh boy.


Try getting on a plane or Amtrak without a government issued picture ID...

THINGS THAT REQUIRE A GOVERNMENT ISSUED PHOTO IDENTIFICATION: 
Open a bank account,
Apply for a a job,
File for unemployment,
Apply for welfare,
Apply for Medicaid,
Apply for Obamacare,
Apply for food stamps,
Apply for Social Security,
Buy a home, 
Apply for a mortgage, 
Rent an apartment,
Apply for low income housing,
Drive a car, 
Buy a new car, 
Buy a used car, 
Rent a car,
Get married, 
Check into a hotel room, 
Buy a gun, 
Apply for a hunting license,
Apply for a fishing license, 
Adopt a pet,
Pick up a prescription, 
Buy certain kinds of cold medicine, 
Donate blood,
Enter a casino, 
Buy lottery tickets,
To buy cigarettes,
Buy alcohol,
Enter a bar,
Enter a nightclub,
Buy a video game that’s rated M for Mature, 
See a movie rated NC-17,
Buy a cell phone and apply for a coverage plan, 
Apply for a passport,
To rent a post office box, 
To show to a cop when asked no matter where you are with no probable cause necessary, and
To hold a rally or protest or rally.


You do not need a government issued photo ID:
To vote.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> I don't get why people say dumb shit like this. You don't have to wait to get an ID, you don't have to do a background check to get an ID. And you can't buy a gun legally anywhere in this country, at a gun shop, at a gun show, on the internet, or through the mail, without a background check. It's a complete lie that there is a loophole that is being exploited for some huge percentage of gun sales. If the seller is a legal, licensed gun dealer they have to do background checks on EVERY SALE period.
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/30/the-gun-show-loophole-myth/


Didn't mean to get your panties in a twist sweetheart. BTW That link you provided sure looks rock solid, and not an opinion piece by some pro gunner, showing their journalistic integrity by referring to the gun control crowd as 'gun grabbers'. 

Unless I'm wrong she's not explicitly saying the 'gun show loophole' doesn't exist, more that it's not widely used due to stats (I'm sure were presented 100% accurately). Excuse the wiki link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole



> Gun show loophole, gun law loophole, Brady law loophole (or Brady bill loophole), private sale loophole, and private sale exemption are political terms in the United States referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows, dubbed the "secondary market".[1] The term refers to the concept that a loophole in federal law exists, under which "[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms".[2][3][4]
> 
> Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers, whether at a gun show or other venue. They also are not required to record the sale, or ask for identification.


Can you tell me for sure the above doesn't exist?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html

:shrug :draper2

Many people here saying it is easy to get photo ID made the same mistake as me in assuming people living in rural areas of America have the same ease of access to services as people living in urban areas. Imagine a 2 hour drive to and fro only to be told you didn't have the required documentations, have to pay to settle lawsuits etc.

If you want photo id laws, make it easier for people that are going to be affected by it to get the ids. Otherwise it looks more like suppressing the vote of poor/rural/old people than trying to make the elections fair.

This wouldn't be an issue 30 years or more later when the old have basic registration info anyway. What else would the losing party blame?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Getting photo ID in America is extremely easy. Whoever says it's hard isn't reading or following the rules in place. And the rules in place are not prohibitive at all. In fact 95% of the process of my immigration and creation of subsequent legal trail was exclusively online or via post. All you have to do is keep your shit together and you can get photo ID.
> 
> It's just yet more infantalization of minorities and white savior complex, that's all.
> 
> *Democrats have a voter base of infants who can't get shit done and they want to make sure that voter base votes despite meeting even the simplest of checks and balances which is why they want to make it such that they don't have to do anything to vote. That's al*l.


Lol now it's all Democrats are simpletons who can't do anything just because they're not on your side? Ok got it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html
> 
> :shrug :draper2
> 
> Many people here saying it is easy to get photo ID made the same mistake as me in assuming people living in rural areas of America have the same ease of access to services as people living in urban areas. Imagine a 2 hour drive to and fro only to be told you didn't have the required documentations, have to pay to settle lawsuits etc.
> 
> If you want photo id laws, make it easier for people that are going to be affected by it to get the ids. Otherwise it looks more like suppressing the vote of poor/rural/old people than trying to make the elections fair.
> 
> This wouldn't be an issue 30 years or more later when the old have basic registration info anyway. What else would the losing party blame?


And yet all of those people DO do that when they have to get their licenses or do you think that people in rural America are driving around without licenses? 

If you really want to vote, then you'll find a way to do it. 

Also, interestingly, rural america is by and large white since the vast majority of hispanic and black populace is clumped in larger towns and cities where services are accessible.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> And yet all of those people DO do that when they have to get their licenses or do you think that people in rural America are driving around without licenses?
> 
> If you really want to vote, then you'll find a way to do it.
> 
> Also, interestingly, rural america is by and large white since the vast majority of hispanic and black populace is clumped in larger towns and cities where services are accessible.


Rural tends to vote more conservative don't they? So why are these people bitching if it keeps these folks from voting too? Again no leg to stand on you need ID for pretty much anything you do.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> And yet all of those people DO do that when they have to get their licenses or do you think that people in rural America are driving around without licenses?
> 
> If you really want to vote, then you'll find a way to do it.
> 
> Also, interestingly, rural america is by and large white since the vast majority of hispanic and black populace is clumped in larger towns and cities where services are accessible.


You are assuming everyone has a driver license or can drive as your argument.

If you are poor and are told you need to pay $250 or more to to vote would you?


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Well there is any easy way to do this, say you're buying booze!
> 
> You show up, you look 30+ but the guy behind the register asks for ID, why? Because it's the law, just really that simple. It's not racist, ageist, sexiest or whatever.
> 
> Don't have ID? don't get booze. Again it's not discrimination or "suppressing" you from buying booze.
> 
> But it does prevent minors from buying booze, I highly doubt many kids are going into stores and buying booze, so should we stop carding people for buying such?


Not having an ID never stopped me from buying booze when I was a minor. But then again, I did grow up in Alabama. :lol



yeahbaby! said:


> The bigger issue is why the fuck do you people hold your election on a weekday when people have to work. I mean a small child could tell you more people will vote on a weekend.


You just answered your own question. They _don't want_ more people voting, especially poor ones who can't get off work to go vote.


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










:CITO


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Rural tends to vote more conservative don't they? So why are these people bitching if it keeps these folks from voting too? Again no leg to stand on you need ID for pretty much anything you do.


Yup. Rural is republican. However, there is a growing wave of immigration from blue states into rural areas as well, but so far they haven't shown a shift towards voting blue but rather end up becoming less partisan instead.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962629815000207


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

In principal, voter ID law isn't bad. But it's the motives for the ID laws, and their effects. 
Sure, everyone should carry an ID. But for one reason or another, a lot of people don't. Among US citizens, 8% of whites, 16% of hispanics, and 19% of blacks don't carry a valid ID. And because minorities are less likely to carry an ID, Republicans are trying to pass these laws, just as they are trying to prevent/ eliminate/ limit early voting because it is utilized by blacks at a much higher rate.
There was a comprehensive study about four years ago, where out of a billion ballots cast since 2000, they found 31 potential instances of voter fraud. That comes out to .000003% of votes cast were potentially fraudulent. Meanwhile, when states pass voter ID laws, it generally results in a drop of turnout by about 2%. That means for every case of voter fraud preventing by these laws, 650,000 are being disenfranchised. So is it really worth it to block hundreds of thousands of people from legally voting to stop one case of voter fraud?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> You are assuming everyone has a driver license or can drive as your argument.


If they want to drive they must have a driver's license. If they want to vote, they'll have to prove they're a citizen. 



> If you are poor and are told you need to pay $250 or more to to vote would you?


- Or the government can set up voter ID booths in rural towns
- Each party can facilitate the process with their local volunteers and campaign workers
- Costs can be subsidized, small booths can be set up, "get your voter ID" fundraisers can happen
- If people can be bussed to go vote, they can be bussed to get their voter ID's 

So many solutions to every problem. You just gotta have the will and desire to do it. 

Of course, Americans can solve anything if they really wanted to. The thing is that they don't want to fix certain things because ultimately it's benefiting the oligarchs :kobelol



Cabanarama said:


> In principal, voter ID law isn't bad. But it's the motives for the ID laws, and their effects.
> Sure, everyone should carry an ID. But for one reason or another, a lot of people don't. Among US citizens, 8% of whites, 16% of hispanics, and 19% of blacks don't carry a valid ID. And because minorities are less likely to carry an ID, Republicans are trying to pass these laws, just as they are trying to prevent/ eliminate/ limit early voting because it is utilized by blacks at a much higher rate.


You wanna beat dem ugly racist GOP bastards ... How about you get the blacks and hispanics to actually get ID and carry it instead of babying them. You can help them get their ID. I mean, how many workers do the Dems have. How come they're not helping their voters get the ID so that they can once and for all shut up these evil GOP voter ID proponents. 

Teach your voters to be better citizens. It's not that hard.

:kobelol


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> If they want to drive they must have a driver's license. If they want to vote, they'll have to prove they're a citizen.


The issue is the means to prove their citizenship can be too costly for some. Documentation in the 1950's isn't as accessible as in the 70's or later.



> - Or the government can set up voter ID booths in rural towns
> - Each party can facilitate the process with their local volunteers and campaign workers
> - Costs can be subsidized, small booths can be set up, "get your voter ID" fundraisers can happen
> - If people can be bussed to go vote, they can be bussed to get their voter ID's
> 
> So many solutions to every problem. You just gotta have the will and desire to do it.


I don't disagree that there should be more effort to get voters their ids. I am in support of voter id in principle but there are currently too many barriers for those affected to bypass and it seem more like voter suppression than preventing voter fraud. Though voter ID booths seems about as insecure as mailing the IDs. I feel like sensitive documents like this should be handled in person at a fixed location.



> Of course, Americans can solve anything if they really wanted to. The thing is that they don't want to fix certain things because ultimately it's benefiting the oligarchs :kobelol


You went real crazy once you started consuming Trump media since the start of this elections. How soon before you deny climate change? :kobelol


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> If they want to drive they must have a driver's license. If they want to vote, they'll have to prove they're a citizen.
> 
> - Or the government can set up voter ID booths in rural towns
> - Each party can facilitate the process with their local volunteers and campaign workers
> - Costs can be subsidized, small booths can be set up, "get your voter ID" fundraisers can happen
> - If people can be bussed to go vote, they can be bussed to get their voter ID's
> 
> So many solutions to every problem. You just gotta have the will and desire to do it.
> 
> Of course, Americans can solve anything if they really wanted to. The thing is that they don't want to fix certain things because ultimately it's benefiting the oligarchs :kobelol
> 
> 
> 
> You wanna beat dem ugly racist GOP bastards ... How about you get the blacks and hispanics to actually get ID and carry it instead of babying them. You can help them get their ID. I mean, how many workers do the Dems have. How come they're not helping their voters get the ID so that they can once and for all shut up these evil GOP voter ID proponents.
> 
> Teach your voters to be better citizens. It's not that hard.
> 
> :kobelol


Actually the best solution could be achieved by making one modification to an existing service: 
All US States have mobile outreach vehicles (RVs and similar) that are already used for health and human services initiatives and primarily serve communities with one of the following demographics: senior citizens, low income and rural. These vehicles are also utilized at State Fairs and large community events. 

Add the capability to issue photo identification and a DMV staffer to this existing service and the problem is largely solved at a very minimal cost.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> You went real crazy once you started consuming Trump media since the start of this elections. How soon before you deny climate change? :kobelol


The oligarchy claim was never made by "Trump media", it was made by the mainstream leftist media on the backs of two Princeton professors who published a very famous study in 2014. 

Then again, if you weren't just some random spring chicken that actually knew something, you would have known that. But I'm not surprised that you don't.

I would tell you to actually learn what an oligarchy is because you clearly don't even know what it is and don't want to know because at this point in time there is very little left to refute the claim that America is run by oligarchs. Heck, pretty much all the wikileaks point to special interest groups and their influence on local government. Even large amounts of campaign donations are part of an oligarchical system --- then again, you don't even know what an oligarchy is to actually have a debate with me about whether America is an oligarchy or not.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Jesus Christ you guys are like children

If one side is not saying I'm stupid they are saying I am causing Armageddon

Look past the superficial shit and tone and you will find that you all want the same 

Outside of the LETS MURDER THE RICH idiots everyone just wants safety and stability no matter their class or background

You guys just have different ideas on how to get to that path

The problem is you refuse to realize that you both want the same thing out of fear that they other side will make you less "pure"

Their are things about fucking communism I can agree with, they may not be optimal but I can see why others would want them and I have zero fear of one day wanting to dry hump Stalin 

For all the talks of Hillary trying to restart the cold war or Trump living in the 50s its the supporters who are trapped in a time warp and that warp is too 600 AD 

You want to lock yourself in little monastery and avoid the evil conservatives or liberals (or even those who *gasp* those who support government at all) that try to run your tiny utopia and filter all the "truths" that come through the door to make sure they reach your approval while dreaming about the day that all those who disagree disappear or ,if you are truly an idiot, the day the "people" (you approve of) rise up to murder the trash stopping the universe from being a reflection of your obvious brilliance 

I have more respect Hilary and Trump than I do for the average person because those two know that everyone does not agree with them but are able function in spite of that as well as respecting their opposition if only to have a better understating of how to discount it

(edit: have you ever looked at your post and realize that you write like a dyslexic? I put "no" instead of "know")


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> The issue is the means to prove their citizenship can be too costly for some. Documentation in the 1950's isn't as accessible as in the 70's or later.


I mean, the other issue is that forcing people to _pay_ for a voter ID violates the 24th Amendment.

Voter fraud isn't really even an issue on a state level, let alone national. But I don't think many people would be staunchly opposed to voter ID laws if said IDs were easy to obtain and free to all.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> I mean, the other issue is that forcing people to _pay_ for a voter ID violates the 24th Amendment.
> 
> Voter fraud isn't really even an issue on a state level, let alone national. But I don't think many people would be staunchly opposed to voter ID laws if said IDs were easy to obtain and free to all.


The GOP nominees that demand voter ID laws should just take some of the campaign money they raise each cycle and put it into a fund to help people who need to get the IDs.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> I mean, the other issue is that forcing people to _pay_ for a voter ID violates the 24th Amendment.
> 
> Voter fraud isn't really even an issue on a state level, let alone national. But I don't think many people would be staunchly opposed to voter ID laws if said IDs were easy to obtain and free to all.


Should be free and sent to you when you turn 18. The only time you pay is if it expires and you lost your info and need to get the info back.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Should be free and sent to you when you turn 18. The only time you pay is if it expires and you lost your info and need to get the info back.


You have yourself a deal. (Y)

See? Was that so fucking hard? @Congress


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> LETS MURDER THE RICH


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*Assange's Emerging Politics: Rand Paul And Libertarian Wing of GOP Represent 'Only Hope'*



> The strong turn of Julian Assange and Wikileaks toward partisan electoral politics continued this weekend, as Assange told an online audience that he’s “a big admirer of Ron Paul and Rand Paul for their very principled positions in the U.S. Congress on a number of issues” and insisted that the libertarian wing the Republican Party represented the “only hope” for reform in American politics.
> 
> The praise for the conservative Paul wing of the Republican Party in the U.S., aligned with Tea Party and anti-government activists, comes on the heels of the establishment of the Wikileaks Party in Australia, where Assange is standing for election to the Senate from Victoria.
> 
> Speaking during a live-streamed panel discussion from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has been given political asylum despite being sought for sexual abuse allegations in Sweden, Assange claimed that the Republicans – and especially the Pauls – don’t represent conservatism, but an opposition to a powerful Federal government that spies on its own citizens.
> 
> “The Republican Party in so far as how it has coupled together with the war industry is not a conservative party at all and the Libertarian aspect of the Republican Party is presently the only useful political voice in the US Congress,” he said. That point of view may well set the Wikileaks founder at odds with many of his progressive supporters here in the United States, who while opposing large-scale surveillance like the kind exposed by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden (now a political refugee in Russia), nonetheless hold social views that are antithetical to hard right Paulist positions on issues like immigration, labor, reproductive rights, and social welfare programs.
> 
> Libertarians on the right, claimed Assange, “will be the driver that shifts the United States around.”
> 
> “It’s not going to come from the Democrats, it’s not going to come from Ralph Nader, it’s not going to come from the co-opted parts of the Republican Party. The only hope as far as electoral politics… presently, is the libertarian section of the Republican Party.”
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Watson , CONTRIBUTOR
> I write about social entrepreneurship, nonprofits and social causes.
> 
> Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
> Wikileaks founder Julian Assange looks on at t...
> (Image credit: AFP/Getty Images via @daylife)
> The strong turn of Julian Assange and Wikileaks toward partisan electoral politics continued this weekend, as Assange told an online audience that he’s “a big admirer of Ron Paul and Rand Paul for their very principled positions in the U.S. Congress on a number of issues” and insisted that the libertarian wing the Republican Party represented the “only hope” for reform in American politics.
> 
> The praise for the conservative Paul wing of the Republican Party in the U.S., aligned with Tea Party and anti-government activists, comes on the heels of the establishment of the Wikileaks Party in Australia, where Assange is standing for election to the Senate from Victoria.
> 
> Speaking during a live-streamed panel discussion from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has been given political asylum despite being sought for sexual abuse allegations in Sweden, Assange claimed that the Republicans – and especially the Pauls – don’t represent conservatism, but an opposition to a powerful Federal government that spies on its own citizens.
> 
> ADVERTISING
> 
> inRead invented by Teads
> 
> “The Republican Party in so far as how it has coupled together with the war industry is not a conservative party at all and the Libertarian aspect of the Republican Party is presently the only useful political voice in the US Congress,” he said. That point of view may well set the Wikileaks founder at odds with many of his progressive supporters here in the United States, who while opposing large-scale surveillance like the kind exposed by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden (now a political refugee in Russia), nonetheless hold social views that are antithetical to hard right Paulist positions on issues like immigration, labor, reproductive rights, and social welfare programs.
> 
> Libertarians on the right, claimed Assange, “will be the driver that shifts the United States around.”
> 
> “It’s not going to come from the Democrats, it’s not going to come from Ralph Nader, it’s not going to come from the co-opted parts of the Republican Party. The only hope as far as electoral politics… presently, is the libertarian section of the Republican Party.”
> 
> Recommended by Forbes
> Is WikiLeaks Now An International Political Party?
> NSA Director Heckled At Conference As He Asks For Security Community's Und...
> IBMVoice: In A Cognitive Classroom, Teachers Use Data To Help Their Students Succeed
> 
> 'Traitor Or Hero?' Asking The Wrong Questions About Manning And Snowden
> MOST POPULAR Photos: The Richest Person In Every State
> +31,327 VIEWS Hacked Cameras Were Behind Today's Massive Web Outage
> 
> Assange said the Paul wing of the GOP has the winning formula for non-violent political change, and listed gun violence and women’s reproductive rights as two areas where right-wing tactics are working in the United States:
> 
> “The position of the Libertarian Republican, or a better description Right, coming from a principle of non-violence which is the American Libertarian tradition. That produces interesting results.
> 
> “So, non-violence: well, don’t go and invade a foreign country. Non-violence: don’t force people at the barrel of a gun to serve in the U.S. Army. Non-violence: doesn’t extort taxes from people to the federal Government with a policeman. Similarly, other aspects of non-violence in relation to abortion that they hold.”
> 
> In the United States, the social movement that has supported Wikileaks efforts at uncovering U.S. government secrets (including the links provided by U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning, now in the sentencing portion of his military trial) has been largely dominated by the left wing and progressive activists angry over U.S. security expansion since the attacks of 9/11 and the war in Iraq. The politics of Rand Paul – who famously said he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – are in stark opposition to the civil libertarian left in the United States (not to mention the political leanings of Matt Drudge, who Assange also praised as an exemplar of American journalism). But this may be changing.
> 
> While it is unclear whether Assange and newly-political Wikileaks will make endorsements in U.S. elections – Rand Paul is thought to be seeking the GOP nomination for President in 2016 – he has plunged in deeply in Australian politics, forming a registered political party and campaigning (albeit remotely) for elected office. And that electoral effort in Australia may have legs around the world as well; four days ago, The Guardian reported that Wikileaks will try to raise money internationally for its slate of candidates. “There is generational change taking place. People are searching for a new body politic,” said spokesperson Sam Castro.
> 
> Symbolic of that generational change is the 30-year-old Snowden, who Wikileaks represented in his negotiations with the Russian government and others as he sought asylum to escape U.S. spying charges. And Snowden, it turns out, is a supporter of Ron Paul, having twice donated $250 to the former Texas Congressman’s campaign in 2012. The feeling is mutual: “We should be thankful for individuals like Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald who see injustice being carried out by their own government and speak out, despite the risk,” said the elder Paul in June. “They have done a great service to the American people by exposing the truth about what our government is doing in secret.”
> 
> As the American Conservative reported this week, the U.S. right wing is rallying to Snowden’s cause: “A funny thing happened between Hong Kong and Russia: Edward Snowden, teller of National Security Agency secrets and American dissident at large, started to become a conservative hero.” And Snowden’s father Lon is represented by long-time conservative “originalist” lawyer Bruce Fein, a former Reagan Administration official who testified to Congress two years ago that “the individual is the center of the Constitution’s universe.”
> 
> In both Assange’s attacks on the Obama Administration (and the vast U.S. security bureaucracy which has grown since 2001) and in the Wikileaks Party’s Australian platform, there’s a vein of criticism of big government as a failure, riddled with cronyism, careerism, and blind party loyalty. This is similar to the rhetoric of both Pauls and some Tea Party activists as well, and is based on their narrow view of what the republic’s founding generation and constitutional framers actually intended.



This is an article from 2013 which I found interesting, very bold claims at the time and I agree with them fully.

I understand people like @Wrestling Forum's Biggest Chicago Cubs Fan; have given up on American politics in general but you have to understand from an outside perspective, as a British citizen looking in that at least the US has the ground work of political activists and politicians who could eventually make change. We in the UK have no real big voices in our politics for limited government and for the concepts of freedom and liberty. None. The closest we have is Daniel Hannan and he isn't even an MP.

So for me personally, I have to cling on to the hope that in the future someone like Rand will get into office because too often or not, America leads and the rest of the western world follows. For that I have to try and remain optimistic in the face of dire circumstances.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> *Assange's Emerging Politics: Rand Paul And Libertarian Wing of GOP Represent 'Only Hope'*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an article from 2013 which I found interesting, very bold claims at the time and I agree with them fully.
> 
> I understand people like @Wrestling Forum's Biggest Chicago Cubs Fan; have given up on American politics in general but you have to understand from an outside perspective, as a British citizen looking in that at least the US has the ground work of political activists and politicians who could eventually make change. We in the UK have no real big voices in our politics for limited government and for the concepts of freedom and liberty. None. The closest we have is Daniel Hannan and he isn't even an MP.
> 
> So for me personally, I have to cling on to the hope that in the future someone like Rand will get into office because too often or not, America leads and the rest of the western world follows. For that I have to try and remain optimistic in the face of dire circumstances.


The best bet at a truly limited govt candidate we had here, in as long as I've been alive, was Ron Paul. And while there was certainly an up-swell of support at the time, it wasn't nearly enough to contend with the established political ecosystem. The lion's share of that up-swell is basically dissolved now. Defeated, disenfranchised, disillusioned, crippled, fractured, and converted into either the button-pushers that are now just sitting back and praying for catastrophic collapse and revolution, or the type that has been driven into the arms of Trump. I suppose it could happen again, but I doubt Rand will be the one to trigger it. Meanwhile, things will continue to get more desperate, subsequently driving younger generations into the arms of the polar opposite as we have seen in this cycle with the likes of Sanders, Clinton, and the total rejection of Rand.

The truth is, Rand wasn't nearly the sequel his father's people were hoping he'd be, which only added to their embitterment. And after a term of Hillary, alongside whatever idiocy the GOP produces in the meantime... well, I hate to say it, but I don't see that embitterment turning into belief again. If anything, it'll just cause more anger and abandonment.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Trump hasn't gotten anyone killed (and then laughed about it), as far as we know...


There's an article about that in this weekend's edition of CP.



> *Hillary Clinton and the Brutal Murder of Gaddafi*
> by John Wight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo by thierry hermann | CC BY 2.0
> 
> 
> On October 20, 2011, Libya’s Muammar al-Gaddafi was brutally murdered by a mob of NATO-backed ‘rebels’, after first being beaten and violated in the most barbaric fashion. History leaves no doubt that not only was the Libyan leader murdered on this day but Libya itself.
> 
> The regime-change crew who dominate Western governments have a long indictment sheet against their names. Since 9/11 they have wrought havoc and human misery on a grand scale in their determination to reshape and own a world that has never been theirs to own. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya – Syria currently embroiled in a pitiless conflict for its survival as a secular, non-sectarian state – this is the miserable legacy of nations which speak the language of democracy while practising the politics of domination.
> 
> Of the aforementioned victims of Western imperialism, there is a strong argument to be made that Libya’s destruction constitutes an especially grievous crime. After all, in 2010, the year before it experienced its ‘revolution’, the United Nations Development Programme considered Libya a high development country in the Middle East and North Africa. In concrete terms this status translated to a literacy rate of 88.4%, a life expectancy of 74.5 years, gender equality, and various other positive indicators. In addition, Libya enjoyed 4.2% economic growth in 2010 and could boast of foreign assets in excess of $150 billion.
> 
> Compare this record to Libya in 2016. According to testimony provided by US Army General David Rodriguez to the US Senate Armed Services Committee in March, it is a failed state, with the general estimating it would take ‘“10 years or so” to achieve long-term stability in what is a “fractured society”’.
> 
> There is currently no single government or authority in Libya whose writ runs in the entire country. Instead three competing authorities control their own fiefdoms. The internationally recognized government is the Government of National Accord (GNC), led by Fayez al-Sarraj, is based in the capital, Tripoli. There is also the Government of National Salvation, led by Khalifa Ghwell, which is also based in Tripoli. The third centre of power, meanwhile, is located in Tobruk in the east of the country. It is headed by an anti-Islamist general, Khalifa Haftar, who leads the Libyan National Army (LNA). Economically, oil revenues, responsible for 90% of revenue under Gaddafi, have halved, violence is widespread, and since 2011 Daesh has managed to gain a foothold, though in recent months the terrorist organization has come under huge pressure in its stronghold of Sirte from forces representing the GNC.
> 
> The impact of the chaos that has engulfed the country since Gaddafi was overthrown and murdered can be measured by the flood of Libyans who have attempted the perilous journey across the Mediterranean with the objective of reaching Europe. In the process untold thousands have perished.
> 
> UN Security Council Resolution 1973, passed in March 2011, marked the end of the Arab Spring and the beginning of the Arab Winter. The mass and popular demonstrations that succeeded in toppling Tunisian dictator Ben Ali and is Egyptian counterpart Hosni Mubarak were not replicated in Libya. Instead, in Benghazi, where the anti-Gaddafi movement was centred, Islamists predominated. There was no nationwide mass movement in Libya, such as those that swept across Tunisia and Egypt, and no popular support for toppling a government and leader who presided over a society that enjoyed the highest standard of living of any in Africa.
> 
> Loyalist Gaddafi forces were defeated by NATO not the opposition forces emanating from Benghazi. Indeed it was at the point at which the country’s armed forces were approaching Benghazi, preparatory to crushing the uprising, when NATO intervened – based on the lie of protecting civilians when in truth it was intent on regime change.
> 
> Gaddafi’s crime in the eyes of the West was not that he was an authoritarian dictator – how could it be when their closet ally in the region is Saudi Arabia? His crime in their eyes, it was revealed in a tranche of classified Clinton emails, released by Wikileaks in January of this year, was his intention of establishing a gold-backed currency to compete with the euro and the dollar as an international reserve currency in Africa. In this regard the then French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, and then US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, were key actors in pushing for NATO intervention. Libyan oil was also a factor.
> 
> The classified emails prove beyond any doubt that what took place in Libya was a monstrous crime for which those responsible have yet to be held accountable. On the contrary, Sarkozy is currently in the process of preparing a political return as French president, while Hillary Clinton is favorite to win the race for the White House against Republican nominee Donald Trump.
> 
> Of the two, it is Clinton who was filmed clapping her hands and laughing at the news of Muammar Gaddafi’s murder in 2011. It is Clinton who pressed for the military intervention that ended in Libya’s destruction. And it is Hillary Clinton who has the gall to present herself as a moral giant in comparison to her rival for the US presidency.
> 
> The Libyan people may well disagree.
> 
> SOURCE


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

But but Gaddafi was a dick tater ... The democrats liberated those poor, helpless muslims !!

Actually, the more common response amongst democrats about this is total silence. 

Repeat after me:

There is no military industry complex
There are no power players with vested interests
There are only good guys (democrats) 
and bad guys (people who want oppress) 
and victims (people who democrats have to rescue)
There is no military industry complex
There are no dirty politics
There are no covert operations
There are no war crimes
There is only liberty
There is only US liberty
Follow us and you will be free


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> But but Gaddafi was a dick tater


No relation.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump gives a great speech at Gettysburg full of policy proposals, first 100-day promises, and outlines a plan to "un-rig the system", and the media is talking about him threatening to sue his sexual assault accusers. :lol CNN's current headline right now is actually "Every woman lied." :lmao The corporate media, folks.

Trump could be a full-on environmentalist-socialist at this point and I'd still support him. The establishment is clearly TERRIFIED of the threat he represents to their criminal cabal.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


>


Those hot 90s women are right!


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Those hot 90s women are right!


Reminds me of this.










:lol


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

In case there are any Walking Dead fans here: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/anti-hillary-walking-dead-posters-940681


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> But but Gaddafi was a dick tater ... The democrats liberated those poor, helpless muslims !!
> 
> Actually, the more common response amongst democrats about this is total silence.
> 
> Repeat after me:
> 
> There is no military industry complex
> There are no power players with vested interests
> There are only good guys (democrats)
> and bad guys (people who want oppress)
> and victims (people who democrats have to rescue)
> There is no military industry complex
> There are no dirty politics
> There are no covert operations
> There are no war crimes
> There is only liberty
> There is only US liberty
> Follow us and you will be free


America doesn't really bomb innocent people, they're actually just dropping democracy. They're dropping so much democracy no one can handle it.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So the latest chick to call foul on Teflon Don Juan is a porn star of all people. :mase



Tater said:


> Reminds me of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lol


In all seriousness, Liz Gillies is actually a total babe and she blows each of those bishes out of the water, as shown with exhibit A:


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RenegadexParagon said:


> America doesn't really bomb innocent people, they're actually just dropping democracy. They're dropping so much democracy no one can handle it.


Reminds me of a game where there was a "Freedom" faction and a player remarked after blowing up a base they were "Freeing the fuck out of them" by bombing them. lol


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Early voting in Nevada started so I went ahead and cast my vote for Donald John Trump!

- Vic


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> So the latest chick to call foul on Teflon Don Juan is a porn star of all people. :mase
> 
> 
> 
> In all seriousness, Liz Gillies is actually a total babe and she blows each of those bishes out of the water, as shown with exhibit A:


Except Liz is an adult in your gif and in that pic, she wasn't.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Except Liz is an adult in your gif and in that pic, she wasn't.


Fair point, although with Don Juan's teen pageant peeping being anything to go by, he would've creeped on her even while she was a kid.

:serious:


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



THE MAN said:


> In case there are any Walking Dead fans here: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/anti-hillary-walking-dead-posters-940681


Kinda stupid, TBH. There is plenty to hate Hillary for without fabricating bullshit. When you make shit up like that, you look like a silly person and distract from the real reasons Hillary should be feared, like wanting to go to war with fucking Russia.



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> In all seriousness, Liz Gillies is actually a total babe and she blows each of those bishes out of the water, as shown with exhibit A:


Exhibit B for Bundy:



















What Kelly Bundy thinks of your opinion:










What Kelly Bundy would do to Liz Gillies:


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Kinda stupid, TBH. There is plenty to hate Hillary for without fabricating bullshit. When you make shit up like that, you look like a silly person and distract from the real reasons Hillary should be feared, like wanting to go to war with fucking Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> Exhibit B for Bundy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Kelly Bundy thinks of your opinion:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Kelly Bundy would do to Liz Gillies:


Liz still wins on the grounds that she kept her tits. :trump

To Applegate's credit, though, she's aged very well and is certainly MILFy.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://conservativestudio.com/miley-cyrus-pledges-leave-us-trump-wins/

It's a shame that Teflon Don doesn't want to win due to being the Clintons' mole. He'd be doing us a great service by denying the Hilldog her chance to shit on the White House's lawn *and* making a homely twat eat her words in regard to moving out of 'Murica.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> Liz still wins on the grounds that she kept her tits. :trump
> 
> To Applegate's credit, though, she's aged very well and is certainly MILFy.


TBH, I have no idea who the fuck Liz Gillies even is. :lol

As far as Applegate goes, I was just watching MWC reruns last night. TBS still shows them. She's still 25 years ago Kelly Bundy as far as I'm concerned.

And just in case you're having too much fun talking about hot women, here's something to keep the thread on topic and give you horrifying nightmares.



Spoiler: you've been warned


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I wouldn't be surprised if Martin Shkreli masturbates furiously to this little revelation:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/24440



Tater said:


> *TBH, I have no idea who the fuck Liz Gillies even is.* :lol
> 
> As far as Applegate goes, I was just watching MWC reruns last night. TBS still shows them. She's still 25 years ago Kelly Bundy as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> And just in case you're having too much fun talking about hot women, here's something to keep the thread on topic and give you horrifying nightmares.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: you've been warned


You're missing out, bruh. She's what Mac and Dennis from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia would call a tasty treat. :yum:

And thanks for reminding me why the Hilldebeast must not win the presidency. :deandre


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> TBH, I have no idea who the fuck Liz Gillies even is. :lol


Then we suggest that you fix that


----------



## amhlilhaus

stevefox1200 said:


> Jesus Christ you guys are like children
> 
> If one side is not saying I'm stupid they are saying I am causing Armageddon
> 
> Look past the superficial shit and tone and you will find that you all want the same
> 
> Outside of the LETS MURDER THE RICH idiots everyone just wants safety and stability no matter their class or background
> 
> You guys just have different ideas on how to get to that path
> 
> The problem is you refuse to realize that you both want the same thing out of fear that they other side will make you less "pure"
> 
> Their are things about fucking communism I can agree with, they may not be optimal but I can see why others would want them and I have zero fear of one day wanting to dry hump Stalin
> 
> For all the talks of Hillary trying to restart the cold war or Trump living in the 50s its the supporters who are trapped in a time warp and that warp is too 600 AD
> 
> You want to lock yourself in little monastery and avoid the evil conservatives or liberals (or even those who *gasp* those who support government at all) that try to run your tiny utopia and filter all the "truths" that come through the door to make sure they reach your approval while dreaming about the day that all those who disagree disappear or ,if you are truly an idiot, the day the "people" (you approve of) rise up to murder the trash stopping the universe from being a reflection of your obvious brilliance
> 
> I have more respect Hilary and Trump than I do for the average person because those two know that everyone does not agree with them but are able function in spite of that as well as respecting their opposition if only to have a better understating of how to discount it
> 
> (edit: have you ever looked at your post and realize that you write like a dyslexic? I put "no" instead of "know")


Jesus christ what a simplification.

To believe that the two sides dont have deep divisions is just not true.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/790183967907418112
If Clinton overperform her polling, which is a huge possiblity now, GOP not only can lose the senate but the House too


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/790203339728359424
"Demography is destiny."

So long, GOP.


This is amusing, too:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/788356625664909312
"Millennials, less so."

Hmm. I wonder why that would be. Wait a moment. 



> Hate speech statutes in the future U.S. and racial minorities
> 
> Would you support or oppose a law that would make it a crime for people to make public comments intended to stir up hatred against a group based on such things as their race, gender, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation?
> 
> White Americans: Support--36%; Oppose--44%
> 
> Black Americans: Support--63%; Oppose--13%
> 
> Hispanic Americans: Support--51%; Oppose--24%
> 
> Asian Americans: Support--49%; Oppose--32%


If one did not know better, one would think that diversity and the American republican (small-r) tradition of free speech as one of the chiefly protected and guarded rights of Englishmen are in direct, irreconcilable opposition to one another. 

Bummer.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I still am gobsmacked by the AJC's Georgia poll from a couple of days ago. 44% to 42% for Trump. Statistically tied. Romney won Georgia by 8% in 2012. Media bias and shifting demographics play a part, but Trump has been a bad candidate if Georgia is in play. There is no ground game here that I've seen. I've seen a few yard signs and a couple of bumper stickers. Only tv commercials I see are for Hillary.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> I still am gobsmacked by the AJC's Georgia poll from a couple of days ago. 44% to 42% for Trump. Statistically tied. Romney won Georgia by 8% in 2012. Media bias and shifting demographics play a part, but Trump has been a bad candidate if Georgia is in play. *There is no ground game here that I've seen. I've seen a few yard signs and a couple of bumper stickers. Only tv commercials I see are for Hillary.*


Trump almost has no Field operations and no GOTV money compromised.

I don't think states like Texas are in play until at least 2024. Trump is just a plain BAD candidate who is underperforming.

GOTV operations can increase your tornout in 2% or 3% at times and his campaign doesn't have a real structure. At the same time this "rigged" narrative is for sure ralling his base but at the same time it send the message for moderates conservatives and independents who could be sort of interested in him that votting doesn't matter.

This is without taking in account that people like Hispanics have been given a real reason to vote in this election against Trump, when they tend to have the lowest turnout of all demos.

PPP were saying in the weekend that they haven't been able to do public polling because they were doing at least 94 private polls for each candidate/down ticket and news are terrible for republicans and a 7/8 out of 10 for democrats


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> If one did not know better, one would think that diversity and the American republican (small-r) tradition of free speech as one of the chiefly protected and guarded rights of Englishmen are in direct, irreconcilable opposition to one another.
> 
> Bummer.


Perception plays a huge role in this. None of these blacks and hispanics and entitled white millennials (the ones that were born in the US) have actually ever spent any real time in countries where free speech is really policed and how it is used to quell dissenting opinion. 

One can argue that dissenting opinion does not always have merit in and of itself, but its lack of merit does not mean that it shouldn't be heard or shouldn't even exist. 

People who support the end of free speech or want to open the doors even slightly to ending it should be forced to watch videos of mob lynchings and burning and hanging bodies in Pakistan and public executions in Saudi Arabia for what happens to people who speak against the most favored opinions.

Usually the minorities are actually the first to lose their voices in a country that controls speech so this will backfire on the very fuckers who support it.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Usually the minorities are actually the first to lose their voices in a country that controls speech so this will backfire on the very fuckers who support it.


Oh yeah. And it would be amusing to watch if it didn't effect everybody


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Oh yeah. And it would be amusing to watch if it didn't effect everybody


They really think that if they were to introduce restriction of free speech in America they would be able to walk around tweeting the racist shit they do on twitter without blowback?

The think about universal free speech is that it protects everyone. The thing about restricted free speech is that it effects everyone. 

I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of these blacks, hispanics and white SJW's that support restrictions are simply assuming that no white person will ever be able to successfully charge and convict a minority for hate speech :lol. 

And yeah most of them really are that stupid since they actually believe shit like "All white people are racist and there's not such thing as reverse racism".


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> They really think that if they were to introduce restriction of free speech in America they would be able to walk around tweeting the racist shit they do on twitter without blowback?
> 
> The think about universal free speech is that it protects everyone. The thing about restricted free speech is that it effects everyone.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of these blacks, hispanics and white SJW's that support restrictions are simply assuming that no white person will ever be able to successfully charge and convict a minority for hate speech :lol.
> 
> And yeah most of them really are that stupid since they actually believe shit like "All white people are racist and there's not such thing as reverse racism".


There already are restrictions to free speech in the US. You can't yell fire in a crowded building is one example, you cannot slander someone is also another as well as hate speech is also restrcted.

What you guys seem to be talking about falls under the hate speech or fighting words restriction (from Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 1942)

So there already are restrictions on the first amendment.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> There already are restrictions to free speech in the US. You can't yell fire in a crowded building is one example, you cannot slander someone is also another as well as hate speech.
> 
> So there already are restrictions on the first amendment.


Yeah... That's exactly the kind of free speech we're talking about lol. 

Lol. :kobelol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Yeah... That's exactly the kind of free speech we're talking about lol.
> 
> Lol. :kobelol


What exactly are you talking about then, you said and i quote "They really think that if they were to introduce restriction of free speech in America they would be able to walk around tweeting the racist shit they do on twitter without blowback?"

You are implying there are not already these kind of restrictions when there are.

And there is blowback for the racist stuff they post on social media, people get fired for that kind of stuff all the time.

Give some examples of what you are talking about.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> What exactly are you talking about then, you said and i quote "They really think that if they were to introduce restriction of free speech in America they would be able to walk around tweeting the racist shit they do on twitter without blowback?"
> 
> You are implying there are not already these kind of restrictions when there are.
> 
> And there is blowback for the racist stuff they post on social media, people get fired for that kind of stuff all the time.
> 
> Give some examples of what you are talking about.


Learn the difference between the court of law and the court of public opinion before saying that court of public opinion has the same standards as the court of law.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Learn the difference between the court of law and the court of public opinion before saying that court of public opinion has the same standards as the court of law.


WTF are you talking about LOL You are talking about. You were talking about restricting free speech . You are not every clear in your posts that is your problem. You were talking about restricting free speech in America and like I pointed out there is already that. 

Either way there are consequences for your speech. so you are wrong on either count.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> WTF are you talking about LOL You are talking about. You were talking about restricting free speech . You are not every clear in your posts that is your problem. You were talking about restricting free speech in America and like I pointed out there is already that.
> 
> Either way there are consequences for your speech. so you are wrong on either count.


Free speech isn't a matter for the courts to decide. People can do whatever. That's part of liberty. Government only steps in extreme cases. Political free speech has no limits and the government should never be involved. I don't know why simple concepts of liberty are so difficult for you to grasp.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Free speech isn't a matter for the courts to decide. People can do whatever. That's part of liberty. Government only steps in extreme cases. Political free speech has no limits and the government should never be involved. I don't know why simple concepts of liberty are so difficult for you to grasp.


But there are restrictions on people's free speech in the US. Not sure what you don't understand about that. People can not do what ever they want, there are consequences. Free speech in the US has it's limits, I already pointed some of them out. 

You are the one who can't grasp these simple concepts, you keep proving you don't know what you are talking about. And yes free speech should have it's limits by the govt. You really think that people should be allowed to burn crosses in black people's yards and call it free speech or put swastika in a Jewish persons yard for example?

I know you want it to be ok for people to be racist or bigoted toward others but sorry you can't do that There are consequences. There is a reason why hate speech is not allowed.

This whole converstion was revolving around this quote 

"Hate speech statutes in the future U.S. and racial minorities 

Would you support or oppose a law that would make it a crime for people to make public comments intended to stir up hatred against a group based on such things as their race, gender, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation?

White Americans: Support--36%; Oppose--44%

Black Americans: Support--63%; Oppose--13%

Hispanic Americans: Support--51%; Oppose--24%

Asian Americans: Support--49%; Oppose--32%"



And my point was, there already is a law that makes it a crime against hate speech. So arguing about if they should make a law against it is moot.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> But there are restrictions on people's free speech in the US. Not sure what you don't understand about that. People can not do what ever they want, there are consequences. Free speech in the US has it's limits, I already pointed some of them out.
> 
> You are the one who can't grasp these simple concepts, you keep proving you don't know what you are talking about. And yes free speech should have it's limits by the govt. You really think that people should be allowed to burn crosses in black people's yards and call it free speech or put swastika in a Jewish persons yard for example?
> 
> I know you want it to be ok for people to be racist or bigoted toward others but sorry you can't do that There are consequences. There is a reason why hate speech is not allowed.


Not enforced by the government. The only hate speech laws in America are libel laws. You gave one fucking example and that does not result in incarceration. 

And yes BM because I believe in free speech I believe in people burning crosses in people's yards. Keep proving that you're the worst poster on this forum.
I've already said that I'm talking about politics but you don't give a shit. You never do and never want any nuanced discussions at all because you're incapable of it. I'm not the only one that thinks so dude. Anyone that has had the misfortune of talking to you wants to avoid you afterwards. And it isn't because of your facts or you winning any arguments. It's because you think you back up your opinions but actually don't. The reason why arguing with you is so difficult is because you make extremely irrelevant and illogical statdments. 

There is no reason to criminalize things that hurt people's feelings because you would be the first to get charged for hate speech against religious people as an atheist.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> They really think that if they were to introduce restriction of free speech in America they would be able to walk around tweeting the racist shit they do on twitter without blowback?
> 
> The think about universal free speech is that it protects everyone. The thing about restricted free speech is that it effects everyone.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of these blacks, hispanics and white SJW's that support restrictions are simply assuming that no white person will ever be able to successfully charge and convict a minority for hate speech :lol.
> 
> And yeah most of them really are that stupid since they actually believe shit like "All white people are racist and there's not such thing as reverse racism".


These morons don't realize that they cannot tweet/say racist things or whatever they want either. They think that it won't affect them but oh it will, it will be hilarious. That's the problem with SJW's they live by the motto "Do as I say, not as I do." But they should take to heart the saying "Live by the sword, die by the sword." Because when free speech is limited and they celebrate, they'll soon find themselves in a terrible predicament as they cannot help themselves when it comes to violence or hateful speech.


Yes there is blowback for saying certain things, jobs lost etc. But how many of these people wanting limited free speech have jobs? The youth demographic has to be one of the most ignorant yet downright arrogant ever!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

Yeah BM doesn't realize that blasphemy is also classified as hate speech and he'd be the first to go to jail the minute you open the door in America for criminalising hate speech.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Not enforced by the government. The only hate speech laws in America are libel laws. You gave one fucking example and that does not result in incarceration.
> 
> And yes BM because I believe in free speech I believe in people burning crosses in people's yards. Keep proving that you're the worst poster on this forum.
> I've already said that I'm talking about politics but you don't give a shit. You never do and never want any nuanced discussions at all because you're incapable of it. I'm not the only one that thinks so dude. Anyone that has had the misfortune of talking to you wants to avoid you afterwards. And it isn't because of your facts or you winning any arguments. It's because you think you back up your opinions but actually don't. The reason why arguing with you is so difficult is because you make extremely irrelevant and illogical statdments.
> 
> There is no reason to criminalize things that hurt people's feelings because you would be the first to get charged for hate speech against religious people as an atheist.


You really have no clue what you are talking about. You can go to jail for a hate crime / speech. 

Under federal hate crime legislation, bias-motivated violence is punishable by ten years to life in prison, and some bias-motivated crimes are punishable by the death penalty. (18 USC §§ 245, 249.

You just dont like me because I easily always prove you wrong.

Just like I did with the voter fraud thing and like I am doing now.

And you were not talking about politics because that post quoted had nothing to do with politics. I just proved you wrong and now you are trying to move the goal posts. I just dont let you get away with you.

I can keep proving you wrong as long as you want its pretty easy.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Perception plays a huge role in this. None of these blacks and hispanics and entitled white millennials (the ones that were born in the US) have actually ever spent any real time in countries where free speech is really policed and how it is used to quell dissenting opinion.
> 
> One can argue that dissenting opinion does not always have merit in and of itself, but its lack of merit does not mean that it shouldn't be heard or shouldn't even exist.
> 
> People who support the end of free speech or want to open the doors even slightly to ending it should be forced to watch videos of mob lynchings and burning and hanging bodies in Pakistan and public executions in Saudi Arabia for what happens to people who speak against the most favored opinions.
> 
> Usually the minorities are actually the first to lose their voices in a country that controls speech so this will backfire on the very fuckers who support it.


Perception and propaganda. 

Most Americans believe that we're Star Spangled Fucking Awesome and don't understand why anyone would want to inflict terror to America. 

Propaganda, perception and something called "patriotism" (which since the 1950's has been modeled on the works of Goebbels and Goering) has nearly an entire nation ignorant to our leaders war crimes and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians that we have killed in illegal wars. 

If we stopped living in fantasy land and started treating every human life as precious and valuable both at home and abroad this world would be a better place. We just have to get our heads out of our asses first.


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> They really think that if they were to introduce restriction of free speech in America they would be able to walk around tweeting the racist shit they do on twitter without blowback?
> 
> The think about universal free speech is that it protects everyone. The thing about restricted free speech is that it effects everyone.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of these blacks, hispanics and white SJW's that support restrictions are simply assuming that no white person will ever be able to successfully charge and convict a minority for hate speech :lol.
> 
> And yeah most of them really are that stupid since they actually believe shit like "All white people are racist and there's not such thing as reverse racism".


To be fair...there's no such thing as "reverse racism", just racism plain and simple. Not to nitpick or anything :lol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You really have no clue what you are talking about. You can go to jail for a hate crime / speech.
> 
> Under federal hate crime legislation, bias-motivated violence is punishable by ten years to life in prison, and some bias-motivated crimes are punishable by the death penalty. (18 USC §§ 245, 249.
> 
> You just dont like me because I easily always prove you wrong.
> 
> Just like I did with the voter fraud thing and like I am doing now.
> 
> And you were not talking about politics because that post quoted had nothing to do with politics. I just proved you wrong and now you are trying to move the goal posts. I just dont let you get away with you.
> 
> I can keep proving you wrong as long as you want its pretty easy.


Holy shit. That's hate crimes (actual acts of violence or intimidation) not hate speech. Lolol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Holy shit. That's hate crimes (actual acts of violence or intimidation) not hate speech. Lolol


If your hate speech incites violence or prejudicial action against, it falls under that law. You don't have to be the one commit the violence. You only have to provoke violence . The more you know.

You can pretend that hate speech is protected by the first amendment all you want but you would be wrong.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> If your hate speech incites violence or prejudicial action against, it falls under that law. You don't have to be the one commit the violence. You only have to provoke violence . The more you know.
> 
> You can pretend that hate speech is protected by the first amendment all you want but you would be wrong.


Not in America lol. They get overturned here in the courts. Lolol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Not in America lol.


Yes in America. You are wrong. You really don't have a clue what you are talking about. If you don't believe me just google it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yes in America. You are wrong. You really don't have a clue what you are talking about. If you don't believe me just google it.


Why don't you post the cases where someone was sent to jail for hate speech. Not hate crime but hate speech.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Why don't you post the cases where someone was sent to jail for hate speech. Not hate crime but hate speech.


I love how you throw in there someone's hate speech leading to violence does not count. But I know all your little tricks because anything I find, you would then just claim well no that is note because of hate speech that is really defamation or that was discrimination not hate speech etc.

You will spin it.

I will stand by If your hate speech incites violence or prejudicial action against, it falls under that law. You don't have to be the one commit the violence. You only have to provoke violence .

Now if you want to say that does not fall under hate speech, whatever, call it what you want but that is a crime.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I love how you throw in there someone's hate speech leading to violence does not count. But I know all your little tricks because anything I find, you would then just claim well no that is note because of hate speech that is really defamation or that was discrimination not hate speech etc.
> 
> You will spin it.
> 
> I will stand by If your hate speech incites violence or prejudicial action against, it falls under that law. You don't have to be the one commit the violence. You only have to provoke violence .
> 
> Now if you want to say that does not fall under hate speech, whatever, call it what you want but that is a crime.


Where are the people that are jailed for hate speech in America?

If hate speech incites violence then the crime commited is a hate crime but the criminal there is the person that commits the hate crime and they are thrown in jail. 

Criminalising hate speech is a thought crime and it doesn't result in punishment and isn't a punishable offense because of the subjectivity of incitement to violence. You can have a personin front of me begging and screaming to commit a hate crime and I don't commit one ... The hate speech didn't work. Therefore even the incitement to violence doesn't cause violence. 

If it works on someone you punish the person who commits the crime. You get the perpetrator.

If you make hate speech with incitement to violence a criminal offense then a lot of BLM activists and leftists also go to jail. That is why you protect hate speech universally. 

BTW BM if you want to live in a society that criminalizes hate speech why don't you move to the UK?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Where are the people that are jailed for hate speech in America?
> 
> If hate speech incites violence then it's a hate crime but the criminal there is the person that commits the hate crime and they are thrown in jail.
> 
> Criminalising hate speech is a thought crime and it doesn't result in punishment and isn't a punishable offense because of the subjectivity of incitement to violence. You can have a personin front of me begging and screaming to commit a hate crime and I don't commit one ... The hate speech didn't work. Therefore even the incitement to violence doesn't cause violence.
> 
> If it works on someone you punish the person who commits the crime. You get the perpetrator.


Fine, then if you want to call a person making hate speeches that incites violence a hate crime and not hate speech whatever. That is what I was talking about, thus why I quoted the law about it. You also admitted some hate speech also falls under libel laws. Hate speech that leads to violence is not protected. Or if you say something like oh lets go kill those N words or whatever slur, that is also a crime because it falls under threat. 

So you are just using different terms that hate speech also falls under but it's just a bigger category. 

The main point is, the first amendment already does have restrictions. So let's not act like it does not.

But yes you are right if you just go on social media and call some a slur or even in person that is not a crime.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Fine, then if you want to call a person making hate speeches that incites violence a hate crime and not hate speech whatever. That is what I was talking about, thus why I quoted the law about it. You also admitted some hate speech also falls under libel laws.
> 
> So you are just using different terms that hate speech also falls under but it's just a bigger category.
> 
> The main point is, the first amendment already does have restrictions. So let's not act like it does not.


Libel laws are also controversial and they're tried in civil court not criminal court. It's not a matter of calling anything different. The reason why these differences exist is because we need these differences to exist to prevent persecution and yes I believe that restrictions on speech are a form of persecution and can be used in such a way. We see it in the court of public opinion everyday but hate speech is not restricted in America. 

It is protected under the 1st amendment which is why every single criminal case of hate speech has always been overturned in the Supreme Court because it is not restricted at all.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Libel laws are also controversial and they're tried in civil court not criminal court. It's not a matter of calling anything different. The reason why these differences exist is because we need these differences to exist to prevent persecution and yes I believe that restrictions on speech are a form of persecution and can be used in such a way. We see it in the court of public opinion everyday but hate speech is not restricted in America.
> 
> It is protected under the 1st amendment which is why every single criminal case of hate speech has always been overturned in the Supreme Court because it is not restricted at all.


I understand what you are talking about now. we were talking about different things, I was more talking about the ones that lead to violence which, like you said is probably better suited to be called hate crimes since the speech also involves violence.

You are talking more about just racists calling people slurs or groups on the internet or even in public but not inciting violence and yes you are right that is not a crime.

I was just reading that quote "people to make public comments intended to stir up hatred against a group based on such things as their race, gender, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation" different than you.

I took that is those people are making public comments intended to stir up violence against those groups which would be a hate crime. That is why I was saying there is already a law against thate.

I guess it all depends what they are saying about those groups.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I love how you throw in there someone's hate speech leading to violence does not count. But I know all your little tricks because anything I find, you would then just claim well no that is note because of hate speech that is really defamation or that was discrimination not hate speech etc.
> 
> You will spin it.
> 
> *I will stand by If your hate speech incites violence or prejudicial action against, it falls under that law.* You don't have to be the one commit the violence. You only have to provoke violence .
> 
> Now if you want to say that does not fall under hate speech, whatever, call it what you want but that is a crime.


Not exactly. If your intent is to incite violence then it absolutely does. If I'm at a bar and say that I hate black people more than anything and my buddies attack the black guy at the bar I did nothing criminal. If I told my friends to attack him then I did do something criminal.

Most forms of hate speech are protected. It's why the KKK is allowed to get parade permits. Once you cross the line beyond mere speech and you're trying to incite violence or you're making threats then it changes.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FITZ said:


> If I told my friends to attack him then I did do something criminal.


I hate to argue with a lawyer here (so I'm ok if you want to school me), but isn't that exactly what the Supreme Court overturned in 1969 (Brandenburg v Ohio)?


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> I hate to argue with a lawyer here (so I'm ok if you want to school me), but isn't that exactly what the Supreme Court overturned in 1969 (Brandenburg v Ohio)?


I believe the ruling was that for someone to be charged, it must be determined that it was said with an intent for others to act on it. So if I say that someone should get their ass kicked, and in response to that someone goes and kicks their ass, I am not legally responsible. But if I tell someone to kick their ass, and they go and do it, then I am legally responsible for incitement.
I could be wrong here, but I believe this is the case.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> I hate to argue with a lawyer here (so I'm ok if you want to school me), but isn't that exactly what the Supreme Court overturned in 1969 (Brandenburg v Ohio)?


I imagine you have to show intent. I'm in New York and this is what we currently have on the books. 



> A person is guilty of criminal solicitation in the fourth degree when:
> 
> 1. with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes or otherwise attempts to cause such other person to engage in such conduct;  or
> 
> 2. being over eighteen years of age, with intent that another person under sixteen years of age engage in conduct that would constitute a crime, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes or otherwise attempts to cause such other person to engage in such conduct.
> 
> Criminal solicitation in the fourth degree is a class A misdemeanor.


The person does have to intend to get the person to commit the crime but that usually isn't a problem if the words they used told someone to commit the crime.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FITZ said:


> I imagine you have to show intent. I'm in New York and this is what we currently have on the books.
> 
> 
> 
> The person does have to intend to get the person to commit the crime but that usually isn't a problem if the words they used told someone to commit the crime.


Fair enough. Sounds more likely to catch mob bosses and mafia hits than hate crimes. :shrug


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The fact that we even have hate crimes is racist. We shouldn't be treating crimes differently because of the color of someone's skin. If a white man kills a white man, it is no less egregious of an offense than if a racist white man kills a black man. A human being has still been killed. Why they were killed should be irrelevant. By treating something as a hate crime, that's being racist, because it treats people differently according to the color of their skin, which by definition, is racist. That same logic applies to "hate crimes" against someone for being gay or being a different religion or whatever. 

There will always be racists and bigots in the world. That's not something the government can legislate out of existence. What the government _should be doing_, by law, is treating everyone as equals, regardless of their race, religion or sexuality.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> The fact that we even have hate crimes is racist. We shouldn't be treating crimes differently because of the color of someone's skin. If a white man kills a white man, it is no less egregious of an offense than if a racist white man kills a black man. A human being has still been killed. Why they were killed should be irrelevant. By treating something as a hate crime, that's being racist, because it treats people differently according to the color of their skin, which by definition, is racist. That same logic applies to "hate crimes" against someone for being gay or being a different religion or whatever.
> 
> There will always be racists and bigots in the world. That's not something the government can legislate out of existence. What the government _should be doing_, by law, is treating everyone as equals, regardless of their race, religion or sexuality.


A white man does not kill or target a white man because he is white. But people target blacks because they are black, or jews because they are jews, or gays because they are gay etc etc. That is why there is a difference.

Why they are killed always makes difference even when its not about race, creed or sexual orientation. It goes to motive and motive means everything.

Using your logic if you murder someone with premeditation that should be the same as if you kill someone by mistake.

Crimes are always treated differently and they should be. Motive is everything.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> The fact that we even have hate crimes is racist. We shouldn't be treating crimes differently because of the color of someone's skin. If a white man kills a white man, it is no less egregious of an offense than if a racist white man kills a black man. A human being has still been killed. Why they were killed should be irrelevant. By treating something as a hate crime, that's being racist, because it treats people differently according to the color of their skin, which by definition, is racist. That same logic applies to "hate crimes" against someone for being gay or being a different religion or whatever.
> 
> There will always be racists and bigots in the world. That's not something the government can legislate out of existence. What the government _should be doing_, by law, is treating everyone as equals, regardless of their race, religion or sexuality.


I think hate crimes are work because of the reason why the crime occurs. If you have a white guy in a bar and beats up a black guy for no reason other than the fact that he's black I think that's worse than a guy beating someone up for hitting on his girlfriend. Not that either are good, but one is just worse than the other. 

I don't think we need it to read hate crime. I remember those videos where kids would play "knock out" and hit a stranger in the face for no reason. I think those should be treated the same as hate crimes. 

For me a senseless act of violence with no provocation at all is the worst type of crime. Hate crimes generally fit into that type of crime.


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> The fact that we even have hate crimes is racist. We shouldn't be treating crimes differently because of the color of someone's skin. If a white man kills a white man, it is no less egregious of an offense than if a racist white man kills a black man. A human being has still been killed. Why they were killed should be irrelevant. By treating something as a hate crime, that's being racist, because it treats people differently according to the color of their skin, which by definition, is racist. That same logic applies to "hate crimes" against someone for being gay or being a different religion or whatever.
> 
> There will always be racists and bigots in the world. That's not something the government can legislate out of existence. What the government _should be doing_, by law, is treating everyone as equals, regardless of their race, religion or sexuality.


Here where I disagree with that...
Motives for the crime are always taken into account when it comes to sentencing. Having a more heinous motivation for committing a crime will and should result in a harsher sentence, and there are few motives that can possibly be more egregious racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, or any other kind of bigotry. 
Perhaps they shouldn't have actual legislation regarding hate crimes, but if it is apparent that bigotry was the main factor in committing a crime, that the perpetrator should always be given a harsher sentence than normal...


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Using your logic if you murder someone with premeditation that should be the same as if you kill someone by mistake.


Stop embarrassing yourself. It's getting kinda sad. I really shouldn't have to explain the difference between intentionally killing someone and accidentally killing someone.



FITZ said:


> If you have a white guy in a bar and beats up a black guy for no reason other than the fact that he's black...


So if a white guy beats up another white guy in a bar because he looked at him funny or he was just drunk and in a bad mood, that should receive a lesser punishment because why? Violence is violence. In the eyes of the courts, it shouldn't make a difference if he's racist or if he was just a drunk jackass.



FITZ said:


> I think that's worse than a guy beating someone up for hitting on his girlfriend. Not that either are good, but one is just worse than the other.


If someone feels the need to beat someone up solely for hitting on their girlfriend, then they are an insecure little cunt. And no, flirtation is not a justifiable reason for violence. If you are not defending yourself or someone else, then you are the criminal and you are the one committing assault. If the person hitting on your girlfriend is getting physical with her, then that is an entirely different story.



Cabanarama said:


> Here where I disagree with that...
> Motives for the crime are always taken into account when it comes to sentencing. Having a more heinous motivation for committing a crime will and should result in a harsher sentence, and there are few motives that can possibly be more egregious racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, or any other kind of bigotry.
> Perhaps they shouldn't have actual legislation regarding hate crimes, but if it is apparent that bigotry was the main factor in committing a crime, that the perpetrator should always be given a harsher sentence than normal...


Why a person committed a crime does not change the crime itself. If a white man gets convicted of manslaughter for killing another white man and gets a 10 year sentence, when a different white man gets a 20 year sentence for killing a black man, that is racist because it is treating people differently due to the color of their skin. The crime is exactly the same. Someone was killed in both instances. The only difference between the two killings is the color of someone's skin. If you judge one differently than the other, that's racist. I don't know how to put it any more simply.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Stop embarrassing yourself. It's getting kinda sad. I really shouldn't have to explain the difference between intentionally killing someone and accidentally killing someone.


You are the one embarrassing yourself because I totally tore apart your logic. Like I said intent/motivation means a lot. 

And I should not have to explain someone with a motivation of beating the shit out of someone because of their race is way worse than someone picking a fight with someone else just because they did something they did not like




Tater said:


> Why a person committed a crime does not change the crime itself. If a white man gets convicted of manslaughter for killing another white man and gets a 10 year sentence, when a different white man gets a 20 year sentence for killing a black man, that is racist because it is treating people differently due to the color of their skin. The crime is exactly the same. Someone was killed in both instances. The only difference between the two killings is the color of someone's skin. If you judge one differently than the other, that's racist. I don't know how to put it any more simply.


Why do you keep missing the point in law that crimes that have motivation or premeditation almost always have stiffer charge or sentence.

like if someone knows their wife is cheating on them, and plans to kill the man sleeping with his will most times he will get a stiffer penalty than if he walked in on that same guy having sex with his wife and kills him in a crime of passion.

How can you even claim the two are the same or are charged as the same. They aren't




Tater said:


> Why a person committed a crime does not change the crime itself. If a white man gets convicted of manslaughter for killing another white man and gets a 10 year sentence, when a different white man gets a 20 year sentence for killing a black man, that is racist because it is treating people differently due to the color of their skin. The crime is exactly the same. Someone was killed in both instances. The only difference between the two killings is the color of someone's skin. If you judge one differently than the other, that's racist. I don't know how to put it any more simply.


This is not what we are talking about.

If you are white and kill a white man lets say again for sleeping with your wife and get 10 years.
That same white man would also get 10 years for killing a black man for sleeping with his wife

But if that white man kills a black man because he is black that is why he would get more time.

No white man will get more time for killing a black man for the same crime as killing another white man.
He will only ge3t more time when that white man kills a man because he was black

You keep missing this simple point


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Stop embarrassing yourself. It's getting kinda sad. I really shouldn't have to explain the difference between intentionally killing someone and accidentally killing someone.
> 
> 
> 
> So if a white guy beats up another white guy in a bar because he looked at him funny or he was just drunk and in a bad mood, that should receive a lesser punishment because why? Violence is violence. In the eyes of the courts, it shouldn't make a difference if he's racist or if he was just a drunk jackass.
> 
> 
> 
> If someone feels the need to beat someone up solely for hitting on their girlfriend, then they are an insecure little cunt. And no, flirtation is not a justifiable reason for violence. If you are not defending yourself or someone else, then you are the criminal and you are the one committing assault. If the person hitting on your girlfriend is getting physical with her, then that is an entirely different story.
> 
> 
> 
> Why a person committed a crime does not change the crime itself. If a white man gets convicted of manslaughter for killing another white man and gets a 10 year sentence, when a different white man gets a 20 year sentence for killing a black man, that is racist because it is treating people differently due to the color of their skin. The crime is exactly the same. Someone was killed in both instances. The only difference between the two killings is the color of someone's skin. If you judge one differently than the other, that's racist. I don't know how to put it any more simply.


First of all, just because the victim is black, gay, Jewish, etc., does not automatically make it a hate crime. It has to be proven in court that the motives were because of the victim's race, ethnicity, religion, or sexuality. And blacks aren't exempt from a hate crime either. If a black person commits a crime against a white person, and it is determined that it is a race based attack, that is just as much a hate crime as if the roles are reversed. 
Secondly, if it was a race based killing, there is no way it would be considered a manslaughter instead of murder. 
Third, hate crimes don't factor in as much when it comes to murder, when the sentences are lengthy enough as it is that the hate crime label doesn't have as much of an impact on the sentence. It usually applies more towards lesser crimes such as beatings or vandalisms, where depending on the circumstances it can be a misdemeanor with a very small slap on the wrist to a felony resulting in years in prison. One of the circumstances that are factored in is the motive.
Unless it's self defense, if someone beats someone badly, they do deserve to be prosecuted regardless of why they did it. But if someone had a legit, justifiable reason to be angry, they should, and in most cases would, get a lighter sentence than if they got angry over some stupid bullshit. And if they did it for no other reason than the race, then they deserve a much heavier sentence.


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:mark: for the apparent release of a 3rd Project Veritas video later today. I saw the liar Donna Brazile on TV diputing very clear video and audio evidence for the first two videos, more or less shitting on the whole thing.

Veritas came out and basically said you shut your mouth because we got a video for you too


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Ultimate Warrior said:


> :mark: for the apparent release of a 3rd Project Veritas video later today. I saw the liar Donna Brazile on TV diputing very clear video and audio evidence for the first two videos, more or less shitting on the whole thing.
> 
> Veritas came out and basically said you shut your mouth because we got a video for you too


Not sure anything will come of it since Trump is on tape telling his supporters to attack any protester and that he would pay for their legal fees then his supporters attacked protesters. 

Hillary will just play dumb anyways and claim she knew nothing of it, and if anyone gets bagged for it, it will be the people on tape and they will claim they did it without Hillary knowing, even if she does.

This whole cycle with Trump and the BS Hillary has pulled should DQ them both from being president.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Not sure anything will come of it since Trump is on tape telling his supporters to attack any protester and that he would pay for their legal fees then his supporters attacked protesters.
> 
> Hillary will just play dumb anyways and claim she knew nothing of it, and if anyone gets bagged for it, it will be the people on tape and they will claim they did it without Hillary knowing, even if she does.
> 
> This whole cycle with Trump and the BS Hillary has pulled should DQ them both from being president.


There really should be rules for that, back when Hillary was getting called before the FBI and there was obvious signs of collusion it should have DQ'ed her but the FBI let it go because they are worried about if they prosecute her and fail, most of them will get hell and lose their jobs. (Obama used the IRS against groups he didn't like, imagine what Hillary would do!) This pretty much means that the Justice departments that are meant to protect us from bad Politicians are now afraid of the very Politicians that are meant to be held accountable to the law.

This is a very, very bad situation if the DoJ and FBI/CIA cannot touch the President or any certain Politicians.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> There really should be rules for that, back when Hillary was getting called before the FBI and there was obvious signs of collusion it should have DQ'ed her but the FBI let it go because they are worried about if they prosecute her and fail, most of them will get hell and lose their jobs. (Obama used the IRS against groups he didn't like, imagine what Hillary would do!) This pretty much means that the Justice departments that are meant to protect us from bad Politicians are now afraid of the very Politicians that are meant to be held accountable to the law.
> 
> This is a very, very bad situation if the DoJ and FBI/CIA cannot touch the President or any certain Politicians.


I agree, people that did things similar to Hillary got jail time or lost their jobs etc. The same thing should have happened to her. If her last name was not Clinton and she was not running for president, she would be in jail.

I still could see Hillary getting impeached before 2020 after she wins. I don't think Wikileaks will stop after she wins.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are the one embarrassing yourself because I totally tore apart your logic. Like I said intent/motivation means a lot.


This is legit almost too stupid to reply to. I made the point that if two people commit the exact same crime, they should not be punished differently because one did it for racist reasons while the other did not. You compared it to killing someone by mistake and think that somehow tears apart my logic. Not understanding the difference between killing someone by mistake and killing someone intentionally is literally one of the dumbest things I have ever seen at WF. And that's saying a lot.

uttahere



Cabanarama said:


> if they did it for no other reason than the race, then they deserve a much heavier sentence.


I killed you because I'm a racist should not receive a much heavier sentence than I killed you because I'm a psycho. That's retarded SJW logic that concludes you should treat people differently because they treat people differently. Treating people differently because of their race/religion/sexuality is the problem. You don't solve the problem by becoming the problem.

Here's a helpful video presentation:

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/151849/the-free-eric-cartman-now-committee


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> Perception and propaganda.
> 
> Most Americans believe that we're Star Spangled Fucking Awesome and don't understand why anyone would want to inflict terror to America.
> 
> Propaganda, perception and something called "patriotism" (which since the 1950's has been modeled on the works of Goebbels and Goering) has nearly an entire nation ignorant to our leaders war crimes and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians that we have killed in illegal wars.
> 
> If we stopped living in fantasy land and started treating every human life as precious and valuable both at home and abroad this world would be a better place. We just have to get our heads out of our asses first.


There's two separate streams of propaganda. One that downplays the global threat - the other that over-exaggerates it and that's part of the partisanship and binary thinking that pervades American society. 

It's really hard to take the middle ground when you have one group claiming that there is no threat to America or American lives and the other claiming that if you walk out of your doorstep you gonna be shot by some commie, nazi-loving, allah-worshipping muzzie :shrug 

The truth really is somewhere in between. 

Anyways, as for freedom of speech - I don't know about you but this is one of the most cherished rights I personally have being an ex-muslim and coming from a country where my parents are still afraid for me for simply posting a joke about a burka on my facebook therefore come hell or high water, I'm fighting any ignoramus that wants to place any kind of restriction on american free speech ---- mostly actually for their own protection. Once you open the door to criminalizing speech, it's easy to foresee it backfiring. Does anyone really think that the religious and other groups that are currently silent won't come out swooping from all corners of the country with thousands of charges against people who are so used to flinging their verbal diarrhea to all parts of the country the way they do now ?

You just need to see the persecution of dissenters and right wing speakers in colleges to see what happens when you let fascists take control of speech. In Canada there was recently a man sent to court for simply disagreeing with a group of feminists - while just a few days ago a college professor Janice Fiamengo was thrust before a human rights tribunal on a ridiculous human rights violation charge (she's an anti-feminist). 

Fuck anyone that thinks that restricting any form of speech is a good idea. They should leave America and go to the shit holes where speech is policed to learn what that entails.


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Anyways, as for freedom of speech - I don't know about you but this is one of the most cherished rights I personally have being an ex-muslim and coming from a country where my parents are still afraid for me for simply posting a joke about a burka on my facebook therefore come hell or high water, I'm fighting any ignoramus that wants to place any kind of restriction on american free speech ---- mostly actually for their own protection. Once you open the door to criminalizing speech, it's easy to foresee it backfiring.


I'm suspicious of anyone who is against free speech, right or left wing. I agree it's very important. I was born Catholic myself and sent to a Catholic school. Luckily my parents don't take it as seriously anymore. You're the third ex-Muslim I've seen on here. That's pretty cool. :smile2:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Dazzler said:


> I'm suspicious of anyone who is against free speech, right or left wing. I agree it's very important. I was born Catholic myself and sent to a Catholic school. Luckily my parents don't take it as seriously anymore. You're the third ex-Muslim I've seen on here. That's pretty cool. :smile2:


2nd. I changed my username


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> 2nd. I changed my username


You changed your av and sig too! I was fooled. :cry


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The 3rd video comes out today. I heard it might show Hillary being a racist. If James Okeefe has any footage of Hillary saying anything racist that could be the nail in the coffin for her.


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> The 3rd video comes out today. I heard it might show Hillary being a racist. If James Okeefe has any footage of Hillary saying anything racist that could be the nail in the coffin for her.


If that's the case it'll be really interesting to see how the left reacts to it. Will they still support Hillary because she's a political ally? I would hope not. I wouldn't be surprised though if they did.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Mark Zuckerberg said:


> There are many reasons a person might support Trump that do not involve racism, sexism, xenophobia or accepting sexual assault. It may be because they believe strongly in smaller government, a different tax policy, health care system, religious issues, and gun rights.


- Vic


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> Miss Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> There really should be rules for that, back when Hillary was getting called before the FBI and there was obvious signs of collusion it should have DQ'ed her but the FBI let it go because they are worried about if they prosecute her and fail, most of them will get hell and lose their jobs. (Obama used the IRS against groups he didn't like, imagine what Hillary would do!) This pretty much means that the Justice departments that are meant to protect us from bad Politicians are now afraid of the very Politicians that are meant to be held accountable to the law.
> 
> This is a very, very bad situation if the DoJ and FBI/CIA cannot touch the President or any certain Politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, people that did things similar to Hillary got jail time or lost their jobs etc. The same thing should have happened to her. If her last name was not Clinton and she was not running for president, she would be in jail.
> 
> I still could see Hillary getting impeached before 2020 after she wins. I don't think Wikileaks will stop after she wins.
Click to expand...

Nothings going to happen to hillary. I heard a national radio host speculate that the press is 'pissed off' that hillarys making them jump through so many hoops to protect her. After shes elected, and she WILL get elected, the press will give her a honeymoon period then 'get tough' with her.

I think the guy is smoking crack. The press will never get tough with a democrat. Not until the democrats go full stalin and start rounding people up. Then its too late because the press is one of the first groups on the list.


----------



## amhlilhaus

wwe9391 said:


> The 3rd video comes out today. I heard it might show Hillary being a racist. If James Okeefe has any footage of Hillary saying anything racist that could be the nail in the coffin for her.





The Dazzler said:


> wwe9391 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 3rd video comes out today. I heard it might show Hillary being a racist. If James Okeefe has any footage of Hillary saying anything racist that could be the nail in the coffin for her.
> 
> 
> 
> If that's the case it'll be really interesting to see how the left reacts to it. Will they still support Hillary because she's a political ally? I would hope not. I wouldn't be surprised though if they did.
Click to expand...

Hillary could announce shes going to seize all guns, force un globalist judges to the supreme court, she did ruin bills accusers lives, her lover huma abedin IS a terrorist plant and she gave the order to kill vince foster, and the democrats would still vote for her.

Nothing, NOTHING will stop democrats from supporting their candidate, because its all about power to them.

As for republicans, who the liberals here will scream do the same thing, its clear that they will NOT vote for candidates they dont like. Loom at obamas clear wins with significantly less republican turnout. Trump for all hes said still says the right things to get support. If he tried to become moderate, hed really get smoked.


----------



## validreasoning

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> Hillary could announce shes going to seize all guns, force un globalist judges to the supreme court, she did ruin bills accusers lives, her lover huma abedin IS a terrorist plant and she gave the order to kill vince foster, and the democrats would still vote for her.
> 
> Nothing, NOTHING will stop democrats from supporting their candidate, because its all about power to them.
> 
> As for republicans, who the liberals here will scream do the same thing, its clear that they will NOT vote for candidates they dont like. Loom at obamas clear wins with significantly less republican turnout. Trump for all hes said still says the right things to get support. If he tried to become moderate, hed really get smoked.


Yes tell that to Mondale, Dukakis and McGovern.. In fact no Republican candidate since the late 60s has garnered less votes than mondale, carter (second election) and mcgovern!

Hardcore Republicans will always vote Republican regardless, hardcore democrats will always vote democrat but elections are never won by hardcore voters, its won by independents and those the lean right or left

Obama won the election yet the McCain/palin duo still amassed nearly 60 million votes..60 million Americans voted for a guy in not great health and Sarah Palin as his running mate..think about that for a second


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Dazzler said:


> If that's the case it'll be really interesting to see how the left reacts to it. Will they still support Hillary because she's a political ally? I would hope not. I wouldn't be surprised though if they did.


Anyone with a brain: "Holy shit, Hillary went on a racist tirade! This makes the whole super predators thing look like a compliment!"

MSM & Democrats: "We're saddened by this but now that we seen how hillary has acted.. it makes you wonder how much worse the racism Trump is hiding is!"


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



validreasoning said:


> Hardcore Republicans will always vote Republican regardless, hardcore democrats will always vote democrat but elections are never won by hardcore voters, its won by independents and those the lean right or left


It's not won by Independents it's won by Moderates which aren't always the same thing. Many Hard Right people who think Paul Ryan or whatever Republican is the standard bearer are secretly Commie Liberal Establishments in cahoots with the Democrats are often time registered as Indy's even if they are reliably Republican voters every 2 years. Romney in 2012 and Kerry in 2004 won Independents but lost moderates and the election. For example after Clinton in the 90's triangilated many hard left people unregisted as Democrats but still voted for Kerry and Gore. Btwn 2004 and 2008 though you saw a shift and many young people and Left wingers registered as Democrats and many people from his party disillusioned with Bush become independents and Tea Partiers even if they still were reliable Republican voters.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> This is legit almost too stupid to reply to. I made the point that if two people commit the exact same crime, they should not be punished differently because one did it for racist reasons while the other did not. You compared it to killing someone by mistake and think that somehow tears apart my logic. Not understanding the difference between killing someone by mistake and killing someone intentionally is literally one of the dumbest things I have ever seen at WF. And that's saying a lot.
> 
> uttahere
> 
> 
> 
> http://southpark.cc.com/clips/151849/the-free-eric-cartman-now-committee


I don't understand why you don't understand simple logic on this. Motivation always is a factor sentencing. I just turned around your point and made you see how stupid it was and it worked and you still dont see that lol.

It does tear about your logic and even you see how it's different. You are wrong on this one, you should just give it up. It was to easy to use your own logic against you and you claim its the stupidest thing ever on the WF, yes using your own logic against you. 

But lets take murder out of this and just a crime.

So if man A beats up man B for no reason should he get the same punishment as Man A who beats up man B for raping his under age daughter?

Are you going to really claim both men should get the same punishment? 




wwe9391 said:


> The 3rd video comes out today. I heard it might show Hillary being a racist. If James Okeefe has any footage of Hillary saying anything racist that could be the nail in the coffin for her.


Maybe against anyone else but against Trump, highly unlikely since Trump has said racist, bigoted, sexist etc things and that got him the nomination.

So if someone comes out of Hillary saying something racist, you think people will vote for trump instead when he has said far more racist things and far worst things?




Miss Sally said:


> Anyone with a brain: "Holy shit, Hillary went on a racist tirade! This makes the whole super predators thing look like a compliment!"
> 
> MSM & Democrats: "We're saddened by this but now that we seen how hillary has acted.. it makes you wonder how much worse the racism Trump is hiding is!"


And what do anyone with a brain say about Trump and all his racist, bigoted, sexist etc remarks? Does not seem to bother his supporters.

Hello pot meet kettle.

And there is said to be a video from the apprentice of Trump using the N word.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump internals









And he is showing this map in fundraisings










:lmao


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Trump internals
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And he is showing this map in fundraisings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao


Is this data from August or early September?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> Is this data from August or early September?


the map is not even close to being right

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...ap-makes-rosy-assessments-toss-states-n671766


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So now the LA Times poll, the one poll that has had Trump ahead or tied this entire race now has Hillary in the lead...


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/790411759177895936
:lol


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










go back to mexico


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hope to God if Hillary wins she backs off the no fly zone thing.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Cant trust any of the media polls. Because they poll more democrats then republicans. Early voting shows Trump a head in most of the swing states.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> Cant trust any of the media polls. Because they poll more democrats then republicans. Early voting shows Trump a head in most of the swing states.



What early voting?

It's amazing people didn't learn from the Romney Fiasco:

1) You cant "unskewed" polls unless you identify the person who create "bias" in your sample and REPEAT again all you analysis.

2) OVERSAMPLING is not a creator of bias per se. 


At this rate i only want Trump to lose to see some of his supporters take math classes....



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/790411759177895936
> :lol


And some people is saying this is "proof" of Assange being dead :lmao


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> What early voting?
> 
> It's amazing people didn't learn from the Romney Fiasco:
> 
> 1) You cant "unskewed" polls unless you identify the person who create "bias" in your sample and REPEAT again all you analysis.
> 
> 2) OVERSAMPLING is not a creator of bias per se.
> 
> 
> At this rate i only want Trump to lose to see his supporters take math classes....
> 
> 
> 
> And some people is saying this is "proof" of Assange being dead :lmao


Will find out in 15 days who's right my friend


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> go back to mexico


Lol the country that never shuts up about freedom on the one hand consistently tells others to fuck off and stifle their freedom if they don't conform. 

I know you're taking the piss though Fox.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Lol the country that never shuts up about freedom on the one hand consistently tells others to fuck off and stifle their freedom if they don't conform.
> 
> I know you're taking the piss though Fox.


Telling someone to leave in a post on the internet is the same as stifling their freedom :kobelol 

Get out of this thread. 

There, I stifled your freedom. 

:kobelol 

The amount of ridiculous reaches you guys have to make in order to justify supporting the real fascists is so silly that it's satire of itself.

An anti-feminist being brought up on charges of human rights violations and that being taken seriously is stifling someone's freedom
A man being taken to court for disagreeing with feminists is stifling of freedom
Speakers getting doxxed and having their families sent death threats is stifling of freedoms (but they're on the more ineffective side). 
Ruling through fear of "consequences" over any disagreement is stifling of freedom

Asking someone to get the fuck out of a country in a post on the internet is not stifling of freedom. But of course, you have to reach like a crazy person in order to grab whatever little example you can to justify whatever opinion you have even if it isn't what you're wishfully thinking it is :kobelol 

That shit does not happen in America, yet and therefore I'm glad we don't have Aussies and Canadians running the show. I will still take Hillary over your Governments, because at least over here the Supreme Court and the constitution guarantees freedoms even though there are people who would try to stifle them. Once in power, Hillary will prove to be even further right-wing than Trump. The only people who would really be crying are the ones that voted her thinking that she's this stalwart of humanitarianism - Meaning the hordes and hordes of brainwashed minorities that vote for her. :lol


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

That shit has and can happen in America. Liberal democracies aren't very good at upholding the whole free speech thing.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RenegadexParagon said:


> That shit has and can happen in America. Liberal democracies aren't very good at upholding the whole free speech thing.


Name one case in the last 20 years where someone's free speech was curtailed and then that case was used as a precedent to curtail speech. Meanwhile Canada, Australia, UK, France have all had cases where the state persecuted someone for something they said. The last case in the US was Anthony Elonis which was eventually over-turned in the Supreme Court further expanding free speech, not limiting it. 

Google "american hauled before human rights tribunal" and all you get are results out of Canadaland. 

The freedom of speech enjoyed by Americans is unprecedented outside of the court of public opinion ... and well, we know that the court of public opinion is famous for burning witches. You can't control the mob, but you can legislate freedom. 

This freedom is also exploited by people like this: 



















http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015...ynching-and-hanging-of-white-people-and-cops/






Etc etc. 

Universal free speech does indeed go both ways. Just because MSM ignores the "free speech useage" of minorities does not mean that it doesn't apply to them and they don't enjoy its benefits. 

Again, like I said, fuck anyone that thinks that American freedoms around free speech are restricted in any way by the State (the fascist mob is another story entirely and that's a problem with their own views and nothing to do with the state itself). 

The American State has unprecedented levels of guaranteeing our freedom speech rights compared to the entire globe.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Telling someone to leave in a post on the internet is the same as stifling their freedom :kobelol
> 
> Get out of this thread.
> 
> There, I stifled your freedom.
> 
> :kobelol
> 
> The amount of ridiculous reaches you guys have to make in order to justify supporting the real fascists is so silly that it's satire of itself.
> 
> An anti-feminist being brought up on charges of human rights violations and that being taken seriously is stifling someone's freedom
> A man being taken to court for disagreeing with feminists is stifling of freedom
> Speakers getting doxxed and having their families sent death threats is stifling of freedoms (but they're on the more ineffective side).
> Ruling through fear of "consequences" over any disagreement is stifling of freedom
> 
> Asking someone to get the fuck out of a country in a post on the internet is not stifling of freedom. But of course, you have to reach like a crazy person in order to grab whatever little example you can to justify whatever opinion you have even if it isn't what you're wishfully thinking it is :kobelol
> 
> That shit does not happen in America, yet and therefore I'm glad we don't have Aussies and Canadians running the show. I will still take Hillary over your Governments, because at least over here the Supreme Court and the constitution guarantees freedoms even though there are people who would try to stifle them. Once in power, Hillary will prove to be even further right-wing than Trump. The only people who would really be crying are the ones that voted her thinking that she's this stalwart of humanitarianism - Meaning the hordes and hordes of brainwashed minorities that vote for her. :lol



I'll take living in a country full of "Overly Religious gun loving ********" over Canada and Aussieland with their quasi peace loving people. You know the ones that chastise America any chance they get and import people from the places they bomb thinking they're such great humanitarians. We have more freedoms than those places, at least freedom of speech means something and the cops won't show up to my door for "hate speech" on twitter. 

Losing free speech is scary, losing the internet to the UN is more scary, becoming like Europe is scariest. Don't like what your Government is doing? Too bad, get the cops up in your business for stuff you post online or questioning something your Government does.

[email protected] Kill ******, how many places where "Brown" is the majority would tolerate white people holding up signs to kill them?


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> becoming like Europe is scariest. Don't like what your Government is doing? Too bad, get the cops up in your business for stuff you post online or questioning something your Government does.


Lol what? Examples please? I've lived and worked throughout Europe my entire life and never once heard of this happening. I'm almost 100% certain this doesn't happen in the UK or France so if you have any examples I'd be very interested. Sounds like some WWII far-right Nazi story not remotely what it's like living in Europe. Hilarious to read that people actually think that's what Europe's like though.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Lol what? Examples please? I've lived and worked throughout Europe my entire life and never once heard of this happening. I'm almost 100% certain this doesn't happen in the UK or France so if you have any examples I'd be very interested. Sounds like some WWII far-right Nazi story not remotely what it's like living in Europe. Hilarious to read that people actually think that's what Europe's like though.


I was referring to Germany as the cops did show up to people's homes who were posting anti-mass immigration stuff online. Also in scotland a man posting anti islamic stuff was visited by the Police. I believe it's happened a few times in the UK.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Name one case in the last 20 years where someone's free speech was curtailed and then that case was used as a precedent to curtail speech. Meanwhile Canada, Australia, UK, France have all had cases where the state persecuted someone for something they said. The last case in the US was Anthony Elonis which was eventually over-turned in the Supreme Court further expanding free speech, not limiting it.


I was more so referring to incidents such as both Red Scares, which effectively suppressed Leftist viewpoints. When or how it's achieved doesn't matter, it's an example of how liberal democracies can work towards suppressing you if it benefits them. 



> Universal free speech does indeed go both ways. Just because MSM ignores the "free speech useage" of minorities does not mean that it doesn't apply to them and they don't enjoy its benefits.


You can say anything you want, but you can't say anything you want in a meaningful way. What good is shouting into the wind? Free speech as it exists under liberalism, is a concept that is only a useful tool for the ruling class.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I was referring to Germany as the cops did show up to people's homes who were posting anti-mass immigration stuff online. Also in scotland a man posting anti islamic stuff was visited by the Police. I believe it's happened a few times in the UK.


How is that remotely getting arrested for disagreeing with the government? I'd like actual examples please, not "well this random guy you can't verify had this happen." Frankly, we have a "political party" here who're full-blown Nazi ("Britain First" if you're interested) who're allowed to post as many "anti-mass immigration" posts as they like online, as well as masses of hate speech and similar predictable topics - very little has ever happened to them over it. Oh and in case you were wondering they have over a million followers on Facebook so it's not like they're slipping under the radar or anything. You get arrested in the UK if you post hate speech that attempts to incite violence, beyond that people can pretty much say/do what they like online with no fear of anything. I'm talking the far-right saying things like "Hitler had the right idea, gas all the muzzie rats" and absolutely no punishment whatsoever. If you're hearing otherwise then I'd look into a better media outlet, because frankly, the one you're getting your info from is full of shit. The vast majority of Europe is very similar to the UK (we're all governed by EU legislation) and you're allowed to disagree with the government and disrespect as many groups as you like. The difference is when you try and incite violence towards a group, at which case you've committed a crime under our laws and would face the punishment just like any other criminal. We spend millions of pounds every year just policing the far-right groups we have over here so they're protected on their "marches" where they get together in small groups and spew racist and islamaphobic bile whilst walking through towns and cities who don't want them there (as evidenced by the masses of anti-fascists who show up to oppose them backed by large crowds of the local residents.) See that's the truth about it, the far-right cause all sorts of troubles and our supposedly "leftist nazi" (lol as if) governments spend tons of the taxpayers money just protecting their right to do so. Seriously, you're really way off the mark with what you believe is reality in Europe.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Project Veritas: Hillary personally ordered Trump rally disruptions.










*#DucksOnTheGround*

- Vic


----------



## The Talent

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Just ran some phrases through Google to see the number of results (pages with the phrase on it): 

_"going to vote for . . ." _
*Hillary*: 1.71M 
*Trump*: 2.05M 

_"I'm voting for . . ." _
*Hillary*: 245K 
*Trump*: 471K 

_"I hope . . . wins" _
*Hillary*: 4,730 
*Trump*: 25,300 

*Advantage*: Trump


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Talent said:


> Just ran some phrases through Google to see the number of results (pages with the phrase on it):
> 
> _"going to vote for . . ." _
> *Hillary*: 1.71M
> *Trump*: 2.05M
> 
> _"I'm voting for . . ." _
> *Hillary*: 245K
> *Trump*: 471K
> 
> _"I hope . . . wins" _
> *Hillary*: 4,730
> *Trump*: 25,300
> 
> *Advantage*: Trump



Science.


The election is rigged against Trump anyway, no point in voting if you're a Trump voter, just stay home!


----------



## The Talent

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Science.
> 
> 
> The election is rigged against Trump anyway, no point in voting if you're a Trump voter, just stay home!


My method further confirms what our eyes have told us for months: Trump has a much larger, far-more-passionate (but nonviolent) voterbase.

We have two options: we can either believe our lying eyes, which says Trump wins, or we can believe the oh-so-honest media and their totally-not-lopsided-sampling polls.

I know which side I'm betting on.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Talent said:


> My method further confirms what our eyes have told us for months: Trump has a much larger, far-more-passionate (but nonviolent) voterbase.
> 
> We have two options: we can either believe our lying eyes, which says Trump wins, or we can believe the oh-so-honest media and their totally-not-lopsided-sampling polls.
> 
> I know which side I'm betting on.


If they can fake the results of all those polls they can clearly and easily fake the results of the election.

The amount of people/effort needed to be involved in the conspiracy to keep all the polls faked is massive compared rigging the one poll.

I mean you're totally right, all those polls were rigged, and the election will be too, that's why you shouldn't vote, by voting you're merely legitimising the result. 

The only vote for Trump is to not vote at all.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Talent said:


> Just ran some phrases through Google to see the number of results (pages with the phrase on it):
> 
> _"going to vote for . . ." _
> *Hillary*: 1.71M
> *Trump*: 2.05M
> 
> _"I'm voting for . . ." _
> *Hillary*: 245K
> *Trump*: 471K
> 
> _"I hope . . . wins" _
> *Hillary*: 4,730
> *Trump*: 25,300
> 
> *Advantage*: Trump


...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RenegadexParagon said:


> I was more so referring to incidents such as both Red Scares, which effectively suppressed Leftist viewpoints. When or how it's achieved doesn't matter, it's an example of how liberal democracies can work towards suppressing you if it benefits them.


I say 20 years and you have to go back 40-70 :kobelol The worst cases of violation of free speech in America came during the 50's which eventually they realized were in error and they used that to expand free speech even further where they successfully realized that it's only actions that should be prosecuted and not thoughts or speech. 

While America has consistently expanded protection on speech, the other countries on my list have gone in the other direction and passed restrictions. For example, France literally prosecuted a comedian for making a joke literally days after the Hebdo shootings. What hypocrisy! 



> You can say anything you want, but you can't say anything you want in a meaningful way. What good is shouting into the wind? Free speech as it exists under liberalism, is a concept that is only a useful tool for the ruling class.


No it isn't. Some things are listened to and actions are taken, while other things get destroyed in the free marketplace of ideas as they should. 

Just because the elite and ruling don't listen doesn't mean you don't have the right to say it. Also, "usefulness" is imo is merely an excuse to pretend that you have something useful to say in the first place. 

You can stand on a pulpit tomorrow and start shouting whatever you want (and we've seen this happen in recent protests) and you will not be charged with a free speech violation. You will not be hauled in front of a human rights tribunal which will then fine you say $5,000 for speaking up like Alberta did to a Christian pastor for speaking against homosexuality. 

As I've already stated, America has the best track record of free speech amongst any civilization in existence today. It's not even debatable.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://hubpages.com/politics/Expert...serman-Schultz-Call-for-Inspection-of-Ballots

Experts Find Evidence of Electronic "Vote-Flipping" in Tim Canova Loss to Wasserman-Schultz, Call for Recount

Anyone surprised Debbie-Wasserman-Schultz, is at the center of more election fraud


----------



## amhlilhaus

The closer the election, the more excited im getting!

We are going to get the first female president, and the most corrupt administration in history to boot!

Its a 2fer the likes we will never see again. I got my popcorn ready!?


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Spoileing for size.



Spoiler: size















Letter from City Clerk Kris Teske of Green bay, WI to David Buerger, counsel at the Wisconsin Ethics Commission.

I hate shit like this. Voting should be quick, easy, and open to everyone legally allowed to do so. Can't open a polling place close to the school because they'll vote for Dems. Bullshit, and I'd say the same thing if a Dem was trying the same bullshit in a conservative precinct. The solution isn't to not open the polling place. The solution is to open a shitload more so everyone legally allowed to has a chance to vote, no matter their political leanings.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> I hate shit like this. Voting should be quick, easy, and open to everyone legally allowed to do so. Can't open a polling place close to the school because they'll vote for Dems. Bullshit, and I'd say the same thing if a Dem was trying the same bullshit in a conservative precinct. The solution isn't to not open the polling place. The solution is to open a shitload more so everyone legally allowed to has a chance to vote, no matter their political leanings.


Wait, but I thought that there was no such thing as rigging in American elections at all. 

I've been informed this by many non-American posters in this thread. So it must be true!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Wait, but I thought that there was no such thing as rigging in American elections at all.
> 
> I've been informed this by many non-American posters in this thread. So it must be true!


There is no voter fraud, but there is election fraud or voter suppression . There is a difference.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> There is no voter fraud, but there is election fraud. There is a difference.


Which little birdie whispered that in your ear?


----------



## The Talent

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/790902433761202177


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Which little birdie whispered that in your ear?


The facts, something you seem to ignore.


Ill post it again since you love to ignore the facts.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...le-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/

Only 31 cases , most were explained. out of over a billion votes cast over the past 10 years.

You can keep ignoring the facts that voter fraud does not really happen all you want.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trumps-pants-fire-claim-large-scale-voter-f/

Our ruling

Trump said, "Of course, there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day."

Actual instances of voter fraud — such as voter impersonation, ballot stuffing and bought votes — are extremely rare, often unintentional and not on a scale large enough to affect a national election. Trump's alarming claim, once again, is without proof.

We rate Trump’s claim Pants on Fire.

Donald Trump's Pants on Fire claim of 'large scale voter fraud'


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The facts, something you seem to ignore.
> 
> 
> Ill post it again since you love to ignore the facts.
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...le-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/
> 
> Only 31 cases , most were explained. out of over a billion votes cast over the past 10 years.
> 
> You can keep ignoring the facts that voter fraud does not really happen all you want.


BM used "facts" like he always does as though it's some sort of super power he holds because the facts he collects from his sources are the real facts because he really, really wants to believe them since those "facts" support his personal conclusion. 

Meanwhile, I will hit back with my own facts:

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-voter-fraud-a-real-problem/voter-fraud-deniers-ignore-the-facts



> *Twelve thousand noncitizens registered to vote in Colorado; apparently 5,000 of those voted in 2010*. A recent report in North Carolina by James O'Keefe's Project Veritas (of ACORN-undercover expose` fame) compared records of registered voters to prospective jurors disqualified due to noncitizenship, but who then voted in North Carolina in 2010. The State of Florida is suing the Department of Homeland Security to obtain a list of noncitizens in order to purge the state's voter rolls before the 2012 election, and was just sued in return by the Barack Obama-Eric Holder Department of Justice with a lawsuit for purging its rolls, which is required by federal law.


But his super-powered facts from washingtonpost are superior to the above facts. Ok. I lose. 

Let's see what WSJ says:

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/counting-voter-fraud-1165/



> Efforts to measure the extent of voter fraud by compiling criminal cases have indicated that the problem isn’t particularly widespread. One study last month, conducted by a group of journalism students through a project called *News21, found 2,068 cases of alleged voter fraud in the U.S. since 2000, including 10 cases of voter impersonation*.


Oh dear. I'm sorry, these facts are also wrong because as always BM's facts on this site are superior because they're BM super-powered facts! Because facts are his super power. Because no other facts other than his facts exist! 



I bow before you BM, you are the god of "*facts*". I worship you.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> BM used "facts" like he always does as though it's some sort of super power he holds because the facts he collects from his sources are the real facts because he really, really wants to believe them since those "facts" support his personal conclusion.
> 
> Meanwhile, I will hit back with my own facts:
> 
> http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-voter-fraud-a-real-problem/voter-fraud-deniers-ignore-the-facts
> 
> But his super-powered facts from washingtonpost are superior to the above facts. Ok. I lose.
> 
> Let's see what WSJ says:
> 
> http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/counting-voter-fraud-1165/
> 
> 
> Oh dear. I'm sorry, these facts are also wrong because as always BM's facts on this site are superior because they're BM super-powered facts! Because facts are his super power. Because no other facts other than his facts exist!
> 
> 
> 
> I bow before you BM, you are the god of "*facts*". I worship you.



LOL at you using James O'Keefe as a source when he is known to mislead people. but why I am not surprised. He is not legit. And did you even read your article 

Are you going to use Alex Jones as a source next?

And even using your numbers of 2,000 ALLEGED which does not mean confirmed, where as in my articles it was confirmed, huge difference since you can allege anything, 2,000 out of over a billion votes cast is nothing. Its 0.000002%

so even using your number voter fraud is next to nothing, its still 0%

I love how your two articles contradict themselves as well. Your 2nd article discounts your first article. 

And those are from 2012 whereas my article is from 2016 and dismissed most of the examples in your articles. 

Try using verified case and no alleged.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at you using James O'Keefe as a source when he is known to mislead people. but why I am not surprised. He is not legit. And did you even read your article
> 
> Are you going to use Alex Jones as a source next?
> 
> And even using your numbers of 2,000 ALLEGED which does not mean confirmed, where as in my articles it was confirmed, huge difference since you can allege anything, 2,000 out of over a billion votes cast is nothing. Its 0.000002%
> 
> so even using your number voter fraud is next to nothing, its still 0%





birthday_massacre said:


> There is *no *voter fraud, but there is election fraud or voter suppression . There is a difference.


And then you whine about other people moving goal-posts :kobelol 

I know you're deliberately being anal about this topic because it aligns with your preconceived beliefs so while you continue to post shit from partisan media like washingtonpost, nbc and other liberal-owned MSM, you will personally reserve the narcissistic right to claim that all other sources are suspect - but only yours aren't suspect. 

Also, James Keef is reporting from another source. The real source of those 2068 cases is news21. But I don't expect you to ever actually follow the research trail because you stop at the minutia that justifies your personal beliefs. 

From that same study, they found 491 cases of absentee voter fraud as well. And this is reported on another site (which incidently is another biased site), but facts aren't biased. 

Only people are BM. And as much as you like to hold yourself up to some sort of a higher standard you're one of those biased people. 

When you claim that there is *NO *voter fraud, then have the fucking guts to stand by that assertion instead of going on to say "oh, it's not massive voter fraud". 
*
I never said that there's "massive" voter fraud. But you said that there is NO voter fraud. Have the fucking balls to stand by your own fucking assertion. *


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> And then you whine about other people moving goal-posts :kobelol
> 
> I know you're deliberately being anal about this topic because it aligns with your preconceived beliefs so while you continue to post shit from partisan media like washingtonpost, nbc and other liberal-owned MSM, you will personally reserve the narcissistic right to claim that all other sources are suspect - but only yours aren't suspect.
> 
> Also, James Keef is reporting from another source. The real source of those 2068 cases is news21. But I don't expect you to ever actually follow the research trail because you stop at the minutia that justifies your personal beliefs.
> 
> From that same study, they found 491 cases of absentee voter fraud as well. And this is reported on another site (which incidently is another biased site), but facts aren't biased.
> 
> Only people are BM. And as much as you like to hold yourself up to some sort of a higher standard you're one of those biased people.
> 
> When you claim that there is *NO *voter fraud, then have the fucking guts to stand by that assertion instead of going on to say "oh, it's not massive voter fraud".
> *
> I never said that there's "massive" voter fraud. But you said that there is NO voter fraud. Have the fucking balls to stand by your own fucking assertion. *


Thre is no voter fraud when you take into account the billions of votes cast its 0.00007% That is zero.

You love to get cute with semantics.I should have did what I did the other day and say virtually zero voter fraud, so you could not do this little BS semantic game.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Thre is no voter fraud when you take into account the billions of votes cast its 0.00007% That is zero.


* That's not how you do math at all because if you could do math that way, then I could easily say that only 385,000 Americans owned slaves at one point and there are a total of 2 billion Americans that have ever lived therefore the total slave owners in America were .0001925 therefore there were never any slave owners in America! *

You look at where the voter fraud happened or if it had any impact on that election or those particular locales and at that particular point in time instead. What impact did voter fraud have on a specific election in a specific area? WHere does it happen more? Where does it have less controls? 

You don't just look at the total number of votes case all time and claim that "oh it's not a big problem".

And no BM, semantics isn't at all how I'm arguing. You keep using these big words that you think you're using appropriately and even I as a non-native english speaker knows that you're using them wrongly. 

semantics is about definitions. I never argued over definitions. I said you claimed that there is 0 voter fraud in America and you failed to back up that assertion with anything but joke math. The same kind of joke math I just used to prove that there were never any slave owners in America! 

:kobelol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> That's not how you do math at all because if you could do math that way, then I could easily say that only 385,000 Americans owned slaves at one point and there are a total of 2 billion Americans that have ever lived therefore the total slave owners in America were .0001925 therefore there were never any slave owners in America!
> 
> You look at where the voter fraud happened or if it had any impact on that election or those particular locales and at that particular point in time instead. What impact did voter fraud have on a specific election in a specific area? WHere does it happen more? Where does it have less controls?
> 
> You don't just look at the total number of votes case all time and claim that "oh it's not a big problem".
> 
> :kobelol


your slave owner comment is flawed. you would need to say how many slave owners had slaves then how many did not during that time period. You cant use times when slavery was forbidden. 
Where was with voter fraud, you are taking time periods where everyone is voting. No one is going by how many people voted all time, its just the last 10 years when people are complaining about voter fraud.

Like I said I should have used virtually like I did last week, then you could not pull this BS.

Show me where voter fraud ever cost someone an election. Voter suppression and election fraud have. Voter fraud is not an issue in the US so people need to stop pretending like it is.

And no BM, semantics isn't at all how I'm arguing. You keep using these big words that you think you're using appropriately and even I as a non-native english speaker knows that you're using them wrongly. 

semantics is about definitions. I never argued over definitions. I said you claimed that there is 0 voter fraud in America and you failed to back up that assertion with anything but joke math. The same kind of joke math I just used to prove that there were never any slave owners in America! 


yes it is semantics because you know what I was talking about. You know I mean virtually zero since that is what i said when we discussed this before. But you wanted to get cute with semantics. Its like when someone says oh no one likes so and so or everyone likes something. You know what they are talking about.

And math is math there is no such thing as joke math lol if something is less than 1% you can say zero since that is pretty much what it is in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Using WaPo, Times or CNN now isn't exactly full proof thanks to getting exposed during this election, also WaPo has used their facts to mislead people by cherry picking, let's not pretend they're the holy grail of impartial factual news.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Using WaPo, Times or CNN now isn't exactly full proof thanks to getting exposed during this election, also WaPo has used their facts to mislead people by cherry picking, let's not pretend they're the holy grail of impartial factual news.


No one is worse than fox news at misleading people. Its funny you did not put them with CNN , Times and Post on your list. MSNBC is pretty bad as well.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> No one is worse than fox news at misleading people. Its funny you did not put them with CNN , Times and Post on your list. MSNBC is pretty bad as well.


I think I made it clear why I used them and not Fox, I said they got exposed during this election so their "facts" aren't the holy grail. Fox isn't a great source either, though at this time due to the CNN coverage of Hillary I'd say they're below Fox which is pretty sad! But that being said everyone knew beforehand that Fox/MSNBC were extreme and misleading.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I think I made it clear why I used them and not Fox, I said they got exposed during this election so their "facts" aren't the holy grail. Fox isn't a great source either, though at this time due to the CNN coverage of Hillary I'd say they're below Fox which is pretty sad! But that being said everyone knew beforehand that Fox/MSNBC were extreme and misleading.


I will agree CNN is worse than fox in that regard because people took CNN as being legit and unbiased but were exposed during the primaries to not be. You are right at least with Fox you know its tabloid news.


----------



## $id

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So I hear that hillary is dead set to win...havent been following much but could one of you summarise whats been happening and why hillary is dead set to win??


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> your slave owner comment is flawed. you would need to say how many slave owners had slaves then how many did not during that time period. You cant use times when slavery was forbidden.
> 
> Where was with voter fraud, you are taking time periods where everyone is voting. No one is going by how many people voted all time, its just the last 10 years when people are complaining about voter fraud.


No. It's the exact same premise. You have to look at voter fraud in each election because you have more people who are eligible to vote in various demographics therefore you can't blatantly claim that all voters had an equal reason to be honest or even dishonest. Who can and cannot vote is a major demographical shift that simply cannot be ignored when counting "all votes cast". 



> Like I said I should have used virtually like I did last week, then you could not pull this BS.


You mean, like call you out for a bullshit statement like "there is NO voter fraud"? Be more careful what you post then - or be more fucking humble and admit that you made a poor statement. But it seems like humility is something that you've lost this election phase entirely. You used to be more reasonable, now you've just become a weird narcissist ever since No Man's Sky came out.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This thread would be so much shorter if people stopped banging their heads against the brick wall that is BM.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> No. It's the exact same premise. You have to look at voter fraud in each election because you have more people who are eligible to vote in various demographics therefore you can't blatantly claim that all voters had an equal reason to be honest or even dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean, like call you out for a bullshit statement like "there is NO voter fraud"? Be more careful what you post then - or be more fucking humble and admit that you made a poor statement.


Something that is less than 1% is pretty much zero. you can say that. Like it my edit above, you know what someone means when they say on no one likes so and so or everyone likes something.

You knew exactly what I was talking about especially when I post the 31 case in my example. You are just the type of person that instead of arguing argues semantics for a word they used when you know what I am talking about.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



$id said:


> So I hear that hillary is dead set to win...havent been following much but could one of you summarise whats been happening and why hillary is dead set to win??


Based on the EC Polls Hillary is going to win easily.


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



$id said:


> So I hear that hillary is dead set to win...havent been following much but could one of you summarise whats been happening and why hillary is dead set to win??


Long story short, Trump basically blew up his campaign in the first debate... Hillary pretty much embarrassed him as she kept baiting him and he kept taking the bait, and as a result his campaign went down the toilet


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The Bully Party, by Scott Adams: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152293480726/the-bully-party


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Can someone tell me how a comic strip author is more "creditable" than the tons of comedians and celebrities other than "he be more smarter"

They are all amateurs making their best guesses looking in


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> Can someone tell me how a comic strip author is more "creditable" than the tons of comedians and celebrities other than "he be more smarter"
> 
> They are all amateurs making their best guesses looking in


Its because those cartoons are Pro Trump whereas most comedians are against Trump. It's just some people being hypocritical. 

Anyone that acts like Colbert, Stewart, Oliver etc don't know what they are talking about are just clueless.

I'd take my news from one of them over CNN or Fox any day.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> Can someone tell me how a comic strip author is more "creditable" than the tons of comedians and celebrities other than "he be more smarter"
> 
> They are all amateurs making their best guesses looking in


the credibility of a person can be judged upon the works he puts forward. Read some of his work and if you think he's credible, then yay, if not, then yay.

As far as I can see, nobody made any assertions that he's the one true source, so what's the point of this question?


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Goku said:


> the credibility of a person can be judged upon the works he puts forward. Read some of his work and if you think he's credible, then yay, if not, then yay.
> 
> As far as I can see, nobody made any assertions that he's the one true source, so what's the point of this question?


Because we are getting about one a day

Remember batko's constant RT "counter-sourcing" on every issue?


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



$id said:


> So I hear that hillary is dead set to win...havent been following much but could one of you summarise whats been happening and why hillary is dead set to win??


Hilary destroyed him in the 1st debate and beat him in the next 2 as well. Plus


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Alleged voter fraud is such a small issue compared to how both parties use gerrymandering to retain political control. It's like the GOP wants to distract voters from their highly successful gerrymandering to their benefit in 2010 by harping on voter fraud and voter ID laws.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Can we just name this election: The day we all got screwed over.


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Alleged voter fraud is such a small issue compared to how both parties use gerrymandering to retain political control. It's like the GOP wants to distract voters from their highly successful gerrymandering to their benefit in 2010 by harping on voter fraud and voter ID laws.


Just imagine if the Democrats can manage to take over the house by 2020 and it'll be time again to redistrict, they'll surely do the same exact thing in their favor, and the Republicans will be crying bloody murder...


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cabanarama said:


> Just imagine if the Democrats can manage to take over the house by 2020 and it'll be time again to redistrict, they'll surely do the same exact thing in their favor, and the Republicans will be crying bloody murder...


For sure. :lol

Every political party in power everywhere does it to retain control. It takes a really upset electorate like in 2010 to really shake things up though.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Every single pro-democrat is a total caricature :lol

- Voter fraud = Small issue
- Illegal immigration = How dare you call them illegal! 
- Bombing Libyan Hospitals = Oh well
- Allowing ISIS to form = BUSH DID IT! 
- Blacks killing blacks = ****** made them do it! 
- Border town violence = Huh? 
- Provoking a cold war with Russia = not gonna happen
- Hispanics killing blacks and blacks killing hispanics = what, that happens? 
- Male suicide epidemic = OMG you're a misogynist!
- Election rigging to force a bad candidate as the only candidate = Meh, other other one's worse. 
- Candidate taking money from Saudis = Wait, are you talking to me? 

Big issues for democrats: 

- Wage gaps = OMG YOU ARE A FUCKING WHITE MALE! 
- manspreading = OMG WE NEED LEGISLATION. CRIMINALIZE! 
- white privilege = OMG We need to indoctrinate children! 
- Too many white actors in movies = OMG, WHITEWASHING! RACISM! BOYCOTT!!! 
- Actresses that make 20 million = RIOT ON TWITTER! 
- Black policeman killing black man = RIOT RIOT RIOT RACISM RACISM!!! 
- not enough female CEO's, = FIRE WHITE MEN
- not enough women in positions of power = OMG PATRIARCHY! 
- college fees are too damn high = BERNIE BERNIE BERNIE! 

And they think that conservatives have their priorities fucked up :kobelol


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

^^ Dude you sound like you wish you were born a white man. Lay off the Breitbart and Newsmax for a while.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

More rats abandoning the ship 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republican-tv-ads-trump_us_580e34b2e4b000d0b157b24f


> *Republicans Threaten Lawsuits Over TV Ads Linking Them To Donald Trump*
> WASHINGTON ― Some Republicans are running so far away from their party’s nominee that they are threatening to sue TV stations for running ads that suggest they support Donald Trump.
> 
> Just two weeks before Election Day, five Republicans ― Reps. Bob Dold (R-Ill.), Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), David Jolly (R-Fla.), John Katko (R-N.Y.) and Brian Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican running for an open seat that’s currently occupied by his brother ― contend that certain commercials paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee provide false or misleading information by connecting them to the GOP nominee.
> 
> Trump is so terrible, these Republicans are essentially arguing, that tying them to him amounts to defamation.
> 
> All five Republicans have, at some point, said they don’t support Trump. And all five have a bit of a case: The DCCC ads do use some creativity to tie them to Trump.
> 
> It’s somewhat standard practice for candidates to threaten TV stations with legal action in an effort to get ads pulled. The Federal Communications Commission has said that stations have some legal responsibility ― when dealing with ads from independent groups ― to eliminate ads with “false, misleading, or deceptive” content. But legal action is rare. Mostly, candidates count on TV stations to take down such ads.
> 
> The DCCC says none of the stations pulled the spots, though some ads’ runs have already ended.
> 
> Either way, the ads all leave an impression that the candidate they’re targeting supports Trump, even when the candidate himself has said otherwise. Whether that’s misleading enough for legal action is someone else’s call.
> 
> The commercials all use different means to make the same point: In Jolly’s case, the ad asks voters to “imagine” Trump as president with Jolly supporting him, providing some roughly manipulated pictures of the two together to help fill in the blanks. Jolly’s lawyers say the commercial is “patently false,” telling a local Florida station that just because the ad includes the words “dramatization” doesn’t mean it can display “fraudulent images.”
> 
> The ad targeting Katko uses footage from May of the candidate saying he “absolutely will support” the GOP’s eventual nominee. But Katko’s lawyer says he “has never and does not currently” support Trump. He calls the ad “blatantly false.”
> 
> The other cases are similar.
> 
> The DCCC ties Coffman to Trump by showing him questioning whether President Barack Obama was born in the United States. (Coffman’s lawyer takes issue with the ad’s assertion that his client supports Trump, which is sourced to a February report in which Coffman said he’d support the eventual Republican nominee. Yet there’s a lengthy record of Coffman criticizing Trump.)
> 
> Coffman, who sent two letters over two different ads, also takes issue with a second ad stating that “Coffman said he’d support Trump for president.” Coffman’s lawyer says that claim is “false and defamatory,” an indication of just how damaging supporting Trump can be in Coffman’s Latino-heavy district.
> 
> “Over the last two election cycles, Nancy Pelosi and her SuperPac have spent millions of dollars trying to smear Mike’s record. It didn’t work then and it won’t work now,” said Coffman campaign spokeswoman Cinamon Watson.
> 
> Dold demanded the removal of an ad that claimed he was privately raising money to defeat Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. The DCCC was referencing an event Dold headlined called “Beat Hillary at the Distillery.” Dold says the money only went to local candidates.
> 
> Fitzpatrick has also had his lawyer draft a cease and desist letter, taking issue with an ad that says the candidate “supports Donald Trump and his dangerous agenda for women.” While Fitzpatrick doesn’t refute claims that he wants to defund Planned Parenthood, his lawyer said that branding him as a Trump supporter threatens “substantial and immediate harm to the campaign and Mr. Fitzpatrick’s personal reputation.”


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> - Male suicide epidemic = OMG you're a misogynist!


The rates of of depression and suicide attempts are actually higher among females but more men die via suicide because a self inflicted gunshot has a higher success rate then slit wrists or a bottle of sleeping pills. Now which party would like to get guns out of the hands of those with mental problems and which party has it's elected leaders on it's knees for the NRA?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ShiningStar said:


> The rates of of depression and suicide attempts are actually higher among females but more men die via suicide because a self inflicted gunshot has a higher success rate then slit wrists or a bottle of sleeping pills. Now which party would like to get guns out of the hands of those with mental problems and which party has it's elected leaders on it's knees for the NRA?


Thank you for your lesson in feminism 101 but I've heard this argument since at least 2011.

Why don't you think for yourself instead of giving me the same thing you've read elsewhere. 

The fact that women attempt suicide and don't commit suicide is because it's a cry for help and they know they can get it. The reason why males think in terms of finality is because they know there's no help for them. In your brainwashing against the NRA it didn't even fucking occur to you that those princesses that constantly commit suicide ALSO have access to guns in the exact same way men do ... but they don't use it. It's not because they really want to kill themselves. Because the ones that do, do succeed and do use guns too. It's just that the majority don't really want to kill themselves, but just hurt themselves enough so that it hurts the ones they want to hurt. 

Thank you and bring back another plagiarized argument next time. 

Goodbye and good luck in being a glorified parrot.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ShiningStar said:


> The rates of of depression and suicide attempts are actually higher among females but more men die via suicide because a self inflicted gunshot has a higher success rate then slit wrists or a bottle of sleeping pills. Now which party would like to get guns out of the hands of those with mental problems and which party has it's elected leaders on it's knees for the NRA?


There's a vast difference between drama and a cry for help and actual issues. It's not just firearms, men will kill themselves using a plethora of effective methods, why? Because their goal is to end themselves, not to bring about drama.

During my ER rotations I can safely say in my area over 70% of the female suicide attempts are just cries for attention, we actually have ones who frequently do it. The fact that one gender is overly successful at suicide is more telling, because, like they actually end up dead?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> There's a vast difference between drama and a cry for help and actual issues. It's not just firearms, men will kill themselves using a plethora of effective methods, why? Because their goal is to end themselves, not to bring about drama.
> 
> During my ER rotations I can safely say in my area over 70% of the female suicide attempts are just cries for attention, we actually have ones who frequently do it. The fact that one gender is overly successful at suicide is more telling, because, like they actually end up dead?


No but attempting and staying alive is worse. Because it's worse. Because it's worse because it's worse.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> The fact that women attempt suicide and don't commit suicide is because it's a cry for help and they know they can get it. The reason why males think in terms of finality is because they know there's no help for them.


If women want to be equal with men, they need to learn how to kill themselves better.

:saul


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> If women want to be equal with men, they need to learn how to kill themselves better.
> 
> :saul


There is a massive stigma between male and female suicide within itself, a female attempting suicide is often met with a vast amount of support and attention. A male attempt is often met with dismissal and questions not about the male's mental health but his status as a male, as if he has failed his role as a male for not "sucking it up". I can see why males would want to be sure when they end it, it's done.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> There is a massive stigma between male and female suicide within itself, a female attempting suicide is often met with a vast amount of support and attention. A male attempt is often met with dismissal and questions not about the male's mental health but his status as a male, as if he has failed his role as a male for not "sucking it up". I can see why males would want to be sure when they end it, it's done.


See, I was suicidal was 20 odd years myself. I never attempted it because my brother did and I thought he was a fucking quitter and I never wanted to be seen as one. 

On the flip, one of the girls I had a crush on did the same twice and both times my gut reaction was "How can I make her life better so she doesn't do it again?" 

The problem with these feminist preaching parrots is that they've been taught what to think about men and male issues within their echo chambers. They've never actually bothered to try to find out and they don't want to, because hiding themselves from the truth is far more comfortable (and even profitable now) than actually bothering to ask why do men really think in terms of finality and not just being little princesses that only want to scare mommy and daddy into giving them shiny new toys so they won't do it again.

I have no issues with women who attempt suicide out of genuine and serious mental illness issues. Despite my personal beliefs around it, I would still be first in line to help them sort their issues and get better. But I'm just genuinely sick of this "but women attempt it more" rebuttal as a distraction from the issue of male suicide. It's so selfish and mean-spirited in reality but these femmes and their beta male supporters have no realization of that very simple fact.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> ^^ Dude you sound like you wish you were born a white man. Lay off the Breitbart and Newsmax for a while.


Another typical pro-democrat value: 

Defend conservative values: OMG!! YOU'RE A RACE TRAITOR!! 

Fuck off.

This was literally the kind of racist shit minorities post all over twitter :kobelol 

Thanks for letting us know that you think that anyone that disagrees with democrats "wants to be white". And you think that republicans are the racists - but you're not for thinking that someone "wants to be white" because they hold certain values and opinions. 

I can have these values without wanting to be white. I'm glad I'm not a typical brainwashed minority like you that screams race traitor at anyone that holds different values. I'd rather be accused of being a race traitor than be part of the brainwashed minority hive mind that thinks that democrats actually care about them.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Hillary is a fucking psychopath!





> So I hear that hillary is dead set to win...havent been following much but could one of you summarise whats been happening and why hillary is dead set to win??


Voter fraud (illegal and dead people) in her favor.

The media, corporations, and celebrities swaying people to vote for her.

Paid protesters

A LOT of Trump signs getting stolen.

Julian Assange being censored by the US government's influence.

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Another typical pro-democrat value:
> 
> Defend conservative values: OMG!! YOU'RE A RACE TRAITOR!!
> 
> Fuck off.
> 
> This was literally the kind of racist shit minorities post all over twitter :kobelol
> 
> Thanks for letting us know that you think that anyone that disagrees with democrats "wants to be white". And you think that republicans are the racists - but you're not for thinking that someone "wants to be white" because they hold certain values and opinions.
> 
> I can have these values without wanting to be white. I'm glad I'm not a typical brainwashed minority like you that screams race traitor at anyone that holds different values. I'd rather be accused of being a race traitor than be part of the brainwashed minority hive mind that thinks that democrats actually care about them.


Didn't say you were a race traitor. Just saying you wish you were born a different skin colour base on your posts in this thread. Maybe you are projecting your daily encounter with people who disagree with your views and your fear that you are brainwashed by the media you consume in here. :kobelol

Yes republicans have racists in their party, no matter how you wish it to be not true. And the democrats have racists too. I'm not one of those "blacks can't be racists" idiots. :kobelol

Us Asians are even more racist than whites. So score one for white people? :shrug


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Didn't say you were a race traitor. Just saying you wish you were born a different skin colour base on your posts in this thread. Maybe you are projecting your daily encounter with people who disagree with your views and your fear that you are brainwashed by the media you consume in here. :kobelol


How do you go from reading someone with a conservative mindset to assuming they want to be white, if you're not a racist yourself Tofu. You don't even realize that what you hurled at me is an Uncle Tom accusation that blacks have used to silence difference of opinion amongst themselves for over a century. But I know you don't know half as much as you think you know, so here's some more free education. 

I don't know if you're aware of this either, but calling someone an Uncle Tom is an innately racist statement to make. Now I don't care if you're a racist or not, but I am amused about your lack of self-awareness. 

I also find it very interesting that you claim lack of bias, but you threw out the Uncle Tom accusation my way after I made a caricature of a democrat. If you weren't pro-democrat, you wouldn't have felt compelled to call me an uncle tom. So you basically betrayed yourself in one fail swoop. Congrats. 

The thing about you is that you _pretend _to be unbiased. What you don't understand in political leanings is that when people align themselves with a particular candidate or party, they're not aligning themselves wholly and solely with that party or every single one of their core values - but they're aligning themselves with the party that comes closest to their personal values. We all fall somewhere in the middle here and there, but the timing of your accusation betrayed your political leaning far more than you think.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Hillary is a fucking psychopath!
> 
> 
> Voter fraud (illegal and dead people) in her favor.
> 
> The media, corporations, and celebrities swaying people to vote for her.
> 
> Paid protesters
> 
> A LOT of Trump signs getting stolen.
> 
> Julian Assange being censored by the US government's influence.
> 
> - Vic


Lol at that video.

Undeniable Proof in this one.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

When your "doing it the hard way to legalized US citizenship" father from Dominican Republic supports Donald Trump. :trump


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> How do you go from reading someone with a conservative mindset to assuming they want to be white, if you're not a racist yourself Tofu. You don't even realize that what you hurled at me is an Uncle Tom accusation that blacks have used to silence difference of opinion amongst themselves for over a century. But I know you don't know half as much as you think you know, so here's some more free education.


When did I said having a conservative mindset = assuming to want to be white? If anything, it is adopting liberalism that is seen by non-whites as wanting to be white. Your constant claims of being more liberal than your fellow Pakistani, putting down of your old faith, and your embrace of white nationalist messages during this election is more telling. 



> I don't know if you're aware of this either, but calling someone an Uncle Tom is an innately racist statement to make. Now I don't care if you're a racist or not, but I am amused about your lack of self-awareness.


I would call you a coconut more than an Uncle Tom if I were a racist. You can call me a banana if you want to retaliate. These terms exist. :shrug



> I also find it very interesting that you claim lack of bias, but you threw out the Uncle Tom accusation my way after I made a caricature of a democrat. If you weren't pro-democrat, you wouldn't have felt compelled to call me an uncle tom. So you basically betrayed yourself in one fail swoop. Congrats.


Your projection of your attempt to build yourself as lack of bias but constantly failing to live up to that claim is getting stale. I'm pro-centralism. If that makes me pro-democrats so be it. 



> The thing about you is that you _pretend _to be unbiased. What you don't understand in political leanings is that when people align themselves with a particular candidate or party, they're not aligning themselves wholly and solely with that party or every single one of their core values - but they're aligning themselves with the party that comes closest to their personal values. We all fall somewhere in the middle here and there, but the timing of your accusation betrayed your political leaning far more than you think.


Stop trying to pin your charade of appearing to be unbiased onto me. You align with the candidate that embraced white nationalism. It just appear to me that the constant defence of that candidate seem to have brainwashed you. :shrug


----------



## Raven

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Since this topic is better than wrasslin, i guess i would put in 2 videos ranting about salty trump


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> When did I said having a conservative mindset = assuming to want to be white? If anything, it is adopting liberalism that is seen by non-whites as wanting to be white. Your constant claims of being more liberal than your fellow Pakistani, putting down of your old faith, and your embrace of white nationalist messages during this election is more telling.


What you're not getting at all is that there is absolutely no link to someone's race and the values they hold. But in your puny brain you are trying to wrestle with the idea that there's some sort of connection - because you made that connection in your response to me and are now trying to claim that adopting liberalism is seen my non-whites as wanting to be white. You don't even understand liberty vs liberalism. Just tossing out words that you have no idea what they actually mean. What you're thinking of when you're talking about "adopting liberalism" is actually about embracing freedom to adopt hedonistic values, not adopt liberal values in terms of politics. It's conservative religious folk - and you're trying to make it seem like it's about politics. 

This makes you contradict yourself completely and don't even understand the conversation you yourself initiated nor my response to it. 

BTW, is English your first language? How much schooling have you had and where - becuase it seems like you're trying to wrestle with ideas that you have no real clue about, and you don't seem to be able to comprehend the things I respond with. 

I am more liberal than the majority of my fellow Pakistanis. Why would I want to say that I'm not when I actually am? Why would I be like other Pakistanis and why would I want to be? Also, Pakistani isn't a race, it's a nationality. What I am is of caucasoid origins. My nationality is Pakistani. It's not my race. In fact, all South Asians are actually Caucasoids - so we already have more in common with white people than other races. 

Anyone that has a brain would put down an archaic religion like Islam. It's not just white people that do that. All ex-muslims do that and that doesn't mean that they're doing it because they want to be white. Also, being central in one's views does not make one unbiased. What it makes one is uninformed. Not putting down Islam and the cultural degredation of Muslim societies is the same as saying that there is no cultural erosion within african american ghettos. Muslims kill more muslims than Americans. That is not bias. Having an agnostic point of view doesn't necessarily make you unbiased, and having a clear cut opinion based on facts (where the facts are greatly skewed towards the formation of a particular opinion) does not make that opinion in and of itself biased. 

For example, blacks kill more blacks at rates higher than whites kill whites. That is a fact. Talking about that fact has nothing to do with bias or white nationalism. Border towns have significant social and cultural problems with higher rates of violence than internal towns and cities. That is a fact. Statement of that fact has nothing to do with bias. 

You've abandoned all logic here at all and I don't think you have the ability to understand the paragraphs above at all. Like in terms of actually following a logical train of thought. 

You don't even know what white nationalism actually is. There are times when I've made statements where I've praised whites for creating the societies that they have and that is also fact. Other than Japan and South Korea, you'd be hard pressed to find another societies in the world that are dominated by non-whites that are doing as well as white nations are. Whites have contributed more technological advancement to the world than non-whites. That is not white nationalism again. That is an acknowledgement of reality as it exists in the world. This does not mean that I think whites are superior (which is what nationalism is), but that whites have a culture of innovation and hard work that other cultures don't have or lack. It's something that other societies don't lack because of some intrinsic deficiency, but rather due to a difference in cultural attitudes which can be changed. 

(I hope my english hasn't gotten to difficult for you to understand btw. If you have trouble following what I'm saying, just say so and I can dumb myself down btw). 



> I would call you a coconut more than an Uncle Tom if I were a racist. You can call me a banana if you want to retaliate. These terms exist. :shrug


Calling you a banana would be an insult to bananas and I don't think I can do that. Bananas as food actually offer an intrinsic value to humanity. 



> Your projection of your attempt to build yourself as lack of bias but constantly failing to live up to that claim is getting stale. I'm pro-centralism. If that makes me pro-democrats so be it.


At least you finally admit it. That's some progress - but betraying your own lack of self-awareness that you're anything but central. You are more of an SJW type than central. There are truly central posters on here and none of them consistently post pro-democrat things in this or any other thread. You are a leftist that's totally unaware of how far on the left he really is. 



> Stop trying to pin your charade of appearing to be unbiased onto me. You align with the candidate that embraced white nationalism. It just appear to me that the constant defence of that candidate seem to have brainwashed you. :shrug


I don't have a charade going on at all. My views are far more publicly open and clearly right-aligned and I've never actually claimed to be central. You lack the brain power to differentiate between having a right lean and supporting a right leaning party, and being unbiased and objective. You innate assume that people on the right are "biased" because that's what you've been trained to think. 

You can have a right leaning and be objective at the same time. The fact is that you don't seem to even understand that having a centrist political leaning has nothing to do with bias or lack of bias. 

I just have a stronger political leaning towards right-libertarianism - and of course I'll support the candidate that falls closest to those values. That in and of itself has nothing to do with bias :lol But I don't expect you to understand the deep nuance of well formed opinions.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> I say 20 years and you have to go back 40-70 :kobelol


Because I never intended on ever going by your restrictions. Hence why I said "I was more so referring to...". Again, it was an example of how liberal "democracies", such as your beloved 'Murica, can suppress views if it's found to be beneficial. 



> The worst cases of violation of free speech in America came during the 50's which eventually they realized were in error and they used that to expand free speech even further where they successfully realized that it's only actions that should be prosecuted and not thoughts or speech.


All hail the state for finally granting humans a basic human right that they can eventually take away if the need ever arises :clap :clap :clap



> Just because the elite and ruling don't listen doesn't mean you don't have the right to say it. Also, "usefulness" is imo is merely an excuse to pretend that you have something useful to say in the first place.


I didn't say otherwise. Point out where I did, please. I acknowledged you can say what you want, I'm saying it's an utterly useless thing to gloat about having the ability to shout into the wind and achieve a whole lot of nothing. It also isn't the ruling class simply not listening, it's the fact that the ruling class is able to have enormous influence over communication to protect the status quo and benefit themselves. The capacity to speak freely in a meaningful manner is again, limited to those with the most $$$.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Another typical pro-democrat value:
> 
> Defend conservative values: OMG!! YOU'RE A RACE TRAITOR!!
> 
> Fuck off.
> 
> This was literally the kind of racist shit minorities post all over twitter :kobelol
> 
> Thanks for letting us know that you think that anyone that disagrees with democrats "wants to be white". And you think that republicans are the racists - but you're not for thinking that someone "wants to be white" because they hold certain values and opinions.
> 
> I can have these values without wanting to be white. I'm glad I'm not a typical brainwashed minority like you that screams race traitor at anyone that holds different values. I'd rather be accused of being a race traitor than be part of the brainwashed minority hive mind that thinks that democrats actually care about them.



You shouldn't bother with him, once he pulled out that gem of a statement should have just shook your head and walked away. It's the worst and laziest of all statements. What's funny is nonwhites are picking up on the very things you mentioned, nonwhites are starting to see SJWs do not have nonwhites interest at heart. It's going to be people like you who point out these crazy fallacies and people will get upset and try to slander you for it or say inane things as if you're not smart enough to talk about it. (LOL SJW/Dem logic there "Nonwhites are dumb so we must speak for them and forgive them for their sinful ways of not supporting us.) 

I know you decently and we've been in many discussions about the treatment of nonwhites etc so I had to laugh at what he said. I don't think BM on his worst day would tell you something like what was stated! :surprise:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RenegadexParagon said:


> Because I never intended on ever going by your restrictions. Hence why I said "I was more so referring to...". Again, it was an example of how liberal "democracies", such as your beloved 'Murica, can suppress views if it's found to be beneficial.
> 
> 
> 
> All hail the state for finally granting humans a basic human right that they can eventually take away if the need ever arises :clap :clap :clap
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say otherwise. Point out where I did, please. I acknowledged you can say what you want, I'm saying it's an utterly useless thing to gloat about having the ability to shout into the wind and achieve a whole lot of nothing. It also isn't the ruling class simply not listening, it's the fact that the ruling class is able to have enormous influence over communication to protect the status quo and benefit themselves. The capacity to speak freely in a meaningful manner is again, limited to those with the most $$$.


Well trying to explain the value of free speech and the expansions of related freedoms [and not see them shrink] to someone who doesn't appreciate their intrinsic value would be like trying to explain the beauty of a sunset to a blind man so I guess we can end our discussion here.


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Lol at that video.
> 
> Undeniable Proof in this one.


All I can think of anytime people post stuff like this and OMG she is Evil







By all accounts she is shitty person and corrupt politician but people tune out cause her detractors ARE LOOK AT HER SHE IS EVIL and post random gif's out of context reactions shots and have accused of her of everything short of Kidnapping the Lindbergh baby.It's like the boy who cried wolf.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Hillary is a fucking psychopath!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Voter fraud (illegal and dead people) in her favor.
> 
> The media, corporations, and celebrities swaying people to vote for her.
> 
> Paid protesters
> 
> A LOT of Trump signs getting stolen.
> 
> Julian Assange being censored by the US government's influence.
> 
> - Vic


lmfao voter fraud. Heres a bit of a list of things more likely to happen than rampant voter fraud


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/occur-voter-fraud-article-1.2833957



> *According to a recent Loyola Law School study, there were, between 2000 and 2014, only 31 known cases of voter impersonation fraud out of 1 billion votes cast.*
> 
> That translates roughly to a one in 32,258,064 chance of voter fraud for all the votes cast during that time frame.
> 
> Here are five things that are more likely to happen to you than that:
> *
> GETTING STRUCK BY LIGHTNING TWICE IN YOUR LIFETIM*E
> 
> You have a one in 9,000,000 chance of getting struck twice by lightning in your lifetime.
> 
> A scenario more on par with Trump’s claims would be getting struck by lightning twice … at a Milwaukee Brewers World Series game.
> 
> *
> DYING FROM A FLESH-EATING BACTERIA*
> 
> You have a one in 1,000,000 chance of being consumed by a flesh-eating bacteria, which actually seems unfortunately high.
> 
> To put it on the level of Trump’s voter fraud claims, you might want to imagine being consumed by a flesh-eating bacteria that you acquired after eating a Trump-brand steak you purchased at The Sharper Image.
> 
> 
> 
> *BEING FATALLY ATTACKED BY A SHARK*
> 
> The odds of being the victim of a fatal shark attack are 1 in 11,500,000.
> 
> The odds of voter impersonation fraud are probably a little bit closer to being the victim of a fatal sharknado attack.
> *
> HITTING THE SAME ROULETTE COLOR 20 TIMES IN A ROW*
> 
> Gambling odds site Roulette Star says that this outcome has a one in 1,813,778 chance of occurring.
> 
> Maybe if you were throwing the dice at the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City, it’d be similar to the voting fraud odds. But, oh wait …
> 
> 
> *HITTING A HOLE IN ONE*
> 
> Actuaries at insurance companies who underwrite hole-in-one contests typically peg this at a one in 12,500 shot.
> 
> To approach to rarity of voter fraud, you’d have probably to be referring to nailing a hole-in-one at a golf course ... on the moon.
> 
> Just make sure the contest isn’t being run by Donald Trump, because he won’t pay you the prize money.


Also lmao at you blaming celebrities for trying to sway the vote. Like it doesn't happen every election. Literally every election has celebrities that come out and support candidates. 

All I see is you scrambling to find excuses for the inevitable loss.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hey, flesh-eating bacteria is no joke. It's why you've gotta be careful not to get any water up your nose if you're swimming in the lakes or rivers in Tennessee.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> What you're not getting at all is that there is absolutely no link to someone's race and the values they hold. But in your puny brain you are trying to wrestle with the idea that there's some sort of connection - because you made that connection in your response to me and are now trying to claim that adopting liberalism is seen my non-whites as wanting to be white. You don't even understand liberty vs liberalism. Just tossing out words that you have no idea what they actually mean. What you're thinking of when you're talking about "adopting liberalism" is actually about embracing freedom to adopt hedonistic values, not adopt liberal values in terms of politics. It's conservative religious folk - and you're trying to make it seem like it's about politics.


Someone's upbringing is tied to their values. And like it or not one's race has is linked to it. You seem to be triggered by my off the cuff stray observation about your posts in here. Your puny brain seem to think you have the right to be offended but then lay the blame on minority groups in america for being easily offended by similar off the cuff 'banter'. Did you not claim you were more liberal in mindset than you fellow Pakistani in discussions here? 



> This makes you contradict yourself completely and don't even understand the conversation you yourself initiated nor my response to it.
> 
> BTW, is English your first language? How much schooling have you had and where - becuase it seems like you're trying to wrestle with ideas that you have no real clue about, and you don't seem to be able to comprehend the things I respond with.


:kobelol 



> I am more liberal than the majority of my fellow Pakistanis. Why would I want to say that I'm not when I actually am? Why would I be like other Pakistanis and why would I want to be? Also, Pakistani isn't a race, it's a nationality. What I am is of caucasoid origins. My nationality is Pakistani. It's not my race. In fact, all South Asians are actually Caucasoids - so we already have more in common with white people than other races.


My mistake then. I got confused ethnicity with nationality. Do you tell people you are caucasoid? Please tell me you self-identify as caucasoid to prove my point. Are you kidding me with this rant?



> Anyone that has a brain would put down an archaic religion like Islam. It's not just white people that do that. All ex-muslims do that and that doesn't mean that they're doing it because they want to be white. Also, being central in one's views does not make one unbiased. What it makes one is uninformed. Not putting down Islam and the cultural degredation of Muslim societies is the same as saying that there is no cultural erosion within african american ghettos. Muslims kill more muslims than Americans. That is not bias. Having an agnostic point of view doesn't necessarily make you unbiased, and having a clear cut opinion based on facts (where the facts are greatly skewed towards the formation of a particular opinion) does not make that opinion in and of itself biased.


There are bad Muslims just like there are bad atheists just like there are bad Hindus. Faith can do good and do bad, maybe take your own advice and think maybe there is a middle ground somewhere. 



> For example, blacks kill more blacks at rates higher than whites kill whites. That is a fact. Talking about that fact has nothing to do with bias or white nationalism. Border towns have significant social and cultural problems with higher rates of violence than internal towns and cities. That is a fact. Statement of that fact has nothing to do with bias.


I don't disagree with discussing these issues. The problem is people living in border towns also think many of the solutions you parrot from white nationalists are BS.



> You've abandoned all logic here at all and I don't think you have the ability to understand the paragraphs above at all. Like in terms of actually following a logical train of thought.


 My train of thought is this. At the start of the elections you were moderate in posting, as the election progressed, you were exposed to more radical train of thought due to Trump, now you are almost as bad as some of his hardcore supporters in believing in some of the nonsensical stuff. :shrug



> You don't even know what white nationalism actually is. There are times when I've made statements where I've praised whites for creating the societies that they have and that is also fact. Other than Japan and South Korea, you'd be hard pressed to find another societies in the world that are dominated by non-whites that are doing as well as white nations are. Whites have contributed more technological advancement to the world than non-whites. That is not white nationalism again. That is an acknowledgement of reality as it exists in the world. This does not mean that I think whites are superior (which is what nationalism is), but that whites have a culture of innovation and hard work that other cultures don't have or lack. It's something that other societies don't lack because of some intrinsic deficiency, but rather due to a difference in cultural attitudes which can be changed.


Trump love to use China and India as example as good example of economic growth though. :troll Just kidding. There are rich Arab counties that do well due to oil and former Britain colonies doing well. You could argue the rule of law and democratic ideals left behind by the Brits helped formed the foundation of them doing better than the rest of the world. But are you seriously offended by a racist remark and turn around to parrot a white nationalist argument to say it isn't white nationalist? 



> (I hope my english hasn't gotten to difficult for you to understand btw. If you have trouble following what I'm saying, just say so and I can dumb myself down btw).


Please do. I really have trouble following your train of thought.



> Calling you a banana would be an insult to bananas and I don't think I can do that. Bananas as food actually offer an intrinsic value to humanity.


OH my, a liberal elite.



> At least you finally admit it. That's some progress - but betraying your own lack of self-awareness that you're anything but central. You are more of an SJW type than central. There are truly central posters on here and none of them consistently post pro-democrat things in this or any other thread. You are a leftist that's totally unaware of how far on the left he really is.


Erm..I supported the centralist candidate in this election all along. I even admitted the democrats were pushed to the left by Sanders and his supporters. I was one of the few pro-establishment voice in this thread arguing for compromise over extreme positions. Sometimes the compromise might be more leftist in position because more people want that as a solution.



> I don't have a charade going on at all. My views are far more publicly open and clearly right-aligned and I've never actually claimed to be central. You lack the brain power to differentiate between having a right lean and supporting a right leaning party, and being unbiased and objective. You innate assume that people on the right are "biased" because that's what you've been trained to think.
> 
> You can have a right leaning and be objective at the same time. The fact is that you don't seem to even understand that having a centrist political leaning has nothing to do with bias or lack of bias.
> 
> I just have a stronger political leaning towards right-libertarianism - and of course I'll support the candidate that falls closest to those values. That in and of itself has nothing to do with bias :lol But I don't expect you to understand the deep nuance of well formed opinions.


You claimed to be objective and unbiased but you clearly exposed yourself time and again in trying to support your candidate over the course of the whole thread. I live in a more conservative country than even America. I'm right leaning but probably a leftist to Americans because I don't have an issue with the government playing a bigger role. :shrug

Assuming that I am biased doesn't mean I can't point out your bias though. You seem to lack that understanding.

I must have really exposed your self doubt with my comments that you felt the need to belittle me with my apparent lack of education, poor standard of English, lack of reading comprehension and me being worse than a piece of fruit.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

More desperation

More whining

More excuses 

More Anger

Keep going Trumpsters, it's so entertaining to see you crumble the further your demigod swirls down the toilet bowl!


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> And you think that republicans are the racists


Reaper. Buddy. C'mon. Don't act like Republicans aren't racist just because there are mindless Hillbots who don't realize that Democrats have racist policies. If you want to be nuanced about it, Republicans are much more racist than Democrats. They're the party that has been using the Southern Strategy since Nixon. The reason Democrats are "racist" is more because that's what serves the interests of their masters in the donor class. Republicans are racist just for the sake of being racist. Democrats do it for the money.

Which is worse, being racist because of racism or being racist because of greed, is an entirely different debate.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Reaper. Buddy. C'mon. Don't act like Republicans aren't racist just because there are mindless Hillbots who don't realize that Democrats have racist policies. If you want to be nuanced about it, Republicans are much more racist than Democrats. They're the party that has been using the Southern Strategy since Nixon. The reason Democrats are "racist" is more because that's what serves the interests of their masters in the donor class. Republicans are racist just for the sake of being racist. Democrats do it for the money.
> 
> Which is worse, being racist because of racism or being racist because of greed, is an entirely different debate.


The racist republican myth has been debunked a thousand times over. I really think it's about time you decided that you want to change your mind about that and do some research for yourself.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Reaper. Buddy. C'mon. Don't act like Republicans aren't racist just because there are mindless Hillbots who don't realize that Democrats have racist policies. If you want to be nuanced about it, Republicans are much more racist than Democrats. They're the party that has been using the Southern Strategy since Nixon. The reason Democrats are "racist" is more because that's what serves the interests of their masters in the donor class. Republicans are racist just for the sake of being racist. Democrats do it for the money.
> 
> Which is worse, being racist because of racism or being racist because of greed, is an entirely different debate.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> The racist republican myth has been debunked a thousand times over. I really think it's about time you decided that you want to change your mind about that and do some research for yourself.


Dude. I was born in raised in Alabama. I come from the heart of racist Republican country. My entire family is full of racist Republicans. I've got over 3 decades of experience dealing with racist Republicans. You know how you say people should listen to you about Islam because you're an ex-Muslim? This is the same concept. Proving that Republicans are racist is about as easy as proving that water is wet. It should fall under the category of common knowledge that doesn't need explaining. 



Miss Sally said:


>


I have no idea who this is but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's probably a good thing. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Dude. I was born in raised in Alabama. I come from the heart of racist Republican country. My entire family is full of racist Republicans. I've got over 3 decades of experience dealing with racist Republicans. You know how you say people should listen to you about Islam because you're an ex-Muslim? This is the same concept. Proving that Republicans are racist is about as easy as proving that water is wet. It should fall under the category of common knowledge that doesn't need explaining.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea who this is but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's probably a good thing. :lol


You're trying to insinuate Democrats are less racist than Republicans because what they do is based on monetary gain, you even use "racist" in quotations as if it is possible it's not true. Democrats are one side to the same coin, this election cycle has proven this, their entire inner workings are corrupt and racist to the core. Probably have been since they begun pandering to nonwhites and yet doing little to actually help them. 

I'll retort with my own question to you, you asked which is worse racism based on racism or racism based on gains of some sort. My question to that which is worse, racism based on ignorance or racism that's kept hidden and only pushed through various agendas and failing to make good on promises because you have no intention to help them? 

I get what you're saying because people act like La Raza is a mexican tea party of joy, oh boy is not! I have to admit though I laughed a little.. you grew up with terrible Republicans and then became Democrat and realized they're the same thing and ran by the same people. Trust me I was there! I voted for Obama! Democrats aren't any less evil than Republicans, they just do a better job at deflecting and covering up their racist bullshit. :grin2:

Welcome to the American political system Tater, you're going to be spit fucked either way!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

LOL at anyone claiming republicans are not way more racist than democrats. The GOP stands for racism, sexism and bigotry. Trump is the embodiment of that. He is saying everything out loud what the GOP has said in coded words for decades. 


And of course there are some racist democrats and some nonracist republicans but those are the outliers. 

Hell just listen to the shit Trump supporters are saying. Trump has made it ok for republicans to say their bigotry out loud again because that is what he has been doing.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> LOL at anyone claiming republicans are not way more racist than democrats. The GOP stands for racism, sexism and bigotry. Trump is the embodiment of that. He is saying everything out loud what the GOP has said in coded words for decades.
> 
> 
> And of course there are some racist democrats and some nonracist republicans but those are the outliers.
> 
> Hell just listen to the shit Trump supporters are saying. Trump has made it ok for republicans to say their bigotry out loud again because that is what he has been doing.


They're as racist, stop being a delusional follower because what you thought you knew, isn't true and your party was wallowing in the same shit. They give zero fucks about nonwhites and you know it. It's all for votes, both parties have a gimmick and that's all it is. How far would Democrats get without pandering to the nonwhites? Not very. It's simply a means to an end. The Democrats have been just as vile and violent and outright amoral with their rhetoric.

Thanks to this election and the hacks, no longer can they claim to care! Oh but to the real believers it doesn't matter, something is always "worse". Politics may as well be the new Religion to the masses. The Democrats stand for lies, back room racism and hatred and war. Some "good guys"! With good guys like this, who needs bad guys? Time for more war for profit, riding idiotic narratives and acting like they give a fuck. 

[email protected] some racist dems and some nonracist republican, jesus way to try and lessen how bad the party is. "Oh I admit there are "some" racist Dems but but all of the Republicans are racists.. well not some but most!!!" Good fucking God you are such a homer, still trying to excuse everything. You're like the man who finds out his wife is cheating, has photographic evidence and still doesn't believe the truth. Wake up. 

But sure, let's play pretend!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> They're as racist, stop being a delusional follower because what you thought you knew, isn't true and your party was wallowing in the same shit. They give zero fucks about nonwhites and you know it. It's all for votes, both parties have a gimmick and that's all it is. How far would Democrats get without pandering to the nonwhites? Not very. It's simply a means to an end. The Democrats have been just as vile and violent and outright amoral with their rhetoric.
> 
> Thanks to this election and the hacks, no longer can they claim to care! Oh but to the real believers it doesn't matter, something is always "worse". Politics may as well be the new Religion to the masses. The Democrats stand for lies, back room racism and hatred and war. Some "good guys"! With good guys like this, who needs bad guys? Time for more war for profit, riding idiotic narratives and acting like they give a fuck.
> 
> [email protected] some racist dems and some nonracist republican, jesus way to try and lessen how bad the party is. "Oh I admit there are "some" racist Dems but but all of the Republicans are racists.. well not some but most!!!" Good fucking God you are such a homer, still trying to excuse everything. You're like the man who finds out his wife is cheating, has photographic evidence and still doesn't believe the truth. Wake up.
> But sure, let's play pretend!


You are the one playing pretend lol. But whatever makes you sleep at night. Keep defending the racist GOP party. 

And democrats and republicans are more than just the people in congress, its also well you know the VOTERS and the REP voters are way more racist than the DEM voters. The racist right has been in full voice and super vocal this election cycle. But I bet you will ignore all of that and pretend its not racism or bigotry.

As for your LOL at admitting there are some racist dem and some non racist rep fo course there are and I am going to point that out some people like Carte Blanche cant play their little semantic game when they find a few dem being racist or a few rep not being racist.

not sure how I am trying to excuse everything when I am just admitting the facts. That sure there are some racist in the GNC party and there are some people in the RNC who are not racist.

You just cant admit the truth about the GOP and that is fine. You are only lying to yourself.

Are you really going to deny there are more racist/bigots on the right than there are on the left?


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Well trying to explain the value of free speech and the expansions of related freedoms [and not see them shrink] to someone who doesn't appreciate their intrinsic value would be like trying to explain the beauty of a sunset to a blind man so I guess we can end our discussion here.


Right, okay :lol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Dude. I was born in raised in Alabama. I come from the heart of racist Republican country. My entire family is full of racist Republicans. I've got over 3 decades of experience dealing with racist Republicans. You know how you say people should listen to you about Islam because you're an ex-Muslim? This is the same concept. Proving that Republicans are racist is about as easy as proving that water is wet. It should fall under the category of common knowledge that doesn't need explaining.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea who this is but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's probably a good thing.


No. The party and their policies. Prove that the Republican Party is racist by showing me the racist policies have they passed or enacted in the last 50 years.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/trump-feminine-speaking-style-214391

What a troll bait article. :lmao


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Anyone mind giving me some info on how Shillary is managing to avoid total destruction over all the recent leaks? Genuine question here from someone who hates both candidates. From the recent leaks I would've assumed despite Drumpf's sexual assault/"locker room talk" scandal that he'd have still been in the running (because damn, that woman's corrupt to the core) but everywhere I look seems to have it as a dead cert that Shillary's got it?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Let's also talk about racist repubs vs racist democrats. This pervasive myth that most republicans are racist while some democrats are racist - specifically. 

Here are some stats from 2010: 










What? There were more democrats than republicans all the way up to 2008 when the paths finally crossed? Oh, and look ... The dems changed their attitude depending on the candidate. This is more an indicator of not reduction in racist attitudes, but rather an indicator of party loyalty :shrug 










Oh look. The lines are so close together that you'd almost think they're one and the same. Gee, what happened in 2010 though? Looks like there were more democrats that were more racist than republicans? 

But again, this isn't shaping up to be most republicans and some democrats either. Gee, I wonder if facts lie? 










Another line barely trailing the other by a few percentage points. Still not seeing most republicans as racist and *some* democrats as racist. 










And yet another where the biggest gap between the two parties was only around 10% points. Look at that spike in the democrat line during Obama running for president though. It almost looks like the dems didn't think their president was going to be hard-working enough! 










Still not seeing "most" republicans are racist and only "some" democrats are racist. 










Wow. These lovely non-racist democrats don't wanna live in the poor black neighborhoods as much as republicans don't! They're as racist as their republican counterparts! 










Tsk Tsk Tsk. The narrative of "most" vs "some" is really taking a beating here, isn't it? 










Of course, democrats are socialists so they'll think that not enough money is being spent overall. Not sure if it's really applicable to just race here. 










Hardly off by a few percentage points again. 

Sorry, but this bullshit idea that white republicans are *mostly *racist while only *some *white democrats are racist is steeped in baseless assumptions and myths.

Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-white-republicans-more-racist-than-white-democrats/


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

"HE'S TRYING TO SEND US BACK TO AFRICA... or something"

:lmao


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So one of the more well informed voters.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I just want to say, self reported attitudes are different than attitudes in itself.



RavishingRickRules said:


> Anyone mind giving me some info on how Shillary is managing to avoid total destruction over all the recent leaks? Genuine question here from someone who hates both candidates. From the recent leaks I would've assumed despite Drumpf's sexual assault/"locker room talk" scandal that he'd have still been in the running (because damn, that woman's corrupt to the core) but everywhere I look seems to have it as a dead cert that Shillary's got it?


In reality no scandal affected each candidate, the pussy-tape didn't affect Trump either, the game changer was the first debate and the awfulness of Trump campaign structure, organization and surrogates/people in charge. 

As far as why none scandal afftected the campaigns. Two factors in play:

- Polarization, America is polarized to levels in which people are so stablished in their opinions, most things are unable to change those. One of the most recognized effects of group dependance is precisely the creation of rationales in which people see outsiders as enemies and find rationalizations to defend his afiliation with his groups as a result of it in most cases.

- Scandals just reinforced the percived image of both candidates. Hillary image of corruptness/hypocresy has been smashed and emphasized so much that people see this e-mail, leaks and so on as a part of the rutine, so their effect is basically null in her image. To break group thinking you would have to find evidence of something really bad like a murder or Hillary being racist to really backtrack her image to what Trump is percived to be today. Still Clinton is going to be one of the first presidents to enter the white House with an unfavorable rating which could be crucial in the level of opossition she is gonna get on her policies
Trump on the contrary was already saw as a sexist, which allows the tape to not have effect either.

What you're seeing as a "big" defficit is mainly:

- The awfulness on Trump operations to do a field game which is reflected in early voting, which is more highlighted in comparison with Clinton operations.
- The impossibility of Trump to stay in message, which is a high contra in conservative moderate circles. This reinforce the idea of Trump being " a celebrity with no real policies" which explain why his popularity is decreasing among republicans since the first debate
- His rigged message is reducing republican turnout outside of his rabid base.

Clinton just need to maintain the Obama support and she is set. Trump today is in Dukakis/Mondale/Goldwater levels of support while Clinton is just keeping the Obama coalition at similar levels.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> I just want to say, self reported attitudes are different than attitudes in itself.
> 
> 
> 
> In reality no scandal affected each candidate, the pussy-tape didn't affect Trump either, the game changer was the first debate and the awfulness of Trump campaign structure, organization and surrogates/people in charge.
> 
> As far as why none scandal afftected the campaigns. Two factors in play:
> 
> - Polarization, America is polarized to levels in which people are so stablished in their opinions, most things are unable to change those. One of the most recognized effects of group dependance is precisely the creation of rationales in which people see outsiders as enemies and find rationalizations to defend his afiliation with his groups as a result of it in most cases.
> 
> - Hillary image of corruptness/hypocresy has been smashed and emphasized so much that people see this e-mail, leaks and so on as a part of the rutine, so their effect is basically null in her image. To break group thinking you would have to find evidence of something really bad like a murder or Hillary being racist to really backtrack her image to what Trump is percived to be today. Still Clinton is going to be one of the first presidents to enter the white House with an unfavorable rating which could be crucial in the level of opossition she is gonna get on her policies
> 
> - Trump on the contrary was already saw as a sexist, which allows the tape to not have effect either.
> 
> What you're seeing as a "big" defficit is mainly:
> 
> - The awfulness on Trump operations to do a field game which is reflected in early voting, which is more highlighted in comparison with Clinton operations.
> - The impossibility of Trump to stay in message, which is a high contra in conservative moderate circles. This reinforce the idea of Trump being " a celebrity with no real policies" which explain why his popularity is decreasing among republicans since the first debate
> - His rigged message is reducing republican turnout outside of his rabid base.
> 
> Clinton just need to maintain the Obama support and she is set


Makes sense I guess, thanks for the info. Despite the "scandals" on both sides hitting the press out here, it's much harder to get an idea of how they're really affecting the general US populace - generally US residents seem to be in one camp or the other just attacking either side like rabid dogs. I just found it odd that the corruption didn't instantly lose her a lot of support (scandals like that over here would have a pretty big effect on a person's popularity) so thanks for explaining that.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Have to agree with asdf, the first debate was the game changer on the scandals. For a while Trump was sounding Presidential but old habits die hard and after 40 minutes of the first debate he was baited into really stupid nonsense. He also missed out on several key opportunities to zap her on the email scandal. She had said "I made a mistake", now what is important about that is that she had been denying for so long that she pretty much admitted wrong doing, huge, huge missed opportunity right there to bury her.

That and not using his rabid fanbase, he has a good amount of fans yet he didn't use them to up his ground game nor use them to outreach to communities. That right there was another mistake, while paid "leftist" protesters were inciting violence he could have used his base to show his base wasn't the bad guys. This would have demoralized many of the Democrat voters and pretty much gagged the "leftist" comedic talking heads. 

Just overall so many chances missed, it's like two people fighting, one is on the ropes but rather than going for the knock out blow the other just goes into a slugging match and they both just tire themselves out. Trump wasn't playing to win with many of his silly moves.

@Tater you don't want to know who she is, when you mentioned racism I was laughing thinking about her. Just thought you'd get a kick out of it!


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I have to admit the whole vilifying of left-leaning people is a bit odd to me. I get the whole anti-communist thing in America because of Russia/USSR, it's just odd because here we're far more wary of the far-right because of the Nazis in WW2. Generally speaking, in the UK the right are seen as the representatives of the rich, wealthy and powerful (obviously we have actual "nobility" and landed gentry which may be a factor) and the left are those more concerned with the vulnerable, poor and working class part of society. Though I'm fairly centrist in my views I'm far more inclined to vote for a progressive candidate than a conservative one over here, "conservatism" in the UK means "keep the poor downtrodden so the rich can get wealthy" which is what we've had since our last general election, to the point our government has even been investigated by the UN for Human Rights violations after the deaths of thousands of vulnerable disabled people. Interesting how historical "enemies" have so much of an influence over the way a people views it's politicians I guess.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

just to highlight the awful structure argument










Any campaign spending more in souvenirs than in field operations is doomed. And if you spend more in Hats than in polling you're an idiot.
(Without saying that the spending in general is particularly low)


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> just to highlight the awful structure argument
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any campaign spending more in souvenirs than in field operations is doomed. And if you spend more in Hats than in polling you're and idiot.
> (Without saying that the spending in general is particularly low)


Ouch, imagine being a big time donor and seeing that list? I'd be crazy angry if I donated to a campaign and saw that many millions spent on hats...


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

fpalm The nazis are misconstrued as right-wing. 

The Nazis are the logical conclusion to the farthest left authoritarian a party can possibly get because extreme far left authoritarian is the one that says the government controls everything. 










Look at this and fucking tell me where the Nazis would fall.

How can people even claim to be informed voters when they aren't even aware of what their own leanings entail. 

Social liberty left is left-libertarianism. None of the parties in the USA or generally anywhere in the world now are non-authoritarian. Make sure you know this because every single party you vote for is now some form of an authoritarian state - whether it's on the right or the left. The farther left you get i.e. towards socialism, the closer you get to the Nazis - not liberators. The socialist left is still closer to the Nazi's than the free-market right. 

If you want to support social liberty, you need to become aware of inherent problems with voting for a party that claims itself to be left, but still has totalitarian elements - which almost none of the parties do anywhere because it's self-defeating to be for small government. Even the Repubs suffer from this, but they are still not as authoritarian as the current democratic party.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> fpalm The nazis are misconstrued as right-wing.
> 
> The Nazis are the logical conclusion to the farthest left authoritarian a party can possibly get because extreme far left authoritarian is the one that says the government controls everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at this and fucking tell me where the Nazis would fall.


Sorry, I'm going to take the 70+ years of political experts calling the Nazi party a far-right party, along with all of the self proclaimed "far right" members who worship Hitler and all that he stood for over some random person on the net with no credentials that I know of. Seriously, did you even think before you wrote that? The vast majority of "nationalist" organisations are considered "far right" and even self-define as "far right" and you choose that to try and start some misplaced argument with me? Really though? Look up literally ANYTHING about the Nazi party and see where the actual experts are putting them on the political spectrum, I'm not about to argue with someone over their definition of something for using the almost globally accepted label of that evil mess of nationalists. For real, you need to take a step back and realise how loony you're coming across right now.

edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

I don't even care if it's Wikipedia, do some fucking reading and stop trying to talk down to people on shit you evidently know next to nothing about. "Far-right" is 100% the category that the Nazi's fit into, if you try to deny that, all you're doing is showing how little you know about politics. Stop trying to act superior with shit like this, you're making yourself look utterly foolish.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

is partially a joke, but it describes pretty well every spectrum in that test anyways.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Sorry, I'm going to take the 70+ years of political experts calling the Nazi party a far-right party, along with all of the self proclaimed "far right" members who worship Hitler and all that he stood for over some random person on the net with no credentials that I know of. Seriously, did you even think before you wrote that? The vast majority of "nationalist" organisations are considered "far right" and even self-define as "far right" and you choose that to try and start some misplaced argument with me? Really though? Look up literally ANYTHING about the Nazi party and see where the actual experts are putting them on the political spectrum, I'm not about to argue with someone over their definition of something for using the almost globally accepted label of that evil mess of nationalists. For real, you need to take a step back and realise how loony you're coming across right now.


Being socially conservative did not make them a right wing party. Social conservatism is only but a small part of what they were all about. When it comes to their ideologies around government, they were socialist. 

- They owned the majority of industries or wanted to own everything (this was considered left wing socialism at the time). 
- They were pro-mandated taxation (left-wing authoritarian) . 
- They were absolutely anti-private property. (usurping Jews' property and claiming it as their own, this whether you like it or not, is essentially another form of taxation for redsitribution of wealth to germans. Taking someone's private property as a state is a left-wing ideology, not right). 
- They were pro-redistribution of wealth (left-wing socialism / social welfare stateism). 
- They were pro-welfare for the elderly (more left-wing social welfare). 
- They were anti-free market capitalists (they had government controlled capitalism which is exactly what the left-wing Democratic party and its supporters want today)
- And they were pro-government control (this is central but authoritarian). 

Mostly, the Nazis were more on the left than they were on the right. 

Congratulations on being duped.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

That graph is approaching right/left from a strict ideological standpoint, by which yeah, big government is on the left.

But from a socio-political standpoint, Nazis were obviously way the fuck over on the right.



RavishingRickRules said:


> I have to admit the whole vilifying of left-leaning people is a bit odd to me. I get the whole anti-communist thing in America because of Russia/USSR, it's just odd because here we're far more wary of the far-right because of the Nazis in WW2. Generally speaking, in the UK the right are seen as the representatives of the rich, wealthy and powerful (obviously we have actual "nobility" and landed gentry which may be a factor) and the left are those more concerned with the vulnerable, poor and working class part of society. Though I'm fairly centrist in my views I'm far more inclined to vote for a progressive candidate than a conservative one over here, "conservatism" in the UK means "keep the poor downtrodden so the rich can get wealthy" which is what we've had since our last general election, to the point our government has even been investigated by the UN for Human Rights violations after the deaths of thousands of vulnerable disabled people. Interesting how historical "enemies" have so much of an influence over the way a people views it's politicians I guess.


That's more or less how it used to be. It's become a weird mish-mosh over the past decade for a variety of reasons. At this stage, I'd say that political leanings almost tend to be defined more by social views than anything to do with spending or government size.
@DesolationRow could probably explain how we arrived here better than I could.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Politics are like a horseshoe, extremists on opposite sides closer than with groups near the center

Outside of economics Hitler and Stalin had very similar positions


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Being socially conservative did not make them a right wing party. Social conservatism is only but a small part of what they were all about. When it comes to their ideologies around government, they were socialist.
> 
> - They owned the majority of industries or wanted to own everything (this was considered left wing socialism at the time).
> - They were pro-mandated taxation (left-wing authoritarian) .
> - They were absolutely anti-private property. (usurping Jews' property and claiming it as their own, this whether you like it or not, is essentially another form of taxation for redsitribution of wealth to germans. Taking someone's private property as a state is a left-wing ideology, not right).
> - They were pro-redistribution of wealth (left-wing socialism / social welfare stateism).
> - They were pro-welfare for the elderly (more left-wing social welfare).
> - They were anti-free market capitalists (they had government controlled capitalism which is exactly what the left-wing Democratic party and its supporters want today)
> - And they were pro-government control (this is central but authoritarian).
> 
> Mostly, the Nazis were more on the left than they were on the right.
> 
> Congratulations on being duped.


It's amazing that you missed the "I'm not going to get into an argument with you over the globally accepted label." Evidently you're so wrapped up in your own ego that you think you can discount all of the ACTUAL political experts who label them a "far-right extremist" party. As I said, I'm not getting into an argument with you over this, I'm going to continue to use the label everybody else in the world uses, you can continue to think you're superior to everyone else whilst looking like a fool. Everybody wins.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

i'm a unicorn.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RavishingRickRules said:


> It's amazing that you missed the "I'm not going to get into an argument with you over the globally accepted label." Evidently you're so wrapped up in your own ego that you think you can discount all of the ACTUAL political experts who label them a "far-right extremist" party. As I said, I'm not getting into an argument with you over this, I'm going to continue to use the label everybody else in the world uses, you can continue to think you're superior to everyone else whilst looking like a fool. Everybody wins.


5 billion people in the world believe in a god therefore god exists.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> - They owned the majority of industries or wanted to own everything (this was considered left wing socialism at the time). - They were pro-mandated taxation (left-wing authoritarian) .
> - They were absolutely anti-private property. (usurping Jews' property and claiming it as their own, this whether you like it or not, is essentially another form of taxation for redsitribution of wealth to germans. Taking someone's private property as a state is a left-wing ideology, not right).
> - They were pro-redistribution of wealth (left-wing socialism / social welfare stateism).
> - They were pro-welfare for the elderly (more left-wing social welfare).
> - They were anti-free market capitalists (they had government controlled capitalism which is exactly what the left-wing Democratic party and its supporters want today)
> - And they were pro-government control (this is central but authoritarian).
> 
> Mostly, the Nazis were more on the left than they were on the right.
> 
> Congratulations on being duped.




Not entirely true.

Public spending and companies aswell as banks were transfered to private domain. Yeah, gubernamental programs grow under Nazism, but they did because the majority of those entreprises were related to army industries or basic material to reinforce armamentist policies. The biggest business in Germany, which were all public, were all privatized aswell prior to the war

Taxation was reduced on small busineses and across the board, more of the increment on spending was produced because the private banks were producing loans for it. The increment in material and technological production created an economic boom which propeled spending aswell and allowed germn influence to trade at disproportiontaed rates with the balcans.

Also, socialism believe in a sociliazed property not in a statist one, meaning a combined ownership of the private property from the workers. The real tradition on german nazis in private property is completely messed up because Hitler believed in a personal and heterdox version of "Socialism", they destroyed sindicats and unions aswell which goes against every believe of socialism.

Finally, Pro elderly Wlefare and distribution of Wealth are not necessarily left wing policies if you can identify the goal. For example life salary is a centrist policy. Nazism is an authoritarian centrist policy leaning to the right


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> 5 billion people in the world believe in a god therefore god exists.


You really can't let it go can you? What are your credentials as a political academic? Mind showing us a picture of your degree? Doctorate? Or are you in fact just somebody who thinks he knows everything and likes to talk down to people? For someone who claims to be so intelligent you really seem to struggle with "I am not going to get into an argument with you about this." Either pony up some credentials or realise you don't know jack compared to those who have them, I'm going to take their word over yours every single day of the week. I don't know how to make it clearer to you. Based on the supposed "knowledge" you've been posting, you don't appear to know what the fuck you're talking about, ie your opinion is invalid to my mind. I believe you're the same person who tried to lecture me, someone who actually lives in the UK and travels throughout the EU for work about Europe when you almost certainly have never even been there. The same person who's an "expert" on Islam because he was an ex-muslim but can't seem to realise he's so wrong about Europe that the majority of Europeans would laugh if they read most of his claims. You're not some towering intellect, you're barely even credible on a fucking WRESTLING forum. Take that in and leave me the fuck alone you weird little man.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

For anyone that actually cares to read. 



> *Why are Nazis considered to be right wing parties?*
> 
> Many of their political views seem more socialist than typical right wing.
> 
> This is an excellent question, most people seem to have a problem with correctly understanding the definitions of Left and Right. Part of the problem is that political ideology is not one dimensional - it's at least two dimensional. Later more to that.
> 
> The political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General: those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime (Monarchy).
> 
> *In other words back then the definition was:*
> 
> 
> *Left: Against the government aka monarchy (more freedom and equality for the people)*
> *Right: For the government aka monarchy (conservative = everything should stay as it is)*
> 
> Why did I write back then? ... Well actually it depends which part you are looking at, if the government part it is pretty much the opposite today:
> 
> 
> Left: Want more government (but still: more freedom and equality)
> Right: Want less government (but still: conservative = everything should stay as it is)
> 
> *So what did change?*
> Earlier the government was seen as a tool for oppressing people, today we see it reversed and (think we) need the government as the tool to grant us freedom.
> 
> *In short: left means more government (more regulations) and right means less government (less regulations)*
> 
> 
> 
> Let's go into details:
> There is one major problem with this definition. What is meant with freedom? Freedom of the people or freedom of the markets? Unfortunately the words are not used unique and therefore one never can really know, what the countpart means with Left or Right. Some mean with lefties, people acquiring a free market and others mean people acquiring a welfare state and others again mean acquiring an authoritarian state (= strong government and lots of regulations).
> 
> 
> What is usually understood under 'Left' and what it really should be called:
> *Collectivism*, fights for: strong government; social equality
> 
> What is usually understood under 'Right' and what it really should be called:
> *Neoliberalism*, fights for: economic liberalization / privatization and conservatism / reactionarism; social hierarchy
> 
> 
> So let us make it very easy and differ it this way (I call it PSE-Model):
> Politically left/right = much government/less government
> Socially left/right = much social security/less social security
> Economically left/right = controlled market/free market
> 
> 
> Since a 3-D model is a bit over the top i castrate it to a 2-D model which fits for most explanations (besides extremes):
> 
> 
> *Social scale left => authoritarian state - a lot is controlled by government* (authoritarian government but often liberal about society and a welfare state (strong gov. grants equality))
> *Social scale right => libertarian state 'subsidiarity' - everyone for oneself* (liberal government but often conservative about society (since there is no strong gov. which could grant equality))
> 
> 
> *Economic scale left => controlled market*
> *Economic scale right => free market*
> _Whereas left always = strong government and right = weak government._
> 
> 
> 
> This 2-dimensional system in a graphic:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are also dozens other models trying to solve the left/right problem (see Political spectrum for details).
> 
> Here is another one. The typical "Right Wing" and "Left Wing" are NOT correlated with either fascism or communism, since the 4 of them occupy separate sides of the square.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Now let's look where Hitler belongs to:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _from __The Political Compass__ (this graphic is not completely identical with my model above)_
> 
> 
> The chart makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy). The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing.
> 
> Authoritarianism is not necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region.
> 
> 
> Hitler changed his ideas over time, and had to give up his free market (in Germany) idea_ [economically slightly right]_ during WW II _[and became economically left]_ even though he was a strong anti-communist _[economically right]_.
> ==> All in all I would say he was first economically slightly right then left.
> 
> He built some kind of a totalitarian state _[completely left]_ which was highly authoritarian aka fascistic _[socially left]_ and was national socialistic (welfare state but only for Germans) [national socially left] but was on the other hand conservative and anti-liberal about society _[socially right]_
> ==> He was (national-) socially left. But not that kind of socially left we normally have.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, since Left and Right are not clearly defined, and pretty everything between radical left and radical right would anyhow fit to Hitler, I wouldn't use these words. To describe Hitler I would say:
> He built a totalitarian state which was highly authoritarian aka fascistic with a keynesian economic system.
> Hitler changed his ideas over time, and had to give up his free national market idea but still was a strong anti-communist.
> 
> National socialism = socialism but only for ones own nation (goes against the true definition of socialism, but we talk about a infamous mass slaughterer ... not an economist)
> 
> 
> Now we have seen Nazis were not really right, but why does everyone say that?
> Remember how Nazis came to power: Dolchstosslegende - the communist Jew was the devil in person. What was the ideology farthest away from this? - A social-democratic Right (today we would rather say a national conservative Right). - They defined themselves that way to be a counter part to the so called Jewish communism, and neo Nazis still continue to consider themselves far right today. Media does what they always do and copy paste - Voilà, most without a degree in political science think: nazism = being far right.
> 
> 
> _[Personal opinion]_
> 
> *My own interpretation:*
> But where is Hitler in the PSE-Model? I Quote myself:Politically left/right = much government/less government
> Socially left/right = much social security/less social security
> Economically left/right = controlled market/free market​Let's see:
> politically very left (loooots of government)
> socially pretty left* (hello, this guy ruled the first anti-smoke campaign, KDF etc.)
> economically first right than left
> 
> *But wait... there was something. Ah yes, he was only socially left to his own people, to his own nation - he was therefore a national socialist. But since he killed a few million others, who belonged to Germany (not according to him) he was very far right - not that far, even further!
> 
> Conclusion: He was socially so much right, the rest doesn't matter: He was an extreme right. But please remember this is only my own interpretation, it is still pretty wrong to say Hitler was Right. So the next time someone says *"Hitler was right"* just answer: *"No, he was wrong!"*
> 
> _[_*/*_Personal opinion]_
> 
> 
> 
> *Also keep in mind; Everyone can use these words, if they fit or not. Yes 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea' I am looking at you...*
> 
> *I finish with a quote:*
> "Today our left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this is the policy of traitors [...] But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It was through their miserable cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were able to rob the nation of its arms."​-Adolf Hitler. _Mein Kampf_. Bottom of the Hill Publishing, 2010. p. 287.​Update:
> Made small changes to make it clearer (I hope) thanks to questions in the comments. I worked a few hours at this text in total, I know it is not perfect, but the best I can offer you atm. I personally would prefer a 3-D model as written above (PSE-Model), but I have only seen 2-D models in political science so far (yes I know, it is already difficult enough). Feel free to comment.


You can conclude whatever you want after this. Based on this article, I concluded that they are indeed more of a left-wing party than a right-wing party. But if you want to conclude something else, or still cling to whatever you want to believe based on whatever you've been indoctrinated into believing go ahead. 

I'd prefer actual debate and discussion. 

Like I've pointed out many times, I'm not averse to changing my mind if I'm given a stronger argument, because I consider changing my mind the same as changing a dirty diaper. I don't like to carry shit around in my head as much as some of you seem to like doing :shrug


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Goku said:


> i'm a unicorn.


ugh, word-thinker.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










- Vic


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> You're trying to insinuate Democrats are less racist than Republicans because what they do is based on monetary gain, you even use "racist" in quotations as if it is possible it's not true. Democrats are one side to the same coin, this election cycle has proven this, their entire inner workings are corrupt and racist to the core. Probably have been since they begun pandering to nonwhites and yet doing little to actually help them.


Which party is more racist depends on your point of view. I'd just call it different forms of racism.



Miss Sally said:


> I'll retort with my own question to you, you asked which is worse racism based on racism or racism based on gains of some sort. My question to that which is worse, racism based on ignorance or racism that's kept hidden and only pushed through various agendas and failing to make good on promises because you have no intention to help them?


I'd say those who know better but commit evil anyways are worse than the ones who are evil due to ignorance.



Miss Sally said:


> I get what you're saying because people act like La Raza is a mexican tea party of joy, oh boy is not! I have to admit though I laughed a little.. you grew up with terrible Republicans and then became Democrat and realized they're the same thing and ran by the same people. Trust me I was there! I voted for Obama! Democrats aren't any less evil than Republicans, they just do a better job at deflecting and covering up their racist bullshit. :grin2:
> 
> Welcome to the American political system Tater, you're going to be spit fucked either way!


To be clear, I *never* became a Democrat. I went straight from being raised a conservative Christian Republican child to a fuck the authoritarian government adult. ositivity



Carte Blanche said:


> No. The party and their policies. Prove that the Republican Party is racist by showing me the racist policies have they passed or enacted in the last 50 years.


You looking at Republican policies of the past 50 years and not seeing racism is a level of delusion that I cannot help you with. I simply do not have the patience to explain to a creationist that the planet is billions of years old. You either accept the overwhelming evidence or you don't. Sorry, buddy. You're either going to have to figure out this one on your own or someone else is going to have to explain it to you. I'm not touching this one.

uttahere



RavishingRickRules said:


> I have to admit the whole vilifying of left-leaning people is a bit odd to me. I get the whole anti-communist thing in America because of Russia/USSR, it's just odd because here we're far more wary of the far-right because of the Nazis in WW2. Generally speaking, in the UK *the right are seen as the representatives of the rich, wealthy and powerful* (obviously we have actual "nobility" and landed gentry which may be a factor) and *the left are those more concerned with the vulnerable, poor and working class part of society.* Though I'm fairly centrist in my views I'm far more inclined to vote for a progressive candidate than a conservative one over here, "conservatism" in the UK means "keep the poor downtrodden so the rich can get wealthy" which is what we've had since our last general election, to the point our government has even been investigated by the UN for Human Rights violations after the deaths of thousands of vulnerable disabled people. Interesting how historical "enemies" have so much of an influence over the way a people views it's politicians I guess.


Propaganda is a very powerful tool.



RavishingRickRules said:


> You really can't let it go can you? What are your credentials as a political academic? Mind showing us a picture of your degree? Doctorate? Or are you in fact just somebody who thinks he knows everything and likes to talk down to people? For someone who claims to be so intelligent you really seem to struggle with "I am not going to get into an argument with you about this." Either pony up some credentials or realise you don't know jack compared to those who have them, I'm going to take their word over yours every single day of the week. I don't know how to make it clearer to you. Based on the supposed "knowledge" you've been posting, you don't appear to know what the fuck you're talking about, ie your opinion is invalid to my mind. I believe you're the same person who tried to lecture me, someone who actually lives in the UK and travels throughout the EU for work about Europe when you almost certainly have never even been there. The same person who's an "expert" on Islam because he was an ex-muslim but can't seem to realise he's so wrong about Europe that the majority of Europeans would laugh if they read most of his claims. You're not some towering intellect, you're barely even credible on a fucking WRESTLING forum. Take that in and leave me the fuck alone you weird little man.


:LOL

ETA:










Gotten to.

:StephenA6


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Gotten to.
> 
> :StephenA6


Tater, I thought you were better than this because you sent me info on election rigging and I changed my mind. So I ask you for evidence here and you call me a creationist. 

I negged you because asking someone for evidence knowing that they're willing to provide it, should not result in ridicule. 

And the next time you pull this shit, I'll neg you again. This isn't about being gotten to at all. This is about you not upholding the standards you and I set for our conversations on various subjects.

Also, before joining in with someone else's logical fallacy based ridicule (the same person who's actually a denier of evidence of cultural degredation in parts of europe), why don't you read the case I posted about the possible left-wing leanings of the Nazis? It really just seems like willful ignorance at this point to not even want to read the case that's been presented.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Also, before joining in with someone else's logical fallacy based ridicule (the same person who's actually a denier of evidence of cultural degredation in parts of europe), why don't you read the case I posted about the possible left-wing leanings of the Nazis? It really just seems like willful ignorance at this point to not even want to read the case that's been presented.


Really now? When's the last time you came to Europe? Or are you just parroting bullshit you read in your right-wing press and thinking that makes you more of an expert than someone who travels to Germany and France probably more than you leave the state you live in? You like to throw around absolute nonsense about the state of things in the EU, have you ever actually been here? Have you ever sat in a German pub and spoken to real German people? You like to use the argument of how people should listen to you over Islam because you're an "Ex Muslim" but you can't see that you might not know very much about Europe and the UK compared to someone who spends almost all of their time there? What evidence? Shit you see in the US press? (very reliable LOL) Because you read on a website somewhere that Europe is overrun with immigrants and we're all terrified of them and let them do whatever they want? You like to act like other people "don't have their own mind" but you're literally just sat on your keyboard parroting the bullshit that's spread around by the FAR-RIGHT (yes, that's a term for all the nationalist wankers, especially here in the UK) and taking that on blind faith. You defend Trump so hard it's like you've been brainwashed by the guy, care to defend his allegation that "there are parts of the UK that even the police are scared to go to because of the Muslims?" (100% untrue, there's nowhere in the UK the police aren't scared to go, for any reason.) There's no such thing as a "no go zone" in the UK, just ignorant people who are scared to go into neighbourhoods where there are more brown faces than white. The rest of us can casually go wherever we like with no problems, I wonder how that is? Perhaps as an "ex-Muslim" you can explain this to me - do these scary Muslims only consider it a "no go" if you happen to have bigoted views or sit on the right of the spectrum? Because the rest of us have no issues whatsoever in Muslim dominated communities. Do feel free to lecture me about countries you've probably never been to, people you've barely interacted with (if at all outside of the internet) and "cultures" being degraded when NONE of the people I know in Europe consider them to be so - though I have seen a whole mess of that from people like Pegida, the National Front, Britain First and other FAR-RIGHT/Fascist organisations.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

You can be a rightest and still dislike Nazis

you can be socialist and still dislike Stalin

You can be a Muslim and still dislike ISIS

Being an extremist on more or less anything tends to be negative


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Let's also talk about racist repubs vs racist democrats. This pervasive myth that most republicans are racist while some democrats are racist - specifically.
> 
> Here are some stats from 2010:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? There were more democrats than republicans all the way up to 2008 when the paths finally crossed? Oh, and look ... The dems changed their attitude depending on the candidate. This is more an indicator of not reduction in racist attitudes, but rather an indicator of party loyalty :shrug
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look. The lines are so close together that you'd almost think they're one and the same. Gee, what happened in 2010 though? Looks like there were more democrats that were more racist than republicans?
> 
> But again, this isn't shaping up to be most republicans and some democrats either. Gee, I wonder if facts lie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another line barely trailing the other by a few percentage points. Still not seeing most republicans as racist and *some* democrats as racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet another where the biggest gap between the two parties was only around 10% points. Look at that spike in the democrat line during Obama running for president though. It almost looks like the dems didn't think their president was going to be hard-working enough!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still not seeing "most" republicans are racist and only "some" democrats are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. These lovely non-racist democrats don't wanna live in the poor black neighborhoods as much as republicans don't! They're as racist as their republican counterparts!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tsk Tsk Tsk. The narrative of "most" vs "some" is really taking a beating here, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, democrats are socialists so they'll think that not enough money is being spent overall. Not sure if it's really applicable to just race here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly off by a few percentage points again.
> 
> Sorry, but this bullshit idea that white republicans are *mostly *racist while only *some *white democrats are racist is steeped in baseless assumptions and myths.
> 
> Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-white-republicans-more-racist-than-white-democrats/


This is just a survey and does not give a correct indication of the US.

The General Social Survey is administered by NORC at the University of Chicago, primarily using in-person interviewing. The GSS started in 1972 and completed its 30th round in 2014. The typical sample size was 1,500 prior to 1994, but increased to 2,700-3,000 until 2008, and decreased to 2,000 for the most recent surveys.

yeah like that is going to be accurate. There are surveys that show gun ownership being down in the Us which we all know it's bullshit.

All you have to do is look at this election and all the racist supporting Trump.

Hell go visit the south sometime you know those super red states to see how racist they are.

The survey is not even scientific if they are mostly doing in person surveys in Chicago.

If that verbiage is just from one survey, this survey you posted about is sent out to people nationwide, its still voluntary, and does not get a correct representation of the American people. Its only of the people who answered the survey.

Ignoring all the racism in this election on the right and pretending the right is not more racist than the left just shows how you are lying to yourself. Keep ignoring all the racism shown by the GOP for the past decades. 


Also

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-police-raid-registration-program-in-indiana/

Oh look at that the GOP VP trying to block black voters from registering. Love how Trump and the GOP try to cry the election is rigged when they are the ones rigging it.

OH but the GOP isnt racist right trying to supress the black vote.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

To throw my two cents on the whole Nazi debate that is going on, I'd like to add that I've been saying ad nausea that Authoritarianism isn't defined by left or right. That is the common mistake people continuously seem to make and I'd say that accommodates at least 80% of the general population. Right wingers will claim that left wing views are authoritarian and point to examples of the USSR and Maoist China, left wingers will say that right wing views are authoritarian and use Hitler as an example. Both of them are wrong not in that these regimes weren't authoritarian but the reasons *why* they are.

Authoritarianism is simply the amount of power that the state or any authority is willing to take away from the individual; how much control they want at the expense of individual liberty. That is why Pinochet's Chile is considered an authoritarian state in the same way that current day Venezuela would be seen as authoritarian. Now from my own perspective and I know this isn't widely argued but socialism by it's common values is intrinsically somewhat authoritarian in that it is willing to take away people's private property through coercion in order to redistribute it. Whether this is done to nationalize industries through the state or to redistribute among people makes no matter. Authoritarianism on all facets whether it's through political systems, economic systems or social and civil liberties issues are inherently coercive. Once you have the state or another authority gain control and access of that medium it is a relative form of coercion. Whilst libertarian socialism for example would be very "libertarian" when it comes to it's political system and social/civil liberty issues it is very much the opposite when it comes to economics. But this is an obviously complex relationship because overall you can have left wing economic views and still be for individualism and against authoritarianism on the whole but I do very much see it as a sliding scale. I can already tell some of you reading this will vehemently disagree with me.

One thing though I do hate is how every party or political perspective which either is for controlled immigration, is nationalistic or has a varying degree of racist views are automatically seen as far right. Right wing on the whole if we look at the political compass indicates your economic views and whether you believe in the free market or a planned economy. The vast majority of parties that have been labelled as "FAR RIGHT" have very centrist economic positions. Some are very collectivist from the top down, the majority are at least protectionists and believe in high tariffs and quotas. "far rightists" if we go by purely economic standpoints would be someone like me who largely believes in a free market economy with very few government interventions. The closest you would find out of the so called "far right" parties that you will find to that is UKIP, and even then they turned away from the idea of having a private insurance based healthcare system years ago and are now on board with the NHS like every other party in the UK.

Front National, the BNP, Britain First etc. are not free market based parties and are very much centrists economically. But because they have controlled immigration policies and are deemed as racists (in the latter two's case that's very much true) they are deemed as a far right party, when truly speaking it's only on their immigration and social issues that you could argue that they are right wing to begin with.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> To throw my two cents on the whole Nazi debate that is going on, I'd like to add that I've been saying ad nausea that Authoritarianism isn't defined by left or right. That is the common mistake people continuously seem to make and I'd say that accommodates at least 80% of the general population. Right wingers will claim that left wing views are authoritarian and point to examples of the USSR and Maoist China, left wingers will say that right wing views are authoritarian and use Hitler as an example. Both of them are wrong not in that these regimes weren't authoritarian but the reasons *why* they are.


I can't believe how many posts it took to get to this one.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Damn, this thread veered off completely. Are we still talking about Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton? Well, it has fostered discussion in the thread but it really can be its own thread at the moment. Carry on.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hitler banned the unions, Mussolini put complete control of economy in the hands of the corporations.

Fascists were not left wing, anyone who says otherwise is ignorant of history.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Hitler banned the unions, Mussolini put complete control of economy in the hands of the corporations.
> 
> Fascists were not left wing, anyone who says otherwise is ignorant of history.


To be honest, the person who tried to start an argument with me over simply using the term "far-right" to describe the Nazis seems massively ignorant of a lot of things. (I refused to go into it with him actually)


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Watched 2 live streams of Hillary and Trump on Facebook today. She had 10,000 viewers, he has 59,000 viewers!!!

*#NumbersDontLie*

- Vic


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Watched 2 live streams of Hillary and Trump on Facebook. She had 10,000 viewers, he has 59,000 viewers!!!
> 
> *#NumbersDontLie*
> 
> - Vic


So you think Drumpf's in with a chance then? I asked earlier why everywhere seems to have declared a Shillary win as a foregone conclusion so I'd be interested in your thoughts as to why you think he's in the running still (if you do think that of course.) Again, not a fan of either of them, just had to mention that because I've been bitten too many times with supporters of either side attacking me because they assume I'm on one side or another. I don't have a horse in this race I'm just interested in the spectacle of it all tbh.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> So you think Drumpf's in with a chance then?


Despite saying Hillary was double digits ahead in swing states for weeks and weeks, MSNBC admitted today Trump is leading in Florida right now. They're going into panic mode! :lol

- Vic


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Despite saying Hillary was double digits ahead in swing states for weeks and weeks, MSNBC admitted today Trump is leading in Florida right now. They're going into panic mode! :lol
> 
> - Vic


You'll have to bear with me, I'm a foreigner so your political system isn't my strong suit. Does leading in Florida give him a good chance of winning? I know here that certain areas of the country have more representation in parliament so winning in the South-east of the country is far more important than the majority of other areas. I'm assuming it's something like that?


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

"So then: Democrats have nothing to worry about, right? Nope, we wouldn’t say that, either. The race could easily tighten further. And our forecast gives Trump better odds than most other models because it accounts for the possibility of a systemic polling error, a greater risk than people may assume. A 16 percent chance of a Trump presidency isn’t nothing — as we’ve pointed out before, it’s about the same as the chances of losing a “game” of Russian roulette. And 15 percent is about the same chance we gave the San Antonio Spurs of beating the Golden State Warriors last night — the Spurs won by 29 points."

This is what Nate Silver's been saying re the latest scientific polling.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-the-presidential-race-tightening/


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Hitler banned the unions, Mussolini put complete control of economy in the hands of the corporations.
> 
> Fascists were not left wing, anyone who says otherwise is ignorant of history.





RavishingRickRules said:


> To be honest, the person who tried to start an argument with me over simply using the term "far-right" to describe the Nazis seems massively ignorant of a lot of things. (I refused to go into it with him actually)


Generally speaking people from both sides I feel are guilty of labeling fascists as either solely left or right wing which both are not true. Economically speaking both Hitler and Mussolini were huge central planners who directed the economy from the top down through the state. That has more in common (but not exclusive to) with socialism than a free market based economy which is right wing. 

In Mussolini's case there were several examples of initiatives which encouraged redistribution towards the state for the "common good", there were large tariffs and subsidies placed on the farming industry for example which is very common amongst "far right" groups. Fascist Italy was very much the first example of a corporatist state taken to the extreme whereby whole industries were dominated by only a few big corporations. 

A little known but interesting fact is that FDR, someone who is very much seen as a liberal hero actually admired the Italian's economic policies of the 30's and tried to implement some of Mussolini's policies in his presidency. Some of that influence ended up being manifested in the new deal such as public construction programs which were a big part of Mussolini's economic vision for Italy. 

The point is, Fascist Italy's economic policies were neither solely right or left but were a mixture of the two. What we now call a mixed economy but driven further more into the extreme authoritarian side, particularly coupled with the overwhelming centralized political power Mussolini had consolidated. Remember, Mussolini and his government had large control of businesses claiming that he had up to 75% of the share but he never did large scale nationalization meaning these were private entities in government hands. I think that is evidence in of itself that Italy in the 30's was neither right or left wing economically.

Nazi Germany had a very Keynesian style outlook when it came to the economy, printing money and spending their way out of recession whilst using territorial expansion as a means to try and off pay the expanding debt. Once again, private business and government control was very hand in hand with this regime. Excess profits which were made by private companies particularly in oil and synthetics were expected to be turned over to the government. Furthermore, much like Italy there were large scale public works projects put into place by the government for infrastructure, agriculture and housing. One area later on in which really mirrored the authoritarian socialist USSR was the 4 year plan for rearmament set up in 1936 which of course was on the lead up to world war II. Certainly we can say that central planning and government control of the economy to the point of multi-year long plans can be seen as being influenced by Marxist-Leninist/Marxist-Stalinist regimes and theory. Nonetheless, central planning took the major role of the economy in which the private sector was driven by the government mixed in with government public programs to rebuild utilities. 

I can't see how you could argue that they are anything but centrists. And I'd certainly argue the same case to be made for FDR who was very much influenced economically speaking by these regimes in his New Deal philosophy.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> You'll have to bear with me, I'm a foreigner so your political system isn't my strong suit. Does leading in Florida give him a good chance of winning? I know here that certain areas of the country have more representation in parliament so winning in the South-east of the country is far more important than the majority of other areas. I'm assuming it's something like that?


Its the 2nd most important swing state in the US election map with 29 electoral votes. Its how George W. Bush "won" his first Presidential election.

- Vic


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Based Ben Garrison does it again...brilliant! :banderas


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> Generally speaking people from both sides I feel are guilty of labeling fascists as either solely left or right wing which both are not true. Economically speaking both Hitler and Mussolini were huge central planners who directed the economy from the top down through the state. That has more in common (but not exclusive to) with socialism than a free market based economy which is right wing.
> 
> In Mussolini's case there were several examples of initiatives which encouraged redistribution towards the state for the "common good", there were large tariffs and subsidies placed on the farming industry for example which is very common amongst "far right" groups. Fascist Italy was very much the first example of a corporatist state taken to the extreme whereby whole industries were dominated by only a few big corporations.
> 
> A little known but interesting fact is that FDR, someone who is very much seen as a liberal hero actually admired the Italian's economic policies of the 30's and tried to implement some of Mussolini's policies in his presidency. Some of that influence ended up being manifested in the new deal such as public construction programs which were a big part of Mussolini's economic vision for Italy.
> 
> The point is, Fascist Italy's economic policies were neither solely right or left but were a mixture of the two. What we now call a mixed economy but driven further more into the extreme authoritarian side, particularly coupled with the overwhelming centralized political power Mussolini had consolidated. Remember, Mussolini and his government had large control of businesses claiming that he had up to 75% of the share but he never did large scale nationalization meaning these were private entities in government hands. I think that is evidence in of itself that Italy in the 30's was neither right or left wing economically.
> 
> Nazi Germany had a very Keynesian style outlook when it came to the economy, printing money and spending their way out of recession whilst using territorial expansion as a means to try and off pay the expanding debt. Once again, private business and government control was very hand in hand with this regime. Excess profits which were made by private companies particularly in oil and synthetics were expected to be turned over to the government. Furthermore, much like Italy there were large scale public works projects put into place by the government for infrastructure, agriculture and housing. One area later on in which really mirrored the authoritarian socialist USSR was the 4 year plan for rearmament set up in 1936 which of course was on the lead up to world war II. Certainly we can say that central planning and government control of the economy to the point of multi-year long plans can be seen as being influenced by Marxist-Leninist/Marxist-Stalinist regimes and theory. Nonetheless, central planning took the major role of the economy in which the private sector was driven by the government mixed in with government public programs to rebuild utilities.
> 
> I can't see how you could argue that they are anything but centrists. And I'd certainly argue the same case to be made for FDR who was very much influenced economically speaking by these regimes in his New Deal philosophy.


I wasn't actually "arguing" anything at all. Just using the widely accepted terminology of "far-right." In fact I flat out refused to argue the point, it's not remotely why I'm in this thread. The dude was essentially arguing with himself, I was just calling him out for acting superior when on most things he just sounds like he's parroting Britain First memes.



Vic Capri said:


> Its the 2nd most important swing state in the US election map with 29 electoral votes. Its how George W. Bush "won" his first Presidential election.
> 
> - Vic


Ah that's an interesting factoid, I didn't know that. You think it's worth an outside punt on him winning then? I'd imagine I'd get good odds judging by the general online consensus that Shillary's a lock.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

When people talk about the Nazis being "far right" they don't necessarily mean just on an economics level, but also on a nationalist v internationalist level.

Its a warning about what happens if you go full nationalist.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> You think it's worth an outside punt on him winning then?


Absolutely, but he must, MUST win Ohio. Pennsylvania will also be a huge win for him if he can rally the angry coal miners.

- Vic


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Absolutely, but he must, MUST win Ohio. Pennsylvania will also be a huge win for him if he can rally the angry coal miners.
> 
> - Vic


Ah now this is good info. I'll keep on eye on the polls for those states and if they're looking good I may well have a flutter


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump can win Arizona, North Carolina, Ohio, Iowa, even Florida. And he still needs two states between New Hampshire, Colorado or Pennsilvania to win.

Hillary need to win any of those and is over.

Media is putting emphashis in a 2 point advantage fro Florida because they need to create a Horserace, today it was also published a Florida Poll with Hillary ahead by 3% and another by 5% and North Carolina with Clinton ahead by 7%.

The faster people asume is over, unless we are behind a MASSIVE poll error is for the better


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Florida has been weirdly static despite how the national polls and other states have fluctuated. Selzer & Co. is the only poll I've seen that has Trump winning Florida right now, but they have a good track record, so you never know.

The bigger question is whether it will matter. Even if Trump were to win Florida and Ohio, Hillary could still clear 270 by a comfortable margin as long as she takes Pennsylvania, which she seems to be leading by a comfortable margin right now.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

But if the media (and individuals) keep pushing the story that Hillary is so far in the lead that we all assume the race is over, doesn't that hurt her? I am sure most Democrats aren't voting for her because they like her, but because they hate the idea of Trump as president. And if many of them think the election is in the bag, they may not bother showing up to vote for someone that they don't like having to hold their noses to vote for. Best case scenario for them is to keep announcing how close every state is to keep potential voters on their toes and eager to affect the outcome.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> The bigger question is whether it will matter. Even if Trump were to win Florida and Ohio, Hillary could still clear 270 by a comfortable margin as long as she takes Pennsylvania, which she seems to be leading by a comfortable margin right now.


Yep, that was my point mainly.

Even if you don't believe the polls, Trump needs basically a clean sweap of almost all the swing states that are at reach and then some luck with states where he should be wining comfortably like NC, Arizona and Utah.

Too much to overcome even if this isn't a landslide



Pratchett said:


> But if the media (and individuals) keep pushing the story that Hillary is so far in the lead that we all assume the race is over, doesn't that hurt her? I am sure most Democrats aren't voting for her because they like her, but because they hate the idea of Trump as president. And if many of them think the election is in the bag, they may not bother showing up to vote for someone that they don't like having to hold their noses to vote for. Best case scenario for them is to keep announcing how close every state is to keep potential voters on their toes and eager to affect the outcome.


Also true. and campaigns are gonna emphasize this too

But early voting also suggest a massive turnout of Hispanics which shouldn't change and Clinton is oveperfoming Obama in a majority of he swing states currently while Trump is underperforming Romney with the exception of Florida and Ohio. 

I think turnaout could be even higher than expect which is bad news for Trump unless independents lean heavily in his favor


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Pratchett said:


> But if the media (and individuals) keep pushing the story that Hillary is so far in the lead that we all assume the race is over, doesn't that hurt her?


In theory, it could cut either way.

The idea of "Who cares? She's going to win!" could suppress voter turnout from those who see that outcome as a foregone conclusion, but that could potentially apply to voters on either side. Especially given the "It's rigged anyway!" narrative that Trump has been pushing lately.

If I had to guess, I'd say it would hurt Hillary more. But it's not a given.



> I am sure most Democrats aren't voting for her because they like her, but because they hate the idea of Trump as president.


FWIW, they did that poll recently where they ask whether people are voting _for_ their candidate or _against_ their candidate's opponent, and Hillary surprisingly had a 56/42 split, with more of her voters responding that they were voting _for_ her rather than _against_ Trump (which is... well, I can only speak anecdotally, but that hasn't been my experience). Conversely, Trump's numbers were 41/54, suggesting that more of his voters are _against_ Hillary rather than _for_ Trump.

But to your larger point, yeah, a less-than-enthused voter base would likely feel less compelled to vote in an election where they perceive the outcome to be in the bag regardless of their participation.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Those are all good points.

For me, what I find funny around where I live is the complete and utter absence of signs supporting Hillary. I mean, there are Trump signs literally on every street, but I have to drive for miles (literally and actually) to find one sign in any person's yard for her (admittedly I don't drive down _every _street around me, but I am just making a loose point). There was one in a yard close to where I live, and it disappeared sometime this week. And that was the only one within two or three miles from me. And there are plenty of signs for people supporting the Democrat party near me.

I know the county I live in tends to vote Conservatively, but I have never seen the lack of support for a candidate that I have seen this election cycle. There were neighborhoods nearby where 4 and 8 years ago they would have a dozen or more Obama signs in just one person's yard at a time. Hell, I remember seeing _exponentially _more signs for Dukakis than I have for Hillary this year. And yes, I understand I am dating myself by saying that :side:.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Pratchett said:


> Those are all good points.
> 
> For me, what I find funny around where I live is the complete and utter absence of signs supporting Hillary. I mean, there are Trump signs literally on every street, but I have to drive for miles (literally and actually) to find one sign in any person's yard for her (admittedly I don't drive down _every _street around me, but I am just making a loose point). There was one in a yard close to where I live, and it disappeared sometime this week. And that was the only one within two or three miles from me. And there are plenty of signs for people supporting the Democrat party near me.
> 
> I know the county I live in tends to vote Conservatively, but I have never seen the lack of support for a candidate that I have seen this election cycle. There were neighborhoods nearby where 4 and 8 years ago they would have a dozen or more Obama signs in just one person's yard at a time. Hell, I remember seeing _exponentially _more signs for Dukakis than I have for Hillary this year. And yes, I understand I am dating myself by saying that :side:.


I would chalk it down to increasing polarisation. A Trump or Hillary sign in an area that is heavily leaning to the other party would be highly likely to get vandalised or taken away by supporters of the other candidate.

Trump's hollywood walk of fame star just got smashed ffs. :lol


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> FWIW, they did that poll recently where they ask whether people are voting _for_ their candidate or _against_ their candidate's opponent, and Hillary surprisingly had a 56/42 split, with more of her voters responding that they were voting _for_ her rather than _against_ Trump (which is... well, I can only speak anecdotally, but that hasn't been my experience). Conversely, Trump's numbers were 41/54, suggesting that more of his voters are _against_ Hillary rather than _for_ Trump.


----------



## blackholeson

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*I am actually worried that people would legit riot all over the United States of America if Trump actually won. This scares me.*


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


>


Yeah, and her current numbers are about average for a major party candidate.

That's weird to me. I wonder if people are starting to rally around her just to affirm their support in this election or if she's actually become slightly more palatable.

If I had to guess, it would be the former.



blackholeson said:


> *I am actually worried that people would legit riot all over the United States of America if Trump actually won. This scares me.*


The reverse frightens me more, given how much Trump has been feeding his supporters the narrative that this election is being stolen from them.


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



blackholeson said:


> *I am actually worried that people would legit riot all over the United States of America if Trump actually won. This scares me.*





RetepAdam. said:


> The reverse frightens me more, given how much Trump has been feeding his supporters the narrative that this election is being stolen from them.


And I would contend that the election was never "theirs" to begin with. :heyman6

Or does anyone honestly think that truly given an option, that both of these are the two actual candidates we _all _wanted to choose from to begin with?


----------



## Mifune Jackson

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



blackholeson said:


> *I am actually worried that people would legit riot all over the United States of America if Trump actually won. This scares me.*





RetepAdam. said:


> The reverse frightens me more, given how much Trump has been feeding his supporters the narrative that this election is being stolen from them.


And I'm worried about both of your sides preemptively being paranoid about the other.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RavishingRickRules said:


> To be honest, the person who tried to start an argument with me over simply using the term "far-right" to describe the Nazis seems massively ignorant of a lot of things. (I refused to go into it with him actually)


Frankly the same could be said about you when it comes to quite a few things in here and Islam. Not attacking you but if you're going to call someone ignorant while being ignorant yourself maybe you should step back and realize that. Debate or don't debate, your choice but calling some ignorant because they don't buy into your own personal narrative is silly.











Haha at some of the postings in here "Muh graphs can't be argued against!" *Someone posts a graph* "No your graphs are wrong!" Good grief people! Only a few people are allowed to post graphs?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm not worried about riots because I live in a predominantly *[REDACTED]* area. :trump

I am worried about nuclear war with Russia though. Mainly because one of the candidates currently wants to put a no-fly zone where Russian planes are currently flying.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



blackholeson said:


> *I am actually worried that people would legit riot all over the United States of America if Trump actually won. This scares me.*


They are way more likely to riot when he loses. that is what you should be afraid of. Hell Trump said his 2nd amendment supporters should do something about it if Hillary wins meaning assassinate her.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Frankly the same could be said about you when it comes to quite a few things in here and Islam. Not attacking you but if you're going to call someone ignorant while being ignorant yourself maybe you should step back and realize that. Debate or don't debate, your choice but calling some ignorant because they don't buy into your own personal narrative is silly.


If you say so Princess, amazing how you know my knowledge of Islam when I haven't remotely shared any of it. But then I do realise you're just defending your buddy, you know, the "Europe" expert who's never been there. You may want to make less assumptions about somebody's knowledge of a subject, I've read the Koran, have you? I'd hazard a pretty solid guess that your knowledge of Islam comes from whatever the other dude tells you and what you read online, no? Sorry to burst your bubble though, I grew up with more Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus than any other religions, please don't make silly assumptions. For reference, your buddy's view on Muslims from the perspective of a Pakistani isn't really reflective of the millions of Muslims here in the UK. And yes, I AM aware it's pointless trying to change your views on these things, I doubt anybody could unless Trump himself said it to you, then you'd likely take it as gospel LOL.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Pratchett said:


> But if the media (and individuals) keep pushing the story that Hillary is so far in the lead that we all assume the race is over, doesn't that hurt her? I am sure most Democrats aren't voting for her because they like her, but because they hate the idea of Trump as president. And if many of them think the election is in the bag, they may not bother showing up to vote for someone that they don't like having to hold their noses to vote for. Best case scenario for them is to keep announcing how close every state is to keep potential voters on their toes and eager to affect the outcome.


No that only happens on election day when they try to call the election before the west coast even close their polls. Unless you are a hardcore political person you don't even follow the polls.

Plus people still want to vote for their state elections and for those questions they vote on.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RavishingRickRules said:


> If you say so Princess, amazing how you know my knowledge of Islam when I haven't remotely shared any of it. But then I do realise you're just defending your buddy, you know, the "Europe" expert who's never been there. You may want to make less assumptions about somebody's knowledge of a subject, I've read the Koran, have you? I'd hazard a pretty solid guess that your knowledge of Islam comes from whatever the other dude tells you and what you read online, no? Sorry to burst your bubble though, I grew up with more Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus than any other religions, please don't make silly assumptions. For reference, your buddy's view on Muslims from the perspective of a Pakistani isn't really reflective of the millions of Muslims here in the UK. And yes, I AM aware it's pointless trying to change your views on these things, I doubt anybody could unless Trump himself said it to you, then you'd likely take it as gospel LOL.


Yes I have read it, it's a pretty disgusting book. I guess it's good if you like the advocating of killing. I will admit it's a brilliantly written book in the way it turns a Political Ideology into a Religious one, that's the problem with most ideologies, you can set up something but eventually it changes, it can be due to time, people or whatever but it does change. Several Empires are examples of this where their pinnacle is reached but they falls apart. With a Religion it's not like that because Religion is tradition so therefore it cannot be changed. 

It doesn't matter who you grew up with most of us have an issue with Islam itself not most Muslims. But then again I dislike Christianity as well but Islam is far more destructive at this point in time and is under the protection of those who would attack every other Religion, you cannot give a pass to one Religion, especially this one. It's funny you mention Europe because we have European posters here who say things are bad with the mass migration and Muslims. But there is also the opposite, I guess it depends where you live so forgive me if I take your word as gospel on everything European given your obviously biased nature.

No, I support Trump because he's the safer choice in my opinion over Hillary. I've mentioned several times in this thread about things i do agree with and things I don't with what he does. He's hardly the candidate I want, I'd vote Libertarian if Johnson wasn't such a goober.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This one's for anyone who thinks the outcome of this election really matters or will actually change anything. Any "changes" will be superficial in nature, while the deep state keeps right on rolling along.



> *A Deep State of Mind: America’s Shadow Government and Its Silent Coup*
> by John W. Whitehead
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo by Diego Torres Silvestre | CC BY 2.0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today the path to total dictatorship in the U.S. can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system … a well-organized political-action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state…. The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization… It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government…. This group … is answerable neither to the President, the Congress, nor the courts. It is practically irremovable.”
> 
> — Senator William Jenner, 1954 speech
> 
> 
> 
> Unaffected by elections. Unaltered by populist movements. Beyond the reach of the law.
> 
> Say hello to America’s shadow government.
> 
> A corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country, this shadow government represents the hidden face of a government that has no respect for the freedom of its citizenry.
> 
> No matter which candidate wins the presidential election, this shadow government is here to stay. Indeed, as recent documents by the FBI reveal, this shadow government—also referred to as “The 7th Floor Group”—may well have played a part in who will win the White House this year.
> 
> To be precise, however, the future president will actually inherit not one but two shadow governments.
> 
> The first shadow government, referred to as COG or Continuity of Government, is made up of unelected individuals who have been appointed to run the government in the event of a “catastrophe.” COG is a phantom menace waiting for the right circumstances—a terrorist attack, a natural disaster, an economic meltdown—to bring it out of the shadows, where it operates even now. When and if COG takes over, the police state will transition to martial law.
> 
> Yet it is the second shadow government—also referred to as the Deep State—that poses the greater threat to freedom right now. Comprised of unelected government bureaucrats, corporations, contractors, paper-pushers, and button-pushers who are actually calling the shots behind the scenes, this government within a government is the real reason “we the people” have no real control over our government.
> 
> The Deep State, which “operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power,” makes a mockery of elections and the entire concept of a representative government.
> 
> So who or what is the Deep State?
> 
> It’s the militarized police, which have joined forces with state and federal law enforcement agencies in order to establish themselves as a standing army. It’s the fusion centers and spy agencies that have created a surveillance state and turned all of us into suspects. It’s the courthouses and prisons that have allowed corporate profits to take precedence over due process and justice. It’s the military empire with its private contractors and defense industry that is bankrupting the nation. It’s the private sector with its 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances, “a number greater than that of top-secret-cleared civilian employees of the government.” It’s what former congressional staffer Mike Lofgren refers to as “a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies”: the Department of Defense, the State Department, Homeland Security, the CIA, the Justice Department, the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a handful of vital federal trial courts, and members of the defense and intelligence committees.
> 
> It’s every facet of a government that is no longer friendly to freedom and is working overtime to trample the Constitution underfoot and render the citizenry powerless in the face of the government’s power grabs, corruption and abusive tactics.
> 
> These are the key players that drive the shadow government.
> 
> This is the hidden face of the American police state that will continue long past Election Day.
> 
> Just consider some of the key programs and policies advanced by the shadow government that will continue no matter who occupies the Oval Office.
> 
> *Domestic surveillance.*
> 
> No matter who wins the presidential popularity contest, the National Security Agency (NSA), with its $10.8 billion black ops annual budget, will continue to spy on every person in the United States who uses a computer or phone. Thus, on any given day, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether the NSA or some other entity, is listening in and tracking your behavior. Local police have been outfitted with a litany of surveillance gear, from license plate readers and cell phone tracking devices to biometric data recorders. Technology now makes it possible for the police to scan passersby in order to detect the contents of their pockets, purses, briefcases, etc. Full-body scanners, which perform virtual strip-searches of Americans traveling by plane, have gone mobile, with roving police vans that peer into vehicles and buildings alike—including homes. Coupled with the nation’s growing network of real-time surveillance cameras and facial recognition software, soon there really will be nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.
> 
> *Global spying.*
> 
> The NSA’s massive surveillance network, what the Washington Post refers to as a $500 billion “espionage empire,” will continue to span the globe and target every single person on the planet who uses a phone or a computer. The NSA’s Echelon program intercepts and analyzes virtually every phone call, fax and email message sent anywhere in the world. In addition to carrying out domestic surveillance on peaceful political groups such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace and several religious groups, Echelon has also been a keystone in the government’s attempts at political and corporate espionage.
> 
> *Roving TSA searches.*
> 
> The American taxpayer will continue to get ripped off by government agencies in the dubious name of national security. One of the greatest culprits when it comes to swindling taxpayers has been the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), with its questionable deployment of and complete mismanagement of millions of dollars’ worth of airport full-body X-ray scanners, punitive patdowns by TSA agents and thefts of travelers’ valuables. Considered essential to national security, TSA programs will continue in airports and at transportation hubs around the country.
> 
> *USA Patriot Act, NDAA. *
> 
> America’s so-called war on terror, which it has relentlessly pursued since 9/11, will continue to chip away at our freedoms, unravel our Constitution and transform our nation into a battlefield, thanks in large part to such subversive legislation as the USA Patriot Act and National Defense Authorization Act. These laws completely circumvent the rule of law and the rights of American citizens. In so doing, they re-orient our legal landscape in such a way as to ensure that martial law, rather than the U.S. Constitution, is the map by which we navigate life in the United States. These laws will continue to be enforced no matter who gets elected.
> 
> *Militarized police state.*
> 
> Thanks to federal grant programs allowing the Pentagon to transfer surplus military supplies and weapons to local law enforcement agencies without charge, police forces will continue to be transformed from peace officers into heavily armed extensions of the military, complete with jackboots, helmets, shields, batons, pepper-spray, stun guns, assault rifles, body armor, miniature tanks and weaponized drones. Having been given the green light to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts, America’s law enforcement officials, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, will continue to keep the masses corralled, controlled, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.
> 
> *SWAT team raids.*
> 
> With more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year on unsuspecting Americans by local police for relatively routine police matters and federal agencies laying claim to their own law enforcement divisions, the incidence of botched raids and related casualties will continue to rise. Nationwide, SWAT teams will continue to be employed to address an astonishingly trivial array of criminal activity or mere community nuisances including angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork filed by an orchid farmer, and misdemeanor marijuana possession.
> 
> *Domestic drones. *
> 
> The domestic use of drones will continue unabated. As mandated by Congress, there will be 30,000 drones crisscrossing the skies of America by 2020, all part of an industry that could be worth as much as $30 billion per year. These machines, which will be equipped with weapons, will be able to record all activities, using video feeds, heat sensors and radar. An Inspector General report revealed that the Dept. of Justice has already spent nearly $4 million on drones domestically, largely for use by the FBI, with grants for another $1.26 million so police departments and nonprofits can acquire their own drones.
> 
> *School-to-prison pipeline. *
> 
> The paradigm of abject compliance to the state will continue to be taught by example in the schools, through school lockdowns where police and drug-sniffing dogs enter the classroom, and zero tolerance policies that punish all offenses equally and result in young people being expelled for childish behavior. School districts will continue to team up with law enforcement to create a “schoolhouse to jailhouse track” by imposing a “double dose” of punishment: suspension or expulsion from school, accompanied by an arrest by the police and a trip to juvenile court.
> 
> *Overcriminalization.*
> 
> The government bureaucracy will continue to churn out laws, statutes, codes and regulations that reinforce its powers and value systems and those of the police state and its corporate allies, rendering the rest of us petty criminals. The average American now unknowingly commits three felonies a day, thanks to this overabundance of vague laws that render otherwise innocent activity illegal. Consequently, small farmers who dare to make unpasteurized goat cheese and share it with members of their community will continue to have their farms raided.
> 
> *Privatized Prisons. *
> 
> States will continue to outsource prisons to private corporations, resulting in a cash cow whereby mega-corporations imprison Americans in private prisons in order to make a profit. In exchange for corporations buying and managing public prisons across the country at a supposed savings to the states, the states have to agree to maintain a 90% occupancy rate in the privately run prisons for at least 20 years.
> 
> *Endless wars. *
> 
> America’s expanding military empire will continue to bleed the country dry at a rate of more than $15 billion a month (or $20 million an hour). The Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety. Yet what most Americans fail to recognize is that these ongoing wars have little to do with keeping the country safe and everything to do with enriching the military industrial complex at taxpayer expense.
> 
> Are you getting the message yet?
> 
> The next president, much like the current president and his predecessors, will be little more than a figurehead, a puppet to entertain and distract the populace from what’s really going on.
> 
> As Lofgren reveals, this state within a state, “concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue,” is a “hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose.”
> 
> The Deep State not only holds the nation’s capital in thrall, but it also controls Wall Street (“which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary marionette theater”) and Silicon Valley.
> 
> This is fascism in its most covert form, hiding behind public agencies and private companies to carry out its dirty deeds.
> 
> It is a marriage between government bureaucrats and corporate fat cats.
> 
> As Lofgren concludes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [T]he Deep State is so heavily entrenched, so well protected by surveillance, firepower, money and its ability to co-opt resistance that it is almost impervious to change… If there is anything the Deep State requires it is silent, uninterrupted cash flow and the confidence that things will go on as they have in the past. It is even willing to tolerate a degree of gridlock: Partisan mud wrestling over cultural issues may be a useful distraction from its agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, as long as government officials—elected and unelected alike—are allowed to operate beyond the reach of the Constitution, the courts and the citizenry, the threat to our freedoms remains undiminished.
> 
> So the next time you find yourselves despondent over the 2016 presidential candidates, remember that it’s just a puppet show intended to distract you from the silent coup being carried out by America’s shadow government.
> 
> SOURCE
Click to expand...

I thought about you especially, @CamillePunk , while reading this, because opposing the issues brought up in this piece is something where (I believe) you and I are on the same page.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on it as well, @L-DOPA .


----------



## Alco

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I'm not worried about riots because I live in a predominantly *[REDACTED]* area. :trump
> 
> I am worried about nuclear war with Russia though. Mainly because one of the candidates currently wants to put a no-fly zone where Russian planes are currently flying.


I still consider the odds of nuclear war very, very slim, even if relations between Russia and the US continue to cool down. 

The no-fly zone, I believe, cannot be unilaterally imposed by one state. It will have to be backed by a UN resolution, which will simply not happen (Even if Russia is absent, China will tell the US to f*ck off). 

Besides, foreign policy rhetoric hardly ever translates into a 100% implementation of said rhetoric. I like to believe both Trump and Clinton will take on a pragmatic approach when it comes to Russia once in office.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@Carte Blanche and @L-DOPA raise many terrifically profound and fecund points concerning Nazism and fascism. 

One point of contention in the primaries this year was the constant referring to Bernie Sanders as a "socialist" but the term "fascist" always seemed more apt. For his vision was always something of a direct advocating of a continuation of Franklin D. Roosevelt's "New Deal," which as his wife Eleanor Roosevelt giddily wrote, concerning the Italian counterpart, was much more like Benito Mussolini's Italian fascism in practice. Or perhaps what we could simply refer to as "state-capitalism." One of Mussolini's favorite economists, Raffaello Viglione, observed America's New Deal from afar and wrote one of the best pieces ever written about the New Deal, and how it seemed utterly inspired by Italian fascism. For Mussolini's part, he praised FDR's New Deal as "boldly... interventionists in the field of economics." 

U.S. Ambassador to Italy Henry Fletcher, Secretary of State Frank Kellogg, Norman Davis of the State Department, and a others agreed that the Mussolini government was a practically the ideal European state in the mid-to-late 1930s. As with the European fascists, most Americans were intrinsically and bitterly opposed to both communists and the individuals of "high finance" in the 1930s, and a large number of FDR's programs were modeled on Mussolini's, the latter's seen as wildly successful in combatting the deleterious effects of the depression. 

Eleanor Roosevelt wrote to Ambassador Fletcher, Breckenridge Long was almost perpetually "rhapsodizing about the achievements of Mussolini's new 'corporate state,'" saying that "...Italy today is the most interesting experiment in government to come above the horizon since the formulation of the [American] Constitution 150 years ago. [Mussolini] is one of the most remarkable persons... And they are doing a unique work in an original manner, so I am enjoying it all." 

In the fall of 1937 the State Department expressed adoration for the Italian fascist regime: "[It] brought order out of chaos, discipline out of license, and solvency out of bankruptcy."

It should be recalled that Mussolini began his political odyssey as a vehement socialist and was kicked out of most Italian socialist parties and organizations because he ardently advocated a "one-nation socialism" (a bit like Stalin's call for "socialism in one country" versus the globalist socialism of Trotsky), which led to him embracing nationalism. 

The Nazis were a bit more subtle in their corporatism, as the divide between private industry and the state was at least significantly greater than in Mussolini's Italy. Nominal private ownership was the order of Nazi economic policy but the majority of items for decision-making in the matter of dictating how the means of production would be carried out rested with the German government. Production quotas, quantity-measures, distribution quotas were commonplace throughout the entirety of the Nazi regime's existence. Price and wage controls were established in 1936, and the dividends of property ownership were almost always tightly regulated. What was deemed the "common good" was the primary motive for almost all economic policy decisions. 

As *L-DOPA* noted inflationary monetary policies were also utilized by the German government. Central planners played a major role in macroeconomic policy. 

What those central planners generally called for was the state-managed privatization of myriad assets, and allowing for dramatically privatized means of production. Unions were disposed of for the most part, mainly because of the backlash toward the role that some unions played in the Spartacist uprisings of 1918-1919 as communists sought to make Bavaria a communist state. The Spartacists were looking to put together a revolution not unlike the Bolshevik takeover of the Russian government but Soviet-like councils did not spring up as the Bolsheviks had formed in Russia due to the Social Democratic Party of Germany's strict opposition to their engenderment. The SDP wanted parliamentary government. 

The Nazis were, it should be noted, revolutionaries in their own way. They were almost viciously anti-Hapsburg, and many of their social programs for Germans were based on the democratic and socialist concepts of leveling. 

As the Nazi platform stated in the early 1930s,



> The National Socialist German Workers’ Party is not a worker’s party in the narrow sense of the term: It represents the interests of all honestly creative labor. It is a liberty-loving and strictly nationalist party and therefore fights against all reactionary trends, against ecclesiastical, aristocratic, and capitalist privileges and every alien influence, but above all against the overpowering influence of the Jewish-commercial mentality in all domains of public life….
> 
> It demands the amalgamation of all regions of Europe inhabited by Germans into a democratic, social-minded German Reich….
> 
> It demands plebiscites for all key laws in the Reich, the states and provinces….
> 
> It demands the elimination of the rule of Jewish bankers over business life and the creation of national people’s banks with a democratic administration.


That's one of the elemental points of Nazism that gets overlooked. Many Germans saw the Third Reich as the return of German traditionalism but it was in actuality deeply anti-traditionalist, and even possessed a multitude of features that were highly democratic while being bitterly opposed to the old aristocracy that, from the Nazi perspective (and, to be sure, there is much truth in the complaint) had, in the time of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, taken the German majority for granted while placating the many ethnic and national minorities. Adolf Hitler is quoted as saying that he would lead the "Völk" from "individualism" to "socialism." So, in a way, Hitler was at least something of a socialist, particularly in his youth, as he admitted that he learned a good deal from reading Karl Marx. Hitler despised Marxists and especially the Bolsheviks, however, and his German nationalism was almost always opposed to individualism as a philosophy while attacking many particulars of secularized urban industrial society. Decadence and impurity were frequently critiqued, too. Since Nazism viewed Bolshevism and the concept of largely unfettered internationalist capitalism as both destructive to bonds of nationhood and society, German nationalism took the road less traveled, one could say. Nevertheless, companies were allowed to compete against one another in a state-managed capitalism not entirely unlike what the U.S. has today, with greater emphasis on price controls. Though an atheist himself Hitler advocated the holding of religion over secularism as a society, seeing it as beneficial to the "Völk." 

Another quote from Hitler which is useful when considering all of this:

"The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute them for the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." As said by @asdf0105 and *L-DOPA*, one could say that Hitler's philosophy is "centrist": he opposes the Ayn Rand/Milton Friedman, et. al. view of humanity as a vast collection of atomized individualists and individuals, while also rejecting the general Marxist diagnosis of humanity as well.

Naturally Hitler's most defining consideration is of racialist ideology. For instance, his writing that, "In [the Aryan], the instinct for self-preservation has reached its noblest form, since he willingly subordinates his own ego to the life of the community and, if the hour demands it, even sacrifices it." Hitler's state pushed this characterization of commonality between members of a tribe, as it were: "This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture." 

More than "right-wing" or "left-wing" fascism is anti-liberal, in its original meaning particularly, communal and corporatist. There are so many variations of it in practice, however, that it is difficult to ascertain any especially compelling argument about its lesser components as a set of hard and set rules. It is not hyperbole to refer to the 2008 financial bailout by the U.S. government as a fascistic measure; it meets every last requirement, right down to the propaganda on behalf of the regime's swift move to protect the elite and themselves, as it were, by arguing that those who were opposed to the measure were lacking in patriotism, for this was necessary to save the American economy. 
@RetepAdam. I will save your topic, which you were so kind to bring to my attention via a mention, at some point in the future! Must get at least a few hours of sleep, however, ha.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> @Carte Blanche and @L-DOPA raise many terrifically profound and fecund points concerning Nazism and fascism.
> 
> One point of contention in the primaries this year was the constant referring to Bernie Sanders as a "socialist" but the term "fascist" always seemed more apt. For his vision was always something of a direct advocating of a continuation of Franklin D. Roosevelt's "New Deal," which as his wife Eleanor Roosevelt giddily wrote, concerning the Italian counterpart, was much more like Benito Mussolini's Italian fascism in practice. Or perhaps what we could simply refer to as "state-capitalism." One of Mussolini's favorite economists, Raffaello Viglione, observed America's New Deal from afar and wrote one of the best pieces ever written about the New Deal, and how it seemed utterly inspired by Italian fascism. For Mussolini's part, he praised FDR's New Deal as "boldly... interventionists in the field of economics."
> 
> U.S. Ambassador to Italy Henry Fletcher, Secretary of State Frank Kellogg, Norman Davis of the State Department, and a others agreed that the Mussolini government was a practically the ideal European state in the mid-to-late 1930s. As with the European fascists, most Americans were intrinsically and bitterly opposed to both communists and the individuals of "high finance" in the 1930s, and a large number of FDR's programs were modeled on Mussolini's, the latter's seen as wildly successful in combatting the deleterious effects of the depression.
> 
> Eleanor Roosevelt wrote to Ambassador Fletcher, Breckenridge Long was almost perpetually "rhapsodizing about the achievements of Mussolini's new 'corporate state,'" saying that "...Italy today is the most interesting experiment in government to come above the horizon since the formulation of the [American] Constitution 150 years ago. [Mussolini] is one of the most remarkable persons... And they are doing a unique work in an original manner, so I am enjoying it all."
> 
> In the fall of 1937 the State Department expressed adoration for the Italian fascist regime: "[It] brought order out of chaos, discipline out of license, and solvency out of bankruptcy."
> 
> It should be recalled that Mussolini began his political odyssey as a vehement socialist and was kicked out of most Italian socialist parties and organizations because he ardently advocated a "one-nation socialism" (a bit like Stalin's call for "socialism in one country" versus the globalist socialism of Trotsky), which led to him embracing nationalism.
> 
> The Nazis were a bit more subtle in their corporatism, as the divide between private industry and the state was at least significantly greater than in Mussolini's Italy. Nominal private ownership was the order of Nazi economic policy but the majority of items for decision-making in the matter of dictating how the means of production would be carried out rested with the German government. Production quotas, quantity-measures, distribution quotas were commonplace throughout the entirety of the Nazi regime's existence. Price and wage controls were established in 1936, and the dividends of property ownership were almost always tightly regulated. What was deemed the "common good" was the primary motive for almost all economic policy decisions.
> 
> As *L-DOPA* noted inflationary monetary policies were also utilized by the German government. Central planners played a major role in macroeconomic policy.
> 
> What those central planners generally called for was the state-managed privatization of myriad assets, and allowing for dramatically privatized means of production. Unions were disposed of for the most part, mainly because of the backlash toward the role that some unions played in the Spartacist uprisings of 1918-1919 as communists sought to make Bavaria a communist state. The Spartacists were looking to put together a revolution not unlike the Bolshevik takeover of the Russian government but Soviet-like councils did not spring up as the Bolsheviks had formed in Russia due to the Social Democratic Party of Germany's strict opposition to their engenderment. The SDP wanted parliamentary government.
> 
> The Nazis were, it should be noted, revolutionaries in their own way. They were almost viciously anti-Hapsburg, and many of their social programs for Germans were based on the democratic and socialist concepts of leveling.
> 
> As the Nazi platform stated in the early 1930s,
> 
> 
> 
> That's one of the elemental points of Nazism that gets overlooked. Many Germans saw the Third Reich as the return of German traditionalism but it was in actuality deeply anti-traditionalist, and even possessed a multitude of features that were highly democratic while being bitterly opposed to the old aristocracy that, from the Nazi perspective (and, to be sure, there is much truth in the complaint) had, in the time of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, taken the German majority for granted while placating the many ethnic and national minorities. Adolf Hitler is quoted as saying that he would lead the "Völk" from "individualism" to "socialism." So, in a way, Hitler was at least something of a socialist, particularly in his youth, as he admitted that he learned a good deal from reading Karl Marx. Hitler despised Marxists and especially the Bolsheviks, however, and his German nationalism was almost always opposed to individualism as a philosophy while attacking many particulars of secularized urban industrial society. Decadence and impurity were frequently critiqued, too. Since Nazism viewed Bolshevism and the concept of largely unfettered internationalist capitalism as both destructive to bonds of nationhood and society, German nationalism took the road less traveled, one could say. Nevertheless, companies were allowed to compete against one another in a state-managed capitalism not entirely unlike what the U.S. has today, with greater emphasis on price controls. Though an atheist himself Hitler advocated the holding of religion over secularism as a society, seeing it as beneficial to the "Völk."
> 
> Another quote from Hitler which is useful when considering all of this:
> 
> "The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute them for the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." As said by @asdf0105 and *L-DOPA*, one could say that Hitler's philosophy is "centrist": he opposes the Ayn Rand/Milton Friedman, et. al. view of humanity as a vast collection of atomized individualists and individuals, while also rejecting the general Marxist diagnosis of humanity as well.
> 
> Naturally Hitler's most defining consideration is of racialist ideology. For instance, his writing that, "In [the Aryan], the instinct for self-preservation has reached its noblest form, since he willingly subordinates his own ego to the life of the community and, if the hour demands it, even sacrifices it." Hitler's state pushed this characterization of commonality between members of a tribe, as it were: "This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture."
> 
> More than "right-wing" or "left-wing" fascism is anti-liberal, in its original meaning particularly, communal and corporatist. There are so many variations of it in practice, however, that it is difficult to ascertain any especially compelling argument about its lesser components as a set of hard and set rules. It is not hyperbole to refer to the 2008 financial bailout by the U.S. government as a fascistic measure; it meets every last requirement, right down to the propaganda on behalf of the regime's swift move to protect the elite and themselves, as it were, by arguing that those who were opposed to the measure were lacking in patriotism, for this was necessary to save the American economy.
> @RetepAdam. I will save your topic, which you were so kind to bring to my attention via a mention, at some point in the future! Must get at least a few hours of sleep, however, ha.


Great post as always DROW, one might point out the certain controls that the German Government put into action which was gun control and limiting Religious power. Many Religious organizations were disbanded or stripped of power, the Church had limited play within Nazi Germany. The Germans had even went after some Religious Orders such as the Teutonic Knights but yet used the Teutonic Knights for their propaganda. The reasoning would be to inspire people with the surrounding mythos of the Knights but without any chance of Religious groups speaking out against the Reich. 

What's interesting today is that in many College Campuses around America and the world anti-semitic thinking is growing, as is anti-Religion, anti-gun and the thought of taking the wealth of others and silencing those with dissenting opinions, free speech was something that was one of the first things to go in Nazi Germany. If you read into a lot of things the admiration of Islam was also there. Some of the Waffen SS I believe were Muslims from the Balkans.

Interesting if you think about it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Not that I really needed the backup but it's good to have some where you see like-minded hive minds clumping together without even bothering to read the very strong case I presented :kobelol 

I don't have a problem with being told that I'm wrong. I have a problem with being told I'm wrong by people who don't even read or produce counter-evidence and start claiming I'm wrong because I'm wrong because I'm wrong because I'm wrong. The amount of circular arguments and actual avoidance present in both this ravishingrules, BM and now unfortunately Tater is dismaying to say the least because you expect people who show some sort of intellectual fortitude in some areas to actually be open to at least question their indoctrination and try to counter it. 

I mean, the guy is openly claiming that he hasn't or isn't going to read what's been presented and you guys are liking that post. I find that to be a poorer reflection on all of you as opposed to me :shrug Think about it. 

However, I keep testing certain people and keep realizing that their open minds aren't really open to new ways of thinking about things and I suppose that's fine. It's more comfortable that way than to face cognitive dissonance. 
@birthday_massacre - As for that study is concerned, of course it's weak. However, it's not something that can be blanket dismissed because the thing that's making you dismiss it is cognitive dissonance and no actual facts. All of the things that you say apply equally to both dems and repubs. The errors in sampling and sample bias get taken care of by however large the sample is and it brings you close to the truth as opposed to the "truth" that you try to claim based on biases that you personally hold. You may want to reject the study, but make sure you're rejecting it based on facts, and not because your cognitive dissonance is telling you to come up with ways to make sure your personal biases are still comfortably held. 



> The survey is not even scientific if they are mostly doing in person surveys in Chicago.
> 
> If that verbiage is just from one survey, this survey you posted about is sent out to people nationwide, its still voluntary, and does not get a correct representation of the American people. Its only of the people who answered the survey.


Yeah ... and if you ask more and more people, as the numbers go up, the sampling errors are reduced. Are you saying that this entire study is completely trash simply because it was in person and in Chicago? Why? 

Chicago is a primary blue state. Are you saying that the democrats in Chicago are more racist than the democrats in other parts of the country? You would think that a primary blue state would actually have a lower racist response rate, no? And why aren't chicago dems and repubs representative of other parts of the country (if not all of the country). They at the very least represent the racial views of similar urban centers right? 

The thing is, you're trying to dismiss anything and everything that can be possibly learned by the study because it doesn't fit your personal opinion - and that's just lame. 

Of course it's not conclusive and doesn't represent the country - but fact is that it represents one area and even if it represents that one area it still is enough grounds to have more wide-spread racial research conducted nationwide and better research. 

Science builds on itself. If you find a certain result somewhere, then you replicate it elsewhere and so on. So until you do that, you cannot say that more republicans are more racist than democrats only a minority of which are racist. This study has debunked that at least for Chicago and as representative sampling goes, you will be more likely to find similar results in similar urban areas (predictive) and you'll have outliers here and there, but by and large a study like this upon replication will garner similar results across the board. 

The only thing that's keeping people rooted to this idea that most republicans are racist and only some democrats are racist is personal bias at this point. 
@Tater is refusing to provide me any evidence (since I can't find some myself) of actual racism and racist policies of The republicans that he believes exists and has mountains of evidence ---- but here we are --- in a situation where he's thinking he's got some sort of a higher ground in a discussion where he feels he doesn't "need" to provide any evidence since mountains of evidence already exists. Where is that evidence? 

- Have there been any cases filed against the Repubs by their own members of racial discrimination within the party? 
- Which policies enacted by the republicans are specifically racist?
- Bush had the government for 8 years, did he enact any federal policies that discriminated against blacks and other minorities? Name 1 if he did and I'll change my mind. 
- I've been living in a small florida town controlled by republicans and I have not yet come across a single ordinance in the area that is at all discriminatory against blacks. The only thing I've seen that I felt was somewhat of a problem was Walmart in a white neighborhood has no locks on electronics, while a Walmart in a black neighborhood did. But that isn't government-sanctioned racism. That's a company that's doing it and people can and should take it up in civil court. Though I've heard of shit like this across the country so it's not even tied to the south or the north. 
- Is opposing affirmative action (which I think repubs do) innately racist or sexist in nature? Or is affirmative action in and of itself racist/sexist? 
- Is opposing abortion sexist, or a result of religious indoctrination or even a sense of morality that claims that a child is a human at the point of conception because it can have a future (this is more of a philosophical point of view independent of religion or science)? 
- Is claiming that we need to do something about the crime epidemics in inner city ghettos racist?
- If the republican "southern strategy" was supposed to attract only racist southerners, then why does it have such strong support in newer urban areas within the south which have a lot of cross-country migration (inflow from the north and other areas) and are cultural melting points which still support Republicans?

Where is this republican party racism that you guys claim with so much surety? Where are the actual facts to back it up? Or you guys just comfortable in clinging to that opinion because you never actually challenged it? 

We live in a country where a terrorist was taken in by the FBI several times for questioning and they couldn't even do anything to prevent him from picking up a bunch of guns and shot up a gay bar. If this was a racist country with draconian laws that guy would never have seen the light of day the first time he was pulled in. Yet he was repeatedly released till he eventually killed dozens of gays. 

As for rickrules, the fact that he fails to acknowledge the existence of muslim rape gangs in the UK, rape gangs in Sweden, BBC reporting no-go areas in Sweden, Swedish police claiming they can't fight the escalating crime rates in certain areas, France's growing internal terrorist problem (all of which is a result of growing muslim populations as it has included both local and immigrant muslims), Belgium's terror problem (all of which are directly tied to growing muslim populations in some way or the other) is what's real ignorance - and that's very endemic of the locals within Europe. It's not far right propaganda. It's fact. Just because he travelled around Europe and didn't face anything himself personally and claiming that it doesn't happen is shameful considering that UK has actually CAUGHT and is PROSECUTING several Muslim rape gangs. It's just being blind to the problem at this point - and that's his problem. Not mine.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Not that I really needed the backup but it's good to have some where you see like-minded hive minds clumping together without even bothering to read the very strong case I presented :kobelol
> 
> I don't have a problem with being told that I'm wrong. I have a problem with being told I'm wrong by people who don't even read or produce counter-evidence and start claiming I'm wrong because I'm wrong because I'm wrong because I'm wrong. The amount of circular arguments and actual avoidance present in both this ravishingrules, BM and now unfortunately Tater is dismaying to say the least because you expect people who show some sort of intellectual fortitude in some areas to actually be open to at least question their indoctrination and try to counter it.
> 
> I mean, the guy is openly claiming that he hasn't or isn't going to read what's been presented and you guys are liking that post. I find that to be a poorer reflection on all of you as opposed to me :shrug Think about it.
> 
> However, I keep testing certain people and keep realizing that their open minds aren't really open to new ways of thinking about things and I suppose that's fine. It's more comfortable that way than to face cognitive dissonance.
> @birthday_massacre - As for that study is concerned, of course it's weak. However, it's not something that can be blanket dismissed because the thing that's making you dismiss it is cognitive dissonance and no actual facts. All of the things that you say apply equally to both dems and repubs. The errors in sampling and sample bias get taken care of by however large the sample is and it brings you close to the truth as opposed to the "truth" that you try to claim based on biases that you personally hold. You may want to reject the study, but make sure you're rejecting it based on facts, and not because your cognitive dissonance is telling you to come up with ways to make sure your personal biases are still comfortably held.
> 
> Yeah ... and if you ask more and more people, as the numbers go up, the sampling errors are reduced. Are you saying that this entire study is completely trash simply because it was in person and in Chicago? Why?
> 
> Chicago is a primary blue state. Are you saying that the democrats in Chicago are more racist than the democrats in other parts of the country? You would think that a primary blue state would actually have a lower racist response rate, no? And why aren't chicago dems and repubs representative of other parts of the country (if not all of the country). They at the very least represent the racial views of similar urban centers right?
> 
> The thing is, you're trying to dismiss anything and everything that can be possibly learned by the study because it doesn't fit your personal opinion - and that's just lame.
> 
> Of course it's not conclusive and doesn't represent the country - but fact is that it represents one area and even if it represents that one area it still is enough grounds to have more wide-spread racial research conducted nationwide and better research.
> 
> Science builds on itself. If you find a certain result somewhere, then you replicate it elsewhere and so on. So until you do that, you cannot say that more republicans are more racist than democrats only a minority of which are racist. This study has debunked that at least for Chicago and as representative sampling goes, you will be more likely to find similar results in similar urban areas (predictive) and you'll have outliers here and there, but by and large a study like this upon replication will garner similar results across the board.
> 
> The only thing that's keeping people rooted to this idea that most republicans are racist and only some democrats are racist is personal bias at this point.
> @Tater is refusing to provide me any evidence (since I can't find some myself) of actual racism and racist policies of The republicans that he believes exists and has mountains of evidence ---- but here we are --- in a situation where he's thinking he's got some sort of a higher ground in a discussion where he feels he doesn't "need" to provide any evidence since mountains of evidence already exists. Where is that evidence?
> 
> - Have there been any cases filed against the Repubs by their own members of racial discrimination within the party?
> - Which policies enacted by the republicans are specifically racist?
> - Bush had the government for 8 years, did he enact any federal policies that discriminated against blacks and other minorities? Name 1 if he did and I'll change my mind.
> - I've been living in a small florida town controlled by republicans and I have not yet come across a single ordinance in the area that is at all discriminatory against blacks. The only thing I've seen that I felt was somewhat of a problem was Walmart in a white neighborhood has no locks on electronics, while a Walmart in a black neighborhood did. But that isn't government-sanctioned racism. That's a company that's doing it and people can and should take it up in civil court. Though I've heard of shit like this across the country so it's not even tied to the south or the north.
> - Is opposing affirmative action (which I think repubs do) innately racist or sexist in nature? Or is affirmative action in and of itself racist/sexist?
> - Is opposing abortion sexist, or a result of religious indoctrination or even a sense of morality that claims that a child is a human at the point of conception because it can have a future (this is more of a philosophical point of view independent of religion or science)?
> - Is claiming that we need to do something about the crime epidemics in inner city ghettos racist?
> - If the republican "southern strategy" was supposed to attract only racist southerners, then why does it have such strong support in newer urban areas within the south which have a lot of cross-country migration (inflow from the north and other areas) and are cultural melting points which still support Republicans?
> 
> Where is this republican party racism that you guys claim with so much surety? Where are the actual facts to back it up? Or you guys just comfortable in clinging to that opinion because you never actually challenged it?
> 
> We live in a country where a terrorist was taken in by the FBI several times for questioning and they couldn't even do anything to prevent him from picking up a bunch of guns and shot up a gay bar. If this was a racist country with draconian laws that guy would never have seen the light of day the first time he was pulled in. Yet he was repeatedly released till he eventually killed dozens of gays.
> 
> As for rickrules, the fact that he fails to acknowledge the existence of muslim rape gangs in the UK, rape gangs in Sweden, BBC reporting no-go areas in Sweden, Swedish police claiming they can't fight the escalating crime rates in certain areas, France's growing internal terrorist problem (all of which is a result of growing muslim populations as it has included both local and immigrant muslims), Belgium's terror problem (all of which are directly tied to growing muslim populations in some way or the other) is what's real ignorance - and that's very endemic of the locals within Europe. It's not far right propaganda. It's fact. Just because he travelled around Europe and didn't face anything himself personally and claiming that it doesn't happen is shameful considering that UK has actually CAUGHT and is PROSECUTING several Muslim rape gangs. It's just being blind to the problem at this point - and that's his problem. Not mine.



Its funny you mention a hive mind sticking together and ignoring the strong case to show how the GOP is racist LOL. Love your projection there about yourself and the hive mind on this board that pretned the GOP is not racist. 

There is a reason why the most racist, bigot sexist, Trump gets the more popular he got in the GOP, because he stopped using the code words the GOP used for decades with their bigotry and was coming out and saying it and that is why bigots loved it because they did not have to hide their bigotry anymore and could say it out loud.


You are the one that keeps ignoring the counter evidence how you are wrong. Its laughable you claim there is none. You also ignore all the racist, bigoted, sexist things Trump and his supporter have said this election cycle as a clear example. 

Your projection in this reply speaks volumes, what you claim of other people is really what you are doing. Its just funny you try to claim other people have this problem.

You even admit your survey is weak, and yes it can be dismissed because its weak because it does not prove anything. But seeing what the GOP has done or said over the best few decades does but that is the thing you want to dismiss claiming you debunked how racist/bigoted they are which is laughable.


as for the things I said apply to both Dem and Rep, they apply much more to most republicans, not sure why you keep ignoring this. I even said yes there are some racist dem. and some non racist rep. but of course another poster gave me shit for admitting that lol

The sampling of that survey was not even that large, and is a survey which people can lie on it. if its in person like some of their surveys are, yu really think most people would admit their racist reviews? Until Trump the GOP supporters were always about hiding it and using code words.

I love how you ignore the actions and words fo the GOP over the past few decades. Maybe since since you dont live in the US or have not for your whole life then that is why you dont see it.
But anyone living in the US that is honest will tell you how racist that party is.

There is a reason why verry few minories are republicans and why only like 1% of black people support Trump.

You really think if the GOP was not racist and bigoted that it wouldnt have more minorities? Thre is a reason why the GOP is mostly whites and why that party is always trying to suppress the minority vote


You ignore all this evidence that shows how the GOP is racist and you just ignore it. The only person dismissing evidence here is you. A survey is not evidence of anything, since people lie all teh time on surveys.

So stop dismissing the racism and bigotry of the GOP of the past decades


.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

So no actual evidence then. OK. I just want you to name one racist ordinance policy federal or local that is racist. Just one. 

You do realize that racists supporting a party isn't evidence of a party being racist right? You can have a racist friend that comes to your parties. Does that make you racist by association? 

If I'm not living in the US and I'm missing the evidence of Republican Party racism and racist policies then why aren't you guys presenting it if it is so easy to do so?

There's also heavy evidence that minorities are more likely to be religious. Does that make it so that their beliefs means that God exists? What if like you there is just a misconception of GOP racism. 

Again if there's actual evidence of racially discriminatory ordinances and policies passed by republicans in their states can you please provide the evidence. I can't find any. I need help in this.

BTW, don't be silly. A weak study doesn't mean that you dismiss the study. It just means you either strengthen that study, or find a better one. Could you give me a better study that proves without a doubt that most republicans are racist but only some demoracts are racist? You make that claim repeatedly. Back it the fuck up. Bring in the evidence.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> So no actual evidence then. OK. I just want you to name one racist ordinance policy federal or local that is racist. Just one.
> 
> You do realize that racists supporting a party isn't evidence of a party being racist right? You can have a racist friend that comes to your parties. Does that make you racist by association?
> 
> If I'm not living in the US and I'm missing the evidence of Republican Party racism and racist policies then why aren't you guys presenting it if it is so easy to do so?
> 
> There's also heavy evidence that minorities are more likely to be religious. Does that make it so that their beliefs means that God exists? What if like you there is just a misconception of GOP racism.
> 
> Again if there's actual evidence of racially discriminatory ordinances and policies passed by republicans in their states can you please provide the evidence. I can't find any. I need help in this.
> 
> BTW, don't be silly. A weak study doesn't mean that you dismiss the study. It just means you either strengthen that study, or find a better one. Could you give me a better study that proves without a doubt that most republicans are racist but only some demoracts are racist? You make that claim repeatedly. Back it the fuck up. Bring in the evidence.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-police-raid-registration-program-in-indiana/

The GOP just had a huge case of voter suppression a couple of weeks ago.

You want more bigotry toward the GOP the GOP wants to repeal same-sex marriage. 

The GOP trying to enforce voter ID laws is also racist. 

The GOP is always against welfare which affects a huge number of minorities. 

All you have to do is look at the Islamophobia of the GOP.

Trump wanting to ban all Muslims is totally bigoted.

All now did a lot of republicans refuse to admit Obama was an American? 

Its a joke you will not admit how racist the GOP party is. But ignorance is bliss


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

You missed the point because you didn't at all give me any examples of actual *racist *policies that the republicans have actually implemented successfully as law in the United States. 

But I'll still humor you. 



birthday_massacre said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-police-raid-registration-program-in-indiana/
> 
> The GOP just had a huge case of voter suppression a couple of weeks ago.


Fair enough. However, this is not a policy, but rather a misuse of power in order to impact an election. I'm pretty sure this was done from a color blind point of view meaning that had this corrupt official been in a state where white people could influence the outcome of the election, he probably would have tried to suppress their vote. It seems racist because it impacts black people and also white democrats that were registered as well! His intent wasn't to be racist, but to win the election. 



> You want more bigotry toward the GOP the GOP wants to repeal same-sex marriage.


This is homophobia but not racism. I was specifically talking about racism. But ok. Since you're reaching, I'll still humor you. 

Banning gay marriage isn't *racism. *

Even libertarians want to do away with gay marriage, or all kinds of marriage anyways because it shouldn't be legislated. So sure, some republicans do it from a bigoted point of view. Agreed. But it's not *racism *which is what I was talking about. Stay with the program if you can. 

BTW, as a libertarian I oppose marriages of all forms, does that make me a bigot against marriage? 

How have you determined that all of the republican positions against gay marrage are a result of bigotry and bigotry alone though. That should be something to think about. 



> The GOP trying to enforce voter ID laws is also racist.


Lol. Voter ID laws have to be designed to be *universal *- so it impacts poor whites and poor minorities equally. Poor whites also vote republican. This would be like burning their own voters at the same time. So innately it's not racist when its to be applied universally. 



> The GOP is always against welfare which affects a huge number of minorities.


Yeah ... because poor whites don't even exist. Universal end of welfare means that the *poor whites that outnumber BOTH blacks and latinos* on welfare will be impacted as well so how is it racist again when it impacts *more* white people as well? You really think that they will ever be able to pass a law that says "White people get welfare only. Black people not allowed" :kobelol 



> All you have to do is look at the Islamophobia of the GOP.


Name any Islamophobic laws and policies passed by the GOP. Even during the Bush era post 9/11. Did Bush pass a single federal law or tried to pass a single federal law that specifically discriminated against Muslims even at a time when he might have actually been able to do so? 

We're talking actual implementation of Islamophobia here. Not attitudes. 

Also, considering that Obama and Hillary have been consistently killing muslim civilians for the past decade, it's safe to say that they're pretty islamophobic themselves --- no? 



> Trump wanting to ban all Muslims is totally bigoted.


Has this law been passed? Nope. He went back to the blackboard and guess what - came out with a less bigoted policy. That should actually tell you that Trump who has been rejected by many republican party members had to re-shape his views in order to align himself with modern republicans. That should tell you that the republican party does not support his muslim ban. 

Since we're tossing out accusations, how do you feel about Hillary and Obama who have been specifically dropping bombs on muslim schools and hospitals, helping one group of muslims against another resulting in more muslim deaths ... 

How can you prove with any substance that their killing of muslim civilians isn't a result of bigotry. Because they said so? :lol 



> All now did a lot of republicans refuse to admit Obama was an American?


I consider that causing political nuisance ... fluffery. 

I don't think you're American BM. Does that make me a racist? 



> Its a joke you will not admit how racist the GOP party is. But ignorance is bliss


Yeah. It really is. I'm looking at it right now. 

You have not given me a single ordinance or policy local or federal that is racist that was enacted by the GOP. 

You did not make a case. I still humored you.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> You missed the point because you didn't at all give me any examples of actual *racist *policies that the republicans have actually implemented successfully as law in the United States.
> 
> But I'll still humor you.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. However, this is not a policy, but rather a misuse of power in order to impact an election. I'm pretty sure this was done from a color blind point of view meaning that had this corrupt official been in a state where white people could influence the outcome of the election, he probably would have tried to suppress their vote. It seems racist because it impacts black people.
> 
> This is homophobia but not racism. I was specifically talking about racism. But ok. Since you're reaching, I'll still humor you.
> 
> Banning gay marriage isn't *racism. *
> 
> Even libertarians want to do away with gay marriage, or all kinds of marriage anyways because it shouldn't be legislated. So sure, some republicans do it from a bigoted point of view. Agreed. But it's not *racism *which is what I was talking about. Stay with the program if you can.
> 
> BTW, as a libertarian I oppose marriages of all forms, does that make me a bigot against marriage?
> 
> How have you determined that all of the republican positions against gay marrage are a result of bigotry and bigotry alone though. That should be something to think about.
> 
> Lol. Voter ID laws have to be designed to be *universal *- so it impacts poor whites and poor minorities equally. Poor whites also vote republican. This would be like burning their own voters at the same time. So innately it's not racist when its to be applied universally.
> 
> Yeah ... because poor whites don't even exist. Universal end of welfare means that the *poor whites that outnumber BOTH blacks and latinos* on welfare will be impacted as well so how is it racist again when it impacts *more* white people as well? You really think that they will ever be able to pass a law that says "White people get welfare only. Black people not allowed" :kobelol
> 
> Name any Islamophobic laws and policies passed by the GOP. Even during the Bush era post 9/11. Did Bush pass a single federal law or tried to pass a single federal law that specifically discriminated against Muslims even at a time when he might have actually been able to do so?
> 
> We're talking actual implementation of Islamophobia here. Not attitudes.
> 
> Also, considering that Obama and Hillary have been consistently killing muslim civilians for the past decade, it's safe to say that they're pretty islamophobic themselves --- no?
> 
> Has this law been passed? Nope. He went back to the blackboard and guess what - came out with a less bigoted policy. That should actually tell you that Trump who has been rejected by many republican party members had to re-shape his views in order to align himself with modern republicans. That should tell you that the republican party does not support his muslim ban.
> 
> Since we're tossing out accusations, how do you feel about Hillary and Obama who have been specifically dropping bombs on muslim schools and hospitals, helping one group of muslims against another resulting in more muslim deaths ...
> 
> How can you prove with any substance that their killing of muslim civilians isn't a result of bigotry. Because they said so? :lol
> 
> I consider that causing political nuisance ... fluffery.
> 
> I don't think you're American BM. Does that make me a racist?
> 
> Yeah. It really is. I'm looking at it right now.
> 
> You have not given me a single ordinance or policy local or federal that is racist that was enacted by the GOP.
> 
> You did not make a case. I still humored you.


You dont have to pass a policy to make your party racist lol.
Its why you try to pass or want to pass or what you do or say that makes you racist or bigoted. Its a joke you would even claim you need to pass a policy to prove youre racist. 

I have said the GOP is racist and bigoted. homophobic falls under bigoted. 

As for your question if you oppose all marriage, yes you are a bigot against marriage. Why do you have the right to tell someone that can't get married?

VOTED ID affects minorities way more than whites and I proved that already. The whole point of voter ID laws is to suppress the minority vote and some GOPs have admitted this.



I already told you that GOP wants to ban all Muslims from coming into the country You don't even listen. Trump even said he would be open to tagging Muslims in the US to know who they are
You keep harping on how is this passed bullsit, it what they want to do. You dont have t pass something to show how you are bigoted. your logic is so awful.

You could have a GOP congressman who is always saying hte N word and saying how he hates blacks but using your logic well he is not passing any laws aginst blacks so how he is racist. 

You have to be trolling at this point because if you are not then you really are clueless.

Oh so claiming Obama is not an American and was not born in the American because he is black is not racist? You don't even know what racism is

Yes I made a case but you just ignore all the evidence. If you are going to ignore all the examples there is no point even debating with you. You can lie to yourself all you want if it makes you feel better. it still does not change the truth. You can ignore this fact all you want but you tend to do this alot. 

I am done with you.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You dont have to pass a policy to make your party racist lol.


So what's the point of their racism then if it doesn't result on any sort of state control that discriminates? What's the point of being racists and in power if you cannot or do not use that power to implement your racism in any way that actually discriminates against minorities? 



> Its why you try to pass or want to pass or what you do or say that makes you racist or bigoted. Its a joke you would even claim you need to pass a policy to prove youre racist.


Ok. So what racist laws have they tried to pass? 



> I have said the GOP is racist and bigoted. homophobic falls under bigoted.


And yet they refuse to pass any laws or attempt to pass laws that actually discriminate. Hmmm. 



> As for your question if you oppose all marriage, yes you are a bigot against marriage. Why do you have the right to tell someone that can't get married?


I keep forgetting that you lack the capability to read. My bad. The government has no business regulating marriage (period). Simple enough for you to understand now? 



> VOTED ID affects minorities way more than whites and I proved that already. The whole point of voter ID laws is to suppress the minority vote and some GOPs have admitted this.


Actually it's far more racist to claim that Blacks and Minorities are incapable of acquiring ID. But since you weren't indoctrinated to think about infantalization of minorities as innately racist, you're not even open to the possibility that this democratic push towards continued infantalization of minorities is actually innately racist in and of itself. 

We even determined that in this thread after a more decent discussion than you're capable of. The white savior complex of the democrats and people like you is so infantalizing and racist that you don't even realize it. 

Weren't there minorities also in here that claimed that Voter ID would be ok as long as it's free and easily available? Why would it be harder for blacks in particular to get it. You've never addressed that particular question. Just why blacks and minorities in particular if the standards are the same for everyone? 

Why would it be impossible for minorities to get voter ID if they have all the legal documents to prove that they're legal citizens? Why exactly? What is it about minorities specifically that makes it harder for them to get ID? Are they denied at their local DMV's? The majority of them live in areas where they have access to government services like all of us do? Are they not allowed to get ID?

I'm a minority. I not only got my immigration without any problems, I got my SSN through an online application, my work permit in the mail and my green card in the mail. It wasn't hard at all. 

Stop infantalizing the minorities and you'll see that they're capable of getting voter ID's the same as whites. Stop being a racist BM. 



> I already told you that GOP wants to ban all Muslims from coming into the country You don't even listen. Trump even said he would be open to tagging Muslims in the US to know who they are


But if the GOP as a party wanted to ban muslims, why did after Trump became a serious candidate did he reverse his stance? Why are you using outdated information that is no longer relevant. 

This would be the same as saying that Hillary opposed gay marriage at one point in her life therefore she is still bigoted even though she changed her view. 



> You keep harping on how is this passed bullsit, it what they want to do. You dont have t pass something to show how you are bigoted. your logic is so awful.


Yeah. You actually do have to pass discriminatory laws to establish yourself as a racist party. This was never about attitudes (you can go back to my original argument if you like). This was about them being a racist party and having some objective measure to determine their racism. The best measure to determine the racist nature of a party is to examine the laws that they passed or tried to pass that specifically discriminated against a minority in particular. 

This is the same measure I use when I claim that Muslim countries as a whole are racist because they actually pass laws that actually discriminate against minorities in most Islamic countries. They're racism can be seen in their laws. 



> You could have a GOP congressman who is always saying hte N word and saying how he hates blacks but using your logic well he is not passing any laws aginst blacks so how he is racist.


Yeah. Actually yeah. The thing is that if a party even when its in power is racist, then it will attempt to pass racist shit in order to justify their racism. If they fail to do so as a combined unit, or try not to pass discriminatory laws, then it is a perfectly valid measure to consider them non-racist as a party. You seem to think a few racists here and there makes an entire party racist or that if someone within a party has a racist agenda, then the entire party is racist on virtue of that. In order to account for the fact that a party isn't a monolithic group with a straight up racist agenda, you have to look at their actual agendas, policies and laws passed to claim that they're racist successfully. 

This is literally the same as saying that all muslims are terrorists because some muslims are terrorists. We were talking about the entire party and their overall racist agenda here. One person using the n word doesn't make the party racist just as Hillary's predator statement and being kissed on the mouth by a former KKK leader makes the entire democratic party racist :lol 



> Oh so claiming Obama is not an American and was not born in the American because he is black is not racist? You don't even know what racism is


They don't claim that he wasn't born in America because he's black. How come they don't make the same claims about the blacks in their own party then? Why isn't the GOP completely 100% white if they were so racist? 

They claim that he wasn't born in America because his father was an immigrant. Immigrants have children elsewhere that they bring to America sometimes legally and sometimes illegally - and then they have to go through a process of making their children legal. Like I said, this is more a matter of creating nuisance based on nitpicking, but it's not as a result of racism. I don't know if you understand the differences between how people can legally get their citizenship. I'm just saying that even though it's a terrible thing to be fighting over, it's not because he was black, but because his father was an immigrant who happened to be black. 

It happens down south all the time with illegals crossing the border with their babies that weren't born here. Now to assume that this could have happened with Obama isn't because he's black. It's because it's possible that he wasn't born in America. The racist spin on it has been put up by the democrats as usually because Obama is black. It's also amusing to me that the democrats have completely erased his white heritage (having a white mother, being raised by a white grandmother) but that's another debate. 

I mean, like right now, I can sit here and claim that you're a racist simply for accusing me of knowing less about America simply because I'm a new immigrant and since I'm a minority because I think that's racist therefore you're a racist. But you will refute that claim and give me more valid reasons for why you said that. I just want you to apply those same standards of scrutiny to this accusation against Obama. 



> Yes I made a case but you just ignore all the evidence. If you are going to ignore all the examples there is no point even debating with you. You can lie to yourself all you want if it makes you feel better. it still does not change the truth. You can ignore this fact all you want but you tend to do this alot.
> 
> I am done with you.


No you didn't. I'm not ignoring anything. Nor did I actually anything. I gave you counter points to your points which you're the one who's refusing to actually debate to see if we can't get any deeper into the roots of whether those specific accusations of racism are even valid or not. 

You cannot just claim that something is racist and not be open to the possibility that it isn't racist in a debate once the counter argument has been presented.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> They don't claim that he wasn't born in America because he's black. How come they don't make the same claims about the blacks in their own party then? Why isn't the GOP completely 100% white if they were so racist?
> 
> They claim that he wasn't born in America because his father was an immigrant. Immigrants have children elsewhere that they bring to America sometimes legally and sometimes illegally - and then they have to go through a process of making their children legal. Like I said, this is more a matter of creating nuisance based on nitpicking, but it's not as a result of racism. I don't know if you understand the differences between how people can legally get their citizenship. I'm just saying that even though it's a terrible thing to be fighting over, it's not because he was black, but because his father was an immigrant who happened to be black.


You may think I'm cynical for thinking this, but it's politics. I think it would be naive to think that the fact that Obama is black had nothing to do with Republicans' decision to paint him as a non-American. It's easier to turn someone into the "Other" when they don't look like you or the people you're appealing to.

Shit, Ted Cruz was _actually_ born in Canada, and you don't hear anybody questioning his ties to this country. :shrug


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> Shit, Ted Cruz was _actually_ born in Canada, and you don't hear anybody questioning his ties to this country. :shrug


Fair enough. But since he is already part of the GOP, I'm sure he's gone through the legal requirements already. I doubt he gets that high up in the GOP without presenting his legal documents at some point :lol 

I can't even apply for most jobs without my green card btw. And my green card is the one that contains my birth status, immigration etc etc. 

I'm sure that Obama went through everything legally but I doubt that GOP raise questions if he was a local black with a non-immigrant black father. Do you think they'd do that? 

At most I'm willing to agree that it's on the fringes of being racially motivated? Is that fair? Do you know however if that was the entire GOP platform or members within the GOP creating white noise and the media jumping on it as an example of the whole GOP being racist as a unit?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> You may think I'm cynical for thinking this, but it's politics. I think it would be naive to think that the fact that Obama is black had nothing to do with Republicans' decision to paint him as a non-American. It's easier to turn someone into the "Other" when they don't look like you or the people you're appealing to.
> 
> Shit, Ted Cruz was _actually_ born in Canada, and you don't hear anybody questioning his ties to this country. :shrug


I did!


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






CNN is being more honest with their reporting. I am shocked!



> Shit, Ted Cruz was actually born in Canada


And that's exactly why he didn't become the nominee besides eating his boogers.

- Vic


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I did!


Oh, you'll get a kick out of this: www.tedcruzforhumanpresident.com/

:duck


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> I can't even apply for most jobs without my green card btw. And my green card is the one that contains my birth status, immigration etc etc.


I was born in America, and I can't recall the last time I've had to present my birth certificate for a job. I imagine he had a normal childhood, got a social security number and then used that. Remember, it's not like he was born elsewhere and migrated here. He was born in America. No green card necessary.



> I'm sure that Obama went through everything legally but I doubt that GOP raise questions if he was a local black with a non-immigrant black father. Do you think they'd do that?


Well, they obviously wouldn't take the "secret Kenyan Muslim" route because there wouldn't be any room to maneuver if he was third- or fourth-generation. But considering how frequently the GOP likes to blow the racial dog whistle to appeal to a sub-section of its base, I feel like they would have taken another route to capitalize on that mistrust.



> At most I'm willing to agree that it's on the fringes of being racially motivated? Is that fair? Do you know however if that was the entire GOP platform or members within the GOP creating white noise and the media jumping on it as an example of the whole GOP being racist as a unit?


I don't think it's just on the fringes. I think it's pretty much right in there.

The characterization of the GOP on the whole as a racist party is unfortunate, but the party doesn't seem to do much to discourage the behavior of its more socially conservative members, so it's not like they haven't earned some of it. But again, this is a large part of why I think we need the major parties to splinter. It's absurd that there's no room for a mainstream party of fiscal conservatives who are wholly free from pandering to the social conservatives on the right that have bogged down the GOP for the past decade or so.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> I was born in America, and I can't recall the last time I've had to present my birth certificate for a job. I imagine he had a normal childhood, got a social security number and then used that. Remember, it's not like he was born elsewhere and migrated here. He was born in America. No green card necessary.


Fair enough. I'm actually starting to see both sides of this as being politically motivated, but designed to appeal to some of the racist element that makes up the voter-base of the GOP. 



> I don't think it's just on the fringes. I think it's pretty much right in there.


I get it now. It's a racially charged accusation to make sure that they can retain their racist voters. 



> The characterization of the GOP on the whole as a racist party is unfortunate, but the party doesn't seem to do much to discourage the behavior of its more socially conservative members, so it's not like they haven't earned some of it. But again, this is a large part of why I think we need the major parties to splinter. It's absurd that there's no room for a mainstream party of fiscal conservatives who are wholly free from pandering to the social conservatives on the right that have bogged down the GOP for the past decade or so.


Finally a decent response to my calls for having a serious conversation on the subject for like 2 days :lol 

It's interesting though that while the GOP is blatantly misunderstood as a racist party, the democrats on their side are starting to appeal to the increasingly anti-white SJW minority without reproach at all. I'm talking about the hundreds of college campuses across the US that are now not only blatantly brainwashing children into democratic doctrine, but also encouraging them to become activists. The racially motivated SJW is pretty much the counter to the racially motivated alt-right member. I wonder how long (if ever) will it take people to realize that racism on either side - whether it's white-hating whites, or black hating whites is essentially equally damaging in terms of policy making down the road.

I still think though that appealing to a specific group of voters does not make that party the same as those voters and I don't think that the GOP is a racist party - just as I don't think that the Dems are a racist party just because they have racists that vote for them, or even hold party positions. 

I do think though that one of the more potential dangers we face is the increased fracture in our politics by the sustained growth of SJW's and alt-rightists.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alco said:


> I still consider the odds of nuclear war very, very slim, even if relations between Russia and the US continue to cool down.
> 
> The no-fly zone, I believe, cannot be unilaterally imposed by one state. It will have to be backed by a UN resolution, which will simply not happen (Even if Russia is absent, China will tell the US to f*ck off).
> 
> Besides, foreign policy rhetoric hardly ever translates into a 100% implementation of said rhetoric. I like to believe both Trump and Clinton will take on a pragmatic approach when it comes to Russia once in office.


While probably true, I can't and won't stake my life and everyone I care about's lives on speculation. I can only go by what the candidates are saying they're going to do.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






The DNC hates democracy.






Even more Clinton corruption.


----------



## Figure4Leglock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Can I ask when this glorious age where everyone's rights and humanity were respected and when there was no corruption

cause until like the 1980s police officers regularly beat homeless to death and beat people with phone books to get confessions, you could murder your neighbor and as long he was a "dirty foreigner" or even just "the wrong kind of person" you could get away with it, unions and businesses fought minor mob wars in the streets as they tried to one up each other and you could exiled from a community for not going to church regularly

and this wasn't just the US, this was the whole fucking world

You guys are like children "this is the worst, like, ever"


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Figure4Leglock said:


>


"they only poll between 100 and 1000 people. They're statiscally small."


So much ignorance :lmao

As an aside. Have you see how many youtube chanels claim to be Anonymous?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> "they only poll between 100 and 1000 people. They're statiscally small."
> 
> 
> So much ignorance :lmao
> 
> As an aside. Have you see how many youtube chanels claim to be Anonymous?


I love how Trump supporters claim the polls are wrong and lying for Hillary.

The polls want to be right and accurate. Its laughable how Trump supporters think he companies doing hte polls would fix them to show someone winning that really is not. If someone doing polls is always wrong or is wrong a lot no one is going to look at that poll in future elections.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/791727786729897984
:maisie3


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Was only a matter of time.






I know Lincoln's been dead for 150 years, but can we just put Daniel Day-Lewis in office and tell him just keep method acting? :hmm:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*


----------



## amhlilhaus

Vic Capri said:


> You'll have to bear with me, I'm a foreigner so your political system isn't my strong suit. Does leading in Florida give him a good chance of winning? I know here that certain areas of the country have more representation in parliament so winning in the South-east of the country is far more important than the majority of other areas. I'm assuming it's something like that?
> 
> 
> 
> Its the 2nd most important swing state in the US election map with 29 electoral votes. Its how George W. Bush "won" his first Presidential election.
> 
> - Vic
Click to expand...

Take away those quotations.

For all the democrats screaming about a stolen election, when they finished arguing over hanging chads, bush still won.

People didnt hear about it because it didnt serve the democrats purpose.

My local paper had the story buried for instance, and a lot of papers didnt even report it.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> Take away those quotations.
> 
> For all the democrats screaming about a stolen election, when they finished arguing over hanging chads, bush still won.
> 
> People didnt hear about it because it didnt serve the democrats purpose.
> 
> My local paper had the story buried for instance, and a lot of papers didnt even report it.


Democrats were saying Bush stole florida from Gore, Democrats have contested and complained about Election Rigging for a while. Liz Warren was praising "Leftist" comedic talking heads for pointing out this but now is saying it doesn't happen. Of course it's only true if the Democrats say it, right?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> Can I ask when this glorious age where everyone's rights and humanity were respected and when there was no corruption
> 
> cause until like the 1980s police officers regularly beat homeless to death and beat people with phone books to get confessions, you could murder your neighbor and as long he was a "dirty foreigner" or even just "the wrong kind of person" you could get away with it, unions and businesses fought minor mob wars in the streets as they tried to one up each other and you could exiled from a community for not going to church regularly
> 
> and this wasn't just the US, this was the whole fucking world
> 
> You guys are like children "this is the worst, like, ever"


Are you also aware that continents like Europe and the rest of the western world used to be flawless Utopias before dirty 'refugees' came in and immediately started raping and pillaging, plunging their societies into a hellish darkness?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*




























:sodone


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Ok

That's pretty funny

I wonder who is legally in more trouble, the driver for vandalism or the nail boarder for a public hazard?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> Take away those quotations.
> 
> For all the democrats screaming about a stolen election, when they finished arguing over hanging chads, bush still won.
> 
> People didnt hear about it because it didnt serve the democrats purpose.
> 
> My local paper had the story buried for instance, and a lot of papers didnt even report it.


Bush would not have won if they counted all the ballots. The right winged SCOTUS stopped the full recount and that is the only reason Bush won.









Miss Sally said:


> Democrats were saying Bush stole florida from Gore, Democrats have contested and complained about Election Rigging for a while. Liz Warren was praising "Leftist" comedic talking heads for pointing out this but now is saying it doesn't happen. Of course it's only true if the Democrats say it, right?




First off Bush did steal the election from Gore with FL, if they counted all the ballots Gore would have won.

Second, we all know the democrats rigged the primary for Hillary but the ironic thing is the republicans on here claimed it was not even thought there is tons of evidence for it. 

There is no evidence the general has been rigged against Trump yet. All the so called rigging has been photoshopped BS. 

If Trump was ahead in the polls and if Trump is ahead in the exit polls but Hillary wins then we can talk about how it was rigged.

Not to mention the only evidence of rigging in the general is what the GOP is doing with voter suppression like they in Indiana. 

Now could the democrats fuck with the machines to ensure Hillary wins, I would not put it past them because that shit happened in the primaries. 

If Hillary out performs ro even beats Trump when she should not have in states that don't have a paper trail then Trump should fight it for sure. But if Trump gets blow out then he is just doing it for his ego because eh can't accept he lost. 

Both sides try to rig the elections. 

But if there is no evidence of the DNC rigging the election and Trump still contest it then that is wrong. Gore did concede unitl he saw how close FLwas and it took it back, and it was right to since he should have won.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The Florida situation in 2000 is fundamentally different from the 2016 election, most notably in that the 2016 election hasn't actually happened yet.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> Can I ask when this glorious age where everyone's rights and humanity were respected and when there was no corruption
> 
> cause until like the 1980s police officers regularly beat homeless to death and beat people with phone books to get confessions, you could murder your neighbor and as long he was a "dirty foreigner" or even just "the wrong kind of person" you could get away with it, unions and businesses fought minor mob wars in the streets as they tried to one up each other and you could exiled from a community for not going to church regularly
> 
> and this wasn't just the US, this was the whole fucking world
> 
> You guys are like children "this is the worst, like, ever"


1999 as explain in the Matrix.

The movie even inspired the white nationalist propaganda of blue/red pill.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> Can I ask when this glorious age where everyone's rights and humanity were respected and when there was no corruption
> 
> cause until like the 1980s police officers regularly beat homeless to death and beat people with phone books to get confessions, you could murder your neighbor and as long he was a "dirty foreigner" or even just "the wrong kind of person" you could get away with it, unions and businesses fought minor mob wars in the streets as they tried to one up each other and you could exiled from a community for not going to church regularly
> 
> and this wasn't just the US, this was the whole fucking world
> 
> You guys are like children "this is the worst, like, ever"


Can you stop with the patronising shtick? You're not even taking part in a discussion, just leaving random posts insulting people and then disappearing.

If you want to call someone out specifically, do that so they can respond instead of this passive-aggressive shit.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Goku said:


> Can you stop with the patronising shtick? You're not even taking part in a discussion, just leaving random posts insulting people and then disappearing.
> 
> If you want to call someone out specifically, do that so they can respond instead of this passive-aggressive shit.


This is stevefox in just about every thread. I just ignore him these days. 

https://www.facebook.com/lauren.southern.589/posts/1761069804144568?pnref=story


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Bush would not have won if they counted all the ballots. The right winged SCOTUS stopped the full recount and that is the only reason Bush won.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off Bush did steal the election from Gore with FL, if they counted all the ballots Gore would have won.
> 
> Second, we all know the democrats rigged the primary for Hillary but the ironic thing is the republicans on here claimed it was not even thought there is tons of evidence for it.
> 
> There is no evidence the general has been rigged against Trump yet. All the so called rigging has been photoshopped BS.
> 
> If Trump was ahead in the polls and if Trump is ahead in the exit polls but Hillary wins then we can talk about how it was rigged.
> 
> Not to mention the only evidence of rigging in the general is what the GOP is doing with voter suppression like they in Indiana.
> 
> Now could the democrats fuck with the machines to ensure Hillary wins, I would not put it past them because that shit happened in the primaries.
> 
> If Hillary out performs ro even beats Trump when she should not have in states that don't have a paper trail then Trump should fight it for sure. But if Trump gets blow out then he is just doing it for his ego because eh can't accept he lost.
> 
> Both sides try to rig the elections.
> 
> But if there is no evidence of the DNC rigging the election and Trump still contest it then that is wrong. Gore did concede unitl he saw how close FLwas and it took it back, and it was right to since he should have won.



I can see why people would believe Hillary would rig, the DNC did so for her against Sanders and she's corrupt. I'm just pointing out it's hypocritical of people (Democrats) to talk about rigging then flip flop like Liz did. I do not disagree with you, just sick of the hypocrisy of the talking heads of the Political Parties.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Mifune Jackson said:


> The Florida situation in 2000 is fundamentally different from the 2016 election, most notably in that the 2016 election hasn't actually happened yet.


And most likely 2016 would not go to a single state deciding the entire thing, which is why all this talk is no sense


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Goku said:


> Can you stop with the patronising shtick? You're not even taking part in a discussion, just leaving random posts insulting people and then disappearing.
> 
> If you want to call someone out specifically, do that so they can respond instead of this passive-aggressive shit.


Being passive aggressive is fucking awesome

It like you know when you do a drone strike and you hit some kid on scooter, not only can you say "i didn't push the fucking button" 

Motherfuckers are posting random links to articles with CHARTS AND GRAPHS(tm) that prove SOCIETY IS DOOMED and I am just trying to say you are being radical just for the sake of being so when you have VERY good in 2016

This thread was never "on topic" 

We have discussions on the Nazi's which have nothing to fucking do with this election unless the ANP reformed recently, Massive stories on Islam, CP popping up every couple of pages to say that we support genocide and nuclear war unless we support Trump, the mod literately trying to keep people on task, Tater's FEAR THE MAN essays, and plenty of DANK MEMES

I am just saying "quit taking shit so seriously" and trying to provide a bit of historical context when 50% is chicken little saying the sky is falling and the other 50% are people calling each other racists or fascists for supporting one side and both bitching about "HOW BAD THINGS ARE" when things have not been much better, well ever

And I don't think anyone in this thread is dumb, I think you all came to your views the same way I did and you are just as smart as me if not smarter 

I just wish you guys knew that

(if you must know i am pro-interventionist and pro-Nato and support Hillary do to her support Taiwan, Ukraine, and South Korea and I would denounce my citizenship and join the military of any NATO ally who was attacked and not supported by the US, I am also seriously considering immigrating to France and joining the Foreign Legion but I have surgically repaired feet that don't do well under stress) PASSION OF THE STEVEFOX1200


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I can see why people would believe Hillary would rig, the DNC did so for her against Sanders and she's corrupt. I'm just pointing out it's hypocritical of people (Democrats) to talk about rigging then flip flop like Liz did. I do not disagree with you, just sick of the hypocrisy of the talking heads of the Political Parties.


OH you mean the congress democrats not the voting democrats. Yeah its annoying how Warren and even Sanders pretend the DNC did not rig the primary. 

Trump should be saying, let's not let the DNC rig the general like they did the primary. But he is acting like they are before it even happens. 

If the exit polls are way off like in the primary then Trump will have a case. Its still hypocritical of the republicans to cry about election fraud when they did it in Indiana.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@birthday_massacre @Miss Sally 



> *Dear Liberals: Trump is Right*
> by Eric Draitser
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photo by Juliana Lopes | CC BY 2.0
> 
> If the title of this article sent your blood pressure into the stratosphere, then you’re much too susceptible to clickbait titles and knee-jerk politics. Yes, Trump is a right-wing populist using a not so finely blended cocktail of reactionary rhetoric, Reaganomic policy prescriptions, xenophobia, racism, and a sometime isolationist sometime belligerent foreign policy.
> 
> Of course, none of this is worthy of support, though by his mere questioning of the holy writ of NATO scripture, Trump is the first presidential candidate in decades to substantively raise the issue of America’s military power projection in Europe and around the world. Still, Trump’s cynical questioning of NATO should not be taken to symbolize a move away from imperial policies and war, as I’ve noted repeatedly.
> 
> But, for most liberals, Trump could argue in favor of puppies and kittens, and they’d proclaim that puppies and kittens are out of control and must be exterminated. Because anything Trump says or does is automatically offensive, paranoid, or just plain wrong. Trump said it, ipso facto it is wrong and crazy.
> 
> However, beyond the superficiality of liberal talking points there lies a dirty secret, a specter haunting the dreams of the corporate liberal collective mind: sometimes Trump is right.
> 
> [STUDIO AUDIENCE GASPS IN HORROR]
> 
> No, it’s not just his correctly railing against the disastrous effects of Clintonian trade policies which hath wrought the economic devastation of NAFTA and the soon-to-be-be corporate wet dream of the Trans-Pacific Partnership; Trump’s attacks on Hillary’s trade policies are one of the few truly noteworthy aspects of The Donald’s campaign. No, it’s not Trump’s stated desire to work with Russia rather than antagonize the Kremlin in the Strangelovian nightmare that is Hillary’s vision of a foreign policy.
> 
> Instead, it is Trump’s assertion that the election is rigged, and that the outcome is not something to automatically accept as valid, that is fundamentally correct. And while the liberatti of the corporate media’s Ministry of Truth wax obnoxious about the mortal danger of Trump’s lack of faith in the sacred cow of US elections, they studiously ignore the material reality of the entire electoral system from the infrastructure to the polling and financial architecture.
> 
> Taken in toto it’s hard to argue with the simple fact that the country that spreads democracy around the world at the barrel of a gun has merely the hollowed-out husk of a democracy at home. And whether it’s Trump that says it, or a talking unicorn that shoots rainbows from its eyes, the fact remains.
> 
> *Trump’s ‘Irresponsible’ Conspiracy Theory? 100% Confirmed*
> 
> Trump being a reprehensible degenerate real estate vulture does nothing to change the fact that US elections are undeniably manipulated. And so, when President Obama in his characteristic disregard for reality, proclaims that there is “no evidence at all” to support Trump’s allegations that the elections are rigged, one has to wonder whether Obama is merely lying, as per usual, or if he genuinely believes that. Either way, it epitomizes the self-satisfied mytho-religion at the heart of the established order in the United States; the myth that the rulers rule with the consent of the governed.
> 
> Of course, Obama would prefer to lecture Trump and millions of Americans about the “basic traditions” of America while calling for a “peaceful transition of power,” rather than acknowledge what countless investigative journalists, well respected institutions, filmmakers, and observers have noted for years: the US has one of the least transparent, most corrupt and unreliable electoral systems in the developed world.
> 
> Take for instance the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s School of Law which released a damning report entitled America’s Voting Machines at Risk which found that voting machines currently in use are outdated and run the risk of catastrophic failures. Among the many conclusions in the report was the following:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of machines in use today are either perilously close to or exceed [the expected lifespan for the core components of electronic voting machines]. Forty-three states are using some machines that will be at least 10 years old in 2016. In most of these states, the majority of election districts are using machines that are at least 10 years old…Several election officials mentioned “flipped votes” on touch screen machines, where a voter touches the name of one candidate, but the machine registers it as a selection for another.
> 
> 
> 
> According to the findings of the Brennan Center – an organization widely seen as being liberal – there is ample reason to be concerned about the integrity of the ballots and vote counts. So why then does Obama and nearly every other Democrat (and Republican!) feign outrage at Trump’s suggestion that the election results are not to be believed? Perhaps it’s because elections are the principal mechanism by which the ruling class is validated.
> 
> Obama said that Trump’s assertions regarding the validity of elections were “based on no facts.” I guess Obama did not read the Brennan Center report. I suppose it’s fair to also assume that Obama did not watch the video [since conveniently removed, see here] released by researchers at the Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton University which showed how easy it is to manipulate vote counts on voting machines; it only takes a few minutes.
> 
> Obama must also have missed the work of investigative journalists Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman who wrote in April 2016:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way to verify the official tally on the electronic machines on which the majority of Americans will vote this fall. Nearly all the machines are a decade old, most are controlled by a single company (ES&S, owned by Warren Buffett) and the courts have ruled that the software is proprietary, making the cote counts beyond public scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got that? There is NO WAY to verify any of the vote counts, nor to evaluate the actual operation of the software, including auditing its mistakes. Stanford University’s David Dill, a computer scientist and founder of Verified Voting Foundation, explained in 2012, “If you have a machine collecting and recording votes with an electronic ballot box, there’s no way to go back after the fact and see if the machine made a mistake, whether through malice or simple software error.”
> 
> Indeed, this is part of a long tradition of election rigging in the United States, one that goes back decades. James and Kenneth Collier’s Votescam: The Stealing of America documents the trajectory of undemocratic elections leading us to this point in 2016 where anyone with even a cursory understanding of how the electoral system actually functions, and who controls it, is left with no choice but to doubt the validity of the results.
> 
> Of course, most of us recall how both the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen for George W. Bush. Mark Crispin Miller’s landmark book Fooled Again: The Real Case for Electoral Reform presented in painstaking detail the conclusions of multiple investigations into the results of the 2004 election, particularly in Ohio, which demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that, once again, the presidential election was stolen.
> 
> So why is it so hard for liberals to accept the idea that US elections are undemocratic? Sure, it’s rather easy for liberals to proclaim from the mountaintops their opposition to discriminatory practices such as voter ID laws because those laws target primarily people of color who mostly vote Democrat. It has little to do with a concern for the truth and for the validity of elections, but is rather about anger that the other team is not playing fair.
> 
> But when it comes to doubting the entire electoral system and the results of any given election, liberals don’t want to hear that. They don’t want to discuss it. They certainly don’t want to debate it openly and honestly. Why?
> 
> And why won’t they discuss the fact that Trump’s claim that the polls are establishment/corporate media distortions is, on the whole, accurate. Consider the Wikileaks release of emails from Democratic Party hack extraordinaire, and current Clinton campaign Chairman, John Podesta, who openly described the need for “oversamples on polling” to “maximize what we get out of our media polling.”
> 
> Essentially, he’s suggesting the tried and true tactics of hucksters and con men everywhere – stack the deck in order to achieve a desired outcome. By deliberately over-representing certain groups, and underrepresenting others, once can mold the poll results to any preconceived, politically expedient result. For instance, a few extra Black and Hispanic voters in a sample of 100 or 500 likely voters might skew the poll results by a few percentage points, thereby giving the appearance of more support for Clinton than she has.
> 
> And, naturally, liberals backing the Queen of Chaos have conveniently ignored the release of DNC emails proving that the Democratic primary was rigged in favor of Clinton and against Bernie Sanders. There’s far too much cognitive dissonance created by simultaneously recognizing the reality of how this election has already been stolen, and still supporting Hillary Clinton. Orwellian doublethink seems to be a prerequisite for being a card-carrying liberal Democrat these days. Not only must they ignore how Clinton stole the nomination from Sanders, they must also ignore the steaming piles of evidence proving the entire election is a sham; Debord and Baudrillard would be so proud.
> 
> On October 17, 2016, just a few weeks before the presidential election, Trump tweeted, “Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive!” And he was lambasted for it. Republicans and Democrats came together in a show of bipartisan criminality, and denounced Trump for his ‘irresponsible’ assertions about elections, polls, etc.
> 
> Unfortunately for the elites of both parties, millions of Americans agree with Trump. Worse still, Trump is right.
> 
> SOURCE
Click to expand...


----------



## Alco

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> @birthday_massacre @Miss Sally


Welp. That is hugely concerning right there.


----------



## Figure4Leglock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I love how Trump supporters claim the polls are wrong and lying for Hillary.
> 
> The polls want to be right and accurate. Its laughable how Trump supporters think he companies doing hte polls would fix them to show someone winning that really is not. If someone doing polls is always wrong or is wrong a lot no one is going to look at that poll in future elections.


Wou Wou, i never said im a "Trump" supporter. I just linked the video which i thought would fit in just nicely with the others. 



asdf0501 said:


> As an aside. Have you see how many youtube chanels claim to be Anonymous?


Yeah i have, plenty . 0


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> @birthday_massacre @Miss Sally


Thank you Tater and LOL @ the puppies and kittens part!


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is tightening the gap. Its gonna be a very close race.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> Take away those quotations.
> 
> For all the democrats screaming about a stolen election, when they finished arguing over hanging chads, bush still won.
> 
> People didnt hear about it because it didnt serve the democrats purpose.
> 
> My local paper had the story buried for instance, and a lot of papers didnt even report it.


The republicans did steal the 2000 election.

A republican majority supreme court voted that a quick election result was better than an accurate election result and therefore PREVENTED A RECOUNT FROM HAPPENING. 

You act like the recount happened and the Republicans won. They didn't, they just abused the power of the Supreme Court to hand themselves the Presidency. 

From a legal perspective it's actually one of the worst decisions in history. They literally prevented the votes from being counted.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Bono has seen the light. I know it's cool to hate on him, but at least someone's realized that he had shit opinions at one point.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take away those quotations.
> 
> For all the democrats screaming about a stolen election, when they finished arguing over hanging chads, bush still won.
> 
> People didnt hear about it because it didnt serve the democrats purpose.
> 
> My local paper had the story buried for instance, and a lot of papers didnt even report it.
> 
> 
> 
> Bush would not have won if they counted all the ballots. The right winged SCOTUS stopped the full recount and that is the only reason Bush won.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Miss Sally said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats were saying Bush stole florida from Gore, Democrats have contested and complained about Election Rigging for a while. Liz Warren was praising "Leftist" comedic talking heads for pointing out this but now is saying it doesn't happen. Of course it's only true if the Democrats say it, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First off Bush did steal the election from Gore with FL, if they counted all the ballots Gore would have won.
> 
> Second, we all know the democrats rigged the primary for Hillary but the ironic thing is the republicans on here claimed it was not even thought there is tons of evidence for it.
> 
> There is no evidence the general has been rigged against Trump yet. All the so called rigging has been photoshopped BS.
> 
> If Trump was ahead in the polls and if Trump is ahead in the exit polls but Hillary wins then we can talk about how it was rigged.
> 
> Not to mention the only evidence of rigging in the general is what the GOP is doing with voter suppression like they in Indiana.
> 
> Now could the democrats fuck with the machines to ensure Hillary wins, I would not put it past them because that shit happened in the primaries.
> 
> If Hillary out performs ro even beats Trump when she should not have in states that don't have a paper trail then Trump should fight it for sure. But if Trump gets blow out then he is just doing it for his ego because eh can't accept he lost.
> 
> Both sides try to rig the elections.
> 
> But if there is no evidence of the DNC rigging the election and Trump still contest it then that is wrong. Gore did concede unitl he saw how close FLwas and it took it back, and it was right to since he should have won.
Click to expand...

Liberal propagandandist

Refusal to admit long held party tactics and strategies

Poor grasp of history

Democrats went over ALL the ballots, with a fine toothed comb, and still lost.

You have it all. When i mentioned how TODAYS democrats vote in lockstep you used examples from DECADES ago.

I challenge you:

What would it take for you to say, this is too much, i cant vote for this democratic presidential candidate?

And bonus points and respect; when was the last time you voted for a republican. Any republican, federal to local.

To refresh your memory, since youre arguing with half a dozen people heres mine

-if trump started blathering about 'working together, reaching across the aisle' id dump him, and in fact im only voting for the bum because i know if hillary gets to pack the supreme court with globalist judges its over.

Last time i personally voted democrat was for sheriff jim neill hamilton county ohio sheriffs race 2012 or 14, i forget. Why? The republicans had a political machine in place in that department, the old sheriff ran unopposed every time. Protest vote, do you protest?


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Katie Hopkins called CNN out on their bullshit! This video is glorious! :lol

*#Pipebomb*




> I love how Trump supporters claim the polls are wrong and lying for Hillary.
> 
> The polls want to be right and accurate. Its laughable how Trump supporters think he companies doing hte polls would fix them to show someone winning that really is not. If someone doing polls is always wrong or is wrong a lot no one is going to look at that poll in future elections.


I love how the mainstream media said for weeks and weeks Hillary had a "double digit" lead over Trump and look what's happening now.





>


People had to put rooting tar on the edges or smear vicks vapor rub or hot sauce on their Trump signs to help prevent theft. Hell, one man even booby trapped his so thieves got electrocuted if they tried to take it.

- Vic


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> I love how the mainstream media said for weeks and weeks Hillary had a "double digit" lead over Trump and look what's happening now.


What's happening now?

Race has been stable for at least the last month


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Bono has seen the light. I know it's cool to hate on him, but at least someone's realized that he had shit opinions at one point.


Pfft who doesn't think that? Aid has done nothing but create a population boom in places that has no future, no means of industry and no sustainable methods of food production. Without jobs, education and goals all people do with aid is breed, breed and more breeding. Want to help people? Stop giving aid and start actually building infrastructure and a stable Government. We didn't have this issue before we started giving out aid thinking it was going to somehow make terrible places into good ones without any real structuring.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Figure4Leglock said:


> Wou Wou, i never said im a "Trump" supporter. I just linked the video which i thought would fit in just nicely with the others.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah i have, plenty . 0


I did not mean you in particular, i meant Trump supporters that are crying it's rigged, if you are not a Trump supporter it does not apply to you.


And Tater

that article is nothing new, that is why like I said in my posts Hillary out performs the voting machines without a paper trail that is why she beat him.

I do think its funny how Trump fans (not you) who were always giving me shit when I said the primary was rigged against Bernie and had the evidence t back it up, are now some of the same ones now crying about how its going to be rigged against Trump.

I posted tons of info about how the DNC fucked with the voting machines and how Bernie should have won based on exit polls . It's just funny how trump fans are now like oh yeah its rigged because it could affect Trump.


Ill post this one more time, 




Its all the evidence you need.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alco said:


> Welp. That is hugely concerning right there.


I've said it before and I'll say it again. Why anyone would trust a black box computer voting machine with results that cannot be verified is completely beyond me. 



Miss Sally said:


> Thank you Tater and LOL @ the puppies and kittens part!


:saul

You're welcome. It seemed relevant to the conversation you two were having.

The puppies and kittens line reminded me of Z-Nation because that's what they call the zombies. :lol

Here's an excellent video of Carlin explaining what's going on with the USA as only Carlin could. He truly was a man ahead of his time. Everything he was saying then could be about this current election as well, only it's worse now and more people are starting to recognize what he had figured out decades ago.






I don't know if I should be sad that he's not around anymore or if I should be happy for him that he doesn't have to see all of this play out.



birthday_massacre said:


> And Tater
> 
> that article is nothing new


It's "new" in the sense that it addresses Trump's current railing against rigged elections and "liberals" who refuse to acknowledge anything that Trump says that happens to be correct. 



birthday_massacre said:


> Its all the evidence you need.


I'm not sure why you would feel the need to address that video to me. :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again. Why anyone would trust a black box computer voting machine with results that cannot be verified is completely beyond me.
> 
> 
> 
> :saul
> 
> You're welcome. It seemed relevant to the conversation you two were having.
> 
> The puppies and kittens line reminded me of Z-Nation because that's what they call the zombies. :lol
> 
> Here's an excellent video of Carlin explaining what's going on with the USA as only Carlin could. He truly was a man ahead of his time. Everything he was saying then could be about this current election as well, only it's worse now and more people are starting to recognize what he had figured out decades ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if I should be sad that he's not around anymore or if I should be happy for him that he doesn't have to see all of this play out.
> 
> 
> 
> It's "new" in the sense that it addresses Trump's current railing against rigged elections and "liberals" who refuse to acknowledge anything that Trump says that happens to be correct.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why you would feel the need to address that video to me. :lol



Yup, he was correct but it's good he's not around. He would be labeled a racist, a bigot, an islamaphobe and xenophobe. He'd be buried by "Leftist" comedic talking heads saying he's out of touch and doesn't know anything. He's right about the owners, they all know each other, they all deal with each other. They're always going to be in power.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Yup, he was correct but it's good he's not around. He would be labeled a racist, a bigot, an islamaphobe and xenophobe. He'd be buried by "Leftist" comedic talking heads saying he's out of touch and doesn't know anything. He's right about the owners, they all know each other, they all deal with each other. They're always going to be in power.


My outlook on life is heavily influenced by Carlin's work. He played a large role in opening my eyes to reality, after having been raised in conservative Christian right wing Alabama. One of the things that has always amused me is how people from both the left and the right will cite his material to back up their point of view, when Carlin himself would have ripped them for cherry picking his arguments without looking at his views as a whole. Carlin was a master at calling out bullshit, no matter which side it came from. SJWs hated him for pointing out that their anti-free speech bullshit is a form of fascism, while right wingers hated him for calling out their bullshit religious myths.

Then there is this legendary clip about the owners of the USA. 






_It's a big club and you ain't in it._


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

About, the cherry picking in polls. I said, again and again, look at averages and not individual polling, picking individual polling not only take in consideration you're accepting that poll bias on the asumptions and methodology behind it but also allows to pick the poll who fits better your narrative. By the time we get closer to the election the number of polls will increase and with more polling there will be, normally, more outliers.

Yes, Clinton lead never was over 10 points, nor is Trump regaining ground. All evidence points to a 5-7 point lead for Hillary which could be bigger or smaller depending of turnaout (mainly depending of Enthusiasm and GOTV operations). 

Sam Wang adresses this in his last article

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/10/27/why-do-the-polls-seem-so-variable-this-week/#more-18322



> *Why did the polls seem so variable this week?*
> 
> Why do the polls seem so variable this week? The basic answer is that there were a lot of them. Outliers are an inevitable consequence.
> 
> Trump is going on about three polls that he likes best. They are all favorable to him – IBD/TIPP, L.A.Times/USC/Dornsife, and Rasmussen. They show a tie or a small Trump lead. Meanwhile, for some reason he is ignoring polls that show Hillary Clinton 12 to 14 points ahead. Huh, it’s so weird that he would do that.
> 
> Anyway, this amount of variation is totally natural. It’s kind of like watching dogs in the park. If you wait for ten of them, you’re more likely to see a big or small one. But what we want here is the median dog.
> 
> The more polls there are, the wider the range of outcomes that you’ll see. With the election so near, we’re getting megadoses of polls: I count around 17 in a seven-day period. With that many, of course you will get outliers. As a rough rule of thumb, when the frequency of polls goes way up, you should expect the overall range of outcomes to double, more or less.
> 
> In this case, imagine that among pollsters, the standard deviation of the Clinton-Trump margin among pollsters is 3.5%. If there are 5 polls available, about half the time* one of them will be more than one standard deviation away from the median. Under current conditions, a typical range would be Clinton +2% to Clinton +9%.
> 
> With 17 polls available, the range will be more like 2.2 standard deviations in either direction. In that case the likely range is a whopping 16 points – Trump +2% to Clinton 14%. Which is just about what we saw this week.
> 
> Don’t be like journalists who run off after the most extreme report – that is ridiculous. The only honest thing to do is to take a median or average of all the polls you can get your hands on. Right now, the collected wisdom of all the poll is that Hillary Clinton is ahead by a median of 6 percentage points nationally. Not 4 points, and not 8 points. Her lead is 6.0 +/- 0.9 % (n=12 polls over the period October 20-26, median +/- estimated one-sigma standard error).
> 
> Do I have any criticisms of those pollsters? No. They are experts in their field (except maybe Rasmussen – they need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to repair their methods). There’s nothing wrong with being an outlier – every year it has to be somebody. The consolation prize is that lots of people pay attention to an outlier.
> 
> *For total nerds: I’m using a t-distribution with parameter 3.
> 
> >>>
> 
> I’ll be honest – sometimes I get a little impatient with readers who show up here mainly looking for reassurance in the Presidential race. I understand this is an attraction of the site. But occasionally when I run into people who say they come to my site and feel relieved, I detect a hint of implied complacency. That would be antithetical to why I do this!
> 
> I view PEC as a tool for directing your positive energies to make a difference. Of course we are interested in the Presidential race…but there is little that can be done to affect it. It is basically decided. A good way to work off any anxiety is to work on races where we genuinely don’t know what will happen. Senate control is totally up in the air. There is Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania…so much to do. Donate your time and money to the side that you favor. Or, use the Competitive House Race Finder in the left sidebar.


----------



## wagnergrad96

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> I am voting for Donald J. Trump, the modern day Andrew Jackson!
> 
> [/quote]
> 
> 
> You do realize that Andrew Jackson was a piece of garbage as a human being?
> 
> You do realize that Andrew Jackson had the education of a 6th grader? Perfect since Trump has the vocabulary of an 8th grader.
> 
> Andrew Jackson = Trail of Tears - complete racism against Native Americans
> Trump = WALL!! Complete racism against those of Hispanic descent
> 
> Andrew Jackson = Brave military man
> Trump = Military school and total avoidance of Service to his country
> 
> Andrew Jackson = fierce defender of his wife's honor
> Trump = cheats on all of his multiple wives at any chance he can get
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Donald Trump is the worst major party candidate for the Presidency that this country has ever seen - and that's saying something when you think about some other terrible candidates we have seen (Zachary Taylor, Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, Franklin Pierce . . . )
> 
> He takes 100 words to say what only needs 10. He exhibits every trait of complete narcissism
> 
> He has absolutely no grasp of any serious policy
> 
> He foments anger and racism. He allows his followers to drink in the "gift of Trump" which is a shot of bullshit chased by made up crap.
> 
> He spews a new conspiracy theory each day (my favorite was the crap about dipping bullets in pigs blood before shooting muslims --- never happened)
> 
> Says he lost "many friends" on 9/11 but was never seen at one funeral. Exploiting 9/11 is the lowest of the low for an already low piece of crap.
> 
> Says there were muslims dancing in the streets in New Jersey on 9/11 - never happened.
> 
> Never found a woman he couldn't denigrate.
> 
> Once actually said - in all seriousness - "I have all the best words"
> 
> Loves the "poorly educated" because they are easily duped in to following this clown.
> 
> Repeats himself incessantly.
> 
> Has no idea that Putin actually thinks he's a clown ("brilliant" does not translate to "intelligent" in Russian)
> 
> Thinks he can actually just replace all the generals if he's elected.
> 
> Was a terrible business man. Lost money on several casinos!!! How do you do that?
> 
> Will find any possible way to avoid paying taxes
> 
> Supports policies that will lower taxes even more on the wealthy, making our deficit and debt continue to grow.
> 
> Insults people at will.
> 
> Continues to insist that there is massive "voter fraud." There isn't. He uses this to rile up his group of kool-ade drinkers who will just become angrier and angrier when he actually loses. This undermines the integrity of our democracy and has never been seen in the 240 years of this great nation.
> 
> This list could go on infinitely. Donald Trump must be repudiated - and he will be on November 8th. He will lose "bigly."
> 
> I'm not telling you all to vote for any particular candidate but Vote for ANYONE but Trump. He is vile human being and an international embarrassment for the United States.
> 
> 
> Too bad you're a beatles fan. I'd love ya if it weren't for your support of Trump - a true piece of crap.​


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



NBCNews.com said:


> *BREAKING*: FBI REOPENS Investigation Into Hillary's Server


- Vic


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Comey about to Lucille Hillary. This is quite the October Surprise.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Unlikely much comes of this, but it's a bad news cycle for Clinton so that's always good. I expect a lot more "Trump victims" to suddenly surface as a result. :mj


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary is done. FBI re opening the case is going to be the end for her


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/792053623882735616
:mark:


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Unlikely much comes of this, but it's a bad news cycle for Clinton so that's always good. I expect a lot more "Trump victims" to suddenly surface as a result. :mj



Same. But i think media is gonna hammer this because it fits them as they look for a horserace narrative

In reality, this is too late to have a real significative effect. In 11 days is highly improbable to know what Emails are being investigated or the reasons behind it to have a real significance in voting


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






This man. :done


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Maybe if Trump wins he can get rid of every person in congress and every person in this country that would classify as a millennial or later. One could argue that both groups have no reason to be in the US.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

We've never had a Presidential nominee under investigation by the FBI heading into the election. Congratulations to Hillary for making history again! :clap

- Vic


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/792053623882735616
> :mark:














RKO Outta Nowhere

Hilary still on track for the biggest EC win since 92


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

That's quite the October surprise. Doubt anything will come from it tbh


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ShiningStar said:


> RKO Outta Nowhere
> 
> Hilary still on track for the biggest EC win since 92


I say her floor is 12', best casefor her is taking Arizona, Ohio and Iowa which put her in Obama 08' territory. With an amazing turnaout and a depressed Trump support she could Maaaayyybbeee take Texas/Alaska.


Aside from that i think is going to be a win between 310 and 350 EV


----------



## Mra22

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Wooo!!! An FBI investigation heading into the election. Let's go!!! Lock her up!!! Let's go Trump!!!


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> Liberal propagandandist
> 
> Refusal to admit long held party tactics and strategies
> 
> Poor grasp of history
> 
> Democrats went over ALL the ballots, with a fine toothed comb, and still lost.
> 
> You have it all. When i mentioned how TODAYS democrats vote in lockstep you used examples from DECADES ago.
> 
> I challenge you:
> 
> What would it take for you to say, this is too much, i cant vote for this democratic presidential candidate?
> 
> And bonus points and respect; when was the last time you voted for a republican. Any republican, federal to local.
> 
> To refresh your memory, since youre arguing with half a dozen people heres mine
> 
> -if trump started blathering about 'working together, reaching across the aisle' id dump him, and in fact im only voting for the bum because i know if hillary gets to pack the supreme court with globalist judges its over.
> 
> Last time i personally voted democrat was for sheriff jim neill hamilton county ohio sheriffs race 2012 or 14, i forget. Why? The republicans had a political machine in place in that department, the old sheriff ran unopposed every time. Protest vote, do you protest?



Its not Liberal propagandandist its a fact that gore would have fun if they counted all the ballots.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/

*The studies also show that Gore likely would have won a statewide recount of all undervotes and overvotes, which are ballots that included multiple votes for president and were thus not counted at all.*

*Full statewide review
Standard for acceptable marks set by each county in their recount: Gore wins by 171
Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical scan ballots: Gore wins by 115
Any dimple or optical mark: Gore wins by 107
One corner of chad detached or any optical mark: Gore wins by 60
*

the only reason Bush won was because they cherry picked which votes to count and not count.

Bush won on the limited sets fo ballots to count.

Not sure how many times I have to say this, *IM NOT VOTING FOR HILLARY CLINTON *
I was going to vote Jill Stein but there is a lot I dont agree with her on, so I am writing in Bernie Sanders.

Last time I voted Republican was in 2012 I voted for Romney over Obama.

If Trump gets to stack the SCOTUS it will set the country back 50 years and Americans will lose their rights. Women will lose their right to choice, gays will lose their rights to married again and Trump also wants to take away people's first amendment rights 

What exactly over if Hillary gets to put liberals on the SCOTUS, you mean we get to keep our rights lol


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its not Liberal propagandandist its a fact that gore would have fun if they counted all the ballots.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/
> 
> *The studies also show that Gore likely would have won a statewide recount of all undervotes and overvotes, which are ballots that included multiple votes for president and were thus not counted at all.*
> 
> *Full statewide review
> Standard for acceptable marks set by each county in their recount: Gore wins by 171
> Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical scan ballots: Gore wins by 115
> Any dimple or optical mark: Gore wins by 107
> One corner of chad detached or any optical mark: Gore wins by 60
> *
> 
> the only reason Bush won was because they cherry picked which votes to count and not count.
> 
> Bush won on the limited sets fo ballots to count.
> 
> Not sure how many times I have to say this, *IM NOT VOTING FOR HILLARY CLINTON *
> I was going to vote Jill Stein but there is a lot I dont agree with her on, so I am writing in Bernie Sanders.
> 
> Last time I voted Republican was in 2012 I voted for Romney over Obama.
> 
> If Trump gets to stack the SCOTUS it will set the country back 50 years and Americans will lose their rights. Women will lose their right to choice, gays will lose their rights to married again and Trump also wants to take away people's first amendment rights
> 
> What exactly over if Hillary gets to put liberals on the SCOTUS, you mean we get to keep our rights lol


The 1st Amendment part is true. However Trump doesn't care one iota about gay marriage plus one of the choices for SCOTUS justice is his sister who is very liberal and loves Planned Parenthood. However in the past he has donated to anti 2nd Amendment politicians and has stated he would like to ban certain guns. Not to mention his ringing endorsement of "No Fly No Buy" which gives people that accidentally end up on the list almost no recourse to get off, and his wanting to re-up the Patriot Act and give the NSA back control of our phone records shows how close both candidates are. 

Meanwhile saw that the idiots running his campaign want to use Moore's words in his new film as an endorsement when they are the opposite. The fact that Trump is still close at this stage is a miracle because of the incompetence of his people.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Meanwhile saw that the idiots running his campaign want to use Moore's words in his new film as an endorsement when they are the opposite.


No, the only idiot is Michael Moore sticking up for a corrupt administration that censors Julian Assange (that he bitched about) and hasn't done jack shit for his hometown of Flint, Michigan.

- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> However Trump doesn't care one iota about gay marriage


Yep, and thank God. Time to put that debate behind us for good. 



> plus one of the choices for SCOTUS justice is his sister who is very liberal and loves Planned Parenthood.


And by "one of the choices" you mean the choice the media speculated and Trump immediately said would not be appropriate. He did say his sister was a good judge though. Clearly should've shit on his own sister instead. 



> Meanwhile saw that the idiots running his campaign want to use Moore's words in his new film as an endorsement when they are the opposite. The fact that Trump is still close at this stage is a miracle because of the incompetence of his people.


You're so wrong about this. :lol People are far more likely to watch a 4:30 long video that gives a very strong, emotional reason for many people to support Trump than to watch the full documentary or go looking for context. However Moore meant the words to come off is completely irrelevant. If people cared about context, many of the criticisms against Trump would not exist, and your posts would be a lot different. :mj


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It's seriously fucked up that someone who's under investigation by the FBI is allowed to even run for president. What happens if she's guilty, the President goes to jail? The fuck lol.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

FBI probes new Clinton emails linked to Anthony Weiner

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37805525


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/792100443971137536
:lmao :done


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Yep, and thank God. Time to put that debate behind us for good.


Except gay people don't have full protection under the law in many states and Gay Marriage passed the SC by 1 singular vote. If Trump is elected and replaces Scalia with a like minded judge + old as dirt RBG dies it could easily be overturned. There's a sizeable percentage of Evangelicals and other who are not gonna lie down and let gay marriage stay settled law let alone give them other equal protections under the law.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ShiningStar said:


> Except gay people don't have full protection under the law in many states and Gay Marriage passed the SC by 1 singular vote. If Trump is elected and replaces Scalia with a like minded judge + old as dirt RBG dies it could easily be overturned. There's a sizeable percentage of Evangelicals and other who are not gonna lie down and let gay marriage stay settled law let alone give them other equal protections under the law.


Just wait for them to die. It'll be fine. Gay marriage isn't being overturned.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary is done. People (even her apologists and defenders) won't say it or even see it now but she is essentially done. Days prior, certain leaks were revealing that the Hillary emails were finally obtained and have some damning evidence on many things. Either they were getting released publicly or the FBI had to make a move after what happened last time.

Trump is increasing his numbers amongst independents, has kept his lead in Florida/Ohio, and is surging close to her in states like Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Colorado, and New Hampshire. Hillary's eight point lead has also vanished.

The arrogance of the Democrats thinking the Trump tapes would be the golden bullet to sink Trump's campaign while they, the government, and the media protect arguably the most crooked and criminalistics politician in modern American history was essentially their undoing.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> Hillary is done. People (even her apologists and defenders) won't say it or even see it now but she is essentially done. *Days prior, certain leaks were revealing that the Hillary emails were finally obtained and have some damning evidence on many things. Either they were getting released publicly or the FBI had to make a move after what happened last time.*
> 
> Trump is increasing his numbers amongst independents, *has kept his lead in Florida/Ohio*, and is surging close to her in states like Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Colorado, and New Hampshire. *Hillary's eight point lead has also vanished.*
> 
> The arrogance of the Democrats thinking the Trump tapes would be the golden bullet to sink Trump's campaign while they, the government, and the media protect arguably the most crooked and criminalistics politician in modern American history was essentially their undoing.



WTF :lmao


----------



## A-C-P

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

All Hail President :trump


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> FBI probes new Clinton emails linked to Anthony Weiner
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37805525
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/792100443971137536
> :lmao :done


If he sent Hillary dick pics...

:sodone.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread*

If only Anthony Wiener didn't manufacture/produce child pornography when he manipulated that 15 year old girl to perform for him naked on Skype, this evidence would have never been found by the FBI...


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> No, the only idiot is Michael Moore sticking up for a corrupt administration that censors Julian Assange (that he bitched about) and hasn't done jack shit for his hometown of Flint, Michigan.
> 
> - Vic


Poor guy doesn't know that it was actually NAFTA that started the collapse of Detroit's auto industry in the first place. I feel bad for him and people of his ilk. They just don't have the basic knowledge in the fundamentals of economics to understand any of the stuff they like to talk about at all. 

This is why I think that economics and free market capitalism should be compulsory subjects in high school so they understand the real forces behind wealth creation and how government regulations fucks shit up ... It would also insulate them from the shit economic rantings of socialists.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

A lot of people on the Trump side declaring victory over today's events.

I wish I had as much faith in the American voter as they do.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Yep, and thank God. Time to put that debate behind us for good.
> 
> And by "one of the choices" you mean the choice the media speculated and Trump immediately said would not be appropriate. He did say his sister was a good judge though. Clearly should've shit on his own sister instead.
> 
> You're so wrong about this. :lol People are far more likely to watch a 4:30 long video that gives a very strong, emotional reason for many people to support Trump than to watch the full documentary or go looking for context. However Moore meant the words to come off is completely irrelevant. If people cared about context, many of the criticisms against Trump would not exist, and your posts would be a lot different. :mj


The bottom line is that Moore basically said that there will be buyers remorse for supporting Trump. He is clearly not endorsing him. I would take even greater pause if Trump was being endorsed by Moore. 

My criticism would not change as he is a liberal Democrat pretending to be a Republican and will not vote for him for that reason


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This is from a debate between Illinois Republican senator Mark Kirk and his Democrat opponent Tammy Duckworth.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/791840647095394304
Duckworth's parents did technically come from Thailand, but it was because her mother of Chinese descent met her American father in Thailand. Her dad's family can be traced back to the Revolutionary War. Also, she is the first female U.S. service member to become a double amputee in Iraq. She was co-piloting a black hawk helicopter when it was shot down by an RPG. She lost both legs earning the Purple Heart.

Parting shot from Kellyann Conway.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/791845400445652992
*EDIT:* Removed whole section on Hillary and Trump since I was completely wrong. Thanks to @CamillePunk for pointing it out.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> A lot of people on the Trump side declaring victory over today's events.
> 
> I wish I had as much faith in the American voter as they do.


You can't fault them for having faith.

There is nothing here probably anyway as ther is no Clinton mails and none seems to be from her server, and if the trump tape didn't have an effect there is no reason to think this will have. Results of hiper-polarization

edit:a 6% defficit with a big chunk of votes already casted is particularly hard to overcome, also the constant shrink of Johnson is gonna benefit Clinton


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So surely the race has got to be more of a contest now right? I can't understand exactly how Shillary is managing to survive the amount of shady bullshit she's pulled?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> Now for the part that connects it to this thread beside it being an election story.
> 
> Hillary endorsed Mark Kirk, the Republican, instead of Duckworth, the Democrat. Kirk was the first member of the Republican party to unendorse Trump. Because of that and the Human Rights Council's endorsement of him, Hillary endorsed him over Duckworth.


Source? According to what I've been able to find, Hillary didn't endorse Mark Kirk. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) did.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Source? According to what I've been able to find, Hillary didn't endorse Mark Kirk. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) did.


Just checked it and the source I looked at corrected it. They wrote Hillary as HRC earlier, but updated saying that they meant HRC as in *H*uman* R*ights *C*ouncil instead of *H*illary *R*odham *C*linton. Sorry about that. I'll edit my post. Thanks for asking because i wouldn't have given it a second thought otherwise.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> Hillary is done. People (even her apologists and defenders) won't say it or even see it now but she is essentially done. Days prior, certain leaks were revealing that the Hillary emails were finally obtained and have some damning evidence on many things. Either they were getting released publicly or the FBI had to make a move after what happened last time.
> 
> Trump is increasing his numbers amongst independents, has kept his lead in Florida/Ohio, and is surging close to her in states like Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Colorado, and New Hampshire. Hillary's eight point lead has also vanished.
> 
> The arrogance of the Democrats thinking the Trump tapes would be the golden bullet to sink Trump's campaign while they, the government, and the media protect arguably the most crooked and criminalistics politician in modern American history was essentially their undoing.


What are you talking about LOL

Everyone already knows how corrupt Hillary is, and nothing has been said what is in those emails. Its probably nothing new. And there is 0% change Trump will ever win NH. I dont see him winning CO either and Penn Hillary will probably beat him.

Also yet another woman has came out and said Trump groped her. 

Trump is not going to win.

Trump is also pretty crooked and corrupt as well lets not pretend he is not.




RavishingRickRules said:


> So surely the race has got to be more of a contest now right? I can't understand exactly how Shillary is managing to survive the amount of shady bullshit she's pulled?


Because Trump is a tyrant and a monster and smart people know Trump can't be president.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I will say this: 

If 2016 has to be the last general election cycle in the U.S. in which the Republican Party, some semblance of "conservatism," "limited government"-supported voting, "republicanism," "constitutionalism," politics stitched together to support citizens of the polity first and foremost, etc., have any chance whatsoever of winning at all, at least it is the most interesting and memorable election cycle of my lifetime. Way to go out.

:mark: Looking forward to this Hillary press conference coming up in minutes! :mark:


----------



## Death Rider

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> A lot of people on the Trump side declaring victory over today's events.
> 
> I wish I had as much faith in the American voter as they do.


Even as a trump hater I will be shocked if he does not win now. The amount of shady shit Hilary has done has to be the death nail plus people's memories are short. Unless something big comes out about Trump then I think he wins. I also need to find a video on gradeAunderA that summed why hilary was so bad very well


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Roy Mustang said:


> Even as a trump hater I will be shocked if he does not win now. The amount of shady shit Hilary has done has to be the death nail plus people's memories are short. Unless something big comes out about Trump then I think he wins. I also need to find a video on gradeAunderA that summed why hilary was so bad very well


Most of the people voting for Hillary Clinton do not care about her corruption. Most of her voters do not care about the national-security calamities for which she is responsible. 

When republics become democracies, the law dies out like a fire.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Roy Mustang said:


> Even as a trump hater I will be shocked if he does not win now. The amount of shady shit Hilary has done has to be the death nail plus people's memories are short. Unless something big comes out about Trump then I think he wins. I also need to find a video on gradeAunderA that summed why hilary was so bad very well


i don't get the bipolar reactions here.

For real, most opinions are already setted in. People don't care about what both of this assholes do, they're gonna support them anyways, Trump didn't lose votes for his tape, she is not gonna lose votes for shit she has been hammered for more than a year.

The election was over weeks ago.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Roy Mustang said:


> Even as a trump hater I will be shocked if he does not win now. The amount of shady shit Hilary has done has to be the death nail plus people's memories are short. Unless something big comes out about Trump then I think he wins. I also need to find a video on gradeAunderA that summed why hilary was so bad very well


The funny thing is that something more could come out about Trump in these last 11 days. This race is far from over and will get even nastier. However most people have already made up their minds but there are still a good number of people that aren't affiliated with either party who we don't know where their vote will go.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@AryaDark @CamillePunk @Carte Blanche @Miss Sally @Tater

The most important question right now is...

How, and at what time, did Vladimir Putin take over the FBI?


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It's not about changing Clinton supporters to Trump voters and vice versa. It about getting the independent voters now. It's about swaying their minds. Trump has the majority votes with independents. If he gets those he wins and after seeing the fbi open up the case I think they are now going to sway to trump


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

independents are not gonna change their minds so easily because you're talking about the most disliked candidates ever. The probability is that most people undecided today keep being undecided until the end. Undecided and independents didn't change their mind before after all this shit, they waited until the first debate which is already an anomaly. 

Trump doesn't have a great "majority" of independent voters, his adventage is of 10% or something like that. Not enough to overcome minorities and the difference in women

Even if some change their mind, the most third candidates lose votes, the better for Clinton so both effects cancel each other.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'd be very concerned with opening files from Anthony Weiner's computer. No telling what kind of viruses are on that thing. #ImWithHerpes


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @CamillePunk @Carte Blanche @Miss Sally @Tater
> 
> The most important question right now is...
> 
> How, and at what time, did Vladimir Putin take over the FBI?


I'm sure there's an email or tape about it somewhere.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

From what I see so far, the latest development of Hillary's email scandal is Huma backed up emails on a laptop she shared with her pedo ex-husband while they were married?


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This is pretty much a non story at this point.
First of all, The investigation wasn't reopened, as they've never actually closed the investigation. It's just stalled recently due to a lack of any new information/ evidence.
Also, no new actual evidence has shown up. The FBI simply wants to review everything, considering that Wiener was married to and shared the computer with one of Hillary's top aides. As a result, the FBI wants to check through everything on that computer just in case there was some sort of correspondence between Huma and Hillary that would be relevant to this investigation.
This is basically the Trump camp grasping at whatever straws they can to try to salvage this election. If we weren't 11 days out from the election and we weren't at the point where the clock is running out and there haven't been any noteworthy lately, nobody would pay any attention to it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Most of the people voting for Hillary Clinton do not care about her corruption. Most of her voters do not care about the national-security calamities for which she is responsible.
> 
> When republics become democracies, the law dies out like a fire.


And most of the people voting for Trump dont care about his racism, sexism , bigotry, corruption, lies, fascism, etc etc.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trumps gonna win the independents. Bank on it. Clinton is done after this.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> Trumps gonna win the independents. Bank on it. Clinton is done after this.


Trump has no shot at winning.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> And most of the people voting for Trump dont care about his racism, sexism , bigotry, corruption, lies, fascism, etc etc.


Donald Trump exists as the Republican Party's candidate, in spite of the party bosses wanting nothing to do with him, because we are presently in late-stage democratic America. Take a look at the four major candidates; the ostensibly sanest, least buffoonish, most personally responsible and civil of the four is the Green Party candidate. I repeat: the _Green Party_ boasts the most personally clearheaded candidate. Even Jill Stein has to employ demagogic rhetoric concerning particular matters. 

For decades the Bush and Clinton families have constructed a dynastic alliance ever since the former in George H.W. Bush was in the CIA and the latter in Bill Clinton was used by the CIA as an agreement following what were alleged rapes committed by him when he was attending Oxford. We have not had a president who was not expressly a CIA product since Ronald Reagan, and Reagan had to agree to have the CIA effectively co-chair his presidency with the inclusion of Bush, Sr. to the ticket, for the GOP to agree to his being the nominee.

Bush, Sr. and Bill Clinton continued their alliance all the way through the shipping of narcotics to Mena, Arkansas as part of the Iran-Contra operations. And so we have had one Bush and one Clinton and one Bush and then Obama, another CIA product, and now another Clinton. Even by democratic standards this is a deeply troubled administrative state. 

If Trump has committed crimes and the statutes of limitations for those crimes have not expired he should be prosecuted, of course.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Take a look at the four major candidates; the ostensibly sanest, least buffoonish, most personally responsible and civil of the four is the Green Party candidate. I repeat: the Green Party boasts the most personally clearheaded candidate.


:heston

Jill Stein is a bumbling fuckwit with a head full of overchurned ice cream.

Jill Stein, not buffoonish :heston

Jill Stein, personally responsible :heston

Jill Stein, civil :heston

Jill Stein, sane :heston

Where do you come up with this stuff



> For decades the Bush and Clinton families have constructed a dynastic alliance ever since the former in George H.W. Bush was in the CIA and the latter in Bill Clinton was used by the CIA as an agreement following what were alleged rapes committed by him when he was attending Oxford. We have not had a president who was not expressly a CIA product since Ronald Reagan, and Reagan had to agree to have the CIA effectively co-chair his presidency with the inclusion of Bush, Sr. to the ticket, for the GOP to agree to his being the nominee.
> 
> Bush, Sr. and Bill Clinton continued their alliance all the way through the shipping of narcotics to Mena, Arkansas as part of the Iran-Contra operations. And so we have had one Bush and one Clinton and one Bush and then Obama, another CIA product, and now another Clinton. Even by democratic standards this is a deeply troubled administrative state.


Dear Lord :heston

Get off the diving board please, other people would like to use the deep end

The CIA chooses presidents :heston

The Bush family and Bill Clinton made a dynastic alliance back in the 1970s when Bill Clinton was a nobody :heston

CIA master plan to turn Bill Clinton from a draft-dodging Europe-hopping nobody into the governor of Arkansas and then president :heston

It was only the most perfect and intricate 30 year plan ever, _ever_ :heston

Every president since 1988 has been a CIA "product" and Reagan had to include CIA inner circle man Bush as his running mate to get elected :heston

Dear Lord again. 

Was the CIA in on Reagan all the way back to his General Electric speaking tour? :heston

Was the CIA stage managing the 1964 Republican National Convention? :heston

Did the CIA stage manage the 1976 Republican National Convention so Reagan didn't supplant Ford? :heston

Was the CIA puppet-mastering Nixon when he decided to run in 1968 so Reagan would hold off for another 4 or 8 or 12 years? :heston

Is there any president or presidential candidate since 1960 who wasn't a "product" of the CIA? :heston

Did the CIA make Harold Stassen run for the presidency a half-dozen times? :heston

What about Adlai Stevenson? :heston






IT WAS ONLY THE WORLD'S MOST INTRICATE AND FLAWLESSLY EXECUTED PLAN EVER, EVER.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I think, if anything this could have powerful effects in down ballot tickets. Which is a particularly interesting scenary if the GOP retain the senate.

What would Republicans do with a majority in the senate and a Clinton presidency, block SCOTUS for another 4 years? Impeach Clinton immediately? 

both?:lmao


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> :heston
> 
> Jill Stein is a bumbling fuckwit with a head full of overchurned ice cream.
> 
> Jill Stein, not buffoonish :heston
> 
> Jill Stein, personally responsible :heston
> 
> Jill Stein, civil :heston
> 
> Jill Stein, sane :heston
> 
> Where do you come up with this stuff
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Lord :heston
> 
> Get off the board please, other people would like to use the deep end
> 
> It ain't 1978 bro
> 
> The CIA chooses presidents :heston
> 
> Dear Lord again.


Missed the whole point concerning Jill Stein. Most of her policy prescriptions are as crazy as they come. 

Would recommend reading all of the accounts of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, and go from there. Also worth looking through the ins and outs of CenTrust, the Independence Bank of Encino. 

Heading off the board, though! Enjoy your "safe space," I guess.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Would recommend reading all of the accounts of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, and go from there. Also worth looking through the ins and outs of CenTrust, the Independence Bank of Encino.
> 
> Heading off the board, though! Enjoy your "safe space," I guess.


:heston

The Bank of Credit and Commerce International :heston

CenTrust, the Independence Bank of Encino :heston

Yeah the CIA the organization that couldn't competently or secretly pull off government-rigging operations in countries where corruption and backroom deals on who would run the country were the norm for hundreds of years managed to pull off THE MOST INTRICATE AND FLAWLESSLY EXECUTED GOVERNMENT RIGGING-PLAN EVER, EVER, for 30-60 years in the United States of America :heston

The CIA couldn't keep it's dealings in Iran, or El Salvador, or Colombia, or Nicaragua, or Italy, or Chile, or anywhere else in the world a secret or keep its operations in those countries running smoothly, but in the US of A, its competency and secrecy level *somehow* (perhaps by Reptile Lizard Alien Satanic Magic?) managed to jump up about seven notches :heston

The CIA, the organization that tried to _poison Fidel Castro's cigars,_ that tried to get hallucinogenic drugs put into his TV makeup so he'd act crazy in interviews, that tried to contract out a Castro assassination to the Mafia, and couldn't pull any of that off or keep it secret either, has managed to secretly control the US presidency since at least 1980 and probably earlier :heston

For someone who knows so much history, you have a startling lack of understanding of it. It's easy to smuggle drugs and launder money and keep it a secret. For a few years anyway.

Secretly orchestrating the national politics of a nation of hundreds of millions of people for 50+ years is just _slightly_ more difficult to manage. As in, it's impossible. Human beings aren't capable of executing such a gargantuan plan for such a long time. Unless you think the CIA has been run and staffed for the last six and a half decades by a bunch of literal _Gods._ Which, sorry, it hasn't been. And if it was, resistance would be futile, wouldn't it? 

You're the one talking like you need a safe space bro. Go run to it before the CIA gets you!


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Deepenemablues trying to ruin the Heston smiley for everyone with his garbage tier posts. :no:


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Comey letter to FBI employees per WaPo



> Read Comey’s letter to FBI employees below.
> 
> To all:
> 
> This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation. Yesterday, the investigative team briefed me on their recommendation with respect to seeking access to emails that have recently been found in an unrelated case. Because those emails appear to be pertinent to our investigation, I agreed that we should take appropriate steps to obtain and review them.
> 
> Of course, we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed. I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression. In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood, but I wanted you to hear directly from me about it.
> 
> Jim Comey


So, now we have leaks inside the FBI

2016 everybody :lmao


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Comey letter to FBI employees per WaPo
> 
> 
> 
> So, now we have leaks inside the FBI
> 
> 2016 everybody :lmao


Well this isn't new, there were people from the FBI who didn't like how things were handled with the investigation and that some pretty shady stuff went on. There is also something floating around about the FBI or something donating to certain organizations. Leaks have been going on for a while, I'm guessing like many people, there are people fed up with how our justice system will not go after Politicians. Regardless of party nor humanitarian standing, the justice system should go after criminals!


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


>


Pay no attention to the black people on the right and left of her also holding the same signs.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Pay no attention to the black people on the right and left of her also holding the same signs.


The black man looks older, the one next to her, how do we know that's not her husband and she's supporting him? This is like the trump supporter who was giving the heil salute and people were trying to say she was a nazi without any context.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> The CIA, the organization that tried to _poison Fidel Castro's cigars,_ that tried to get hallucinogenic drugs put into his TV makeup so he'd act crazy in interviews, that tried to contract out a Castro assassination to the Mafia, and couldn't pull any of that off or keep it secret either, has managed to secretly control the US presidency since at least 1980 and probably earlier :heston
> 
> For someone who knows so much history, you have a startling lack of understanding of it. It's easy to smuggle drugs and launder money and keep it a secret. For a few years anyway.
> 
> Secretly orchestrating the national politics of a nation of hundreds of millions of people for 50+ years is just _slightly_ more difficult to manage. As in, it's impossible. Human beings aren't capable of executing such a gargantuan plan for such a long time. Unless you think the CIA has been run and staffed for the last six and a half decades by a bunch of literal _Gods._ Which, sorry, it hasn't been. And if it was, resistance would be futile, wouldn't it?
> 
> You're the one talking like you need a safe space bro. Go run to it before the CIA gets you!


The CIA has not orchestrated the national politics of a nation of hundreds of millions of people for 50+ years, nor have they rigged elections within the U.S.

First thing we have to recognize about the Agency is that the vast majority of the decision-makers are ex-bankers. Banking interests have been behind U.S. foreign policy since at least the early 1880s. The CIA has simply, in the past generation, continued the tradition via-a-vis the Trilateral Commission, begun at the very least with J.P. Morgan's backing of Grover Cleveland after Drexel, Morgan and J.P. Morgan emerged as the most powerful investment firm, sought to have candidates approved by the Agency in the field. This isn't wacky "New World Order" secret stuff at all. For all of the conspiracy theories connected to the Bilderberg Group, for instance, all it really is is a showcase of people who rising high within the financial and political elite, like Bill Clinton in 1991. The point is to keep keep the chessboard packed with so many interconnected assets that no "rigging" nor "orchestration" is necessary at all. Again, no deep shadowy secret, nor even necessarily sinister. Institutions' first mandate is to protect themselves. The only matter worth pondering is how much power they have over others, and at what point their enlargement becomes problematic for, in this instance, republican governance. 

Let us take the case of Grover Cleveland. Cleveland grew up as a lawyer in Buffalo, New York, and one of his greatest clients was one of the crown jewels of Morgan, the New York Central Railroad. During his time out of office between presidencies Cleveland was named a partner of one of New York City's most respected and prestigious law firms, Bangs, Stetson, Tracey and MacVeagh. Bangs, Stetson, Tracey and MacVeagh was the legal firm for Morgan. Charles Tracey, senior partner at Bangs, Stetson, Tracey and MacVeagh, was J.P. Morgan's brother-in-law, haha. Francis Lynde Stetson, who was a friend of Cleveland's dating back to their early adult years, emerged as the firm's most important partner in the wake of Tracey's 1887 death. This would eventually become the Wall Street firm of Davis, Polk and Wardwell. Cleveland's administrations were brimming with a bevy of men from Morgan. His first Secretary of State was Thomas F. Bayard, one of the most indispensable and closest acolytes of August Belmont. Richard Olney was the critical second Cleveland presidency's Secretary of State, one of the Boston financial world's most outstanding attorneys at the time, and had been a major cog in the Morgan machinery. Bayard was on the Board of the Boston and Maine Railroad, which was a Morgan railroad. Bayard assisted Morgan in the creation of the General Electric Company in 1892. Boston Brahmin Secretary of War William C. Endicott was another pivotal part of the Cleveland administration, having wedded into the Peabody family. Endicott's spouse's uncle had founded a banking and investment firm which featured J.P. Morgan's father as one of the senior partners. Many Peabodys were great friends with J.P. Morgan, one being the best man at John Pierpont Morgan's wedding in 1861.

U.S. foreign policy's dramatic shift in the final decade of the nineteenth century was primarily pushed by leading investment banks. Expanding the growing nation's economic dynamism in order to manage export markets and new financial interests that they would invest in, while guaranteeing the bonds of many poor countries. "Bankers' Magazine" issued a host of pieces in 1893 and 1894 arguing on behalf of an expansionist foreign policy, the idea being that the U.S. could knock the English, Germans and Spanish away from the markets that they, at the time, held, to allow the American bank-financed markets of South America. The perennial Morgan man Richard Olney was quick to listen while serving as Secretary of State in 1895-1897, and he was in large part most singularly responsible for shaping foreign policy within Cleveland's second administration. 

The point here is not that nefarious monsters are hiding under beds rigging elections or "stealing our democracy" as those who tout democracy may bellow or what have you. Most of the higher echelons of the CIA today is populated by ex-bankers and ex-lawyers and these people have continued the tradition of being what James Madison may have been referring to as a "faction" in _Federalist No. 10_, among other meanings. (After all, the "two-party system" as we know it was a strictly nineteenth century phenomenon.)


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Sweet lord the liberalism in here is nauseating.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Just a week and a half left, everybody. :mj2


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Most of the people voting for Hillary Clinton do not care about her corruption. Most of her voters do not care about the national-security calamities for which she is responsible.
> 
> When republics become democracies, the law dies out like a fire.


You've personally polled or conversed with "most of the people voting for Hillary Clinton"? 

Did you go door to door or call them?

In all seriousness, the differences between Republicans and Democrats are not significant, the sad reality is that the elected officials in both parties are beholden to the same corporate masters. If this was not true poverty would have been eradicated years ago (or at least a serious effort would have been undertaken) and President Peace Prize wouldn't be illegally using US troops in multiple nations around the world killing countless innocent civilians in the process. 

They accentuate the wedge issues during the election cycles in order to keep Americans in a fog and to earn their keep and keep the money flowing from the special interest groups on both sides of these wedge issues. 

If anyone wants to truly understand that the elected officials are bought and paid for, examine the voting records of congressman from poor minority communities and compare it to their corporate donors. You'll find that their vote is not the voice of their constituents who can't afford to donate to their campaigns, rather their vote is in the interest of their corporate financiers. This is true of almost all in Congress but just most obvious in the example I shared.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Missed the whole point concerning Jill Stein. Most of her policy prescriptions are as crazy as they come.
> 
> Would recommend reading all of the accounts of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, and go from there. Also worth looking through the ins and outs of CenTrust, the Independence Bank of Encino.
> 
> Heading off the board, though! Enjoy your "safe space," I guess.


A lot of folks fondly recall trying to win her husband Ben's money...

And who isn't a fan of their son Beer...


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



















:maury


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Donald Trump exists as the Republican Party's candidate, in spite of the party bosses wanting nothing to do with him, because we are presently in late-stage democratic America. Take a look at the four major candidates; the ostensibly sanest, least buffoonish, most personally responsible and civil of the four is the Green Party candidate. I repeat: the _Green Party_ boasts the most personally clearheaded candidate. Even Jill Stein has to employ demagogic rhetoric concerning particular matters.
> 
> For decades the Bush and Clinton families have constructed a dynastic alliance ever since the former in George H.W. Bush was in the CIA and the latter in Bill Clinton was used by the CIA as an agreement following what were alleged rapes committed by him when he was attending Oxford. We have not had a president who was not expressly a CIA product since Ronald Reagan, and Reagan had to agree to have the CIA effectively co-chair his presidency with the inclusion of Bush, Sr. to the ticket, for the GOP to agree to his being the nominee.
> 
> Bush, Sr. and Bill Clinton continued their alliance all the way through the shipping of narcotics to Mena, Arkansas as part of the Iran-Contra operations. And so we have had one Bush and one Clinton and one Bush and then Obama, another CIA product, and now another Clinton. Even by democratic standards this is a deeply troubled administrative state.
> 
> If Trump has committed crimes and the statutes of limitations for those crimes have not expired he should be prosecuted, of course.


Trump has stood for everything the GOP has stood for just Trump says them out loud. Trump just gave the bigoted, sexist and racist republicans someone to rally behind in the open instead of having to use code words for it.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> Just a week and a half left, everybody. :mj2


I know. :mj2 I'm going to miss this election cycle so much.

I had, the time of my life...


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I know. :mj2 I'm going to miss this election cycle so much.
> 
> I had, the time of my life...


I wonder if this thread can reach 10k posts? :hmm: It's already the thread with the most replies ever in this section (even if this thread is actually a couple of threads merged together).


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/792095219193901056

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/792091966636818432

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/792231193978687488
:banderas


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sen. Hillary Clinton said:


> I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake. And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.”


Once a cheater, always a cheater.



> What's happening now?
> 
> Race has been stable for at least the last month


She had a double digit lead (that the media kept repeating countless times). She's losing it!




>


Old news, but perhaps her husband / boyfriend is black? Kids? Relatives? Food for thought.




> And most of the people voting for Trump dont care about his racism, sexism , bigotry, corruption, lies, fascism, etc etc.


A lot of people are voting for Trump because they believe strongly in smaller government, a different tax policy, healthcare system, religious issues, and gun rights.

Shocking I know!



> This is pretty much a non story at this point.


The FBI would not re-open case unless new evidence was a real bombshell. Nice try though.

- Vic


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> I know. :mj2 I'm going to miss this election cycle so much.
> 
> I had, the time of my life...


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> You've personally polled or conversed with "most of the people voting for Hillary Clinton"?
> 
> Did you go door to door or call them?
> 
> In all seriousness, the differences between Republicans and Democrats are not significant, the sad reality is that the elected officials in both parties are beholden to the same corporate masters. If this was not true poverty would have been eradicated years ago (or at least a serious effort would have been undertaken) and President Peace Prize wouldn't be illegally using US troops in multiple nations around the world killing countless innocent civilians in the process.
> 
> They accentuate the wedge issues during the election cycles in order to keep Americans in a fog and to earn their keep and keep the money flowing from the special interest groups on both sides of these wedge issues.
> 
> If anyone wants to truly understand that the elected officials are bought and paid for, examine the voting records of congressman from poor minority communities and compare it to their corporate donors. You'll find that their vote is not the voice of their constituents who can't afford to donate to their campaigns, rather their vote is in the interest of their corporate financiers. This is true of almost all in Congress but just most obvious in the example I shared.


Do not disagree with much of what you are saying here. Many of the people to whom I am anecdotally referring are in finance. One young lady at the firm insists that all of the charges of corruption levied at Hillary Clinton are "because she's a woman." How does one have a meaningful conversation concerning the matter at hand with someone who wishes to remain blind? 

In any event, moving on to a couple of the latest revelations:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/792147717938089984
Then there is this... Full story here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...man-at-the-center-of-bill-clinton-inc/505661/



> The Man at the Center of 'Bill Clinton Inc.'
> 
> Doug Band helped everyone get rich in the post-presidential empire, but his re-emergence in the WikiLeaks hack is another headache for Hillary.
> 
> Patrick Semansky / AP
> 
> Russell Berman
> | Oct 28, 2016
> 
> Who is Doug Band, and what did he do for Bill Clinton?
> 
> A little bit of everything, it turns out.
> 
> He helped launch the Clinton Foundation, came up with the idea for the Clinton Global Initiative, brokered deals for paid speeches that enriched Clinton, and then started a private consulting firm called Teneo that made the Foundation, Bill Clinton, and Band himself even wealthier.
> 
> All of that became clear in the latest batch of hacked emails released by WikiLeaks, which include messages from Band and a 12-page memo that he wrote both explaining and defending his and his company’s work on Clinton’s behalf. For Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the publication of the Band memo is yet another WikiLeaks-induced headache, as it provides even more detail into the unsavory-if-not-illegal intersection of interests at the heart of her family’s philanthropic work.
> 
> Band, now 44, was to Bill Clinton what Huma Abedin has been to Hillary. He started as a junior staffer in the White House straight out of college in the 1990s, and once the Clintons left office in 2001, he never left Bill’s side.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump has stood for everything the GOP has stood for just Trump says them out loud. Trump just gave the bigoted, sexist and racist republicans someone to rally behind in the open instead of having to use code words for it.


So that must mean Clinton stands for what the Democrats believed in all along, racism, lying, fraud, corruption, endless scandals, covering up rape and being bigoted to your own voters. I guess now Democrats can rally behind someone who really speaks for them, rather than hiding behind "progress" and "altruism".

:confused


Wow this election is really eye opening!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The blacks for Trump signs are photoshopped.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> The blacks for Trump signs are photoshopped.


https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/791006369226907648?ref_src=twsrc^tfw


Nice try moron.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Man now that everything is on tape, now new revelations are on twitter, facebook etc every 5 minutes of past dirty laundry, will we ever have any 'clean', 'respectable', elections ever again? #cynical


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/791006369226907648?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
> 
> 
> Nice try moron.


Actually thanks for this, because it proves that the blacks for trump signs were being held by a black man and a woman with the black man. 

Good to know they weren't potoshopped - and it's better that the black man holding the sign gets the visibility he deserves.

You still don't realize that I don't mind being wrong *if *I'm wrong. And it amuses me that you have to resort to childish insults to try to get your point across. Still stinging from the cbox burial? :kobelol


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Actually thanks for this, because it proves that the blacks for trump signs were being held by a black man and a woman with the black man.
> 
> Good to know they weren't potoshopped - and it's better that the black man holding the sign gets the visibility he deserves.
> 
> You still don't realize that I don't mind being wrong *if *I'm wrong. And it amuses me that you have to resort to childish insults to try to get your point across. Still stinging from the cbox burial? :kobelol


The facts that you would both call something out as a photoshop when it clearly wasn't and you hadn't bothered putting in the slightest bit of research in, and that you would refer to randomly talking about stupid shit in an internet chatroom as a "burial" says everything about you as a person that ever needs to be said.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

There were some black people in a Trump crowd, but of course, the mainstream media wouldn't want you to know that. :lol



> The facts that you would both call something out as a photoshop when it clearly wasn't and you hadn't bothered putting in the slightest bit of research in, and that you would refer to randomly talking about stupid shit in an internet chatroom as a "burial" says everything about you as a person that ever needs to be said.


Grow up.

- Vic


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> The facts that you would both call something out as a photoshop when it clearly wasn't and you hadn't bothered putting in the slightest bit of research in, and that you would refer to randomly talking about stupid shit in an internet chatroom as a "burial" says everything about you as a person that ever needs to be said.


Of course you don't actually care that there was also blacks holding up the blacks for trump signs which shows up in your own research. 

So you think that a white woman who's clearly with a black man does not have a right to hold up a blacks for trump sign even though clearly she's with another black man? 

Also, it wasn't stupid shit. You insulted someone who claimed they had suicidal depression. And guess what, that person has not been seen in this thread since. I take that very seriously because it's people in your demographic - "open-minded"foreigners with little to no regard for the rules of civil debate that has made this thread absolute and utter cancer for some people with opposing views.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

1. We had a conversation and resolved it, which you're well aware of but choose to ignore, because who cares about reality right?
2. He is a big boy and deal with issues himself, if there were issues, but as above, we had conversation and resolved things.
3. He has been seen since.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> 1. We had a conversation and resolved it, which you're well aware of but choose to ignore, because who cares about reality right?
> 2. He is a big boy and deal with issues himself, if there were issues, but as above, we had conversation and resolved things.
> 3. He has been seen since.


Yeah .. you were "lovely" to him _after _calling him an annoying 12 year old who is not worth being listened to. 

It's a matter of how your mean instincts trumped your good sense and betray your facade of liberal altruism - which I'll keep pointing out for as long as I can. 

Deal with it.

ANd I mean, even here, your instinct wasn't to just prove me wrong, but you also called me a moron. Strike two.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Yeah .. you were "lovely" to him _after _calling him an annoying 12 year old who is not worth being listened to.
> 
> It's a matter of how your mean instincts trumped your good sense and betray your facade of liberal altruism - which I'll keep pointing out for as long as I can.
> 
> Deal with it.
> 
> ANd I mean, even here, your instinct wasn't to just prove me wrong, but you also called me a moron. Strike two.


Calling something photoshopped when it wasn't and you had no idea what you were talking about was a moronic thing to do.

I called you out on it completely legitimately. People who make claims like that without bothering to do a modicum of research deserve to be called out for it.

Deal with it.

Just accept it was a moronic thing to do and move on with your life.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Calling something photoshopped when it wasn't and you had no idea what you were talking about was a moronic thing to do.
> 
> I called you out on it completely legitimately. People who make claims like that without bothering to do a modicum of research deserve to be called out for it.
> 
> Deal with it.


I'm more amused at your hypocrisy than insulted.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> I'm more amused at your hypocrisy than insulted.


Hypocrisy?

Everytime I have positively said something was photoshopped I've linked to an article proving it was. Because I care about reality.

Unlike you, for whom it seems to be an abstract concept.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Like don't get me wrong here at all, I massively dislike Trump as a person and a lot of what he says is plain retarded. But Hillary's like a full blown criminal, there's no way this can be a foregone conclusion surely? It's insanity to be honest, I'm someone who thinks Tony Blair should be prosecuted after the chilcott report flat out said he was a war criminal for Iraq, and from everything I've seen Hillary's equally corrupt. I just don't think it's right that she's even still allowed to run if I'm honest.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Hypocrisy?
> 
> Everytime I have positively said something was photoshopped I've linked to an article proving it was. Because I care about reality.
> 
> Unlike you, for whom it seems to be an abstract concept.


No. The hypocrisy of considering yourself this left-wing altruistic man who wants to be seen as this open-minded social liberal who can't even engage in a discussion without throwing out insults first. 

Or maybe, this idea that social liberals are actually decent human beings in and of itself is a misconception.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> No. The hypocrisy of considering yourself this left-wing altruistic man who wants to be seen as this open-minded social liberal who can't even engage in a discussion without throwing out insults first.
> 
> Or maybe, this idea that social liberals are actually decent human beings in and of itself is a misconception.


The fact that a random person on the other side of the world and I've never met thinks that I want to be seen a altruistic and that I'm not is going to haunt me for the rest of my life.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> The fact that a random person on the other side of the world and I've never met thinks that I want to be seen a altruistic and that I'm not is going to haunt me for the rest of my life.


Of course it does. That's why you try so hard to align yourself with social democrats (even though it's not even your country) and keep responding with justifications for your torrid behavior :kobelol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Like don't get me wrong here at all, I massively dislike Trump as a person and a lot of what he says is plain retarded. But Hillary's like a full blown criminal, there's no way this can be a foregone conclusion surely? It's insanity to be honest, I'm someone who thinks Tony Blair should be prosecuted after the chilcott report flat out said he was a war criminal for Iraq, and from everything I've seen Hillary's equally corrupt. I just don't think it's right that she's even still allowed to run if I'm honest.


Once you start thinking of the US in terms of it being an oligarchy and also in terms of how bipartisan politics create generations of loyal voters, you'll understand why none of this matters. This is 2 party politics at its worst. 

People here don't vote in candidates as much as they vote in parties. This is why Clinton's lead never got out of control and the oligarchy is why the FBI is so reluctant to actually charge Hillary. It's about parties, not individuals here.

These two candidates were voted in. Sure there was rigging in the democratic primary, but it wasn't that extreme so as to have influenced the outcome entirely. It may have been but it's hard to prove. The fact that many Americans are now loathe to vote in either is meaningless because they HAVE to vote one or the other. There's no such thing as a third or fourth candidate. The voters voter based on their family's legacy and the candidates matter less than getting your party into power.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Once you start thinking of the US in terms of it being an oligarchy and also in terms of how bipartisan politics create generations of loyal voters, you'll understand why none of this matters. This is 2 party politics at its worst.
> 
> People here don't vote in candidates as much as they vote in parties. This is why Clinton's lead never got out of control and the oligarchy is why the FBI is so reluctant to actually charge Hillary. It's about parties, not individuals here.
> 
> These two candidates were voted in. Sure there was rigging in the democratic primary, but it wasn't that extreme so as to have influenced the outcome entirely. It may have been but it's hard to prove. The fact that many Americans are now loathe to vote in either is meaningless because they HAVE to vote one or the other. There's no such thing as a third or fourth candidate. The voters voter based on their family's legacy and the candidates matter less than getting your party into power.


Yeah we have a slightly differing set up but similarly it's rare that anyone other than the 2 largest parties ever gets elected. I'm actually in favour of proportional representation more than either set up. I think it'd likely be easier to implement here with the way our parliament works and the fact we're a much smaller country. I dunno how well it'd translate in a beast the size of the US though. Still, it's ridiculous that the ruling class gets away with so much bullshit. If that were me or you in either country we'd be screwed.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The white woman holding a "Blacks for Trump" sign "controversy" is stupid, she's standing next to a black man, did anyone stop and realize she could be related, working with or with this man? Maybe she actually serves on whatever committee this group is? So whites can join BLM but cannot possibly join or help Blacks for Trump? It's not as if she was standing with only white people, the reaching in this is rather silly.

I'm rather light skinned so if I joined "Hispanics for Trump" would you all claim I cannot be Hispanic? Would you need to meet my daddy and family to be convinced? Me to speak in spanish or cooking mexican food? lol

fpalm


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The blacks for Trump dude is just plain weird. Not sure how reliable the source is as it is a liberal site. But damn...

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/27/tha...rumps-rallies-is-even-weirder-than-you-think/

Seems like the GOP's reputation of being the racist party attracts all kinds of racists now. :troll


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Yeah we have a slightly differing set up but similarly it's rare that anyone other than the 2 largest parties ever gets elected. I'm actually in favour of proportional representation more than either set up. I think it'd likely be easier to implement here with the way our parliament works and the fact we're a much smaller country. I dunno how well it'd translate in a beast the size of the US though. Still, it's ridiculous that the ruling class gets away with so much bullshit. If that were me or you in either country we'd be screwed.


The parliamentarian system has a greater chance of leading to tyranny than the US presidential system. It also leads to an even more hamstrung government when the opposition is stronger and the government is based on a coalition (an actual minority, but a majority based on bringing in other party votes). Finally, there's even less accountability imo because such a government (correct me if I'm wrong) has the power to pass legislation without any checks and balances. This is why I've noticed that countries with the parliamentarian system tend to have far more draconian and frivolous legislation than America does. 



Miss Sally said:


> The white woman holding a "Blacks for Trump" sign "controversy" is stupid, she's standing next to a black man, did anyone stop and realize she could be related, working with or with this man? Maybe she actually serves on whatever committee this group is? So whites can join BLM but cannot possibly join or help Blacks for Trump? It's not as if she was standing with only white people, the reaching in this is rather silly.
> 
> I'm rather light skinned so if I joined "Hispanics for Trump" would you all claim I cannot be Hispanic? Would you need to meet my daddy and family to be convinced? Me to speak in spanish or cooking mexican food? lol
> 
> fpalm


Well, I admitted my mistake that I thought it was photoshopped. Alkomesh has this weird feud going with me that dates back to a few weeks do I'd just ignore our conversation from now on because it really isn't beneficial to this thread at all :lol 

Anyways, tbh Repubs begging for the black and latino vote is kind of funny in and of itself - especially considering that they do have a bunch of GOP candidates toeing the line between outright racist rhetoric and appealing directly to the racist element in society. 

I see the humor in the white woman holding the blacks for trump sign and that's it. The real context is deeper as always as you and Vic pointed out.

I too have to face a certain amount of self doubt whenever I see the alignment of extreme confederate flag waving n-word using immigrant hating racists with republicans but then I realize that on the flip side of this, I have the so-called socially liberal and "progressive" democrats that also hate me for simply being an ex-muslim - which I believe to be worse because not once has a white racist dared to make a racist comment towards me due to my race (even if they want to), meanwhile I've had these liberal / social democrats hurl far, far, far more insults my way. The racism and bigotry of the social left is absolutely immense and in direct counter to the racism on the extreme right. I've personally only faced the racist left. Where do you think I would align myself after that? 

There's no way I'm going to support a party of bigoted democrats when it attracts individuals like these either. 

The only thing that the repubs do for me is preach less government, less neoconservatism, less war-mongering (at this point anyways) and promise no restrictions on my freedom of speech. Meanwhile the left has lost its way where it wants more and more government, more war-mongering and even want to restrict what people can say. Obviously, I'm going to pick the right over the left at this point. Social liberty as defined by the left is more restrictive to me as an individual.



FriedTofu said:


> The blacks for Trump dude is just plain weird. Not sure how reliable the source is as it is a liberal site. But damn...
> 
> http://www.salon.com/2016/10/27/tha...rumps-rallies-is-even-weirder-than-you-think/
> 
> Seems like the GOP's reputation of being the racist party attracts all kinds of racists now. :troll


I hope this article is ironic satire, because it flies in the face of their own rabid protection and defense of the criminal history of blacks that are shot by the police.

This is why I'm disgusted by the left. They're hypocrites. They're ok with posting a hit piece on a black man that supports republicans, but the minute someone will try to bring up the criminal history of a black that was shot by the police, they'll be the first to flip their shit and fling it everywhere.


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The audio of Hillary saying they should have rigged the Palestinian elections is damning. So much for democracy. And that's 10 years ago. Surely this is it for her. :surprise:


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> I hope this article is ironic satire, because it flies in the face of their own rabid protection and defense of the criminal history of blacks that are shot by the police.
> 
> This is why I'm disgusted by the left. They're hypocrites. They're ok with posting a hit piece on a black man that supports republicans, but the minute someone will try to bring up the criminal history of a black that was shot by the police, they'll be the first to flip their shit and fling it everywhere.


Hey at least they acknowledged a black man can be racist just like a white man. Progress right?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@Miss Sally, @CamillePunk, @L-DOPA, @DesolationRow (Someone else tag Deso in this, his name's too difficult lol). 



> http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/the-woman-is-a-disaster-camille-paglia-on-hillary-clinton/
> 
> *‘The woman is a disaster!’: Camille Paglia on Hillary Clinton*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emily Hill
> 29 October 2016
> 9:00 AM
> 
> 
> 
> Twitter
> Facebook
> LinkedIn
> Email
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talking to Camille Paglia is like approaching a machine gun: madness to stick your head up and ask a question, unless you want your brain blown apart by the answer, but a visceral delight to watch as she obliterates every subject in sight. Most of the time she does this for kicks. It’s only on turning to Hillary Clinton that she perpetrates an actual murder: of Clinton II’s most cherished claim, that her becoming 45th president of the United States would represent a feminist triumph.
> 
> ‘In order to run for president of the United States, you have to spend two or three years of your life out on the road constantly asking for money and most women find that life too harsh, too draining,’ Paglia argues. ‘That is why we haven’t had a woman president in the United States — not because we haven’t been ready for one, for heaven’s sakes, for a very long time…’
> Hillary hasn’t suffered — Paglia continues — because she is a woman. She has shamelessly exploited the fact: ‘It’s an outrage how she’s played the gender card. She is a woman without accomplishment. “I sponsored or co-sponsored 400 bills.” Oh really? These were bills to rename bridges and so forth. And the things she has accomplished have been like the destabilisation of North Africa, causing refugees to flood into Italy… The woman is a disaster!’
> 
> Not that Paglia was always opposed to the Clintons. She voted for Bill Clinton twice before becoming revolted by the treatment meted out to Monica Lewinsky: ‘One of the very first interviews I did here — the headline was “Kind of a bitch — why I like Hillary Clinton”. My jaundiced view of her is entirely the result of observing her behaviour. And last election, I voted for Jill Stein’s Green party. So I have already voted for a woman president.’
> As far as most feminists are concerned, such a view is unconscionable. Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright made it their business to castigate American girls who wanted Bernie Sanders, while Madonna has promised a blowjob for every Clinton vote. Professor Paglia does not seem to mind much if she makes herself violently unpopular with her contemporaries — she’s an expert at it. Currently professor of the humanities at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, she first shot to fame in 1990 with the publication of _Sexual Personae _— a manuscript turned down by seven publishers before it became a bestseller.
> 
> Paglia’s feminism has always been concerned with issues far beyond her own navel and the Hillary verdict is typical of her attitude — which is more in touch with women in the real world than most feminists’ (a majority of Americans, for example, have an ‘unfavourable view of Hillary Clinton’ according to recent polling).
> 
> ‘My philosophy of feminism,’ the New York-born 69-year-old explains, ‘I call street-smart Amazon feminism. I’m from an immigrant family. The way I was brought up was: the world is a dangerous place; you must learn to defend yourself. You can’t be a fool. You have to stay alert.’ Today, she suggests, middle-class girls are being reared in a precisely contrary fashion: cosseted, indulged and protected from every evil, they become helpless victims when confronted by adversity. ‘We are rocketing backwards here to the Victorian period with this belief that women are not capable of making decisions on their own. This is not feminism — which is to achieve independent thought and action. There will never be equality of the sexes if we think that women are so handicapped they can’t look after themselves.’
> Paglia traces the roots of this belief system to American campus culture and the cult of women’s studies. This ‘poison’ — as she calls it — has spread worldwide. ‘In London, you now have this plague of female journalists… who don’t seem to have made a deep study of anything…’
> 
> Paglia does not sleep with men — but she is, very refreshingly, in favour of them. She never moans about ‘the patriarchy’ but freely asserts that manmade capitalism has enabled her to write her books.
> As for male/female relations, she says that they are far more complex than most feminists insist. ‘I wrote a date-rape essay in 1991 in which I called for women to stand up for themselves and learn how to handle men. But now you have this shibboleth, “No means no.” Well, no. Sometimes “No” means “Not yet”. Sometimes “No” means “Too soon”. Sometimes “No” means “Keep trying and maybe yes”. You can see it with the pigeons on the grass. The male pursues the female and she turns away, and turns away, and he looks a fool but he keeps on pursuing her. And maybe she’s testing his persistence; the strength of his genes… It’s a pattern in the animal kingdom — a courtship pattern…’ But for pointing such things out, Paglia adds, she has been ‘defamed, attacked and viciously maligned’ — so, no, she is not in the least surprised that wolf-whistling has now been designated a hate crime in Birmingham.
> 
> Girls would be far better advised to revert to the brave feminist approach of her generation — when women were encouraged to fight all their battles by themselves, and win. ‘Germaine Greer was once in this famous debate with Norman Mailer at Town Hall. Mailer was formidable, enormously famous — powerful. And she just laid into him: “I was expecting a hard, nuggety sort of man and he was positively blousy…” Now that shows a power of speech that cuts men up. And this is the way women should be dealing with men — finding their weaknesses and susceptibilities… not bringing in an army of pseudo, proxy parents to put them down for you so you can preserve your perfect girliness.’
> 
> In an hour’s non-stop talking, Professor Paglia is only lost when asked which younger feminists she would pass the baton to. ‘I would love to inspire dissident young feminists to realise that this brand of feminism is not all feminism…’ she says, before citing Germaine Greer as the woman she admires most alive, and Amelia Earhart and Katharine Hepburn as heroines alas dead.
> 
> As with Greer, it is Paglia’s power of speech that utterly devastates. Her collected works read like a dictionary of vicious quotations. (Leaving sex to the feminists? ‘Like letting your dog vacation at the taxidermist.’ Lena Dunham? ‘She’s a big pile of pudding.’) Paglia is pro-liberty, pro–pornography, pro-prostitutes and anti- any and all special treatment when it comes to women in power: ‘I do not believe in quotas of any kind. Scandinavian countries are going in that direction and it’s an insult to women — the idea that you need a quota.’ Which brings us back to Hillary and the so-called victory her re-entering the White House would represent: ‘If Hillary wins, nothing will change. She knows the bureaucracy, all the offices of government and that’s what she likes to do, sit behind the scenes and manipulate the levers of power.’
> 
> * Paglia says she has absolutely no idea how the election will go: ‘But people want change and they’re sick of the establishment — so you get this great popular surge, like you had one as well… This idea that Trump represents such a threat to western civilisation — it’s often predicted about presidents and nothing ever happens — yet if Trump wins it will be an amazing moment of change because it would destroy the power structure of the Republican party, the power structure of the Democratic party and destroy the power of the media. It would be an incredible release of energy… at a moment of international tension and crisis.’*
> 
> All of a sudden, the professor seems excited. Perhaps, like all radicals in pursuit of the truth, Paglia is still hoping the revolution will come.
> 
> Camille Paglia was a speaker at the Battle of Ideas in London last weekend. Her book Free Women, Free Men: Sex, Gender, Feminism will be published next year.


One of the few feminists I respect. And it's not just because she's opposed to Hillary now. :banderas


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Dazzler said:


> The audio of Hillary saying they should have rigged the Palestinian elections is damning. So much for democracy. And that's 10 years ago. Surely this is it for her. :surprise:


It won't because the Republicans were in control, held the election and just ignored the result. A decision which directly led to how messed up things are today.


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> It won't because the Republicans were in control, held the election and just ignored the result. A decision which directly led to how messed up things are today.


It doesn't change what she said. Anywhere but America, this would be the end for her.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Dazzler said:


> It doesn't change what she said. Anywhere but America, this would be the end for her.


I don't think they should have rigged the Palestinian election, but to be fair had they done so the world would probably be a much better place than it is today.

What they should have done was either 
1. Make it so you had to sign an acknowledgment of the state of Israel's right to exist in order to take part in the election, hence Hamas (who won) would never have even entered the election 
2. Not hold the election

But when you remember that the people she was saying the election should have been rigged against are deadset terrorists, like undeniable, blow up school buses terrorists I think you have to acknowledge that she kind of had a point. 

I mean she's wrong, in that rigging an election was the wrong thing to do, but Hamas should not have been allowed to take part in the election.

Like she wasn't saying rig a french election against right wing french people, she was saying rig a palestinian election against Hamas, who again, blow up school buses and boast about it.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Mental gymnastics to the max! It's a special power I swear. 

1. To infringe on the right of a group to acknowledge the national status of what they personally consider to be their oppressor is fascist to the max. This is an act of voter suppression. If Israel wants to be seen as a democracy and the West wants to see itself as the beacons of freedom for all, then there is no way to justify forcing someone to not be able to vote based on an ideological difference (and yes, not recognizing the state of Israel is an ideological difference). 

2. Not holding an election is the very definition of fascism

3. If Hamas are a terrorist party and the palestinians vote for them, that is their bed to lie in and over time they will realize their own mistake. In order to justify forcing a leadership on a group that doesn't want that leadership is the very definition of a dictatorship. 

4. That's a very arbitrary line to draw that it's ok to prevent one party from taking over democratically while not another. The key here is democracy and upholding the rights of the people - even if it means they want to or will vote willingly for terrorists. There's a party in Pakistan that is a religious right-wing party with secret militant cells. They are still allowed to run for government and still win in some areas. The thing is that over time however, people themselves recognized that that party is what it is and are now deciding to not vote against them. Cultural evolution trumped fascist imperialism. Had that party not been allowed to participate in the elections, it would have created the martyr effect and continued to gain support. Now that they came into power and caused a mess, they have less support than ever before. 

Alkomesh, you just proved yourself to be a supporter of fascism and tyranny. You really need to do a very strong re-examination of your ideological beliefs because they are so all over the place. I think right now you're overly influenced by wanting to oppose Trump to such an extremist extent that you're willing to justify outright wrong-doing that supports full-fledged tyranny and fascism.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Mental gymnastics to the max! It's a special power I swear.
> 
> 1. To infringe on the right of a group to acknowledge the national status of what they personally consider to be their oppressor is fascist to the max. This is an act of voter suppression. If Israel wants to be seen as a democracy and the West wants to see itself as the beacons of freedom for all, then there is no way to justify forcing someone to not be able to vote based on an ideological difference (and yes, not recognizing the state of Israel is an ideological difference).


Hamas refuse to acknowledge Israel's existence, their constitution aims to "drive the jews into the sea". There can never be peace with Hamas in power. If you want peace Hamas can never be in power. I would like peace, hence support a world were Hamas aren't in power.



> 2. Not holding an election is the very definition of fascism


As opposed to holding the election and then just refusing to acknowledge the result when it isn't what you wanted? Which is what I said btw. I never said they shouldn't have had an election, just that not having one, would be better than having one and ignoring the result. 



> 3. If Hamas are a terrorist party and the palestinians vote for them, that is their bed to lie in and over time they will realize their own mistake. In order to justify forcing a leadership on a group that doesn't want that leadership is the very definition of tyranny


Perhaps, but Bush didn't accept the result and they never got a second election, instead the Palestinian territories are split between two different groups, Fatah control the West Bank (under Israeli occupation) and Hamas control Gaza (not under Israeli occupation). 

I should have put that as my option 3, I view that as preferable to what Bush did.

It is interesting you use the words "if Hamas are a terrorist party", honestly do a 2 minute google search on Hamas, that is like saying "if al quaeda is terrorist party", that is not to ignore everything else you've said (beyond the invective obvs) but regardless, as a matter of fact you should acknowledge Hamas are in fact a terrorist organisation.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> The parliamentarian system has a greater chance of leading to tyranny than the US presidential system. It also leads to an even more hamstrung government when the opposition is stronger and the government is based on a coalition (an actual minority, but a majority based on bringing in other party votes). Finally, there's even less accountability imo because such a government (correct me if I'm wrong) has the power to pass legislation without any checks and balances. This is why I've noticed that countries with the parliamentarian system tend to have far more draconian and frivolous legislation than America does.


No they don't have that power. The house of commons has to pass laws through the house of lords and also via the Queen. Recently the House of Lords blocked some benefit cuts for the disabled that the government wanted to pass. It's not just a case of they can do whatever they like. They have to propose a bill, it has to get voted in in Parliament and our government doesn't have enough seats to win every vote alone so they have to convince other parties with seats. Once it's passed through Parliament it then has to pass through the House of Lords who are non-elected peers of the Realm (ie actual Lords with titles) and then if they approve it then it's pretty much law. It's not the best system, but there have been times when the Lords have prevented some pretty evil legislation from going through.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> \
> 
> Hamas refuse to acknolwedge Israel's existance, their constitution aims to "drive the jews into the sea". There can never be peace with Hamas in power. If you want peace Hamas can never be in power. I would like peace, hence support a world were Hamas aren't in power.


Yah. But the Palestinians think Israelis are the terrorists so you really think that they wouldn't support what they consider to be a freedom fighting force. 



> As opposed to holding the election and then just refusing to acknolwedge the result when it isn't what you wanted? Which is what I said btw. I never said they shouldn't have had an election, just that not having one, would be better than having one and ignoring the result.


That is still better than rigging an election or forcing a regime change because it leaves room for the people to find out on their own the mistake they made. Every single time a foreign power has forced a regime change it has created pockets of extremist dissent and even more terrorist groups. This is why holding the election was important. Of course you can oppose the government or refuse to acknowledge that once it assumes power, but at least you didn't infantalize the people and found out what they really wanted. 



> Perhaps, but they Bush didn't accept the result and they never got a second election, instead the Palestinian territories are split between two different groups, Fatah control the West Bank (under Israeli occupation) and Hamas control Gaza (not under Israeli occupation).


And how does that in any way justify western rigging and involvement whatsoever? You do realize that much of the imbalance and issues around Israel-Palestinian conflict are fueled by western influence right? 



> It is interesting you use the words "if Hamas are a terrorist party", honestly do a 2 minute google search on Hamas, that is like saying "if al quaeda is terrorist party", that is not to ignore everything else you've said (beyond the invective obvs) but regardless, as a matter of fact you should acknowledge Hamas are in fact a terrorist organisation.


From the perspective of the Palestinians, they are not a terrorist party. From their perspective western allied Israel is the terrorist. 

This can be debated to end - and my acknowledgement of whether they're terrorists or not is irrelevant to how Palestinians view them. I consider them terrorists, just as much as I consider the act of suppression of Palestinians and Western interests aligning with Israel an act of global terrorism against whomever those poor people are that die by the hundreds every time Israel responds with their military operations - many of which wipe out dozens of civilians at a time. 

At the same time, if the people want to vote in terrorists, then that's their right to do so. Nobody ever said that the outcomes of free choice should always be good. Democracy is about the right to choose your leadership. And this is why I'm anti-democracy in a nutshell because power to the people means the power to elect terrorists. 

Now as for my own view of Palestine is concerned, I believe that Palestinian people are a "new" people propped up by Muslim countries in order to create and sustain the conflict, however, there are still innocents amongst them that both the muslims and Israelis have suppressed and killed in the hundreds. To ignore the acts of the Israeli state against whatever people are there is another form of imperialist naivete to an extent.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RavishingRickRules said:


> No they don't have that power. The house of commons has to pass laws through the house of lords and also via the Queen. Recently the House of Lords blocked some benefit cuts for the disabled that the government wanted to pass. It's not just a case of they can do whatever they like. They have to propose a bill, it has to get voted in in Parliament and our government doesn't have enough seats to win every vote alone so they have to convince other parties with seats. Once it's passed through Parliament it then has to pass through the House of Lords who are non-elected peers of the Realm (ie actual Lords with titles) and then if they approve it then it's pretty much law. It's not the best system, but there have been times when the Lords have prevented some pretty evil legislation from going through.


Aren't the house of lords just appointed politicians? I'm a member of the ALP and went to a speech from a British BLP "lord" and he was a just a random dude that had been appointed by the party.



Carte Blanche said:


> Yah. But the Palestinians think Israelis are the terrorists so you really think that they wouldn't support what they consider to be a freedom fighting force.


I was not surprised Hamas won. Fatah had been a horribly corrupt dictatorship for the past 30 years, it was not not a suprise to anyone other than George Bush that Hamas dominated that election. Unlike Bush Hilary was smart enough to realise that, hence why she was suggesting rigging the election. 



> That is still better than rigging an election or forcing a regime change because it leaves room for the people to find out on their own the mistake they made. Every single time a foreign power has forced a regime change it has created pockets of extremist dissent and even more terrorist groups. This is why holding the election was important. Of course you can oppose the government or refuse to acknowledge that once it assumes power, but at least you didn't infantalize the people and found out what they really wanted.


We didn't let them become a government then refuse to acknowledge them, we just ignored the election and refused to let them take power and become the government, and kept the people who lost the election in power.



> And how does that in any way justify western rigging and involvement whatsoever? You do realize that much of the imbalance and issues around Israel-Palestinian conflict are fueled by western influence right? Guess who supported Yasir Arafat during his presidency. Bill Clinton. Western influence has done more damage to that region and you want more of it ... so that the terrorists get even more sympathy. Lol.


Honestly not sure how I feel about Western Involvement, I take it as a given and live in a wold where it exists. Maybe it would be better without any western involvement? 



> From the perspective of the Palestinians, they are not a terrorist party. From their perspective western allied Israel is the terrorist.
> 
> This can be debated to end - and my acknowledgement of whether they're terrorists or not is irrelevant to how Palestinians view them. I consider them terrorists, just as much as I consider the act of suppression of Palestinians and Western interests aligning with Israel an act of global terrorism against whomever those poor people are that die by the hundreds every time Israel responds with their military operations - many of whichth wipe out dozens of civilians at a time.


Agreed.



> Now as for my own view of Palestine is concerned, I believe that Palestinian people are a "new" people propped up by Muslim countries in order to create and sustain the conflict, however, there are still innocents amongst them that both the muslims and Israelis have suppressed and killed in the hundreds. To ignore the acts of the Israeli state against whatever people are there is another form of imperialist naivete to an extent.


I don't think they are a "new" people, I think as a matter of logic there was a fairly stable population from around..... the 1400s lets say... to 1948 that all spoke the same language, had the same religion, I just think given those facts it only seems logical that they would have developed a culture and a link to the geography. 

But they have never had political independence. They were part of the Turkish Empire until ww1 and ruled by Britain from ww1 to 1948.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RavishingRickRules said:


> No they don't have that power. The house of commons has to pass laws through the house of lords and also via the Queen. Recently the House of Lords blocked some benefit cuts for the disabled that the government wanted to pass. It's not just a case of they can do whatever they like. They have to propose a bill, it has to get voted in in Parliament and our government doesn't have enough seats to win every vote alone so they have to convince other parties with seats. Once it's passed through Parliament it then has to pass through the House of Lords who are non-elected peers of the Realm (ie actual Lords with titles) and then if they approve it then it's pretty much law. It's not the best system, but there have been times when the Lords have prevented some pretty evil legislation from going through.


So essentially a sham democracy? At least that's what I'm getting from it. If the Lords still have power to impact legislation, then how are people deciding on it?

In any case, a weak majority parliament is a flaccid parliament. That's something I already acknowledged.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> So essentially a sham democracy? At least that's what I'm getting from it. If the Lords still have power to impact legislation, then how are people deciding on it?
> 
> In any case, a weak majority parliament is a flaccid parliament. That's something I already acknowledged.


It's a pretty fucked up system basically. It's another way to try and influence the outcome of voting for bills. One way they do it is by redrafting wards so that there are more wards in areas their party are strong in, giving them a higher change of seats in the commons. The other is that when a party is in power they give out more lordships to people sympathetic to their party. Lords are more likely to rebel against the political party because they aren't elected, so though it doesn't happen often, sometimes the Lords will block legislation. They can't really alter anything, just stop it happening. Like I say, we're equally as fucked in a different way lol.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The House of Lords aren't actual Lords though right? 

They are just appointed politicians? I didn't imagine that did I?

In Aus we have a half British system half American system. So we have a Senate in the Us style not a House of Lords in the British style.

Like from the speech I attended you get to pick where you are the lord of when you get appointed. So the dude talking to me got himself made "Lord Wood" because apparently that's the training stadium of the sports team he likes.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> The House of Lords aren't actual Lords though right?
> 
> They are just appointed politicians? I didn't imagine that did I?
> 
> In Aus we have a half British system half American system. So we have a Senate in the Us style not a House of Lords in the British style.


No they are actual Lords lol. We have a nobility class still. Take Alan Sugar (the businessman "boss" on our version of the Apprentice.) He's in the house of lords as a peer from our Labour government in 2000. He's an actual lord, Baron Sugar, he is "The Right Honourable Lord Sugar." It's not the same as hereditary titles, but he's still of the peerage.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RavishingRickRules said:


> No they are actual Lords lol. We have a nobility class still. Take Alan Sugar (the businessman "boss" on our version of the Apprentice.) He's in the house of lords as a peer from our Labour government in 2000. He's an actual lord, Baron Sugar, he is "The Right Honourable Lord Sugar." It's not the same as hereditary titles, but he's still of the peerage.


I'm legit shocked by this. We got rid of our lords in the 1820s.....


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> I don't think they are a "new" people, I think as a matter of logic there was a fairly stable population from around..... the 1400s lets say... to 1948 that all spoke the same language, had the same religion, I just think given those facts it only seems logical that they would have developed a culture and a link to the geography.
> 
> But they have never had political independence. They were part of the Turkish Empire until ww1 and ruled by Britain from ww1 to 1948.


That area was largely abandoned or populated by smaller villages that at first were offered amnesty and protection by the newly forming Israeli state. I will give the historical moral higher ground to the Israelis because they took over a piece of land that we sparsely population by small and very insignificant villages of Muslims. It was the Muslims lack of desire to share abandoned/empty land with the Israelis that created this situation so I lay the blame for the current problem squarely on the Muslims who as a cohesive unit across the ENTIRE middle east and Pakistan decided to unanimously oppose the creation of Israel. 

My history on this subject is somewhat weak, but I do know that there was actually inward migration to Palestine to populate those areas in order to prevent Israel from expanding (by neighboring muslim states). I remember as late as the mid-80's imams in Pakistan were urging pakistani muslims to go all the way to Palestine to help their "muslim brothers". It's one of the many hundreds of reasons why I despite conservative Islam so much. 

Though that could just be propaganda, so I would like some clarity on that subject. 

What I do know as a truth though is that Palestinians were largely a very small group of insignificant villagers, however at the same time, there's accusations and some evidence (though weak) of ethnic cleansing and unlawful expansion of Israel so it's a very complex issue that I know little about ... 

However, I still support the right of a people to choose their leadership without infringement. If Hillary or anyone decides to interfere/rig for whatever noble reason, they are going against the very principles they themselves are elected to uphold.



RavishingRickRules said:


> No they are actual Lords lol. We have a nobility class still. Take Alan Sugar (the businessman "boss" on our version of the Apprentice.) He's in the house of lords as a peer from our Labour government in 2000. He's an actual lord, Baron Sugar, he is "The Right Honourable Lord Sugar." It's not the same as hereditary titles, but he's still of the peerage.


And the American president is actually chosen by the electoral college. 

The more you know about the systems that govern you, the more you realize that the less control or freedom you really have.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> I'm legit shocked by this. We got rid of our lords in the 1820s.....


We also still have a Queen, and will have a future King after she dies. I'm not saying I'm remotely in support of it, but we still have Lords and Ladies, Earls and Dukes, Princes and Princesses here in the UK.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> And the American president is actually chosen by the electoral college.
> 
> The more you know about the systems that govern you, the more you realize that the less control or freedom you really have.


I bet there's very few if any countries with "actual" democracy. We're still all choosing between the people who were chosen for us at the end of the day. I think a lot of people forget that sometimes.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> The white woman holding a "Blacks for Trump" sign "controversy" is stupid, she's standing next to a black man, did anyone stop and realize she could be related, working with or with this man? Maybe she actually serves on whatever committee this group is? So whites can join BLM but cannot possibly join or help Blacks for Trump? It's not as if she was standing with only white people, the reaching in this is rather silly.
> 
> I'm rather light skinned so if I joined "Hispanics for Trump" would you all claim I cannot be Hispanic? Would you need to meet my daddy and family to be convinced? Me to speak in spanish or cooking mexican food? lol
> 
> fpalm


It is my understanding from everything reported this year that anyone NOT a Caucasian male heterosexual and you're don't support Hillary Clinton you're labeled as self hating or a race traitor. 

This, despite the fact that Hillary Clinton: 
- Was a fierce opponent of same sex marriage when she actually had power,
- Supported her husband's Defense of Marriage Act 
- Supported Don't Ask Don't Tell which jeopardized gay and lesbian servicemen. 
- Supported her husband's 1994 Crime Bill which resulted in a boom for the private prison industry due to the draconian, unequal prosecution of the poor and non-white Americans which caused the prison population to skyrocket. 
- Passionately advocated for the Welfare Reform bill which harmed minority communities like never before. 
- Cares so much about the rights of women and children that she didn't do a fucking thing to advance their rights while she held power. 
- Is such passionate advocate for women that she is a loyal supporter of Saudi Arabia to the point that she's not once called on them to end their horrific treatment of women that is enshrined in law. As long a their checks clear, this passionate advocate for women everywhere is happy to remain mute. 
- She has passionately and adamantly referred to black youths as "super predators" 

That is a long way of saying that in the eyes and mind of a person like Hillary Clinton (who when in power did nothing proactive to advance the rights of diverse populations and only after holding no power did she declare herself to be the opposite of what her actions in power indicate) it is inconceivable that multiracial individuals would vote Republican; so I'm sure they never even considered the possibility that the man and woman were related.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> That area was largely abandoned or populated by smaller villages that at first were offered amnesty and protection by the newly forming Israeli state. I will give the historical moral higher ground to the Israelis because they took over a piece of land that we sparsely population by small and very insignificant villages of Muslims. It was the Muslims lack of desire to share abandoned/empty land with the Israelis that created this situation so I lay the blame for the current problem squarely on the Muslims who as a cohesive unit across the ENTIRE middle east and Pakistan decided to unanimously oppose the creation of Israel.
> 
> My history on this subject is somewhat weak, but I do know that there was actually inward migration to Palestine to populate those areas in order to prevent Israel from expanding. Though that could just be propaganda, so I would like some clarity on that subject.
> 
> What I do know as a truth though is that Palestinians were largely a very small group of insignificant villagers, however at the same time, there's accusations and some evidence (though weak) of ethnic cleansing and unlawful expansion of Israel so it's a very complex issue that I know little about ...
> 
> However, I still support the right of a people to choose their leadership without infringement. If Hillary or anyone decides to interfere/rig for whatever noble reason, they are going against the very principles they themselves are elected to uphold.
> 
> And the American president is actually chosen by the electoral college.
> 
> The more you know about the systems that govern you, the more you realize that the less control or freedom you really have.


What actually happened in 1948 in terms of how populated the Palestinian villages were, how many left voluntarily, how many were kicked out etc etc is one of the most hotly contested historical debates that exists basically. 

In terms of what we 100% know happened, we have Israeli army documents proving they kicked entire villages off the land forcefully, beyond that it is largely hearsay and people tend to believe what they want.

True re the electoral college, the electoral college is elected though and I assume you'd only be appointed to it as a rep on it if you were the sort of person to back whatever the state you're representing says. That said, had Americans elected a communist during the 1950s it would have been interesting to see what the electoral college did.



RavishingRickRules said:


> We also still have a Queen, and will have a future King after she dies. I'm not saying I'm remotely in support of it, but we still have Lords and Ladies, Earls and Dukes, Princes and Princesses here in the UK.


So do we, Queen Elizabeth the First of Australia. 

People always refer to her as Elizabeth the Second and it drives me nuts, she is Queen of Australia in it's own right and we weren't around in the 1600s.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RavishingRickRules said:


> I bet there's very few if any countries with "actual" democracy. We're still all choosing between the people who were chosen for us at the end of the day. I think a lot of people forget that sometimes.


This is why even though I get passionate about the election, I'm always consistent in my belief that overall federal governments are a disaster. What we need are small pockets of limited sized governments that are only responsible for infrastructure and fire and rescue. I'm as radical as wanting the police force privatized. You want a cop, pay from what you have :shrug 

The problem is that none of the big government services we have are free for most of us anyways. Someone somewhere is paying for us and the problem with big federal governments is that the larger they get, the more they favor themselves, the more alienated we get from the actual costs of the infrastructure they provide for us and our taxes are then used to fund the whims and fancies of the large federal body. 

America right now does not need a federal government. Getting caught up in the election, how many people are even asking this very important question. Do we even need a federal government in a society where states are constitutionally sovereign and that if you don't like the laws and policies of your states, you can move elsewhere? 

The States are running things on their own just fine. The federal government is basically a self-sanctioned, self-serving mafia.


----------



## amhlilhaus

The clinton email case being reopened means nothing. Its too close to election day, and the fbi cant say what they found because ITS CLASSIFIED! Fucking idiots. Hillary still wins.

Interesting to see what happens though. If comey presses charges before clinton takes the oath, then obama just pardons her.

If it comes after, can clinton just pardon herself??

And i put it at even money that the stress of all this leads comey to commit suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head with little blood at the scene except going uphill.

Like vince foster


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> The clinton email case being reopened means nothing. Its too close to election day, and the fbi cant say what they found because ITS CLASSIFIED! Fucking idiots. Hillary still wins.
> 
> Interesting to see what happens though. If comey presses charges before clinton takes the oath, then obama just pardons her.
> 
> If it comes after, can clinton just pardon herself??
> 
> And i put it at even money that the stress of all this leads comey to commit suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head with little blood at the scene except going uphill.
> 
> Like vince foster


Sweetie, many smart people believe that President Obama's leadership in the wake of superstorm Sandy is what put him over the top in 2012. Sandy occurred four years ago today. To say that this email thing is "too close to election day" to have an impact is beyond ignorant. 

I'm not suggesting that it will or will not make a difference but, frankly, in a culture which is even more immediate then it was in 2012 the reality is that this could have a significant impact. To think otherwise is foolish.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> Sweetie, many smart people believe that President Obama's leadership in the wake of superstorm Sandy is what put him over the top in 2012. Sandy occurred four years ago today. To say that this email thing is "too close to election day" to have an impact is beyond ignorant.


But sandy didn't have an effect either in aggregates.....


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> But sandy didn't have an effect either in aggregates.....


Source?


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

ABC poll has now put hillary a head by 2 points, a few days ago she was a head of trump by 12 points. This poll was taken before the FBI re opened the case against her. Trump is closing the gap and to say he has 0 chance to win is fuckin stupid at this point. 

Face it Hillary supporters on here Trump has a really good chance of winning this election. Bigger than Romney did in 2012


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> Source?


Look at any 2012 tracker....



wwe9391 said:


> ABC poll has now put hillary a head by 2 points, a few days ago she was a head of trump by 12 points. This poll was taken before the FBI re opened the case against her. Trump is closing the gap and to say he has 0 chance to win is fuckin stupid at this point.
> 
> Face it Hillary supporters on here Trump has a really good chance of winning this election. Bigger than Romney did in 2012



for the 1813127376387313 time, aggregates, not individual polling....

Trump has marginal chances

This is his best map as today assuming a giant polling error or the effect of this Mail thing.

http://www.270towin.com/maps/princeton-election-consortium-trump-outperforms-polls

He needs more than a 5% effect, which is HUGE (And no, he's in not in better position than Romney at this same time)


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> for the 1813127376387313 time, aggregates, not individual polling....
> 
> Trump has marginal chances
> 
> This is his best map as today assuming a giant polling error or the effect of this Mail thing.
> 
> http://www.270towin.com/maps/princeton-election-consortium-trump-outperforms-polls
> 
> He needs more than a 5% effect, which is HUGE (And no, he's not in better position than Romney at this same time)


Your gonna have to except the fact he has a huge chance to win. Stop replying to me with your BS. I don't care


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Look at any 2012 tracker....


So, you have no source to support your statement. 

However I can provide a source for my statement:
https://www.aei.org/publication/did-hurricane-sandy-get-obama-reelected/


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/politics/2016/10/26/state-denies-early-voting-request-nine-tribes/92794914/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=



> *State denies early voting request from nine tribes*
> 
> Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske’s office denied a request from nine Nevada tribes asking for early polling locations, citing logistical issues with the election so close.
> 
> The nine tribes made their request Oct. 21 on the heels of a ruling from a federal judge in a suit filed by the Pyramid Lake and Walker River Paiutes. That suit found there was an undue burden on Native Americans in terms of early and Election Day polling.
> 
> Federal Judge Miranda Du found the lengthy trip Native Americans had to take to polling sites violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
> 
> Nine more tribes sent a letter via the Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada to Cegavske’s office requesting she order several counties to provide early polling sites on reservations.
> 
> In her response letter, Cegavske said with the election less than two weeks away, accommodating the tribes wasn’t feasible.
> 
> “Based upon our discussions with each of the seven county officials who would be impacted by your request, as well as with the vendor of the voting machines that are used in Nevada, we understand that it would be virtually impossible at this late date to redistribute voting machines because they are already in place and calibrated for use at their current early voting locations,” Cegavske stated in the letter.
> 
> Cegavske said in the letter she would be open to discussing future elections once the 2016 election ends.
> 
> Cegavske also said the initial request by the Pyramid Lake and Walker River Paiute tribes, which was overseen by Bret Healy, a consultant with the Native American advocacy group Four Directions, was simply laying the groundwork for legal recourse by filing the initial request in August.
> 
> Healy said the requests for the Pyramid Lake and Walker River Paiute tribes were made in a timely fashion and said it was unfortunate to treat the requests as a political tool.
> 
> "Her characterization of those efforts as merely a pretext for litigation is, in a word, false," Healy said. "The fact remains that until (Pyramid Lake Chairman Vinton Hawley) and (former Walker River Chairman Bobby Sanchez) requested equal access, Secretary Cegavske, by her own admission had not once looked into the barriers faced by Native American voters in Nevada."
> 
> Healy said despite the characterization, he and the Inter-Tribal Council planned to work with Cegavske on future issues.


They have to drive 200 miles round trip to vote.

She lost in court earlier this month when two other tribes successfully sued to get polling sites put up on their reservations instead of driving 70 miles round trip to vote. Didn't think to fix the problem for the other tribes after that?

Why did she oppose them in the first place?


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> Your gonna have to except the fact he has a huge chance to win. Stop replying to me with your BS. I don't care


I don't have to accept anything with no proof of said claim.

When you have tendencies, like phenomenas who don't affect electorates thank to polarization and previous narratives in past cases, the most safe bet is to assume a new similar thing will have the same effect, A.K.A none. 

The career has been stable for at least a month in which we had tax exposures, claims of sexual assault from both sides, etc.

Even if this had a real effect you have to consider some things:

- You're gonna start seeing the effect of this in one week or so, which put little time to regain enthusiasm as we have 10 days until election 
- The effect need to be of something like 6% which is particularly big

In my opinion, the only news with big effect in a so polarized setting like USA, need to be news that break the narrative of both candidates.

BTW i don't have to accept anything, i don't care for either guy, i'm a data nerd interested in playing prediction game, which make elections fun



ChicagoFit said:


> So, you have no source to support your statement.
> 
> However I can provide a source for my statement.



what part of look at any forecast isn't a source?


I didnt want to go into archives which is why i don't provided a link but whaterever 

http://votamatic.org/2012-poll-tracker/
You can see how little movement there is after the first debate...
(and as an aside, you can compare that tracker with 2016 to see how different the race is now http://votamatic.org/2016-poll-tracker/ you would see that Clinton has a bigger adventage than Obama)

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/11/12/the-final-unskewing/
Wang here talk specifically about Sandy at the end

I would look at 538, but their archives are a mess


Your source also made a lot of murky comments, to say the least:

First of all, the data only look at frequencies when there could be no difference between both at all in the first table, a difference in files i mean, like the one the first table asumes could be thanks to standar deviation and not a real difference, this is specially important because a group of 9% should have a bigger standard error than another normal group. That's a normal rookie mistake so whatever

His data about incumbents and challenger is also murky because he talk about "history" while providing evidence for two elections....

His last table is more of the same, yeah Obama response was rated with a heavy importance but he never control for undecided voters, which mean that all the people who consider Obama response an important factor could be already Obama leaning voters who mention the importance of Sandy just because is fresh in their minds....


----------



## The Talent

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Denying the enormous level of support for Donald Trump is quickly approaching the same level of absurdity as denying gravity. What we're seeing with Trump is nothing short of a revolution. Research has shown he has a more energetic fanbase than even Obama had in 2008, when he crushed Old Man McCain. Guess who's this election's Old Man McCain? Hint: She wears pantsuits, and is known to frequently shit herself.

Point blank: Trump is winning. It's time to accept it, and start packing those bags for Canada. Once you're gone, the rest of us can start to Make America Great Again.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Thought this was funny.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/29/trump-supporter-charged-with-voting-twice-in-iowa/?utm_term=.ab6e5419ad73



> *Trump supporter charged with voting twice in Iowa*
> 
> A woman in Iowa was arrested this week on suspicion of voting twice in the general election, court and police records show.
> 
> Terri Lynn Rote, a 55-year-old Des Moines resident, was booked Thursday on a first-degree charge of election misconduct, according to Polk County Jail records. The charge is considered a Class D felony under Iowa state law.
> 
> Rote was released Friday after posting $5,000 bond. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for Nov. 7.
> 
> The Des Moines Register reported that Rote is a registered Republican who cast two ballots in the general election: an early-voting ballot at the Polk County Election Office and another at a county satellite voting location, according to police records.
> *
> Rote hadn’t planned on voting twice but said it was “a spur-of-the-moment thing” when she walked by the satellite voting location, she told The Washington Post in a phone interview Saturday.
> 
> “I don’t know what came over me,” Rote said.
> 
> She added she has been a supporter of Donald Trump since early in his campaign, after Republican candidate Mike Huckabee dropped out of the primary race.
> 
> Rote told Iowa Public Radio that she cast her first ballot for Trump but feared it would be changed to a vote for Hillary Clinton.
> 
> “The polls are rigged,” Rote told the radio station.*
> 
> Leigh Munsil, an editor for the Blaze, noted on Twitter that Rote was the same woman who had caucused for Trump earlier this year.
> 
> In addition to Rote, the Polk County Auditor’s Office reported two other people to police last Wednesday on suspicions of voter fraud, the Des Moines Register reported. In the other two cases, those people cast mail-in ballots and also voted in person at one of the state’s early-voting locations, according to the paper.
> 
> No arrests were made in the two other cases, the paper reported.
> 
> Polk County Auditor Jamie Fitzgerald told the Register that it was the first time in 12 years he could remember having to report possible voter fraud.
> 
> “I think it shows that our voting system works in Iowa, that we’re able to catch it,” Fitzgerald told the paper, adding that the reported instances could have been honest mistakes but “that’s not for me to decide.”
> 
> Polk County is the most populous county in Iowa with 430,640 residents, and it includes Des Moines, the state’s capital. Early voting in Polk County began Sept. 29. Fitzgerald’s office has been posting regular updates on Twitter about the progress of early voting in the county...


----------



## amhlilhaus

The Talent said:


> She wears pantsuits, and is known to frequently shit herself.


Hillary shits herself??


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> Thought this was funny.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-voting-twice-in-iowa/?utm_term=.ab6e5419ad73


That's OK. I've been told by democrats despite my many arguments on the subject that voter fraud isn't a big deal so it's not a big deal after all. 

:kobelol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> True re the electoral college, the electoral college is elected though and I assume you'd only be appointed to it as a rep on it if you were the sort of person to back whatever the state you're representing says. That said, had Americans elected a communist during the 1950s it would have been interesting to see what the electoral college did.


Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but was denied by the electoral college.



ChicagoFit said:


> So, you have no source to support your statement.
> 
> However I can provide a source for my statement:
> https://www.aei.org/publication/did-hurricane-sandy-get-obama-reelected/


It was the newly able to vote so-called college educated (more like college brainwashed) millennials that won the elections for Obama (in both 2008 and 2012) - combined with the GOP's inability to break through the media narratives that have labeled them as a "racist, sexist, bigoted party". 

It is the same group that will win the election for Hillary who are just as badly brainwashed. 

As long as the colleges continue to hire nothing but liberal/left-wing socialist professors, you won't see a change in leadership in America.

The GOP needs to find a way to rebrand themselves against the propaganda of the democrats, otherwise they're doomed for at least another couple of decades, easily.


----------



## The Talent

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> Hillary shits herself??


Does a bear shit in the woods?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

No country has literal "democracy"

No country literally has a referendum on every law or every action taken by government by the group of citizens that have the right to vote which is basically all citizens in countries that actually vote.

That would be literal "democracy"


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Man now that everything is on tape, now new revelations are on twitter, facebook etc every 5 minutes of past dirty laundry, will we ever have any 'clean', 'respectable', elections ever again? #cynical


No. Never. The legitimacy of the government will only decrease with every election. I'm not even sure the result of this election (regardless of who wins) won't result in some kind of catastrophe for the government. 

It's an exciting time. :aryep


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Yah. But the Palestinians think Israelis are the terrorists so you really think that they wouldn't support what they consider to be a freedom fighting force.


The Palestinians think the Jews aren't human and want to either kill them all or force them to leave all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. The Palestinian ideal is a country that is 0% Jew. Fuck the Palestinians and what they think. They're rent-a-Nazis. They can have a country when they show that it won't be a Nazi country. Don't hold your breath waiting.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/10/helmut_norpoth_donald_trump_victory.html




> SUNY professor says Trump win at least 87 percent certain; other polls 'bunk'


This guy has gotten every election right since 1960. 
I trust what this guy is saying over anyone on this board.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> http://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/10/helmut_norpoth_donald_trump_victory.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This guy has gotten every election right since 1960.
> I trust what this guy is saying over anyone on this board.


What he's doing is an inverse process. 

with a known outcome, he's trying to determine what variables predict more precissely said outcome. Which is ridicule because it's cronologically stupid and because it defies the idea behind models in itself. In this sense he' isn't in reality succesfully predicting anything, he's just using a set of dependent variablesto predict independent ones.


But yeah, you can believe whatever you want i suppose


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@DesolationRow @L-DOPA @Carte Blanche @Sincere @Pratchett 

http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/29/should-libertarians-vote-for-trump-nick

On November 1st, _Reason_ magazine's Nick Gillespie will be debating anarcho-capitalist theorist Walter E. Block on whether or not L/libertarians should vote for Donald Trump. Rather looking forward to this. :lol :mark:

For a little background on both men's views on the topic, I submit the following two articles: 

_"Libertarians: Just Say No to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump!"_, by Nick Gillespie

http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/12/liberatarians-just-say-no-to-hillary-cli

_"Hillary, Bernie, Donald, Gary: A Libertarian Perspective"_, by Walter E. Block

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/06/walter-e-block/hillary-bernie-donald-gary/


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> What he's doing is an inverse process.
> 
> with a known outcome, he's trying to determine what variables predict more precissely said outcome. Which is ridicule because it's cronologically stupid and because it defies the idea behind models in itself. In this sense he' isn't in reality succesfully predicting anything, he's just using a set of dependent variablesto predict independent ones.
> 
> 
> But yeah, you can believe whatever you want i suppose


And he's been right every time since 1960 with what he uses. I trust him more than you.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> And he's been right every time since 1960 with what he uses. I trust him more than you.


You're not understanding.

He's not right, he's been fitting variables to adjust the outcome he already know (the other elections since 1960), he then says that based on that variables he can predict the outcome of this race.

Even in the improbable case of Trump wining, this guy is just wrong in what he does


----------



## amhlilhaus

asdf0501 said:


> wwe9391 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And he's been right every time since 1960 with what he uses. I trust him more than you.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not understanding.
> 
> He's not right, he's been fitting variables to adjust the outcome he already know, he then says that based on that variables he can predict the outcome of this race.
Click to expand...

So he has a crystal ball?

How can he already know trump wins, then fits things to agree with that result?


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> The Palestinians think the Jews aren't human and want to either kill them all or force them to leave all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. The Palestinian ideal is a country that is 0% Jew. Fuck the Palestinians and what they think. They're rent-a-Nazis. They can have a country when they show that it won't be a Nazi country. Don't hold your breath waiting.


Intense nationalism exists in Israel as well. And in the case of Israel, they've been doing a much better job of killing and removing Palestinians from their homeland. If you don't think zionists desire a purely Jewish state, you're delusional. It isn't some grand mystery as to why Palestinians hate Israel.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> I don't have to accept anything with no proof of said claim.
> 
> When you have tendencies, like phenomenas who don't affect electorates thank to polarization and previous narratives in past cases, the most safe bet is to assume a new similar thing will have the same effect, A.K.A none.
> 
> The career has been stable for at least a month in which we had tax exposures, claims of sexual assault from both sides, etc.
> 
> Even if this had a real effect you have to consider some things:
> 
> - You're gonna start seeing the effect of this in one week or so, which put little time to regain enthusiasm as we have 10 days until election
> - The effect need to be of something like 6% which is particularly big
> 
> In my opinion, the only news with big effect in a so polarized setting like USA, need to be news that break the narrative of both candidates.
> 
> BTW i don't have to accept anything, i don't care for either guy, i'm a data nerd interested in playing prediction game, which make elections fun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what part of look at any forecast isn't a source?
> 
> 
> I didnt want to go into archives which is why i don't provided a link but whaterever
> 
> http://votamatic.org/2012-poll-tracker/
> You can see how little movement there is after the first debate...
> (and as an aside, you can compare that tracker with 2016 to see how different the race is now http://votamatic.org/2016-poll-tracker/ you would see that Clinton has a bigger adventage than Obama)
> 
> http://election.princeton.edu/2012/11/12/the-final-unskewing/
> Wang here talk specifically about Sandy at the end
> 
> I would look at 538, but their archives are a mess
> 
> 
> Your source also made a lot of murky comments, to say the least:
> 
> First of all, the data only look at frequencies when there could be no difference between both at all in the first table, a difference in files i mean, like the one the first table asumes could be thanks to standar deviation and not a real difference, this is specially important because a group of 9% should have a bigger standard error than another normal group. That's a normal rookie mistake so whatever
> 
> His data about incumbents and challenger is also murky because he talk about "history" while providing evidence for two elections....
> 
> His last table is more of the same, yeah Obama response was rated with a heavy importance but he never control for undecided voters, which mean that all the people who consider Obama response an important factor could be already Obama leaning voters who mention the importance of Sandy just because is fresh in their minds....


My data comes from exit polls and proves my point. 

Your data is pre-election drivel.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but was denied by the electoral college.
> 
> 
> 
> It was the newly able to vote so-called college educated (more like college brainwashed) millennials that won the elections for Obama (in both 2008 and 2012) - combined with the GOP's inability to break through the media narratives that have labeled them as a "racist, sexist, bigoted party".
> 
> It is the same group that will win the election for Hillary who are just as badly brainwashed.
> 
> As long as the colleges continue to hire nothing but liberal/left-wing socialist professors, you won't see a change in leadership in America.
> 
> The GOP needs to find a way to rebrand themselves against the propaganda of the democrats, otherwise they're doomed for at least another couple of decades, easily.


Sweetie you're confusing 2008 and 2012


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> You're not understanding.
> 
> He's not right, he's been fitting variables to adjust the outcome he already know (the other elections since 1960), he then says that based on that variables he can predict the outcome of this race.
> 
> Even in the improbable case of Trump wining, this guy is just wrong in what he does


Although I probably agree with you politically, your "I know everything, you know nothing" attitude and the way you are condescending to anyone who disagrees with you is quite repulsive behaviour. 

Please start taking your meds...


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@DesolationRow

Lew Rockwell discusses the latest twist in the Hillary e-mail scandal on RT:


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> So he has a crystal ball?
> 
> How can he already know trump wins, then fits things to agree with that result?


He knows the outcome of the elections from 1960 to 2008. He then picks the data who fit better with that results. He then tries to predict other outcomes like the one of this election based on that data.

Is a backward process to create independent variables in a regression.... It's like shooting a gun at the side of a barn six times, drawing a six circles circle around where the six bullets hit, and then declaring you've got six "bulls-eyes" and can therefore hit a bullseye at will.



ChicagoFit said:


> My data comes from exit polls and proves my point.
> 
> Your data is pre-election drivel.


Not in reality.

I'm using the guys with this level of difference from the real outcome










Even if my data is no real i was pointing to why your article isn't proving your point either....


ChicagoFit said:


> Although I probably agree with you politically, your "I know everything, you know nothing" attitude and the way you are condescending to anyone who disagrees with you is quite repulsive behaviour.
> 
> Please start taking your meds...


I'm trying to point to data and methodology if you don't like that, well i can't do nothing for you.

I can perfectly be wrong but is to discussion, now, if you don't like someone trying to point to certain errors to the point of reach the necessity to throw a fit because of it, then maybe i'm not the one who need his meds...

Edit: and even if i'm wrong that make for discussion on how to better statisticals models, so i can gain a comfort from a Trump win. Everything is on the approach, but don't expect from me not to correct false assumptions i apologize if i sound rude or condescending while i do it but it's what it's


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> You're not understanding.
> 
> He's not right, *he's been fitting variables to adjust the outcome he already know* (the other elections since 1960), he then says that based on that variables he can predict the outcome of this race.
> 
> Even in the improbable case of Trump wining, this guy is just wrong in what he does


Which in his mind is a Trump win. 

I don't see how the fuck he is wrong when he has got every election right since 1960.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> Which in his mind is a Trump win.
> 
> I don't see how the fuck he is wrong when he has got every election right since 1960.


Like i said before



asdf0501 said:


> He knows the outcome of the elections from 1960 to 2008, he didn't predict those elections. He then picks the data who fit better with that results. He then tries to predict other outcomes like the one of this election based on that data.
> 
> Is a backward process to create independent variables in a regression.... It's like shooting a gun at the side of a barn six times, drawing a six circles circle around where the six bullets hit, and then declaring you've got six "bulls-eyes" and can therefore hit a bullseye at will.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Remember that Donald Trump supporter I told you about that was defending the man's property? Well, as expected, she was attacked by the "tolerant" left.

Fucking disgusting behavior by a bunch of thugs and hypocrites! No conscience. No empathy.

- Vic


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Like i said before


and you are wrong


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Remember that Donald Trump supporter I told you about that was defending the man's property? Well, as expected, she was attacked by the "tolerant" left.
> 
> Fucking disgusting behavior by a bunch of thugs and hypocrites! No conscience. No empathy.
> 
> - Vic


As explained by Scott Adams in his article, _The Bully Party_ (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152293480726/the-bully-party)



> Team Clinton has succeeded in perpetuating one of the greatest evils I have seen in my lifetime. Her side has branded Trump supporters (40%+ of voters) as Nazis, sexists, homophobes, racists, and a few other fighting words. Their argument is built on confirmation bias and persuasion. But facts don’t matter because facts never matter in politics. What matters is that Clinton’s framing of Trump provides moral cover for any bullying behavior online or in person. No one can be a bad person for opposing Hitler, right?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Does Lew Rockwell talk about the homosexual threat to the survival of mankind and how inner city blacks are little better than apes in that video, the way he did when he ghostwrote Ron Paul's newsletters?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> Which in his mind is a Trump win.
> 
> I don't see how the fuck he is wrong when he has got every election right since 1960.


He has not gotten them right. You are acting like he predicted those elections before they happened. No he got them after they happened. And if you read the article his formula got the 1960 election wrong and technically Bush v Gore since Bush stole that election. 

It would be one thing if he made this formula in 1960 and got every election right before they happened. But that is not what happened.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> Sweetie you're confusing 2008 and 2012


yah .. because the same millennials that voted Obama in 2008 magically disappeared in 2012 .... :heston


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Camille Paglia is a wonderful writer, @Carte Blanche. I had read that piece before but I thank you for mentioning me! 

Walter Block holds to some crazy theories and ideas, @CamillePunk but I've appreciated much of his commentary during this most fun of election cycles. :lol Nick Gillespie is largely a solid journalist, though fairly pedestrian and steadfastly unwilling to admit, as editor at _Reason_, that perpetual open borders in terms of mass immigration means the inevitable death of most of his other purported libertarian goals. Humorously Block and Gillespie are both examples of how libertarianism as an ideology devours itself. Like his intellectual antecedents, Block has written more mind-numbing articles about convoluted propositions and principles to remain strictly "libertarian" than I can shake my copy of _Atlas Shrugged_ at. :lol He is at times entertaining, however, so I look forward to the debate pitting him versus Gillespie.


----------



## The Talent

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The SUNY professor's formula was created in 1980 and is either 9-0 (popular vote) or 8-1 (actual election winner). His formula actually predicted that scam artist Al Gore would win in 2000. Of course, he did win the popular vote, but not the election (dems haven't stopped crying since).

If we apply his formula, retroactively, it's almost spotless, with the lone error being 1960, when JFK stole the election. I like that guy much better with a hole in head.

The evidence is clear: Trump is winning this election.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Talent said:


> The SUNY professor's formula was created in 1980 and is either 9-0 (popular vote) or 8-1 (actual election winner). His formula actually predicted that scam artist Al Gore would win in 2000. Of course, he did win the popular vote, but not the election (dems haven't stopped crying since).
> 
> If we apply his formula, retroactively, it's almost spotless, with the lone error being 1960, when JFK stole the election. I like that guy much better with a hole in head.
> 
> The evidence is clear: Trump is winning this election.


the real evidence is clear and Trump is losing lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> Thought this was funny.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/29/trump-supporter-charged-with-voting-twice-in-iowa/?utm_term=.ab6e5419ad73


Surprised but not surprised none of the Trumpeters in here have touched on this?

Could it be THE RIGHT is capable of evil such as THE BIG BAD LEFT is?

Now go ahead. Justify this somehow.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Remember that Donald Trump supporter I told you about that was defending the man's property? Well, as expected, she was attacked by the "tolerant" left.
> 
> Fucking disgusting behavior by a bunch of thugs and hypocrites! No conscience. No empathy.
> 
> - Vic


Socially conscious democrat is as much misconception as racist GOP party in my opinion. 

There's more inner city poverty, violence and segregation in northern cities than there is racism in southern cities, but you'll never hear the north talk about that instead giving circular arguments for their existence. 

"Systematic racism" is one of the ones they spew out but if systematic racism is true, then the evidence for that comes from blue states as much (if not more) than red states - and yet none of them ever bother to even question what if any democratic policies and corruption contribute to the racial segregation in blue states.



yeahbaby! said:


> Surprised but not surprised none of the Trumpeters in here have touched on this?
> 
> Could it be THE RIGHT is capable of evil such as THE BIG BAD LEFT is?
> 
> Now go ahead. Justify this somehow.


A republican woman caught in a republican state committing voter fraud most likely by other republicans and you're still trying to turn this about how bad the republicans are :lol

That's why Voter ID is necessary because it has a universal impact. But the only ones that are anti-Voter ID are democrats not republicans. This is just one of the points are raised in my defence of voter ID that it will reduce fraud on all sides and not just minorities :kobelol 

Then again, "voter fraud isn't a big deal, so it isn't a big deal and we shouldn't do anything to prevent it because it impacts minorities more than anyone else". That's the illogical argument of the democrats, not republicans. Democrats don't care about voter fraud. 

Apparently, the only one that does on their behalf is an Aussie :heston


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Surprised but not surprised none of the Trumpeters in here have touched on this?
> 
> Could it be THE RIGHT is capable of evil such as THE BIG BAD LEFT is?
> 
> Now go ahead. Justify this somehow.


Comparing the actions of some random Trump supporter to the sanctioned actions of entire organizations working in tandem with the DNC. :lol No need to be so desperate, I'm sure Hillary will still win.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Comparing the actions of some random Trump supporter to the sanctioned actions of entire organizations working in tandem with the DNC. :lol No need to be so desperate, I'm sure Hillary will still win.


And you prove why Trump supporters are a fraud. Yeah an action of a real Trump voter vs Trump claiming something is happening by Hillary supporters with no evidence. This is why you cannot be taken seriously. 

Also the RNC is pushing for voter suppression did not already forget this? 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-police-raid-registration-program-in-indiana/


Group accuses Mike Pence of voter suppression after state police raid registration program in Indiana


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yeah an action of a real Trump voter vs Trump claiming something is happening by Hillary supporters with no evidence.


Who is talking about Trump's claims? :lol Everything I said is backed by video evidence and leaked e-mails.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Talent said:


> The SUNY professor's formula was created in 1980 and is either 9-0 (popular vote) or 8-1 (actual election winner). His formula actually predicted that scam artist Al Gore would win in 2000. Of course, he did win the popular vote, but not the election (dems haven't stopped crying since).
> 
> If we apply his formula, retroactively, it's almost spotless, with the lone error being 1960, when JFK stole the election. I like that guy much better with a hole in head.
> 
> The evidence is clear: Trump is winning this election.


http://primarymodel.com/

There is no data for predictions before 2008 even if he claims to be predicting from 1996. But going to the issue, Regressions aren't applied retroactively, that's the entire point


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/792378486338023424
:lol

I seriously love and will miss this election cycle. I feel sorry for people who can't appreciate it.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So, this was published today, and I don't think it really has much to do with the election — or, more accurately, I don't seek to frame it as very pertinent — but I do think it paints an interesting portrait of Donald Trump as a public figure.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...c03106-9ac7-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html



Spoiler: The story






> *Trump boasts about his philanthropy. But his giving falls short of his words.*
> By David A. Fahrenthold October 29 at 3:00 PM
> 
> In the fall of 1996, a charity called the Association to Benefit Children held a ribbon-cutting in Manhattan for a new nursery school serving children with AIDS. The bold-faced names took seats up front.
> 
> There was then-Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) and former mayor David Dinkins (D). TV stars Frank and Kathie Lee Gifford, who were major donors. And there was a seat saved for Steven Fisher, a developer who had given generously to build the nursery.
> 
> Then, all of a sudden, there was Donald Trump.
> 
> “Nobody knew he was coming,” said Abigail Disney, another donor sitting on the dais. “There’s this kind of ruckus at the door, and I don’t know what was going on, and in comes Donald Trump. [He] just gets up on the podium and sits down.”
> 
> Trump was not a major donor. He was not a donor, period. He’d never given a dollar to the nursery or the Association to Benefit Children, according to Gretchen Buchenholz, the charity’s executive director then and now.
> 
> But now he was sitting in Fisher’s seat, next to Giuliani.
> 
> “Frank Gifford turned to me and said, ‘Why is he here?’ ” Buchenholz recalled recently. By then, the ceremony had begun. There was nothing to do.
> 
> “Just sing past it,” she recalled Gifford telling her.
> 
> So they warbled into the first song on the program, “This Little Light of Mine,” alongside Trump and a chorus of children — with a photographer snapping photos, and Trump looking for all the world like an honored donor to the cause.
> 
> Afterward, Disney and Buchenholz recalled, Trump left without offering an explanation. Or a donation. Fisher was stuck in the audience. The charity spent months trying to repair its relationship with him.
> 
> “I mean, what’s wrong with you, man?” Disney recalled thinking of Trump, when it was over.
> 
> For as long as he has been rich and famous, Donald Trump has also wanted people to believe he is generous. He spent years constructing an image as a philanthropist by appearing at charity events and by making very public — even nationally televised — promises to give his own money away.
> 
> It was, in large part, a facade. A months-long investigation by The Washington Post has not been able to verify many of Trump’s boasts about his philanthropy.
> 
> Instead, throughout his life in the spotlight, whether as a businessman, television star or presidential candidate, The Post found that Trump had sought credit for charity he had not given — or had claimed other people’s giving as his own.
> 
> It is impossible to know for certain what Trump has given to charity, because he has declined to release his tax returns. In all, The Post was able to identify $7.8 million in charitable giving from Trump’s own pocket since the early 1980s.
> 
> In public appearances, Trump often made it appear that he gave far more.
> 
> Trump promised to give away the proceeds of Trump University. He promised to donate the salary he earned from “The Apprentice.” He promised to give personal donations to the charities chosen by contestants on “Celebrity Apprentice.” He promised to donate $250,000 to a charity helping Israeli soldiers and veterans.
> 
> Together, those pledges would have increased Trump’s lifetime giving by millions of dollars. But The Post has been unable to verify that he followed through on any of them.
> 
> Instead, The Post found that his personal giving has almost disappeared entirely in recent years. After calling 420-plus charities with some connection to Trump, The Post found only one personal gift from Trump between 2008 and the spring of this year. That was a gift to the Police Athletic League of New York City, in 2009. It was worth less than $10,000.
> 
> The charity that Trump has given the most money to over his lifetime appears to be his own: the Donald J. Trump Foundation.
> 
> But that charity, too, was not what it seemed.
> 
> The Trump Foundation appeared outwardly to be a typical, if small, philanthropic foundation — set up by a rich man to give his riches away.
> 
> In reality, it has been funded largely by other people. Tax records show the Trump Foundation has received $5.5 million from Trump over its life, and nothing since 2008. It received $9.3 million from other people.
> 
> Another unusual feature: One of the foundation’s most consistent causes was Trump himself.
> 
> New findings, for instance, show that the Trump Foundation’s largest-ever gift — $264,631 — was used to renovate a fountain outside the windows of Trump’s Plaza Hotel.
> 
> Its smallest-ever gift, for $7, was paid to the Boy Scouts in 1989, at a time when it cost $7 to register a new Scout. Trump’s oldest son was 11 at the time. Trump did not respond to a question about whether the money was paid to register him.
> 
> At other times, Trump used his foundation’s funds to settle legal disputes involving Trump’s for-profit companies and to buy two large portraits of himself, including one that wound up hanging on the wall of the sports bar at a Trump-owned golf resort. Those purchases raised questions about whether Trump had violated laws against “self-dealing” by charity leaders.
> 
> In advance of this article, The Post sent more than 70 questions to the Trump campaign.
> 
> Those questions covered the individual anecdotes and statistics contained in this article, including the tale about Trump crashing the ribbon-cutting in 1996, as well as broader questions about Trump’s life as a philanthropist.
> 
> Exactly when, before this spring, did Trump last give his own money to charity?
> 
> What did Trump consider his greatest act of charity in recent years?
> 
> Trump’s campaign did not respond until Saturday afternoon, after this article was published online; it sent a written statement saying that Trump “has personally donated tens of millions of dollars . . . to charitable causes.”
> 
> Trump officials did not respond when asked to provide evidence of the tens of millions of dollars in gifts.
> 
> The result of The Post’s examination of Trump’s charity is a portrait of the GOP nominee, revealed in the negative space between what he was willing to promise — and what he was willing to give.
> 
> “All of this is completely consistent with who Trump is. He’s a man who operates inside a tiny bubble that never extends beyond what he believes is his self-interest,” said Tony Schwartz, Trump’s co-author on his 1987 book “The Art of the Deal.” Schwartz has become a fierce critic of Trump in this election.
> 
> “If your worldview is only you — if all you’re seeing is a mirror — then there’s nobody to give money to,” Schwartz said. “Except yourself.”
> 
> *‘An ardent philanthropist’*
> 
> In several interviews with The Post this year, Trump has declined to supply details about his giving, saying that if charities knew what Trump had donated they would badger him to give more.
> 
> “I give mostly to a lot of different groups,” Trump said in one interview.
> 
> “Can you give us any names?” asked The Post’s Drew Harwell in May.
> 
> “No, I don’t want to. No, I don’t want to,” Trump responded. “I’d like to keep it private.”
> 
> Of the $7.8 million in personal giving that The Post identified, about 70 percent — $5.5 million — went to the Trump Foundation, which was founded in 1987. All of that giving came before 2009; since then, the foundation’s tax records show no donations at all from Trump to his foundation. Its coffers have been filled by others, including $5 million from pro-wrestling executives Vince and Linda McMahon.
> 
> At least $1.1 million of Trump’s giving has come in the last six months.
> 
> That includes a gift that first brought Trump’s charity — and the gap between the promises and the substance of his giving — to the center of his presidential campaign.
> 
> In January, Trump skipped a GOP primary debate in a feud with Fox News and held a televised fundraiser for veterans. In that broadcast, Trump said he’d personally donated to the cause: “Donald Trump gave $1 million,” he said.
> 
> Months later, The Post could find no evidence Trump had done so. Then, Corey Lewandowski — Trump’s campaign manager at the time — called to say the money had been given out. In private. No details. “He’s not going to share that information,” Lewandowski said.
> 
> In reality, at that point, Trump had given nothing.
> 
> Trump didn’t give away the $1 million until a few days later, as the news media sought to check Lewandowski’s false claim. Trump gave it all to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, which helps families of fallen Marines. Trump bristled at this reporter’s suggestion that he had given the money away only because the media were asking about it.
> 
> “You know, you’re a nasty guy. You’re really a nasty guy,” Trump said. “I gave out millions of dollars that I had no obligation to do.”
> 
> Later, in August, Trump also gave $100,000 to a church near Baton Rouge. He sent the check after visiting the church during a tour of flood-ravaged areas.
> 
> For years, Trump built a reputation as somebody whose charity was as big as his success.
> 
> That identity was expressed, for a time, in Trump’s biography on his corporate website. His image had two seemingly equal parts.
> 
> “He is the archetypal businessman,” the biography said, “a deal maker without peer and an ardent philanthropist.”
> 
> In the books he wrote or co-wrote about himself, Trump frequently praised charitable giving in the abstract — casting it as a moral response to his vast wealth.
> 
> “We’ve benefited from the American Dream and we feel the duty to give back to the community,” he wrote of his family in “The America We Deserve” in 2000. “Those who don’t are nothing more than parasites.”
> 
> In the same books, Trump seemed to regard charity differently when he encountered it in his day-to-day life.
> 
> In those cases, it sounds like a hassle.
> 
> A game he can’t win, and hates playing.
> 
> “The people who run charities know that I’ve got wealthy friends and can get them to buy tables,” Trump said in “The Art of the Deal,” explaining why he’d turned down a charity request from New York Yankee Dave Winfield. “I understand the game, and while I don’t like to play it, there is no graceful way out.”
> 
> One rare time when Trump describes finding joy in the act of charity comes in 2008’s “Trump: Never Give Up.”
> 
> “I can remember a friend who asked me why I had so many charity events at my properties,” Trump wrote. “I said to him, ‘Because I can!’. . . It’s a great feeling, and it makes all the work that goes into acquiring all those beautiful properties and buildings worth it.”
> 
> But that’s not entirely a story about how Trump gives money away.
> 
> It’s also a story about how Trump makes money.
> 
> Charities pay him to rent out his clubs and banquet rooms for fundraiser galas. At the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, they can pay $275,000 or more for a single night. Sometimes, Trump has given donations from the Trump Foundation to the charities that are his customers.
> 
> But in some of those cases, he still comes out ahead.
> 
> “It cost, I think, 20-some thousand,” said William Hertzler, of the German-American Hall of Fame, who rented space at Trump Tower when the hall inducted Trump in 2012. Trump was the 15th person inducted, the year after magicians Siegfried and Roy. Trump gave a $1,000 donation from the Trump Foundation.
> 
> Hertzler said the hall of fame was okay with that. “He came down” to attend the gala, held in the same tower where Trump lives, Hertzler said. “His time is very valuable.”
> 
> *‘Advancing Trump’s interests’*
> 
> In his early days as a developer — when he was a New York celebrity but not yet a national one — Trump made some high-profile personal gifts to charity. He gave $1 million to a Manhattan Vietnam Veterans’ memorial in 1983. Then, after taking over the renovation of the city-owned Wollman Rink in Central Park, Trump said he donated some of its proceeds to charities.
> 
> But, even then, Trump was looking for ways to have other people support his charitable causes.
> 
> “He wanted me to get as much money as I could from the contractors. And I was a good soldier, and so I went out and put the arm round them [saying], ‘I need you to buy a table at the United Cerebral Palsy gala,’ ” said Barbara Res, a longtime Trump employee who recalled being sent out on job sites in advance of charity galas hosted by Trump’s then-wife Ivana.
> 
> Usually, Res said, the contractors paid. “They whined. And I pushed.”
> 
> Then, in 1987 Trump published “The Art of the Deal.”
> 
> He became a national celebrity — and made his charity a key part of his brand.
> 
> “I don’t do it for the money. I’ve got enough, more than I’ll ever need,” Trump wrote on the book’s first page.
> 
> So, Trump said in interviews, if he made money off the book in which he wrote he didn’t need money, he would give it to charity.
> 
> “To the homeless, to Vietnam veterans, for AIDS, multiple sclerosis,” Trump told the New York Times two years later. “Originally, I figured they’d get a couple of hundred thousand, but because of the success of ‘The Art of the Deal,’ they’ll get four or five million.”
> 
> So in 1987, Trump signed the forms to incorporate the Donald J. Trump Foundation. The paperwork warned that he could not use the charity’s money to help political candidates. Nor could he use it for the benefit of “any member, trustee, director or officer” of the charity.
> 
> That first year, Trump made himself president.
> 
> He put in $144,050.
> 
> Then he used $100 of the foundation’s money to buy a two-person membership to the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
> 
> Trump did not respond to a question about whether the membership was for his own use. If it was, it may have been a violation of the laws against “self-dealing.”
> 
> “You’ve got to pay for it yourself; you can’t have your foundation pay for it,” said Lloyd Mayer, a professor teaching tax law at Notre Dame Law School. He said this payment, small as it was, appeared to provide a benefit directly to Trump. In which case Trump — not the charity — should have paid.
> 
> Trump did not respond to a question about whether the membership was for him.
> 
> In the foundation’s first four years, Trump put in a total of $1.9 million, proceeds from the best-selling book and from the poor-selling “Trump, The Game.”
> 
> He was the Trump Foundation’s only donor.
> 
> Though that was not for lack of trying.
> 
> “If you could ask your accountants to write a check to the ‘Donald J. Trump Foundation,’ I will distribute the money in my name and yours and will let you have a list of the charities which benefitted,” Trump wrote in a letter to boxer Mike Tyson in 1988, according to news reports from the time.
> 
> Trump had helped Tyson with business dealings and believed Tyson owed him $2 million. He wanted it to go to the Trump Foundation instead. That doesn’t seem to have happened — tax records show no donations from Tyson.
> 
> The largest donation in the history of the Trump Foundation was made in 1989. The Central Park Conservancy wanted to restore the Pulitzer Fountain, a turned-off, crumbling feature next to the famous park. The city wouldn’t pay for it, saying the money was needed elsewhere.
> 
> So owners of the 15 buildings around the fountain — who would benefit directly from its restoration — were asked to pay a voluntary “tax.” The tax was $0.50 per square foot.
> 
> At the time, Trump owned one of those 15 buildings: the Plaza Hotel. Its front door faced the fountain.
> 
> Today, the Plaza is about 1 million square feet.
> 
> If it was the same in the 1980s — hotel officials weren’t sure — that would have led to a tax of $500,000 or so.
> 
> The conservancy’s records show that Trump’s hotel paid some of the “tax” — between $100,000 and $250,000 — in 1988.
> 
> In 1989, the Trump Foundation also paid $264,631 to the Central Park Conservancy. It appeared that Trump’s charity had contributed to an effort that enhanced the view outside Trump’s business.
> 
> “It shows you what this [foundation] is all about. Which is basically just about advancing Trump’s interests,” said Brian Galle, a professor of tax law at Georgetown University. The Central Park Conservancy declined to comment.
> 
> In 1990, Trump’s businesses started to go south, plunging him into a period of heavy debt. In 1991, his creditors limited his living expenses to $375,000 a month.
> 
> At that time, Trump’s giving to charity collapsed. He gave $0 to the Trump Foundation in 1991. Around the same year, Trump tried again to get somebody else to pay his charitable donations for him.
> 
> In late 1990, the all-female band Precious Metal was going to shoot a video for their remake of “Mr. Big Stuff.” Trump made headlines by agreeing to star as the title character, in return for a charitable donation.
> 
> “I want to give it to my favorite charity, and it’s just 10 grand,” Leslie Knauer, the lead singer for the band, recalled Trump saying.
> 
> They shot the video, Knauer said.
> 
> Then, a few days later, the band got a call.
> 
> “You know, $10,000 really isn’t a Trump kind of donation,” Trump said, according to interviews Knauer gave at the time. He wanted $250,000.
> 
> The move backfired. The band re-shot the video with a look-alike. Knauer said they gave Trump nothing.
> 
> “Then he said [publicly] he hated the song,” Knauer recalled. “It was horrible.”
> 
> In that low period of Trump’s finances, his generosity dried up even to those close to him.
> 
> For instance, Res — the executive who had spent years leaning on Trump’s contractors to buy tables at his wife’s fundraisers — came to Trump to ask for a favor of her own.
> 
> “I got an award from a group called the Professional Women in Construction,” she recalled. There was a gala. There were tables. She’d sold a number to subcontractors she knew.
> 
> But, usually, the winning woman’s employer was the big spender, buying multiple tables or paying for high-level sponsorships. That was Trump.
> 
> He didn’t.
> 
> “He showed up at the door and bought one ticket,” said Lenore Janis, the leader of the Professional Women in Construction at the time. The ticket cost $100.
> 
> “And then he said to me, the president of the organization, ‘I have a few things that I want to say. I will need the microphone,’ ” Janis said.
> 
> She said no. But Trump found somebody who said yes. “He got up there and for 15 minutes he blew his own horn,” Janis said, so that anybody watching would think he’d written a big check.
> 
> Afterward, Janis said her son photocopied the check and hung it on his wall.
> 
> “Oh, my God, a check signed by Mr. Trump!” Janis recalled him saying. “And I said, ‘It should have been, like, $20,000. . . . Grow up.’ ”
> 
> *‘The most clueless person’*
> 
> As the 1990s went on, Trump’s finances slowly climbed out of the red.
> 
> And in 1995, he made one of the most famous charitable gestures of his life.
> 
> That year Trump gave a donation to help finance a Manhattan parade honoring veterans on the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II.
> 
> At the time, press reports pegged his gift at $200,000. In recent interviews, one of the organizers said he thought it was higher, closer to $500,000.
> 
> “He certainly put his money where his mouth was, and he certainly helped us when we were in pretty bad shape,” said Vince McGowan, who helped organize the event.
> 
> Trump, who had obtained five deferments to avoid the Vietnam-era draft, was named a grand marshal, and he marched near the front of the huge column of veterans. He was later honored with an invitation to visit the Pentagon and meet the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
> 
> Trump describes this gift in his most recent book, called “Great Again: How to Fix Our Crippled America.”
> 
> “I donated a one-million-dollar matching grant,” he wrote.
> 
> As the 1990s went on, Trump also increased his giving to the Trump Foundation: $6,500 in 1992, $8,500 in 1993, then $74,432 in 1994, after Trump said he’d sold photos of his wedding to Marla Maples and given the proceeds to his charity.
> 
> As it rose again, the Trump Foundation continued to be used to benefit its namesake.
> 
> The best illustration of that was the charity to which the foundation gave its two largest gifts of the 1990s. The Trump Foundation gave $50,000 in 1995, and another $50,000 in 1999, to a nonprofit called the National Museum of Catholic Art and History.
> 
> Those gifts, not previously reported, seemed like an odd choice for big charitable dollars.
> 
> The museum was housed for much of the 1990s in a former headquarters for “Fat Tony” Salerno of the Genovese crime family in East Harlem. It had few visitors and little art. A Village Voice reporter, visiting in 2001, said the collection included a photo of the pope, some nun dolls bought from the Home Shopping Network, and — just off the dining room — “a black Jacuzzi decorated with simmering candles, gold-plated soap dishes, and kitsch angel figurines.”
> 
> Trump is not Catholic.
> 
> But he and the museum had a mutual friend.
> 
> Ed Malloy, who was then the chairman of the museum’s board, was the head of the powerful labor group, the Building and Construction Trades Council. News reports from the time indicate that he was a business ally of Trump’s: Union members worked on Trump buildings, and Malloy helped Trump line up vital financing from a union pension fund.
> 
> “Contributing to this museum — you know, it only made sense in the context of relationships,” said Wayne Barrett, the Village Voice reporter, in a recent interview.
> 
> The Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment about these donations.
> 
> Malloy died in 2012.
> 
> The Catholic museum shut down in 2010.
> 
> “I cannot give you a comment. I don’t want to be quoted on anything,” said Christina Cox, the museum’s former director, when The Post reached her by phone.
> 
> At times, Trump seemed to make light of others’ expectations about his generosity.
> 
> In 1997, for instance, he was “principal for a day” at a public school in an impoverished area of the Bronx. The chess team was holding a bake sale, Hot & Crusty danishes and croissants. They were $5,000 short of what they needed to travel to a tournament.
> 
> Trump had brought something to wow them.
> 
> “He handed them a fake million-dollar bill,” said David MacEnulty, a teacher and the chess team’s coach.
> 
> The team’s parent volunteers were thrilled.
> 
> Then disappointment.
> 
> Trump then gave them $200 in real money and drove away in a limousine.
> 
> Why just $200?
> 
> “I have no idea,” MacEnulty said. “He was about the most clueless person I’ve ever seen in that regard.”
> 
> The happy ending, he said, was that a woman read about Trump’s gift in the New York Times, called the school and donated the $5,000. “I am ashamed to be the same species as this man,” MacEnulty recalled her saying.
> 
> At a nursery school a year earlier, Trump had crashed the ribbon-cutting for the event aimed at helping children with AIDS.
> 
> Once he was onstage, Trump played the part of a big donor convincingly. Photos from the event show Trump smiling, right behind Giuliani, as the mayor cut the ribbon. During the “celebratory dance” segment of the program, Trump mugged and did the macarena with Giuliani, Kathie Lee Gifford and a group of children.
> 
> “I am just heartsick,” Buchenholz, the executive director, wrote the next day to the donor whose seat Trump had taken. Buchenholz provided a copy of the email.
> 
> “I immediately said ‘no,’ but Rudy Giuliani said ‘yes’ and I felt I had to accede to him,” Buchenholz wrote. “I hope you can forgive me.” Buchenholz said that Fisher did remain a donor, despite the snub.
> 
> Trump and Giuliani did not respond to questions about the event.
> 
> A spokeswoman for Fisher said he did not recall it.
> 
> Buchenholz said her group did not receive any donations from Trump until three years later. The charity was holding a gala on a cruise ship. Trump bought tickets and paid with $2,000 from the Trump Foundation.
> 
> *‘Unusual and alarming’*
> 
> If Trump had never run for president, the cost of his charitable shortfalls would only have fallen on his conscience.
> 
> He had not, apparently, faced any kind of scrutiny for the way he ran the Trump Foundation. Former IRS officials say that’s not surprising. They said the IRS largely relies on the honor system: It asks charities to flag their own bad behavior, reporting if they made a prohibited political gift or committed an act of self-dealing.
> 
> The Trump Foundation never did.
> 
> “So it was invisible,” said Marc S. Owens, the former longtime head of the IRS office dealing with nonprofits.
> 
> During his run for president, Trump has faced new consequences.
> 
> Trump paid a $2,500 penalty tax, after The Post reported that his foundation had made a political gift in 2013 to a committee aiding Florida Attorney General Pamela Bondi (R).
> 
> Also, earlier this month, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) ordered the Trump Foundation to cease its fundraising — after The Post revealed that it had been soliciting funds from the public without obtaining a special registration required by state law.
> 
> Schneiderman’s office is also investigating the Trump Foundation, examining its acts of possible self-dealing. In a written statement, Schneiderman called reports about the foundation “unusual and alarming.”
> 
> Tax-law experts said it’s possible that the Trump Foundation will be — or perhaps already is — under investigation by the IRS. The IRS has declined to comment.
> 
> Trump also has faced political attacks from Clinton and other Democrats, who have mocked his foundation as evidence of his character.
> 
> “The Trump Foundation . . . took money from other people and bought a six-foot portrait of Donald,” Clinton said during the third presidential debate. “I mean, who does that?” she said.
> 
> Trump’s response was that, in effect, it could have been worse.
> 
> At least he didn’t buy something more expensive than a painting.
> 
> “Trump Foundation, small foundation. People contribute, I contribute. The money goes 100 percent — 100 percent goes to different charities, including a lot of military,” Trump said. “I don’t get anything. I don’t buy boats. I don’t buy planes.”
> 
> The next night, Trump and Clinton were together again, this time in Manhattan at the Alfred E. Smith dinner, which benefits Catholic charities.
> 
> In the program for that event, Trump’s official biography echoed the language he had used about himself for years.
> 
> Despite all that had been revealed about his charitable giving during the course of his campaign, Trump stuck with the old self-image. He was a man whose identity had two equally important sides.
> 
> “Mr. Trump is the archetypal businessman,” the bio said, “a deal maker without peer and an ardent philanthropist.”
> 
> _Alice Crites contributed to this report._






Obviously, there's some interesting stuff in there to begin with, but one thing that the story doesn't really grapple with that you can kind of read between the lines to infer is that Trump poured a certain amount of money into his namesake foundation and then, having run into financial trouble, sought to try to funnel that money back out. That's kind of interesting to me, and I don't know that it's something that he can be slammed for. I mean, obviously, the foundation seeming to be something of a sham to begin with is its own thing, but the idea of him saying "Well, this is my money. How do I get access to my money again?" is not unfathomable.

Anyway, I don't typically link WaPo, but I saw this earlier, and I thought it was an interesting read.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It's interesting that while the U.S. likes to proclaim to the world how star spangled fucking awesome it is and endlessly hypes Presidential elections; when it comes to percentage of eligible voters who actually vote -- out of the 35 countries considered to be highly developed democratic states, the "land of the free" (who has more of it's citizens incarcerated than any other country) ranks 31st -- among the worst for citizen's participation in elections. 

Sad.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Comparing the actions of some random Trump supporter to the sanctioned actions of entire organizations working in tandem with the DNC. :lol No need to be so desperate, I'm sure Hillary will still win.


You made that comparison not me. I'm just pointing out the double standards.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This election year has been massively entertaining, if for nothing else all the shit-flinging coming from all sides. The entertainment stops next year, though. One WILL win. :mj2


----------



## amhlilhaus

asdf0501 said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> So he has a crystal ball?
> 
> How can he already know trump wins, then fits things to agree with that result?
> 
> 
> 
> He knows the outcome of the elections from 1960 to 2008. He then picks the data who fit better with that results. He then tries to predict other outcomes like the one of this election based on that data.
> 
> Is a backward process to create independent variables in a regression.... It's like shooting a gun at the side of a barn six times, drawing a six circles circle around where the six bullets hit, and then declaring you've got six "bulls-eyes" and can therefore hit a bullseye at will.
> 
> 
> 
> ChicagoFit said:
> 
> 
> 
> My data comes from exit polls and proves my point.
> 
> Your data is pre-election drivel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in reality.
> 
> I'm using the guys with this level of difference from the real outcome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if my data is no real i was pointing to why your article isn't proving your point either....
> 
> 
> ChicagoFit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I probably agree with you politically, your "I know everything, you know nothing" attitude and the way you are condescending to anyone who disagrees with you is quite repulsive behaviour.
> 
> Please start taking your meds...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm trying to point to data and methodology if you don't like that, well i can't do nothing for you.
> 
> I can perfectly be wrong but is to discussion, now, if you don't like someone trying to point to certain errors to the point of reach the necessity to throw a fit because of it, then maybe i'm not the one who need his meds...
> 
> Edit: and even if i'm wrong that make for discussion on how to better statisticals models, so i can gain a comfort from a Trump win. Everything is on the approach, but don't expect from me not to correct false assumptions i apologize if i sound rude or condescending while i do it but it's what it's
Click to expand...

So whats his record predicting elections beforehand?

If hes documented to have correctly predicted the presidency before the elections, it doesnt matter what he does to evolve his thinking, if he gets it right beforehand.

Saying he changes how he makes predictions beforehand disqualifies him is ridiculous. Its like saying a athlete doesnt deserve credit for improving their skills


----------



## amhlilhaus

Oda Nobunaga said:


> This election year has been massively entertaining, if for nothing else all the shit-flinging coming from all sides. The entertainment stops next year, though. One WILL win.


If you find this entertaining, you aint seen nothing yet

Consider

Hillary wins, you have her revenge tour on her enemies, then later all the scandals her corrupt aura will generate

Trump wins, all hell breaks loose, the democrats will scream about everything he does. I predict serious articles on impeaching him within 6 months

You also have the destruction of the republican party. Win or lose, if they think everything returns to normal they deserve the fallout


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Who is talking about Trump's claims? :lol Everything I said is backed by video evidence and leaked e-mails.


You are a hypocrite. You make up excuses for Trump supporters doing what Trump claims Hillary supporters are doing lol.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> So whats his record predicting elections beforehand?


2




amhlilhaus said:


> If hes documented to have correctly predicted the presidency before the elections, it doesnt matter what he does to evolve his thinking, if he gets it right beforehand.


The point is, he's not evolving his thinking

He's getting a lot of outcomes (the results from 1912 to 2004), and fitting variables to predict those results. Then he reverts the process to say he can predict future elections.... Is backwards because he's not saying "here is how this variables predict an outcome" which is the logic behind building a model, he's saying "as this variables predicted previous outcome they're gonna do it always".

Polls, for example, have a way of sorting this problems in the assumption of random selection



amhlilhaus said:


> Saying he changes how he makes predictions beforehand disqualifies him is ridiculous. Its like saying a athlete doesnt deserve credit for improving their skills


I'm not saying that he changes how he makes prediction, everyone should be open to changes under new settings. In fact i think he understand the basic process of creating an hypothesis, the problem is he's taking ex-post factors to build a model of ex-ante variables.


----------



## Hencheman_21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I think I have passed away and descended into hell. There is a bunch of little girl cheerleaders or dance crew or some such thing staying at the hotel. Most around 4-6 yrs old. If that was not bad enough they were turning the TV in the lobby, heard someone say Sponge Bob which would be fine, but stopped on some political program. At first I laughed thinking they gave up on TV and that is just where they stopped. But noooooo. I hear they saying "raise your hand for Trump" and "raise your hand for Hillary". I am like are you f'n serious. Little kids doing straw polls in my lobby. What could I have possibly done to deserve this.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> You made that comparison not me. I'm just pointing out the double standards.





birthday_massacre said:


> You are a hypocrite. You make up excuses for Trump supporters doing what Trump claims Hillary supporters are doing lol.


What the hell are you guys talking about? I never condoned voter fraud or attacked some random Clinton supporter for voting twice. There's no double standard here or excuse made for anyone. Please don't include me in your bizarre hallucinations. Your candidate is going to win. Be happy with that.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@AryaDark @Beatles123 @CamillePunk @Carte Blanche @deepelemblues @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @Oda Nobunaga @RetepAdam. @samizayn @Tater

So... Perhaps this is where Huma Abedin falls on her sword for Hillary...? Because otherwise...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...rtment-emails.html?via=desktop&source=twitter



> Huma Abedin Swore Under Oath She Gave Up ‘All the Devices’ With State Dept. Emails
> The FBI found emails pertinent to its Clinton investigation, reportedly on a computer from her aide’s home. That doesn’t jibe with she told lawyers this summer.
> M.L. Nestel
> Jackie Kucinich
> 10.29.16 12:27 PM ET
> 
> In a normal election year, a normal candidate’s close aide who caused even minor embarrassment to a campaign so near to Election Day would be whisked away as quickly as possible to avoid becoming a distraction.
> 
> But Huma Abedin is not simply a close aide, she’s a critical member of Hillary Clinton’s tiny inner circle that protects and — at times — enables the deeply flawed and secretive Democratic nominee.
> 
> So despite FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that the bureau is reviewing emails from Abedin’s time at the State Department reportedly found on a laptop she shared with her soon-to-be ex-husband Anthony Weiner (confiscated as a part of the FBI’s investigation into allegations he sexted with a 15-year-old North Carolina girl), the campaign made clear on Saturday that she’s not going anywhere.
> 
> John Podesta, the chairman of the Clinton campaign, told reporters on a conference call that Abedin had been nothing but cooperative with investigators and sat for hours of depositions last summer as part of the civil lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch.
> 
> "There's nothing that she's done that we think calls into question anything that she's done with respect to this investigation… we fully stand behind her," Podesta said.
> 
> But the new information that the FBI found State Department-related email on her home laptop also calls into question whether Abedin in fact turned over all of the devices she used to send and receive email while working at State.
> 
> On June 28, 2016, Abedin said under oath in a sworn deposition that she looked for all devices that she thought contained government work on them so the records could be given to the State Department. (These records were subsequently reviewed by the FBI.)
> 
> “How did you go about searching for what records you may have in your possession to be returned to the State Department?” Attorney Ramona Cotca for Judicial Watch asked her.
> 
> “I looked for all the devices that may have any of my State Department work on it and returned — returned — gave them to my attorneys for them to review for all relevant documents. And gave them devices and paper,” Abedin answered.
> 
> Cotca then asked Abedin specifically what devices she gave her attorneys.
> 
> “If memory serves me correctly, it was two laptops, a BlackBerry, and some files that I found in my apartment,” Abedin said, adding the BlackBerry was associated with her Clintonemail.com account.
> 
> Abedin maintained that she was “not involved in the process” of what records on her devices would be given to the State Department.
> 
> “I provided them [her attorneys] with the devices and the materials and asked them to find whatever they thought was relevant and appropriate, whatever was their determination as to what was a federal record, and they did. They turned the materials in, and I know they did so….”
> 
> Abedin was asked whether she supplied her login, password and other credentials to her “Clintonmail.com” account so that her attorneys could eyeball “all of the emails that were on that account” Abedin said she had.
> 
> Pressed how she was sure, Abedin said, “I cannot answer that question.”
> 
> Abedin said her practice was to rely on her State Department email through her laptop and BlackBerry for the “vast majority of my work” but acknowledged her personal account was a de facto business account too.
> 
> “I used that for the Clinton family matters and, frankly, I used it for my own personal e-mail, as well,” she testified.
> 
> Abedin helped set up a private email address for Clinton at the start of her tenure as Secretary of State, according to State Department emails. In one email, Clinton wrote Abedin on Nov. 12, 2010: “...I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”
> 
> Asked about this exchange in her deposition, Abedin said she interpreted Clinton’s words to mean the Secretary of State hoped personal matters would “not accessible to anybody.”
> 
> “I would imagine anybody who has personal e-mail doesn’t want that personal e-mail to be read by anybody else,” Abedin said.
> 
> Asked whether the decision was made to deliberately avoid public disclosure through the Freedom of Information Act, Abedin responded, “I absolutely do not believe that no.”
> 
> When told she used her Clintonmail.com address for “State-related matters,” Abedin didn’t deny it.
> 
> “Yes. There were occasions when I did do that, correct,” she said.
> 
> But Abedin said she rarely deleted emails when it came to her official State Department email account or her personal [email protected].
> 
> “My practice with my Clinton e-mail was similar to what I had with my State account, which is that I left everything in — in the Inbox, and I transitioned to a new e-mail once the Secretary's office was set up, her personal office post State Department. And I was — and I no longer used Clinton e-mail.”
> 
> Abedin added that just before she left the State Department and “ceased” using her Clintonemail.com account, she couldn’t “recall how many [e-mails] were returned … I certainly don’t recally how many was on — was on the account. I just left everything on what — on the system, I guess.”
> 
> It appears that Abedin amassed emails on her computers and government-issued BlackBerry that she thought were automatically purged.
> 
> “The e-mails on my State Department system existed on my computer, and I didn't have a practice of managing my mailbox other than leaving what was in there sitting in there.
> 
> “So for my BlackBerry, if I exceeded the limit, I think it auto deleted. But, no, I didn't ... go into my e-mails and delete State.gov e-mails. They just lived on my computer.”
> 
> Abedin said she didn’t keep any paper printouts of any of the correspondence that may have been deleted or otherwise lost.
> 
> “Honestly, I wish I thought about it at the time. As I said, I wasn't perfect. I tried to do all of my work on State.gov. And I do believe I did the majority of my work on State.gov.
> 
> “And many of the instances where I was on Clinton e-mail, it was because I had forwarded something from a State.gov account into Clinton e-mail, and in other instances from my Clinton e-mail I was communicating with somebody who was on a State.gov account, and it was captured through there. I did the best I could to do everything right. It did not occur to me to print and file.”
> 
> Abedin was asked if she had “any concerns” about Clinton’s use of her private email server for State Department business.
> 
> “I assumed it was allowed,” Abedin answered. “It didn’t occur to us.”
> 
> Judicial Watch followed up, asking why no one inquired with a State Department official in charge of managing records to make sure it was allowed.
> 
> “We all wish we could go back and that not be the case,” Abedin, a wish that must only be greater 10 days before voters decide her boss’s fate.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

That would explain why Huma was crying on the plane. It was at that moment she knew...she fucked up! :lol

- Vic


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> That would explain why Huma was crying on the plane. It was at that moment she knew...she fucked up! :lol
> 
> - Vic


:lol

Yes, this makes sense.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> That would explain why Huma was crying on the plane. It was at that moment she knew...she fucked up! :lol
> 
> - Vic


Looks like Hillary is about to shoot lasers out of her eyes.










You are the weakest link. Goodbye.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Looks like Hillary is about to shoot lasers out of her eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the weakest link. Goodbye.


Someone needs to make a photoshop of that


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If this is true sound absolutely terrifying and ilustrative

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-27/inside-the-trump-bunker-with-12-days-to-go


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> That would explain why Huma was crying on the plane. It was at that moment she knew...she fucked up!
> 
> - Vic


To think this entire situation could have been avoided if only her husband didn't manufacture child pornography by manipulating a 15 year old girl to get naked and be sexually explicit on Skype.


----------



## Stormbringer

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> To think this entire situation could have been avoided if only her husband didn't manufacture child pornography by manipulating a 15 year old girl to get naked and be sexually explicit on Skype.


WHAT!!?!?


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DX-Superkick said:


> WHAT!!?!?


The evidence the FBI uncovered was found while they were investigating (and soon to charge) former Congressman Anthony Wiener for producing/manufacturing child pornography after he manipulated a 15 year old girl to get naked and "perform" on webcam via a private Skype video chat session(s).


----------



## Stormbringer

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> The evidence the FBI uncovered was found while they were investigating (and soon to charge) former Congressman Anthony Wiener for producing/manufacturing child pornography after he manipulated a 15 year old girl to get naked and "perform" on webcam via a private Skype video chat session(s).


Oh, thought this was about Bill Clinton given the thread title.

Would be awesome to know Big Willy still had it!


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> If this is true sound absolutely terrifying and ilustrative
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-27/inside-the-trump-bunker-with-12-days-to-go


Trump going to war with the RNC after the election?


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/report-the-fbi-still-doesnt-have-a-warrant-to-review-new-emails-related-to-the-clinton-investigation/ar-AAjAUBY?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp



> *Report: The FBI still doesn't have a warrant to review new emails related to the Clinton investigation *
> 
> The FBI still has not obtained a search warrant to review the new emails related to the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server, Yahoo News reported Saturday, citing three government officials who were briefed on the investigation.
> 
> According to one of the officials, FBI Director James Comey "had no idea what was in the content of the emails" when he wrote his letter to Congress Friday announcing the existence of new emails that appeared to be "pertinent" to the completed investigation into Clinton's private email server.
> 
> The emails were reportedly discovered after.the FBI seized the laptop of former congressman.Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. The FBI has been investigating Weiner since September in a probe related to.his alleged.sexting with a 15-year-old girl.
> 
> A senior law enforcement official told Yahoo News that "discussions are underway" between the FBI and the Department of Justice on how the situation will proceed.
> 
> The DOJ had warned the FBI against alerting Congress to the existence of the emails, according to.media reports on Saturday. Announcing the investigation went against longstanding tradition, and could be perceived as influencing, or attempting to influence, the looming election, the reports said.
> 
> Comey, who has faced heat from the Clinton campaign and its allies for his vague letter to Congress, told FBI employees in a letter Friday that he felt compelled to inform Congress of the new developments.
> 
> "We don't ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed," Comey said, noting his testimony in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. "I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record."
> 
> Clinton and some of her top campaign aides on Saturday urged Comey to release more information on what it had found.


What a cluster fuck.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> What the hell are you guys talking about? I never condoned voter fraud or attacked some random Clinton supporter for voting twice. There's no double standard here or excuse made for anyone. Please don't include me in your bizarre hallucinations. Your candidate is going to win. Be happy with that.


Calm down sport, you're the one who took umbridge with my original post outta nowhere, when I didn't name you in it in the first place. Don't act like I was singling you out.

My point was the deafening silence from Trumpsters when one of their own was caught doing the very thing they were whining about the Dems doing.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Calm down sport, you're the one who took *umbridge* with my original post outta nowhere, when I didn't name you in it in the first place. Don't act like I was singling you out.
> 
> My point was the deafening silence from Trumpsters when one of their own was caught doing the very thing they were whining about the Dems doing.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



2 Ton 21 said:


> http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...igation/ar-AAjAUBY?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp
> 
> 
> 
> What a cluster fuck.


Doubt it's anything other than the Clinton camp spreading misinformation as they try to control the narrative.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Trump going to war with the RNC after the election?


If Trump wins you can bet those Republicans who tried to mess with him are going to pay. Honestly they should and not for lack of party unity but by looking like complete jackasses trying to play their games and using morality as an excuse for their idiocy.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Spoke with a former federal prosecutor friend I met at a function. We talk only a few times a year. All he would say about this brouhaha is that the speculation of an internal revolt within the FBI is "very much a real thing," arguing without saying much else that this is what was primarily influential in forcing James Comey's hand. 

My guess is that the FBI investigative team that is going over the Clinton Foundation's books recognizes that the corruption stinks so horribly that they only needed an opening, and Anthony Weiner's antics provided that, much as Donald Trump fittingly predicted many times, with Weiner being Huma Abedin's husband. As @CamillePunk notes, Huma Abedin has suddenly disappeared. 

In other news pollster Frank Luntz is saying for all of the world to hear that the Hillary Clinton camp has been holding on to what they consider a "bombshell" against Donald Trump and are waiting to drop it in the final week of the campaign.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Spoke with a former federal prosecutor friend I met at a function. We talk only a few times a year. All he would say about this brouhaha is that the speculation of an internal revolt within the FBI is "very much a real thing," arguing without saying much else that this is what was primarily influential in forcing James Comey's hand.
> 
> My guess is that the FBI investigative team that is going over the Clinton Foundation's books recognizes that the corruption stinks so horribly that they only needed an opening, and Anthony Weiner's antics provided that, much as Donald Trump fittingly predicted many times, with Weiner being Huma Abedin's husband. As @CamillePunk notes, Huma Abedin has suddenly disappeared.
> 
> *In other news pollster Frank Luntz is saying for all of the world to hear that the Hillary Clinton camp has been holding on to what they consider a "bombshell" against Donald Trump and are waiting to drop it in the final week of the campaign*.


This could be the apprentice tape of him saying the N word.

If this Hillary FBI thing does blow up in the DNCs faces they have no one but themselves to blame. Bernie Sanders would have had no problems with Trump and Bernie has no huge skeletons in his closet. 

If this does blow up and by some disaster Trump does won, this should be the end of the DNC and their corruption.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> Doubt it's anything other than the Clinton camp spreading misinformation as they try to control the narrative.


Sounds like a Trump plan. Spreading misinformation as they try to control the narrative is his speciality


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> If this is true sound absolutely terrifying and ilustrative
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-27/inside-the-trump-bunker-with-12-days-to-go


Interesting article. His brand has been damaged as a result of this election, so it wouldn't surprise me at all that he is going to go down this road. For him, his brand is his life and he is dealing with what could be some permanent damage. His ego won't tolerate that, so he is going to lash out and punish those that he felt slighted him. This strikes me as similar to an abusive relationship where the abuser says, "If I can't have you, then no one can." 




Miss Sally said:


> If Trump wins you can bet those Republicans who tried to mess with him are going to pay. Honestly they should and not for lack of party unity but by looking like complete jackasses trying to play their games and using morality as an excuse for their idiocy.


Of course, let's not forget Trump did a lot of this himself. When the primaries were over, he could have turned off that Donald, reached out to people that he fought and made good with them. We've seen this on the Democratic side, Hillary reached out to Bernie and a lot of his platform is things she will work on as a result. It's called being a leader and working with others, it's not weakness. Instead, Trump decided to rub it in and stay in Trump mode up until now. If he actually showed some grace, the situation would be much different now. Instead, the first moment they could, people broke off and that's his own doing. He demanded loyalty, yet he was the one that said that if he lost the nomination that he would not support the eventual nominee at the beginning. He shouldn't be surprised that this happened, this isn't his boardroom where he has the final say. 

He basically said, "I don't need the conservative vote." Well, guess what...he doesn't get it, at least not this conservative. Meanwhile, I feel like I just walked into my kitchen and my kids have made an absolute mess in trying to make breakfast for me and the Mrs. I now have to clean up the mess downticket and vote for conservatives that will hopefully hold the Senate and the House because many of the Trump supporters don't fully realize the ramifications of what their actions are. Listening to people say, "My senator stopped supporting Trump, so I'm going to vote him/her out." By doing this, they don't realize that they would hand the Senate to the Dems (so then they can choose the next SCOTUS justices) or possibly the House as well (who controls the budget). This is an example of uneducated voters making stupid decisions. 

The crazy thing is that he might yet still have a chance to win this thing. I know everything leans towards him losing, but this election has defied all logic and with the recent bomb regarding new emails, he is working his way back into this.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Sounds like a Trump plan. Spreading misinformation as they try to control the narrative is his speciality


WTF are you smoking? Hillary has been doing this for her entire political career. :lol




> If Trump wins you can bet those Republicans who tried to mess with him are going to pay. Honestly they should and not for lack of party unity but by looking like complete jackasses trying to play their games and using morality as an excuse for their idiocy.


If its one thing I learned from this election, we have snakes disguised as elephants.

#TheseHoesAintLoyal 

- Vic


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> Sounds like a Trump plan. Spreading misinformation as they try to control the narrative is his speciality


That's either a hilarious comment or you're delusional; not sure which....


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> If its one thing I learned from this election, we have snakes disguised as elephants.


Giant snake or teeny tiny elephant? 

Also is this elephant costume for snakes available at one of those Halloween superstores or is it a PetSmart thing? 

;-)


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> That's either a hilarious comment or you're delusional; not sure which....


He's Canadian. Almost every single Canadian I know is completely brainwashed into believing that Trump is the second coming of the anti-christ. I don't blame him or his ilk. They're deliberately misinformed by their SJW media.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So, Florida is starting to flip to Trump it seems, but North Carolina and Nevada seem to be already on Clinton hands...........

edit: Also, WTF Is Trump doing traveling to New Mexico? :lmao


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Am I the only one that feels sad for James Comey in this whole clusterfuck? 

This guy is/was a hero a decade ago for standing up to the Bush administration about certain aspects of the NSA, but seem to have been caught in the cross fire between the two parties in recent years that seemed to have put him in impossible positions too many times. So much so that he even suggested Apple install back doors in their devices for American agencies to make intelligence work easier.


----------



## SovereignVA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> He's Canadian. Almost every single Canadian I know is completely brainwashed into believing that Trump is the second coming of the anti-christ. I don't blame him or his ilk. They're deliberately misinformed by their SJW media.


That's definitely not true.

I'm Canadian and all the people I speak with are aware you guys are fucked either way :lmao

But also that there are SERIOUS flaws with Hillary's ambition that you have to search for a bit harder.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



SovereignVA said:


> That's definitely not true.
> 
> I'm Canadian and all the people I speak with are aware you guys are fucked either way :lmao
> 
> But also that there are SERIOUS flaws with Hillary's ambition that you have to search for a bit harder.


I rest my case.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> So, Florida is starting to flip to Trump it seems, but North Carolina and Nevada seem to be already on Clinton hands...........
> 
> edit: Also, WTF Is Trump doing traveling to New Mexico? :lmao


You're a bookish nerd with little to no pulse on reality. Maybe you should get out more. 

Florida was never going to vote democrat (outside of the urban centers) and I could tell based on actually walking out there amongst the Floridians and engaging them in conversation. It's mainly the immigrant population that makes it close around the Miami and Orlando areas (which is where they prefer to poll due to easy access) but if you had actually been living here around the non urban areas you would have known that everyone that's been trying to educate you on reality at least about Florida.

Most everyone, even the most moderate people are saying that they have never witnessed the kind of national fervor in Florida that they have seen around Trump. And yes, I'm talking about residents that have actually lived here all their lives. Not just random foreigners with stats degrees :shrug


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> You're a bookish nerd with little to no pulse on reality. Maybe you should get out more.
> 
> Florida was never going to vote democrat and I could tell based on actually walking out there amongst the Floridians and engaging them in conversation. It's only the immigrant population that makes it close around the Miami area but if you had actually been living here you would have known that everyone that's been trying to educate you on reality at least about Florida weren't speaking out of their asses.
> 
> Everyone, even the most moderate people are saying that they have never witnessed the kind of national fervor in Florida that they have seen around Trump. And yes, I'm talking about residents that have actually lived here all their lives. Not just random foreigners with stats degrees :shrug


jajajaa thank for the shots, god :lmao

The fact that Florida is start to leaning more to Trump doesn't make the state more than a Toss-up just like in 2012 i should suspect than a "national fervor" is more than a toss up. But yes, maybe i need more reality in my life and not echo chambers, who knows


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> If this is true sound absolutely terrifying and ilustrative
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-27/inside-the-trump-bunker-with-12-days-to-go


:heston

This :trump is going to destroy the GOP fantasy out of ego and spite sure has been the subject of a lot of public masturbation in the last month by media people who should know better but don't because they have deluded themselves into thinking that their fantasy of an effective one-party state is SO CLOSE to coming true. Oh man :trump is gonna destroy the GOP then us right-thinking people (Democrats) can run things forever! Get back to me on that when the Democratic Party isn't an endangered species in states that don't touch ocean or a Great Lake.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



SovereignVA said:


> That's definitely not true.
> 
> I'm Canadian and all the people I speak with are aware you guys are fucked either way :lmao
> 
> But also that there are SERIOUS flaws with Hillary's ambition that you have to search for a bit harder.


True, but its not like Canada's PM is a paragon either. Not mocking you, just saying.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> True, but its not like Canada's PM is a paragon either. Not mocking you, just saying.


Actually in their minds he is. The majority there thinks that a racist and mysoginist agenda perfectly justified as long as that racism and misogyny favors minorities and women. 

Meanwhile the little feminist princess has done nothing of note in a year except take selfies. 

But it's OK. He's a feminist who has a diverse cabinet. That's all that matters to most Canadians.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Meanwhile the little feminist princess has done nothing of note in a year except take selfies.


Not true. He went to a mosque that totally forbade women from entering then tried to justify it. Oh and allowed the flag of Communist China to fly in Canada despite protests (one of the protesters being a Chinese women). And lets not forget accosting a parliament member when a vote wasn't be push through as fast as he wanted. So he did plenty this year.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Not true. He went to a mosque that totally forbade women from entering then tried to justify it. Oh and allowed the flag of Communist China to fly in Canada despite protests (one of the protesters being a Chinese women). And lets not forget accosting a parliament member when a vote wasn't be push through as fast as he wanted. So he did plenty this year.


Yeah but it's America that's screwed both ways :shrug 

It's easy to keep their own populations ignorant of the problems plaguing their country by keeping their attention focused on America.


----------



## The Talent

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

well gennifer flowers did say bill told her hillary's eaten more pussy than he has :heston

not that i particularly WANT to see this documentation but i don't think it's well documented that hillary likes jailbait cooze

it would be funny as fuck if it were true and comey reveals it like a week after she takes office


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Students Dress Up as Obama in a Noose at College Football Game, Allowed to Stay

'Murica


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Students Dress Up as Obama in a Noose at College Football Game, Allowed to Stay
> 
> 'Murica


what's really funny is that it was a group costume

the guy with the obama mask, that was on the back of his head

in the front he's wearing a larger hillary mask

the guy beside him is wearing a :trump mask and was holding the other end of the rope

so it's being portrayed as racist anti-obama nutjobbery when really it was intended to be anti- :trump and anti-racist :heston

university of wisconsin and the media falling all over themselves to denounce as racist something that was anti-racist. because obviously obama in a noose has to be racist period even though it's obviously a message from the costume wearers that :trump is a racist in their opinion and wants to lynch obama and hillary

who gets these media people out of bed and ties their shoes for them in the morning for real


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/792810696601923584

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/792827618588499968

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/792829714444460033

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/792831130328264704

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/792832769479086083


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> *Am I the only one that feels sad for James Comey in this whole clusterfuck? *
> 
> This guy is/was a hero a decade ago for standing up to the Bush administration about certain aspects of the NSA, but seem to have been caught in the cross fire between the two parties in recent years that seemed to have put him in impossible positions too many times. So much so that he even suggested Apple install back doors in their devices for American agencies to make intelligence work easier.


Not really. The hit pieces against Comey have started and it's just a sad sight to see. 










What's sadder to me is that this year, the MSM has lost all respectability and just turned into nothing more than the propaganda arm of the democratic party. Nothing to me as a Pakistani is scarier than state control media because while I was there, our media was our last defense against dictatorship.


----------



## amhlilhaus

This election is so crazy. 

And were crazier for nominating these two


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> This election is so crazy.
> 
> And were crazier for nominating these two


I blame social media


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I went to the Trump rally in Vegas earlier today. More to follow on that after HIAC.



> He's Canadian. Almost every single Canadian I know is completely brainwashed into believing that Trump is the second coming of the anti-christ. I don't blame him or his ilk. They're deliberately misinformed by their SJW media.


We can thank Trudeau for that. A disaster of a Prime Minister already.

- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Not really. The hit pieces against Comey have started and it's just a sad sight to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's sadder to me is that this year, the MSM has lost all respectability and just turned into nothing more than the propaganda arm of the democratic party. Nothing to me as a Pakistani is scarier than state control media because while I was there, our media was our last defense against dictatorship.


Wouldn't that make you more concerned about conservative media which has been the propaganda arm of the GOP for almost 4 decades since the 1970's? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Pakistan

:draper2


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> He's Canadian. Almost every single Canadian I know is completely brainwashed into believing that Trump is the second coming of the anti-christ. I don't blame him or his ilk. They're deliberately misinformed by their SJW media.


Or maybe we're not dumb enough to get to the point where these two would be in any sort of running for any kind of leadership role. But hey. If you want to talk about us and our "SJW" media thats fine. Heres the thing though. Maybe you guys should try thinking more liberally like us. Considering we don't have a mass shooting problem, a police vs race problem, a health care problem and are widely considered to be one of the happier, safer places to live in the world. So maybe we're brainwashed....or maybe we can get a better view on the outside looking in and see just how bad Trump would be to the rest of the world.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> Or maybe we're not dumb enough to get to the point where these two would be in any sort of running for any kind of leadership role. But hey. If you want to talk about us and our "SJW" media thats fine. Heres the thing though. Maybe you guys should try thinking more liberally like us. Considering we don't have a mass shooting problem, a police vs race problem, a health care problem and are widely considered to be one of the happier, safer places to live in the world. So maybe we're brainwashed....or maybe we can get a better view on the outside looking in and see just how bad Trump would be to the rest of the world.


Tell that to the thousands of native women that have been murdered and gone missing and their families - with no government support or investigation whatsoever. 

Or how about the racism faced by all indigenous people of Canada - which have been shown to have poorer living conditions and face more racism than even blacks in America. 

 Or how about the fact that there are no jobs for immigrants despite you guys constantly bringing them in by the hundreds of thousands? 

 Or how about the fact that only a small percentage of Canadians that are being robbed blind just so that they can pay for the healthcare of the shits that won't do jack shit to earn the right to live? 

 Or how about the fact that the country hauls up people in front of Human rights tribunals for simply having a different opinion? 

Or, how about the fact that Canada is the #2 seller of arms to the oppressive regime of Saudi Arabia, a deal that Trudeau's so called liberal government could have blocked, but refused to do so? Especially considering that Saudi Arabia has been committing acts of state sanctioned terrorism and ethnic cleansing against the Yemenis? 
  
And see, this is why I don't like most Canadians anymore despite being one. 

Most of you guys know nothing about your own country and try to fight your crippling depression with a facade of propaganda fueled narcissism coming to this thread and acting like sanctimonious snobs that live in some sort of utopia. 

Canada simply buries and ignores its problems because pretending that no shit happens makes people like you comfortable in your own skin.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Wouldn't that make you more concerned about conservative media which has been the propaganda arm of the GOP for almost 4 decades since the 1970's?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Pakistan
> 
> :draper2


Sure. However, don't ignore that the media split isn't 50/50 which is why the GOP has such a problem with their public image in the first place.

And please stop fucking patronizing me with a wikipedia link to Pakistani media when I worked in Pakistani media for 10 years and was personally and directly involved in the protests against Musharraf as part of a media organization.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> I went to the Trump rally in Vegas earlier today. More to follow on that after HIAC.
> 
> 
> 
> We can thank Trudeau for that. A disaster of a Prime Minister already.
> 
> - Vic


lolk



> Justin Trudeau's approval rating has increased over the last three months by more than five points, to an average of 61.8 per cent over the last three months. His disapproval rating has dropped nearly three points to 31.1 per cent.


Seems to be pretty well liked for a "disaster"


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...re-system-ranks-as-one-of-the-least-efficient

Canada might not be Utopia but they seem to do better than America in healthcare. :shrug


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Sure. However, don't ignore that the media split isn't 50/50 which is why the GOP has such a problem with their public image in the first place.
> 
> And please stop fucking patronizing me with a wikipedia link to Pakistani media when I worked in Pakistani media for 10 years and was personally and directly involved in the protests against Musharraf as part of a media organization.


What has the split got to do with anything about being concerned about media being the mouthpiece of either party?

Maybe your perception is clouded by being personally involved. Sometimes the outsider perspective is clearer.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Tell that to the thousands of native women that have been murdered and gone missing and their families - with no government support or investigation whatsoever.
> 
> Or how about the racism faced by all indigenous people of Canada - which have been shown to have poorer living conditions and face more racism than even blacks in America.
> 
> Or how about the fact that there are no jobs for immigrants despite you guys constantly bringing them in by the hundreds of thousands?
> 
> Or how about the fact that only a small percentage of Canadians that are being robbed blind just so that they can pay for the healthcare of the shits that won't do jack shit to earn the right to live?
> 
> Or how about the fact that the country hauls up people in front of Human rights tribunals for simply having a different opinion?
> 
> Or, how about the fact that Canada is the #2 seller of arms to the oppressive regime of Saudi Arabia, a deal that Trudeau's so called liberal government could have blocked, but refused to do so? Especially considering that Saudi Arabia has been committing acts of state sanctioned terrorism and ethnic cleansing against the Yemenis?
> 
> And see, this is why I don't like most Canadians anymore despite being one.
> 
> Most of you guys know nothing about your own country and try to fight your crippling depression with a facade of propaganda fueled narcissism coming to this thread and acting like sanctimonious snobs that live in some sort of utopia.
> 
> Canada simply buries and ignores its problems because pretending that no shit happens makes people like you comfortable in your own skin.


Ok well since you quoted a Macleans article, I'll respond with one of my own. So you cant say it's a biased source.

Also this is such a Trump post. Instead if refuting what I said, you turn around and try to point out Canadian problems. Yea no country in the world has no problems. 

Anyway heres the Macleans article:
99 reasons why it's better to be Canadian

I'll give you some highlights.


> 1. We live longer: Canadians born today will live an average of three years longer than Americans (81 years in Canada versus 78.7 south of the border). Not only that, the gap between life expectancy in the two countries is widening with each passing decade—it was less than a year in the late 1970s.





> 4. Our kids are all right: Canada’s schools take heat from all sides, but they must be doing something right. Our 15-year-olds routinely score in the top 10 of 65 countries that participate in the OECD’s reading, math and science tests. Last time around, in 2009, we were sixth, just behind Singapore and ahead of New Zealand. American teens? A lukewarm 17th. Ouch.





> 12. We’re better educated: 48.3 per cent of Canadians have a post-secondary degree, compared to 40.3 per cent in the U.S.





> 13. We’re fitter: The percentage of American adults who are obese is 35.9. In Canada, it’s 24.2.





> 16. We’re richer: Canada’s average household net worth of $363,000 is higher than America’s, at $320,000.





> 24. Our young workers are doing better: Yes, Canada has a lower unemployment rate than the U.S., but while the overall gap is narrowing, young workers here are more likely to find work. Canada’s youth unemployment rate is 13.5 per cent, compared to 16.8 per cent in the States.





> 64. We’re more peaceful: This year, Canada was ranked the eighth most peaceful country in the world. The U.S is ranked 100th.


Remember this is a source you quoted first.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> Ok well since you quoted a Macleans article, I'll respond with one of my own. So you cant say it's a biased source.
> 
> Also this is such a Trump post. Instead if refuting what I said, you turn around and try to point out Canadian problems. Yea no country in the world has no problems.


You're the one that made the comparison first. 

I don't think you understand the difference between a fluff piece versus an actual serious piece of reporting. :heston

Plus it would serve you well to actually follow the links in the source itself too.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> You're the one that made the comparison first.
> 
> I don't think you understand the difference between a fluff piece versus an actual serious piece of reporting. :heston
> 
> Plus it would serve you well to actually follow the links in the source itself too.


What do you think the facts and figures are just made up? It's a fluff piece but it's also accurate. The statistics shown are accurate.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump just had a HUGE rally in New Fuckin Mexico. Bigger than any of clintons there. Trump is winning this election. The monster vote for him is gonna be huge.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> Trump just had a HUGE rally in New Fuckin Mexico. Bigger than any of clintons there. Trump is winning this election. The *monster* vote for him is gonna be huge.












If these things are allowed to vote I demand an investigation.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> If these things are allowed to vote I demand an investigation.


That Trump is Pumpkinhead?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Wouldn't that make you more concerned about conservative media which has been the propaganda arm of the GOP for almost 4 decades since the 1970's?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Pakistan
> 
> :draper2


conservative media never acted like it wasn't conservative until fox news and fox news dropped that schtick like even before obama was elected

and conservative media has never reached more than maybe 20% of the populace on a daily basis and that's probably being generous

rush limbaugh is the most widely disseminated conservative media and on his best day evar he has 20 million listeners

that's a smallish fraction of what the three networks get every day and every influential magazine and publication in the country besides the wall street journal 

they've all been in the tank for democrats since 1960

so why should he be more concerned about conservative media other than the fact that you're not conservative


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> That Trump is Pumpkinhead?


My initial sources say yes, more at 11. Possible extra bombshell involving inappropriate contact with underage vegetables.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> rush limbaugh is the most widely disseminated conservative media and on his best day evar he has 20 million listeners


How that pill popping maniac has anyone who listens anymore is beyond me.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Seems to be pretty well liked for a "disaster"


His liberal policies are shit as evidenced from the fallout of Bill C-16 that is an attack on Freedom Of Speech. Toronto is turning into Satan's asshole because of his regime thanks to his BFF relationship with Obama. Liberalism poisons minds.






- Vic


----------



## amhlilhaus

yeahbaby! said:


> deepelemblues said:
> 
> 
> 
> rush limbaugh is the most widely disseminated conservative media and on his best day evar he has 20 million listeners
> 
> 
> 
> How that pill popping maniac has anyone who listens anymore is beyond me.
Click to expand...

He calls democrats out on their shit, thats why.

THEN he takes his pills


----------



## MillionDollarProns

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Is there a way to parse this thread with SQL or something to figure out how many times the Heston face has been posted I feel we're setting a record here.


----------



## 2 Ton 21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> *FBI discovered Clinton-related emails weeks ago*
> 
> (CNN)The FBI stumbled upon a trove of emails from one of Hillary Clinton's top aides weeks ago, law enforcement officials told CNN Sunday.
> 
> But FBI Director James Comey didn't disclose the discovery until Friday, raising questions about why the information was kept under wraps and then released only days before the election.
> 
> Meanwhile, the Justice Department has obtained a warrant that will allow it to begin searching the computer that is believed to contain thousands of newly found emails of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, two law enforcement sources confirmed to CNN.
> 
> The timeline behind the discovery of the emails came into greater clarity Sunday.
> 
> Investigators took possession of multiple computers related to the inquiry of Anthony Weiner in early October, U.S. law enforcement officials said. Weiner is Abedin's estranged husband and is being probed about alleged sexting with a purportedly underage girl.
> 
> Technical experts at the FBI began procedures to catalogue the emails found on one of the computers and soon found emails belonging to Abedin. The discovery surprised investigators, triggering legal issues because the search warrant was limited to the sexting case. That's why the Justice Department sought the new search warrant.
> 
> Senior officials at the FBI, including Andrew McCabe, the FBI deputy director, were briefed on the issue. By mid-October, Comey learned investigators in the Weiner case might have found something that could have an impact on the now-closed probe into Hillary Clinton's private email server, according to one law enforcement official.
> 
> Comey was told investigators were still trying to figure out how many emails existed and their pertinence to the Clinton probe.
> 
> Senior Justice Department officials were briefed on the situation about a week ago and Comey was given a full briefing Thursday, the officials said, triggering his decision to notify members of Congress Friday that the FBI was reviewing emails potentially related to Clinton's server.
> 
> The news regarding the timing of the computer's seizure was first reported Sunday by The Washington Post.
> 
> Comey's notification to Congress of the review is rocking the final days of the presidential race. Democrats are furious that Comey would revive the explosive issue of Clinton's email server so close to the election. Donald Trump, meanwhile, is seizing on the review after spending weeks on the defense, hoping it will be a potent issue he can ride until the end of the contest.
> 
> Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta blasted Comey on Sunday for disclosing the review.
> 
> "He might have taken the first step of actually having looked at them before he did this in the middle of a presidential campaign, so close to the voting," Podesta said on CNN's "State of the Union."
> 
> The Clinton campaign also distributed a letter from nearly 100 former federal prosecutors and high-ranking Justice Department officials raising concerns about Comey's letter.
> 
> The wrote that Comey's letter is "inconsistent with prevailing Department policy, and it breaks with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties."
> 
> Abedin hasn't spoken publicly about the newly found emails.
> 
> "The possibility that this device contains any emails of hers is news to her," a source familiar with the investigation and civil litigation told CNN. "The device supposedly at issue now belonged to Anthony, not her."
> Pence praises, Kaine criticizes FBI director
> 
> The computer in question is considered to belong to Weiner.
> 
> Prior to obtaining the warrant, investigators saw enough of the emails to determine that they appeared pertinent to the previously completed investigation and that they may be emails not previously reviewed.
> 
> Agents saw enough of the emails that they believed there could be classified information and that it warranted further inquiry, law enforcement sources told CNN.
> 
> Because they didn't have a warrant specific to Abedin's emails, officials weren't able to further examine them. Justice Department and FBI officials view Abedin as cooperative with the investigation.
> 
> FBI officials don't yet know how many of the emails are duplicates of emails they already have reviewed as part of the Clinton email server investigation and whether any of them may contain classified information.
> 
> Investigators believe it's likely the newly recovered trove will include emails that were deleted from the Clinton server before the FBI took possession of it as part of that earlier investigation.
> 
> FBI officials expect they have to interview Abedin again after they have gone through the emails.
> 
> Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that talks between the Department of Justice and Abedin's lawyers were underway. They are not.


So Comey wasn't made aware for a couple of weeks and didn't get a full briefing til Thursday? Those rumors about an internal FBI struggle are looking realer and realer.

If it's true, of course.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



MillionDollarProns said:


> Is there a way to parse this thread with SQL or something to figure out how many times the Heston face has been posted I feel we're setting a record here.


I've blocked it already. It got too goddamned annoying.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So I found out about the Trump rally at the Venetian in Las Vegas at the last minute last night. Doors opened at 8am. I got there an hour later and there were a shitload of people there already!










I got my own Trump sign from the Trump staff to hold up when the crowd went wild. Once the event started at 11am, the ballroom was packed wall to wall. You have to understand this particular ballroom on the hotel property is HUGE and they had to stop letting people in because it was so packed. I don't have a count, but I know it was thousands and I mean THOUSANDS of pissed off hard working Americans! It put Romney's rally attendance from here 4 years ago to shame.

Ironically, I was so excited to be there with my fellow deplorables because I felt like I was at a WWE event or a concert. Nothing, but positive vibes. It was so loud (Trump! Lock Her Up! Drain The Swamp! chants) and so energetic. You could feel the electricity.

During his speech, Trump called out the dishonest media again. We all turned out and booed the fuck out of reporters and camera crews. :lol

The best part of his one hour speech was him inviting a Mexican supporter to the podium to say a few words while he held up her sign. I was rolling in stiches.






Here is the video I took of the audience. And this was just half the room! O_O


It was a once in lifetime experience for me and I'm glad I got to see Donald J. Trump in person. I'm going to do everything I can starting tomorrow to help his campaign make Nevada bleed red again.

With turn outs like these in Nevada, in Colorado, and New Mexico, I can say with absolute conviction on November 8th, 2016, he is going to kick Hillary's *ASS!!!*










- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This guy Wayne Root sounds like quite the fellow

http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-elec...h-forks-and-blow-torches-20161031-gseh3x.html



> He said, "working class Americans, Christians, gun owners, small business owners, military veterans and taxpayers" would violently take over the capital with, "pitchforks, jack hammers and blow torches."
> 
> "We're coming to tear it down. We're coming to rip it up. We're coming to kick your ass. And we're coming to put you in prison," Mr Root told some 10,000 people by his own account.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Sounds like a fun experience, @Vic Capri. Thank you for sharing your story and your video!

Solid article on how the eye-popping Obamacare premiums hikes may have a direct impact on the outcome of the vote in Arizona, which is hardly surprising:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/792700673632641024
For those looking for "pro-Trump news," it is looking likely that he will be taking Ohio, which does not surprise me. Florida appears quite possible, which has always seemed the case in this race. 

For the "pro-Hillary news"-seekers, Pennsylvania still seems likely to go her way, though some polls have the race tightening there a bit, too; and most of the early voting in North Carolina seems to be going the Democrats' way, too. North Carolina is arguably the truest bellwether state in the electoral college now.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Sounds like a fun experience, @Vic Capri . Thank you for sharing your story and your video!


Thanks. I was actually about to interviewed by a news crew after the rally ended until I found out they were from CNN so I was like "Peace!" I am confident that the great state of Nevada will stand with Donald J. Trump when the polls close here.



> He said, "working class Americans, Christians, gun owners, small business owners, military veterans and taxpayers" would violently take over the capital with, "pitchforks, jack hammers and blow torches."


I was there for that. He was clearly joking, but of course liberals have no sense of humor or an understanding of what metaphors are.

Besides, we're not the ones violently disrupting Clinton rallies for $1,500 a piece or beating up old ladies in the streets.

- Vic


----------



## amhlilhaus

All these huge, enthusiastic trump rallies is going to make hillarys massive landslide win even more infuriating.

Question will be where does the movement go from there?


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Usually it is up to @CamillePunk to leave such a video but I happened to stumble upon this and it capably sums up some comprehensive arguments in a succinct manner so I thought I'd drop it off here. @AryaDark @amhilhaus @Beatles123 @Carte Blanche @GOON @Miss Sally @Oda Nobunaga @Rowdy Yates @Vic Capri

Speaking anecdotally, the central Marin County town of San Rafael has been undergoing something of a transformation over the past couple of years. This was a fairly idyllic town, for the most part, in an exceedingly wealthy county, and if you had to park your car for a minute to run in for two items at the drug store, you might leave the car running, but not anymore. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation there are presently 1,500 known gang members in Marin County, almost 100% of them belonging to rival Latino gangs, and their violent clashes are becoming more vicious and repetitive. Over the past few months in particular I have struggled to recall a drive down, say, 2nd or 3rd in downtown San Rafael that did not see numerous examples of festooning graffiti marking territory for gangs, including some fresh spray-painting displays on the side of a rundown Asian massage parlor that is almost openly a front for Korean mobsters who have a complex network of human trafficking throughout the San Francisco Bay Area just a day and a half ago.

Mr. Molyneux makes some tremendously valid points. California was the canary in the coal mine, after all, so what he's talking about has already been performed in practice.

One of my favorite parts is how he notes how embarrassed libertarians generally are over how "white" their political movement is. Though I do recall a young Chinese fellow in the Cal Berkeley Libertarian Students Group! (Which I refused to join, haha.)


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Talent said:


>


If this is true than Hillary is a pedo and a rapist. Her view on feminism and woman power must be forcing underage sex slaves to do things.


----------



## The Talent

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/792507399097708544
There's also talk of the Clinton campaign having nine hours of Trump audio, given to them by his biographer, Michael D'Antonio. We can expect more, "Trump says lewd things, so please listen to it and distract yourself from our criminal activity" from team Clinton.

Have the popcorn ready. It's gonna be one hell of a week.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Miss Sally said:


> The Talent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this is true than Hillary is a pedo and a rapist. Her view on feminism and woman power must be forcing underage sex slaves to do things.
Click to expand...

Just like with bills love child, i dont believe this one. 

If true, it will be amazing to see how the democrats spin it. 

Probably be 'yeah, hillary had sex with underage sex slaves, but trump bragged about sexual assault!'


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Speaking of polling averages, Hillary's lead has shrunk from a comfortable 7.1% overall to 2.5% in just 2 weeks. And no, the investigation news cycle hasn't had _that _much of an impact because if you look at the trend line, it's showing a steady rise amongst fence-sitters for Trump. (Clinton's support flat-lining while Trump's on the rise means that fence-sitters are slowly giving more conclusive answers) since before the announcement came. 










It's more clear if you reduce it to the last 5 days. The 29th polls were unaffected by the news cycle. Also, this graph makes it clear that it's the independents and fence-sitters that seem to be making up their minds. (Clintons is still around 47% but Trump went from 42%-45%). Trump's numbers were already on the rise by a full percent prior to Comey's press release and continue to show almost the same level of increase afterwards. 

Will they show more switching or less over time remains to be seen, but at this point it seems like the republicans seem to be doing something right to influence the fence-sitters in their direction. (I've highlighted 30th as the point where the investigation news cycle impacted the polls). 










This election will be decided by the fence-sitters and there are plenty. To me this shows that the investigation didn't have as much of an impact - so if anyone tells you it was FBI's investigation that fucked Hillary, they're outright making a fool of themselves as Trump was already on the rise amongst independents, while Hillary has been flat-lining for a while now.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Your polls bore me. It says a lot when a liberal papers publish this piece on her:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-hillary-clinton-emails-kass-1030-20161028-column.html



> If this is true than Hillary is a pedo and a rapist. Her view on feminism and woman power must be forcing underage sex slaves to do things


Makes that Bill Clinton rape tape all the more believable.




> Just like with bills love child, i dont believe this one.







I didn't believe it either until YouTube tried to censor him, which adds credibility to his story. Besides, can you imagine if Bill Clinton did infact cheat on Hillary and got some random black prostitute pregnant, eventually ignoring his son? Holy shit! Its the PR shitstorm of nightmares!



> Have the popcorn ready. It's gonna be one hell of a weeks.







- Vic


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

#HillaryForPrison wouldn't trend on Twitter, so Trump supporters intentionally misspelled it as #HillaryForPrision and it's been trending all morning. :lmao Twitter exposed as partisan hacks.

Meanwhile, Donna Brazile appears to resign from CNN due to several leaked e-mails showed she leaked multiple debate questions to the Clinton campaign. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793119360646643713

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793102649545592832
So much for those "debate wins". :banderas


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> #HillaryForPrison wouldn't trend on Twitter, so Trump supporters intentionally misspelled it as #HillaryForPrision and it's been trending all morning. :lmao Twitter exposed as partisan hacks.


Twitter was exposed long ago as being partisan hacks. You know this.

I spotted this glorious pic under the #HillaryForPrision hashtag:










:LOL


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:lol My favorite take on this glorious debate moment yet: 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793091378888585217


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Your polls bore me. It says a lot when a liberal papers publish this piece on her:
> 
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-hillary-clinton-emails-kass-1030-20161028-column.html
> 
> 
> 
> Makes that Bill Clinton rape tape all the more believable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't believe it either until YouTube tried to censor him, which adds credibility to his story. Besides, can you imagine if Bill Clinton did infact cheat on Hillary and got some random black prostitute pregnant, eventually ignoring his son? Holy shit! Its the PR shitstorm of nightmares!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic


Hillary should step aside but Trump should as well.




CamillePunk said:


> #HillaryForPrison wouldn't trend on Twitter, so Trump supporters intentionally misspelled it as #HillaryForPrision and it's been trending all morning. :lmao Twitter exposed as partisan hacks.
> 
> Meanwhile, Donna Brazile appears to resign from CNN due to several leaked e-mails showed she leaked multiple debate questions to the Clinton campaign.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793119360646643713
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793102649545592832
> So much for those "debate wins". :banderas



Trump could be given the questions and he would still botch them lol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

CNN starting to clean up house. That's how this system works. They let their credibility go to sway public opinion for a few months and then shift the pendulum back when it no longer matters. Donna Brazile is just a scapegoat. 

They do this every election year.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

More #HillaryForPrision Hillaryiousness:









































































That last one is EPIC. :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://people.com/politics/polls-voters-unaffected-fbi-announcement-hillary-clinton-emails/

FBI’s October Surprise Not (Yet) a Bombshell with Voters: Hillary Clinton Still Leads in Latest Poll

With just 8 days left until Election Day, Clinton leads Trump 46 percent to 43 percent nationally in a two-way race in the new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, and 42 percent to 39 percent in a four-way race, with Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson at 7 percent and the Green Party’s Jill Stein at 5 percent.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> So much for those "debate wins"


I knew something was up when Hillary answered her questions "on the fly" without a hitch as if she already knew the question while Trump stumbled like anybody else when put on the spot. It was too polished.

- Vic


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I already had a foolish liberal speaking her mind at me on Twitter because she's clueless on how an algorithm formula controlled by biased company execs.



I would like to thank Wikileaks for causing Donna Brazile to lose her job!

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> I knew something was up when Hillary answered her questions "on the fly" without a hitch as if she already knew the question while Trump stumbled like anybody else when put on the spot. It was too polished.
> 
> - Vic


Oh come on. Trump still would have been like that, he does not prepare, he just talks out of his ass all the time.

Also people like Donna Brazile and DWS need to be banned from politics for life for the stuff they have pulled in this election cycle.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Oh come on. Trump still would have been like that, he does not prepare, he just talks out of his ass all the time.


So you missed the point of that post completely. :lol
@Tater Those memes/costumes. :done I wish I lived in an area where I could've done a pro-Trump costume without having Hillary supporters violently attack me.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

To all future politicians

Don't put your shady things in your email

put them in a word file or note pad and write them in short hand, I am not saying use the enigma device but don't put "got a million dollar bribe from John Smith LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL"


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I've been seeing a lot of otherwise intelligent people on Twitter trying to act like Trump supporters are morons for misspelling prison in the #HillaryForPrision hashtag. TBF, a lot of Trump's supporters _are _morons but that's not why it's spelled that way. And that's why partisan hacks annoy me so much. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to go around for both sides but when you let your hatred of the other side blind you to what's going on with your side, then you are nothing more than a useful idiot. Despise Trump supporters all you want but don't act like Twitter isn't censoring hashtags that are anti-Hillary.

Oh and BTW, Twitter has already taken the #HillaryForPrision hashtag off the trending list, when it is still receiving a shit ton of tweets. If you had any doubts about Twitter censoring anti-Hillary trends and were inclined at all to be honest about what's going on, this should be all the proof you need. Meanwhile, RIP MARIO BAUTISTA is on the WW trending list with a little over 2k tweets.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

#HillaryForPrision is still there for me. Donna Brazile is also trending. :lol Enjoying this while it lasts. I'm sure the Clinton campaign is currently about to knock over the Trump oppo barrel and let it all come out now.

Peter Thiel: Trump supporters are tired of war


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

if the clinton campaign had something today would have been the day to release it

then it would dominate the news for the rest of the week as her lapdogs in the media would spend 90% of their airtime and column inches covering it and ignore hillary's corruption and criminality just like they did with the access hollywood tape

btw megyn kelly's gonna get 20 million+ a year at Fox to be a hypocritical gyndyr-obsessed bitch. running around saying oh well bill clinton's accusers never proved their claims while she takes :trump 's accusers claims at face value

the media thinks you're so stupid they don't even try to hide how stupid they think you are. they'll openly show their double standard and don't give a fuck if anyone notices


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> if the clinton campaign had something today would have been the day to release it
> 
> then it would dominate the news for the rest of the week as her lapdogs in the media would spend 90% of their airtime and column inches covering it and ignore hillary's corruption and criminality just like they did with the access hollywood tape
> 
> btw megyn kelly's gonna get 20 million+ a year at Fox to be a hypocritical gyndyr-obsessed bitch. running around saying oh well bill clinton's accusers never proved their claims while she takes :trump 's accusers claims at face value
> 
> the media thinks you're so stupid they don't even try to hide how stupid they think you are. they'll openly show their double standard and don't give a fuck if anyone notices


Just curious, what do you think of Hannity and O' Reilly?

Fox is news for stupid people , its just right winged propaganda tabloid news. Everything you are accusing MK for is what those two clowns do all the time but for the GOP.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Just curious, what do you think of Hannity and O' Reilly?
> 
> Fox is news for stupid people , its just right winged propaganda tabloid news. Everything you are accusing MK for is what those two clowns do all the time but for the GOP.


hannity is a weirdo

o'reilly is a relic of a bygone age, he's like joe biden to me. guys raised in a lower middle class home who because of that still have a basic connection to at least some parts of reality underneath their decades of politicization


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> hannity is a weirdo
> 
> o'reilly is a relic of a bygone age, he's like joe biden to me. guys raised in a lower middle class home who because of that still have a basic connection to at least some parts of reality underneath their decades of politicization



why are you surprised MK is any different? Fox news never has anyone credible doing the news.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> why are you surprised MK is any different? Fox news never has anyone credible doing the news.


chris wallace and brit hume are basically the only real journalists left in america and they're both at fox :draper2

of course they're relics of a bygone age too, when professionalism still meant something


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://exclaim.ca/film/article/brya...page&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=fbpwall




> As _The Hollywood Reporter_ explains, the beloved _Breaking Bad_ star told _The Bestseller Experiment_ podcast that he's definitely going to move to our country if the Donald comes into power.
> 
> "Absolutely. I would definitely move," he said. "It's not real to me that that would happen. I hope to God it won't."
> 
> Like Lena Dunham before him, Cranston chose Vancouver as his Canadian hideout if the shit hits the fan. "It wouldn't be a vacation," he said. "I'd be an expatriate."
> 
> Good luck finding a decent, affordable place to live in Vancouver, guys!


And good luck finding any work considering that if you're a Canadian entertainer looking for fame and fortune, you have no option but to come crawling down the States like a fucking leech anyways :heston

Ever heard of a Canadian actor making 20 million for a movie anywhere but America, guys? I love how these people are unaware of the fact that the people that fill up their pockets only do so because of the capitalist non-socialist economy of the USA in the first place :heston


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't understand the people who say Trump hates women. That man loves pussy.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Catalanotto said:


> I don't understand the people who say Trump hates women. That man loves pussy.


When they say he hates women they really mean he does not respect women.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






The good news gets better!

- Vic


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I figured that was the reason, but, there is a difference between hating and just being a dickhead.


I think most women are fucking awful and I prefer not to surround myself with too many. I hate the drama, it's so stupid, and women are catty as fuck. I went to the Keg for my anniversary in June and these two cunts were randomly giving me cut eye on my way out, like, sorry bitches that I look better in my little black dress and heels than you do with your disgusting whore tits hanging out, getting no attention from the males around you.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Interesting that Brazile is being singled out for the corruption and yet it is a climate of that corruption within the Clinton campaign (not the whole democrat party, though this year a case can be made for the corruption within the entire party) that created this corruption. The free exchange of privileged information, bending rules, is something that Clinton and her entire administration is well known for at this point so Brazile is merely a pawn.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Excellent graphs, charts and videos, @Carte Blanche and @CamillePunk. The Peter Thiel speech was excellent. :lmao at those memes @Tater :done

*Camille*, this morning I used my straight-razor to remove the beard I had allowed to grow out over the past five weeks wearing something from The Donald himself: http://www.trump.com/merchandise/signature-collection/ :lol I went with the :trump Men's Two-Button Side-Vent Striped Suit, but considering the date, I had to go with a deep orange tie with the black striped suit. :lol Combing my hair straight back is what I do all the time anyway. :lol

I'll have to perform some Trump impersonation for children tonight! :mark: "The candy's fabulous, only the best candy, we're all here making Halloween great again. CHI-NUH is killing us on trade, kids, remember that, okay? Yeah, here you go." @AryaDark


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> http://exclaim.ca/film/article/brya...page&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=fbpwall
> 
> 
> And good luck finding any work considering that if you're a Canadian entertainer looking for fame and fortune, you have no option but to come crawling down the States like a fucking leech anyways :heston
> 
> Ever heard of a Canadian actor making 20 million for a movie anywhere but America, guys? I love how these people are unaware of the fact that the people that fill up their pockets only do so because of the capitalist non-socialist economy of the USA in the first place :heston


These fuckers aren't going to move in the first place. They know were they're bread and butter comes from. All these celebs say this shit because they over-inflate their importance. They pulled this when Bush was up for reelection.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Excellent graphs, charts and videos, @Carte Blanche and @CamillePunk. The Peter Thiel speech was excellent. :lmao at those memes @Tater :done
> 
> *Camille*, this morning I used my straight-razor to remove the beard I had allowed to grow out over the past five weeks wearing something from The Donald himself: http://www.trump.com/merchandise/signature-collection/ :lol I went with the :trump Men's Two-Button Side-Vent Striped Suit, but considering the date, I had to go with a deep orange tie with the black striped suit. :lol Combing my hair straight back is what I do all the time anyway. :lol
> 
> I'll have to perform some Trump impersonation for children tonight! :mark: "The candy's fabulous, only the best candy, we're all here making Halloween great again. CHI-NUH is killing us on trade, kids, remember that, okay? Yeah, here you go." @AryaDark


You see a child dressed as a cat make sure you grab, they can't get away


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Catalanotto said:


> I figured that was the reason, but, there is a difference between hating and just being a dickhead.
> 
> 
> I think most women are fucking awful and I prefer not to surround myself with too many. I hate the drama, it's so stupid, and *women are catty as fuck*. I went to the Keg for my anniversary in June and these two cunts were randomly giving me cut eye on my way out, like, *sorry bitches that I look better in my little black dress and heels than you do with your disgusting whore tits hanging out, getting no attention from the males around you*.


Lol quote of the day. Catty you say?


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Who would of though Anthony Whiner could be the one to bring down Hillary lol


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> Who would of though Anthony Whiner could be the one to bring down Hillary lol


There's two ways you can look at this:

- Weiner finally fucks someone aside from his homely wife and it just so happens to be Hilldog while she's on the cusp of possibly becoming president

Or

- Bill is busy dicking bimbos instead of Hillary and she finally gets dicked by a Weiner

Either way, only one word can describe this fuckery:










:trump


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> There's two ways you can look at this:
> 
> - Weiner finally fucks someone aside from his homely wife and it just so happens to be Hilldog while she's on the cusp of possibly becoming president
> 
> Or
> 
> - Bill is busy dicking bimbos instead of Hillary and she finally gets dicked by a Weiner
> 
> Either way, only one word can describe this fuckery:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :trump


Doesn't work without the actual theme


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Doesn't work without the actual theme


Fair enough. :trips9


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






HOLY SHIT!!! Trump predicted the Weiner scandal one year ago! :mark:

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> HOLY SHIT!!! Trump predicted the Weiner scandal one year ago! :mark:
> 
> - Vic


:trump knows. Everything.

Donaldus Maximus :trump us


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/793189117005860864

Someone please explain this tweet from the Clinton campaign.

PS. I forgot how to embed tweets.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/793189117005860864
> 
> Someone please explain this tweet from the Clinton campaign.
> 
> PS. I forgot how to embed tweets.


Did you read the articular linked in the tweet?

Its from Slate so it has a heavy left wing stance and compares the "sins" of both candidates with Hilary's only listed sin being not good at protecting her email and Trump having a massive laundry list of faults

Ye mileage my vary at their findings


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Both candidates are corrupt as hell. It is just who you believe is less corrupt. Big banks don't trust a billionaire with credit. Half the population think the career politician is the devil. It comes down to who you believe will not lead to WW3 at this point.

How the fuck did America end up like this?


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Both candidates are corrupt as hell. It is just who you believe is less corrupt. Big banks don't trust a billionaire with credit. Half the population think the career politician is the devil. It comes down to who you believe will not lead to WW3 at this point.
> 
> How the fuck did America end up like this?


We got progressively dumber. I blame social media for the latest in dumbing down humanity


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> Did you read the articular linked in the tweet?
> 
> Its from Slate so it has a heavy left wing stance and compares the "sins" of both candidates with Hilary's only listed sin being not good at protecting her email and Trump having a massive laundry list of faults
> 
> Ye mileage my vary at their findings


I didn't on purpose. 

The thing is, if I'm on the Clinton campaign, I totally advise them against posting any article with a damaging headline irregardless of content because people don't have the attention spans to go further. I'd say the vast majority of her followers are now walking away with thinking that she's just acknowledged herself as a corrupt politician :lol



virus21 said:


> We got progressively dumber. I blame social media for the latest in dumbing down humanity


I humbly disagree. People haven't gotten progressively dumber. Those who aren't dumb are now more aware of the existence of those that are dumb.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Weiner is so skinny he's hard to look at.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Weiner is so skinny he's hard to look at.


Well his name is Weiner


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> We got progressively dumber. I blame social media for the latest in dumbing down humanity


I don't think people got dumber. Many just think they are smarter than they really are due to the bombardment of information and feel slighted or the other person is dumb if the other person disagrees with whatever they parrot from smart people. Creating the perception that everyone is getting dumber.

I would argue society is becoming more narcissistic than becoming dumber.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I would argue society is becoming more narcissistic than becoming dumber.


On that, we agree


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

And I would argue that society is becoming more narcissistic *and *dumber.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Well IQ scores have been declining in the Western world so I might be wrong in thinking people aren't getting dumber. :shrug


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The biggest factor in IQ is education. Someone with a "low" IQ can raise it pretty substantially by getting a decent education.

Education has been declining in Western countries since the 70s.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Too much carrot not enough stick if you ask me.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

All anonymous signs are pointing to the second-in-command at the FBI, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, as unreasonably quashing investigations into the Clinton Crime Family. Today there are no fewer than four separate FBI divisions looking into the Clinton Foundation alone, according to both the _Wall Street Journal_ and the _Washington Post_. 

Following Jill McCabe's failed Senate run--that's Mr. McCabe's wife--he was promoted from the #3 position at the Bureau to the #2 position, where he was able to exercise greater influence over critical decisions such as overseeing long-running investigations and whether or not to pursue prosecution. 

It was under McCabe's harsh declaration to agents to get off the entire email case that made many an agent blanch, and helped to fuel the near-insurrection within the FBI whose ramifications we are probably only beginning to vaguely understand now. 

The way almost all of the polls seem to be breaking at the moment, this map is not exactly a complete impossibility:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793068118142844928


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> HOLY SHIT!!! Trump predicted the Weiner scandal one year ago! :mark:
> 
> - Vic












:trump
@DesolationRow @CamillePunk


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If those numbers are correct, considering the large swings in them over the past 3-4 days, then Clinton is going to lose PA, VA, Colorado and Wisconsin. Which would be gg. Hell if she loses PA and any 1 of the other 3 it's gg.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> deepelemblues said:
> 
> 
> 
> if the clinton campaign had something today would have been the day to release it
> 
> then it would dominate the news for the rest of the week as her lapdogs in the media would spend 90% of their airtime and column inches covering it and ignore hillary's corruption and criminality just like they did with the access hollywood tape
> 
> btw megyn kelly's gonna get 20 million+ a year at Fox to be a hypocritical gyndyr-obsessed bitch. running around saying oh well bill clinton's accusers never proved their claims while she takes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 's accusers claims at face value
> 
> the media thinks you're so stupid they don't even try to hide how stupid they think you are. they'll openly show their double standard and don't give a fuck if anyone notices
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious, what do you think of Hannity and O' Reilly?
> 
> Msnbc, cnn, cbs, abc, nbc, nytimes, etc etc is news for stupid people , its just left winged propaganda tabloid news. Everything you are accusing MK for is what those two clowns do all the time but for the GOP.
Click to expand...

Fixed


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> :trump
> @DesolationRow @CamillePunk


:lol :done



deepelemblues said:


> If those numbers are correct, considering the large swings in them over the past 3-4 days, then Clinton is going to lose PA, VA, Colorado and Wisconsin. Which would be gg. Hell if she loses PA and any 1 of the other 3 it's gg.


Yes indeed.

I have never thought that Trump would win this but the last few hours' worth of internal polling data is truly the most encouraging piece of information for him since he thwarted Ted Cruz in Indiana.

Hillary's numbers are dropping with Democrats in terms of "backing." 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793061386880421888
The fact that the Democrats are spending so much time and money in Pennsylvania would seem to signpost that they know it is in jeopardy.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Both candidates are corrupt as hell. It is just who you believe is less corrupt. Big banks don't trust a billionaire with credit. Half the population think the career politician is the devil. It comes down to who you believe will not lead to WW3 at this point.
> 
> How the fuck did America end up like this?


Part of it, as has been accurately pointed out already, is because the masses are fucking morons. However, the picture would be incomplete without pointing out how massively corrupt and rigged the system is. Let's say for the sake of argument that the majority of people became intelligent and well-informed tomorrow. It wouldn't make much of a difference, at least not in the short term. A small group of people have all the wealth and the power and they aren't about to give it up willingly, _even if_ everyone all of a sudden woke up to the reality of the American Empire.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Part of it, as has been accurately pointed out already, is because the masses are fucking morons. However, the picture would be incomplete without pointing out how massively corrupt and rigged the system is. Let's say for the sake of argument that the majority of people became intelligent and well-informed tomorrow. It wouldn't make much of a difference, at least not in the short term. A small group of people have all the wealth and the power and they aren't about to give it up willingly, _even if_ everyone all of a sudden woke up to the reality of the American Empire.


Another group of people (middle class) have some wealth and little power and many would also not want to give that up willingly too. :shrug


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> All anonymous signs are pointing to the second-in-command at the FBI, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, as unreasonably quashing investigations into the Clinton Crime Family. Today there are no fewer than four separate FBI divisions looking into the Clinton Foundation alone, according to both the _Wall Street Journal_ and the _Washington Post_.
> 
> Following Jill McCabe's failed Senate run--that's Mr. McCabe's wife--he was promoted from the #3 position at the Bureau to the #2 position, where he was able to exercise greater influence over critical decisions such as overseeing long-running investigations and whether or not to pursue prosecution.
> 
> It was under McCabe's harsh declaration to agents to get off the entire email case that made many an agent blanch, and helped to fuel the near-insurrection within the FBI whose ramifications we are probably only beginning to vaguely understand now.
> 
> The way almost all of the polls seem to be breaking at the moment, this map is not exactly a complete impossibility:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793068118142844928


I would put all of my monies on Trump winning Utah. :lol I just find the possibility of some rando nobody knew about until a few months ago winning a state's electoral votes so utterly absurd. :lol (No need to quote me the polling data asdf, it means nothing to me with this prediction)


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Another group of people (middle class) have some wealth and little power and many would also not want to give that up willingly too. :shrug


What's left of the middle class doesn't have much choice in the matter. It's already a rapidly deteriorating group of people and as long as neoliberals are in charge of our economic policy, they will continue to disappear. Once the TPP and TTIP get passed and go into full effect, there won't be much of a middle class left to speak of.


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trouble with technology is some emails you just can't delete :trump


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> What's left of the middle class doesn't have much choice in the matter. It's already a rapidly deteriorating group of people and as long as neoliberals are in charge of our economic policy, they will continue to disappear. Once the TPP and TTIP get passed and go into full effect, there won't be much of a middle class left to speak of.


Going to be like the feudal era, except they'll bring in a steady influx of foreign people to ensure the fucked over citizens can never change things. 

It's not going to be pretty with most people acting as serfs.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Interesting that Brazile is being singled out for the corruption and yet it is a climate of that corruption within the Clinton campaign (not the whole democrat party, though this year a case can be made for the corruption within the entire party) that created this corruption. The free exchange of privileged information, bending rules, is something that Clinton and her entire administration is well known for at this point so Brazile is merely a pawn.


Because she's black, Democrats don't care about them, got to protect who they really care about.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I would genuinely like to know why Trump thinks NAFTA is such a bad thing. The U.S. currently gets water from Canada at an alarming rate



> And the volumes are mind-boggling. The Council of Canadians has estimated Canada’s net virtual water exports for all categories of product at 59.9 billion cubic metres a year. That’s roughly enough to empty Ontario’s Lake Simcoe every 72 days.


http://www.corporateknights.com/channels/water/the-case-for-selling-canadas-water-14528376/

Which is fine. We sell it dirt cheap too. Nestle (according to their own website) buys Canadian water at $3.71 for a million liters of water. So less than 5 bucks gets Americans 264172.052 gallons of clean, bottled water. The price is so low due to NAFTA. If Trump wants to renegotiate it, we WILL hike the price of water exports to a premium. Think about the water alone for a second. 59.9 billion cubic meters (thats 15,823,905,936,253 gallons if you were wondering) of Canadian free water is used is used every year by Americans. Imagine if all of a sudden, that same water all of a sudden cost way more. Because no longer would it be part of free trade. How are you guys going to come up with a way to pay for 15,823,905,936,253 gallons of water? Let alone the amount of lumber you guys get from us on the free trade. And oil. Canada is the U.S. biggest foreign source of oil at 40% of all foreign oil import to the U.S. You renegotiate NAFTA, you'll end up paying out the nose for things like water, oil, and wood. Which you wont be able to do with his tax lowering idea. 

I make this post, not as an attack on Trump voters or anyone else. I simply ask, how does his renegotiation of NAFTA end up helping Americans? From, at least a Canadian point of view, it's going to end up costing you guys a hell of a lot more. Because atm we aren't thrilled with giving you guys precious resources for pennies on the dollar. So if you guys want to re-negotiate, prices will go up. Not down.

I'm going to make a serious effort to be less confrontational in this thread from now until the election. I'm sorry to all those I've pissed off. I'm an outsider looking in and I shouldn't act the way I have.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> I would genuinely like to know why Trump thinks NAFTA is such a bad thing


The question isn't why Trump thinks NAFTA is a bad thing (he probably doesn't, he's probably lying to get votes), the question is why do his supporters think its a bad thing, and they think its a bad thing because it wiped out entire industries. There were huge winners and huge losers out of NAFTA, with as far as I am aware very little government support for the losers.

Overall it was almost certainly beneficial, but try telling that to all the people who lost their livelihoods due to it.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> The question isn't why Trump thinks NAFTA is a bad thing (he probably doesn't, he's probably lying to get votes), the question is why do his supporters think its a bad thing, and they think its a bad thing because it wiped out entire industries. There were huge winners and huge losers out of NAFTA, with as far as I am aware very little government support for the losers.
> 
> Overall it was almost certainly beneficial, but try telling that to all the people who lost their livelihoods due to it.


The thing is, thats how life works. Crack eggs to make an omelette. Of course the eggs will be pissed though right? What made a lot of Americans lose their jobs and lose companies that ran out of the U.S. was the recession and bail outs. GM almost went under. Ford did better and Dodge was owned by Mercedes at that point so they weren't hit nearly as hard. All those companies moved. Not because they wanted to. But to survive. Detroit is currently a ghost town with a hockey team because of the Bush administration. It was bad economics. You can't blame a free trade agreement on that.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> The thing is, thats how life works. Crack eggs to make an omelette. Of course the eggs will be pissed though right? What made a lot of Americans lose their jobs and lose companies that ran out of the U.S. was the recession and bail outs. GM almost went under. Ford did better and Dodge was owned by Mercedes at that point so they weren't hit nearly as hard. All those companies moved. Not because they wanted to. But to survive. Detroit is currently a ghost town with a hockey team because of the Bush administration. It was bad economics. You can't blame a free trade agreement on that.


I'm not saying agree with them, I'm a huge supporter of the TPP for instance, which will include Australia. 

I'm just saying I sympathise with some Trump supporters, as some of them would have lost out from free trade deals, free trade deals make countries more efficient, that means inefficient jobs/industries are lost. As you say you need to crack an egg to make an omelette. But if you're the egg and you then have to watch everyone else feast, you have every right to be angry.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Going to be like the feudal era, except they'll bring in a steady influx of foreign people to ensure the fucked over citizens can never change things.
> 
> It's not going to be pretty with most people acting as serfs.


That's more or less already happened and most people don't even realize it yet. Today's modern serf class are what I like to call free range slaves. 



Alkomesh2 said:


> I'm a huge supporter of the TPP for instance, which will include Australia.


So, you're in favor of selling out your national sovereignty to corporations? I suppose some people will sacrifice anything for a quick buck.


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> The question isn't why Trump thinks NAFTA is a bad thing (he probably doesn't, he's probably lying to get votes), the question is why do his supporters think its a bad thing, and they think its a bad thing because it wiped out entire industries. There were huge winners and huge losers out of NAFTA, with as far as I am aware very little government support for the losers.
> 
> Overall it was almost certainly beneficial, but try telling that to all the people who lost their livelihoods due to it.


Even if you magically got rid of NAFTA and free trade to other countries most of the jobs lost in the last 30 years were replaced by Automation. The long term issue neither party wants to touch is Automation will replace even more jobs in the future and the "free market" won't be able to create jobs for a lot of able bodied and willing individuals.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

No matter what happens, I regret no post I have made.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Clinton's ship hitting a well deserved iceberg. :dance


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> So, you're in favor of selling out your national sovereignty to corporations? I suppose some people will sacrifice anything for a quick buck.


I support the TPP because I support removing trade barriers between countries. Trade barriers are unnecessary and cause inefficiencies. The less barriers to trade between countries the better off we'll all be. 

And also because I support legal harmonisation. 

I mean there is a very real issue with corporate interests being advantaged by the TPP, and I don't support that aspect of it. BUT, it could end up being the trojan horse that does corporations in at the same time. 

Corporations are going to run roughshod over everyone and everything until we get a global corporate tax rate, otherwise they'll just move to the countries that give them the most power, tax them the least, like I think it's Ireland at the moment. 



ShiningStar said:


> Even if you magically got rid of NAFTA and free trade to other countries most of the jobs lost in the last 30 years were replaced by Automation. The long term issue neither party wants to touch is Automation will replace even more jobs in the future and the "free market" won't be able to create jobs for a lot of able bodied and willing individuals.


Very true. 

Again, not necessarily saying that the Trump supporters are right, I'm just saying I do hold some sympathy for where they are coming from.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Both candidates are corrupt as hell. It is just who you believe is less corrupt. Big banks don't trust a billionaire with credit. Half the population think the career politician is the devil. It comes down to who you believe will not lead to WW3 at this point.
> 
> How the fuck did America end up like this?


The parties stopped listening to the rank and file of each party this election. Many people that I know are Democrats absolutely did not want Hillary Clinton as the standard-bearer of the party, a lot of them wanted Bernie. The Obamas are not fans of the Clintons, in fact there is a great deal of animosity behind the scenes between the two families. However, Obama understands that his legacy is determined on her winning because his followers fully expect her to take those policies (health care, etc) to the next level. So, they are stuck with a corrupt woman who should not be anywhere near the Presidency. 

For the GOP...they haven't been listening for a long time. They kept telling their base, "Give us control of both houses and we'll stop Obama's policies." It's not getting done, they continue to roll over every time. The boiling point was finally reached to where they sent the message to push a non-politician. Donald Trump was pushed onto the GOP brass as a way of saying, "You aren't doing the job, so now we're saying fuck you and we're going with this guy." Problem is, Trump has filed for bankruptcy multiple times, he has stiffed people he owes money for projects done, lavishes praise on Russia and Wikileaks, and is overall every bit a disgusting human being as Hillary Clinton. Not to mention that he didn't have a problem with the Clintons up until a year ago, he was a regular donor and benefactor to their campaigns and their Foundation. 

No matter who wins, we're going to see more of the same. Nothing will change except we continue to get fucked over.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793285281915043840
:hglol


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://t.co/57KEUnnrYA

"Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia"

:ha another Clinton campaign fail


----------



## amhlilhaus

Im no expert, obviously. It seems to me though, that clinton better release trumps tirade against blacks asap, shes gotten crushed since friday.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> https://t.co/57KEUnnrYA
> 
> "Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia"
> 
> :ha another Clinton campaign fail


So much desperation. 

Time magazine trying to spin Emailgate as an attack on women (Of course, not surprisingly, it's a U of Berkley professor with this ground-breaking revelation :kobelol) 

The left has gone FULL retard and I'm enjoying the fuck out of this :heston


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump up by 1% in the abc poll. Even tho he is up much more than that.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> Corporations are going to run roughshod over everyone and everything until we get a global corporate tax rate, otherwise they'll just move to the countries that give them the most power, tax them the least, like I think it's Ireland at the moment.
> 
> 
> 
> Very true.
> 
> Again, not necessarily saying that the Trump supporters are right, I'm just saying I do hold some sympathy for where they are coming from.


1. What are corporations going to run roughshod over? The price of cheap plastic shit from Asia? Gonna run it down even more?

2. How is a global tax going to stop them? Unless it is so punitively heavy that they can't operate, which will in the end run roughshod over everyone far more than any corporation ever will by drastically raising prices on consumer goods. 



ShiningStar said:


> Even if you magically got rid of NAFTA and free trade to other countries most of the jobs lost in the last 30 years were replaced by Automation. The long term issue neither party wants to touch is Automation will replace even more jobs in the future and the "free market" won't be able to create jobs for a lot of able bodied and willing individuals.


No they weren't. Far more jobs have been lost to factories in Mexico or Southeast Asia than have been lost to "automation." If they had been lost to "automation" the companies wouldn't have built new factories in other countries. They'd have automated their plants in America. Cheaper to do that than build new facilities from the ground up. It's 2016, not 2036. The full impact of automation is a generation away. 

The only reason those jobs left was it was cheap enough to have Mexicans or Malaysians doing the work to make moving operations worth it. Robby the Robot wasn't advanced enough 10, 15 years ago to take all the jobs that were being lost then which is a not-insubstantial portion of the total. 

There's zero evidence to think that the "free market" won't come up with new demand for jobs in other fields. There's plenty of evidence that the education system won't be able to educate people so their skills match the demand. It's the same argument that was made when the economy shifted from industrial-based to services-based in the 70s. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. The "free market" came up with plenty of new jobs. Education has failed to provide a large enough pool of sufficiently knowledgeable and mentally skilled labor in so many areas.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/did-trump-candidate-tarnish-trump-brand-n674031

Did Trump the Candidate Tarnish Trump the Brand?
by ALIYAH FRUMIN
SHARE
Share
Tweet
Share
Email
Print
Comment
PlayTrump's Presidential Run Appears to Be Damaging His Business Facebook Twitter Google PlusEmbed
Trump's Presidential Run Appears to Be Damaging His Business 2:32
When Linda Gottlieb hails a taxi cab in New York City and asks the driver to take her home, she has one word to describe how she feels: embarrassed.

Why? Because she has to tell the driver to take her to Trump Place.

"It's nuts that we're now living in a place that is advertising values that none of us believe in," said the film and television producer, who has started a petition signed by hundreds urging landlord Equity Residential to "dump the Trump name." When Gottlieb began renting her 3-bedroom unit on the Upper West Side, Gottlieb said she had no opinion one way or another of the real estate mogul who is now the Republican presidential nominee — other than he was a "glitzy guy."

Image:
Linda Gottlieb, a tenant in 160 Riverside Boulevard, poses for a portrait at her building on Saturday, October 29 2016. Mrs. Gottleib is working to have the Trump name removed from her building. Michael Rubenstein / for NBC News
She grew increasingly unhappy with his controversial campaign. But when footage showing Trump bragging in lewd terms about trying to have sex with women came out earlier this month, "that was the straw that broke the camel's back for me," she said.

Gottlieb's sentiment is emblematic of a worrying trend for Trump, in which the real estate mogul's brand appears to be taking a significant hit as a direct result of his divisive presidential campaign.

"Trump" was often synonymous with luxury and success — a high-end retreat for the actually wealthy, and an aspirational vehicle for those who craved wealth.

But today, for some of the affluent elite he once courted, "Trump" is more associated with populist anger and allegations of misogyny, racism and more.

In fact, a new online poll by Morning Consult found that nearly 40 percent of voters said Trump's campaign made them "less likely" to buy Trump-related products. And almost half—46 percent — said they wouldn't stay at a Trump-branded hotel. Even more, 63 percent, said they wouldn't want to play golf on Trump's links.

Related: Trump Businesses Down by More Than 16 Percent in September

The numbers of those visiting Trump properties may be in decline as well. According to Foursquare, which tracks visits from more than 50 million users, stops to Trump-branded hotels, casinos and golf courses dropped 16.5 percent in September compared with a year ago.

"The man is the brand and some of what the man is saying in terms of his beliefs and behaviors are bringing that brand into question. He's probably going to be hurt bad by all of this," said Jonathan Asher, executive vice president at marketing firm Perception Research Services International Inc.


A woman passes burned-out lights at the Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino on The Boardwalk in Atlantic City, N.J., on Sept. 16, 2014. Mel Evans / AP file
Amanda Miller, vice president of marketing of the Trump Organization, dismissed any notion that the brand was suffering because of the candidate's campaign.

"The Trump Brand remains incredibly strong and we are seeing tremendous success across business units. Trump properties are known for their iconic locations, achieving the highest accolades and for providing unrivaled five-star service. We continue to outperform our competitors and are very enthusiastic about the future and our continued growth," Miller said.

RELATED: Trump a 'Brilliant' Businessman? Tax Experts Say Otherwise

Eric Danziger, CEO of Trump Hotels, asserted the Foursquare data on diminished foot traffic to Trump properties "is manipulated to appear meaningful, when, in reality, the information is inconsequential and does not provide an accurate representation of our performance."

But if Trump has damaged the "Trump" brand, it could be devastating for his business.

He controls more than 500 companies in many fields including residential real estate, hotels, resorts. Of that, 268 bear his last name. His name is also on numerous products from ties to energy drinks to steaks.

And many of his customers aren't happy.

Daniel Neiditch, president of River 2 River Realty, has been selling apartments in Trump buildings in New York for 15 years. He said Trump's White House bid has made his job a lot harder, citing buyers in Mexico and South America who looked at Trump properties but ultimately said they didn't want to buy in a building associated with him.

Image: Trump poses for photos outside the New York Stock Exchange after the listing of his stock
Developer Donald Trump poses for photos outside the New York Stock Exchange after the listing of his stock on June 7, 1995 in New York. He took his flagship Trump Plaza Casino public, offering 10 million shares of common stock at an estimated price of $14 per share. Kathy Willens / AP
Before Trump's bid, "we would always see a constant flow of buyers who would demand to live in Trump buildings. It went from being a brand that was sought out to a brand that people are turning away from," he said.

In Chicago, high-end wedding planner Reva Nathan said that since Trump has been running for president, clients have been telling her they don't want to have their wedding at the once coveted Trump International Hotel and Tower, where weddings cost anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000.

"I haven't had anybody say to me in the last six months that they want to look into availability at the Trump Hotel Chicago," said Nathan. "…Just last week, one client said to me, again unsolicited, 'I don't even want that name on an invitation.'"

And just this week in Chicago, a city council transportation committee voted unanimously to remove a street sign honoring Trump outside the hotel. The bill heads to the full city council next week.

Trump frequently touts his business ventures on the campaign trail and faced some criticism this week when he stopped in the nation's capital to make a pitch for his new hotel there. "With the notable exception of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, this is the most coveted piece of real estate in Washington D.C.," Trump said, even as reports cited prices there being slashed from $750 a night to under $500.

IMAGE: Trump Plaza sign in Chicago
An honorary sign naming Wabash Avenue in Chicago as 'Trump Plaza.' NBC Chicago
David Loeb, a hotel analyst at Robert W. Baird private equity firm, noted, "You can't just open a hotel and right out of the box be full and have high rates." But he added, "If people think [Trump] is inappropriate, they may stay away and would rather book somewhere else."

The thing is, "Trump has a lot of ardent followers," Loeb said. "But the demographic of his followers are not the ones that stay in very expensive luxury hotels."

Trump's daughter, Ivanka, who runs her own fashion line, also faced backlash this week when Shannon Coulter, the CEO of a communications agency, called for a boycott of her items, urging retailers who carry her products to cut ties with her. The hashtag associated with the boycott, #GrabYourWallet, has gone viral.

"My only goal is to be able to shop at the stores that I love with a clear conscience," said Coulter, who lives in the Bay Area.

One woman, M. Stein., tweeted the #GrabYourWallet hashtag accompanied with a photo of a handwritten message on a pair of Ivanka's shoes that were placed in a trash can. The message said, "Ivanka, you have actively supported a hateful & divisive campaign,so this is where your brand deserves to go."


But whether such declarations translates into a decline of sales is yet to be seen. BrandKeys conducted a national survey of millennial female shoppers that found 51 percent said they were still "extremely likely" or "very likely" in their willingness to consider choosing Ivanka's line in light of Trump's involvement with her father's campaign.

However, a Morning Consult poll showed this week that only 23 percent of women would be willing to buy from the clothing line, while more than half said they wouldn't.

A spokesman for Ivanka's brand dismissed the notion that the line was in trouble, citing 37 percent growth over last year in sales and revenue for 2015 and that her collection will expand from 800 to 1,000 stores nationwide by 2017.

A spokeswoman for Nordstrom, which carries the line, said, "Right now, we don't have any plans to stop carrying the brand." Other stores that carry the line, including Amazon, Macy's and Zappos, did not return request for comment.

Passikoff said recovering Trump's damaged brand will be an uphill battle and cited Martha Stewart and Tiger Woods — two public figures who faced their share of troubles and saw their brands fail to fully recover.

"I don't expect the guy is going broke, but he changed the entire meaning of what the entire Trump brand stands for," said Robert Passikoff, president and founder of Brand Keys, a brand research consultancy group. He said the brand that once stood for opulence and success now stands for "tarnished and shameful."

And then there's some who believe the Trump name is inconsequential, like Ann Rae, a resident at Trump Place in New York.

"We didn't move here because of the name and we're not moving out because of the name. I think living in New York, half of the city has his name on it ... it's just part of New York, it doesn't mean we support him — because we don't." She added, "...It's just a name.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> RELATED: Trump a 'Brilliant' Businessman? Tax Experts Say Otherwise


But but but I thought :trump was a sinister mastermind who schemed his way into not paying hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes on his business? 

Now "tax experts" say well no you see he's not really a good businessman despite taking advantage of a law that allowed him to avoid paying hundreds of millions in taxes on his business. That's not a brilliant move? Any move that saves someone from paying hundreds of millions of dollars I'd consider pretty goddamn brilliant. 

The media is so fucking dumb. There's only one explanation for how they contradict themselves all the fucking time and that explanation is they hold the masses in total contempt.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> But but but I thought :trump was a sinister mastermind who schemed his way into not paying hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes on his business?
> 
> Now "tax experts" say well no you see he's not really a good businessman despite taking advantage of a law that allowed him to avoid paying hundreds of millions in taxes on his business. That's not a brilliant move? Any move that saves someone from paying hundreds of millions of dollars I'd consider pretty goddamn brilliant.
> 
> The media is so fucking dumb. There's only one explanation for how they contradict themselves all the fucking time and that explanation is they hold the masses in total contempt.


Trump had to admit what a failure he is that he lost millions, that is why he got those tax breaks lol

Trump is a huge failure when it comes to business, he has 6 bankruptcies, multiple failed casinos, a failed airline, a failed mortgage company, failed steaks, failed vodka, Trump U that defrauded, thousands, failed travel site, failed trump magazine, etc etc

Trump is a huge failure/ The only people that are dumb are the people that think he is successful.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump had to admit what a failure he is that he lost millions, that is why he got those tax breaks lol
> 
> Trump is a huge failure when it comes to business, he has 6 bankruptcies, multiple failed casinos, a failed airline, a failed mortgage company, failed steaks, failed vodka, Trump U that defrauded, thousands, failed travel site, failed trump magazine, etc etc
> 
> Trump is a huge failure/ The only people that are dumb are the people that think he is successful.


:heston

All that 10/10 pussy he's got (with his 4/10 looks and abrasive personality, even when he was young he was a 6 at best and he's always been a jerk alpha male which kinda turns most women off once they stop being young dumb girls and start being mature and experienced women), all the property he owns, all the luxury he lives in and he's a failure.

The only people that are dumb are the people that think a guy who has lived the life :trump has is a failure. How many of the most beautiful women in the world do you have to fuck and how much land and buildings do you have to own and how many private jet (that you own) flights to all corners of the globe do you have to take and how much opulence do you have to revel in before you're not a failure? 

:trump has had a more successful life than 99.99999% of the human beings who have ever lived. Get over it bro.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> :heston
> 
> All that 10/10 pussy he's got (with his 4/10 looks, even when he was young he was a 6 at best), all the property he owns, all the luxury he lives in and he's a failure.
> 
> The only people that are dumb are the people that think a guy who has lived the life :trump has is a failure. How many of the most beautiful women in the world do you have to fuck and how much land and buildings do you have to own and how many private jet (that you own) flights do you have to take and how much opulence do you have to revel in before you're not a failure?
> 
> :trump has had a more successful life than 99.99999% of the human beings who have ever lived including you. Get over it bro.


He got all his money from his daddy LOL He did not earn it himself. 

Yeah how many of the most beautiful women in the world does he need to sexually assault and rape lol Oh yeah Trump is such a winner ha.

Just because some hot women will bang him because he is rich does not mean he is a success, you really think if he was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth those women would even give him a second look?

He is an even bigger loser because he can only get women because of his money. that makes him even more pathetic. 

Trump is a huge loser and a huge failure when it comes to business. You think just because someones daddy was rich and let them a huge inheritance makes them successful LMAO.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Some of you are really gonna have a headache on election day :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Some of you are really gonna have a headache on election day :lmao


Cant wait to see all the salty tears of Trump fans once he loses, and also wait to hear their excuses why he lost.


----------



## .MCH

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm so glad the Alt Reich thinks Trump has a chance now. I was worried that election night would be boring if his supporters knew going into it that he was going to lose.

This will make it that much better when she wins and they have a meltdown.


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



.MCH said:


> I'm so glad the Alt Reich thinks Trump has a chance now. I was worried that election night would be boring if his supporters knew going into it that he was going to lose.
> 
> This will make it that much better when she wins and they have a meltdown.


I don't think it makes much of a difference. People that are Trump supporters are so stupid that even if the polls showed Hillary winning by 20 points in the polls they'd still be convinced Trump would win easily.

They're so out of touch with reality to the point that even when Hillary wins they'll be trying to convince everyone Trump will still somehow be inaugurated...


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Oh boy November 9 is going to be a very very fun day on here


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> He got all his money from his daddy LOL He did not earn it himself.
> 
> Yeah how many of the most beautiful women in the world does he need to sexually assault and rape lol Oh yeah Trump is such a winner ha.
> 
> Just because some hot women will bang him because he is rich does not mean he is a success, you really think if he was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth those women would even give him a second look?
> 
> He is an even bigger loser because he can only get women because of his money. that makes him even more pathetic.
> 
> Trump is a huge loser and a huge failure when it comes to business. You think just because someones daddy was rich and let them a huge inheritance makes them successful LMAO.


A guy who spends the majority of his life posting endless amounts of utter drivel on a wrestling forum calls a guy like Donald Trump a loser and failure


:duck

unkout


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ShiningStar said:


> Even if you magically got rid of NAFTA and free trade to other countries most of the jobs lost in the last 30 years were replaced by Automation. The long term issue neither party wants to touch is Automation will replace even more jobs in the future and the "free market" won't be able to create jobs for a lot of able bodied and willing individuals.


NAFTA and other "free trade" deals are the reason why so many of those jobs were shipped to third world countries. Automation is the reason why those jobs will never come back. It's a topic I've brought up multiple times but no one seems to be able grasp the concept that in twenty years time, unless we completely rethink what it means to work and earn your way through life, over half the population will be unemployed because of automation. 



Alkomesh2 said:


> I support the TPP because I support removing trade barriers between countries. Trade barriers are unnecessary and cause inefficiencies. The less barriers to trade between countries the better off we'll all be.


Methinks you're talking out of your ass on this one and have no clue what is in the TPP. unk2


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> A guy who spends the majority of his life posting endless amounts of utter drivel on a wrestling forum calls a guy like Donald Trump a loser and failure
> 
> 
> :duck
> 
> unkout


Typical of people like you, who can't refute what was said so you attack the poster LOL

you are one of the worst posters on the board, so I will take you not liking my posts as a compliment, I know its too far over your head anyways judging from you posting history. You need to swim in the kiddy pool not with the adults.

So run along now.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

We are one week away from Election Day so I'm going to hold up my Make America Great Again sign by the freeway all day until then to help fight The crooked Establishment in Washington!












> I would genuinely like to know why Trump thinks NAFTA is such a bad thing


"Not only did promises made by NAFTA’s proponents not materialize, but many results are exactly the opposite.

Such outcomes include a staggering $181 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada and the related loss of 1 million net U.S. jobs under NAFTA, growing income inequality, displacement of more than one million Mexican campesino farmers and a doubling of desperate immigration from Mexico, and more than $360 million paid to corporations after “investor-state” tribunal attacks on, and rollbacks of, domestic public interest policies." - Public Citzen's report from TradeWatch.org

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> The question isn't why Trump thinks NAFTA is a bad thing (he probably doesn't, he's probably lying to get votes), the question is why do his supporters think its a bad thing, and they think its a bad thing because it wiped out entire industries. There were huge winners and huge losers out of NAFTA, with as far as I am aware very little government support for the losers.
> 
> Overall it was almost certainly beneficial, but try telling that to all the people who lost their livelihoods due to it.


of course Trump is lying about NAFTA

He used illegals from Mexico to build his casinos, he used steel from china to build them, his ties are made in China, his shirts are also made in china, most of the items he uses in his hotels are made in China or Taiwan.


----------



## MrMister

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

aka Alien v Predator:lmao

I wish I had thought of that one.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Typical of people like you, who can't refute what was said so you attack the poster LOL
> 
> you are one of the worst posters on the board, so I will take you not liking my posts as a compliment, I know its too far over your head anyways judging from you posting history. You need to swim in the kiddy pool not with the adults.
> 
> So run along now.


Refute what you say?

Donald Trumps assets include









































He has banged





































And according to you this guy is a loser and a failure? :lmao 



Post some pictures of your assets other than







and women who you have dated then i might understand why you view Trump as such a loser in life

Honestly pal you are embarrassing yourself. You can hate on Donald and disagree with his political views no problem but to make such farcical suggestions regarding his personal accomplishments is showing you up for the jealously fueled blinded fool that you are (Y)


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> Refute what you say?
> 
> Donald Trumps assets include
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has banged
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And according to you this guy is a loser and a failure? :lmao
> 
> 
> 
> Post some pictures of your assets other than
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and women who you have dated then i might understand why you view Trump as such a loser in life
> 
> Honestly pal you are embarrassing yourself. You can hate on Donald and disagree with his political views no problem but to make such farcical suggestions regarding his personal accomplishments is showing you up for the jealously fueled blinded fool that you are (Y)


of course the board times out when I hit reply after typing my reply.

Here is the short version.

Trump can only get women because he is rich, that is a huge loser. 

but Trump also raped his ex wife, a 13 years old and told a 10 year old he will be dating her in 10 yers. Not to mention how many women he has sexually assaulted total loser.

Trump does not even pay everyone that worked on his casinos and golf courses, he is a total loser

Trumps brand is taking a huge hit lately and a chain of hotels just took his name off of them. LOSER

Trump is a huge failure in business like i already stated a few posts ago and that is not even all his failures.

The only person who is embarrassing himself is you since you ignore all those things.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> He got all his money from his daddy LOL He did not earn it himself.


Depending on who you believe he got 1 million or 14 million from his father.

He's worth hundreds of millions if not over a billion dollars.

Even _you_ can understand that 1 million or 14 million is not hundreds of millions.



> Yeah how many of the most beautiful women in the world does he need to sexually assault and rape lol Oh yeah Trump is such a winner ha.


Citation needed



> Just because some hot women will bang him because he is rich does not mean he is a success, you really think if he was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth those women would even give him a second look?


Someone's thirsty and soooooooooooo jealous of all the prime poon :trump has gotten while the best he's ever had is an Arkansas 5. If he's ever had any period :heston

Because...



> He is an even bigger loser because he can only get women because of his money. that makes him even more pathetic.


This is something only virgins say

You do realize that the women he's been married to and the one he's currently married to were already rich or famous or both well before he married them? They didn't need to marry :trump for money or fame. 

Ivana was a famous model before she married :trump

Marla Maples was a successful actress before she married :trump

Melania was another famous model before she married :trump 

All 3 of them were most definitely not lacking for male attention or for money and they married :trump

Try harder and get over it BernieBro.



> Trump is a huge loser and a huge failure when it comes to business. You think just because someones daddy was rich and let them a huge inheritance makes them successful LMAO.


How many other huge failures own incredibly valuable tracts of land in some of the most expensive real estate markets in the world?

How many other huge failures stared down the biggest banks in NYC and got them to give in to what he wanted by basically saying 'if I go down you're coming with me?' (essentially, a YUGE bluff that made the Masters of the Universe fold)

Eagerly awaiting your jealous thirsty tantrum reply

:trump being better than they are gets some people so steamed rofl


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> Depending on who you believe he got 1 million or 14 million from his father.
> 
> He's worth hundreds of millions if not over a billion dollars.
> 
> Even _you_ can understand that 1 million or 14 million is not hundreds of millions.
> 
> 
> 
> Citation needed
> 
> 
> 
> Someone's thirsty and soooooooooooo jealous of all the prime poon :trump has gotten while the best he's ever had is an Arkansas 5. If he's ever had any period :heston
> 
> Because...
> 
> 
> 
> This is something only virgins say
> 
> 
> 
> How many other huge failures own incredibly valuable tracts of land in some of the most expensive real estate markets in the world?
> 
> Eagerly awaiting your virginal tantrum reply.


Trump got $14 million

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-...bout-trumps-very-small-14-million-loan-228709

*The Wall Street Journal tracked down a 1985 casino-license disclosure that showed Trump’s father lent him $14 million — a value of $31 million in today's dollars. Trump’s spokesman told the Journal he was referring to Trump's very first loan, a decade earlier. But it’s clear Trump’s $1 million claim understates his father’s assistance. In the 1990s, New Jersey regulators dinged Trump after his father bought $3.5 million in chips at one of his casinos.*


Also Trump would have more money now if it would have left it instead of doing all his failed companies. 

You really need a citation for all the women Trump has sexually assaulted? LOL

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/14/politics/trump-women-accusers/

There you go again with personal attacks LOL
I know I have gotten laid way more than you but whatever dude.

You are like a 12 year old saying oh you are a virgin lol. Really dude? Just shows how pathetic you are.

But I am not surprised coming from you. You know I am right so you have to go to personal attacks.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I know I have gotten laid way more than you


what has this thread become
my sweetest friends
every poster i know
turns to shit in the end


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> You really need a citation for all the women Trump has sexually assaulted? LOL


I see no proof. Citation needed.



> Also Trump would have more money now if it would have left it instead of doing all his failed companies.


I'm sorry, I was wrong. You _can't_ tell the difference between 14 million dollars and hundreds of millions or billions. 



> There you go again with personal attacks LOL
> I know I have gotten laid way more than you but whatever dude.


Says the guy who throws tantrums worse than :trump does like clockwork lmao



> You are like a 12 year old saying oh you are a virgin lol. Really dude? Just shows how pathetic you are.


Looks like a nerve has been hit. Shot!



> But I am not surprised coming from you. You know I am right so you have to go to personal attacks.


I hope you're not in charge of anyone's investments what with you being unable to tell the difference between 14,000,000 and 3,700,000,000 

Kinda hard to be right when you don't know that one number that is orders of magnitude larger than another number is, you know, a larger number.

Here's the thing, BM: if :trump loses I will laugh about it

If :trump wins you will cover your keyboard and monitor in an inch of spit you'll be so tilted


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Goku said:


> what has this thread become
> my sweetest friends
> every poster i know
> turns to shit in the end


Its funny you quote me when deepelemblues is the one who started that bullshit but of course you are a fraud and did not quote him which my repose was a wise ass remark to his stupid comment about that. So why did you quote me instead of him since he was the reason for that reply?

The reason why threads like this turn to shit are because of people like deepelemblues who are allowed to get way with shit like that then when posters like me reply to them, frauds like you quote me instead of the person who started the bullshit personal attacks.

You keep proving what a fraud you are.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> I see no proof. Citation needed.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I was wrong. You _can't_ tell the difference between 14 million dollars and hundreds of millions or billions.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who throws tantrums worse than :trump does like clockwork lmao
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like a nerve has been hit. Shot!
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you're not in charge of anyone's investments what with you being unable to tell the difference between 14,000,000 and 3,700,000,000
> 
> Kinda hard to be right when you don't know that one number that is orders of magnitude larger than another number is, you know, a larger number.
> 
> Here's the thing, BM: if :trump loses I will laugh about it
> 
> If :trump wins you will cover your keyboard and monitor in an inch of spit you'll be so tilted


I gave you the citation but of course you are ignoring the evidence. 

You are the one throwing the tantrum anytime anyone points out what a huge failure and loser Trump is and starts up with stupid childish stuff like oh you are a virgin lol.

You're trolling is pretty amusing but it's actually quite sad. 

You seem to be the one who can't tell the different between 14 million and 3.5 million. Trump father gave him 14 million then IN ADDITION bought 3.5 million in chips. You cant even read properly.

And If Trump wins, it will be an I told you so to the DNC from me since if it was Sanders who should have been facing Trump it would not even be close.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its funny you quote me when deepelemblues is the one who started that bullshit but of course you are a fraud and did not quote him which my repose was a wise ass remark to his stupid comment about that. So why did you quote me instead of him since he was the reason for that reply?
> 
> The reason why threads like this turn to shit are because of people like deepelemblues who are allowed to get way with shit like that then when posters like me reply to them, frauds like you quote me instead of the person who started the bullshit personal attacks.
> 
> You keep proving what a fraud you are.


why don't you take a breath and calm down


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Goku said:


> why don't you take a breath and calm down


You are the one complaining about it LOL


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> of course the board times out when I hit reply after typing my reply.


The board crashed when you was about to hit reply because even it struggles to deal with the amount of utter BS that you post



> but Trump also raped his ex wife, a 13 years old and told a 10 year old he will be dating her in 10 yers. Not to mention how many women he has sexually assaulted total loser.


Can you present 1 shred of actual evidence to back up these allegations? Do you have any sense at all? Trump has been in the limelight for many years yet not a single accusation is made against him,not even around the time that the primaries took place yet as soon as the White House is in touching distance all these allegations come to light. Does that not strike you as being strange?

Infact dont even reply to those questions. I have wasted enough time







with you


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> The board crashed when you was about to hit reply because even it struggles to deal with the amount of utter BS that you post
> 
> 
> 
> Can you present 1 shred of actual evidence to back up these allegations? Do you have any sense at all? Trump has been in the limelight for many years yet not a single accusation is made against him,not even around the time that the primaries took place yet as soon as the White House is in touching distance all these allegations come to light. Does that not strike you as being strange?
> 
> Infact dont even reply to those questions. I have wasted enough time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> with you


I always love when people like you call facts and evidence utter BS but that is because you can't deal in reality. 

I have already posted the evidence a bunch of times. Go back and find it or just use google, it's all out there. You have to go out to your way to not find it.

The reason why it's coming out now is because the Trump taped leaked of him admitting he likes to sexual assault women then he claimed he does not, so all the women started to admit he sexually assaulted them.

Not sure how many times this needs to be said. 

You can defend a sexual assaulter all you want. And of course you don't want the answers because you want to play dumb.

You have Trump admitting he likes to sexually assault women and admits he does not even wait yet you still deny it lol.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are the one complaining about it LOL


it's a johnny cash song


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

we're back to broken record BM

over under on how many times he tells people they can't deal in reality over his next 5 posts in this thread. im going all in on 5, it's his go-to when he gets TILTED


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Goku said:


> what has this thread become
> my sweetest friends
> every poster i know
> turns to shit in the end


That's what political arguments are all about, Charlie Brown.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Goku said:


> it's a johnny cash song


You should stop trolling if you don't want to get called out on your BS.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You should stop trolling if you don't want to get called out on your BS.


i don't mind being called out on my bs


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Goku said:


> what has this thread become
> my sweetest friends
> every poster i know
> turns to shit in the end


Turns? More likely your initial impressions were just mistaken.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This is an actual tweet from Hillary Clinton's twitter feed.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793437463377276928
:lol What?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@DesolationRow










^ From the FBI leak today...

And Kadzik is the guy who is supposed to be running the new Clinton probe and is the BFF of Podesta?

Beyond words.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The first time I've been to her site and the thing that glared out at me the most is her begging for money. 

I've seen homeless men with more dignity than this.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I like how some of the hardcore lefties here are saying I'll cry salty tears if he loses. I won't cry for shit. I'll go on with my life and not even check this thread. much likr i HAVE been doing for my own sanity. Yall have gone insane and watching BM have a trigger fest over a damn song is a perfect example.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I always love when people like you call facts and evidence utter BS but that is because you can't deal in reality.
> 
> I have already posted the evidence a bunch of times. Go back and find it or just use google, it's all out there. You have to go out to your way to not find it.
> .


The last time we debated you said the exact same thing, go back a few pages and i have already posted evidence so like a cock i wasted my time and did so. They evidence you posted was not evidence, it was bias Hillary supporting reporters spouting anti Trump propaganda, you claim these BS links you keep posting as facts and undeniable truth when in reality they are nothing more than allegations. Let me help you out with this 

Fact
a thing that is known or proved to be true.

Allegation
a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.

You see the difference?


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> This is an actual tweet from Hillary Clinton's twitter feed.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793437463377276928
> :lol What?


Umm, isn't that how its suppose to work?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> The last time we debated you said the exact same thing, go back a few pages and i have already posted evidence so like a cock i wasted my time and did so. They evidence you posted was not evidence, it was bias Hillary supporting reporters spouting anti Trump propaganda, you claim these BS links you keep posting as facts and undeniable truth when in reality they are nothing more than allegations. Let me help you out with this
> 
> Fact
> a thing that is known or proved to be true.
> 
> Allegation
> a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.
> 
> You see the difference?


Yes it was evidence. Just because you choose to ignore facts does not mean its not evidence.

You really look worse and worse when you just deny facts and evidence. But nothing surprises me with the ignorance of people in this thread.




Beatles123 said:


> I like how some of the hardcore lefties here are saying I'll cry salty tears if he loses. I won't cry for shit. I'll go on with my life and not even check this thread. much likr i HAVE been doing for my own sanity. Yall have gone insane and watching BM have a trigger fest over a damn song is a perfect example.


You cry at the littlest thing LOL

Hello pot meet kettle.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> @DesolationRow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ From the FBI leak today...
> 
> And Kadzik is the guy who is supposed to be running the new Clinton probe and is the BFF of Podesta?
> 
> Beyond words.


Yes, this is troubling to be sure. Conflict of interest would seem readily apparent. 



Beatles123 said:


> I like how some of the hardcore lefties here are saying I'll cry salty tears if he loses. I won't cry for shit. I'll go on with my life and not even check this thread. much likr i HAVE been doing for my own sanity. Yall have gone insane and watching BM have a trigger fest over a damn song is a perfect example.


Have almost always thought Trump had something on the order of a 10% chance of winning this. There are just too many "swing states" that he simply must collect, plus flip at least one "Democrat-leaning state." Because of the events of the past week it now feels like he has a good 20% chance. According to the latest national polling that I generally trust, Hillary Clinton has lost "7-8%" in enthusiasm among Democrats, and Trump's seen considerable upticks in independents going toward him.

One problem is that Trump's still stuck at around 85% backing from his own party voters. What he gains in independents will not be enough to offset this lack of backing by Republican voters. A "monster vote" is truly his only way to the presidency, a black swan election to rival all other black swan elections.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Yes, this is troubling to be sure. Conflict of interest would seem readily apparent.
> 
> 
> 
> Have almost always thought Trump had something on the order of a 10% chance of winning this. There are just too many "swing states" that he simply must collect, plus flip at least one "Democrat-leaning state." Because of the events of the past week it now feels like he has a good 20% chance. According to the latest national polling that I generally trust, Hillary Clinton has lost "7-8%" in enthusiasm among Democrats, and Trump's seen considerable upticks in independents going toward him.
> 
> One problem is that Trump's still stuck at around 85% backing from his own party voters. What he gains in independents will not be enough to offset this lack of backing by Republican voters. A "monster vote" is truly his only way to the presidency, a black swan election to rival all other black swan elections.


Welp...










So thats a thing.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> According to the latest national polling that I generally trust, *Hillary Clinton has lost "7-8%" in enthusiasm among Democrats, and Trump's seen considerable upticks in independents going toward him.*
> 
> One problem is that Trump's still stuck at around 85% backing from his own party voters. What he gains in independents will not be enough to offset this lack of backing by Republican voters. A "monster vote" is truly his only way to the presidency, a black swan election to rival all other black swan elections.




I think this is relative. I explain.

Yes, Trump has a 10% adventage over independents but the problem is, his anti-migrant speech is creating a turnout out of normal for hispanics in Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Nevada and Arizona. Those are people registereed recently and without affiliation hence independents, this high turnaout is out of normal because hispanics are normally the lowest turn out demo, even worse than blacks. With that group Clinton can easily overcompensate the lose of black voters from Obama to mantain a similar adventage that the one he had over Romney

It seemed unlikely to happen but early votting numbers point to this

That's the same reason why he's losing comfortably in NC (that and people feed up with republicans over the trans issue) and still losing Florida and why Nevada is practically out of reach just like why places who should be for him comfortably like Georgia or Arizona seems to be in danger (but today i think he would put them in his coumn easily).

In fact i think polls are tighting just because what you see is basically republicans coming back to Trump just like in August plus some Johnson voters flipping sides. They're holding their nose and supporting him again because election is close, just like senators did

Now, supposing he can pull up all the toss ups, and somehow win Florida, NC and Nevada, he still needs one more blue state which i think he can get if he close the national gap by 2 or some points, his best bet at this rate is loose the national vote and win the electoral college. Let's also remember, numbers always fluctuate with a bigger number of polls and people who are undecides tend to vote in past history or not vote at all and i think both candidates have that in mind (suppoing both manage a list for state). Polls ters also tend to adjust themselves at the end of the race for accuracy


----------



## Ygor

Trump is peaking at the right time and I really think he'll win now. Hillary might have snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Welp...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So thats a thing.


He just keeps wracking them up


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

^Wut does the (+1) mean?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> ^Wut does the (+1) mean?


he's up one point.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> he's up one point.


lol woops.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> The first time I've been to her site and the thing that glared out at me the most is her begging for money.
> 
> I've seen homeless men with more dignity than this.


https://www.donaldjtrump.com/splash/donor-wall/






:draper2


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Welp...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So thats a thing.


Where did you get that bullshit lol

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016...ading-trump-by-double-digits-in-pennsylvania/

Poll: Clinton Now Leading Trump By Double Digits In Pennsylvania

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html

RCP Average Clinton +6.0

And if you want to use that BS site as a source you may as well post this from your source site


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> Beatles123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welp...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So thats a thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did you get that bullshit lol
> 
> http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016...ading-trump-by-double-digits-in-pennsylvania/
> 
> Poll: Clinton Now Leading Trump By Double Digits In Pennsylvania
> 
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html
> 
> RCP Average Clinton +6.0
> 
> And if you want to use that BS site as a source you may as well post this from your source site
Click to expand...

That poll surveys 100 more democrats, so its obviously correct and unbiased


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> That poll surveys 100 more democrats, so its obviously correct and unbiased


Which poll is that since I posted three polls.

And where is the break down of D vs R?

And if you are talking about the one from the site that Beatles posted that BS poll how Trump is winning PA which he is not, then you are making my point for me, how that site cannot be taken seriously. Especially since it has Hillary up big in FL when we know that is not the case. Since Trump pulled ahead in one of the polls and its pretty much a dead head in FL where as that site claims Hillary is winning by double digits which is not correct..


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

In case anyone out there was still taking the Libertarian Party ticket seriously, the VP nominee Bill Weld has once again taken to showing his unabashed support for Hillary Clinton. :lol 

http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/01/bill-weld-on-rachel-maddow-im-here-vouch

:faint:

Meanwhile Kennedy of Fox Business told Gary Johnson to "please keep Bill Weld away from the Libertarian Party." :done

http://libertyviral.com/host-of-kennedy-blasts-gary-johnson-on-bill-weld-to-his-face/#axzz4OpRZ3Kcl


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Which poll is that since I posted three polls.
> 
> And where is the break down of D vs R?
> 
> And if you are talking about the one from the site that Beatles posted that BS poll how Trump is winning PA which he is not, then you are making my point for me, how that site cannot be taken seriously. Especially since it has Hillary up big in FL when we know that is not the case. Since Trump pulled ahead in one of the polls and its pretty much a dead head in FL where as that site claims Hillary is winning by double digits which is not correct..


What the flying fuck man?...are you gonna bitch AGAIN??


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The Libertarian Party doesn't even take itself seriously when they nominated that imbecile Johnson as their candidate. Would be like if Mick and Stephanie made Curtis Axel their Survivor Series captain.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> What the flying fuck man?...are you gonna bitch AGAIN??


Your poll was bullshit lol

I am going to call you out when you post BS polls. The whole site it came from is a joke and not even close to being right.

Try using legit polls from legit sources.

No one has Trump being even close to being ahead in PA. That site had Trump losing big in FL when he is ahead.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Your poll was bullshit lol
> 
> I am going to call you out when you post BS polls. The whole site it came from is a joke and not even close to being right.
> 
> Try using legit polls from legit sources.
> 
> No one has Trump being even close to being ahead in PA. That site had Trump losing big in FL when he is ahead.


Its not even a pro trump polling group LOL, These guys are one of the main ones people report. im not even saying hes gonna win PA because polls are different everywhere. Im pointing it out because its yet more evidence of a shift. Honestly you sound way "Saltier" than me. Grow the fuck up.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Its not even a pro trump polling group LOL, These guys are one of the main ones people report. im not even saying hes gonna win PA because polls are different everywhere. Im pointing it out because its yet more evidence of a shift. Honestly you sound way "Saltier" than me. Grow the fuck up.


Its a bullshit polling group where the numbers that site is posting are not even close to being correct. And like I said, if you want to use that site, they have Hillary winning in a landslide with Trump having no chance of catching her. 










So if you want to use that site by all means.

What is the official name of the poll because I don't see them anywhere on clear politics where they put all the legit polls up.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> 1. What are corporations going to run roughshod over? The price of cheap plastic shit from Asia? Gonna run it down even more?
> 
> 2. How is a global tax going to stop them? Unless it is so punitively heavy that they can't operate, which will in the end run roughshod over everyone far more than any corporation ever will by drastically raising prices on consumer goods.


1. Things I believe corporations will run roughshod over include workers rights, environmental laws and the corporate tax rate.

2. Because the reason they have so much power at the moment is that they can just up and move to another country if the tax rate goes too high/workers get too many rights etc. It doesn't matter how high the corporate tax rate is, so long as it is equal everywhere so corporations can't play countries off against each other to get the best deal. 

This is btw, the basis of Trump's economic plan. His whole thing is lowering the corporation tax rate to 15% to entice corporations back to america. 



Tater said:


> Methinks you're talking out of your ass on this one and have no clue what is in the TPP. unk2


I haven't read the entire thing, I have read the ISDS clause though. Which is the bit that everyone is really upset about, and it isn't that bad, it doesn't actually say a lot of the things people accuse it of. 

Like there is a whole massive section about how the copyright stuff doesn't apply to medicines during health crisis for example.




Carte Blanche said:


> Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but was denied by the electoral college.


Sorry for the late reply, this is true, it has only happened 4 times in History though, with 3 of those times happening in the 1800s. Also the idea behind it is similar to the senate, you know, to try to ensure candidates are getting a good geographical spread of the population and can't just dominate say the East Coast. 

Like in a system without the electoral college it would be far more tempting for politicians to say they'll benefit certain areas over others, because it would matter if you got 90% of the New York vote as opposed to 80%, where as in the current system any vote beyond 50% plus one is wasted and you should have spent your time appealing to voters elsewhere. 

I'm not saying its perfect or anything, but when you consider how rare it actually producing an undemocratic result is, and how much of an influence it would have day to day in keeping politicians aiming for a greater geographical spread of the country I guess I don't think it's that bad.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> That poll surveys 100 more democrats, so its obviously correct and unbiased
> 
> 
> 
> Which poll is that since I posted three polls.
> 
> And where is the break down of D vs R?
> 
> And if you are talking about the one from the site that Beatles posted that BS poll how Trump is winning PA which he is not, then you are making my point for me, how that site cannot be taken seriously. Especially since it has Hillary up big in FL when we know that is not the case. Since Trump pulled ahead in one of the polls and its pretty much a dead head in FL where as that site claims Hillary is winning by double digits which is not correct..
Click to expand...

It was in the link posted, and as always, the info is in the guts of it at the end, but you already know that.

I used to think trump being elected would be better for entertainment purposes, can you imagine his press conferences?

But now, damnit i think hillary and the possible constitutional crises she could kick up because of her corruption might be EVEN better!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> But now, damnit i think hillary and the possible constitutional crises she could kick up because of her corruption might be EVEN better!


Personally, I think that if we can't get a small government or a small government candidate in the federal government (this is a massive pipe-dream that is never going to come true because it's a contradiction to have a small government proponent voted into the biggest government in the world) - a completely lame duck and hamstrung federal government is the best kind of government we can get.

When the government was "shut down" for several months in America, that was the time for libertarians to come out and remind everyone "Look everybody. The government isn't functioning. AND NOBODY DIED!"


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Personally, I think that if we can't get a small government or a small government candidate in the federal government (this is a massive pipe-dream that is never going to come true because it's a contradiction to have a small government proponent voted into the biggest government in the world) - a completely lame duck and hamstrung federal government is the best kind of government we can get.
> 
> When the government was "shut down" for several months in America, that was the time for libertarians to come out and remind everyone "Look everybody. The government isn't functioning. AND NOBODY DIED!"


Less Government = no more welfare etc and Democrats don't want that, how else are they going to get suckers to vote for their ill conceived and racist policies? Same with Republicans, any less Government = scary people may use bathrooms and zomg legal drugs!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Less Government = no more welfare etc and Democrats don't want that, how else are they going to get suckers to vote for their ill conceived and racist policies? Same with Republicans, any less Government = scary people may use bathrooms and zomg legal drugs!


TBF, almost every politician in Florida now is pretty much pro-medical marijuana at least. 

It goes to vote again this year and was only knocked down by like a percent last time. We're very, very likely to pass it this year. The support is polling at as high as 80% this year. 

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/f...s-likely-to-pass-in-florida-this-year-8893607

BTW, what that article says about over-prescribing opioids in florida is so true. My wife got a prescription for it just for her root canal (which evidently she never even needed it and we ended up tossing afterwards).


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Whilst we all agree Gary Johnson is a moron, the principle behind this is spot on.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> Whilst we all agree Gary Johnson is a moron, the principle behind this is spot on.


I used to have this view and was very staunch about it a few years ago, but over the years and several presidential cycles later I've realized that that is a self-damning position to take and only a certain amount of privilege allows me to have that position ... The privilege that western society isn't a doom and gloom scenario where a candidate coming into power wouldn't wreak absolute havoc in my life. 

Like I've been thinking about this a lot lately and I've had a tough time coming up with an answer. What does the federal government *President *really do? Especially this late in western civilization where the roots and foundations of the society have been so deeply laid in that only a very dramatic change would cause an upset in my life. 

At the same time, considering that with-holding my vote is essentially akin to non-action - and also that my no-vote doesn't come with a voice - what's the point of a no-vote. Isn't it essentially just a result of a morality that's too rigid and somewhat based in narcissism? If you know what I mean. If I don't vote and hold on to my principles and show a lack of rigidity to budge from those principles, what am I actually contributing to society that is going to move forward without my vote and doesn't even care that I never voted?

After all this deliberation I decided to throw my support (though minimal) behind a candidate that is closer to the kinds of policy changes I would like to see (but am still pretty sure they wouldn't actually happen) than the one that isn't ... There's really nothing to be gained from all this moral superiority one gains from patting oneself on the back for "standing by his principles". I'm consistent, but at the same time flexible. There's no shame in being that way either.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Karma's a bitch huh?










- Vic


----------



## Lariat From Hell

*White nationalists plot Election Day Show of Force*

A nice little article for you guys.



BEN SCHRECKINGER said:


> *White nationalists plot Election Day show of force*
> 
> _*KKK, neo-Nazis and militias plan to monitor urban polling places and suppress the black vote.*_​
> Neo-Nazi leader Andrew Anglin plans to muster thousands of poll watchers across all 50 states. His partners at the alt-right website “the Right Stuff” are touting plans to set up hidden cameras at polling places in Philadelphia and hand out liquor and marijuana in the city’s “ghetto” on Election Day to induce residents to stay home. The National Socialist Movement, various factions of the Ku Klux Klan and the white nationalist American Freedom Party all are deploying members to watch polls, either “informally” or, they say, through the Trump campaign.
> 
> The Oath Keepers, a group of former law enforcement and military members that often shows up in public heavily armed, is advising members to go undercover and conduct “intelligence-gathering” at polling places, and Donald Trump ally Roger Stone is organizing his own exit polling, aiming to monitor thousands of precincts across the country.
> 
> Energized by Trump’s candidacy and alarmed by his warnings of a “rigged election,” white nationalist, alt-right and militia movement groups are planning to come out in full force on Tuesday, creating the potential for conflict at the close of an already turbulent campaign season
> 
> “The possibility of violence on or around Election Day is very real,” said Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center. “Donald Trump has been telling his supporters for weeks and weeks and weeks now that they are about to have the election stolen from them by evil forces on behalf of the elites.”
> 
> It is difficult to know at what scale these plans will materialize, because Anglin and his fringe-right ilk are serial exaggerators, according to Potok. And rather than successfully uncover widespread voter fraud — for which there is a lack of compelling evidence — or successfully suppress minority turnout, Potok said the efforts are most likely to backfire.
> 
> “If on the morning of Election Day it turns out that we have white supremacists standing around looking threatening at polling places, I think it would arouse anger,” he said. “People would vote just to prove they’re not being intimidated by these radical racists.”
> 
> Despite Trump’s claims that American democracy is compromised by massive voter fraud, so far in this election only one person — a Trump supporter in Iowa who attempted to vote twice — has been arrested for it. That has not stopped fringe groups already inclined to believe that minorities are stealing the election from heeding Trump’s call to monitor voting in “certain areas.”
> 
> In an email, Anglin, the editor of the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer website, said he had already led a “big voter registration drive” and that he was “sending an army of Alt-Right nationalists to watch the polls.” Anglin said he was working in conjunction with the alt-right website TheRightStuff.Biz.
> 
> A representative of that site wrote in an email: “We are organizing poll watchers in urban areas to cut down on the most traditional type of voter fraud. We also will have stationary cameras hidden at polling locations in Philadelphia, to monitor anyone that comes in to vote and make sure that the same people are not voting at multiple locations. If we see people voting in multiple locations the footage will be submitted to the [Federal Election Commission] as well as put out on social media to undermine the legitimacy of [Hillary] Clinton should she steal the election.”
> 
> The representative, who did not provide his name, went on to explain, "Many polling locations are in schools, and black schools are so disorderly that pretty much any official-looking white person with a clipboard can gain access to them ahead of time and set up a hidden camera. You don't really ever even have to speak with an adult. Simply walk in like you belong there and no one even asks you why you are there. So we usually go in teams of two, one person driving and one person dressed as a blue collar worker with a clipboard, and we set up a hidden camera in the school cafeteria. Go during lunchtime and the teachers are all so busy trying to contain the kids that no one says anything. We already have a few set up."
> 
> The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
> A senior Trump adviser told Bloomberg Businessweek last month that the campaign is working on a three-pronged voter suppression strategy that includes an effort to depress black turnout. Though other Trump advisers later pushed back on the report, Anglin’s partners say they are hoping to put Trump over the top by doing just that.
> 
> “We also have some teams going in to the ghettos in Philly with 40s and weed to give out to the local residents, which we think will lead to more of them staying home. We have had success with this in the past,” wrote the representative of TheRightStuff.biz, who said four teams of two employed this tactic in Detroit during the Democratic primary in an effort to help Bernie Sanders. “40s” are 40-ounce bottles of malt liquor. POLITICO could not independently verify his claims.
> 
> It remains an open question whether the neo-Nazis’ plans materialize, and to what extent.
> 
> Mark Pitcavage, who monitors extremists for the Anti-Defamation League, said Anglin lacks a track record of organizing real-world action and that he was skeptical he could “get even close” to what he was promising.
> More concrete, said Pitcavage, are the plans of the Oath Keepers, a militia movement group formed in 2009. It has thousands of active members, drawn largely from the ranks of former military, law enforcement, intelligence and first responders, and a track record of mustering heavily armed members in public places.
> 
> The group issued a statement last month claiming that James O’Keefe’s latest Project Veritas video provided evidence of “a well-orchestrated campaign of criminal vote fraud on an industrial scale” and urging members “to form up incognito intelligence-gathering and crime spotting teams and go out into public on Election Day, dressed to blend in with the public.” The group said it believed most vote-rigging was “leftist” but that it would seek to expose fraud committed by anyone. Last week, The Washington Post reported that the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law would ask the Justice Department to investigate the group’s Election Day plans.
> 
> Stone, who first began advising Trump in the ’80s and describes the alt-right as “the new mainstream,” has also come under scrutiny for his Election Day plans. The Republican operative — less concerned with fraud committed by voters than with vote-rigging by elections officials — is organizing a volunteer exit-polling operation he hopes will reach 7,000 precincts that he sees as prone to rigging because of the voting methods employed and their one-party control. Stone said the precincts targeted included 2,000 in Philadelphia as well as some Republican-controlled areas in Ohio, though he declined to specify where. “If I told you, I would be warning the [Republican Gov. John] Kasich machine,” he said.
> 
> Stone said he planned to present his findings to Trump and that he would consider any deviation of more than 2 percent between his exit polls and the posted precinct totals to be suspicious, citing the State Department’s standard for monitoring foreign elections.
> 
> But it is doubtful that a hastily assembled volunteer effort could result in reliable exit polling data, and Potok warned, “Anything he would produce would merely create more conflict and not lead us any closer to the truth of what happens out there.”
> 
> Other groups are combining poll-watching with more traditional forms of politicking, including leafleting, rallies and get-out-the-vote efforts.
> 
> Jeff Schoep, leader of the National Socialist Movement, said he was organizing a Saturday rally at the Pennsylvania Statehouse in Harrisburg, where he expected between 75 and a few hundred people to show up, to mobilize supporters ahead of the election. Schoep said the party, which has not officially endorsed Trump though its members overwhelmingly support him, would deploy “informal” poll watchers through its roughly 50 chapters across the country.
> 
> William Johnson, chairman of the American Freedom Party and an advocate of deporting nonwhites from the United States, said his party members are working through Trump’s operation rather than organizing their own efforts.
> “We have some of our members that are doing poll watching, but they’re not doing it as American Freedom Party members,” he said. “They’re doing it through the Trump campaign.”
> 
> “We have a lot of people that are involved with the get-out-the-vote through the various Trump organizations,” said the Los Angeles-based Johnson, who added that the party’s California members are focused on aiding the Trump campaign in Nevada.
> 
> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/suppress-black-vote-trump-campaign-230616#ixzz4OssAQkHZ


No matter who you vote for, please report any voter intimidation you see. We can't let thugs and white supremacists influence the election. Let's try our best to have as clean of an Election Day as possible.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:trump 's lead in Georgia and Missouri expanding and Arizona looks like it's going to stay GOP.*

Hillary's lead in CO down to 2.3 points.*

*In the newest Emerson college polls.

http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_6ee2070379ba4a88bff29b1fa5aae9e0.pdf

Clinton really has 43.5 and :trump 41.2, they just rounded the numbers to 44/41. 

And look at who's getting 8% in Colorado. Johnson isn't going to get anywhere near 8% in CO on election day. He's sliding back down to 2-3% basically everywhere.

The preference cascade just might be real. Hillary's melting down.

If her campaign had any new bombshells on :trump they would have released them by now. It's Wednesday. If they had anything they should have released it Monday to try to stop his momentum as fast as they could. They haven't.

Hillary better hope she wins early voting in swing states by like 35%.

If the trends continue for the next 6 days :trump might actually win this thing. Incredible.


----------



## Lariat From Hell

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The current forecast from 538:








*Source*


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

^Which is like a 25% increase in :trump 's chances in a week. If it keeps up it'll be 50-50 by next Tuesday.


----------



## Lariat From Hell

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> ^*Which is like a **25%* increase in :trump 's chances in a week. If it keeps up it'll be 50-50 by next Tuesday.






















You might want to actually look at the numbers instead of sounding like a Valley Girl.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Oops I was off by like 4 days. Don't feel bad, :trump will be president for you too.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

My impression is that 538 is accounting a major possibility of a polling error than the other forecasts. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793553664724140032
If you see the tweet, all the forecasts have behave in the same way, the only difference is in the level of movement. So there is probably two differences between them: 1)correlation between state results, 2)acceptance of different levels of systemic polling error (mainly from non response-bias)

Anyway, early voting is moving toward the numbers of PEC, Daily Kos and the Upshot. 538 seems like an outlier in term of possibilities, if there is indeed a polling error they're gonna be heroes but take on account that what the model is saying is that even in that scenary Trump possibilities only get to 30%. I expect their numbers to regress to the level of the other forecast by the end of the week and no the contrary based in normal movement of the elections towards the end, if not i think we could really have a race if there's some unexpected scenario like Trump carrying a massive turnout among white blue collar guys.

A movement of 15% in a week seems more like an hyper responding forecast than anything else


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:heston



> *“We also have some teams going in to the ghettos in Philly with 40s and weed to give out to the local residents,* which we think will lead to more of them staying home. We have had success with this in the past,” wrote the representative of TheRightStuff.biz, who said four teams of two employed this tactic in Detroit during the Democratic primary in an effort to help Bernie Sanders. “40s” are 40-ounce bottles of malt liquor. POLITICO could not independently verify his claims.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> :heston


LMAO is that article from the Onion? That whole thing sounds completely silly.


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> My impression is that 538 is accounting a major possibility of a polling error than the other forecasts.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793553664724140032
> If you see the tweet, all the forecasts have behave in the same way, the only difference is in the level of movement. So there is probably two differences between them: 1)correlation between state results, 2)acceptance of different levels of systemic polling error (mainly from non response-bias)
> 
> Anyway, early voting is moving toward the numbers of PEC, Daily Kos and the Upshot and 538 seems like an outlier in term of possibilities. If there is indeed a polling error they're gonna be heroes, logically but i expect their numbers to regress to the level of the other forecast by the end of the week and no the contrary.
> 
> A movement of 15% in a week seems more like an hyper responding forecast than anything else


I think Nate Silver doesn't want to to tarnish his reputation for his pinpoint accuracy, so he's hedging his bets so in the case of any upsets he can say he was closer than anyone else....


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> LMAO is that article from the Onion? That whole thing sounds completely silly.


Yeah. Right Stuff.biz is a right-wing (sort of satire/sort of not) blog with the purpose of triggering the regressive left through extreme humor so I'm not surprised that politico and whoever this guy is that posted that article in here thinks that some of the stuff cited in that article is actual truth. Most of it is obvious Poe. 

:heston


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Bernie Sanders supported by white supremacists! 

Where are all the BernieBros to tell us how Bernie should drop out of politics in shame.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*HORY SHET!* 

http://observer.com/2016/11/bernie-sanders-abandons-clinton-in-final-week/


SANDERS DISAVOWS CLINTON!!!!


THE FUCK.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793900933142970372
Okay, that was funny. :lol


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> *HORY SHET!*
> 
> http://observer.com/2016/11/bernie-sanders-abandons-clinton-in-final-week/
> 
> 
> SANDERS DISAVOWS CLINTON!!!!
> 
> 
> THE FUCK.


That racist misogynist asshole!


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Suppose Bernard knows something we don't?

Edit: Before BM screams at me as if he were Seymour Skinner's mother, THIS IS UNCONFIRMED.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Eh, pretty sensationalist headline. Nothing too surprising or game-changing in that article. He still wants her elected president.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Suppose Bernard knows something we don't?


He doesn't like the Clintons obviously and he thinks she's going to win. He wants his supporters to stick by him and is signaling to them that he's not going to be a lapdog in a Clinton presidency and for him to do that successfully they need to stick by him. Bernie Sanders with 10 million+ BernieBros on his side is a lot more formidable than Bernie Sanders with a couple million BernieBros on his side.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cabanarama said:


> I think Nate Silver doesn't want to to tarnish his reputation for his pinpoint accuracy, so he's hedging his bets so in the case of any upsets he can say he was closer than anyone else....


I think, based on the ridicule articles on the page that he's just looking for clicks. He has slowly muted into a pundit. I still love Harry Enten but yeah.

He could be right, Trump could win, and i still would think the same. His idiocy in the primaries was also astounding


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Moving on from that:


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Moving on from that:


This brings in something to perspective...

We have people crying and moaning to take down statues of the forefathers because they were slave owners, despite at the time slavery was accepted.

But we have people who are willing to make a lying, utterly corrupt, racist, sexist, rape apologist and possible pedo in Hillary Clinton President? Why? Because she has a vag? Society today confuses me!

Imagine if Obama pardons her before leaving office.. lol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> Bernie Sanders supported by white supremacists!
> 
> Where are all the BernieBros to tell us how Bernie should drop out of politics in shame.


Not only that, you'd have to be racially stereotyping ghetto blacks to assume that they can be swayed by weed and 40s anyways and not do any actual digging :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Not only that, you'd have to be racially stereotyping ghetto blacks to assume that they can be swayed by weed and 40s anyways and not do any actual digging :lol


ROFL next article "We stopped Latino voters by showing up to Home Depot and making them all work on election day. We bribed the ones on welfare with beans and tortillas and packs of Corona"


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Moving on from that:


Your desperation is really reaching 11 now isn't it? She's a pedophile now? Jesus.


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> I think, based on the ridicule articles on the page that he's just looking for clicks. He has slowly muted into a pundit. I still love Harry Enten but yeah.
> 
> He could be right, Trump could win, and i still would think the same. His idiocy in the primaries was also astounding


I still trust his aggregate data and poll adjustments/ weights, but I don't even pay attention to the analysis of it anymore.
His error in the primaries was that he went against facts and data and made predictions based on his own subjective speculation, which went against his entire concept of what his site is about. 

I wonder how much ESPN is responsible for the site deteriorating. A large number of the articles are filler click bait, which are probably to fulfill some sort of quota for pumping out at a certain rate and getting enough views...

I also think him getting the primaries wrong may be a factor in him having closer percentages, as he doesn't feel as confident as he has in past years as well.


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> This brings in something to perspective...
> 
> We have people crying and moaning to take down statues of the forefathers because they were slave owners, despite at the time slavery was accepted.
> 
> But we have people who are willing to make a lying, utterly corrupt, racist, sexist, rape apologist and possible pedo in Hillary Clinton President? Why? Because she has a vag? Society today confuses me!
> 
> Imagine if Obama pardons her before leaving office.. lol


Is there any actual proof these people are part of Sex Slave rings or is this just wishful thinking and conspriacy theories.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Your desperation is really reaching 11 now isn't it? She's a pedophile now? Jesus.


Would it surprise you? Would anything by either candidate at this point? We're living in crazy town this cycle. It might not be true, but we just had debate rigging and Weiner-wagging. Anything could happen. Crooks chasing cops! Cats having puppies! AUSSIES USING TAXI CABS INSTEAD OF KANGAROOS! :sk


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ShiningStar said:


> Is there any actual proof these people are part of Sex Slave rings or is this just wishful thinking and conspriacy theories.


It's the same kind of wishful thinking and conspiracy theories you see on the other side levying against Trump - so what we're seeing is a reactionary over-exaggeration and hyperbole designed to sway voters, or create more loyalty. 

Now I don't agree with the tactics employed, but if one side's playing dirty as fuck, then pretty sure it's literally now just counter-punching as a means of self-defense. 

There's no point in obtaining or retaining a higher ground. This is politics after all. Everyone's dirty, but when one side has gone to the lengths of calling a candidate Hitler and written article after article justifying the comparison, brainwashed billions of people around the globe, then a few counter-punches here and there while ineffective deserve to be thrown right back.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> :heston


I wish they'd offer me free weed and booze.

I mean, I'd still go vote and then go to work, but when I come home, it'd be a goddamn fiesta. :woo


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ShiningStar said:


> Is there any actual proof these people are part of Sex Slave rings or is this just wishful thinking and conspriacy theories.


Can you not read? I said "possible" possible isn't evidence of fact. You ignore the rest and bring that up is pretty sad.


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Moving on from that:


dude seriously.....
Some random dude on twitter, who's surely a fake account (an alt-Reicht follower who describes himself selfish as a "Jewish New York Lawyer" with a profile pic that very closely resembles the Jewish caricatures from Nazi Germany, , posting screenshots from some random person on Facebook who has a "friend" in the NYPD (since when does the NYPD have access to top level FBI info?)
I know Trump supporters don't care about the truth or facts, but even for a Trump supporter this has to be very farfetched, no?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793900933142970372
> Okay, that was funny. :lol


Johnson knows his campaign is FUBAR, so he's just *rolling* with it. :trump

Funnily enough, his gaffes and that bit have made him come off as human much like Trump's braggadocio and Bernie's pluckiness. And all Hilldog can do in response is spout off scripted tripe that you swear was written in the style approved by Vince Meekmahan.


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

To be fair Trump in his own words has complimented Putin,Kim Jung Il,Hussein and Al Assad. More specifically he has defened Putin's jailing of Reporters who disagree with him. It's another false equivalency people have when they say both are awful and people are being Hyperbolic about Trump. He certainly has done nothing bad as Hitler but he is the first major party candidate I can recall who has ever praised Authortarian Dictators who jail political dissidents. Throw in the fact he has stated he wants to weaken libel laws and it's easy to see why even some High Profile Republicans fear him.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This election is so insane that I won't believe it is over after Election Day, or after the Electoral College makes the results official. I won't believe it until January 20, 2017, when one of these two says the following words with the world watching...

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God."


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> It's the same kind of wishful thinking and conspiracy theories you see on the other side levying against Trump - so what we're seeing is a reactionary over-exaggeration and hyperbole designed to sway voters, or create more loyalty.
> 
> Now I don't agree with the tactics employed, but if one side's playing dirty as fuck, then pretty sure it's literally now just counter-punching as a means of self-defense.
> 
> There's no point in obtaining or retaining a higher ground. This is politics after all. Everyone's dirty, but when one side has gone to the lengths of calling a candidate Hitler and written article after article justifying the comparison, brainwashed billions of people around the globe, then a few counter-punches here and there while ineffective deserve to be thrown right back.


There's a big difference between hyperbolic rhetoric and outright making shit up...
A more equal comparison to labeling Trump as Hitler would be the right's labeling of Obama as a commie or socialist . This has been going on for a long time, the left has been labeling Republicans as fascists while the right has been labeling Democrats as socialists/ communists....
Both sides do a lot of the same tactics. When it comes to Trump and Bill's accusers, both sides are equally guilty of automatically buying into one side's accusers as fact while automatically labeling the others as lying. Both sides will spin things around to great lengths distort them into their favor or make a bigger deal of it than it actually is. Both sides will even take things that are true and fill in the holes with bullshit to present the agenda, or build a foundation base on truth and then pile bullshit on top of it. But only the Republicans will just straight up make shit up out of thin air. We've seen them doing that with Obama for years, and now they're doing it with Hillary. The sad thing is with Hillary, is that unlike Obama, they have plenty of legit stuff to go after with that they don't even have to make shit up, but they still do.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ShiningStar said:


> To be fair Trump in his own words has complimented Putin,Kim Jung Il,Hussein and Al Assad. More specifically he has defened Putin's jailing of Reporters who disagree with him. It's another false equivalency people have when they say both are awful and people are being Hyperbolic about Trump. He certainly has done nothing bad as Hitler but he is the first major party candidate I can recall who has ever praised Authortarian Dictators who jail political dissidents. Throw in the fact he has stated he wants to weaken libel laws and it's easy to see why even some High Profile Republicans fear him.


Hillary has called Margret Sanger and Robert Byrd idols and they're both racist. She called blacks super predators. :hbkshrug


Also the media needs to be held more accountable for what they put out as fact. This election has proven that the media is completely biased and not above putting out false information, they should be held to a higher standard, media that reports on facts shouldn't be one step above tabloid as it is now. There needs to be more responsibility and less biased garbage. Stories with weak supporting facts shouldn't be treated as gospel and neither should stories with facts be buried because they might be offensive or don't fight our political climate or some agenda.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cabanarama said:


> There's a big difference between hyperbolic rhetoric and outright making shit up...
> A more equal comparison to labeling Trump as Hitler would be the right's labeling of Obama as a commie or socialist . This has been going on for a long time, the left has been labeling Republicans as fascists while the right has been labeling Democrats as socialists/ communists....
> Both sides do a lot of the same tactics. When it comes to Trump and Bill's accusers, both sides are equally guilty of automatically buying into one side's accusers as fact while automatically labeling the others as lying. Both sides will spin things around to great lengths distort them into their favor or make a bigger deal of it than it actually is. Both sides will even take things that are true and fill in the holes with bullshit to present the agenda, or build a foundation base on truth and then pile bullshit on top of it. But only the Republicans will just straight up make shit up out of thin air. We've seen them doing that with Obama for years, and now they're doing it with Hillary. The sad thing is with Hillary, is that unlike Obama, they have plenty of legit stuff to go after with that they don't even have to make shit up, but they still do.


Obama and the democrats are socialists. You need to look up what socialism means.

And calling someone a socialist does not compare at all to calling someone Hitler LMAO. The only reason why democrats have a problem with being called socialists is because they don't know what socialism means- and yet most of their agenda is based upon trying implement various forms of socialism when they have power.


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> This election is so insane that I won't believe it is over after Election Day, or after the Electoral College makes the results official. I won't believe it until January 20, 2017, when one of these two says the following words with the world watching...
> 
> "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God."


At this point, I wouldn't at all be surprised that if Hillary wins the EC by a slim margin, that some of the Republicans from the states that she won become faithless electors and prevent her from taking the presidency...


----------



## Lariat From Hell

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cabanarama said:


> dude seriously.....
> Some random dude on twitter, who's surely a fake account (an alt-Reicht follower who describes himself selfish as a "Jewish New York Lawyer" with a profile pic that very closely resembles the Jewish caricatures from Nazi Germany, , posting screenshots from some random person on Facebook who has a "friend" in the NYPD (since when does the NYPD have access to top level FBI info?)
> I know Trump supporters don't care about the truth or facts, but even for a Trump supporter this has to be very farfetched, no?


The image seems to be popular on Stormfront, and we all know the reputation it has. If you search it on Google, the image has been around for quite some time as well. Using that account for any sort of "news" would not be very wise.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cabanarama said:


> dude seriously.....
> Some random dude on twitter, who's surely a fake account (an alt-Reicht follower who describes himself selfish as a "Jewish New York Lawyer" with a profile pic that very closely resembles the Jewish caricatures from Nazi Germany, , posting screenshots from some random person on Facebook who has a "friend" in the NYPD (since when does the NYPD have access to top level FBI info?)
> I know Trump supporters don't care about the truth or facts, but even for a Trump supporter this has to be very farfetched, no?


annnnd you lost me as soon as you tried claiming superiority based on an electoral choice.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Diamond Taurus said:


> The image seems to be popular on Stormfront, and we all know the reputation it has. If you search it on Google, the image has been around for quite some time as well. Using that account for any sort of "news" would not be very wise.


You're one to talk considering that you started the whole white nationalist thing by posting an article by a "journalist" who posted shit from a Poe site :heston


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump ahead in Virginia :ha suck it Clinton campaign


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Would it surprise you? Would anything by either candidate at this point? We're living in crazy town this cycle. It might not be true, but we just had debate rigging and Weiner-wagging. Anything could happen. Crooks chasing cops! Cats having puppies! AUSSIES USING TAXI CABS INSTEAD OF KANGAROOS! :sk


1986 called. They want your 'humour' about Aussies back.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> 1986 called. They want your 'humour' about Aussies back.


Considering that the Aussies are taking down video games from store shelves, refusing to play a movie in theaters because it might contain ideas that people can't be exposed to and that children are going to be indoctrinated into the completely bogus male privilege theory, meanwhile growing up in a society where certain localities (and entire states) simply no longer has any jobs for them, I think that you should be glad he made an outdated joke. 

The present age Australia is a joke in and of itself :shrug


----------



## Lariat From Hell

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> You're one to talk considering that you started the whole white nationalist thing by posting an article by a "journalist" who posted shit from a Poe site :heston


It's common knowledge that it was trolling. I believe my point simply said that you should report any instances of voter intimidation a la Black Panthers in 2008. Just because The Right Stuff was trolling doesn't mean others don't hold the sentiment on both sides. If you want to go and defend Stormfront, that's fine, but it is independent of the point I was making.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

At this point, this is my feelings towards the country:


----------



## Lariat From Hell

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> Trump ahead in Virginia :ha suck it Clinton campaign


I see that Hampton's poll shows a Trump lead, but not anywhere else.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Diamond Taurus said:


> It's common knowledge that it was trolling. I believe my point simply said that you should report any instances of voter intimidation a la Black Panthers in 2008. Just because The Right Stuff was trolling doesn't mean others don't hold the sentiment on both sides. If you want to go and defend Stormfront, that's fine, but it is independent of the point I was making.












I don't give a shit about Stormfront. But I do give a shit about people claiming that the opposing side's sources are shit when they themselves have no actual filters in place when they read something that aligns with their belief systems. 

This goes for both sides.

Plus if you were aware that this was a faux pas you would've mentioned that -- but you somehow read that black people were swayed by weed and 40's and thought, "you know what, black people do like weed a lot and ghettos are so drug-riddled, I guess it must be true".


----------



## Lariat From Hell

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> I don't give a shit about Stormfront. But I do give a shit about people claiming that the opposing side's sources are shit when they themselves have no actual filters in place when they read something that aligns with their belief systems.
> 
> This goes for both sides.
> 
> *Plus if you were aware that this was a faux pas you would've mentioned that -- but you somehow read that black people were swayed by weed and 40's and thought, "you know what, black people do like weed a lot and ghettos are so drug-riddled, I guess it must be true".*


If you believe that about black people, that's fine, but don't transfer those beliefs over to me. I mentioned my reasoning for sharing it, which was sentiment more so than believing every little thing like the author did. If you want to continue, that's fine.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The hour is late. The election is at hand. Voter turnout through early voting is higher than in 2012. Much of that enthusiasm is naturally based on the fear and loathing of the "other side's" candidate.

Now, however, is the time for clearheaded analysis so that we may truly understand the 2016 general election in its multifarious permutations and dimensions. 

This political documentary that runs not quite five minutes in duration is noteworthy for its educational value:






Theoden = Donald Trump

Aragorn = Mike Pence

Gimli = Stephen Bannon

Eowyn (who's not in this scene) = Ivanka Trump

Legolas = Milo Yiannopoulos 

Gandalf the White = Julian Assange 

Thank you, and see you at the turn of the tide... :hglol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Sargon Of Akkad on the American Election - drawing parallels with Brexit. Well worth the watch even though some parts of it aren't up to par. 

He's ignoring the electoral college which will still have a greater influence in my prediction than people are giving them regard for at the moment, but it's still well worth the listen.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> The hour is late. The election is at hand. Voter turnout through early voting is higher than in 2012. Much of that enthusiasm is naturally based on the fear and loathing of the "other side's" candidate.
> 
> Now, however, is the time for clearheaded analysis so that we may truly understand the 2016 general election in its multifarious permutations and dimensions.
> 
> This political documentary that runs not quite five minutes in duration is noteworthy for its educational value:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theoden = Donald Trump
> 
> Aragorn = Mike Pence
> 
> Gimli = Stephen Bannon
> 
> Eowyn (who's not in this scene) = Ivanka Trump
> 
> Legolas = Milo Yiannopoulos
> 
> Gandalf the White = Julian Assange
> 
> Thank you, and see you at the turn of the tide... :hglol


May I commend you for the humorous interlude to your series of continued skillful contributions of impressive grammar and witticism laden history lesson - laced Trump support. No matter the big result, I declare your contributions the highlight of the season! May I suggest you release a special edition smoking jacket, pipe, monocle and civil war era rifle set? I assure no price will be too high for this admirer.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> May I commend you for the humorous interlude to your series of continued skillful contributions of impressive grammar and witticism laden history lesson - laced Trump support. No matter the big result, I declare your contributions the highlight of the season! May I suggest you release a special edition smoking jacket, pipe, monocle and civil war era rifle set? I assure no price will be too high for this admirer.


:lol

Thank you, good sir! Your majestically gracious proclamation via Wrestling Forum communique is most humbly accepted.  :lol


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> The hour is late. The election is at hand. Voter turnout through early voting is higher than in 2012. Much of that enthusiasm is naturally based on the fear and loathing of the "other side's" candidate.
> 
> Now, however, is the time for clearheaded analysis so that we may truly understand the 2016 general election in its multifarious permutations and dimensions.
> 
> This political documentary that runs not quite five minutes in duration is noteworthy for its educational value:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theoden = Donald Trump
> 
> Aragorn = Mike Pence
> 
> Gimli = Stephen Bannon
> 
> Eowyn (who's not in this scene) = Ivanka Trump
> 
> Legolas = Milo Yiannopoulos
> 
> Gandalf the White = Julian Assange
> 
> Thank you, and see you at the turn of the tide... :hglol


LOL all those blood thirsty paid "leftist" protesters!


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If you look back at this election cycle, who has done the actual "bullying?" I'm asking you to honestly assess this and give me your answer. 

This is what I've seen: If you have a Trump sign in your lawn, someone will steal it. If you have a Trump bumper sticker, someone will deface your car. If you express support for Trump on a college campus, you get harassed. If you're an executive who donated to Trump, you are pressured to step down. If you show up at a Trump rally, you might have to fend off violent paid protesters, etc. The list could go on and on. 

Yesterday, creator of the Dilbert comic strip, Scott Adams, came out and voiced his support for Trump. This man has been liberal most his life, so why the change of heart? He said he was tired of all the bullying. 

He had been covering the election from an independent standpoint; but when he wrote in his blog that the Democrats seemed to be engaging in an intimidation game, he was immediately attacked by left-wing media outlets: Huffington Post, Salon, and Daily Kos all published hit pieces the next day, thus confirming his point and sending him over the edge. 

In the aftermath, this is what he ended up writing:



> Team Clinton has succeeded in perpetuating one of the greatest evils I have seen in my lifetime. Her side has branded Trump supporters (40%+ of voters) as Nazis, sexists, homophobes, racists, and a few other fighting words. Their argument is built on confirmation bias and persuasion.
> 
> Yes, yes, I realize Trump supporters say bad things about Clinton supporters too. I don’t defend the bad apples on either side. I’ll just point out that Trump’s message is about uniting all Americans under one flag. The Clinton message is that some Americans are good people and the other 40% are some form of deplorables, deserving of shame, vandalism, punishing taxation, and violence.
> 
> She has literally turned Americans on each other. It is hard for me to imagine a worse thing for a presidential candidate to do. I’ll say that again. As far as I can tell, the worst thing a presidential candidate can do is turn Americans against each other. Clinton is doing that, intentionally.


I support this assessment because I don't do well with bullies either. It's about time we show the "New-Left," which is no longer the party of JFK or FDR, that they've pulled the tiger's tail for too long and awoken the sleeping giant.

- Vic


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

MSNBC also turned on Hillary:






:lol

- Vic


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> If you look back at this election cycle, who has done the actual "bullying?" I'm asking you to honestly assess this and give me your answer.
> 
> This is what I've seen: If you have a Trump sign in your lawn, someone will steal it. If you have a Trump bumper sticker, someone will deface your car. If you express support for Trump on a college campus, you get harassed. If you're an executive who donated to Trump, you are pressured to step down. If you show up at a Trump rally, you might have to fend off violent paid protesters, etc. The list could go on and on.
> 
> Yesterday, creator of the Dilbert comic strip, Scott Adams, came out and voiced his support for Trump. This man has been liberal most his life, so why the change of heart? He said he was tired of all the bullying.
> 
> He had been covering the election from an independent standpoint; but when he wrote in his blog that the Democrats seemed to be engaging in an intimidation game, he was immediately attacked by left-wing media outlets: Huffington Post, Salon, and Daily Kos all published hit pieces the next day, thus confirming his point and sending him over the edge.
> 
> In the aftermath, this is what he ended up writing:
> 
> 
> 
> I support this assessment because I don't do well with bullies either. It's about time we show the "New-Left," which is no longer the party of JFK or FDR, that they've pulled the tiger's tail for too long and awoken the sleeping giant.
> 
> - Vic


Do you yourself believe in confirmation bias? My observation is you've been very Pro Trump from day one, therefore do you accept the possibility of consciously or not consciously primarily concerning yourself only with news about Pro Trumpers being victimised and bullied by the other side and avoiding or discounting any contrary viewpoint? With the outcome of course of re-affirming your pre-conceived world view and avoiding any challenge of it?

Because that can certainly slant things a lot  - Maybe the new left has been bullying more, but can you honestly look at yourself in the mirror and be satisfied you've got all sides of the story?

(BTW don't take this is me saying I'm above any sort of bias, I'm certainly not)


My viewpoint is bullying in all it's forms is not a left thing, or a right thing, or a Hillary supporters thing, it's a human thing and it's something we've probably all done and all been a victim of as well. If there's more bullying on Hillary side of things against Trump then why? There's something in the new left culture that makes it's members feel elite and superior but insecure and cowardly at the same time so they feel they need to bully opponents? Or lefties are just assholes maybe.

As far as Mr Dilbert goes, I certainly don't consider him independent as you say. Camille Punk posted him first months and months ago and he was clearly Pro Trump all the way.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> MSNBC also turned on Hillary:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lol
> 
> - Vic


I'm sure that's out of context as fuck but it's still great, just like the Michael Moore clip. :lol


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> If you look back at this election cycle, who has done the actual "bullying?" I'm asking you to honestly assess this and give me your answer.


Liberal values, as I've always understood them, are standing up to bullies, fighting for the working class and being anti-war. The New Left, as they are called, have become the bullies, their leader is a lackey for the owner class and she's one of the biggest war mongers on the planet, which is basically the exact opposite of what liberals are supposed to stand for. My values haven't changed. I still believe that fighting to help the downtrodden is the right thing to do. What's changed is the people who call themselves liberals. They have forgotten the values that made them liberals in the first place. Then they bully you if you don't fall in line and support their gorgon queen.

A principled liberal doesn't care what the beliefs are of the downtrodden. They only care that they are downtrodden. Meaning, you can be a transvestite or a Mormon or anything in-between. If you are the one being oppressed, you are the one the liberal sides with. What the New Left "liberals" believe is that they should have the right to force their beliefs on you. The reason I have hated the right for so many decades is because they were the Christian assholes who wanted everyone to live by their set of beliefs. Now that they are losing their power, the New Left has come along and they are the ones being the oppressors. Well, if you are supposed to be fighting oppression but then you become the oppressors, you are no better than the people who were doing the oppressing in the first place. The whole point is supposed to be equality and no one being oppressed. Somewhere along the way, those fighting oppression forgot that.

TBF, Trump and plenty of his shithead supporters are still bullies in their own right but they have always been the shitheads of society. That's not to say that all of Trump's supporters are shitheads but it would not be fair to point out the shitheads of the New Left without acknowledging the shitheads of the right.

Me personally, I'll tell anyone to fuck off if they think they have the right to tell anyone else how to live their lives. It doesn't matter to me where you land on the left-right spectrum. 

To answer the "who has done the bullying?" question... bullies. From both sides. It's hard to say which side is worse because both sides point at the bullying from the other side to distract from their own bullying. Even if one side is technically worse than the other, both have passed the point of claiming any kind of innocence.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cabanarama said:


> At this point, I wouldn't at all be surprised that if Hillary wins the EC by a slim margin, that some of the Republicans from the states that she won become faithless electors and prevent her from taking the presidency...


Twenty-seven states require that the people that are selected as part of the EC are required to vote for the candidate the vote ends up shaking out for. Although, the way this whole thing has gone (and now the Cubs winning the World Series means the seventh seal of the Apocalypse might have been opened), rogue EC voters voting their conscience absolutely would not surprise me. 

Our government is broken right now. When you now have the top cop (FBI director Comey) being used or being a political pawn himself, you know the whole thing is just fucked up. No matter who gets elected, it's going to be more of the same big government bullshit. And, yes Trumpamaniacs...that refers to your man every bit as much as HRC. We need an Article V Convention of States more than ever. I signed my name on the petition...if anyone is interested and wants more info...

www.cosaction.com


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> Twenty-seven states require that the people that are selected as part of the EC are required to vote for the candidate the vote ends up shaking out for. Although, the way this whole thing has gone (and now the Cubs winning the World Series means the seventh seal of the Apocalypse might have been opened), rogue EC voters voting their conscience absolutely would not surprise me.
> 
> Our government is broken right now. When you now have the top cop (FBI director Comey) being used or being a political pawn himself, you know the whole thing is just fucked up. No matter who gets elected, it's going to be more of the same big government bullshit. And, yes Trumpamaniacs...that refers to your man every bit as much as HRC. We need an Article V Convention of States more than ever. I signed my name on the petition...if anyone is interested and wants more info...
> 
> www.cosaction.com


Still shaking my head over here KC..you think you are helping us, but you aren't. You are being no more helpful than John Kaisich is writing in McCain. Just another reason my depression is at an all time high.


But, in the interest of LOLZ:


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So, Trump oficially broke Nate Silver :lmao

Poor guy, he also was taking shots at PEC early and had to delete the tweet


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> So, Trump oficially broke Nate Silver :lmao
> 
> Poor guy, he also was taking shots at PEC early and had to delete the tweet


TBF That tweet was from back in May, but *HOW DO YA LIKE IT NOW, NATE?!!* >:quite:sk0


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Bleh, the guy is just covering his ass now. Obama ended 2012 with a 73.6% of wining in his forecast. Hillary sits at 66,6% currently and he is just shit tweetting possibilities in which Trump win to be right in any case, ESPN is mad at him or something?

If Trump wins, the guy wins, accept you can be wrong and move on


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> Still shaking my head over here KC..you think you are helping us, but you aren't. You are being no more helpful than John Kaisich is writing in McCain. Just another reason my depression is at an all time high.
> 
> 
> But, in the interest of LOLZ:


You are the ones who pushed through a liberal Democrat for the GOP nominee not me. You and many other deplorables played right into the hands of the Dems who knew Trump running was HRC's best chance to win. So this is on you. I warned of what would happen and you went ahead and did it.

I am only helping to clean up the mess by voting down ticket for the idiots who say they will vote for Trump and punish the folks who rejected him not realizing that SCOTUS depends on who is in the Senate. The blueprint was there but was ignored. Running liberals against liberals does not work. 

Trump said he doesn't need my vote so he gets his wish. Maybe when we truly hit rock bottom we can start the climb back but I am not bailing out the voting public this time. Meet the new boss same as the old boss. Trump will provide more of the same shit we have seen and nothing will change.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Early voting results:

Cliffnotes: 

- Lower Black voter turnout
- Clinton could potentially flip Arizona
- Trump has made Colorado competitive
- Florida likely to swing even more towards GOP
- Georgia has a significantly lower black voter turnout than 2012
- Iowa turnout is lower than 2012, but Clinton leading not as much as Dems did in 2012
- NC black voter turnout also lower, but going Dems way
- Dems leading by a pretty wide margin in Nevada
- Dems nowhere near GOP in Ohio. 

Very similar results to 2012 at around the same stage, however, the worrying stat for Dems is lower black turnout in most of these states. When they eventually vote, they will probably swing the election the democrat's way because it's unlikely that in 8 days they'll change their affiliation from 2012 or just won't vote at all (which is unlikely for the same people who voted early 4 years ago). 



Spoiler: Spoiler for bunch of images


























































Source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/01/politics/early-voting-update-black-vote-decreasing/index.html


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Early voting results:
> 
> Cliffnotes:
> 
> - Lower Black voter turnout
> - Clinton could potentially flip Arizona
> - Trump has made Colorado competitive
> - Florida likely to swing even more towards GOP
> - Georgia has a significantly lower black voter turnout than 2012
> - Iowa turnout is lower than 2012, but Clinton leading not as much as Dems did in 2012
> - NC black voter turnout also lower, but going Dems way
> - Dems leading by a pretty wide margin in Nevada
> - Dems nowhere near GOP in Ohio.
> 
> Very similar results to 2012 at around the same stage, however, the worrying stat for Dems is lower black turnout in most of these states. When they eventually vote, they will probably swing the election the democrat's way because it's unlikely that in 8 days they'll change their affiliation from 2012 or just won't vote at all (which is unlikely for the same people who voted early 4 years ago).
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Spoiler for bunch of images
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/01/politics/early-voting-update-black-vote-decreasing/index.html


I think no one was expecting a similar turnout of AA for dems after Obama. Raw numbers are similar, the problem is Whites and Hispanics have increased their regsitration and AA not

The thing is, Trump immigration plan and rethoric is increasing Hispanic numbers of turnout which will compensate anyway (You live and die by the sword as they say..). Puerto Ricans had a 20% increase all over the map in Florida, same thing is happening in AZ, NC and NV and this is going to affect Trump numbers with independents as well.

Trump can win OH and IA, even Florida. And it doesn't matter if he can't pull out NV and NC


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Sorry the doble post but about polarization

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793872116735180801

Note how the Republicans move big after Obama's election (And how polarization is a result of constant movement by them) and then how democrats move aswell in 2012 as an answer to the previous Republican movements. At the same time it shows how republican have been fluctuating between moderates and conservatives while democrats keep going to the left


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> So, Trump oficially broke Nate Silver :lmao
> 
> Poor guy, he also was taking shots at PEC early and had to delete the tweet


This year has been tough for analytics or conventional wisdom. The underdogs have defied the odds more than usual in team sports this year. Leceister City, Cleveland Cavs, Western Bulldogs. Cubs vs Indians with the winner beating another title drought just adds to it.

I think Trump just added to it.

:lmao


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

All I can say at this point is thank God the shittiest election in our country's history is almost over. 

Can we just get it over with now? Can we just pick our crappy president and be done with it?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



TripleG said:


> All I can say at this point is thank God the shittiest election in our country's history is almost over.
> 
> Can we just get it over with now? Can we just pick our crappy president and be done with it?


You breathe a sigh of relief until you realise there is a possibility of Trump vs Clinton part 2 for 2020. :troll


----------



## amhlilhaus

Vic Capri said:


> MSNBC also turned on Hillary:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic


A national conservative radio host swears that the media will turn on clinton after shes elected, as their backing her is a revulsion for trump.

I say bullshit. They agree with everything she believes in. If they think turning on her will rehabilitate them in the eyes of the 40% who have known they are just the propaganda arm for the democratic party, well theyre even dumber than we already know they are.

Its over for conservatives. EVEN IF trump wins, and does or attempts to do the things he says he will, its only a temporary fix. The democrats will regain power soon enough, then continue to direct the flood of immigrants to take away texas, florida and other states. This leaves the gop with some senate and congressional seats. The irony will be that after decades of the coming progressive regime, things will be terrible yet every election they will campaign to correct the damage of republicanism.

And their loyal hispanic and muslim voters will vote them back in, year after year.

I feel sorry for you young people. You never knew the good times of this country. What the socialists say sounds good on its surface. I get it, youre young, naive, gullible and have nothing in your experience to guide you away from these monsters.

But youre going to suffer. We are all going to suffer, and its not going to be pretty.

But hey! No one will be able to call you a racist, sexist or homophobe, so you will always have your feelings to keep you happy as you starve 20 years from now!?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> A national conservative radio host swears that the media will turn on clinton after shes elected, as their backing her is a revulsion for trump.
> 
> I say bullshit. They agree with everything she believes in. If they think turning on her will rehabilitate them in the eyes of the 40% who have known they are just the propaganda arm for the democratic party, well theyre even dumber than we already know they are.
> 
> Its over for conservatives. EVEN IF trump wins, and does or attempts to do the things he says he will, its only a temporary fix. The democrats will regain power soon enough, then continue to direct the flood of immigrants to take away texas, florida and other states. This leaves the gop with some senate and congressional seats. The irony will be that after decades of the coming progressive regime, things will be terrible yet every election they will campaign to correct the damage of republicanism.
> 
> And their loyal hispanic and muslim voters will vote them back in, year after year.
> 
> I feel sorry for you young people. You never knew the good times of this country. What the socialists say sounds good on its surface. I get it, youre young, naive, gullible and have nothing in your experience to guide you away from these monsters.
> 
> But youre going to suffer. We are all going to suffer, and its not going to be pretty.
> 
> But hey! No one will be able to call you a racist, sexist or homophobe, so you will always have your feelings to keep you happy as you starve 20 years from now!?


Let's put aside anything bad Trump has said for a moment, he was going to get trouble from the get go by not being the guy the top GOP wanted nor the Media. The fact that many Republicans are supporting Hillary is not due just to Trump but for the fact she stands for what they believe in, the Democrats have always stood for this type of politics. The limited Government Conservatives have been pushed out of the Republican party a while ago.

The Democrats will indeed flood red states with as many immigrants and poor Democratic voters as they possibly can and when Democrat policies fail they'll blame racism and Republicans for the woes of the corrupt Government. They'll keep nonwhites in line be ensuring the stigma of voting for yourself is wrong or voting outside of the party makes you racist or a terrible person. Ruling by fear is how politics works. 

We're royally fucked if we become a one party nation. Everyone will be fucked, whites/nonwhites/poor, there won't be a middle class, endless wars and corruption with no way to stop it. The Democrats are excellent at propaganda, it's going to get rough!


----------



## NoChanceInHell95

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

it really just depends on where you want get hit at? in the mouth or in the stomach? because either way these clowns are going to knock this country unconscious


----------



## Bret Hart

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary is going to win anyway, 'they' have already selected her.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Early voting results:
> 
> Cliffnotes:
> 
> - Lower Black voter turnout
> - Clinton could potentially flip Arizona


I think Arizona will be closer than usual, but I'd be surprised if it flips unless Hillary just runs away with the entire thing, which doesn't appear that likely at this point.



> - Trump has made Colorado competitive


To an extent, but I'd still expect Colorado to go blue at this point. New Hampshire might actually be closer right now.



> - Florida likely to swing even more towards GOP
> - Georgia has a significantly lower black voter turnout than 2012
> - Iowa turnout is lower than 2012, but Clinton leading not as much as Dems did in 2012


Florida's going to be interesting. As much as the national polls have bounced around, I feel like Florida is the one state that's remained steadfastly even.

I would expect Trump to carry Iowa (and obviously Georgia).



> - NC black voter turnout also lower, but going Dems way


The NAACP is currently suing the state of North Carolina for purging a shit ton of voters, alleging that it was a targeted move that disproportionately affected blacks.

They had an emergency hearing, but I have no idea when they'll actually make a final ruling on it —.which is pretty crazy, considering the election's in five days. :wtf2



> - Dems leading by a pretty wide margin in Nevada


Yeah, I saw that early voting returns have been strong for Hillary in NV, which is interesting considering the polls seem to be trending in the opposite direction. No idea what to expect there.



> - Dems nowhere near GOP in Ohio.


Hillary sent a congratulatory tweet to the Cubs last night, so she's effectively conceded Ohio. :kobe3



> Very similar results to 2012 at around the same stage, however, the worrying stat for Dems is lower black turnout in most of these states. When they eventually vote, they will probably swing the election the democrat's way because it's unlikely that in 8 days they'll change their affiliation from 2012 or just won't vote at all (which is unlikely for the same people who voted early 4 years ago).


I think it's a matter of 'if' rather than 'when.' Voter turnout fluctuates every election, so there's no guarantee that we'll see as many black voters in 2016 as we did in 2008 and 2012. But we may also see more Hispanic voters or more white non-college graduates or any other combination of demographics. It all depends on who this election has most resonated with.



asdf0501 said:


> Trump can win OH and IA, even Florida. And it doesn't matter if he can't pull out NV and NC


He could win all five and still lose if Hillary just carries VA, PA, NH, CO and the Upper Midwest.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> He could win all five and still lose if Hillary just carries VA, PA, NH, CO and the Upper Midwest.



Totally true. He needs to break one blue firewall aswell as win those five.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't get the criticism some like Trump are throwing at Obama for campaigning. Does that means first term presidents can't campaign for their re-elections? Isn't Obama a lame duck president in their eyes since February so why are they whining about him not doing his 'job'?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

_Same Candidates, Different Worlds_ by Scott Adams:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152685424531/same-candidates-different-worlds


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Just going by 2012 Electoral Map, if Trump can win all of Romney's states, he just needs Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, and Iowa or New Hampshire to win the election.

He also has a good chance of turning Wisconsin thanks to the failure of Gov. Walker.

- Vic


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Just going by 2012 Electoral Map, if Trump can win all of Romney's states, he just needs Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, and Iowa or New Hampshire to win the election.


If Hillary can win all of Obama's states, she just needs North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, West Virginia, Indiana, Kentucky, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Arizona and Alaska for a clean sweep. :CENA



> He also has a good chance of turning Wisconsin thanks to the failure of Gov. Walker.


Not sure why the failure of a Republican governor would push people to vote Republican, but at any rate, yesterday's polls suggest that she's got a reasonably comfortable lead in Wisconsin right now. There's actually some ticket-splitting going on, with people supporting Hillary but breaking for Johnson over Feingold.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Just going by 2012 Electoral Map, if Trump can win all of *Romney's states*, he just needs Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, and Iowa or New Hampshire to win the election.
> 
> He also has a good chance of turning Wisconsin thanks to the failure of Gov. Walker.
> 
> - Vic


That includes North Carolina, which by early voting data and polling, he isn't retaining. Nevada also doesn't look well for him at all.

Colorado is a good chance of flipping but he's still 3-5 points behind with less than a week, just like in the other blue firewalls states. Even Conway admited yesterday that he's behind 4 points in Pennsylvania.

If you think in the polling error in Michigan on the primaries he could have a chance there but he still need two more states with how the race is developing

I also don't understand how Failure of Gov. Walker helps Trump when Walker is doing rallies with him


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> That includes North Carolina, which by early voting data and polling, he isn't retaining. Nevada also doesn't look well for him at all.


I live in Nevada. Believe me, this state is going to back to red after its all said and done.

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Not sure what data asdf is looking at but Nevada has been breaking :trump for the last 3-4 days and NC is tied.

Early voting by blacks is significantly down from 2012 across the country and in battleground states those losses have not been made up for by increases in Hispanic early voting.

:trump is now tied with Clinton in NH with Johnson still getting an unbelievable 5% that he will not be getting on election day.

GOP leads early voting in Florida by 17,000 votes (as of 2 days ago). Even if Clinton is getting 23% of GOP early votes that's still :trump with a 13,000 vote lead in FL early voting.

IF trends continue, still a big IF in presidential politics, :trump will win Ohio, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, lose close in Virginia, and Pennsylvania and Colorado will be 100% toss-ups. All the movement has been toward :trump in every battleground state except Cheesehead Land for a week. Nowhere save Wisconsin has Hillary maintained or extended a lead in any polling average no matter how you weight the polls making up that average. In Wisconsin she's still at a 5-6% lead where she was before the numbers started moving to :trump . In every other so-called battleground state she's lost half her lead or more, or lost her lead entirely. It isn't next Monday, it's Thursday. There's too much time for this to continue and have her win in anything but a nail-biter. If she wins at all. Unless she gets off her bloated ass and does something about it.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/794197411144941568


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> I feel sorry for you young people. You never knew the good times of this country. What the socialists say sounds good on its surface. I get it, youre young, naive, gullible and have nothing in your experience to guide you away from these monsters.


Why are you worried about what Socialists are saying? 'Murica is still firmly on the right regardless of what happens this election, so cheer up (and maybe read a book or two). Socialism hasn't exactly taken the country by storm :lol 

Yet ( ͡☭ ͜ʖ ͡☭)


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RenegadexParagon said:


> Why are you worried about what Socialists are saying? 'Murica is still firmly on the right regardless of what happens this election, so cheer up (and maybe read a book or two). Socialism hasn't exactly taken the country by storm :lol
> 
> Yet ( ͡☭ ͜ʖ ͡☭)


There are already tons of socialist programs in the US. I love how people on the right can never admit this. Its even worse they can't admit how trickle down eeconomicsdoes not work and is a huge disaster.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

[YOUTUBE]rtqJ3W3g1c[/YOUTUBE]

:clap

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

broken record BM back again with his delusional fantasies about socialism and his even more delusional fantasies about trickle down economics which caused the greatest 20 year expansion of the economy and growth of jobs in this country's history

bill clinton's entire presidency was an exercise in trickle-down economics and left-wingers love to point out how good the economy was when he was president roflmao

:trump up to 35% chance in 538 forecast, the way this going he'll be at a 55% chance by election day :heston

hail to the chief baby and show him your tits if you're a 10


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> There are already tons of socialist programs in the US. I love how people on the right can never admit this. Its even worse they can't admit how trickle down eeconomicsdoes not work and is a huge disaster.


Social programs and welfare is not necessarily the same thing as socialism. Socialists may advocate for them now, but socialists ultimately want a society in which there is no reason for a welfare state to exist.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The men who created and developed modern socialist thought (men like Marx and Engels) would of course call American society a plutocratic capitalist society which uses bread (welfare) and circuses (all the leisure entertainment available) to keep the proletariat from realizing its class consciousness and revolting against the bourgeoisie and the plutocrat classes. Non-Marxist socialist thinkers like Veblen would say much the same thing except that they would argue these processes are the result not of conscious design but of unconscious human nature.

People like BM who have no idea what socialism actually is know deep in their hearts that America will never be actually socialist in their lifetime and that is very hard for them to deal with so they have to fantasize that there is already much socialism in America.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> broken record BM back again with his delusional fantasies about socialism and his even more delusional fantasies about trickle down economics which caused the greatest 20 year expansion of the economy and growth of jobs in this country's history
> 
> bill clinton's entire presidency was an exercise in trickle-down economics and left-wingers love to point out how good the economy was when he was president roflmao
> 
> :trump up to 35% chance in 538 forecast, the way this going he'll be at a 55% chance by election day :heston
> 
> hail to the chief baby and show him your tits if you're a 10


Keep ignoring what the facts show, it just makes you look like a bigger fool than you already are.

You are the one who has proven time and time again you don't know what you are talking about. Your post history proves that.

But whatever you tell yourself to sleep at night.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Keep ignoring what the facts show, it just makes you look like a bigger fool than you already are.
> 
> You are the one who has proven time and time again you don't know what you are talking about. Your post history proves that.
> 
> But whatever you tell yourself to sleep at night.


^this is almost literally an exact copy of probably at least 15% of all of BM's posts on this forum :heston

whenever he gets TILTED this is precisely the post he makes

BM you need to learn how to get BASED like the rest of us


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> ^this is almost literally an exact copy of probably at least 15% of all of BM's posts on this forum :heston
> 
> whenever he gets TILTED this is precisely the post he makes
> 
> BM you need to learn how to get BASED like the rest of us


Because you ignore the facts LOL Maybe if you didn't then it would not have to be said.

Just because a bunch of right winged people on this board are wrong does not mean they are right because more of them agree.
Using your logic, if you go to a message board and more people claim the earth is 6,000 years old then they must be right because most people claim it is even though the facts show the opposite.

I have already beaten you in this debate numerous times, I am not going in circles anymore.

And you can tell when you are wrong because you post those stupid gifs because that is all you can do. posting those gifs make you look weak and like a fool.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Because you ignore the facts LOL Maybe if you didn't then it would not have to be said.
> 
> Just because a bunch of right winged people on this board are wrong does not mean they are right because more of them agree.
> Using your logic, if you go to a message board and more people claim the earth is 6,000 years old then they must be right because most people claim it is even though the facts show the opposite.
> 
> I have already beaten you in this debate numerous times, I am not going in circles anymore.
> 
> And you can tell when you are wrong because you post those stupid gifs because that is all you can do. posting those gifs make you look weak and like a fool.


^oh look there's another exact copy of another 15% of BM's posts

incoherent accusations that spring solely from his TILTED mind

name one time that ANYONE here has said they are correct because of the POPULARITY of what they are saying among the people who post here

give me one SINGLE quote of that happening

you can't because it hasn't happened

no one here has ever said they are right because more people here agree with them than don't

ever

certainly i have never done that anyway

it's just your martyr complex going overdrive because you're TILTED bro. 

get BASED, your life will be better

because it's way way way too easy to get you TILTED these days, literally one post and you're TILTED for the rest of the day now. your mental stability is crumbled bro, get BASED fast. for your health.

the heston gif is my expression of complete derision and amused contempt for the stupid things people say. of which there are so very very many. people stop saying stupid things = i stop hestoning :heston

it's very clear that it's effective and touches a nerve and not just with you, so why would i stop the :heston

:heston :heston 
:heston :heston

here's :heston at you, BM

it's the very same reason i never say :trump 's name, it's always the :trump

well partly the same reason

both of them amuse me and make posting more fun

you should try having fun posting sometime BM, it would do wonders for ya


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










So now Wikileaks picked up the child sex story...


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



TripleG said:


> All I can say at this point is thank God the shittiest election in our country's history is almost over.
> 
> Can we just get it over with now? Can we just pick our crappy president and be done with it?


And then what, Anarchy in the USA?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> So now Wikileaks picked up the child sex story...


What is your take on Trump raping that 13 year old


----------



## Cipher

virus21 said:


> And then what, Anarchy in the USA?


Anarchy is a meme.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> RenegadexParagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you worried about what Socialists are saying? 'Murica is still firmly on the right regardless of what happens this election, so cheer up (and maybe read a book or two). Socialism hasn't exactly taken the country by storm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet ( ͡☭ ͜ʖ ͡☭)
> 
> 
> 
> There are already tons of socialist programs in the US. I love how people on the right can never admit this. Its even worse they can't admit how trickle down eeconomicsdoes not work and is a huge disaster.
Click to expand...

And with the illegals pouring in then being granted amnesty and jumping on those programs, all the while attacking business with high taxes and regulations, things cant stay good. More people apply for aid, eventually its too much and governmebt cut backs, resulting in chaos.

Fun times ahead


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> ^oh look there's another exact copy of another 15% of BM's posts
> 
> incoherent accusations that spring solely from his TILTED mind
> 
> name one time that ANYONE here has said they are correct because of the POPULARITY of what they are saying among the people who post here
> 
> give me one SINGLE quote of that happening
> 
> you can't because it hasn't happened
> 
> no one here has ever said they are right because more people here agree with them than don't
> 
> ever
> 
> certainly i have never done that anyway
> 
> it's just your martyr complex going overdrive because you're TILTED bro.
> 
> get BASED, your life will be better
> 
> because it's way way way too easy to get you TILTED these days, literally one post and you're TILTED for the rest of the day now. your mental stability is crumbled bro, get BASED fast. for your health.
> 
> the heston gif is my expression of complete derision and amused contempt for the stupid things people say. of which there are so very very many. people stop saying stupid things = i stop hestoning :heston
> 
> it's very clear that it's effective and touches a nerve, so why would i stop :heston
> 
> :heston :heston
> :heston :heston
> 
> here's :heston at you, BM


There you go with your projection again .

The only person getting titled here is you by my posts LOL
I always laugh when people like you and others always bitch about my posts thnen claim I am the one who gets tilted. Its so comical.

This post just proved how worked up you get over my posts. The irony of you claiming i get titled when you are the one ranting and raving lol.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> And with the illegals pouring in then being granted amnesty and jumping on those programs, all the while attacking business with high taxes and regulations, things cant stay good. More people apply for aid, eventually its too much and governmebt cut backs, resulting in chaos.
> 
> Fun times ahead


You do know Obama deported more illegal than any president in history right?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I would be shocked if either Hillary or Bill had abused underage girls. I can believe a lot of bad shit about them but that would floor me. Bill's transgressions have always been with adult women and Hillary has never shown any signs of being sexually attracted to women at all.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> Beatles123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now Wikileaks picked up the child sex story...
> 
> 
> 
> What is your take on Trump raping that 13 year old
Click to expand...

Ridiculous, the man had super models willing to do anything he wanted.

If there was more to these rape allegations, theyd be front and center


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> There you go with your projection again .
> 
> The only person getting titled here is you by my posts LOL
> I always laugh when people like you and others always bitch about my posts thnen claim I am the one who gets tilted. Its so comical.
> 
> This post just proved how worked up you get over my posts. The irony of you claiming i get titled when you are the one ranting and raving lol.


:heston

so TILTED he can't even _spell_ TILTED

take a deep breath BM. take a hundred. it'll be better i promise. as soon as you get BASED like us.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> Not sure what data asdf is looking at but Nevada has been breaking :trump for the last 3-4 days and NC is tied.



I'm looking at real data and not shit out of my ass.

60+% of Nevada has already voted and http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-suggests-clinton-might-beat-her-polls-there/

About NC, Democrats have and adventage of 200.000 plus early votes there, a big chunk of hispanics voting as NPA and women sharing more votes than men. Yeah, absolutely tied.

(i know, i been consistenly knocking 538 pages but an analysis of early voting is not the same as his backward cover of the election)



deepelemblues said:


> Early voting by blacks is significantly down from 2012 across the country and in battleground states those losses have not been made up for by increases in Hispanic early voting.


Significantly down? god stop overreacting

Meanwhile do you want to see the higher turnaout of hispanics in some counties? please and then comeback here...

For example

https://electionsmith.wordpress.com/2016/10/30/hispanic-turnout-is-the-the-big-story-in-florida/

You know why you don't see this as a story? because latinos are mainly unaffiliated voters which means independents and don't count in tallys for any candidate



deepelemblues said:


> :trump is now tied with Clinton in NH with Johnson still getting an unbelievable 5% that he will not be getting on election day.


Trump is tied in one poll with Clinton in NH, one from yesterday, the first poll in which Trump is ahead for just 0,2 since July and suddenly they're tied? stop sucking at this please. Call me when you find a good poll with Trump ahead by 3 or 4 points and that poll change the aggregates.



deepelemblues said:


> GOP leads early voting in Florida by 17,000 votes (as of 2 days ago). Even if Clinton is getting 23% of GOP early votes that's still :trump with a 13,000 vote lead in FL early voting.


First, i never talked about Florida being decissevely in Clinton camp, and the state is still a toss-up as much as you want to talk about a biggest share of Trump support there.

Also, nop, Clinton is not flipping 23% of GOPers and you suck at math if you think an effect of 23% of GOP affiliate flipping is 4000 votes. By the way even if your point was right, the lead Romney had at this rate in Florida was bigger than the one Trump had and he still lost....

Talking about Florida, you want to know why Republicans are doing better there than in other battlegrounds? Marco Rubio, yeah, Rubot could save Trump ass thank to his field operations



deepelemblues said:


> IF trends continue, still a big IF in presidential politics, :trump will win Ohio, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, lose close in Virginia, and Pennsylvania and Colorado will be 100% toss-ups.


Bleh, that IF is the line MSM is gonna use if Clinton wins like she should "oh clinton stopped the bleeding", "the race was so close". BLEEEEEHHHHH................





deepelemblues said:


> All the movement has been toward :trump in every battleground state for a week. Nowhere save Wisconsin has Hillary maintained or extended a lead in any polling average no matter how you weight the polls making up that average.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793892046457012225
You're overreacting over trackers and bad polls...



deepelemblues said:


> There's too much time for this to continue and have her win in anything but a nail-biter. If she wins at all. Unless she gets off her bloated ass and does something about it.


Data point to a better situation for Trump but people isn't really dimentioning his situation one month ago if they think this mean he's close to flip the race.

He could win. Yeah, he could, that doesn't mean that data point to it and doesn't mean his trend is strong enough to do it. If i'm wrong well, so be it

Let asume the better scenary for Trump, the one five thirty eight points out. Even in that the election will be at best a toss up. But somehow you expect me to believe that a race can change 4 points in less than one week?


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> Anarchy is a meme.


What?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> :heston
> 
> so TILTED he can't even _spell_ TILTED
> 
> take a deep breath BM. take a hundred. it'll be better i promise. as soon as you get BASED like us.


You keep proving my point. Look at how worked up you are getting, over a spelling mistake. You really need to take a break dude, you are going to have a heart attack.

Are you done yet?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> And then what, Anarchy in the USA?


Ohhhhhh Nnnnnooooo!! :lmao


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@deepelemblues @birthday_massacre Both of you, enough. There's no need for an actual warning for something so trivial as this, so just lay off each other for now.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> I'm looking at real data and not shit out of my ass.
> 
> 60+% of Nevada has already voted and http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-suggests-clinton-might-beat-her-polls-there/
> 
> (i know, i been consistenly knocking 538 pages but an analysis of early voting is not the same as his backward cover of the election)


I'm looking at the same data you are genius. The exact same websites.





> Significantly down? god stop overreacting
> 
> Meanwhile do you want to see the higher turnaout of hispanics in some counties? please and then comeback here...
> 
> For example
> 
> https://electionsmith.wordpress.com/2016/10/30/hispanic-turnout-is-the-the-big-story-in-florida/
> 
> You know why you don't see this as a story? because latinos are mainly unaffiliated voters which means independents and don't count in tallys for any candidate


Again, looking at the same numbers you are. Yes it is significantly down according to the numbers. In some states it's only 5-6% but in others it is well more than 10%. Overall it is significantly down.

I've already seen the Hispanic early voting turnout numbers compared to 2012, in 3-4 states it is significantly higher but in the rest it is usually 5-10% which is not matching the drop in black turnout in those same states.





> Trump is tied in one poll with Clinton in NH, one from yesterday, the first poll in which Trump is ahead for just 0,2 since July and suddenly they're tied? stop sucking at this please. Call me when you find a good poll with Trump ahead by 3 or 4 points and that poll change the aggregates.


LOL the desperation is getting real bad for you isn't it?

I'm sure the two previous polls showing :trump LEADING in NH are just "bad polls" the same as the one showing him tied. Because Nate Silver said so? I'm looking at his numbers too, and you're mischaracterizing his rating of polls by calling them "bad polls." Silver gives NH poll that had :trump +1 an A- and the one that has it tied a B+. Not "bad polls," sorry.

The one that had :trump up +5 was given a C- by Silver. I'd say that's a "bad poll" if you trust his ratings.




> First, i never talked about Florida, which is still a toss-up as much as you want to talk about a biggest share of Trump support there.


I don't have to talk only about what you talk about FFS. That's stupid. Shut up with that stupidity.



> Also, nop, Clinton is not flipping 23% of GOPers and you suck at math if you think an effect of 23% is 4000 votes. By the way even if your point was right, the lead Romney had at this rate in Florida was bigger than the one Trump had and he still lost....


It's 23% of the 17,000.



> Talking about Florida, you want to know why Republicans are doing better there than in other battlegrounds? Marco Rubio, yeah, Rubot could save Trump ass thank to his field operations


And? You sound salty. Not sure why this quote is actually a response to anything I said.





> Bleh, that IF is the line MSM is gonna use if Clinton wins like she should "oh clinton stopped the bleeding", "the race was so close". BLEEEEEHHHHH................









> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793892046457012225
> You're overreacting over trackers and bad polls...


Oh shut up with this lying garbage. I'm going off the same polls your boy Nate Silver rates highly. 





> Data point to a better situation for Trump but people isn't really dimentioning his situation one month ago if they think this mean he's close to flip the race.


The only relevancy his situation one month ago has is with regards to early voting. 



> He could win. Yeah, he could, that doesn't mean that data point to it and doesn't mean his trend is strong enough to do it. If i'm wrong well, so be it


The data all points to :trump gaining at a minimum 3 points nationally and in battleground states over the last 10 days or so. And all the movement being towards him. The data points to a nail-biter no matter how badly you want to act like other people can't read 538. Hint: they can.



> Let asume the better scenary for Trump, the one five thirty eight points out. Even in that the election will be at best a toss up. But somehow you expect me to believe that a race change 4 points in one week?


Uh, yeah, because a 4 point change in one week could be one candidate gaining 4 and the other staying level, one candidate losing 4 and the other staying level, one candidate gaining 2 and the other losing 2, or 3 and 1. A 4 point shift could be anything from a 4 point shift for one to a 2 point shift for both and that is not a large shift for a week. 

A 4 point shift is almost always within the margin of error so yes it is very possible in both directions. For all the pronouncements you make about the data and your understanding of it, you don't understand what impact the margin of error has or could have? And that you don't even need the MoE to have a 4 point shift in a week? Please.


----------



## Blackbeard

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I can't wait for Gary Johnson to shock the world next week.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Blackbeard said:


> I can't wait for Gary Johnson to shock the world next week.


Gary Johnson's Presidential Speech: "I won what? Where am I?"?


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> I'm looking at the same data you are genius. The exact same websites.


Well, still don't explain why NV is trending red by your account according to early voting...







deepelemblues said:


> Again, looking at the same numbers you are. Yes it is significantly down according to the numbers. In some states it's only 5-6% but in others it is well more than 10%. Overall it is significantly down.
> 
> 
> I've already seen the Hispanic early voting turnout numbers compared to 2012, in 3-4 states it is significantly higher but in the rest it is usually 5-10% which is not matching the drop in black turnout in those same states.


Which, again, is the point. I don't need hispanics to highly vote in New Hampshire or Colorado but i need them in Nevada, Florida, North Carolina and Arizona. God you're not even trying don't you?





deepelemblues said:


> LOL the desperation is getting real bad for you isn't it?
> 
> I'm sure the two previous polls showing :trump LEADING in NH are just "bad polls" the same as the one showing him tied. Because Nate Silver said so? I'm looking at his numbers too, and you're mischaracterizing his rating of polls by calling them "bad polls." Silver gives NH poll that had :trump +1 an A- and the one that has it tied a B+. Not "bad polls," sorry.
> 
> The one that had :trump up +5 was given a C- by Silver. I'd say that's a "bad poll" if you trust his ratings.


You're making my own point, seriously, i don't know if you are even trying






deepelemblues said:


> I don't have to talk only about what you talk about FFS. That's stupid. Shut up with that stupidity.


But we're using the same info no?

I been knocking Silver for at least 50 pages and you're telling me i'm using him as gospel....





deepelemblues said:


> It's 23% of the 17,000.



Ahhh, you don't understand what 23% of GOP votes flipping means then, i get it. Hint: The number is close to 250.000 votes, an absurdity





deepelemblues said:


> And? You sound salty. Not sure why this quote is actually a response to anything I said.


I say it because it's a prove of him underperfoming his polling compared to battlegrounds no called Ohio and Iowa, while it seems Hillary is in the reverse trend. It was not difficult to get don't?




deepelemblues said:


> Oh shut up with this lying garbage. I'm going off the same polls your boy Nate Silver rates highly.


Lol. But i'm salty?

I had a discussion with Retepadam about why i believe Silver has been garabage this election, i also said it yesterday like 3 times to Cabanarama. This is not the first time i had a disagreement with you because you read what you want to read instead of reading whats is been told to you





deepelemblues said:


> The only relevancy his situation one month ago has is with regards to early voting.


Nop. It called accounting for the past to predict the present

But whatever suits you better



deepelemblues said:


> The data all points to :trump gaining at a minimum 3 points nationally and in battleground states over the last 10 days or so. And all the movement being towards him. The data points to a nail-biter no matter how badly you want to act like other people can't read 538. Hint: they can.


Instead of the fact i have been promoting the Upshot, PEC and Linzer over 538 like hell. 




deepelemblues said:


> Uh, yeah, because a 4 point change in one week could be one candidate gaining 4 and the other staying level, one candidate losing 4 and the other staying level, one candidate gaining 2 and the other losing 2, or 3 and 1. A 4 point shift could be anything from a 4 point shift for one to a 2 point shift for both *and that is not a large shift for a week. *


Yes, it's. That's the point a 4 point shift is heavy shift not something minor in a election



deepelemblues said:


> A 4 point shift is almost always within the margin of error so yes it is very possible in both directions. For all the pronouncements you make about the data and your understanding of it, you don't understand what impact the margin of error has or could have? And that you don't even need the MoE to have a 4 point shift in a week? Please.


First, Margins of error don't shift, you stablish predetermined margins, working with a 5% is a convention. Second, margins of error are not read like "ohh y must add and rest 5% to the percentage i obtain", Margins of error are used to calculate the confidence interval which is the interval in which the percentage i obtain moves.

The bigger the N of my sample, the less the margin of error is to affect my interval, so no. A 4 point shift is not almost always within the margin of error.

Edit: Just for fun, let say you're right and i use Silver/538 as gospel. What his model is saying is that in a world with high levels of uncertainity Trump has currentely 1/3 of changes to win. Which means, when you account for a big polling fuck up his options are still 1/3, let's asume let's go to say he still move towards a toss up. You're telling than in a world where the polls has big options of getting the results wrong Trump is in a toss-up.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> What is your take on Trump raping that 13 year old


You keep bringing this up yet there is zero evidence he did, let's be honest if there was any legs to this story the MSM would be all over it. Trump said he loves Hispanics and that Trump Tower has the best taco bowls and people were raging over that on the MSM for a while so pretty sure if this was true we'd be hearing about it... now if it's true the Clintons were involved in a child sex ring.. Yeah we won't hear about that.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This is a very valuable analysis and I think everyone should at least read the points I bolded. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar..._polling_swings_are_often_mirages_132225.html


> *Why Polling Swings Are Often Mirages*
> 
> 
> 
> By Benjamin Lauderdale & Douglas Rivers
> November 01, 2016
> 
> Recently Nate Silver asked us why our polls don’t bounce around much. In our polling, Hillary Clinton had a small lead in September that expanded to five or six points after the first presidential debate on Sept. 26. Since then a lot has happened – sex tapes, charges of election rigging, WikiLeaks – but our numbers have budged only slightly. Over the past three weeks, our election model and polling for The Economisthas shown a consistent lead for Clinton over Donald Trump of three to five percentage points. In contrast, some other polls have shown wide swings. For example, the ABC/Washington Post poll had a Clinton lead of two points on Sept. 22, rising to 12 points on Oct. 22-23, and falling back to a single point earlier this week.
> We believe that most of the bounces seen in surveys this year represent sampling noise that can be reduced or eliminated by adopting by better statistical methodology. We risk a repetition of 2012 where polling swings were largely statistical mirages. The convention and first debate bounces in 2012 were mostly the consequence of transitory variations in response rates. Fewer voters were changing their minds than were changing their inclination to respond to surveys.
> *The Problem of Phantom Swings*
> Most telephone polls use independent samples, so the respondents in one week’s poll are different from those in another week’s. This makes it impossible to distinguish change in individual vote intentions from changes in sample composition from week to week.
> 
> *It is possible that 5 percent of the electorate switched from Clinton to Trump over the past week (decreasing Clinton’s lead by 10 points). But it’s also possible that nobody switched and apparent swings are due to differences in sample composition.*
> 
> YouGov draws its samples from a large panel of respondents. In most of our polls, there is little overlap from one sample to another. * However, sometimes the same respondents are recontacted to see whether their opinions have changed. For example, after the first presidential debate in September, we reinterviewed 2,132 people who had told us their vote intentions a month before, and 95 percent of the September Clinton supporters said they still intended to vote for her. None of them said they intended to vote for Trump, but 5 percent said they were now undecided, would vote for a third party candidate, or would not vote. Of the Trump supporters, only 91 percent said they were still planning on voting for him; 5 percent moved to undecided, 1 percent to Clinton, and the rest to third party candidates or not voting. The net effect was to increase Clinton’s lead by almost four points. That was real change, though significantly less that the 10-point change to Clinton’s lead seen in some polls.*
> 
> Other events, however, have not had any detectable impact on voting intentions. We did not see any shifts after the release of the “Access Hollywood” recording, the second or third presidential debates, or the reopening of the FBI investigation into Clinton’s emails. When the same people were reinterviewed, almost all said they were supporting the same candidate they had told us they backed in prior interviews. *The small number who did change their voting intentions shifted about evenly toward Clinton and Trump so the net real change was close to zero.*
> 
> Although we didn’t find much vote switching, we did notice a different type of change: the willingness of Clinton and Trump supporters to participate in our polls varied by a significant amount depending upon what was happening at the time of the poll: *W*_*hen things are going badly for a candidate, their supporters tend to stop participating in polls.* _
> 
> 
> 
> For example, after the release of the “Access Hollywood” recording, Trump supporters were 4 percent less likely than Clinton supporters to participate in our poll. The same phenomenon occurred last weekend for Clinton supporters after the announcement of the FBI investigation: Clinton supporters responded at a 3 percent lower rate than Trump supporters (who could finally take a survey about a subject they liked).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Failure to control for non-response will result in “phantom swings”* – polls bouncing because of changes in sample composition despite no change in individual voting intentions. Of course, most pollsters try to correct for differences in sample composition by weighting samples to reflect population demographics. However, for reasons discussed below, demographic weighting is often ineffective in removing the type of nonresponse associated with campaign events.
> 
> 
> *The Solution: Weighting on Past Vote*
> 
> If every survey were a recontact survey, then phantom swings could be eliminated by weighting on past voting intention. Unfortunately, endless recontact studies would bore panelists, who would eventually stop responding at all. We have found, however, that the 2012 presidential vote works nearly as well and, once collected, doesn’t need to be updated.
> 
> 
> The argument for weighting to past vote is the same as weighting to demographics, such as age, race, gender, or education: If your sample is unrepresentative in terms of some characteristic and the people with this characteristic vote differently than the people without the characteristic, then the sample will give biased estimates. Everyone understands that if the sample has too many men and not enough women, the sample will be biased toward Trump, since men are more likely to vote for Trump than women are. For example, if 60 percent of the sample was male (compared to, say, 50 percent of registered voters, to keep the arithmetic simple) and men vote 10 percent more Republican than women, the sample will overstate Republican vote by 1 percent.
> 
> 
> In the same way, if a sample has too many people who voted for Obama in 2012 and too few who voted for Romney, it’s likely to exaggerate support for Clinton. The problem is more severe than for skews in gender, because the gender gap is a lot smaller than the party gap: The difference between the proportion of men and women voting for Trump is around 10 percent, while the difference between Obama and Romney supporters is more like 80 percent. Having 10 percent too many Romney voters in your sample is a lot worse than having 10 percent too many men – the bias would be about eight times greater.
> 
> 
> Further, we know the 2012 vote totals just as accurately as we know the distribution of gender, race and other demographics. There are some complications because some 2012 voters have died in the intervening four years and been replaced by younger voters who tend to be more Democratic, but life tables can be used to adjust the 2012 vote targets to reflect differential mortality. If the data on past vote are available, why shouldn’t they be used for weighting?
> 
> 
> In two recent posts, the other Nate – New York Times Upshotcolumnist Nate Cohn – has criticized weighting to past vote. Cohn claims, without citing any evidence, that “People just don’t seem to report their past vote very accurately. Answers tend to wind up biased toward the winner.” If recall bias is substantial, then it would indeed cause problems, though you might have a similar worry about overstatement of income, education, and past turnout.
> 
> 
> 
> Because many of YouGov’s panelists were interviewed about their 2012 vote before and immediately after the 2012 election and the samples were within a point of the actual election outcome, recall bias is really only a problem for panelists who joined the panel after 2012. For these, we were forced to rely on a subsequent report of 2012 voting, though all were conducted before the start of this year’s general election campaign. Nonetheless, for about 60 percent of panelists, one’s 2012 vote is recalled rather than a contemporaneous report.
> 
> 
> When we canvassed the academic literature on recall bias, we were surprised that most of it consisted of comparing the percentage recalling how they voted with the percentage of votes actually cast for that candidate. The problem with this type of analysis is that surveys are known to grossly overestimate turnout, so that most of the bias toward the winner could come from people who didn’t actually vote. The few studies that actually compared recall of past vote with the respondents’ contemporaneous report of how they voted showed little bias.
> 
> 
> We recently conducted an experiment to test the accuracy of recall of 2012 votes. We selected a set of 1,597 YouGov panelists who had been interviewed immediately after the election. We matched these respondents to voter files and randomly assigned them to recontact by Internet or phone. The percentage giving the same answer in their 2016 interview as in their 2012 interview is shown in the table below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, few voters gave inconsistent reports of votes in 2012 and 2016. Phone recall was only very slightly less accurate than Internet recall. If you omit the small number of third party voters (who were less than 2 percent of the 2012 electorate) and 2012 non-voters (about 12 percent of registered voters), then there isn’t a lot of room for recall bias. About 95 percent of respondents gave the same answer both times. For those who gave different answers, there is little evidence of any asymmetry in who they recalled voting for. The net bias toward Obama was about 1 percent (a bias that would lead to slightly overstating Trump support in a 2016 poll using past vote weighting). If only all of our benchmarks for weighting were this reliable.
> 
> 
> *The Impact of Weighting to Past Vote*
> 
> We find the argument for weighting to past vote to be persuasive in principle and have shown that recall data is, contrary to what some have claimed, quite reliable. This brings us to the key question: What can go wrong if you do not use past vote weighting or some other method for balancing a sample on political variables? Here is what can go wrong: In the plot below are the fractions of 2012 Obama and Romney voters in our raw unweighted sample for two weeks surrounding the second presidential debate:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second presidential debate occurred on the evening of Oct. 9. Even before that, Obama voters were over-represented in our raw data. From Oct. 11 to Oct. 13 response rates among 2012 Romney voters sagged even further, but then bounced back. Since 2012 vote is from interviews conducted in the preceding four years, the variability in this plot is due solely to differential response rates. Failure to remove these sample skews would severely bias the estimated vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, despite the enormous fluctuations in sample composition, the voting intentions of the 2012 Obama and Romney voters who did respond stayed relatively stable. Among those who voted in 2012 (and adjusting the sample for the distribution of surviving voters), Clinton improved steadily during this period. As a consequence, our estimates saw Clinton gradually pushing her lead from three to five points over the first two weeks of October, as opposed to the wild swings that would have resulted if we did not weight by 2012 vote.
> 
> 
> *What It Means*
> 
> In view of the patterns described above, we are highly skeptical of polls showing a double-digit margin for Clinton at various points in recent weeks. We think it is very likely that these polls are biased, reflecting samples that were disproportionately composed of Obama 2012 voters with inadequate sample adjustments.
> 
> 
> 
> Could we be wrong about this? Of course. *Weighting to past vote assumes that the sample is representative of 2012 Republican voters more broadly. This could be wrong. It is possible that 2012 Romney voters who don’t like Trump could be skipping our surveys. Turnout of 2012 Romney voters could be lower than turnout of 2012 Obama voters. But one should be very wary of assuming survey response rates will mirror turnout rates, so that non-response won’t matter. No pollster assumes sample demographic skews aren’t a problem because the same variables are predictive of turnout.*
> 
> 
> In our analysis of the EU referendum in the United Kingdom earlier this year we were similarly careful to make sure that we were assuming the right distribution of 2015 UK general election votes for each party, and that was really critical to getting the right answer (a narrow “leave” victory).* A leave vote in the UK referendum, like a Trump vote, was viewed as a thumb in the eye of the political establishment. People who are alienated from the political system are less likely to respond to polls, especially when they (rightly) suspect that their preferences are the subject of scorn. While such groups are often less likely to vote as well, there is no reason to expect them to vote at lower rates in the 2016 election than they did in 2012. You might even, given how large a departure Trump is from past Republican nominees, suspect the opposite could be true.*
> 
> 
> Such turnout swings are fundamentally difficult to predict. If turnout patterns are similar to 2012 or prior years, Clinton should win by about the same margin that Obama won by in 2012. This is because we aren’t seeing enough Romney voters switching to either Clinton or third party candidates to generate a double-digit victory for Clinton. Clinton was probably never leading by double digits, nor has she fallen as far as some recent polls suggest. The truth is more prosaic: Most voters knew how they were going to voter before the campaign began, real swings are rare and usually fairly small.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Yep, Wang also talks about that effect which he found consistents with his assumptions on stability of the race. Is a discussion pertinent now that levels of response in polls are particularly high, which is one of the reason public polling is having problems.

They're partially lying about their brexit predictions, but they really got the result right


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I would venture a guess that poll numbers are slightly skewed across the board with regards to Trump because there is potentially an under-representation of people who've never been vocal about voting for Trump since he's never been a popular candidate right from the start. 

However, I don't think that that under-representation is significant enough to have an impact on election day - mainly because intuitively you'd see that under-representation amongst undecided women and minorities and they don't make up a huge number of the electorate anyways.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The end is near.

*#5thOfNovember*

http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1478186067574.jpg

- Vic


----------



## Cipher

Vic Capri said:


> The end is near.
> 
> *#5thOfNovember*
> 
> http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1478186067574.jpg
> 
> - Vic


Right. I find all of that very hard to believe.

But, hey, if I'm wrong things sure will be interesting.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Cipher said:


> Vic Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> The end is near.
> 
> *#5thOfNovember*
> 
> http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1478186067574.jpg
> 
> - Vic
> 
> 
> 
> Right. I find all of that very hard to believe.
> 
> But, hey, if I'm wrong things sure will be interesting.
Click to expand...

Nothing can stop hillary.

And if they had the goods, releasing it on saturday will have no effect.

Hillary could announce shes a reptillian and will make us all food for our shadow madters and shed still be elected


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> You keep bringing this up yet there is zero evidence he did, let's be honest if there was any legs to this story the MSM would be all over it. Trump said he loves Hispanics and that Trump Tower has the best taco bowls and people were raging over that on the MSM for a while so pretty sure if this was true we'd be hearing about it... now if it's true the Clintons were involved in a child sex ring.. Yeah we won't hear about that.


Except the girl who is taking him to court said Trump did when she was 13. You do know he has a pending court case he is going to have to go to court over in a month right? It's on Dec 16th.

A simple google search would show you it's true.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Thats is an accusation tho.. not evidence.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> Thats is an accusation tho.. not evidence.


yeah just like they are all accusations about Bill Cosby and Bill Clinton. But that does not stop the right from saying how they raped women especially in the case of Bill Clinton.

It's always an accusation when someone claims someone raped them. Would it make you feel better if I used the word allegedly raped?

Fact is Trump is going to court on Dec 16th because a woman said Trump raped her when she was 13 .


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.justfacts.com/news_2016_poll_voter_knowledge.asp

Contrary to popular opinion, this poll determines that Trump supporters are overall better informed than Clinton supporters. 

There are some glaring ones here including climate change, but by and large people that favor Trump are more informed than Clinton supporters ... but we already knew that because of what we see in this thread alone :shrug


----------



## blackholeson

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> The end is near.
> 
> *#5thOfNovember*
> 
> http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1478186067574.jpg
> 
> - Vic


*I'm actually still in shock that America came down to Clinton and Trump.*


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The election is in less than a week. Why fight about who's going to win? Just wait a few days.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah just like they are all accusations about Bill Cosby and Bill Clinton. But that does not stop the right from saying how they raped women especially in the case of Bill Clinton.
> 
> It's always an accusation when someone claims someone raped them. Would it make you feel better if I used the word allegedly raped?
> 
> Fact is Trump is going to court on Dec 16th because a woman said Trump raped her when she was 13 .


More "they do it too!" positioning while trying to portray that moral highground. 

I never said anything about one side or the other.. but you keep referencing it as a "facts you guys keep ignoring so i can keep calling everyone here idiots" when it is not. Nor have you even evidence yet of it. The best you have presented was an accusation as your all powerful "fact" that we all seem to be ignoring.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> More "they do it too!" positioning while trying to portray that moral highground.
> 
> I never said anything about one side or the other.. but you keep referencing it as a "facts you guys keep ignoring so i can keep calling everyone here idiots" when it is not. Nor have you even evidence yet of it. The best you have presented was an accusation as your all powerful "fact" that we all seem to be ignoring.


Is it not a fact Trump is going to court for raping a 13 year old on Dec 16th? Is it not a fact that Trump was accused of raping a 13 year old>?

the hypocrisy on this board never ceases to amaze me. Oh Bill Clinton raped those women but when it comes to Trump it is just an allegation. 

Everyone knows Trump was accused of raping a 13 year old but some people on this board like to paly dumb and claim WHAT you keep saying that but where are the facts on that. You have to go out of your way to not google it to see that its true.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










:lmao


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Edited for accuracy said:


> Fact is Trump's lawyers are going to court on Dec 16th because a woman said Trump raped her when she was 13


You mean the Jane Doe who cancelled her press conference yesterday?

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> You mean the Jane Doe who cancelled her press conference yesterday?
> 
> - Vic


yeah she canceled because she was getting death threats. Funny how you left that little tidbit out but why am I not surprised you left that out.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Is it not a fact Trump is going to court for raping a 13 year old on Dec 16th? Is it not a fact that Trump was accused of raping a 13 year old>?
> 
> the hypocrisy on this board never ceases to amaze me. Oh Bill Clinton raped those women but when it comes to Trump it is just an allegation.
> 
> Everyone knows Trump was accused of raping a 13 year old but some people on this board like to paly dumb and claim WHAT you keep saying that but where are the facts on that. You have to go out of your way to not google it to see that its true.


1. That was not what you said until i challenged you on it.

2. You are now presenting a false narative. Edit: I challenge you to find me one post in this thread where someone is denying that he is accused... since this seems to be the new stance you have taken now that you recognize your facts were inacurate.

3. Again arguing against a point that i did not make.

Say I accuse you right now of the same thing. Guess you are now guilty of it. I mean, you cant argue the fact that you are now accused of rape. And dont try to do so, cause then you would be a hypocrite.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> 1. That was not what you said.
> 
> 2. You are now presenting a false narative.
> 
> 3. Again arguing against a point that i did not make.
> 
> Say I accuse you right now of the same thing. Guess you are now guilty of it. I mean, you cant argue the fact that you are now accused of rape. And dont try to do so, cause then you would be a hypocrite.


Like I said, people say on Bill Clinton raped those women and no one calls them out oh its actually accused but of coursed when someone says oh Trump raped this girl people have to jump on oh no he was just accused.

It's hilariously how that works on this board. 

There is nothing false about my narrative. So why didn't you call out those posters that were throwing around how Bil raped those women?

I even said a couple of posts ago would it make you feel better if I said allegedly raped.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Is it not a fact Trump is going to court for raping a 13 year old on Dec 16th? Is it not a fact that Trump was accused of raping a 13 year old>?
> 
> the hypocrisy on this board never ceases to amaze me. Oh Bill Clinton raped those women but when it comes to Trump it is just an allegation.
> 
> Everyone knows Trump was accused of raping a 13 year old but some people on this board like to paly dumb and claim WHAT you keep saying that but where are the facts on that. You have to go out of your way to not google it to see that its true.


I don't really know if Trump did or didn't rape someone and I don't know if Bill Clinton did or didn't rape someone. The one about the 13 year old girl is harder to believe because there isn't a person making the claim. Trump is supposed to be in court in December. I wouldn't be shocked if that never happens and nothing ever happens with the lawsuit again. The lawsuit seeks $75,000 in damages (according to People Magazine who had the first result I could pull up). The election is pretty close and the plaintiff isn't asking for much. I think there's a good reason to be skeptical about this one. If a real live person comes forward and something can be verified about her then maybe there's something more to it. 

But the lawsuit is only seeking $75,000. If the plaintiff is real she's not looking for money out of this. She's suing a billionaire for what would amount to like $20 to the average person. Assuming she's real she wants to destroy his reputation. But she's not saying who she is before the election. She could hurt him a lot but coming forward before the election then after it. I imagine if you were raped you don't want the person that raped you to be president. By waiting she makes it easier for him to win. I understand being afraid to come forward. But when you sue Donald Trump for raping you there is no way to avoid having to come forward. But it looks like we won't find out who the woman is until after the election. 

It's hard for me to see a logical reason behind doing it this way. Now if there is no woman who is claiming to have been raped when she was 13 then I see why they would pursue the lawsuit this way. The allegation is out there and hurts Trump for sure. But a real person can't go public with the story because such a person doesn't exist.


Of course there are other allegations out there about Trump that have real people attached to them. Those probably should be treated more seriously. But even with them the timing just seems weird. Enough of them are out there that I wouldn't be surprised if 1 of them turned out to be true.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Im not talking comparisons.. im talking about YOU saying facts of him being a rapist have been presented and calling people stupid cause they didnt see/read/believe them when you yourself are now changing what you are calling facts (fact of alleged rape instead of a fact of actual rape. Fact he is going to court for it instead of the fact he is guilty of it.) 

People asked you for proof of your own claim (which have now changed) and you try coming down on them spouting that you have reigned down fact after fact when none of them support your original assertation.. and that NOONE is denying your new one, but seem to think there was no actual difference in the two.

IF there was proof he was a rapist, he wouldnt be running right now. You may believe them to be true, which is fine. But dont expect everyone else to share that same belief without the actual proof to back it up.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FITZ said:


> I don't really know if Trump did or didn't rape someone and I don't know if Bill Clinton did or didn't rape someone. The one about the 13 year old girl is harder to believe because there isn't a person making the claim. Trump is supposed to be in court in December. I wouldn't be shocked if that never happens and nothing ever happens with the lawsuit again. The lawsuit seeks $75,000 in damages (according to People Magazine who had the first result I could pull up). The election is pretty close and the plaintiff isn't asking for much. I think there's a good reason to be skeptical about this one. If a real live person comes forward and something can be verified about her then maybe there's something more to it.
> 
> But the lawsuit is only seeking $75,000. If the plaintiff is real she's not looking for money out of this. She's suing a billionaire for what would amount to like $20 to the average person. Assuming she's real she wants to destroy his reputation. But she's not saying who she is before the election. She could hurt him a lot but coming forward before the election then after it. I imagine if you were raped you don't want the person that raped you to be president. By waiting she makes it easier for him to win. I understand being afraid to come forward. But when you sue Donald Trump for raping you there is no way to avoid having to come forward. But it looks like we won't find out who the woman is until after the election.
> 
> It's hard for me to see a logical reason behind doing it this way. Now if there is no woman who is claiming to have been raped when she was 13 then I see why they would pursue the lawsuit this way. The allegation is out there and hurts Trump for sure. But a real person can't go public with the story because such a person doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> Of course there are other allegations out there about Trump that have real people attached to them. Those probably should be treated more seriously. But even with them the timing just seems weird. Enough of them are out there that I wouldn't be surprised if 1 of them turned out to be true.


Well it was first filed back at the beginning of the year but got kicked from a CA court for some filing errors. So she had to file in NY.So she did first file back in like april.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> Im not talking comparisons.. im talking about YOU saying facts of him being a rapist have been presented and calling people stupid cause they didnt see/read/believe them when you yourself are now changing what you are calling facts (fact of alleged rape instead of a fact of actual rape. Fact he is going to court for it instead of the fact he is guilty of it.)
> 
> People asked you for proof of your own claim (which have now changed) and you try coming down on them spouting that you have reigned down fact after fact when none of them support your original assertation.. and that NOONE is denying your new one, but seem to think there was no actual difference in the two.
> 
> IF there was proof he was a rapist, he wouldnt be running right now. You may believe them to be true, which is fine. But dont expect everyone else to share that same belief without the actual proof to back it up.


Where did I say it was a fact Trump raped her? I first asked the question to Sally, what do you think of Trump raping that 13 year old girl

Then Sally said if it was true then it would be all over the news.

To which I pointed out the girl is taking him to court saying Trump did rape her when she was 13

I think its cute how people like you get all strick with using the word accused or allegedly when it come to Trump raping people but when its a Clinton you dont need that word.

Trump also admitted he likes to sexually assault women by grabbing them by the pussy and saying he does not even ask, he just does it.

But keep up your double standard Next time some one says oh Bill Clinton is a rapist, I better see you calling them on it but we all know you wont..


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










She's panicking, WF!


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Eh, I dunno about that. Probably just trying to manipulate independents/undecided voters into voting for her simply because she's not Trump. To the casuals who've just been following along/tend not to vote, it's a smart strategy tbh

We'll find out in 4 days anyways.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> She's panicking, WF!


It's called strategy, something Trump knows nothing about.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> It's called strategy, something Trump knows nothing about.


No, its called "Im losing, shill mode GO!"


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Where did I say it was a fact Trump raped her? I first asked the question to Sally, what do you think of Trump raping that 13 year old girl
> 
> Then Sally said if it was true then it would be all over the news.
> 
> To which I pointed out the girl is taking him to court saying Trump did rape her when she was 13


Ok.. lets look.



birthday_massacre said:


> What is your take on Trump raping that 13 year old


Asserting he raped her. Not accused of. Actually raped.



Miss Sally said:


> You keep bringing this up yet there is zero evidence he did, let's be honest if there was any legs to this story the MSM would be all over it. Trump said he loves Hispanics and that Trump Tower has the best taco bowls and people were raging over that on the MSM for a while so pretty sure if this was true we'd be hearing about it... now if it's true the Clintons were involved in a child sex ring.. Yeah we won't hear about that.


You are asked to provide proof of rape. Sally did not deny he is being accused. Noone is denying he is being accused. If he actually did this, we'd be hearing about it 24/7.. and way more than that hot mic was. 

So what was your proof? 



birthday_massacre said:


> Except the girl who is taking him to court said Trump did when she was 13. You do know he has a pending court case he is going to have to go to court over in a month right? It's on Dec 16th.
> 
> A simple google search would show you it's true.


A small blip on the radar. Even msm isnt taking this accusation seriously. But the only proof/fact you have is people saying hes done these things... which are neither proof nor facts of the actions hes being accused of.




> I think its cute how people like you get all strick with using the word accused or allegedly when it come to Trump raping people but when its a Clinton you dont need that word.


And this is specifically what im talking about. Ive not once mentioned clinton in this, yet use it as a point to try to talk down to me.

Accused of rape and actually rape are vastly different.. and the fact you dont see the difference is quite scary.

And I get stuck on people claiming they have presented a valid arguement and try talking down to people when they have failed to present actual proof/facts. 



> Trump also admitted he likes to sexually assault women by grabbing them by the pussy and saying he does not even ask, he just does it.
> 
> But keep up your double standard Next time some one says oh Bill Clinton is a rapist, I better see you calling them on it but we all know you wont..


You were complaining earlier about someone projecting on you, yet this is exactly what you are doing to me here. But hey, double standards, right?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> No, its called "Im losing, shill mode GO!"


So if Trump is getting close to her in those states, you dont think she should try to pull ahead more?

Trump supporters don't get strategy either it seems. Its called a ground game.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Where did I say it was a fact Trump raped her? I first asked the question to Sally, what do you think of Trump raping that 13 year old girl
> 
> Then Sally said if it was true then it would be all over the news.
> 
> To which I pointed out the girl is taking him to court saying Trump did rape her when she was 13
> 
> I think its cute how people like you get all strick with using the word accused or allegedly when it come to Trump raping people but when its a Clinton you dont need that word.
> 
> Trump also admitted he likes to sexually assault women by grabbing them by the pussy and saying he does not even ask, he just does it.
> 
> But keep up your double standard Next time some one says oh Bill Clinton is a rapist, I better see you calling them on it but we all know you wont..


I could go back through this thread and find in the region of 2374 posts of yours were you have used the word FACT in regards to the allegations against Trump. You keep boring the shit out of me daily with comments like "Keep ignoring the FACTS about Trump".The problem is every single allegation you keep refairing to against Trump as FACTS are indeed only allegations. They could turn out to be FACTS but until it has been proven they are allegations. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Please do not post another BS link in reply then claim that it is FACTS like you do every time i challenge you. No link known to man can support these allegations against Donald as FACTS currently. Comprende?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> Ok.. lets look.
> 
> 
> 
> Asserting he raped her. Not accused of. Actually raped.
> 
> 
> 
> You are asked to provide proof of rape. Sally did not deny he is being accused. Noone is denying he is being accused. If he actually did this, we'd be hearing about it 24/7.. and way more than that hot mic was.
> 
> So what was your proof?
> 
> 
> 
> A small blip on the radar. Even msm isnt taking this accusation seriously. But the only proof/fact you have is people saying hes done these things... which are neither proof nor facts of the actions hes being accused of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is specifically what im talking about. Ive not once mentioned clinton in this, yet use it as a point to try to talk down to me.
> 
> Accused of rape and actually rape are vastly different.. and the fact you dont see the difference is quite scary.
> 
> And I get stuck on people claiming they have presented a valid arguement and try talking down to people when they have failed to present actual proof/facts.
> 
> 
> 
> You were complaining earlier about someone projecting on you, yet this is exactly what you are doing to me here. But hey, double standards, right?


I did not do anything different with Trump than what Trump supporters do with Bill Clinton. But of course when Trump supporters do it, its ok. 

I gave prove that someone said he raped her when she was 13. Yes Sally denied that Trump was accused of it. He acted like there was not a hearing on it. 

And the case is barely even on the main stream media, only a few sites picked it up. 

Yes and Bill Clinton was Accused of rape by those women but when Trump supporters talk about it they say oh he raped them but of course you dont call out those people when they do that and Trump supporters are ok with saying that and not saying accused. I just think its funny they only think that word has to be used when its something against Trump.

Its just funny its only made a deal out of when its done against Trump but not Bill or Hillary. But we all know why that is.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary should be getting worried and doing what she can to stop the bleeding/regain ground. So not all that surprised by the post. 

I see bm making more wide generalizations based on a couple posts tho. Im sure trump is just sitting back planning a victory fireworks show.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> I could go back through this thread and find in the region of 2374 posts of yours were you have used the word FACT in regards to the allegations against Trump. You keep boring the shit out of me daily with comments like "Keep ignoring the FACTS about Trump".The problem is every single allegation you keep refairing to against Trump as FACTS are indeed only allegations. They could turn out to be FACTS but until it has been proven they are allegations. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
> 
> Please do not post another BS link in reply then claim that it is FACTS like you do every time i challenge you. No link known to man can support these allegations against Donald as FACTS currently. Comprende?



Trump is on audio admitting he likes to sexually assault women by grabbing them by the pussy and he does not even wait. But yeah ignore Trumps own words.




Sweenz said:


> Hillary should be getting worried and doing what she can to stop the bleeding/regain ground. So not all that surprised by the post.
> 
> I see bm making more wide generalizations based on a couple posts tho. Im sure trump is just sitting back planning a victory fireworks show.


And that is why Trump is going to lose. He is doing nothing to try and pull ahead more while Hillary is trying to get a bigger lead again.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> .
> 
> I gave prove that someone said he raped her when she was 13. Yes Sally denied that Trump was accused of it. He acted like there was not a hearing on it.


Quote sally denying trump was accused of it. 

Otherwise ill continue to assert that NOONE asked for that to be proved. What they DID ask for was proof of actual rape. Which you have still failed to deliver and continue to talk out your ass to try to back pedal out of.. all the while saying people are stupid for ignoring the multitute of "facts" you have posted to support such a statement.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> Quote sally denying trump was accused of it.
> 
> Otherwise ill continue to assert that NOONE asked for that to be proved. What they DID ask for was proof of actual rape. Which you have still failed to deliver and continue to talk out your ass to try to back pedal out of.. all the while saying people are stupid for ignoring the multitute of "facts" you have posted to support such a statement.


Sally denied it because if he was not denying Trump being accused of it, he would have admitted he was being accused and said he was not convicted of it. But he was pretending there was not even an allegation. 

I still think its funny that the word allegation only has to be used when its a rape charge against Trump but not Bill Clinton.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> And that is why Trump is going to lose. He is doing nothing to try and pull ahead more while Hillary is trying to get a bigger lead again.


Trump has gained ground. While he would likely need to do more. To say he's doing nothing is not based in facts.

My comment about fireworks was a tongue in cheek remark directed toward hillary actually ordering victory fireworks while he lead dwindles.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Sally denied it because if he was not denying Trump being accused of it, he would have admitted he was being accused and said he was not convicted of it. But he was pretending there was not even an allegation.
> 
> I still think its funny that the word allegation only has to be used when its a rape charge against Trump but not Bill Clinton.


Im still waiting for the quote. forgive me for not taking your word for it.

Still on the clinton comparison thing. Not sure why. Must a tick.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> Im still waiting for the quote. forgive me for not taking your word for it.
> 
> Still on the clinton comparison thing. Not sure why. Must a tick.


See you are still ignoring the Bill Clinton point because it totally destroys your point.. Must be a tick. And justs the hypocrisy of you and Trump supporters


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Im ignoring it cause it is a strawman to the point im making.

Funny you think im a trump supporter tho.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> She's panicking, WF!


She should be worried less about keeping Trump out of the WH and more about keeping herself out of a federal pen. I wouldn't be shocked at all if she leaves the USA for a non-extradition country if she ends up losing the election.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> Im ignoring it cause it is a strawman to the point im making.


No its not a strawman since when people on this board talk about Bill Clinton, and those 4 woman that Trump brought out, they say how Bill raped them. They dont say oh allegedly raped them. Its just showing the double standard of this board.

anyways, like I said a few posts ago if it makes you happy ill use allegedly but when Trump supporters dont against Bill or Hillary I better see you calling them out.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> She should be worried less about keeping Trump out of the WH and more about keeping herself out of a federal pen. I wouldn't be shocked at all if she leaves the USA for a non-extradition country if she ends up losing the election.


Obama will probably pardon her before he leaves office.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> No its not a strawman since when people on this board talk about Bill Clinton, and those 4 woman that Trump brought out, they say how Bill raped them. They dont say oh allegedly raped them. Its just showing the double standard of this board.


People say the world is flat too. But i dont bring it up in my arguement with you cause you arent making that point. That would be a strawman arguement. 

Which is what your clinton point is. Its a way of ignoring a point you (im assuming) cant win, so you argue a point i never contested so it looks like you are still making progress in the arguement. Thats a strawman argument.

You have still yet to provide proof of actual rape. And have still yet to prove sally was asking for proof that someone was accusing him of rape. Or the fact you assert you have done so already and talk down to people who claim you havent.

But hey, lets continue to talk about clinton like it has anything to do with those 3 things.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> People say the world is flat too. But i dont bring it up in my arguement with you cause you arent making that point. That would be a strawman arguement.
> 
> Which is what your clinton point is. Its a way of ignoring a point you (im assuming) cant win, so you argue a point i never contested so it looks like you are still making progress in the arguement. Thats a strawman argument.
> 
> You have still yet to provide proof of actual rape. And have still yet to prove sally was asking for proof that someone was accusing him of rape. Or the fact you assert you have done so already and talk down to people who claim you havent.
> 
> But hey, lets continue to talk about clinton like it has anything to do with those 3 things.


The Clinton point is not a strawman, its a perfect point because you are telling me I am not saying allegedly raped when it comes to Trump and that 13 year old girl, so I point out how its funny you or no one makes a fuss about when Trump supporters say on Bill Clinton raped those women and not use the word allegedly. Its pointing out the hypocrisy and double standard.

I already answered your other two questions so I am not going ion circles with you anymore.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FITZ said:


> The election is in less than a week. Why fight about who's going to win? Just wait a few days.


The real shit show will be after the results.

Imagine if Trump won the popular vote but Hillary won the EC.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Pausing our back and forth for this post. And anyone that knows can answer.



birthday_massacre said:


> Obama will probably pardon her before he leaves office.


Can he pardon if there is not something she has been found guilty of? Is there a preemptive pardoning for the possibility of a guilty in the future? 

Nixons pardon comes to mind, but not sure how far alomg that got before the pardon came down. Id look it up but im feeling lazy.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> Pausing our back and forth for this post. And anyone that knows can answer.
> 
> 
> 
> Can he pardon if there is not something she has been found guilty of? Is there a preemptive pardoning for the possibility of a guilty in the future?
> 
> Nixons pardon comes to mind, but not sure how far alomg that got before the pardon came down. Id look it up but im feeling lazy.


Yes because Nixon was pardoned. It falls under this


Ex parte Garland

Supreme Court has already decided, back in 1866, that people can be pardoned for crimes they may be charged with in the future.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The Clinton point is not a strawman, its a perfect point because you are telling me I am not saying allegedly raped when it comes to Trump and that 13 year old girl, so I point out how its funny you or no one makes a fuss about when Trump supporters say on Bill Clinton raped those women and not use the word allegedly. Its pointing out the hypocrisy and double standard.
> 
> I already answered your other two questions so I am not going ion circles with you anymore.


um...no you didn't.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The Clinton point is not a strawman, its a perfect point because you are telling me I am not saying allegedly raped when it comes to Trump and that 13 year old girl, so I point out how its funny you or no one makes a fuss about when Trump supporters say on Bill Clinton raped those women and not use the word allegedly. Its pointing out the hypocrisy and double standard.
> 
> I already answered your other two questions so I am not going ion circles with you anymore.


Perfect? That is so delusional. 

You have no idea what i do with clinton being accused. You are projecting, and literally had NOTHING to do with the point you are making claims you can't actually back up.

And you never answered either. If you did, quote your proof of rape.. and quote where you quoted sally saying he wasnt accused. Cause if you cant do both of those, you are the one causing the circular talk and/or are hitting the eject button cause you cant prove either and recognize its a lost arguement.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Well it was first filed back at the beginning of the year but got kicked from a CA court for some filing errors. So she had to file in NY.So she did first file back in like april.


Can't speak for the validity of the website but it was more than filing errors. 

http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

The address of the plaintiff wasn't valid and the phone numbers were not answered when called. That suggests this girl doesn't exist as well. 

And it was outright dismissed for failing to state a claim that relief could be granted for. Meaning there wasn't a federal law that was violated based on what was stated in the suit. Which doesn't mean you can't get sued for raping someone, just maybe not in federal court.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Yes because Nixon was pardoned. It falls under this
> 
> 
> Ex parte Garland
> 
> Supreme Court has already decided, back in 1866, that people can be pardoned for crimes they may be charged with in the future.


Fair enough. And good to know. Interesting stuff. And holy hell the shitshow that would cause if done. Regardless if she is guilty of not.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> Fair enough. And good to know. Interesting stuff. And holy hell the shitshow that would cause if done. Regardless if she is guilty of not.


Even if he did that and she won, if the GOP had the majority they would impeach her. Unless they cant since she was pardoned.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FITZ said:


> Can't speak for the validity of the website but it was more than filing errors.
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/
> 
> The address of the plaintiff wasn't valid and the phone numbers were not answered when called. That suggests this girl doesn't exist as well.
> 
> And it was outright dismissed for failing to state a claim that relief could be granted for. Meaning there wasn't a federal law that was violated based on what was stated in the suit. Which doesn't mean you can't get sued for raping someone, just maybe not in federal court.


Isn't that a video of the girl in that snopes article. so there is a real person accusing him.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> And then what, Anarchy in the USA?





Cipher said:


> Anarchy is a meme.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Anarchy is preferable to being sold into slavery.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

anyone else laughing at how birthday massacre is being figuratively 'massacred' by nearly every poster in this thread and still thinks he's winning every argument?

:duck


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Tfw you're an Anarchist and you see Anarchism mentioned in a thread about bourgeois politics ( ͡Ⓐ ͜ʖ ͡Ⓐ)


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Goku said:


> anyone else laughing at how birthday massacre is being figuratively 'massacred' by nearly every poster in this thread and still thinks he's winning every argument?
> 
> :duck


:lmao I REALLY didn't wanna say it, but it's true!!


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Except the girl who is taking him to court said Trump did when she was 13. You do know he has a pending court case he is going to have to go to court over in a month right? It's on Dec 16th.
> 
> A simple google search would show you it's true.


It's an accusation, again do we even know who the person even is? This was brought up months ago, this isn't new and it didn't go anywhere then either. We both know the MSM would be all over this if this was even slightly true. Trump can't fart without it being somehow a form of oppression.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So uh, guys...I know that pedophile thing is only a rumor thus far, which is why i didn't mention the "No hair on my Pizza" Email that was discovered, which is another thing in itself...but...










I realize that context is a thing and she could be COMPLETELY sarcastic...but...come on. Does it not seem suspect that she'd use that term? Even a bit? Besides, Literally nobody uses Uber to transport literal children in clandestine, least of all ensures their conversational partner that they're bringing the children to "entertain" about the method of transportation.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*















Uhhh... @DesolationRow ?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Speaking of Anarchy :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Goku said:


> anyone else laughing at how birthday massacre is being figuratively 'massacred' by nearly every poster in this thread and still thinks he's winning every argument?
> 
> :duck


You are the kind of person who thinks just because you are on a forum that the majority thinks the world is 6,000 years is massacring someone who is proving its billions of year old just because most agree. Ill just keep posting facts and evidence to prove people like you wrong and you can live in your fairytale world thinking you are right.




Beatles123 said:


> :lmao I REALLY didn't wanna say it, but it's true!!


Even if that is true, which its not, he said nearly, which means not everyone. And sorry to break it to you but you wouldn't fall into that nearly everyone even if it was true. lol I easily massacre you every single time .sorry to break it to you.





Miss Sally said:


> It's an accusation, again do we even know who the person even is? This was brought up months ago, this isn't new and it didn't go anywhere then either. We both know the MSM would be all over this if this was even slightly true. Trump can't fart without it being somehow a form of oppression.


The girl was in that video on the snopes article. Just was going to come out but got too many death threats.

LIke I said before, I just think its funny when it comes to Trump its an accusation but when people on this board talk about Bill Clinton they dont use the word accusation they just call him a rapist or sexual predator or what not.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hmm. Laci Green raped me guuuyseee !! 

Now if I had the money, I could drag her to court and just because she'd have to appear in court means that my accusation has merit !

Oh how far we have come as a people where the accusation of someone being a witch is enough to burn her.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are the kind of person who thinks just because you are on a forum that the majority thinks the world is 6,000 years is massacring someone who is proving its billions of year old just because most agree. Ill just keep posting facts and evidence to prove people like you wrong and you can live in your fairytale world thinking you are right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that is true, which its not, he said nearly, which means not everyone. And sorry to break it to you but you wouldn't fall into that nearly everyone even if it was true. lol I easily massacre you every single time .sorry to break it to you.


i audibly laughed aloud.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## amhlilhaus

Im getting the feeling that whoever wins coughclintoncough the REAL shitstorms are coming


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are the kind of person who thinks just because you are on a forum that the majority thinks the world is 6,000 years is massacring someone who is proving its billions of year old just because most agree. Ill just keep posting facts and evidence to prove people like you wrong and you can live in your fairytale world thinking you are right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that is true, which its not, he said nearly, which means not everyone. And sorry to break it to you but you wouldn't fall into that nearly everyone even if it was true. lol I easily massacre you every single time .sorry to break it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The girl was in that video on the snopes article. Just was going to come out but got too many death threats.
> 
> LIke I said before, I just think its funny when it comes to Trump its an accusation but when people on this board talk about Bill Clinton they dont use the word accusation they just call him a rapist or sexual predator or what not.


Wow it's lucky she didn't end up dead like all those DNC people who leaked info. Also Bill has a history of this sort of thing, the timing on Trump's accusation and the fact the media which is witch hunting Trump not pouncing on this shows there is nothing to this.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

TIME FOR SOME SPIRIT COOKIN' YALL!

HAIL SATAN. 

(No seriously this shit is gettin' weird.)


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Wow it's lucky she didn't end up dead like all those DNC people who leaked info. Also Bill has a history of this sort of thing, the timing on Trump's accusation and the fact the media which is witch hunting Trump not pouncing on this shows there is nothing to this.


Trump is on tape admitting he sexually assaults women. And Trump has a history of this sort of thing too since his ex-wife claims he raped her. 

Also you can claim its a witch hunt against Hillary that the WikiLeaks articles are just now coming out right before the election. 

I would hardly call all these women coming out saying that Trump sexually assaulted them nothing to this. The reason they came out is because the Trump taped leaked.


----------



## Goku

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> You are the kind of person who thinks just because you are on a forum that the majority thinks the world is 6,000 years is massacring someone who is proving its billions of year old just because most agree. Ill just keep posting facts and evidence to prove people like you wrong and you can live in your fairytale world thinking you are right.


what am i wrong about, bm?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Please remember BM is a Bernie supporter. fpalm


----------



## Cipher

Beatles123 said:


> So uh, guys...I know that pedophile thing is only a rumor thus far, which is why i didn't mention the "No hair on my Pizza" Email that was discovered, which is another thing in itself...but...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that context is a thing and she could be COMPLETELY sarcastic...but...come on. Does it not seem suspect that she'd use that term? Even a bit? Besides, Literally nobody uses Uber to transport literal children in clandestine, least of all ensures their conversational partner that they're bringing the children to "entertain" about the method of transportation.


There is no way this is real. If it is, that is some really freaking strange wording.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> There is no way this is real. If it is, that is some really freaking strange wording.


While I suppose it's possible that they were discussing via email arrangements for a super-secret child sex ring, the content of that email would also fit, say, a family vacation. Especially given that the kids have the same last name as the person sending the email. :lmao

"We're excited about the trip. The kids are coming, so things are sure to be lively. They're going to want to swim, so expect at least one pool day."

But nah, incestuous child sex ring thing is definitely the most likely explanation. :lol


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Edit: Bleh omit this


----------



## Cipher

RetepAdam. said:


> While I suppose it's possible that they were discussing via email arrangements for a super-secret child sex ring, the content of that email would also fit, say, a family vacation. Especially given that the kids have the same last name as the person sending the email. :lmao
> 
> "We're excited about the trip. The kids are coming, so things are sure to be lively. They're going to want to swim, so expect at least one pool day."
> 
> But nah, incestuous child sex ring thing is definitely the most likely explanation. :lol


Agreed. I'm not saying I believe it, because I don't, the wording is just strange as hell.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> While I suppose it's possible that they were discussing via email arrangements for a super-secret child sex ring, the content of that email would also fit, say, a family vacation. Especially given that the kids have the same last name as the person sending the email. :lmao
> 
> "We're excited about the trip. The kids are coming, so things are sure to be lively. They're going to want to swim, so expect at least one pool day."
> 
> But nah, incestuous child sex ring thing is definitely the most likely explanation. :lol


You know the only thing that bothers me about all of this is that coming from Pakistan where democracy is barely in its infancy and there are still political assassinations (literally) because of the Taliban in the mix (who want to play king-makers), no political party levied pedophilia allegations against each other at all ... Not even their supporters. 

The dialogue in this country this year has been by far the worst I have ever witnessed in my 30+ years of being alive for elections in 3 different countries first hand.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> Agreed. I'm not saying I believe it, because I don't, the wording is just strange as hell.


It really isn't that strange. It's a bunch of baby boomers sending inside-jokey emails.

The only thing "weird" about it is its shitty sentence construction.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Please remember BM is a Bernie supporter. fpalm


And your point is? He is clearly the better choice between any of the candidates this election cycle. But we are stuck with the two most unfavourable candidates of all time.

I had the last laugh on this one.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Nah, I laugh every day when I think of how badly Bernie sold out and how many stupid millennials believed he was any different than other politician. :lmao


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Bernie was okay, but I disagreed with him on just about everything economics wise. I did like him in other aspects, though.

But don't you just find it odd the supposed Champion of the Poor has multiple homes and drives a 6 figure car?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Nah, I laugh every day when I think of how badly Bernie sold out and how many stupid millennials believed he was any different than other politician. :lmao


What did you expect him to do? He got a lot of his policies on the DNC platform, now he just needs to hold Hillary to them. He still wants money out of politics and is against everything he was before and for everything he was before. 

You are just claiming this because you wanted him to run 3rd party which would have ensured Trump winning. Bernie did not sell out. He is doing what is best to get his policies passed.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> Bernie was okay, but I disagreed with him on just about everything economics wise. I did like him in other aspects, though.
> 
> And don't you just find it odd the supposed Champion of the Poor has multiple homes and drives a 6 figure car?


A lot of people in the middle class have multiple homes as for his 6 figure car, I hope you are not talking about that fake photo lol


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> What did you expect him to do? He got a lot of his policies on the DNC platform, now he just needs to hold Hillary to them. He still wants money out of politics and is against everything he was before and for everything he was before.
> 
> You are just claiming this because you wanted him to run 3rd party which would have ensured Trump winning. Bernie did not sell out. He is doing what is best to get his policies passed.


Hillary is going to do what her masters have decided she will do. None of that will be in line with what Bernie Sanders wants. :lmao


Meanwhile this election has reached a new level of weird with #SpiritCooking 

And to think I disparaged Dr. Ben Carson for linking Hillary with Lucifer at the RNC. :done


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Hillary is going to do what her masters have decided she will do. None of that will be in line with what Bernie Sanders wants. :lmao
> 
> 
> Meanwhile this election has reached a new level of weird with #SpiritCooking
> 
> And to think I disparaged Dr. Ben Carson for linking Hillary with Lucifer at the RNC. :done


Does mean he wont fight her on when she tries that and to try to force her to keep her promises. I could easily see Hillary get primaried in 4 years if she does not keep her promises, which like you said she wont.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

do i want to google spirit cooking or search it on twitter or should i preserve my sanity


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> What did you expect him to do? He got a lot of his policies on the DNC platform, now he just needs to hold Hillary to them. He still wants money out of politics and is against everything he was before and for everything he was before.
> 
> You are just claiming this because you wanted him to run 3rd party which would have ensured Trump winning. Bernie did not sell out. He is doing what is best to get his policies passed.


LOL no he isn't, none of his policies will be passed and in four years he won't make any noise because people will A.) Remember how big of a weakling he is, B.) Remember he sold out and cannot be trusted and C.) Appeals to only whites, he did so terrible with blacks that the white bernie bros were on net giving racist tirades against blacks who voted for Clinton.

If he cannot stand up to a few BLM protesters how can he stand up to anyone else? Oh he didn't, he folded to Hillary like a stack of cards. Your "Oh but as a third party he wouldn't have won" nonsense is pure bullshit. Right now people are wanting another candidate, he could have easily snipped most of the Hillary supporters and independents, even eventually the nonwhites would have sided with him even if the bernie bros are a bunch of cry baby internet racists. 

He sold out but don't feel bad, everyone eventually does.


----------



## amhlilhaus

deepelemblues said:


> do i want to google spirit cooking or search it on twitter or should i preserve my sanity


Preserve your sanity, its gross


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> LOL no he isn't, none of his policies will be passed and in four years he won't make any noise because people will A.) Remember how big of a weakling he is, B.) Remember he sold out and cannot be trusted and C.) Appeals to only whites, he did so terrible with blacks that the white bernie bros were on net giving racist tirades against blacks who voted for Clinton.
> 
> If he cannot stand up to a few BLM protesters how can he stand up to anyone else? Oh he didn't, he folded to Hillary like a stack of cards. Your "Oh but as a third party he wouldn't have won" nonsense is pure bullshit. Right now people are wanting another candidate, he could have easily snipped most of the Hillary supporters and independents, even eventually the nonwhites would have sided with him even if the bernie bros are a bunch of cry baby internet racists.
> 
> He sold out but don't feel bad, everyone eventually does.



Its not bullshit, Hillary and Bernie would have split the blue states and Trump would have won all the red states and become president. 

Just because Bernie showed respect to BLM protesters and did not kick them out or tell his fans to beat them up like Trump does, does not mean he folded to them. He let them speak.
Trump is so racist he kicked out a black supporter from his own rally LOL. If Bernie would pushed them off stage or took the mic from them, he would have been called racist and would have gotten tons of bad press for doing that.

Your fantasy of Bernie is pretty funny. The guy was a no named congressman before the primary and he made up a 60 point deficit in the polls . We all know he beat Hillary but had the primary stolen from him. He def shoudl have fought on that. If you want to claim he wont fight then use that as an example. he will always fight for his policies in the senate.


----------



## Cipher

birthday_massacre said:


> A lot of people in the middle class have multiple homes as for his 6 figure car, I hope you are not talking about that fake photo lol


Tbh I forgot that photo was fake. This election has been a tailspin.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> Tbh I forgot that photo was fake. This election has been a tailspin.


Bernies networth is something like $500k. http://moneynation.com/bernie-sanders-net-worth/

he is not a millionaire by any means.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Speaking of Anarchy :lmao


Idk, I think I would rather die than watch anything from Stefan Molyneux unironically.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@Beatles123 That "pool party" thing is bizarrely-worded but I would not infer anything sinister there based on that alone.



CamillePunk said:


> Hillary is going to do what her masters have decided she will do. None of that will be in line with what Bernie Sanders wants. :lmao
> 
> 
> Meanwhile this election has reached a new level of weird with #SpiritCooking
> 
> And to think I disparaged Dr. Ben Carson for linking Hillary with Lucifer at the RNC. :done


You should have known better.  http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anyth...-2016-discussion-thread-536.html#post61599498

This "spirit cooking" thing _does_ appear to be... odd. Marina Abramovic coming along just may refer to "cooking up thoughts" but her involvement certainly opens some peculiar doors through which I see even wikileaks itselt went right through on twitter. :lol :side:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/794450623404113920 :lol I have read about "spirit cooking" and if the "spirit cooking" the Podesta emails refer to _is_ this "spirit cooking," which had been performed by Marina Ambramovic in the past, as she herself has documented, that would most certainly be strange. 

I've said this before in a thread but I was once invited to Bohemian Grove, knowing a few fellows who did indeed go to it. Most of that weirdness is probably not believed in by the attendants but there are doubtless some within the political-financial elite who _do_ become at least somewhat seduced by it.





 :hglol

_Of course_ Hillary talks to the dead... She may need that constituency to win Pennsylvania in a few days. :mj


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The "dead voting for Hillary" meme above was a joke, he said, anticipating incoming wrath.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793991449306132481
:lmao


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> The "dead voting for Hillary" meme above was a joke, he said, anticipating incoming wrath.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793991449306132481
> :lmao


I'm hoping more comes out, this is comedy gold!


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

FBI in the last hour is confirming that many classified emails were on Anthony Wiener's laptop. 

Elsewhere, Erik Prince says that the NYPD is ready to make arrests in the case specific to Weiner. 

:trump predicted all of this many, many moons ago. :sodone


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/04/exclusive-poll-trump-clinton-tied-in-michigan/

There is no way Michigan is tied.

If _Michigan_ is anywhere even close to tied... 






:trump


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/04/exclusive-poll-trump-clinton-tied-in-michigan/
> 
> There is no way Michigan is tied.
> 
> If _Michigan_ is anywhere even close to tied...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :trump


Definitely fits lefty human marshmallow Michael Moore's long-held belief that Trump will be a wildly popular choice in the industrial heartland so devastated by NAFTA, WTO, et. al., and Michigan, Ohio and at least much of Pennsylvania would be "Ground Zero" for that phenomenon. 

Michigan polls are notorious. Hillary was supposed to win the Michigan primary without breaking a sweat and ended up losing by about 1% to Bernie Sanders.

She's definitely not visiting Michigan right now for her health. :lol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> FBI in the last hour is confirming that many classified emails were on Anthony Wiener's laptop.
> 
> Elsewhere, Erik Prince says that the NYPD is ready to make arrests in the case specific to Weiner.
> 
> :trump predicted all of this many, many moons ago. :sodone


Why would the NYPD be making arrests on behalf of the FBI?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Why would the NYPD be making arrests on behalf of the FBI?


The case specific to Weiner is the case of him skyping with a 15 year old which is being investigated by the NYPD's SVU unit (yes it is real lol)


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> The case specific to Weiner is the case of him skyping with a 15 year old which is being investigated by the NYPD's SVU unit (yes it is real lol)


So basically it's just him and potentially someone who has been proven to know that he was doing it then. 

Correct me if I'm wrong still then that no arrests in the email scandal can be made by the NYPD?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> So basically it's just him and potentially someone who has been proven to know that he was doing it then.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong still then that no arrests in the email scandal can be made by the NYPD?


Not for a federal indictment unless the FBI asks them for assistance in making the arrest

Or unless you got some devil may care NYPD detectives like on TV lol


----------



## 256097

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Vote Trump for the lol's.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This is the one election you're allowed to vote for somebody other than Nixon for the lulz


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Susan Sarandon's voting for Jill Stein after claiming that she's not voting with her vagina :lmao


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.freep.com/story/news/pol...lary-clinton-race-michigan-tightens/93287658/

Maybe :trump _isn't_ that far from being tied in Michigan.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Why would the NYPD be making arrests on behalf of the FBI?


As *deepelm* said, the NYPD case was of Anthony Weiner "sexting" an underage girl. Wholly separate investigation that has been tied into the FBI's investigation thanks to the connection of Weiner's laptop vis-à-vis Huma Abedin.

There are literally five separate investigations ensuing right now, between the FBI and NYPD. One investigation is looking into whether or not Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin committed perjury, the other two are the aforementioned, and the FBI has also been investigating the Clinton Foundation for over a year according to sources close to the Bureau (primarily ex-agents who feel free to talk). The final investigation is more low-key, Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, began looking over the Clinton Foundation a few short months ago.

_Now_, however, Democrats are calling for an investigation of these "FBI leaks." Presumably the FBI has, as I joked last week, been taken over by Vladimir Putin.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The FBI is in the middle of a low-key civil war between the political hacks who are minions of the DOJ and Obama and agents who were not happy that Hillary wasn't indicted in July, of which there are apparently not a small number.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



>


Her time is running out. tick tock! Tick tock! TICK TOCK!

- Vic


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/794644536958062592


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


>


That was a typo, the story was actually "Trump leaning all over" "Female staff report unwanted kissing and pussy grabbing" "Melania gave me the okay says Trump"


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://rare.us/story/with-a-hillary...&utm_campaign=Influencers_Rare_Julia_Borowski



> The Center for American Progress is a strange bird. It’s firmly of the left, and the progressive left at that, distinct from those technocrats over at the Brookings Institution with their unwavering belief in neoliberal transubstantiation. But CAP was also founded by John Podesta, the real Clintonian bagman, as opposed to the conspiracy enthusiast with a specialty in extraterrestrial lesbians that Sean Hannity hauled onto his show earlier this week. With Clinton running for president, it was inevitable that tension would arise at CAP between progressive values on the one side and establishment connections on the other.
> 
> Because on foreign policy, Mrs. Clinton is no progressive, at least in the baptism-by-Iraq sense that left so many liberals staunchly anti-war during the Bush administration. She’s a hawk, a neoconservative bedfellow, while her opponent Donald Trump is a sepia-toned nationalist with an affinity for walls and not wars. It’s a foreign policy realignment that’s left many Bush administration veterans eyeing Hillary approvingly and old barricade leftists like Michael Moore issuing qualified praise for the Trump Train. Now, the Center for American Progress has heralded the arrival of this shift better than anyone else to date.
> 
> 
> First, CAP published a report last week on the Middle East. It’s brimming with reckless nonsense about how we need to brandish airpower against Bashar al-Assad in Syria, counter Iranian ambition, nation-build in hot spots like Iraq and Libya and endlessly placate our “partners.” There’s no cautious note about bombing in proximity to Russia’s ground presence in Syria and no emphasis on the delicacy needed to avoid a great-powers war that could kill millions. The only concession to restraint is a breezy admission that the Iraq war was counterproductive.
> 
> The report bears Hillary Clinton’s imprint. It’s what foreign policy writers call “liberal internationalism,” a belief, usually located at the center-left junction of our politics, that American might should be deployed to export progressive values around the world. CAP makes no attempt to hide this: “America,” it says, “possesses an abiding interest in the worldwide preservation and extension of the universal values embodied in President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms.” If there’s any daylight between that and George W. Bush’s democracy-spreadin’ Freedom Agenda, I don’t see it.
> 
> But — and this is where liberal internationalism becomes tricky — while FDR’s freedoms are to be promulgated, they’re to be promulgated in some countries more strenuously than in others. Great clamors are to be raised about the lack of democracy in Iran and the human rights violations of Bashar al-Assad, but less so over our Gulf allies like Saudi Arabia, which are governed by Sharia Law, hideously oppress their minorities and suppress the democratic aspirations of Shias in countries like Bahrain.
> 
> Thus were the Poland Spring bottles laid out for a recent Center for American Progress panel discussion between Clinton foreign policy advisor Mike Morell and UAE Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba where, according to Intercept reporter Zaid Jilani, a consensus was quickly struck:
> 
> No one at the event offered criticism of al-Otaiba’s defense of the [Saudi] war [in Yemen] or the more than $20 billion of U.S. arms sales to the Saudi Arabia over the past 18 months. The thousands of Yemenis who have been killed by the Gulf coalition’s military intervention went unmentioned. The Gulf states’ role in fostering extremism in Syria and elsewhere was also not extensively discussed. And the wisdom of adopting a more hostile posture towards Iran was never questioned.
> 
> This is Hillary Clinton’s twofold and sometimes contradictory foreign policy: 1. aggressively spread liberal values throughout the Middle East, and 2. maintain the current counterproductive system of Cold War alliances at all costs. And she’s taking the Democratic left along with her. Why? Because voters, generally speaking, tend to pull the lever first for the candidate, second for their economic agenda and 17th for their foreign policy. This creates intellectual drift when it comes to international affairs, as seen now with the left: right now, they’re so fanatical about stopping Donald Trump that, sure, okay, they’ll assimilate with Clinton’s hawkishness, and maybe it’s called for anyway, given Trump’s seeming bonhomie with Russia and Assad.
> 
> So pro-war the left goes — well, many of them. Going forward, those conscientious progressive critics at places like The Intercept and The Nation will be more necessary than ever.


Brilliant article right here. I also shared it on my facebook page, I won't be surprised if some idiot argues with me about how Donald Trump is so much worse 

With just days to go until the election, I may do a summary of my thoughts of this entire horrifying yet extremely intriguing election cycle.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Why does this election suddenly feel like an acid trip? What the hell is going on?


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If the NYPD got a lot of access to the laptop and info, there very well could be some info sharing between some in the NYPD and FBI given there are several FBI agents not at all happy with how things with Clinton were handled. Maybe there is some truth to some of the more outrageous stuff.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

To add more WTF? to the mix, John Podesta has a cannibalism painting hanging in his New York Office.

























- Vic


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Kabraxal said:


> Why does this election suddenly feel like an acid trip? What the hell is going on?


Its because its too surreal to be true. And yet it is


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This is fucking out of control. If these revelations continue at this pace, they really are gonna burn this whole thing to the ground.


----------



## Mra22

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So...after the story comes out of the creepy spirit cooking, apparently Jay Z is involved in that sick crap too, no surprise there and Podesta has a picture depicting canibalism on his home. God help us if this crazy woman gets in there.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Mra22 said:


> So...after the story comes out of the creepy spirit cooking, apparently Jay Z is involved in that sick crap too, no surprise there and Podesta has a picture depicting canibalism on his home. God help us if this crazy woman gets in there.


Im seeing it now


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Im seeing it now


Vlad Tepes being a candidate. :banderas 

This thread has surpassed 10,000 posts. Wow.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> Vlad Tepes being a candidate. :banderas
> 
> This thread has surpassed 10,000 posts. Wow.


I know right! I just wish half of them weren't BM arguing with everyone telling them they're wrong and he's right.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So I just went back and read some of the stuff that has been revealed...

WHAT. THE. ACTUAL. FUCK

I didn't think this could get any weirder :lmao.

This is like some Alex Jones type shit, InfoWars must be having a field day with all of this.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> So I just went back and read some of the stuff that has been revealed...
> 
> WHAT. THE. ACTUAL. FUCK
> 
> I didn't think this could get any weirder :lmao.
> 
> This is like some Alex Jones type shit, InfoWars must be having a field day with all of this.


LOL Alex jones was right all along!


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> So I just went back and read some of the stuff that has been revealed...
> 
> WHAT. THE. ACTUAL. FUCK
> 
> I didn't think this could get any weirder :lmao.
> 
> This is like some Alex Jones type shit, InfoWars must be having a field day with all of this.


It seems so stupid and too much like a Twilight Zone episode... but then the story of the powerful is full of fucked up shit like this. So it's like, please don't be true but not really shocked if it is. Just proves that people in power are fucked up individuals that this stuff isn't immediately scoffed at.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






Remember this savage gem?



> LOL Alex jones was right all along!


The guy was who was made fun for being a kook turns out to be the sanest person in the room.

*#HumblePie*

- Vic


----------



## KC Armstrong

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> So I just went back and read some of the stuff that has been revealed...
> 
> WHAT. THE. ACTUAL. FUCK
> 
> I didn't think this could get any weirder :lmao.
> 
> This is like some Alex Jones type shit, InfoWars must be having a field day with all of this.



Good for him. Love him or hate him, he has been ridiculed for 20 years for talking about shit like this. Now that we're all getting to see what's behind the curtain, I wouldn't blame him for going on an epic "I told you so" rant.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

is that really a cannibalism painting? because it's in the style of late renaissance paintings of surgeons and such dissecting the body to study it


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



John Podesta said:


> It's better to the be the guy with the fork than the guy on the table.


http://time.com/4308369/hillary-clinton-john-podesta/

- Vic


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> http://rare.us/story/with-a-hillary...&utm_campaign=Influencers_Rare_Julia_Borowski
> 
> Brilliant article right here. I also shared it on my facebook page, I won't be surprised if some idiot argues with me about how Donald Trump is so much worse
> 
> With just days to go until the election, I may do a summary of my thoughts of this entire horrifying yet extremely intriguing election cycle.





> It’s what foreign policy writers call “liberal internationalism,” a belief, usually located at the center-left junction of our politics, that *American might should be deployed to export progressive values around the world*.


I know I'm beating a dead horse here and I'm pretty sure this is something you yourself understand but the idea of using military strength to export progressive/center-left/liberal/etc. values is a complete oxymoron. If you are war mongering, then by definition, you are not pushing progressive/center-left/liberal/etc. values. 

This is where propaganda and the mass brainwashing that goes along with it comes into play. The "liberal" masses have been tricked into believing that being liberal only means being liberal on social issues while ignoring the fact that the "liberal" leaders are corporate lackeys and war mongers. Seems like to me that there are a lot bigger issues at stake than where a transvestite goes to the bathroom. Gay people being able to get married isn't going to be much consolation if the "liberal" leaders are neo/neos who crash the economy while destroying the world with war. 

But that's just me.



Kabraxal said:


> Why does this election suddenly feel like an acid trip? What the hell is going on?


Pfft. This election is nothing like an acid trip. Acid trips are awesome! This election, not so much.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*











This is honestly some of the craziest shit I've ever heard and I really don't know what to think about these new WikiLeaks revelations. Clinton corruption, DNC rigging, taking money from foreign powers like Saudi Arabia etc. that I can believe. THIS though? 

As I said, insane.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump with some BIG rallies today. Obama had a rally today. Trumps were twice the size


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Alex Jones also believes that Clinton and Obama are possessed by literal, actual demons. So, yeah... even if he does get some things right, that doesn't mean he isn't batshit crazy.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@CamillePunk @obby @Obfuscation



L-DOPA said:


> This is honestly some of the craziest shit I've ever heard and I really don't know what to think about these new WikiLeaks revelations. Clinton corruption, DNC rigging, taking money from foreign powers like Saudi Arabia etc. that I can believe. THIS though?
> 
> As I said, insane.


KUBRICK WUZ RITE











http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/04/vandals-hit-donald-trumps-denver-campaign-office/ 



> Vandals hit Donald Trump’s Denver campaign office
> 
> Denver Police department spokesman says they will use tools available, including electronic ones, to find suspects
> 
> By Mark K. Matthews | [email protected]
> PUBLISHED: November 4, 2016 at 8:23 am


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It so sad Clinton needs celebrities to help her win an election.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


>


:lmao

Someone put that Assassin's Creed III: King Washington DLC marketing to good use.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> :lmao
> 
> Someone put that Assassin's Creed III: King Washington DLC marketing to good use.


Like that, how about this


----------



## Mra22

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary also attended Witch's churches 










http://www.infowars.com/hillary-regularly-attended-witchs-church-clinton-insider-claims/


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/04/vandals-hit-donald-trumps-denver-campaign-office/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandals hit Donald Trump’s Denver campaign office
> 
> Denver Police department spokesman says they will use tools available, including electronic ones, to find suspects
> 
> By Mark K. Matthews | [email protected]
> PUBLISHED: November 4, 2016 at 8:23 am
Click to expand...




> *Mississippi: Black Church Burned, Vandalized with Words "Vote Trump"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Mississippi, authorities are investigating the burning and vandalism of a historic African-American church in Greenville on Tuesday night. The 111-year-old Hopewell Missionary Baptist Church was torched and then spray-painted with the words "Vote Trump." Authorities say they are investigating the attack as a hate crime. Greenville Mayor Errick Simmons called the incident "an attack on the black church and the black community. … This happened in the ‘50s and the ‘60s. This should not happen in 2016."
> 
> SOURCE


Regardless of who wins the election, I fully expect to see people rioting and burning shit down. The USA is a powder keg right now. Next Tuesday is going to be ugly.

In unrelated news, it's a beautiful, sunny day in Hawai'i.

ositivity


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Regardless of who wins the election, I fully expect to see people rioting and burning shit down. The USA is a powder keg right now. Next Tuesday is going to be ugly.
> 
> In unrelated news, it's a beautiful, sunny day in Hawai'i.
> 
> ositivity


That screams setup.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Regardless of who wins the election, I fully expect to see people rioting and burning shit down. The USA is a powder keg right now. Next Tuesday is going to be ugly.
> 
> In unrelated news, it's a beautiful, sunny day in Hawai'i.
> 
> ositivity


I expect shit to go down. The losers are not going to go away quietly.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> It so sad Clinton needs celebrities to help her win an election.


It's always been like that. Hollywood was sucking Obama's dick when he first ran and ever since. Thankfully, not every celebrity is a Democratic zombie. 

- Vic


----------



## nyelator

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump HAS to win.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> I expect shit to go down. *The losers are not going to go away quietly.*


It's safe to say that there are no winners in this election. :lol


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

To show you how insane everyone has become...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/0...s-fox-news-hd-leaving-viewers-frustrated.html

Technical glitches knocked out HD for Fox News for several hours...as well as other channels like Ovation, CNN, and BBC World News. However, going through another story that FNC aired...many people think it was deliberate censorship on behalf of AT&T (who owns DirecTV). People actually believe that the feed was cut off on purpose. 

I wonder if I should buy shares in Alcoa (the parent company for Reynolds the makers of aluminum foil)...I might make some money there.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is like the Dark Night and Hillary is Bane. 

Trump needs to win


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> To show you how insane everyone has become...
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/0...s-fox-news-hd-leaving-viewers-frustrated.html
> 
> Technical glitches knocked out HD for Fox News for several hours...as well as other channels like Ovation, CNN, and BBC World News. However, going through another story that FNC aired...many people think it was deliberate censorship on behalf of AT&T (who owns DirecTV). People actually believe that the feed was cut off on purpose.
> 
> I wonder if I should buy shares in Alcoa (the parent company for Reynolds the makers of aluminum foil)...I might make some money there.


Given what we found out today and how the MSM works can you really blame people for being suspicious?


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

For those who want Trump to win what would the country REALLY look ran like if he ran things? No fantasy stuff or stuff you hope happens. What is the most realistic prognosis of the US if Donald Trump was president?


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Hardcore Show said:


> For those who want Trump to win what would the country REALLY look ran like if he ran things? No fantasy stuff or stuff you hope happens. What is the most realistic prognosis of the US if Donald Trump was president?


Complete economic and political collapse. Which is exactly why I want Trump to win. The USA is too corrupt to be fixed as long as the Establishment remains in place. 

To be clear, Trump isn't going to fix a damned thing. But there's a chance that he will be such a complete catastrophe that he will spur on the revolt that the USA is long overdue for.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Complete economic and political collapse. Which is exactly why I want Trump to win. The USA is too corrupt to be fixed as long as the Establishment remains in place.
> 
> To be clear, Trump isn't going to fix a damned thing. But there's a chance that he will be such a complete catastrophe that he will spur on the revolt that the USA is long overdue for.


You do know that if their was anything like that the cops, SWAT and even military if needed would stop revolts the sec they became a problem. Outside of dumbness and laziness that is why no one stands up for anything anymore.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> What is the most realistic prognosis of the US if Donald Trump was president?


Obamacare getting replaced and better relations with Russia.

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If you think the US needs a revolution you need to think again about what a revolution actually entails.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Hardcore Show said:


> You do know that if their was anything like that the cops, SWAT and even military if needed would stop revolts the sec they became a problem. Outside of dumbness and laziness that is why no one stands up for anything anymore.


I do understand that. That's why I say it will take a complete collapse. It ain't going to be pretty but if anything is ever going to truly change, it's going to take a majority revolt. Otherwise, the machine will keep right on grinding along and we'll continue getting ground up in the gears.

"The old get old and the young get stronger. May take all week and it may take longer. They've got the guns but we've got the numbers. Gonna win. Yeah, we're taking over. Come on!" -Jim Morrison


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Complete economic and political collapse. Which is exactly why I want Trump to win. The USA is too corrupt to be fixed as long as the Establishment remains in place.
> 
> To be clear, Trump isn't going to fix a damned thing. But there's a chance that he will be such a complete catastrophe that he will spur on the revolt that the USA is long overdue for.


On the flip side, if the allegations of satanism and pedophilia and human sacrifice turn out to be even remotely true, I would prefer to see Hillary get elected. Imagine the "buyer's remorse" the American people who voted for her would have if they find out they supported and voted for a real monster. It would shake people to their core, and might be enough to get them angry and off their asses to actually do something constructive, like putting in real work to take back their country from these people.

It is so sad though, to have to pin hopes on such Hollywood storyline ridiculousness in order to believe that average people might be shocked enough to finally open their eyes to what is going on above them. We really have become a society like the one in the movie They Live. And it's too much to hope that someone is going to pass out the sunglasses to everyone.

Regardless of what happens in the next week or so, I'll say this much. The 2016 Presidential Election has been one hell of a dog and pony show. I have never seen anything like this before. And I pray I never do again.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Polls polls polls!

CO: Tied

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/02/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-tied-in-colorado-new-poll-shows/

MI: Tied

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/04/exclusive-poll-trump-clinton-tied-in-michigan/

NH: Tied

https://www.uml.edu/docs/TOPLINE-NH-GENERAL-20161103_tcm18-264691.pdf

PA: _Tied?!?!?!_

http://harperpolling.com/polls/pennsylvania-statewide-poll--11-2-3#PresidentTIE

NV: Tied

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/nvelection-8-news-now-poll-finds-clinton-trump-races-tied

_New Fucking Mexico:_ Within the margin of error?!?!?!?!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/Zia_Poll_November_4th_2016.pdf

Yeah, we've just about reached it:






I'm sure they're all bad polls that Nate Silver wouldn't even give a grade since "TERRIBLE NO GOOD VERY BAD POLL" isn't a grading option.

It's way past time to argue that :trump doesn't have all the momentum surging his way.

Hillary better release that final :trump DESTROYING BOMBSHELL (that she doesn't have or it would have been released days ago when :trump started gaining)

I still can't bring myself to believe :trump is actually going to win this damn thing but goddamn even I might not be able to stomach all the :heston I'll be posting if (when?) :trump does


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> I might not be able to stomach all the :heston I'll be posting if (when?) :trump does


Do try to go easy on the servers if you do decide to post :heston ad nauseam. These servers are shit and just may crash if Donald Trump wins.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I just hope that if Trump wins, there will be a section on memes playing a role in the 2016 Presidential Election in the history books.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> Do try to go easy on the servers if you do decide to post :heston ad nauseam. These servers are shit and just may crash if Donald Trump wins.


It wouldn't be _that_ ad nauseum 

I promise 

And not with my fingers crossed

I meant more like at least one in every post I make


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> It wouldn't be _that_ ad nauseum
> 
> I promise
> 
> And not with my fingers crossed
> 
> I meant more like at least one in every post I make


You can post as many :heston as you damn well please. It's just a server crash may be very likely because of these ancient servers. They can't handle such a GOAT. :mj2


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Pratchett said:


> On the flip side, if the allegations of satanism and pedophilia and human sacrifice turn out to be even remotely true, I would prefer to see Hillary get elected. Imagine the "buyer's remorse" the American people who voted for her would have if they find out they supported and voted for a real monster. It would shake people to their core, and might be enough to get them angry and off their asses to actually do something constructive, like putting in real work to take back their country from these people.
> 
> It is so sad though, to have to pin hopes on such Hollywood storyline ridiculousness in order to believe that average people might be shocked enough to finally open their eyes to what is going on above them. We really have become a society like the one in the movie They Live. And it's too much to hope that someone is going to pass out the sunglasses to everyone.
> 
> Regardless of what happens in the next week or so, I'll say this much. The 2016 Presidential Election has been one hell of a dog and pony show. I have never seen anything like this before. And I pray I never do again.


The thing that annoys me so much is that we wouldn't even have a prominent Republican party anymore if the Democrats weren't such pathetic war mongering corporate sellouts. The Christian right has lost the culture wars but instead of this being a victory for the left, Democrats simply replaced Republicans on the right with their foreign and economic policies while using liberal social policies to sucker the sheeple into continuing to vote for them, which in turn forced Republicans even further right into batshit crazy town. There is a well known theory out there that it's the Republicans moving right that has pulled Democrats right with them and I call bullshit on that. They've got it backwards. It's the Democrats who are moving right and forcing Republicans to go even further right in response, since Republicans will never agree with Democrats on anything, even when the Dems are promoting Republican plans.

Take Obamacare, for example. That was the Republican response to Democrats wanting single payer healthcare. They didn't hate it until Democrats took the idea from them. It was Obama who made the Bush tax cuts permanent. HW Bush signed NAFTA but it took a Democrat, Bill Clinton, to get it through Congress. On foreign and economic policy, Democrats are now what Republicans used to be. The only difference is they put a pretty face on shitty Republican policies and "liberal" sheep eat that shit right up.

The biggest problem with electing Hillary, other than the whole WWIII thing (which admittedly is THE biggest problem), is that her and her crony neoliberal Democrats will continue to fuck people over economically. Since the duopoly has such a strange hold on politics, that means the only other place to go from center right is to far right. And if anyone thinks Republicans have the answer to our economic woes, I'd suggest they put down the crack pipe.

The banks _will_ crash again. Wall Street _will_ get bailed out again. Income inequality _will_ continue to skyrocket. Poverty _will _continue to grow. Put Hillary in charge and she will continue propping up the dying system. Put Trump in charge and it's pedal to the metal over the cliff. Since the crash is inevitable either way, the sooner it happens, the sooner we can start building a different system.

Of course, this all hinges on the dumbass masses actually getting fed up with it and forcing change. If they don't, the Establishment will simply repair the cracks in the dam and prepare for the next flood.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> I do understand that. That's why I say it will take a complete collapse. It ain't going to be pretty but if anything is ever going to truly change, it's going to take a majority revolt. Otherwise, the machine will keep right on grinding along and we'll continue getting ground up in the gears.
> 
> "The old get old and the young get stronger. May take all week and it may take longer. They've got the guns but we've got the numbers. Gonna win. Yeah, we're taking over. Come on!" -Jim Morrison


I don't think jim counted on the fact that many of the young are confused SJWs with self hatred issues, many of the more criminal element is going to look after itself and those on the right will not be shields for the "leftists" that use nonwhites as pawns because they're weak. Doubt there will be any great revolution spurned on by the young because there will be no unity, the powers in charge have ensured that a weak, self loathing form of thinking is ensuring any youth movement is full of ignorant fuckwads.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The "woman" who claimed Trump raped her when she was 13 has withdrawn her lawsuit.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I don't think jim counted on the fact that many of the young are confused SJWs with self hatred issues, many of the more criminal element is going to look after itself and those on the right will not be shields for the "leftists" that use nonwhites as pawns because they're weak. Doubt there will be any great revolution spurned on by the young because there will be no unity, the powers in charge have ensured that a weak, self loathing form of thinking is ensuring any youth movement is full of ignorant fuckwads.


That's the alternative to my ideas of revolt; weak sheeple remaining weak sheeple. Time will tell which one of us is right. If I was a betting man, I'd bet on your pessimistic view being what prevails. But hey, one can hope.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










- Vic


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> - Vic


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So it now looks like Hillary Clinton was sending classified information about Greek debt to her daughter Chelsea... Whose husband was running a fund trading in Greek bonds.

That's a major no-no if true.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> That's the alternative to my ideas of revolt; weak sheeple remaining weak sheeple. Time will tell which one of us is right. If I was a betting man, I'd bet on your pessimistic view being what prevails. But hey, one can hope.


I certainly do hope we don't see [hundreds to tens of thousands] of Real Patriots (TM) marching on LA, NYC, the Bay area and DC if they're Right-Wing Real Patriots (TM) or NYC and DC if they're Left-Wing Real Patriots (TM) with the inevitable result a military coup. Not the military coming to save the government, the military taking over the government. 

If you think life is on the verge of shit and heading shittier, I would highly suggest you not want a revolution. Of course it would either lose or win very quickly but while ongoing there would still be a high likelihood that large numbers of people would get a taste of the real deprivation and maiming and death that war brings. Which would be far worse than any and all of the shit you want a revolution over. 

Unless it were a military coup from the start targeting the highest levels of the federal government and carried off with great execution, which even if successful I think you would agree would have a low chance of bringing off the kind of revolution you want. 

We are just at the start of this resurgence of populism. Ten years ago the political currents today weren't even ripples. Five years ago they were largely confined to the Tea Party and Ron Paulbots. Today they are the winds at the back of a man polling essentially 50% in the presidential election. A man who is only a candidate for president because he is a megaphone for the 40% of this nation that is extremely dissatisfied and feels abused and ignored by the people running the country. :trump is not where he is because of anything but his giving a voice to these people. If he fails, because he was too crass and vulgar or whatever, they will find someone else who will be a better overall candidate. 

There's no reason to give up on the faith and fortitude of the American people or on American institutions or on the political underpinnings of the country. Revolution, even if it is "for the Constitution," means the Constitution has failed. The Constitution hasn't failed yet. 

If :trump loses, all it means is that Hillary Clinton will get her one term in office. By 2020 that bitch will be in Dubya 2nd term territory. So the inevitable triumph of Americanism will be even bigger than it will be if :trump wins now.

Hell could you imagine a re-match :mark: doesn't matter which one wins on Tuesday :mark:



DesolationRow said:


> So it now looks like Hillary Clinton was sending classified information about Greek debt to her daughter Chelsea... Whose husband was running a fund trading in Greek bonds.
> 
> That's a major no-no if true.


What's a little insider trading using classified information between a mother and her daughter?

Is there anything this skeeze won't do to line her and her family's pockets.

Hillary saw a decent prospect in Bill and has ridden that perverted old horse to a grand fortune and is probably the second-most influential and powerful person in the world after Barack Obama (only for 2 more months though). She's been a venal, megalomaniacal money-grubbing social climber from the start. And she's so close to finally grubbing her way to the top of the heap. 

In one sense her life is a quintessential American story, you could see a Great American Novel being written by one of the masters with a character like her as the focal point. In a less romantic and more reality-based sense she's a goddamn snake and if she wins people are going to find out that she bites everybody who doesn't feed her enough. And there's damn few who can do that.


----------



## Mra22

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Well, LeBron is still my favorite player but I've lost a lot of respect for him. Can't believe he supports KILLARY


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@deepelemblues the literary comparisons you make are apt. F. Scott Fitzgerald could probably have spun a solid tragedy about the Clintons, or perhaps Lord Byron or William Blake. 

One of the most surreal aspects to the 2016 election cycle is that the Democratic Party simply accepted Hillary as the nominee, with all of her baggage, ill-considered decisions of the past, and the federal investigation which the head honchos doubtless believed was over after early July. We, as a polity, have been dealing with Hillary and her husband and their never-ending tangled web of corruption and graft and ceaseless erupting of scandals for decades, and yet it was taken for granted years ago that she'd get her turn in 2016 and here we are and it's still fairly unbelievable, yet all too believable. 

I actually made the comparison between her and Cersei Lannister once here, ha.



Mra22 said:


> Well, LeBron is still my favorite player but I've lost a lot of respect for him. Can't believe he supports KILLARY


As a WARRIORS fan, I am inclined to believe that LeBron is a Satanist so it all makes sense to me. :wink2:


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepenemablues said:


> I certainly do hope we don't see [hundreds to tens of thousands] of Real Patriots (TM) marching on LA, NYC, the Bay area and DC if they're Right-Wing Real Patriots (TM) or NYC and DC if they're Left-Wing Real Patriots (TM) with the inevitable result a military coup. Not the military coming to save the government, the military taking over the government.
> 
> If you think life is on the verge of shit and heading shittier, I would highly suggest you not want a revolution. Of course it would either lose or win very quickly but while ongoing there would still be a high likelihood that large numbers of people would get a taste of the real deprivation and maiming and death that war brings. Which would be far worse than any and all of the shit you want a revolution over.
> 
> Unless it were a military coup from the start targeting the highest levels of the federal government and carried off with great execution, which even if successful I think you would agree would have a low chance of bringing off the kind of revolution you want.
> 
> We are just at the start of this resurgence of populism. Ten years ago the political currents today weren't even ripples. Five years ago they were largely confined to the Tea Party and Ron Paulbots. Today they are the winds at the back of a man polling essentially 50% in the presidential election. A man who is only a candidate for president because he is a megaphone for the 40% of this nation that is extremely dissatisfied and feels abused and ignored by the people running the country. :trump is not where he is because of anything but his giving a voice to these people. If he fails, because he was too crass and vulgar or whatever, they will find someone else who will be a better overall candidate.
> 
> There's no reason to give up on the faith and fortitude of the American people or on American institutions or on the political underpinnings of the country. Revolution, even if it is "for the Constitution," means the Constitution has failed. The Constitution hasn't failed yet.
> 
> If :trump loses, all it means is that Hillary Clinton will get her one term in office. By 2020 that bitch will be in Dubya 2nd term territory. So the inevitable triumph of Americanism will be even bigger than it will be if :trump wins now.
> 
> Hell could you imagine a re-match :mark: doesn't matter which one wins on Tuesday :mark:


:HA


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Lol at the sky falling in when child-molester-satanist-cult-leader Hillary wins. Don't worry you'll still get your fast food and your wrestling forum to complain about leftist-feminists on.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Lol at the sky falling in when child-molester-satanist-cult-leader Hillary wins. Don't worry you'll still get your fast food and your wrestling forum to complain about leftist-feminists on.


View must be great from that glass house of yours.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Take it from someone who has lived through 2 military coups and a civilian revolution (one that I was a reluctant part of myself due to being part of an activist employer), the results and consequences aren't pretty and nothing changes. There are meaningless deaths and millions suffer - and ultimately the upheaval only gives breathing room for the even more corrupt and extremist to consolidate its power and implement its charter. The problem with a revolution is that you don't know if the side that wins is any more or less corrupt than the side that loses. 

It's because this idea of what change is is something no one agrees on and ultimately *no* system *exists* that can be implemented by people is ever going to lead to a utopia. 

So might as well enjoy the country that is one of the closest we have in modern civilization to an actual utopia and continue to build the current nation as opposed to stripping it out and starting from scratch. 

Obama's absolute cancerous ideology that we need to "change" has created an army of anti-intellectuals who are completely unaware that the vast majority of their ideologies have already been implemented in various parts of the world to a significant degree and have already failed. Go read some history books and take a few courses in economics instead of reading Dr. Google.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Carte Blanche said:


> Obama's absolute cancerous ideology that we need to "change" has created an army of anti-intellectuals who are completely unaware that the vast majority of their ideologies have already been implemented in various parts of the world to a significant degree and have already failed. Go read some history books and take a few courses in economics instead of reading Dr. Google.


Hope and change was always bullshit because his change was opposite the american dream. Of course the people who voted for him eother didnt understand where he was going or couldnt believe it. The problem with the old idea of america is you had to believe and want to succeed on your own. As a free country of oppurtunity, you could become anything you wanted to be with hard work and luck. Now its been replaced by shit that never works except for the select few, and the ones who brought it about are part of the successful group.

I will say it again, trump winning only holds back the tide of darkness and thats only if he does what he says he will do. 30 years from now, as the first openly transgendered pedophile democrat is running, it will be railing about the evil republicans and how they want to set the country back to a dark age as the people listening to it stand in reeducation camps


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> I will say it again, trump winning only holds back the tide of darkness and thats only if he does what he says he will do. 30 years from now, as the first openly transgendered pedophile democrat is running, it will be railing about the evil republicans and how they want to set the country back to a dark age as the people listening to it stand in reeducation camps


Reeducation camps are already here.They call themselves liberal arts colleges.

My wife isn't even in a liberal arts or social science program and they _*forced *_her to take a rape culture crash course. She was disgusted and laughed throughout the bullshit they were peddling but it was mandatory. 

An ever-growing majority of liberals are fascists.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

^ Camps are here with mandatory racist awareness classes which seem to be only pointed at one demographic and all the other nonsense colleges are trying to pull. I imagine they're going to try and make these types of moronic programs mandatory so no schools can escape!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> ^ Camps are here with mandatory racist awareness classes which seem to be only pointed at one demographic and all the other nonsense colleges are trying to pull. I imagine they're going to try and make these types of moronic programs mandatory so no schools can escape!


Yah. I just edited it back in that my wife was forced to take a rape culture class even though she's already far more educated on that subject than the biased, non-fact-based propaganda they tried to feed her. 

Our college-aged kids have been completely hijacked by left-wing extremists. Until and unless there's massive college reform, once the baby-boomers die we could be in a lot of trouble. 

This is why I will uphold southern values around economic opportunity and entrepreneurship for as long as I can. Will never vote for anyone that isn't at least divided on socialism and welfare.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Yah. I just edited it back in that my wife was forced to take a rape culture class even though she's already far more educated on that subject than the biased, non-fact-based propaganda they tried to feed her.
> 
> Our college-aged kids have been completely hijacked by left-wing extremists. Until and unless there's massive college reform, once the baby-boomers die we could be in a lot of trouble.
> 
> This is why I will uphold southern values around economic opportunity and entrepreneurship for as long as I can. Will never vote for anyone that isn't at least divided on socialism and welfare.


Sad how on the money this movie was


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

ABC poll says Clinton is rebounding with enthusiasm :ha ABC poll thats all you need to know.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Battleground State RCP averages this morning: 

Arizona: Trump - 4%
Colarado: Clinton - 3%
Florida: Clinton - 1.2% 
Georgia: Trump - 4.6%
Iowa: Trump - 2.4%
Maine: Clinton - 4.5%
Michican: Clinton - 4.8% *Trump has narrowed this from 11% down at one stage
Minnesota: Clinton - 6.0%
Missouri: Trump - 11.8%
Nevada: Trump - 2.0% 
New Hampshire: Trump - 1.6%
North Carolina: Trump - 0.8% 
Ohio: Trump - 3.3%
Pennsylvania: - Clinton - 2.6% *Another one where Trump has come back from a nearly 10% deficit
Virginia: Clinton - 5.2%
Wisconsin: Clinton - 5.5%

Whomever was predicting a clear-cut Hillary Clinton blow-out should be eating crow at this point. Early polls mean absolutely nothing at all.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is gonna take Florida


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> Trump is gonna take Florida


Very hard to predict now because Florida has an extremely diverse population.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Battleground State RCP averages this morning:
> 
> Arizona: Trump - 4%
> Colarado: Clinton - 3%
> Florida: Clinton - 1.2%
> Georgia: Trump - 4.6%
> Iowa: Trump - 2.4%
> Maine: Clinton - 4.5%
> Michican: Clinton - 4.8% *Trump has narrowed this from 11% down at one stage
> Minnesota: Clinton - 6.0%
> Missouri: Trump - 11.8%
> Nevada: Trump - 2.0%
> New Hampshire: Trump - 1.6%
> North Carolina: Trump - 0.8%
> Ohio: Trump - 3.3%
> Pennsylvania: - Clinton - 2.6% *Another one where Trump has come back from a nearly 10% deficit
> Virginia: Clinton - 5.2%
> Wisconsin: Clinton - 5.5%


RCP average is not an aggregator, and they just include whatever it gets to them



Carte Blanche said:


> Whomever was predicting a clear-cut Hillary Clinton blow-out should be eating crow at this point. Early polls mean absolutely nothing at all.


They mean something in places like Nevada and Florida where before election day you're gonna have 65% and 70% of votes, respectively, already cast. Florida is projected to get 1-3 point less white turnout while hispanics votes are projected to increase in 4-5 points. 

Nevada is already almost lost by Trump bar a Miracle for example

http://www.ktnv.com/news/ralston/the-nevada-early-voting-blog



> UPDATED, 11/5/16, 7 AM
> 
> Donald Trump will be in Reno on Saturday, but the Republicans almost certainly lost Nevada on Friday.
> 
> Trump's path was nearly impossible, as I have been telling you, before what happened in Clark County on Friday. But now he needs a Miracle in Vegas on Election Day -- and a Buffalo Bills Super Bowl championship is more likely -- to turn this around. The ripple effect down the ticket probably will cost the Republicans Harry Reid's Senate seat, two GOP House seats and control of the Legislature.
> 
> How devastating was it, epitomized by thousands of mostly Latino voters keeping Cardenas market open open in Vegas until 10 PM? This cataclysmic:
> 
> ----The Democrats won Clark County by more than 11,000 votes Friday (final mail count not posted yet), a record margin on a record-setting turnout day of 57,000 voters. The Dems now have a firewall -- approaching 73,000 ballots -- greater than 2012 when Barack Obama won the state by nearly 7 points. The 71,000 of 2012 was slightly higher in percentage terms, but raw votes matter. The lead is 14 percentage points -- right at registration. You know what else matters? Registration advantages (142,000 in Clark). Reminder: When the Clark votes were counted from early/mail voting in 2012, Obama had a 69,000 vote lead in Clark County. Game over.
> 
> ----The statewide lead (some rurals not posted) will be above 45,000 -- slightly under the 48,000 of 2012, but still robust. That's 6 percentage points, or right about at registration. The GOP turnout advantage was under a percent, worse than 2012.
> 
> ----The Dems eked out a 200-vote win in Washoe and lead there by 1,000 votes. It was even in 2012. The rural lead, before the stragglers come in, is 27,500. It probably will get above 28,000.
> 
> ----Total turnout without those rurals: 768,000, or 52.5 percent. If overall turnout ends up being 80 percent, that means two thirds of the vote is in -- close to 2012. Republicans would have to not only win Election Day by close to double digits to turn around the lead Hillary Clinton almost surely has in early voting, but they would have to astronomically boost turnout. The goal for the Dems during early voting was to bank votes and to boost turnout as high as possible to minimize the number of votes left on Election Day to affect races. Folks, the Reid Machine went out with a bang.
> 
> As an exclamation point to a historic night in Nevada, in which Clinton essentially locked up the state and Hispanics, insulted all cycle by Trump, streamed into the market, here is what the final Cardenas numbers showed (tallied by an on-the-ground activist):
> 
> 1,904 voted
> 1,258: Ds, 66%
> 165: Rs, 9%
> 481: NPs, 25%
> 
> So Cardenas was responsible for adding 1,000 to the Democratic lead.
> 
> Trump has almost no path to the presidency without Nevada. He can say whatever he wants in Reno on Saturday and boost rural turnout a lot, but he made his own bed when he announced his candidacy.
> 
> I'll dive deeper into the numbers later to show just how deep the wave could be Tuesday.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/794863521272098816
At worst, Hillary is getting 290 or so EV


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

First off "Satanism" is not a "real" religion, it has no real "followers"

It is stapled together relic of everything the Jews and Catholics thought was "bad" including things from Greeks and local tribes, the Catholics even put some of the things implied to be from God in the old testament in "satanism" (like Satan itself and anti-christ which is are fucking TITLES and a singular being, there can be 50 million of them and they are not "bad" in context) 

A legit "Satanist" would have to worship the act of "betrayal" (which is what the tile satan means) and religion requires loyalty in its very foundation 

Satanists are try hards who believe the bible and choose to do the opposite for the LOLs and their "symbols" are a Hodge podge of different symbols some of witch(lol), like the upside down cross, are MORE HOLY AND PROPER TO CHRIST THAN THE TRADITIONAL CROSS 

For these "rich people occult" shit to be true the people involved have to know the real meaning of the shit and choosing to fuck up their "rituals" and "signs" on purpose 

None of the dumbass Wickerman, child-sacrifice bullshit has ever been backed up by actual archeological study 

They real "human sacrifice" religions tended to be practiced by super aggressive raider cultures and tended to get curb stomped by more "tolerant" groups because burning your first born to death does not really help attract new members 

So either they would be doing their ZOMG EVILZ rituals WRONG or they would be supporting a FAILED RELIGION based on a FAILED culture

My fucking step dad is a Freemason and if he had magic or hidden gold we would not have been broke as fuck for a year when he got laid off, so that's another dead end 

Even if it is true, we have freedom of religion, you are allowed to stab chicken to death in Voodoo (another joke religion that idiots take seriously) you can be a fucking SITH LORD if you register it with the proper paper work


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> At worst, Hillary is getting 290 or so EV


IIRC, you were one of the people who had been consistently predicting a blow out for Hillary. 

Have you changed your mind?



stevefox1200 said:


> Even if it is true, we have freedom of religion, you are allowed to stab chicken to death in Voodoo (another joke religion that idiots take seriously) you can be a fucking SITH LORD if you register it with the proper paper work


If you're pre-disposed to thinking in terms of believing in pseudo-science, then by and large it impacts not just your decisions in personal life, but also in policy-making. It is one of the main reasons why christians lost the cultural war. 

The new cultural war isn't being fought against religious people though, but people who have taken the same low standards of belief and rationality into other walks of life basically replacing their theistic dogma with another kind of non-religious, but similarly irrational beliefs. 

As rational people, such people have no business being anywhere near having the power to make policy decisions for the rest of us. Would you like your president to be an anti-vaxxer for example?


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> IIRC, you were one of the people who had been consistently predicting a blow out for Hillary.
> 
> Have you changed your mind?


Nop, i still think it's likely 324 EV for Clinton, that's a 2012 victory, which still means 100 EV of difference

What i'm saying is, if we see a real tightening, at worst Hillary has secure 294 EV even if we give Trump NV, FL and North Carolina. Bar a massive polling error over 3 points, which is unlikely given the turnout we have today.

Now, again, i been also saying, statistics are not infalible, if i'm prove wrong, i'm just wrong, nothing to do. But data don't show a real path for Trump even if you believe in a tight race


----------



## amhlilhaus

wwe9391 said:


> ABC poll says Clinton is rebounding with enthusiasm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABC poll thats all you need to know.


Nobodys enthusiastic about clinton, except the donors to the clinton foundation


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Nop, i still think it's likely 324 EV for Clinton, that's a 2012 victory, which still means 100 EV of difference
> 
> What i'm saying is, if we see a real tightening, at worst Hillary has secure 294 EV even if we give Trump NV, FL and North Carolina. Bar a massive polling error over 3 points, which is unlikely given the turnout we have today.
> 
> Now, again, i been also saying, statistics are not infalible, if i'm prove wrong, i'm just wrong, nothing to do. But data don't show a real path for Trump even if you believe in a tight race


If Trump swings Florida, NC (which I still think there is a high possibility he loses - but it's very close) and Ohio (Which the dems have conceded) and holds Arizona, Utah and Georgia (which he seems to be heading towards at this point) that should give him about 250+. From there he potentially needs to win Nevada, Iowa (Another Dem concession), New Hampshire and Maine (all of which are close). 

His path to victory isn't as insurmountable as you seem to think it is and it's very unlikely at this point that Clinton gets anywhere near 300+ EV.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> If Trump swings Florida, NC (which I still think there is a high possibility he loses - but it's very close) and Ohio and holds Arizona, Utah and Georgia (which he seems to be heading towards at this point) that should give him about 250+. From there he potentially needs to win Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire and Maine (all of which are close).
> 
> His path to victory isn't as insurmountable as you seem to think it is and it's very unlikely at this point that Clinton gets anywhere near 300+ EV.


to get 300+ she just need to hold her current firewall and put Nevada, Florida and NC in her column. Given the current conditions i don't think she getting those 3 states it's crazy at all. Nevada at least seems a done deal as i pointed before, polling also says that NC leans blue. Florida is the difficult one, but i also think is leaning blue

I could be wrong on Maine, i don't know, i don't understand too much about this states with divided EV.

On the other side, if Trump flips some crucial states (Florida and NC) then he needs to flip four more without failing in even one. Iowa maybe is his best as is leaning read bet but the other ones are particularly difficult, specially Nevada and New Hampshire. That's the deffinition of improbable

edit: He also seems to be picking states to rally at random which shows he don't really knows where he's really having possibilities, he's adding ads in Arizona as a last minute messure and he's ending in Minnesota where he has no business going. It's strange, like really strange


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> Nobodys enthusiastic about clinton, except the donors to the clinton foundation


The only people enthusiastic about Trump are the racists and bigots.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> to get 300+ she just need to hold their current firewall and put Nevada, Florida and NC in their column. Given the current conditions i don't think she getting those 3 states it's crazy at all. Nevada at least seems a done deal as i pointed before, polling also says that NC leans blue.
> 
> I could be wrong on Maine, i don't know, i don't understand too much about this states with divided EV.
> 
> On the other side, if Trump flips some toss ups (Florida and NC) then he needs to flip four toss ups more without failing in even one. Iowa maybe is his best bet but the other ones are particularly difficult, specially Nevada and New Hampshire. That's the deffinition of improbable


Iowa has already been conceded by the Democrats and so is Ohio. 

Maine's second congressional district is mainly rural. Rural is where GOP always reigns supreme. 

Again, the recent polls have shown increased support for Trump in all three of New Hampshire, Nevada and North Carolina. Yes, chances are that she will hold New Hampshire, but the wildcard there is that this was Trump's first Primary victory and imo essentially set the tone for his eventual rise. Things could start looking different when voting actually starts and his supports return that may be underrepresented in national polls at this point. 

Improbable is definitely not how how I would rate his chances at this point. Unlikely yes. Improbable. No. 

Blow out. *Definitely *not.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So where's the big November 5th thing the neckbeards promised? Lol


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The most important video to watch this election season...








Spoiler: Bullet Points and Summary



-Restates WikiLeaks' 10 year record of never releasing false reports
-Affirms that Russia is NOT the source of the #PodestaEmails
-discussed countless examples of #PayToPlay, i.e exchaning large sums of $ for political favors
-ISIS is funded by the Governments of Saudi Arabia and Quatar, not just some rogue agents
-Largest arms deals in HISTORY done with Saudi Arabia while H was Sec. of State.
-Wall St. (Citgroup) decided O's cabinet.
-Libya was H's war; O was initially opposed
-Refugee Crisis resulted, floods of migrants (along with jihadis in the mix) entered Europe
-Doesn't think Trump will be allowed to "win"; Banks, Arms Companies, Foreign Interests, and even the Media are all too heavily invested in H
-Upper middle class afraid to be deemed "deplorable" or "********" if they support Trump or critique H
-#WikiLeaks HAS published over 800k emails regarding Russia that were indeed criticial
-UK has spent over 12 mil pounds trying to put the squeeze on Assange
-The West has many more "political prisoners" than Assange
-He's never been charged, was cleared by so-called accuser, yet is still being illegally detained, as ruled by the UN


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Fringe said:


> The most important video to watch this election season...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Bullet Points and Summary
> 
> 
> 
> -Restates WikiLeaks' 10 year record of never releasing false reports
> -Affirms that Russia is NOT the source of the #PodestaEmails
> -discussed countless examples of #PayToPlay, i.e exchaning large sums of $ for political favors
> -ISIS is funded by the Governments of Saudi Arabia and Quatar, not just some rogue agents
> -Largest arms deals in HISTORY done with Saudi Arabia while H was Sec. of State.
> -Wall St. (Citgroup) decided O's cabinet.
> -Libya was H's war; O was initially opposed
> -Refugee Crisis resulted, floods of migrants (along with jihadis in the mix) entered Europe
> -Doesn't think Trump will be allowed to "win"; Banks, Arms Companies, Foreign Interests, and even the Media are all too heavily invested in H
> -Upper middle class afraid to be deemed "deplorable" or "********" if they support Trump or critique H
> -#WikiLeaks HAS published over 800k emails regarding Russia that were indeed criticial
> -UK has spent over 12 mil pounds trying to put the squeeze on Assange
> -The West has many more "political prisoners" than Assange
> -He's never been charged, was cleared by so-called accuser, yet is still being illegally detained, as ruled by the UN


Captain Peace Prize put his biggest campaign money makers as ambassadors, even Jon Stewart pointed this out, I'm wondering how long the "leftist" talking heads can continue to ignore all this?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Oh look more GOP voter suppression.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/4/13501120/vote-polling-places-election-2016

Southern states have closed down at least 868 polling places for the 2016 election

If anyone is rigging the general election is the republicans.


It would be ironic if Hillary lost the general because of voter suppression, with one of the very ways she stole the primary from Bernie with voter suppression.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> So where's the big November 5th thing the neckbeards promised? Lol


If Anonymous doesn't deliver, the NYPD will.




> Nevada is already almost lost by Trump bar a Miracle for example


Ralston is full of shit!

- Vic


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobodys enthusiastic about clinton, except the donors to the clinton foundation
> 
> 
> 
> The only people enthusiastic about Trump are the racists and bigots.
Click to expand...

Not true.

Plenty of racists and bigots love hiliary


----------



## TB Tapp

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Good news, gamers. If Hillary manages to limp across the finish line on Tuesday, it won't be long before you'll be able to play Fallout...in real life! 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/794905795402022913
Probably not nearly as much fun when there's no radaway or stimpacks. Plenty of raiders though!

As you're suffering from third-degree burns and radiation poisoning, you'll be able to console yourself, "At least I didn't vote for the sexist who said mean things about Mexicans and Muslims."


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> If Trump swings Florida, NC (which I still think there is a high possibility he loses - but it's very close) and Ohio (Which the dems have conceded) and holds Arizona, Utah and Georgia (which he seems to be heading towards at this point) that should give him about 250+. From there he potentially needs to win Nevada, Iowa (Another Dem concession), New Hampshire and Maine (all of which are close).
> 
> His path to victory isn't as insurmountable as you seem to think it is and it's very unlikely at this point that Clinton gets anywhere near 300+ EV.


I'd say it's slightly more likely for her to get to 300+ than for him to get to 270+.

If her firewall holds, she'd just need to win Florida (which is a toss-up right now). Whereas he would have to win a handful of states, including at least one he is down in by a couple points.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Good news, gamers. If Hillary manages to limp across the finish line on Tuesday, it won't be long before you'll be able to play Fallout...in real life!


Wonderful ad.

:clap

- Vic


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The only people enthusiastic about Trump are the racists and bigots.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/794941635931099136:aries2


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

What is the strategic, economical, or political gain from starting a Nuclear war?

None

Why the fuck would Hillary start one?

The only nation that jacks off over its nukes and is "hostile" to the US is Russia and even if it got its missiles in the air it would be glassed by retaliatory strikes from NATO missile base's and the US's ever roaming navy not to mention France's nuclear stockpile 

Even if Russia were to take out France they would now be connected to an irradiated piece of land with BILLIONS of refugees flooding over their border including a mass amount of vengeful troops and China would likely be enraged that Russia blew up their biggest customers and brought an insane amount of fire and fallout to their northern border 

They would be dealing with insurrection for decades 

No one wants or will start a nuclear war


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Why the fuck would Hillary start one?


War = money & oil.

- Vic


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> War = money & oil.
> 
> - Vic


There is no money in a nuclear war

Iran would nuke Israel and Israel would counter nuke Iran and India and Pakistan would fry each other= oil gone

Nukes would light up the oil fields which would burn uncontrollably for years which would cost the oil industry quadrillions

The US would have to us its own fields, which their is no money in as the coast of workers out grow the price of oil, which push for the growth of green tech 

Not to mention in the case of mass war the government would take over the fields

The oil industry relies on cheap overseas oil it can mark up 

no money


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

How many polling stations are there in some of these states though and where were the moves made? I live in a small rural county of 60,000. We have about 30 polling places. In that context 12 less polling places doesn't really seem like all that big of a deal.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> I'd say it's slightly more likely for her to get to 300+ than for him to get to 270+.
> 
> If her firewall holds, she'd just need to win Florida (which is a toss-up right now). Whereas he would have to win a handful of states, including at least one he is down in by a couple points.


The key is that her firewall needs to hold and at least amongst the swing states recent polling indicates that it isn't and Trump is surging.

Polls tend not to account for momentum and going in Trump has it, Hillary does not.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/794941635931099136:aries2


yet all you have to do is listen to his supporters and hear what they say lol

Bernie also said that the DNC and Hillary did not rig the primary against him and we all know that is bullshit.


http://www.vox.com/2016/9/12/12882796/trump-supporters-racist-deplorables

Polls show many — even most — Trump supporters really are deeply hostile to Muslims and nonwhites


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> yet all you have to do is listen to his supporters and hear what they say lol
> 
> Bernie also said that the DNC and Hillary did not rig the primary against him and we all know that is bullshit.
> 
> 
> http://www.vox.com/2016/9/12/12882796/trump-supporters-racist-deplorables
> 
> Polls show many — even most — Trump supporters really are deeply hostile to Muslims and nonwhites


For someone who doesn't like hardcore and conservative christian values you sound like a complete hypocrite for wanting everyone to bend over and accept an increase in the number of muslims who have been proven to be more conservative than even christians into America.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Tater @MissSally; @Pratchett @CamillePunk

http://uk.businessinsider.com/pentagon-500-million-f35-2016-11?r=US&IR=T



> *The Pentagon wants a half-billion more dollars for the F-35*
> 
> Defense officials at the Pentagon say they need up to $500 million more to finish the development phase for the F-35, the troubled fifth-generation fighter that's already gone 50% over its original budget.
> 
> The F-35 program office requested the money last month to the Defense Acquisition Board, according to Bloomberg, which first reported the news Wednesday. The call for additional funds is pretty familiar at this point, since the program — known as the Joint Strike Fighter since it will be used by the Navy, Marines, and Air Force — has been plagued by lengthy delays and enormous cost overruns.
> 
> Its overall lifetime budget has ballooned to more than $1.5 trillion, making it the most expensive weapons system ever built by the US.
> 
> Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has in the past called those cost overruns a "disgrace."
> 
> "It has been both a scandal and a tragedy with respect to cost, schedule and performance," he said in April.
> 
> Rising costs haven't been the only problem of note for the F-35. The jet has had plenty of incidents while being built, such as electrical problems, major issues with its software, and problems related to its advanced helmet system.
> 
> Just four months ago, the Pentagon's chief weapons tester wrote in a memo the F-35 program was "not on a path toward success but instead on a path toward failing to deliver."
> 
> Still, the Air Force and Marines have both declared the fighter "combat ready" and have begun integrating it into their squadrons. The military has only taken delivery of about 180 of the aircraft from Lockheed Martin so far, though it plans to buy more than 2,400.
> 
> The fighter, which features stealth and advanced electronic attack and communications systems, is a project with roots going back to the late 1990s. Lockheed won the contract for the fighter in 2001.
> 
> "Strong national security is an expensive endeavor but the existing concerns with the F-35 make calls for even more money harder to green light," said Joe Kaspar, chief of staff for Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
> 
> "And the Pentagon never seems to be able to help its case on the F-35. Technical superiority is not cheap, but whether or not costs can be driven down is something Congress must look at it before throwing more money in the Pentagon's direction."


How the fuck do you spend 1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS on a single fighter jet and then need $500 Million more to even complete it?

Absolute insanity and yet when it comes to the US's incredible spending addiction the majority of the mainstream media continues to ignore it.

I don't want a single fucking Republican supporter here or a Neo-Con tell me that we need to SPEND MORE on the American Military. This is one of the few issues Jill Stein is 100% right on, military spending and spending as a whole needs to be cut substantially.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> The key is that her firewall needs to hold and at least amongst the swing states recent polling indicates that it isn't and Trump is surging.
> 
> Polls tend not to account for momentum and going in Trump has it, Hillary does not.


Even with New Hampshire tightening, she still appears to be leading in all firewall states. And that's without even considering the possibility of Nevada or North Carolina (virtual dead heats) going to Hillary, effectively replacing New Hampshire in the firewall.

So, it's basically which is more likely: Hillary winning [New Hampshire OR Nevada OR North Carolina] and Florida vs. Trump winning every single state that isn't seemingly a safe bet for Hillary at this point?

I'd say the former scenario is a bit more likely. And I don't mean that sarcastically. I actually just mean "a bit."


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> I don't want a single fucking Republican supporter here or a Neo-Con tell me that we need to SPEND MORE on the American Military. This is one of the few issues Jill Stein is 100% right on, military spending and spending as a whole needs to be cut substantially.


Don't let the overall number make you angry tbh. You have to account for inflation and other things since it's a long-time project. 

$1.5 trillion over a period of what? 15-16 years where now the deliveries have already started and are expected to go on for another 20+ years. 

1.5 trillion does sound like a big number, but when you break it down over a period of 20 odd years or so and given the overall size of the US economy over all those years, it's not a big number. 

Now obviously, I'm not excusing the fact that it cost them that much money to get this plane built ... But it wasn't like it was all spent in one go and that it impacted the huge US economy much :shrug. It'd be like me screaming at my parents for buying a subscription to netflix :draper2

I'm pro-military spending even though I'm anti-war. I justify it through its employment opportunities and keep most of the money in the system and also having some R&D as a biproduct ... Much as I view space and ocean exploration.



RetepAdam. said:


> Even with New Hampshire tightening, she still appears to be leading in all firewall states. And that's without even considering the possibility of Nevada or North Carolina (virtual dead heats) going to Hillary, effectively replacing New Hampshire in the firewall.
> 
> So, it's basically which is more likely: Hillary winning [New Hampshire OR Nevada OR North Carolina] and Florida vs. Trump winning every single state that isn't seemingly a safe bet for Hillary at this point?
> 
> I'd say the former scenario is a bit more likely. And I don't mean that sarcastically. I actually just mean "a bit."


And that was my whole point  This whole conversation started with me saying that anyone that predicted a blow out for Hillary should be eating crow at this point and even Huffpost admitted recently that it isn't looking like a blowout :lol


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> And that was my whole point  This whole conversation started with me saying that anyone that predicted a blow out for Hillary should be eating crow at this point and even Huffpost admitted recently that it isn't looking like a blowout :lol


I'd be surprised if it's a blowout at this point, but my point was essentially that Clinton breaking 300 EV (don't think that would quite be considered an "electoral landslide") is still slightly more probable than Trump winning at all.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Don't let the overall number make you angry tbh. You have to account for inflation and other things since it's a long-time project.
> 
> $1.5 trillion over a period of what? 15-16 years where now the deliveries have already started and are expected to go on for another 20+ years.
> 
> 1.5 trillion does sound like a big number, but when you break it down over a period of 20 odd years or so and given the overall size of the US economy over all those years, it's not a big number.
> 
> Now obviously, I'm not excusing the fact that it cost them that much money to get this plane built ... But it wasn't like it was all spent in one go and that it impacted the huge US economy much :shrug
> 
> I'm pro-military spending even though I'm anti-war. I justify it through its employment opportunities and keep most of the money in the system and also having some R&D as a biproduct ... Much as I view space and ocean exploration.


Even taking into account the arguments you are making, the problem is once again a waste of expenditure on something that was entirely not needed. Already 50% over budget before another increase in costs, even McCain one of the biggest warhawks earlier on in the year heavily criticized the budgeting of this project. All over a single plane, you mean to tell me that the country that spends more on the military than the next 10+ countries combined desperately needs to make a single updated fighter plane? It's wasteful inefficient spending when deficit spending has been through the roof the last 8+ years. Remember this is being funded by both taxpayer money and printed money from the FED. It is both on the one hand a wasteful use of the US citizen's money and on the other hand yet another instance where the Central Bank uses money as an instrument of government policy in one of the stupidest of ways.

The problem with the strong national defense argument in the case of the United States is that it's already one of the strongest military's in the world with by far the biggest cost. The US already has the most technologically advanced forces in the world too with an overly stretched foreign war expenditure in which trillions have been spent on the Iraq war ALONE, not even including Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. The US military in of itself is not "depleting" as neo-conservatives like to argue, it doesn't need rebuilding. It's already hugely bloated as it is in terms of finances.

In a situation where military spending needs drastic cutting in order to help balance the budget, we have an instance where money is being wasted on something that is entirely unnecessary.

I will once again quote Rand Paul on this: "You cannot call yourself a fiscal conservative and be for unlimited military spending".


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

BM has lost his damn mind :lol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> In a situation where military spending needs drastic cutting in order to help balance the budget, we have an instance where money is being wasted on something that is entirely unnecessary.
> 
> I will once again quote Rand Paul on this: "You cannot call yourself for a fiscal conservative and be for unlimited military spending".


US Military spending as a % of the GDP isn't increasing though. It's actually been on the decline again - interestingly since the democrats took over. 










On the flip, you have to keep in mind where the money in other countries is flowing and adjust accordingly. For example, yes right now America spends more money overall, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't because over a period of sustained spending by other countries and reduced (to no spending by america), we won't face a situation say 20 years down the road where someone is better prepared through spending more money more consistently than the US.

While in principle I agree with people who want to spend less on the military, I'm more of a pragmatist because my cutbacks in my spending on my military does not mean that everyone else will do the same and that they will behave themselves forever.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Here is the thing about America's military budget, it covers almost all of NATO

Most European nations have shoe string budget self defense forces because they know if there is a war the US will do the lion share

When the UN does an action or the US and its allies do a military action the US tends to pay for the vast majority of it 

The RAF can cut back year after year because they know if they need planes they can borrow US planes, flown by US pilots, dropping US bombs, using US gas and all of it will be paid by the US

Its the reason that the UN and Europe do little military efforts without US, Russian or Chinese support, they ain't paying for shit and of those three the US is the only one that is willing to spend money to help its allies interests


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> US Military spending as a % of the GDP isn't increasing though. It's actually been on the decline again - interestingly since the democrats took over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the flip, you have to keep in mind where the money in other countries is flowing and adjust accordingly. For example, yes right now America spends more money overall, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't because over a period of sustained spending by other countries and reduced (to no spending by america), we won't face a situation say 20 years down the road where someone is better prepared through spending more money more consistently than the US.
> 
> While in principle I agree with people who want to spend less on the military, I'm more of a pragmatist because my cutbacks in my spending on my military does not mean that everyone else will do the same and that they will behave themselves forever.


The US as of right now as absolutely no threat in terms of increased military spending from other countries or in terms of size and power. In the most recent estimates available in 2014, the US in of itself spends a whopping 34% of the world's total military spending. $610 Billion on military spending compared to the next highest which was China with $216 Billion. Even if you were to cut that spending by half, the US still would still have the highest military spending in the world. Even as a proportion to GDP would not matter because the GDP of the United States is much larger and will continue to be so barring a complete collapse.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...us-spends-more-military-next-8-nations-combi/

You also have to keep in mind that a massive proportion of that has to do with overseas military spending and the money spent on foreign wars. If you were to cut out that expenditure and close the majority of overseas bases, you would not have to cut any of the defense spending at home. The problem is right now with spending levels as it is current even at a lower proportion of the US's GDP it simply is not justifiable from a fiscal standpoint to spend all of that money on a single fighter jet when we both know the US has other problems at home to deal with.

Also your argument about what things will be like in 20 years I do not think really holds water because I'm specifically talking about what is happening right now in relation to the out of control spending in Washington and the large expense of the military budget. There is a big difference between overseas military spending on wars and national defense at home. My argument surrounding the fighter jet is that it's not needed and waste of expenditure because of the overall deficit spending but when people talk about cutting military spending they mean the foreign wars and the overseas budget which has ballooned, they don't talk about significantly cutting down the size of the military in terms of the army, navy and air force which are needed to protect the country.

Ron Paul, probably the biggest dove in recent GOP political history explains this well:


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

hahahahaha

Silver is having a Meltdown because his model is an outlier and he can't tolerate the criticism, he has been throwing shit to other models for a week now and he exploded after a HP article (which is pretty ignorant being fair)

https://twitter.com/natesilver538?lang=es

He also has been throwing shots at PW, PEC, and daily kos. The guy can't seems to tolerate criticism for shit. What's funny is that all models point to a Hillary win but he still need to get on twitter with whoever says something bad to him

edit: if anything this election is showing that early voting should be accounted into the models somehow


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> Here is the thing about America's military budget, it covers almost all of NATO
> 
> Most European nations have shoe string budget self defense forces because they know if there is a war the US will do the lion share
> 
> When the UN does an action or the US and its allies do a military action the US tends to pay for the vast majority of it
> 
> The RAF can cut back year after year because they know if they need planes they can borrow US planes, flown by US pilots, dropping US bombs, using US gas and all of it will be paid by the US
> 
> Its the reason that the UN and Europe do little military efforts without US, Russian or Chinese support, they ain't paying for shit and of those three the US is the only one that is willing to spend money to help its allies interests


This is also true which is why Trump's notion of renegotiating the NATO alliance from an American standpoint isn't such a crazy notion when the other countries involved (including mine, the UK) are not pulling their weight in terms of paying for their national defense. At least the UK has increased defense spending this year but of course with it being aligned to around 2-3% of GDP and the UK's GDP being quite a bit smaller, it doesn't nearly cover the costs that the US is spending.

I guess it all depends on your philosophy when it comes to international military alliances


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> hahahahaha
> 
> Silver is having a Meltdown because his model is an outlier and he can't tolerate the criticism, he has been throwing shit to other models for a week now and he exploded after a HP article (which is pretty ignorant being fair)
> 
> https://twitter.com/natesilver538?lang=es
> 
> He also has been throwing shots at PW, PEC, and daily kos. The guy can't seems to tolerate criticism for shit. What's funny is that all models point to a Hillary win but he still need to get on twitter with whoever says something bad to him
> 
> edit: if anything this election is showing that early voting should be accounted into the models somehow


Nate's always been somewhat thin-skinned, but the Huffington Post article was dumb and bad.

Agreed regarding your last point, though. I think his next step should be to play around with early voting numbers privately and see how those test models compare to his public-facing numbers.

EDIT — 



















EDIT x2 — Why did you link to Twitter in Spanish? :hmm:


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> Agreed regarding your last point, though. I think his next step should be to play around with early voting numbers privately and see how those test models compare to his public-facing numbers.


I think, there is a notorious problem in how to poll latinos aswell.

Harry seems to be doing the comparison you say in his twitter anyway which i thank because he at least is more open to say why the model can be wrong 



RetepAdam. said:


> EDIT —


this two tweets seem pretty childish to me aswell


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/793997083367931904

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/794962853082042368

I think the guy is seriouly losing it


RetepAdam. said:


> EDIT x2 — Why did you link to Twitter in Spanish? :hmm:


Because i'm in latin america =)

hence why my rustic/bad english. My interest in the election is mostly nerdy


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@CamillePunk @AryaDark @DesolationRow @MissSally; @Tater










Well it's true at least with some of the population who are poor :lol.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> @CamillePunk @AryaDark @DesolationRow @MissSally; @Tater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well it's true at least with some of the population who are poor :lol.


I always laugh at the GOP and republican voters who claim the GOP is pro not big government. The GOP like big govt just as much as the DNC. Stop fooling yourselves.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I always laugh at the GOP and republican voters who claim the GOP is pro not big government. The GOP like big govt just as much as the DNC. Stop fooling yourselves.


fpalm. 

You missed the point entirely as per usual. I'm not saying that the current establishment GOP isn't pro big government, the point is the old cliche of it being madness trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That is essentially what lower income citizens in the inner cities of the US have been doing for the most part in voting for the Democrats for decades and nothing changing.

Also, why do you also think when someone criticizes something to do with liberals that that makes them a GOP supporter? You have done this with me several times when throughout this entire thread I've criticized both the GOP and the Democrats, both Hillary and Trump.

You need to relax and actually think about what you post sometimes.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The Washington Post tried hiding this 2004 story on Podesta

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> fpalm.
> 
> You missed the point entirely as per usual. I'm not saying that the current establishment GOP isn't pro big government, the point is the old cliche of it being madness trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That is essentially what lower income citizens in the inner cities of the US have been doing for the most part in voting for the Democrats for decades and nothing changing.
> 
> Also, why do you also think when someone criticizes something to do with liberals that that makes them a GOP supporter? You have done this with me several times when throughout this entire thread I've criticized both the GOP and the Democrats, both Hillary and Trump.
> 
> You need to relax and actually think about what you post sometimes.


If anyone missed the point it's you. The GOP are for big Govt as well, so voting for them wont change anything.

Also if anything is broken is thinking that trickle down economics something both the GOP and the DNC like is what is not working. So if anything is broken its still thinking that is going to work when we know it does not.

Giving tax breaks to the rich has never worked.

I was pointing out at how stupid Barkley is in that statement. The GOP is even more against the middle and lower middle class, so it would be insanity to vote for the GOP unless you are rich.


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> If anyone missed the point it's you. The GOP are for big Govt as well, so voting for them wont change anything.
> 
> Also if anything is broken is thinking that trickle down economics something both the GOP and the DNC like is what is not working. So if anything is broken its still thinking that is going to work when we know it does not.
> 
> Giving tax breaks to the rich has never worked.
> 
> I was pointing out at how stupid Barkley is in that statement. The GOP is even more against the middle and lower middle class, so it would be insanity to vote for the GOP unless you are rich.


Can you explain to me why people say it worked so well with Reagan? Are they lying and trickle down economics won't work and never worked?

Why was there so much success? You confuse me.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I hope that we finally get to a point where BM starts ignoring everyone on this forum and therefore has no one left to engage with. 
@L-DOPA.... The returns to investment are different for every country. 

So even if China spends 216 billion to the us's 700, the actual net impact on what they end up with should be much higher than the 216 indicates. Far cheaper labor. 

Now I'm not saying that the US isn't over spending. But we can't ignore the fact that there is no benchmark to determine what is adequate military expenditure.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> If anyone missed the point it's you. The GOP are for big Govt as well, so voting for them wont change anything.
> 
> Also if anything is broken is thinking that trickle down economics something both the GOP and the DNC like is what is not working. So if anything is broken its still thinking that is going to work when we know it does not.
> 
> Giving tax breaks to the rich has never worked.
> 
> I was pointing out at how stupid Barkley is in that statement. The GOP is even more against the middle and lower middle class, so it would be insanity to vote for the GOP unless you are rich.


JUST STOP :lmao.

Seriously, you are beyond dense. When did I ever say vote GOP in it's current state? When have I ever endorsed the Republican party? Go and try and find a post where I have and you won't find it. You are using a point about big government liberals to attack the GOP and then somehow attribute the picture I shared with the GOP when the point wasn't even about them, it was about voting habits.

Also just because he points out that voting for big government liberalism isn't producing results does not mean automatically that he endorses the Republican party, it is an ad hominem because there is no indication of who he is actually supporting. He's only pointing out a problem that he sees and you got so mad that your side got attacked that you are deflecting the point that is being made.

But again, go ahead and tell me how I'm a GOP supporter and how the image says VOTE REPUBLICAN when it does absolutely nothing of the sort.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> JUST STOP :lmao.
> 
> Seriously, you are beyond dense. When did I ever say vote GOP in it's current state? When have I ever endorsed the Republican party? Go and try and find a post where I have and you won't find it. You are using a point about big government liberals to attack the GOP and then somehow attribute the picture I shared with the GOP when the point wasn't even about them, it was about voting habits.
> 
> Also just because he points out that voting for big government liberalism isn't producing results does not mean automatically that he endorses the Republican party, it is an ad hominem because there is no indication of who he is actually supporting. He's only pointing out a problem that he sees and you got so mad that your side got attacked that you are deflecting the point that is being made.
> 
> But again, go ahead and tell me how I'm a GOP supporter and how the image says VOTE REPUBLICAN when it does absolutely nothing of the sort.


who ever said I am talking about you. I was talking about that Barkely and that meme. When did I ever say that you vote GOP. I am talking about people that do. 

I was attacking the meme not anything you have ever posted. so quote me where I called you a republican. 

And Barkely endorsed a republican in the primary so he was voting republican then.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Smarkout said:


> Can you explain to me why people say it worked so well with Reagan? Are they lying and trickle down economics won't work and never worked?
> 
> Why was there so much success? You confuse me.


it did not work under Regan there is a reason why after he cut taxes when he took office he had to have the huge tax increase a few years later. He raised taxes 11 times when he was in office. He also tripled the federal budget deficit. It went up to like $3 trillion under him. That was a record.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> trickle down economics


"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."

Stop regurgitating nonsensical campaign soundbite slogans as if you have any idea what you're talking about. You sound just as ignorant and absurd as the people saying them in their ridiculous speeches.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/did-donald-trump-watch-the-same-obama-speech-we-all-did-1788612955

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ming-at-protester_us_581de1e9e4b0d9ce6fbc616a

:hmm:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> "It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."
> 
> Stop regurgitating nonsensical campaign soundbite slogans as if you have any idea what you're talking about. You sound just as ignorant and absurd as the people saying them in their ridiculous speeches.


You seem to be the one who does not know what they are talking about since you did not even try to disprove what I said, You just posted some bullshit that had nothing to do with what I posted.

And you call me ignorant LOL

You are a joke


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

There was an assassination attempt at the NV rally tonight. Secret Service rushed Trump and escorted him from the stage. 5 minutes later Trump comes out and finishes the speech. Talk about high energy. Hillary couldn't cope with a few raindrops earlier today for more than 5 minutes.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Fringe said:


> There was an assassination attempt at the NV rally tonight. Secret Service rushed Trump and escorted him from the stage. 5 minutes later Trump comes out and finishes the speech. Talk about high energy. Hillary couldn't cope with a few raindrops earlier today for more than 5 minutes.


Wow, no shit huh.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This election has brought the crazies out. Thankfully nobody got hurt.


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Wow, no shit huh.


Shit's getting real. BBC's reporting this but appears that American media is burying it.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795074471262441472


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Fringe said:


> There was an assassination attempt at the NV rally tonight. Secret Service rushed Trump and escorted him from the stage. 5 minutes later Trump comes out and finishes the speech. Talk about high energy. Hillary couldn't cope with a few raindrops earlier today for more than 5 minutes.


Pretty sure it's fake.

They might be using images and videos from the actual attempt by a british man earlier in the year.


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Pretty sure it's fake.


Anything substantive to back up that claim? WF does not charge per word, you know....

And no, this happened during the live feed tonight as the Secret Service rushed him off the stage. Try again.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Fringe said:


> Shit's getting real. BBC's reporting this but appears that American media is burying it.


:lmao

I have CNN international and they have been talking about it for at least the last hour.

I hope this help to understand the level of polarization this is reaching and is a way to get to heal some shit. There is no necessity to politisize some shit like this


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Fringe said:


> Anything substantive to back up that claim? WF does not charge per word, you know....


- BBC is not reporting it. I just checked their website
- There was another plot earlier to kill Trump in Las Vegas and since he's in Nevada right now, it makes sense for the click-bait sites to pick up on that previous plot in order to legitimze their click-bait
- There is actual video footage and pictures of the british man who actually did try to assassinate Trump earlier which did get wider coverage. It's not hard to recycle those videos and images at all. 

Just a lot of experience in what the non-legit sources and click-bait sites are on the internet and how they work and operate. 

The media isn't burying it because it never happened.


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> :lmao
> 
> I have CNN international and they have been talking about it for at least the last hour.
> 
> I hope this get to understand the level of polarization this is reaching and is a way to get to heal some shit. There is no necessity to politisize some shit like this


I just turned on CNN and even FOX and neither were saying a word about it.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> :lmao
> 
> I have CNN international and they have been talking about it for at least the last hour.
> 
> I hope this get to understand the level of polarization this is reaching and is a way to get to heal some shit. There is no necessity to politisize some shit like this


It is getting ridiculous. CBS, ABC, CNN are all reporting this and yet Trump supporters want to pretend there is a conspiracy to cover this up.

The same is true on the liberal side, with some commenting that this is obviously a false flag desperate attempt to energise his base to vote without any concrete evidence.

This election. :fpalm


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> - BBC is not reporting it. I just checked their website
> - There was another plot earlier to kill Trump in Las Vegas and since he's in Nevada right now, it makes sense for the click-bait sites to pick up on that previous plot in order to legitimze their click-bait
> - There is actual video footage and pictures of the british man who actually did try to assassinate Trump earlier which did get wider coverage. It's not hard to recycle those videos and images at all.
> 
> Just a lot of experience in what the non-legit sources and click-bait sites are on the internet and how they work and operate.
> 
> The media isn't burying it because it never happened.


I was watching the live stream from the rally tonight when it happened, what part of that aren't you getting? :lmao :CITO


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Fringe said:


> I just turned on CNN and even FOX and neither were saying a word about it.


Because it happened more than hour ago...

Btw there is no murder attempt confirmed, Trump was rushed out of stage and the man, who was carrying a gun, was scorted by the special service but not official information yet

edit: still a red flag on the level of polarization and anyone should be worry we are reaching this levels


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Fringe said:


> I was watching the live stream from the rally tonight when it happened, what part of that aren't you getting? :lmao :CITO


NVM. You're right. 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/05/politics/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-campaign-rally/index.html

BTW, I'm also not wrong. It wasn't an assassination attempt. There was no gun or weapon discovered.


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> It is getting ridiculous. CBS, ABC, CNN are all reporting this and yet Trump supporters want to pretend there is a conspiracy to cover this up.
> 
> The same is true on the liberal side, with some commenting that this is obviously a false flag desperate attempt to energise his base to vote without any concrete evidence.
> 
> This election. :fpalm


I just turned on the tele and CNN was showing clips of Bill and Hillary at the DNC. Just my observations. Not a "conspiracy" :lol


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

What?

CNN was reporting on it earlier. There wasn't an assassination attempt, based on anything I've seen. It appeared to have just been a fight in one of the front few rows. Heard conflicting reports wherein someone in attendance may have had a gun (second amendment? ) vs. another one that says that no firearm was found.

But yeah, basically, some shit broke out and they rushed him off stage. He came back like 10 minutes later once the people had been removed.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Fringe said:


> I just turned on the tele and CNN was showing clips of Bill and Hillary at the DNC. Just my observations. Not a "conspiracy" :lol





> Shit's getting real. BBC's reporting this but *appears that American media is burying it.*


Your observation that there is a conspiracy to bury the incident. :lol

More like self-burial.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So, the official report says no gun found


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Your observation that there is a conspiracy to bury the incident. :lol
> 
> More like self-burial.


Self-burial? What is this, rants? :LOL :bitchplz

Just commenting on what I saw, when I saw it...took them long enough but US Media is finally catching up on the incident.


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> So, the official report says no gun found


Source? Link?


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Fringe said:


> Just commenting on what I saw, when I saw it...*took them long enough but US Media is finally catching up on the incident.*


CNN was covering the rally live, i was seeing it. no "catch up" :lmao



Fringe said:


> Source? Link?


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ecurity-scare-returns-shortly-thereafter.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...p-rushed-off-stage-nevada-20161105-story.html


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> CNN was covering the rally live, i was seeing it. no "catch up" :lmao


Well bully for you, being glued to CNN to know their every minute of coverage. :lmao Doesn't change the fact that when I tuned in, they were showing Bubba Clinton kicking balloons at the DNC earlier this year. Stop trying to play "gotcha" and add something substantive. Is that too much to ask? 
hillip2


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Fringe said:


> Well bully for you, being glued to CNN to know their every minute of coverage.


I cannot think of many things more torturous than watching cable news... I'd rather be waterboarded than watch mentally ill people yell at each other on CNN, FOX or MSNBC.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Glad Trump is okay. Scary stuff.


In other news, smart kid turns on Hillary:






:lol

- Vic


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> In other news, smart kid turns on Hillary:


Hillary is turned on by a child? That's fucking disgusting! We know Wiener is a pedophile...I guess birds of a feather do stick together...


----------



## amhlilhaus

Wonder how much that protestor got paid to rush the stage?


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> Hillary is turned on by a child? That's fucking disgusting! We know Wiener is a pedophile...I guess birds of a feather do stick together...


I had the same "turned on" wordplay go against me yesterday in a conversation. :lol

On the Trump Nevada stuff, I have no idea what Fringe is talking about. Pretty much as soon as it hit social media, I flipped to CNN and they were covering it. No "catch-up" required.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Fringe said:


> Self-burial? What is this, rants? :LOL :bitchplz
> 
> Just commenting on what I saw, when I saw it...took them long enough but US Media is finally catching up on the incident.


Your initial reaction implied you wanted to believe there is a conspiracy of American media burying the incident. There wasn't as has been pointed out.

You tried to defend your reaction as your observation and not a 'conspiracy', as if I was implying that you and Trump supporters were involved in one when my point was ranting about partisan supporters like you choosing to believe what they want to believe and ignoring reality.

You tried to pivot into a complain about the US media being slow to report on the incident when your 'conspiracy' didn't pan out.


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://twitter.com/Khanoisseur/status/761796054429888512

:surprise: Maybe when Trump said Grab em by the pussy he really meant play with yourself.

edit don't know how to embed twit basically though,basically Trump acted like a scared bitch when SS came to the stage while Hilary was chill as fuck


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Your initial reaction implied you wanted to believe there is a conspiracy of American media burying the incident. There wasn't as has been pointed out.
> 
> You tried to defend your reaction as your observation and not a 'conspiracy', as if I was implying that you and Trump supporters were involved in one when my point was ranting about partisan supporters like you choosing to believe what they want to believe and ignoring reality.
> 
> You tried to pivot into a complain about the US media being slow to report on the incident when your 'conspiracy' didn't pan out.



Dude, I really don't care. They sure took their sweet ass time covering it, at any rate. If you feel that strongly about it, take it to Rants if you need to get your jollies. JEE-ZUS H. 

:LOL :ralph


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ShiningStar said:


> https://twitter.com/Khanoisseur/status/761796054429888512
> 
> :surprise: Maybe when Trump said Grab em by the pussy he really meant play with yourself.
> 
> edit don't know how to embed twit basically though,basically Trump acted like a scared bitch when SS came to the stage while Hilary was chill as fuck



Difference in experience I guess. Hillary is used to shit like this for decades. Trump hasn't been in front of hostile crowds until this election.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

who gives a fuck how someone reacts when 3-4 large men rush and grab them and hustle them somewhere unexpectedly

so childish

hispanic voting and harry reid's decades-built GOTV operation in NV will probably give hillary victory there which means :trump will have to pull off the big upset in virginia or PA or michigan or new mexico or somewhere else to win.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> who gives a fuck how someone reacts when 3-4 large men rush and grab them and hustle them somewhere unexpectedly
> 
> so childish
> 
> hispanic voting and harry reid's decades-built GOTV operation in NV will probably give hillary victory there which means :trump will have to pull off the big upset in virginia or PA or michigan or new mexico or somewhere else to win.


I agree nobody should give a fuck about Trump's reaction to the SS rushing the stage.

I'm more concerned about Trump's misrepresentation of Obama's reaction to a protester while at the same time suggesting his supporters go view the footage that will disprove Trump's allegations. And his supporters still believe Trump's version as reality.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I agree nobody should give a fuck about Trump's reaction to the SS rushing the stage.
> 
> I'm more concerned about Trump's misrepresentation of Obama's reaction to a protester while at the same time suggesting his supporters go view the footage that will disprove Trump's allegations. And his supporters still believe Trump's version as reality.


i wouldn't be surprised if :trump did, misrepresentation is part and parcel of modern democratic politics the world over

and actually saying modern is not accurate, it's been a central part of "democratic" politics all the way back to ancient greece


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> i wouldn't be surprised if :trump did, misrepresentation is part and parcel of modern democratic politics the world over
> 
> and actually saying modern is not accurate, it's been a central part of "democratic" politics all the way back to ancient greece


One thing to misrepresent something, another to blatantly misrepresent and telling his audience to look at the obvious evidence that will disprove of the misrepresentation which somehow just made them believe in his version even more.

It is almost like a cult.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> One thing to misrepresent something, another to blatantly misrepresent and telling his audience to look at the obvious evidence that will disprove of the misrepresentation which somehow just made them believe in his version even more.
> 
> It is almost like a cult.


i must disagree 

confirmation bias is a fact of human psychology, it's not really something to get all hot and bothered over. the human race has managed to survive it so far (somehow, i know)

i do not believe that you have just noticed the similarity between cult behavior and political behavior


----------



## TakerFreak

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Clinton 2016! edit oops


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/783422595253227520


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

You guys are seriously calling Trump a coward for fleeing the scene when he was targeted for harm.

I wouldn't even say that about Hilary.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Don't think that Trump fled...he was rushed out of there by the Secret Service. They pretty much made it obvious he didn't have a choice in the matter. In moments like that, they are going to tell their person they are protecting, "Your ass is leaving right meow, let's go." 

Interesting commentary in Newsmax...Chavez is one of those liberal-folk, but I agree with her on this column. 

http://www.newsmax.com/LindaChavez/early-voting-bad-trump-clinton/2016/11/04/id/757102/

Early voting, especially in this election...is not always a smart move. You even have Trump saying that those who cast their ballots early for Clinton should get a chance to re-vote in case they want to change their minds. There should be very little good reason to cast your ballot early or doing absentee balloting. I would make exceptions for those that are in active military duty or are homebound, but otherwise you should only be able to cast your ballot on Election Day.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






I don't know how these people can say this crap without realizing how racist they sound. 

- These people are poor
- These people don't know how to use the internet 
- These people live in areas where they can't get access

And yet all of "these people" wouldn't be able to function in life without photo ID which is required for all these things:










Being anti-voter ID is the very definition of white savior complex and exemplifies the soft bigotry of low expectations.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

LOL are Clinton supporters really saying Trump fled? He was escorted by secret service men. Thats what happens people who are running for president or are the president do when their lives are in danger. Trump still came back and finished his rally. Hillary would have never have done that.


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> You guys are seriously calling Trump a coward for fleeing the scene when he was targeted for harm.
> 
> I wouldn't even say that about Hilary.





wwe9391 said:


> LOL are Clinton supporters really saying Trump fled? He was escorted by secret service men. Thats what happens people who are running for president or are the president do when their lives are in danger. Trump still came back and finished his rally. Hillary would have never have done that.


Except he wasn't targeted and his life wasn't danger. As it turns out, his supporters attacked some guy that was holding up a "Republicans against Trump" sign. The reason why Secret Service took Trump away was because some guy in the crowd shouted "gun" while the fracas was going on...


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cabanarama said:


> Except he wasn't targeted and his life wasn't danger. As it turns out, his supporters attacked some guy that was holding up a "Republicans against Trump" sign. The reason why Secret Service took Trump away was because some guy in the crowd shouted "gun" while the fracas was going on...


You cant take any chances. Even if he didn't have a gun the service men still had to take the necessary precautions


----------



## amhlilhaus

Early voting is just to help democrats, period. Their poor voters couldnt be bothered to go vote if it was raining that day, so they had to extend the voting period, go pick them up, offer things, etc.

No id to vote is to facilitate fraud, period.

Not culling registration rolls it to facilitate fraud, period.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

You might have a case for the GOP rhetoric about voter ID laws if many didn't specifically exclude certain photo IDs more readily available to minorities and the poor from being used in voting.

White liberals can be racist in their attitude towards blacks, but that doesn't mean the voter ID laws weren't meant to suppress votes that traditionally go towards the democrats.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cabanarama said:


> Except he wasn't targeted and his life wasn't danger. As it turns out, his supporters attacked some guy that was holding up a "Republicans against Trump" sign. The reason why Secret Service took Trump away was because some guy in the crowd shouted "gun" while the fracas was going on...


You must be in the Secret Service? Because you're making claims about why the Secret Service rushed the candidate off stage that only a trained Secret Service agent is qualified to make. 

Are you so delusional that you believe that you know everything about everything? Or are you a Secret Service agent with intimate knowledge as to why the agents pulled him off stage?


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> You cant take any chances. Even if he didn't have a gun the service men still had to take the necessary precautions


Not arguing with that. Just pointing out that it wasn't some assassination attempt or some threat at Trump in case anyone still believes that


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> I don't know how these people can say this crap without realizing how racist they sound.
> 
> - These people are poor
> - These people don't know how to use the internet
> - These people live in areas where they can't get access
> 
> And yet all of "these people" wouldn't be able to function in life without photo ID which is required for all these things:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being anti-voter ID is the very definition of white savior complex and exemplifies the soft bigotry of low expectations.



My Grandpa got his records even after the town he was born in no longer existed. It took a little and some money but there is no reason why you cannot get an ID. The reason why for some it's harder to get their records is due to age or fraud being so rampant. For instance my brother had to do a few things to get his birth certificate, why? Not because we're Hispanic but the fact where he was born there is a lot of ID theft done by illegals so it takes more to get your records and information. 

Besides all this the solution is simple, voter card when you turn 18 sent to you in the mail. Take it in with you when you get your ID or License and get your photo on it, can work as a soft ID card to let you buy booze or whatever with your basic info on it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> Early voting is just to help democrats, period. Their poor voters couldnt be bothered to go vote if it was raining that day, so they had to extend the voting period, go pick them up, offer things, etc.
> 
> No id to vote is to facilitate fraud, period.
> 
> Not culling registration rolls it to facilitate fraud, period.



The reason why they extend voting is so people that have to work on voting day can actually vote. What's the matter you don't think everyone should get to vote? You don't seem like like democracy.

And you have already been proven wrong about no voter id facilitates fraud since voter fraud rarely ever happens. The only example of it was by a Trump supporter who was WHITE. And guess what? They caught her, also she tried to vote twice, so its not even trying to vote as someone else which is why people like you claim they want Ids.

You just want to suppress the minority vote because you know the less minorities that vote the better chance the GOP has to win

There is no need to have an ID to vote, there never has been a reason needed unless you are for voter suppression which you are.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pm8n9qVIK_8


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> Early voting is just to help democrats, period. Their poor voters couldnt be bothered to go vote if it was raining that day, so they had to extend the voting period, go pick them up, offer things, etc.
> 
> No id to vote is to facilitate fraud, period.
> 
> Not culling registration rolls it to facilitate fraud, period.


Early and absentee voting helps military personnel as well (and they do vote). A couple of elections I sent an absentee ballot as I was stationed away from home (including a gubernatorial election when I was stationed in Kosovo). An exception can be made for them


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The reason why they extend voting is so people that have to work on voting day can actually vote. What's the matter you don't think everyone should get to vote? You don't seem like like democracy.
> 
> *And you have already been proven wrong about no voter id facilitates fraud since voter fraud rarely ever happens.* The only example of it was by a Trump supporter who was WHITE. And guess what? They caught her, also she tried to vote twice, so its not even trying to vote as someone else which is why people like you claim they want Ids.
> 
> You just want to suppress the minority vote because you know the less minorities that vote the better chance the GOP has to win
> 
> There is no need to have an ID to vote, there never has been a reason needed unless you are for voter suppression which you are.



I need ID to borrow a library book, but not vote for President of the United States of America. Good job accusing someone of being for voter suppression dude. You are the king of hyperbole.

Go ahead, call me a racist, sexist, homophobe etc for not seeing why needing ID is such a big deal. Who doesn't carry their fucking ID around with them anyway?

I'm not going to respond to you because I'll just be called a racist, Republican who just wants to go back to slavery or something ridiculous. 

You talk about people like me being the problem in the country, but it's people like YOU. People like YOU who just attack others who have different views from you, people like you who prefer hyperbole rather than facts, and people like you who have some sort of urge to constantly act like you know everything. I know this first hand because despite you literally tried to make an argument about creationism and evolutionism in schools like kids treat it like a big deal, when it never was and they couldn't care less. 

I mean this thread has been going on for a long time and 99% of the arguments that go too far is because of you calling people ridiculous things based on an internet post. Go ahead, look up your research on the Huffington Post and CNN to try and call me wrong while calling me a racist. Trump and Sanders aren't the problem in the U.S., you are. I seriously hope you don't act like this in public, a grumpy wrestling fan who attacks everyone. Oh man, you must be the life of the party.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Smarkout said:


> I need ID to borrow a library book, but not vote for President of the United States of America. Good job accusing someone of being for voter suppression dude. You are the king of hyperbole.
> 
> Go ahead, call me a racist, sexist, homophobe etc for not seeing why needing ID is such a big deal. Who doesn't carry their fucking ID around with them anyway?
> 
> I'm not going to respond to you because I'll just be called a racist, Republican who just wants to go back to slavery or something ridiculous.
> 
> You talk about people like me being the problem in the country, but it's people like YOU. People like YOU who just attack others who have different views from you, people like you who prefer hyperbole rather than facts, and people like you who have some sort of urge to constantly act like you know everything. I know this first hand because despite you literally tried to make an argument about creationism and evolutionism in schools like kids treat it like a big deal, when it never was and they couldn't care less.
> 
> I mean this thread has been going on for a long time and 99% of the arguments that go too far is because of you calling people ridiculous things based on an internet post. Go ahead, look up your research on the Huffington Post and CNN to try and call me wrong while calling me a racist. Trump and Sanders aren't the problem in the U.S., you are. I seriously hope you don't act like this in public, a grumpy wrestling fan who attacks everyone. Oh man, you must be the life of the party.



Everything in his post showed he was for voter suppression.

Why shouldn't they have early voting? It makes sure everyone has a chance to vote because like I said some people cannot take off work to vote on election day or can go into work later to vote or a number of things.

Also all voter ID does is suppress the vote for minorities, poor people and the elderly. 

A lot of people don't carry ID's. LOL we have been over this already the first time this voter ID topic came up. And like I said those people are some minorities, poor people and elderly. 



You have not shown why voter IDs are need to vote. Like I said before when this was first brought up this pretty much never happens.

Over the past 10 years there have only been 31 cases, most explained, which brought it down to like 7 that could not be explained cases of voter fraud out of over a billion votes cast.

So give a good reason why voter IDs are needed? Voter fraud pretty much never happens.

People like you are the problem. you want to suppress the vote so your party can win. Its why the GOP is always trying to suppress the vote in the general elections. 

I am one of the few people in this thread than deals in facts LOL NIce projection there that you claim I only deal in hyperbole. I gave you the facts on voter fraud and why we dont need voter IDs, you have not given any facts why they are needed for elections.

Show me all these examples of people committing voter fraud. The fact is you can't because it rarely ever happens.

As for creationism in schools it is a huge deal when the right wingers want to teach it 

in science class like its a fact like evolution. You keep proving how uninformed you are. But thanks for proving my point. Religion has no place in public schools, that is why we have separation of church and state. 

The arguments go too far in this therad because of people like you and post you just posted, then I go and defend myself and people like cry about what I say.

the funny thing is gave zero reason why we need IDs to vote.

So how about you do that before you embarass yourself some more.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Ugh this suppression bullshit and "MUH MINORITES CANT GET ID"

Voter cards sent out at 18

Can upgrade Voter ID at DMV or Social Security office with photo to be allowed to be used as main ID for those who don't drive.

Has basic info

Only things you cannot do with the Voter ID is buy weapons/open bank account. That should placate the blood soaked tampon wearing anti-gun nuts after all Democrats want to be certain minorities never exercise their second amendment right.

People have already been caught this election voting a few extra times. Obviously there is something to it.

Voter IDs would allow for easy secondary identification and automatically register you to vote.

It prevents people from changing your vote or casting multiple votes or people using it for nefarious reasons.

There is no reason why this cannot be done and have little to no hassle to it while offering a lot of benefits!


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary wants to bring in 65,000 Syrian refugees without any kind of background check:








> Fort Hood, Texas - November 5, 2009
> 
> Boston, Massachusetts - April 15, 2013
> 
> Moore, Oklahoma - September 24, 2014
> 
> Chattanooga, Tennessee - July 16, 2015
> 
> San Bernardino, California- December 14, 2015
> 
> Orlando, Florida - June 13, 2016
> 
> New York, New York - September 17, 2016
> 
> Saint Cloud, Minnesota - September 17, 2016


- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Ugh this suppression bullshit and "MUH MINORITES CANT GET ID"
> 
> Voter cards sent out at 18
> 
> Can upgrade Voter ID at DMV or Social Security office with photo to be allowed to be used as main ID for those who don't drive.
> 
> Has basic info
> 
> Only things you cannot do with the Voter ID is buy weapons/open bank account. That should placate the blood soaked tampon wearing anti-gun nuts after all Democrats want to be certain minorities never exercise their second amendment right.
> 
> People have already been caught this election voting a few extra times. Obviously there is something to it.
> 
> Voter IDs would allow for easy secondary identification and automatically register you to vote.
> 
> It prevents people from changing your vote or casting multiple votes or people using it for nefarious reasons.
> 
> There is no reason why this cannot be done and have little to no hassle to it while offering a lot of benefits!



one person has been caught and that is a Trump supporter LOL

There is not something to it. It rarely ever happens but if you want to ignore the facts and evidence go ahead it just makes you look bad.

Fraud voter has never been an issue, you act like thousands or millions of people are committing voter fraud that is simply not happening based on the evidence.

And you really think the GOP would want to give out free ID cards to everyone LOL They dont even like welfare.

Voter suppression has always been a much bigger issue, fix that before this silly non sense voter ID BS that is not even needed.


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

New York Post broke the story this morning: according to e-mails and FBI reports, Secretary Clinton routinely ordered her housekeeper (who had no security clearance) to print out classified emails. #MopSecret 










:kobelol


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Although Wikileaks has NEVER published material whose authenticity has ever been disproven, team Clinton is desperately trying to get ahead of something big:

CLINTON CAMPAIGN: If 'whopper' email is published by WikiLeaks in next 2 days, 'it's probably a fake'
http://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-wikileaks-jennifer-palmieri-whopper-emails-2016-11


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://fortune.com/2016/11/06/polls-clinton-trump-election/

Polls Show Hillary Clinton Leading Donald Trump in Election's Final Days

Voters view Clinton as the more qualified candidate
Latest polls show Hillary Clinton pulling ahead of rival Donald Trump as the 2016 election nears the end.

According to the final national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, Clinton holds a four-point lead over Trump, with 44% of support from likely voters in a four-way matchup, while Trump gets 40%. Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson has 6%, while Green Party candidate Jill Stein has 2%.

In a two-way contest, Clinton’s lead expands to five points, 48%-43%.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll finds similar results, with Clinton ahead by five points, 48%-43%. It’s Clinton’s best result since Oct. 26, bolstered by voters’ view of the Democratic candidate as being more qualified than Trump to serve as president, according to the poll.

Both polls were conducted in the first week of November, after FBI Director James Comey announced the bureau was examining additional emails related to Clinton’s use of a private server.

The margin of error for the ABC News/Washington Post poll is 2.5 percentage points, and the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll holds a margin of error of plus or minus 2.7 percentage points.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

so FL final early numbers


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795350361439666177
Trump will have to switch seriously the proportion of support among whites to win the state, flip some democrats hopefully

election day votes should be more gop leaning so that could balance out


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Everything in his post showed he was for voter suppression.
> 
> Why shouldn't they have early voting? It makes sure everyone has a chance to vote because like I said some people cannot take off work to vote on election day or can go into work later to vote or a number of things.
> 
> Also all voter ID does is suppress the vote for minorities, poor people and the elderly.
> 
> A lot of people don't carry ID's. LOL we have been over this already the first time this voter ID topic came up. And like I said those people are some minorities, poor people and elderly.
> 
> 
> 
> You have not shown why voter IDs are need to vote. Like I said before when this was first brought up this pretty much never happens.
> 
> Over the past 10 years there have only been 31 cases, most explained, which brought it down to like 7 that could not be explained cases of voter fraud out of over a billion votes cast.
> 
> So give a good reason why voter IDs are needed? Voter fraud pretty much never happens.
> 
> *People like you are the problem. you want to suppress the vote so your party can win.* Its why the GOP is always trying to suppress the vote in the general elections.
> 
> I am one of the few people in this thread than deals in facts LOL NIce projection there that you claim I only deal in hyperbole. I gave you the facts on voter fraud and why we dont need voter IDs, you have not given any facts why they are needed for elections.
> 
> Show me all these examples of people committing voter fraud. The fact is you can't because it rarely ever happens.
> 
> As for creationism in schools it is a huge deal when the right wingers want to teach it
> 
> in science class like its a fact like evolution. *You keep proving how uninformed you are. But thanks for proving my point. Religion has no place in public schools, that is why we have separation of church and state. *
> 
> The arguments go too far in this therad because of people like you and post you just posted, then I go and defend myself and people like cry about what I say.
> 
> *the funny thing is gave zero reason why we need IDs to vote.*
> 
> So how about you do that before you embarass yourself some more.



I know I said I wouldn't respond but this post just proves my point lol. I never said I think ID's are needed, I just said I need an ID for a library book and not to vote for the President. 

I'm uninformed in the education field, a field I work at every day? See this is what I am talking about man, you have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about. These kids (they begin to learn about it usually around 6th grade, or whenever general science is introduced) do not care about evolutionism or creationism. They care about getting a good grade on their next test about Evolutionism and couldn't care less about what it actually means. But, go ahead and lecture me about how much you know on the subject. You know you want to. 

You aren't stupid. 

40 minute lecture on Evolutionism < years worth of going to religion class

Which once again, NEWSFLASH: these kids are more worried about impressing their friends in religion class than actually learning about their religion. 

I also never said anything about suppressing the vote. There you go again. Don't worry, I am obviously a racist Republican and everything you say is 100% the truth.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Smarkout said:


> You aren't stupid.



I say, you're being generous with him


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






President Obama should've been impeached a long time ago. Hearing this made me sick to my stomach!

- Vic


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> President Obama should've been impeached a long time ago. Hearing this made me sick to my stomach!
> 
> - Vic


Taken entirely out of context to misrepresent what he was saying.

Here's the full clip:


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795290227157909504
:lmao


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Comey dropped the FBI investigation again. I guess we're all fucked now.

- Vic


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Comey dropped the FBI investigation again. I guess we're all fucked now.
> 
> - Vic


Just more ammo for Trump and just more evidence to the American people that Washington is corrupt and that the Swamp needs to be drained.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Smarkout said:


> I know I said I wouldn't respond but this post just proves my point lol. I never said I think ID's are needed, I just said I need an ID for a library book and not to vote for the President.
> 
> I'm uninformed in the education field, a field I work at every day? See this is what I am talking about man, you have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about. These kids (they begin to learn about it usually around 6th grade, or whenever general science is introduced) do not care about evolutionism or creationism. They care about getting a good grade on their next test about Evolutionism and couldn't care less about what it actually means. But, go ahead and lecture me about how much you know on the subject. You know you want to.
> 
> You aren't stupid.
> 
> 40 minute lecture on Evolutionism < years worth of going to religion class
> 
> Which once again, NEWSFLASH: these kids are more worried about impressing their friends in religion class than actually learning about their religion.
> 
> I also never said anything about suppressing the vote. There you go again. Don't worry, I am obviously a racist Republican and everything you say is 100% the truth.


Posters like you are a joke when you play these little BS games. You did imply that voter IDs are needed. You replied to me saying, “I need an ID for a library book and not to vote for the President. “ when quoting this

“And you have already been proven wrong about no voter id facilitates fraud since voter fraud rarely ever happens.”



So how exactly did your post not imply you are for voter IDs? So are you saying you don’t think voter ids are needed?

Instead of playing your little games why don’t you say if you think they are needed or not when replaying to someone’s post instead of implying you are then claiming well I never said that.


As for evolution and creationism, you don’t teach something in science class that is not a fact. Your logic is just stupid, that is like saying well lets also teach kids that 2+2 could equal 5 since they don’t really care what is right they just care about getting a good grade. 

You don’t teach something in science class you know is bullshit. That is what bible class is for in a private school or CCD.

It’s a joke you would even think its ok to teach something we know is wrong as fact.

Teaching creationism in science class is just going to make kids dumber.

So again, instead of playing this little game of yours where you imply things then claim you did not say tha when its obvious what you are implying, say what you mean.
Are you for or against voter IDs


----------



## CMPunkRock316

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The DNC is basically organized crime. They have rigged the DNC Primary and the General Election to the best of their abilities. Look at Project Veritas Action exposing it.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CancelWWENetwork said:


> The DNC is basically organized crime. They have rigged the DNC Primary and the General Election to the best of their abilities. Look at Project Veritas Action exposing it.


The GOP is doing their own rigging of the general election. All you have to do is look at all the polling stations they closed or moved in poorer and urban areas. So dont act like they are all innocent


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Comey dropped the FBI investigation again. I guess we're all fucked now.
> 
> - Vic


Comey has caved in. No matter the outcome of the election he is fucked. and rightly so


----------



## CMPunkRock316

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I still can not believe people who support no ID to vote are doing it for anything but their crooked party's interests. Dems would never win a single election if they didn't cheat in the elections and have the media do their bidding. This ID thing is just looking to commit voter fraud. Libs will cite supposedly one random person who tried to vote twice for Trump. Dems have been using the under rated dead vote for a long time now. I know lifelong Dems who are turning on their party left and right because of people growing up and seeing what is actually going on and not being a little kid anymore told by their clueless parents.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

PEOPLE ARE PISSED

This decision by the FBI probably helps Trump more than it helps Hillary.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CancelWWENetwork said:


> I still can not believe people who support no ID to vote are doing it for anything but their crooked party's interests. Dems would never win a single election if they didn't cheat in the elections and have the media do their bidding. This ID thing is just looking to commit voter fraud. Libs will cite supposedly one random person who tried to vote twice for Trump. Dems have been using the under rated dead vote for a long time now. I know lifelong Dems who are turning on their party left and right because of people growing up and seeing what is actually going on and not being a little kid anymore told by their clueless parents.


Already proved voter fraud has rarely ever happened over the past 10 years. Just 31 cases is over one billion voters. So nice try.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...le-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/




wwe9391 said:


> PEOPLE ARE PISSED
> 
> This decision by the FBI probably helps Trump more than it helps Hillary.


No it wont LOL. The people have already made up their minds who they are voting for. If they were going to vote for Trump over Hillary because of the FBI investigation they already made up their minds they were going to vote for Trump.

If anything her getting off will have people vote for her instead. Your logic makes no sense. Those pissed off people already were not voting for her. The damage to him coming out with this before he even looked at the emails already caused the damage, she wont get more damage because he did not find anything. LOL

Is there really anyone by this point that has not made up their mind already?


----------



## CMPunkRock316

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> The GOP is doing their own rigging of the general election. All you have to do is look at all the polling stations they closed or moved in poorer and urban areas. So dont act like they are all innocent


I lived in a nice suburban area in Ohio for 28 years. Seen Dem Operatives try to influence things (my moron relatives as some examples). I moved 7 years ago and live near the ghetto and there are tons of polling places. I get dirty looks from the older black lady at the polling place everytime because I am not registered democrat like the sheep. Dems pray upon the poor they want the poor to stay poor and put them on food stamps, SSI or whatever. Dems want to stage the theory that they are for the little man. Reality is they want the man to stay little so they still support the DNC machine while suckling from the Gov't's Teet.

Check out Project Veritas Action videos on youtube. They expose Dem operatives admitting they have been bussing ppl in for 50+ years.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Living in England if i want info about the American election i have to come on line and find it out for myself, so have i got this correct?

It took 150 FBI agents 14 month to go through 33,000 emails but somehow they have gone through 650,00 in 1 week. Is this what i am meant to believe?


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Nobody takes you serious Birthday. Please stop posting


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CancelWWENetwork said:


> I lived in a nice suburban area in Ohio for 28 years. Seen Dem Operatives try to influence things (my moron relatives as some examples). I moved 7 years ago and live near the ghetto and there are tons of polling places. I get dirty looks from the older black lady at the polling place everytime because I am not registered democrat like the sheep. Dems pray upon the poor they want the poor to stay poor and put them on food stamps, SSI or whatever. Dems want to stage the theory that they are for the little man. Reality is they want the man to stay little so they still support the DNC machine while suckling from the Gov't's Teet.
> 
> Check out Project Veritas Action videos on youtube. They expose Dem operatives admitting they have been bussing ppl in for 50+ years.


Gee I wonder why you get dirty looks with your attitude. You sound super stuck up like you look down at the people you are talking about. I bet you look down at all those people you are talking about like you are better than them. 

Judging by your post you also seem to think that not everyone should get a vote LOL Who cares of the DNC busses people in to vote as long as those voters are registered. Why shouldn't they get to vote?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Jesus can we please move on from this Voter ID crap it's already been done. Personally I have no problem with people needing ID, it seems like a no-brainer. What people should be talking about is why the damn voting day is on a Tuesday when people need to work.


My question is why did wikileaks wait so long to release all this so-called damning evidence? I would've thought it would be better to release the details sooner so they can sink in a bit more rather than do it so late in the piece.

Again, so ironic though that the man who was formerly the one of The Right's most hated in Assange is now their main hope in getting their guy in.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Comey has caved in. No matter the outcome of the election he is fucked. and rightly so


His next letter should be his resignation.

- Vic


----------



## CMPunkRock316

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> PEOPLE ARE PISSED
> 
> This decision by the FBI probably helps Trump more than it helps Hillary.


I sure hope so. Comey is just Hillary's bitch.


----------



## CMPunkRock316

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Gee I wonder why you get dirty looks with your attitude. You sound super stuck up like you look down at the people you are talking about. I bet you look down at all those people you are talking about like you are better than them.
> 
> Judging by your post you also seem to think that not everyone should get a vote LOL Who cares of the DNC busses people in to vote as long as those voters are registered. Why shouldn't they get to vote?


I got dirty looks because I am a registered republican in the ghetto. When it happened once I was like OK. Then twice I was irritated. Then everytime I vote. I am not so close minded that I judge people based on basic things. You don't care about bussing ppl in from other states, LOL. That says a lot. Check out Project Veritas Action it is eye-opening.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Jesus can we please move on from this Voter ID crap it's already been done. Personally I have no problem with people needing ID, it seems like a no-brainer. What people should be talking about is why the damn voting day is on a Tuesday when people need to work.
> 
> 
> My question is why did wikileaks wait so long to release all this so-called damning evidence? I would've thought it would be better to release the details sooner so they can sink in a bit more rather than do it so late in the piece.
> 
> Again, so ironic though that the man who was formerly the one of The Right's most hated in Assange is now their main hope in getting their guy in.


its funny how you want to move on from the voting ID discussion then give your two cents but I already proved why its not needed. 

To answer your question about why is voting on a Tuesday its because back in the day farmers that used to go to church on weekends and you could not have voting on the sabbaths. So Monday was usually a traveling day since a lot of the polls were far away for those farmers and Tuesday made the most sense.

At least most states have early voting so its not so much of an issue in most states but they should make voting day a national holiday to make sure everyone can vote.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CancelWWENetwork said:


> I got dirty looks because I am a registered republican in the ghetto. When it happened once I was like OK. Then twice I was irritated. Then everytime I vote. I am not so close minded that I judge people based on basic things. You don't care about bussing ppl in from other states, LOL. That says a lot. Check out Project Veritas Action it is eye-opening.


Did you even read what I said? Of course you didn't. I said there is nothing wrong with busing people in if those voters are registered. You do know you can only vote at the polling station you are registered to right?

I can't go to another state and vote LOL.

If those voters are being bussed to illegally vote then not that should not be happening. 

As for James of Keefe, can't believe you even take him seriously, but why am I not surprised. I bet you take Infowars seriously too.




CancelWWENetwork said:


> I sure hope so. Comey is just Hillary's bitch.


yet Trump was just praising him a few days ago.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> At least most states have early voting so its not so much of an issue in most states but they should make voting day a national holiday to make sure everyone can vote.


Ohio cut Sunday voting hours to 10, with four last Sunday and six today.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795342933364973570
So, yeah, the process could be a little better.

(Not even going to get into the comments of the Nevada GOP chair the other day or North Carolina openly admitting that it cut Sunday voting because black people were disproportionately voting on Sundays.)


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> Ohio cut Sunday voting hours to 10, with four last Sunday and six today.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795342933364973570
> So, yeah, the process could be a little better.
> 
> (Not even going to get into the comments of the Nevada GOP chair the other day or North Carolina openly admitting that it cut Sunday voting because black people were disproportionately voting on Sundays.)


imagine if the DNC was doing this to GOP white voting polling stations how loudly the GOP would be yelling about voter suppression.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Comeys decided that closing the investigation is in his best interest. If hilisry wins, comey would die mysterioysly if it was ongoing. If trump wins he just loses his job, his reputation is already destroyed.

Fools may say it proves her innocence on the matter, but the fact remains comey laid out a list of things that make her a criminal, regardless of whether he had the guts to charge her.

Our next president is a unindicted felon.

Sure she will be a huge success.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> Comeys decided that closing the investigation is in his best interest. If hilisry wins, comey would die mysterioysly if it was ongoing. If trump wins he just loses his job, his reputation is already destroyed.
> 
> Fools may say it proves her innocence on the matter, but the fact remains comey laid out a list of things that make her a criminal, regardless of whether he had the guts to charge her.
> 
> Our next president is a unindicted felon.
> 
> Sure she will be a huge success.


And if Trump wins we have a racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic, sexual assaulter fascist as president. 

Its a lose/lose.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:lol From FBI files in the '90s to apparently owning the FBI today. The Clintons' corruption truly knows no bounds. Still figure Comey's headed for a Goldman Sachs lobbying post in a couple of years.
@CamillePunk @L-DOPA @Sincere

Just wanted to share this inter-libertarian debate that was talked about by *Camille* here before it happened. I just watched it, and the testiness and vitriol from the well-meaning Walter Block directed toward the unctuous, dissatisfying and hollow Nick Gillespie seemed well-earned. :lol 

It also makes me glad that, for all of their myriad bouts of correctness on a host of issues, I have never considered myself a libertarian. :lol

http://www.targetliberty.com/2016/11/the-debate-walter-block-vs-nick_3.html

What Gillespie does not seem to understand, or unwilling to comprehend, is that this electoral map, as determined by today's students will more or less be the reality of the U.S. electoral college one or, at most, two short generations from now thanks to demographics: http://election.scholastic.com/vote/ 

(Granted, Utah is a bit of an exception due to Mormons specifically finding Trump unpalatable.) 

So unless Gillespie's children are planning to live along the Great Plains or some of the Southern states that Gillespie badmouths in an ill-considered attack on manufacturing jobs (truly, no idea what point he is attempting to make there; as Block notes, are Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi actually worse off for having some factories?), this libertarian society he keeps envisioning is simply not going to be. 

Libertarians have long held to beliefs that ultimately undo the entirety of the rest of their objectives before, almost to the point of fetishes, but no political animal is so blind as the libertarian who tirelessly advocates mass immigration. 

_Adios_, libertarianism and the Republican Party! :lol Even _National Review_ is "getting it," as the ballgame is only a short ways from concluding: http://www.nationalreview.com/magaz...-demographics-diversifying-republicans-behind


----------



## skypod

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Not from the US so not sure what the process is but is it not likely (Hillary moreso) that with all this stuff that's came out on both candidates, either one of them is likely to be impeached in the next 4 years? Maybe more attention should be paid to the vice presidents for both.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



skypod said:


> Not from the US so not sure what the process is but is it not likely (Hillary moreso) that with all this stuff that's came out on both candidates, either one of them is likely to be impeached in the next 4 years? Maybe more attention should be paid to the vice presidents for both.


As fanatical as both of their supporters are, either could be assassinated in their first term


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> Comeys decided that closing the investigation is in his best interest. If hilisry wins, comey would die mysterioysly if it was ongoing. If trump wins he just loses his job, his reputation is already destroyed.
> 
> Fools may say it proves her innocence on the matter, but the fact remains comey laid out a list of things that make her a criminal, regardless of whether he had the guts to charge her.
> 
> Our next president is a unindicted felon.
> 
> Sure she will be a huge success.


Lol at Comey would die mysteriously. This is not a 70s political conspiracy drama.

What I think is difficult to reconcile is if the Clintons have all the evil power and influence people say, why did the FBI case even make it to the light of day in the first place?


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Posters like you are a joke when you play these little BS games. You did imply that voter IDs are needed. You replied to me saying, “I need an ID for a library book and not to vote for the President. “ when quoting this
> 
> “And you have already been proven wrong about no voter id facilitates fraud since voter fraud rarely ever happens.”
> 
> 
> 
> So how exactly did your post not imply you are for voter IDs? So are you saying you don’t think voter ids are needed?
> 
> Instead of playing your little games why don’t you say if you think they are needed or not when replaying to someone’s post instead of implying you are then claiming well I never said that.
> 
> 
> As for evolution and creationism, you don’t teach something in science class that is not a fact. Your logic is just stupid, that is like saying well lets also teach kids that 2+2 could equal 5 since they don’t really care what is right they just care about getting a good grade.
> 
> You don’t teach something in science class you know is bullshit. That is what bible class is for in a private school or CCD.
> 
> It’s a joke you would even think its ok to teach something we know is wrong as fact.
> 
> Teaching creationism in science class is just going to make kids dumber.
> 
> So again, instead of playing this little game of yours where you imply things then claim you did not say tha when its obvious what you are implying, say what you mean.
> Are you for or against voter IDs



I never said creationism should be taught as a fact, just said that these kids couldn't care less. They are more worried about getting a good grade on their tests and you ignored that. How about engaging them in class more rather than teaching boring class content. We can't even teach based on the strengths of our students because the national government and state have to put their hands into everything. I also said that if you think a 40 minutes lecture on evolutionism will make them forget about years worth of religion class you are just stupid lol. 

I don't really care about voter ID's, I just thought it was funny you need an ID for such a little responsibility but not for voting. It just confuses me how people can go through life without an ID? Don't you need it for some basic life functions??

Anyway, like I said before you are harping on this thought process on what should be taught in school but it sounds like you haven't been in an elementary school or middle school since you graduated. The parents and people like you are the ones who make such a big deal about this stuff, it's very rarely the children. 

Nobody is trying to play games with you, just stop assuming things. That's a big problem of yours, which leads to the hyperbole's.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/austy...mocrat-dnc-hillary-clinton-plant-allegations/

So...according to this story, Crites (the man who got bumrushed out last night of the Reno rally) was supposedly a registered Republican since 2011 and had a sign that said "Republicans Against Trump". He has stated that he has voted for Hillary Clinton and donated to her campaign because he does not agree with Trump as the GOP nominee and the fear of our rights being taken away. 

Of course, there are those who claim that they have found his name supposedly in Wikileaks and he is a Democrat plant that was sent to the rally in order to stir up trouble. They did not find a gun at the site. 

With as insane as things have gotten...this could be either one of the aforementioned two possibilities and it wouldn't surprise me. If the one about him being a registered GOP member sending the ultimate "Fuck You" to the Trump campaign by voting for HRC is true...that shows how far off the rails this whole thing has gone.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Smarkout said:


> I never said creationism should be taught as a fact, just said that these kids couldn't care less. They are more worried about getting a good grade on their tests and you ignored that. How about engaging them in class more rather than teaching boring class content. We can't even teach based on the strengths of our students because the national government and state have to put their hands into everything. I also said that if you think a 40 minutes lecture on evolutionism will make them forget about years worth of religion class you are just stupid lol.
> 
> I don't really care about voter ID's, I just thought it was funny you need an ID for such a little responsibility but not for voting. It just confuses me how people can go through life without an ID? Don't you need it for some basic life functions??
> 
> Anyway, like I said before you are harping on this thought process on what should be taught in school but it sounds like you haven't been in an elementary school or middle school since you graduated. The parents and people like you are the ones who make such a big deal about this stuff, it's very rarely the children.
> 
> Nobody is trying to play games with you, just stop assuming things. That's a big problem of yours, which leads to the hyperbole's.


Here you go playing your little game again.

Christian parents are saying that creationism should be taught in schools. It does not matter what the kids think or want, at that age they don't know any better.
So if they are taught something in science class as a fact like creationism next to evolution that is what they are going to think is true.
You are making kids dumber be doing that. Its the parents fighting for it not the kids that is the whole point. We don't want a generation of dumb kids thinking the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old and mixing in relgion AKA god with science.

Also kids are not just taught evolution for 40 minutes lol. its the basic building blocks of what they learn in science or biology. 

if you don't care about voter IDs then don't comment on it or quote people discussing it. 

You are playing your stupid little game where you pretend you are not taking a side when you really are based on your comments. 

By you saying "It just confuses me how people can go through life without an ID? Don't you need it for some basic life functions??" that shows you are for voter ids. If you are claiming its not then you are lying or just trolling.

This is not a thought process on what should be taught in schools. Some Christians want creationism talk in science class and GOP congress people are even fighting for that. 

You keep saying the kids are not making a big deal about it, no kidding because they are too young to know any better that is why you don't teach them stuff in science class that is not scientific fact. 
Again religion has no place in public schools, separation of church and state.

Not sure why you dont understand this or why you want kids to be dumber. You probably want kids to be dumber so they are easily to manipulate with your propaganda. 


Yes you are playing games, I don't need to assume. If you are going to debate about voter ID then pick a side and stop with this well I never said that, but dont you need an ID for most basic things.

You are just trolling when you do that.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/trump-white-blue-collar-supporters



> The deep story of the right goes like this:
> 
> You are patiently standing in the middle of a long line stretching toward the horizon, where the American Dream awaits. But as you wait, you see people cutting in line ahead of you. Many of these line-cutters are black—beneficiaries of affirmative action or welfare. Some are career-driven women pushing into jobs they never had before. Then you see immigrants, Mexicans, Somalis, the Syrian refugees yet to come. As you wait in this unmoving line, you're being asked to feel sorry for them all. You have a good heart. But who is deciding who you should feel compassion for? Then you see President Barack Hussein Obama waving the line-cutters forward. He's on their side. In fact, isn't he a line-cutter too? How did this fatherless black guy pay for Harvard? As you wait your turn, Obama is using the money in your pocket to help the line-cutters. He and his liberal backers have removed the shame from taking. The government has become an instrument for redistributing your money to the undeserving. It's not your government anymore; it's theirs.





> Trump masculinizes benefits, but with a key proviso: restrict government help to real Americans.


Best explanation of Trump's support I've read so far.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I've often wondered if the people who go out of their way to say Barack Hussein Obama even know what the "W" stood for in George W. Bush.

Anywho, I can agree to some of the points raised in that article.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> I've often wondered if the people who go out of their way to say Barack Hussein Obama even know what the "W" stood for in George W. Bush.


It stands for Dubya.

:saul


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> :lol From FBI files in the '90s to apparently owning the FBI today. The Clintons' corruption truly knows no bounds. Still figure Comey's headed for a Goldman Sachs lobbying post in a couple of years.
> @CamillePunk @L-DOPA @Sincere
> 
> Just wanted to share this inter-libertarian debate that was talked about by *Camille* here before it happened. I just watched it, and the testiness and vitriol from the well-meaning Walter Block directed toward the unctuous, dissatisfying and hollow Nick Gillespie seemed well-earned. :lol
> 
> It also makes me glad that, for all of their myriad bouts of correctness on a host of issues, I have never considered myself a libertarian. :lol
> 
> http://www.targetliberty.com/2016/11/the-debate-walter-block-vs-nick_3.html
> 
> What Gillespie does not seem to understand, or unwilling to comprehend, is that this electoral map, as determined by today's students will more or less be the reality of the U.S. electoral college one or, at most, two short generations from now thanks to demographics: http://election.scholastic.com/vote/
> 
> (Granted, Utah is a bit of an exception due to Mormons specifically finding Trump unpalatable.)
> 
> So unless Gillespie's children are planning to live along the Great Plains or some of the Southern states that Gillespie badmouths in an ill-considered attack on manufacturing jobs (truly, no idea what point he is attempting to make there; as Block notes, are Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi actually worse off for having some factories?), this libertarian society he keeps envisioning is simply not going to be.
> 
> Libertarians have long held to beliefs that ultimately undo the entirety of the rest of their objectives before, almost to the point of fetishes, but no political animal is so blind as the libertarian who tirelessly advocates mass immigration.
> 
> _Adios_, libertarianism and the Republican Party! :lol Even _National Review_ is "getting it," as the ballgame is only a short ways from concluding: http://www.nationalreview.com/magaz...-demographics-diversifying-republicans-behind


libertarian circles have been eating themselves alive since at least Ron Paul's last failed presidential bid, thanks in large part to both the left-leaning wings trying to make libertarinism into something alien by trying to make it more SJW and anti-property, i.e. thick vs thin bullshit, 'bleedingheart' derps, etc--this all seems to come from the millennial types who are still in or just out of the world of university; and by the lINO right (who are really just 'conservative' republicans that think they have a lot in common with typical right libertarians) trying to take a big-tent approach via the republican base and moderates by way of Rand. 

Needless to say neither have been especially helpful to libertarians, or libertarianism. Then again, libertarians and libertarianism hasn't been especially successful lately, anyway, so it's whatever.

Incidentally, the most success libertarianism has had, from what I can gather, is when it has taken on its more radical (and, thus, true) form, rather than trying to pander to the broader base of Boobus--Mises, Rothbard, Ron Paul, etc. were all relatively radical figureheads that have done more to spread libertarianism than any of these pitiful attempts to be more populist and inclusive. But it seems like libertarians always end up backsliding in their wake, rather than keeping that established momentum going.


----------



## Smarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Here you go playing your little game again.
> 
> Christian parents are saying that creationism should be taught in schools. It does not matter what the kids think or want, at that age they don't know any better.
> So if they are taught something in science class as a fact like creationism next to evolution that is what they are going to think is true.
> You are making kids dumber be doing that. Its the parents fighting for it not the kids that is the whole point. We don't want a generation of dumb kids thinking the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old and mixing in relgion AKA god with science.
> 
> *Also kids are not just taught evolution for 40 minutes lol. its the basic building blocks of what they learn in science or biology. *
> 
> if you don't care about voter IDs then don't comment on it or quote people discussing it.
> 
> You are playing your stupid little game where you pretend you are not taking a side when you really are based on your comments.
> 
> By you saying "It just confuses me how people can go through life without an ID? Don't you need it for some basic life functions??" that shows you are for voter ids. If you are claiming its not then you are lying or just trolling.
> 
> This is not a thought process on what should be taught in schools. Some Christians want creationism talk in science class and GOP congress people are even fighting for that.
> 
> You keep saying the kids are not making a big deal about it, no kidding because they are too young to know any better that is why you don't teach them stuff in science class that is not scientific fact.
> Again religion has no place in public schools, separation of church and state.
> 
> Not sure why you dont understand this or why you want kids to be dumber. *You probably want kids to be dumber so they are easily to manipulate with your propaganda. *
> 
> 
> Yes you are playing games, I don't need to assume. If you are going to debate about voter ID then pick a side and stop with this well I never said that, but dont you need an ID for most basic things.
> 
> You are just trolling when you do that.




Yes as an educator I WANT kids to be dumber. You got me! The hyperbole's are unreal, you are really good for this. 

I think I know what the curriculum is like for some of these classes, it does not go nearly as in depth as you would like to believe. Trust me, kids are already sensitive enough, I would love for them to really have to learn about sensitive topics. It isn't that in depth though and it's like that for a reason. 

I also don't believe that we should be teaching creationism as a fact, but you are just playing stupid if you don't think very religious parents or churches are teaching the kids that. 

That is a serious question though, how do people get through life without an ID?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://fortune.com/2016/11/06/trump-staff-twitter-account/






This is hilarious if true.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Smarkout said:


> Yes as an educator I WANT kids to be dumber. You got me! The hyperbole's are unreal, you are really good for this.
> 
> I think I know what the curriculum is like for some of these classes, it does not go nearly as in depth as you would like to believe. Trust me, kids are already sensitive enough, I would love for them to really have to learn about sensitive topics. It isn't that in depth though and it's like that for a reason.
> 
> I also don't believe that we should be teaching creationism as a fact, but you are just playing stupid if you don't think very religious parents or churches are teaching the kids that.
> 
> That is a serious question though, how do people get through life without an ID?


It's not hyperbole. Teaching kids creationism in school as science will make them dumber.
If you are fine with teaching creationism in schools and don't think it's a big deal, then you are making kids dumber.

Why should creationism be allowed in public schools especially since class? It does not matter how in-depth it goes, teaching kids anything in science class that is not true even at a basic level is making them dumb.

I don't care if religious parents or churches are teaching their kids creationism, they can teach their kids whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes or churches. It has no place in public schools. 

There are plenty of reasons why people don't have IDs. Most old people don't need IDs especially since they don't drive. A lot of people that live in the city don't need Ids since they don't have cars. 


Not everyone has a drivers license which is what most people use for their ID.


----------



## amhlilhaus

birthday_massacre said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comeys decided that closing the investigation is in his best interest. If hilisry wins, comey would die mysterioysly if it was ongoing. If trump wins he just loses his job, his reputation is already destroyed.
> 
> Fools may say it proves her innocence on the matter, but the fact remains comey laid out a list of things that make her a criminal, regardless of whether he had the guts to charge her.
> 
> Our next president is a unindicted felon.
> 
> Sure she will be a huge success.
> 
> 
> 
> And if Trump wins we have a racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic, sexual assaulter fascist as president.
> 
> Its a lose/lose.
Click to expand...

We can agree on this


----------



## amhlilhaus

yeahbaby! said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comeys decided that closing the investigation is in his best interest. If hilisry wins, comey would die mysterioysly if it was ongoing. If trump wins he just loses his job, his reputation is already destroyed.
> 
> Fools may say it proves her innocence on the matter, but the fact remains comey laid out a list of things that make her a criminal, regardless of whether he had the guts to charge her.
> 
> Our next president is a unindicted felon.
> 
> Sure she will be a huge success.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol at Comey would die mysteriously. This is not a 70s political conspiracy drama.
> 
> What I think is difficult to reconcile is if the Clintons have all the evil power and influence people say, why did the FBI case even make it to the light of day in the first place?
Click to expand...

The clinton body count is real. Its statistically impossible to have so many associates, colleagues and ex lovers die in accidents, suicides and bad health.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> Living in England if i want info about the American election i have to come on line and find it out for myself, so have i got this correct?
> 
> It took 150 FBI agents 14 month to go through 33,000 emails but somehow they have gone through 650,00 in 1 week. Is this what i am meant to believe?


Tbf i'm also find this suspicious but the number is wrong.

The number was never confirmed and if it was that, those are the mails in Weiner's laptop not the Clinton E-mails. The Clinton mails could be 1, 10 or 60.000. The quickness to review suggest that they were indeed a few.

I guess we will never know now.....


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> The clinton body count is real. Its statistically impossible to have so many associates, colleagues and ex lovers die in accidents, suicides and bad health.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/25846

The corruption is real.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Tbf i'm also find this suspicious but the number is wrong.
> 
> The number was never confirmed and if it was that, those are the mails in Weiner's laptop not the Clinton E-mails. The Clinton mails could be 1, 10 or 60.000. The quickness to review suggest that they were indeed a few.
> 
> I guess we will never know now.....


Do people think that Comey was sitting over 65,000 print-outs with a highlighter or something?

They ran it through a program. The program filtered out all the duplicates. They then filtered for emails relevant to the case and reviewed those. Given that they already had a baseline established from the investigation as to what they were looking for or not looking for, it's not difficult to believe that eight days would be more than enough time to run through anything potentially pertinent.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> Do people think that Comey was sitting over 65,000 print-outs with a highlighter or something?
> 
> They ran it through a program. The program filtered out all the duplicates. They then filtered for emails relevant to the case and reviewed those. Given that they already had a baseline established from the investigation as to what they were looking for or not looking for, it's not difficult to believe that eight days would be more than enough time to run through anything potentially pertinent.


Due to political pressure, obvious corruption within the FBI and DoJ, the key words they used were probably "I am guilty", welp she never said she was guilty in the emails so our work is done!


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795399738900316160
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/trump-surge-freakout-anti-trump-violence-growing-rapidly/



> David Jones, chairman of the Making Maine Great Again political action committee, told NBC he bought 5,000 signs and distributed them across Maine's first congressional district. Thieves stole about 1,000 of the signs, he estimates.
> 
> "We were finding that we would put them up one day and they'd be gone the next, if they lasted a day," Jones said. "They would be destroyed, stolen, painted, cut. It's unbelievable how people reacted to it."


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795442431982522368
Even the LA times people know his poll sucks :lmao


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795399738900316160
> http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/trump-surge-freakout-anti-trump-violence-growing-rapidly/


What are people doing with all these signs? Bizarre.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795442431982522368
> Even the LA times people know his poll sucks :lmao


The methodology was not sound in the first place. But they were at least trying something new to find another cost effective way to replace the outdated increasingly expensive way of relying on landlines. And their poll was at least accurate in showing the mood of the electorate even if the results are not accurate.

Better luck next time for them.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Due to political pressure, obvious corruption within the FBI and DoJ, the key words they used were probably "I am guilty", welp she never said she was guilty in the emails so our work is done!


If the FBI are so corrupt though, why did they even re-open the investigation. If they're all in the Clinton's pocket, why make any noise at all in the first place?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Stratfor: "I thought Vince Foster was the only person the Clinton's killed. How naive I was" https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/16/1643150_re-analytical-and-intelligence-comments-polish-pla


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Due to political pressure, obvious corruption within the FBI and DoJ, the key words they used were probably "I am guilty", welp she never said she was guilty in the emails so our work is done!


That would be a quick search, yes.

I hope Trump uses the same logic on Tuesday. "There have been millions of votes cast. How could you _possibly_ have counted so many of them in the span of a few hours?!"


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> That would be a quick search, yes.
> 
> I hope Trump uses the same logic on Tuesday. "There have been millions of votes cast. How could you _possibly_ have counted so many of them in the span of a few hours?!"


HOW CAN I HATE WOMEN?? MY MOTHER IS ONE!

no one has more respect....


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> The methodology was not sound in the first place. But they were at least trying something new to find another cost effective way to replace the outdated increasingly expensive way of relying on landlines. And their poll was at least accurate in showing the mood of the electorate even if the results are not accurate.
> 
> Better luck next time for them.


Obviously, any model has a methodologic value which is intrinsic to them. The pertinent discussion to have is what they did great and separate that from the garbage stuff. 

Tracking polls are a great idea, the problem is in the overweight present thanks to the selection of participants. They could make better if they increase the N, but i don't know how more cheap that is than to do 5000 calls to get one more person in a traditional one, which is the current problem with traditional public polls.

We could re-weight the polls (and no, this is different than the "unskew") to see how far it land from the normal forecast/aggregators. They're a good idea because as you said helps to track the mood of people. If something is positive about this election is that it's going to help a lot with the way we predict results. So always a win.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Obviously, any model has a methodologic value which is intrinsic to them. The pertinent discussion to have is what they did great and separate that from the garbage stuff.
> 
> Tracking polls are a great idea, *the problem is in the overweight present thanks to the selection of participants.* They could make better if they increase the N, but i don't know how more cheap that is than to do 5000 calls to get one more person in a traditional one, which is the current problem with traditional public polls.
> 
> We could re-weight the polls (and no, this is different than the "unskew") to see how far it land from the normal forecast/aggregators. They're a good idea because as you said helps to track the mood of people. If something is positive about this election is that it's going to help a lot with the way we predict results. So always a win.


So, you're saying they should stop polling fat people. :hmm:

Interesting solution, but I think it might just be crazy enough to work.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> If the FBI are so corrupt though, why did they even re-open the investigation. If they're all in the Clinton's pocket, why make any noise at all in the first place?


I don't think they're in Clinton's pocket though I wouldn't doubt some of them are due to how chummy things got with the Clinton's during the original investigation. The FBI and DoJ are corrupt, not for any one particular side but to save their careers. Clinton is possibly going to win, many did not want to risk an investigation and bring about the wrath of the next President upon them, earlier in this thread I pointed out how the FBI and the Justice Department is supposed to protect the people from bad Politicians but instead work for them. There is no checks anymore. 

While some of the top maybe corrupt or at the very least afraid of Political retribution there are still many who aren't worried about it and are making noise, hence why this stuff hasn't been completely buried. The fact Politicians have our Justice system shaking in their boots is a very scary sign. It should be Politicians who fear the Justice system, not the other way around. 
@retep you know that's not the same thing, come on now!


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://fortune.com/2016/11/06/trump-staff-twitter-account/

Trumps staffers have taken his twitter away from him.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Just a few days away before we watch the season finale of America guys


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I hope the final electoral result is 269 - 269 just for the :lol

- Vic


----------



## TheLooseCanon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Machiavelli said:


> Just a few days away before we watch the season finale of America guys


Wonder if in the season finale Trump has the horn that controls Clinton's dragons, but then out of nowhere, Stannis Sanders rises from the ashes and they both bend the fucking knee.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Look for the already written stories on how decency and patriotism turned back the awful conservatives, how now the healing can begin. All ironic since trump is a symptom of the.disgusting policies of the establishment that these press stories will claim can now make the country better.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Clinton
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...on-vote--for-me-election-day-column/93400038/

Trump
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/11/06/donald-trump-why-you-should-vote-me/93398970/

Feels like a out of touch camp counsellor versus a predatory MLM marketer.

Choose well America.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> I hope the final electoral result is 269 - 269 just for the :lol
> 
> - Vic


I was doing a predictor on RealClearPolitics the other day and managed to end up with 269 - 269 at one stage

What happens if this was the case?


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> I hope the final electoral result is 269 - 269 just for the :lol
> 
> - Vic


that would be funny but that would give Clinton the win.


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> I was doing a predictor on RealClearPolitics the other day and managed to end up with 269 - 269 at one stage
> 
> What happens if this was the case?


It goes to the states. Each state gets one vote, which is voted by whoever is selected to represent them in the House of Representatives that same election. So unless the Democrats pull off a massive upset and take a shitload of seats, the Republicans will have the numbers in the majority of the states, so Trump would win.

Either way, it's not going to happen at this point... there were pretty much two ways for it to happen either 
1. Trump wins all the tossup battleground states (Ohio, Nevada, Florida, North Carolina), holds on to the ones where he leads the polls, flips New Hampshire, but Hillary either holds on to District 2 in Maine or takes District 1 in Nebraska. 
2. Trump wins all the tossup battleground states except for Nevada, holds on to the ones where he leads the polls, takes both District 2 in Maine and District 1 in Nebraska, and flips Colorado

Considering that Nevada has become a major longshot for Trump based on early vote Demographics, the first scenario isn't happening. Number 2 is a possibility, but very very slim


----------



## Cliffy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

had to unfollow a bunch of people on twitter

the paid shilling from gaga and perry is embarrassing. You're voting for a candidate based on genitalia. 

stop pretending to be politically informed you morons.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vince's Massive Bulge said:


> had to unfollow a bunch of people on twitter
> 
> the paid shilling from gaga and perry is embarrassing. You're voting for a candidate based on genitalia.
> 
> stop pretending to be politically informed you morons.


And you are voting for a racist, bigoted, homophobic, sexist, sexual assaulter, fascist in Trump.

So what does that say about you


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> And you are voting for a racist, bigoted, homophobic, sexist, sexual assaulter, fascist in Trump.
> 
> So what does that say about you


Hillary is all that but at least he's not just voting for her because "LOL woman." Don't you got some racist bernie bro rants to do on reddit?


----------



## Banez

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

few days to go and media needs to come up with news.


----------



## Cliffy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> And you are voting for a racist, bigoted, homophobic, sexist, sexual assaulter, fascist in Trump.
> 
> So what does that say about you


i'm going to vote for trump all the way from the united kingdom ?

LOL


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Hillary is all that but at least he's not just voting for her because "LOL woman." Don't you got some racist bernie bro rants to do on reddit?


Typical projection by a racist Trump supporter. How adorable.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Bm complaining about projection? :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Typical projection by a racist Trump supporter. How adorable.


Typical projection from a generalizing idiot nobody here takes serious.

:draper2


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Typical projection from a generalizing idiot nobody here takes serious.
> 
> :draper2


Why would I care if clueless Trump supporters take me seriously LOL That is like a bunch of creationists telling someone arguing for evolution they don't take him seriously lol. 

Trump supporters can be so cute sometimes. Go back to playing in the kiddie pool where you belong. And don't forget to wear your floaties.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This thread can't go a day without baiting, generalizing, and insulting. If you're just going to take swings at each other, take it to Rants. Otherwise, knock it off.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> This thread can't go a day without baiting, generalizing, and insulting. If you're just going to take swings at each other, take it to Rants. Otherwise, knock it off.


Sorry! Sometimes it's like a ball in the yard and nobody is around.. you just have to kick it! 0


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So I got Trump to win odds at 9/2 a couple weeks ish ago. What are my chances? The odds are much shorter now than they were when I put the bet on, but do I really have a shot?


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It terrifies me how accurate this is.












> What happens if this was the case?


The House Of Representatives picks the next President. Its only happened once in US history all the way back in 1824!

- Vic


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RavishingRickRules said:


> So I got Trump to win odds at 9/2 a couple weeks ish ago. What are my chances? The odds are much shorter now than they were when I put the bet on, but do I really have a shot?


I say something between 10% and 15%, 20% if you want to extended it

Edit:



birthday_massacre said:


> *its 50/50 at this point based on the polls *depending on how the swing states go. it all depends on if Hillary can hold on by the skin of her teeth. It's going to be a crazy night tomorrow.


no


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RavishingRickRules said:


> So I got Trump to win odds at 9/2 a couple weeks ish ago. What are my chances? The odds are much shorter now than they were when I put the bet on, but do I really have a shot?


its 50/50 at this point based on the polls depending on how the swing states go. it all depends on if Hillary can hold on by the skin of her teeth. It's going to be a crazy night tomorrow.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










:lmao


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RavishingRickRules said:


> So I got Trump to win odds at 9/2 a couple weeks ish ago. What are my chances? The odds are much shorter now than they were when I put the bet on, but do I really have a shot?



Assuming Trump doesn't lose his hold of somewhere like Arizona or Iowa on the last day...
Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida are tossups. Trump loses one and he loses. North Carolina and Florida seem to be in Hillary's favor based on early vote demographics.... Then he needs to flip either Michigan, Colorado, or Pennsylvania, where Hillary has a close but definitive lead in all three at the moment.
At this point, it's definitely a long shot...depending on what poll aggregates you use, 538 has him with about a 1/3 chance of winning, but that seems to be an outlier as all the other predictors have between a 16% chance to a near zero% chance.
But considering that these that are based on polls have Nevada as a tossup when the early vote indicates Hillary has it already won, and in general it seems that Hillary will more than likely do significantly better than the polls are indicating at the moment, it's a longshot for Trump to win.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Newest #DNCLeaks revealing Chelsea using the Foundation as her own personal piggy bank :kobelol


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Fringe said:


> Newest #DNCLeaks revealing Chelsea using the Foundation as her own personal piggy bank :kobelol


https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...c88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> And if Trump wins we have a racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic, sexual assaulter fascist as president.
> 
> Its a lose/lose.


But you could substitute "Clinton" for "Trump", add the words "with a" before "sexual" and replace "fascist" with "husband". 

Remember: Hillary's actions when she held power completely contradict her empty words in this election. 

If she is such a champion of women, children, LGBT and communities of color then why is it that when she held power she didn't do a fucking thing for those groups? The policies she supported have consistently served to harm those groups. 

Actions speak louder than empty words and her actions have fucked those groups with a dick big enough for an elephant to feel it...


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

We should all post our electoral map predictions and then check out how wrong/right we all were tomorrow. :mark: 

Trump 299, Clinton 239: 
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...,MT_6,CO_6,ID_6,UT_6,AZ_6,NV_6,OR_2,WA_2,CA_2

In my totally realistic map the shy Trump supporter/enthusiasm gap/monster vote etc. factors combine to bridge the 3-5% deficits Trump faces in CO, PA, and NH. 

Don't post more than one map or I'll give you a linguistic kill shot like I did to deepenemablues RIP.


----------



## Trivette

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...c88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html
> 
> Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems


:kobelol at citing WaPo. 

Nice deflection there, BM. It's all you do in this thread, and it's becoming quite the stale gimmick at this point. Are you going to address the misuse of CF funds or not? Or that Bill took $1 Million from Quatar while H was actively serving as Sec. of State? Otherwise, kindly go fly a kite.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Fringe said:


> Newest #DNCLeaks revealing Chelsea using the Foundation as her own personal piggy bank :kobelol


Looks like the foundation gave the refugee on the right a better dress than the refugee on the left...


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Guys none of this shit matters anymore. Election day is tomorrow. Just post your predictions.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Fringe said:


> :kobelol at citing WaPo.
> 
> Nice deflection there, BM. It's all you do in this thread, and it's becoming quite the stale gimmick at this point. Are you going to address the misuse of CF funds or not? Or that Bill took $1 Million from Quatar while H was actively serving as Sec. of State? Otherwise, kindly go fly a kite.


Right because I point out the hypocrisy of Trump supporters when Trump does the same kinds of thing they are accusing the Clintons of.

Both are guilty of it and both are wrong for doing it.

So what do you think of what Trump did


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Not too confident. I see him swinging the Carolinas and maybe NH, but not much else. It'll be close though and I really think that Florida is the one that's going to decide the president again. Things are starting to split here right now. 

:draper2


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> We should all post our electoral map predictions and then check out how wrong/right we all were tomorrow. :mark:
> 
> Trump 299, Clinton 239:
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...,MT_6,CO_6,ID_6,UT_6,AZ_6,NV_6,OR_2,WA_2,CA_2
> 
> In my totally realistic map the shy Trump supporter/enthusiasm gap/monster vote etc. factors combine to bridge the 3-5% deficits Trump faces in CO, PA, and NH.
> 
> Don't post more than one map or I'll give you a linguistic kill shot like I did to deepenemablues RIP.


you're gonna have to link because like :trump i am still apparently here after this destructamacation of my linguisticals


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Not too confident. I see him swinging the Carolinas and maybe NH, but not much else. It'll be close though and I really think that Florida is the one that's going to decide the president again. Things are starting to split here right now.
> 
> :draper2


Why do you have WV blue?

I believe NV and FL will end up deciding this election. But am currently assuming Florida goes blue.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> Why do you have WV blue?
> 
> I believe NV and FL will end up deciding this election. But am currently assuming Florida goes blue.


Data entry error. I think it may have been already blue in the map I worked on and likely overlooked it.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.270towin.com/maps/RJ0lX










Clinton 324 - Trump 215

If latino vote mantain in Election day, i say Clinton could also get AZ. Ohio is gonna be very close too. So best scenary Clinton 352 - Trump 186


----------



## amhlilhaus

CamillePunk said:


> Guys none of this shit matters anymore. Election day is tomorrow. Just post your predictions.


Clinton wins

Most scandal plauged administration ever

Grants illegals citizenship

Packs supreme court with globalists

Republican congress and senate do nothing

She dies within 3 years

Leaked emails 5 years from now reveals all the lies

Country burns


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Data entry error. I think it may have been already blue in the map I worked on and likely overlooked it.


Ah, fair enough. Thought you knew something I was missing.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

if :trump wins i think it will be by taking NC, FL, OH, NH, the 1 district in Maine, and flipping virginia or PA

don't see any other way he can do it. he has to flip either VA or PA. i don't think the polls in either state are accurate, i think hillary's lead is smaller in VA and larger in PA than the polls are showing


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










:sodone


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

a vote for hillary is a vote AGAINST greed :heston

at least :trump made his money the right way - by borrowing a shitton of it from banks then telling them to fuck off and bluffing like a motherfucker when they got tired of waiting to be repaid


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Could see NH and FL going red. Could see NC going blue.

But I think as long as Nevada goes blue, Hillary wins.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Haven't voted yet, but this is a "thinking outside of the box" way to sway one's vote.

http://www.mediaite.com/election-20...obs-to-anyone-who-votes-against-donald-trump/


----------



## FatherJackHackett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

As an Englishman, I'm not going to pretend to know everything about the complexities of the College and the Electoral Map (although I'd say I know more than most this side of the pond) but I have a sneaking suspicion that Trump is going to surprise everyone yet again.

As I said earlier in the thread, there are so many similarities with Brexit that it's quite astonishing. Just like in Britain, the political class is so far up its own arse, becoming so lethargic, arrogant and hateful towards its electorate that it is completely blind to the shift in public opinion. Turns out that the average citizen is sick of being told what is best for them while their lives only get worse every day. Turns out they don't want to be language policed and want to be able to speak their mind on issues that they care about without the fear of being labelled a racist, xenophobe, bigot or other such pejoratives now trivialised to the point of irrelevance due to their staggering overuse. It's not about racism, for example if people find themselves competing in the jobs market with an increasing amount of new arrivals while more of the blue-collar jobs move abroad, it doesn't matter whether their competitor is black, white or whatever. The fact is that if they feel their ability to provide for themselves and their family is being threatened, all bets are off, and many Americans are currently feeling this way and getting no love from Clinton. They are instead routinely talked down to and shamed for their perfectly respectable and logical views.

I experienced it myself with Brexit. I planned to vote Leave the entire time, but kept quiet as people who in all honesty have little to no interest in Politics used the same tired buzzwords to describe Nigel Farage as people in the USA do Trump, despite the fact that Farage talked a lot of sense on many issues. Now I quite like a good debate but people these days are not interested in debate, they're more keen on using ad hominems to try to shut down your argument, so I decided I couldn't be arsed with it and simply didn't bother declaring my allegiance in public, but would instead have my say at the polling station. Apparently many others felt the same, as we saw an incredible swing from what the 'experts' were predicting.

I do think that people who were previously disenfranchised and apathetic are being reached this year. I'm talking plenty of people who were sick of the political system and sense of futility elections brought. They are tired of slick talking empty suits and, despite his flaws, Trump represents change (although not saying that he will necessarily achieve that if he gets in). He represents their hate of the growing climate of political correctness, which is why his boorishness has not ruined him like it would have in other elections down the years. People want to have the right to say or do things that may offend people, which is what the elites just can't comprehend. I really believe that to this day they can't for the life of them understand why their weak smear tactics haven't worked, and have no idea how to sink someone people _actually want_ to vote for. Newsflash, most people don't give a fuck about someone having a private conversation about pussy especially when the allegations are coming from the camp of a woman who has spent decades discrediting and ridiculing the scores of women accusing her husband of serious sexual crimes. 

The above people who are angry and fed up, these are the ones who are most likely to get out there and vote no matter what. This was proven in Brexit when people who didn't give a shit about answering polls turned up in their millions to do the one thing that mattered, while the snowflake millennial remain voters stayed at home and virtue signalled on social media. Similar to Remain, I just barely see anyone being truly energised to vote for Clinton, and feel even something as trivial as a rainy day could put them off.

I could be right. I could be completely and hopelessly wrong. Just don't be surprised to see a massive 'unexpected' support and turnout for Trump tomorrow. Godspeed my American cousins, your day of redemption lies in wait.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



THE MAN said:


> Haven't voted yet, but this is a "thinking outside of the box" way to sway one's vote.
> 
> http://www.mediaite.com/election-20...obs-to-anyone-who-votes-against-donald-trump/


Get the BJ then vote Trump? lol!


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Best line of the election goes to Stevie Wonder:
"Voting for Trump is like asking me to drive"
Although I would far rather get in a car with Stevie Wonder driving than have Donald Trump as president. At least Stevie would drive very carefully and listen if someone told him to stop, slow down, turn right, turn left, etc...


----------



## cynical_ad

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FatherJackHackett said:


> As an Englishman, I'm not going to pretend to know everything about the complexities of the College and the Electoral Map (although I'd say I know more than most this side of the pond) but I have a sneaking suspicion that Trump is going to surprise everyone yet again.
> 
> As I said earlier in the thread, there are so many similarities with Brexit that it's quite astonishing. Just like in Britain, the political class is so far up its own arse, becoming so lethargic, arrogant and hateful towards its electorate that it is completely blind to the shift in public opinion. Turns out that the average citizen is sick of being told what is best for them while their lives only get worse every day. Turns out they don't want to be language policed and want to be able to speak their mind on issues that they care about without the fear of being labelled a racist, xenophobe, bigot or other such pejoratives now trivialised to the point of irrelevance due to their staggering overuse. It's not about racism, for example if people find themselves competing in the jobs market with an increasing amount of new arrivals while more of the blue-collar jobs move abroad, it doesn't matter whether their competitor is black, white or whatever. The fact is that if they feel their ability to provide for themselves and their family is being threatened, all bets are off, and many Americans are currently feeling this way and getting no love from Clinton. They are instead routinely talked down to and shamed for their perfectly respectable and logical views.
> 
> I experienced it myself with Brexit. I planned to vote Leave the entire time, but kept quiet as people who in all honesty have little to no interest in Politics used the same tired buzzwords to describe Nigel Farage as people in the USA do Trump, despite the fact that Farage talked a lot of sense on many issues. Now I quite like a good debate but people these days are not interested in debate, they're more keen on using ad hominems to try to shut down your argument, so I decided I couldn't be arsed with it and simply didn't bother declaring my allegiance in public, but would instead have my say at the polling station. Apparently many others felt the same, as we saw an incredible swing from what the 'experts' were predicting.
> 
> I do think that people who were previously disenfranchised and apathetic are being reached this year. I'm talking plenty of people who were sick of the political system and sense of futility elections brought. They are tired of slick talking empty suits and, despite his flaws, Trump represents change (although not saying that he will necessarily achieve that if he gets in). He represents their hate of the growing climate of political correctness, which is why his boorishness has not ruined him like it would have in other elections down the years. People want to have the right to say or do things that may offend people, which is what the elites just can't comprehend. I really believe that to this day they can't for the life of them understand why their weak smear tactics haven't worked, and have no idea how to sink someone people _actually want_ to vote for. Newsflash, most people don't give a fuck about someone having a private conversation about pussy especially when the allegations are coming from the camp of a woman who has spent decades discrediting and ridiculing the scores of women accusing her husband of serious sexual crimes.
> 
> The above people who are angry and fed up, these are the ones who are most likely to get out there and vote no matter what. This was proven in Brexit when people who didn't give a shit about answering polls turned up in their millions to do the one thing that mattered, while the snowflake millennial remain voters stayed at home and virtue signalled on social media. Similar to Remain, I just barely see anyone being truly energised to vote for Clinton, and feel even something as trivial as a rainy day could put them off.
> 
> I could be right. I could be completely and hopelessly wrong. Just don't be surprised to see a massive 'unexpected' support and turnout for Trump tomorrow. Godspeed my American cousins, your day of redemption lies in wait.


Can I ask you why exactly you voted Leave? What were the main reasons? And now, several months removed, and with no real plan in place, Theresa May attesting 'Brexit means Brexit' when she can't even define it for herself, Are you happy with your decision? What's changed for the better?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> Clinton wins
> 
> Most scandal plauged administration ever
> 
> Grants illegals citizenship
> 
> Packs supreme court with globalists
> 
> Republican congress and senate do nothing
> 
> She dies within 3 years
> 
> Leaked emails 5 years from now reveals all the lies
> 
> Country burns


Lol don't go OTT or anything.

How will she do anything of the sort if she's likely to be hamstrung by congress like every other President has been?


----------



## xvampmanx

*Re: The Donald Trump Thread (a Horse named DAN inspires the world)*



Crewz said:


> Trump will continue to have you puppets dancing on a string for him.. He's playing you guys so bad.


So like everyone in power and looking for power. nothing new.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@Vic Capri @Carte Blanche @MissSally; @CamillePunk @AryaDark @DesolationRow










Is anyone really surprised by this?

Also:

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-11-07/punter-bets-200-000-on-donald-trump-win-in-us-election/



> A London punter has bet £200,000 that Donald Trump will become the next president of the United States.
> 
> Should the Republican candidate triumph at the polls on Tuesday, the unnamed man who placed the bet stands to win £500,000, on top of the return of his £200,000.
> 
> The bet comes just days after another punter gambled £37,000 on a Trump victory, prompting bookies to slash their odds.
> 
> The latest bet was made on online spread betting site, Spreadex, on the company's fixed odds prices with the bets placed at different dates and on different odds in the lead up to polling day.
> 
> Connor Campbell, Financial Analyst at Spreadex, said: “The US election is now our single biggest betting event ever and we are seeing some huge bets being placed, including one customer who has staked £200,000 on a Trump victory.
> 
> "With the US in the closing stages of the campaign and the polls seeming to change almost hourly, it should make for a very interesting few days in the lead up to the election.”


:lmao :lmao :lmao This guy is fucking nuts. If Trump somehow wins though :done :done :done


----------



## FatherJackHackett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



cynical_ad said:


> Can I ask you why exactly you voted Leave? What were the main reasons? And now, several months removed, and with no real plan in place, Theresa May attesting 'Brexit means Brexit' when she can't even define it for herself, Are you happy with your decision? What's changed for the better?


I'll try and keep this at least reasonably short as I don't want to derail the thread.

Anyway my main motivations were to take back our sovereignty as a nation, to be free to make our own laws and be empowered to decide our own fate. I want political figures voted for by us and accountable to us, as opposed to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. I no longer wish for us to be tied down to trade deals in a failing single market, which also come with the requirement of free movement of people. Given other EU nations' horrible mishandling of the migrant crisis and their plans to bring in Turkey this is now a huge concern and not worth it. We run a trade deficit with the EU, who need us more than we need them, and now we have access to start making deals with international players such as China, free of the shackles of the EU. That is without even going into the plight of the likes of Greece and Italy and the doomed single currency project.

It was always the case that we would probably take an initial hit, but I firmly believe we would be better for it in the long run. Of course our predicament is not being helped by the fact that many members of our political class are going out of their way to make things as difficult as possible, some no doubt with the end goal of subverting the democratic process.

To answer your final questions I do not regret my vote, and nothing has really changed for the better yet because we're not even out. I am guessing that you voted Remain, and more power to you for exercising your right if you did (Y)


----------



## amhlilhaus

yeahbaby! said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton wins
> 
> Most scandal plauged administration ever
> 
> Grants illegals citizenship
> 
> Packs supreme court with globalists
> 
> Republican congress and senate do nothing
> 
> She dies within 3 years
> 
> Leaked emails 5 years from now reveals all the lies
> 
> Country burns
> 
> 
> 
> Lol don't go OTT or anything.
> 
> How will she do anything of the sort if she's likely to be hamstrung by congress like every other President has been?
Click to expand...

Executive orders. Obama has shown the republicans wont do anything.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> @Vic Capri @Carte Blanche @MissSally; @CamillePunk @AryaDark @DesolationRow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone really surprised by this?
> 
> Also:
> 
> http://www.itv.com/news/2016-11-07/punter-bets-200-000-on-donald-trump-win-in-us-election/
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao :lmao :lmao This guy is fucking nuts. If Trump somehow wins though :done :done :done



Moore is funny, the fat fuck hasn't lifted a finger to help the people of his hometown. I'd have more respect for his opinion if he wasn't such a hypocritical douche.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Moore is funny, the fat fuck hasn't lifted a finger to help the people of his hometown. I'd have more respect for his opinion if he wasn't such a hypocritical douche.


You know who did, Republican Billionaire Dan Gilbert :lol. They're so busy hating him though that they don't even want to think about how he's actually helping them while making his own money at the same time. 

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/celebrity/can-one-driven-billionaire-save-the-motor-city/


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> We should all post our electoral map predictions and then check out how wrong/right we all were tomorrow. :mark:
> 
> Trump 299, Clinton 239:
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...,MT_6,CO_6,ID_6,UT_6,AZ_6,NV_6,OR_2,WA_2,CA_2
> 
> In my totally realistic map the shy Trump supporter/enthusiasm gap/monster vote etc. factors combine to bridge the 3-5% deficits Trump faces in CO, PA, and NH.
> 
> Don't post more than one map or I'll give you a linguistic kill shot like I did to deepenemablues RIP.


I don't get the "shy" Trump voter thing. The Republicans who hate Clinton post Hillary scandals from alt right sites and Wikileaks on Facebook news feeds every day. Trump supporters are the most vocal people on the internet. Outside of Iowa for the most part in the primaries, when he won polls showed him winning those states and the few states he lost the polls showed that too. If their were silent/underpolled Trump voters that would have shown up in the primary.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm reading a crapload of garbage on my FB feed. This election is so WOAT. 

A few words for those who are voting for a third party or not voting.

1. Don't let anyone tell you your vote is being wasted. If you're voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, you are not aiding "fascist" Donald Trump or "corrupt" Hillary Clinton. You are supporting your candidate because perhaps you are disillusioned with the two main parties or truly believe in what your candidate is saying. Irrespective of my own opinions, you are well within your rights to vote for either of the two independent parties and if someone tells you that you are abetting one of the two primary candidates because you are not voting for either, you can tell that person to fuck off.

2. If you're not voting, you are doing so for your own reasons and your own reasons alone. If someone tells you that you are also abetting one of the two primary candidates (again, always depends on who that person supports), you can kindly that person to also fuck off. You are well within your rights to not vote if you feel that no candidate accurately represents what you want out of your country.

There's only so much one can read regarding this election cycle. It's been incredibly volatile, hostile, disappointing, entertaining, pathetic, and eye-opening all at the same time. 

I can't wait until it's over, but I don't expect this to end with a new president. It's very clear that this election cycle has opened some deep wounds on all sides and has further exposed divides over where this country is going. The future is going to be interesting indeed.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> I can't wait until it's over, but I don't expect this to end with a new president. It's very clear that this election cycle has opened some deep wounds on all sides and has further exposed divides over where this country is going. The future is going to be interesting indeed.


I agree. While I've been making fun of my wife for wanting to vote for Johnson, I have not once tried to actually tell her to not vote for Johnson in a serious conversation :lol No matter which Johnson she votes for, at the end of the day she comes home to my johnson after all. 

The thing people forget is that ultimately the best part of democracy is being able to choose - even if it's the wrong choice, even if it's the right choice. Even if the choice doesn't matter. 

BTW, I was reading an article earlier today about how this isn't even the worst election we've had in terms of national divisiveness. It's the first we've had in decades - which indicates to me that this sort of boiling point is essentially cyclical :shrug


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> 2. If you're not voting, you are doing so for your own reasons and your own reasons alone.


Whatever their reasons may be they are not better alternatives then voting. Even if you hate Clinton/Trump and think Johnson and Stein are nuts then leaving it blank or writing in Mickey Mouse or your Abuela is still better because the Presidential election is not the be all of everything. Local,state races and ballot initiatives have real world consequences. Take prop 60 in California,if it passes many porn stars will move to Nevada,so not only does that effect them and their families lives it will hurt the states economy. If their are issues you care about politicians are more likely to listen to your voice if you are a voter. Even at the local level you know who's neighborhood get's that pot hole fixed? The one the politician knows will come for his wig if it doesn't.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> BTW, I was reading an article earlier today about how this isn't even the worst election we've had in terms of national divisiveness. It's the first we've had in decades - which indicates to me that this sort of boiling point is essentially cyclical :shrug


I would not be surprised. The only reason it may _seem_ more divisive now than ever before is because almost everything is out in the open now. Social media, the ubiquitous presence of always online phones, and more channels for discourse have truly changed the way people process and provide information as well as speak their mind. None of this existed 50, 100, or 200 years ago. Our lives are far more exposed now than ever before.



ShiningStar said:


> Whatever their reasons may be they are not better alternatives then voting. Even if you hate Clinton/Trump and think Johnson and Stein are nuts then leaving it blank or writing in Mickey Mouse or your Abuela is still better because the Presidential election is not the be all of everything. Local,state races and ballot initiatives have real world consequences. Take prop 60 in California,if it passes many porn stars will move to Nevada,so not only does that effect them and their families lives it will hurt the states economy. If their are issues you care about politicians are more likely to listen to your voice if you are a voter. Even at the local level you know who's neighborhood get's that pot hole fixed? The one the politician knows will come for his wig if it doesn't.


I actually support local and state elections more so than the national ones. I don't actually disagree with you there as far as they are concerned.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Mike Pence is talking in New Hampshire on Facebook with 79,000 viewers.

Meanwhile, Hillary is in Philadelphia with Bon Jovi AND Bruce Springsteen, only getting 12,000 viewers. :lol


I'll be the guy standing with my hands raised high after its all said and done as the headline reads what I predicted: *Donald Trump kicks Hillary Clinton's ASS on Election Day!!!*



Re: Michael Moore



> Whether Trump means it or not, is kind of irrelevant because he's saying the things to people who are hurting, and that's why every beaten-down, nameless, forgotten working stiff who used to be part of what was called the middle class loves Trump. He is the human Molotov Cocktail that they've been waiting for; the human hand grande that they can legally throw into the system that stole their lives from them. And on November 8, although they lost their jobs, although they've been foreclose on by the bank, next came the divorce and now the wife and kids are gone, the car's been repoed, they haven't had a real vacation in years, they're stuck with the shitty Obamacare bronze plan where you can't even get a fucking percocet, they've essentially lost everything they had except one thing - the one thing that doesn't cost them a cent and is guaranteed to them by the American constitution: the right to vote.
> 
> They might be penniless, they might be homeless, they might be fucked over and fucked up it doesn't matter, because it's equalized on that day - a millionaire has the same number of votes as the person without a job: one. And there's more of the former middle class than there are in the millionaire class. So on November 8 the dispossessed will walk into the voting booth, be handed a ballot, close the curtain, and take that lever or felt pen or touchscreen and put a big fucking X in the box by the name of the man who has threatened to upend and overturn the very system that has ruined their lives: Donald J Trump.
> 
> They see that the elite who ruined their lives hate Trump. Corporate America hates Trump. Wall Street hates Trump. The career politicians hate Trump. The media hates Trump, after they loved him and created him, and now hate. Thank you media: the enemy of my enemy is who I'm voting for on November 8.
> 
> Yes, on November 8, you Joe Blow, Steve Blow, Bob Blow, Billy Blow, all the Blows get to go and blow up the whole goddamn system because it's your right. Trump's election is going to be the biggest fuck ever recorded in human history and it will feel...good.


The best thing the sack of shit did was admit to a nationwide audience on Megyn Kelly's show that "the system failed" them and unintentionally encouragaging a lot of pissed off, hard working Americans to vote for Trump.

- Vic


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> I'm reading a crapload of garbage on my FB feed. This election is so WOAT.
> 
> A few words for those who are voting for a third party or not voting.
> 
> 1. Don't let anyone tell you your vote is being wasted. If you're voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, you are not aiding "fascist" Donald Trump or "corrupt" Hillary Clinton. You are supporting your candidate because perhaps you are disillusioned with the two main parties or truly believe in what your candidate is saying. Irrespective of my own opinions, you are well within your rights to vote for either of the two independent parties and if someone tells you that you are abetting one of the two primary candidates because you are not voting for either, you can tell that person to fuck off.
> 
> 2. If you're not voting, you are doing so for your own reasons and your own reasons alone. If someone tells you that you are also abetting one of the two primary candidates (again, always depends on who that person supports), you can kindly that person to also fuck off. You are well within your rights to not vote if you feel that no candidate accurately represents what you want out of your country.
> 
> There's only so much one can read regarding this election cycle. It's been incredibly volatile, hostile, disappointing, entertaining, pathetic, and eye-opening all at the same time.
> 
> I can't wait until it's over, but I don't expect this to end with a new president. It's very clear that this election cycle has opened some deep wounds on all sides and has further exposed divides over where this country is going. The future is going to be interesting indeed.


Even if you dont want to vote for president for one reason or another, you still should vote for the other people on the ballot and the questions you state my have on the ballot.

who wins the house is going to be huge in this election cycle and the questions on the ballot are always super important for your state.

Also if you dont vote that is fine but those people cannot complain about anything since they did not vote.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Even if you dont want to vote for president for one reason or another, you still should vote for the other people on the ballot and the questions you state my have on the ballot.
> 
> who wins the house is going to be huge in this election cycle and the questions on the ballot are always super important for your state.
> 
> Also if you dont vote that is fine but those people cannot complain about anything since they did not vote.


I clarified my position on local and state voting, among others, in the post I made afterwards. I agree with those positions. 

I'm just more or less fed up with how some people are saying one MUST vote for either Hillary or Trump and if not, you're wasting a vote on somebody else as if nothing else matters. That was my original intent.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



cynical_ad said:


> Can I ask you why exactly you voted Leave? What were the main reasons? And now, several months removed, and with no real plan in place, Theresa May attesting 'Brexit means Brexit' when she can't even define it for herself, Are you happy with your decision? What's changed for the better?


I know the question was not directed at me but being a English man who voted leave i thought i would give a answer

The way Nigel Farage was treated was a big factor from me. The signs were there for all to see that the British public had agreement with his policy's (immigration, immigration and immigration) during The European Elections in 2014. UKIP (Farage party) won around 28% of the British vote compared to the 1% they won 20 years earlier in the first European elections

Instead of taking Farage, UKIP and the British public serious the other parties (Labour, Conservatives, Lib dems etc) as well as the media went on a witch hunt against Farage branding him a racist bigot and a nazi etc , basically all the same things that have been thrown at Trump. It was a disgrace really when to me all that Farage was pushing for was better rights for the British public. He did not mince his words and was a different politician compared to the standard politically correct private educated rich boys we are used to. 

What you must take into account is that The U.K is a awful lot more accommodating to immigrants than any other country in the world. Within 8 weeks of arriving it is common that they will be housed and put on state benefits. The more children you have the more money you get. So for example a couple with 4 children can expect to be housed with the rent being paid for by the state and would receive in the region of £400-£500 a week ($650). You do not need to do anything to get this sort of treatment. Just turn up and claim it is not safe for you to return to your own country and Bobs your uncle. Add to this free health care and education and you can see why they flock to this island

Leading up to the brexit vote Farage just stayed with the policy of this shit has to stop and we need to get a grip of our borders etc , Why should we be dictated to by the European union, Why should the average hard working British citizen continue to sit back and allow the taxes that they have paid be sent to Brussels and spread about contributing to multiple other countries. Nothing racist about him or his comments at all. However the vast majority of media outlets (BBC especially) and the other parties just passed him off as a loon and dangerous. I had a strong feeling that the establishment would end up with egg on their face as 90% of the people i spoke to agreed with Farage. Enough was enough .Even some local Muslin shop keepers had UKIP signs in the windows and backed Farage. Muslims who have lived in this country for many years and contributed to the tax system like every other hard working person also had enough

The media continued the witch hunt against Farage and the leave campaign and mocked the suggestion that leave would win the vote. The bookmakers had Remain priced at 1/10 to win on the night of the election but as the results flowed in it was apparent that the British public had spoken.

Another thing i have not mentioned is that there is still a very big North/South divide in England. The northerners have always been of the opinion that the government treats the South of the country much better. It stems back decades when many coal mines and other industries in the north were closed leaving many thousands of people jobless. The northerners were by far the majority voters for the leave campaign. Another issue being that the majority of the immigrants are housed in the north leaving them to deal with the problems while the rich clueless politicians continue with there privileged lifestyles down South totally oblivious to the anger that had generated amongst the average working person

Overall the Brexit vote was a big fuck you to the establishment and hopefully was the first of many steps needed to get rid of this politically correct era we live in today. The word racist is thrown around far to often when the fact is wanting better rights and privileges for the citizens of their own country is anything but racist. Three of my family members(Great Grandad included) died defending this island . I have worked hard and contributed taxes for over half my life here. I am sick and tired of people claiming that a immigrant who has been in the country 3 months and is only here for a free ride should have the same rights and privileges as me. When they have been here for a long time and contributed to the system like i have then fair enough. I have no problems with people like that and i also have no problems with genuine refugees who are willing to integrate and contribute to our culture but like fuck i am happy to sit back and let many of the so called refugees that are here simply to take the piss out of the system and have a free ride continue to do so. I feel many British people feel the same way i do .If that makes me racist then so be it but i am happy i voted leave and would do so again without question

Nothing has changed really in regard to Britain post Brexit, Article 50 has not been activated yet and until it is i dont think we can say if it has been a sucsess or a terrible decision. One thing i do know is the predicted total collapse of the country that the remain campaigners and media tried to scare the public with has not and will not happen


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...,MT_5,CO_1,ID_5,UT_5,AZ_5,NV_5,OR_1,WA_1,CA_1


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> I clarified my position on local and state voting, among others, in the post I made afterwards. I agree with those positions.
> 
> I'm just more or less fed up with how some people are saying one MUST vote for either Hillary or Trump and if not, you're wasting a vote on somebody else. That was my original intent.


My mistake I did not see the 2nd post. 

I see what you are saying but people cant also give people shit for voting for Hillary or Trump as a vote against one of them either. Everyone has a reason for whom they vote for. 

As for voting for 3rd parties and being a wasted vote, because if they ever happened to win just one state they could become president if no one gets to 270.

For example in this election cycle if McMullin would happen to win Utah and neither Trump or Hillary get to 270, I could see the house picking him as president since the GOP hates both Hillary and Trump.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> I see what you are saying but people cant also give people shit for voting for Hillary or Trump as a vote against one of them either. *Everyone has a reason for whom they vote for*.


I'm not going to give anyone shit for who they vote for. The bolded is true.

In the end, I will be glad once this is over. This election has torn families and friends apart. :mj2 Besides that, this section will at least be a little more cordial with this thread dying a slow death.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Oda Nobunaga said:


> I'm not going to give anyone shit for who they vote for. The bolded is true.
> 
> In the end, I will be glad once this is over. This election has torn families and friends apart. :mj2 Besides that, *this section will at least be a little more cordial with this thread dying a slow death.*


Trump/Clinton 2020. Build up starts right after election day 2016. :troll


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*HOLY SHIT!!!* Trump has 130,000 viewers right now and that's just on Facebook!!! :bow

- Vic


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Trump/Clinton 2020. Build up starts right after election day 2016. :troll


The madness will never end. :mj2


----------



## amhlilhaus

FriedTofu said:


> Oda Nobunaga said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to give anyone shit for who they vote for. The bolded is true.
> 
> In the end, I will be glad once this is over. This election has torn families and friends apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides that, *this section will at least be a little more cordial with this thread dying a slow death.*
> 
> 
> 
> Trump/Clinton 2020. Build up starts right after election day 2016.
Click to expand...

Clinton wont live to run again. She was stumbling again tonight just walking to her car


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> *HOLY SHIT!!!* Trump has 130,000 viewers right now and that's just on Facebook!!! :bow
> 
> - Vic


The Hillbots on twitter are going crazy saying look how many people she is drawing at her rally in Philly. Mother fuckers they are there for the free concerts. Hell I bet there are many Trump supporters at the concert as well.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

FWIW I believe current stats have Trump at 30% chance to win, if this was an Australian election and my side was looking like having a 30% chance to win at this point I would consider that possible. Like if I was a Trump supporter I wouldn't be happy with the numbers we're seeing, but it's looking to be a close run thing.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> *HOLY SHIT!!!* Trump has 130,000 viewers right now and that's just on Facebook!!! :bow
> 
> - Vic


Good thing Facebook means fuck all when it comes to translating into votes.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So forecasts are closing and the numbers are:

PEC:
>99% Clinton win, 312 EV

The upshot:
84% Clinton win, 322 EV

Daily Kos:
88% Clinton win, 323 EV

538:
69,8% Clinton win, 300 EV

Predict Wise:
90% Clinton win

Pollster
84,5% Clinton win, 323 EV

Huffington Post:
99% Clinton win, 323 EV

Crystal Ball:
Clinton win, 322 EV

Rothenberg & Gonzalez:
Clinton win, 322 EV


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> So forecasts are closing and the numbers are:
> 
> PEC:
> >99% Clinton win, 312 EV
> 
> The upshot:
> 84% Clinton win, 322 EV
> 
> Daily Kos:
> 88% Clinton win, 323 EV
> 
> 538:
> 69,8% Clinton win, 300 EV
> 
> Predict Wise:
> 90% Clinton win
> 
> Pollster
> 84,5% Clinton win, 323 EV
> 
> Huffington Post:
> 99% Clinton win, 323 EV
> 
> Crystal Ball:
> Clinton win, 322 EV
> 
> Rothenberg & Gonzalez:
> Clinton win, 322 EV


Based on the lack of Trump I'd have to say these polls are clearly rigged


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

1 more day of this awfulness


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Based on the lack of Trump I'd have to say these polls are clearly rigged


If it works for something, Dick Morris says that Trump could still win in a landslide


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Trump/Clinton 2020. Build up starts right after election day 2016. :troll


TWICE IN A LIFETIME!

The rematch nobody wanted. :hogan


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm usually apprehensive of sequels, but with as much fun as this election has been, I'd honestly be open to it.


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I think a sequel is more likely with Hilary victory than a Trump one. 

I just can't see Hils getting two shots.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Nah, I don't see Trump running again if he loses. Hillary is power-addicted so she has little choice. Pretty sure Trump would consider it all a big waste of time and money, as he's said numerous times, and I doubt he'd wanna do it again.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

There will be another "Trump" in 4 years. 

The fact of the matter is that nearly 50% of the vote is sick and tired of the kind of politicians the democrats have been putting up. If the dems win this round, expect that 50% to rally behind the next person who stands up to take down the dems.

"Revolutions" in democratic countries work very differently from the fascist rioting we see in the uncivilized world. Here people are more patient and they don't mind waiting till they have enough consolidated power through the vote in order to make their voices heard. 

Oh, and in 4 years I'll be able to vote as well.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

They might swerve us by doing a feminist reboot and it will be Ivanka versus Chelsea 2020.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

No more clintons or bush's please.


----------



## McGee

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't even get the point of an election day when they have these so called polls out beforehand telling you somebody has a 99% chance to win. Nobody's ever questioned me who I was voting for. If that is the case then hopefully Trump buys his own country. I'd rather live there than in Crooked Hillary's America.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Yes another Trump is possible and very likely. It might come from the left the next time.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...lato-democracy-tyranny-fascism-2016-elections


> Plato thought political regimes followed a predictable evolutionary course, from oligarchy to democracy to tyranny. Oligarchies give way to democracies when the elites fail, when they become spoiled, lazy, profligate, and when they develop interests apart from those they rule.
> 
> Democracies give way to tyrannies when mob passion overwhelms political wisdom and a populist autocrat seizes the masses. But the tyrant is not quite a tyrant at first. On the contrary, in a democracy the would-be tyrant offers himself as the people’s champion. He’s the ultimate simplifier, the one man who can make everything whole again.


http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/7/13532178/donald-trump-american-democracy-weakness


> “The gatekeepers have been extraordinarily diminished,” Hayes says. “The best example of this, to me, is the newspaper editorial page. It’s the ultimate old-school gatekeeper. I find it so remarkable that the Columbus Dispatch, USA Today, all these gatekeepers have come to the proper, correct conclusion on Trump, and said, ‘No fucking way!’ But no one cares. They don’t control the gate. They can lock the gate and someone can walk around it three feet down the fence.”
> 
> Elites are often blamed for Trump’s rise — he is said to be the backlash to their failures, their corruption, their obliviousness, their self-dealing, their cosmopolitanism, their condescension. All that may be true, but past moments in American politics have also featured angry voters, out-of-touch elites, and social problems. Those moments, however, featured political and media gatekeepers with more power, and so Trump-like candidates were destroyed in primaries, or at conventions, or by a press that paid them little mind.
> 
> Now, however, traditional gatekeepers have neither the power nor the cultural capital to stop Trump-like candidates. And in the Republican Party, where the collapse of institutional authority is most severe and most dangerous, the aftermath of a Trump loss will further weaken the party’s center, as Trump’s supporters turn on the elites whose tepid backing, they will argue, doomed their candidate. Sean Hannity, for instance, has already called Paul Ryan a “saboteur,” and Breitbart published an article headlined “He’s with her: Inside Paul Ryan’s months-long campaign to elect Hillary Clinton president.’”


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Well played. :applause


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> They might swerve us by doing a feminist reboot and it will be Ivanka versus Chelsea 2020.


Chelsea would get crushed. :lol


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

My mother texted me to let me know that her and my step-dad were going on vacation to Pigeon Forge instead of staying in Alabama for election day. She said she wanted to stay and vote but he decided it was better to go on vacation this year than vote Republican. My parents are as evangelical as they come and I give him credit for showing some principle. If being evangelical Christian is who you are, it would be highly hypocritical for you to put your support behind Donald Trump. It's the same concept as to why I would never support Clinton as a principled leftist. My parents and I might be about as far away from each other as you can get on the political spectrum but they did raise me to be a man of principles and that's not something I have forgotten as an adult.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> My mother texted me to let me know that her and my step-dad were going on vacation to Pigeon Forge instead of staying in Alabama for election day. She said she wanted to stay and vote but he decided it was better to go on vacation this year than vote Republican. My parents are as evangelical as they come and I give him credit for showing some principle. If being evangelical Christian is who you are, it would be highly hypocritical for you to put your support behind Donald Trump. It's the same concept as to why I would never support Clinton as a principled leftist. My parents and I might be about as far away from each other as you can get on the political spectrum but they did raise me to be a man of principles and that's not something I have forgotten as an adult.


Did they vote for Bush in 2004? Because if so I have further questions on the principled Christian point. :mj


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://mobile.twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/795836122849046528

Even Bernie is shitposting!


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Did they vote for Bush in 2004? Because if so I have further questions on the principled Christian point. :mj


I think he is the worst president in recent history but what did Bush do that was against Christian principles?


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> I think he is the worst president in recent history but what did Bush do that was against Christian principles?


The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq seem difficult to justify from a Christian perspective. Then again, Trump did say some nasty words. Clearly worse.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq seem difficult to justify from a Christian perspective. Then again, Trump did say some nasty words. Clearly worse.


They were also war crimes. Cheney, Bush, Obama and Clinton are all war criminals who should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> https://mobile.twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/795836122849046528
> 
> Even Bernie is shitposting!


The same billionaires who helped Hillary and the DNC fuck him over? Lol, old man Sanders has lost his mind.

The silly adventures of Cuckleberry Bern.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> Did they vote for Bush in 2004? Because if so I have further questions on the principled Christian point. :mj


I never said they were perfect. It takes a certain level of delusion to be an evangelical Christian to begin with. But, better to figure out later that the Republican party is evil than never at all.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Today is the day. May the best man win!


----------



## krai999

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

latinos gunning out in full force For Trump in florida. People are really underestimating the vote against trump crowd. I mean these are disgusting candidates. Hope the US gets a better candidate to for next election to vote one of these bitches out. The concept of just voting for a candidate because you don't like a candidate. This is pretty much a hate election. I want my 2008 feels back dammit. This election has brought out the worst in people.


----------



## Falsegods

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Looking forward to WW3 with Hilary.


----------



## elo

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> The same billionaires who helped Hillary and the DNC fuck him over? Lol, old man Sanders has lost his mind.
> 
> The silly adventures of Cuckleberry Bern.


It's not Bernie tweeting, once he lost the primary that account was taken over by the Clinton campaign - it's part of the deception the Clinton machine plays on the Bernie Bros.

https://twitter.com/SenSanders - is where he actually tweets again.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Berine is 100% on Clintons payroll. Only reason he is supporting her at this point. If Trump wins I expect a shoot interview by Berine on Hillary


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



krai999 said:


> *latinos gunning out in full force For Trump in florida*. People are really underestimating the vote against trump crowd. I mean these are disgusting candidates. Hope the US gets a better candidate to for next election to vote one of these bitches out. The concept of just voting for a candidate because you don't like a candidate. This is pretty much a hate election. I want my 2008 feels back dammit. This election has brought out the worst in people.


Interesting. I thought that be against him.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Carte Blanche said:


> There will be another "Trump" in 4 years.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that nearly 50% of the vote is sick and tired of the kind of politicians the democrats have been putting up. If the dems win this round, expect that 50% to rally behind the next person who stands up to take down the dems.
> 
> "Revolutions" in democratic countries work very differently from the fascist rioting we see in the uncivilized world. Here people are more patient and they don't mind waiting till they have enough consolidated power through the vote in order to make their voices heard.
> 
> Oh, and in 4 years I'll be able to vote as well.


Lol the democrats will shut up and vote who their masters tell them too.

And bm, before your obligatory 'republicans do it too!' Uh no. Trump now, millions staying home in protest against romney and mccain. Republicans take more action on this issue.

Im glad its over, tomorrow the country enters new territory, either way.

May we live in interesting times


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> Interesting. I thought that be against him.


Cubans are largely pro Trump and there is a wave of growing hatred for democrats pro illegal stance amongst most legal immigrants like myself.


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> Berine is 100% on Clintons payroll. Only reason he is supporting her at this point. If Trump wins I expect a shoot interview by Berine on Hillary


Or maybe he endorsed her because :gasp: they agree on 80-90% of issues. Even if their was a lot of crazy shit said btwn Bernie and Hilary supporters online,the actual campaign btwn him and Hilary all things considered was like a game of touch football compared to some other Democratic primaries historically.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ShiningStar said:


> Or maybe he endorsed her because :gasp: they agree on 80-90% of issues. Even if their was a lot of crazy shit said btwn Bernie and Hilary supporters online,the actual campaign btwn him and Hilary all things considered was like a game of touch football compared to some other Democratic primaries historically.


Bernie and Hillary agree on virtually nothing.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Cubans are split with Trump because he did business with Castro while the isle was under Embargo. He has less support among them than Romney

Also, the increase in Latinos voting in Florida is mostly Puerto Ricans and low propensity voters, they're obviously no voting Trump. That is mostly a GOTV effort by Clinton campaign


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Bernie and Hillary agree on virtually nothing.


They both want an increase in the minimum wage,they both are prolife and would want pro life supreme court justices,they both want to increase taxes on Billionares,they both want to fight global warming,both are calling for criminal justice reform,both want to reduct the burden of student debt. Where both of them differ is on foreign policy and even if Hilary turns into Bush 3.0 / Bill Kristol NeoCon in the Middle East liberals will turn on her and she will be a lameduck.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Cubans are largely pro Trump and there is a wave of growing hatred for democrats pro illegal stance amongst most legal immigrants like myself.


I don't know Cubans but I know Mexicans and many of them hate illegals, if you find a Mexican who won't get offended who's lived near the borders ask them what a "Mojado" is. :laugh:

The Latino vote for Trump maybe higher than expected but I'm not expert as many who came here legally get fucked over by this amnesty garbage and by belligerent illegals marching and acting like fools waving around the Mexican flag! Latinos are very prideful and some of the legal ones I met are more gung ho than most whites I met. Trump really should have outreached more tho since the Taco Bowl Voter thing and worded his talk of illegals a little better.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Cubans are split with Trump because he did business with Castro while the isle was under Embargo. He has less support among them than Romney
> 
> Also, the increase in Latinos voting in Florida is mostly Puerto Ricans and low propensity voters, they're obviously no voting Trump. That is mostly a GOTV effort by Clinton campaign


Source. 

This has been largely offset by Obama's pro-Cuban policies which the legal Cuban immigrants have not been in favor of. Plus don't forget Rubio and his supporters. When it comes to the vote, they're going to select republican.



ShiningStar said:


> They both want an increase in the minimum wage,they both are prolife and would want pro life supreme court justices,they both want to increase taxes on Billionares,they both want to fight global warming,both are calling for criminal justice reform,both want to reduct the burden of student debt. Where both of them differ is on foreign policy and even if Hilary turns into Bush 3.0 / Bill Kristol NeoCon in the Middle East liberals will turn on her and she will be a lameduck.


- Hillary isn't actually pro-life. She's split. She's more pro-choice - and so is Bernie. I think you mis-spoke? 
- Hillary doesn't want a minimum wage hike because it does no benefit her biggest campaign donors. 
- Hillary will never increase tax on billionnaires. She will in fact create more policy changes to create more tax loopholes. 
- Hillary is definitely not about decreasing student debt. It's a non-issue for her and she doesn't care either way. 
- Hillary is already a neoconservative with 3 wars already under her belt including Libya, Syria and continuing to push for drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In fact, she turned Obama from a peace advocate to a war criminal. Libya is 100% Clinton's war and the murder of Gaddafi can be directly attributed to her foreign policy. 
- Democrats have always funded more wars than Republicans. The majority "liberal" camp is a bunch of brainwashed children who think otherwise though and will still continue to vote democrat despite their party being involved in far more illegal wars and regime changes. 

You've drank some heavy kool-aid regarding Hillary.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CamillePunk said:


> The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq seem difficult to justify from a Christian perspective. Then again, Trump did say some nasty words. Clearly worse.


War against Muslims seem to be justifiable for many Christians in America. I hated the war, but again, it isn't against the Christian perspective.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Source.
> 
> This has been largely offset by Obama's pro-Cuban policies which the legal Cuban immigrants have not been in favor of. Plus don't forget Rubio and his supporters. When it comes to the vote, they're going to select republican.


http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article75064787.html

Latino Descisions has a similar number.

There is a split vote among Cubans who support Rubio but no Trump. Which is worse is that the GOTV effort of Trump is coordinated by the Rubio machine and the RNC which mean they're most likely to make vote a guy who support Rubio than one who support Trump while still helping him.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article75064787.html
> 
> Latino Descisions has a similar number.
> 
> There is a split vote among Cubans who support Rubio but no Trump. Which is worse is that the GOTV effort of Trump is coordinated by the Rubio machine and the RNC which mean they're most likely to make vote a guy who support Rubio than one who support Trump while still helping him.


Just to point out, that's May 2016 ... This was after the primaries when anti-Trump emotions were high because Rubio's loss and Rubio supporters were split, yes. Enough time has passed and Rubio has aligned with Trump since then.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> I don't know Cubans but I know Mexicans and many of them hate illegals, if you find a Mexican who won't get offended who's lived near the borders ask them what a "Mojado" is. :laugh:
> 
> The Latino vote for Trump maybe higher than expected but I'm not expert as many who came here legally get fucked over by this amnesty garbage and by belligerent illegals marching and acting like fools waving around the Mexican flag! Latinos are very prideful and some of the legal ones I met are more gung ho than most whites I met. Trump really should have outreached more tho since the Taco Bowl Voter thing and worded his talk of illegals a little better.


As long as the GOP is the party pandering to voters that are against minorities, the Latino vote will always favour the Democrats even if they don't believe the democrats are better. It is the existential fear that a vote for them today will lead to legitimising those beliefs and policies that echo those beliefs years down the line.

They had it right after 2012, if the minority voters perceive that the GOP don't want them in America, they won't bother to listen to what you say next.

Trump just put back their plans to remedy that by a cycle, or worse, by a generation. The worst nightmare for the GOP is young potential future candidates of the GOP like Priebus, Ryan and Rubio are irreversibly damaged by Trump and the alt-right movement to run in the general in the future.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It hasn't changed in October

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article106697702.html

Univison has a tracker in which Clinton is getting a big lead and Trump underperfom

Rubio has endorsed Trump but he's not touching the campaign which is pretty telling


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Its always funny seeing Trump supporters rage over Bernie supporting Hillary when this is always how things work. the person that lost the primary endorses the person that gets the nomination.

Trump supporters are just pissed because they know Bernie supporters are what is going to put Hillary over the top to beat Trump,


----------



## ShiningStar

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> the Latino vote will always favour the Democrats even if they don't believe the democrats are better.


No doubt,when the leading candidate starts out their campaign implying people who come here from Mexico are drug dealers and rapists their not gonna listen to what the GOP has to say and it may be like that for a very long time. Even Mexican-American's who don't speak Spanish and have been here for generations are disgusted by Donald Trump.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> The worst nightmare for the GOP is young potential future candidates of the GOP like Priebus, Ryan and Rubio are irreversibly damaged by Trump and the alt-right movement to run in the general in the future.


This is actually very true. Rubio could have been the GOP's big game changer with regards to the minority vote and his future aspirations have taken a big hit. However, he's leading by a large margin for senate so it doesn't mean that his political career is over by a long shot - at all. 

The other thing that helps the GOP at the moment is that Rick Scott as a republican hasn't done a terrible job. His approval rating went up after Hurricane Matthew because of the way he dealt with the crisis and how few casualties happened as a result of his quick move to force evacuations. The GOP was in complete control of the crisis and we managed to go through the hurricane with just 4 deaths - all of which could have been prevented if the people had just listened to the warnings. The government was on-song working like one of the most finely tuned operations I have ever seen in my life. 

Overall there are positive vibes through the community because of that. 

The democrats will continue to mischaracterize him, but generally Florida has done very well under a republican government.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Actually, i think Rubio will be the GOP nominee in 2020


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> It hasn't changed in October
> 
> http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article106697702.html
> 
> Univison has a tracker in which Clinton is getting a big lead and Trump underperfom
> 
> Rubio has endorsed Trump but he's not touching the campaign which is pretty telling


Anything pre-October 14 at this point can be disregarded with regards to the Cuban vote. 

This is actually from a pro-Hillary article where the analyst's bias can be visibly seen in her favor - but at the same time, this little fact nugget was buried in the same article. 



> Mr. Trump is leading Mrs. Clinton by 7 percentage points among Cuban-Americans in Miami-Dade, according to a new poll by WLRN-Univision 23, a local radio and television affiliate. A Univision News poll in September found Cuban-Americans evenly divided between the two nominees, with 41% for each.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/with-do...e-cuban-american-support-shrinking-1476991341

Meanwhile, you have the October 14th Obama Cuban fiasco which has the older Cubans in a bit of a frenzy. 

http://williamsondailynews.com/opinion/7435/cuban-american-voters-could-deliver-florida-to-trump

You underestimate momentum as always. Momentum indicates declining support for Clinton and that's how it's going to end up being today.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Meanwhile, you have the October 14th Obama Cuban fiasco which has the older Cubans in a bit of a frenzy.
> 
> http://williamsondailynews.com/opinion/7435/cuban-american-voters-could-deliver-florida-to-trump
> 
> You underestimate momentum as always. Momentum indicates declining support for Clinton and that's how it's going to end up being today.


Nahhh. What i'm trying to say is that the cuban support for Trump is still less than traditional cuban suport for republicans. 

Let say that he's getting the same level of support. Cubans still aren't what increased the Latino participation so the point is moot, regression to the mean is what end happening in most situations

And yes, i think momentum is overrated, specially in situations of large polarization. Momentum is largely stable if people have immovile positions


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Nahhh. What i'm trying to say is that the cuban support for Trump is still less than traditional cuban suport for republicans.


And I think this is now a matter of different interpretations because I'm taking in recent events into account and largely ignoring polls which I feel are not reflective of the current status. I never say this, but at this point we'll have to agree to disagree. 



> Let say that he's getting the same level of support. Cubans still aren't what increased the Latino participation so the point is moot


To me that isn't a relevant point because I wasn't ever linking the two together. What I really think is that the Cuban vote is not large enough to off-set the overwhelming support of the latino vote. I don't think it's going to be a factor either way though. 



> And yes, i think momentum is overrated, specially in situations of large polarization. Momentum is largely stable if people have immovile positions


That's again a difference in analysis. I think momentum makes a difference otherwise the Clinton blow out would have already started materializing by now and it didn't. Most states that should not even be in play right now are battleground states. 

Well, I'm pretty much done analysing this stuff for now. The actual voting day is here and we'll continue this chat once it's all said and done - as long as it's in a less trollish environment


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Anything pre-October 14 at this point can be disregarded with regards to the Cuban vote.
> 
> This is actually from a pro-Hillary article where the analyst's bias can be visibly seen in her favor - but at the same time, this little fact nugget was buried in the same article.
> 
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/with-do...e-cuban-american-support-shrinking-1476991341
> 
> Meanwhile, you have the October 14th Obama Cuban fiasco which has the older Cubans in a bit of a frenzy.
> 
> http://williamsondailynews.com/opinion/7435/cuban-american-voters-could-deliver-florida-to-trump
> 
> You underestimate momentum as always. Momentum indicates declining support for Clinton and that's how it's going to end up being today.


Considering the Cuban vote is typically a 70/30-80/20 split in favor of Republicans, Trump leading the Cuban vote by only 7 votes is pretty bad news for him


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cabanarama said:


> Considering the Cuban vote is typically a 70/30-80/20 split in favor of Republicans, the fact that the Cuban support is pretty evenly split is very bad news for Trump


Not really. Given recent events, I expect the actual voting to go back to normal levels. Older generation turnout is still and probably always will be greater than the younger generation turnout. 

I will agree however that the Cuban voter is at the cusp of demographic change with the younger Cubans potentially deviating from their parents.

PS. My wife just voted Gary Johnson. She was raised a democrat (originally from PA) with her grandmother and mother firmly in their camp. She voted Obama twice and Hillary just wasn't good enough for her vote :shrug (She almost wrote in Harambe btw).


----------



## CM Chump

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It's cool how people keep arguing for Trump when he doesn't have even the slightest goddamn chance of winning. It's over, and has been since Hill Dawg leaked his pussy grabbing tape. That was the final nail in the coffin, for better or worse.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> War against Muslims seem to be justifiable for many Christians in America. I hated the war, but again, it isn't against the Christian perspective.


If people weren't so lobotomized and actually had a fucking clue they would know that the second most revered prophet in Islam is Jesus Christ. We [Christians] have far more in common with each other. 

We have been so influenced by propaganda that we have become blind to our own crimes against humanity. 

For example: After 9/11 Americans were blood thirsty to avenge the deaths of 3,000 killed on that day. Our response: Invading two sovereign nations and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. We are so influenced by propaganda that we do not see the innocents killed as human and we cannot conceptualize that perhaps when their loved ones are killed by unnecessary, senseless acts that they too are blood thirsty for revenge against those who attacked them and killed their loved ones. 

So fucked up.


----------



## DOPA

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@DesolationRow @Carte Blanche @Tater @CamillePunk @AryaDark @Pratchett @Miss Sally @CJ; @TheDazzler (I'm sure there are others I want to mention so sorry if I missed you).

So today is the day. Personally speaking I am going out today with a couple of friends for a drink and we're all very much into politics so no doubt this and the recent Brexit judge ruling will dominate what we talk about. Seeing as in a couple of days time this thread will either be locked or pretty much dead, I want to take the opportunity to summarize my thoughts on this election cycle as well as my *official prediction* on who is going to win.

The funny thing is, literally about 45 minutes ago something happened which pretty much could summarize this election in a nutshell from the side of the majority of leftists particularly among the establishment. I got up and got some breakfast and whilst I was in the kitchen my dad had LBC playing in the background. Now for the non-Brits in this thread, LBC is a national radio broadcast which has different hosts on to talk about the most important issues going on mostly in Britain but also world politics and news. Much like the BBC and Sky news it is pretty centre-left leaning and some of the presenters are not shy about hiding their partisanship. What I will say is LBC is a bit better than the other two I mentioned because they have had for example Nigel Farage on to do an hour's Q & A weekly for a while and Nick Ferrari was pretty fair to him during that time. They also have Katie Hopkins on the weekends who is a very prominent right wing personality here in the UK so they do *try* and somewhat have a balance but it's still very much left leaning.

Whilst this was on, there was a caller who was trying to explain why if he was American he'd most likely vote for Trump in the election. He talked about how the establishment have failed working Americans, how the top 1% have gotten richer under Obama to the biggest share of wealth in decades and how disenfranchised voting Americans feel about the entire governmental system as a whole and James O'Brien whose worth has gone considerably down to me anyway since the Brexit result instead of trying to understand the caller or even answer his points immediately cut him off and hung the phone up on him.

If there was ever a moment which showed the lack of understanding from the majority of leftists who just paint Trump as this buffoon whose only characteristics as a candidate is a fascist, racist, bigoted and sexist buffoon it would be encumbered in what transpired there. The majority of the left and establishment simply do not get it and I've seen this time and time again on Facebook. Even among friends on FB I have seen this utter dismissive attitude where essentially their elitism is shown gleaming, proclaiming that it would be giant mistake by ANYONE to vote Trump without ever explaining why when challenged on it other than the typical buzzwords we have come to expect directed towards the Republican nominee.

It is this dismissive attitude that came to bite them in the ass when Brexit happened. The same tired arguments of how Brexit voters were racist, xenophobic and bigoted and how it was idiotic it was for anyone to vote for our EU exit and how it could NEVER happen because the majority of voters were "not that stupid". They were in for a rude awakening because much like this situation their arrogance blinded them from seeing the issues and reasons as to why people actually voted against the establishment ticket. The parallels between that and the American election are extremely note worthy, the question is: Will it produce the same results?

This is the 3rd election cycle in my adult life time and it might be the most noteworthy, even more so than Obama's historic first run in 2008. For one, this has to be the worst presidential election cycle in terms of candidates in my lifetime. Obviously we have not had two more disliked candidates for president in US political history. It is also historically terrible for those who care about policy, this election has been dominated by personal issues and he said/she said rhetoric. From the Trump tapes showing Trump's controversial comments about women to all the WikiLeaks showing both Clinton's political and personal corruption. With this in mind, one has to answer whatever happened to asking candidates about policy? Up till the last debate, there was an incredible amount of issues which were not covered. The first 45 minutes of the 2nd debate was filled with nothing but uncomfortable personal issues. I remember watching the initial reaction to the 2nd debate and Megyn Kelly, one of the few journalists who I would deem as pretty credible throughout the presidential election cycle very poignantly spoke about the result of the debate:

*"Who won the 2nd debate? Trump? Hillary? One thing's for sure: certainly not America" *

And that has really been the theme for people who are not either Trump or Hillary supporters...who aren't Republican or Democrat partisan hacks hasn't it? You could take that one quote from Kelly, put it on a billboard and it would pretty much summarize this entire election process in 2016. And when I say this, I don't say it as some edgy centrist trying to position himself as above being passionately involved in politics. No, I care about what happens here because in many ways, what happens in America dictates world politics which is why it is concerning for me to see two candidates who are both so instrumentally bad both policy and personal wise when my own country is fundamentally against the concepts of liberty and freedom, when Europe has gotten worse by the year in many respects and is in a position from which I don't know if it can come back from. I'm lucky in many respects as a non-American that I am not plagued by the same cynicism for US politics as I do for my own country. So I hold on to the hope things can be turned around when others I have seen in this thread who are American express the same attitudes that I have for the UK right now. And that is unfortunately entirely understandable.

Before I get to my prediction, I want to share with you an interesting social experiment my work colleague did. Whilst we were working, he asked many different people who they wanted to win out of Hillary and Trump. Considering this from the perspective of people living here it would give you guys a little bit of a gauge with how other parts of the world feel about this election. The answers were very mixed, some were unquestionably for Hillary but I was very surprised by the amount of people who answered Trump. The same people who answered Trump gave the reasons of how corrupt Hillary is and how it would be more of the same under her when the US needs to go in a different direction. I was generally surprised how many people actually took note of the WikiLeaks scandals when the establishment media have tried to suppress it. Having said that, with the coverage of the US election being less here than the states, the coverage between Trump's scandals and Hillary's scandals have been a little more relative, so I guess it is understandable. The majority of people however answered the same as me: which ever way they vote the US is screwed. Maybe just maybe people aren't as partisan and as stupid on the whole as I think.

So my prediction....I have to agree with Kyle from Secular Talk first of all that it is utterly stupid and insane that certain pollsters think Clinton has over 80-90% chance of winning. That is utterly ridiculous considering the state to state polling and all of the back and forth swings in polls in general in regards to Trump and Hillary. I think the result will be a lot closer than what some believe but ultimately I do feel *Hillary Clinton* is going to win this election. Trump ultimately has more states in he needs to turn red than Clinton needs to keep blue and whilst it is possible it is very unlikely he is going to do it. It is not smooth sailing for Hillary though and if I were her I would be worried about certain states potentially going the other way. Trump can still pull this off but the margin for error on his side is very great. It will ultimately be close but Hillary I feel is going to unfortunately become the first female US president. One final thing I'd like to add is my prediction for Brexit was similar, that it would be closer than what some people think but that Remain would hold on. I was pleasantly wrong. So my prediction certainly should not be taken as face value or the be all or end all.

Finally, my own thoughts on if I had to pick between the two....who would vote for? If I had a gun to my head, life or death situation and had to pick between the two...no other options, who would I vote. Well if I was an American voter it would be an impossible question to answer. It would be like asking me would I rather be burned alive or drown to death. None of the answers prevent a painful outcome. So I thought of this in a more selfish way and as a Brit looking at it from British interests and my own interests in terms of world politics and our involvement in international affairs. Who would I vote for out of Hillary and Trump knowing the effect each of them would have on my country and the effects of world politics as a whole.....and I'm about to trigger a few users on here because the choice was easy.

Donald Trump.

What are my reasons? Actually there is only one: foreign policy. Clinton wants to further escalate tensions with Russia in Syria, wants to impose a no fly zone to which despite being invited by Syria and Iraq means if a Russia plane were to fly over and Hillary was to order that plane down then America would be going to war with Russia. Who do you think on the American side is the very first country to get dragged into a potential war with Russia in that situation? *The UK.*

Trump has repeatedly stated he doesn't want war with Russia but rather better relations with the Kremlin. He doesn't want to impose a no fly zone or topple Assad. I say this knowing that Trump's foreign policy is not good either as he essentially wants to make the sand glow bombing the hell out of ISIS in the same way Ted Cruz wants. But the one area in which we the UK without a doubt could get dragged further into the middle east in terms of interventionist policy is if tensions with Russia got so high that the US ended up going to war with Russia. One candidate, however some people may think is unlikely may end up doing so with her policies in Syria, the other has no interest.

I would not want to take the chance with her at the helm in terms of the middle east knowing the potential however little there is for war with Russia. People may question Trump in terms of his temperament and with the nuclear code but remember one thing: that is all speculation, hear say and 2nd hand stories. Trump is the unknown, Hillary's positions are very real.

Good luck to all the American posters here in this thread and forum which ever way this election goes. God knows you are all going to need it :lol.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> So my prediction....I have to agree with Kyle from Secular Talk first of all that it is utterly stupid and insane that certain pollsters think Clinton has over 80-90% chance of winning. ....



I have to say, that this is not stupid at all. If different people weight polls in different ways and reach the same conclussions is for a reason. It's difficult for models to converge to similar conclusions and we're seeing it. Those models people are disregarding are the same that predicted pretty accurately 2008 and 2012 also, keep that in mind.

I also want to add, because i keep seeing the word "pollster" used, this are not pollsters. It's people running models based on an aggregation of polls. When people says pollsters came to that conclussion it seems to imply that pollsters reached that conclussion out of their ass seeing individual polls or something.

Now, models can be obviously wrong, but again, that is what data points out. If Trump wins it will not be the first time data lies, but that should not dismiss something so easily because we don't know what it's been said to us


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> This is actually very true. Rubio could have been the GOP's big game changer with regards to the minority vote and his future aspirations have taken a big hit. However, he's leading by a large margin for senate so it doesn't mean that his political career is over by a long shot - at all.
> 
> The other thing that helps the GOP at the moment is that Rick Scott as a republican hasn't done a terrible job. His approval rating went up after Hurricane Matthew because of the way he dealt with the crisis and how few casualties happened as a result of his quick move to force evacuations. The GOP was in complete control of the crisis and we managed to go through the hurricane with just 4 deaths - all of which could have been prevented if the people had just listened to the warnings. The government was on-song working like one of the most finely tuned operations I have ever seen in my life.
> 
> Overall there are positive vibes through the community because of that.
> 
> The democrats will continue to mischaracterize him, but generally Florida has done very well under a republican government.


Rubio's political career is not over, but he needs to work doubly hard to earn back lost capital from the damage Trump inflicted on him to run again when the effort could be spent expanding his appeal.

Rick Scott has no chance. He would be like Hillary but without the famous last name and decades of political ties. Capable administrator, tied down by special interests, and unable to general turnout. He isn't even very popular in Florida with some of his policies.



ChicagoFit said:


> If people weren't so lobotomized and actually had a fucking clue they would know that the second most revered prophet in Islam is Jesus Christ. We [Christians] have far more in common with each other.
> 
> We have been so influenced by propaganda that we have become blind to our own crimes against humanity.
> 
> For example: After 9/11 Americans were blood thirsty to avenge the deaths of 3,000 killed on that day. Our response: Invading two sovereign nations and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. We are so influenced by propaganda that we do not see the innocents killed as human and we cannot conceptualize that perhaps when their loved ones are killed by unnecessary, senseless acts that they too are blood thirsty for revenge against those who attacked them and killed their loved ones.
> 
> So fucked up.


Unless America has majority of Jehovah's Witnesses, I don't begrudge them retaliating against the Taleban. Iraq on the other hand is a whole other issue. Neither war were based on religious beliefs, but can be justified by religious rhetoric.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Unless America has majority of Jehovah's Witnesses, I don't begrudge them retaliating against the Taleban. Iraq on the other hand is a whole other issue. Neither war were based on religious beliefs, but can be justified by religious rhetoric.


Except that The Taliban Is Not Al Qaeda

Although the two organizations have ties, they are separate and distinct groups with different constituencies and different goals. And while it’s not possible to talk to Al Qaeda, talking and negotiating with the Taliban is eminently possible. 


When Al Qaeda arrived in Afghanistan from Sudan around 1996 its membership was not more than 30. Al Qaeda fighters, and the growing number of recruits who came to Afghanistan from elsewhere, kept apart from Taliban fighters, who resented Al Qaeda, and there was a great deal of animosity between the two. Osama bin Laden insisted that international actions against the United States and other countries was crucial to his strategy, while Mullah Omar opposed such actions.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> Except that The Taliban Is Not Al Qaeda
> 
> Although the two organizations have ties, they are separate and distinct groups with different constituencies and different goals. And while it’s not possible to talk to Al Qaeda, talking and negotiating with the Taliban is eminently possible.
> 
> 
> When Al Qaeda arrived in Afghanistan from Sudan around 1996 its membership was not more than 30. Al Qaeda fighters, and the growing number of recruits who came to Afghanistan from elsewhere, kept apart from Taliban fighters, who resented Al Qaeda, and there was a great deal of animosity between the two. Osama bin Laden insisted that international actions against the United States and other countries was crucial to his strategy, while Mullah Omar opposed such actions.


This is a bit of a misdirection. 

In the 90's the Taliban was formed by "bored" mujahideen that had known nothing but war against Russia. They had been raised in the extremist Pakistani medressahs much of whose teachings came from the wahabi school of Al Qaeda and other wahabi-ists from Saudi Arabia with the help of the Pakistani government fully funded by Operation Cyclone. Just being not the same as Al Qaeda doesn't mean that they are different in ideology. 

They just don't have ties, they have the same ideology which they tried to implement in Afghanistan in the power vacuum created by the retreating Russians and reduction of Pakistani and American financial support. They implemented a strategy of exploitation of the afghani people creating a flux of millions of refugees into Pakistan and over-threw all the smaller tribal leaders in that entire region including some in north west Pakistan which is where their home is. Their infiltration in Pakistan ran as deep as Abotabad at one point before Pakistan finally started pushing them back in the mid-2000's. 

The thing is that Taliban was always going to act like Al Qaeda and were already terrorizing the locals. The Afghan War wasn't completely unjustified and wasn't entirely based on seeking revenge. 

The American proxy war against Russia and original support of Osama and Al Qaeda combined with their support of the mujahideen (which eventually formed the Taliban) is what is to be really blamed for the entire mess in that region and everything afterwards. However, at the same time we cannot excuse the evolution and governmental support (by Pakistan and Suadi Arabia) of the wahabbists school of thought which essentially fuels their terrorist mentality.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> Except that The Taliban Is Not Al Qaeda
> 
> Although the two organizations have ties, they are separate and distinct groups with different constituencies and different goals. And while it’s not possible to talk to Al Qaeda, talking and negotiating with the Taliban is eminently possible.
> 
> 
> When Al Qaeda arrived in Afghanistan from Sudan around 1996 its membership was not more than 30. Al Qaeda fighters, and the growing number of recruits who came to Afghanistan from elsewhere, kept apart from Taliban fighters, who resented Al Qaeda, and there was a great deal of animosity between the two. Osama bin Laden insisted that international actions against the United States and other countries was crucial to his strategy, while Mullah Omar opposed such actions.


The Taliban were using delaying tactics to not remove Al Qaeda too. Either they didn't have the ability to comply with the demands or refused out of principle. They weren't an innocent party.


----------



## Brother Nero

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

#DELETE Trump & Hilary


----------



## TripleG

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> Good luck to all the American posters here in this thread and forum which ever way this election goes. God knows you are all going to need it :lol.


Damn right we will. 

I casted my write in vote. The Rs and Ds left me with no other choice. 

And Libertarians...the hell guys? If there was an election to really get out there and make your voices heard and solidify yourselves as a party, THIS was the one. 

And you put up Gary Johnson...gee....thanks.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

CNN's coverage already starting to tilt back to the center a little bit :kobelol 

Guess ratings are really all that actually matters.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@AryaDark @CamillePunk

Excellent post, @L-DOPA. Thank you for the mention!

Personally would peg Trump's chances today at around 20%. He's probably reasonably close in Michigan, but Pennsylvania does not look likely at all (think he loses by about 3% unless Philadelphia turnout is diminished), and due to the massive immigration rates in Florida, he is probably going to lose that state which is indispensable to his pathway, too. Nevada looks gone. North Carolina and Colorado seem like toss-ups at this point. 

Just experienced a humorous moment in time. I changed the channel to Fox News for a moment and saw this reporter for Fox News in a suburban Ohio diner. Packed with white working class, middle class people, particularly older men, who did most of the talking. One was a middle class small business owner, another was a veteran who had a factory job, another was a fisherman, et. al. They all spoke of voting for Trump against Hillary because of the latter's "corruption in government," "corruption," as well as voting for "God and country," "for our forebears," "for our posterity." 

Went to CNN a moment later and a lady reporter was interviewing Puerto Rican immigrants along a sidewalk in Miami. Whereas the Ohio diner's white group was predominantly older with a few young ladies mixed in, this was the exact opposite: almost entirely people in their twenties, young, livid at Trump's "racism," his "xenophobia," his "bigotry," his "hatred of Latinos," how they could never envision voting Republican "because of Trump but also because it's a racist party anyway and always has been."

Even within nationalities, demographical trends matter. Cuban-Americans going forward will not hold the sentimental economic attachment to the Republican Party thanks to their experiences with communism or the GOP's stand against Fidel Castro's government. The more "Americanized" they become the more "liberal" they become, too. 

It's remarkably easy for liberals and even "mainstream conservatives" to scoff at the discontent and anger of white working class and middle class voters but to think it's all going to evaporate once Trump loses tonight is patently ridiculous. Today, a measure that will see to it that Spanish is the chief language taught in myriad California public schools is likely to pass. Today whole swaths of the American southwest seem culturally and demographically Mexican with ever-increasing numbers of whites moving away due to what they contend are increases in crime and violence. 

Couple this to the rampant deindustrializing and hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs as well as certain energy sector jobs in Appalachia, the Midwest, New England and parts of the South, the "white death" as _The New York Times_ calls it, the overwhelming spread of opioid addiction and suicide among whites over the past several years, and the U.S. is following a recipe for unremitting resentment in the coming years. Obviously most Mexicans and Central Americans are great people (if Trump had just said that in his first address before more delicately pointing out some of the outstanding negatives of mass illegal immigration), including the El Salvadoran family who have been the closest living family near my parents for the past year and a half now, but there is a bitter point with which to contend when considering that the mass exodus of jobs to Mexico has seen a recompense, of sorts, with drugs pouring across the U.S. from Mexico, in many cases to those older working class people whose jobs went to Mexico as they succumb to hopelessness and death.

To take *L-DOPA*'s Brexit analogy and apply it here, Brexit probably would not pass in 2018, or 2020, or 2022. It was 2016-or-never due to demographics, and such is the case now for the Republican Party's White House aspirations. And there is a deep burning problem for the inevitable Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan bid in 2020, which is that at least half of the GOP will reject them out of hand as, effectively, Bush family clones. Interventionist foreign policies, free trade rhapsodizing, and more mass immigration are not matters on which these voters are going to be willing to bend any longer. 

_Well, ya got trouble, my friend, right here, I say, trouble right here in River City._


----------



## ras8620

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm thinking Trump wins it. He has a good path to get to 270.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Just experienced a humorous moment in time. I changed the channel to Fox News for a moment and saw this reporter for Fox News in a suburban Ohio diner. Packed with white working class, middle class people, particularly older men, who did most of the talking. One was a middle class small business owner, another was a veteran who had a factory job, another was a fisherman, et. al. They all spoke of voting for Trump against Hillary because of the latter's "corruption in government," "corruption," as well as voting for "God and country," "for our forebears," "for our posterity."


Was watching Fox at the exact same time. 

I actually walked away with feeling like this type of ignorant Trump supporter needs to exist in order to counter the hordes of ignorant Clinton supporters :shrug

Watched CNN, they are pretty much claiming that Arizona and Colorado are essentially swinging Trump. 

Elections will come down to Florida. But on the ground I'm seeing more support in central Florida for Trump than Clinton, but essentially it is the Miami-Dade county that will really come into play here.

Also, since the elderly have a much larger window to vote than the millennials, we could still see Florida potentially swinging towards Trump early, but pulling away later on.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Live or die, America. Make your choice.






- Vic


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795958105343463424
Eric Trump just pulled a Justin Timberlake. :hmm:


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Was watching Fox at the exact same time.
> 
> I actually walked away with feeling like this type of ignorant Trump supporter needs to exist in order to counter the hordes of ignorant Clinton supporters :shrug
> 
> Watched CNN, they are pretty much claiming that Arizona and Colorado are essentially swinging Trump.
> 
> Elections will come down to Florida. But on the ground I'm seeing more support in central Florida for Trump than Clinton, but essentially it is the Miami-Dade county that will really come into play here.
> 
> Also, since the elderly have a much larger window to vote than the millennials, we could still see Florida potentially swinging towards Trump early, but pulling away later on.


Firstly, if Trump loses Florida tonight by one vote you can ridicule your wife endlessly for voting for Mr. Johnson. :lol At least Harambe would probably know what Aleppo is. 

Yes, it does look like Colorado's turning toward Trump a bit, you're right. Arizona, I've long thought he'd hold on to.

Ha, well, to be sure, I sincerely was not contending that these Trump supporters in Ohio are "ignorant." 

Democracy is an extraordinarily flawed system, at best. Mass democracy is downright madness. (Even as a five-year-old child I would think, "Why all of this propaganda insisting that everyone should vote? Many people don't pay attention to what's going on, and some are dullards." :lol)

I do not expect the average voter to be able to convincingly articulate their own positions or why they are voting for a certain candidate. 

Certainly, in general elections, you need your "average Joe" voter to go out and vote for you. Not everyone has read Plato, Thomas Hobbes, Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Julius Evola or Herbert Marcuse, haha. 

If anything, I sympathize with voters, older voters, who should be wiser than the younger voters, who speak of wishing to vote for their posterity and against corruption. Their statements, however rough around the edges, at least transmitted a certain ethos. You could feel the patriotism flying off of them like sparks from welding metal. Maybe they are "deplorables" to use Hillary's phrase, haha, or perhaps they're ignorant of many philosophies or what have you, but they seem to have their collective heart more or less in the right place. 

There was another crystalizing example of what I'm getting at here. On CNN they had three "millennials" on to discuss the election for a segment. One was a young woman who had emigrated from Haiti, the other two were young white men. One of the men was for Trump, the other for Evan McMullin/McMuffin. The pro-Trump millennial spoke of restoring America's traditions and history, her republican tradition. I was mildly impressed. The Haitian immigrant lady was flabbergasted and conveyed umbrage: "Well, to me, America's history and tradition is just built on racism and sexism and xenophobia, so I don't really know how to speak to that [presumably as a non-white female immigrant]..." or something along those lines. 

The point isn't that one perspective is ignorant and that the other isn't, or that either one is ignorant (though the religious fervor with which left-liberals largely use those buzzwords displays just how successful the cultural revolution within the West has been)... It's just that they are in direct, incompatible conflict with one another. And, demographically, one is destined to prevail, in part because it is hardly like whites are some monolithic bloc, haha. (Indeed, married women versus unmarried women is one of the starkest dividing lines that cuts through a good deal among white women particularly and women of all races generally.)


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Points well taken Deso. I'm letting my emotions get the better of me :thumbsup

The thing is though that when I call them "ignorant", I kind of mean in the sense of not even really knowing why they themselves are voting. They're probably life-long republicans and I don't think anything would sway them. Maybe they weren't paying attention this year and while in retrospect we consider them voting the right way since we have a better picture of why we're voting a certain way, to me it still doesn't excuse lack of self-awareness and mental clarity - just as it doesn't for people on the other side. 

That's really all I meant. Ignorance was probably a bad choice of words and I take it back.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Ah, no worries, @Carte Blanche, no worries. I feel a bit weird "defending" such voters, in a way, since this is the first presidential election cycle that I've actively enjoyed thanks almost exclusively to :trump who's definitely not your standard-issue Republican Party candidate, much less, nominee, but I thank you for the clarification!


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@AryaDark @Blackbeard @CamillePunk @Carte Blanche @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @Oda Nobunaga @Pratchett @samizayn @Sincere @Tater

Well here we go, ladies and gentlemen! Early exit polling out of the State of Saudi Arabia! :woo :woo

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...poll-68-of-Saudis-prefer-Hillary-Clinton.html



> Poll: 68 percent of Saudis prefer Hillary Clinton
> 
> Staff Writer, Al Arabiya English Tuesday, 8 November 2016
> 
> An opinion poll by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies in Washington and that included nine Arab countries revealed that 68 percent of the Saudis prefer that Hillary Clinton wins the presidential elections while 46 percent thought Donald Trump was bad.
> 
> The nine countries included Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Morocco, Jordan, Palestine (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip), Saudi Arabia and Tunisia and an average of 400 people from each country participated in the questionnaire.
> 
> Asked which of the candidates will positively influence the US policy towards the Arab region, 65 percent of the Saudis said Clinton’s victory will positively impact the Arab region.
> 
> The Arab public opinion prefers Clinton’s win by 66 percent while 11 percent prefer Trump’s victory. The highest percentage in support of Clinton winning the presidency was in Morocco and Tunisia while the least percentage in favor of Clinton’s victory was in Palestine and Iraq. Meanwhile, the highest percentage in favor of Trump winning was in Iraq and Egypt.
> 
> Asked about the issues which the upcoming American president must focus on, those interviewed by the poll said the first priority was not intervening in Arab countries’ affairs. Other priorities included combating ISIS, resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, resolving the Syrian crisis and resolving the crisis in Yemen.


:aryha Not intervening in Arab countries' affairs sounds good to me! osey2


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



L-DOPA said:


> if I had to pick between the two....who would vote for? If I had a gun to my head, life or death situation and had to pick between the two...no other options, who would I vote...


So, to be clear, the options are Clinton, Trump or *the gun*?

Decisions, decisions...

:sip


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> This is a bit of a misdirection.
> 
> In the 90's the Taliban was formed by "bored" mujahideen that had known nothing but war against Russia. They had been raised in the extremist Pakistani medressahs much of whose teachings came from the wahabi school of Al Qaeda and other wahabi-ists from Saudi Arabia with the help of the Pakistani government fully funded by Operation Cyclone. Just being not the same as Al Qaeda doesn't mean that they are different in ideology.
> 
> They just don't have ties, they have the same ideology which they tried to implement in Afghanistan in the power vacuum created by the retreating Russians and reduction of Pakistani and American financial support. They implemented a strategy of exploitation of the afghani people creating a flux of millions of refugees into Pakistan and over-threw all the smaller tribal leaders in that entire region including some in north west Pakistan which is where their home is. Their infiltration in Pakistan ran as deep as Abotabad at one point before Pakistan finally started pushing them back in the mid-2000's.
> 
> The thing is that Taliban was always going to act like Al Qaeda and were already terrorizing the locals. The Afghan War wasn't completely unjustified and wasn't entirely based on seeking revenge.
> 
> The American proxy war against Russia and original support of Osama and Al Qaeda combined with their support of the mujahideen (which eventually formed the Taliban) is what is to be really blamed for the entire mess in that region and everything afterwards. However, at the same time we cannot excuse the evolution and governmental support (by Pakistan and Suadi Arabia) of the wahabbists school of thought which essentially fuels their terrorist mentality.


Look, there's the truth & facts as I have shared and then there is your grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to somehow justify your love of killing brown people.... you disgust me.


----------



## Cipher

birthday_massacre said:


> Its always funny seeing Trump supporters rage over Bernie supporting Hillary when this is always how things work. the person that lost the primary endorses the person that gets the nomination.
> 
> Trump supporters are just pissed because they know Bernie supporters are what is going to put Hillary over the top to beat Trump,


I am not a Trump supporter. I've only said it about 50 times since I started posting here.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> The Taliban were using delaying tactics to not remove Al Qaeda too. Either they didn't have the ability to comply with the demands or refused out of principle. They weren't an innocent party.


You don't get the death penalty if you harbor a fugitive. 

You people desperately trying to justify the slaughter of innocent men and women by the US are disgusting.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@DesolationRow 










This translates to (from top to bottom)

_* "Come, let's build a strong America. Inshah-Allah (Allah willing) President Hillary Clinton - wife of President Bill Clinton". *_

Viral in the Pakistani voting community. 



> Look, there's the truth & facts as I have shared and then there is your grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to somehow justify your love of killing brown people.... you disgust me.


Yes, because simply teaching someone about world history who have exhibited no knowledge of the subject is the same as wanting to kill brown people :lmao

I'm brown from Pakistan so when I see people sharing wrong facts about my part of the world I have to correct them as a matter of principle so that they can know just how fucking wrong they are. 

Nothing I've said indicates anything about my personal desires about what the government action towards these assholes should be or should have been.


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> [MENTION=190742]Yes, because simply teaching someone about world history who have exhibited no knowledge of the subject is the same as wanting to kill brown people :lmao


You're a c*nt and one of the dumbest people on the planet. Society should stop you before you decide to breed.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> You're a c*nt and one of the dumbest people on the planet. Society should stop you before you decide to breed.


BM, is that you?


----------



## ChicagoFit

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> BM, is that you?


you're a bully to everyone on this forum and think you're smarter than everyone.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Anyone see this lol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ChicagoFit said:


> you're a bully to everyone on this forum and think you're smarter than everyone.


Not that I think that I'm better than _everyone _or that I bully _everyone _... Even if I did what's wrong with that exactly? Am I supposed to bow down like a weirdo socialist and acknowledge that there's some sort of innate social equality here in place :kobelol 

I don't believe that people are innately equal. Never have. Never will. 

Some of us are better than others. 

Deal with it.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This thread should be moved to Rants for the big day today. Grab some popcorn and let it go out in the blaze of glory that it deserves.

:yes


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> This thread should be moved to Rants for the big day today. Grab some popcorn and let it go out in the blaze of glory that it deserves.
> 
> :yes


This can be the final theme of the thread


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> This can be the final theme of the thread


Goddamn, your musical choices are terrible. Fuckin' Bon Jovi? Terrible.

Here's a more appropriate selection:


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Goddamn, your musical choices are terrible.
> 
> Here's a more appropriate selection:


of course you missed the joke since you said let the thread go out in a blaze of glory, so I posted the song blaze of glory. 

but I am not surprised you would miss the joke even when it was on the nose.


----------



## Freelancer

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

A lot of people in my area are already reporting problems with the voting machines when they try to vote Trump. If he loses, get ready for a show.

I'm not endorsing either candidate BTW.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> of course you missed the joke since you said let the thread go out in a blaze of glory, so I posted the song blaze of glory.
> 
> but I am not surprised you would miss the joke even when it was on the nose.


Posting a shitty ass Bon Jovi song called Blaze of Glory in response to me saying the thread should go out in a Rants blaze of glory is not clever nor is it in any way a joke that I have "missed". It's just posting a shitting ass Bon Jovi song because your choice in music fucking sucks.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Freelancer said:


> A lot of people in my area are already reporting problems with the voting machines when they try to vote Trump. If he loses, get ready for a show.
> 
> I'm not endorsing either candidate BTW.


http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/2016-election-results-coverage/

Social media in Philadelphia are full of reports of breakdowns among the city’s old voting machines. We’ve heard of voting machine issues in the neighborhoods of Fishtown, Mt. Airy and Graduate Hospital. But despite the reports, the long lines and the Donald Trump-led speculation over election fraud, Republican City Commissioner Al Schmidt said Philadelphia’s 14-year-old voting machines for the most part are holding up to the early demand.

“It hasn’t been anything out of the ordinary,” said Schmidt. “It’s been a handful. If there were an issue like something extraordinary we would know it right out of the gate.”

Schmidt said voting machine issues here generally have to do with hardware. One frequent cause is repeated write-in votes. He said sometimes the mechanism that allows people to write in votes can disrupt the machine.

But so far today the number of machines breaking down has not been substantial.

“If you compare presidential to presidential,” Schmidt said, “we’re actually experiencing fewer problems relative to recent presidential elections.”


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

And this is why I vented my emotions yesterday so I could have slightly more reasonable discussions today :duck 

Colorado has pretty much swung people. Even CNN is starting to concede defeat there for the most part. It's the first surprise to have gone Trump's way :drose

PS. I'm aware that it might still change, but early predictions are pretty much leaning republican now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Posting a shitty ass Bon Jovi song called Blaze of Glory in response to me saying the thread should go out in a Rants blaze of glory is not clever nor is it in any way a joke that I have "missed". It's just posting a shitting ass Bon Jovi song because your choice in music fucking sucks.



It is clever but you are just embarrassed because you missed the joke and now you are trying to cover for it. Just quit while you embarrass yourself more.


----------



## DoolieNoted

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Never in the history of shitty choices has a nation been given two equally ridiculous caricatures to decide between.


Good luck, America..
You're gonna need it whichever way this goes.




Oh, and vote Trump.. If you're gonna get fucked over, it might as well be by the person that looks you in the eyes while they do it..


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

There are rumors of 80% turnaout already in Florida


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:lol at that, @Carte Blanche! Hahaha... Oh, Hillary...


A friend who voted in New York City about an hour ago says he saw two people handing out signs that support Donald Trump being attacked by a small mob of youths with police showing up a few minutes later while he was in line. 

Then this broke:

http://www.ajc.com/news/national-go...-florida-polling-site/I25JVlMkyiWFeUQlUjZwTM/



> Woman pepper sprays man as fight breaks out at Florida polling site
> 
> Lawrence Mower
> 
> Updated11:11 a.m. Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2016 | Filed in AJC Homepage
> 
> JUPITER, Fla.—
> 
> Police in Florida are investigating an altercation between a man and a woman at the Jupiter Community Center voting site.
> 
> Witnesses say a man was yelling at a woman handing out Donald Trump literature. After he voted, he came out of the polling site and kept yelling at her.
> 
> As the shouting increased, the two got closer and she pepper-sprayed him. The man then grabbed the woman by the neck and threw her down.
> 
> Those who saw the altercation say the fight happened in front of the Trump/Mast signs, which are legal distance away from the polling place.
> 
> One witness said the man was "up in her face like he was picking a fight."
> 
> Check back for more details on this developing story.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> There are rumors of 80% turnaout already in Florida


Not surprised. People knowing that we are a major decider in the election feel a much greater responsibility to go out and vote than in other places. 

The election fever has been sweeping through Florida since the primaries and hasn't really stopped at all.


----------



## Freelancer

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm in the outskirts of Pittsburgh, and usually we have a 50/50 split between the Democrat and Republican candidates every election. Just going by word of mouth and social media activity, I would say that my area is about 90% Trump this election. I've never seen anything like this before. Hell, I've only seen no more than 10 Hillary signs in peoples yards since she got the nomination. And no I'm not exaggerating that number either.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Freelancer said:


> I'm in the outskirts of Pittsburgh, and usually we have a 50/50 split between the Democrat and Republican candidates every election. Just going by word of mouth and social media activity, I would say that my area is about 90% Trump this election. I've never seen anything like this before. Hell, I've only seen no more than 10 Hillary signs in peoples yards since she got the nomination. And no I'm not exaggerating that number either.


I hate to say this but Trump can swing more than half a dozen close states, but if he doesn't swing Florida, he doesn't win - and so far Florida is pretty much guaranteed to go Hillary's way because of a huge surge in the hispanic vote (more than 3 times as much as the 2012 turnout) will decide the election this year. 

I would love to be wrong, but this is sadly closer to the truth than what most pundits are predicting at this point. Without Florida he has no path to victory. Period.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Colorado has pretty much swung people. Even CNN is starting to concede defeat there for the most part. It's the first surprise to have gone Trump's way :drose
> 
> PS. I'm aware that it might still change, but early predictions are pretty much leaning republican now.


Not sure you're reading that correctly.

Republicans overtook Democrats at the last minute in _early voting_, but they were still well behind the pace by which they dominated early voting in 2012... and Romney still lost by over 5%.

Unless you're referring to some other news story regarding exit polling that I haven't seen.

In other news, I voted for the Unity Party candidate for Senate, and I'm feeling pretty fucking good about it.










Michael Bennet will likely win, though, and that's okay too.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> There are rumors of 80% turnaout already in Florida


Read somewhere that early voting in Florida exceeded the _entire_ vote from 2000. :wtf2


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> Not sure you're reading that correctly.
> 
> Republicans overtook Democrats at the last minute in _early voting_, but they were still well behind the pace by which they dominated early voting in 2012... and Romney still lost by over 5%.


Republicans are showing up in greater numbers at the polling stations according to a live report by CNN. 

The thing that seems to be coming across in Colorado is that early voting results may have initiated some sort of a complacency gap which seems to be visible at the stations themselves. 

Of course, that could just be a mirage created by observer bias :shrug



RetepAdam. said:


> Read somewhere that early voting in Florida exceeded the _entire_ vote from 2000. :wtf2


Mostly hispanics too. However, historically Republicans have always voted in greater numbers on Election Day itself so it's not exactly over. However, it seems like an unlikely win for Trump at this point. 

You guys might as well just ignore everyone else at this point and keep your eyes on Florida because that's literally what it's come down to now.


----------



## FatherJackHackett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Floridians both living and dead out in force to vote unkout


----------



## Natecore

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Don't vote!


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Not to break the fantasies of certain Florida residing posters but it isn't down to Florida.

It's down to Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire.

So basically it's down to the same damn states it's down to every election since Dubya v Gore. But things are so different this year! Except when they're not.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

On another note, Trump will likely gain support from the unaffiliated whites while Johnson will steal Hillary's vote and that works in Trump's favor. Florida is far from over either

:shrug



deepelemblues said:


> Not to break the fantasies of certain Florida residing posters but it isn't down to Florida.
> 
> It's down to Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire.
> 
> So basically it's down to the same damn states it's down to every election since Dubya v Gore. But things are so different this year! Except when they're not.


Well duh ... What I'm saying is that Trump cannot win at all without winning Florida even if he swings those other states. He has to win Florida and win a handful of those to win the elections but without Florida, winning those states don't matter and won't even come into play.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Republicans are showing up in greater numbers at the polling stations according to a live report by CNN.
> 
> The thing that seems to be coming across in Colorado is that early voting results may have initiated some sort of a complacency gap which seems to be visible at the stations themselves.
> 
> Of course, that could just be a mirage created by observer bias :shrug


Could be. I went to the polling station and then the dentist and just got to work and did a quick scan of the news after seeing your post, so it's not like I'm up to the minute.

But it's also 10:21 AM here, so who fucking knows. :lol



> Mostly hispanics too. However, historically Republicans have always voted in greater numbers on Election Day itself so it's not exactly over. However, it seems like an unlikely win for Trump at this point.
> 
> You guys might as well just ignore everyone else at this point and keep your eyes on Florida because that's literally what it's come down to now.


I know Republicans dominate turnout in mid-term election years, but I think I've read in the past that it's a different story in the past two presidential elections. But it was also Obama, who was a far more exciting candidate (even in 2012) than Hillary.

People keep harping on Florida, and it could very well decide the election (especially if it goes to Hillary with any sort of decisiveness, as that would effectively end the night early), but I don't know that it's "going to come down" to Florida, given that Hillary has a number of paths to victory that don't include Florida. That said, it'll be an interesting state to watch just because it was such a horse race in polling all year long, so it'll be fascinating to see how the seemingly motivated Hispanic vote could potentially tip things.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Natecore said:


> Don't vote!


Shit!

You could have told me this three hours ago before I went and voted. :no:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

That's what I meant to say. Probably wasn't clear enough considering two of you walked away with a different impression. My bad.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Well duh ... What I'm saying is that Trump cannot win at all without winning Florida even if he swings those other states. He has to win Florida and win a handful of those to win the elections but without Florida, winning those states don't matter and won't even come into play.


well florida has 29 EVs right and PA 20 and VA 13. if he won PA and VA and lost florida he could still win even if hillary won NH. he'd have to win NV or CO too though to win in that scenario.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> Could be. I went to the polling station and then the dentist and just got to work and did a quick scan of the news after seeing your post, so it's not like I'm up to the minute.
> 
> But it's also 10:21 AM here, so who fucking knows. :lol
> 
> 
> 
> I know Republicans dominate turnout in mid-term election years, but I think I've read in the past that it's a different story in the past two presidential elections. But it was also Obama, who was a far more exciting candidate (even in 2012) than Hillary.
> 
> People keep harping on Florida, and it could very well decide the election (especially if it goes to Hillary with any sort of decisiveness, as that would effectively end the night early), but I don't know that it's "going to come down" to Florida, given that Hillary has a number of paths to victory that don't include Florida. That said, it'll be an interesting state to watch just because it was such a horse race in polling all year long, so it'll be fascinating to see how the seemingly motivated Hispanic vote could potentially tip things.


there's two different hispanic votes in florida

the cuban vote and the non-cuban vote

reports in the last week suggested cubans were coming home to vote Republican (they've historically voted GOP in Florida because Castro) which will help :trump


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> there's two different hispanic votes in florida
> 
> the cuban vote and the non-cuban vote
> 
> reports in the last week suggested cubans were coming home to vote Republican (they've historically voted GOP in Florida because Castro) which will help :trump


Saw that, yeah.

Another twist on what was already setting up to be an interesting race.

At the very least, I'd imagine that bodes well for Marco Rubio.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Friend up in Seattle voted a few minutes ago, said he's never seen a polling station so utterly dead. Literally no one else there. Said he took his time filling out the ballot, dragging his feet, waiting to see if anyone else would come in, but no. 

"Lots of standard Dems unexcited about Hillary up here," he said.

Of course, Washington is hardly a swing state, so that plays a major part in that, too.

Nevertheless, it's a little bit amusing that Trump's greatest shot at winning this, which is on paper extraordinarily difficult for him, is courtesy of the sheer awfulness of Hillary as a candidate.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> well florida has 29 EVs right and PA 20 and VA 13. if he won PA and VA and lost florida he could still win even if hillary won NH. he'd have to win NV or CO too though to win in that scenario.


If Hillary wins Florida there is almost no possibility she lose PA.

There is a reason why states are correlated


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Friend up in Seattle voted a few minutes ago, said he's never seen a polling station so utterly dead. Literally no one else there. Said he took his time filling out the ballot, dragging his feet, waiting to see if anyone else would come in, but no.
> 
> "Lots of standard Dems unexcited about Hillary up here," he said.
> 
> Of course, Washington is hardly a swing state, so that plays a major part in that, too.
> 
> Nevertheless, it's a little bit amusing that Trump's greatest shot at winning this, which is on paper extraordinarily difficult for him, is courtesy of the sheer awfulness of Hillary as a candidate.


The hooplah around the presidential elections keeps the younger voters unenthused about their democrat candidate; they don't turn out and it impacts the Senate as well. 

This is why it is so important to just go out and do your job. It's not just the presidential election but today's millennials, especially the youngest voters between 18-24 literally have no clue.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> @AryaDark @Blackbeard @CamillePunk @Carte Blanche @L-DOPA @Miss Sally @Oda Nobunaga @Pratchett @samizayn @Sincere @Tater
> 
> Well here we go, ladies and gentlemen! Early exit polling out of the State of Saudi Arabia! :woo :woo
> 
> http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...poll-68-of-Saudis-prefer-Hillary-Clinton.html
> 
> 
> 
> :aryha Not intervening in Arab countries' affairs sounds good to me! osey2


I say send her creepy ass to the Saudis if they like her so much, and since she evidently likes them (and their money) so much. How long would she last, I wonder?


----------



## FatherJackHackett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

God I really want Trump to win, not only because I think he's the best option but also because of the sheer amount of butthurt on my social media feeds tomorrow morning. Schadenfreude city.


----------



## Clique

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

For the chilrin in these streets






@Empress @Headliner


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Well... went in to vote because of an amendment for our state constitution and the down ballot................ 80 percent of the damn ballot was one name running unopposed. Yeah, so much for down ballot voting mattering. And that damn amendment, not only is it written so poorly I can see it losing but the fact it exists shows what is wrong with politicians: we actually have to vote to say "no, you can't use taxes for roads and repairs on anything else". 

As for the shit show... didn't vote either major party so I'm doing good there. I will play Skyrim and ignore the idiocy that will be on display tonight.


----------



## CamillePunk

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796016074231672836
:mj


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I've been seeing this woman's posters all over the fucking place the past few months and seen hardly any of the incumbent she is running against. Then I actually saw her today standing outside the polling place too. :lol










Turns out she is running against the same person she lost to 60/40 last time, so it's doubtful she'll win, but I'll give her an A for effort.


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Nevertheless, it's a little bit amusing that Trump's greatest shot at winning this, which is on paper extraordinarily difficult for him, is courtesy of the sheer awfulness of Hillary as a candidate.


Fittingly, you could swap the names and it would still be true.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is filling a lawsuit against Nevada for the early voting :lmao

Sorry, but what a sore loser :lmao

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/n...Nevada-Over--poll-closing-time-400420111.html


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

working class white turnout in Michigan is reportedly way way up

good news for :trump

highly doubt it will win him the state although there's always the chance the media's terrible miss of sanders squeaking out the upset win there in the primaries repeats itself


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Trump is filling a lawsuit against Nevada for the early voting :lmao
> 
> Sorry, but what a sore loser :lmao


I'm sure this will be the first of many and he will lose them all


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Trump is filling a lawsuit against Nevada for the early voting :lmao
> 
> Sorry, but what a sore loser :lmao
> 
> http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/n...Nevada-Over--poll-closing-time-400420111.html


As a strictly legal matter a county cannot actually extend the time - They cannot do that legally under state law because it's the same as opening up another polling place. 

But apparently more and more rules should be allowed to be bent for Hillary supporters - even though no one actually knows who got effected by this including potential Trump votes. 

We can't even have a legal election anymore without Democrats crying about something or the other.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> As a strictly legal matter a county cannot actually extend the time - They cannot do that legally under state law.
> 
> But apparently more and more rules should be allowed to be bent for Hillary supporters.


The voting was extended because there was still people in line, which is perfectly legal. He's also targeting one especifical place while liberating a republican stronghold that did the same.

Sorry but yeah, stupid


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://votecastr.us/
There's this new live vote tracking thing that got launched in partnership with Slate and Vice..it seems to be based on precinct turnouts...not sure how credible it is, but this is how it stands right now. If these turn out to be accurate, this is a gamechanger for following elections
Florida: 74.9% of expected votes observed
Hillary +4
Colorado: 72.2% of expected votes observed
Hillary +6
Ohio: 59.8% of expected votes observed
Hillary +1
Nevada: 58.7% of expected votes observed
Hillary +3
Iowa: 55.9% of expected votes observed 
Trump +1
Wisconsin: 47.9% of expected votes observed
Hillary +6
Pennsylvania: 45.9% of expected votes observed
Hillary +4
New Hampshire: 44% of expected votes observed 
Hillary +4


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> As a strictly legal matter a county cannot actually extend the time - They cannot do that legally under state law because it's the same as opening up another polling place.
> 
> But apparently more and more rules should be allowed to be bent for Hillary supporters - even though no one actually knows who got effected by this including potential Trump votes.
> 
> We can't even have a legal election anymore without Democrats crying about something or the other.


Under law, anyone that is in line when the polls close is entitled to vote, and the polls are required to stay open until all those people have voted.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> The voting was extended because there was still people in line, which is perfectly legal. He's also targeting one especifical place while liberating a republican stronghold that did the same.
> 
> Sorry but yeah, stupid


So that would be for the courts to determine. 

Also, how does anyone know that those people were already in line and that the extension didn't allow for more people to queue up? This is only a matter of quarantining a few hundred votes. 

Nevada is swinging Trump's way. I expect this to be converted into yet into another wave of voter suppression claims (wrongly) because other than hearsay we have no proof that this only impacts democrat voters. 

Do you have any proof that this only impacts democrat voters other than what the liberal-aligned media is claiming? Is a claim now proof?


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The only thing I might follow is how much penetration any third party gets this cycle... if just one of them can break that corrupt threshold put in place by the major parties, I see the next few elections starting to break up the tyranny of these two parties. That is probably why the media went in so hard on Johnson. They realised that, even though victory was about as impossible as anything in this world, if he broke the threshold the timer would start on the two party system. 

So I hope the reports that there is a higher than expected return for Johnson are true and he eeks out the necessary percentage to finally break that threshold. There would actually be some hope for the first time in a long, long time.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> So that would be for the courts to determine.
> 
> Also, how does anyone know that those people were already in line and that the extension didn't allow for more people to queue up? This is only a matter of quarantining a few hundred votes.
> 
> Nevada is swinging Trump's way. I expect this to be converted into yet into another wave of voter suppression claims (wrongly) because other than hearsay we have no proof that this only impacts democrat voters.
> 
> Do you have any proof that this only impacts democrat voters other than what the liberal-aligned media is claiming? Is a claim now proof?


i'm saying that this also affects republicans because the last county where this happened is a republican stronghold, the only reason for Trump doing this is because he knows he's losing the state

And we know that there was people already in line because the supermarket was being heavily covered in news thanks to the level of voting, i was seeing it all the night in Neogaf, there was so much people the senator candidates went there to campaign while this was happening.


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795833821501460480

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795836759548526592
:dead2


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cabanarama said:


> http://votecastr.us/
> There's this new live vote tracking thing that got launched in partnership with Slate and Vice..it seems to be based on precinct turnouts...not sure how credible it is, but this is how it stands right now. If these turn out to be accurate, this is a gamechanger for following elections
> Florida: 74.9% of expected votes observed
> Hillary +4
> Colorado: 72.2% of expected votes observed
> Hillary +6
> Ohio: 59.8% of expected votes observed
> Hillary +1
> Nevada: 58.7% of expected votes observed
> Hillary +3
> Iowa: 55.9% of expected votes observed
> Trump +1
> Wisconsin: 47.9% of expected votes observed
> Hillary +6
> Pennsylvania: 45.9% of expected votes observed
> Hillary +4
> New Hampshire: 44% of expected votes observed
> Hillary +4


where are they getting their numbers from? 3/4 of total expected votes in florida have been cast and they have an accurate breakdown of those votes? how do they even know how many votes have been cast so far? i get the feeling there are some huge leaps being made to get to these numbers to account for the fact that there is no hard data on vote tallies in any state so far since you know the polls are still open in all of them. the only data out there right now is (probably imprecise) data of turnout at (some) polling places and data on how many registered members of each party have voted early in some states. the only people right now who know precise turnout numbers for a specific polling place are (some) of the people working at that polling place since they do keep count (duh) of how many people overall have voted there so far. maybe some of that data is being leaked i dunno.

btw need to just go back to paper ballots nationwide, got voting machines here in PA switching :trump votes to clinton (not a large number of machines apparently but it's funny how every report of voting machines switching votes nationwide has them switching :trump to clinton and not a single one the other way around)... and of course the typical 'the machines aren't working because they use windows fucking XP as their OS' bullshit at some places that goes on every election.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cabanarama said:


> http://votecastr.us/
> There's this new live vote tracking thing that got launched in partnership with Slate and Vice..it seems to be based on precinct turnouts...not sure how credible it is, but this is how it stands right now. If these turn out to be accurate, this is a gamechanger for following elections
> Florida: 74.9% of expected votes observed
> Hillary +4
> Colorado: 72.2% of expected votes observed
> Hillary +6
> Ohio: 59.8% of expected votes observed
> Hillary +1
> Nevada: 58.7% of expected votes observed
> Hillary +3
> Iowa: 55.9% of expected votes observed
> Trump +1
> Wisconsin: 47.9% of expected votes observed
> Hillary +6
> Pennsylvania: 45.9% of expected votes observed
> Hillary +4
> New Hampshire: 44% of expected votes observed
> Hillary +4


Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.. but this sounds like this site takes pre-election polling percentages, applies them to the number of people that showed up and come up with the calculated number based on those two things. 

IE - Lets say 60% of the people polled in this precinct are in favor of legalizing marijuana. With 100 people showing up at this location thus far, I'm going to say 60 of them voted yes and 40 voted no(when I actually have nothing to back that up other than the polling data and number of people that showed up). 

Which doesn't really tell me anything more than the original poll. Its not actually tracking anything but the number of people that showed up, and giving projected info that we already assume anyway. Every state on this site is going to show the favorite(via the pre-election polling) as the person ahead, by the same % margin as the polling. And if that's the case, its not worth it to me to follow it any more than I have.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I have booked tomorrow off work so i can stay up late for this tonight :mark:

If Hillary wins Florida and this is done and dusted early i will be mighty pissed

Let battle commence 

opcorn


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> i'm saying that this also affects republicans because the last county where this happened is a republican stronghold, the only reason for Trump doing this is because he knows he's losing the state
> 
> And we know that there was people already in line because the supermarket was being heavily covered in news thanks to the level of voting, i was seeing it all the night in Neogaf, there was so much people the senator candidates went there to campaign while this was happening.


a) Since Nevada hasn't already been lost and
b) It suppresses some of the republican vote as well

How is this lawsuit evidence of Trump being a sore loser?


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> a) Since Nevada hasn't already been lost and
> b) It suppresses some of the republican vote as well
> 
> How is this lawsuit evidence of Trump being a sore loser?


Beacuse they know they can rest a lot of votes by anuling the entire polling place, so they think this will help them to win the state


Even the judge knows this is bat shit crazy stupid http://www.lasvegasnow.com/breaking-live-news

edit: well the stream ended, but basically the judge said to the Trump Lawyer that all of this was ridicule and she wasn't doing shit


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Beacuse they know they can rest a lot of votes by anuling the entire polling place, so they think this will help them to win the state
> 
> 
> Even the judge knows this is bat shit crazy stupid http://www.lasvegasnow.com/breaking-live-news


But how does that make him a sore loser. I'm just pointing out that your emotional reaction to what happened isn't a justified response. 

I mean, it's a campaign tactic designed to help them win meaning that they haven't acknowledged the loss yet (therefore your claim that he's a sort loser is completely bunk) that you or I may not agree with (while I actually disagree with polling stations staying open late especially since it's early voting and they still have a chance to vote later), but how does someone filing a lawsuit about potentially illegal polling station activity make them a sore loser when they haven't even lost the state?


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I think it validates him as a sore loser because they're doing something stupid and illogical just because they're madly affraid of losing, instead of you know, accepting it and moving on like it should be if it happen.


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.. but this sounds like this site takes pre-election polling percentages, applies them to the number of people that showed up and come up with the calculated number based on those two things.
> 
> IE - Lets say 60% of the people polled in this precinct are in favor of legalizing marijuana. With 100 people showing up at this location thus far, I'm going to say 60 of them voted yes and 40 voted no(when I actually have nothing to back that up other than the polling data and number of people that showed up).
> 
> Which doesn't really tell me anything more than the original poll. Its not actually tracking anything but the number of people that showed up, and giving projected info that we already assume anyway. Every state on this site is going to show the favorite(via the pre-election polling) as the person ahead, by the same % margin as the polling. And if that's the case, its not worth it to me to follow it any more than I have.


A lot of it is based mostly on turnout rate in red counties vs. blue counties. At least it's something to feed us some sort of info. And IMO will be interesting to see how close these predictions are to the current numbers
BTW here's the update
Florida 80.6%
Hillary +4

Colorado 77.5%
Hillary +5

Ohio 69.1
Hillary +1

Nevada 65.1%
Hillary +3

Iowa 63.2%
Trump +1

Pennsylvania 57.4%
Hillary +4

Wisconsin 57.1%
Hillary +6

New Hampshire 55.4
Hillary +4


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Are some Trump supporters really saying that people already in line should not be allowed to vote if the polling station closes while the are in line LOL

Some people need to learn the laws. Trump supporters so desperate they want to suppress voters so Trump can win ha ha how pathetic.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cabanarama said:


> A lot of it is based mostly on turnout rate in red counties vs. blue counties. At least it's something to feed us some sort of info. And IMO will be interesting to see how close these predictions are to the current numbers
> BTW here's the update
> Florida 80.6%
> Hillary +4
> 
> Colorado 77.5%
> Hillary +5
> 
> Ohio 69.1
> Hillary +1
> 
> Nevada 65.1%
> Hillary +3
> 
> Iowa 63.2%
> Trump +1
> 
> Pennsylvania 57.4%
> Hillary +4
> 
> Wisconsin 57.1%
> Hillary +6
> 
> New Hampshire 55.4
> Hillary +4


it's feeding us completely useless info considering undecideds are like 10%+ of the electorate and this is the ultimate year of the cross-party voter on both sides

:trump is expecting to win a lot of uneducated moron white working class (aka union) deplorable racist usually votes democrat votes

hillary is expecting to win a lot of embarrassing cuck bitch usually votes republican votes

this is not the year to extrapolate results from county turnout rates and applying those rates to previous voting pattern data.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Are some Trump supporters really saying that people already in line should not be allowed to vote if the polling station closes while the are in line LOL
> 
> Some people need to learn the laws. Trump supporters so desperate they want to suppress voters so Trump can win ha ha how pathetic.


When you unblock someone to read what they're saying, you should actually read what was said :lmao 

- What was said was that I disagree with the law that allows extension of *early *voting times. That is a perfectly valid thing to disagree with
- Also, this is not voter suppression because it impacts republican voters as well

It is a tactic you may disagree with, but it is a perfectly allowed tactic. It's just a lawsuit which may or may not even be entertained.


----------



## Cabanarama

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> When you unblock someone to read what they're saying, you should actually read what was said :lmao
> 
> - What was said was that I disagree with the law that allows extension of *early *voting times. That is a perfectly valid thing to disagree with
> - Also, this is not voter suppression because it impacts republican voters as well
> 
> It is a tactic you may disagree with, but it is a perfectly allowed tactic. It's just a lawsuit which may or may not even be entertained.


The lawsuit already been thrown out....


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cabanarama said:


> The lawsuit already been thrown out....


That was obvious to anyone that has half a brain. But I love the fact that a whole anti-hispanic voter suppression narrative was spun out of it before the courts even had a say despite the fact that it suppresses the republican vote as well. 

:heston


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










No one should trust early exit polls data.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Funny to see Rudy ranting and raving. Not sure why he thinks that an Evangelicals would vote for Trump LOL.

He is not even trying to hide his racism anymore in some of those tweets lol this is going to be a fun night seeing people like him go apeshit when Trump loses.


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cabanarama said:


> A lot of it is based mostly on turnout rate in red counties vs. blue counties. At least it's something to feed us some sort of info. And IMO will be interesting to see how close these predictions are to the current numbers
> BTW here's the update
> Florida 80.6%
> Hillary +4
> 
> Colorado 77.5%
> Hillary +5
> 
> Ohio 69.1
> Hillary +1
> 
> Nevada 65.1%
> Hillary +3
> 
> Iowa 63.2%
> Trump +1
> 
> Pennsylvania 57.4%
> Hillary +4
> 
> Wisconsin 57.1%
> Hillary +6
> 
> New Hampshire 55.4
> Hillary +4


Right. Its assuming numbers based on old polling data((in that district) and equal distribution of the number of people that voted. Its old polling data to make a calculated guess on what the actual numbers are. I will not be surprised if the actual numbers are considerably off from their final total. To put any faith into this process for any sort of accuracy is setting people up for anger when it is not correct.

Exit polling is and will always be a much better indicator than assuming old polling data being projected as a pure representation of who went out and actually voted.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

drudge reporting hillary up in PA

:trump up in GA, NC, AZ

FL and MI dead heat


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*If someone can point out the line *candidate* all the evangelicals are voting I'll take the opposite line. *


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Funny to see Rudy ranting and raving. Not sure why he thinks that an Evangelicals would vote for Trump LOL.
> 
> He is not even trying to hide his racism anymore in some of those tweets lol this is going to be a fun night seeing people like him go apeshit when Trump loses.


I know, like those Bernie bros did when Bernie lost out! Gonna be great!


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

CO and NV also being reported as dead heats


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> No one should trust early exit polls data.


^^


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> ^^


true but that's all we're gonna have until 7:45 ET or so for the earliest reports of actual vote tallies

:trump also being reported as up in OH and IA

BREAKING NEWS

Madonna has rescinded her promise to give blowjobs to people who vote Hillary

Reports are saying the Hillary vote has jumped 10% in response (okay that last part is made up)


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> btw need to just go back to paper ballots nationwide, got voting machines here in PA switching :trump votes to clinton (not a large number of machines apparently but it's funny how every report of voting machines switching votes nationwide has them switching :trump to clinton and not a single one the other way around)... and of course the typical 'the machines aren't working because they use windows fucking XP as their OS' bullshit at some places that goes on every election.


They had tablets at mine, where you'd go to a little booth, touch to select all the candidates, and then at the end, it would print out a copy of your ballot with a bar code on it. Then you'd just walk over and submit that.

Extremely user friendly, much lower effort than a standard paper ballot, and they don't have to print all these ballots out in advance, which could potentially be a big cost-saver. I like it. (Y)


----------



## Blackbeard

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Has Gary Johnson won yet?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Blackbeard said:


> Has Gary Johnson won yet?


he's won the most stoned presidential candidate since bill clinton election anyway


----------



## RetepAdam.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> When you unblock someone to read what they're saying, you should actually read what was said :lmao
> 
> - What was said was that I disagree with the law that allows extension of *early *voting times. That is a perfectly valid thing to disagree with
> - Also, this is not voter suppression because it impacts republican voters as well
> 
> It is a tactic you may disagree with, but it is a perfectly allowed tactic. It's just a lawsuit which may or may not even be entertained.


I see no reason early voting stations should operate by different rules than regular voting stations on Election Day. If you're in line on Election Day when the polls close, you're still able to vote. If you're in line on early voting day when the polls close, it should be the same. The whole reason for early voting to exist is so that people who aren't able to get to the polls on Tuesday can still cast their vote. As such, telling everyone waiting in line to just come back on Tuesday pretty much removes them from the equation.

While denying the people on line in Nevada a chance to get their vote in may have potentially hurt some Republican voters as well, let's be serious about the reason they were pushing for it.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795056860772478976


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> he's won the most stoned presidential candidate since bill clinton election anyway


He's just been awarded most incoherent public figure since Stu Hart.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RetepAdam. said:


> I see no reason early voting stations should operate by different rules than regular voting stations on Election Day. If you're in line on Election Day when the polls close, you're still able to vote. If you're in line on early voting day when the polls close, it should be the same. The whole reason for early voting to exist is so that people who aren't able to get to the polls on Tuesday can still cast their vote. As such, telling everyone waiting in line to just come back on Tuesday pretty much removes them from the equation.
> 
> While denying the people on line in Nevada a chance to get their vote in may have potentially hurt some Republican voters as well, let's be serious about the reason they were pushing for it.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/795056860772478976


One of the pandemics I've noticed within anti-republicans in general is their ability to mind read and also twisting some very commonly used words to have some sort of a coded racist connotation. 

It's a battleground state so you do what you can to see if there's no foul play and essentially the repub campaign workers thought they saw foul play and they reported it. I don't understand the post-mortem mind reading and arm-chair psycho-analysis. 

BTW, I will oppose that law in principle because of the fact that with queues, until and unless you've made sure no one has entered the queue after the time has ended then it's akin to opening up a new polling station. That is not a tall claim. The thing is that we don't know if there was any addition to the line. Did they cut off the line? Did they put a barrier? Did they even pay attention? Why aren't we interested in these questions as much as we are interested in twisting this into a racial narrative? 

Laws applied universally which aren't innately racist impact everyone universally.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

this is the fun time of election day

it's no fun once you know who's gonna win beyond any doubt even if they're the candidate you supported


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










If late voters are coming into play in Florida, then that means Trump has lost the election.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> If late voters are coming into play in Florida, then that means Trump has lost the election.


i'm not sure how what time of day people vote means anything

which is what drudge means i think

if what _you _ mean is people making up their minds at the last minute then historically that should favor :trump but this year it could very well mean something different. with two shitty candidates it's less likely undecideds will break for the non-incumbent like they usually do (and hillary essentially is occupying the incumbent position)


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> i'm not sure how what time of day people vote means anything
> 
> which is what drudge means i think
> 
> if what _you _ mean is people making up their minds at the last minute then historically that should favor :trump but this year it could very well mean something different. with two shitty candidates it's less likely undecideds will break for the non-incumbent like they usually do (and hillary essentially is occupying the incumbent position)


That's your analysis and it's perfectly valid. I'm coming at this from the perspective that it's not just undecideds, but it's also the millennials and hispanics that haven't yet voted because of time constraints and will rush the polls after work.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

What are your guys' perspective on the fact that someone's 6 year old kid was just sent home being indoctrinated to vote for "the girl" because "the boy" is meaner and calls girls names. 

Her mother is absolutely livid obviously because she's a Republican and has yet to introduce her kid to politics let alone influence her in this manner.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@birthday_massacre : I appreciate the rep, but I'm not voting for anyone. I'm only watching the shitshow, not partaking in it.

:trump



Tater said:


> Well played. :applause


BASED as fuck. :salute


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> What are your guys' perspective on the fact that someone's 6 year old kid was just sent home being indoctrinated to vote for "the girl" because "the boy" is meaner and calls girls names.
> 
> Her mother is absolutely livid obviously because she's a Republican and has yet to introduce her kid to politics let alone influence her in this manner.


:lol The fuck? Source please?


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> That's your analysis and it's perfectly valid. I'm coming at this from the perspective that it's not just undecideds, but it's also the millennials and hispanics that haven't yet voted because of time constraints and will rush the polls after work.


well there's your problem

1. millenials don't have jobs

2. hispanic turnout could end :trump but it remains to be seen if it will and it won't just be hispanics voting after work if it does

3. many fat and smelly GED-bearing racist deplorable white working class retards actually do have jobs and they'll be voting in the evening too

4. did i mention millenials don't have jobs


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> :lol The fuck? Source please?


It's a personal IRL friend of mine.



deepelemblues said:


> 4. did i mention millenials don't have jobs


Eh. I know about 3 millennials and am married to one of them and they all have jobs :shrug 

That said, 1 of them is a hardcore republican. The other is a Bernie supporter who hates Clinton and my wife voted Gary Johnson :draper2


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> well there's your problem
> 
> 1. millenials don't have jobs
> 
> 2. hispanic turnout could end :trump but it remains to be seen if it will and it won't just be hispanics voting after work if it does
> 
> 3. many fat and smelly GED-bearing racist deplorable white working class retards actually do have jobs and they'll be voting in the evening too
> 
> 4. did i mention millenials don't have jobs


It's a good thing millenials don't have jobs and won't get many jobs, when they finally run out of their parents money maybe they'll realize their status is their own doing and actually pull their heads from their asses!


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Eh. I know about 3 millennials and am married to one of them and they all have jobs :shrug
> 
> That said, 1 of them is a hardcore republican. The other is a Bernie supporter who hates Clinton and my wife voted Gary Johnson :draper2


remember that the plural of anecdote is not data

the millenial unemployment rate is still somewhere around 13%

plus the younger millenials were all berniebros and berniesisters well not all but i mean like a 65-35 split with her being the 35 at best for hilldawg. there's no way she's getting anywhere near obama lightwalker's millenial turnout. or maintain obama's black turnout either.

really it all comes down to the hispanic vote and the white college eduated woman vote. if :trump could have made a single sincere-looking apology and kept his mouth shut after he'd be much closer to hillary with white college educated women and be rolling towards a sure win. but he can't because he's :trump !


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Early exit polls are looking good for Johnson possibly breaking that 5 percent threshold.... hope it holds out.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://www.publicintegrity.org/201...ored-75-percent-tv-ads-2016-presidential-race

where did the money come from for such a gargantuan advertising lead

yeah hillary's the candidate that's gonna take on those damn rich folks and corporations for sure guys :heston


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> https://www.publicintegrity.org/201...ored-75-percent-tv-ads-2016-presidential-race
> 
> where did the money come from for such a gargantuan advertising lead
> 
> yeah hillary's the candidate that's gonna take on those damn rich folks and corporations for sure guys :heston


That's when I laugh in anyone's face that dares try and tell me that these candidates raising millions upon millions of dollars and are all millionaires are for the little guy and are so different from each other. Give me a fucking break.


----------



## Dr. Ian Malcolm

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

First results coming in about 20 minutes


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So my little sister is a Bernout-turned-Clinton voter. Any thoughts on how I should excommunicate her from our family?

:hmm


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> So my little sister is a Bernout-turned-Clinton voter. Any thoughts on how I should excommunicate her from our family?
> 
> :hmm


Ahhh just hug her... could use more hugs in the world right now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Where is beatles, one would think he would be a big part of election day. Hope he is feeling ok.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> What are your guys' perspective on the fact that someone's 6 year old kid was just sent home being indoctrinated to vote for "the girl" because "the boy" is meaner and calls girls names.
> 
> Her mother is absolutely livid obviously because she's a Republican and has yet to introduce her kid to politics let alone influence her in this manner.


I'd say that bimbo needs a good dicking so she can loosen the fuck up. :trump

I appreciate the rep brah and returned the favor. :cozy

With that being said, I've never voted, but will do so if a Teddy Roosevelt 2.0 ever shows up. :mark:


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Auston said:


>


For some reason I thought of this











So how long do people estimate before we pretty much know who wins?


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Final friend anecdote of Election Day (he's actually a cousin): he lives in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania decided to vote "straight Republican" (lifelong Democrat before this year) and three times in a row the machine made all of the votes go straight to "all Democrat." :lmao Had to call over a polling official and after a few minutes with the machine they were able to let him vote the way he wished to. :lol


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

If someone need a page with results


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Kabraxal said:


> Ahhh just hug her... could use more hugs in the world right now.


This is the only way a hug between her and I will end:










:trips2


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

When will we know Florida?


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Final friend anecdote of Election Day (he's actually a cousin): he lives in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania decided to vote "straight Republican" (lifelong Democrat before this year) and three times in a row the machine made all of the votes go straight to "all Democrat." :lmao Had to call over a polling official and after a few minutes with the machine they were able to let him vote the way he wished to. :lol


Lol the Clinton Juggernaut controls machinery now, I predict judgement day in about 18 months.

BTW, Lebanon County? Sounds like a muslim apologist heartland.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> Final friend anecdote of Election Day (he's actually a cousin): he lives in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania decided to vote "straight Republican" (lifelong Democrat before this year) and three times in a row the machine made all of the votes go straight to "all Democrat." :lmao Had to call over a polling official and after a few minutes with the machine they were able to let him vote the way he wished to. :lol


Someone pointed out in the thread that the machines keep turning Republican votes Democrat.. but not the other way around..I wonder why? lol


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Other issues of note on respective ballots nationwide...

Several states have on the ballot the chance to make marijuana legal including California, Massachusetts, and Arizona. 

Cities like San Francisco and Boulder, Colorado...are voting on a "soda tax." This would add an additional one cent (two cents in Boulder) per ounce for sweetened and sugary soft drinks. 

Maine has on the ballot an option for ranking your choices for elections. You would rank your choices on your ballot...if no one gets 50%, then they re-vote eliminating last-place finishers until someone gains a majority. 

Colorado residents have the chance to vote for a single-payer health care system. Basically, all insurance means would be handled by the state in a true UHC. 

And, most importantly (or not depending on how sick of a person you are) California Measure 60, if passed, would require porn films to have their male actors use condoms during the films. :smile2:


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> So how long do people estimate before we pretty much know who wins?





wwe9391 said:


> When will we know Florida?


I suspect Florida is going to keep some people up late, but if Hillary's "firewall" remains true, and she is able to pick up, say, a combination of Michigan/Nevada/Pennsylvania/Virginia/Wisconsin (never thought either Virginia or Wisconsin were flipping but just making the point) it could also be a moot academic point reasonably early in the night, too. 



Miss Sally said:


> Someone pointed out in the thread that the machines keep turning Republican votes Democrat.. but not the other way around..I wonder why? lol


One does wonder a little bit, haha.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The fact that this election is so close shows how little faith the American public have in crooked Hillary. 35 years political experience and the world media doing everything they can to drag her over the finishing line yet she is still struggling her arse off against a celebrity businessman with no political experience and very basic policy's. No matter what the outcome of tonight's vote is i cant help but feel that Trump is the real winner here


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It's getting late in the UK. How long until we know Trump has won? :rock1


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president
> 
> If someone need a page with results


You can just google 2016 election, it seems to be updated quicker than that link


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> The fact that this election is so close shows how little faith the American public have in crooked Hillary. 35 years political experience and the world media doing everything they can to drag her over the finishing line yet she is still struggling her arse off against a celebrity businessman with no political experience and very basic policy's. No matter what the outcome of tonight's vote is i cant help but feel that Trump is the real winner here


He humiliated the Republican party, exposed the dishonest and biased media, raised corruption awareness, and made himself a bigger name. He still wins even in defeat.



> Several states have on the ballot the chance to make marijuana legal including California, Massachusetts, and Arizona.


Nevada also.

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> He humiliated the Republican party, exposed the dishonest media, raised corruption awareness, and made himself a bigger name. He still wins even in defeat.
> 
> 
> 
> Nevada also.
> 
> - Vic


I go to Nevada twice a year for vacation.. I hope they legalize! 0


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Florida gonna be the decider


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

and Ohio. No President has won the election without it since JFK. 

- Vic


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is dramatically out preforming 2 important Florida counties that Obama had won in 2012.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> and Ohio. No President has won the election without it since JFK.
> 
> - Vic


Hillary easily could, though, if she just holds on to a few of the other swing states.

Meanwhile, out here in California:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-azusa-shooting-injuries-20161108-story.html

Apparently an "active shooter" has shot one person dead and multiple other people have been shot.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump: 19
Clinton: 3

It has begun.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> The fact that this election is so close shows how little faith the American public have in crooked Hillary. 35 years political experience and the world media doing everything they can to drag her over the finishing line yet she is still struggling her arse off against a celebrity businessman with no political experience and very basic policy's. No matter what the outcome of tonight's vote is i cant help but feel that Trump is the real winner here


The other side of the coin is usually when a certain party has two consecutive terms in office, people are so sick of them that usually the other side can be a shoe in because people think a change of party will be better by default.

Add that to all of Hillary's scandals and troubles and Benghazi, if and when she wins I think she'll be the real winner.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump: Kentucky, Indiana

Hillary: Vermont

19 - 3


----------



## amhlilhaus

Early returns show hiliary is gonna win big!

Cant wait, got my popcorn ready!


----------



## Arkham258

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If Trump wins this, I think I'm moving to Europe and leaving this joke of a country


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Trump: Kentucky, Indiana
> 
> Hillary: Vermont
> 
> 19 - 3


Trump calls for early voting shutdown. TRUMP WINS TRUMP WINS!


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary has outperformed Obama in 7 of the 8 Indiana counties already in, the Kentucky numbers are also bad. Numbers early are consistent with a 5%, 6% national difference

Still too early to say but no good for Trump already.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> I have booked tomorrow off work so i can stay up late for this tonight :mark:
> 
> If Hillary wins Florida and this is done and dusted early i will be mighty pissed
> 
> Let battle commence
> 
> opcorn


The main event this election is the concession speech from either candidate. You'll be entertained either way if you can avoid sleeping. :lol


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Arkham258 said:


> If Trump wins this, I think I'm moving to Europe and leaving this joke of a country


You mean Germany or Sweden that's infested with radical Muslims?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-azusa-shooting-injuries-20161108-story.html

and its started

1 dead, multiple people shot near Azusa polling station; active shooter heavily armed, officials said


Lets hope this is not a trend.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

CNN is saying Trump is getting Florida. Fuckin CNN!


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@AryaDark @CamillePunk @Carte Blanche @Fringe @Miss Sally @Vic Capri

Fellow on K Street I know knows several people in the RNC and his impression from talking with them is that they are feeling "bullish" about Michigan and Ohio but are "sweating bullets" over Colorado, Nevada and Florida. 

While it's technically possible for Trump to win the presidency without Florida, if Florida goes to Hillary, she has something like a 90% or even better chance to win the White House tonight based on my own napkin calculations based on all theoretical electoral college permutations.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> CNN is saying Trump is getting Florida. Fuckin CNN!


Look at the counties......


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> Trump: 19
> Clinton: 3
> 
> It has begun.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-azusa-shooting-injuries-20161108-story.html
> 
> and its started
> 
> 1 dead, multiple people shot near Azusa polling station; active shooter heavily armed, officials said
> 
> 
> Lets hope this is not a trend.


Jesus christ, can't there be a fucking event or thing that doesn't get shot up FFS. Talk about an issue putting people off voting altogether.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

All right, Florida's looking bad for Trump. :lol 

I recall posting that story about how the Democrats had registered something like 600,000 versus 50,000 new voters in Florida a few weeks ago. It's looking like that may be the telltale story of this whole election. :lol

"Demography is destiny," @AryaDark and @CamillePunk.

That's a cool feature, @asdf0501. It's looking like something of a repeat of 2012 at this point. :lol


----------



## Unorthodox

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Being from the UK I want trump to win not that I support him I just want to see what happens... It will feel anti climatic if Hilary wind after everything.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump picks up 5 more electorate votes. 24-3...


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump: 24 (Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia)

Hillary: 3 (Vermont)

- Vic


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump leading VA so far. 13 votes on the line


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president


----------



## amhlilhaus

yeahbaby! said:


> asdf0501 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president
Click to expand...

If hilary wins she needs to go on raw


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Unorthodox said:


> Being from the UK I want trump to win not that I support him I just want to see what happens... It will feel anti climatic if Hilary wind after everything.


It won't be _that_ anti-climactic. That Russo-American World War coming in a few months should at least be interesting! :mark: How many times will President Clinton 2.0 fall over in public between now and her inauguration? :mark:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump has swung a 40k voter deficit to 60k lead in Florida.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> If hilary wins she needs to go on raw


Only if she is against Trump and Stone Cold is the referee and it ends exactly like WMXX did between Brock and Goldberg.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Also on the ballot is a initiative to provide public funding in SAN Diego for a new Chargers stadium. However it would require 2/3 in favor to pass. 

Lot to tell in about 15 minutes when Florida and Pennsylvania close their polls.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Florida 10% above minimum required to pass Medical Marijuana.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It seems this is gonna be a pretty short night guys.

Rubio is leading Murphy by 400.000 votes. Trump is wining by 160.000. Lot of split votes


----------



## Hencheman_21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If Trump wins it will be a sad day for me. Not that he will be the new president but that a majority of voters actually voted for the nut job. I understand not voting for Hilary but to actually vote for Trump. Shows this country has a LONG way to go. 

Oh well if he wins either he will somehow actually do good things or he will do as I expect and those that voted for him will be left shaking their head. Not to mention he will help make Bush W's presidency look not as bad.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The official Trump victory cake is officially fucking frightening.












Hillary spent considerably less money, the cheap slag


----------



## GeniusSmark

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Democrats don't know what hole to put their gender confused fingers in


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> If Trump wins it will be a sad day for me. Not that he will be the new president but that a majority of voters actually voted for the nut job. I understand not voting for Hilary but to actually vote for Trump. Shows this country has a LONG way to go.


You can thank Obama for running this country further into the ground.

- Vic


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump takes South Carolina. 33-3. Oh boy.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary losing Virginia :mark:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Florida just swung back to Hillary. 

That's how it's going to be all night probably.

This is why they call it a battleground state [emoji38]


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> The official Trump victory cake is officially fucking frightening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hillary spent considerably less money, the cheap slag


Trump's cake looks like the CEO from Robocop


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

What is disheartening, is that Johnson is stuck at 2 percent in this early going. I hope that goes up or it just proves, that with these two fucktards running, that people are just stupid and easily fooled into the "us v them" bullshit. There is no reason for over 90 percent of the vote to go to two people so reviled.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Florida just swung back to Hillary.
> 
> That's how it's going to be all night probably.
> 
> This is why they call it a battleground state [emoji38]


Panhandle County has yet to drop. Trump is doing well in that county


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> Panhandle County has yet to drop. Trump is doing well in that county


Yeah I'm guessing these were the results out of Miami. The interesting thing to me is Tallahassee went with Clinton. Totally unexpected.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

BTW anyone that thinks that people are voting Trump and Hillary don't really understand party affiliation in the states. 

People aren't voting Trump or Hillary as much as they are voting their parties.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



virus21 said:


> Trump's cake looks like the CEO from Robocop


OMG yes. When Trump loses he's going to unveil the Robocop robot thing.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Carte Blanche said:


> BTW anyone that thinks that people are voting Trump and Hillary don't really understand party affiliation in the states.
> 
> People aren't voting Trump or Hillary as much as they are voting their parties.


Thats how it always is.

I split my vote, im not a total partisan


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Yeah I'm guessing these were the results out of Miami. The interesting thing to me is Tallahassee went with Clinton. Totally unexpected.


It was cause of Broward Early voting dropped


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> BTW anyone that thinks that people are voting Trump and Hillary don't really understand party affiliation in the states.
> 
> People aren't voting Trump or Hillary as much as they are voting their parties.


As I said... people are too stupid and easily fooled into making it "us v them": "We have two horrible candidates, but god damn it I'm too stupid and I'm going to vote for this fucking jerk off because of this letter by the name!". 

I keep forgetting that as low as I set my standards for humanity, they manage to continually underperform them.


----------



## amhlilhaus

yeahbaby! said:


> virus21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's cake looks like the CEO from Robocop
> 
> 
> 
> OMG yes. When Trump loses he's going to unveil the Robocop robot thing.
Click to expand...

Te first robocop was STUPIDLY violent! Almost as bad as the toxic avenger


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Seen so many "I VOTED" stickers on people today. A small but telling expression of political decline. 

Several Enlightenment philosophers thought that virtuous hoplite men of letters contributing _noblesse oblige_ in the patriarchal governing of republican principalities. 

Virtue signaling how one voted undermines the connective tissue fabric that, to a degree, informed the Myth of Err at the end of Plato's _The Republic_.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Kabraxal said:


> Carte Blanche said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW anyone that thinks that people are voting Trump and Hillary don't really understand party affiliation in the states.
> 
> People aren't voting Trump or Hillary as much as they are voting their parties.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said... people are too stupid and easily fooled into making it "us v them": "We have two horrible candidates, but god damn it I'm too stupid and I'm going to vote for this fucking jerk off because of this letter by the name!".
> 
> I keep forgetting that as low as I set my standards for humanity, they manage to continually underperform them.
Click to expand...

Dont lower your standards!

People take it as a challenge


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump: 66
Clinton: 75 

It's getting heated now.

@DesolationRow

Hahaha I think you and I can both appreciate this meme.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796155075513024513


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> Dont lower your standards!
> 
> People take it as a challenge


Why didn't they take my high bar expectations as a challenge then... they just bitched it was too much work <_<


----------



## amhlilhaus

Kabraxal said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont lower your standards!
> 
> People take it as a challenge
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't they take my high bar expectations as a challenge then... they just bitched it was too much work <_<
Click to expand...

Its how we roll


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> All right, Florida's looking bad for Trump. :lol
> 
> I recall posting that story about how the Democrats had registered something like 600,000 versus 50,000 new voters in Florida a few weeks ago. It's looking like that may be the telltale story of this whole election. :lol


Already predicted well before the results were in that it was looking like the hispanic vote in Florida will determine the president this year - and seems like my prediction is coming true.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Senate it's looking to be R, so 4 years more without SCOTUS :lmao


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










The Weather Channel has on a show called Escape the Election with a description of "clouds, rainbows, autumn splendor and smooth jazz evoke tranquility" but the image on the screen looks like it's about to turn into a storm. So, yeah... that about sums up this entire election.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Already predicted well before the results were in that it was looking like the hispanic vote in Florida will determine the president this year - and seems like my prediction is coming true.


It's also the spliting of votes. Rubio is crushing Murphy


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Already predicted well before the results were in that it was looking like the hispanic vote in Florida will determine the president this year - and seems like my prediction is coming true.


I still find it so strange that one of the most conservative populations, by actual beliefs, so strongly supports the far more liberal party in this country. Having lived in Hispanic strongholds after getting back from being overseas, I was floored by how conservative they were given the overwhelming voting patterns I witnessed for years.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> It's also the spliting of votes. Rubio is crushing Murphy


People who voted Rubio for senate can also vote Trump for president. Not sure if we have enough details to make the determination about what percentage of Rubio supporters voted Hillary/Trump at this point.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Kabraxal said:


> I still find it so strange that one of the most conservative populations, by actual beliefs, so strongly supports the far more liberal party in this country. Having lived in Hispanic strongholds after getting back from being overseas, I was floored by how conservative they were given the overwhelming voting patterns I witnessed for years.


It's a direct result of democratic pandering and misconceptions of the hispanics that the social liberalism pandering of the democrats actually make their lives better or worse. 

The facts are quite different, but it's too easy to convince minorities that the big bad GOP is racist while the Democrats are their saviors. 

The GOP needs to fight its negative branding and improve its image for the future and that is the lesson they need to learn from this election.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Rubio just won


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Florida tight as fuck right now


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Texas is leaning blue, *WTF?*

- Vic


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Texas is leaning blue, *WTF?*
> 
> - Vic


That will be a bigger shock then the streak ending. I doubt she wins it tho


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Texas is leaning blue, *WTF?*
> 
> - Vic


Theyve only counted San Antonio right?


----------



## amhlilhaus

wwe9391 said:


> Vic Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas is leaning blue, *WTF?*
> 
> - Vic
> 
> 
> 
> That will be a bigger shock then the streak ending. I doubt she wins it tho
Click to expand...

Nah, dems have flooded texas with voters for years, soon it will be a safe democrat state


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Guys, don't focus on the overall numbers right now. Zoom in to the map and you'll see what's really going on at the county level :kobelol



Machiavelli said:


> Florida tight as fuck right now


Right now yes, but Miami has only reported 80% in and they've gone about 64% Democrat. 

Could potentially be off-set by the North-West, but Trump has lost all of the major urban cities. All of them and by wide margins. Not even close so Florida being in play right now is deceptive imo.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> It's a direct result of democratic pandering and misconceptions of the hispanics that the social liberalism pandering of the democrats actually make their lives better or worse.
> 
> The facts are quite different, but it's too easy to convince minorities that the big bad GOP is racist while the Democrats are their saviors.
> 
> The GOP needs to fight its negative branding and improve its image for the future and that is the lesson they need to learn from this election.


Wouldn't you say that is the same for white evangelicals on the GOP side?

Large chunks of both demographic refuse to listen to anything the other party is saying even if the policies benefit them because they believe they are not welcomed by the America of that party.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Florida is going to fuck us all.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

NYT is projecting Trump in Florida.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Machiavelli said:


> Florida is going to fuck us all.


This whole election is gonna fuck us all


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Guys, don't focus on the overall numbers right now. Zoom in to the map and you'll see what's really going on at the county level :kobelol


Many cities tend to lean liberal and rural areas run conservative. I know that in Iowa all of the cities except Sioux City are blue on the map. 

Rand Paul retains his seat in KY, Todd Young wins the seat in Indiana that a retiring Republican left. Mark Kirk loses in Illinois and he was Never Trump from the start.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> NYT is projecting Trump in Florida.


Based on what?


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump and Hillary neck and nack in Michigan so far


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

NBC News projects the Republicans will control the House of Representatives.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Based on what?


Share of the vote left.

is a 3.1% difference anyway so is heavily inside margin of error


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> This whole election is gonna fuck us all


Seriously... and while everyone else is flipping out about Florida and Virginia and shit, I'm here watching 2 percent eek to 3 percent for Johnson just hoping he inches past 5 million so the influx of millions of dollars in the next cycle can actually help grow a third party faster.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hearing Trump is ahead in Florida?


----------



## Unorthodox

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

UFC 205 is getting a lot of promotion on Sky tonight. The ad has been popping up on the screen in the background all night.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Unorthodox said:


> UFC 205 is getting a lot of promotion on Sky tonight. The ad has been popping up on the screen in the background all night.


Biggest UFC PPV in history buddy


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Machiavelli said:


> Hearing Trump is ahead in Florida?


According to this Twitter anywas

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796162782483845120


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Kabraxal said:


> Seriously... and while everyone else is flipping out about Florida and Virginia and shit, I'm here watching 2 percent eek to 3 percent for Johnson just hoping he inches past 5 million so the influx of millions of dollars in the next cycle can actually help grow a third party faster.


Jill Stein is only at 0.6% LOL

Pot is legalized in MA.


----------



## Stormbringer

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Maybe I'm young but I gotta ask.

When did women become this victimized group? They weren't this "key demographic" in '08 and '12.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Thank you Virginia


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










I'm on the edge of my seat right now!

- Vic


----------



## sesshomaru

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DX-Superkick said:


> Maybe I'm young but I gotta ask.
> 
> When did women become this victimized group? They weren't this "key demographic" in '08 and '12.


Cuz women's vote didn't matter in 08 and 12.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> Share of the vote left.
> 
> is a 3.1% difference anyway so is heavily inside margin of error


I wonder if they've accounted for the fact that Trump is only close with Broward not even reporting exit polls yet. 

Palm Beach is only around 50% and that stretch (Palm, Broward and Miami) is where the Hispanic vote is. 



Machiavelli said:


> Hearing Trump is ahead in Florida?


^See above.


----------



## Phaedra

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Let's just be thankful it's all over now. okay? yeah? yeah  be happy no matter what, be nice, but mostly be happy that the fucking dumpster fire has died down and you don't all have to breathe in it's fumes anymore. Business as normal for another four year till they start that shit up again. lol 

peace.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

VA most likely going to Trump. Im very surprised he looks to be getting that state.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Virginia and Florida are just smaller examples of what has happened to the country. It is, at best, split between two groups at nearly a 50/50 rate (if you take out the reluctant votes in that scheme that would, ideally go third party, it be be 45/45 with the rest of us wondering if we can just have our own island). I don't see how this country moves on as one actual country anymore. The division is too stark and neither side wants to work with the other.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> VA most likely going to Trump. Im very surprised he looks to be getting that state.


It wouldn't be that surprising. VA is traditionally red, minus the Obama aberration.

But, normally the DC-area NOVA votes come in late. Romney led VA for a long while too on election night until those votes came in.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Kabraxal said:


> Virginia and Florida are just smaller examples of what has happened to the country. It is, at best, split between two groups at nearly a 50/50 rate (if you take out the reluctant votes in that scheme that would, ideally go third party, it be be 45/45 with the rest of us wondering if we can just have our own island). I don't see how this country moves on as one actual country anymore. The division is too stark and neither side wants to work with the other.


Balkanization is for the best. 

It was tried in 1861 and the imperial federal government stomped it out with 700,000 killed. In today's numbers, that's about 7 million people.

Imagine the Obama government launching an invasion that killed 7 million Americans if red states tried to secede.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Kabraxal said:


> Virginia and Florida are just smaller examples of what has happened to the country. It is, at best, split between two groups at nearly a 50/50 rate (if you take out the reluctant votes in that scheme that would, ideally go third party, it be be 45/45 with the rest of us wondering if we can just have our own island). I don't see how this country moves on as one actual country anymore. The division is too stark and neither side wants to work with the other.


The ground reality is so different from what you're saying... 

The Hurricane Matthew that I experienced here was the greatest feat of humans working together I have ever witnessed in my life. 

Party affiliations and votes and leadership really doesn't make that much of a difference as you seem to be preaching it does.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> The ground reality is so different from what you're saying...
> 
> The Hurricane Matthew that I experienced here was the greatest feat of humans working together I have ever witnessed in my life.
> 
> Party affiliations and votes and leadership really doesn't make that much of a difference as you seem to be preaching it does.


So you've country wide disaster to get us working together again?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Kabraxal said:


> So you've country wide disaster to get us working together again?


We haven't stopped working together. The doom and gloom you're experiencing is a temporary illusion IMO. 

America is still pretty great not the greatest but still pretty great and will continue to be no matter who wins.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Can someone give me an update on the Florida situation?


----------



## sesshomaru

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Kabraxal said:


> So you've country wide disaster to get us working together again?


No, he's saying that people can have different opinions without any issues.


----------



## virus21

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Can someone give me an update on the Florida situation?


Leaning in Trump's favor at the moment.

- Vic


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump's at 137 right now, Clinton's at 104......................


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Nyt is confusing. Trump has nearly a 5 point lead with 76% reporting(120k vote lead), but have clinton at 90% chance of winning. Seems a little high.. i dont care what districts results are outstanding


----------



## Stormbringer

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If we had two inhabitable planets do you think we could have a clean split from each other? I like thinking that it could work but it always falls apart at "who stays and who goes?" Leaving makes you the "loser" and no group wants to lose.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Even if Trump loses, it warms my heart to see all these progressives/liberals on my Twitter feed who are shocked & nervous at how close this is.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> Nyt is confusing. Trump has nearly a 5 point lead with 76% reporting(120k vote lead), but have clinton at 90% chance of winning. Seems a little high.. i dont care what districts results are outstanding


It just dropped to 67% of her winning that is huge


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> Nyt is confusing. Trump has nearly a 5 point lead with 76% reporting(120k vote lead), but have clinton at 90% chance of winning. Seems a little high.. i dont care what districts results are outstanding


Well the whole point is what districts are outstanding. If it was mostly traditionally blue states already counted with Trump ahead then they would be saying Trump is high chance to win, no?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> Nyt is confusing. Trump has nearly a 5 point lead with 76% reporting(120k vote lead), but have clinton at 90% chance of winning. Seems a little high.. i dont care what districts results are outstanding


You probably should because the ones not reporting are squarely Hillary and therefore her vote count is under-reported at the moment - and the under-reporting is amongst counties with high hispanic populations.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is gonna win Florida :mark:


----------



## amhlilhaus

The Absolute said:


> Even if Trump loses, it warms my heart to see all these progressives/liberals on my Twitter feed who are shocked & nervous at how close this is.


Dont worry, when clinton wins theyll be back to being insufferable


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Quick snapshot, trump leading by 1.5 million votes atm.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Machiavelli said:


> Trump is gonna win Florida :mark:


Source?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Machiavelli said:


> Trump is gonna win Florida :mark:


Broward and Miami will potentially come into play later on. (Broward is 70% hillary with only 91 of 577 precincts reporting) and Miami is also not fully in. 

Give it another hour or so before celebrating.

Edit: It's starting to til more towards Trump in Florida. Broward is 50% in and Hillary is actually declining. 

*Trump is taking Florida, people ... Holy shit.*


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> Even if Trump loses, it warms my heart to see all these progressives/liberals on my Twitter feed who are shocked & nervous at how close this is.


Not that I have a horse in this race, but part of my kind of wants Hillary just to win to keep them out of Canada :lol


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Yea don't hold your breaths on Florida for Trump yet.


----------



## WrestlingOracle

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Doesn't Trump still need some of the west coast "blue wall" to crack even if he wins Florida or am I mistaken?


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> Nyt is confusing. Trump has nearly a 5 point lead with 76% reporting(120k vote lead), but have clinton at 90% chance of winning. Seems a little high.. i dont care what districts results are outstanding



Was 90 % a hour ago. 67% now

Newt Gingrich said all along that the working class white voter will come out on election day and vote Trump

Brexit 2 happening here?


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Clinton catching up in VA. Yea she will probably take that.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Texas declared for Trump. Whew.



> Trump is gonna win Florida


Ohio, come on down!

- Vic


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Broward and Miami will potentially come into play later on. (Broward is 70% hillary with only 91 of 577 precincts reporting) and Miami is also not fully in.
> 
> Give it another hour or so before celebrating.
> 
> Edit: It's starting to til more towards Trump in Florida. Broward is 50% in and Hillary is actually declining.
> 
> *Trump is taking Florida, people ... Holy shit.*


:mj


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> Brexit 2 happening here?


Except the part where elite pricks try to overturn the people's vote. :side:


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

NYT predictor now has Clinton at 58%

:dance :dance :dance


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Broward could flip florida back blue


----------



## amhlilhaus

The Absolute said:


> Rowdy Yates said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brexit 2 happening here?
> 
> 
> 
> Except the part where elite pricks try to overturn the people's vote.
Click to expand...

Thats some bullshit what theyre trying to do


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> Broward could flip florida back blue


Yup. But it's gone from 70% early results to 67% in the last 30 minutes so it might not make that much of an impact. 

Also, Miami is still only at 93% reported and in terms of sheer size of the electorate it could still put the dems back in the driver seat.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is running away with OH it seems.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a fight to finish!

- Vic


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> It just dropped to 67% of her winning that is huge


Its now at 50% 

:duck


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Brexit part 2 happening.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If Clinton cant take Virginia she's gonna be in deep shit


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Ladies and gentlemen, this is a fight to finish!
> 
> - Vic


:yes :yes :yes :yes :yes :yes :yes :yes :yes :yes :yes :yes :yes :yes


----------



## Mainboy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

What time is the voting likely to finish (uk time)


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

We're kinda too focused on Florida at the moment. Florida is just state that sets the stage for Trump's path to victory (meaning he has to win Florida in order to have any hope of winning the presidency).

Never forget the guaranteed 55 electoral votes Clinton is guaranteed without even campaigning in California. They should pretty much add the California EV to Clinton. 

So essentially it is 159 - 137 for Hillary at this point.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:mark: :mark: :mark:

*NBC NEWS IS STARTING TO COME TO GRIPS WITH THE FACT THAT TRUMP MIGHT WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BREXIT PART 2 INCOMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Betfair betting site had Trump at 5/1 to win 2 hours ago

He is now 5/4 favourite. Very similar betting patterns to Brexit


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Mainboy said:


> What time is the voting likely to finish (uk time)


It depends.

I think Obama was announced at around 4am UK time.


GO TRUMP


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> What time is the voting likely to finish (uk time)


It won't be long if Trump can steal New Hampshire, Michigan, and / or Minnesota.

- Vic


----------



## Stipe Tapped

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If Trump wins FL, OH and IA and flips MI, it's done. Please God let this be a Brexit 2.0.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

WAT









Apparently the NYT forecast has shifted to Trump.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

VA neck and neck now.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Buckle up lads, the next 2 hours is gonna be fucking intense


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> It won't be long if Trump can steal New Hampshire, Michigan, and / or Minnesota.
> 
> - Vic


It's only 10% reported, but I'm just gonna have a big hearty laugh at the fact that Trump is leading the county that has Detroit in it ...


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

While we're waiting, let's see how the liberals & progressives on Twitter are reacting to this night so far:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796177539286716418

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796177263603527681

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796159585254076418


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Michigan and Virginia are surprises. :O


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

NYT now has Trump at 55%.... .....and that's an organization that leans to the left.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Buckle up, buckaroos.









http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If Trump wins I'm gonna troll the fuck out of Alec Baldwin, Rosey Odonell, and Mylie Cyrus


----------



## Erik.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Amazing.

America, how did it come to this? :lmao


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This pretty similar to Brexit, a lot of urban areas undervoting while rural sector keep overperfoming, outside of demos

still, the miss is even bigger if it concretes


----------



## Stormbringer

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> If Trump wins I'm gonna troll the fuck out of Alec Baldwin, Rosey Odonell, and Mylie Cyrus


LEAVE *MILEY* ALONE!


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hrishikesh Hirway is a fucking cuck


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:lmao Progressive filmmaker Michael Moore just called Michigan, Ohio & Pennsylvania the "Brexit" states and that they're going to regret voting for Trump. He's already in "concession speech" mode.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Erik. said:


> Amazing.
> 
> America, how did it come to this? :lmao


I dunno, but I'm enjoying the meltdown.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I think it's a safe bet the the NYT predictor is a complete and utter broken mess cobbled together by some hack programmers and even worse mathematicians :kobelol 

That's all.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> While we're waiting, let's see how the liberals & progressives on Twitter are reacting to this night so far:


Can't wait for Mick Foley's meltdown.

- Vic


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Asian markets plunge as Donald Trump looks set for Florida victory


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796177430985773057
:mark:

Fuck yeah! This is exactly the outcome I wanted. Trump is going to win and the markets are crashing. Tonight couldn't be going any better. Burn this fucker to the ground!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> :lmao Progressive filmmaker Michael Moore just called Michigan, Ohio & Pennsylvania the "Brexit" states and that they're going to regret voting for Trump. He's already in "concession speech" mode.


Fuckers like him will NEVER acknowledge that it is essentially mooching off the wealth of a republican that saved Detroit from complete and utter ruin.

While the middle-class blue collar worker that knows this is the one this piece of shit has been speaking down to ever since he took up the platform. 

These are the fascist liberals that are sucking this country dry and it is exactly his ilk that is helping Trump win.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Said it a few days ago on here, but this really does feel like watching the season finale of a tv show


----------



## Stipe Tapped

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Ben fucking Shapiro is now saying Trump is probably going to win. I want to see a Trump victory more for the Alex Jones victory celebration than anything else at this stage.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> Asian markets plunge as Donald Trump looks set for Florida victory
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796177430985773057
> :mark:
> 
> Fuck yeah! This is exactly the outcome I wanted. Trump is going to win and the markets are crashing. Tonight couldn't be going any better. Burn this fucker to the ground!


You want people to lose their pension to satisfy your liberal fantasy? Whut?


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary won Virginia by a 5,000 vote difference. Wow!

- Vic


----------



## Stormbringer

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Erik. said:


> America, how did it come to this?


Well, the worst thing you can say about Donald is he's a loud mouth asshat. And IF America put LITERALLY anyone else next to Trump, we'd all be asleep right now. Problem is you've got someone who's flip flopped on EVERYTHING as his opponent. Black men are the worst of the worst, SUPER PREDATORS that belong in jail. Yet she's pro family togetherness, the fuck?! No gays, yes gays....again, the fuck!?


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Machiavelli said:


> Said it a few days ago on here, but this really does feel like watching the season finale of a tv show


More like watching game 7 of the World Series *AGAIN!!!!!* (Except this time, I might be pleased with the results.)

*EDIT:* NYT at 63% for Trump!! :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If Trump wins Lebron James, Al Pacino, and Jay-Z are getting fired..somehow


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

She just won VA


----------



## amhlilhaus

wwe9391 said:


> She just won VA


Lol at the early trump celebrations


----------



## Ronny

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DX-Superkick said:


> Well, the worst thing you can say about Donald is he's a loud mouth asshat. And IF America put LITERALLY anyone else next to Trump, we'd all be asleep right now. Problem is you've got someone who's flip flopped on EVERYTHING as his opponent. Black men are the worst of the worst, SUPER PREDATORS that belong in jail. Yet she's pro family togetherness, the fuck?! No gays, yes gays....again, the fuck!?


Liberals can get away with virtually anything lets be honest


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump: 140
Clinton: 104

*HE HAS PASSED THE HALFWAY MARK!!!!! 130 TO GO!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Results stalled in Broward and Palm Beach (Florida). 

Both Clinton strongholds. 

Trump isn't on the path of victory yet. His lead in Florida is only 120k which can still be overturned.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



amhlilhaus said:


> Lol at the early trump celebrations


I'm just having fun lol, I didn't vote for either.

This shit is entertaining.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The fact that winning Virgina is looked at as some kind of huge victory for Clinton really tells the story of the night. That state should've been a lay-up.

TRUMP keeping it interesting which is all we can ask for


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> Trump: 140
> Clinton: 104
> 
> *HE HAS PASSED THE HALFWAY MARK!!!!! 130 TO GO!!!!!!!!!*


You should add California, Oregon and Washington to this because they are safely Clinton strongholds and they're not going to be in play - at all. 

And add Idaho and Utah to Trump. 

So it's more like 178-150 in favor of Clinton right now confirmed.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

2 hours ago NYT had Clinton at 84% chance of winning

Trump now has a 68% chance of winning

Crazy shit happening here folks


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Ronny927 said:


>


So accurate


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> You want people to lose their pension to satisfy your liberal fantasy? Whut?


:HA

You clearly have no idea what I want.


----------



## Walking Deadman

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The commentary, and meltdowns from both sides has provided me much entertainment over the last few days. I am kind of mean like that.


----------



## Ronny

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Welp Donald is now at 73%...


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Stipe Tapped

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm trying to not get over-excited, but we may be witnessing the biggest political miracle since Jesse Ventura.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump inching towards Florida win!


----------



## THANOS

Ronny927 said:


> Welp Donald is now at 73%...


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Just got home. I didn't want to subject myself to like 8 hours of election coverage. So I saw Dr. Strange at 7:20. It was great. 

And holy shit Trump has a chance to win this.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:lmao :lmao

Speechless right now


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> I'm trying to not get over-excited, but we may be witnessing the biggest political miracle since Jesse Ventura.












- Vic


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm starting to become skeptic of that NYT forecast, especially since there's still so many close-calls and so many states left. This picture is pretty nice though.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796186614821163008


----------



## Pratchett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Michigan at the moment starting to look more and more like a battleground state. With 26^ of the vote in, Trump is leading by 5%. 

So is Wisconsin.With 38% reported, Trump is up by nearly 2%. 

Even having these two states in play is one HELL of an accomplishment. 

And the media were making fun of Trump for making stops in Michigan :lol


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

James Comey watching the election

:no


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796190337983217665
EDIT:

:mark: :mark: :mark:

*TRUMP HAS WON AMERICA'S BELOVED BUCKEYE STATE!!!!!!!!!!!*

And we've picked the winner of EVERY presidential election since 1964. Sooooooooo........................ :draper2


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796190337983217665


We had all this shit on brexit night

It has not made a blind bit of difference to the cost of living


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

NYT now has Trump at 80% after he decidedly won my beloved home state. Still a long way to go, but......


----------



## amhlilhaus

The Absolute said:


> I'm starting to become skeptic of that NYT forecast, especially since there's still so many close-calls and so many states left. This picture is pretty nice though.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796186614821163008


That lady in the purple has a nice rack


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

NBC just called Ohio for Trump.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump won Ohio?!?!?!


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Fox News calls Colorado for HRC, Ohio for DJT.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Machiavelli said:


> Trump won Ohio?!?!?!


Yup. We did that. You're welcome, America.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*OMFG, TRUMP JUST WON OHIO!!!* :mark:

- Vic


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It seems it's going to be down to Michigan and Wisconsin


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

538 now saying Trump is the favourite to win 55-44. Pollsters really underrepresented the rural vote this time.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Things are going great for Trump but it only takes 1 of the big swing states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan) to go blue and its a huge problem for Trump

Trump has no room for failure. Very fine margins


----------



## Mra22

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Thank you Jesus! Things are looking really good, please Lord have mercy on us for 4 more years.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Grassley keeps his Senate seat...so the narrative that his holding up the nomination of Garland would cost him didn't hold water.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> 538 now saying Trump is the favourite to win 55-44.* Pollsters really underrepresented the rural vote this time*.


I said that after the brexit vote that i would never trust a poll again and you said America is different. No way will they get it so wrong. You still stand by that?


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










:lmao


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Come on, Michigan. Finish this bad boy and send Trump into the White House.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I feel like I'm watching the NFL draft right now.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796175068527206400
:lol


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Im surprised they haven't called Georgia yet.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Mra22

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Let's go Michigan!!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Florida almost confirmed for Trumo. Just waiting on a handful of precincts in Broward and Palm Beach ... Who are probably just too devastated to call it right now :kobelol

With almost 140k ahead, I don't think the 10-15 precincts in Broward and Palm Beach will come into play (just an opinion).


----------



## Walking Deadman

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This race is hard to put into words. Since its inception it's felt like something out of the Simpsons, or South Park, with this final race feeling like Bob vs. Quimby.


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> I said that after the brexit vote that i would never trust a poll again and you said America is different. No way will they get it so wrong. You still stand by that?


I still stand by it. They have called the results with more consistency in America than in Britain for a long time because turnout in American elections is more predictable and voting patterns more predictable due to the two party system. A few mistakes doesn't mean it is all shit.

I've long called this the presidential election the GOP's to lose base on America voting history. Only Trump made it competitive because of how divisive and unlikable he is.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Florida almost confirmed for Trumo. Just waiting on a handful of precincts in Broward and Palm Beach ... Who are probably just too devastated to call it right now :kobelol
> 
> With almost 140k ahead, I don't think the 10-15 precincts in Broward and Palm Beach will come into play (just an opinion).


They're trying hard to figure out how to manufacture fake votes at the last minute.


----------



## Solf

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Things are getting crazy on french TV. It's like those broadcasters are openly rooting for Hillary or smth. Should've seen the faces they were making when they saw Trump leading. Priceless. Fucking puppets.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

NYT has Trump at 93%. Guys, is..... ......is this really about to happen?


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

He just won NC!!


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



markoutsmarkout said:


> They're trying hard to figure out how to manufacture fake votes at the last minute.


Eh. I don't want to believe in conspiracy theories at all this election. 

It is the Clinton Hispanic bloc.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

N O R T H C A R O L I N A B O Y S


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Fox News calls North Carolina for Trump now. I have a feeling this might happen...the liberal Democrats are now about to take over the Republican Party with the socialist Trump in charge. 



Walking Deadman said:


> This race is hard to put into words. Since its inception it's felt like something out of the Simpsons, or South Park, with this final race feeling like Bob vs. Quimby.


South Park looked to be doing their episode tomorrow with HRC (Turd Sandwich) as President...will they have to re-do the episode now? That means in the South Park universe Mr. Garrison is now President.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

People that voted for either of them


----------



## Erik.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> South Park looked to be doing their episode tomorrow with HRC (Turd Sandwich) as President...will they have to re-do the episode now? That means in the South Park universe Mr. Garrison is now President.


They took last week off, so I suspect they actually made two episodes and will decide which one to air based on who wins.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*THE ASSOCIATED PRESS SAYS TRUMP WILL WIN FLORIDA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BREXIT 2.0 IS ALMOST UPON US!!!!!!!!!!!! LET’S DO THIS, AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Mra22

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump just got North Carolina!!!


----------



## DammitChrist

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Tater said:


> They took last week off, so I suspect they actually made two episodes and will decide which one to air based on who wins.


lol that makes sense tbh. That wouldn't surprise me at all. I know they can be clever


----------



## Stormbringer

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Mra22 said:


> Trump just got North Carolina!!!


Neither ABC or NBC are showing that? Is it Fox?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> *THE ASSOCIATED PRESS SAYS TRUMP WILL WIN FLORIDA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BREXIT 2.0 IS ALMOST UPON US!!!!!!!!!!!! LET’S DO THIS, AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


Was just examining the Orange County voter-base and it's overwhelmingly Democrat ... 

The funny thing is, these fucking Orange County voters (Orlando) are voting democrat while living off of the entrepreneurial success of a life-long Republican in Walt Disney. 

It ceases to amaze me how democrats are so far removed from the policies that actually put food on their tables.


----------



## Stipe Tapped

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Literally praying for western civilization right now. Don't let me down Michigan.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*TRUMP WON FLORIDA!!!* :mark: :mark:

- Vic


----------



## ThEmB0neZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Might need to get that list ready of who said If Trump wins were leaving the country.


----------



## Natecore

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> *THE ASSOCIATED PRESS SAYS TRUMP WILL WIN FLORIDA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BREXIT 2.0 IS ALMOST UPON US!!!!!!!!!!!! LET’S DO THIS, AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


You do know the witch king was killed by a woman, right?

Probably not the best gif.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Not only is Trump going to win. Republicans will likely control the House, Senate and Supreme Court


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Natecore said:


> You do know the witch king was killed by a woman, right?
> 
> Probably not the best gif.


:lol

Shit, forgot about that. Guess I should choose my gifs more wisely in the future. Hope I didn't jinx anything.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

BOOM he just won Florida


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796177827422932993


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



ThEmB0neZ said:


> Might need to get that list ready of who said If Trump wins were leaving the country.


Isn't Oprah on that list.

Fucking fraud


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

My :heston finger is startin' to get mighty itchy...

:trump appears to be edging toward the favorite to win PA. That's ggnore for Hillary.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I never thought a boring election could be so exciting!!!

That Trump cake is garnering more and more stares as times goes on. Is this really going to happen? Will Trump be legally allowed to take residence in The TRUMP House?

The mixture of dis-belief and horror as Trump gets stronger like Freddy fucking Krueger is actually kind of delicious.


----------



## Natecore

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Machiavelli said:


> Not only is Trump going to win. Republicans will likely control the House, Senate and Supreme Court


Damn it, that's scary as fuck.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Wow


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Clinton: 202
Trump: 216

Michigan, do not fail us.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> Clinton: 202
> Trump: 216
> 
> Michigan, do not fail us.


Wisconsin looks to be slowly edging towards :trump as well.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is 54 electoral votes away from winning this!

*Edit*: Trump wins Utah. Fuck you, McMuffin!

- Vic


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The Canada immigration site just crashed :lmao


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

birthday_massacre. Where are you ?

:ha


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm feeling conflicted, I don't want to Trump to win because he's a dickhead, at the same time I'm feeling good about the gold-plated-cheesey-80s-catchphrasey feel he'll no doubt bring to everything.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The eyes of the world are on Michigan. And it's fitting. I can't name a part of that's been hit as hard as Michigan in recent years. And now it's up to them to decide the path they want to take in the future. 



asdf0501 said:


> The Canada immigration site just crashed :lmao


I hope this is either a good joke from you. Or was a REALLY good joke by some hacker.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

A :trump victory is by the way no means assured.

But a hell of a lot of chaw-spittin ******** showed up to vote today that weren't expected to show up and that is what has :trump 's prospects looking good.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Why haven't they called Georgia?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> birthday_massacre. Where are you ?
> 
> :ha


Probably on suicide watch along with his fellow leftist liberals after depressing democrat votes assuming Clinton was going to win in a landslide. :ha


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

God dam it we're so close......


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary is getting the ass kicking of a lifetime! :lol

- Vic


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> Why haven't they called Georgia?


If I had to guess it would be because they want to get all of Atlanta in before they call it. 

Can you imagine the victory speech from Trump?


----------



## WrestlingOracle

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> I'm feeling conflicted, I don't want to Trump to win because he's a dickhead, at the same time I'm feeling good about the gold-plated-cheesey-80s-catchphrasey feel he'll no doubt bring to everything.


 putting politics aside: I still find this situation where a man who helped shave Vince Mcmahon's head bald at Wrestlemania and has caught a stunner from Steve Austin is currently quite plausible to be president so surreal.


----------



## Erik.

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

America has well and truly shit the bed.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Probably on suicide watch along with his fellow leftist liberals after depressing democrat votes assuming Clinton was going to win in a landslide. :ha


yeah that is what I said today its 50/50 that Trump wins lol


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



WrestlingOracle said:


> putting politics aside: I still find this situation where a man who helped shave Vince Mcmahon's head bald at Wrestlemania and has caught a stunner from Steve Austin is currently quite plausible to be president so surreal.


And has been basically Mr Beauty Pageant among other things.


----------



## Mra22

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FITZ said:


> If I had to guess it would be because they want to get all of Atlanta in before they call it.
> 
> Can you imagine the victory speech from Trump?


His victory speech will be huuuuuuge


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah that is what I said today its 50/50 that Trump wins lol


I said I was 50% Clinton Wins, 30% Trump wins, 15% there is no clear winner and the race wars start and we never find out who wins.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is at 222. 48 to go.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FITZ said:


> I hope this is either a good joke from you. Or was a REALLY good joke by some hacker.


No joking

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...te-crash-donald-trump-president-a7406106.html

http://blacksportsonline.com/home/2...ite-crashes-as-trump-closes-in-on-presidency/


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> The Canada immigration site just crashed :lmao




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796204884756459521
:lmao


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah that is what I said today its 50/50 that Trump wins lol


Totally full of shit you are

You have been bleating on day after day in this thread telling every person that they are clueless and have no idea how to deal with the FACTS :lmao you continued to present. You stated a million times that Trump was going to get DESTROYED and he did not stand any sort of a chance of winning this election

Even if crooked Hillary does win all the constant BS you have been spouting for months has been exposed as exactly that. BULLSHIT

unkout


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> birthday_massacre. Where are you ?
> 
> :ha


Maybe he and Beatles are hugging it out somewhere?


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah that is what I said today its 50/50 that Trump wins lol


Wasnt it you that was saying he had ZERO CHANCE of winning this election like a month ago? [emoji14]

Ooc: this post is to be taken in jest.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FITZ said:


> I said I was 50% Clinton Wins, 30% Trump wins, 15% there is no clear winner and the race wars start and we never find out who wins.


Here is my quote when someone asked the chances of Trump winning




birthday_massacre said:


> its 50/50 at this point based on the polls depending on how the swing states go. it all depends on if Hillary can hold on by the skin of her teeth. It's going to be a crazy night tomorrow.



And I am pretty much spot on. 


I love how all these Trump supporters are laughing that Trump is so close to winning. They wont be laughing in 4 years when most of our rights have been taken away and our country is in shambles.

IF Trump does win. watch how much the stock market drops tomorrow


----------



## Martins

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I just want to say, even as a Marxist-Leninist: I am having a fucking *blast* tonight :lmao


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sweenz said:


> Wasnt it you that was saying he had ZERO CHANCE of winning this election like a month ago? [emoji14]
> 
> Ooc: this post is to be taken in jest.


Yean that was a month ago before all that FBI BS.

But yesterday I said



birthday_massacre said:


> its 50/50 at this point based on the polls depending on how the swing states go. it all depends on if Hillary can hold on by the skin of her teeth. It's going to be a crazy night tomorrow.


And a month ago he did not have a chance. But the FBI BS is what will probably do her in.





Rowdy Yates said:


> Totally full of shit you are
> 
> You have been bleating on day after day in this thread telling every person that they are clueless and have no idea how to deal with the FACTS :lmao you continued to present. You stated a million times that Trump was going to get DESTROYED and he did not stand any sort of a chance of winning this election
> 
> Even if crooked Hillary does win all the constant BS you have been spouting for months has been exposed as exactly that. BULLSHIT
> 
> unkout


Full of shit eh



birthday_massacre said:


> its 50/50 at this point based on the polls depending on how the swing states go. it all depends on if Hillary can hold on by the skin of her teeth. It's going to be a crazy night tomorrow.




How is that full of shit? You are such a joke. You dont even understand how things change over months and even weeks. 

You look at the current info and polling numbers and go by that. but that is not something you would know anything about. You should try it some time.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Michigan please save us! T_T


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary is winning Nevada. FUCK!

- Vic


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

LOL

Paul Ryan is now supporting Trump. What an ass



FriedTofu said:


> Michigan please save us! T_T



Michigan is probably gonna turn around. Wisconsin however is not


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Hillary is winning Nevada. FUCK!
> 
> - Vic


He apparently just won Wisconsin.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Fox News has called Wisconsin to Trump.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

He just won WI !!!!!!!


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump: 228
Clinton: 209

It's getting close. We may have called this one too soon, friends.


----------



## Mra22

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump just got Wisconsin


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Iowa has been called for Trump!

- Vic


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Fox just said Trump has won Wisconsin. If this is true he only needs 32 more to win. HOLY FUCK HE IS GOING TO WIN THE ELECTION. 

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

:dance :dance :dance :dance :dance :dance :dance :dance :dance :dance :dance :dance


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Let's not suck each other's dicks yet.

Anything can happen... but pls TRUMP


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trumps wins Iowa.


----------



## Mra22

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump just got Iowa!!!


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*











Hillary be looking at the results like


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*AP SAYS TRUMP JUST WON GEORGIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS REALLY GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Mainboy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

What a year for politics.


----------



## Cliffy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

THE DONALD!


----------



## Mra22

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump just won Georgia!!!


----------



## ThEmB0neZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Is that Hillary's Headquarters or a Funeral?


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*











38 fucking votes to go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## witchblade000

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I wanna see all these celebrities reactions when Trump wins.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



witchblade000 said:


> I wanna see all these celebrities reactions when Trump wins.


Here you go:

http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/el...wood-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-1201913001/

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...-gets-panicky-as-results-start-rolling-945503


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> Is that Hillary's Headquarters or a Funeral?


Liberals getting a reality check right now.

- Vic


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*









AHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA THE YOUNG CUNTS ARE SO BUTTHURT RIGHT NOW HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


----------



## HiddenFlaw

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

trump :CENA


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary takes Washington.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Being on the east coast is going to make tomorrow at work brutal


----------



## Mra22

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm happy to see these celebrities crying...Buch of overpaid crybabies


----------



## Stipe Tapped

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Calm, folks. Let's not jinx this.


----------



## Stormbringer

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Mainboy said:


> What a year for politics.


And what gets me is that EVERYTHING the professionals said about Trump was wrong/inapplicable. They said he was out from day 1. And at every turn he was supposed be out, his numbers were overwhelmingly positive. Yeah he makes people talk, but at least they're listening.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Markets around the world are going down right now. Dow Futures have been as much as 750 points down tonight...down about 600 now. Nissen market down 4%, the Peso is way down also.


----------



## THANOS

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



witchblade000 said:


> I wanna see all these celebrities reactions when Trump wins.


There needs to be a separate thread for reaction tweets alone :lol.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Machiavelli said:


> AHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA THE YOUNG CUNTS ARE SO BUTTHURT RIGHT NOW HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


Jimmy Dore can go suck a dick for constantly depressing the Hillary vote because he thought it would help the progressive movement.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DX-Superkick said:


> And what gets me is that EVERYTHING the professionals said about Trump was wrong/inapplicable. They said he was out from day 1. And at every turn he was supposed be out, his numbers were overwhelmingly positive. Yeah he makes people talk, but at least they're listening.


No doubt the majority of the experts, predictors and pollsters appeared to be wrong wrong wrong.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

16 more votes to go!!


----------



## Perfect Poster

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Someone just crying Jordan the country and get it over with pls


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Obviously not over... but if projections hold, one could argue that dws could be the cause of tonights result. Trump likely could have lost handily to any other potential democratic nominee.


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This is a done deal already.

Hillary could even lose pennsylvania. It's over guys.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

W/L/D I cannot believe it is this close.

What a night.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is creeping up on Clinton in Pennsylvania.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



asdf0501 said:


> This is a done deal already.
> 
> Hillary could even lose pennsylvania. It's over guys.


My :heston finger is just about to lose control


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I wonder if Hillary will accept the result or leave us in suspense.


----------



## MonkasaurusRex

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

what a sad state of affairs this is


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Best.Night.Ever


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

How is this even happening

I bet the Dems really regret fucking Bernie over now, huh?


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah that is what I said today its 50/50 that Trump wins lol


Really ?






birthday_massacre said:


> Wonder what beatles will say about that when he sees that since he has been giving me shit for over a month since I said Trump has no chance at winning.





birthday_massacre said:


> Trump looked even more incompetent after this debate. Admitting he knows nothing about Russia. showed he has no clue about Syria, admitted he has not paid taxes in 20 years, also showed that he and his running mate are not even on the same page etc etc.





birthday_massacre said:


> Trump has no shot at winning, especially after that video came out, its over for Trump. Its been over for a while now, that was just the nail in the coffin.





birthday_massacre said:


> Trump has no shot at winning. As for Clinton's victims, Bill Clinton is not running, Hillary is. And again women are coming out saying how Trump sexually assaulted them and there is still a case in court filed where a woman is accusing Trump of raping her when she was 13.





birthday_massacre said:


> I just call it like it is. Trump is not going to win.


Could not be arsed looking for more. You throw out more lies and spin than crooked Hillary herself. Totally exposed 

unkout


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump will win Utah. Almost there....


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> How is this even happening
> 
> I bet the Dems really regret fucking Bernie over now, huh?


1.) Obama lying for 8 years.

2.) The Democrats electing a career criminal as his replacement

3.) A LOT of pissed off hard working Americans.

4.) Wikileaks 

- Vic


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I wish I liked Trump more than I do. It looks like tonight the American people are standing up and telling the corrupt American government to fuck off. The fact that they did that has me proud of my country, even if the figure head for this change isn't someone that I'm crazy about.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

very much feel like someone not wanting to jinx a pitcher who has a perfect game heading in the 9th inning


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This shitshow is hilarious, glorious and, dare I say, even delicious. :heston

All Hilldebeast had to do was not be disgustingly shady even by politician standards and it would've been a cakewalk. But instead she's on the ropes against a family friend who was planted in the opposing party to masquerade as an over-the-top parody of the evil, hand-wringing politician that was supposed to destroy said party due to said over-the-top supervillainy.

I didn't vote for Trump nor do I support him politically, but I do support him in regard to the entertainment he brings and he's certainly bringing that to the table in full force tonight. >


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I can't believe I am saying this but I think Trump is going to win

Arizona is the maker or breaker and its 11 are up in the air and Trump is ahead there at the moment

I wrote in Romney, I hope that puts me off the death squad list


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm massively disappointed... but if this result holds, at least it is a punch to the balls for the establishment and pollsters. BUt god damn, Johnosn isn't going to make it to 5 percent. Fucking election.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Looks like Sam Wang has to eat a bug.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Skeeze Hillary gonna go to jail :lmao


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










America


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump: 244
Clinton: 209

Almost. There.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> Really ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could not be arsed looking for more. You throw out more lies and spin than crooked Hillary herself. Totally exposed
> 
> unkout


Do you not have a concept of time LOL

You do understand how polling changes over time right and that is what you base on who is going to win. 

The last thing I said yesterday was its 50/50 who wins and we will see if Hillary can win by the skin of her teeth since that is the way it was playing out. but yeah go post shit from a month ago LOL

See I unlike you admit when things change and when the race got super close.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

lol cenk uygur ******* talking about how there's gonna be a race war


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Had Bernie run against Trump, Trump would not be this close to winning. lol


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If Trump wins Michigan, he becomes our 45th President! :mark:

- Vic


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Basically at this point HRC's only chance is to win EVERY SINGLE remaining state still in play.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary needs a miracle now. She's got to win *ALL *of the remaining states.


----------



## Walking Deadman

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This one ultra SJW friend of my sister is ranting on Facebook about how much she hates straight white males right now, because Trump is in the lead. It's rather amusing.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

PA, MI and WI being turned into BG states this year is enough to brag about for the GOP even if they lose. 

I'm actually predicting that HC does win all the BG states currently on the map.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> This shitshow is hilarious, glorious and, dare I say, even delicious. :heston
> 
> All Hilldebeast had to do was not be disgustingly shady even by politician standards and it would've been a cakewalk. But instead she's on the ropes against a family friend *who was planted in the opposing party to masquerade as an over-the-top parody of the evil, hand-wringing politician that was supposed to destroy said party due to said over-the-top supervillainy.*
> 
> I didn't vote for Trump nor do I support him politically, but I do support him in regard to the entertainment he brings and he's certainly bringing that to the table in full force tonight. >


It seems like it doesn't it? I'm not sure who the final joke is on though, is it Hillary, or will it be THE AMERICAN PUBLIC for voting for such a cartoon?


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> This shitshow is hilarious, glorious and, dare I say, even delicious. :heston
> 
> All Hilldebeast had to do was not be disgustingly shady even by politician standards and it would've been a cakewalk. But instead she's on the ropes against a family friend who was planted in the opposing party to masquerade as an over-the-top parody of the evil, hand-wringing politician that was supposed to destroy said party due to said over-the-top supervillainy.
> 
> I didn't vote for Trump nor do I support him politically, but I do support him in regard to the entertainment he brings and he's certainly bringing that to the table in full force tonight. >


If this holds and Hillary loses , this has to destroy the DNC. They need to blow it up.

They stole the primary from Sanders who based on the polls would have had no problem with Trump but instead the DNC had to push Hillary and it blew up in their faces.

Now the US will be run by a fascist in Trump who will do everything in his power to take away everyone's rights over the next four years.

Just watch how much the stock market crashes tomorrow if Trump does hold on to win.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Potentially the greatest upset in the history of this sport


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> 1.) Obama lying for 8 years.
> 
> 2.) The Democrats electing a career criminal as his replacement
> 
> 3.) A LOT of pissed off hard working Americans.
> 
> 4.) Wikileaks
> 
> - Vic


It does not mean a tiny bit as much to me as it does you Vic but i can honestly say i am delighted for you if this ends up finishing with Trump as President 

You have maintained all along that Trump will win even after the videos got released and the majority (myself included) thought it was all over for him Enjoy it my friend (Y). It really does feel like good has defeated evil

(not trying to jinx you but its 5.05 am here and sleep is calling)

What a night :dance :dance :dance


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



wwe9391 said:


> Had Bernie run against Trump, Trump would not be this close to winning. lol


yeah. he'd be up by ten points after mercilessly demagoguing bernie as a commie for 4 months


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

CNN reporting that Trump just took the lead in Pennsylvania, don't think it will last long


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Well, democracy has spoken 

Trump was not my man but I will be fine the result, people hated Lincoln so much they fought a damn war over his election and now he is one of the most beloved presidents so you never know the way history will swing 

I am greatly amused with the actors and singer trying to throw each other under the bus and blame each other, people are actually blaming Alec Baldwin saying his SNL jokes were "too positive"


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

These people on another forum that I hate are crying and throwing a fit as I predicted.

I'm enjoying it way too much.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

For all those with PANIC don't worry 

The actual presidential seat is really weak without congress backing you up


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> lol cenk uygur ******* talking about how there's gonna be a race war


I hope that fat fuck gets kebab'd and Kasparian gets dicked with a barbwire dildo like the pompous bimbo she is.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Walking Deadman said:


> This one ultra SJW friend of my sister is ranting on Facebook about how much she hates straight white males right now, because Trump is in the lead. It's rather amusing.


And that idiot doesn't realise that is the attitude that has resulted in this... .I fucking hate Trump, but god damn if I don't understand all those people that are screaming fuck you to SJW jack asses like that and the hollywood celebrities telling everyone they are dumb for not liking the establishment plans.

Jesus christ, are they fucking bling? Brexit and this are saying the people are fucking done with the ruling class...


----------



## Walking Deadman

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

People are posting they're crying now, this is almost surreal


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> CNN reporting that Trump just took the lead in Pennsylvania, don't think it will last long


This is fucking incredible!!!

- Vic


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If he gets Michigan that's it that's all baby goes to sleep


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FITZ said:


> CNN reporting that Trump just took the lead in Pennsylvania, don't think it will last long


Nyt has trump taking it. Same site that had hillary winning Virginia when she was down 100k votes.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I guess since Trump is winning this and I didn't vote for him I guess I'm going to pay a very big price for that.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Does the wall start tomorrow?


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Harambe got 11,000 votes.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

all those people the elitist cosmopolitan assholes on the coasts and on college campuses have been shitting on since 2000 (some of them have been doing it far longer), all those 'dumb' 'fat' 'racist' white people, i've been saying for a long time now that they were getting more and more pissed off at being treated like garbage by the culture, and that they were eventually going to get their revenge.

tonight they got it.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I honestly thought we would see a blue sweep but Trump dominated the non-urban areas and picked up a couple to loose cites to push him over the top in many states


----------



## Stipe Tapped

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This is fucking brilliant.


----------



## Walking Deadman

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Kabraxal said:


> And that idiot doesn't realise that is the attitude that has resulted in this... .I fucking hate Trump, but god damn if I don't understand all those people that are screaming fuck you to SJW jack asses like that and the hollywood celebrities telling everyone they are dumb for not liking the establishment plans.
> 
> Jesus christ, are they fucking bling? Brexit and this are saying the people are fucking done with the ruling class...


They also support people as bad as Trump, or even worse. The woman I referenced is a die-hard Luna Dunham follower. Lena Dunham molested her sister, and supports genocide, yet is hailed as a hero to SJWs.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Looking at the congress and House votes it looks like the US is going to be as red as China's flag 

I wish it for Romney or my boy John Huntsmen Jr.


----------



## The Hardcore Show

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I just hope that if Trump doesn't shock us and is a very bad President that people are not crying when bad things happen to them.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Does anybody know if Rhino won in Michigan?

- Vic


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> all those people the elitist cosmopolitan assholes on the coasts and on college campuses have been shitting on since 2000 (some of them have been doing it far longer), all those 'dumb' 'fat' 'racist' white people, i've been saying for a long time now that they were getting more and more pissed off at being treated like garbage by the culture, and that they were eventually going to get their revenge.
> 
> tonight they got it.


Yep. This is their receipt

pls let it come true :mark:


----------



## THANOS

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Does anybody know if Rhino won in Michigan?
> 
> - Vic


That would be fantastic :clap!


----------



## Asmodeus

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Watching results...I have never been more happy that I speak Spanish with a Zapotec dialect, I know how many ounces are in a kilo and how many cups are in a litre. Changa te, pinches!


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> all those people the elitist cosmopolitan assholes on the coasts and on college campuses have been shitting on since 2000 (some of them have been doing it far longer), all those 'dumb' 'fat' 'racist' white people, i've been saying for a long time now that they were getting more and more pissed off at being treated like garbage by the culture, and that they were eventually going to get their revenge.
> 
> tonight they got it.


The Democrats had me when I was younger. I missed voting in 2008 by about a month and I would have voted for Obama. In 2012 I'm not sure who I would have gone with. Now, there wasn't a chance I was voting for a Democrat this year. They lost me.


----------



## Mainboy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Kay Burley should be sacked for that disgusting question on sky news.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Does anybody know if Rhino won in Michigan?
> 
> - Vic


http://www.foxsports.com/other/story/pro-wrestler-rhyno-to-become-michigan-legislator-110816

The Michigan legislature will see the GORE! GORE! GORE!

Congratulations to Mr. Guerin for his win.


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Incredible. I was right all along. To everyone who laughed at me and the other people supporting Trump, suck it.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> It seems like it doesn't it? I'm not sure who the final joke is on though, is it Hillary, or will it be THE AMERICAN PUBLIC for voting for such a cartoon?


I took Trump's campaign with very mild seriousness, but when he threw foreign Muslims under the bus, I knew he was in this for shits and giggles since they're quite the sacred cow in the eyes of today's PC-oriented folks.

When it was revealed that he and Slick Willy had a phone call mere weeks before he announced his campaign, that confirmed to me that he was in this simply to give Hilldog the win and help cripple the republican party.

And yet here we are... :evans



birthday_massacre said:


> If this holds and Hillary loses , this has to destroy the DNC. They need to blow it up.
> 
> They stole the primary from Sanders who based on the polls would have had no problem with Trump but instead the DNC had to push Hillary and it blew up in their faces.
> 
> Now the US will be run by a fascist in Trump who will do everything in his power to take away everyone's rights over the next four years.
> 
> Just watch how much the stock market crashes tomorrow if Trump does hold on to win.


Agreed 100% with the Sanders bit and I truly hope that it does kill the democratic party. Don't have much interest in the rest though, since I've already seen what an utter joke that our government is and can't help but laugh at it while it burns.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

According to google it's looking like Marijuana might get legalized in Massachusetts. Just a few hours away from a legal high!


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Clinton takes Nevada. She's inching closer.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Running Hillary was a big fucking mistake

Dems thought with the changing demos they had it nailed down (i did as well) and wanted to get their pet into office and get another ZOMGFIRST president

They didn't play for keeps and 8 years made them cocky, I almost think that any Republican would have had a decent shot in hind sight


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Mainboy said:


> Kay Burley should be sacked for that disgusting question on sky news.


What did they say?


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> http://www.foxsports.com/other/story/pro-wrestler-rhyno-to-become-michigan-legislator-110816
> 
> The Michigan legislature will see the GORE! GORE! GORE!
> 
> Congratulations to Mr. Guerin for his win.


Hopefully he gives Heathy Baby for a position regarding child and family services because HE'S GOT KIDS, BAYBAY!


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The Dems on social media are attacking Gary Johnson for "stealing votes"

the motherfuck stole votes from Trump not Hillary, its like they are incapable of criticizing their own(Jill)


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If Trump was a Hillary plant... well, I'd love to see the next meeting as the people clearly said "fuck all that shit!" Regardless now. This close race proved that DC is on a timer. People are fucking done with the bullshit.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> Clinton takes Nevada. She's inching closer.


eyes slideways to wisconsin and pennsylvania bro


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

All the talk leading up to the election was that African American and Hispanics will decide this election. It is looking like the the middle class white male has turned the tide. How could the so called experts get it so wrong ? :lmao


----------



## Brollins

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> All the talk leading up to the election was that African American and Hispanics will decide this election. It is looking like the the middle class white male has turned the tide. How could the so called experts get it so wrong ? :lmao


Never forget that Hillary had 98% chance of winning. 

Amazing how statistics tend to change.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Yeah just needs one of Michigan or Pennsylvania and that'll do it

Still, won't believe it until it happens but oh lawd


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> They didn't play for keeps and 8 years made them cocky, I almost think that any Republican would have had a decent shot in hind sight


Even in the real world, charisma and mic skills are what matter the most. :lol

- Vic


----------



## RenegadexParagon

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Already seeing Dems blaming Sanders supporters and third party voters :lmao

Maybe y'all should have supported someone people actually had a modicum of respect for? Maybe your choice of fighting a reactionary shouldn't have been by sitting on your ass and shouting "LOL DRUMPF" and "DAE TINY HANDS?". Maybe, just maybe your fetish for centrism and neoliberal policies has backfired? 

Nah. It's everyone else's fault instead.


----------



## Mainboy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


> What did they say?


https://twitter.com/newrob20/status/796221307524358144

Clip here


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Walking Deadman said:


> People are posting they're crying now, this is almost surreal












:trump


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*PA will go Trump's way. *

With 96% reported and the race being tied, Lebanon County has not reported in and that is an overwhelming Republican county.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Looking back the "Hillary for prison" may have done more damage than I thought 

Countering "you should be in jail" with "your an asshole" dose look pretty stupid with 20/20

now Trump PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T GIVE UP THE BALTIC, SOUTH KOREA AND TAIWAN


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> eyes slideways to wisconsin and pennsylvania bro


:lol Oh it's definitely over, but I'm saying it's *TECHNICALLY* not over yet. I won't fully mark out until it's official.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RenegadexParagon said:


> Already seeing Dems blaming Sanders supporters and third party voters :lmao


:mase at them not blaming minorities while they're at it. Fucking LOW ENERGY LOSERS.


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Meanwhile...looks like Proposition 60 in California will go down to defeat...so your porn there is still bareback and no one has to take the rubber off before the money shot.


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

How is it that towns in New Hampshire that had like 300 total votes haven't counted them all yet? Even if the polls there closed at like 10 P.M. I could count all of those votes myself by now.


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I hope Trump really does prove people wrong. I think he will. He may not be able to do everything he wants to, but, I hope he does enough good shit to make people change their attitudes towards him.

I don't fucking get the people complaining about him being a pig when they are supporting a woman who happily defended a rapist. He's nasty, there is no excuse for him being a creeper, though I think quite a few of the accusations were fabricated as they suddenly came out with this shit within the last few weeks, as opposed to back when they actually happened, but, to be a woman who stands there and defends a guy who sexually assaulted a 12 year old girl, um, yeah, I prefer the creepy old man.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Assuming Trump wins Arizona and Alaska that puts him on 268. Only 2 points needed. If he lost from this position it would be incredible


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Florida passed medical marijuana!


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> all those people the elitist cosmopolitan assholes on the coasts and on college campuses have been shitting on since 2000 (some of them have been doing it far longer), all those 'dumb' 'fat' 'racist' white people, i've been saying for a long time now that they were getting more and more pissed off at being treated like garbage by the culture, and that they were eventually going to get their revenge.
> 
> tonight they got it.


The irony is of course now they're going be treated like garbage by the biggest east coast cosmopolitan asshole of all.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> Assuming Trump wins Arizona and Alaska that puts him on 268. Only 2 points needed. If he lost from this position it would be incredible


All he needs is Maine district 2 and that's rural so it's guaranteed GOP. 

But he's swinging PA since Lebanon County which is GOP hasn't reported in yet.


----------



## Stormbringer

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> All the talk leading up to the election was that African American and Hispanics will decide this election. It is looking like the the middle class white male has turned the tide. How could the so called experts get it so wrong ?


The story of this election is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING applies to Trump. NONE of the rules apply to him. AT ALL!



stevefox1200 said:


> Running Hillary was a big fucking mistake
> 
> Dems thought with the changing demos they had it nailed down (i did as well) and wanted to get their pet into office and get another *ZOMGFIRST* president


Biggest problem I had with this cycle. I don't want to "make history," I want a President who I identify with.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I supported Trump and early in this thread and switched to Hillary out of dislike of Trump's foreign policy 

If Trump stops Russia from taking more of Ukraine than I will admit that I was wrong about my switch


----------



## Ronny

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Seems like Trump's got this in the bag.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The "left" really overestimated their influence, maybe they should have thought it all through before siding with the SJW narrative and attacking all people who voted for trump.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

So what does my verifiable income need to be for it to be legal to grab some poon


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796224551461888001


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

In the end Putin won 2016 by showing that democracy is messy and not much better than Russia's system to discourage former Soviet countries from becoming a democracy. Russia's foresight in promoting white nationalism in Western countries years ago to carved out a new position in global politics after being displaced by China as the anti-America power have been surprisingly effective in producing Brexit and Trump. France seems to be next with their coming elections.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Its down to fucking wire in MI 

There might be a blue flip, that would flip the table over completely


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> Assuming Trump wins Arizona and Alaska that puts him on 268. Only 2 points needed. If he lost from this position it would be incredible


He'd only theoretically need 269. In a tie it goes to Congress and Trump would win

It's down to winning one of MI or PA. Win PA and he wins outright.


----------



## Walking Deadman

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> :mase at them not blaming minorities while they're at it. Fucking LOW ENERGY LOSERS.


They already are, some are claiming people like Bernie stole support from Hillary, and other idiotic arguments.


----------



## Cipher

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Extremely close in Michigan right now, holy shit. Like right on the wire.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> The irony is of course now they're going be treated like garbage by the biggest east coast cosmopolitan asshole of all.


we will see


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Does this mean that Predator trumps Alien? :trump


----------



## FatherJackHackett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

5:40am over here and I'm wired. Best entertainment one could ever hope for. Come on Donald, hold on.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Congratulations to Catherine Masto on becoming the new Senator for Nevada. Joe Heck got what he deserved. He sucked!

- Vic


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Catalanotto said:


> I hope Trump really does prove people wrong. I think he will. He may not be able to do everything he wants to, but, I hope he does enough good shit to make people change their attitudes towards him.
> 
> I don't fucking get the people complaining about him being a pig when they are supporting a woman who happily defended a rapist. He's nasty, there is no excuse for him being a creeper, though I think quite a few of the accusations were fabricated as they suddenly came out with this shit within the last few weeks, as opposed to back when they actually happened, but, to be a woman who stands there and defends a guy who sexually assaulted a 12 year old girl, um, yeah, I prefer the creepy old man.


I can't stand Clinton. I can't hold defending the rapist against her. I work at prosecuting people so I'm on the other side. That being said I never hold it against the defense attorney's. We need them. You have to give people that are accused of crimes lawyers. The defense attorney has to do their best to defend their client. 

I look at it this way. I don't criticize the garbage man for smelling like garbage when he's at work. He has a dirty job but it's one that needs doing.


----------



## FatherJackHackett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Lebanon County, PA needs to come through. What a nail-biter.


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

WOW, this is some news to wake up to. Is it over yet, or does Hillary still have a chance?


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Catherine Cortez-Masto defeats Heck for the Senate seat that Reid is leaving in Nevada...the Dems hold that spot. 



Catalanotto said:


> I hope Trump really does prove people wrong. I think he will. He may not be able to do everything he wants to, but, I hope he does enough good shit to make people change their attitudes towards him.
> 
> I don't fucking get the people complaining about him being a pig when they are supporting a woman who happily defended a rapist. He's nasty, there is no excuse for him being a creeper, though I think quite a few of the accusations were fabricated as they suddenly came out with this shit within the last few weeks, as opposed to back when they actually happened, but, to be a woman who stands there and defends a guy who sexually assaulted a 12 year old girl, um, yeah, I prefer the creepy old man.


That's the problem that he will deal with. He will deal with half of a country that despises him, and a following that will demand that he will do everything he promised. If he doesn't do that, then we might see people turn on him very quickly. 

One thing that women need to be concerned about is that for those who think the culture wars are over with regards to abortion, same-sex marriage, etc? I can assure you that the evangelicals like James Dobson, John Hagee, and Pat Robertson will come to him with hat in hand and say, "Remember all that nonsense about protecting the LGBTQ community at the GOP convention? We'll have none of that...it's time for our 30 pieces of silver." That will be in the form of either SCOTUS or legislation that will overturn Roe v. Wade and the right to abortion. This will also be done in the form of DOMA-esque legislation that will outlaw same-sex marriage once again. Plus, if people think the Dems will filibuster it, the GOP will bust out the nuclear option and just require a majority of the Senate. 

The conservative Christian movement backed Trump, but there is a price, this will be that price. Let the buyer beware.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I will give the republicans this, they throw each other under the bus even when they are in power

The democrats always blame everyone else, there are actors blaming the media for not being "fair enough" with Trump by not literally calling him Hitler and only implying it (he is far closer to Mussolini)


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Punkhead said:


> WOW, this is some news to wake up to. Is it over yet, or does Hillary still have a chance?


She still has a chance. PA and MI are so close and she needs to win them both (along with p much most of the other states)


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Cant wait to see the reaction of all the Hillary loving Celebrities who come across so fucking smug, arrogant and cocksure. Di Niro, Katie Perry, Beyonce, Jay z etc

Set of cunts

:duck


----------



## asdf0501

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



stevefox1200 said:


> Its down to fucking wire in MI
> 
> There might be a blue flip, that would flip the table over completely


Nop.

He just need Wisconsin even if he lose Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Michigan


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Punkhead said:


> WOW, this is some news to wake up to. Is it over yet, or does Hillary still have a chance?


Almost no chance.


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Yuck Humble Pie! :crying:



I do have to wonder though is part of Trump thinking to himself, well what the fuck do I actually do now? Plan I didn't have any fucking plan!


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> Cant wait to see the reaction of all the Hillary loving Celebrities who come across so fucking smug, arrogant and cocksure. Di Niro, Katie Perry, Beyonce, Jay z etc
> 
> Set of cunts
> 
> :duck


Its fun, they are blaming each other for not being "radical" enough


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> Cant wait to see the reaction of all the Hillary loving Celebrities who come across so fucking smug, arrogant and cocksure. Di Niro, Katie Perry, Beyonce, Jay z etc
> 
> Set of cunts
> 
> :duck


They'll probably pretend it never happened and ignore it. If not, it will be hilarious to watch.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Didn't asdf and tofu say this was going to be a landslide for Hillary? Lmao


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Donald Trump for President!


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> Yuck Humble Pie! :crying:
> 
> 
> 
> I do have to wonder though is part of Trump thinking to himself, well what the fuck do I actually do now? Plan I didn't have any fucking plan!


Here's Trump's secret plans



Spoiler:  



Mike Pence


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Cher is tweeting in ALL CAPS RAGE


----------



## markoutsmarkout

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Solf said:


> Things are getting crazy on french TV. It's like those broadcasters are openly rooting for Hillary or smth. Should've seen the faces they were making when they saw Trump leading. Priceless. Fucking puppets.


Any video?


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FatherJackHackett said:


> Lebanon County, PA needs to come through. What a nail-biter.


At this point I wonder if they're holding out so they get to be the ones to deliver the win to Trump.


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

CNN stil hasn't called WI. LOL


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> Cant wait to see the reaction of all the Hillary loving Celebrities who come across so fucking smug, arrogant and cocksure. Di Niro, Katie Perry, Beyonce, Jay z etc
> 
> Set of cunts
> 
> :duck


:lmao

Trevor Noah and Stephen Colbert both had live shows tonight and basically spoke on this shit like it was the end of the world. They (along with the rest of liberal Hollywood) spent months making all manner of jokes about Trump and *NOW* they're scared because he's about to win the whole damn thing.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Florida passed medical marijuana!


And by a decent margin too from what my little sister told me.  Now my grandmother and aunt can possibly look into it instead of popping pills for their pain and anxiety. :sk

Much love to Morgan & Morgan and others for their hard work in making this happen, since it's about time that my homestate finally evolved at least somewhat by now.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Didn't asdf and tofu say this was going to be a landslide for Hillary? Lmao


Did I really? Are you sure you aren't mistaking me with BM?


----------



## MonkasaurusRex

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Oh no TV personalities made jokes almost like it's their fucking job


----------



## FatherJackHackett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."


:rock1


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FITZ said:


> At this point I wonder if they're holding out so they get to be the ones to deliver the win to Trump.


he's up almost 30+k votes now in PA holy shit!


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



BruiserKC said:


> That's the problem that he will deal with. He will deal with half of a country that despises him, *and a following that will demand that he will do everything he promised. If he doesn't do that, then we might see people turn on him very quickly. *


I disagree, I think the majority are attracted to Trump's broad language of making things 'Great Again' and telling people they're going to win so much they're going to be tired of winning. There's a big chunk that don't know and don't care what he promised, just that he's telling them every patriotic cliche they want to hear.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> And by a decent margin too from what my little sister told me.  Now my grandmother and aunt can possibly look into it instead of popping pills for their pain and anxiety. :sk
> 
> Much love to Morgan & Morgan and others for their hard work in making this happen, since it's about time that my homestate finally evolved at least somewhat by now.


We were very close last time if not for some Nevada casino billionnaire investing in the anti-Marijuana drive. Lost it by like 1% then. 

This year there was no opposition at all from anyone. Even the politicians had started backing it.


----------



## FatherJackHackett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Ronzilla said:


> he's up almost 30+k votes now in PA holy shit!


NYT forecast needle for PA up to 95% Trump now


----------



## CGS

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Jesus Christ America you're actually gonna let that man run your country :lmao. Like it's actually going to happen :lmao


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Ugh. Didn't notice that Pittsburg also hasn't reported in. PA will go down to the wire. Maybe decided by a few hundred votes even. It still might swing Clinton's way ...


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FatherJackHackett said:


> NYT forecast needle for PA up to 95% Trump now


ya it's been that way for like the last 30 minutes atleast my brother pointed that out to me too


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:lol Guys, check out Ann Coulter predicting this result months ago on Bill Maher:


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










:lmao


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Walking Deadman said:


> They already are, some are claiming people like Bernie stole support from Hillary, and other idiotic arguments.


> Allows BLM members to briefly interrupt one of his rallies to get their message across
> Honestly tries his damnedest to win over minorites, particularly blacks
> Actually has a history of fighting alongside civil rights leaders during the civil rights movement
> Once again gets mercilessly thrown under the bus by Hilldog's pack

Poor Bernie.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Almost no chance.


so what you're saying is shillary got


----------



## Arkham258

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



yeahbaby! said:


> I disagree, I think the majority are attracted to Trump's broad language of making things 'Great Again' and telling people they're going to win so much they're going to be tired of winning. There's a big chunk that don't know and don't care what he promised, just that he's telling them every patriotic cliche they want to hear.


In other words, America is full of fucking idiots. Trump could have run with this as his theme song:


----------



## FatherJackHackett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Ronzilla said:


> ya it's been that way for like the last 30 minutes atleast my brother pointed that out to me too


Awesome (Y) us Brits are a little slow with the news!


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> Did I really? Are you sure you aren't mistaking me with BM?


If it wasn't you I apologize!


----------



## BruiserKC

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm sure this name ain't been heard in a while...but somewhere out there Batko is marking out like a motherfucker over this. He was one of the very first here onboard the Trump train. 



yeahbaby! said:


> I disagree, I think the majority are attracted to Trump's broad language of making things 'Great Again' and telling people they're going to win so much they're going to be tired of winning. There's a big chunk that don't know and don't care what he promised, just that he's telling them every patriotic cliche they want to hear.


They appreciate hearing the cute cliches and catchphrases and making things great again...but the truth is they are electing Donald Trump to change the culture in Washington. They are fully expecting him to change shit and turn things around. They will expect his policies to make health care more affordable, to bring back jobs, to protect us, to put our country back on firm footing when it comes to world affairs. If he doesn't do this, then those same people who followed him around will turn on him. Much like Washington was put on notice, I think the people will put him on notice that they will expect shit to get done.


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FatherJackHackett said:


> Awesome (Y) us Brits are a little slow with the news!


cnn is very democratic

foxnews is very republican

nytimes has more visual charts in real time


----------



## Martins

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> :lol Guys, check out Ann Coulter predicting this result months ago on Bill Maher:


She's one hell of a dumb, reactionary cunt, but even I can empathize minimally with her when I listen to the way that fucking disgusting, vermin-like Maher crowd laughs at her for saying that.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Ugh. Didn't notice that Pittsburg also hasn't reported in. PA will go down to the wire. Maybe decided by a few hundred votes even. It still might swing Clinton's way ...


Ummm no. Allegheny County is 98% reported according to ABC. Pittsburgh ain't saving Shillary.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The similarities between this election and brexit are many

The warning signs that the public shared Trumps views and wanted change.(GOP primaries and the 2014 European election)

The media bashing and witch hunt 

The immediate labelling of Nazi, Bigot, and Dangerous

The fact that 99% of the polls got it completely wrong 

The fact that Immigration is obviously a massive worry to both country's citizens

The power of the working class white male being totally dismissed and forgot about

The fact that the left were in total denial about how severe the country's problems actually are

The under dog rising up and snatching victory out of the hands of defeat

:banderas


----------



## Arkham258

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Martins said:


> She's one hell of a dumb, reactionary cunt, but even I can empathize minimally with her when I listen to the way that fucking disgusting, vermin-like Maher crowd laughs at her for saying that.


She got reamed at the comedy central roast recently too, which basically turned into a roast of her

Guess she's having a good laugh now that dumb bitch


----------



## Walking Deadman

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Watching some people tear at each others throats over Trump, and Hillary is really disturbing. So much hostility.


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> Cant wait to see the reaction of all the Hillary loving Celebrities who come across so fucking smug, arrogant and cocksure. Di Niro, Katie Perry, Beyonce, Jay z etc
> 
> Set of cunts
> 
> :duck



I think they are all talk, and, they will miss that American dollar. The Canadian dollar is fucking horseshit. 

I find Canada to be incredibly boring in general. Perhaps I am still just a hardcore American cunt inside, but, I have been here a long time and it's just fucking shit, minus a few places. I find America has more to offer and I feel happier when I go back home and visit family. I am only still in Canada because my fiancé would never leave his family and friends here, which is kind of an interesting situation because most of my family is there, so, I suppose I lose this one, lol. I just feel like I fit more in the US than Canada, which is really fucking weird, considering how long I have lived here. Just before I met him, I had found a house for sale in my hometown, a GREEN house (my favorite color, die hard green lover here). I was set to go. Did not go because I met him <3 On a side note, Trudeau is a dumbass ******.

I love my fiance and will be with him even in the afterlife, so, yeah, bit of a tough situation and I am not leaving him just because he wont move. Maybe one day he will break. He DID love the housing prices and amount of land in a typical American home. Canadian housing is unreal, in a really bad way.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I don't know why I'm worried

I'm middle American as fuck, the parties bend over backwards to keep my happy


----------



## Mra22

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Decision Desk HQ just called it for Trump!!


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I thought Latinos were going to take the election from Trump? Lol some of these suckers in here need to stop posting about people and politics because you know nothing.


----------



## Cipher

Walking Deadman said:


> Watching some people tear at each others throats over Trump, and Hillary is really disturbing. So much hostility.


----------



## Arkham258

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Cipher said:


>


Joker talking about Trump apparently...


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> The similarities between this election and brexit are many
> 
> The warning signs that the public shared Trumps views and wanted change.(GOP primaries and the 2014 European election)
> 
> The media bashing and witch hunt
> 
> The immediate labelling of Nazi, Bigot, and Dangerous
> 
> The fact that 99% of the polls got it completely wrong
> 
> The fact that Immigration is obviously a massive worry to both country's citizens
> 
> The power of the working class white male being totally dismissed and forgot about
> 
> The fact that the left were in total denial about how severe the country's problems actually are
> 
> The under dog rising up and snatching victory out of the hands of defeat


Trump + Brexit = Trexit

- Vic


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Well, whoever it was who gave me the tip that it wasn't a done deal earlier in the week - thank you kindly, I just won £225


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/polit...ters-crowd-reaction-crying-leaving-keilar.cnn

:lmao

The way the reporter speaks, you can tell she's destroyed.


----------



## chargebeam

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm so thankful my parents chose to emigrate in Canada when I was 6.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Its getting so bad for Hillary, she has to win Arizona and Alaska at this point. :lol

- Vic


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> :lol Guys, check out Ann Coulter predicting this result months ago on Bill Maher:


I'm willing to abide by something that Skeletor is 100% correct on if it happens to make that pompous cocksucker Maher spontaneously combust thanks to a potent combo of sheer fuckery and meme magic.

:trump


----------



## NotGuilty

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

WWE Hall of Famer in the WhiteHouse :vince$


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Catalanotto said:


> I think they are all talk, and, they will miss that American dollar. The Canadian dollar is fucking horseshit.
> 
> I find Canada to be incredibly boring in general. Perhaps I am still just a hardcore American cunt inside, but, I have been here a long time and it's just fucking shit, minus a few places. I find America has more to offer and I feel happier when I go back home and visit family. I am only still in Canada because my fiancé would never leave his family and friends here, which is kind of an interesting situation because most of my family is there, so, I suppose I lose this one, lol. I just feel like I fit more in the US than Canada, which is really fucking weird, considering how long I have lived here. Just before I met him, I had found a house for sale in my hometown, a GREEN house (my favorite color, die hard green lover here). I was set to go. Did not go because I met him <3 On a side note, Trudeau is a dumbass ******.
> 
> I love my fiance and will be with him even in the afterlife, so, yeah, bit of a tough situation and I am not leaving him just because he wont move. Maybe one day he will break. He DID love the housing prices and amount of land in a typical American home. Canadian housing is unreal, in a really bad way.


Canada doesn't have enough money to pay then their 20 million dollar salaries. Which is why Canadian actors and actresses come down here in the first place.

Would be funny watching all these celebs working for loonies when they finally get up there. 

They're just talking out of their asses obviously. Everyone knows that America, India and China are the only three countries in the world where their trade makes them money. Everywhere else (you know, social welfare havens) can't even support them and they'd just be regular burger flippers in the socialist states they crave :heston


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796207656109297665
:dead3


----------



## Arkham258

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Did only the trolls in this country vote? Like they're watching TV right now like this:












NotGuilty said:


> WWE Hall of Famer in the WhiteHouse :vince$


At this point, I think Vince has a decent shot of being president in a few years, with Roman Reigns as his vice president


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It's official: Republicans will keep the Senate. For the first time since 1928, they'll control the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. This truly is a historic night.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



chargebeam said:


> I'm so thankful my parents chose to emigrate in Canada when I was 6.



























































































:trump


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Canada doesn't have enough money to pay then their 20 million dollar salaries. Which is why Canadian actors and actresses come down here in the first place.
> 
> Would be funny watching all these celebs working for loonies when they finally get up there.
> 
> They're just talking out of their asses obviously. Everyone knows that America, India and China are the only three countries in the world where their trade makes them money. Everywhere else (you know, social welfare havens) can't even support them and they'd just be regular burger flippers in the socialist states they crave :heston



Canada has insane taxes, any rich actor moving there is stupid, unless they get a loophole. Though I thought all these "leftist" actors were for the people? Guess not when it comes to paying their own fair share.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> They're just talking out of their asses obviously. Everyone knows that America, India and China are the only three countries in the world where their trade makes them money. Everywhere else (you know, social welfare havens) can't even support them and they'd just be regular burger flippers in the socialist states they crave :heston


Nah they'd make fortunes here in the UK as well to be honest. Take a look at football (soccer) players, rock stars (especially classic ones) and thespians for reference. Fuck celebrities though, if they wanna move away from their meal ticket that's their idiotic decision I guess. I'm almost 100% certain none of them will leave, such nonsense lol.


----------



## FatherJackHackett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump up 55,825 in PA right now, 98% reported. Holy shit.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> It's official: Republicans will keep the Senate. For the first time since 1928, they'll control the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. This truly is a historic night.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> It's official: Republicans will keep the Senate. For the first time since 1928, they'll control the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. This truly is a historic night.


That's crazy. They cockblocked everything for 8 years just to push a one of their smaller agenda and get rewarded with even more power by the voters.

America why?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Canada has insane taxes, any rich actor moving there is stupid, unless they get a loophole. Though I thought all these "leftist" actors were for the people? Guess not when it comes to paying their own fair share.


Forget about taxes, Canada doesn't even have a film, music or entertainment industry :ha

All they have is a bunch of land in Vancouver that they rent out to Hollywood for their films 

:ha :ha


----------



## Yeah1993

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

best joke I've heard in weeks:

I don't want Hilary to be the first f president.

Meant to type female, but the emale got deleted.


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Since Trump has most likely won this, lets discuss how fine my favorite President, Reagan, was as a young man.

Fine as fuck.


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Catalanotto said:


> Since Trump has most likely won this, lets discuss how fine my favorite President, Reagan, was as a young man.
> 
> Fine as fuck.


we share the same 3 letters in our names..Ron..


----------



## RavishingRickRules

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> That's crazy. They cockblocked everything for 8 years just to push a one of their smaller agenda and get rewarded with even more power by the voters.
> 
> America why?


From what I can tell, this election was a "fuck you" to the establishment....by giving the party who pretty much define the word "establishment" in US politics the most power they've had in over 80 years. Reminds me of earlier in the year when here in the UK we gave a "fuck you" to the establishment by giving the party made up of landed gentry, nobility and the upper-classes the power to rewrite our legal system, remove rights for the working and lower-middle class workforce and justify the privatisation of all the public services they promised in their election manifesto they wouldn't privatise......lol.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Marijuana has been legalized in California, Massachusetts, and Nevada! :mark:

- Vic


----------



## Mra22

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Republicans are everywhere baby!!!


----------



## Arkham258

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The rest of the world right now










Good job ol US of A


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Meanwhile at Hillarys victory party 











:ha


----------



## Sephiroth

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm pretty sure all of you have birthday_massacre to thank/blame for this. 

Trump was able to sway millions of voters by holding up his picture and saying "Don't be a birthday_massacre, vote for me!"


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RavishingRickRules said:


> From what I can tell, this election was a "fuck you" to the establishment....by giving the party who pretty much define the word "establishment" in US politics the most power they've had in over 80 years. Reminds me of earlier in the year when here in the UK we gave a "fuck you" to the establishment by giving the party made up of landed gentry, nobility and the upper-classes the power to rewrite our legal system, remove rights for the working and lower-middle class workforce and justify the privatisation of all the public services they promised in their election manifesto they wouldn't privatise......lol.


Sounds about right. Seems like the message has been you can reduce the size of the pie, just get rid of the 'others' so I can keep my share of the pie while you enjoy a bigger slice.


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> Meanwhile at Hillarys victory party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :ha


lmfao ur so damn funny .. friend request sent lol


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Forget about taxes, Canada doesn't even have a film, music or entertainment industry :ha
> 
> All they have is a bunch of land in Vancouver that they rent out to Hollywood for their films
> 
> :ha :ha


Don't forget Toronto is fairly big for filming movies (FYI Suicide Squad had parts filmed here, when Batman was on the Joker's LAMBO, though that movie sucked) and TV shows, and has the TIFF.

Other than that, I would say the only notable places worth going to are Montreal and parts of Vancouver (the parts you wont get abducted and killed in LOL).

Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike Canada or anything, I just don't find it very appealing overall lol and there is not much here to offer except free health care, if you want to wait 1900 hours in a hospital, or have to wait forever for a doctor's appointment (mostly if you have a female doctor like I do).

My mom has a 3 bedroom home in my hometown (Buffalo) with a HUGE backyard. A house like hers would run $500,000 CAD, MINIMUM, for the most part, which is unfucking real. She paid just over $100,000 US. In fact, with the land she has in her yard, $500,000 would be the price for a 3 bedroom with smaller square feet and a smaller backyard...like, barely there backyard. Yards here are stupid.


----------



## chargebeam

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Lumpy McRighteous said:


> :trump


I'm not from the US.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Arkham258 said:


> The rest of the world right now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good job ol US of A


We aren't laughing. We are terrified. Well maybe laughing as a coping mechanism. :shrug


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FriedTofu said:


> That's crazy. They cockblocked everything for 8 years just to push a one of their smaller agenda and get rewarded with even more power by the voters.
> 
> America why?


Ugh this bullshit again? Democrats had full control of the Government when Obama was first elected for 3 years. They did nothing with it which is why blue areas went red as a message to the Democrats.


----------



## Arkham258

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I think someone changed the timeline


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

For your viewing pleasure, here's a list of all the celebrities who claimed to leave the country if Trump won:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cather...eave-the-country-if-trump-is-elected-n2215391

*BOOKMARK* this link and see if they follow through on that dumb shit.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Let's go PA or MI I got work in the morning


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I can't wait to see Hilary's retaliation once Trump hits 270...recount? false accusations? etc. etc.? or a "Donald you devil, can I do to you what Monica Lewinsky did to my husband?" which Donald would reply with a :trump


----------



## Sephiroth

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Arkham258 said:


> The rest of the world right now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good job ol US of A


----------



## FatherJackHackett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> For your viewing pleasure, here's a list of all the celebrities who claimed to leave the country if Trump won:
> 
> http://townhall.com/tipsheet/catheri...ected-n2215391
> 
> BOOKMARK this link and see if they follow through on that dumb shit.


Miley Cyrus saying she'd leave was an automatic vote for Trump. :lol

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump needs to come out doing the dx crotch chop!


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:mark: :mark: :mark:

*AP SAYS TRUMP HAS WON PENNSYLVANIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT SHOULD DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Ugh this bullshit again? Democrats had full control of the Government when Obama was first elected for 3 years. They did nothing with it which is why blue areas went red as a message to the Democrats.


It isn't bullshit when they choose obstructionism during an emergency to get symbolic measures passed during the Zika outbreak.

You can argue they didn't do a good enough job, but they weren't stopping things getting done at the level we have seen in the past few years of GOP control of the house. Government isn't a magic bullet.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Trump needs to come out doing the dx crotch chop!


:trump needs to come out and the first thing he needs to say is...

AND YOU CAN TELL THEM, TO GO FUCK THEMSELVES

:trump


----------



## Mra22

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The AP just called Pennsylvania for Trump!!!


----------



## CGS

Rowdy Yates said:


> The similarities between this election and brexit are many
> 
> The warning signs that the public shared Trumps views and wanted change.(GOP primaries and the 2014 European election)
> 
> The media bashing and witch hunt
> 
> The immediate labelling of Nazi, Bigot, and Dangerous
> 
> The fact that 99% of the polls got it completely wrong
> 
> The fact that Immigration is obviously a massive worry to both country's citizens
> 
> The power of the working class white male being totally dismissed and forgot about
> 
> The fact that the left were in total denial about how severe the country's problems actually are
> 
> The under dog rising up and snatching victory out of the hands of defeat
> 
> :banderas


After the whole Brexit thing I started telling people that Trump would 100% win. I'm still shocked that it's gonna happen but all the signs were there. The biggest being that while 'change' factor. Seems like change isn't just a change of face at the moment, it's the complete opposite of what is in power now. 

Just incredible:lmao


----------



## Arkham258

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Is is more disturbing that Trump is going to be president, or that there's so many people in the country who think like him?


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Even Fox News is shocked! They didn't think Trump would perform this well.

- Vic


----------



## Lady Eastwood

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

These last few fucking states.

I have to get up for work in 6 hours ffs, lets go.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

264..................... :done


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Arkham258 said:


> Is is more disturbing that Trump is going to be president, or that there's so many people in the country who think like him?


Your tears 

Delicious


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



RavishingRickRules said:


> Nah they'd make fortunes here in the UK as well to be honest. Take a look at football (soccer) players, rock stars (especially classic ones) and thespians for reference. Fuck celebrities though, if they wanna move away from their meal ticket that's their idiotic decision I guess. I'm almost 100% certain none of them will leave, such nonsense lol.


Well, football is a global money-maker so it has a larger pool of money to draw from. 

But UK also doesn't have much of a film industry ... It has great to good TV shows, but even there is a significant talent drain towards the states where the artists go to make the real money.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Will a president Trump finally release his tax returns? :troll


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Trump needs to come out doing the dx crotch chop!


He should come out to Hogan't theme.


----------



## MR-Bolainas

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










The Machine must be Proud


----------



## FatherJackHackett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> :mark: :mark: :mark:
> 
> *AP SAYS TRUMP HAS WON PENNSYLVANIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT SHOULD DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


:suckit


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Donald Trump Wins PA folks. Welcome your President of the United States of America, DONALD TRUMP!


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Cuck loser Evan McMullin is crying so hard tonight

Fuck off Evan and go back to your mom's basement


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



chargebeam said:


> I'm not from the US.


:mase

Carry on, then.


----------



## stevefox1200

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> For your viewing pleasure, here's a list of all the celebrities who claimed to leave the country if Trump won:
> 
> http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cather...eave-the-country-if-trump-is-elected-n2215391
> 
> *BOOKMARK* this link and see if they follow through on that dumb shit.


I question the intellegeance of some of these people

Sam Jackson said he would go to South Africa

You know, a place that is well known for its tolerance and not murder

half of them also said Spain which is pretty conservative outside of the urban areas


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

LMAO i can't wait to see Trump Vs Kanye in this joke of a country. This election has been the greatest comedy in a while


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

President Donald John Trump. Learn to live with it. Learn to love it! WOO!

- Vic


----------



## Mra22

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Officially over guys. Thank you JESUS!!


----------



## Arkham258

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

This country chose Trump over putting a woman in office

Damn


----------



## Gimme More

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I did not vote this election. I just know Trump from his reality show and Wrestlemania 23 :lmao

I just fucking HATE Bill Clinton! I have hated him since I was a kid in the 90's. I really did not expect Trump to actually win! :lmao President Trump :lmao but fuck the Clinton's :lol bitches!


----------



## The Dazzler

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## KingofKings1524

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I really can't stand that so many people are painting every vote for Trump as a vote for misogyny and racism. it's quite irritating that almost every little thing lately boils down to someone being a bigot or intolerant of others. Maybe the majority of people were finally sick of the status quo and wanted to see what an outsider could do. Some of the shit I've heard spewed on the likes of BET tonight is flat out disturbing and more divisive than what they're apparently fighting against.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Im jusst as keen to see what Hillary says as I am to see what Trump says.


----------



## Arkham258

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Rich, white, crazy, idiot male beats Hilary

Feminism just got punched in the face...and had its pussy grabbed


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Arkham258 said:


> *This country chose Trump over putting a woman in office*
> 
> Damn


That's not even what this is about :lmao


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



> This country chose Trump over putting a career criminal in office
> 
> Damn


EFA.

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Arkham258 said:


> This country chose Trump over putting a woman in office
> 
> Damn


The fuck is wrong with you? Hillary was completely corrupt. Voting for a woman because she's a woman is stupid, this coming from one. What is wrong with some of you males?

Lol trying to make this into something sexist.


----------



## Mra22

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I was cynical. I believed the polls. I always figured Hillary would win.

I was wrong.

NEVER BEEN SO HAPPY TO BE WRONG!!!! :mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin :cheer :mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin :dancingpenguin :woo :cheer :mark: :dance :dance2

You were right, @CamillePunk. I was wrong. :sodone

Everything, in a way, changes tonight. And in other ways nothing changes. For the first time in my life it feels like "The System" may be on its way to cracking as it is presently constituted (this is rough language, but in the interest of brevity I don't wish to go into the subtleties and nuances of that). The Government-Media Complex assisting Hillary was exposed for the entire world to see. It all depends on where things go from here and what Donald Trump's presidency will truly represent and become.

All of the posters who compared this to BREXIT, like @L-DOPA and @Rowdy Yates and @The Dazzler and many others... Remarkable! :mark:

And, @Miss Sally, :trump won a greater share of the Hispanic vote than Mitt Romney did four years ago. :clap

Congratulations to you, @Beatles123, as you voted for the first time in your life this year.

And this is the first and potentially last time I ever voted for a major party presidential candidate, haha. :lol And he won! :woo
@Vic Capri! :dance :dance @Goku! :dance :dance @Fringe! :dance :dance

A THEODEN MOMENT JUST LIKE I SAID! :lol :sodone

:woo :trump :woo


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It's not Official wtf someone make this OFFICIAL!!


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Reotor

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Welp, if people in the world thought Americans are stupid, now they have proof.


----------



## samizayn

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I have to say I am stunned. I can't wait to see "Great Again."



KingofKings1524 said:


> I really can't stand that so many people are painting every vote for Trump as a vote for misogyny and racism. it's quite irritating that almost every little thing lately boils down to someone being a bigot or intolerant of others. Maybe the majority of people were finally sick of the status quo and wanted to see what an outsider could do. Some of the shit I've heard spewed on the likes of BET tonight is flat out disturbing and more divisive than what they're apparently fighting against.


I think it's moreso the realisation that people's priorities aren't all that in the same spaces. Like, the fact that his voters didn't care about that as much as they cared about other hot button issues, is what is being called racist in itself.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm so happy Trump won. Like the Dave Chappelle skit racism can be fresh and out in the open. Perfection. Now people will see there is a problem.


----------



## El Dandy

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary gonna duck out on her L promo :lmao


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Milo Yiannopoulos must be cumming so hard right now


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reotor said:


> Welp, if people in the world thought Americans are stupid, now they have proof.


woah..relax killer


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



DesolationRow said:


> I was cynical. I believed the polls. I always figured Hillary would win.
> 
> I was wrong.
> 
> NEVER BEEN SO HAPPY TO BE WRONG!!!! :mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin :cheer :mark: :cheer :woo :dance :dance2 :dancingpenguin :dancingpenguin :woo :cheer :mark: :dance :dance2
> 
> You were right, @CamillePunk. I was wrong. :sodone
> 
> Everything, in a way, changes tonight. And in other ways nothing changes. For the first time in my life it feels like "The System" may be on its way to cracking as it is presently constituted (this is rough language, but in the interest of brevity I don't wish to go into the subtleties and nuances of that). The Government-Media Complex assisting Hillary was exposed for the entire world to see. It all depends on where things go from here and what Donald Trump's presidency will truly represent and become.
> 
> All of the posters who compared this to BREXIT, like @L-DOPA and @Rowdy Yates and @The Dazzler and many others... Remarkable! :mark:
> 
> And, @Miss Sally, :trump won a greater share of the Hispanic vote than Mitt Romney did four years ago. :clap
> 
> Congratulations to you, @Beatles123, as you voted for the first time in your life this year.
> 
> And this is the first and potentially last time I ever voted for a major party presidential candidate, haha. :lol And he won! :woo
> @Vic Capri! :dance :dance @Goku! :dance :dance @Fringe! :dance :dance
> 
> A THEODEN MOMENT JUST LIKE I SAID! :lol :sodone
> 
> :woo :trump :woo



Told you he would! My fellow Hispanics had to realize that the Emperor does indeed protect!


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



AryaDark said:


>


If Trump's presidency does nothing else, should a large number of the Social Justice Warriors generation finally grow up, he will have been ineffably great.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

You know what's going to come out of this. 

An eventual realization that the majority of people that voted the GOP in aren't actually racists or sexists and maybe that will finally bridge the divisive gap the democrats created during the Obama presidency.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Even Fox News is shocked! They didn't think Trump would perform this well.
> 
> - Vic



Sean Hannity disagrees :grin2:


----------



## MonkasaurusRex

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm pretty sure that this means I'm not getting my work visa


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KingCosmos said:


> I'm so happy Trump won. Like the Dave Chappelle skit racism can be fresh and out in the open. Perfection. Now people will see there is a problem.


You must think that's going to actually do something.


----------



## Sephiroth

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

We all failed tonight...


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796083557718495232
We could have had a Matt/Nero ticket win


----------



## chargebeam

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Man. I had no idea there was so many Trump supporters here.


----------



## ecclesiastes10

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! PRESIDENT Trump!!!!!!!!
imma know lose this weight and hopefully enlist and try to become a marine under him...GOD is GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!! so happy I predict enlistments go up , lots of babbies being born, etc.... so happy right now


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Headliner said:


> You must think that's going to actually do something.


It's gonna get worse before it gets better that's for sure.


----------



## FatherJackHackett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Coming from a Brit who observed the populist uprising that was Brexit, I can tell you now that you will witness unbelievable amounts of hand-wringing. You will see people claiming unironically that people who didn't attend university shouldn't be allowed the vote, or that old people shouldn't be allowed the vote because they'll be dead soon, along with any other demographic that showed majority support for Trump.


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Headliner said:


> You must think that's going to actually do something.


C'mon lol


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump win is all but confirmed now. It's just a formality now.


----------



## Arcade

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

After tonight, Trump vs Kanye in 2020 isn't necessarily outside the realm of possibility.


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> Trump win is all but confirmed now. It's just a formality now.


we've waited too long for like 3 percent of a states vote..I agree must be formality


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Reotor said:


> Welp, if people in the world thought Americans are stupid, now they have proof.


Woah so edgy!

If the rest of the world is so great, let them try and take the drivers seat! Americans don't vote with non-americans in mind, much like I don't order my steak with vegans in mind.

Nobody here cares what the rest think, my mommy always told me you can't live your life with what everyone thinks of you in mind. So not sure why an entire nation would give a fuck what a bunch of people who don't live here think.

Maybe the rest of the world should focus on improving their own places. :laugh:


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary not even turning up to her own victory party 

:duck

Throw the bitch in jail . Pronto


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hold off on the celebratory champagne, friends. Hillary just won Maine. Gotta wait until it's official.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sephiroth said:


> We all failed tonight...
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796083557718495232
> We could have had a Matt/Nero ticket win


Matthew as President, Rebecca as First Lasy, Maxel as Prince and Brother Nero as VP = :vince$

But that begs this question: Who would fill the position of Obsolete Mule? :trump


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Headliner said:


> You must think that's going to actually do something.


No it won't for the time being. But people need to get beat over the head with reality. People still live in a bubble not acknowledging the issue. Now hopefully it will reach more masses. The rest of the world will be looking at the US from a microscope. People will finally wake up and see that White supremacy has always been here.


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Rowdy Yates said:


> Hillary not even turning up to her own victory party
> 
> :duck
> 
> Throw the bitch in jail . Pronto


:hbk1


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Ronzilla said:


> we've waited too long for like 3 percent of a states vote..I agree must be formality


That's now how it works here. Certain states are considered strongholds and Trump has won all the battlegrounds he needed to and it's clear as day that he's retaining the remaining GOP states.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*4 FUCKING MORE*


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

LMAO at Hilary sending everyone home


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> Hold off on the celebratory champagne, friends. Hillary just won Maine. Gotta wait until it's official.


Maine is a split state. District 2 EV is rural and it will go to Trump.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary's not giving the concession tonight.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



FatherJackHackett said:


> Coming from a Brit who observed the populist uprising that was Brexit, I can tell you now that you will witness unbelievable amounts of hand-wringing. You will see people claiming unironically that people who didn't attend university shouldn't be allowed the vote, or that old people shouldn't be allowed the vote because they'll be dead soon, along with any other demographic that showed majority support for Trump.


If Trump got the amount of black votes Obama did, the "left" would call them traitors and talk of putting them back in chains. 

You're either with them or against them, no demographic outside of upper middle class white women is safe!

:laugh:


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

WTF was that speech by Podesta :lmao

Go home ,Get some sleep and we will bring this home 

:ha


The level of denial is truly remarkable


----------



## Warlock

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

What is the likelyhood of trump hitting 300?


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Sephiroth

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Has anyone seen birthday_massacre tonight?


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sephiroth said:


> Has anyone seen birthday_massacre tonight?


lol thats the guy who bashed me for liking Trump


----------



## KingofKings1524

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I see recounts and fuckery abound. Flat out telling your supporters to leave and go to sleep means this isn't being resolved anytime soon.


----------



## obby

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

"The point of the primaries is to nominate the strongest candidate. Clinton was the DNC's pick for this election 8 years ago.

They should have just backed off and let the people decide without all the favoritism and scale-tilting. This isn't even just about Bernie. There were plenty of moderate democrats who could have run, but didn't because everyone got out of Clinton's way since it was "her turn." In the end they nominated the only candidate in the country who could lose to trump 1 on 1."

Credit to guy on reddit :cudi


----------



## FatherJackHackett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

That Podesta speech. Something shady is afoot here, they will not go away quietly, and will still try to weasel their way into the White House.


----------



## Dibil13

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Bet Vince is already on the phone asking Donald for a Raw appearance


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Democrats on social media blaming Johnson and Dr. Stein for Trump winning as expected.

- Vic


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:lmao It actually happened


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I guess Hillary lacks the _stamina_ to give a concession speech at 2 in the morning.


----------



## CGS

FatherJackHackett said:


> Coming from a Brit who observed the populist uprising that was Brexit, I can tell you now that you will witness unbelievable amounts of hand-wringing. You will see people claiming unironically that people who didn't attend university shouldn't be allowed the vote, or that old people shouldn't be allowed the vote because they'll be dead soon, along with any other demographic that showed majority support for Trump.


Eh I don't think those sort of comments will be out in the same level of force as they were with brexit. Brexit was something that can't be changed once it happens (or at least would be incredibly hard to change). They can get rid of Trump in. 4 years if anything. 

People will try it (especially the education arguments) but I doubt it will be talked about that much.


----------



## Ace

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Arcade said:


> After tonight, Trump vs Kanye in 2020 isn't necessarily outside the realm of possibility.


 Cena vs The Rock in 2024 :mark:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sephiroth said:


> Has anyone seen birthday_massacre tonight?


Probably having nightmares right now :kobelol


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:trump has slender majorities in all 5 of the states left to be called (MI, WI, PA, AZ, NH)

It's so funny watching the talking heads on the networks trying to convince themselves that maybe Hillary can eke out something because of absentee ballots :lmao


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Just call Arizona already FFS!



> Hillary not even turning up to her own victory party


Remember when people complained about Trump not giving a concession speech? :lol

- Vic


----------



## KingofKings1524

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> I guess Hillary lacks the _stamina_ to give a concession speech at 2 in the morning.


She's very low energy.


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> I guess Hillary lacks the _stamina_ to give a concession speech at 2 in the morning.


lmfao wowwwwwwwwwwwwww omg


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The only reason there's still any doubt is the media really really doesn't want to admit that :trump has won.

Hillary probably too drunk to make an appearance. She likes the sauce.

And she's definitely going to jail now. Just what the skeeze deserves.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> :trump has slender majorities in all 5 of the states left to be called (MI, WI, PA, AZ, NH)
> 
> It's so funny watching the talking heads on the networks trying to convince themselves that maybe Hillary can eke out something because of absentee ballots :lmao


Is there some sort of confusion over PA, because according to the Bing map, it's been called.


----------



## birthday_massacre

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Its pretty much called for Trump. The DNC has no one to blame but themselves, this all could have been avoided. Hillary is a joke for not doing her concession speech tonight. NO class what so ever. She cant even show her face she is so embarrassed Trump beat her.

Now it's time to watch Trump ruin the country and take away our rights one by one.

Dont say I did not warn you. Congrats to all the Trump supporters on here.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> Democrats on social media blaming Johnson and Dr. Stein for Trump winning as expected.
> 
> - Vic


And Sanders...
And Sanders supporters...
And independent voters...
And minorities...

I despise both parties, but the democunts need to eat shit. :tripsscust


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Don't even know if I can fall asleep even after it's over


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its pretty much called for Trump. The DNC has no one to blame but themselves, this all could have been avoided. Hillary is a joke for not doing her concession speech tonight. NO class what so ever. She cant even show her face she is so embarrassed Trump beat her.
> 
> Now it's time to watch Trump ruin the country and take away our rights one by one.
> 
> Dont say I did not warn you. Congrats to all the Trump supporters on here.



LOL


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I cannot wait for this speech


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










Why is it taking so long for them to call this thing?


----------



## Arkham258

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

America just became a Seth MacFarlane cartoon


----------



## FatherJackHackett

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



CGS said:


> Eh I don't think those sort of comments will be out in the same level of force as they were with brexit. Brexit was something that can't be changed once it happens (or at least would be incredibly hard to change). They can get rid of Trump in. 4 years if anything.
> 
> People will try it (especially the education arguments) but I doubt it will be talked about that much.


People wouldn't listen to us Brits who were telling them constantly not to underestimate the power of pissed off working class people, because we saw if first hand, but look what's happened.

They think their country have elected Hitler. Of course it will be will out in the same level of force, possibly worse.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> Its pretty much called for Trump. The DNC has no one to blame but themselves, this all could have been avoided. Hillary is a joke for not doing her concession speech tonight. NO class what so ever. She cant even show her face she is so embarrassed Trump beat her.
> 
> Now it's time to watch Trump ruin the country and take away our rights one by one.
> 
> Dont say I did not warn you. Congrats to all the Trump supporters on here.


You mean like with Bush? :heston

I remember all those rights that Bush was gonna take away but it never happened :draper2

I'm not gonna hold this :heston trigger finger back much longer...


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary bitching out of a concession speech is like Halloween Havoc 1998 main event. That's what people stayed around for.

I'm a supporter of hers but that's lame. She's not even having the majority of the popular vote at this point of counting.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Hillary not conceding and Podesta sending them home means that democrat lawyers are about to attack. 

There's going to be recounts and plenty of fuckery. 

Looks like the electorate could potentially be in for a lot of surprises. 

This isn't over.

Basically now the democrats will do everything that they accused Trump. 

Whinging. Claiming rigging. Demanding recounts. Contesting BG states. 

Major, major, major Democrat shit storm is incoming folks. Prepare for the worst.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm sticking around for :trump to speak

And to unleash the :heston s of course



Carte Blanche said:


> Hillary not conceding and Podesta sending them home means that democrat lawyers are about to attack.
> 
> There's going to be recounts and plenty of fuckery.
> 
> Looks like the electorate could potentially be in for a lot of surprises.
> 
> This isn't over.


:trump daddy has it sorry. democrats can try to steal it as much as they want but :trump is the 45th president of the united states

CBS still trying to act like hillary has a chance :heston


----------



## Mra22

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Google has even called Pennsylvania for Trump...


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> Why is it taking so long for them to call this thing?


1) Shock
2) Denial ✓
3) Anger and guilt
4) Despair / Depression
5) Acceptance

:trump


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I get this is close... but networks have called the race far quicker than this in many cases. Stop fucking grabbing ratings and just let the facts out as best you can. I know that is hard for the press now. But come the fuck on.


----------



## dashing_man

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










:lmao :lol


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/791263939015376902


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:trump apparently about to speak soon

:banderas


----------



## The Beast Incarnate

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Trump needs to come out doing the dx crotch chop!





FatherJackHackett said:


> :suckit


Could someone please edit this GIF to have Trumps head on HHHs body?


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I've told everyone here to stop thinking if minorities as a hive mind. Pissing of the working class which contains all demographics isn't going to earn you victory. 

The "left" pissed off working class Hispanics and Blacks by pretty much insinuating they must vote Democrat or they're traitors. They pissed off Asians by constantly ignoring them. They pissed off Whites by calling them racists at every turn.

Reap the whirlwind!


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Ironically, Trump helped the GOP win back Congress. We'll see how quick the snakes come slithering back acting like nothing happened when they denounced him. :lol



> Why is it taking so long for them to call this thing?


They don't want to admit Donald Trump has been elected the 45th President of The United States Of America.

- Vic


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:trump DADDY stole all of Charlie Sheen's TIGER BLOOD

now :trump DADDY soon to tell us all about WINNING


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

They're calling it an upset ... But if only they had paid attention to the electorate, they would've realized that it was always going to be close. Always.

@asdf0501 

You predicted a blowout for Hillary and I told you not to discount momentum and late polls and I'm not even a stats guy :shrug 

:heston :heston :heston


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










*STOP STALLING, MEDIA OUTLETS!!!!!!!!!!!! JUST ADMIT DEFEAT AND CALL THE GODDAMN RACE ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Arkham258

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Vic Capri said:


> EFA.
> 
> - Vic


Hell, I'd feel safer with a criminal in office than Trump, and that's saying something


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*











MAKE IT OFFICIAL COME ON


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Absolute said:


> *STOP STALLING, MEDIA OUTLETS!!!!!!!!!!!! JUST ADMIT DEFEAT AND CALL THE GODDAMN RACE ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


They're not calling it because Crooked Hilary is finding the last votes and manually changing them >


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Told you he would! My fellow Hispanics had to realize that the Emperor does indeed protect!


I always held out hope! I know a bunch of Hispanic fellows who love the idea of :trump and having a sort of emperor-_caudillo_! And as you've noted, many Hispanics here aren't interested in having a "hemispheric open border." :lol



FatherJackHackett said:


> Coming from a Brit who observed the populist uprising that was Brexit, I can tell you now that you will witness unbelievable amounts of hand-wringing. You will see people claiming unironically that people who didn't attend university shouldn't be allowed the vote, or that old people shouldn't be allowed the vote because they'll be dead soon, along with any other demographic that showed majority support for Trump.


Spot-on, I'm sure. 



FatherJackHackett said:


> That Podesta speech. Something shady is afoot here, they will not go away quietly, and will still try to weasel their way into the White House.


These people aren't going to give up easily. 



birthday_massacre said:


> Its pretty much called for Trump. The DNC has no one to blame but themselves, this all could have been avoided. Hillary is a joke for not doing her concession speech tonight. NO class what so ever. She cant even show her face she is so embarrassed Trump beat her.
> 
> Now it's time to watch Trump ruin the country and take away our rights one by one.
> 
> Dont say I did not warn you. *Congrats to all the Trump supporters on here.*


Thank you! Although as I noted to @CamillePunk a few times in the past I didn't consider myself a Trump supporter so much as someone rooting him on, but, yeah, ultimately, I'm quite glad he presumably has won this. (Though it's looking like nothing's going to be official for at least twelve or so hours based on myriad comments... Even with many news outlets calling Pennsylvania for :trump.)


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*CNN CALLED WISCONSIN!!!!!!!!!! IT'S OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Mra22

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Pennsylvania went back down to 89% um, what?


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*











*THE 45TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES *


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

At last.... ....confirmation.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796253849497571328









*THE PEOPLE HAVE OFFICIALLY SPOKEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

BREXIT 2.0 HAS HAPPENED!!!!!!!!! LET US SING A GLORIOUS SONG TO HERALD THE COMING OF OUR COUNTRY’S NEW LEADER:

*Hail to the Chief we have chosen for the nation,
Hail to the Chief! We salute him, one and all.
Hail to the Chief, as we pledge cooperation
In proud fulfillment of a great, noble call.

Yours is the aim to make this grand country grander,
This you will do, that's our strong, firm belief.
Hail to the one we selected as commander,
Hail to the President! Hail to the Chief!

TIME TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*










:mark: :mark: :mark: *PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!* :mark: :mark: :mark:


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Mra22 said:


> Pennsylvania went back down to 89% um, what?


not true 99!


----------



## Mra22

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

More confirmation 

http://www.whio.com/news/national-g...she-not-conceding-yet/ZFKMWEAFPWdszyNnmDrC0I/


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It's over. Finally people will wake up and see the systematic white supremacy that has plagued this country since it's inception


----------



## KingofKings1524

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Damn, at least Trump admitted he didn't know what he'd do if it was incredibly close. She admonished him for that and said he was undermining the political system. What a hypocrite. I'm genuinely curious what he's going to say when he takes the stage. Should be fun.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

lol they're crying so hard on CBS about :trump being mean to the media

Get used to it you TILTED fucks 

Your BASED GOD :trump DADDY is here



KingCosmos said:


> It's over. Finally people will wake up and see the systematic white supremacy that has plagued this country since it's inception


:heston

People have been told that bullshit for 8 years and what was the result?

They got pissed off at being slandered as racists and elected :trump DADDY

Better find a new strategy


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Donald Trump on scene...he's my Superman


----------



## Master Bate

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*











Not that anyone gives a shit, but I run a facebook page and actually called this awhile ago.. But I mean it was pretty obvious haha


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796204177055694850
:lmao


----------



## Achilles

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

America, I'm so fucking proud of you tonight. :brady5


----------



## CGS

FatherJackHackett said:


> People wouldn't listen to us Brits who were telling them constantly not to underestimate the power of pissed off working class people, because we saw if first hand, but look what's happened.
> 
> They think their country have elected Hitler. Of course it will be will out in the same level of force, possibly worse.


Agreed with the 1st part of that post for sure. lol America for that one

In any case people to talk about the education level and to an extent age of voters but it really won't reach the same levels as us brits simply because it's a reversable decision.the fact that once we're out we're out was a huge driving force of a lot of the comments during Brexits

Oh it's official? Goodnight America see you in 4 years.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I can't believe someone who watches Alex Jones is the leader of the free world. Does that mean Americans will start a war against lizard people now?


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

*IS THIS FUCKING REAL LIFE RIGHT NOW *


----------



## From Death Valley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Vince McMahon must be jizzing his pants by having the new president of the United States on his WWE Hall of fame.

With that being said. For this country's sake I hope Donald Trump doesn't turn the US into the Biff's alternative timeline from back to the future.


----------



## dashing_man

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



AryaDark said:


> https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/791263939015376902


how a innocent looking little girl 










becomes an animal bitch


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

FOX NEWS CALLS IT IN.. DONALD TRUMP IS PRESIDENT


----------



## KingofKings1524

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

And Clinton concedes.


----------



## The Absolute

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Clinton called Trump and conceded. It's happening guys. It's really happening.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KingCosmos said:


> It's over. Finally people will wake up and see the systematic white supremacy that has plagued this country since it's inception


You lot have been singing this tune for so long that nobody cares, so what was 8 years of obama, a fluke? Lol


----------



## dashing_man

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump wins, Hillary backs down


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*





:trump


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Well.. it's over. Now, are we gonna get better or worse? 

I don't fucking know. Fucking two party system keeping the third party down.


----------



## Cooper09

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The Trump cannot be stumped. Congratulations Mr President.


----------



## From Death Valley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



dashing_man said:


> how a innocent looking little girl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> becomes an animal bitch


Old age And dealing with Bill Clinton


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Well, that's it. It's finally done. History has been made.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> I have so much material on you should Trump win. I keep warning ya...


 @birthday_massacre
*AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!* :nerd:


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

:mark:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796213915390713856

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796256630639919104


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm proud to be an American.


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It didn't help her that she called more than half of the country deplorable.


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Now..... the only question: does Trump prove he is worst then what we've had, or does he somehow pull everyone up? 

Honestly, I suspect the former. Still fucking pissed it looks like it is a two party monopoly.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










:crying

Hopefully no more cockblocking in legislature with one party in full control and shit gets done.


----------



## Mra22

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

GOD is awesome!!! We did it!!!


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> lol they're crying so hard on CBS about :trump being mean to the media
> 
> Get used to it you TILTED fucks
> 
> Your BASED GOD :trump DADDY is here
> 
> 
> 
> :heston
> 
> People have been told that bullshit for 8 years and what was the result?
> 
> They got pissed off at being slandered as racists and elected :trump DADDY
> 
> Better find a new strategy


You don't get it, i'm glad Trump won. If Hilary on White supremacy hides in the shadows in nothing changes. Now that Trump is President my people will finally see all these suspected white supremacist that have come out the would works to support trump. The veil will be lifted and they will see that their best buddy or co-worker deep down supports white supremacy and wan't to keep the benefits that disenfranchising a group of people has granted them. They will see that cops get millions of dollars in donations after killing one of their people in the street like a dog.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

7.48am here and i am jumping up and down on my bed like Kevin McAllister in Home Alone

Fucking Brilliant

:dance :dance :dance :dance :dance :dance :dance :dance


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

@DesolationRow

OPERATION BLACK SWAN, BITCHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lmao


----------



## Chrome

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

To go from shaving Vince's head almost 10 years ago at WM to becoming the leader of America. :wow


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The chesspiece has surpassed the chessmaster...

The puppet has surpassed the puppeteer...

Teflon Don Juan has officially become President...










Serves you right for mercilessly throwing Bernie and his supporters under the bus, Hilldebeast. :trump


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Um... does his body language scream "o fuck I was supposed to help her win!!!!!" Attitude to anyone else? Let it be my drunkenness.


----------



## Natecore

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

LOCK HER CORUPT, CRIMINAL ASS IN JAIL, TRUMP!!!!!

:mark:

I didn't vote. I don't support Trump. It's a dream of mine to see Hillary Clinton jailed. This must happen. Don't back down, President Elect Donald Trump!


----------



## From Death Valley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

A lot of you have every right to be happy that Trump has won. Your internet porn is safe.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Congratulations on Donald John Trump on becoming the 45th President of The United States of America in the greatest US political comeback EVER!






- Vic


----------



## wwe9391

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

BOOM. 

There you go. Congrats Mr. Trump


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Anyone remember when asdf was calling charts shown by beatles and vic wrong? Remember when he was saying he had all the studies and algorithms? Well they must have been done by the two morons in his signature because he was dead wrong, that or the stats done by the colleges in his country are all done by noodle brains !

Gratz beatles you never lost faith.


----------



## From Death Valley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Also Donald Trump won't do much as president. He'll most likely just make appearances and speeches while Pence and his cabinet deal with the rest.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Miss Sally said:


> Anyone remember when asdf was calling charts shown by beatles and vic wrong? Remember when he was saying he had all the studies and algorithms? Well they must have been done by the two morons in his signature because he was dead wrong, that or the stats done by the colleges in his country are all done by noodle brains !
> 
> Gratz beatles you never lost faith.


That stats nerd whose interest in the election was purely statistical in nature didn't even show up when the actual stats stuff was happening in reality. 

Not much of a stats nerd imo. I had a feeling it was a cover up because every now and then his pro-democrat leanings would leak and then he'd back peddle. 

:heston


----------



## witchblade000

Chrome said:


> To go from shaving Vince's head almost 10 years ago at WM to becoming the leader of America. :wow


Don't forget helping make WrestleMania become what it is during its early days. Appearing on the Fresh Prince, Home Alone 2 and a music video for Ghostbusters 2. And having a reality show.


----------



## nucklehead88

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*






You guys are fucked. When you become the next fascist state, dont try moving here. Eat your nuclear fallout.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

RUDY RUDY RUDY :mark: :mark: :mark:


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> You guys are fucked. When you become the next fascist state, dont try moving here. Eat your nuclear fallout.


LOL


----------



## Arkham258

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Chrome said:


> To go from shaving Vince's head almost 10 years ago at WM to becoming the leader of America. :wow


Vince is loving this










Hell, he might even be jealous


----------



## yeahbaby!

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Congrats Team Trump, what a truly surprising, surreal thing this result and whole election has been. Hope he's everything to your country you want him to be. There's no doubt I was wrong with a capital W on this one. 

Do you still expect the wall to be built and muslim immigration banned? I haven't heard him mention those two things in quite a while.


----------



## Rowdy Yates

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Vince for secretary of state? :lmao


----------



## From Death Valley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> You guys are fucked. When you become the next fascist state, dont try moving here. Eat your nuclear fallout.


Eh that would spread world wide via air particles... You guys in Canada aren't actually safe neither. From the effect a nuclear bombing would cause. Especially when.. USA and Canada are practically neighbors.


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm on fucking cloud 9 right now


----------



## Tater

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796261670322638848
:lmao

My Twitter feed right now is mainly one giant meltdown.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Carte Blanche said:


> That stats nerd whose interest in the election was purely statistical in nature didn't even show up when the actual stats stuff was happening in reality.
> 
> Not much of a stats nerd imo. I had a feeling it was a cover up because every now and then his pro-democrat leanings would leak and then he'd back peddle.
> 
> :heston


Cut us stats nerd some slack. 2016 has been horrible for us. Underdogs winning against all odds in sports. Leicester city winning the premier league at 5000-1 odds. NBA and MLB winners coming from 1-3 down in the finals to win 4-3. Deadpool earning more money than X-men.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

It's time.

:heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston :heston


----------



## Genking48

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Grats to the Trump camp, now to enjoy the /pol/ meltdown thread that would occur no matter who won.

Tfw the robot generation is fighting back against the normies, some of you are alright don't go out into the streets.


----------



## Stadhart02

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> You guys are fucked. When you become the next fascist state, dont try moving here. Eat your nuclear fallout.



LOL trying to be profound by using quotes from the Star Wars Prequels....just LOL

Well done America for voting for Trump


----------



## Ronzilla

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Here comes the cleanup crew!


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> You guys are fucked. When you become the next fascist state, dont try moving here. Eat your nuclear fallout.


Give us your Canadian tears


----------



## FITZ

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Can't believe this happened. I'm proud that we did this. Will it pay out in the long run? No idea. But if this isn't a message by the American People standing up for themselves I don't know what else could be.


----------



## Vic Capri

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Think about it. He defeated the media, Hollywood, corporations, foreign nationals, AND social justice warriors all at once in a landslide victory!

- Vic


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



nucklehead88 said:


> You guys are fucked. When you become the next fascist state, dont try moving here. Eat your nuclear fallout.


Take your whining elsewhere, Canada has the luxury of being sealed off from nearly everyone since it's inception. You'd have to invade the US to get to Canada. Canada isn't stuck to a third world hell hole like Mexico that has open access from South America. 

So take your unearned self-righteous bravado and warnings and shove it. Your country can keep selling arms to fascist states and pretend like you lot care about the world.


----------



## Punkhead

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Trump is unpredictable, I don't know if this will be better or worse than it is now, but it's different at least, so it's totally worth trying. I hope that he will turn out to be a good president and prove the unbelievers wrong. I really hope for the good us us all.


----------



## Nostalgia

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I'm a Brit and I got up at 7:30am today and the first thing I did was check the news to see the result. Very pleased Trump won. I see the similarities with how the UK voted to leave the EU, people are tired and fed up and wanted to vote against the establishment for the hope of some real change. Whether that change will happen or not is left to be seen, but if Hillary won change would be even less likely as she's such a typical politician who wouldn't make any tough decisions and America doesn't need another one of those, plus she was very untrustworthy and heavily disliked. America need a strong leader to run the country again, some would say Trump isn't that, but at least the guy speaks his mind and isn't PC and isn't afraid to say what he truly thinks.


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Now they're saying that :trump shouldn't take apart what Obama has "accomplished" :heston


----------



## obby

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

2020.

THE DONALD vs YEEZUS :mark:


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*










I'm dying


----------



## xvampmanx

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Well how about that.


----------



## TheGeneticFreak

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Woke up to the news of Trump being president hopefully this doesn't fuck me over more than Brexit.

I do find it hilarious that the DNC basically caused this as anyone but Hilary properly would of won against Trump especially Bernie.


----------



## KingCosmos

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*









VS


----------



## Rankles75

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

America went full retard, you should *never* go full retard...


----------



## CGS

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



obby said:


> 2020.
> 
> THE DONALD vs YEEZUS :mark:



I know this is a joke but fuck me knowing America this is a very real possibility :lmao


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> Now they're saying that :trump shouldn't take apart what Obama has "accomplished" :heston


The accomplishments of shit ty health care and setting back race relations 50 years? :grin2:


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



KingCosmos said:


> I'm dying


Someone needs to shop Hillary's face on this.


----------



## $id

He did it,I cant believe it he beat the world...even the top bollywood star here endorsed hillary for indian votes in america...he beat the world...i cant believe it, I hope he does well


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



$id said:


> He did it,I cant believe it he beat the world...even the top bollywood star here endorsed hillary for indian votes in america...he beat the world...i cant believe it, I hope he does well


He truly beat the world. Every expat of every other country was being encouraged to vote Hillary.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Kabraxal said:


> Um... does his body language scream "o fuck I was supposed to help her win!!!!!" Attitude to anyone else? Let it be my drunkenness.


Myself and Crewz (who has since been banned) both stated on here that there was no way he was seriously in this to win this, but rather that he was in this to help Hilldebeast win, since they're long-time friends and especially because it was revealed that he called Slick Willy Clinton only weeks before announcing his campaign.

So yeah, one can only imagine how many bricks Teflon Don Juan is gonna shit now that his and the Clintons' plan to have her simply waltz into the oval office has been turned completely on its head. :lol


----------



## Chrome

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

2020 will probably be Trump vs Sanders tbh. Kanye will get the same treatment Sanders got this year.


----------



## Not Lying

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I can't believe that guy's dumb wife is First lady...


----------



## From Death Valley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Man, if Donald Trump can become president. Then Vince must be plotting for 2020


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Chrome said:


> 2020 will probably be Trump vs Sanders tbh. Kanye will get the same treatment Sanders got this year.


Please please please Democrats nominate Sanders or Warren :heston


----------



## Slickback

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Anyone else's facebook feed flooded with fucks crying that Hillary won, yet probabaly doesn't know shit about all the corrupt shit she has done :lmao 


Fuck em


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Rekt

:beckylol

House, Senate, White House

:lmao

Took the media long enough to call this shit though. It was obvious it was over like 2 hours before they finally started calling it.

Can't believe that graceless bitch couldn't even be bothered to show her face to her own supporters. fpalm She's probably making plans to flee the country. I wonder how she plans to repay the billions in bribes she blew embarrassing herself tonight. She should have stashed some of that away for her commissary account for when she goes to prison.


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

I am.......Shaking.....for the first time in ages...life has went my way.....thia is all i've ever wanted for over a year.

Im not going to lie to you all..... @DesolationRow @deepelemblues @Miss Sally @Carte Blanche @CamillePunk 

You guys....all you guys....You made every neg--every...hateful post i ever received from making The Donald Trump Thread a thing, worth it....I wasn't sure if I could even take it if Trump lost..Im really...not a person who's been able to identify with the world...im 26, and feel often as if I've done nothing of significance in my life...I've never been able to achieve many of my dreams...but I always try to be nice. I always try to care...you have no idea ehat its BEEN like to endure what I have this cycle...I've been told to kill myself...that Im a racist....that im Evil.....all because I genuinely believed things that most today do not....A belief in my god...a belief that You don't have to be coddled to death just because it may offend others...my right to enjoy hunting....being from the south, and waving the flag of my people....NOT advocating slavory, but being PROUD of my culture....I'll be honest with you, it drove me to the brink. 

I am NOT evil.

I am NOT racist.

I am not SEXIST!

What I am, i couldn't say...but what I DO know is this....today....I am....Happy. For the first time in ages, I feel GOOD about my life!

Thank you....Thank you all! I mean that. Without you guys, I wouldn't have even had the courage to vote.


*WE DID IT!!!!!*


----------



## Chrome

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

If I could never hear the phrase, "too close to call" again that'd be greaaaaat.


----------



## Headliner

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

Went from the GOAT first lady to some robotic autistic chick who's actions you can control by pressing a button on a remote.:mj4


----------



## deepelemblues

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

The NYT editorial board has the most_ delectable_ tears available right now.



Headliner said:


> Went from the GOAT first lady to some robotic autistic chick who's actions you can control by pressing a button on a remote.:mj4


I wanna get my hands on Melania's button sorry :trump daddy.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



deepelemblues said:


> Please please please Democrats nominate Sanders or Warren :heston


These people have no idea that the very idea of a potential socialist running for office would galvanise the GOP electorate even more than it did for Trump :kobelol


----------



## MillionDollarProns

The meme has become real


----------



## floyd2386

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Chrome said:


> To go from shaving Vince's head almost 10 years ago at WM to becoming the leader of America. :wow


And they say Vince can't create new stars :vince$


----------



## Art Vandaley

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Sincere said:


> House, Senate, White House


And don't forget the Supreme Court, the biggest prize up for grabs this election really.

Be very interesting how Trump relates with the Republican congress and Ryan in particular from here on out.



Carte Blanche said:


> These people have no idea that the very idea of a potential socialist running for office would galvanise the GOP electorate even more than it did for Trump :kobelol


Agreed re Sanders, not sure about Warren though, I can see her successfully moving to the center in a way I just can't imagine Sanders being able to do.


----------



## Martins

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*

As much as I completely despise everything he represents (as I do Hillary), "he beat the world" is correct. Hitler in 2016 would have gotten less shit from the media, and to actually have heard some political commentators tonight saying HILLARY had the odds stacked against her and had to "go up against the media" was fucking ridiculous. Bitch was strapped to and carried in a fucking golden throne and is so incapable and despicable that she actually managed to fall off of it :lmao


----------



## Slickback

The fact of the matter is that the media has proven over and over in not just the US but in the UK and around the developed world that it will prioritize pushing agendas over telling the truth and people are becoming aware of this. Public trust in the media has never been lower than it is now for good reason.

Today is a victory


----------



## Ygor

Told 'ya!


----------



## Cipher

I blame DZWooo.

I don't think a Trump Presidency will be as bad as people say. I think some of it was just an act anyways...why would a lifelong liberal suddenly flip like that? 

I'm much, much more worried about Pence.

Bernie would have crushed Trump...great job, DNC.


----------



## deepelemblues

Time to finally go cheef this bowl and get some sleep.

Now it is our pride and our responsibility to turn this shit around and make things better for *all* _Americans._

God Bless America.


----------



## Sincere

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Alkomesh2 said:


> And don't forget the Supreme Court, the biggest prize up for grabs this election really.
> 
> Be very interesting how Trump relates with the Republican congress and Ryan in particular from here on out.


Well, the SCotUS follows from sweeping Congress and the Presidency. There's now virtually no chance his nominee won't get approved by Congress. This was basically a red landslide.


----------



## ThEmB0neZ

I can only imagine what these "Celebrities" are thinking and what their faces look like right now. :crying:


----------



## dashing_man

This was Hillary us

Get it :shrug


----------



## Sincere

ThEmB0neZ said:


> I can only imagine what these "Celebrities" are thinking and what their faces look like right now. :crying:


Hopefully all the ones who promised to leave the country will make good on their dramatics and fuck right off over the wall.

:draper2


----------



## Arya Dark

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Machiavelli said:


> Anyone else's facebook feed flooded with fucks crying that Hillary won, yet probabaly doesn't know shit about all the corrupt shit she has done :lmao
> 
> 
> Fuck em


*Odds are even if they did know they wouldn't care and that's a HUGE fucking problem as far as I'm concerned. That's what our political system has come to. Someone as corrupt as Hillary Clinton came this fucking close to winning a Presidential election.

I hate both of these fuckers but there's no way I'd vote for someone as corrupt as Hillary Clinton, I don't care who the fuck it is or who the fuck they are running against.

This is just more evidence that we need more than two parties in this system. We need more than two parties invited to debates and until enough people see the fucking light and stop voting for these fucking pricks and start voting for third parties it'll never happen. Democrats and Republicans are thick as thieves when it comes to this. They will do whatever it takes to keep other parties out of the debate system. Those that don't see this are simply delusional. *


----------



## Miss Sally

He did beat the world, the media and the regressive left who would tell us they are the real majority. 

Whenever globalists, pandering actors, shilling media, crybaby victim hood cults and foreign countries try to tell us Americans what to do, how to think or what to say...

I and others will stand with a can of gas and match in hand to burn down their house of lies.


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



The Definition of Technician said:


> I can't believe that guy's dumb wife is First lady...


Let's get a few things straight, bruh bruh:

1) You've gotta be cunning as fuck to be married to a billionaire for over a decade

2) Melania's GAWJUS :ellen

3) Melania's such a babe that she will be the inaugural First GODDESS of the United States :trump


----------



## Reaper

Cipher said:


> I blame DZWooo.
> 
> I don't think a Trump Presidency will be as bad as people say. I think some of it was just an act anyways...why would a lifelong liberal suddenly flip like that?
> 
> I'm much, much more worried about Pence.
> 
> Bernie would have crushed Trump...great job, DNC.


Well considering that all the democrat Biden was famous for was being a highly paid pizza delivery boy I wouldn't worry too much about the VP.

Bernie would've guaranteed and even larger republican turnout. While the lazy millennials would have sat at home thinking they can win it without voting since he was going to crush Trump.


----------



## Genking48

ThEmB0neZ said:


> I can only imagine what these "Celebrities" are thinking and what their faces look like right now. :crying:


That's the beauty of social media, you don't have to imagine!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796264321726685184

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796265040613675008

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796176331377516544

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796246189502959616

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796256623912251392

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796211749351550978

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796220439542439936


----------



## Reaper

How many people think that the media and polls predicting a Hillary blowout contributed to her losing?

The Republican turnout looks to have been absolutely huge at this point.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

My favorite part of this election: Buzzfeed gave up their live coverage an hour before the result :lmao

Katy Perry :lmao


----------



## Chloe

@birthday_massacre

ointandlaugh


----------



## Lumpy McRighteous

:salute to Telfon Don Juan's meme magicians for whipping this up.


----------



## deepelemblues

All these celebrity scrunts are finally starting to figure out that their fake tits (or in Patton Oswalt's case his real tits) don't make them smarter and better than the rest of us :heston

They don't like the feeling. Too fuckin bad. Talk tough now Katy Perry, everybody knows all the 99% pure Molly and prescribed liquid Xanax in the world ain't gonna make your bitch ass feel better tonight


----------



## MillionDollarProns

Trump had the better celebrity support.

Trump had better celebrity support imho


----------



## Rick_James

The celebrities here ultimately did more harm than good IMO.... a lot more harm. People are tired of entertainers and the media constantly trying to shove their opinions down everyone else's throat.


----------



## Slickback

Never seen an election where the voters was more like "we don't like you" than actually supporting the other candidate. The DNC deserve what happened. They put the candidate they wanted not who the people chose. Even with all the media on her side she still couldn't win.


----------



## Death Rider

well this is what happens when you ignore people and call everyone racist who disagrees. I hate trump but maybe people will learn that of you ignore people and call them stupid they ain't going to like it. 

hilary was awful anyway. trump is a total wildcard so lets see how this plays out


----------



## -XERO-

Waiting to see how "good", okay, bad, or FUCKING HORRIBLE Donald Trump will be as president while I listen to the song link at the top of my sig on repeat right now....

Gonna get some sleep soon.


----------



## DoolieNoted

Celebrity tears taste soooooo good...

All we need now is a BM rant and the day will be complete..


----------



## Death Rider

edit: sorry double post


----------



## Arkham258

deepelemblues said:


> All these celebrity scrunts are finally starting to figure out that their fake tits (or in Patton Oswalt's case his real tits) don't make them smarter and better than the rest of us :heston


No, knowing that Trump is a horrible candidate makes them smarter than you


----------



## CHAMPviaDQ

Machiavelli said:


> *The fact of the matter is that the media has proven over and over in not just the US but in the UK and around the developed world that it will prioritize pushing agendas over telling the truth and people are becoming aware of this. Public trust in the media has never been lower than it is now for good reason.*
> 
> Today is a victory


Bingo.

Even on NBC they were looking at themselves and wondering how much of this was their (media) doing. Whether that is genuine sentiment or not it was pleasing to see that it was addressed in some form. I remember people shitting on Vice and GQ Magazine for example on FB for pushing the Anti-Trump and Pro Hillary agendas so hard that there were some really angry comments calling them out as shills etc. 

The media blitz against Trump was way too heavy handed. People saw through it and got fed up. 

Social Media trashing Trump. Liberal Media trashing Trump. Celebrities trashing Trump. Feminist and SJW backing for Hillary. All of it was not enough and all of those factors were hugely influential.

Trump overcame all of that. Hillary will go down in history as an utter failure.


----------



## Arkham258

And can I just say a big fuck you to people who voted for Trump just because some celebrities annoyed them. Way to research the issues and have your priorities straight.


----------



## Vic Capri

Donald Trump was John Cena tonight, :lol






- Vic


----------



## Reaper

Roy Mustang said:


> well this is what happens when you ignore people and call everyone racist who disagrees. I hate trump but maybe people will learn that of you ignore people and call them stupid they ain't going to like it.
> 
> hilary was awful anyway. trump is a total wildcard so lets see how this plays out


For years whites have taken racist abuse hurled at them in the papers on tv. In movies on social media. 

******** have been depicted as dumb hicks. College white men as rapists. CEOs as sexists. Cops as racists. Elderly as brain dead ignoramuses. 

By their own sons and daughters and grandchildren no less at times. 

Despite creating the very society and freedoms these people abuse to abuse them. 

If this was a whitelash it was coming and they fucking asked for it and they deserve it. 

I don't hate Trump. I love what he stands for. He stands for white male success and I believe it deserves to be celebrated openly as does black excellence or Asian excellence or female excellence.


----------



## Godway

I don't largely follow politics or care about them, aside from my local elections, but it was kind of hard to not pay attention to this election with what a circus it was. Now that it's all over, I can happily say from all of the shit I watched on it, I'm glad Trump won. And I fully agree that the Democrats cost themselves this election, I think people would have happily voted for Bernie in a landslide over Trump. Hillary is a fucking scumbag. Like such a scumbag that people saw through all of the transparent nonsense propaganda, and that says a LOT because there was such an overwhelmingly negative portrayal of Trump through the media and Hollywood. And that's mostly why I'm glad that he won, because fuck those fucking people. You make movies, and live in a Hollywood bubble where people wipe your asses for you. You're not in the same fucking boat as me so don't try telling me what I want. And especially don't tell me that we should all stand against HATE running our country by fighting it with more HATE. What the fuck do you call the last few months of media coverage and Hollywood's HATE campaign against Trump? Fucking hypocrite douche bags, all of them. I'm so glad they all look like goddamn morons now. Please, follow through with your threats and leave the country. And for the ones who won't be butthurt, they should get on their social medias and make apologies for their behavior during this election. 

I hope Trump surprises everybody. I'm not holding my breath, but I hope.


----------



## 3MB4Life

Trump with that babyface comeback. They all said he couldn't do it, the media wrote him off, the Democrats attacked his personal life, the Republicans denounced him, the leftists called his supporters every slur under the sun. And yet, Donald Trump kicks out at two and nine-tenths and makes Hillary tap. None of the internet complaining is gonna change that.

Donald Trump is officialy the John Cena of politics. You can't keep him down.


----------



## The RainMaker

I've never been prouder of my country.


Time to Make America Great Again.


----------



## Death Rider

Carte Blanche said:


> Roy Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> well this is what happens when you ignore people and call everyone racist who disagrees. I hate trump but maybe people will learn that of you ignore people and call them stupid they ain't going to like it.
> 
> hilary was awful anyway. trump is a total wildcard so lets see how this plays out
> 
> 
> 
> For years whites have taken racist abuse hurled at them in the papers on tv. In movies on social media.
> 
> ******** have been depicted as dumb hicks. College white men as rapists. CEOs as sexists. Cops as racists. Elderly as brain dead ignoramuses.
> 
> By their own sons and daughters and grandchildren no less at times.
> 
> Despite creating the very society and freedoms these people abuse to abuse them.
> 
> If this was a whitelash it was coming and they fucking asked for it and they deserve it.
> 
> I don't hate Trump. I love what he stands for. He stands for white success and I believe it deserves to be celebrated openly as does black excellence or Asian excellence.
Click to expand...

Yeah media's stupidity has backfired. All this campign imstead of saying why he is wrong people just resorted to insults. 


Now with the small research i did thanks to beatles and CP he has some policies i massively disagree with like the wall working (immgration controls needing changes is a thing though) and his dismissing of climiate change but he seems like he does want to do a good job. 

But all i saw all over was his supporters and him being racist. Comment sections were calling him out time and time again. 

The silent majority too afraid to say their view cause they will be called racist or stupid?

The media and not listening caused this if it goes wrong but lets see the media report the truth for once. i doubt that evee happens


----------



## Cooper09

Carte Blanche said:


> For years whites have taken racist abuse hurled at them in the papers on tv. In movies on social media.
> 
> ******** have been depicted as dumb hicks. College white men as rapists. CEOs as sexists. Cops as racists. Elderly as brain dead ignoramuses.
> 
> By their own sons and daughters and grandchildren no less at times.
> 
> Despite creating the very society and freedoms these people abuse to abuse them.
> 
> If this was a whitelash it was coming and they fucking asked for it and they deserve it.
> 
> I don't hate Trump. I love what he stands for. He stands for white male success and I believe it deserves to be celebrated openly as does black excellence or Asian excellence or female excellence.


Perfectly said. For the people who demand tolerance they are the most intolerant people around. 

The fact that being white and male makes you a dirty person and is acceptable to state is a scandal and sickening. 

Hilary dominated the black vote but people are upset that Trump dominated the white vote. It's people like these the reason Trump won. People are sick to the back teeth of listening to it.


----------



## DesolationRow

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



Beatles123 said:


> I am.......Shaking.....for the first time in ages...life has went my way.....thia is all i've ever wanted for over a year.
> 
> Im not going to lie to you all..... @DesolationRow @deepelemblues @Miss Sally @Carte Blanche @CamillePunk
> 
> You guys....all you guys....You made every neg--every...hateful post i ever received from making The Donald Trump Thread a thing, worth it....I wasn't sure if I could even take it if Trump lost..Im really...not a person who's been able to identify with the world...im 26, and feel often as if I've done nothing of significance in my life...I've never been able to achieve many of my dreams...but I always try to be nice. I always try to care...you have no idea ehat its BEEN like to endure what I have this cycle...I've been told to kill myself...that Im a racist....that im Evil.....all because I genuinely believed things that most today do not....A belief in my god...a belief that You don't have to be coddled to death just because it may offend others...my right to enjoy hunting....being from the south, and waving the flag of my people....NOT advocating slavory, but being PROUD of my culture....I'll be honest with you, it drove me to the brink.
> 
> I am NOT evil.
> 
> I am NOT racist.
> 
> I am not SEXIST!
> 
> What I am, i couldn't say...but what I DO know is this....today....I am....Happy. For the first time in ages, I feel GOOD about my life!
> 
> Thank you....Thank you all! I mean that. Without you guys, I wouldn't have even had the courage to vote.
> 
> 
> *WE DID IT!!!!!*


We did it, fam! :woo :woo :woo

Thank you for the exceedingly kind words my friend. Your enthusiasm for :trump was infectious! 

And @CamillePunk and I, I believe were right. Only :trump could have climbed this mountain. Only :trump could slay the Hillary Dragon. :woo :woo :woo :trump :sodone


----------



## Slickback

Can we get JaRule's thoughts on the election?


----------



## MillionDollarProns

The only thing I didn't like was Trump didn't thank GOD, but at least we had Pence to do it.


----------



## Piers

If so many people voted for Trump, there must be a reason. Still don't know why everyone chose between him or Clinton when there were other candidates though. When you hate them so much, why don't you choose a third party ?


----------



## Chrome

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/796239747182104576
:damn

RIPIP Democratic Party.


----------



## Reaper

Apparently Trump did better with blacks and Hispanics than Romney in 2012. Not entirely unexpected.


----------



## RavishingRickRules

So Hillary gets prosecuted/is on her way to jail now right? Surely her influence can't outweigh that of the Presidents? Trump said he was after a special prosecutor, so surely she can't still be getting away with all the shit? 

Regardless, I'm not a fan of Trump, I think he's massively under-qualified for the job and I'm not a fan of his morals, policies or any of that. However, I told my gf this morning when I heard the news "I can't honestly say that of the 2 main candidates he should have lost." As far as I'm concerned Hillary's a full blown criminal who shouldn't have been allowed to even get far enough to be up for election with all the shade she's involved in. With that in mind, despite my dislike of Trump, in that 2 horse race, the right person won. Hopefully he'll have a decent team behind him to make up for his lack of political acumen. I wish him all the best.


----------



## Mister Abigail

Did think Americans could get any more stupid. Well, there you have it.


----------



## MillionDollarProns

Jericho's List said:


> If so many people voted for Trump, there must be a reason. Still don't know why everyone chose between him or Clinton when there were other candidates though. When you hate them so much, why don't you choose a third party ?


I, for one, did. Libertarians representing. :ghost


----------



## Reaper

Jericho's List said:


> If so many people voted for Trump, there must be a reason. Still don't know why everyone chose between him or Clinton when there were other candidates though. When you hate them so much, why don't you choose a third party ?


That works in a parliamental system. It will not work in America because the party division is organic. 

People don't just vote for a candidate they vote for that candidate's party. 

The fear of taking the vote away from your party and giving the election to the opponent keeps it stuck at 2 parties only.


----------



## The RainMaker

Mister Abigail said:


> Did think Americans could get any more stupid. Well, there you have it.


What's stupid about it?


----------



## -XERO-

Vic Capri said:


> Donald Trump was John Cena tonight, :lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Vic


Speaking of that....


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/758153710786740224
Would be a better choice than Kanye.


----------



## Genking48

American's think there are more free than the rest of the world when they only have two legit choices for who will lead them :strong

#Rock2020


----------



## The RainMaker

Genking48 said:


> American's think there are more free than the rest of the world when they only have two legit choices for who will lead them :strong
> 
> #Rock2020


After they have dozens of primaries with dozens of people, yes.


----------



## Beatles123

Someone alert BM....I hope he's ok........


----------



## Death Rider

Carte Blanche said:


> Jericho's List said:
> 
> 
> 
> If so many people voted for Trump, there must be a reason. Still don't know why everyone chose between him or Clinton when there were other candidates though. When you hate them so much, why don't you choose a third party ?
> 
> 
> 
> That works in a parliamental system. It will not work in America because the party division is organic.
> 
> People don't just vote for a candidate they vote for that candidate's party.
> 
> The fear of taking the vote away from your party and giving the election to the opponent keeps it stuck at 2 parties only.
Click to expand...

yeah which says why it is such a bad system. Doubt trump wins against someone like sanders.


----------



## Algernon

Donald Trump forgot to thank the Amish people. Ohio and Pennsylvania have the two highest Amish poulations in the US.


----------



## Slickback

Such fucking vile people


----------



## Rick Sanchez

So do we call him President Trump or just President Pussy Grabber?


----------



## Beatles123

*Re: Clinton vs. Trump (aka Alien Vs. Predator): U.S. Presidential Election 2016 Discussion Thread*



birthday_massacre said:


> How am I fucked exactly?
> 
> Also doesn't Trump and his supporters claim all polls are rigged. So I guess this poll is rigged too right? Guess you cant count it





birthday_massacre said:


> Where is beatles, one would think he would be a big part of election day. Hope he is feeling ok.


Right here, pal! :trump


----------



## Miss Sally

Roy Mustang said:


> yeah which says why it is such a bad system. Doubt trump wins against someone like sanders.


Sanders wouldn't be popular with working class people and most of his popularity came from young whites, there is a reason minorities didn't respond to him.

There is also the fact that many Bernie supporters blamed minorities for his loss against Clinton in key states, that doesn't help him.

He also came off as weak and wanting to bow to PC culture and tax Americans even more. He wouldn't be seen as a man who could get anything done.


----------



## Death Rider

Miss Sally said:


> Roy Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah which says why it is such a bad system. Doubt trump wins against someone like sanders.
> 
> 
> 
> Sanders wouldn't be popular with working class people and most of his popularity came from young whites, there is a reason minorities didn't respond to him.
> 
> There is also the fact that many Bernie supporters blamed minorities for his loss against Clinton in key states, that doesn't help him.
> 
> He also came off as weak and wanting to bow to PC culture and tax Americans even more. He wouldn't be seen as a man who could get anything done.
Click to expand...

Idk i think trump got a good portion of votes due to how crocked Hilary is. You may be right on that but people who support trump were always going to vote for him whereas hilary porbs pushed more people towards voting trump due to her corruptness and making him the lesser of two evils for sure.


----------



## Oda Nobunaga

Closing this thread as the election is over and the post count is enormous. If you want to discuss further, go here.

http://www.wrestlingforum.com/anyth...ump-new-us-president-all-discussion-here.html


----------

